Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 18:29:52 GMT -5
So you would also have disdain for the term if someone described appearances as 'real'? I've specifically expressed as much, yes. How about 'this' or 'is' is 'real'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 18:33:45 GMT -5
No, not riled up, I know I'm pretty alone here in my view of reality. Well in all sincerity your world view is what you're supposed to wake up from. Who is saying that? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:00:47 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? My dream world is very similar to my waking world, so in my dream world, a human I speak to has all human qualities. Unless they become a unicorn in which case they then have unicorn qualities. You said "Asking someone about their nightly dream assumes they have an individual mind." I'm saying no, it doesn't, and I explained why. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:04:02 GMT -5
In a physical context, I have no problem with the word 'real'. I don't need to have the word defined for me or examples given of imaginary unicorns vs real ponies, or scientific evidence of the minerals in rocks or whatever else you come up with. You know you're missing the point on purpose. If all is appearance in Consciousness, where is the 'real' that defines the 'unreal' of those appearances? If those appearances are 'real', what makes imagination a fundamentally different appearance such that we can call it 'unreal'? If creation and perception are the same, where is the boundary between real and unreal? And there's the point in the first sentence, you have no problem with talking in a physical context. When NOT talking in a physical context, i.e a rock is an appearance, does your rock appearances have properties? Is it made of something? It appears to, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:19:29 GMT -5
You call an idea used as a pointer a 'model' and then lament that the model doesn't explain everything, as if it's supposed to. It's the same thing you did with the 'who suffers' question. You create conceptual boundaries and then point out the limits formed by those boundaries and declare the whole thing inadequate. What on earth are you talking about? Try and address what I said please, what you said here was extremely unrelated...did you reply to the wrong message? What I am saying is that every model has boundaries when it comes to explaining different stuff adequately, so when talking about suffering we have to step into the physical context. Problem with that? Okay, lemme try again. Gopal has not been laying out a complete model of how the universe works and how to deal with suffering, at least not here. He's saying everything is an appearance in Consciousness. That's all. No high falutin all embracing model. With me so far? When you call that the Gopal model, you implicitly expect that model to address all pertinent issues, including the issue of suffering. You then ask why his 'model' doesn't address the issue of suffering, and call it inadequate. Still with me? I'm saying the problem isn't that Gopal's 'model' is inadequate, it's that you've chosen to call a simple pointer a model. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:22:21 GMT -5
His point was that the presence of brain waves makes the dream physical. Much like you, he thinks about everything too much. My point was that if you are speaking about brain waves, you are speaking in the physical context. I know, obviously, and my point is that much like you, he thinks about everything too much. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:27:36 GMT -5
Hehe 'Well, I figure it's just an appearance, which means it isn't real, right?' Hehe Wow Doooofus, that could get kinda', painful, right??  hehe 'Well, no pain no gain, right?' hehe |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:32:58 GMT -5
::sigh:: you often avoid the technical questions.  Technical questions like, 'If you're just an appearance, then why not give me your wallet and walk off a cliff.' hehe |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 21, 2016 20:36:31 GMT -5
What on earth are you talking about? Try and address what I said please, what you said here was extremely unrelated...did you reply to the wrong message? What I am saying is that every model has boundaries when it comes to explaining different stuff adequately, so when talking about suffering we have to step into the physical context. Problem with that? Okay, lemme try again. Gopal has not been laying out a complete model of how the universe works and how to deal with suffering, at least not here. He's saying everything is an appearance in Consciousness. That's all. No high falutin all embracing model. With me so far? When you call that the Gopal model, you implicitly expect that model to address all pertinent issues, including the issue of suffering. You then ask why his 'model' doesn't address the issue of suffering, and call it inadequate. Still with me? I'm saying the problem isn't that Gopal's 'model' is inadequate, it's that you've chosen to call a simple pointer a model. Doesn't 'pointer' imply 'true'? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:37:34 GMT -5
Nonduality is not philosophy. I don't reject the physical world or dismiss the apparent objective reality of it.  What a wacky idea! I wonder if anyone has ever done it.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:39:16 GMT -5
Okay, lemme try again. Gopal has not been laying out a complete model of how the universe works and how to deal with suffering, at least not here. He's saying everything is an appearance in Consciousness. That's all. No high falutin all embracing model. With me so far? When you call that the Gopal model, you implicitly expect that model to address all pertinent issues, including the issue of suffering. You then ask why his 'model' doesn't address the issue of suffering, and call it inadequate. Still with me? I'm saying the problem isn't that Gopal's 'model' is inadequate, it's that you've chosen to call a simple pointer a model. Doesn't 'pointer' imply 'true'? Yeah. Isn't it true that you missed my point just like Andy? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 20:43:34 GMT -5
Consciousness and mind are not the same thing. Andy is just pretending you are on the same wavelength. He wants you as an ally. Wow, that's so out of character for him.  It's hard to believe, I know. He's always been the very 'model' of integrity.  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 21, 2016 21:03:44 GMT -5
Doesn't 'pointer' imply 'true'? Yeah. Isn't it true that you missed my point just like Andy? Isn't that a loaded question? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 21:07:07 GMT -5
I talk about context and relativity all the time. You found me finally caving in and admitting to something I talk about relentlessly?  I probably misunderstood what you meant (caved in to), back then. I thought you meant ~real~ relativity, not relative relativity. A recent post (last page or so) cleared that up. (You still believe like Gopal there is no external world), and yet you live and work, that seems a disconnect to me, but then you are not me and I am not you, so not my problem. As I said to Andy, you interact in your nightly dreams too, even lucid dreams. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 21:11:41 GMT -5
Yeah. Isn't it true that you missed my point just like Andy? Isn't that a loaded question? No, a loaded question assumes guilt within the question. I'm asking you if it's true. |
|
