Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 6:46:27 GMT -5
Assume TV frames, how you are perceiving the movement of the actors when the frame moves. Okay, so you are saying the frame doesn't move. But, conditioning itself is a process (a movement) that pertains to movement. As a simple example, a child can be conditioned to know how to do Maths. Condition of other people arises from me If those appearance are figment of my imagination. Condition of other people arises from themselves If they are real, but universe governs here how they would have to be conditioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 6:46:59 GMT -5
Yes, that makes sense, but still consciousness is conscious of something, That's why I am considering the word 'consciousness' for me. Okay, yes that makes sense why you would pick that word ok
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 6:48:13 GMT -5
Okay, so you are saying the frame doesn't move. But, conditioning itself is a process (a movement) that pertains to movement. As a simple example, a child can be conditioned to know how to do Maths. Condition of other people arises from me If those appearance are figment of my imagination. Condition of other people arises from themselves If they are real, but universe governs here how they would have to be conditioned. My question isn't clear to you because you are not answering the one I am asking. Conditioning means that one thing affects another thing right? How does one thing affect another thing in your model, is all images are independent? To be fair, I also know I am not asking you very clearly here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 6:50:41 GMT -5
Condition of other people arises from me If those appearance are figment of my imagination. Condition of other people arises from themselves If they are real, but universe governs here how they would have to be conditioned. My question isn't clear to you because you are not answering the one I am asking. Conditioning means that one thing affects another thing right? How does one thing affect another thing in your model, is all images are independent? I am answering to your question. Next movement of yours and all other individuals would be decided by 'my' consciousness If you are all figment of my consciousness. Next movement of yours and all other individuals would be decided by consciousness which is common to all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 6:53:35 GMT -5
My question isn't clear to you because you are not answering the one I am asking. Conditioning means that one thing affects another thing right? How does one thing affect another thing in your model, is all images are independent? I am answering to your question. Next movement of yours and all other individuals would be decided by 'my' consciousness If you are all figment of my consciousness. Next movement of yours and all other individuals would be decided by consciousness which is common to all. Are you saying that individuals move?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 6:55:11 GMT -5
I am answering to your question. Next movement of yours and all other individuals would be decided by 'my' consciousness If you are all figment of my consciousness. Next movement of yours and all other individuals would be decided by consciousness which is common to all. Are you saying that individuals move? Individuals would move If they are real, My mere appearance would move as if the real individual moves If they are not real. In first case, Consciousness decides the individuals movements, In the second case, since individuals are figments, my consciousness would decides the movement all the individuals.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 6:59:14 GMT -5
Are you saying that individuals move? Individuals would move If they are real, My appearance would move If they are not real. In first case, Consciousness decides the individuals movements, In the second case, since individuals are figments, my consciousness would decides the movement all the individuals. I don't get it. I'll let it go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 6:59:33 GMT -5
Individuals would move If they are real, My appearance would move If they are not real. In first case, Consciousness decides the individuals movements, In the second case, since individuals are figments, my consciousness would decides the movement all the individuals. I don't get it. I'll let it go. Yes. That's better.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2016 7:42:13 GMT -5
Ok, you're right. You answered. If I say I don't understand what you mean by political bias on a spiritual forum, I'll get another ration. I still don't know what I'm denying/not denying - insisting people check their facts? Do I do that, let alone only to certain people? Well, "political bias" is just a shorthand for explaining why I didn't bother to challenge gopal on his perception. You can call it whatever you like, but it seems to me to fit perfectly with how you were willing to comment on gopals "you can never understand this logic" while glossing over and dressing up andy&satchi's comments to gopal that were along the same lines. It also seems to me to fit with your debating me about past events of what I perceive as obvious trolling. Well, this is the danger in believing that our subjective experience is the truth. And yes, I'm addressing myself too. Notice how Gopal has liked your posts every time you make negative comments about me, i.e. 'political' posts btw. You like to shake things up - throw in a compliment and rattle his world a bit. <--This is a joke to point out how Gopal's subjective experience is being hardened into an impenetrable rock by your 'support'. Please don't actually do it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2016 9:28:36 GMT -5
But there's also no "context" in which they become equal either. It seems to you as if what I'm referring to is an intellectual contrivance, but that's because you're approaching the entire affair head-first, and only with intellect. The absolute context is a pointer, and after-the-fact. It's not a product of intellect, and there are no boundaries involved with it that would correspond to this statement of "everything within me". To you the absolute context is a pointer, to me it's a useful idea, and can be experienced to be true. There is a point at which they become equal, a point at which the relative and absolute meet. I see the way that you create you create your experience as self-deluded, but I know at this point that you cannot see what I see. I might idealize but I see my creations for what they are. Well at least you've morphed away from yesterdays thesis that it's your judgment or lack thereof that shifts contexts. One of your more ridiculous delusions is that you create your experience. There's no point in arguing with you about this context business, you're dug in and completely lost in your intellect, but that you're arguing for equating Charlie Manson and Eckhart Tolle should clue ya' in to where you're standing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2016 9:29:48 GMT -5
Indirectly it did because you'd expressed interest in something the frog had written in response to the pilgrim. What a keen observer you are in this forum!!! in that case it was just 5 seconds to follow the links backward was all.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2016 9:41:17 GMT -5
Well, "political bias" is just a shorthand for explaining why I didn't bother to challenge gopal on his perception. You can call it whatever you like, but it seems to me to fit perfectly with how you were willing to comment on gopals "you can never understand this logic" while glossing over and dressing up andy&satchi's comments to gopal that were along the same lines. It also seems to me to fit with your debating me about past events of what I perceive as obvious trolling. Well, this is the danger in believing that our subjective experience is the truth. And yes, I'm addressing myself too. Notice how Gopal has liked your posts every time you make negative comments about me, i.e. 'political' posts btw. You like to shake things up - throw in a compliment and rattle his world a bit. <--This is a joke to point out how Gopal's subjective experience is being hardened into an impenetrable rock by your 'support'. Please don't actually do it. Most times you and I dialog it's an argument and often it includes criticism from you based on my interactions with others. Much like what you've written here. And when that happens, it's often in the midst of some contention between myself and those others, and the positions you've taken in the past have generated likes from peeps like silver, verby, anja, 'dusty, sasquatch, andy, alfy, sunny and several others who have literally out-and-out cursed at me in one form or another over the years. Now, the question about all this that also applies to these likes of gopals is: how personally should this all be taken? It's not really possible to not take it personally at all without checking-out emotionally, but if I internalized any of that silliness I would have walked away years ago. So, I'll give you the same advice I sometimes give gopal. Relax.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 9:59:11 GMT -5
Because that's the way it creates. Can you say a bit more about 'the way' then? You experience the illusion or appearance of memories from 20 years ago, why not from 50? Mind loves order and requires that it's experience make sense. That's why it does. It also loves mystery and problem solving, which is why there is mystery and problems. Some folks love miracles, which is why there are miracles. Some 30 year olds have memories from 50 years ago, just not Gopal. Try Tenka, you might have better luck.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 10:12:53 GMT -5
When I ask someone something in my nightly dream, I do not assume or believe they have a brain. You would say I don't 'live my beliefs' because I talk to a brainless image. Do you refuse to interact with the characters in your dreams? He is not going to understand any kind of explanation we try to give, I am pretty sure, He is going on with his another 1000 questions. Well, that's just Andy, he never loses an argument even when he's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:20:47 GMT -5
To you the absolute context is a pointer, to me it's a useful idea, and can be experienced to be true. There is a point at which they become equal, a point at which the relative and absolute meet. I see the way that you create you create your experience as self-deluded, but I know at this point that you cannot see what I see. I might idealize but I see my creations for what they are. Well at least you've morphed away from yesterdays thesis that it's your judgment or lack thereof that shifts contexts. One of your more ridiculous delusions is that you create your experience. There's no point in arguing with you about this context business, you're dug in and completely lost in your intellect, but that you're arguing for equating Charlie Manson and Eckhart Tolle should clue ya' in to where you're standing. Just the structure of the experience, not the experience itself. Funny thing is that most human beings will put Charlie Manson and Eckhart Tolle into a hierarchy, what makes spiritual folks slightly unusual is their ability to see them without that hierarchy, i.e see them as equally 'of God' in the absolute sense. You stick to your hierarchies if it is working for you.
|
|