Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 10:19:58 GMT -5
Yes It matters a lot. I am giving the logical reason of why outer world doesn't exist to pilgrims, but in truth, I know it doesn't exist because universe is self-organizing. yes exactly, Once we know Consciousness creates, we can know that seeing through illusion has the power to collapses the illusion as well. I don't think anybody else knows this truth here(Seeing through the illusion collapses the illusion), Do you think anybody else knows this truth from this forum? Sure. Can you name them ? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 10:28:11 GMT -5
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. Very interesting, You are not in need of glasses after some kind of clarity? What kind of understanding was that? Nothing in particular, just an overall relaxation, particularly a release of chronic tension in my head/neck. I also used to have frequent neck strain. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 10:35:25 GMT -5
Very interesting, You are not in need of glasses after some kind of clarity? What kind of understanding was that? Nothing in particular, just an overall relaxation, particularly a release of chronic tension in my head/neck. I also used to have frequent neck strain. I don't understand, how does this relates to your eye power? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 10:37:07 GMT -5
because I've been talking to him since 2009/2010 and I know there have been hundreds of conversations that require him to speak in the context of assuming there is a body-mind that interacts and relates to other body-minds, and the world in general. I've talked to him many times about the difference between human adults, babies and children. Every one of these conversations is speaking in the context of assuming a bodymind that interacts and relates to the world. You don't believe animals suffer, but humans do, right? Do the animals that you speak of have a brain and body?Somebody else has to explain this subject to you. I'm not trying to debate whether animals suffer or not, I'm trying to show you that when you compare humans to animals you are talking in a context of body-minds. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 10:38:55 GMT -5
Somebody else has to explain this subject to you. I'm not trying to debate whether animals suffer or not, I'm trying to show you that when you compare humans to animals you are talking in a context of body-minds.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 10:39:52 GMT -5
I wasn't asking him about 'nonvolition' I was asking about his seeing of 'predeterminism.' Or do you equate the two?  You suggested that in his 'model' nothing can be done to shift the path, implying that the doing is pointless. I'm saying the doing is part of the shifting. You really don't see how that connects to nonvolition? If all is predetermined as Gopal has suggested, that means that 'the path' is pre- set. Thus, if all is predetermined, the path, or outcome, does not actually shift, even though it might appear to. This is what I said: "So, in your model, there is nothing at all that can be done or seen that would shift path?" I agree doing is part of the experience of things shifting, but if all is truly predetermined, nothing actually ever 'shifts' from the set outcome, does it? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 10:40:03 GMT -5
Let's say in your nightly dreams, you dream about Andrew..is there a physical body that pertains to 'Andrew' in the dream? In nightly dream, everything appears, Everybody knows this, but you say to me that you are perceiving through your physical eye in your nightly dream, Said that, what can I say to you? To be clear, what I am saying is that dream Andrew perceives with help of sensory organs. Awake Andrew also perceives with help of sensory organs. Deeply asleep Andrew...well it's debatable whether he is perceiving or not. But you didn't answer the question (though you did answer it before). I will assume that your answer is consistent and therefore there is a body that pertains to Andrew in the dream |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 10:42:35 GMT -5
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. To say that 'appearances' suffer doesn't make sense, because suffering is an appearance too. We cannot say anything about the nature of appearances because anything said would be another appearance. So if you think suffering matters, or awakening matters, or 'Truth' matters, then you are speaking about something sentient, alive and with qualities....like 'human beings'. Agree? So the Consciousness/appearance model may have some slight limited value but that's as far as it goes. In experiential terms (which is really all that matters) if you see a wounded animal that you can help, that's what you see, and that's what you help. The function of seeing through the illusion of an objective world is not to dismiss the human experience. You, as Consciousness, are both the creator and perceiver (and sufferer) of that experience. (god that has fallen into his own dream) What you really are is what is experiencing, (surely that must be obvious) and you are what I am. What you are not, is the purposeful limitation/individuation that we call a human. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 10:42:47 GMT -5
Excellent question.I think we would all agree Consciousness (big C) doesn't suffer. Yet suffering exists. This has to be accounted for. Is suffering merely an appearance? (Does that mean illusion?) Consciousness is suffering, who else can suffer? Who else exist? Well, previous to this conversation Enigma was arguing that Consciousness is absent ALL quality. I was arguing that Love is a fundamental quality of Consciousness. It is quite unusual to say that Consciousness is suffering, but you have no other context to play with, so you are stuck saying odd things at times. I would tend to say that humans suffer. Okay. Here's a question. If you don't think that animals suffer, then is Consciousness both suffering AND not suffering. How does that work in your model? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 10:43:59 GMT -5
You suggested that in his 'model' nothing can be done to shift the path, implying that the doing is pointless. I'm saying the doing is part of the shifting. You really don't see how that connects to nonvolition? If all is predetermined as Gopal has suggested, that means that 'the path' is pre- set. Thus, if all is predetermined, the path, or outcome, does not actually shift, even though it might appear to. This is what I said: "So, in your model, there is nothing at all that can be done or seen that would shift path?" I agree doing is part of the experience of things shifting, but if all is truly predetermined, nothing actually ever 'shifts' from the set outcome, does it? Yes, nothing actually changes, your changes are the flow to the universe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 10:44:56 GMT -5
In nightly dream, everything appears, Everybody knows this, but you say to me that you are perceiving through your physical eye in your nightly dream, Said that, what can I say to you? To be clear, what I am saying is that dream Andrew perceives with help of sensory organs. Awake Andrew also perceives with help of sensory organs. Deeply asleep Andrew...well it's debatable whether he is perceiving or not. But you didn't answer the question (though you did answer it before). I will assume that your answer is consistent and therefore there is a body that pertains to Andrew in the dream PURE NONSENSE. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 10:45:58 GMT -5
I'm not trying to debate whether animals suffer or not, I'm trying to show you that when you compare humans to animals you are talking in a context of body-minds. Yes, that makes you sad that you talk in that context at times. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 10:48:31 GMT -5
Consciousness is suffering, who else can suffer? Who else exist?
Well, previous to this conversation Enigma was arguing that Consciousness is absent ALL quality. I was arguing that Love is a fundamental quality of Consciousness. It is quite unusual to say that Consciousness is suffering, but you have no other context to play with, so you are stuck saying odd things at times. I would tend to say that humans suffer. Okay. Here's a question. If you don't think that animals suffer, then is Consciousness both suffering AND not suffering. How does that work in your model? To say that 'appearances' suffer doesn't make sense, because suffering is an appearance too. We cannot say anything about the nature of appearances because anything said would be another appearance. So if you think suffering matters, or awakening matters, or 'Truth' matters, then you are speaking about something sentient, alive and with qualities....like 'human beings'. Agree? So the Consciousness/appearance model may have some slight limited value but that's as far as it goes. In experiential terms (which is really all that matters) if you see a wounded animal that you can help, that's what you see, and that's what you help. The function of seeing through the illusion of an objective world is not to dismiss the human experience. You, as Consciousness, are both the creator and perceiver ( and sufferer) of that experience. (god that has fallen into his own dream) What you really are is what is experiencing, (surely that must be obvious) and you are what I am. What you are not, is the purposeful limitation/individuation that we call a human. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 10:49:56 GMT -5
Yes, that makes you sad that you talk in that context at times. Actually I lost the confidence in your case. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 10:53:01 GMT -5
To say that 'appearances' suffer doesn't make sense, because suffering is an appearance too. We cannot say anything about the nature of appearances because anything said would be another appearance. So if you think suffering matters, or awakening matters, or 'Truth' matters, then you are speaking about something sentient, alive and with qualities....like 'human beings'. Agree? So the Consciousness/appearance model may have some slight limited value but that's as far as it goes. In experiential terms (which is really all that matters) if you see a wounded animal that you can help, that's what you see, and that's what you help. The function of seeing through the illusion of an objective world is not to dismiss the human experience. You, as Consciousness, are both the creator and perceiver (and sufferer) of that experience. (god that has fallen into his own dream) What you really are is what is experiencing, (surely that must be obvious) and you are what I am. What you are not, is the purposeful limitation/individuation that we call a human. What are you suggesting a 'human' is here? Formerly you argued that Consciousness is empty of all quality, and here you are assigning Consciousness the quality of suffering it seems. What other qualities does it have? Why do you care if Consciousness suffers? If one of your friends or Marie was suffering I could understand why you care. I could understand why you care about starving kids that you don't know. But you care about Consciousness? |
|
