|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:12:36 GMT -5
What's he reading The Holy Trinity of Bears?  Papa Bear, Baby Bear and Holy Consciousness Bear? Nah, he's just obsessed with the best recipe for porridge.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:13:35 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. If appearance is mere figments, then those conditioning of those figments are arising from you. If appeared individual is real, then those conditioning is arising from their perspective of consciousness, it's that simple. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:15:46 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. I am in india, you are in England, It's all appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:18:13 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] Successfully you entered into the andrew level of understanding. Congrats. Conditioning is a process that happens in time. It pertains to the relative. For example, gopal has been conditioned to use computers. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:18:49 GMT -5
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. I've read along closely enough to know that he hasn't argued the point that a peep needs eyes for the sense perception of sight. What he has done is try to explain how that point is unrelated to what he means by the idea that the eye is an appearance in consciousness. The doooofusness about seeing with your toes is all premised on a straw man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:19:12 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. 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". Appearance of other individuals happens according to my individual, So that tells me that they are working for me. This can happen at two condition 1) God has fallen into his own dream(but in this case, I must be the only individual who is real) 2) A mysterious force is doing this Job for it's own purpose. If other individuals are real and if mysterious force is absent, then their aspect of consciousness try as possible as it can to flourish their life. It would never work for me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:21:31 GMT -5
big yes to the bolded. Not sure about the rest...maybe you will say more at some point. If appearance is mere figments, then those conditioning of those figments are arising from you. If appeared individual is real, then those conditioning is arising from their perspective of consciousness, it's that simple. An appearance that has no qualities or properties and does not exist in time, cannot be conditioned. Only a body with a brain and a mind can be conditioned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:21:37 GMT -5
Yes, 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 That's why I am saying appearance don't have brains within themselves. If you break their head, then it unfolds in such a way that you could see the appearance of brain. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:23:34 GMT -5
I assure you that gopal is arguing those points. I've read along closely enough to know that he hasn't argued the point that a peep needs eyes for the sense perception of sight. What he has done is try to explain how that point is unrelated to what he means by the idea that the eye is an appearance in consciousness. The doooofusness about seeing with your toes is all premised on a straw man. He just stated that only the absolute is true, that two opposing ideas cannot be true, therefore there is no truth to the idea that eyes are involved in seeing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:23:38 GMT -5
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. We are talking whether outer world exist or not. Leg,hands,hair and everything else which I am perceiving right now is appearance. I think you would understand this truth in your next birth, but please patiently wait, don't worry tenka would accompany you. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:27:33 GMT -5
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 That's why I am saying appearance don't have brains within themselves. If you break their head, then it unfolds in such a way that you could see the appearance of brain. Well the first error is to compare an appearance to a mirror reflection, because a mirror reflection is a mirror reflection, not a body. Does this head that can be broken have the property of breakable bone? Does this head have a skull? Does it have eyes? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:30:13 GMT -5
No you're not though. In the world we know, a car has, and is defined by, its wheels, steering wheel, trunk etc. The body we know is defined by its arms, legs, eyes, brain etc. In addition to this, when we know something, it is defined by what we know of everything else. So, when we see a car, it is not only defined by what we know about cars, but also what we know about everything else. When a car is perceived, all of our knowledge comes into play. So there is never just a single image, a single image contains our whole universe. When you see yourself in mirror, you are seeing your own image, That image has brain,leg and hands? Your image is metaphorical, andy's image is literal, and then related to the metaphor by way of stitching together an imagined set of parts. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:30:14 GMT -5
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. We are talking whether outer world exist or not. Leg,hands,hair and everything else which I am perceiving right now is appearance. I think you would understand this truth in your next birth, but please patiently wait, don't worry tenka would accompany you. I understand that legs, hands etc are an appearance. What is the property and quality of a leg? How do you know it is a leg? Now you are talking about birth! Since when does birth have any place in your model? Are babies born? What are the qualities of a baby? Does it have head and skin and legs? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:31:27 GMT -5
I've read along closely enough to know that he hasn't argued the point that a peep needs eyes for the sense perception of sight. What he has done is try to explain how that point is unrelated to what he means by the idea that the eye is an appearance in consciousness. The doooofusness about seeing with your toes is all premised on a straw man. He just stated that only the absolute is true, that two opposing ideas cannot be true, therefore there is no truth to the idea that eyes are involved in seeing. Notice how you have to go through an indirect logical process to put those words into his mouth.  I must congratulate you on how well you do this. Practice does make perfect, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:33:19 GMT -5
When you see yourself in mirror, you are seeing your own image, That image has brain,leg and hands? Your image is metaphorical, andy's image is literal, and then related to the metaphor by way of stitching together an imagined set of parts. The totality of meaning and knowledge is not divided into separate parts, and does not need stitching. It is fully interwoven and every meaning plays into every other meaning. No perception or image or appearance stands alone. |
|
Papa Bear, Baby Bear and Holy Consciousness Bear? 
