|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:22:02 GMT -5
My position has remained completely unchanged since I entered the foray. My point from the beginning is that it is a mistake to deny the relative, even if the relative is just...the relative  Then you forgot where you entered, because in each case you morphed satchi's "the eyes see"/"the eyes know" into "the eyes are sense organs". You morphed satchi's "the eyes perceive" into "you cannot see without the eyes". And now you've morphed that. Conversations weave, but my point remains unchanged....relatively the eyes are involved with perception. I am sure that was satchs point too. If gopal had said, yes that is true relatively but absolutely that is not the case......then there would likely have been no follow up. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:23:09 GMT -5
''not an illusion''....''as it seems''. Whether or not trees are as they seem depends on how they seem to you. If they seem like energetic knotty structures or whatever, then no, they are not what they seem. I'm just giving you a definition. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:25:39 GMT -5
Gopal doesn't like to acknowledge arguments in one context while he's trying to make a point in another context. One of the reasons is likely that the context flipping has an agenda behind it and he doesn't want to open the door to that agenda. In any case, I understand his reluctance, and I don't find that to be an interesting point of self deception. Like everybody else he wants to be understood, and so far the only one who has made it clear that he does understand is pilgrim. As you noticed, it didn't matter to Gopal that Pilgrim didn't agree, only that he understood. What would be more useful than both sides repeating their rather obvious points for weeks would be to address the point of whether or not those two contextual perspectives are actually equally valid. I believe both Andy and
Sasquatch believe they are, and this may be the actual point of contention. brown bear. In fact, the cartoon was subtitled "absolute and relative confusion". The brown bear sees the absolute as more valid, which is a confusion as to what constitutes the absolute context. The absolute transcends, it is fundamental, but not more valid. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:29:25 GMT -5
The miracles may or may not have happened. My guess is that most of them are just fairytales. Probably all of them. For instance, it makes a far more compelling story if Joseph accepted Mary as pregnant with an unknown earthly sperm donors kid. It actually explains much of what Jesus said about his heavenly father and his attitudes about peeps in general. But the fact that intellect has discovered the bounds of solidity for what it is not only can't be denied, the impact of this on the culture and peoples ideas about their reality is unmistakable, and yeah, how people conceive of the world they live in does influence how they interact with it. How couldn't it? How can anyone with a sense of conceptualized identity (unconscious or otherwise) not define themselves to some degree by what they think of where they find that identity playing itself out? The message I got from the Zen sources was to suspend any and all of that, and just look, listen, touch and taste. This comported quite well with those physical activities in life I enjoyed the most, and after having the thinking process implode by following Tolle's advice, the Zen message was credible. But quite obviously, the koans are meant to disrupt and sow the kind of confusion to the world view that precipitates, motivates and catalyzes direct interaction and direct perception. If peeps conception of the world doesn't matter, why bother with the koans at all? If it doesn't matter, then why make the point of "real as rock"? Incidentally, "real as a rock" demonstrates my disdain for the term 'real', as rocks are also appearances in Consciousness. Is your rock made of something? For example, could it be granite? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:35:55 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. Its jus that the consciousness-appearance model or context doesnt adequately address the subject of suffering. When talking about suffering we have to talk about individuation and body mind and individual mind and conscious mind and beliefs.....we have to compare babies with adults and animals etc etc. The consciousness-appearance model can't cope with that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:38:32 GMT -5
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. I think you missed the point here. Brain waves verify a brain is the point I think. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:41:53 GMT -5
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? That's funny. Does the car have doors? Does it have a trunk? Does it have windows? An appearance that has nothing is not an appearance! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:46:09 GMT -5
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? Every image has attribute, and that's where it gets interesting because the story of attributes don't begin and end easily. A person usually has arms, legs, torso and lungs which breathe air. An image or appearance without an attribute is not an image or appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:54:55 GMT -5
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. But how would you know it is a brain if it has no attributes....if there is no tissue etc Your knowledge that it is a brain is connected to the infinite web of knowledge....it all weaves together. So the knowledge of the brain is connected to knowledge of the body is connected to knowledge of the planet. Without the web of knowledge there is no knowing that what you are looking at is a brain. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 3:58:02 GMT -5
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. As I was just saying, its all just a web of meaning and knowledge, none of which should be taken seriously (except when I am in the midst of a debate hehe) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 4:08:56 GMT -5
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? But live people have real lived experiences. Once again, you are experiencing the movement of appearance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 4:10:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Andrew has those things. So your understanding of an appearance is different to gopal's. Gopal's appearances are not allowed to have attributes, so a body has no brain and sensory organs, a car has no engine or wheels. A house would have no kitchen, or lounge, or stairs. You are different I think, you basically say the world that we know is an appearance.That's what I am saying too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 4:11:32 GMT -5
Then you forgot where you entered, because in each case you morphed satchi's "the eyes see"/"the eyes know" into "the eyes are sense organs". You morphed satchi's "the eyes perceive" into "you cannot see without the eyes". And now you've morphed that. Conversations weave, but my point remains unchanged....relatively the eyes are involved with perception. I am sure that was satchs point too. If gopal had said, yes that is true relatively but absolutely that is not the case......then there would likely have been no follow up. What's happening is what I am talking about. The way it appears need to be the truth. It may appear like you are looking through eye, but what's happening is, you are directly looking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 4:12:41 GMT -5
Incidentally, "real as a rock" demonstrates my disdain for the term 'real', as rocks are also appearances in Consciousness. Is your rock made of something? For example, could it be granite? What do you mean when you see yourself in the mirror? you are appearing there,right? That image is made of what? body and blood? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 4:13:48 GMT -5
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? That's funny. Does the car have doors? Does it have a trunk? Does it have windows? An appearance that has nothing is not an appearance! Whatever you see is an appearance. When you see a car door, door is appearing. |
|
