Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 13:10:32 GMT -5
Everything is just happening in consciousness to a 'human observer'. But is everything just happening in consciousness to consciousness, devoid of a 'human observer? In other words, does consciousness need a human observer to see, feel, hear, taste and experience? There is no human observer, Consciousness itself is the observer, human is an appearance in consciousness. So before human observers, Consciousness was observing appearances? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 13:26:48 GMT -5
There is no human observer, Consciousness itself is the observer, human is an appearance in consciousness. So before human observers, Consciousness was observing appearances? Human with his whole body is appearing to consciousness. Consciousness is the only observer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 13:41:17 GMT -5
There is no human observer, Consciousness itself is the observer, human is an appearance in consciousness. So before human observers, Consciousness was observing appearances? Human with his whole body is appearing to consciousness. Consciousness is the only observer. The truth is we are not humans but we believe we are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 13:55:53 GMT -5
So before human observers, Consciousness was observing appearances? Human with his whole body is appearing to consciousness. Consciousness is the only observer. Okay, so what were 'you' consciousness Observing before the appearance of human beings appeared? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 18, 2016 13:57:47 GMT -5
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.  I think princess agrees with most in regards to there being only what we are or consciousness or God . I thought he made a clear post on God yesterday .. Every context refers to God .. Every appearance refers to God ... The frustration is that certain contexts that refer to God are being ignored, dodged, unanswered, yada yada yada .. He will stop like I did sooner or later trying to get such answers .. Dodging God in a relative sense makes no sense when God is all there is .. It's a very clear statement andy makes .. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 14:12:22 GMT -5
Did you understand what he wrote about 'the resolution' that happens at third position in the mountain metaphor? I understand your preference for taking what he's written at face value, though any firmness in his resolve indicates that the force he used to know that God is his true nature hasn't been surrendered. Firmness of resolve is indicative of 'force used to know God as true nature'? How do you arrive at that..? A yes or no would have done. How about this: Do you have reference for the 'resolution' he spoke of? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 14:19:44 GMT -5
I understand your preference for taking what he's written at face value, though any firmness in his resolve indicates that the force he used to know that God is his true nature hasn't been surrendered. Firmness of resolve is indicative of 'force used to know God as true nature'? How do you arrive at that..?A yes or no would have done. How about this: Do you have reference for the 'resolution' he spoke of? By reading the words that he's written. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 18, 2016 16:23:52 GMT -5
What? What do you think I said? I'm talking about how difficult it is to judge whether someone on the path is right where they need to be or stuck. I don't know what you're referring to with the "judgment machine". You wrote that it was difficult to differentiate between "rationalizing justifications" and "following one's path". I disagreed with that. I assumed you were referring to looking inward and differentiating between when we ourselves are doing one or the other. Were you?  .. or were you referring to differentiating between when someone else was doing that? Both. How did judgment machine relate to that? As a seeker you always knew whether you were rationalizing stuck-behavior or actually following an auspicious route? I found that to be hidden a lot of the time. Maybe I distrusted my instincts too much? I dunno, but that was my experience. And I think it's even harder to tell with others. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 18, 2016 18:37:10 GMT -5
Firmness of resolve is indicative of 'force used to know God as true nature'? How do you arrive at that..?A yes or no would have done. How about this: Do you have reference for the 'resolution' he spoke of? By reading the words that he's written. Your interpretation might be a tad slanted. Again; Do you have reference for the 'resolution' he spoke of? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 19:31:23 GMT -5
What's obvious is that the world is appearing to you. That's all. It's not quite that..the word 'appearing' requires a non-obvious thought. It's simpler even than that.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 19:39:35 GMT -5
What he's saying is that everything is an appearance in Consciousness. Why doesn't that include his computer? Sure, I understand. But in Gopal's universe there is no individuation He talks about others being points of perception (or not). That's individuation. So Consciousness has important bizness to attend to? Seriously? I don't think anybody here has an issue with duality. Gopal talks about it all the time. I see a couple of spiritual cliches there but I don't know what you think you are saying with them. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 19:46:47 GMT -5
so now the people appearances are conditioned. Okay, I'll back off a bit. SDP asked you the key question, I don't know whether you can, or will, answer it. Maybe you can't...that's okay, it is what it is. When you say stuff like 'people are conditioned', I know your answer to the question he is asking you anyway, whether you know it or not (it's a 'yes'). Precisely. If people can be conditioned then they are not merely appearances. If they were appearances then Consciousness would be responsible and there would no necessity of a mediated conditioning process, Consciousness would just make-it-happen. To admit to conditioning would be to admit to an individuation which is not merely an appearance, IOW, an action outside the flow of Consciousness, a kind of ~rebellion~ against the flow of Consciousness. (For me that would be the very purpose of duality, twoness). [See post above] The purpose of duality is a rebellion against the flow of Consciousness? Did I hear that right? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 19:49:35 GMT -5
Precisely. If people can be conditioned then they are not merely appearances. If they were appearances then Consciousness would be responsible and there would no necessity of a mediated conditioning process, Consciousness would just make-it-happen. To admit to conditioning would be to admit to an individuation which is not merely an appearance, IOW, an action outside the flow of Consciousness, a kind of ~rebellion~ against the flow of Consciousness. (For me that would be the very purpose of duality, twoness). [See post above] big yes to the bolded. Not sure about the rest...maybe you will say more at some point. Consciousness is not a big person who initiates a conditioning process for some purpose.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 19:54:01 GMT -5
Well we are verging on the realms of the mind being real, imaginary, dreamy, illusory blah blah blah .. Thats why context and environments are key ... Everything is of the mind, butt there are differences in regards to how things appear, be it the dream I had last night or the experience I had of flicking an elastic band in my co workers eye today ... We can all relate to the different platforms in regards to appearances .. These platforms are governed by certain laws .. If a peep wants to ignore them or somehow override them in some kind of absolute context then they are fooling themselves .. It's ever so easy and straightforward to carry out experiments in regards to this . As already stated, try conjuring up your physical mother and then try conjuring up a pink elephant on the same platform .. It's impossible and this impossibility is key to context .. and is key to what appears and how it appears .. Ok. Gopal is the only one who refuses to discuss different contexts, but that doesn't automatically infer that he's ignoring them or trying to override them. I have no idea what it infers, other than he gets a charge out of an argument (as he himself stated). Everyone (including Gopal, I'm pretty sure) understands that there is a relative context where there's a difference between an imagined pink elephant and your mother. Some will acknowledge it and some won't. I'm getting the impression that the 'won't' group thinks it would be stepping into some kind of trap. Whatever that means.  FWIW, I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 19:55:50 GMT -5
It's a good question. Actually, nobody is freed. Nobody, nothing ever gets enlightened. It's one of those wacky spirichool thangs. I would say the expression is freed (but I do get the 'nobody/nothing gets enlightened') The bark of a dog is an expression. Can a bark get freed from something? |
|
.. or were you referring to differentiating between when someone else was doing that?
