|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 2, 2019 10:32:24 GMT -5
As it's relative, that agenda can also be accomplished by making others look dangerously unenlightened by comparison. By Jesus' accounting I'd be the winner. You, zd, figs, sat and laffy far behind. "The least among you is the gr--most enlightened." Well, the competition is only happening in Satch's obliterated mind for now, so let's try to keep it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 2, 2019 10:48:06 GMT -5
I'm not trying to avoid admitting that. I do act as if cause/effect is happening. I'm telling you it's not. I'm telling you what's happening is correlation. I'm telling you so that you might look and see if it's true, no so that you will act as if it's true. Like I've said. I tend to agree. At the sub-atomic level, it almost seems haphazard until consciousness intervenes then there's definitely a particle in some specific location because it is observed. But that and a box of Cracker Jacks makes for a sweet snack and nothing else. Old Zen story: The Zen Master asks his disciple if he washed his hands before sitting down to eat his rice. The disciple thinking to challenge his teacher replies by asking "what hands?" Thinking himself clever he sits down to eat his meal. The next day, the Zen Master asks the disciple again if he washed his hands. The disciple thinking he'd got the best of the exchange the night before again replies with "what hands?" Then when he lifts the cover off his rice bowl, it's empty. When he asks where the rice is, his sensei smiles. The moral of the story is ... As I see it, science is more about creation than it is discovery. As such, it becomes less a tool for discovering WIBIGO than it is a marker for the evolution of consciousness. IOW, consciousness evolves within the dream, then expresses that in the form of scientific 'discovery'. It is, after all, a dream of creation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 10:59:13 GMT -5
Oh really? Does this sound like engagement to you? "How invested in the science behind global warming can you really get if you are fully aware that the world arises anew each moment....that there is no objectively existent world 'out there'.....no separation....that how the world appears, it's conditions cannot really be predicted because within the story, anything is possible....nothing is actually causing anything else.... It's all one unified moment that is not subject to/reliant upon man's mental plans for a better world...?" Sitting in concern about the future in full conviction that the world is doomed because science says so is a 'degree/depth' of engagement that has delusion at it's helm. Delusion based engagement is what goes. Your issue is not really that I am completely disengaged, as I've made it very clear to you that that is not the case. Your issue is that I am not engaged 'enough'...to the degree that you think I should be. Haven't you yet seen that It's mental/emotional attachments that result in a depth/degree of engagement that equals full immersion within mind/the story? No, I don't get too caught up, don't sit around and fret about what science predicts regarding the environment/future....I've seen all too clearly that science itself is 'an appearance in consciousness' but that does not mean that I am completely absent caring. I continue to have a deep respect and reverence for the appearing world, nature, others and behave in accordance with that. Again, a case of your own judgement that I should be engaged in a particular way. I'm off for a massage this morning.....would one who was completely disengaged from the body be interested in such? All I am saying above is that I've seen that a particular medical treatment does not actually 'cause/catalyze' bodily change. It just looks that way. What you're really arguing about with this one, is whether something in the dream actually causes something else to appear and whether or not that changes the depth to which we engage with the idea of the necessity of particular medical treatments and such. I'm interested in bodily health/condition to the degree that I allow intuition to lead the way instead of acquiescing to the status quo view.
(Thank you though for finally offering up some actual quotes that have you thinking about my position as you do. This way I actually have something of substance to respond to instead of just wondering how you arrived at your view. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with this type of direct challenge...appreciate it.  ). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 2, 2019 11:05:34 GMT -5
Somehow you have me so disinterested and disengaged with the appearing world, that you suggest just throw them kids out on the streets, refusing to feed or care for them. But all along, I've been very careful to stress the point that seeing life as akin to a dream does not equal disinterest or a complete disengagement from life. Oh really? Does this sound like engagement to you? "How invested in the science behind global warming can you really get if you are fully aware that the world arises anew each moment....that there is no objectively existent world 'out there'.....no separation....that how the world appears, it's conditions cannot really be predicted because within the story, anything is possible....nothing is actually causing anything else.... It's all one unified moment that is not subject to/reliant upon man's mental plans for a better world...?" How about this? "If I did accept treatment, on the surface of things I may speak about it as something I am doing to slow down progression, however, the bigger/transcendent picture will loom larger....the seeing that the condition, the treatment, the resonance with that, and the slowing of progression/or not, is all inextricably One....a singular movement." It does to me. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 2, 2019 11:17:30 GMT -5
Sitting in concern about the future in full conviction that the world is doomed because science says so is a 'degree/depth' of engagement that has delusion at it's helm. Delusion based engagement is what goes. What does this mean? You are either engaged or not. It seems to me that you are trying to overwrite your actual experience with concepts about non self and the world as an illusion which is in direct opposition to your experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 15:43:27 GMT -5
Sitting in concern about the future in full conviction that the world is doomed because science says so is a 'degree/depth' of engagement that has delusion at it's helm. Delusion based engagement is what goes. What does this mean? You are either engaged or not. It seems to me that you are trying to overwrite your actual experience with concepts about non self and the world as an illusion which is in direct opposition to your experience. You haven't thought that one through.
How could there be complete disengagement from the appearing world? Even one who mentally 'tries' to pull away or ignore the appearing world is still going to be engaging the world. So long as experience is happening, some degree of engagement will be. Even to actively disengage, is to 'engage.' There's no getting away from it.
Being asleep equals a depth/degree of engagement where there is full immersion in the story.....abidance in mind....no seeing 'beyond' the story, whereas being awake means still being engaged enough with the story that you find meaning, that you still care, but you remain grounded in being and do not get swept up, lost to the story.
Engagement absent attachment and identification means you still care about the story, but you don't depend upon a particular story outcome for peace....you're not so deeply bought in, that abidance in Being ceases.
And no, there is no 'overwriting' involved. I've shared with you my view on some very personal real life circumstances in my life. Seems you accepted that to be my actual experience when you used it to paint me as 'disengaged.' Now, if I'm not disengaged, I must therefore be trying to overwrite my experience with concepts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 11:10:57 GMT -5
Like I've said. I tend to agree. At the sub-atomic level, it almost seems haphazard until consciousness intervenes then there's definitely a particle in some specific location because it is observed. But that and a box of Cracker Jacks makes for a sweet snack and nothing else. Old Zen story: The Zen Master asks his disciple if he washed his hands before sitting down to eat his rice. The disciple thinking to challenge his teacher replies by asking "what hands?" Thinking himself clever he sits down to eat his meal. The next day, the Zen Master asks the disciple again if he washed his hands. The disciple thinking he'd got the best of the exchange the night before again replies with "what hands?" Then when he lifts the cover off his rice bowl, it's empty. When he asks where the rice is, his sensei smiles. The moral of the story is ... As I see it, science is more about creation than it is discovery. As such, it becomes less a tool for discovering WIBIGO than it is a marker for the evolution of consciousness. IOW, consciousness evolves within the dream, then expresses that in the form of scientific 'discovery'. It is, after all, a dream of creation. I don't enjoy the philosophy of science. I enjoy the math. It's pure pleasure, kind of like you enjoy debating Sat.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 12:04:06 GMT -5
He is asking what's the use of knowing the illusion of cause and effort. For one, it's the truth, and truth is it's own justification. It also isn't going to make life betterer for the SVP. ok |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2019 22:45:56 GMT -5
Hi there, So i feel it is part of my remaining karma to get this: http://www.onesteppath.com (under the "Nonconceptuality" tab) out "there". That's about it. Since your belief in the end of the world is grounded in science, revisit that science in the future. Come back and compare what they're predicting today with conditions as they are 10 years from now. That's the scientific method. What are they predicting for 2030? The predictions about the northern polar ice that were made in "An Inconvenient Truth" didn't hold up. So, the scientists that made them, were wrong then. I'm not going to try to convince you that they're not right now, but I would challenge you to stay with the one that brought you to the dance, even if she looks different in the varying light as the night goes on. |
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Nov 12, 2019 9:10:05 GMT -5
I've done enough research that the extinction of the human species due to climate change is a fact in my world. Done. It's just the timing that's the variable.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2019 13:16:50 GMT -5
I've done enough research that the extinction of the human species due to climate change is a fact in my world. Done. It's just the timing that's the variable. So, maybe not by 2040 then? That was pretty specific, after all. What's the range of that variable? Future events aren't fact until they become present, and while your research might have been based on what scientists have to say, what you've written is an expression of faith. If they're wrong about their predictions for ten years from now, why should you maintain that faith in the ones for twenty? |
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Nov 12, 2019 19:57:25 GMT -5
Does it really matter if we go extinct in 1 decade or 2? Regardless, this is "my" final life as a human. And pretty much everyone else's.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 13, 2019 16:40:58 GMT -5
Does it really matter if we go extinct in 1 decade or 2? Regardless, this is "my" final life as a human. And pretty much everyone else's. No, if you're right in your prediction, 10 years give or take doesn't matter, but that's not my point. You've predicted 20, so it would be a reasonable expectation that some of the details of that prediction would have happened by the time we're half way there. I've given you a specific example of a prediction by the same group of scientists from 13 years back that was wrong. So what are the current predictions for 2030? What if the human race potentially has 100's of thousands or millions of years in front of it? What if they're wrong about the exitinction? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 13, 2019 17:20:58 GMT -5
Does it really matter if we go extinct in 1 decade or 2? Regardless, this is "my" final life as a human. And pretty much everyone else's. No, if you're right in your prediction, 10 years give or take doesn't matter, but that's not my point. You've predicted 20, so it would be a reasonable expectation that some of the details of that prediction would have happened by the time we're half way there. I've given you a specific example of a prediction by the same group of scientists from 13 years back that was wrong. So what are the current predictions for 2030? What if the human race potentially has 100's of thousands or millions of years in front of it? What if they're wrong about the exitinction? Extinction means no male and female adjacent to each other, minimum. That's a tall order. Not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Nov 13, 2019 17:29:28 GMT -5
No, if you're right in your prediction, 10 years give or take doesn't matter, but that's not my point. You've predicted 20, so it would be a reasonable expectation that some of the details of that prediction would have happened by the time we're half way there. I've given you a specific example of a prediction by the same group of scientists from 13 years back that was wrong. So what are the current predictions for 2030? What if the human race potentially has 100's of thousands or millions of years in front of it? What if they're wrong about the exitinction? Extinction means no male and female adjacent to each other, minimum. That's a tall order. Not going to happen. Why will it not happen? Every single species goes extinct. Every single one. It just so happens that our time is now. |
|
).
