|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 14, 2016 9:55:26 GMT -5
You completely lost the idea of what's the meaning of 'everything is appearance', this is why I kept on talking to you that you still did not understand the fact of world appears and doesn't exist in itself. You can't know that. But to even speak about it you have to define "exist in itself". At most you can only say, for me, I consider it to be the case there is no external world. To try to say more you are marching off to La-La Land. Interestingly, many people have had CC experiences by contemplating the question, "What is the thing in itself?" or, "What is anything, really?" Flora Courtois, for one, "fell into the habit of looking at the physical world surrounding her with an intense curiosity, a kind of not-knowing-what-things-are-but-wanting-to-know curiosity.....this practice eventually culminated in a Christ-Consciousness (cosmic consciousness) experience that significantly changed her life. Afterwards, her thinking habits, attitudes, eating patterns, breathing and even vision changed." |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 9:59:21 GMT -5
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. 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, it's not 'snipped off' and it's not done unconsciously. He's just aware that if you let go of all your conceptual constructs about an objective universe, then everything is a play of Consciousness. (Simple, and entirely consistent with the centuries of teachings.) You can't then look at parts of the play and say 'Aha! this part of the play proves that it's not a play'. It's like saying the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. Of course, you're doing it unconsciously. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 10:09:36 GMT -5
Seems to be so!  One facet of this action is that he learns from those threads of arguments that he loses. Instead of acknowledging the loss, the tactic of the morph is used to rewind the dialog back to a point where he pretends he was arguing something different all along. .. it's just a way to try to keep your interest in the pony pages after it's already collapsed on the track. Probly, but I also think he does it to make himself appear right all along. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 10:25:24 GMT -5
There is no illusion is being experienced at over all movement of universe, universal movement is predetermined to flow via a particular path. This path includes your personal illusion and your clarity removes that illusion. But clarity would also be a predetermined movement of universe, right? So really, in your model, there is nothing at all that can be done (or seen) that would have any effect in terms of shifting path, right...or wrong...? Everything that is seen can shift the path in spite of the fact that it's not the person doing it. I'll get around to explaining nonvolition shortly. Be patient. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 10:26:22 GMT -5
I am saying eye doesnt exist. So why not throw away your glasses?   >>>>Insert Dufus Guy pic here<<<< |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 10:27:55 GMT -5
Yes, but there is no eye. 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. hehe 'Then why put glasses in front of it?' hehe |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 14, 2016 10:33:06 GMT -5
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. Yes. In saying that, you are speaking from the context where eyes see and can have deficiencies with seeing...and where it's acknowledged that glasses are worn to see clearly. & in speaking from that context, It doesn't mean you suddenly lost knowledge/understanding that eyes, defeciencies, and glasses are all appearances.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 10:36:46 GMT -5
I have to because I have slight power in my eye, left eye -0.75 and right eye -0.25. Yes. In saying that, you are speaking from the context where eyes see and can have deficiencies with seeing...and where it's acknowledged that glasses are worn to see clearly. & in speaking from that context, It doesn't mean you suddenly lost knowledge/understanding that eyes, defeciencies, and glasses are all appearances. I am looking through the imaginary eyes, It creates the perception as if I possesses slight power. So I wearing a glasses which is an appearance again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 10:37:34 GMT -5
So why not throw away your glasses? >>>>Insert Dufus Guy pic here<<<< |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 10:48:42 GMT -5
So why not throw away your glasses? >>>>Insert Dufus Guy pic here<<<<  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 14, 2016 10:50:59 GMT -5
But clarity would also be a predetermined movement of universe, right? So really, in your model, there is nothing at all that can be done (or seen) that would have any effect in terms of shifting path, right...or wrong...? Everything that is seen can shift the path in spite of the fact that it's not the person doing it. I'll get around to explaining nonvolition shortly. Be patient. I wasn't asking him about 'nonvolition' I was asking about his seeing of 'predeterminism.' Or do you equate the two? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 10:58:00 GMT -5
Okay that's clear then. You agree with Andrew's statement. Glad we sorted that out. I thought andrew said it doesn't matter? I can't remember what preceded this. I do recall saying that it doesn't matter whether something is appearance or real, the body will continue to care either way. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 10:59:33 GMT -5
OK, thanks, but I still disagree with most of what you say. The person/mind/brain's ability to build an imaginary universe is very powerful. It builds universe in nightly dream, So where is the problem? are you saying that gopal falls asleep and has nightly dreams? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 11:00:12 GMT -5
I thought andrew said it doesn't matter? Yeah,exactly. can you remind me of what this is about please? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 11:01:02 GMT -5
I think (surmise) that for which she was banned was necessarily deleted. Ah, could be. I'm willing to bet 'no' on that one, but could be wrong obviously. |
|
It's all just conceptual play and word games.
