Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:01:58 GMT -5
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? I call it the Originator; Supreme, Conscious, Originating, Intelligence. I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 23:06:10 GMT -5
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. But for them the trees are not physical, for them there is no external universe. For them the universe is like a holographic 3-D projection ( is a holographic projection). You go see a movie, it's projected on-to a screen, but you are seeing moving pictures on a flat surface. For them this universe is the same, merely a kind of 3-D projection by the Oneness. Don't you understand their position? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 23:09:08 GMT -5
OK then, how did this universe arise (the manifest), originate? I call it the Originator; Supreme, Conscious, Originating, Intelligence. I don't know. OK, but I've had a burning want-to-know for 50 years. It's connected with many things and many things have arisen from it, I asked myself, Who am I? many years before hearing about self-inquiry and Ramana. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:09:26 GMT -5
You don't need to prove it to gopal E and L. They all see trees. But for them the trees are not physical, for them there is no external universe. For them the universe is like a holographic 3-D projection ( is a holographic projection). You go see a movie, it's projected on-to a screen, but you are seeing moving pictures on a flat surface. For them this universe is the same, merely a kind of 3-D projection by the Oneness. Don't you understand their position? No I don't understand their position because I don't believe them if that is what they are saying. I believe they all react to a tree as if it is real. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:11:07 GMT -5
OK, but I've had a burning want-to-know for 50 years. It's connected with many things and many things have arisen from it, I asked myself, Who am I? many years before hearing about self-inquiry and Ramana. Why does the universe have to have a beginning? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 23:13:56 GMT -5
But for them the trees are not physical, for them there is no external universe. For them the universe is like a holographic 3-D projection ( is a holographic projection). You go see a movie, it's projected on-to a screen, but you are seeing moving pictures on a flat surface. For them this universe is the same, merely a kind of 3-D projection by the Oneness. Don't you understand their position? No I don't understand their position because I don't believe them if that is what they are saying. I believe they all react to a tree as if it is real. OK, but I'm quite surprised by what you say. I'll have E explain context to you some time.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:17:39 GMT -5
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? Human being is an appearance in consciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:19:13 GMT -5
No I don't understand their position because I don't believe them if that is what they are saying. I believe they all react to a tree as if it is real. OK, but I'm quite surprised by what you say. I'll have E explain context to you some time. He can explain context to me while sitting under the shade of a tree. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 23:21:51 GMT -5
OK, but I've had a burning want-to-know for 50 years. It's connected with many things and many things have arisen from it, I asked myself, Who am I? many years before hearing about self-inquiry and Ramana. Why does the universe have to have a beginning? You just said Consciousness doesn't do anything (if not precisely what you said, close), I don't get that. But anyway, I've studied and pondered these questions from many angles. Physics says the universe had a beginning. Now science can't say too much about what was, before the beginning, so you have to move to another arena. I say SOCI did not have a beginning, always was (always IS), but originated the manifest universe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:24:20 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. Yes, the external world born out of speculation, So I don't to need to have any evidence to falsify that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 23:25:27 GMT -5
But for them the trees are not physical, for them there is no external universe. For them the universe is like a holographic 3-D projection ( is a holographic projection). You go see a movie, it's projected on-to a screen, but you are seeing moving pictures on a flat surface. For them this universe is the same, merely a kind of 3-D projection by the Oneness. Don't you understand their position? No I don't understand their position because I don't believe them if that is what they are saying. I believe they all react to a tree as if it is real. , the pertinent words. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:27:58 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). The problem is, we have never seen such a world so far. That's just born out of our own speculation We both are experiencing the commong thing but interpreting in different way We are experiencing the perceiving act, we are simply perceiving, then we start to speculate that it's coming from some mysterious place called outer world. This assumption just remain in speculation, but my conclusion is direct and simple. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:30:12 GMT -5
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. We don't have to prove anything either, because we both haven't brought a mysterious world from where the perception are being received, you said and you started to speculate that your perception is coming from some kind of outer world but unfortunately not even a single human being in the world has ever never seen. Since you brought such a world you need to prove to us about that world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 23:33:57 GMT -5
Why does the universe have to have a beginning? You just said Consciousness doesn't do anything (if not precisely what you said, close), I don't get that. But anyway, I've studied and pondered these questions from many angles. Physics says the universe had a beginning. Now science can't say too much about what was, before the beginning, so you have to move to another arena. I say SOCI did not have a beginning, always was (always IS), but originated the manifest universe. What about the multiverse theory and multiple big bangs. No beginning is required. Stephen Hawking said there was no God because before the big bang there was no time and therefore no entity to create because creation required time. But that sidesteps the requirement for something to initiate the starting of time which leads to the big bang. But if there is infinite time in both directions then nothing is needed to start anything. So God is outside of space and time. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2016 23:37:27 GMT -5
I am directly perceiving and concluding, but you are speculating from what you have seen and concluding. You are seeing the moon and speculating that it's dangling in the sky, but I am not speculating that, I am simply perceiving and saying that moon is appearing to me. Why do you bring some kind of world which you have never seen in your life time? And the image of the moon is created in your brain is what you are also saying. Yes, everything you see, everything you think you see, is merely in your own head (in your mind-brain-consciousness). You see only a copy of what's exterior, only a representation, a re-creation. |
|
