|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 15:32:52 GMT -5
Andrew talks in the spiritual context often. In this particular case, he's apparently intrigued by Gopal's refusal to talk about the relative context. I've also noticed this skirting of direct questions and find it interesting. As you've said many times, seeing where we're deceiving ourselves can be helpful. Gopal doesn't like to acknowledge arguments in one context while he's trying to make a point in another context. One of the reasons is likely that the context flipping has an agenda behind it and he doesn't want to open the door to that agenda. In any case, I understand his reluctance, and I don't find that to be an interesting point of self deception. Like everybody else he wants to be understood, and so far the only one who has made it clear that he does understand is pilgrim. As you noticed, it didn't matter to Gopal that Pilgrim didn't agree, only that he understood. What would be more useful than both sides repeating their rather obvious points for weeks would be to address the point of whether or not those two contextual perspectives are actually equally valid. I believe both Andy and Sasquatch believe they are, and this may be the actual point of contention. As an aside, if you have a post of Gopal's where he speaks in a context other than Consciousness, I'd like to see it. As far as I can see, Gopal has only one context. (And I appreciate that you understand that Gopal understands that I understand Gopal, it's nice to be understood.  ). But you may have raised what I see as the Whole problem with non-dual "teaching". We actually do live in two different contexts, we live in an absolute context, and we live in a "nuts & bolts" everyday context. If our basis for living is the ultimate absolute context, alone, we short-change our everyday lives, and even in a very real sense negate them, make them void, irrelevant. But the majority of mankind has no interest in an absolute context (or maybe they do hypothetically) and they in a very real sense live in spiritual poverty. So what's necessary is to live in a sense of tension between these two "poles", giving validity to both. So, I don't see it as a point of contention, I think we obviously do live in both worlds. I think if we say, Oh, I only live through the absolute context, nothing else really matters, the we are necessarily "rubber-stamping" the absolute context, and in a very real sense, making it irrelevant. So there is a movement from the "personal" context to the absolute context. You bring the absolute (Oneness) to the relative (individuation). And in doing this the individuation expands to practically encompass ~more of~ the Whole. But if one automatically assumes the Whole, for their-self, they assume was isn't to be what is, and continue to live in illusion. I just see many people living in a conceptual box thinking they are living through the Whole. ........ |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 16:14:03 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. Yeah, there's a few here who I rarely if ever see dumpster diving for links to support their present argument. You and E both come to mind immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Sept 17, 2016 17:07:51 GMT -5
Sure, but you do understand that what you experience may be an illusion, right? It means it may not be what it appears to be, right? The two statements may be contextually true, but one of them is an illusion, right? Does that unbalance the 'equation'? Are they actually equal? What's the difference between something experienced as an illusion and something experienced that is not an illusion? How could I tell them apart? All experience that includes separation is illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Sept 17, 2016 17:16:29 GMT -5
Gopal doesn't like to acknowledge arguments in one context while he's trying to make a point in another context. One of the reasons is likely that the context flipping has an agenda behind it and he doesn't want to open the door to that agenda. In any case, I understand his reluctance, and I don't find that to be an interesting point of self deception. Like everybody else he wants to be understood, and so far the only one who has made it clear that he does understand is pilgrim. As you noticed, it didn't matter to Gopal that Pilgrim didn't agree, only that he understood. What would be more useful than both sides repeating their rather obvious points for weeks would be to address the point of whether or not those two contextual perspectives are actually equally valid. I believe both Andy and Sasquatch believe they are, and this may be the actual point of contention. As an aside, if you have a post of Gopal's where he speaks in a context other than Consciousness, I'd like to see it. As far as I can see, Gopal has only one context. (And I appreciate that you understand that Gopal understands that I understand Gopal, it's nice to be understood. ). But you may have raised what I see as the Whole problem with non-dual "teaching". We actually do live in two different contexts, we live in an absolute context, and we live in a "nuts & bolts" everyday context. If our basis for living is the ultimate absolute context, alone, we short-change our everyday lives, and even in a very real sense negate them, make them void, irrelevant. But the majority of mankind has no interest in an absolute context (or maybe they do hypothetically) and they in a very real sense live in spiritual poverty. So what's necessary is to live in a sense of tension between these two "poles", giving validity to both. So, I don't see it as a point of contention, I think we obviously do live in both worlds. I think if we say, Oh, I only live through the absolute context, nothing else really matters, the we are necessarily "rubber-stamping" the absolute context, and in a very real sense, making it irrelevant. So there is a movement from the "personal" context to the absolute context. You bring the absolute (Oneness) to the relative (individuation). And in doing this the individuation expands to practically encompass ~more of~ the Whole. But if one automatically assumes the Whole, for their-self, they assume was isn't to be what is, and continue to live in illusion. I just see many people living in a conceptual box thinking they are living through the Whole. ........ Don't you think the whole point of being in truth is never to be in illusion. Why suffer if truth is absence of suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 17, 2016 17:36:58 GMT -5
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. And here I was thinking we were just getting to the fun stuff, making the mysterious force conscious! |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 17, 2016 17:41:12 GMT -5
As an aside, if you have a post of Gopal's where he speaks in a context other than Consciousness, I'd like to see it. As far as I can see, Gopal has only one context. (And I appreciate that you understand that Gopal understands that I understand Gopal, it's nice to be understood. ). But you may have raised what I see as the Whole problem with non-dual "teaching". We actually do live in two different contexts, we live in an absolute context, and we live in a "nuts & bolts" everyday context. If our basis for living is the ultimate absolute context, alone, we short-change our everyday lives, and even in a very real sense negate them, make them void, irrelevant. But the majority of mankind has no interest in an absolute context (or maybe they do hypothetically) and they in a very real sense live in spiritual poverty. So what's necessary is to live in a sense of tension between these two "poles", giving validity to both. So, I don't see it as a point of contention, I think we obviously do live in both worlds. I think if we say, Oh, I only live through the absolute context, nothing else really matters, the we are necessarily "rubber-stamping" the absolute context, and in a very real sense, making it irrelevant. So there is a movement from the "personal" context to the absolute context. You bring the absolute (Oneness) to the relative (individuation). And in doing this the individuation expands to practically encompass ~more of~ the Whole. But if one automatically assumes the Whole, for their-self, they assume was isn't to be what is, and continue to live in illusion. I just see many people living in a conceptual box thinking they are living through the Whole. ........ Don't you think the whole point of being in truth is never to be in illusion. Why suffer if truth is absence of suffering. Imo, there are a lot of places to hide in spirituality. How much easier is it to deal with suffering in the world if it's seen as an illusion. Not saying anyone here is doing that, just that it's a pitfall. The fact that suffering is caused by believing that our illusions about the world are true, doesn't negate a world that is true. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 17:48:16 GMT -5
I mean the world is perceived to be flat, yet we know it is a globe. It's a perceptual falsity that the world is flat. At least according to the normal way that we conceive and describe the world. Oh. Then, no, that's not what I mean. Okay |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Sept 17, 2016 18:27:28 GMT -5
Don't you think the whole point of being in truth is never to be in illusion. Why suffer if truth is absence of suffering. Imo, there are a lot of places to hide in spirituality. How much easier is it to deal with suffering in the world if it's seen as an illusion. Not saying anyone here is doing that, just that it's a pitfall. The fact that suffering is caused by believing that our illusions about the world are true, doesn't negate a world that is true. The point is what you are and that is truth, if there is suffering, if there is separation, if there is hiding, that's madness. A lot of folks, not you rationalize justifications to stay in madness, that is crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 17, 2016 18:36:51 GMT -5
You're not raising any new point with this, just restating the start of the dialog from two hours ago. Weeks |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 17, 2016 18:46:45 GMT -5
When I say nothing has been said, I mean the conversation has been a bunch of obfuscation and distraction. Repetition |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 17, 2016 18:48:04 GMT -5
Imo, there are a lot of places to hide in spirituality. How much easier is it to deal with suffering in the world if it's seen as an illusion. Not saying anyone here is doing that, just that it's a pitfall. The fact that suffering is caused by believing that our illusions about the world are true, doesn't negate a world that is true. The point is what you are and that is truth, if there is suffering, if there is separation, if there is hiding, that's madness. A lot of folks, not you rationalize justifications to stay in madness, that is crazy. Yes, the point is what you are (or maybe more specifically, discovering what you are not). I agree widdat. That's central. Next point...living it. I think it can be very difficult to differentiate between 'rationalizing justifications' and 'following one's path'. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 17, 2016 18:58:28 GMT -5
Inxide or outside of what? Where does moon appear? Are you seeing the moon which exist outside Or are you seeing the image of the moon which your brain is creating? I'm just curious about why you say the same things over and over again. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 19:51:58 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. so now the people appearances are conditioned. Okay, I'll back off a bit. SDP asked you the key question, I don't know whether you can, or will, answer it. Maybe you can't...that's okay, it is what it is. When you say stuff like 'people are conditioned', I know your answer to the question he is asking you anyway, whether you know it or not (it's a 'yes'). sdp likes twice. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 19:55:12 GMT -5
Well I was referring to conjuring up an imaginary elephant in relation to a mother that is physically present . The physical reality and the realm of imagination are related butt are also miles apart .. This is relevant and this is something that has been ignored, overlooked, dodged, unanswered from certain folks .. Oh - are you talking about the what-happens-in-a-dream-is-the-same-as-waking-life thingy? I think that's just a philosophical inquiry - can we absolutely know that we're not in some sort of dream. No, we can't. But it doesn't really matter, to me anyway. I believe the real purpose of the dream analogy is to get us to question if what we believe is actually true. It's supposed to be symbolic, not actual. sdp likes twice and makes quinn Queen For A Day. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 17, 2016 19:56:38 GMT -5
I wonder if anyone here actually clicks on those links? :D I read them and do learn a little more about the character of some of the characters that populate this board. I also notice it as an act of love, but which is received and judged as something else by a few said characters. That is interesting. Pesky others. |
|
). 
