Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 4:35:57 GMT -5
Gopal can post when and where he wishes. If you don't like it then just don't read his posts. So the gopal appearance has no brain and no sensory organs, but can post messages when and where he wishes. Are you beginning to see the boundary of the Consciousness/appearances model yet? Enigma has an advantage over you, in that he is willing to jump ship to other contexts when it suits him (which is most of the time). He's actually correct to do so, because all these spiritual models have a boundary. There is a time to abandon Consciousness/appearances and speak of individuations that have bodies, brains, personalities and which do function in the world in alignment with scientific principles. The Consciousness/appearance model that you are offering abandons all science. It abandons all relative truth. Which is why some of your answers to questions being asked to you are looking very odd. If you are a close observer then you know I,Enigma,Laughter we three talks the same model here. We three doesn't have any conflict in this place. You,Satch,Figgles,Source are not understanding why we believe that to be the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 4:37:49 GMT -5
Okay so now you have just assigned Consciousness a ton of qualities. Consciousness can be happy or sad, it can suffer or not suffer etc If gopal has no brain or sensory organs, does Consciousness have a brain and sensory organs? Nonsense questions, this shows that you still are not close to what I have been saying for past one week. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2016 4:39:38 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. Well there's a broader pattern to the dialog on the forum that's even more interesting, spans years, and not one I find ridiculous by any means. The bottom line is an insistence on approaching existential questions intellectually so as to arrive at material conclusions. What's going on with that is as clear as day, and I haven't got a single judgment about it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2016 4:43:02 GMT -5
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. . If you don't like it then just don't read his posts. For now anyways.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2016 4:45:49 GMT -5
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. Science has called your position here into question for almost a century now. Your intellectual rigor only extends up to that point and no further. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 4:50:23 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.
But the fact that intellect has discovered the bounds of solidity for what it is not only can't be denied, the impact of this on the culture and peoples ideas about their reality is unmistakable, and yeah, how people conceive of the world they live in does influence how they interact with it. How couldn't it? How can anyone with a sense of conceptualized identity (unconscious or otherwise) not define themselves to some degree by what they think of where they find that identity playing itself out? The message I got from the Zen sources was to suspend any and all of that, and just look, listen, touch and taste. This comported quite well with those physical activities in life I enjoyed the most, and after having the thinking process implode by following Tolle's advice, the Zen message was credible. But quite obviously, the koans are meant to disrupt and sow the kind of confusion to the world view that precipitates, motivates and catalyzes direct interaction and direct perception. If peeps conception of the world doesn't matter, why bother with the koans at all? If it doesn't matter, then why make the point of "real as rock"? ZD is talking about the miracle he has done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 4:54:11 GMT -5
Gopal can post when and where he wishes. If you don't like it then just don't read his posts. For now anyways. Yes, I don't know how long It continues , Need to hurry up writing before Peter will ban me for third time. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 5:02:52 GMT -5
Consciousness remains in perceiving mode or appearance remains in perceiving mode? Consciousness. Appearance can't do anything. So Consciousness now also has modes that it switches between...perceiver mode to creator mode. And Consciousness is also a doer. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 5:04:40 GMT -5
Okay, so gopal the appearance has no brain, heart or sensory organs? hehehe But appearances DO have stamped characteristics? Andrew doesn't have any brain as well right. Does your friend Navin, that you just took a photo of, have a brain? Does he have skin? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 5:06:04 GMT -5
Okay, so gopal has no brain but does have access to dreaming state and real state.....? Consciousness creates the dream and reality, both are appearing. Right, but it seems that gopal does have access to dreaming an real state. Does gopal have skin? Does he have arms and legs? Is it just his brain and sensory organs that are absent? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 5:07:59 GMT -5
So the gopal appearance has no brain and no sensory organs, but can post messages when and where he wishes. Are you beginning to see the boundary of the Consciousness/appearances model yet? Enigma has an advantage over you, in that he is willing to jump ship to other contexts when it suits him (which is most of the time). He's actually correct to do so, because all these spiritual models have a boundary. There is a time to abandon Consciousness/appearances and speak of individuations that have bodies, brains, personalities and which do function in the world in alignment with scientific principles. The Consciousness/appearance model that you are offering abandons all science. It abandons all relative truth. Which is why some of your answers to questions being asked to you are looking very odd. If you are a close observer then you know I,Enigma,Laughter we three talks the same model here. We three doesn't have any conflict in this place. You,Satch,Figgles,Source are not understanding why we believe that to be the case. Laughter may believe that he has no brain and sensory organs, but I doubt that Enigma will follow you down this contextual pit. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 5:14:38 GMT -5
Okay so now you have just assigned Consciousness a ton of qualities. Consciousness can be happy or sad, it can suffer or not suffer etc If gopal has no brain or sensory organs, does Consciousness have a brain and sensory organs? Nonsense questions, this shows that you still are not close to what I have been saying for past one week. That's a cop out. When you model hits a wall, this is the kind of response you dish out. Consciousness/appearances is your fixed model. There's no space in your model for individuations or body-minds that function in the world in your model. So if the appearance that is Andrew has no brain or sensory organ, then does Consciousness have those things? Let's also note that Enigma will speak of individuations (or body-minds) that can be sun burned, that sit in chairs, and which eat food. In your model, do appearances get sun burned and eat food, or does Consciousness get sun burned and eat food? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 5:18:31 GMT -5
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. Science has called your position here into question for almost a century now. Your intellectual rigor only extends up to that point and no further. There is no science in gopal's model (because science explains how things happen). No scientific relative truths. So, I don't know specifically what you are saying science has called into question, but I don't care. There is a place of scientific relative truths in my model. It's interesting how you and gopal support each other, gopal's model has no relative context, and your model has no absolute context. Sp different obviously, but interestingly, maybe it is the absence of a key context that unites your positions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 5:31:27 GMT -5
Consciousness. Appearance can't do anything. So Consciousness now also has modes that it switches between...perceiver mode to creator mode. And Consciousness is also a doer. Consciousness creates and perceives simultanously. When it's perceiving it's creating as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 5:32:50 GMT -5
Andrew doesn't have any brain as well right. Does your friend Navin, that you just took a photo of, have a brain? Does he have skin? Nobody in the world has any physical body. |
|
