|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 17:27:47 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? The person/mind/brain builds a universe in nightly dreams? I thought consciousness was responsible for everything (all appearances). So does this mean one appearance forms another appearance? I didn't know appearances could do that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 17:40:30 GMT -5
If you look up circular thinking in a philosophical dictionary, you see Gopal's picture. hmm? why? You assume what the truth is (all appearances arise from consciousness, and cannot use the bodily senses to mediate the appearance) and then don't recognize your faulty logic is not proving what you assume. (You have not proven there is no external world, you have not proven there is no body, you have not proven the senses do not exist and do not mediate a transfer of information from the external world [you not allowing even a relative external world] to consciousness. You have said on occasion, we can't know if there is an external world or not. You need to stick with that and then what you say would be irrefutable. Or you could say it is my predilection to believe there is no external world. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 17:46:57 GMT -5
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. I understand the problem here. The reason I believe that outer world doesn't exist is, Perceiver is attached part of perception. Duh. That's obvious, who doesn't believe that? That's what perception is. If there were not a perceiver, there would be no perception. I don't know how you are making the leap you are (leaps), that "outer world doesn't exist". |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:07:45 GMT -5
So why not throw away your glasses?    I can't because I need to create another perpetual movement. What does that mean? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:17:38 GMT -5
So do you accept Andrew's statement when he says: 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) World is appearance in consciousness matter a lot, because that put our consciousness into a creator mode. Yes, I think it matters a lot too, for some very practical reasons, and also as part of the spiritual search that involves seeing through illusions. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 18:19:19 GMT -5
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." This is for E also as I peeked ahead to the next post and this speaks to his also (and it will also speak to some things L and I have discussed). Yes, I get what you are saying here. Let's take what physicists say about the stuff of the universe. If you boil it down you come to almost precisely Hua-Yen Buddhism. Nothing exists in itself, everything that exists consists of other stuff that doesn't exist in and of itself, this is called Indra's Net. This is the meaning of emptiness in Buddhism. In physics everything is reduced to fields. A ~thing~ is a combination or overlapping of fields. This would be where two strings combine to ~make~ a knot in a net. Lots of knots, you have a net. Lots of "knots" and you have the elements, combinations of knots and you end up with people, and [human] consciousness, and Consciousness is from-what the strings that form the "nets" originated. Now, just because everything originated from Consciousness, are you going to say trees aren't ~real~, suns aren't ~real~, oxygen isn't ~real~, dirt isn't ~real~, physical bodies are not ~real~? Even Hua-Yen Buddhists don't say this, even The Dalai Lama does not say this. Emptiness in Buddhism does not negate people, places, things and stuff. Even just ordinary contemplation of all this can make you (self) very tiny and humble, and yes, can cause significant change. But it doesn't mean everything is reduced to "zero", and it does not make all things equal (since/because everything is formed from the same fields/knotted nets/Consciousness). This, BTW, is what Gopal does, and where he makes his mistake. I have no problem using the term relatively ~real~. (I read her account...I think in The Hazy Moon of Enlightenment, and Yasutani, super dude, love him). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:20:06 GMT -5
World is appearance in consciousness matter a lot, because that put our consciousness into a creator mode. Okay so that's a yes. You do agree with Andrew's statement. Do you detect any subtle difference between "doesn't matter" and "matters a lot"? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:22:55 GMT -5
We are not seeing through eyes, we are seeing through imaginary eye, we wear glasses when that imaginary eye looses power. When I say imaginary eye loose the power, I meant to say consciousness creates different perpetual flow, Glasses doesn't exist in itself as well. So, you Consciousness are creating perceptual flow? So why wouldn't you create perceptual flow that doesn't need glasses, since they don't exist anyway? Are you really interested in the answer to that question? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2016 18:27:46 GMT -5
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. Yes, I agree, but, again, it is not accurate to say everything ~being reduced to~ ONE, negates that-which is formed from Consciousness (ONE). (See response to ZD). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:29:21 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'
What does that mean? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:33:40 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. Just different contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:34:44 GMT -5
Why wow?  As I said, a lifetime ban seems severe. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:37:53 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. Andrew's statement involves opinion which Gopal is not obligated to agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 18:44:02 GMT -5
Exactly! I was shocked when I read the below two message of Satch Now come out of your shock and calm down a bit. Let me say it another way. All mentations arise from consciousness but it can be realized that it is all consciousness. But those eyes appear in consciousness and experience tells us that they appear to be responsible for the sense of sight. This is just normal experience gopal. At the gross level of the senses the eye is the perceiver of an object. At a finer level the mind is the perceiver of the object as processed by the biology of the eye. And at a finer level still, the witnessing consciousness is the knower of the mind. But nothing knows consciousness. It cannot be objectified. Like I say, playing fast and loose with context, apparently for the purpose of argument. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2016 19:03:14 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. Sure. Hawkins taught about his healing work on himself (among other things, of course) for a long time before one of his students asked why he still wears glasses, at which point he took them off and never put them back on. He bumped into things for a while too. Hehe He talked in terms of "cancelling the program". So yes, it's tricky even when one realizes the truth of it. I say the mind is strongly influenced by the collective, and so embodying your realizations can be challenging. I first got glasses in my twenties. I haven't needed them for decades. My understandings changed, and so did my vision, along with some other aspects of my physical well being. |
|
