|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 9:21:50 GMT -5
I don't see how. I'm saying when someone says 'My experience is blah, blah and therefore true', he's forgetting that illusions always appear in experience, and one cannot know if that experience is illusion or not. I drove through the desert yesterday and saw an oasis off in the distance. That was my experience so it must be true. See how dumb that sounds? If we were both sitting opposite each other and I held up a book between us so I saw the front cover and you saw the back cover, which is the true book? Which one of our experiences of the book is an illusion? Neither is illusion. That doesn't mean none of your experiences are illusions.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 9:25:17 GMT -5
Yes, I know we don't mean it in the same way. I'm saying he can't know that (and neither can you). Just because we can't see the physical in any way other than subjectively doesn't prove it's not there in some way. I don't need to know that because what's happening is perceiving, you people are constructing a world(objective) after that, why would I need to dismiss the world which has been born out of your imagination? Why aren't you assuming that the world which you are perceiving is coming out of unicorn's mouth? Why do you assume that the same copy exist outside and it's creating your inner image? Do you understand that this world is born out of your speculation? The way construction appears made us to believe such a world exist, but we often forget this truth. Then I guess you would have to prove it isn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 9:27:23 GMT -5
You're saying brains aren't inherent in persons. (hehe) They appear when observed, just like the moon, right? Consciousness is the perceiver and everything else is appearing, when I observe you, you are appearing to me, when I observe my own body, my own body is appearing to me. Everything is appearing, If I observe your brain then your brain is appearing. Appearance is appearance, it doesn't have anything inside. Appearance is equivalent to mirror reflection. I was agreeing with you and trying to clarify. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 9:33:10 GMT -5
"It's all God" does not mean it's all equally true or equally valid, or equally useful or equally enjoyable or equally anything. Do you think that's what Andrew meant? He said "There is not not one aspect that is more or less God than any other aspect." He then concluded that everything is equal. What did you read? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 9:35:37 GMT -5
When Gopal talks about appearances he doesn't mean it the way you do: 'the way things appear to us as we conceptualize our experience'. It means appearances are exactly that; appearances only, with no physical form, no objective existence. It's not necessary to explain that appearances don't exist. The fact that you only know how a rock appears to you doesn't mean it's not actual, but it is not actual nonetheless. Does the rock appearance have qualities and properties such that you know it is a rock? Apparently, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 9:44:21 GMT -5
lol how do you know he doesn't believe in Consciousness dreaming? Because you don't? Lol I know that in the moment that he asks someone else about their dreams that he is assuming that they dream. Come on man, that's not rocket science. lol. Again, how do you know he doesn't believe it's Consciousness dreaming? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 9:54:47 GMT -5
I don't see how. I'm saying when someone says 'My experience is blah, blah and therefore true', he's forgetting that illusions always appear in experience, and one cannot know if that experience is illusion or not. I drove through the desert yesterday and saw an oasis off in the distance. That was my experience so it must be true. See how dumb that sounds? People here generally don't say that. They night say that its true that that was your experience. Half the members here bluntly equate their experience with truth, perhaps not realizing it. Sasquatch, Gopal, Tenka and Pilgrim (just to mention four) have referred to their experience to back up truth statements made in the largest context. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 22, 2016 9:58:43 GMT -5
I'll have to check it out. I would guess you would not be interested.....check out throughly. Will do. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:11:50 GMT -5
Does the rock appearance have qualities and properties such that you know it is a rock? This is on par with my question put to E about 'why marry your wife' if your just guessing she is real . There are qualities, properties, characteristics and such likes that she and anything pertains .. We assign / associate / attribute as such to virtually everything we perceive / relate to . If we don't associate certain things with certain things, then we would be asking the blow up doll how was your day instead of asking the misses  .. Other people and things with various qualities appear in my experience and I interact with them. I'm having trouble seeing how you turn that into a problem to be solved on some basis of real or unreal. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 22, 2016 10:12:23 GMT -5
So Mother Nature does not arise from the same Source/Ground of being, but rather is a Source/God unto itself? From Kabbalah. Originally, God existed as All, the unmanifest. In order for the world to manifest, God had to ~make a place~ where God was not. So, God withdrew his presence from a certain ~space~, and in that space, created the physical universe. So, there is the unmanifest, and the manifest. The manifest world is the world of duality. There is much more to the story, but that's basically it. This place of withdrawal is written about as a single point (by the Ari, Isaac Luria, a couple hundred years ago), so it matches perfectly with the Big Bang. .....Some Kabbalists say the world is created. Some Kabbalists are non-dualists and say the universe is a manifestation of God (in the sense of a step-down transformer, a series of stepping down, in a kind of sense diluting God). But no, creation is not another power/thing apart from God, not a Source/God unto itself. Okay. I see. Thanks.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:15:47 GMT -5
If there was the physical out there why would it be seen in some way and not how it actually is ? I love your question but I know what kind of answer they will be giving you. If there was an objective physical world it would be interpreted in various ways by the subject(s) observing it. All dreams are seamless. One can't prove that a dream is a dream by examining the dream. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 22, 2016 10:16:39 GMT -5
Loaded question is one that contains assumption or is charged with an implication. I guess it was more of a leading question, though it did seem to assume I missed the point. The other thing is, if missing your point implies 'just like Andy', what does it mean in this social clime to be associated as 'like Andy'? I'm sure it means something wonderful hehe haha...still recall coming to this forum and just reading along prior to ever posting and this "Andrew" character stood out and impressed me so much with his views and the way he expressed and conducted himself, and then coming across a post where "Silence" referenced my name from another forum I'd been on, saying you & I could be brother and sister. I was soooo incredibly flattered!.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:20:44 GMT -5
Experience happens in the personal realm, or context, and in spite of the protests and insinuations, I don't see anybody dismissing it. It's not really necessary to keep reminding folks that there's a life to be lived because everybody has been doing that all their lives, you see. It seems the objections are based on the assumption that those who talk of an impersonal context are just theorizing or parroting teachers. Obviously, this happens, but what also happens is that these ideas are expressed from a genuine seeing of the actuality that lies behind our illusions. This actuality takes the form of a stark simplicity that is inherently difficult to talk about because talking about stuff necessarily requires a degree of conceptual complexity. There really is no need for it until we begin to talk about it, and then we immediately begin to move away from it. Then why talk about it? Because life can be simple. Because suffering comes out of illusion. Because the weight of our imaginings is crushing our chests and making it hard to breathe. Most folks don't know what it feels like to take an unburdened breath, and there is tragedy in that. You are definitely speaking in a physical context in the last paragraph. The jury is still out as to whether gopal sees a physical context as valid. If this stuff doesn't impact our personal experience, what use is it? So I speak of the physical context. Gopal talks about it too, and for the same reason. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:26:51 GMT -5
"It's all God" does not mean it's all equally true or equally valid, or equally useful or equally enjoyable or equally anything. Please try reading what was said instead of imagining what was said, or maybe you just dont really get it, in which case, say so. The relative is hierarchical and always remains relative. It has to. Only in the absolute context are all ideas,forms and contexts equally valid. The fact that the absolute transcends the relative doesn't stop the relative from being relative, but it does create a paradox. It means that all aspects of god are fundamentally divine, perfect, sacred....or of God. No aspects are excluded or judged in the absolute because there is no hierarchy or difference even. "Equally valid" has no meaning where there is no hierarchy. You're trying to equate where equating makes no sense, so you find a paradox of your own making. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:30:47 GMT -5
I never said there was. No it doesn't. Validity and oneness are unrelated ideas, and paradox is mental confusion. Stop making random comments just because you don't like what was said please. Random comments?? You equated oneness and validity. I'm saying they're unrelated concepts. I don't know how to simplify it more for you. |
|
..
