|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:10:47 GMT -5
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 ..  .. lol I'm hearing you here dude. I think I'm about to step back a bit, though I have a feeling that Enigma and me are not quite done yet (it's only been seven years after all). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:12:10 GMT -5
That doesn't look much like patient to me.   Okay, that's better. Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 16, 2016 14:12:22 GMT -5
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 from certain folks .. Oh - are you talking about the what-happens-in-a-dream-is-the-same-as-waking-life thingy? I think that's just a philosophical inquiry - can we absolutely know that we're not in some sort of dream. No, we can't. But it doesn't really matter, to me anyway. I believe the real purpose of the dream analogy is to get us to question if what we believe is actually true. It's supposed to be symbolic, not actual. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:12:54 GMT -5
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. who would start to analyze? Consciousness or the appearance? Consciousness can hit Consciousness? Or appearance can hit appearance? Perhaps appearance can hit Consciousness or Consciousness can hit appearance? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 14:13:19 GMT -5
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'). I can see whether people are conditioned to act or not but I can't know whether they are real or not. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 16, 2016 14:14:11 GMT -5
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. Exactly. #NeverTrump (in this context). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:14:59 GMT -5
When I say my eye, that's an imaginary eye through which I am looking through that. I was saying this to figgles because I knew what would be her next question. Eye doesn't exist in itself, Consciousness is directly looking at what it is seeing. So when I have a power in my eye(imaginary eye),that means consciousness creates the perception as if I have slight sight problem, So when I wear a glasses(another appearance), it starts the create the perception as if I have the clear vision. So eye doesn't exist in itself. Do you know the story of the Emperor with no clothes? If not, read it. Do you know what to do when you have painted yourself into a corner? Do you? Seems to me you're pretty much screwed.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:15:33 GMT -5
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. No, not all. There is the appearance of cause and effect. There is the appearance of order, laws, reliability. There is, 99.99999% of the time a one-to-one correspondence between the interaction of individuation and this reliability of the external world responding, enough for one to get in a car and expect the oncoming driver not to hit you head-on. I understand Gopal, theoretically, but theoretically is not going to pay your electric bill next month. These questions show drive one to a find a deeper understanding of the universe. That's the purpose of the .000001%. FWIW, Gopal has a lot of company...."These are not the droids you're looking for"... |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2016 14:16:05 GMT -5
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 .. .. lol I'm hearing you here dude. I think I'm about to step back a bit, though I have a feeling that Enigma and me are not quite done yet (it's only been seven years after all). I went through the same process princess .. I have time for E cos his energy some how leaves the door open some what butt with the other chap .. there comes a time when the door is well and truly shut and locked with a padlock .. You just can't carry on conversing with that sort of energy .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 14:16:15 GMT -5
Do you know the story of the Emperor with no clothes? If not, read it. Do you know what to do when you have painted yourself into a corner? Do you? Seems to me you're pretty much screwed. Yeah he is, this is not the first time every time he goes in a same routine. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:16:44 GMT -5
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. Exactly. no what's been asked of you is far less ambitious than that. You're just being asked if there is a context in which it is true that 'people are conditioned' (for example). I don't think anyone has asked you to make contexts equal. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:17:40 GMT -5
I feel the same. If Peter had done this, He wouldn't have done this. A compromise has been reached, she is here, she still posts, her universe is just a little smaller than most. Really, my interest isn't in her, just in the idea of a lifetime ban for posting irritating nonsense. However, it seems to be just a rumor. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:18:51 GMT -5
It's not complicated, and Plato's right. Trees are ideas. Do you think people would understand betterer if we said, 'treeness is an idea" rather than "trees are ideas?" Probly not. Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:20:26 GMT -5
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. Nonsense. To say that appearances appear in Consciousness is an incredibly simple idea. Anything perceived is an appearance. No appearance is connected or caused by any other appearance. It's that simple. What I have been asking you is if it's contextually true that the conditioned people that you speak of have brains and skin and sensory organs. I'm not talking within the context of Consciousness and appearances there. I'm talking WITHIN the context that you created when you spoke of 'conditioned people'. I'll give you another example of that. You ask people about their own nightly dreams thus creating a context in which people fall asleep and dream. Then when people respond to you from within that context, you shift back to the Consciousness/appearances context. So often you do this. You speak in a relative context, and then when you are responded to in a relative way, you say...'no, that's nonsense' lol. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:22:56 GMT -5
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. It's not quite that..the word 'appearing' requires a non-obvious thought. It's simpler even than that. |
|
..
..
