|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 13:31:29 GMT -5
So do appearances have characteristics? Is the appearance that is a human being characterized by having brains, hearts and sensory organs? Nobody has brains,hearts or sensory organs. If other one is real, then they are also consciousness perceiving from another view point. See? He won't back down. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 13:34:38 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. "In creator mode", what does that even mean? (It's the tail wagging the dog). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 13:38:01 GMT -5
I can't figure it out either. I don't see circular thinking in that. Maybe you can sue the publisher of the dictionary for allowing your picture to be printed without your consent.  He simply write whatever he wants, I guess. Every-time he lands on and started to support me and then he started to advice me that what I believe is not practical but I wouldn't agree and then he used to get angry and say to me that I wouldn't read your post hereafter and I wouldn't respond to you hereafter, He has been playing this childish game for a long time which I really got bored of .   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:38:02 GMT -5
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.
It's clearly not faulty. I am saying people who has been conditioned to act in a certain way(their conditioned to act in a certain way is important to perform or carry out a certain action) would be removed when I reach to clarity. So other people who has been conditioned to act in a certain way was not accident, it's deliberate action of Universe. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2016 13:41:14 GMT -5
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? All this pointing out in regards to questioning whether gavin has a brain lol, reflects upon gavin being real or not . Does an imaginary appearance in an imaginary mind-body play ping pong lol .. (without a brain) Geez .. Where is the nearest wall to bang my head against .. I don't know if gav is real or not butt I can't understand how he puts so much spin on the ball ..  .. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 13:41:19 GMT -5
They don't care about your point. Andrew has made that clear repeatedly. Does that matter? Andrew was trying to refute my view so far. I haven't seen him trying to refute it so much as trap you into acknowledging his view as equally valid. (maybe I missed something) He has acknowledged that everything is an appearance in consciousness, he just doesn't care. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:41:50 GMT -5
I don't know anything about "a lifetime ban." 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. clearly not a rumor, I believe he banned her permanently. Was it not a life time ban? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:43:49 GMT -5
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? You are directly seeing is not an illusion, you are seeing through your eye is an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 13:44:18 GMT -5
He's not interested in your point. Does that matter? I know what's his view but I know he is wrong, that's why I am not interested. So neither of you is interested in the point the other is trying to make, and yet the discussion goes on. That might explain why neither of you feels like you're being heard/understood. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:44:38 GMT -5
Exactly. Satch would be the best example for that. , 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. Exactly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:46:30 GMT -5
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? You would start to analyse how you have created a particular situation rather than trying to hit others. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 16, 2016 13:46:52 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. There's a difference between not wanting to change contexts (which is understandable) and refusing to discuss the fact that there are contexts. This is a pattern with Gopal. When the conversation turns to the implications of what he's said, suddenly whoever he's talking with is incapable of understanding. Or he gives his "ok" - basically meaning "conversation over". Andrew and Satch both acknowledged and showed their understanding of what he is saying, within that context. Gopal refuses to acknowledge any other context. I find that odd. I also find your use of the word 'agenda' odd. If the issue is the validity of both contexts, would that be the agenda? Do you mean hidden agenda? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:49:04 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. Exactly, I am highly concern about people are not understanding what I am saying and started to make fun of me, best example is tenka. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:49:45 GMT -5
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. That's really funny. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 16, 2016 13:50:53 GMT -5
I don't think it's hogwash. Images of what's around us appear in our brains and get interpreted by our conditioning (beliefs and such). Depending on what those beliefs are and how strongly we are attached to them, the difference between what's actually there and what one sees can be so far off as to be unrecognizable. On the spiritual path, maybe attachment to beliefs loosen or dissolve or the belief itself might drop away. Then the difference between actual and perceived gets closer. (We get clearer). But we're still perceiving through the brain and still dealing with images and interpreting them. The question then becomes - what's actually there that generates the image? You can point to a lot of woo woo stories to conclude that 'what's there' isn't actually anything solid. I can go with that, having seen a few woo woo things myself. What I can't go with is that we're making all of it up. We're making up our interpretation, yes, but the essentialness, the noumenon, exists - just as I exist. The limit of "it's all appearance in consciousness" shows up when we see suffering. The limit shows up if the stories don't matter. To me, it makes much more sense to say it's all consciousness. Peeps have been speaking about mothers 'just appearing' in consciousness similar to those dream characters that just appear in consciousness . I have been making clear distinctions how our mothers come about and how the pink elephant in our dreams come about . Certain folk on the forums suggest that certain things like our physical eye doesn't exist as it just appears in consciousness .. What my angle presents is having an understanding how an eye comes to be .. It doesn't just appear does it .. A physical eye doesn't appear in the non physical realms does it .. So why the need for a physical eye of the physical plane? A few of us have established / acknowledged / experienced that an eye of the physical environment allows us to perceive our present environment .. What others are saying regarding the eye does not exist and such likes is a nonsense as the saying goes .. Aren't you doing the same thing - not acknowledging a context? Do you in any way see that there is a context where what we 'believe' to be our mother is, in fact, an appearance in our minds? |
|
..
