Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 0:14:19 GMT -5
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 The appearance of eyes in consciousness are perceiving. Now come out of your shock and calm down a bit. Let me say it another way. All mentations arise from consciousness but it can be realized that it is all consciousness. But those eyes appear in consciousness and experience tells us that they appear to be responsible for the sense of sight. This is just normal experience gopal. At the gross level of the senses the eye is the perceiver of an object. At a finer level the mind is the perceiver of the object as processed by the biology of the eye. And at a finer level still, the witnessing consciousness is the knower of the mind. But nothing knows consciousness. It cannot be objectified. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 14, 2016 0:22:49 GMT -5
So why not throw away your glasses?    I can't because I need to create another perpetual movement. And....see clearly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 0:25:10 GMT -5
Exactly! I was shocked when I read the below two message of Satch Now come out of your shock and calm down a bit. Let me say it another way. All mentations arise from consciousness but it can be realized that it is all consciousness. But those eyes appear in consciousness and experience tells us that they appear to be responsible for the sense of sight. This is just normal experience gopal. At the gross level of the senses the eye is the perceiver of an object. At a finer level the mind is the perceiver of the object as processed by the biology of the eye. And at a finer level still, the witnessing consciousness is the knower of the mind. But nothing knows consciousness. It cannot be objectified. No levels do exist, all levels are being imagined. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 14, 2016 0:26:58 GMT -5
Okay. Yes, eyes, glasses, eye dr.'s, blurry vision...all of it. What does that knowing change for you? Which knowing? This one: "Everything is appearing, all physical thing are appearing. " Gopal |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 0:33:11 GMT -5
This one: "Everything is appearing, all physical thing are appearing. " Gopal Infact it would indicate us that we are creators of our world. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 14, 2016 0:40:59 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? 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. Sure. But so long as one is wearing glasses, to some degree, he's going along with the idea/experience, that eyes see. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 14, 2016 0:43:09 GMT -5
This one: "Everything is appearing, all physical thing are appearing. " Gopal Infact it would indicate us that we are creators of our world. So why wear glasses if you don't have to? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 0:45:22 GMT -5
Infact it would indicate us that we are creators of our world. So why wear glasses if you don't have to? I have to because I have slight power in my eye, left eye -0.75 and right eye -0.25. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 0:45:34 GMT -5
Now come out of your shock and calm down a bit. Let me say it another way. All mentations arise from consciousness but it can be realized that it is all consciousness. But those eyes appear in consciousness and experience tells us that they appear to be responsible for the sense of sight. This is just normal experience gopal. At the gross level of the senses the eye is the perceiver of an object. At a finer level the mind is the perceiver of the object as processed by the biology of the eye. And at a finer level still, the witnessing consciousness is the knower of the mind. But nothing knows consciousness. It cannot be objectified. No levels do exist, all levels are being imagined. Don't lie to me gopal. You know that seeing is dependent on eyes. If you deny that is your experience then all you are doing is defending a conceptual position and pretending there are no eyes. This is just a game which philosophers have been playing for centuries. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 0:46:46 GMT -5
No levels do exist, all levels are being imagined. Don't lie to me gopal. You know that seeing is dependent on eyes. If you deny that is your experience then all you are doing is defending a conceptual position and pretending there are no eyes. This is just a game which philosophers have been playing for centuries. Seeing is dependent on your imaginary eye, Your vision of outer world stops occurring if you close your imaginary eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 1:42:37 GMT -5
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. Yes, that's what I was saying to gopal yesterday. I think that is what satch is saying up there too. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 14, 2016 1:43:43 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. 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. It's about living by example isn't it .. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 1:46:28 GMT -5
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 . you seem to have conveniently snipped off the fact that you believe that you have an eye, and you believe that you need to wear glasses to see better. The relative context is belief in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 1:47:32 GMT -5
Everybody experiences happy and unhappy. But they haven't seen the truth of one defines other. It's true but only a partial truth. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 1:52:36 GMT -5
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. The fact that he even used the word 'appearance' should show that when he says the 'eye is perceiving' that he was talking about the relative context, in which it is true that eyes (and not hands and feet) are involved with perceiving. The nose in the appearance is also smelling. The ear in the appearance is also hearing. The brain in the appearance is also doing brain stuff. Did satch ever say....'what perceives is the eye'? If he did, please show me. |
|
It's all just conceptual play and word games.