Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:50:46 GMT -5
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? Nonsense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:52:52 GMT -5
I know what's his view but I know he is wrong, that's why I am not interested. About which bit? Believing that you are looking at the world through your eye. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:55:11 GMT -5
I can't figure it out either. I don't see circular thinking in that. Maybe you can sue the publisher of the dictionary for allowing your picture to be printed without your consent.  He simply write whatever he wants, I guess. Every-time he lands on and started to support me and then he started to advice me that what I believe is not practical but I wouldn't agree and then he used to get angry and say to me that I wouldn't read your post hereafter and I wouldn't respond to you hereafter, He has been playing this childish game for a long time which I really got bored of . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 2:50:48 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? My impression is that you are asking a sincere question, but I think some of the words are in the wrong order or something. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 2:53:21 GMT -5
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??  I would say Andrew falls asleep and has a nightly dream, but then I would also say Andrew has a brain, heart, sensory organs. Gopal does not think Andrew has those things. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 2:58:26 GMT -5
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. I see all experience as physical i.e sense of taste, sense of smell, sense of feeling etc. You can't have it both ways...you use the example of nightly dreams to show that both waking state and nightly dreams are an appearance in Consciousness. Well both, equally, are also physical experience. If you are going to acknowledge the existence of an Andrew, with sensory organs, brain and heart, who can feel both happy and sad, then I can adjust my answer. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:00:49 GMT -5
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? yes, I even stated that context to Enigma last night and I'm pretty sure most here acknowledge that context. So what's interesting is when the other context goes missing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:04:13 GMT -5
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? I'm thinking that there is literally no science in gopal's model. He cannot offer science as a relative truth. Everything has to be explained by the absolute context. Except he is a computer programmer so obviously as he goes about his day he is engaging with relative truths all the time. So it's interesting that he cannot acknowledge relative truth here. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:05:17 GMT -5
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. ''not an illusion''....''as it seems''. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:06:49 GMT -5
You ignored what he said. Here's a question to add to the collection. Gopa is an appearance, right? The feeling of happiness is an appearance, right? So who or what feels happy? I feel happy and I feel unhappy. So Consciousness feels happy or the appearance feels happy? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:07:28 GMT -5
Who or what can be free from suffering? In your model there is only conciousness and appearances....so can consciousness be freed from suffering or the appearance? I Consciousness or appearance? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:08:37 GMT -5
I can see why Gopal might say what he says, but I can't see that it makes any difference at all. In Zen we regard the physical world as "real as a rock," but there is also an understanding that the field of our being is beyond intellectual grasp. A ZM would refuse to discuss anything theoretical with Gopal. She'd probably bop him on the head with her Zen stick, and dismiss his talk of appearances completely. But let's assume Gopal is 100% correct. So what? It wouldn't make any difference in the way we live life. Almost all of us interact with the physical world as if it's as real as a rock. ATST, some of us have read enough about "miracles" and supposedly "impossible" or non-local events that we appreciate that there is an insubstantial aspect to even the most rock-solid "stuff." Parasambhava supposedly grabbed the hand of a doubting monk and thrust it through a rock wall. Jesus and Kabir supposedly performed a wide range of miracles, and many of us have had lesser woo-woo experiences that strongly challenge the idea of anything "solid" or "fixed." Innumerable sages have made statements similar to, "All there is is consciousness." That's only going to be a problem for people who are strongly attached to an objective physical reality. If there's no attachment to ideas, then there's no problem as I see it. No, It surely makes a difference, it would puts us into creator mode. If we haven't seen this, then we would remain in perceiving mode. The statement "Seeing through illusion changes the experience" can only be true If we are in creator mode. Consciousness remains in perceiving mode or appearance remains in perceiving mode? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:10:00 GMT -5
So do appearances have characteristics? Is the appearance that is a human being characterized by having brains, hearts and sensory organs? Nobody has brains,hearts or sensory organs. If other one is real, then they are also consciousness perceiving from another view point. Okay, so gopal the appearance has no brain, heart or sensory organs? hehehe But appearances DO have stamped characteristics? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:11:10 GMT -5
My dream and my reality? Who/what are you referring to there? My(Gopal) dream and My(Gopal) Reality, Is that clear now? Okay, so gopal has no brain but does have access to dreaming state and real state.....? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 3:12:21 GMT -5
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 live and when I reach clarity that reorganize the universe, that would put me into the creator mode, that's the reason I am interested in the area of whether outer world exist or not, whether other individual is real or not. But in the case of you, you haven't met any such realization, So this is all irritating you. Put Consciousness into creator mode or put appearance in creator mode? |
|
