|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 1:56:05 GMT -5
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? Yes. I wouldn't phrase it like that, I would speak of it in terms of the relative, but it's still clear to me. Now, the question is...can you acknowledge the relative context? I don't think you can. I think your model is basically the brown bear model in which all questions are answered by recourse to the absolute context. Oh, and Laughter always supports that model so that is another clue. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 1:57:54 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? lol no that DOES work for me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 1:58:30 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. yes that's another way of saying what I am saying. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 14, 2016 1:59:38 GMT -5
One experiences the physical plane and requires physical eyes to perceive it . There is nothing imaginary or illusory about it .
Beyond the physical experience there is nothing remains that is physical . There remains the etheric/astral body and one perceives via the brow center .
There is nothing imaginary or illusory about the astral body or the brow center .
If peeps were to speak of illusory physical eyes in comparison to perceiving beyond the physical then it is not an accurate comparison made, just like comparing the illusory self with beyond self isn't ..
This is why peeps don't walk in front of buses, this is why some theories don't add up in the waking world and this is why some don't live by example regarding their beliefs .
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:15:15 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. Appearances are fundamentally imagined into 'apparent' existence. yes, I get that much. I didn't understand why bother saying the eye is an imagined appearance but the tree is an appearance but not imagined. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:20:54 GMT -5
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. The confirmation bias works both ways. What you have is the idea of a balance point and then you go from one side to the other, but balance in the middle. Whereas I see well-being as the norm, as the default state of being, and feeling bad as a deviation or an aberration. That's a little harsh sounding, especially as I feel bad too sometimes, but then I am also part of the collective, and tell myself false stories of lack and finite-ness sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:21:38 GMT -5
There is an absolute quality within every subjective feeling. 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. okay |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:24:29 GMT -5
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' In your model, because perception and Consciousness are one and the same thing, if I am real, then I would HAVE to have to same perceptions as you. Isn't it clear to you that I don't hehe? I guess that means either I am a figment....or your model is not quite right. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:25:19 GMT -5
Or Consciousness is impersonal, perception is personal. Actually I understood what you are saying, but impersonal and personal seems to bring a division. Same division as 'Consciousness and appearances' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 2:27:02 GMT -5
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. TY Brother... I too agree with Andrews statement. There is a battle inside Gopal between what he thinks and what he is. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:29:37 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. right, nobody is saying otherwise. Nevertheless, I bet he continued to eat food and do other stuff associated with the belief that there is a physical body. There are laws that govern our experience which we are subject to (though they are not fixed laws). For example, when I sit down, I sit down in a chair, I don't sit down in mid-air hehehe |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 2:30:55 GMT -5
Actually I understood what you are saying, but impersonal and personal seems to bring a division. Same division as 'Consciousness and appearances' No divisions... Mind devides. All is Consciousness except our fabricated minds which are split-consciousness. Those that don't have a mind are free of such Ignorance that can be speculated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 2:32:39 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. right, nobody is saying otherwise. Nevertheless, I bet he continued to eat food and do other stuff associated with the belief that there is a physical body. There are laws that govern our experience which we are subject to (though they are not fixed laws). For example, when I sit down, I sit down in a chair, I don't sit down in mid-air hehehe Better to sit than think about sitting. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:36:43 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. He's correct relatively speaking. It's very easy in the spiritual exploration to come up with spiritual knowledge that allows us to escape from our very real physical experience happening Now. We often want to escape that, because it is can be painful and uncomfortable at times. Our bodies are even designed to avoid pain and discomfort so coming up with grandiose spiritual stories is really quite natural. Your spiritual knowledge is being challenged because it seems to me (and others perhaps), that maybe your knowledge serves to protect you from the experience of being present in the Now. That would miss the point of the spiritual exploration. Nobody here is arguing that appearances appear in Consciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 2:40:13 GMT -5
Andrew, it has been found that during childhood-molestations cases, children dettach and zoom off the pain far too emmence to bare.
|
|
