Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 11:06:39 GMT -5
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. That's the way it appears! You might mistaken snake for rope. But the truth that what's there is rope. In the same way you are not person who is looking through the pair of eyes but you are consciousness and everything else is appearing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 11:07:08 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.  Not quite, no. I have said that in the absolute context (which transcends the relative by definition), all contexts are equal. In the relative context there IS hierarchy. And no, I am not trying to persuade him that contexts are equal, it is more accurate to say that I am trying to show him what context is. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:08:34 GMT -5
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. Great post. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:11:27 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 ::: What has he said there that indicates confusion? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 11:11:37 GMT -5
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. That's the way it appears! You might mistaken snake for rope. But the truth that what's there is rope. In the same way you are not person who is looking through the pair of eyes but you are consciousness and everything else is appearing. Stop and read what I said again please. I am NOT arguing with your model. I am not trying to tell you that Consciousnes-appearances are false. I am saying that you know that it is true that your glasses help you to see better. If you didn't know that was true, you wouldn't have got them to start with, and you wouldn't put them on. I'm STILL not saying there that what you are saying is wrong or false. I'm saying that you experience knowing more to be true than you are saying, regardless of whether it is true or not. You know it is true that India is hot in summer. You know it is true that if you are hungry, then food will make that better. You know it is true that it is better to go pee before going on a long distance car journey  There are literally thousands of things you experience knowing to be true. Please read that again before replying. Edit: I'm not trying to tell you what IS true, I am trying to tell you what you experience as knowing to be true. Do you see the difference? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 11:15:49 GMT -5
That's the way it appears! You might mistaken snake for rope. But the truth that what's there is rope. In the same way you are not person who is looking through the pair of eyes but you are consciousness and everything else is appearing. Stop and read what I said again please. I am NOT arguing with your model. I am not trying to tell you that Consciousnes-appearances are false. I am saying that you know that it is true that your glasses help you to see better. If you didn't know that was true, you wouldn't have got them to start with, and you wouldn't put them on. I'm STILL not saying there that what you are saying is wrong or false. I'm saying that you experience knowing more to be true than you are saying, regardless of whether it is true or not. You know it is true that India is hot in summer. You know it is true that if you are hungry, then food will make that better. You know it is true that it is better to go pee before going on a long distance car journey There are literally thousands of things you experience knowing to be true. Please read that again before replying. Edit: I'm not trying to tell you what IS true, I am trying to tell you what you experience as knowing to be true. Do you see the difference? Oh ok. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:19:54 GMT -5
Thanks for answering. I find what you have to say interesting. There a lot of bouncing balls in my life these days so, when I read his posts and the links, I can sense that Laffy's skills as a programmer enable that neural network to keep an eye on several bouncing balls in incredible detail. There's a wee bit of envy there, considering the number of international-multicultural students/teachers/admin I need to interact with daily, while being focused on learning objectives.  Sure, I can understand a sense of appreciation, even envy if what you are seeing there is an example of a strong ability to multi-task.......but I don't see the same accuracy with detail there that you obviously do. What I really found interesting was your seeing it all as an act of love. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 11:25:36 GMT -5
Stop and read what I said again please. I am NOT arguing with your model. I am not trying to tell you that Consciousnes-appearances are false. I am saying that you know that it is true that your glasses help you to see better. If you didn't know that was true, you wouldn't have got them to start with, and you wouldn't put them on. I'm STILL not saying there that what you are saying is wrong or false. I'm saying that you experience knowing more to be true than you are saying, regardless of whether it is true or not. You know it is true that India is hot in summer. You know it is true that if you are hungry, then food will make that better. You know it is true that it is better to go pee before going on a long distance car journey There are literally thousands of things you experience knowing to be true. Please read that again before replying. Edit: I'm not trying to tell you what IS true, I am trying to tell you what you experience as knowing to be true. Do you see the difference? Oh ok. You see, at no point have I tried to tell you that Consciousness-appearances is false. I have challenged your idea of what constitutes an appearance, but that is about as far as I went. I've just talking about what you know to be true, whether you know it to be true that appearances appear, and whether you know it to be true that Gopal lives in India. I'm not very interested in what IS true. I'm just interested in your experience of knowing what is true. Yes there are spiritual truths that you know, but there are also the day to day knowings. In your job there must be thousands of experiences of knowing what is true in relation to computer programming. I'm not saying they ARE 'the truth', again I'm talking about your experience of knowing they are true. There's a subtle but significant difference there. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:27:51 GMT -5
In equating the murderer and the rock you deny the relative, just as you've described others denying the relative. The difference is, that your denial is stark and here in black in white in your own words, while concocting the supposed denial of the other putative black bears involves you authoring straw men all stitched together with the fabric of misquotes and psudologic. The rock and murderer are equated in the context of the absolute, but always remain different in the relative. It's a paradox, it means they are the same and different at the same time. The problem might be is that whereas Enigma and others are happy to speak of an absolute context, your model does not have one, so this is literally impossible for you to understand at the moment. Nope, Not at all. Interesting actually to see in back & white like that, what's not being grasped. It's not often that the veering off in seeing gets laid out so obviously like that one did. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:31:54 GMT -5
He's got a deep facet of self-deprecating humor so it might be that or it might be confusion on his part over what was expressed. Yeah the self-depreciation is actually his DNA rather than the 'all is Brahman' meme.  Though there is some doubt here that he can openly admit that he understood what was written. Did you understand what he wrote about 'the resolution' that happens at third position in the mountain metaphor? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:49:39 GMT -5
Everybody needs to get on the same page concerning definitions. I noticed figgles also defines appearance different from Gopal. We can't understand each other unless we understand each other's definitions. I am saying everything is appearing. Whatever is visible to me is appearing. How about that which is felt, heard, tasted, experienced in any way? Is it only those things that 'visually' appear that you deem to be of the realm of 'appearance'? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:53:56 GMT -5
You are answering a question that wasn't asked. If someone asks you what is 1 + 1, do you say 'dog'? If someone asks you if you want an apple or a pear, do you say...'the apple is appearing'? The statement is 'Gopal lives in India'. Do you ever know this statement to be a true one? You are asking a question which you have already known. Don't you know I live in India? You are being disingenuous now Gopal. Why not simply answer his questions with a yes or no, or explain why a yes or no would not/does not apply from where you sit. |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Sept 18, 2016 11:55:15 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. Well said Lolly, our experience is of perceiving the tree over there, but the actuality is one undivided field of perception, every inch of space between the perceiver and the tree is one single field . |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:58:43 GMT -5
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. Ignore this bullnuts gopal, I'm not trying to prove that you deny something, I'm trying to show you that the idea of 'truth' doesn't just apply to a single context (Consciousness-appearances). I'm trying to show you that you know things to be true outside of that context. Laughter thinks I'm trying to catch you out, it's the opposite, I'm trying to show you what you already know but seem to have been reticent about saying. Yes! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 11:59:30 GMT -5
But you can't name a specific instance of this imagined morphing.  Because I've got almost zero interest in trying to show you. It's a dull litigious conversation, it almost always is when I talk to you. The reason I am talking to you now is because I'm sort of hanging around talking to gopal in a conversation that I actually would like to have. Nailed it. |
|
There are literally thousands of things you experience knowing to be true.
