Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 12:49:49 GMT -5
Good night Andrew, Meet you tomorrow.
Gopal from India.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 12:50:33 GMT -5
The appearances in consciousness idea is simple. Did you assume the existence of the tennis players when you posted the video? Did you assume the existence of people on Facebook watching the video? Did you assume the existence of a computer? I'm willing to bet that you won't answer these questions and that is something I find interesting. I can't know whether those players exist, because there may be a chance that they might be a figments in my consciousness. You assume they exist though. And within the context of that assumption it is true that they are men. Again notice how you don't address what is asked. Do you mean 'figments in Consciousness'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 12:52:12 GMT -5
You think waking state is more real an experience than dream state? That's very ironic. 'More real' is the wrong word. I said Reality moves pretty stable compared to dream world, but both are simply a dream happening in consciousness. Right. So in the context of the experience, they are very similar. Still feeling, tasting, smelling etc |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 12:53:22 GMT -5
Good night Andrew, Meet you tomorrow. Gopal from India. Good night gopal from andrew in england |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 13:39:45 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. Sure. But so long as one is wearing glasses, to some degree, he's going along with the idea/experience, that eyes see. The question is: Does the dreaming Gopal wear glasses? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 13:42:19 GMT -5
Infact it would indicate us that we are creators of our world. So why wear glasses if you don't have to? Oh...I accidentally answered wrong post , the real question is: Does Gopal, in his dreams, wear glasses? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 13:46:33 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. OMG....you have negated months of posting... :-| |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 13:49:34 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. Yes. The Emperor has no clothes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 13:54:08 GMT -5
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. And in the post above Gopal admits, in some sense, eyes exist, as post above he admits his eyes are of different strengths. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 14:03:18 GMT -5
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. The whole skin of the body has the sense of touch (the back is the least sensitive). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 14:21:56 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. I can't do now....but somebody find the Cat Stevens song Moonshadow and insert here. :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 15:04:46 GMT -5
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. I can't do now....but somebody find the Cat Stevens song Moonshadow and insert here. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 14, 2016 15:09:48 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.
I would say seeing you are consciousness and nothing appearing in consciousness (at least not limited by anything appearing) still gives one the opportunity to imagine yourself as a fictional character in a dream world of your own creation. That may not be incredibly meaningful to most people, but you're still someone in the dream. You can't come as no one, but the application of meaning is obviously optional, and some might even say, redundant.
I agree we cannot know if others are real or figments. I understand what you mean when you say they are busy working for you. But your assumption there is that you know they are figments, right? My question is why do you insist on knowing that? You already said you cannot know, and then prior to this you imply they work for you (I assume you mean as creator of your dream).
As far as anger arising through avoidance, I agree. The conditioned experience is avoided and this is the creation of the unconscious. Did you think I was talking about something else when I said resistance to unconsciousness is anger? We're seemingly saying the same thing there.
Further along, ultimately speaking there is no such thing as a focal point or a figment in consciousness. How you distinguish 'real' or 'figment' collapses by seeing the focal point distinction is artificial. Consciousness is non-local, not a figment, and nothing appearing is real. On the other hand, as far as cause and effect goes, I don't have much issue with how you talk about queing up and things like that (pattering is the same). I would say there is a danger in the belief that others are figments, but I can't argue I believe they are not, and I don't mean to.
|
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 14, 2016 15:16:17 GMT -5
So why wear glasses if you don't have to? Oh...I accidentally answered wrong post , the real question is: Does Gopal, in his dreams, wear glasses? Ah, okay. That's an interesting question. What about it Gopal?  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 17:22:09 GMT -5
If you look up circular thinking in a philosophical dictionary, you see Gopal's picture. Is he the only one here?  And hey, remember this? .. don't think I'm complaining now as I've got zero standing, but I'm just curious if you remember writing it.  Sure, I remember. Are you saying that was an example of circular reasoning? |
|
And hey, remember 