Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 15:24:47 GMT -5
If I am the only real individual who exist then why would I need to take birth? I am an ever existing in this case. Only individuals are born. Consciousness isn't born and Consciousness has no points of perception. Which are you? I can't believe I've joined the chasing party hehe Individual is meaningful if other perceiving point of consciousness exist. I never say Individuals are born, I said I have never born if I am the only individual who exist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 15:26:34 GMT -5
Consciousness is perceiving and I am that consciousness and everything else is appearing to me. If you want to say that Consciousness is perceiving, then we would have to say that Consciousness is perceiving EVERYTHING. And therefore that everything exists equally. Every individual, every point of perception, every appearance...it all exists equally. ok, it's very late for me, tomorrow morning i have to go to office and have to start my Ruby coding , meet you tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 17, 2016 15:32:37 GMT -5
Only individuals are born. Consciousness isn't born and Consciousness has no points of perception. Which are you? I can't believe I've joined the chasing party hehe Individual is meaningful if other perceiving point of consciousness exist. I never say Individuals are born, I said I have never born if I am the only individual who exist. If you are NOT an individual that is born, then you also don't fundamentally have an individual point of perception. You have a temporary individual point of perception once you are born. You want to fundamentally have an individual point of perception. You sort of want to fundamentally be an eternal individual, rather than being 'the eternal' itself. Whereas for me, and for some others, 'the eternal' and 'the individual point of perception' are two different contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 17, 2016 15:33:18 GMT -5
If you want to say that Consciousness is perceiving, then we would have to say that Consciousness is perceiving EVERYTHING. And therefore that everything exists equally. Every individual, every point of perception, every appearance...it all exists equally. ok, it's very late for me, tomorrow morning i have to go to office and have to start my Ruby coding , meet you tomorrow. Okay, maybe talk tomorrow. I just responded to your other message. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 15:36:52 GMT -5
ok, it's very late for me, tomorrow morning i have to go to office and have to start my Ruby coding , meet you tomorrow. Okay, maybe talk tomorrow. I just responded to your other message. Yes come back to your argument tomorrow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 15:38:08 GMT -5
Maybe your imagining nonexistent thoughts wanting to be honored. Thoughts can't think. They arise and pass away in front of you. Who are you? And now you've got yourself entrenched in your repetition. Again. And you have snapped back to the entrenched seen, rather then staying as the seer. Who is doing that? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 17, 2016 15:44:30 GMT -5
No it wouldn't. If you were merely a computer program, when you pinched yourself, the programmer would have programmed a slight pain, and maybe even thinking and saying: Ouch !Do you think you are merely a computer program then? The main point was if G man reckons he can only verify his own existence then if another peep can do likewise then houston has a problem .. Not necessarily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 15:47:31 GMT -5
If a peep can't tell if another peep is a figment or not, verification of existence is an option .. If g man can't tell if I am a figment or not, see what happens when we both poke each other in the eye .. The question was proving self-evidence, and the question is an absurdity. Now you're trying to prove the self-evidence of the other, and there's no way to do that conceptually. Solipsism is rock solid that way. Doooooofus Guy violence won't work either. The experience that suggests the truth the most forcefully is making genuine eye contact in which you lose yourself.Yes, unless he meets another in his daily life that is awake to themselves as Consciousness, he will only be seeing other people that act as though they are 'predetermined'. If he does meet an other that can truly show him that he is them, then the figment idea has a chance to collapse and re-write itself from that moment. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 17, 2016 15:51:00 GMT -5
Ditto BS, that's a mind-game. (I think maybe this explains your blow-up at Gopal a few months ago, that was very peculiar, well, your explanation thereof). I disagree Apparent choice presents itself to me. No problem....I don't know. I do know we can't anybody's self-evaluation. (That doesn't mean it's incorrect). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 15:51:23 GMT -5
And now you've got yourself entrenched in your repetition. Again. And you have snapped back to the entrenched seen, rather then staying as the seer. Who is doing that?  .. fluidity does what it does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 15:52:57 GMT -5
The question was proving self-evidence, and the question is an absurdity. Now you're trying to prove the self-evidence of the other, and there's no way to do that conceptually. Solipsism is rock solid that way. Doooooofus Guy violence won't work either. The experience that suggests the truth the most forcefully is making genuine eye contact in which you lose yourself. Its not absurd .. g man can't tell if you exist or not .. show him the way ... otherwise your just a figment .. You appear in Gopal, Gopal appears in you. Do you have to explain consciousness to your appearances? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 17, 2016 15:55:07 GMT -5
g-man, I'll say this now because I might be busy tomorrow.
In the absence of something to perceive, there is no perceiving. What you fundamentally are, as 'the eternal' is prior to perceiving. You 'are' whether perceiving is happening or not. You are fundamentally prior to the world in which perceiving and perception all happens.
When there is something to perceive, there is also perceiving, there are points of perception, there are individuals.
It's 2 contexts. The eternal, the absolute, that is fundamentally prior to perceiving. In the absolute, you are not an individual. Then there is the relative, in which perceiving happens and there are individuals.
I see you mixing the 2 contexts. You would probably say that perceiving is 'the absolute', and therefore that you, with your point of perception, are eternal. And then that you can't know whether others are real or figment.
The problem with what you are saying is that on one hand, you say that gopal and his mother are equally appearances, but then on the other hand you then say that your mother might be figment or real.
So let me ask you this:
Is gopal real or figment?
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 17, 2016 15:59:01 GMT -5
Do you think you are merely a computer program then? The main point was if G man reckons he can only verify his own existence then if another peep can do likewise then houston has a problem .. perhaps pilgrims himself will indicate you where you go wrong. I was interrupted answering earlier. No I do not think we are computer programs. We can know only our own perspective. The other person saying they know they are ~real~ could just be a bot. From The Gospel of Gopal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 15:59:26 GMT -5
And you have snapped back to the entrenched seen, rather then staying as the seer. Who is doing that? .. fluidity does what it does. Fluidity, spontaneity, freshness, the now, the seer, existence....all the same thing. All coming out of the same placeless place. So you who observes that, can you be observed? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 17, 2016 16:01:45 GMT -5
do you think you are merely a computer program then? No, computer program example is not related to me, but Pilgrims has given you to make you understand. Yes. |
|
.. fluidity does what it does.