|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:40:24 GMT -5
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. I see your use of the word 'dependent' there as a positive use of the word. Doesn't make a difference to me whether you see the eye as imaginary or real. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:42:55 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 . yes, I see it as important to recognize our own beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:45:52 GMT -5
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.  Yes, it's a conceptual split. Even the idea of 'Consciousness' is an intellectual construction. As we go about our day, most folks are not likely to be thinking about 'Consciousness'...we're more likely to be thinking about what to have for lunch. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:50:54 GMT -5
Andrew, it has been found that during childhood-molestations cases, children dettach and zoom off the pain far too emmence to bare. yes. The biological function of escaping in that way serves a valid purpose |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 14, 2016 2:51:20 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 . yes, I see it as important to recognize our own beliefs. It's about recognising / acknowledging the foundations of such beliefs .. From where does the belief for example does one conclude that the physical eye is either illusory or real ? .. Perhaps a poke in the eye will be suffice ..  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 2:54:51 GMT -5
yes, I see it as important to recognize our own beliefs. It's about recognising / acknowledging the foundations of such beliefs .. From where does the belief for example does one conclude that the physical eye is either illusory or real ? .. Perhaps a poke in the eye will be suffice .. lol yeah. The belief that the physical eye is real is a default belief, we're basically bound to believe in the eye (a poke in the eye might remind us of that belief hehe). So in one way, the spiritual understanding that the physical eye is illusory is a way of experiencing our belief in the physical eye in a different way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 3:12:46 GMT -5
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. What do you mean by 'Laughter always supports that model'? Laughter clearly understood what I am saying but you did not. Laughter is very clearly looking in this place. That's what he pointed out to Satch as well when said 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 3:15:03 GMT -5
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. Once again you are mixing the context, Talking about appearance is different talking about imaginary eye is different. Appearance includes your eye as well. Imaginary eye is to indicate the truth of we are not really looking through a real eye, we are looking the appearance directly, but we are looking as if we are looking through the real eye. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 3:35:26 GMT -5
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. I can't know whether you are real or figment of my imagination, So I can't start the conversation what if you are real because Gopal doesn't like speculation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 3:36:32 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, He calls Impersonal as Creative part of mine, he calls personal as surface part of mine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 3:49:08 GMT -5
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. How can the welcomer of the 'world of duality' not exist without the 'world of duality'? Well it can't. We could say that they are mutually dependant or that they arise simultaneously. So, if someone wants to be a welcomer of the world of duality, a world of duality exists. Bringing that all the way back to the desires of that someone, and the appearance of, the universe fulfilling all wishes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 3:49:38 GMT -5
Yeah sure. Yes, you are right. But what I meant was, first time anger happens out of illusion of separation, but when we started to avoid this, then we create the rollercoaster through our avoiding. When we resist, our subconscious queues up the events to create the roller coaster. This events would include the people as well. That's because they have already been busy working for me. Individual has the meaning only if other individual is real otherwise consciousness simply IS. We can't never know whether other individuals who are appearing in our consciousness is real or figments. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:07:33 GMT -5
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. What do you mean by 'Laughter always supports that model'? Laughter clearly understood what I am saying but you did not. Laughter is very clearly looking in this place. That's what he pointed out to Satch as well when said The appearance of eyes in consciousness are perceiving. I think 'the appearance of eyes in consciousness are perceiving' means that Satch is talking about the relative context. I don't know if you understand what I mean by that. It means that you believe that you have eyes, that you believe your eyes are a sensory organ and are involved with perceiving, hence why you wear glasses. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:09:35 GMT -5
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. Once again you are mixing the context, Talking about appearance is different talking about imaginary eye is different. Appearance includes your eye as well. Imaginary eye is to indicate the truth of we are not really looking through a real eye, we are looking the appearance directly, but we are looking as if we are looking through the real eye. Enigma mixed the two, which is why I clarified that you are saying that both tree and eye are appearance, but only eye is imagined. I am saying that it is a strange distinction to make because I also believe that my hand scratches my leg when I have an itch, so therefore hand is imaginary too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:11:02 GMT -5
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. I can't know whether you are real or figment of my imagination, So I can't start the conversation what if you are real because Gopal doesn't like speculation. But you understand that if I am real, that we have to have the same perceptions. It is the only possibility given that you see Consciousness and Perception as the same. That should be enough to show you that your model has a mistake in it. |
|
