|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:34:28 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. You sure the interstellar fares to Orion are gonna' come down that far by then??  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:35:58 GMT -5
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.  He was very very clear that two opposing ideas cannot be true. He does not think it is true in any context that the eyes are involved with seeing. Im guessing he doesnt understand context but also doesnt want to learn. Your defence has no merit here dude. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 7:38:40 GMT -5
Appearance is appearing. How appearance can have brain or sensory organs? I am completely convinced that you can't get this logic. So Let's give up here. I understand that in the absolute context, that brains and sensory organs are appearances. It is a simple idea to understand. But in your attempt to show that there is no relative context, you create a huge mess for yourself. Gopal is an appearance, correct? Tell me about this appearance, if this appearance has no physical body, no brain, no skin etc......? You also talk about gopal in India, gopal that walks and watches movies, gopal that programs computers. i could tell you a hundred things about gopal that gopal has told me. And now you say this same gopal appearance has no body, yet photos of gopal are posted with hair and glasses. You see the absurdity? Maybe this will help. Let's equate appearance to a reflection in a mirror. appearance = reflection. Does the reflection have a body? No, obviously. Simple, the reflection is merely a reflection, merely an appearance. So Gopal is saying all we ever ~see~ are merely "reflections". Gopal says that which "casts" the reflection comes from Consciousness (only). Idealistically, Gopal's position is irrefutable. Now, andrew and sdp consider it the case that a ~real~ world (or a relatively real world) is what is casting the reflection (in an individuated consciousness). All we can do is say we disagree (although I'm sure I'm right, Gopal can't be refuted, try as you might). If you understand what he is saying, he cannot ve refuted. (But of course he has hundreds of loose ends he just does not care about, he just disregards these. We can't do anything about his choice to leave loose ends). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:39:58 GMT -5
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. Once you define yourself in terms of a set of characteristics you've projected material meaning onto what you're referring to as a totality. This is a a fragmented mind-meaning. This isn't to deny that this meaning is very useful, and also can be related to our emotional reactions to the true totality that we aren't a part of, but are. As useful and poignant as that meaning is, it's not the meaning of life, and doesn't explain what you are. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:43:54 GMT -5
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. Once you define yourself in terms of a set of characteristics you've projected material meaning onto what you're referring to as a totality. This is a a fragmented mind-meaning. This isn't to deny that this meaning is very useful, and also can be related to our emotional reactions to the true totality that we aren't a part of, but are. As useful and poignant as that meaning is, it's not the meaning of life, and doesn't explain what you are. I'm not suggesting otherwise in this conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:46:40 GMT -5
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. He was very very clear that two opposing ideas cannot be true. He does not think it is true in any context that the eyes are involved with seeing. Im guessing he doesnt understand context but also doesnt want to learn. Your defence has no merit here dude. This isn't a a defense pal.  The two opposing ideas you want to be true are just the mental confusion had from overthinking the pointer of "direct perception". This conclusion isn't supported by what gopal wrote, but here again, I applaud your skill at expressing a convincing illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:47:10 GMT -5
I understand that in the absolute context, that brains and sensory organs are appearances. It is a simple idea to understand. But in your attempt to show that there is no relative context, you create a huge mess for yourself. Gopal is an appearance, correct? Tell me about this appearance, if this appearance has no physical body, no brain, no skin etc......? You also talk about gopal in India, gopal that walks and watches movies, gopal that programs computers. i could tell you a hundred things about gopal that gopal has told me. And now you say this same gopal appearance has no body, yet photos of gopal are posted with hair and glasses. You see the absurdity? Maybe this will help. Let's equate appearance to a reflection in a mirror. appearance = reflection. Does the reflection have a body? No, obviously. Simple, the reflection is merely a reflection, merely an appearance. So Gopal is saying all we ever ~see~ are merely "reflections". Gopal says that which "casts" the reflection comes from Consciousness (only). Idealistically, Gopal's position is irrefutable. Now, andrew and sdp consider it the case that a ~real~ world (or a relatively real world) is what is casting the reflection (in an individuated consciousness). All we can do is say we disagree (although I'm sure I'm right, Gopal can't be refuted, try as you might). If you understand what he is saying, he cannot ve refuted. (But of course he has hundreds of loose ends he just does not care about, he just disregards these. We can't do anything about his choice to leave loose ends). Yes. I'm not going so far in this conversation to argue for a real world, my key point is just that one is experienced, and that denying relative truths that pertain to this experience is a problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:48:08 GMT -5
To the boldedWrong, that's not true. Everybody is directly perceiving the reality whether they are realizing it or not. Yes I know, both can't be true. Either you are directly looking or you are looking through your eye. This deception happens because that's the way it appears. Relative context or absolute context are meaningless to this discussion because We are exploring whether we are looking directly or through eye. If physical world doesn't exist in itself, then we are directly looking. 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. I haven't directly perceived as you say. But I have 'directly' seen the integrated expression of universe which clearly gives the clue that universe is not what it appears to be. Logically I can say perceiver can't receive perception from somewhere because perceiver is perceiving act and it can't be separated from the perception. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:50:20 GMT -5
He was very very clear that two opposing ideas cannot be true. He does not think it is true in any context that the eyes are involved with seeing. Im guessing he doesnt understand context but also doesnt want to learn. Your defence has no merit here dude. This isn't a a defense pal. The two opposing ideas you want to be true are just the mental confusion had from overthinking the pointer of "direct perception". This conclusion isn't supported by what gopal wrote, but here again, I applaud your skill at expressing a convincing illusion. There's no confusion at all. The first true statement is that the eyes are involved in seeing. The second true statement is that they eyes are not involved in seeing. Gopal only sees one of these ideas as true, he has been very clear on this. You are a decent litigator but the evidence is right there, so maybe it is time for the lawyer to step down. We can always get the defendant back to confirm that he stands by what he said. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:50:55 GMT -5
Once you define yourself in terms of a set of characteristics you've projected material meaning onto what you're referring to as a totality. This is a a fragmented mind-meaning. This isn't to deny that this meaning is very useful, and also can be related to our emotional reactions to the true totality that we aren't a part of, but are. As useful and poignant as that meaning is, it's not the meaning of life, and doesn't explain what you are. I'm not suggesting otherwise in this conversation. Now you've directly contradicting yourself from a world that you know defined by it's constituent parts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:52:04 GMT -5
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? I am comparing the appearance with image reflection, that would be best example of appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:52:24 GMT -5
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. I haven't directly perceived as you say. But I have 'directly' seen the integrated expression of universe which clearly gives the clue that universe is not what it appears to be. Logically I can say perceiver can't receive perception from somewhere because perceiver is perceiving act and it can't be separated from the perception. o.k. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:53:31 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. I don't understand why Andrew finds so much difficulty to understand this simple logic, I am not dealing with relative or absolute, I am talking about what's the truth. Either 1) We are looking through the eye 2) we are directly looking Both can't be true. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:54:14 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting otherwise in this conversation. Now you've directly contradicting yourself from a world that you know defined by it's constituent parts. The world we know is a world of meaning and to describe that as constituent parts is a mistake. A word association game illustrates the point. Body, brain, head, face, eyes, torso, lungs, air, oxygen, trees, earth, water, planet, universe. There is no actual separation dude, you might want to bin the idea of constituent parts. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 7:54:40 GMT -5
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. Yes, it's a predilection. It's actually a form of Pascal's wager. This "teaching" (I didn't originate it) agrees substantially with nondual "teaching", it says there is no separate person (in Buddhism this would be the idea of no self, but this teaching goes a step further, says there can be a self), but it says there is a possibility, a seed of possibility for real individuality. If the seed does not germinate, you/it dies (we don't know how long possibilities last, but not forever). Now, the teaching says the ~grown-up-mature-seed~ is what can unite with the Wholeness (IOW, again, it either ceases to be or eventually unites with the Wholeness). IOW, this teaching promises something nondualists think they already have, or, alternatively, don't want or can't conceive of. Yes, it's theoretical, until it's not (or no longer is). Reading is theoretical, for most three-year-olds. Winning an Olympic gold medal is theoretical for most people, but it doesn't happen without years of training and practice. How do we know it's true and not conjecture? The teaching is passed down. It originated from people who had verified it. If it is not verified it ceases to be passed down (but it can become an empty shell). |
|
