|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2016 10:55:58 GMT -5
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. Well, I'm glad to see that you've morphed your meaning of "the same" to essentially agree with where I started out. Where you were yesterday was a clear denial of the relative. Now you're just parroting back to me what I've been writing for three days, in that every human being is perfect in that being just as they are, regardless of the details of their expression in form. Now, as far as your straw man about what you think I think is concerned, you're simply not paying attention. Of course there's a Chucky and a Tolle in the absolute context, it's just that unlike the relative personal context, they're conceived of and spoken about as appearances in/as consciousness. What are the differences between the appearance that wanted to start a race ward and the appearance with an interest in global awakening? Do those differences still disappear in your "absolute context"? Are you going to stick to your messy paradoxical guns or keep agreeing with me?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 10:56:51 GMT -5
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'?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 10:58:22 GMT -5
was his mistake saying that human beings can have memories? How come 30 year old can have memory of 50 years? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 10:59:23 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. One more. If you saw the front of Andrew appearance , would this appearance not have a back? Is he as.s-less hehehe? No heart, lungs and liver? How would you know it is Andrew? Sounds like a weird sort of painted mannequin that you would see. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 11:01:13 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. One more. If you saw the front of Andrew appearance , would this appearance not have a back? Is he as.s-less hehehe? No heart, lungs and liver?How would you know it is Andrew? Sounds like a weird sort of painted mannequin that you would see. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ha ha , Kan't stop laughing, Please send some help  To Enigma : You said that Andrew undertood the meaning of everything appears, the above line is the simple example of why I consider andrew hasn't understood the meaning of 'everything appears' |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 11:06:49 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. Yes. It's rather shocking actually to see anyone here arguing against the inherent, fundamental equality of Charlie Manson and Eckhart Tolle. What that means is that there is no reference for a place of seeing that is void of moral judgment.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 11:07:49 GMT -5
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. Well, I'm glad to see that you've morphed your meaning of "the same" to essentially agree with where I started out. Where you were yesterday was a clear denial of the relative. Now you're just parroting back to me what I've been writing for three days, in that every human being is perfect in that being just as they are, regardless of the details of their expression in form. Now, as far as your straw man about what you think I think is concerned, you're simply not paying attention. Of course there's a Chucky and a Tolle in the absolute context, it's just that unlike the relative personal context, they're conceived of and spoken about as appearances in/as consciousness. What are the differences between the appearance that wanted to start a race ward and the appearance with an interest in global awakening? Do those differences still disappear in your "absolute context"? Are you going to stick to your messy paradoxical guns or keep agreeing with me? I never said that Charlie and Tolle were the same in every regard, there IS a relative context. You just don't understand what I've said that's all, and that's probably because you create a concrete mental divide between 'what can only be pointed to' and 'form'. In my model, the moment we speak about difference, we are speaking about the relative. The moment we are speaking about sameness we are speaking about the absolute context, and this sameness is divinity, perfection, sacredness. Eckhart and Charles are equal in terms of divinity, perfection and sacredness, and different in thousands of ways. To me, the equalness is more important than the difference, but paradoxically that manifests as valuing difference too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 11:09:19 GMT -5
One more. If you saw the front of Andrew appearance , would this appearance not have a back? Is he as.s-less hehehe? No heart, lungs and liver?How would you know it is Andrew? Sounds like a weird sort of painted mannequin that you would see. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ha ha , Kan't stop laughing, Please send some help To Enigma : You said that Andrew undertood the meaning of everything appears, the above line is the simple example of why I consider andrew hasn't understood the meaning of 'everything appears' No I get it, but I also see VERY clearly the boundaries of the model. And that's all it is dude, it's just a model. It's just a way of understanding your world and your reality. What is real is the taste of an orange, the love for your family. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 11:10:18 GMT -5
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ha ha , Kan't stop laughing, Please send some help To Enigma : You said that Andrew undertood the meaning of everything appears, the above line is the simple example of why I consider andrew hasn't understood the meaning of 'everything appears' No I get it, but I also see VERY clearly the boundaries of the model. And that's all it is dude, it's just a model. It's just a way of understanding your world and your reality. What is real is the taste of an orange, the love for your family. Okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 11:11:56 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. Yes. It's rather shocking actually to see anyone here arguing against the inherent, fundamental equality of Charlie Manson and Eckhart Tolle. What that means is that there is no reference for a place of seeing that is void of moral judgment. I know! It is shocking. It's like...he has no reference for any spiritual teachings, only non-dual ones which have sent him right up the garden path. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 11:14:40 GMT -5
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. Yup. Your way means you truly can see the inherent Godliness and even innocence of a Charlie or Hitler character. It means you can regard such a character absent condemnation. The difference between views is a world apart and explains much of what goes on here. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 11:14:56 GMT -5
No I get it, but I also see VERY clearly the boundaries of the model. And that's all it is dude, it's just a model. It's just a way of understanding your world and your reality. What is real is the taste of an orange, the love for your family. Okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! Consider babies and even young children. They function without the conceptual models that we discuss here, right? The conceptual models that we discuss are really only useful because the models we were given when we were children screw.ed us up lol. The point is to return to the simple pleasure of experiencing life as it is. Don't get me wrong, I like the intellectual stuff too, it's fun...but in the end, it's not the model that is important. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 11:16:34 GMT -5
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. Yup. Your way means you truly can see the inherent Godliness and even innocence of a Charlie or Hitler character. It means you can regard such a character absent condemnation. The difference between views is a world apart and explains much of what goes on here. yeah. The difficulty is that as smart as he is, this is one paradox that he is really struggling with. He can't see how Charlie and Hitler are both innocent in the absolute sense. Not just in a pointy kind of way, or a 'prior to form' kind of way, but genuinely and actually innocent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 11:18:17 GMT -5
Consider babies and even young children. They function without the conceptual models that we discuss here, right? The conceptual models that we discuss are really only useful because the models we were given when we were children screw.ed us up lol. The point is to return to the simple pleasure of experiencing life as it is. Don't get me wrong, I like the intellectual stuff too, it's fun...but in the end, it's not the model that is important. You must be correct with your saying, Andrew can't go wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 11:18:24 GMT -5
Well, I'm glad to see that you've morphed your meaning of "the same" to essentially agree with where I started out. Where you were yesterday was a clear denial of the relative. Now you're just parroting back to me what I've been writing for three days, in that every human being is perfect in that being just as they are, regardless of the details of their expression in form. Now, as far as your straw man about what you think I think is concerned, you're simply not paying attention. Of course there's a Chucky and a Tolle in the absolute context, it's just that unlike the relative personal context, they're conceived of and spoken about as appearances in/as consciousness. What are the differences between the appearance that wanted to start a race ward and the appearance with an interest in global awakening? Do those differences still disappear in your "absolute context"? Are you going to stick to your messy paradoxical guns or keep agreeing with me? You just don't understand what I've said that's all, and that's probably because you create a concrete mental divide between 'what can only be pointed to' and 'form'. In my model, the moment we speak about difference, we are speaking about the relative. The moment we are speaking about sameness we are speaking about the absolute context, and this sameness is divinity, perfection, sacredness. Eckhart and Charles are equal in terms of divinity, perfection and sacredness, and different in thousands of ways. To me, the equalness is more important than the difference, but paradoxically that manifests as valuing difference too. That was incredibly clear...don't know how it could have missed. |
|
The distinction about experience and structure of experience is ultimately a dwad.
