Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 2:13:30 GMT -5
If they are figment then they do not exist, you start to talk like Tenka,Tenka's funniest question is "how could a figment mother can give birth to a real child? " Tenka doesn't know he is raising the funniest question. I was talking about apparent spiritual force to you not being a figment. The potential for a non-figment to be compartmentalized. I have never said I am a figment. I said I know I am real but I can't know whether others are real or figments. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 23, 2016 2:19:46 GMT -5
And yet things and people trigger energy based on how you are conditioned as a separate person. You can be unconscious of your conditioning now. Why do people forget their experiences? Sometimes, it's to avoid certain feelings. At times, that's when people get angry.
To say unconsciousness is nonsense because it doesn't exist is the best way to stay unconscious. I have no issue with that, but it's still the best way.
Unrelated to what I have written. Do you understand what I mean when I say compartmentalization? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 2:21:07 GMT -5
Unrelated to what I have written. Do you understand what I mean when I say compartmentalization? I am saying the paragraph which you have written is completely not related to what I say about 'everything is being created now'. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 23, 2016 2:26:16 GMT -5
I was talking about apparent spiritual force to you not being a figment. The potential for a non-figment to be compartmentalized. I have never said I am a figment. I said I know I am real but I can't know whether others are real or figments. Ok but you can be conscious of a compartmentalized identity. I'm saying a non-figment point of perception person thingy can have its experienced divided between conscious and unconscious. Conscious memory and unconscious memory. Some of the unconscious memory can be associated with feelings, and these feelings can lead to unconscious behavior, most noticed as a split mind oriented to prevent unconscious feelings being brought to the light of consciousness.
This doesn't make anybody anything other than consciousness, and it does not imply more than one consciousness. Figments, real, one point of perception, or 7 billion, it doesn't matter, becoming unconscious can happen in all these models of experience, allowing unconscious forces to influence the creation at the point of perception. People really are scared of things like sadness, death, intimacy, and these fears can 'unconsciously' influence decisions without the individual realizing what's taking place, without 'consciousness' of the forces.
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 23, 2016 2:26:58 GMT -5
Do you understand what I mean when I say compartmentalization? I am saying the paragraph which you have written is completely not related to what I say about 'everything is being created now'. You can avoid unconsciousness now. It is directly related, and has nothing to do with figment. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 3:25:01 GMT -5
I could find things to argue with tenka about, but we are aligned on what I consider to the most important issues For example, the issue of whether what is prior to appearances/expressions is divided or not, is an important one as I see it. I cannot get on board with gopal's model because it means that consciousness could be divided. So I would rather debate with him and laughter on that subject, than argue the fine points of something with tenka. Well, that's pretty much what I was pointing out, but fair enough. I don't believe Gopal accepts the idea of a divided Consciousness (nor do I), so you don't really need an ally there. He doesnt accept it but the possibility of that is an inevitable result of his beliefs. Simple: If you position the viewpoint, the perception point, 'my consciousness' or even the 'I am perceiving' at the level of Consciousness, then divided Consciousness has to be the case. If order for Consciousness to be undivided, it is has to fundamentally be prior to perception, prior to viewpoints/perception points. Now, you appropriately get round this in your model by positing Awareness as prior to Consciousness, but gopal does not go prior to Consciousness. For him the 'I am perceiving' is as deep as it goes. So therefore there is 'I am perceiving'...'you might be perceiving', 'he might be perceiving' etc....This is divided Consciousness. A non-dualist HAS to speak of 'something' prior to perception. That's the whole point really of non-duality. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 3:33:29 GMT -5
Well, I'm glad to see that you've morphed your meaning of "the same" to essentially agree with where I started out. Where you were yesterday was a clear denial of the relative. Now you're just parroting back to me what I've been writing for three days, in that every human being is perfect in that being just as they are, regardless of the details of their expression in form. Now, as far as your straw man about what you think I think is concerned, you're simply not paying attention. Of course there's a Chucky and a Tolle in the absolute context, it's just that unlike the relative personal context, they're conceived of and spoken about as appearances in/as consciousness. What are the differences between the appearance that wanted to start a race ward and the appearance with an interest in global awakening? Do those differences still disappear in your "absolute context"? Are you going to stick to your messy paradoxical guns or keep agreeing with me?  I never said that Charlie and Tolle were the same in every regard, there IS a relative context. You just don't understand what I've said that's all, and that's probably because you create a concrete mental divide between 'what can only be pointed to' and 'form'. In my model, the moment we speak about difference, we are speaking about the relative. The moment we are speaking about sameness we are speaking about the absolute context, and this sameness is divinity, perfection, sacredness. Eckhart and Charles are equal in terms of divinity, perfection and sacredness, and different in thousands of ways. To me, the equalness is more important than the difference, but paradoxically that manifests as valuing difference too. Right, now you've wisely chosen to stop disagreeing with me.  There is no context in which a guy who wants to start a race war and the guy who wrote A New Earth are equals or equal. We can continue to disagree about what perfection refers to, because there's simply no accord possible there. As far as your straw man about me not understanding you or your projection about a concrete mental divide, that's just your aggravation bleeding through in the form of textual pollution. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 3:37:41 GMT -5
That, Gopal, is the essence of what i am saying. And how you do not understand what i just wrote to you, it is exemplary and illustrative why you can not get results here.YOU make NO effort to understand the other person.Your only wish is, that they understand you. It does not work that way.They try, (i know i did- ) but you do not understand or even try to understand them. That is my problem here with you.You tell others they are ignorant,(which i find rude) but they have just as much right to be just as rude to you, because you are just as ignorant when they try to explain their insight to you. For the rest of your reply,thanks for the honesty, i respect it. When i was much younger, i was 18 or so, one of my friends told me he was (is?) gay. Since i knew him a while already and liked him as a friend, i noticed it made no difference to me. In my culture (Holland, then) it was already much accepted, education had been good about gay and lesbians. So i did not care when he went public with his being gay. He kept the same friends, and nothing changed, for me anyway. I can understand that in India this is going to take one or two generations more to get to that point. What others will say when you are seen with a gay person may be of influence.In Holland, and even here in Portugal (very catholic country before) nobody cares. But, i tell you, if you befriend a gay person, who can be discreet, you will have a friend for life, just for being there. No need to be scared. They dont bite, and wont try do funny things with you, if they have half a brain... And, a some men still are scared and homophobic here, but that is often because they have not acknowledged their own gay-ness.Self hatred, which finds agressive expression toward others. Be well. When we argue with some people, It's very essential to understand their view, otherwise how could I argue against them? So when I argue with people, I usually understand what they are saying. If I put some kind of smiley or something like that, that means What you wrote doesn't make any sense to me or it doesn't stand to the scrutiny. without giving any explanation about it? Sorry, but if you do not give a REASON why it makes no sense, that is extremely arrogant and irritating to people. You in fact prove that you do not understand at all. If you did ,you would actually adapt to my view, just like you think we wouyld adapt to yours if we really understood you. You see the problem here? It can not be solved. So i respect your experience, because i am an empath, i understand energetically why you think the way you do (you are not an empath, so there is no way for you to understand me in a similar way) but i am sure your explanation is incorrect. You can tell yourself a million times that you are superior to me, that does not make it a fact.You just do that because you have some deep insecurity...otherwise you would engage in other folk their experience and try and really understand them. It is like we both stand on a mountain, and you are looking at the sea, and tell me there is a lot of water there, and i am saying, no, i see land and villages, and the you tell me i am completely wrong and ignorant. Then i try to look your way, and i see a lake, not a sea. I try to explain it, and talk about my view,but you wont listen and reply with a confused smiley. something like that... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 3:49:34 GMT -5
Yes. It's rather shocking actually to see anyone here arguing against the inherent, fundamental equality of Charlie Manson and Eckhart Tolle. What that means is that there is no reference for a place of seeing that is void of moral judgment.  I know! It is shocking. It's like... he has no reference for any spiritual teachings, only non-dual ones which have sent him right up the garden path. Well, if by sacred you mean suspension of judgment you're reverting back to your position from several days ago that there's a context where the murderer and the healer are equals and equated. As I mentioned here and here, several of the ancient spiritual traditions advise cultivating non-judgment and this expresses itself in the new-age and contemporary echo-chambers for sure. This is because someone who hasn't realized what's pointed to by the unchanging absolute subject that is the perfection that they are will always have that obscured by the natural functioning of their mind. The advice is intended to invite you to a state of mental and emotional quiescence. But just because you suspend judgment of Assad doesn't magically transform him into the Buddha. That's the wishful bypassing of the Brown Bear. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 3:52:45 GMT -5
you talking about past life memories? yeah I can well believe that is possible. But it does seem odd, if the human being has absolutely nothing at all to do with what is perceived, why the perceptions and memories do seem to pertain to the life of each human being. A coincidence perhaps, and one that pertains to the appearance of all 8 billion of them. Creation is formed from within creation, so the experience of sentient beings forms the raw material for the world. When I say "Mind loves order and requires that it's experience make sense", I'm saying Consciousness creates through mind. Creation and perception are the same. okay, so to you, the ears and eyes and nose to have utilitarian function in a particular context. They're not just appearances being perceived for ornamental pleasure. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 3:54:11 GMT -5
Yup. Your way means you truly can see the inherent Godliness and even innocence of a Charlie or Hitler character. It means you can regard such a character absent condemnation. The difference between views is a world apart and explains much of what goes on here. yeah. The difficulty is that as smart as he is, this is one paradox that he is really struggling with. He can't see how Charlie and Hitler are both innocent in the absolute sense. Not just in a pointy kind of way, or a 'prior to form' kind of way, but genuinely and actually innocent. So you wouldn't have condemned Hitler as he was building the gas chambers? How about during Nuremberg? How about today?  The Christians really said it quite well, love the sinner hate the sin. That you are declaring Adolf and Charlie innocent is simple confusion between the absolute and the relative. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 3:57:11 GMT -5
The 'dufus' thing is basically just a way to avoid answering tricky questions innit. Playing Dufus is a way to sneer at ideas one doesn't like. No it's really not and it's not 'playing dufus'. The expression was coined by someone that is missing a context, so that should tell you something. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 3:59:25 GMT -5
I never said that Charlie and Tolle were the same in every regard, there IS a relative context. You just don't understand what I've said that's all, and that's probably because you create a concrete mental divide between 'what can only be pointed to' and 'form'. In my model, the moment we speak about difference, we are speaking about the relative. The moment we are speaking about sameness we are speaking about the absolute context, and this sameness is divinity, perfection, sacredness. Eckhart and Charles are equal in terms of divinity, perfection and sacredness, and different in thousands of ways. To me, the equalness is more important than the difference, but paradoxically that manifests as valuing difference too. Right, now you've wisely chosen to stop disagreeing with me. There is no context in which a guy who wants to start a race war and the guy who wrote A New Earth are equals or equal. We can continue to disagree about what perfection refers to, because there's simply no accord possible there. As far as your straw man about me not understanding you or your projection about a concrete mental divide, that's just your aggravation bleeding through in the form of textual pollution. Yes there is. And that's why your spirituality is bankrupt. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 4:00:33 GMT -5
I have never said I am a figment. I said I know I am real but I can't know whether others are real or figments. Ok but you can be conscious of a compartmentalized identity. I'm saying a non-figment point of perception person thingy can have its experienced divided between conscious and unconscious. Conscious memory and unconscious memory. Some of the unconscious memory can be associated with feelings, and these feelings can lead to unconscious behavior, most noticed as a split mind oriented to prevent unconscious feelings being brought to the light of consciousness.
This doesn't make anybody anything other than consciousness, and it does not imply more than one consciousness. Figments, real, one point of perception, or 7 billion, it doesn't matter, becoming unconscious can happen in all these models of experience, allowing unconscious forces to influence the creation at the point of perception. People really are scared of things like sadness, death, intimacy, and these fears can 'unconsciously' influence decisions without the individual realizing what's taking place, without 'consciousness' of the forces.
I don't think so. Consciousness always works in certain order. In my view Unconscious is, there is certain pattern continue to happen without our awareness. For an example, we always reject certain person from our life, but we never know that this rejection is what creates the connection with that person. Once this unconscious become conscious, then that particular individual who is the cause of your rejection would move away. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 4:02:38 GMT -5
I know! It is shocking. It's like... he has no reference for any spiritual teachings, only non-dual ones which have sent him right up the garden path. Well, if by sacred you mean suspension of judgment you're reverting back to your position from several days ago that there's a context where the murderer and the healer are equals and equated. As I mentioned here and here, several of the ancient spiritual traditions advise cultivating non-judgment and this expresses itself in the new-age and contemporary echo-chambers for sure. This is because someone who hasn't realized what's pointed to by the unchanging absolute subject that is the perfection that they are will always have that obscured by the natural functioning of their mind. The advice is intended to invite you to a state of mental and emotional quiescence. But just because you suspend judgment of Assad doesn't magically transform him into the Buddha. That's the wishful bypassing of the Brown Bear. I've already said, if anything, the absence of judgement is suspended in order to judge. Absence of judgement is fundamental to me, my leaning is to say all human beings as equally sacred and 'of God', but I judge because it is the useful thing to do at times. 'Cultivating' non-judgement isn't what I am suggesting. I am saying that there is a natural state of no judgement. |
|
There is no context in which a guy who wants to start a race war and the guy who wrote A New Earth are equals or equal. We can continue to disagree about what perfection refers to, because there's simply no accord possible there. 
