|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2016 16:39:06 GMT -5
Yes the statement is a fact as you say. It cannot be refuted. This is the key. Deal only with what you know and experience right now in the moment and forget about idle speculation. Saying that of course leaves me open to Laughter pulling out a bunch of posts from the archive demonstrating my mental gymnastics, but hey, what the heck. As for Enigma. He is being - how shall we say - contrary in his support for the Ruler of the Universe. The point is that of course this is how Gopal lives every day. So he does not live day to day by his own ~philosophy~ of how life works. Something is amiss here. Why have a view of how life works if you can't live by it? I have been irritated in this conversation at times, and I think that's partly because gopal and me sometimes have very normal conversations off the forum. I enjoy talking to him and he posts some pretty cool (normal) stuff on Facebook. I understand fully that different situations demand different kinds of conversation, but when he says what he says here...I'm like....wtf? There seems to be an incongruence in his choices that bothers me personally because we do have a bit of a personal relationship (though based on what he says here, I dont know how he sees it). I guess this was written more for gopal than you. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 15, 2016 17:45:27 GMT -5
Andrew's statement involves opinion which Gopal is not obligated to agree with. No it doesn't, it's a fact. I'll put it another very slightly different way. Regardless of whether the world is an appearance or not, there is still the experience of the world (including the experience of knowing we see better with eyes open) But what if one knows one sees better knowing the experience is just an appearance? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2016 18:01:58 GMT -5
Consciousness creates the entire nightly dream, In the same it creates the entire physical dream. Both are same except the stability of the movement. That's not what I am asking. When you talk to someone about their nightly dream (say Andrew), are you believing that Andrew falls asleep at night and has a nightly dream? If you don't believe that, why are you talking to Andrew about it? Doesn't he??  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2016 18:22:47 GMT -5
You continue to show the ignorance towards what I am writing. What else can I do? You see people like pilgrims disagree with me but atleast he is understanding me. In your nightly dream you are seeing many things, are you seeing through your physical eyes? Do you see that you didn't answer the simple question I asked and threw in the old ignorance thing again. You just posted on Facebook a table tennis video. Is it true that you thought it was a good demonstration of table tennis? Is it true that you like posting on Facebook? Areyou assuming the existence of an Andrew that sleeps at night and has a highly dream? In the context of the dream, dream andrew is seeing through physical eyes, yes. He is not seeing through his feet. Could you answer the question I asked in the previous message please. You're playing fast and loose with contexts too. In the context of dreams, there is nothing physical. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2016 18:26:28 GMT -5
I have just answered. I like the way that guy moves here and there very fast to hit the ball, that's what I shared that video on facebook. In your nightly dream you are seeing through your physical eye? huh?  Okay so you are happy to assume that there are guys hitting balls and that they move fast. Yes it was amazing. So here you are talking in the relative context, in which some things are true and some are not. Relatively, it is true that there were guys playing table tennis and hitting the ball amazingly. Absolutely, the truth is different. In dreams that I have, they are very like waking state. I still taste with mouth, smell with nose etc. It is an experience and all experience is physical. Not so much, really. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 15, 2016 18:27:58 GMT -5
Not my eyes, my imaginary eyes. Gopal, please answer me honestly, for you, is there any context where the eyes of Gopal gather light and are used to transmit a visual signal to the consciousness that is Gopal? Actually, I've never seen eyes gather light nor be used (by anyone or anything in particular) to transmit visual signals. Is there any context wherein any and all distinctions such as eyes, light, signals, gopals and even the thoughts that illude one into thinking such appearances are real collapse? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2016 18:28:06 GMT -5
No it doesn't, it's a fact. I'll put it another very slightly different way. Regardless of whether the world is an appearance or not, there is still the experience of the world (including the experience of knowing we see better with eyes open) But what if one knows one sees better knowing the experience is just an appearance? By appearance do you mean a perceptual falsity? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 15, 2016 18:30:00 GMT -5
But what if one knows one sees better knowing the experience is just an appearance? By appearance do you mean a perceptual falsity? I dunno. What do you mean by perceptual falsity? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 15, 2016 19:16:47 GMT -5
Because the eyes aren't really separate from the body. Take them out and they don't function. It's just a common-sense observation about object boundaries that suggests something uncommon about them, and it's been the subject of ridicule here for the past two weeks. I find that interesting. :) I find it both ridiculous and interesting that the same thing is said over and over again for 2 weeks - and will probably be repeated for 2 months hahaha. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2016 20:22:11 GMT -5
Wow, the irony is that he's literally writing about the way things appear to him.  Exactly. Pilgrims wouldn't understand even if I slightly move away from the context. He wouldn't even imagine why I write that way, He immediately tends to conclude that I am wrong. It's just that I don't ever recall you writing in such a matter. This is the conversation andrew is having with Gopal...why do you write one way on facebook and and another way here. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2016 20:26:27 GMT -5
I can't let you get away with that. I take no steps back. The eye is an appearance in consciousness and my experience is that the eyes see. Don't lie to me and to others gopal. Stop looking at one side of the equation and understand that both sides are the reality. Both unmanifest and manifest. That's an illusion I am pointing out. If everything is appearing which includes your eye as well, then how could you see through your eye? If everything is appearing, then aren't you seeing the appearance directly(not via anything)? You cannot necessarily make that leap. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2016 20:37:29 GMT -5
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?  Why do you find it interesting? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2016 20:40:06 GMT -5
Sight is dependent on the function of the eye, and perception in general is direct to consciousness. Now that the obvious has been stated lets draw it out for another whole week. (*flabbergasts*)  If everything appears, then you are not looking THROUGH eye. You are looking directly and your eye is also appearing to consciousness. You cannot make that jump. Look at yourself in a mirror. Everything is reversed. Say you have a bandaid on your left thumb. Look at it, on left thumb. Now look at the bandaid thumb in the mirror, it appears to be on your right thumb. Why would a mirror matter to consciousness? Why are the two appearances different? ....and what does that even mean, you are looking directly? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2016 20:45:26 GMT -5
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). I don't talk about whether or not things are real. As I've said many times, the term no longer makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2016 20:48:26 GMT -5
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). I missed where somebody negated that which is formed from Consciousness. I agree that's not 'accurate'. |
|
