Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 12:54:59 GMT -5
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. Yes they are appearances, I said the person who appear can't have brain within himself, How can appearance have brain? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 12:56:34 GMT -5
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....? Body appears, I said many times. Everything appears. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 12:58:47 GMT -5
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? Everything appears, your body,my body. Whatever is visible to me is appearing. I said appearance can't have anything, because appearance is appearing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 13:06:27 GMT -5
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.  My position has remained completely unchanged since I entered the foray. My point from the beginning is that it is a mistake to deny the relative, even if the relative is just...the relative |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 13:08:34 GMT -5
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. Solve the problem outside or inside what? What looks within ourselves...Consciousness or appearance? What is found within? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 13:09:15 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. They want to say something absurdly obvious in the physical context, over and over again. Andrew talks in the spiritual context often. In this particular case, he's apparently intrigued by Gopal's refusal to talk about the relative context. I've also noticed this skirting of direct questions and find it interesting. As you've said many times, seeing where we're deceiving ourselves can be helpful. Gopal doesn't like to acknowledge arguments in one context while he's trying to make a point in another context. One of the reasons is likely that the context flipping has an agenda behind it and he doesn't want to open the door to that agenda. In any case, I understand his reluctance, and I don't find that to be an interesting point of self deception. Like everybody else he wants to be understood, and so far the only one who has made it clear that he does understand is pilgrim. As you noticed, it didn't matter to Gopal that Pilgrim didn't agree, only that he understood. What would be more useful than both sides repeating their rather obvious points for weeks would be to address the point of whether or not those two contextual perspectives are actually equally valid. I believe both Andy and Sasquatch believe they are, and this may be the actual point of contention. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 13:12:14 GMT -5
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. I would say that IF what you are is Consciousness, then you are prior to what is experienced. So what you are doesn't feel happy or sad, what you are is untouched by all feelings and sensations. It is the EXPRESSION of Consciousness that feels happy or sad. The body-mind is an expression of Consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 13:12:50 GMT -5
I don't see a problem in wanting to be / feel in any particular way that one isn't presently being / feeling ... If one was content with feeling like sh!te all the time then there is the potential for that peep to feel like sh!te all the time .When self enquiry comes to the fore as an example, one must want nothing else other than to realize what they are wholeheartedly ... A burning desire to realize what one Is, is part of the parcel of what can eventually transpire .. If it appears to be detrimental somehow for a peep to want to be happy instead of sad, positive instead of negative, realized instead of unrealized, then one could potentially never do anything about anything .. Firstly, what's the problem with being content all the time? Secondly, one cannot feel bad all the time. Duality won't allow for it. You don't need to engage in a battle to feel good. You will feel good half the time regardless. You'll also feel bad half the time, which is why transcending the whole good/bad experience is a good thing. Wanting to do that is not in the same category as wanting to feel good all the time. The former is possible, the latter is not. I would say the balance is qualitative not quantitative. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 13:16:54 GMT -5
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. Relatively, contexts are hierarchical, but absolutely, they are not. Within the absolute context, it's not that one context is a little bit more true than other...no matter what context it is, it's not True. The absolute transcends the relative by definition, but this creates a paradox. It means that they are equal. It means that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. It means the relative is valid as the absolute. It means that it's ALL Divine, it's ALL Sacred, it's ALL God. There is not not one aspect that is more or less God than any other aspect. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 13:18:41 GMT -5
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. You have a consciousness? There are people in your life? Do they have brains and hearts and sensory organs? Tell me about these people please, this sounds suspiciously like a relative context. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 13:19:47 GMT -5
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. Yes they are appearances, I said the person who appear can't have brain within himself, How can appearance have brain? Do these people in your life that you just spoke of, have brains? Does Navin have a brain? Do the table tennis players have brains? I'll soften it, the way that sdp has kindly done for you... Is there ANY context in which it is true that the people in your life have brains? is there ANY context in which it is true that Navin has a brain? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 13:21:21 GMT -5
Andrew talks in the spiritual context often. In this particular case, he's apparently intrigued by Gopal's refusal to talk about the relative context. I've also noticed this skirting of direct questions and find it interesting. As you've said many times, seeing where we're deceiving ourselves can be helpful. Gopal doesn't like to acknowledge arguments in one context while he's trying to make a point in another context. One of the reasons is likely that the context flipping has an agenda behind it and he doesn't want to open the door to that agenda. In any case, I understand his reluctance, and I don't find that to be an interesting point of self deception. Like everybody else he wants to be understood, and so far the only one who has made it clear that he does understand is pilgrim. As you noticed, it didn't matter to Gopal that Pilgrim didn't agree, only that he understood. What would be more useful than both sides repeating their rather obvious points for weeks would be to address the point of whether or not those two contextual perspectives are actually equally valid. I believe both Andy and Sasquatch believe they are, and this may be the actual point of contention. They are equal, but ONLY because the absolute transcends the relative. So it's a paradox. If they weren't equal, they would be separate. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 13:25:25 GMT -5
Yes, I agree, but, again, it is not accurate to say everything ~being reduced to~ ONE, negates that-which is formed from Consciousness (ONE). (See response to ZD). I missed where somebody negated that which is formed from Consciousness. I agree that's not 'accurate'. Aw-come-on-now, you did the very same thing, on the effortlessness thread, Gopal is now doing. I finally kept pressing you and you finally caved (admitting context and ~relativity~). I thought Gopal finally caved in saying, yea, one of my eyes is weaker than the other, that's why I wear glasses, but then he took that back. I don't think Gopal is capable of seeing from more than one context. Hoping to get to an answer by him today.......(the any question). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 13:26:52 GMT -5
I saw this cartoon once, a guy is driving down a one-way street, and he was meeting traffic, everyone else was going the other way, and he said to himself, "Why is everyone going the wrong way"? I understand perfectly what you are saying in an absolute context, I could even agree with you in an absolute context, however, there is a simpler explanation concerning how the world we live in actually operates, meaning, we operate under the rules of a relative context. I went to school with a guy who played tennis. A tennis ball hit him precisely in the eye. The eye changed colors and he went blind in that eye. Consciousness, in an absolute context, didn't alter his imaginary eye in his imaginary body. In a ~real~ relative context, a speeding tennis ball in an actual physical universe caused him to lose eyesight in that one eye. Now, I know this will not break you down and cause you to change your mind, but I need a real excuse to never read a single post of yours again and never post to you again. Your response will give me that reason. Have a wonderful life Gopal. Okay, That's great. It's not great, an answer would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 13:29:42 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. See? He won't back down. |
|
