|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2018 1:44:34 GMT -5
I understand your frustration. I have a similar impression just from reading along only, but it would be a bit difficult to post some actual quotes that show the contradictions. Because what I've noticed about his style is that he very often doesn't answer questions directly. So you have to infer what he's actually trying to say from what he has said. Which is an invitation to misinterpretation. And some of his replies seem extremely vague, too. Very often it seems one could interpret what he has said either way. And peeps regularly do that. And so what could be sorted out in a couple of posts drags on and on for years, it seems. So do you guys have some actual quotes? It would be interesting to see if he actually does goe back and forth. I've got one quote here re: Tenka's claim that Enigma 'only guesses his wife is real': There's a whole lot of assumptions in that statement, actually. And this is also the kind of statement that tells me that the realization he speaks of doesn't really carry over into daily life. Yes, that was a statement that I asked E about. The implication is 'appears to be this, but might actually be something else'. The word 'appearance' has been used in 2 different ways by the same people, and this makes conversation tricky and confusing. The first is shown in the above example, which implicates an objective reality in which Marie 'appears' to be one thing, but might 'actually' be another thing. It implicates a personal perceiver that might be perceiving something incorrectly. The second use is in direct contradiction to the idea of there being an objective reality...it specifically challenges the idea of there being an objective reality (and a personal perceiver). I can't dig through old conversations for quotes, particularly on gab...it would not be pleasant digging around. And also, I sort of slightly regret a couple of conversational choices I made in the last couple of days because I had recently been experiencing Enigma's word usage to be more aligned to what I recognize from a couple of years ago....and I was sort of fine to let sleeping dogs lie....but....those dogs may now be awake. I'm not interested in showing E to be 'wrong' as such, I do have points to prove at times, but more often than not, I'm just trying to sort out context errors. No, I've never used 'appears' to mean 'may be something else.'. All appearances are appearances only. As such, no appearance is conscious. Nothing that appears is conscious. Appearances in consciousness do not have the quality of being conscious. No thing is conscious. There are no things. They are appearances only. Appearances are not conscious. Nothing is conscious. The reason I coined 'point of perception' is to avoid such confusion. A point of perception is not a thing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2018 1:48:27 GMT -5
Thanks for your offer, Gopal. Please look at the edit of my post, I added another quote. I think what he says there is pretty clear. He says that his realization was that nothing (that appears) is conscious. He then says (basically) that it appears that Marie is conscious. Which means he's just guessing as Tenka implies. Now, if his realization was that appearances are not conscious, then he doesn't have to guess if Marie is conscious in the first place, he can say with absolute certainty that she is not conscious. But he treats her as if she is conscious nevertheless. Which goes counter to what he says he has realized. That's why I am saying that his realization doesn't carry over into daily life. You follow? Thats an example of the double usage I mentioned that makes conversation tricky. My a-ssumption is that Marie, and you, are points of perception in Consciousness, and I treat you as such. What's tricky about that?
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 9, 2018 1:59:59 GMT -5
Thats an example of the double usage I mentioned that makes conversation tricky. My a-ssumption is that Marie, and you, are points of perception in Consciousness, and I treat you as such. What's tricky about that? Nothing tricky, you need to understand that he wouldn't understand. Searching solution in others is always a problem.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2018 2:15:09 GMT -5
My I.T. guy at work has scanned the entire system there is no virus of any nature . This type of thing can only happen with those that have access to the site with admin status . There is no issue with any other site, other devices don't work either when using my username and address. It is deliberately targeting my username for as soon as I log and press quote it redirects me . Sometimes it allows me just enough time before the redirected link takes effect . I have my suspicions regarding what transpired earlier and certain likes made on certain posts . No point in me continuing here, and Lolly you still have the wrong end of the stick I have said in my conversation with 'E not you . You said, "...what I have been speaking about to Lolly is that there has to be something of real substance that can be responsible..." (p. 8420) So I don't know what to make of that. But Just sayin' I dint say nuffin bout responsibility and no one said anyfin to me. Lolly please read the post again . I killed two birds with one stone because the conversation with E was similar to our conversation . With E I have spoken of responsibility and with you I spoke about peeps of no real substance being able to potentially Self realize . You have suggested that I have said that I have been speaking about responsibility with you when I haven't . The point I am making to you both is that how can something of no real substance be responsible for anything or be in a position to Self realize . This led on for me to say to you at the time that andy and I have been speaking along similar lines in asking folk what constitutes a real conscious perceiver . So the question was how can something that is not of any real substance and of no real foundation be responsible for calling someone a troll lol . It would be like saying an imaginary elephant was responsible for starting World War 1
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2018 2:25:14 GMT -5
.. It becomes confusing because it is a contextual mess . You can't really be experiencing anything if what is experienced has no real substance or structure . Your toadally ignoring the foundation that you need something real to really experience . You need to try and understand this . If you don't agree then tell me why, but we are going round in circles here . Self is either real or it isn't in your eyes . Self is all there is . You can't really experience something that has no sound foundation . It is the dream within the dream, the illusory character saying the world is illusory . It's a contextual mess that doesn't work .
Finally, a definition of substance.It seems we're coming full circle as well. You experience in your nightly dream, and yet there is nothing in it that either you or I would call substance. Experience does not rely upon substance, which is a good thing because there is ultimately no such thing as substance. I have been speaking along the same lines for weeks on end in explaining what I mean by it . Your still not getting tho . Your dream is of a foundation, the substance is of the mind - world - universe . You can call it Consciousness if you like or God, or particles of light it matters not . There has to be a real foundation . Ramana say's consciousness is real . This is the real foundation for what manifests . You can't say experience doesn't rely on a real substance because you are experiencing a reality of the mind . The mind is of consciousness or consciousness is of the mind, one or the other or both are the same lol, If you don't want to associate consciousness as being real or the mind as being real so be it, but it doesn't make sense for there not to be a real foundation of real substance. I have asked you these questions before without answer. In order to say this world is illusory or this world is a dream and such likes there has to be a real comparison, a base for illusions to be seen or known . If the foundation was illusory or dreamy to begin with like said, you would have no comparison, it would just be a dream within a dream with a dream . You wouldn't know what a dream is or what anything illusory is if you had no real foundation to begin with . This is pure common sense, nothing spooky or woo woo .
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 9, 2018 2:29:18 GMT -5
I find his answer is quite straightforward and easy to understand. Perhaps, If you are interested, I would like to clarify his view! Which one of his answer is not clear? please let me know, I will help you to understand. Perhaps when I clarify for you, he may reply to me that whether I have done it correctly or not. It's the agendas that peeps have that make me sound inconsistent or contradictory or dodging or lying. It shouldn't be necessary for me to talk about what I didn't say, and yet at times I spend most of time doing that. I can understand.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2018 2:39:19 GMT -5
Just trying to establish a baseline here in regards to what we are and the so called properties that Lolly perceives . If what we are is real then the properties are real . It's been that straightforward . If there is really experiencing happening then there is something real that pertains to I that really experiences . I find it as you know difficult to understand how anyone can see a snail having properties and not being of any substance . I find it mind blowing to be honest, I am lost for words .. You can't have something that has properties not being of any substance, when the properties reflect the substance . If everything is consciousness then consciousness has a substance that reflects in all properties . There isn't a 'something' that has properties, just the experience of properties. What you call a tree is something that has tree properties . The tree's properties differ from your biological makeup . You are something that can be associated with, related too, conversed with . That is something in my book . That something therefore has properties and you can't have something with properties not being of any substance . Ramana said about the gold ornament being of a gold substance . If you want to say the gold has properties and no substance it's silly, you keep dividing that which is experienced with the substance of what you are . Tell me how it is possible to experience properties, where has the properties come from, what are the properties made up from? Is it consciousness? What is consciousness? Is there something else of this world like a tree that is not consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2018 2:50:34 GMT -5
I stick to what I have said thanks .. You have completely said the opposite more than a few times before and then you deny doing so . and another thing while we are at it .. If I am a liar for saying this then you are a liar based upon the ridiculous claim of yours that the meaning behind everything is what you are means that I am responsible for everything and you are responsible for everything . This is why fools rush in when they don't understand what they are saying isn't it, when all they have on their mind is an agenda. For me to be wrong about something means that you are, If I am responsible for spilling my tea, you are .. It's a load of old rubbish .. You've misunderstood. It's just what you do when you have an agenda to fight for, but when you start blaming others for your inability (or unwillingness) to understand, then it starts to get ugly. So I ask you to be careful. I haven't misunderstood and I don't need to be careful . If anything you need to be more careful in regards to saying stuff you then deny saying . You have changed your mind often with key aspects of our conversations had . If you stop doing that then I won't have to have conversations like these . You still haven't answered the questions about the bus and the snowflake and the properties of the heart . You have changed your mind many times regarding these conversations . Yes, ultimately what we are is responsible for everything, because we are the Intelligence that drives all behavior. How is it that you manage to separate what you are from the bad things people do while claiming there is just what you are? What do YOU think that means? In the context of my conversations regarding troll like behaviour it would be incredibly silly for a tree to be responsible for an armed robbery at the bank wouldn't it . It would be silly to say that the wisest man on the planet was a complete fool and idiot based upon there is only what you are or that there was someone behaving like that in vegas. You seem to be hot on context, can you please get this into some sort of context? Again you speak about responsibility and yet there is nothing here of any real substance that can be responsible for anything . How can that be?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2018 2:59:37 GMT -5
My mobile phone won't allow me to log in at all, I am using a Mac and a P.C. at work and both devices with different browsers redirect me only after I have logged in, as soon as I am logged in or either press quote in order to post anything I am redirected . This is nothing to do with browsers or devices or anything virus or cookie related . It is something that is orchestrated an administrator level of this site only that is associated to my username only . I don't believe in coincidences . Cheers for your effort gopal . Did you clear your cookies and cache and try it then? Thanks for your suggestions, it was impossible at times to reply to peeps posts personally but slightly easier to just post something generally . Nothings changed from my end today but somethings changed that has enabled me to post and log in without the funny business .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2018 3:12:41 GMT -5
Please listen to what I have said . I even wrote a post explaining this . There is only what you are doesn't mean that I AM responsible for you not listening . This is something ever so simple, don't make it into a circus act conversation . What has happened here with laffy and gopal is that they have made up their own conclusion regarding that there is only what you are in regards to what they think I mean by it . No one is effin listening to what I have actually said and like you, you have jumped on their bandwagon, being led by the blind . If you can't respond to what I have ACTUALLY said about it then please stop making things up .This is the tag team wolf club mentality innit . 3 wolves together all totally disregarding what was actually said . Not a good look boys . What you have ACTUALLY said is "There is only what you are." How can what you are not be responsible for everything? What I haven't ACTUALLY said is that "There is only what you are'' means that if your a liar it means gopal is . No-one wants to listen to what I mean by it . Certain peeps have the blinkers on and have their fingers in their ears . This whole episode has been a big fat giraffe and it's too bad what peeps think of me for standing up for what I have ACTUALLY said . It is the truth of the matter . I have explained many times what I mean by "There is only what you are." in regards to individual expression . For some reason tho certain members want to disregard what I have said and what I have explained and also mocked what I have said as an ACTUAL explanation while trying to turn the tables on me, to make me out some kind of egotistical knobhead for making a point of what ACTUALLY happened . I am not having it ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2018 3:18:35 GMT -5
yep, getting caught in one of those redirect loop sucks, been there done that, mostly from porn sites This is what I thought . The fact is my direct loop was just a page from a newspaper here in the u.k. There was no porn, no scandal, No political stance, it made no sense to hack into only one personal account on this forum to direct them to a random tabloid page . It might as well of been yahoo's page or google's search page or women's weekly latest knitting pattern page .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 9, 2018 4:07:56 GMT -5
You said, "...what I have been speaking about to Lolly is that there has to be something of real substance that can be responsible..." (p. 8420) So I don't know what to make of that. But Just sayin' I dint say nuffin bout responsibility and no one said anyfin to me. Lolly please read the post again . I killed two birds with one stone because the conversation with E was similar to our conversation . With E I have spoken of responsibility and with you I spoke about peeps of no real substance being able to potentially Self realize . You have suggested that I have said that I have been speaking about responsibility with you when I haven't . The point I am making to you both is that how can something of no real substance be responsible for anything or be in a position to Self realize . This led on for me to say to you at the time that andy and I have been speaking along similar lines in asking folk what constitutes a real conscious perceiver . So the question was how can something that is not of any real substance and of no real foundation be responsible for calling someone a troll lol . It would be like saying an imaginary elephant was responsible for starting World War 1
Suffice to say we are responsible for everything we do, but we can't realistically locate responsibility in an individual as 'your responsibility' because inter-reliance in society disperses onus throughout the entire milieu. Each individual is a very small, yet integral, aspect of the cultural monolith, and the responsibility we each have is a facet the collective. Hence, the idea of there being conditions which I personally am not responsible for is only brought about by the incorrect notion that responsibility is located in the individual.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 9, 2018 4:27:41 GMT -5
Lolly please read the post again . I killed two birds with one stone because the conversation with E was similar to our conversation . With E I have spoken of responsibility and with you I spoke about peeps of no real substance being able to potentially Self realize . You have suggested that I have said that I have been speaking about responsibility with you when I haven't . The point I am making to you both is that how can something of no real substance be responsible for anything or be in a position to Self realize . This led on for me to say to you at the time that andy and I have been speaking along similar lines in asking folk what constitutes a real conscious perceiver . So the question was how can something that is not of any real substance and of no real foundation be responsible for calling someone a troll lol . It would be like saying an imaginary elephant was responsible for starting World War 1
Suffice to say we are responsible for everything we do, but we can't realistically locate responsibility in an individual as 'your responsibility' because inter-reliance in society disperses onus throughout the entire milieu. Each individual is a very small, yet integral, aspect of the cultural monolith, and the responsibility we each have is a facet the collective. Hence, the idea of there being conditions which I personally am not responsible for is only brought about by the incorrect notion that responsibility is located in the individual.
What do you hold your self accountable / responsible for as an individual? What don't you hold your self accountable / responsible for as an individual? Are you responsible for the latest shooting spree in California? Do you hold any accountability for the shooters mental state? What about the chap who is 10 stone overweight? You workout to get fit as do I, you put in the effort as do I, is it your responsibility to get the couch potato off their couch? Is it possible that an imaginary elephant was responsible for starting World War 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2018 4:49:54 GMT -5
God works in mysterious ways. Whatcha crying for..?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 9, 2018 4:52:51 GMT -5
Suffice to say we are responsible for everything we do, but we can't realistically locate responsibility in an individual as 'your responsibility' because inter-reliance in society disperses onus throughout the entire milieu. Each individual is a very small, yet integral, aspect of the cultural monolith, and the responsibility we each have is a facet the collective. Hence, the idea of there being conditions which I personally am not responsible for is only brought about by the incorrect notion that responsibility is located in the individual.
What do you hold your self accountable / responsible for as an individual? What don't you hold your self accountable / responsible for as an individual? Are you responsible for the latest shooting spree in California? Do you hold any accountability for the shooters mental state? What about the chap who is 10 stone overweight? You workout to get fit as do I, you put in the effort as do I, is it your responsibility to get the couch potato off their couch? Is it possible that an imaginary elephant was responsible for starting World War 1
|
|