Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:12:00 GMT -5
Gopal stated the tree is an appearance, but the eye is imaginary. What you explained is that the tree and eye are both appearances (I have no problem with that idea). So I was trying to understand if the other sensory organs are imaginary, or if they are an appearance. I don't think I got an answer to that. I would assume thy are also imaginary, but then I am not clear at what point sensory organs end. The tree too could also be said to have a bunch of sensory organs. Will try once more. For Gopal, everything is an appearance in consciousness. Gopal knows nothing concerning how the appearance gets delivered to consciousness. For Gopal, there are no exterior trees, no moon. Sometimes he will say we can't know (if something is out there or not), but usually he says there is nothing exterior. Imaginary means it seems we are seeing through the eyes, but we are not really. If this has not been cleared up (for you) by now, eyes are not special, it seems we have a body, but Gopal says we do not, we merely have the appearance of having a body. It seems as if there is a moon up in the sky, but for Gopal, not, moon is merely an appearance in consciousness. I think I'm done now. Very good explanation, yes. You seems to be clearly understanding me in this place. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 13, 2016 21:15:10 GMT -5
Good then you can throw away your non-existent glasses.  Everything is appearing, all physical thing are appearing. Okay. Yes, eyes, glasses, eye dr.'s, blurry vision...all of it. What does that knowing change for you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:15:49 GMT -5
yes I found that message clearly articulated whether I agree or not. Gopal has trapped himself in his own conceptual construct. Reality is structured to allow this to happen. The walls of Gopal's construct are built with mirrors, so everything he sees confirms his concepts. It is almost virtually impossible to escape such a situation. However, Gopal is not alone, we all have our own little "boxes" also, but most are not as "air-tight" as Gopal's is. Most of us live in a paradigm subject to revision. ( Yes Gopal, I consider it a fact that eyes exist, and brains, and the moon).That's ok, but I am happy that you understood me why I believe that way . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:16:40 GMT -5
Yeah that makes sense to me. If the eyes are imaginary (i.e it seems like we are seeing through the eyes, but aren't really), then so is the nose, ears, mouth, skin....it actually gets kinda hard to find an appearance that isn't also imaginary. For example, it seems like I am eating with a knife and fork but aren't really. It seems like I am driving a car, but aren't really. It seems like the bird is eating a worm, but it isn't really. It seems like the dog is chasing a cat, but it isn't really. So basically, all appearances are also imaginary. Which is fine, but if all appearances are imaginary, then why does gopal put glasses on every morning when he wakes up? Presumably because he believes he will see better with them on, than off. Yes, precisely. This should be a major hint to Gopal that something is amiss in his paradigm. But he has a magic pair of scissors and just snips off what doesn't fit his paradigm.......of course he does this unconsciously........ No, I am not doing it . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:17:51 GMT -5
I am saying happy and unhappy experience is clearly visible from my experience. Everybody experiences happy and unhappy. But they haven't seen the truth of one defines other. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:22:50 GMT -5
Will try once more. For Gopal, everything is an appearance in consciousness. Gopal knows nothing concerning how the appearance gets delivered to consciousness. For Gopal, there are no exterior trees, no moon. Sometimes he will say we can't know (if something is out there or not), but usually he says there is nothing exterior. Imaginary means it seems we are seeing through the eyes, but we are not really. If this has not been cleared up (for you) by now, eyes are not special, it seems we have a body, but Gopal says we do not, we merely have the appearance of having a body. It seems as if there is a moon up in the sky, but for Gopal, not, moon is merely an appearance in consciousness. I think I'm done now. Very good explanation, yes. You seems to be clearly understanding me in this place. So do you accept Andrew's statement when he says: 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) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:28:54 GMT -5
Absolutely right! Many who become attracted to non duality teachings think that in order to experience the non dual state we have to somehow escape from duality, or worse, to think that duality is an inferior state to non duality. It is true that the practice of meditation, which means going inwards and abiding in simple awareness which is non dual, will make the world of duality disappear for a time. But that is not a rejection of it. I can well understand that if ND is understood purely conceptually, that view might prevail. If it does, it is the wrong view. For anyone who actually experiences non dual awareness, a return to the world of duality is a joy and is welcomed. The reason for this is we take the value of unbounded awareness back out into the world of action and begin to see that there is no real difference between awareness and form. The value of that awareness permeates dualistic experience. Why would anyone want to reject that? It can be summed up by what Krishna said to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. "Established in Yoga (Awareness/Being) perform action". The inward stroke of meditation that takes you to the non dual cannot be considered alone. The outward stroke back into the dualistic world of action and objects is just as important so that both values come together as one. Ultimately there is no difference between duality and non duality because what we are is existence consciousness bliss. The absolute value of Being if it is reflected in its entirety in the mind and body is moksha which is "liberation while still living in a body". In that state the question of non duality and duality does not even arise. It is meaningless to make a distinction between them. You're aware that the welcomer is the very same thought construction that makes the 'world of duality' possible yeah? Yes of course. How can one exist without the other? How can the dualistic word exist without someone to engage with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:29:12 GMT -5
Good then you can throw away your non-existent glasses. Everything is appearing, all physical thing are appearing. Yes, if you believe you are Consciousness you can't do anything but watch appearances. But if you believe you are a body-mind, you can go and get eye surgery to fix your visual impairment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:32:27 GMT -5
You illusion and your clarity removes the illusion both have been predetermined, 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, No, I don't see any problem, I am saying overall movement of universe is predetermined. Your movement includes the illusion as well as your clarity removes that illusion but that's predetermined. you see I am seeing both the truth clearly. Predetermination is true because "People has been conditioned to act in a certain way proves that universe moves in a predetermined path. " |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:33:09 GMT -5
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...? You can do whatever you want but whatever you do is predetermined. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:33:45 GMT -5
I am saying eye doesnt exist. So why not throw away your glasses?    I can't because I need to create another perpetual movement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:35:07 GMT -5
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. I don't understand where is the difficulty for them. Satch got confused with by saying 'eye in the appearance is perceiving' and everything else started from there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:36:47 GMT -5
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. So eye in the appearance is perceiving? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:38:13 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. We are not seeing through eyes, we are seeing through imaginary eye, we wear glasses when that imaginary eye looses power. When I say imaginary eye loose the power, I meant to say consciousness creates different perpetual flow, Glasses doesn't exist in itself as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:41:18 GMT -5
Everything is appearing, all physical thing are appearing. Okay. Yes, eyes, glasses, eye dr.'s, blurry vision...all of it. What does that knowing change for you? Which knowing? |
|
It's all just conceptual play and word games.