Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 14:06:46 GMT -5
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. Ok on the two conditions I'm pretty sure my question was premised on the possibility of more than one condition, the possibility of you (as appearance) working for them and vice versa. That's why I didn't get your answer.
As far as the mysterious force, I would say there are unconscious forces and there is consciousness, and that consciousness doesn't have a purpose, which makes the job a lot less complicated.
Okay, let's leave this topic. Consider this topic as unimportant. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 14:07:57 GMT -5
Then why do you say 'actually seeing that nothing really can be known for certain'? I was talking about the falling away of needing to know things for certain about 'this', but I don't see how that involves seeing the moon as 'a mere appearance' or an inside, outside that is received or not. It's really about seeing that all there ever really is, is THIS, right here, right now, arising in this present moment. There is no inner or outer to that immediacy. certain about what? What do you need to be certain about that? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 14:10:25 GMT -5
To be clear, what I am saying is that dream Andrew perceives with help of sensory organs. Awake Andrew also perceives with help of sensory organs. Deeply asleep Andrew...well it's debatable whether he is perceiving or not. But you didn't answer the question (though you did answer it before). I will assume that your answer is consistent and therefore there is a body that pertains to Andrew in the dream You may have gotten to my mirror example by now, but I will add to it somewhat. Let's call a dream, a reflection in a mirror. If a mirror is reflecting a body, there is no body in the mirror. Likewise, there are no bodies in a dream. Simple, easy to see the truth of the matter. What we have to determine is how the reflection arises (and in the earlier post we (I) related the reflection in the mirror to an appearance). Andrew (and myself) say there is an actual physical body, in a ~real~ world, standing in front of the mirror. Gopal says no, the reflection is being ~conjured up~ by Consciousness alone, reflection does not prove there is an actual body in front of the mirror. We cannot know absolutely who is right, Gopal or andrew. Gopal goes to far in saying there is no external world (and therefore no physical bodies), he cannot know. So, Gopal is not in error (or would not be in error) in saying all we can know is there is an appearance (in the mirror). But Gopal is in error in maintaining absolutely there is no external world (and no physical bodies). Gopal doesn't know that (therefore in actuality it is merely an opinion). So andrew has a predilection, yes, external world. Gopal has a predilection, no, no external world. One can never convince the other who is right. But if physical bodies exist, dreams arise from neural activity, IOW, do have a physical basis. Yes I think it's fair to say I have a predeliction for that, perhaps because it's easiest to go with what seems obvious. God also seems obvious to me too. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 14:15:38 GMT -5
Practical reasons? So knowing if the world is appearance or not is necessary in order to enter creator mode? Why is it that sometimes you respond to gopal's nonsense by saying it's nonsense and then on other occasions like this you respond to nonsense by saying "it matters a lot too". There is no spiritual search that entails seeing through illusions. The only illusion that is "seen through" is the illusion of separation and that happens at the end of the so called search when the non dual and the dual are seen to be not different. Seeing the the world is not objective, and is appearing in Consciousness IS seeing through the illusion of separation. Piggybacking on-to the mirror posts, you cannot know there is no external world. You don't want to allow for an external world because this would necessitate a third layer. You don't even allow for a ~relatively real~ external world. (I could go for objective world = relative world, because an external world does not exist in and of itself). To say there is no relatively objective external world is the illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 17, 2016 14:19:22 GMT -5
Seeing the the world is not objective, and is appearing in Consciousness IS seeing through the illusion of separation. Piggybacking on-to the mirror posts, you cannot know there is no external world. You don't want to allow for an external world because this would necessitate a third layer. You don't even allow for a ~relatively real~ external world. (I could go for objective world = relative world, because an external world does not exist in and of itself). To say there is no relatively objective external world is the illusion. The dual experience allows layers and depths doesn't it .. A box inside a box, inside a box yada yada .. It could be said that the box within a box and the box outside of a box are just appearances butt, if you want to find something within a box thats inside another box then you have to delve in and not out ..  .. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 14:21:18 GMT -5
I was talking about the falling away of needing to know things for certain about 'this', but I don't see how that involves seeing the moon as 'a mere appearance' or an inside, outside that is received or not. It's really about seeing that all there ever really is, is THIS, right here, right now, arising in this present moment. There is no inner or outer to that immediacy. certain about what? What do you need to be certain about that? It's what I don't need to be certain about; inner/outer, predetermined, received, not received, actual, illusion, true, false. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 14:23:35 GMT -5
When I say no brain, no physical body either. Why this is not clear to you? If you're okay with saying that an individual appears, why not that a body also appears....along with a brain, heart, hands, feet....? That is what he's saying. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 14:26:36 GMT -5
If you're okay with saying that an individual appears, why not that a body also appears....along with a brain, heart, hands, feet....? That is what he's saying. No. He was refuting certain specific items. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 14:27:59 GMT -5
If I were someone as rigorously logical and argumentative as you appear to be, I would appreciate someone taking the time to point out certain things to see if they were indeed indicative of something erroneous. Perhaps, at that point, with a little openness and honesty, something could then be let go of or seen in greater clarity. I don't like dredging up the past, even just two minutes ago. For me, what was said and done has no bearing on now and it actually requires a level of effort to go there. Pardon my saying so, but you don't seem to mind dredging up the past in certain contexts. And then, in another context, you're willing to forgo responsibility for what you've said, even just two minutes ago. Would you say that the conditioning that gives rise to perception, feelings, thoughts and the like (and, i.e., give rise to a "sense of self") is of the past? I'm not saying the past has to be a limitation or that it can be changed, but in order to transcend a certain dynamic pattern (i.e., of separation or self) isn't it better to become more conscious of its construct? It seems that by doing so, even the past might be seen in better clarity. Thusly, the transcendence of mind becomes more realizable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 14:28:05 GMT -5
certain about what? What do you need to be certain about that? It's what I don't need to be certain about; inner/outer, predetermined, received, not received, actual, illusion, true, false. That's what I am saying there is no two context inner/outer in which you have to be certain with. There is no such thing as outer, outer only comes from the speculation because we have never seen or we have interacted with. That's the world only constructed out of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 14:32:38 GMT -5
I don't like dredging up the past, even just two minutes ago. For me, what was said and done has no bearing on now and it actually requires a level of effort to go there. Pardon my saying so, but you don't seem to mind dredging up the past in certain contexts. And then, in another context, you're willing to forgo responsibility for what you've said, even just two minutes ago. Would you say that the conditioning that gives rise to perception, feelings, thoughts and the like (and, i.e., give rise to a "sense of self") is of the past? I'm not saying the past has to be a limitation or that it can be changed, but in order to transcend a certain dynamic pattern (i.e., of separation or self) isn't it better to become more conscious of its construct? It seems that by doing so, even the past might be seen in better clarity. Thusly, the transcendence of mind becomes more realizable. Its pretty rare that I go and get a quote, I do it occasionally but it requires effort. Sometimes memories arise and I am happy to state them but it doesnt require me to go looking into the past. And yes I agree that if one is interested in transcending a pattern of conditioning then it is useful to become aware of it, and the constructs behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 14:33:56 GMT -5
It's what I don't need to be certain about; inner/outer, predetermined, received, not received, actual, illusion, true, false. That's what I am saying there is no two context inner/outer in which you have to be certain with. There is no such thing as outer, outer only comes from the speculation because we have never seen or we have interacted with. That's the world only constructed ocut of mind. Do babies interact without speculation? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 17, 2016 14:34:58 GMT -5
Pardon my saying so, but you don't seem to mind dredging up the past in certain contexts. And then, in another context, you're willing to forgo responsibility for what you've said, even just two minutes ago. Would you say that the conditioning that gives rise to perception, feelings, thoughts and the like (and, i.e., give rise to a "sense of self") is of the past? I'm not saying the past has to be a limitation or that it can be changed, but in order to transcend a certain dynamic pattern (i.e., of separation or self) isn't it better to become more conscious of its construct? It seems that by doing so, even the past might be seen in better clarity. Thusly, the transcendence of mind becomes more realizable. that I go and get a quote, I do it occasionally but it requires effort. Sometimes memories arise and I am happy to state them but it doesnt require me to go looking into the past. And yes I agree that if one is interested in transcending a pattern of conditioning then it is useful to become aware of it, and the constructs behind it. Its pretty rare you get a straightforward answer to a straightforward question .. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 14:38:33 GMT -5
Its pretty rare that I go and get a quote, I do it occasionally but it requires effort. Sometimes memories arise and I am happy to state them but it doesnt require me to go looking into the past. And yes I agree that if one is interested in transcending a pattern of conditioning then it is useful to become aware of it, and the constructs behind it. Its pretty rare you get a straightforward answer to a straightforward question .. Lol you're not wrong there mate. There seems to be a correlation too....the more straight forward the question, the less likely I am to get an answer or a straight forward answer. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 17, 2016 14:45:32 GMT -5
Its pretty rare you get a straightforward answer to a straightforward question .. Lol you're not wrong there mate. There seems to be a correlation too....t he more straight forward the question, the less likely I am to get an answer or a straight forward answer.lol thats too funny for words .. although I have had 3 heinekens already ...  .. |
|
..
..