|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 17, 2016 6:10:34 GMT -5
I don't think it's hogwash. Images of what's around us appear in our brains and get interpreted by our conditioning (beliefs and such). Depending on what those beliefs are and how strongly we are attached to them, the difference between what's actually there and what one sees can be so far off as to be unrecognizable. On the spiritual path, maybe attachment to beliefs loosen or dissolve or the belief itself might drop away. Then the difference between actual and perceived gets closer. (We get clearer). But we're still perceiving through the brain and still dealing with images and interpreting them. The question then becomes - what's actually there that generates the image? You can point to a lot of woo woo stories to conclude that 'what's there' isn't actually anything solid. I can go with that, having seen a few woo woo things myself. What I can't go with is that we're making all of it up. We're making up our interpretation, yes, but the essentialness, the noumenon, exists - just as I exist. The limit of "it's all appearance in consciousness" shows up when we see suffering. The limit shows up if the stories don't matter. To me, it makes much more sense to say it's all consciousness.But if you say it's all consciousness aren't you saying the physical stuff is all appearance in consciousness? That's all Gopal's saying. That's not all Gopal is saying. He's saying that the physical stuff doesn't exist. I'm saying our interpretation of the physical stuff is an appearance in consciousness (doesn't have an existence in and of itself) but stuff actually exists and is consciousness manifesting (as are we). The difference between me and a rock is that I think I know what the rock is.  The fact that I don't actually know what a rock is, that I only know how it appears to me, doesn't mean it's not actual. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 17, 2016 6:13:20 GMT -5
Yes they can. It is just a matter of context. Right. And it's only a matter of context when discussing it. As far as what's lived and experienced, they're both just true. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 6:34:38 GMT -5
Both are true. One is absolutely true, one is relatively true. Either you are perceiving the world through your eye Or you are directly perceiving the world, both can't be true. It depends on the peep and the circumstances. Some peeps have never had a single moment of direct perception, others fade in and out of it. Watch the confusion here, which is deliberate: for a human being to have the experience of sight, the how of that experience will always involve use of their eye. This distinction you've made about how the experience is happening isn't about that, it's about what happens after that, if anything. Essentially, what andy means by "relative truth" is: think of yourself as a machine. The machine can be observed to operate according to certain rules. Obviously that line of thinking breaks down and no longer applies at the point of this question of direct vs. indirect "perception", except for the fact that indirect perception is always through the medium of some sort of conditioned machine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 6:47:27 GMT -5
Either you are perceiving the world through your eye Or you are directly perceiving the world, both can't be true. It depends on the peep and the circumstances. Some peeps have never had a single moment of direct perception, others fade in and out of it. Watch the confusion here, which is deliberate: for a human being to have the experience of sight, the how of that experience will always involve use of their eye. This distinction you've made about how the experience is happening isn't about that, it's about what happens after that, if anything. Essentially, what andy means by "relative truth" is: think of yourself as a machine. The machine can be observed to operate according to certain rules. Obviously that line of thinking breaks down and no longer applies at the point of this question of direct vs. indirect "perception", except for the fact that indirect perception is always through the medium of some sort of conditioned machine. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 6:52:18 GMT -5
But the body that is looking in the mirror does not have the same properties as the reflection. One is a body, the other is a reflection. You know this....it has meaning to you. Either way though, they both have properties, which goes against your argument that an appearance has no properties. Even if I said that the mirror image was the same as the real body, it still has legs, arms, torso etcYes, but why the hell is it not having brain? Lol bodies have brains, mirror reflections don't have brains because they are mirror reflections. Their function is to be a mirror not to be a body |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 6:52:51 GMT -5
I live and when I reach clarity that reorganize the universe, that would put me into the creator mode, that's the reason I am interested in the area of whether outer world exist or not, whether other individual is real or not. But in the case of you, you haven't met any such realization, So this is all irritating you. "In creator mode", what does that even mean? (It's the tail wagging the dog). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 6:55:22 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? Pilgrims understand but he doesn't understand. He start to speak like he understood, but after a couple of minutes he ask 'are you sitting infront of the computer, yes?' Pilgrims is a funny man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 6:56:05 GMT -5
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.  What's he reading The Holy Trinity of Bears? Papa Bear, Baby Bear and Holy Consciousness Bear? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 6:57:23 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. Funny! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:01:48 GMT -5
Yes they can. It is just a matter of context.  For example, it is true to say that gopal lives in a house. It is also true to say that there is no gopal, there is no house, there is only the appearance of gopal living in a house. Of if you prefer, there is only the appearance of gopal and the appearance of a house. Though in your model, gopal has no arms, legs, torso or eyes and the house has no door, windows or roof hehe. 2 opposing truths can be true. It is true that your glasses assist your seeing. It is also true that your glasses have nothing to do with seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:04:48 GMT -5
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. Funny! What's funny is that you don't understand that an appearance has to have qualities and properties in order to be an appearance. These qualities and properties are not separate from all other qualities and properties. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:06:34 GMT -5
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. But noone argued the dooooofus guy point with you. Statements always have context, and gopals mistake was taking yours seriously as an interjection in his dialog with satch at the time. It's not the eyes that "see". I assure you that gopal is arguing those points. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:09:09 GMT -5
It depends on the peep and the circumstances. Some peeps have never had a single moment of direct perception, others fade in and out of it. Watch the confusion here, which is deliberate: for a human being to have the experience of sight, the how of that experience will always involve use of their eye. This distinction you've made about how the experience is happening isn't about that, it's about what happens after that, if anything. Essentially, what andy means by "relative truth" is: think of yourself as a machine. The machine can be observed to operate according to certain rules. Obviously that line of thinking breaks down and no longer applies at the point of this question of direct vs. indirect "perception", except for the fact that indirect perception is always through the medium of some sort of conditioned machine. In terms of relative intellectual truth that mind can understand in mechanistic terms direct perception is a fallacy. It's only a pointer. The human condition is always a fact of life for any human being. But if it's understood and approached as a pointer instead of the cornerstone of a theoretical model, it can lead to some pretty cool states of body and mind. People peeps can have moments of direct perception that they realize as direct perception as it's happening which they then tell stories about after the fact. Their stories vary from peeps that have realized that they are always directly perceiving, and both sets of descriptions also vary from peeps who've never consciously directly perceived in their entire lives. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:10:59 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 Actually, I'm saying that ultimately the entire universe is imagined into apparent existence, and isn't even 'out there'. Yeah, I don't understand why Zendancer confuses much. Your statement is pretty simple and expressive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:12:03 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] Successfully you entered into the andrew level of understanding. Congrats. |
|
The fact that I don't actually know what a rock is, that I only know how it appears to me, doesn't mean it's not actual.
