|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2016 16:51:23 GMT -5
She surpassed ZD's insanity threshold and: Ba-da Bing. She surpassed the spam threshold, and the trolling had also reached that level. I quite understand, she was getting incomprehensibly bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 18:51:48 GMT -5
Notice how andy has morphed what satch wrote in order to keep the mindspin going. Gopal, I think satch is VERY clear here: ''Don't you know that everything appears in consciousness? Don't you know that when the eyes see an object it is just an appearance in consciousness. What of it? Eyes see. That is my experience. But it is ONE part of my experience from one perspective. And that experience arises from consciousness. What of it. What are your eyes seeing right now, a philosophical construct or a tree?'' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=1#ixzz4K5MippOn** Our experience is that our eyes see trees...because when you close your eyes, you don't see the trees. That doesn't mean that eyes and trees aren't appearances in Consciousness. It's all about context dude. My recollection is that sasquatch didn't say the first two sentences, but your linky is wrongy. If the discussion is about consciousness and appearances, the context is impersonal. Seeing an objective tree with an objective eye is the personal context. Yes, it's all about context, and the Yeti has been playing fast and loose with them for a while now. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 19:06:55 GMT -5
You said "it's clearly visible from my experience" in response to "a high high is not always followed by a low low." I am saying happy and unhappy experience is clearly visible from my experience. Everybody experiences happy and unhappy. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2016 19:35:00 GMT -5
He'll keep morphing like that for as long as you keep re-engaging.  Seems to be so! One facet of this action is that he learns from those threads of arguments that he loses. Instead of acknowledging the loss, the tactic of the morph is used to rewind the dialog back to a point where he pretends he was arguing something different all along. .. it's just a way to try to keep your interest in the pony pages after it's already collapsed on the track. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 13, 2016 20:09:30 GMT -5
How do we attract or repel people accordingly if all is predetermined, as you have suggested it is? Or is it just some stuff that is destined to be, regardless of the person's actions/attempts to control..? this is true If other individuals are real. If other individuals are not real, then God has fallen into his own dream. Am still trying to understand. Should there be a period between This: You illusion and your clarity removes the illusion and this? Both have been predetermined, |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 13, 2016 20:13:07 GMT -5
So, things just appear to be predetermined?....predetrmination is just an illusion? Not sure I get what you're saying here. There is no illusion is being experienced at over all movement of universe, universal movement is predetermined to flow via a particular path. This path includes your personal illusion and your clarity removes that illusion. But clarity would also be a predetermined movement of universe, right? So really, in your model, there is nothing at all that can be done (or seen) that would have any effect in terms of shifting path, right...or wrong...? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 13, 2016 20:16:50 GMT -5
You are both correct. The eyes are not meant to 'see', they are meant to facilitate perception. And for some that perception becomes blurry, necessitating glasses.  I am saying eye doesnt exist. So why not throw away your glasses?   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2016 20:42:59 GMT -5
But at some point, you go along with the experience and the specific idea that eyes see and that glasses help magnify that seeing, right? Yes, but there is no eye. The way to roll with the context flip is to admit that there's an eye (without arguing about the nature whether it's real or not) but to point out that it's not the eye that sees.  It's all just conceptual play and word games. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 20:55:39 GMT -5
Why don't you, Gopal, just say, I don't know why consciousness gives me the appearance of needing glasses. When people ask you good questions you need to answer or say I don't know. But he does have the experience of knowing why he puts them on. And this is what I am getting at (and I believe Satch was too)....it doesn't matter whether the world is an appearance in Consciousness, there is still the experience of the world (including the experience of knowing that we see better with our eyes open). Now you'd think that statement would satisfy everyone and put this topic to rest. Don't hold your breath though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 20:56:41 GMT -5
I am saying eye doesnt exist. So why not throw away your glasses? Because he can't reconcile a conceptual, visually impaired, self-identity, that needs glasses, with a conceptual self-identity of Consciousness that doesn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 13, 2016 21:02:20 GMT -5
Why don't you, Gopal, just say, I don't know why consciousness gives me the appearance of needing glasses. When people ask you good questions you need to answer or say I don't know. But he does have the experience of knowing why he puts them on. And this is what I am getting at (and I believe Satch was too)....it doesn't matter whether the world is an appearance in Consciousness, there is still the experience of the world (including the experience of knowing that we see better with our eyes open).Yup. And, when we get over the whole JUST an appearance, (of course, in comparison to taking that which appears as the absolute end all, be all of 'what is' and suffering like a mofo for it... )....there's an appreciation, dare I say even a "Love" for that world of appearances that really can't be described adequatedly through words alone. (Although, lord knows, we try).  I know you and I and a few others have tried to talk about that here and gotten lots of flack for it (bliss bunny accusations ). Nice to see Satch try to talk about it too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:07:20 GMT -5
That's the normal world view about how perception happens, but what I am saying is, You are consciousness and everything is appearing to you. Moon doesn't exist in the sky, Moon just exists in your perception, If everything is in perception, then that includes our own physical body, So we are not seeing through eye, instead we are directly seeing but we are perceiving as if we are perceiving through eye. You could have told andrew this about three pages back. I explained him but he doesn't seems to be understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 13, 2016 21:08:05 GMT -5
So why not throw away your glasses? Because he can't reconcile a conceptual, visually impaired, self-identity, that needs glasses, with a conceptual self-identity of Consciousness that doesn't. Yup. It's that 'reconciliation' (or absence thereof) that bit that needs to be talked about here, Ima thinking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:08:17 GMT -5
I am saying eye doesnt exist. Good then you can throw away your non-existent glasses. You could have told andrew this about three pages back. Everything is appearing, all physical thing are appearing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:10:18 GMT -5
He is mixing two different context I said everything appears which includes everything, tree,house,people, our own body, eye,nose and everything else which is appearing. But when I said that you were looking the world through imaginary eye, I meat to say Since consciousness is directly perceiving, it's not perceiving THROUGH anything, but it perceives as if it's perceiving THROUGH the real eye. I use imaginary eye to stress the point we are not looking through eye but still we looking as if we are looking through real eye. I tried to tell Andrew directly what you meant, and he said no, that's not right, that's not what Gopal is saying. (So then I give up). And then Gopal asked you directly and you replied, are you making fun of me? And then it took three pages for you to finally answer Andrew directly. All I'm saying is why couldn't you have told Andrew this sooner. (But OTOH I don't get why Andrew didn't get that appearance, for you, means not-real, not-actual). I have been very clear since the beginning. |
|
It's all just conceptual play and word games.
