|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 19:23:05 GMT -5
Appearances do not have existence, they are just dream appearances, Gopal included. Yes, exactly. Who denies it? When I say 'I', I am NOT pointing at the appearance, I am pointing at the 'looker'. You pointed directly at the appearances when you said "everybody else exist".
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 6, 2018 19:26:22 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. Who denies it? When I say 'I', I am NOT pointing at the appearance, I am pointing at the 'looker'. You pointed directly at the appearances when you said "everybody else exist". When I say everybody else, once again, I am pointing at awareness. I think since you continue to talk with Tenka, this may be the effect of that .
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 6, 2018 19:27:20 GMT -5
Ah! sorry! I missed the NOT.
''He is taking consciousness as a screen now so he is saying consciousness is NOT conscious. If he takes consciousness as screen, then consciousness can't be conscious.''
Okay, but then that would mean that Awareness is looking. I'm sure he didn't mean that either. He doesn't want to say that either Awareness or Consciousness are looking. Awareness is the looker, If not, who else is the looker?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 19:29:48 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. Who denies it? When I say 'I', I am pointing at the appearance, I am pointing at the 'looker'. Here's a big difference....did you read what E said in 'Oneness'? Whereas you state that you, as Consciousness are looking (itself).....E quite specifically states that Consciousness is NOT looking (i.e is not conscious). I'm not clear yet though what E thinks is looking. Nobody's looking. There is awareness, there is consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 19:38:23 GMT -5
Here's a big difference....did you read what E said in 'Oneness'? Whereas you state that you, as Consciousness are looking (itself).....E quite specifically states that Consciousness is NOT looking (i.e is not conscious). I'm not clear yet though what E thinks is looking. I think it's evident that no-one really seems to know wtf is going on in relation to appearances only and appearances that relate to a real peep with real eyes that can only see with the use of them although I have heard that it is the seeing through them that is creating the appearance of them at the same time hehe . The question is misconceived and cannot be answered as asked. There isn't an appearance that relates to a real peep with real eyes that can only see with the use of them. That's a story about what appears, but the appearance is empty.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 19:45:38 GMT -5
I think it's evident that no-one really seems to know wtf is going on in relation to appearances only and appearances that relate to a real peep with real eyes that can only see with the use of them although I have heard that it is the seeing through them that is creating the appearance of them at the same time hehe . I think part of the difficulty is that they are coming from quite different positions, but then there is a tendency to close ranks when necessary, thereby jumbling their own position and making it harder to understand. It's not 'closing ranks'. I've been flexible with Gopal languaging just as I have with Tenka's, but no more. Gopal specifically refused to extend me that same courtesy.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 19:49:14 GMT -5
You contradicted yourself. I am explaining what Enigma meant. No, you're contradicting yourself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 19:55:40 GMT -5
I think part of the difficulty is that they are coming from quite different positions, but then there is a tendency to close ranks when necessary, thereby jumbling their own position and making it harder to understand. Sure .. and the funny thing is that consciousness is just one of those pointer things .. I haven't heard anyone say what the bugger is yet and peeps are arguing what it means in relation to a peep and what appears .. Something by Ramana .. Consciousness is always Self-consciousness. If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself. Unselfconscious existence is a contradiction in terms. It is no existence at allDifferent context. Ramana is talking about human consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 19:58:39 GMT -5
Ah! sorry! I missed the NOT.
''He is taking consciousness as a screen now so he is saying consciousness is NOT conscious. If he takes consciousness as screen, then consciousness can't be conscious.''
Okay, but then that would mean that Awareness is looking. I'm sure he didn't mean that either. He doesn't want to say that either Awareness or Consciousness are looking. To say either one of them is looking is to objectify, personalize and lick a pointer.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 20:42:40 GMT -5
consciousness doesn't belong to anybody. Then is 'conscious' a quale? Like 'redness'? Exchange the word 'conscious' for 'know', 'look', 'aware' if you like. I'm asking HOW appearances are known. It seems that neither Consciousness nor Awareness 'knows' them, so.....? Gopal states clearly that Consciousness is Perceiving is Knowing. You don't seem to be taking that route. Consciousness is not a perceiver, neither is Awareness. Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2018 20:47:48 GMT -5
Sure .. and the funny thing is that consciousness is just one of those pointer things .. I haven't heard anyone say what the bugger is yet and peeps are arguing what it means in relation to a peep and what appears .. Something by Ramana .. Consciousness is always Self-consciousness. If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself. Unselfconscious existence is a contradiction in terms. It is no existence at allDifferent context. Ramana is talking about human consciousness. Wow. I got lost on that one. It sounds to me as if Ramana is saying that there is only one consciousness, and that one consciousness is the only consciousness that is conscious of anything whether it is consciousness through humans or consciousness through Tenka's elephant. What other context is being discussed?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 20:50:18 GMT -5
The presence or absence of a point of perception. I absolutely will not own the 'figment' term. It denotes the creation of an individual's imagination. I used different words in case you balked at that term, but you didn't answer the question. If there are non-experiencing people around that have personalities, then in that regard, they are the same as experiencing people. Do non-experiencing people also have thoughts, feelings, hearts, lungs and backsides like experiencing people do? (By the way, the problem here isn't with the specific word 'figment', it's with the whole idea of there being 'non-experiencing people') Those who may be experiencing and those who may not are both appearances only and would be indistinguishable. Hence the statement that we can't know one from the other. The distinction is not in the context of form.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 20:53:17 GMT -5
That's why I talk about appearances associated with a point of perception, but if I recall, that whole thing makes you shudder. It's bleddy awful, and you have yet to explain what it associates with, and how it would do that. For example, could it associate with the image of a butt? Or could it perhaps reach out and grab hold of a real butt and decide to perceive through that butt? I guess it sounds like I'm being a butt there hehe, but it's kind of a humorous idea, and the whole thing doesn't make sense. Where do these random 'points' of perception come from? Whose making them? There's only two options that make sense, and they are widely discussed. Either a 'point of perception' is a result of very specific material and biological circumstances, or perception/Consciousness is fundamental and Whole. If we really wanted to then talk about 'points' of perception (and to go with an analogy) then the Whole 'ocean' is Consciousness and every 'wave' is a point of perception. No associating! I know you have strong (and understandable) concerns about the idea that a 'paperclip' is conscious, but the ocean/wave analogy avoids that, and the moment we pick out a specific object to talk about, we have already made a contextual mistake. Yup.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 20:59:33 GMT -5
The way that works is that there needs to be an actual realization of oneness such that ALL that arises is seen as divine, as literally oneSelf. Conceptualization of Truth does indeed lead to a distortion of virtue, just as Gopal demonstrates. Arrogance and dismissiveness cannot result from a true understanding of WIBIGO. Genuine humility is an absence resulting from what you call nihilism (the absence of illusion). Humility can't be taught and like nobility and respect, it is either innate or it isn't. I don't know what a Conceptualisation of Oneness would look like, though continually being told that "ALL that arises" are 'mere appearances' would, I imagine, encourage such a minor mental calamity. Real humility is neither taught nor is it innate.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2018 21:06:16 GMT -5
You pointed directly at the appearances when you said "everybody else exist". When I say everybody else, once again, I am pointing at awareness. I think since you continue to talk with Tenka, this may be the effect of that . You are the effect of that. Straighten out your languaging. To talk about everybody else while pointing at Awareness is a nonsense.
|
|