|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:26:38 GMT -5
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. . Gopal cannot see how they both can be, and are, true. Shall we ask him again? There's no need to ask him again, because, as I stated, he's already expressed where he is on this quite openly and honestly. You, on the other hand, have premised your scenario on bringing the dialog into a circle on a non-existent agreement, as there's no foundation between us for the meaning of "direct perception". This is just mind spin. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:28:38 GMT -5
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 9:30:34 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? Dude, you're the one clutching hope of someone offering proof of the unreality of the appearances in your consciousness. I prefer to travel much lighter.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 9:36:33 GMT -5
Nothing in particular, just an overall relaxation, particularly a release of chronic tension in my head/neck. I also used to have frequent neck strain. I don't understand, how does this relates to your eye power? In the physical context, the eye muscles can develop a chronic tension resulting in a distortion of the eyeball and lens, altering the accommodation. Over time, the release of that tension allows the shape to return to normal. In the context of Consciousness as creator, emotional tension can express in the body as the unwillingness to 'see clearly'. Resolving that emotional tension is expressed in the body as Peace and a return to normal functioning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 9:37:29 GMT -5
Did you pack your own suitcase? Dude, you're the one clutching hope of someone offering proof of the unreality of the appearances in your consciousness. I prefer to travel much lighter. How can an appearance in consciousness be unreal if it..... appears? You're confused. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 9:41:44 GMT -5
You suggested that in his 'model' nothing can be done to shift the path, implying that the doing is pointless. I'm saying the doing is part of the shifting. You really don't see how that connects to nonvolition? If all is predetermined as Gopal has suggested, that means that 'the path' is pre- set. Thus, if all is predetermined, the path, or outcome, does not actually shift, even though it might appear to. This is what I said: "So, in your model, there is nothing at all that can be done or seen that would shift path?" I agree doing is part of the experience of things shifting, but if all is truly predetermined, nothing actually ever 'shifts' from the set outcome, does it? There's no 'set outcome' and everything you do influences that outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:42:08 GMT -5
Dude, you're the one clutching hope of someone offering proof of the unreality of the appearances in your consciousness. I prefer to travel much lighter. can an appearance in consciousness be unreal if it..... appears? You're confused. If you were sincere with your question I'd be happy to engage, but not for the purposes of trying to prove anything. Do you understand why I can't prove what you'd like me to prove? But I don't think you're sincere at all, because you're not taking ownership of your mental process here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 9:43:50 GMT -5
You know this is the useless argument, are you sure that you would like participate? If so, put a signature that you would not shout later that "it's useless argument'. If these eyes are not real, where is your proof? No, That's not your experience, you are perceiving is your experience. We both are interpreting that perceiving in two ways. I am talking about the world which is clearly presented to me, you are talking about the world which is born out of speculation. More clearly, you have never seen a moon which is dangling in the sky instead you are always seeing the inner moon and speculating the outer moon but I am not doing that, I am simply seeing what's appearing to me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 9:44:00 GMT -5
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? There's no need to ask him again, because, as I stated, he's already expressed where he is on this quite openly and honestly. You, on the other hand, have premised your scenario on bringing the dialog into a circle on a non-existent agreement, as there's no foundation between us for the meaning of "direct perception". This is just mind spin. This is the core of the issue right here: Gopal: Either 1) We are looking through the eye 2) we are directly looking Both can't be true. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=5439#ixzz4KWZsmtyf*** They can, and are, both true. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 9:46:58 GMT -5
"heh heh coke is the real thing so you suck heh heh" Once again  Pepsi IS not coke! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 9:48:52 GMT -5
How can an appearance in consciousness be unreal if it..... appears? You're confused. If you were sincere with your question I'd be happy to engage, but not for the purposes of trying to prove anything. Do you understand why I can't prove what you'd like me to prove? But I don't think you're sincere at all, because you're not taking ownership of your mental process here. I have no idea who else could be the owner of my mental processes. I'll check the documentation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 9:50:19 GMT -5
You know this is the useless argument, 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??  " Yes, exactly every time he does this, I don't understand why! He did the same thing in whether other individual is real or not argument as well. If he considers something useless, then better he could stay away right? But he intrude by suggesting something, but once he knows he can't win over the argument Or once he knows that I am correct then he start to speak like what's the use this argument! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:50:48 GMT -5
There's no need to ask him again, because, as I stated, he's already expressed where he is on this quite openly and honestly. You, on the other hand, have premised your scenario on bringing the dialog into a circle on a non-existent agreement, as there's no foundation between us for the meaning of "direct perception". This is just mind spin. This is the core of the issue right here: Gopal: Either 1) We are looking through the eye 2) we are directly looking Both can't be true. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=5439#ixzz4KWZsmtyf*** They can, and are, both true. You're not raising any new point with this, just restating the start of the dialog from two hours ago. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 9:52:07 GMT -5
"heh heh coke is the real thing so you suck heh heh" Once again Pepsi IS not coke!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 9:55:00 GMT -5
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?? " Yes, exactly every time he does this, I don't understand why! He did the same thing in whether other individual is real or not argument as well. If he considers something useless, then better he could stay away right? But he intrude by suggesting something, but once he knows he can't win over the argument Or once he knows that I am correct then he start to speak like what's the use this argument! Come on gopal I'm waiting. What is your proof that the external world is not physical and only exists as an appearance in consciousness. |
|
Pepsi IS not coke!