|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 22:44:50 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. Yes, I know, that's why I write ~real~ especially for you, means relatively real, more-or-less. You used the word 'real' just for me because you know it makes no sense to me?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 22:51:37 GMT -5
Excellent question.I think we would all agree Consciousness (big C) doesn't suffer. Yet suffering exists. This has to be accounted for. Is suffering merely an appearance? (Does that mean illusion?) The apparent problem is caused by our need to conceptually separate that which is inseparable. We separate consciousness from that which appears in/as consciousness, and then declare that the consciousness 'part' doesn't suffer and the appearance 'part' is just an appearance, then ask what it is that suffers if not consciousness or the appearance. Do you see how we created our own dilemma with these ideas? This is why I say these higher 'truths' aren't ultimately true. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 22:57:00 GMT -5
I see all experience as physical i.e sense of taste, sense of smell, sense of feeling etc. You can't have it both ways...you use the example of nightly dreams to show that both waking state and nightly dreams are an appearance in Consciousness. Well both, equally, are also physical experience. If you are going to acknowledge the existence of an Andrew, with sensory organs, brain and heart, who can feel both happy and sad, then I can adjust my answer. To enigma, in the context of dreams, certain brain waves are present, IOW, there is a verfiable physical manifestation. Brain waves don't make dreams physical. They're still just thoughts and images in the brain. You wouldn't say that imagining a pink elephant right now results in something physical, even though you could measure the brain activity involved in that imagining. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 23:05:21 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. Okay. So the 'mode' shifts according to what we believe and thus, how we respond to problems? We are always in creator mode, so what changes is our knowing. Once after you know this, you never try to create anything because you know you have already been creating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 23:06:41 GMT -5
Yes they are appearances, I said the person who appear can't have brain within himself, How can appearance have brain?The same way a car can have an engine. Both are appearances. The thing which is appearing can't have anything, it's simply appearing. Is the car which is coming in movie has the engine? Isn't Just a image? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 23:08:46 GMT -5
Body appears, I said many times. Everything appears. So why did you say; Yes, no physical body, no brain, no eye. Everything is appearing. Assume what happen when you watch a movie, Isn't it just a image? The person who is coming in the movie is just a image,right? How come that image can have brain? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 23:09:27 GMT -5
Everything appears, your body,my body. Whatever is visible to me is appearing. I said appearance can't have anything, because appearance is appearing. Why? The 'having' is simply another aspect of the appearance. Yes, everything exist only in appearance, If you see the brain of the person, then brain is appearing. But there is no brain in itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 23:11:14 GMT -5
I never care anything goes further or not, argument always moves me according to my rollercoaster. Infact the more appropriate word would be My rollercoaster takes the expression in the form of argument. nonsense posing as an answer. What? Can you explain me? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 23:16:46 GMT -5
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 . Peeps seem overly concerned that you're not writing the way you're sposed to.  I am supposed to? I was following in some way and now I am not following it?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 23:24:16 GMT -5
Where am I assuming? I am consciousness and I am perceiving everything, It happens both in my dream and in my reality. Aren't I? Yes. But you are making everything in-between a black box, it's not, we know a lot about in-between (but not nearly everything). There's nothing in between. Well, maybe a little greasy spot. Watch your step. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 23:30:34 GMT -5
I haven't gotten to your answer to my "in any context" question. So, to qualify your answer to andrew, Do you mean to say?: in any context, no. Yeah again, that is the key....we're just looking for one measly context lol throw us a bone here gopal! Im not sure he gets the idea of contextual truths or relative truths though, it took me a couple of years talking on forums to get it. I used to argue categorically that there was no choice and no free will, and then I was shown that there are always different ways to see things. All depends on our viewing angle, and when we speak on a forum we are always taking a particular angle. When gopal compares animals to humans he is taking a physical body angle. He can say afterwards 'in truth there are no physical bodies', but he has then changed his angle. Sure, there are always smaller, less viable, contexts to take refuge in. You've turned it into an art. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 0:25:03 GMT -5
Okay. So the 'mode' shifts according to what we believe and thus, how we respond to problems? We are always in creator mode, so what changes is our knowing. Once after you know this, you never try to create anything because you know you have already been creating. okay. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 17, 2016 1:27:07 GMT -5
Psst...Ask him about Pepsi.  What makes Gopal have wet dreams if he has no-body? His Room mate?  Alf! Where you been?
I haven't been following much along, but why the hell are you writing about wet dreams I fear to ask...
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 17, 2016 1:40:57 GMT -5
All this 'everything appears' stuff is hogwash .. isn't it .. I went through this in great length regarding everything appears and I got no answer regarding HOW everything just appears . It is vital to understand the nature of what appears and how that appearance comes to be .. Otherwise peeps might think that the magic hat just conjures stuff out of thin air like I have suggested many times before . There was the notion that what appears comes to be just cos a perceiver perceives it lol, and that explanation held no foundation / weight based upon many examples I gave that questions such a notion and no further answers were received as to how the perceiver actually creates a physical bus or moon simply by bringing it into existence .. As you and I have discovered and a bunch of others here on the forums, the answers given are not answers as such .. It's the classic dodge and morph technique .. Andy has already agreed with Gopal that everything is an appearance in consciousness, so ignore whatever he tells you to placate you and keep you as an ally against the evil Gopal. Well everything is perceived in or of the mind / consciousness .. I don't think there is anyone here that disputes that .. What is lacking though are explanations of how things come about from certain peeps . This lack of understanding across the various platforms regarding what is perceived as an appearance speaks volumes .. When a peep has to guess that they had a physical birth and one doesn't know if there mum is real yada yada yada, then their life is a little messed up if they truly live by their convictions ... butt we all know that certain peeps don't live by their beliefs, so it's difficult, near impossible to take them seriously .. If one did live by their convictions then there would be a convincing theory that they hold that would explain their understandings in fine detail . The fact that there are no straightforward answers to straightforward questions reflects more of a delusion or fantasy had than anything else . There are a bunch of us here that see the flaws in what a peep says and what a peep does .. I suppose we are brothers in arms in this respect, butt it more of a common sense thing .. I mean if a peep believes that a bus is created by simply perceiving it and can't for the life of them manifest a bus at will then what's a peep going to do about the price of fish .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 1:43:04 GMT -5
What makes Gopal have wet dreams if he has no-body? His Room mate? Alf! Where you been?
I haven't been following much along, but why the hell are you writing about wet dreams I fear to ask...
It's been such a long while for me, I had forgotten all about it... till Yogurt's post. He's so stimulating. Had a wonderful active time away from the Gaol, got alot done. I am trying to keep physical; I noticed when I do nothing my fleshy-bits seize-up. Here's hoping your boat is afloat and you have created a new Sail. Send me a pic please...(in colour)  |
|
