|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:45:27 GMT -5
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. I would say the expression is freed (but I do get the 'nobody/nothing gets enlightened') |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:46:45 GMT -5
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. If Mr Brown bear is sleeping in the woods, and a giant oak falls on him and a 4 ft. limb gouges his brain out and a buzzard comes by and eats his brain, does Mrs (or Mr) Brown bear say trees don't exist? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 14:48:58 GMT -5
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. OK, maybe he's honestly deluded. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:49:54 GMT -5
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.  I agree that gopal does know the (contextual) truth that he lives in India and Andrew lives in England (to give another example). So you might be right that there is an element of thinking that a trap is being set, though I'm not seeing that there is one. Aside from that, it does make for awkward conversation when someone frames a question in a relative way, and then when the answer is given relatively, it is then negated. Perhaps from my side, it also feels like I am being set up at times...kind of like...don't ask me relative questions and then tell me I'm wrong when I give a relative answer. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 14:52:01 GMT -5
Those stories are true. Andrew is an expression of finiteness and lack. The story is that it's just a story and you are something more. I could agree that Andrew as a finite expression is a true story, but do not agree that the lack story is true. Well, maybe you like the idea of lack, but a finite expression defines that something is not included in the expression. The expression is incomplete by definition. There will be needs and desires that drive the movement of your experience. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2016 14:52:34 GMT -5
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. Well it seems that some relate to the dream state in the same breath / context as the waking world . Andy and I were pushing this point till our faces turned blue .. in regards to the differences not the samenesses . You obviously can see the difference between what I am saying rather than the sameness .. The difference is the key .. not the sameness even though there is only what we are .. Your mom, your imaginary elephant can only exist in mind .. butt as said, how they appear depends on a lot of things, they just don't appear in consciousness out of thin air ... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 14:53:23 GMT -5
I could agree that Andrew as a finite expression is a true story, but do not agree that the lack story is true. Well, maybe you like the idea of lack, but a finite expression defines that something is not included in the expression. The expression is incomplete by definition. There will be needs and desires that drive the movement of your experience. Basically agree. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 16, 2016 15:04:19 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. Ok. When we were talking about the attraction dynamic and you made the statement, "No because they are too busy working for me", I was questioning the implications of the statement. The implications are clearly faulty. Whether or not they are logical implications from your statement would depend on what you mean by "no because they are too busy working for me". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 15:05:00 GMT -5
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. OK, it's very complicated, nobody ever, here, seems to understand, but it's one reason I say I am not a non-dualist. There is all there is. There can't be anything outside all there is (by definition). But I say there is an Originating Consciousness, Oneness, Wholeness. As an expression of (Its Own) creativity, the Oneness ~makes a~ twoness, the unmanifest, manifests. For this to even be possible, Oneness draws-a-line/makes-a-cut. So now there is Oneness (still Whole, Complete, meaning, has not fallen into its own dream) and an otherness. The otherness is not outside the Oneness (by definition there can't be anything outside all that is), but the otherness allows for independence, for independent decisions. And the original Oneness can enjoy seeing something happen which is outside of its control, can see creativity evolve....and eventually even, come-back-to-union-with-Oneness (the spiritual journey).... or, allow the otherness (individuated "person-hood", at least potential consciousness) to wither and die and cease to-be. That's a very high price, but that's the choice Oneness made, and is making... |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 16, 2016 15:11:30 GMT -5
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. I agree that gopal does know the (contextual) truth that he lives in India and Andrew lives in England (to give another example). So you might be right that there is an element of thinking that a trap is being set, though I'm not seeing that there is one. Aside from that, it does make for awkward conversation when someone frames a question in a relative way, and then when the answer is given relatively, it is then negated. Perhaps from my side, it also feels like I am being set up at times...kind of like...don't ask me relative questions and then tell me I'm wrong when I give a relative answer. All traps are imagined.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 15:13:16 GMT -5
I agree that gopal does know the (contextual) truth that he lives in India and Andrew lives in England (to give another example). So you might be right that there is an element of thinking that a trap is being set, though I'm not seeing that there is one. Aside from that, it does make for awkward conversation when someone frames a question in a relative way, and then when the answer is given relatively, it is then negated. Perhaps from my side, it also feels like I am being set up at times...kind of like...don't ask me relative questions and then tell me I'm wrong when I give a relative answer. All traps are imagined. No, you're not paranoid if they are out to get you. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 15:13:59 GMT -5
big yes to the bolded. Not sure about the rest...maybe you will say more at some point. OK, it's very complicated, nobody ever, here, seems to understand, but it's one reason I say I am not a non-dualist. There is all there is. There can't be anything outside all there is (by definition). But I say there is an Originating Consciousness, Oneness, Wholeness. As an expression of (Its Own) creativity, the Oneness ~makes a~ twoness, the unmanifest, manifests. For this to even be possible, Oneness draws-a-line/makes-a-cut. So now there is Oneness (still Whole, Complete, meaning, has not fallen into its own dream) and an otherness. The otherness is not outside the Oneness (by definition there can't be anything outside all that is), but the otherness allows for independence, for independent decisions. And the original Oneness can enjoy seeing something happen which is outside of its control, can see creativity evolve....and eventually even, come-back-to-union-with-Oneness (the spiritual journey).... or, allow the otherness (individuated "person-hood", at least potential consciousness) to wither and die and cease to-be. That's a very high price, but that's the choice Oneness made, and is making... I think I agree with that...except....I would say the otherness allows for seeming independence. I don't think it's an actual independence, but for the purpose of the exercise, this seeming independence is enough. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 16, 2016 15:15:31 GMT -5
big yes to the bolded. Not sure about the rest...maybe you will say more at some point. OK, it's very complicated, nobody ever, here, seems to understand, but it's one reason I say I am not a non-dualist. There is all there is. There can't be anything outside all there is (by definition). But I say there is an Originating Consciousness, Oneness, Wholeness. As an expression of (Its Own) creativity, the Oneness ~makes a~ twoness, the unmanifest, manifests. For this to even be possible, Oneness draws-a-line/makes-a-cut. So now there is Oneness (still Whole, Complete, meaning, has not fallen into its own dream) and an otherness. The otherness is not outside the Oneness (by definition there can't be anything outside all that is), but the otherness allows for independence, for independent decisions. And the original Oneness can enjoy seeing something happen which is outside of its control, can see creativity evolve....and eventually even, come-back-to-union-with-Oneness (the spiritual journey).... or, allow the otherness (individuated "person-hood", at least potential consciousness) to wither and die and cease to-be. That's a very high price, but that's the choice Oneness made, and is making... Well, I understand it. And it has a certain amount of elegance to it - no apparent contradictions. But I can't help but see it as conjecture. I mean, how could anyone know if that's true? You're basically describing the origins of consciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 15:46:51 GMT -5
Reach clarity.  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 16, 2016 16:56:40 GMT -5
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. Mr brown bear says unequivocally 'there is no tree', but clearly there is a phenomenological experience designated tree (beyond the concept, at the level of sensation). Really it doesn't make much sense to talk about that as illusion in the same way it doesn’t to talk about it in terms of real. Rather, better to envisage the tree as being illusory in nature, see clearly how there is no inherently existing or abiding tree, and that the experience tree arises, conditionally. This is the middle way. |
|
...
