Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:17:57 GMT -5
Okay so that's a yes. You do agree with Andrew's statement. I am saying it matters a lot. Okay that's clear then. You agree with Andrew's statement. Glad we sorted that out. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 23:20:10 GMT -5
Feeling (emotional)is a movement from some prior state, and therefore inseparable from it. It is not the experience of an absolute quality. . I would call this absolute quality 'love', because it makes more sense to call it that than to call it 'hate'. Every feeling ever felt is an expression or reflection of this 'love'. Best thing is to agree to disagree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:20:47 GMT -5
I am saying it matters a lot. Okay that's clear then. You agree with Andrew's statement. Glad we sorted that out. Catching up here Satch. Andrews statement?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 23:21:21 GMT -5
It speaks to the whole question of whether the world is objective or subjective. That doesn't matter to you? not really, no. It mattered when the world I knew seemed to be disappearing...but these days...no, it doesn't matter. Okay |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 23:24:28 GMT -5
How do you know how 'real' trees grow? they grow the same way that 'real' eyes work  If all trees are imaginary, what can you know about 'real' trees? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:25:05 GMT -5
Conditional peace is when you feel peaceful based on the peaceful conditions. Conditional happiness is when you feel happy because you got something you wanted. There's no mistaken interpretation there. If it is dependent upon conditions, it is conditional. You're starting to think like Andy, which is dependent upon the condition of too much thinking. You write about conditional peace with a deep understanding. Mostly, ppl can write objectively Satch... but their presence exposes that which is, and in alot of cases, people are simply wishful-thinking. Peace is peaceful even whilst the builders next door hammer and bang to their hearts content, driving our neighbors insane or out for Lunch, only the nearbye Cafe's winning. In Peace there is no winning at all, just peace. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:25:40 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? Andrew says 'you would have to have identical perception experience', I say 'your Clarity become my clarity' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:26:08 GMT -5
I am saying it matters a lot. Okay that's clear then. You agree with Andrew's statement. Glad we sorted that out. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2016 23:26:47 GMT -5
I wasn't asking for anything, just commenting. Has she been banned for life? I didn't know that. Seems a bit severe. Yes, ZD did that, But Peter later allowed to her to stay in her thread. Wow! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:28:13 GMT -5
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. Actually I understood what you are saying, but impersonal and personal seems to bring a division. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:28:46 GMT -5
Yes, ZD did that, But Peter later allowed to her to stay in her thread. Wow! Why wow?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:29:53 GMT -5
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 23:35:00 GMT -5
You are still looking through the imaginary eye, It act absolutely as if you are looking through the real eye. You start to wear the glasses If you loose the power, loosing your power is not actually happening in your eye, that's the another perceptual flow. 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? One of the many physical problems David Hawkins 'cured' himself of was poor vision, and it was based on the realization that we're talking about here; that the eye does not actually see, and is merely an appearance in Consciousness. It's also a good demonstration of larger contexts Donald Trumping smaller ones. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:36:37 GMT -5
Okay that's clear then. You agree with Andrew's statement. Glad we sorted that out. Catching up here Satch. Andrews statement? Welcome back Alfio. Andrew's statement reads" "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)" I know Gopal agrees with this because he (gopal) explicitly said, "gopal never deals in speculation". So it follows that since Andrew's statement is completely free from speculation and is based entirely on what is experienced, gopal is forced to agree with Andrew. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 23:45:05 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? One of the many physical problems David Hawkins 'cured' himself of was poor vision, and it was based on the realization that we're talking about here; that the eye does not actually see, and is merely an appearance in Consciousness. It's also a good demonstration of larger contexts Donald Trumping smaller ones. Exactly! I was shocked when I read the below two message of Satch You are not looking through your physical eyes, because all physical things are appearing, Consciousness is the looker, your eyes are looked as well. The appearance of eyes in consciousness are perceiving. Consciousness is the perceiver, who else is the perceiver? The mind and the senses. |
|
