|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 21:57:30 GMT -5
Incidentally, "real as a rock" demonstrates my disdain for the term 'real', as rocks are also appearances in Consciousness.  So you would also have disdain for the term if someone described appearances as 'real'? I've specifically expressed as much, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 21:58:28 GMT -5
Ugly is pretty too Quin... Lets have your example. No comprendo Alfio. What example? (Glad you enjoyed your ST break  ) So did I. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 22:09:05 GMT -5
my guess is that those that you think are attached are not, but have no need to run away from the experience as it is. Enigma's statement and your response to it says so much about what is going on here. Enigma and others including gopal have taken the teachings of Advaita (non duality) and have wrongly interpreted them to be philosophical teachings. They are not. They are meant to be a pointer towards what has to be non intellectually realized. No wonder they were traditionally kept under lock and key for fear they would be misunderstood. Vedanta does not reject the physical world and it does not ask you to form some kind of view that dismisses the apparent objective reality of it which is experienced. What this current discussion completely ignores is that mind cannot answer these questions and ND teachings never suggested it could. Nonduality is not philosophy. I don't reject the physical world or dismiss the apparent objective reality of it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 22:19:24 GMT -5
Andy has already agreed with Gopal that everything is an appearance in consciousness, so ignore whatever he tells you to placate you and keep you as an ally against the evil Gopal. .. What is lacking though are explanations of how things come about from certain peeps . This lack of understanding across the various platforms regarding what is perceived as an appearance speaks volumes .. When a peep has to guess that they had a physical birth and one doesn't know if there mum is real yada yada yada, then their life is a little messed up if they truly live by their convictions ... butt we all know that certain peeps don't live by their beliefs, so it's difficult, near impossible to take them seriously .. If one did live by their convictions then there would be a convincing theory that they hold that would explain their understandings in fine detail . The fact that there are no straightforward answers to straightforward questions reflects more of a delusion or fantasy had than anything else . There are a bunch of us here that see the flaws in what a peep says and what a peep does .. I suppose we are brothers in arms in this respect, butt it more of a common sense thing .. I mean if a peep believes that a bus is created by simply perceiving it and can't for the life of them manifest a bus at will then what's a peep going to do about the price of fish .. Consciousness and mind are not the same thing. Andy is just pretending you are on the same wavelength. He wants you as an ally. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 22:28:27 GMT -5
There's nothing in between. Well, maybe a little greasy spot. Watch your step. I thought there was nothing but the between bit. Pilgrim's 'in between' is a scientific paradigm of cause/effect. There is no 'in between'. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 22:31:48 GMT -5
Yes, you are reading from your appearance, don't you? Let's assume there is a outer world, even if you assume such a case, you are still reading from the image(image inside your bran) of actual(outer), aren't you? No it is not my experience that I am reading an image from my brain. Gopal is right. You don't even have to study physiology, just examine. You see a tree, does the image of a tree travel down a nerve pathway to the brain?, are there little tiny trees traveling down sensory nerves? No, the information is coded electrically and chemically, and then the brain decodes the data and forms (reforms) an image of a tree. Gopal is correct, we never see directly what's exterior. I saw this as a teenager, so I've understood this over 45 years. However, for Gopal this is hypothetical ("Let's assume"), for me I consider there actually is an external world. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 22:34:05 GMT -5
It's not a belief that you require them if you require them. It's the recognition that you require them. It doesn't say it's all not an appearance in consciousness. Gravity is also an appearance in consciousness. Knowing that doesn't mean you can necessarily float around. The recognition that you require them comes with a belief. Hence why you were able to transcend your glasses. Gravity may be more tricky to transcend because it is collectively agreed on mass, but there are stories of folks that do transcend the belief in gravity. Gravity as an appearance? Hmmm. Interesting mixture of understandings on the subject of appearances floating around. I didn't transcend my glasses. I required them at one time because it was an expression of my psychic makeup, not a belief. Folks who find they need glasses don't come to that by way of a belief that they should need glasses. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 22:43:33 GMT -5
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. I meant draw a line (separating formless and form, the unmanifest and the manifest. The only difference between you and I, you consider it an imaginary line, not-real. I consider it real.) G. Spencer Brown has shown how this occurs in Laws of Form. This is essentially done also in constructing the I Ching (you start with an unbroken line and a broken line). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 22:45:28 GMT -5
No it is not my experience that I am reading an image from my brain. Gopal is right. You don't even have to study physiology, just examine. You see a tree, does the image of a tree travel down a nerve pathway to the brain?, are there little tiny trees traveling down sensory nerves? No, the information is coded electrically and chemically, and then the brain decodes the data and forms (reforms) an image of a tree. Gopal is correct, we never see directly what's exterior. I saw this as a teenager, so I've understood this over 45 years. However, for Gopal this is hypothetical ("Let's assume"), for me I consider there actually is an external world. It's true to say that you can never know an object directly such as a tree because the perception of it relies on the intermediary of mind and senses. The ancients didn't need to know about brain physiology to know that was true. But that's not the same as saying that I have the experience of seeing a tree. The experience of seeing the tree and believing it to be real is not negated by the knowledge that it is just an image in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 22:47:46 GMT -5
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. But then you have to answer why the unmanifest-Consciousness began this charade. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 22:50:04 GMT -5
I thought there was nothing but the between bit. Pilgrim's 'in between' is a scientific paradigm of cause/effect. There is no 'in between'. But then you have to ask why Consciousness formed the charade. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 22:55:00 GMT -5
Or you could simply say there is no tree and save a lot of typing. But then you have to answer why the unmanifest-Consciousness began this charade. Consciousness doesn't do anything or begin anything or create anything as it is completely without attributes of any kind. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 22:56:06 GMT -5
Gopal is right. You don't even have to study physiology, just examine. You see a tree, does the image of a tree travel down a nerve pathway to the brain?, are there little tiny trees traveling down sensory nerves? No, the information is coded electrically and chemically, and then the brain decodes the data and forms (reforms) an image of a tree. Gopal is correct, we never see directly what's exterior. I saw this as a teenager, so I've understood this over 45 years. However, for Gopal this is hypothetical ("Let's assume"), for me I consider there actually is an external world. It's true to say that you can never know an object directly such as a tree because the perception of it relies on the intermediary of mind and senses. The ancients didn't need to know about brain physiology to know that was true. But that's not the same as saying that I have the experience of seeing a tree. The experience of seeing the tree and believing it to be real is not negated by the knowledge that it is just an image in my mind. I agree. But the question is, is there a way to demonstrate this to Gopal, and E and L? I know it's true, I've proven it to myself, verified it, you could say objectively subjective, but it's a process, and one has to have a reason to submit to the process, and that reason is also objectively subjective (IOW, personal). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 22:59:27 GMT -5
It's true to say that you can never know an object directly such as a tree because the perception of it relies on the intermediary of mind and senses. The ancients didn't need to know about brain physiology to know that was true. But that's not the same as saying that I have the experience of seeing a tree. The experience of seeing the tree and believing it to be real is not negated by the knowledge that it is just an image in my mind. I agree. But the question is, is there a way to demonstrate this to Gopal, and E and L? I know it's true, I've proven it to myself, verified it, you could say objectively subjective, but it's a process, and one has to have a reason to submit to the process, and that reason is also objectively subjective (IOW, personal). You don't need to prove it to gopal E and L. They all see trees. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 23:00:36 GMT -5
But then you have to answer why the unmanifest-Consciousness began this charade. Consciousness doesn't do anything or begin anything or create anything as it is completely without attributes of any kind. OK then, how did this universe arise (the manifest), originate? Supreme, Conscious, Ordering, Intelligence. |
|
)
