|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 10:05:09 GMT -5
If I can imagine an elephant, I can also imagine my Mom. In the same way. If you're talking about physically conjuring her up into my immediate presence, I'd have better luck doing that with an elephant since Mom died a few years ago. 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 by certain folks .. Andy will be along in a moment to urge you to acknowledge a different context in which everything appears in Consciousness. Please try to be cooperative or he'll keep after you for weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 10:13:43 GMT -5
Great! (I assume 'yes' means true). I saw you ask below what I am trying to prove. What I am simply showing is that 'truth' is not confined to just one context i.e 'truth' doesn't just apply to the idea of Consciousness and appearances. It applies to a billion different things. It's true that Gopal lives in India, has brown hair, wears glasses, has a Mum and Dad. It's also true that you don't close your eyes when you cross the street because it is dangerous to do so. It's also true that your brain, eyes (and body in general) work together to produce an image that you see. Are any of those things I have stated as true, a problem for you? When I crosses the road, I don't close my eyes, but the perception of bus running towards me might appear ! Everything happens in appearance Andrew, I think it's useless to continue this topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 10:14:16 GMT -5
I don't understand what he is trying to prove? He's using your idea of appearances in consciousness to get you to write certain statements. What he's trying to prove with those statements is that you deny that those appearances appear relative to you in the simple terms of "I see the bus with my eyes. I live in a house on planet Earth" etc.. He's projecting existential confusion onto you. What's at the root of it is an attachment to a personal mind/body-centric identity. Yes. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 18, 2016 10:17:39 GMT -5
There would be no arguing that the moon comes from outside of yourself. I think the notion of it being inside presupposes the outside, so the argument isn't really pertinent to which sphere the world exists within or without, but the complete absence of its relative locale as a whole. The subjective nature of the moving world can't be rationalised in terms of the biochemistry of the sense organs. The biochemistry doesn't have a direct link to 'immersive experience' with which we are familiar. Hence, the qualia of subjective experience does not imply a universe exists apart from the immediate perception thereof. The perception of the body is not apart from the perception attributed to its senses, and in fact, it is a singularity, rather than the dual paradigm which describes an objective cause of subjective experience. When we see taste smell etc, of course this is reliant on the relevant neurology, but rather than 'me' being aware of 'it', the awareness is dispersed throughout the sensation - I mean, there isn't an awareness of per se so much as there is awareness with. On the whole, then, as an individual senses outward into the surrounding environment, being its central locale, that environment is equally alive and aware, or as I like to say it, 'the universe is made of watching'. People argue that the appearance isn't conscious, but there is no locale for what is conscious at all, and regarding the realm of the changing world, the source of awareness is everywhere, like a field. The observation of a tree, then, is not compartmentalised as 'it' and 'me' as much as it is the space that encompasses the relative positions entirely. (it's an old favourite, but for the field reference mostly)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 10:21:07 GMT -5
All this pointing out in regards to questioning whether gavin has a brain lol, reflects upon gavin being real or not . Does an imaginary appearance in an imaginary mind-body play ping pong lol .. (without a brain) Geez .. Where is the nearest wall to bang my head against .. I don't know if gav is real or not butt I can't understand how he puts so much spin on the ball .. .. lol I'm hearing you here dude. I think I'm about to step back a bit, though I have a feeling that Enigma and me are not quite done yet (it's only been seven years after all). The one you really have a disagreement with is Tenka.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 10:21:58 GMT -5
He is not understand what's the meaning of everything is appearing, I am very serious. He is asking If I am appearing, then animals are appearing as well? He is asking, If brain is appearing or eye is appearing, then leg is also appearing? Did you see the poor level of his understanding? Andrew clearly is not understanding the core of what we have been talking about. Of course he understands the idea of everything being an appearance in consciousness. Andrew is annoying but not stupid. Hehe He's just trying to get you to acknowledge a different context, so acknowledge it already! I am trying to prove to him that everything exist in appearance, he is trying to show what happens in the world and how we perceive the world. But I am saying to him that that's not true, but he is trying to show me that both are true. My non-existent brain is loosing the patience now.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 10:32:50 GMT -5
What's obvious is that the world is appearing to you. That's all. No, not all. There is the appearance of cause and effect. There is the appearance of order, laws, reliability. There is, 99.99999% of the time a one-to-one correspondence between the interaction of individuation and this reliability of the external world responding, enough for one to get in a car and expect the oncoming driver not to hit you head-on. I understand Gopal, theoretically, but theoretically is not going to pay your electric bill next month. These questions show drive one to a find a deeper understanding of the universe. That's the purpose of the .000001%. FWIW, Gopal has a lot of company...."These are not the droids you're looking for"... You're describing appearances, deriving conclusions about appearances, applying logic to appearances, thinking about appearances. All of that appears along with the other appearances.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 10:37:34 GMT -5
no what's been asked of you is far less ambitious than that. You're just being asked if there is a context in which it is true that 'people are conditioned' (for example). I don't think anyone has asked you to make contexts equal. You HAVE said the contexts are equal, and in this discussion, but to really mark it as a win first you have to get him to acknowledge the context, and that hasn't worked out well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 10:58:04 GMT -5
There would be no arguing that the moon comes from outside of yourself. I think the notion of it being inside presupposes the outside, so the argument isn't really pertinent to which sphere the world exists within or without, but the complete absence of its relative locale as a whole. The subjective nature of the moving world can't be rationalised in terms of the biochemistry of the sense organs. The biochemistry doesn't have a direct link to 'immersive experience' with which we are familiar. Hence, the qualia of subjective experience does not imply a universe exists apart from the immediate perception thereof. The perception of the body is not apart from the perception attributed to its senses, and in fact, it is a singularity, rather than the dual paradigm which describes an objective cause of subjective experience. When we see taste smell etc, of course this is reliant on the relevant neurology, but rather than 'me' being aware of 'it', the awareness is dispersed throughout the sensation - I mean, there isn't an awareness of per se so much as there is awareness with. On the whole, then, as an individual senses outward into the surrounding environment, being its central locale, that environment is equally alive and aware, or as I like to say it, 'the universe is made of watching'. People argue that the appearance isn't conscious, but there is no locale for what is conscious at all, and regarding the realm of the changing world, the source of awareness is everywhere, like a field. The observation of a tree, then, is not compartmentalised as 'it' and 'me' as much as it is the space that encompasses the relative positions entirely.So in these encounters is the tree an embodiment of 'the universe is made of watching' by your own position as observer?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 11:01:11 GMT -5
Great! (I assume 'yes' means true). I saw you ask below what I am trying to prove. What I am simply showing is that 'truth' is not confined to just one context i.e 'truth' doesn't just apply to the idea of Consciousness and appearances. It applies to a billion different things. It's true that Gopal lives in India, has brown hair, wears glasses, has a Mum and Dad. It's also true that you don't close your eyes when you cross the street because it is dangerous to do so. It's also true that your brain, eyes (and body in general) work together to produce an image that you see. Are any of those things I have stated as true, a problem for you? When I crosses the road, I don't close my eyes, but the perception of bus running towards me might appear ! Everything happens in appearance Andrew, I think it's useless to continue this topic. do me a favour and please read this statement 3 times before replying. I am not trying to show, or prove, that the appearances in Consciousness model is false. Now please read that again. What I am trying to do is something different, but as yet, you can't seem to understand that I am not trying to show that the Consciousness-appearances model is false. All I am trying to do is show you that you know other things to be true lol. You know it is true that you live in India. You know it is true that it is better to open eyes when crossing the street. I am trying to show you something about the nature of truth (and context). I am not trying to prove you wrong about Consciousness and appearances. Please now read that once more before replying!
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:01:37 GMT -5
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. Explained perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:03:33 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. That's not what I asked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 11:04:11 GMT -5
When I crosses the road, I don't close my eyes, but the perception of bus running towards me might appear ! Everything happens in appearance Andrew, I think it's useless to continue this topic. do me a favour and please read this statement 3 times before replying. I am not trying to show, or prove, that the appearances in Consciousness model is false. Now please read that again. What I am trying to do is something different, but as yet, you can't seem to understand that I am not trying to show that the Consciousness-appearances model is false. All I am trying to do is show you that you know other things to be true lol. You know it is true that you live in India. You know it is true that it is better to open eyes when crossing the street. I am trying to show you something about the nature of truth (and context). I am not trying to prove you wrong about Consciousness and appearances. Please now read that once more before replying!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 11:04:47 GMT -5
Of course he understands the idea of everything being an appearance in consciousness. Andrew is annoying but not stupid. Hehe He's just trying to get you to acknowledge a different context, so acknowledge it already! I am trying to prove to him that everything exist in appearance, he is trying to show what happens in the world and how we perceive the world. But I am saying to him that that's not true, but he is trying to show me that both are true. My non-existent brain is loosing the patience now. I am not trying to show you how we perceive the world. Please read that again at least twice I am saying that regardless of how you perceive the world, you know that it is true that your glasses help you to see better. You know that it is true that you like Pepsi. This is about the nature of 'truth', not about the nature of perception.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 11:04:57 GMT -5
If other people are real, then I can't go wrong in the concept of predetermination. That's not what I asked. Okay.
|
|