|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 16, 2016 12:04:21 GMT -5
I'm saying consciousness does not wake up locally. Falling asleep, on the other hand, happens locally.
If the attractive dynamic you are talking about is relative to Gopal (the appearance), the idea that others cannot be in the same type of dynamic implies that consciousness wakes up locally, and only locally.
Meaning the implication is #1. Although I don't really like the idea of 'real' individuals if we're talking about waking up.
To sum up one last time, you were talking about attraction within the context of seeing through the illusion from a place of clarity. You mentioned others cannot be in the same dynamic you are in, because the other appearances are too busy working for you. This implies that consciousness is only seeing through the illusion of separation through Gopal.
 I'm not saying consciousness wakes up locally. That statement is part of an "if/then" thingy.
When you say other people are too busy working for you, and they cannot be a part of the same dynamic as you because of this, the if/then statement was an implication of what you're saying, as opposed to a point I'm trying to get across. The implication is grounded on faulty logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 12:04:22 GMT -5
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.  well, my position is, relatively speaking, that the eyes are involved in seeing in a way that the toes are not. It's not more complex than that. I might also say that human beings see in a way that this chair does not. Relatively, I think science does explain some stuff! I have a context FOR science truths. Your support for gopal tends to be suggesting that the questions asked are Dufus questions, which in my opinion, serves to protect the endangered brown bear species.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 12:04:40 GMT -5
That's an illusion I am pointing out. If everything is appearing which includes your eye as well, then how could you see through your eye? If everything is appearing, then aren't you seeing the appearing directly(not via anything)? is dependent on the function of the eye, and perception in general is direct to consciousness. Now that the obvious has been stated lets draw it out for another whole week. (*flabbergasts*)  And one can make such contradictory statements and say 'Oh, well, contradiction happens. Get over it.' Or one can say that one statement is true and the other illusion. Why wouldn't that make more sense? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 12:06:54 GMT -5
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? Everyone here knows what is meant by 'what you experience may be an illusion'. But 'actual' and 'illusion' are intellectual ideas. If they serve a purpose that is useful, great. But whatever happens, what you experience, is what you experience |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2016 12:07:35 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. My preference is never to cede the concept of my humanity to the people peeps. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 12:07:40 GMT -5
That's an illusion I am pointing out. If everything is appearing which includes your eye as well, then how could you see through your eye? If everything is appearing, then aren't you seeing the appearance directly(not via anything)? It doesn't matter what I think. I can't see if I close my eyes. It is your experience also. It matters what you see/notice/realize beyond your thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 12:09:45 GMT -5
Sight is dependent on the function of the eye, and perception in general is direct to consciousness. Now that the obvious has been stated lets draw it out for another whole week. (*flabbergasts*) And one can make such contradictory statements and say 'Oh, well, contradiction happens. Get over it.' Or one can say that one statement is true and the other illusion. Why wouldn't that make more sense? 'illusion' is a word given here to describe the relative, which never goes away. That's not to say that 'seeing illusions for what they are' has no value. I would say it does. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2016 12:14:17 GMT -5
Relax, I'll have it posted by 4:30. Swear to God.  likely story.  .. and it would clear everything up once and for all ... just sad see .. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2016 12:19:30 GMT -5
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. well, my position is, relatively speaking, that t he eyes are involved in seeing in a way that the toes are not. It's not more complex than that. I might also say that human beings see in a way that this chair does not. Relatively, I think science does explain some stuff! I have a context FOR science truths. Your support for gopal tends to be suggesting that the questions asked are Dufus questions, which in my opinion, serves to protect the endangered brown bear species. Well, when you morph your position like that you're definitely channeling doooofus guy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 12:20:33 GMT -5
As I said, a lifetime ban seems severe. We have had to ban several spammers and trolls in the past because they refused to quit spamming or trolling. One or two of them asked for permission to return and promised to abide by the rules. They were allowed back, and they stopped spamming and trolling completely. One or two of them asked for permission to return, and they were allowed back, but they continued spamming or trolling. They then had to be banned permanently because it was obvious that they were unwilling to abide by the general rules. One guy refused to quit cursing and using explicit obscenities, and it took a lot of time and effort to erase all of his posts (he was also a spammer and he posted almost as fast as his posts were erased). We then had to ban multiple IP's that he subsequently tried to use. There are no hard and fast rules about this, and I, for one, no longer make any effort to discuss specific cases. It's all subjective. If I see a marketing post on the discussion board, I no longer take the time to transfer the post to the marketing section; I just erase it. If it happens repeatedly, then I ban the IP. The same sort of thing happens with spammers and trolls, and I think Peter is taking the same approach. There are one or two threads in the moderated discussion section where foodfights and argumentativeness seem totally inappropriate to me. If someone puts up a foodfight post or a personal attack in one of those threads, I simply erase it as soon as I see it. No warning and no discussion at all. I assume that the poster will get the message, and confine foodfighting or personal attacks to other threads. Okay. Apparently it was just a rumor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 12:33:00 GMT -5
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'? You are creating and perceiving, but usually when we believe in separation, we tend to believe that we are perceivers, So we tend to solve the problem outside. But once we know we are creators, we start to look within ourselves to check where something goes wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 12:34:24 GMT -5
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? What's the difference between something experienced as an illusion and something experienced that is not an illusion? How could I tell them apart? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 12:35:17 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. Consciousness looks at the appearance, Consciousness experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 12:36:18 GMT -5
Seems to me it's mostly that some peeps don't want to talk about it in a spiritual context. That would only be useful on a spiritual forum. Exactly. Satch would be the best example for that. The issue seems to be that some want to make the two contexts equal, but I say there is a hierarchy to contexts and they are not all equally true. For example, religious cults and conspiracy theorists have their own contexts that encompass their belief systems, but they are not equally valid with all other contexts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 12:45:52 GMT -5
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? I don't know, but I know both are true. The reason follows 1)Clarity re-create the reality which says my consciousness has fallen into the delusion. 2)People in our life has been stamped with certain characters and they have been removed when I reach to the clarity. First one proves that I create the reality. Second proves that everything has been predetermined. So your illusion and your clarity and your change because of your clarity has all been predetermined to happen. Otherwise we can remove the predetermination concept but in that condition other individual can't be real. |
|
.. and it would clear everything up once and for all ... just sad see ..