Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:42:19 GMT -5
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) World is appearance in consciousness matter a lot, because that put our consciousness into a creator mode. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:43:50 GMT -5
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.  You completely lost the idea of what's the meaning of 'everything is appearance', this is why I kept on talking to you that you still did not understand the fact of world appears and doesn't exist in itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 21:45:10 GMT -5
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) World is appearance in consciousness matter a lot, because that put our consciousness into a creator mode. Okay so that's a yes. You do agree with Andrew's statement. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 21:48:46 GMT -5
I'm seeing you ignore quite a lot of the questions I am asking because they are focused on the contradictions. For example, you acknowledged that if Lolly lost his eyes then that would change the movement of perception experience. But if he IS real and having a perception experience, then because you are both Consciousness, then you would have to have identical perception experience (unless Consciousness is divided into lots). This is a contradiction. So a single consciousness perceiving in a multitude of ways doesn't work for you? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 21:53:38 GMT -5
This is as simple as I can say it. Either a) your model is correct and Consciousness would have to be divided if lolly is real (or anyone else is real) b) your model is a bit wrong. Instead, Consciousness is undivided, and perception and Consciousness are not quite the same thing. I vote for B. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 22:14:58 GMT -5
Logically they would have to be same perceptions/experiences given that you are both Consciousness. Unless you see Consciousness as split up into perception lots. I don't want to the place where speculation lives. Since when?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 22:16:47 GMT -5
I said that I could not know. I can't know whether consciousness is undivided or something marvalous Or Untouched. All I can know is I am Consciousness and I create and perceive. I know I create because my clarity changes the way universe unfold. Okay, so you do consider it possible that Consciousness is divided into separate perception lots. To me, that is just....not possible. Doesn't it make more sense that Consciousness is undivided, and perception is divided?Or Consciousness is impersonal, perception is personal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 22:36:15 GMT -5
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. So, you Consciousness are creating perceptual flow? So why wouldn't you create perceptual flow that doesn't need glasses, since they don't exist anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 22:53:07 GMT -5
He is not making fun of you, he is asking a serious question. You do not know how to penetrate to the point of his question. This is a problem in and of itself. My earlier long post was a perfect answer for andrew. You should have said, yes, exactly, perfect defense. And then you should have said here, se the post of sdp. But you reply to my post: eyes don't exist either, which I already specifically already said. I think Gopal is too scattered, focus on people's post before you answer. 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. Appearances are fundamentally imagined into 'apparent' existence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:02:06 GMT -5
I don't want to go for logically or illogically. I don't want to the place where speculation lives. Since when? Gopal is the same yesterday and today and forever  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:03:04 GMT -5
World is appearance in consciousness matter a lot, because that put our consciousness into a creator mode. Okay so that's a yes. You do agree with Andrew's statement. I am saying it matters a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 23:06:12 GMT -5
No,as Tenka would say, Awareness is just Awareness. So you think you're an object appearing in Awareness? I have said all existential self-identifying conceptualizations are folly. In your world you have a self-identity, in my world I have relinquished the necessity for that conceptualization. Knowing that you are all that is, is not really a self identity. When there is nothing that you are not, there also is nothing that you are. Hencely, there is no risk in acknowledging you are Awareness or Consciousness or 'All that is' or Existence or Intelligence or whatever. If you're clear what that means, there will be nothing for mind to grasp and form an ego identity with. Ego needs others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:10:28 GMT -5
Of course, his Mother could be His older Sister his Father turning a blind-eye to His Uncle...  Yup, that will do it. Alfio, I told you to knock it off and you didn't and I've now spent 40 minutes wading through some really base bickering which is time I don't imagine I'll get back unless Death decides to have a lie in that day. We'll see you also for the 2nd week in September and next time, please take the warning when it's offered. P Sorry I have been so-late re-surfacing Peter. I been doing something creative rather than botheriong Gopal about his remarks about "My Gay wife." My wife and myself have many GAY friends we being a nearly-normal like. I do hope you too are nearly Normal. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 23:12:15 GMT -5
Eyes are not involved, imaginary eyes are involved. If everything exist in perception, then you are not looking through eyes, instead you are looking through imaginary eyes. But even when it is understood fully that Consciousness is is behind it all, gives rise to it all, IS it all, isn't there(without losing that knowing) a re-engagement with the experience of 'eyes seeing'? In the moment where you make an appt. with your eye dr. to get your glasses prescription checked, for example, you are engaging with the experience of eyes seeing. If you lived solely from the vantage point of 'no eyes are involved', you'd be struggling mentally every time you put your glasses on. I'm going to be writing a post explaining about context real soon. Be patient. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 23:17:41 GMT -5
The peep can't live an unbalanced experience for long. The longer one remains in either the positive or negative side, the harder it becomes to remain there. Because one's happiness level is such a hot issue, there's also the problem of confirmation bias. Very few can be honest about how happy they are, but I already know they reside at their own subjective neutral point because it can't be otherwise. True, we can't hold up & compare experiences of well being, side by side to quantify them for the purpose of delineating who is at what level, but that's really not necessary in terms of what's being spoken about here. For conversation purposes we can simplify feeling into two basic categories; Well being, and the absence thereof. Everyone has reference in their experience for when there is a sense of all being at it's basis, ok, and a sense for when things are fundamentally, not ok. It's really a simple as that. Using those two basic categories, what you are saying is that one has a sense of all being ok half the time, and not ok, the other half. That is plain & simply not my experience and I suspect there are many others here who would agree. Hencely the comment about confirmation bias. Since you inevitably 'go there' when this topic comes up, I'm not talking about the SR. |
|
