|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 21:44:44 GMT -5
I missed where somebody negated that which is formed from Consciousness. I agree that's not 'accurate'. I thought Gopal finally caved in saying, yea, one of my eyes is weaker than the other, that's why I wear glasses, but then he took that back. I don't think Gopal is capable of seeing from more than one context. Hoping to get to an answer by him today.......(the any question). I talk about context and relativity all the time. You found me finally caving in and admitting to something I talk about relentlessly?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 21:50:32 GMT -5
No, It surely makes a difference, it would puts us into creator mode. If we haven't seen this, then we would remain in perceiving mode. The statement "Seeing through illusion changes the experience" can only be true If we are in creator mode. See? He won't back down. You mean he won't admit he's wrong? Has it occurred to you maybe he doesn't think he is? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 21:53:11 GMT -5
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. He is absolutely right. You can't see that? Too much Tequila, Enigma. Ceriously. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 21:57:17 GMT -5
Okay. Apparently it was just a rumor. clearly not a rumor, I believe he banned her permanently. Was it not a life time ban? ZD said no. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 17, 2016 22:13:29 GMT -5
What? What do you mean by 'won't back down'? Apparently, he means you know you're wrong but you refuse to admit it. It's a particularly arrogant perspective. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 23:09:31 GMT -5
Predetermination is a different topic. This can't be mingled with that. predetermination is true because people has been conditioned to act in a certain way would be removed when we reach clarity.That is something you have observed in your experience, correct? Would you say that predeterminism is an absolute truth? If other people are real, then I can't go wrong in the concept of predetermination. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 23:27:35 GMT -5
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!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 23:29:32 GMT -5
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. Because Andrew was not understanding and the argument was going between me and him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 23:36:23 GMT -5
What? What do you mean by 'won't back down'? Apparently, he means you know you're wrong but you refuse to admit it. It's a particularly arrogant perspective. Okay, understood. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 0:20:04 GMT -5
OK, it's very complicated, nobody ever, here, seems to understand, but it's one reason I say I am not a non-dualist. There is all there is. There can't be anything outside all there is (by definition). But I say there is an Originating Consciousness, Oneness, Wholeness. As an expression of (Its Own) creativity, the Oneness ~makes a~ twoness, the unmanifest, manifests. For this to even be possible, Oneness draws-a-line/makes-a-cut. So now there is Oneness (still Whole, Complete, meaning, has not fallen into its own dream) and an otherness. The otherness is not outside the Oneness (by definition there can't be anything outside all that is), but the otherness allows for independence, for independent decisions. And the original Oneness can enjoy seeing something happen which is outside of its control, can see creativity evolve....and eventually even, come-back-to-union-with-Oneness (the spiritual journey).... or, allow the otherness (individuated "person-hood", at least potential consciousness) to wither and die and cease to-be. That's a very high price, but that's the choice Oneness made, and is making... Well, I understand it. And it has a certain amount of elegance to it - no apparent contradictions. But I can't help but see it as conjecture. I mean, how could anyone know if that's true? You're basically describing the origins of consciousness. Hey quinn....if you replied to this I haven't gotten to it yet...but add this to my earlier reply. You said you see this as conjecture. I left the other reply saying I had a predilection for this teaching, but it's not just that. Even in the first meeting there were some things I could verify. Later, a finer energy was discussed. And later I was given a preparatory practice called the sixty point sensing exercise. And then after some weeks of practicing it, I noticed a something. ...And later at a meeting I asked about it, what is it. The reply, energy. That was forty years ago. So a practice and experience proved an aspect of the teaching. Things like this encouraged me to continue, and I have since verified many other things. So the predilection is not without foundation. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 0:35:45 GMT -5
Okay, so gopal the appearance has no brain, heart or sensory organs?hehehe But appearances DO have stamped characteristics? Maybe we should ask the Wizard of Oz about that, just to be sure.  :-) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 0:50:32 GMT -5
I understand that in the absolute context, that brains and sensory organs are appearances. It is a simple idea to understand. But in your attempt to show that there is no relative context, you create a huge mess for yourself. Gopal is an appearance, correct? Tell me about this appearance, if this appearance has no physical body, no brain, no skin etc......? You also talk about gopal in India, gopal that walks and watches movies, gopal that programs computers. i could tell you a hundred things about gopal that gopal has told me. And now you say this same gopal appearance has no body, yet photos of gopal are posted with hair and glasses. You see the absurdity? Psst...Ask him about Pepsi.  Oh....that's a good one....naughty E. But everybody knows Pepsi is merely an appearance, because Coke is the real thing. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 0:54:18 GMT -5
It was on last night. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 0:57:47 GMT -5
I was going to reply to a post of Gopal's...so this is for him also. There is a heirarchical structure to reality (or appearances, if that makes you happier). Take the military, bottom rung, private. Above private, sergeant. To simplify, Major, then General. Each has certain duties, but each higher is over the whole of the lower. The higher has command over the lower, but the lower ~plays out~ unless problems arise. Ultimately, Consciousness is the 5-Star General. So let's take this to the body. Does the General control every aspect of what happens in the body? No, He has more important stuff to do, He has hundreds of Majors to watch over. So the private has ~regional~ control over an individuated body. Example, private sees to it the body functions properly, on this scale, eyes are necessary to gather light, the nervous system codes it and sends it to processing in the brain. On this scale, you can't see without eyes. Does this mean we see with eyes? No, consciousness sees. It just means the body does its part. This is just how things work on this level. Is there more to the process? Absolutely. Could Consciouness/5-Star General do things differently? Absolutely. Are there people who can see who don't have eyes? Absolutely, just see Master Po on Kung Fu. Are there people who live without eating food? I would not say no. But these are exceptions, a different order of laws are at work here. Do these examples negate the ordinary working of our ordinary world? No. Ultimately, does Consciousness "control" everything in a Cosmic Dance? Yes, surely. But Consciousness chooses a hierarchy of ordered orders whereby to Dance. We exist at the bottom rung, ordinary rules apply (eyes are needed for sight) but in some cases ordinary rules are superceded. ..... No, Consciousness is not a General delegating responsibility to his subordinates. Stop that.  How do you know? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 1:01:13 GMT -5
Yes, I know, that's why I write ~real~ especially for you, means relatively real, more-or-less. You used the word 'real' just for me because you know it makes no sense to me?  No....I write it with the little swirly ~marks~, meaning, not precisely real, but close. |
|
