|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 1:21:12 GMT -5
Brain waves don't make dreams physical. They're still just thoughts and images in the brain. You wouldn't say that imagining a pink elephant right now results in something physical, even though you could measure the brain activity involved in that imagining. I think you missed the point here. Brain waves verify a brain is the point I think. E said dreams are not physical. I was saying, sure they are, because they arise from neural activity (shown by brain waves). And incidentally, if eyes are not needed for vision, does that mean blind people have visual dreams? (I don't know, but I'd bet about about a million $ they don't). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 1:47:30 GMT -5
This isn't a a defense pal.  The two opposing ideas you want to be true are just the mental confusion had from overthinking the pointer of "direct perception". This conclusion isn't supported by what gopal wrote, but here again, I applaud your skill at expressing a convincing illusion.  There's no confusion at all. The first true statement is that the eyes are involved in seeing. The second true statement is that they eyes are not involved in seeing. Gopal only sees one of these ideas as true, he has been very clear on this. You are a decent litigator but the evidence is right there, so maybe it is time for the lawyer to step down. We can always get the defendant back to confirm that he stands by what he said. Looked at another way, do blind people have visuaL dreams? I'd bet not. Then why not? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 1:55:02 GMT -5
Who's having a problem with context now?  At least acknowledge the morph if you're gonna' back away from it. In order for someone to agree that you can both perceive through the eyes and directly perceive at the same time they'd have to first agree with you on what you mean by "direct perception". You can squirm all you like here, gopal has made it extremely clear that two opposing ideas involving eyes and perception cannot both be true. When of course they can. You want to complicate this because..well...you've invested some energy in his defence and you hate it when I am right, but gopal couldn't have made it clearer to us. At this point you really should change the plee from innocent to guilty. Yes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 2:10:35 GMT -5
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.
Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=5448#ixzz4KaXkgf00I´d say that there are forces of which we arent aware, but they are conscious nonetheless.Just as we arent aware of every person on the planet, but they are also conscious.This goes for unembodied forces as well. (just a well intended observation, no intention to join your discussion with G) EDIT:my take on his filosofy is that he has some kind of spiritual experience and misinterprets it.Which results in these incredible mental gymnastics.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 2:12:19 GMT -5
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. Okay yes I see why you would say that. In that case, probably just body mind. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 2:27:13 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. I let your other little comment about spinning slide, but with this one, no...you are wrong. This is important (relatively speaking). You sometimes speak of god godding so I will put it in those terms. There is no aspect of creation that is any more or any less god. The murderer is god and the hero is god. The snake is god and the squirrel is god. The rock is god and the tree is god. God as the absolute, transcends any relative aspect by definition, and yet is not greater than or more valid than any aspect....because it is still god. So the absolute transcends the relative, but in the transcending, the relative becomes as valid as the absolute. It's a paradox...you are gonna have to deal with it. Practically, the relative aspect of who I am doesnt shy away from the relative (because ultimately it is still god). So I will still engage with ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lie. I dont shy away from the personal aspect of who I am. However, there is a deeper understanding that all is one, that all is god, and therefore that all differences and judgements are temporary and contextual. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 2:30:34 GMT -5
Well, you're still replying, but at this point it's for the sole purpose of picture painting. This is your pattern: when you lose a debate you inevitably resort to the logical fallacy of ad-hominem to cover your tracks. (yes, I'm conscious of my own picture painting there, it's fire-with-fire). The purpose of the links is to demonstrate glaring inconsistencies and literal illusions that you insist are relative actualities. I'm quite calm when generating them. I can believe there is a strangely soothing sense that comes with the hyper linking, maybe you suppress it for days and then it bursts out in a frenzy of lawyering. Well no, as I already explained, the linking happens in response to when you and the others start writing fantasies that contradict what's in the archives, it's got nothing to do with any sort of energetic suppression on my part. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 2:34:52 GMT -5
When you go into hyper linking mode its always a sign that communication isn't possible with you, and its best to wait until you've meditated or something. At least I can tell you he is wasting his time with me. I never click on the links but then I feel slightly sorry for him for all the work he's put in rummaging through the archives. Oh well! The links aren't only for your consumption. They're for anyone else reading along that might have an interest in the differential between your own arrogant expressions of positioning yourself as teacher, on one hand, and the obviously disordered mental state they demonstrate, on the other. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 2:36:59 GMT -5
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'. If the absolute context did not level the playing field, the absolute would not include the relative. It could not, it would merely supersede it and stand over it. God would be greater and more valid than his subjects. Then we are in the realm of religion rather than spirituality and non-duality. Simply, in the absolute (context), all form, all ideas, all contexts...are equal. In the relative, they are not. Ultimately, truth and falsity are not polarities either. Truth includes falsity, it does not segregate it. To put that another way, Being includes mind. Oneness includes difference. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 2:42:08 GMT -5
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. If other people are real, does that mean that they are no longer appearances in Consciousness? Is gopal real? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 2:46:28 GMT -5
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. :-) I'm guessing that in his consciousness appearance model, information isn't processed at all. The brain has no function in that model. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 2:48:16 GMT -5
If other people are real, then I can't go wrong in the concept of predetermination. If other people are real, does that mean that they are no longer appearances in Consciousness? Is gopal real? They appear but those appearance are not triggered by 'MY' consciousness, they are triggered by their own consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 2:50:14 GMT -5
My impression is that you are asking a sincere question, but I think some of the words are in the wrong order or something. OK, how about this more verbose one? Do you agree that if IT is absolutely known that one is pure subjectivity and that all that is experienced is just an appearance (i.e., all is imagined and out front) to THAT subjectivity, one is more conscious of what is actually going on than when one is caught up in the illusion and identified as a personalized individuation appearing to said subjectivity? **whew, that was hard**"There are no laws or lawyers in heaven, but in hell, due process shall be strictly observed". (some old Supreme Court guy)  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 2:52:09 GMT -5
yes, I even stated that context to Enigma last night and I'm pretty sure most here acknowledge that context. So what's interesting is when the other context goes missing. The other context doesn't go missing. On the contrary, the other context(s) is/are seen more clearly as being relative to each other to some extent, AND NOT CONFUSED with or seen as relative in value to "absolute context", which you seem to be claiming to understand. Once E' finally gets around to finally explaining it ... well ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 2:54:31 GMT -5
Why, yes there is. What we seem to be missing is some peeps who are interested in that. And for some reason, when Truth is brought to bear, I keep imagining a squeaking noise.  Waaaaaiiiit. Is...(could it be?)...is that where the term peep squeak actually comes from?!   **Notice the distraction/denial/obfuscation/confusion/hope stick holding off the inevitable. I wonder how long one of those is designed to work?  If history is any guide to the future the prognosis is quite grim. |
|
At least acknowledge the morph if you're gonna' back away from it. In order for someone to agree that you can both perceive through the eyes and directly perceive at the same time they'd have to first agree with you on what you mean by "direct perception". 
