|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:32:50 GMT -5
If you'll notice, I usually only engage you on the topic of the past after you've brought it up first. If he's not looking in the past then he's not likely to notice that. That's right on the verge of being a tenkatology.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:35:31 GMT -5
So you are looking at the image,right? you are not looking at the actual moon. If so, how do you know it comes from outside? Because it is my experience as it is yours. How can you prove it doesn't come from outside?Wanting to argue that is does come from outside, proves that there has been no permanent collapse of what is known as the egoic structure. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:36:49 GMT -5
You're not raising any new point with this, just restating the start of the dialog from two hours ago. Weeks Brevity is the sole of wit! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:37:35 GMT -5
If he's not looking in the past then he's not likely to notice that. That's right on the verge of being a tenkatology. Yeah.. only vergin' though! Not, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:40:08 GMT -5
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'. Really? Wow, watching the judgment machine in action is like replacing the dirt path with a high-speed monorail. And it's really not all that hard to notice it as it's happening, and the more day-to-day interaction the more opportunity for it, and the less routine that interaction is all the more so. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:41:38 GMT -5
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. Yeah, like you!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:43:42 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. Strikes me that it's for the same reason lots of peeps do that, and I can't really exclude myself from that company. Expression seeks an outlet and there's interest in how other minds will react to that expression. Our characters, mood, and whatever brought us to where we are modulate the entire affair, of course.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:47:36 GMT -5
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.  uh-huh. (** looking .. searching ... scanning **) ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:48:37 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? It's possible to see beyond the limitations of mind. I call it realization. frog doesn't like mind! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:49:18 GMT -5
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. ::: contains confusion ::: Ha ha, well of course it does when the little mind tries to crack it. Ask yourself. When you wrote your words, who was really feeling confused? Now where do you go from there. Do I write it differently so you are not confused. Do I write it so your mind "understands". Then what? You are done? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 3:50:07 GMT -5
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. So it would be separate lots of Consciousness....But I want to clarify my question. If you're saying that Andrew MIGHT be real, and can trigger his own appearances, then is Andrew and Consciousness the same thing? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:50:14 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. . 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 andrew on Sept 18, 2016 3:52:22 GMT -5
Memory happens, the effort to dig through the past does not. Thanks for playing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 3:58:40 GMT -5
I have to admit that what I'm about to write doesn't really source from any sort of expression of love that I want to be involved in ... but what you've linked to is of course a prime example of why he doesn't like to dwell in the past: because it reveals too many inconsistencies.  I am inconsistent in some ways, but am also very consistent in others. I am consistent in that I speak to the issue at hand, and generally consider there to be more important things than making sure something I said yesterday or last week fits in with what I am saying now. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:59:33 GMT -5
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? The pointer of "direct perception" isn't a reference to a literal phenomenal sense perception, although directing attention away from thoughts and to the senses is a prescription for following the pointer. Rather, what "direct perception" refers to is a state of body and mind in complete clarity of the conditioning that leads from the senses to whatever state of consciousness we happen to be in at any given moment. The pointer is to a gestault, an amalgam, and analyzing it in terms of specific information gathered by the senses is like dissecting a joke or defining a painting or expressing a song in terms of a formula. |
|
