|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:37:16 GMT -5
It is always obvious when the lawyer has lost. Nice meme, but just because your friends like the and admire illusion you've conjured of some peeps making a problem of the relative doesn't make it anything other than a fantasy. In fact, really, this is just the flip side to that coin, where you ignore the problems and ills of the material world by dismissing all of that by way of the absolute: 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. You misunderstand how this realization informs our conditioning. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:39:43 GMT -5
Who's having a problem with context now?  At least acknowledge the morph if you're gonna' back away from it. In order for someone to agree that you can both perceive through the eyes and directly perceive at the same time they'd have to first agree with you on what you mean by "direct perception". You can squirm all you like here, gopal has made it extremely clear that two opposing ideas involving eyes and perception cannot both be true. When of course they can. You want to complicate this because..well...you've invested some energy in his defence and you hate it when I am right, but gopal couldn't have made it clearer to us. At this point you really should change the plee from innocent to guilty. Notice the latest morph: you didn't present it as "can", you presented it that the two ideas are true. I ain't the one squirmin' here kiddo'.  That you won't acknowledge how you misstated what the supposed "two truths" were is clear prevarication on it's face. Your presentation was based on an incorrect theory of context. The contextual confusion here starts with misunderstanding the pointer of "direct perception". Gopal has since been very open and honest with his thoughts and position with regard to this, while you continue pretend as if you're in the position to teach peeps about it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:40:20 GMT -5
ok but that was last weeks dialog today he's tricked you into saying that peripheral peeps don't have brains. ps: Nostradamus predicts that there will be several choir voices that will amplify that tune over the next 50 pages ...  Nostradamus predicts, yes.  Does birth happen then gopal? What are the qualities and properties of a baby? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:44:22 GMT -5
You can repeat this endlessly but that won't make it a fact of the dialog.  I guess it is only what he said himself. Link or giraffe. What he's said is that eyes are an appearance in consciousness. There was also a dialog about the relation between the body and what you really are. But where did he say that peeps don't have eyes? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:44:27 GMT -5
You can squirm all you like here, gopal has made it extremely clear that two opposing ideas involving eyes and perception cannot both be true. When of course they can. You want to complicate this because..well...you've invested some energy in his defence and you hate it when I am right, but gopal couldn't have made it clearer to us. At this point you really should change the plee from innocent to guilty. Notice the latest morph: you didn't present it as "can", you presented it that the two ideas are true. I ain't the one squirmin' here kiddo'. Your presentation was based on an incorrect theory of context. The contextual confusion here starts with misunderstanding the pointer of "direct perception". Gopal has since been very open and honest with his thoughts and position with regard to this, while you continue pretend as if you're in the position to teach peeps about it. I used the word can because I also used the word cannot. Both those ideas ARE contextually true. Gopal cannot see how they both can be, and are, true. Shall we ask him again? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:45:10 GMT -5
Both statements are the truth, one relatively so, one absolutely so. Is it true that gopal lives in India? Is it true that gopal wears glasses? Is it true that gopal likes Pepsi? "heh heh coke is the real thing so you suck heh heh" |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:46:19 GMT -5
I guess it is only what he said himself. Link or giraffe. What he's said is that eyes are an appearance in consciousness. There was also a dialog about the relation between the body and what you really are. But where did he say that peeps don't have eyes? At around the time he said the Andrew appearance has no torso, head or body. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:49:36 GMT -5
ok but that was last weeks dialog today he's tricked you into saying that peripheral peeps don't have brains. ps: Nostradamus predicts that there will be several choir voices that will amplify that tune over the next 50 pages ... Nostradamus predicts, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:53:32 GMT -5
Appearance are appearing in same way as image of the mirror is appearing to you. Only because light reflects off the silvered glass. If an image of a tree appears in my consciousness that is because I am seeing a real tree in the real outer word with my real eyes. If you disagree prove it is not the case. You're floating an intellectual idea about a pointer beyond intellect. Now, interestingly enough, if you don't stall the intellect in the 19th century, your notion of "reality" is quite easily questioned. .. but it's all just an intellectual game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 8:58:43 GMT -5
Only because light reflects off the silvered glass. If an image of a tree appears in my consciousness that is because I am seeing a real tree in the real outer word with my real eyes. If you disagree prove it is not the case. You're floating an intellectual idea about a pointer beyond intellect. Now, interestingly enough, if you don't stall the intellect in the 19th century, your notion of "reality" is quite easily questioned. .. but it's all just an intellectual game. No it's not any of that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:00:48 GMT -5
Only because light reflects off the silvered glass. If an image of a tree appears in my consciousness that is because I am seeing a real tree in the real outer word with my real eyes. If you disagree prove it is not the case. , are you sure that you would like participate? If so, put a signature that you would not shout later that "it's useless argument'. It's a little harsh but yeah, satch will often express abstract ideas and then when you engage them he's all like "what??  why are you thinking about this stuff??  " |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:01:17 GMT -5
You're floating an intellectual idea about a pointer beyond intellect. Now, interestingly enough, if you don't stall the intellect in the 19th century, your notion of "reality" is quite easily questioned. .. but it's all just an intellectual game. No it's not any of that. like that! Satch: the rest of what you write reveals that you've got quite a bit of intellectual baggage packed into the word "real" that you don't even really seem conscious of. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 9:05:36 GMT -5
Exactly like that! Satch: the rest of what you write reveals that you've got quite a bit of intellectual baggage packed into the word "real" that you don't even really seem conscious of. Did you pack your own suitcase? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:10:25 GMT -5
Another LOA mantra? Seriously?  Your idea of a totality of meaning was to stitch together a set of mind-made object boundaries, so what you and I each mean by an "absence of separation" is, quite obviously very different, despite that it's expressed using the exact same three words. to be clear, but appearances and meaning are absent of separation in the way that the roots of a tree are not separate from the trunk. , well, when you're contradicting yourself by the hour I'm sure that it's inconvenient to be demonstrated that by the archive. The root/tree metaphor is one that I like and wouldn't contradict except for the interjection of the word meaning. I'd even extend it to root/tree/earth, etc .. But the difference between your "meaning" and my meaning is the difference between a monism and not-two. Real meaning can't be expressed by re-aggregating the divided objects of mind, and isn't subject to apprehension by intellect or language. This isn't to devalue relative meaning, only to place it into perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:19:50 GMT -5
Nice meme, but just because your friends like the and admire illusion you've conjured of some peeps making a problem of the relative doesn't make it anything other than a fantasy. In fact, really, this is just the flip side to that coin, where you ignore the problems and ills of the material world by dismissing all of that by way of the absolute: You misunderstand how this realization informs our conditioning. Oh well you're certainly right in that we disagree on the nature and meaning of realization and how that relates to conditioning. But the misunderstanding here is clearly yours, as nothing in what I've written can be construed as denying the importance of the relative, while what you wrote and I quoted there clearly can.  |
|
At least acknowledge the morph if you're gonna' back away from it. In order for someone to agree that you can both perceive through the eyes and directly perceive at the same time they'd have to first agree with you on what you mean by "direct perception". 
That you won't acknowledge how you 
