|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 11:09:06 GMT -5
Because consciousness is YOU. If that is the case, then I am prior to qualities such as suffering and feeling happy. Body-minds suffer and feel happy, Consciousness does not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 11:09:37 GMT -5
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.  I'm asking you for the link please! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 11:11:14 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. How does 'creator mode' work alongside predeterminism? When 'creator mode' kicks in, does it override the predetermined outcome?...or is it part and parcel of what is already determined to be? If so, why would you care whether you are in creator mode or perceiver mode? In terms of outcome, what difference could it make if all is firmly set on a path that arrives at a set destination (or is that how you see it?). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 11:15:40 GMT -5
Everything that is seen can shift the path in spite of the fact that it's not the person doing it. I'll get around to explaining nonvolition shortly. Be patient.  Relax, I'll have it posted by 4:30. Swear to God.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 11:18:02 GMT -5
hehe 'Then why put glasses in front of it?' hehe Well Doofus Guy, how else are you gonna' know where yer nose is?  hehe. 'Oh, I know that. It's always what hits the door first.' hehe |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 11:20:58 GMT -5
OMG....you have negated months of posting... :-| Wow, the irony is that he's literally writing about the way things appear to him.  Mostly, it's not Gopal who needs glasses. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 11:22:41 GMT -5
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.Yeah, that's it. The collapse being referenced the 2nd position in the "first there is a mountain, then no mountain, then once again, a mountain," dealy. Getting stuck there results in what we're seeing here. A denial of the phenomenal world. We're talking (trying anyway  ) about 3rd position (once again, mountains/full circle) and the fact that despite that previous collapse/realization there is a return to the phenomenal world. The collapse does not result in a complete experiential disappearance of or denial of all phenomenal form, but rather, a new relationship with/to it. (an end of attachment to/identification with, is the basis of that shift) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 11:25:00 GMT -5
"Matters a lot" is a new development isn't it. For months, perhaps years before my time gopal has been obsessed with the question of appearance. Prior to this latest round, the theme was specifically whether we can know the other is conscious or a figment. Now it shifts to appearance of any object. When I repeatedly pressed him in the past to say how such knowledge might be useful in a spiritual growth kind of context, this is a spiritual forum wouldn't ya know it, he quite clearly and quite explicitly said there was no value in it, but that the topic was of personal interest to him. Now because he once more finds himself in a defensive position he suddenly announces that it is important to know if objects are real or not, having said previously that it couldn't be known. Now he says we must know because it has something to do with creator mode which sounds like a player level on a video game. The issue whether others are points of perception is not the same as the issue of whether there is an objective world. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 11:28:19 GMT -5
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.Yeah, that's it. The collapse being referenced the 2nd position in the "first there is a mountain, then no mountain, then once again, a mountain," dealy. Getting stuck there results in what we're seeing here. A denial of the phenomenal world. We're talking (trying anyway ) about 3rd position (once again, mountains/full circle) and the fact that despite that previous collapse/realization there is a return to the phenomenal world. The collapse does not result in a complete experiential disappearance of or denial of all phenomenal form, but rather, a new relationship with/to it. (an end of attachment to/identification with, is the basis of that shift) yep well said. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 11:32:50 GMT -5
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? Appearance is appearing. How appearance can have brain or sensory organs? I am completely convinced that you can't get this logic. So Let's give up here. Brains and sensory organs are also appearances. The fact that we say "I/you have a brain" need not mean we are referencing anything more than the 'appearance' of such. You are attaching greater meaning to those words, to all words that label specific items of formed matter that appear, as though to say 'look, I have a hand' is necessarily to believe hands to be something more than appearances. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 11:36:11 GMT -5
when individuals have moved away from you and towards you, do they not have bodies? We know they have no brain, but no legs and arms? Does gopal use his arms for his work? I saw you talking once about a nice walk that you used to go on when you were young, did gopal walk without legs? When gopal watches movies, does he do so without eyes? When I say no brain, no physical body either. Why this is not clear to you? If you're okay with saying that an individual appears, why not that a body also appears....along with a brain, heart, hands, feet....? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2016 11:37:39 GMT -5
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. Well I wasn't referring to "gopals model" I was referring to your position the last few weeks with regard to perception and physicality and how you've related that in the past to consciousness and the brain. What do you imagine is my "support" for "gopals model"? Every time that you chime in about what you imagine my "model" to be you always remain delightfully non-specific as to what that is. And there's a good reason for that. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 11:40:02 GMT -5
I understand that in the absolute context, that brains and sensory organs are appearances. It is a simple idea to understand. But in your attempt to show that there is no relative context, you create a huge mess for yourself. Gopal is an appearance, correct? Tell me about this appearance, if this appearance has no physical body, no brain, no skin etc......? You also talk about gopal in India, gopal that walks and watches movies, gopal that programs computers. i could tell you a hundred things about gopal that gopal has told me. And now you say this same gopal appearance has no body, yet photos of gopal are posted with hair and glasses. You see the absurdity? How can appearance have human body? In the whole 'appearance vs. actual' equation, human body is an appearance. AS are all the apparent working parts. Why the willingness to acknowledge certain appearances in experience, but not others? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 12:00:26 GMT -5
Because he did not understand the logic of 'Everything appears', he thinks that eye in the appearance sees, how funny it is! He did not understand it at the beginning, Once he understood, he slowly takes his steps back. 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. Sure, but you do understand that what you experience may be an illusion, right? It means it may not be what it appears to be, right? The two statements may be contextually true, but one of them is an illusion, right? Does that unbalance the 'equation'? Are they actually equal? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2016 12:01:19 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. What does exist mean here? If you 'interact and respond' and see things and experience things, for the moments while that is happening, aren't you experiencing the existence of 'that world'? |
|
) about 3rd position (once again, mountains/full circle) and the fact that despite that previous collapse/realization there is a return to the phenomenal world. The collapse does not result in a complete experiential disappearance of or denial of all phenomenal form, but rather, a new relationship with/to it. (an end of attachment to/identification with, is the basis of that shift)
