|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 19:58:24 GMT -5
It does, actually. The brown bear video addresses this point directly. Mr brown bear is not wrong that the tree is an illusion, and Mrs brown bear's objection is not on philosophical grounds. She would not say he is wrong, just missing the human experience of the tree. If Mr Brown bear is sleeping in the woods, and a giant oak falls on him and a 4 ft. limb gouges his brain out and a buzzard comes by and eats his brain, does Mrs (or Mr) Brown bear say trees don't exist? Mr Brown bear wouldn't be saying much of anything at that point, and Mrs Brown bear probly wouldn't be admiring the tree anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 20:04:28 GMT -5
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.  Well it seems that some relate to the dream state in the same breath / context as the waking world . Nobody is equating those contexts, if that's what you're trying to say. Well, it may be the key to the point you relentlessly want to make, but it's not key to the point Gopal relentlessly wants to make. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 20:09:32 GMT -5
big yes to the bolded. Not sure about the rest...maybe you will say more at some point. OK, it's very complicated, nobody ever, here, seems to understand, but it's one reason I say I am not a non-dualist. There is all there is. There can't be anything outside all there is (by definition). But I say there is an Originating Consciousness, Oneness, Wholeness. As an expression of (Its Own) creativity, the Oneness ~makes a~ twoness, the unmanifest, manifests. For this to even be possible, Oneness draws-a-line/makes-a-cut. So now there is Oneness (still Whole, Complete, meaning, has not fallen into its own dream) and an otherness. The otherness is not outside the Oneness (by definition there can't be anything outside all that is), but the otherness allows for independence, for independent decisions. And the original Oneness can enjoy seeing something happen which is outside of its control, can see creativity evolve....and eventually even, come-back-to-union-with-Oneness (the spiritual journey).... or, allow the otherness (individuated "person-hood", at least potential consciousness) to wither and die and cease to-be. That's a very high price, but that's the choice Oneness made, and is making... Oneness means nothing to you if you can simply 'make a cut' and turn it into two. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 20:15:26 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. All traps are imagined.   Tell that to Mr Brown bear.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 20:18:57 GMT -5
It does, actually. The brown bear video addresses this point directly. Mr brown bear is not wrong that the tree is an illusion, and Mrs brown bear's objection is not on philosophical grounds. She would not say he is wrong, just missing the human experience of the tree. Mr brown bear says unequivocally 'there is no tree', but clearly there is a phenomenological experience designated tree (beyond the concept, at the level of sensation). Really it doesn't make much sense to talk about that as illusion in the same way it doesn’t to talk about it in terms of real. Rather, better to envisage the tree as being illusory in nature, see clearly how there is no inherently existing or abiding tree, and that the experience tree arises, conditionally. This is the middle way. Or you could simply say there is no tree and save a lot of typing. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 20:26:29 GMT -5
Are you really interested in the answer to that question? Not really. I'm more interested in why he is self-identifying with Consciousness and the creator of perceptual flow. If that's what he is actually saying. I'd say it's because he IS Consciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 20:31:42 GMT -5
Not really. I'm more interested in why he is self-identifying with Consciousness and the creator of perceptual flow. If that's what he is actually saying. I'd say it's because he IS Consciousness. I understand why the mind is attached to that concept. So I guess being the creator of perceptual flow would be a logical conceptual association. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 20:32:19 GMT -5
That's why I'm explaining to you that there's really nothing to grasp. Look and see. I agree there is nothing to grasp. It's the concept that mind is grasping. There is nothing for the mind to grasp that we are body/minds, yet that is what we believe because mind grasps the concept. Same for ineffable, nothing for the mind to grasp except a concept, so that is also what mind believes. I'm saying the concept of infinity cannot be used as an identity. An identity must be finite. The concept of body/minds can easily be grasped as an identity. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 20:40:43 GMT -5
No, what I say is no idea is ultimately true. The only Exception being the idea that only 'truth is true'...  Truth is a made up word that means nothing until that truth is defined, at which point it becomes bounded and false. 'Truth is true' is a Tenkatology about that made up word, and says nothing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 21:10:13 GMT -5
I agree there is nothing to grasp. It's the concept that mind is grasping. There is nothing for the mind to grasp that we are body/minds, yet that is what we believe because mind grasps the concept. Same for ineffable, nothing for the mind to grasp except a concept, so that is also what mind believes. I'm saying the concept of infinity cannot be used as an identity. An identity must be finite. The concept of body/minds can easily be grasped as an identity. I am saying when you look and cannot find a finite self, the concept of self-identifying with a body/mind drops away. Some minds aren't satisfied with the loss of conceptual self-identity and grasp onto the concept of a universal self-identity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 21:10:48 GMT -5
Silence is where that expansion leads. Constricting focus with misuse of analytical mind leads instead to Dooooofus Guy and an endless circular dialog.  No, silence is not where that expansion (deluded mind) leads. Silence leads to expansion, but now it's called wisdom because it has the value of silence or the unlimited. Your so called expansion is just the limited value of minding. Expansion and the hearts-expression, devoid of thinking-one-knows is the go. Laughter knows so much he is full of it. Bottoms up laughter... enjoy your hi-colonic  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 21:14:59 GMT -5
The only Exception being the idea that only 'truth is true'... Truth is a made up word that means nothing until that truth is defined, at which point it becomes bounded and false. 'Truth is true' is a Tenkatology about that made up word, and says nothing. That idea is not ultimately true. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 21:40:15 GMT -5
hehe. 'Oh, I know that. It's always what hits the door first.' hehe Well gee D.G., didn't ya' see it there??  Hehe 'Well, I figure it's just an appearance, which means it isn't real, right?' Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 21:46:27 GMT -5
Oh - are you talking about the what-happens-in-a-dream-is-the-same-as-waking-life thingy? I think that's just a philosophical inquiry - can we absolutely know that we're not in some sort of dream. No, we can't. But it doesn't really matter, to me anyway. I believe the real purpose of the dream analogy is to get us to question if what we believe is actually true. It's supposed to be symbolic, not actual. what would limit it to a philosophical inquiry. Some peeps don't do that, and it can be a mind-blower. Yes, not symbolic, so much, really. More like "As above, so below". |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 21:51:04 GMT -5
I don't know if you've noticed that some peeps here are strongly attached to an objective physical reality. But only if you take twisting the concepts up into tortured knots to express the belief in semi-stealth mode as evidence of the attachment.  I do. |
|
