|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 10:21:31 GMT -5
::sigh:: you often avoid the technical questions. The Dufus questions, akchuly.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:24:31 GMT -5
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. you talking about past life memories? yeah I can well believe that is possible. But it does seem odd, if the human being has absolutely nothing at all to do with what is perceived, why the perceptions and memories do seem to pertain to the life of each human being. A coincidence perhaps, and one that pertains to the appearance of all 8 billion of them. You gotta wonder as well, why we even have ears, eyes, nose etc. Seems like a weird thing to have if they are absolutely irrelevant to perception. Maybe the determiner of all this thought it would be funny. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:25:25 GMT -5
::sigh:: you often avoid the technical questions. The Dufus questions, akchuly. The 'dufus' thing is basically just a way to avoid answering tricky questions innit. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 10:25:28 GMT -5
You're taking advantage of Gopal's inability to articulate precisely in English. He's not saying brains don't appear. To him, an appearance having sensory organs implies those organs are used by the person to sense. He was saying that brains DO appear, but they are a stand alone image. For gopal, every image stands alone, so strangely, appearances don't have any attributes or properties (I don't know if that has changed since). I could have asked gopal if the Andrew appearance had a liver, and he would still have said no because he can't see it. That's what I'm saying. I also say nothing in the dream of physicality causes something else in the dream to happen. The reason is the same; it's an appearance in Consciousness. The liver isn't there until you see it just as the moon isn't there until you see it, because it's appearing in Consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:32:03 GMT -5
He was saying that brains DO appear, but they are a stand alone image. For gopal, every image stands alone, so strangely, appearances don't have any attributes or properties (I don't know if that has changed since). I could have asked gopal if the Andrew appearance had a liver, and he would still have said no because he can't see it. That's what I'm saying. I also say nothing in the dream of physicality causes something else in the dream to happen. The reason is the same; it's an appearance in Consciousness. The liver isn't there until you see it just as the moon isn't there until you see it, because it's appearing in Consciousness. So you know a liver when you see it. How do you know it is a liver? Does the liver have tissue? And is it made of cells? Does it connect to anything else in the body? If not, what is the function of the liver? Does it have a function or is it just completely ornamental i.e just something to look at that has no function? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2016 10:32:27 GMT -5
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. As soon as you start calling me deluded I know I've aggravated you. The distinction about experience and structure of experience is ultimately a dwad. I've written quite a bit about how what is realized is a commonality between all human beings, and I already explained how my version of an absolute context is free of hierarchy. The difference is that your version of the absolute context is a conceptualized flat hierarchy where you equate Charlie and Tolle as the same, while mine involves a simple recognition of the nature of the personas, in that there are no boundaries that actually define them. In the context where all is consciousness flowing there is no Charlie and no Eckhart, much less a Tolle with a swastika on his forehead. The only context where they are equated is an obvious nonsense that denies the relative, and I'm sure that 'dusty will explain that to you the next time he logs on. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:35:37 GMT -5
Yes. But what you know is that you are perceiving. THEN you say...okay I will swap that word for Consciousness. Yes, that makes sense, but still consciousness is conscious of something, That's why I am considering the word 'consciousness' for me. I want to come back to this You said that you are certain that you are perceiving, and that you are a perceiver. And THEN you decided to swap this name to 'consciousness' on the basis that 'consciousness is conscious of something'. However the thought that occurs to me is......consciousness is a speculation to you. It's not a certainty like the other things you are certain of. How do you know there is such a thing as 'consciousness' that is conscious of something? So why say with certainty 'I am consciousness'? Why not just stick to 'I am a perceiver'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:42:28 GMT -5
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. As soon as you start calling me deluded I know I've aggravated you. The distinction about experience and structure of experience is ultimately a dwad. I've written quite a bit about how what is realized is a commonality between all human beings, and I already explained how my version of an absolute context is free of hierarchy. The difference is that your version of the absolute context is a conceptualized flat hierarchy where you equate Charlie and Tolle as the same, while mine involves a simple recognition of the nature of the personas, in that there are no boundaries that actually define them. In the context where all is consciousness flowing there is no Charlie and no Eckhart, much less a Tolle with a swastika on his forehead. The only context where they are equated is an obvious nonsense, and I'm sure that 'dusty will explain that to you the next time he logs on. No, there's a big difference. Everyone experiences the taste of an apple. The WAY that the taste is experienced will vary quite a lot. To be clear, I don't see Charlie and Tolle as the same in every regard, it is a very particular regard. Absolutely, they are both equally perfect, equally divine, equally sacred. Relatively, well there's a lot of difference that could be stated. Sounds to me like your model compartmentalizes such that you create the idea of Consciousness with no Charlie and Eckhart one one side, and then Charlie and Eckhart on the other. In my model, Consciousness is form, and form is Consciousness. It's messy and paradoxical, but it means very importantly, that I get to see both Charlie and Eckhart as equally sacred. Currently, you can't do that, you prefer the clean boundary. In a sense, for you it is always truth over here and falsity over there, and they shouldn't meet. For me it is different. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 10:46:15 GMT -5
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.  Well stated. Quinn has realize her mistake, She always intrude into some random discussion and start to advice to one party as if somebody has called her for judge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 10:47:39 GMT -5
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. What? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 10:48:14 GMT -5
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. Correct. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:49:01 GMT -5
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. What? was his mistake saying that human beings can have memories? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 10:50:04 GMT -5
He was saying that brains DO appear, but they are a stand alone image. For gopal, every image stands alone, so strangely, appearances don't have any attributes or properties (I don't know if that has changed since). I could have asked gopal if the Andrew appearance had a liver, and he would still have said no because he can't see it. That's what I'm saying. I also say nothing in the dream of physicality causes something else in the dream to happen. The reason is the same; it's an appearance in Consciousness. The liver isn't there until you see it just as the moon isn't there until you see it, because it's appearing in Consciousness.Exactly, that's what the inherent meaning of saying 'everything appears' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5
That's what I'm saying. I also say nothing in the dream of physicality causes something else in the dream to happen. The reason is the same; it's an appearance in Consciousness. The liver isn't there until you see it just as the moon isn't there until you see it, because it's appearing in Consciousness. So you know a liver when you see it. How do you know it is a liver? Does the liver have tissue? And is it made of cells? Does it connect to anything else in the body? If not, what is the function of the liver? Does it have a function or is it just completely ornamental i.e just something to look at that has no function?  Waiting for Enigma's answer to your question. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:54:33 GMT -5
So you know a liver when you see it. How do you know it is a liver? Does the liver have tissue? And is it made of cells? Does it connect to anything else in the body? If not, what is the function of the liver? Does it have a function or is it just completely ornamental i.e just something to look at that has no function? Waiting for Enigma's answer to your question. I'm guessing about a 25 per cent chance that the response will involve the dufus guy. |
|
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. 
Waiting for Enigma's answer to your question.