|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 19:58:34 GMT -5
Do you know the story of the Emperor with no clothes? If not, read it. Do you know what to do when you have painted yourself into a corner? Do you? Seems to me you're pretty much screwed.  No....I've put much thought into this....you just stand there until the paint dries. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 20:05:23 GMT -5
I haven't read Plato closely enough to be sure what he thought. You're right about the general population, but I was referring to people on the forum who have thought about these issues a bit more than the general population. I know exactly what E. means when he writes that trees are ideas because I know the difference between what a tree IS and the idea/image/symbol/meaning "tree." When we say that people imagine "trees" this doesn't mean that nothing is there or that something is there. It means that there is a difference between ______________________and whatever we imagine ABOUT ______________________. When we look at the world non-conceptually, we see ________________. When we talk ABOUT ___________________, we say things like "that's a tree." In such a case the image, idea, and symbol are superimposed imaginatively upon ___________________. As Tony Parsons might say, "No one has ever seen a tree!" haha Actually, I'm saying that ultimately the entire universe is imagined into apparent existence, and isn't even 'out there'. Making your position = to Gopal's. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 20:12:25 GMT -5
Ok. Gopal is the only one who refuses to discuss different contexts, but that doesn't automatically infer that he's ignoring them or trying to override them. I have no idea what it infers, other than he gets a charge out of an argument (as he himself stated). Everyone (including Gopal, I'm pretty sure) understands that there is a relative context where there's a difference between an imagined pink elephant and your mother. Some will acknowledge it and some won't. I'm getting the impression that the 'won't' group thinks it would be stepping into some kind of trap. Whatever that means.  I agree that gopal does know the (contextual) truth that he lives in India and Andrew lives in England (to give another example). So you might be right that there is an element of thinking that a trap is being set, though I'm not seeing that there is one. Aside from that, it does make for awkward conversation when someone frames a question in a relative way, and then when the answer is given relatively, it is then negated. Perhaps from my side, it also feels like I am being set up at times...kind of like...don't ask me relative questions and then tell me I'm wrong when I give a relative answer. I actually don't know how Gopal processes information. This is one thing I tried to get out of him. Gopal is an enigma. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 20:23:29 GMT -5
I interact and respond in my lucid dreams while knowing for a fact that world doesn't exist. What does exist mean here? If you 'interact and respond' and see things and experience things, for the moments while that is happening, aren't you experiencing the existence of 'that world'? Mostly, peeps have been talking about 'existence' as that which takes physical form, so I've been going along even though that's not how I generally define the term. The point is I don't abandon all interaction just because there's no objective form to interact with. Consciousness interacts with itself. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 17, 2016 20:25:04 GMT -5
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 enigma on Sept 17, 2016 20:35:30 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? Everyone here knows what is meant by 'what you experience may be an illusion'. But 'actual' and 'illusion' are intellectual ideas. If they serve a purpose that is useful, great. But whatever happens, what you experience, is what you experience Tenka would agree with that. He would also agree that the experience of illusion is an illusory experience. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 20:42:20 GMT -5
Relax, I'll have it posted by 4:30. Swear to God.  likely story.  .. and it would clear everything up once and for all ... just sad see .. Hey, I still have a half hour. Look behind you.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 20:46:18 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? It's possible to see beyond the limitations of mind. I call it realization. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 20:56:25 GMT -5
Consciousness looks at the appearance, Consciousness experiences. I would say that IF what you are is Consciousness, then you are prior to what is experienced. So what you are doesn't feel happy or sad, what you are is untouched by all feelings and sensations. It is the EXPRESSION of Consciousness that feels happy or sad. The body-mind is an expression of Consciousness. It makes no sense to say an expression feels something. If something is felt, that IS the expression. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 21:15:38 GMT -5
sdp likes twice and makes quinn Queen For A Day. Yes...I remember that TV show... :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 21:21:32 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. There is no past. You can only transcend mind right here right now in the present moment. We don't need to see anything in better clarity because to transcend mind we are not concerned about the content of thought. As Ramana said, when you want to get rid of garbage, you just take it away. You don't sift through and inspect each piece of garbage first. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 21:29:36 GMT -5
Firstly, what's the problem with being content all the time?  Secondly, one cannot feel bad all the time. Duality won't allow for it. You don't need to engage in a battle to feel good. You will feel good half the time regardless. You'll also feel bad half the time, which is why transcending the whole good/bad experience is a good thing. Wanting to do that is not in the same category as wanting to feel good all the time. The former is possible, the latter is not. I would say the balance is qualitative not quantitative. It is, I just don't know how to talk about a qualitative balance. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 21:34:55 GMT -5
The issue seems to be that some want to make the two contexts equal, but I say there is a hierarchy to contexts and they are not all equally true. For example, religious cults and conspiracy theorists have their own contexts that encompass their belief systems, but they are not equally valid with all other contexts. Relatively, contexts are hierarchical, but absolutely, they are not. Within the absolute context, it's not that one context is a little bit more true than other...no matter what context it is, it's not True. 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. Too much caffeine, Andy. Ceriously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 21:37:33 GMT -5
What's the difference between something experienced as an illusion and something experienced that is not an illusion? How could I tell them apart? That's everything, maybe the most pertinent question ever asked here. Everything experienced is in a sense an illusion. Assuming bodies and brains are ~real~, once a sensation enters a body, it is coded (the impression is ~turned into~ chemical and electrical coded information), meaning, it is now at least once removed from the ~real~ world. The brain/consciousness must then interpret the coded signals. So the question becomes, does the coded signal refer to some-thing illusory or something actually existing. We do this hundreds of times every day, we have to decided what's ~real~ and what's not-real. And on the spiritual journey things get much messier.... Exactly right. To tie that in with the current discussion, regardless of whether the world is real or not, anything which changes or appears and disappears can be regarded as an illusion. That knowledge forces some to look for what is unchanging. Only that is real. The resolution that all is real including world and unchanging awareness, in other words, it is all nothing other than myself, happens on the third mountain. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 21:39:27 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. They are equal, but ONLY because the absolute transcends the relative. So it's a paradox. If they weren't equal, they would be separate. Unequal doesn't mean separate. An illusion and and actuality don't make two, just two different appearances of One. And yet one is 'true' and the other 'false'. |
|
.. and it would clear everything up once and for all ... just sad see ..
