|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 11:21:58 GMT -5
How 'bout equally "Godly"? Or Divine....or equally "of God?" There's a tendency in some to see divinity or Godliness in only those things that one is deeming/judging to be wanted, good, beneficial. The place of seeing that renders all equal is one absent that judgement. There is just the seeing of the fundamental 'same Sourcedness" or "Oneness" of all that appears, unfolds, arises, happens. From that vantage point ideas like 'useful, enjoyable, beneficial, wanted' just don't arise. It's a mistake to go from 'absence of judgment' to 'equally true'. 'true' is a judgement (as is 'false'). I Relatively, one idea can be said to be more true than another but at the point at which the relative meets the absolute, all judgments are flattened, and ideas do become equally true/false. They are just 'ideas'. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 11:22:00 GMT -5
curious...were you taught this at school, or was it your own learning? Whole history subject was about this world war, but the above mentioned information I have gotten it from Tim'O Neil who is Atheist, Medievalist, Sceptic and amateur Historian who writes more about Romans,Jews and Christianity and many others. He is the unbiased writer in any field he writes about. I would suggest that either he or you have "cherry picked" the facts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 11:22:17 GMT -5
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 11:22:52 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. No, I don't get that that's what he's saying. In a physical context (hypothetically), the brain is needed to process sensory information in order to perceive. For Gopal, eyes appear, but brains don't appear unless a head gets sliced open, and in that case a brain would no longer function according to its purpose, so I don't think Gopal will agree with you. I hope Gopal will enlighten us on this. Yes, but I was addressing why I surmise he says appearances don't have brains. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 11:24:31 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. There is a sharp difference between equating the experience with truth and Observing the greater movement of universe. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 11:24:31 GMT -5
'Real' can merely mean there is a correspondence between an outer occurrence/event and an inner experience/sensations. Imaginary/illusory would mean there-is-no outward evidence for an inner experience. So if one experiences the evidence of an oasis in the distance, it can't ever actually be a mirage? If one experiences the evidence of a snake in the road, it can never actually be a rope, and therefore imaginary/illusory? See post above. (IOW just answered this). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 11:26:45 GMT -5
No, I don't get that that's what he's saying. In a physical context (hypothetically), the brain is needed to process sensory information in order to perceive. For Gopal, eyes appear, but brains don't appear unless a head gets sliced open, and in that case a brain would no longer function according to its purpose, so I don't think Gopal will agree with you. I hope Gopal will enlighten us on this. Yes, but I was addressing why I surmise he says appearances don't have brains. He just posted recently, appearances are like reflections in a mirror. Reflections in mirrors don't have brains. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 11:32:20 GMT -5
Yes, but I was addressing why I surmise he says appearances don't have brains. He just posted recently, appearances are like reflections in a mirror. Reflections in mirrors don't have brains. there is compelling scientific evidence that a brain is not necessary at all, for a person to function perfectly normally. in case you did not know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 11:33:04 GMT -5
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. This is slightly not true. Usage of reality creation will surely bring the objective outer world into the question. People movement in and out in our life surely force us to believe that we are dreaming. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 22, 2016 11:46:04 GMT -5
Ok, if you're going to go there...  I can use that too. There is a seeing without mind that the person in front of me (or the rock) exists in the same way that I exist, as consciousness manifesting. I see a web of 'life' that is all moving as one. Each element has no independent existence but exists nevertheless, imbued with that life from which it arose. It's not a debate tool.  Yes, you're right. It's just that the discussion kind of ends when it comes to "I've seen it so it's true". I'll leave it and let it die a natural death. By the way - I've been doing some research on this objective/external world vs subjective/no-external question. The impetus being my question about how important this is in terms of non-duality, enlightenment, truth-seeking. Found out this debate has been going on for centuries in the various schools of Buddhism! This is from one interesting text: Those who refute an external reality are called Vijnanavadin Buddhists and they were correct insofar as the argument was used to refute the realist. But then the Vijnanavadin is also disputed by saying that apparent changes internally are false, that there is only one external consciousness. "Thus the Vedantin can sit back and watch his opponents defeat each other, leaving the field free for him to occupy without a struggle...By saying "Let this be so!", we simply approve the birthlessness revealed by them...we do not quarrel with them. Thus non-duality (advaita) is a philosophy without dispute (avivada)." |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 22, 2016 11:50:47 GMT -5
Paradox is always mental confusion, and should be a clue to you to slow the orbital velocity. Confusion blurs the boundary between conceptual polar opposites. It blurs the boundary between truth and falsity, absolute and relative, emptiness and form. There is a time to talk in such way that creates a clear distinction between them, but ultimately all conceptual boundaries have to collapse. That's where confusion comes in. It's actually a darn good thing that there is confusion because without it, folks would remain stuck in their experience of being separate.  I agree that confusion is better than attachment, and might even be a side-effect of the dissolution of attachment. Another word could be disorientation. But eventually the confusion needs to dissolve too, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 11:52:07 GMT -5
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.sThere is a connection between knowledge and perception that the consciousness-appearances model struggles with.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 11:58:27 GMT -5
Andrew is sitting right side of you,right? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 11:58:54 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with confusion. Confusion blurs the boundary between conceptual polar opposites. It blurs the boundary between truth and falsity, absolute and relative, emptiness and form. There is a time to talk in such way that creates a clear distinction between them, but ultimately all conceptual boundaries have to collapse. That's where confusion comes in. It's actually a darn good thing that there is confusion because without it, folks would remain stuck in their experience of being separate. I agree that confusion is better than attachment, and might even be a side-effect of the dissolution of attachment. Another word could be disorientation. But eventually the confusion needs to dissolve too, right? yes, the confusion is only ever a conceptual confusion, so is not a problem at all, unless we are attached to the truth of our ideas. The paradox is never resolved but it never has to be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 12:01:01 GMT -5
German Jews were deprived of the vote in 1935 and Hitler never won a popular election anyway. He came to power via a back room deal, not a vote by the people. I presume you are googling German history...and will see I was closer to truth that you. (Hitler was head of the Nazi party, which came to power in a National election, March 1933, with a coalition of the other mentioned party). I am not googling anything, I follows the writings of Tim'O Neil, he has the excellent knowledge in history of Jews,Romans and many. So one of his writings he has written this. |
|
