|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 15:13:28 GMT -5
What a wacky idea! I wonder if anyone has ever done it.  I wanna' go! Siri-uslly!  It looks pretty wild and wacky.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:13:59 GMT -5
I would have condemned him then, and now, because it is useful to do so. Judgement is a tool, it's not a reality. The reality is innocence. Yes, precisely. The idea that just because I can see from a place that levels the playing field, rendering every human innocent, despite their actions, surely does not mean that I cannot also see from a place that has me judging their behavior....and even condemning it. Yeah. In some ways I condemn even more these days, because I'm not scared of either absence of judgement or judgement. On the conspiracy thread I am in full on judgement mode really. I'm clearly saying something is wrong, and that some individuals are the bad guys/girls. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 15:14:49 GMT -5
It's hard to believe, I know. He's always been the very 'model' of integrity.  unless he isn't while he does until he doesn't but in a subtle way this isn't necessarily true so we have to assume the position necessary to understand how the relative truth of integrity is contextually equal to the virtue of perpetually lying.  Well, yeah, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:16:22 GMT -5
It does assume that and you didn't explain why. It's like asking someone what they had for dinner...you're assuming that there is a someone that had dinner. It's not complicated. Really, it's not. A dream character is an image in your mind. No more. That image doesn't have it's own brain.  That image in the dream does have qualities. If you see an alive Andrew in your dream as opposed to a lobotomized Andrew, you will know the difference. But yes, dreams are created in the minds of individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 15:17:14 GMT -5
It's not seems to, isn't it? All these nonsense you're talking everytimes!  Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! Correct! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 23, 2016 15:17:29 GMT -5
I would say the simple seeing that no one chooses his desires/interests should bring that into clear focus. When you become an adult, with every decision you make you are choosing. Correct, we are conditioned before we are mature enough to decide about anything, but this is not an excuse for subsequent behavior. But, Even in adulthood, desires/interests are not 'chosen'. & Decisions are made according to whatever interest is stronger in any given moment. To see that clearly is to understand that you can't blame folks for what their interest are....or are not. Do you think you could make yourself 'like' your sister's incessant chatter, for example? Indeed, it may have seemed as though several routes of action were available to you in the moments that you spoke to her in a way which resulted in her crying, but wasn't the action you took the one you 'wanted' to take above all others? Even though you may have seen in that moment that snapping wasn't the 'kindest, most generous, patient' course of action, you chose it, right? In that sense, were other choices really open to you? Seeing the inherent innocence in all is not about 'excusing' bad behavior. From the place of seeing the inherent, fundamental innocence, excuses don't need to happen, as nothing is seen in need or excuse or blame. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:18:00 GMT -5
This is a good explanation but a) gopal never uses pointers, and b) I have been getting the impression that his model is all embracing. If I ask him what model he is using when we talk about suffering, you think he will tell me? A) Gopal points all the time. What he doesn't seem to use is the word. Did that make you think he wasn't trying to point to something? B) Gopal has a very involved model, but he's not presenting his model for you review, he's pointing at one simple truth in one context. (Everything is an appearance in Consciousness) No, he doesn't use pointers, he means things literally. Pointers defy logic, and gopal likes logic. Yes I have gathered that that truth is the one that interests him |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 15:19:12 GMT -5
Considering Goldilocks broke in and ransacked the dinner table, seems she would'nt b!tch about the quality of the food she stole, right? Breaking and entering while Blonde.  That's a viable legal defense, right?? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 15:21:46 GMT -5
OK, I don't know what you were saying in the first place. But catching some of your discussion with Andrew on Charlie and Hitler, I don't think I have a problem with your view, sdp and L are closer on this subject than andrew and sdp. yeah we're gonna have to be an odds on this one. To clarify something, aside from the fact that what I am saying makes sense to me at least, to me it is basically a kind of lifestyle choice to see individuals as fundamentally equal. I don't choose it because I can prove it to be true, I choose it because I like it and because it makes my life better, and because I believe that it is actually good for the collective for folks to hold that perspective/experience. I do judge of course, but I prefer the absence. I do experience the belief in fundamental equality to be true but that could just be confirmation bias, so the fact that I experience it to be true is sort of by the by. OK, in Charlotte, NC, where I live, right now the focus of Police shooting black men has come to my "back year". (This is a little different because a black policemen killed a black man). Tuesday afternoon about 4:00, a black man was shot and killed when the police came to the neighborhood to serve papers on another man totally unrelated to the man who was shot. There have been protests Tuesday night, Wednesday night and Thursday night, Wednesday night much violence and rioting, looting, breaking windows. The problem is more black men are shot in this manner than say white men. For you would this be a disturbing fact, or would it not matter because everyone is equal? Seriously, because you say "it is good for the collective for folks to hold that perspective/experience". A more extreme case is Tulsa, OK. Last Friday a police woman shot and killed an unarmed man walking away from her with his hands up. She has now been charged with murder, but that doesn't help the black man who was killed. It seems you live in an Ivory Tower andrew (no offense intended). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 15:22:37 GMT -5
And that perspective is horrifying and needs to be avoided at all cost. That's where you have to give the resident hamsters some credit for their bravado in cosying up to an idealized version of it to make everything all nice, equal, bland and safe for everyone. Well, somebody's gotta do it! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:23:30 GMT -5
I read it a couple of times, at the time. I didn't quite agree with sdp that he was only saying there is one context, but I can definitely see where sdp got that. What I am hearing gopal say there is that one context can be known for certain, whereas the other context is speculation, which means that only one context is true and worth paying attention to. I see this as problematic for a few reasons, but not least because it doesn't leave room for neither context to be true (this is all ideas we are discussing after all). I don't relate to context as being true/false. We might declare some or all of the content as true or false, but the context itself is just a category of ideas. We can't say there isn't a context because we don't agree with the ideas in it. I don't know if that's what Gopal is saying or not. yes I agree that mostly we are talking about contextually true and false ideas rather than whether a context itself is true, but in the case of gopal, he sees the relative context as speculation, and the absolute context as direct seeing. This is a problem if there is no room in his model for those ideas to be reduced to a greasy spot. BOTH contexts have to be seen for what they are. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 15:25:15 GMT -5
No, it numbers at least in the thousand. Do you want me to name them? What was the most important one? (for me it is usually the last one!) In Search of the Miraculous, by PD Ouspensky, 40 years ago. (I've read it at least 3 times, probably 4, and some sections more). Important because it led to so much more. I read it within one week. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:25:35 GMT -5
The problem here is that in the Consciousness-appearance model, what you see is the snake. How can that perception (or any perception) ever be wrong? In order for the snake to actually be a rope, surely we have to jump back into the physical context and start analyzing properties of the snake/rope. Well, the problem is in the careless way in which Pilgrim defined illusion, but you raise an interesting question. If we say there is just one perceiver, then appearance and actuality are the same, but if there are multiple perceivers (which we assume there are) then there is a kind of 'consensus actuality' which a particular individuation may or may may not see as such. In that case, one may mistake a tree for a giraffe, and this would be an illusion. The world is a subjective creation, but the subject is Consciousness as a whole rather than the individual, which is one of the creations. The moment we speak of appearances as pertaining to individuations or multiple perceivers, I would say we are back in the physical context anyway...in which case...yes...one can be wrong if they perceive a snake not a rope. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Sept 23, 2016 15:28:43 GMT -5
What was the most important one? (for me it is usually the last one!) , 40 years ago. (I've read it at least 3 times, probably 4, and some sections more). Important because it led to so much more. I read it within one week. Same for me! : ) (yes it's not the last one but it's an exception) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 15:28:59 GMT -5
yep I agree. And even if these sort of spiritual stories about soul groups and contracts are just a myth....they still enable us to see and experience Hitler types from a place of love and unity. The truth will also enable that (nonvolition) but I understand there's a downside to that. I argued non-volition most days for the best part of two years in 2009/10....maybe I argue in cycles |
|
