|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:16:47 GMT -5
Same division as 'Consciousness and appearances' No, He calls Impersonal as Creative part of mine, he calls personal as surface part of mine. Impersonal/personal is the same division as Consciousness/appearance, is the same division as Absolute/relative, is the same division as emptiness/form, is the same division as formlessness/form. It's the classic 2 layer model. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:33:41 GMT -5
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. Everything appears, but I used the word 'imaginary eye' to indicate the fact that we are directly seeing the perception,not through 'our eye' . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:35:28 GMT -5
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. My model doesn't have any mistake, this is happening because of your understanding problem in this place, but I am NOT surprised when you Or Tenka mock at my logic. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:35:40 GMT -5
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. Everything appears, but I used the word 'imaginary eye' to indicate the fact that we are directly seeing the perception not through 'our eye' . Yes, an I am also not feeling the perception through my hand, skin and nerve endings. But if I lose my hand, I might miss it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:37:01 GMT -5
No, He calls Impersonal as Creative part of mine, he calls personal as surface part of mine. Impersonal/personal is the same division as Consciousness/appearance, is the same division as Absolute/relative, is the same division as emptiness/form, is the same division as formlessness/form. It's the classic 2 layer model. I know the way he uses, He says creation arises from impersonal and it's perceived at personal level. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:37:31 GMT -5
Everything appears, but I used the word 'imaginary eye' to indicate the fact that we are directly seeing the perception not through 'our eye' . Yes, an I am also not feeling the perception through my hand, skin and nerve endings. But if I lose my hand, I might miss it.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:38:00 GMT -5
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. My model doesn't have any mistake, this is happening because of your understanding problem in this place, but I am NOT surprised when you Or Tenka mock at my logic. I've been quite careful not to mock, though that doesn't mean that I haven't. I can't prove to you that I am experiencing different perceptions to you, but it seems so obvious to me that we are perceiving differently (or experiencing different perceptions), that I have to say that you have made a mistake. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:39:42 GMT -5
My model doesn't have any mistake, this is happening because of your understanding problem in this place, but I am NOT surprised when you Or Tenka mock at my logic. I've been quite careful not to mock, though that doesn't mean that I haven't. I can't prove to you that I am experiencing different perceptions to you, but it seems so obvious to me that we are perceiving differently (or experiencing different perceptions), that I have to say that you have made a mistake. I haven't made any mistake. Everything appears, Is it clear? If everything appear, then how could you see something through your physical eye? Because If everything exist in appearance, your eye too exist in perception. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:40:04 GMT -5
Impersonal/personal is the same division as Consciousness/appearance, is the same division as Absolute/relative, is the same division as emptiness/form, is the same division as formlessness/form. It's the classic 2 layer model. I know the way he uses, He says creation arises from impersonal and it's perceived at personal level. I think he sees creation and perception as the same, so the 'it's perceived' is the creation itself. Though I do know that he does also talk in terms of 3 levels at times. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:41:54 GMT -5
I know the way he uses, He says creation arises from impersonal and it's perceived at personal level. I think he sees creation and perception as the same, so the 'it's perceived' is the creation itself. Though I do know that he does also talk in terms of 3 levels at times. Yes, he says creation is perception, I say that too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:43:00 GMT -5
I've been quite careful not to mock, though that doesn't mean that I haven't. I can't prove to you that I am experiencing different perceptions to you, but it seems so obvious to me that we are perceiving differently (or experiencing different perceptions), that I have to say that you have made a mistake. I haven't made any mistake. Everything appears, Is it clear? If everything appear, then how could you see something through your physical eye? Because If everything exist in appearance, your eye too exist in perception. Absolutely, that's true. Relatively, it's also true that your eyes are involved in seeing. They are both true statements. Your mistake that I was referring to there, is not about eyes and appearances though. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:43:55 GMT -5
I think he sees creation and perception as the same, so the 'it's perceived' is the creation itself. Though I do know that he does also talk in terms of 3 levels at times. Yes, he says creation is perception, I say that too. so therefore creation doesn't arise and is THEN perceived. The perceiving and the creating are the same (for Enigma). I don't know where he would situation Consciousness (and Awareness) in that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:45:20 GMT -5
I haven't made any mistake. Everything appears, Is it clear? If everything appear, then how could you see something through your physical eye? Because If everything exist in appearance, your eye too exist in perception. They are both true statements. Your mistake that I was referring to there, is not about eyes and appearances though.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:47:12 GMT -5
Yes, he says creation is perception, I say that too. so therefore creation doesn't arise and is THEN perceived. The perceiving and the creating are the same (for Enigma). I don't know where he would situation Consciousness (and Awareness) in that. That's what that division doesn't exist, but it's difficult to bring it in words. I am creating and perceiving simultaneously. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:49:45 GMT -5
Absolutely, that's true. Relatively, it's also true that your eyes are involved in seeing.They are both true statements. Your mistake that I was referring to there, is not about eyes and appearances though. That's what I mean when I say you don't understand context. Two seemingly contradictory statements can be true, because they are true in different contexts. Normally one will transcend the other, but that doesn't make the smaller context a 'lesser' or 'more invalid' truth. We can't help but care about the physical experience, our bodies are designed to care! |
|
