|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:32:37 GMT -5
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? Can you get me the full quote please. Aspects of God are equal in the absolute context. Relatively, they are never equal. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:34:09 GMT -5
It's not the same as saying you are experiencing the movement of objects in an objective world. Right. Experience is subjective by definition so it implies an actualised universe rather than an objectifiable one. Besides, it's characteristic of change renders it unidentifiable, but definable according to context. So "experiencing the movement of appearance" is used to point out that it is not an "experience" of an objective world. That's why those "convoluted" words are used. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:37:30 GMT -5
Does the rock appearance have qualities and properties such that you know it is a rock? Apparently, yes. Right, so that at this point you are contradicting yourself all over the shop. I would agree that a rock has properties such that you know it is a rock, just as a human being has qualities such that you know it is a human, and a moon has qualities such that you know it is a moon. So a human being is known to have brains, eyes, liver and heart. A moon is known to be made of rock, and looks bright at night because of sunlight that is reflected off its surface. So, now where we have a moon, we also have a sun. What this means is that when we perceive a moon, it's not just the image of the moon we perceive. Unless you think the moon has no back in the same way that the andrew appearance has no as.s There is a connection between knowledge and perception that the consciousness-appearances model struggles with. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:39:12 GMT -5
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? Because you don't ask another person about their dreams at night, if you think there is only Consciousness dreaming. If you REALLY believed that Consciousness is dreaming, you wouldn't ask someone else about their personal dreams. Come ON man lol |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:40:22 GMT -5
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. I can't argue it one way or the other because I can't picture a statement of the sort you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:40:48 GMT -5
It's simple; not too hot, not too cold.  Picky!  Considering Goldilocks broke in and ransacked the dinner table, seems she would'nt b!tch about the quality of the food she stole, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:42:43 GMT -5
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. Well here I have to assume you are in the physical context, because you are talking about other people and things, and the fact that you interact with them There's a lot of jumping between physical context and Consciousness-appearance context, somewhat inevitably, so I am not criticizing you for that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:43:48 GMT -5
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!.. haha thanks sis  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 10:49:21 GMT -5
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. I wouldn't say in the largest context. Experience verifies is a small context. I have stated many times, much of what I write is theory. But the verification of the small context gets expanded. This way more theory is verified. So I accept the theory on that basis, and will, until error is found. Have you heard the words: "First you have to row a little boat"? This post is somewhat explanation. I can't speak for the others. Theory is verified by interior practices of the ATA-T kind. IOW, not by the intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:50:24 GMT -5
Do you think that's what Andrew meant? How would you express in your words what andrew meant in these two posts? Now, you all can have a nice little morph-party and backpedal away. That would be fun. Perfection doesn't mean that all the kings horses and all the kings men are perfectly placed, it means that there is a perspective available where it becomes clear that there are no men, there are no horses, and that the egg has never been broken.And that perspective is horrifying and needs to be avoided at all cost. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:50:58 GMT -5
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. So I speak of the physical context. Gopal talks about it too, and for the same reason. I agree, I said something similar yesterday. In gopal's case, he does speak of the physical context (it is impossible not to), but sometimes he conveys the impression that this context as a sort of 'absolute falsity' compared to the Consciousness-appearances context which is an 'absolute truth'. Whereas for me, although there is a context in which one can be said to be true and the other false, ultimately, they're both still contexts i.e both still just ideas and representations. They are tools to shift our experience, they're not real in the way our experience is real. Now, to be clear, there IS a time to see that what is experienced as illusionary lol, but again, this is just an idea...a tool.. a way of shifting our experience, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:54:34 GMT -5
How would you express in your words what andrew meant in these two posts? Now, you all can have a nice little morph-party and backpedal away. That would be fun. Perfection doesn't mean that all the kings horses and all the kings men are perfectly placed, it means that there is a perspective available where it becomes clear that there are no men, there are no horses, and that the egg has never been broken. Perfection means absence of error, absence of mistake, absence of anything being wrong. All the King's horse and King's men ARE perfectly placed in the absolute context, and the perspective you offer is perfect as is mine. In the relative context, my perspective is clearly better than yours hehe. I don't think you or E understand the paradox of absolute and relative contexts, but I'm pretty sure you deny having an absolute context in your perspective, so that might be why. Paradox is always mental confusion, and should be a clue to you to slow the orbital velocity. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:56:09 GMT -5
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. There is a point directly between the relative and absolute context at which all ideas, forms and expressions become equal. The absolute context itself is absent all hierarchy, but I am also fine to talk about that in positive terms i.e it's ALL sacred, it's ALL perfect, it's ALL valid, it's ALL divine, it's ALL innocent. Consider these to be pointers if you like, I don't care. The key point is the relative is hierarchical, the absolute is not. The absolute transcends the relative, which means that...paradoxically...there is no more hierarchy between absolute and relative. Thus form is formlessness and formlessness is form. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 22, 2016 10:57:31 GMT -5
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!.. haha thanks sis  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 10:58:00 GMT -5
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. They have different meaning so they're not equated. If Oneness is the case, the absolutely speaking, all is valid. I can't reverse that statement...if Validity is the case, then absolutely speaking, all is oneness......it doesn't make sense. |
|
..
