|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 14:04:48 GMT -5
He is sometimes a bit more flexible than that. The question has to be asked...what is the point or function of a brain, or any other organ for that matter? Maybe they're just ornamental lol. E is always promising to explain context sometime, but he never does. Maybe there is a reason for that? (he's exceptionally honest). He's recently made some pretty definitive statements. The promise to explain context is a joke because I've explained it so many times it would be absurd to do it again. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 14:05:53 GMT -5
I would suggest that either he or you have "cherry picked" the facts. From his Dozens of writing I can absolutely certain that he can never go wrong. I have never seen a single individual who has won him over the argument in history. He is the very clear and careful writer that I have ever seen. I spent 5 minutes on Wikipedia. Technically, he is wrong (if he said what you said he said). Hitler wanted to be head of the Nazi party. The party liked his speeches very much. So he said, make me the head of the party or I will leave, so they made him the head of the party. March 5, 1933 there was a national election. (First error your dude made). The Nazi party did not get a needed majority, only 43.9%. So they joined forces with the German national Party, a coalition (I suspect this is your back room deal), nevertheless this put the Nazi's in power. Hitler was already Chancellor. Being in power, the Nazi's passed a resolution allowing Hitler to declare himself Dictator. If you think that's incorrect I suggest you go to Wikipedia and change it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 14:08:34 GMT -5
Appearance is mere image. Image can't have anything within itself. Thank you Gopal, you have made my day. Enigma clearly knows this truth. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 14:09:50 GMT -5
No, E is admitting there is only One context, discussing a physical context is a concession (on his part), he just admitted he considers there to be no exterior world. No exterior world, brains don't exist, then we can only discuss imaginary/illusory brains. I never said there is only one context. Discussing the physical context is not a concession for me, though I see little point in explaining that you will hurt yourself if you walk in front of a moving bus, or how babies are made or what happens when a tree falls on you, so I don't respond with 'Hmmmm, yes, good point. well said'. Those are dumb Dufus points meant to dismiss the larger context. Have you forgotten that I'm the one who spoke endlessly about context and worked feverishly to try to keep folks from hop, skipping, jumping and mixing contexts? Do you notice that I still do that? Do you notice that L and I still joke about the need for me to post my ultimate treatise on context? I suggest you are making an error somewhere. If you don't consider there to be a physical world, it is useless to discuss a physical world, period. This would be like me saying, I'm now going to talk in the context of Alice and Wonderland. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 14:10:53 GMT -5
Thank you Gopal, you have made my day. Enigma clearly knows this truth. No, he is disagreeing with you right now, in my last post I'm trying to point this out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 14:11:07 GMT -5
What in my dreams? The context is about reality. We can know we are dreaming even now. When I say we are dreaming,I am saying we are perceiving and perception is being created by us. I put it in quotes as it is a saying. Here, when someone maintains something is the truth, and you know it's not, you say "In your dreams", meaning, it's only true in your dreams, meaning, it's not true.  I understood that, that's a very common word every where, but I was trying to justify my point. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 14:13:20 GMT -5
What in the world is a relatively objective external world? (You cannot know what I cannot know) It means: You don't....you don't spit into the wind...you don't...and you don't mess around with Jim". (Compliments of Jim Croce). There is relative appearance. There is relative experience. There is no external world. There is no inside/outside. This is why there is nothing separate from Consciousness. No-separation is a radical thing. It doesn't mean physical matter is somehow infused with consciousness or that everything is connected in various ways. It means everything IS Consciousness. There is only Consciousness. You are THAT! (For Andrew)  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 14:16:34 GMT -5
you have, many times. I've asked you about it many times. You are perceiving, and you are Consciousness. If anyone else is perceiving, then they too are Consciousness but having different perceptions to you. That is divided Consciousness. It's actually true that Consciousness(singular) is the same Consciousness as the Consciousness in the individual. That doesn't make it divided, rather it makes it one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 14:17:15 GMT -5
Enigma clearly knows this truth. No, he is disagreeing with you right now, in my last post I'm trying to point this out. He can't disagree with me, we both are pointing to the same truth. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 14:21:08 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. I like your post, but your solution is to imagine a different world than that which exists. Say a single mother working three jobs with two teenagers comes to you for help because the burden of getting through another day is beginning to crush her. What do you tell her? (Meaning, do you tell her there is no external world?) I warn her that if she walks out in front of a moving bus she will get hurt, and then I explain to her how babies are made and how she should watch out for falling trees.  I'm not imagining a different world, I'm speaking in different contexts. I'll post my treatise on context soon. Be patient. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 14:24:13 GMT -5
What does that mean in English? It means like Gopal you say there is no exterior world (and this context thingy is just BS). There is no exterior world, and it's critical to understand context. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 14:56:03 GMT -5
you have, many times. I've asked you about it many times. You are perceiving, and you are Consciousness. If anyone else is perceiving, then they too are Consciousness but having different perceptions to you. That is divided Consciousness. It's actually true that Consciousness(singular) is the same Consciousness as the Consciousness in the individual. That doesn't make it divided, rather it makes it one. The individual is Consciousness expressed. So 'my consciousness' (which is already a poor use of language) is the expression of Consciousness. To locate your individual consciousness at the 'level' of Consciousness itself, is to divide Consciousness. I really don't think you want to do that. In order for you to be able to attend the non-dual awards this year and be in with a chance of an appearing prize, you have to see Consciousness as undivided and undifferentiated. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 15:09:29 GMT -5
It means: You don't....you don't spit into the wind...you don't...and you don't mess around with Jim". (Compliments of Jim Croce). There is relative appearance. There is relative experience. There is no external world. There is no inside/outside. This is why there is nothing separate from Consciousness. No-separation is a radical thing. It doesn't mean physical matter is somehow infused with consciousness or that everything is connected in various ways. It means everything IS Consciousness. There is only Consciousness. You are THAT! (For Andrew) So is Consciousness ~responsible~ for everything that happens? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 15:10:50 GMT -5
It's actually true that Consciousness(singular) is the same Consciousness as the Consciousness in the individual. That doesn't make it divided, rather it makes it one. The individual is Consciousness expressed. So 'my consciousness' (which is already a poor use of language) is the expression of Consciousness.
To locate your individual consciousness at the 'level' of Consciousness itself, is to divide Consciousness. I really don't think you want to do that. In order for you to be able to attend the non-dual awards this year and be in with a chance of an appearing prize, you have to see Consciousness as undivided and undifferentiated. That's related to my question (above...and below...). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 15:12:32 GMT -5
you have, many times. I've asked you about it many times. You are perceiving, and you are Consciousness. If anyone else is perceiving, then they too are Consciousness but having different perceptions to you. That is divided Consciousness. It's actually true that Consciousness(singular) is the same Consciousness as the Consciousness in the individual. That doesn't make it divided, rather it makes it one. Are there individuated decisions? If not then what is the purpose of individuation? |
|
