|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:24:52 GMT -5
Do you think people would understand betterer if we said, 'treeness is an idea" rather than "trees are ideas?" Well....Plato believed that the "Idea" tree comes-before a physical tree. Most of us here (or at least the general population) would say a physical tree comes before 'treeness is an idea' (because trees existed before people existed). No, Plato is still right. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:25:49 GMT -5
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? Sure, I understand. But in Gopal's universe there is no individuation, nada, zip, zilch, zero, nunca, goose-egg, ought, naught, 0. If everything is merely an appearance in Consciousness, the Consciousness is just master-debating, and I'm very sure Consciousness has better things to do than master-debate. Andrew raised a very pertinent related point which I'll try to speak to next. Individuation and duality allows for polarity and making love, not merely master-debating. (And of course Gopal is not alone in his view, so this is for all concerned)... It takes 1 & 0 to manifest, that is, two. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Nothing is not nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2016 14:26:10 GMT -5
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. Well we are verging on the realms of the mind being real, imaginary, dreamy, illusory blah blah blah .. Thats why context and environments are key ... Everything is of the mind, butt there are differences in regards to how things appear, be it the dream I had last night or the experience I had of flicking an elastic band in my co workers eye today  ... We can all relate to the different platforms in regards to appearances .. These platforms are governed by certain laws .. If a peep wants to ignore them or somehow override them in some kind of absolute context then they are fooling themselves .. It's ever so easy and straightforward to carry out experiments in regards to this . As already stated, try conjuring up your physical mother and then try conjuring up a pink elephant on the same platform .. It's impossible and this impossibility is key to context .. and is key to what appears and how it appears .. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:26:56 GMT -5
Not my eyes, my imaginary eyes. In a dream, if you got in a fight and someone poked a stick in your eye and gouged it out, when you wake up your eye is just fine. But if you are dreaming you are in a fight and the same happens, and you wake up and your eye is gouged out, you weren't dreaming, you were actually in a fight. Do you understand the difference? You really do think Gopal is hopelessly deluded. Funny! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:28:40 GMT -5
In a dream, if you got in a fight and someone poked a stick in your eye and gouged it out, when you wake up your eye is just fine. But if you are dreaming you are in a fight and the same happens, and you wake up and your eye is gouged out, you weren't dreaming, you were actually in a fight. Do you understand the difference? You really do think Gopal is hopelessly deluded. Funny! gopal self-deludes himself for sure. He tricks himself into thinking that he doesn't hold relative truths to be true. It's very harmless in its own way though. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:31:08 GMT -5
Well....Plato believed that the "Idea" tree comes-before a physical tree. Most of us here (or at least the general population) would say a physical tree comes before 'treeness is an idea' (because trees existed before people existed). I haven't read Plato closely enough to be sure what he thought. You're right about the general population, but I was referring to people on the forum who have thought about these issues a bit more than the general population. I know exactly what E. means when he writes that trees are ideas because I know the difference between what a tree IS and the idea/image/symbol/meaning "tree." When we say that people imagine "trees" this doesn't mean that nothing is there or that something is there. It means that there is a difference between ______________________and whatever we imagine ABOUT ______________________. When we look at the world non-conceptually, we see ________________. When we talk ABOUT ___________________, we say things like "that's a tree." In such a case the image, idea, and symbol are superimposed imaginatively upon ___________________. As Tony Parsons might say, "No one has ever seen a tree!" haha Actually, I'm saying that ultimately the entire universe is imagined into apparent existence, and isn't even 'out there'. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:34:13 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'). Precisely. If people can be conditioned then they are not merely appearances. If they were appearances then Consciousness would be responsible and there would no necessity of a mediated conditioning process, Consciousness would just make-it-happen. To admit to conditioning would be to admit to an individuation which is not merely an appearance, IOW, an action outside the flow of Consciousness, a kind of ~rebellion~ against the flow of Consciousness. (For me that would be the very purpose of duality, twoness). [See post above] |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:36:11 GMT -5
You really do think Gopal is hopelessly deluded. Funny! gopal self-deludes himself for sure. He tricks himself into thinking that he doesn't hold relative truths to be true. It's very harmless in its own way though. No, I don't think he is, I just think he is not posting honestly. And if you can't post honestly, why post? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:38:20 GMT -5
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'). Precisely. If people can be conditioned then they are not merely appearances. If they were appearances then Consciousness would be responsible and there would no necessity of a mediated conditioning process, Consciousness would just make-it-happen. To admit to conditioning would be to admit to an individuation which is not merely an appearance, IOW, an action outside the flow of Consciousness, a kind of ~rebellion~ against the flow of Consciousness. (For me that would be the very purpose of duality, twoness). [See post above] big yes to the bolded. Not sure about the rest...maybe you will say more at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:39:16 GMT -5
I haven't read Plato closely enough to be sure what he thought. You're right about the general population, but I was referring to people on the forum who have thought about these issues a bit more than the general population. I know exactly what E. means when he writes that trees are ideas because I know the difference between what a tree IS and the idea/image/symbol/meaning "tree." When we say that people imagine "trees" this doesn't mean that nothing is there or that something is there. It means that there is a difference between ______________________and whatever we imagine ABOUT ______________________. When we look at the world non-conceptually, we see ________________. When we talk ABOUT ___________________, we say things like "that's a tree." In such a case the image, idea, and symbol are superimposed imaginatively upon ___________________. As Tony Parsons might say, "No one has ever seen a tree!" haha I understand perfectly. Gopal understands this also, but Gopal believes there are no trees, period (nothing called a tree in an exterior world, nothing which we give the name tree to, for him there isn't even an exterior world) there are only appearances of trees. Gopal has only one context, period. I'm trying to point out actually the correctness of your position. However....I think I'm really done this time with Gopal....... Gopal doesn't understand that even though "no one has ever seen a tree" this doesn't mean there are no trees. It does, actually. The brown bear video addresses this point directly. Mr brown bear is not wrong that the tree is an illusion, and Mrs brown bear's objection is not on philosophical grounds. She would not say he is wrong, just missing the human experience of the tree. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2016 14:39:35 GMT -5
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'). If they were appearances then Consciousness would be responsible and there would no necessity of a mediated conditioning process, Consciousness would just make-it-happen. To admit to conditioning would be to admit to an individuation which is not merely an appearance, IOW, an action outside the flow of Consciousness, a kind of ~rebellion~ against the flow of Consciousness. (For me that would be the very purpose of duality, twoness). [See post above] Zackley .. it boils down to what constitutes a figment and what constitutes a real peep .. This is why the 'mother' was mentioned in the first instance in regards to whether a figment mother can give birth to a real peep . As per usual no straight answer lol .. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:40:31 GMT -5
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. I think the camel has its nose under the tent, now. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:41:40 GMT -5
gopal self-deludes himself for sure. He tricks himself into thinking that he doesn't hold relative truths to be true. It's very harmless in its own way though. No, I don't think he is, I just think he is not posting honestly. And if you can't post honestly, why post? I'm sure he thinks he is posting honestly. If he didn't think that, I don't think anyone would talk to him. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:43:25 GMT -5
All discussion is not about freedom from suffering. And also I believe you are not qualified to talk about freedom from suffering because you are not free yet. Who or what can be free from suffering? In your model there is only conciousness and appearances....so can consciousness be freed from suffering or the appearance? It's a good question. Actually, nobody is freed. Nobody, nothing ever gets enlightened. It's one of those wacky spirichool thangs. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 16, 2016 14:43:58 GMT -5
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. Well we are verging on the realms of the mind being real, imaginary, dreamy, illusory blah blah blah .. Thats why context and environments are key ... Everything is of the mind, butt there are differences in regards to how things appear, be it the dream I had last night or the experience I had of flicking an elastic band in my co workers eye today ... We can all relate to the different platforms in regards to appearances .. These platforms are governed by certain laws .. If a peep wants to ignore them or somehow override them in some kind of absolute context then they are fooling themselves .. It's ever so easy and straightforward to carry out experiments in regards to this . As already stated, try conjuring up your physical mother and then try conjuring up a pink elephant on the same platform .. It's impossible and this impossibility is key to context .. and is key to what appears and how it appears .. Ok. Gopal is the only one who refuses to discuss different contexts, but that doesn't automatically infer that he's ignoring them or trying to override them. I have no idea what it infers, other than he gets a charge out of an argument (as he himself stated). Everyone (including Gopal, I'm pretty sure) understands that there is a relative context where there's a difference between an imagined pink elephant and your mother. Some will acknowledge it and some won't. I'm getting the impression that the 'won't' group thinks it would be stepping into some kind of trap. Whatever that means.  |
|
...