|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 10:54:43 GMT -5
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. you said yourself that dream reality is similar to awake reality. Dream Andrew walks, talks and sings. He's a regular functioning human being. Are you a dinosaur in your dreams? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 10:54:59 GMT -5
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? Terrific Joke  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 10:56:23 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) Your original statement included, and was based on, an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 10:59:00 GMT -5
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? 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. Yeah, he's jumped context there which is a mistake really. You can't care about suffering from within the Consciousness and appearances model. Neither is something to care about. What we care about are friends, family, other humans in general. We care about animals, some care about the planet as a whole. Some might care about their football team, or the state of the financial market. Others might care about Peace. To say that one cares about Consciousness is silly. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 10:59:38 GMT -5
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? Terrific Joke why? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 11:01:24 GMT -5
When I say my eye, that's an imaginary eye through which I am looking through that. I was saying this to figgles because I knew what would be her next question. Eye doesn't exist in itself, Consciousness is directly looking at what it is seeing. So when I have a power in my eye(imaginary eye),that means consciousness creates the perception as if I have slight sight problem, So when I wear a glasses(another appearance), it starts the create the perception as if I have the clear vision. So eye doesn't exist in itself. What you are acknowledging is that you relate, interact and respond in such way that you believe in (or assume) the existence of a world. That's because relating, interacting and responding requires the belief (or assumption) in the existence of a world lol. This applies to animals too...it's not something we ever have to think about, it's assumed in every action taken. Whether it's an imaginary world or a real world is a fine enough enquiry but is really just intellectual fodder for folks that like to think (like us). I interact and respond in my lucid dreams while knowing for a fact that world doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 11:01:47 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) Your original statement included, and was based on, an opinion. I would like a link or giraffe on this one please |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 11:03:54 GMT -5
Yeah, he's jumped context there which is a mistake really. You can't care about suffering from within the Consciousness and appearances model. Neither is something to care about. What we care about are friends, family, other humans in general. We care about animals, some care about the planet as a whole. Some might care about their football team, or the state of the financial market. Others might care about Peace. To say that one cares about Consciousness is silly. I love the way you write though all are funny  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 11:04:10 GMT -5
Consciousness which builds the nightly dream as well. You assume an individual sleeper to argue that there is no individual sleeper. This applies to a great deal of your arguments...in making your points, you reinforce what you seek to negate. He specifically said that Consciousness builds that individual dream. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 11:04:15 GMT -5
Terrific Joke why? Because consciousness is YOU. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 11:04:27 GMT -5
Ah, okay. That's an interesting question. What about it Gopal? Why do you find it interesting? I dunno. Just curious. Don't know if it will help me understand his position or not, but it might. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 11:05:59 GMT -5
What you are acknowledging is that you relate, interact and respond in such way that you believe in (or assume) the existence of a world. That's because relating, interacting and responding requires the belief (or assumption) in the existence of a world lol. This applies to animals too...it's not something we ever have to think about, it's assumed in every action taken. Whether it's an imaginary world or a real world is a fine enough enquiry but is really just intellectual fodder for folks that like to think (like us). I interact and respond in my lucid dreams while knowing for a fact that world doesn't exist. That's because it is a 'lucid dream', it's an unusual experience and not the same as the awake state experience. When you eat a juicy orange, there's the taste sensation, there MAY be a story about it, there might be some sense of pleasure and joy. If you're also telling a story about how the world doesn't exist, you've divorced yourself from the direct experience. And here's another point. If in your dream you know the world doesn't exist, what world do you know of, that doesn't exist? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 11:06:51 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. Can you describe this 'creator mode' vs. 'perceiving mode'? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 11:07:48 GMT -5
Your original statement included, and was based on, an opinion. I would like a link or giraffe on this one please Go for it. It's been a while since we had some fun giraffe pics.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 11:07:57 GMT -5
You assume an individual sleeper to argue that there is no individual sleeper. This applies to a great deal of your arguments...in making your points, you reinforce what you seek to negate. He specifically said that Consciousness builds that individual dream. right, 'individual' is the key word. Asking someone about their nightly dreams just shows that the asker believes in a someone that has nightly dreams lol. |
|
