Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:50:57 GMT -5
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. Pluuuuseeeeee Stop. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:52:49 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. See? He won't back down. What? What do you mean by 'won't back down'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:53:40 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. "In creator mode", what does that even mean? (It's the tail wagging the dog). If everything is appearing, then you are the creator of that appearance, If not, you are simply perceiving that appearance which is coming from outside. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:54:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2016 13:55:50 GMT -5
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? Everything that appears is of the mind .. There are however processes in regards to how things appear . Our mothers don't just appear . There is a lengthy process that differs from the imagination and the dream state conjuring up a pink elephant You can imagine a elephant in an instant, butt you can't conjure up your mother in an instant in the same way .. This is the context that many have been speaking of relating to what is real and what is a figment in relation to what appears ... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 13:56:39 GMT -5
You cannot make that jump. Look at yourself in a mirror. Everything is reversed. Say you have a bandaid on your left thumb. Look at it, on left thumb. Now look at the bandaid thumb in the mirror, it appears to be on your right thumb. Why would a mirror matter to consciousness? Why are the two appearances different? ....and what does that even mean, you are looking directly? I'm thinking that there is literally no science in gopal's model. He cannot offer science as a relative truth. Everything has to be explained by the absolute context. Except he is a computer programmer so obviously as he goes about his day he is engaging with relative truths all the time. So it's interesting that he cannot acknowledge relative truth here. Last weekend on BBC America they had 50 year anniversary of Star Trek marathon. It's on my top three all-times favorite TV programs, I've probably seen every episode (most if not all from the original air time). Saw again one called Shore Leave. They go to this earth-like planet, but uninhabited. They soon realize that things they think about come instantly into being, Alice and the White Rabbit, a Japanese fighter aircraft, an old nemesis of Captain Kirk, an old love of Captain Kirk. Bones gets killed. Eventually the Caretaker of the planet shows up (at the end of the show) and says, sorry, we didn't realize you didn't know the purpose and function of the planet, we make stuff according to your thoughts, for recreation or to relive a past event. And then Bones shows up, not-dead. Captain Kirk asks about the technology for such possibilities. Caretaker says, I can see you are not ready for such knowledge. This is an example of Gopal's thinking, he thinks the universe bends to him (people appearing and disappearing, for his personal benefit, etc.), hubris. ZD understands much better than Gopal how all this works, but Gopal will not listen to ZD. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:56:39 GMT -5
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. He is not understand what's the meaning of everything is appearing, I am very serious. He is asking If I am appearing, then animals are appearing as well? He is asking, If brain is appearing or eye is appearing, then leg is also appearing? Did you see the poor level of his understanding? Andrew clearly is not understanding the core of what we have been talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 16, 2016 13:58:59 GMT -5
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? Everything that appears is of the mind .. There are processes in regards to how things appear . Our mothers don't just appear . There is a lengthy process that differs from the imagination and the dream state conjuring up a pink elephant You can imagine a elephant in an instant, butt you can't conjure up your mother in an instant in the same way .. This is the context that many have been speaking of relating to what is real and what is a figment in relation to what appears ... If I can imagine an elephant, I can also imagine my Mom. In the same way. If you're talking about physically conjuring her up into my immediate presence, I'd have better luck doing that with an elephant since Mom died a few years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:00:18 GMT -5
I don't talk about whether or not things are real. As I've said many times, the term no longer makes sense to me. ''not an illusion''....''as it seems''. Real means if someone punches you really hard in the face, there is blood and a broken nose. Simple. And tomorrow and for a week, black and blue and pain. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 14:00:43 GMT -5
I'm thinking that there is literally no science in gopal's model. He cannot offer science as a relative truth. Everything has to be explained by the absolute context. Except he is a computer programmer so obviously as he goes about his day he is engaging with relative truths all the time. So it's interesting that he cannot acknowledge relative truth here. Last weekend on BBC America they had 50 year anniversary of Star Trek marathon. It's on my top three all-times favorite TV programs, I've probably seen every episode (most if not all from the original air time). Saw again one called Shore Leave. They go to this earth-like planet, but uninhabited. They soon realize that things they think about come instantly into being, Alice and the White Rabbit, a Japanese fighter aircraft, an old nemesis of Captain Kirk, an old love of Captain Kirk. Bones gets killed. Eventually the Caretaker of the planet shows up (at the end of the show) and says, sorry, we didn't realize you didn't know the purpose and function of the planet, we make stuff according to your thoughts, for recreation or to relive a past event. And then Bones shows up, not-dead. Captain Kirk asks about the technology for such possibilities. Caretaker says, I can see you are not ready for such knowledge. This is an example of Gopal's thinking, he thinks the universe bends to him (people appearing and disappearing, for his personal benefit, etc.), hubris. ZD understands much better than Gopal how all this works, but Gopal will not listen to ZD. Yes, I WILL NOT LISTEN TO HIM because ZD's understanding towards the personal self hood is illusion is very basic realization, that would only give you the grip towards the reality, that doesn't change anything though that's the first realization one must have. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:03:21 GMT -5
I have been answering all your question in a very reasonable way. But you don't seems to be getting me. Gopal, your posting is way up in the clouds, virtually completely abstract. You don't post as if the world exists, but it obviously does or what's in your mind would not reach others via the internet. Comprende? What's obvious is that the world is appearing to you. That's all. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2016 14:04:32 GMT -5
Everything that appears is of the mind .. There are processes in regards to how things appear . Our mothers don't just appear . There is a lengthy process that differs from the imagination and the dream state conjuring up a pink elephant You can imagine a elephant in an instant, butt you can't conjure up your mother in an instant in the same way .. This is the context that many have been speaking of relating to what is real and what is a figment in relation to what appears ... If I can imagine an elephant, I can also imagine my Mom. In the same way. If you're talking about physically conjuring her up into my immediate presence, I'd have better luck doing that with an elephant since Mom died a few years ago. Well I was referring to conjuring up an imaginary elephant in relation to a mother that is physically present . The physical reality and the realm of imagination are related butt are also miles apart .. This is relevant and this is something that has been ignored, overlooked, dodged, unanswered by certain folks .. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:05:52 GMT -5
Yes, Gopal doesn't think Andrew has brain,heart,sensory organs. Yet Andrew can fall asleep at night, does have characteristics (that move him towards and away from gopal), does live in England, can post messages.... You see? Your model is bursting at the seams here. It's amazing what a little chewing gum will do....but then of course, you have to chew it (if you have no teeth, you can't chew)...so yes...bursting... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:08:11 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. so now the people appearances are conditioned. Okay, I'll back off a bit. SDP asked you the key question, I don't know whether you can, or will, answer it. Maybe you can't...that's okay, it is what it is. When you say stuff like 'people are conditioned', I know your answer to the question he is asking you anyway, whether you know it or not (it's a 'yes'). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:09:06 GMT -5
Yes the statement is a fact as you say. It cannot be refuted. This is the key. Deal only with what you know and experience right now in the moment and forget about idle speculation. Saying that of course leaves me open to Laughter pulling out a bunch of posts from the archive demonstrating my mental gymnastics, but hey, what the heck. As for Enigma. He is being - how shall we say - contrary in his support for the Ruler of the Universe. Precisely. Gopal negates everything he uses to communicate in the first place. When Gopal reads this, is he sitting at a computer somewhere? Yes. When Gopal responds to a post, is he sitting at a computer and typing or speaking to a computer interface? Yes. He actions negate his own argument. Period. Almost everything he says is a (virtually) useless abstraction. What he's saying is that everything is an appearance in Consciousness. Why doesn't that include his computer? |
|
