|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2019 20:49:59 GMT -5
Gopal, picture the following. Gopal sits down and takes a nap in a park. While asleep somebody takes the sunglasses off Gopal and replaces them with green tinted glasses. Gopal wakes up, looks out, everything is shaded green. This is amazing, the whole world has turned to green, what is going on? Now, if such a thing happened, Gopal would of course immediately recognize what had happened. However, this is exactly, metaphorically, but in a very real sense the way we are "constructed". This is true physically, but also psychologically. Physically, this is easy to understand with a little examination. Philosopher Thomas Nagel explored this in an article, What it's like to be a bat. Different animals experience different worlds because their senses are constructed differently. Everybody knows dogs can hear higher pitched sounds than humans. Dog whistles are silent to humans, but not to dogs. So this is an epistemological problem. Now, for the most part all humans experience the same physical world (there are variations). But psychologically, there are thousands of different worlds people live in. The world they experience is determined by their own psychology, that is, their conditioning. Now, example, most of my family has gone bonkers. They still back and support President Trump. But I see Trump as a danger and a threat, a narcissist, a liar, and egomaniac, I could go on and on. "I am a stable genius", whoTF says that? A not-stable not-genius. Of course, they consider me the one who is bonkers. The facts that we deal with are the same, the news, events, words, actions. But they interpret it all in one way, I in a vastly different way. But there are numerous other example I could give. Right now, on London Bridge, a terrorist stabbed some people and has been shot by police. The terrorist has a vastly different world view than the ordinary people who were on the bridge. We all have to deal with this, the manner our own conditioning colors our world view. People here on ST's disagree to what extent this is a problem or concern. I won't get into that, here, now. But I will say that it is exceptionally to ~get past~ the coloring-the-world via our own psychology, and maybe suggest you look further into this. Now, I also know we have examined this thoroughly, previously, as have others. I call it backing up to get a more expansive view, of self, that is, what we think is self or what some of used to think of as self, the little self, ego, a clearer view of the tiny self. Over and over we can consider it the case that we can be objective towards self, that is, we back up to a wall. But almost invariably, if we keep exploring, we find that what is viewing, is still the little self, that we still have not reached a point of objectivity. That's all I'm suggesting, keep exploring. "The Creator is the created". Yes, and no. In the teachers section zazeniac has started a most excellent thread on self-inquiry (or Self-Inquiry, just covering the bases). It is Ramana in a nutshell. SCA gave you a very good answer, I cannot agree or disagree. Ask yourself why it is a good answer. 99.99% of the people on earth, the 7 billion, think, both physically and psychologically, they see the world as it is. There is usually a wow involved, an aftershock of recognition when we realize we have had a distorted view of something, and now see things more objectively, that is, have gotten outside of our own psychological position. That is usually remembered. A bold enough shock, leaves people changed forever. We are not talking about how people are conditioned to perceive certain thing, We are talking something different. That's exactly what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2019 21:01:43 GMT -5
Gopal, picture the following. Gopal sits down and takes a nap in a park. While asleep somebody takes the sunglasses off Gopal and replaces them with green tinted glasses. Gopal wakes up, looks out, everything is shaded green. This is amazing, the whole world has turned to green, what is going on? Now, if such a thing happened, Gopal would of course immediately recognize what had happened. However, this is exactly, metaphorically, but in a very real sense the way we are "constructed". This is true physically, but also psychologically. Physically, this is easy to understand with a little examination. Philosopher Thomas Nagel explored this in an article, What it's like to be a bat. Different animals experience different worlds because their senses are constructed differently. Everybody knows dogs can hear higher pitched sounds than humans. Dog whistles are silent to humans, but not to dogs. So this is an epistemological problem. Now, for the most part all humans experience the same physical world (there are variations). But psychologically, there are thousands of different worlds people live in. The world they experience is determined by their own psychology, that is, their conditioning. Now, example, most of my family has gone bonkers. They still back and support President Trump. But I see Trump as a danger and a threat, a narcissist, a liar, and egomaniac, I could go on and on. "I am a stable genius", whoTF says that? A not-stable not-genius. Of course, they consider me the one who is bonkers. The facts that we deal with are the same, the news, events, words, actions. But they interpret it all in one way, I in a vastly different way. But there are numerous other example I could give. Right now, on London Bridge, a terrorist stabbed some people and has been shot by police. The terrorist has a vastly different world view than the ordinary people who were on the bridge. We all have to deal with this, the manner our own conditioning colors our world view. People here on ST's disagree to what extent this is a problem or concern. I won't get into that, here, now. But I will say that it is exceptionally to ~get past~ the coloring-the-world via our own psychology, and maybe suggest you look further into this. Now, I also know we have examined this thoroughly, previously, as have others. I call it backing up to get a more expansive view, of self, that is, what we think is self or what some of used to think of as self, the little self, ego, a clearer view of the tiny self. Over and over we can consider it the case that we can be objective towards self, that is, we back up to a wall. But almost invariably, if we keep exploring, we find that what is viewing, is still the little self, that we still have not reached a point of objectivity. That's all I'm suggesting, keep exploring. "The Creator is the created". Yes, and no. In the teachers section zazeniac has started a most excellent thread on self-inquiry (or Self-Inquiry, just covering the bases). It is Ramana in a nutshell. SCA gave you a very good answer, I cannot agree or disagree. Ask yourself why it is a good answer. 99.99% of the people on earth, the 7 billion, think, both physically and psychologically, they see the world as it is. There is usually a wow involved, an aftershock of recognition when we realize we have had a distorted view of something, and now see things more objectively, that is, have gotten outside of our own psychological position. That is usually remembered. A bold enough shock, leaves people changed forever. I missed where that was said. If it was, I share your concern. What I heard him say is that Awareness is both creating and perceiving. But he is asking how that is the case. I'm sure you have heard yourself as an echo. At first maybe no recognition, you think someone else is speaking in the distance. Time enters as a factor. Time is also a factor, between the creating and the perceiving. Time and space.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 2, 2019 22:00:40 GMT -5
Why do you think someone is creating the perception if there is no doer? Where does your perception come from then? Is the ocean the creator of the wave? The creation of the wave comes about from the interaction of other phenomena like wind and tide. Creation as we perceive it is just the never ending dance of Maya. There is no agency in ocean just as there is no agency in awareness, yet perception of phenomena is dependent on awareness just as wave is dependent on ocean. But you cannot attribute agency or entity to awareness so it is not the creator. Modern physics doesn't even recognize creation. Matter, which is ultimately energy, is just changing from one form to another. Nothing is gained and nothing is lost. The universe is a zero sum game in terms of the quantity of energy available. Thermodynamically, the universe is a closed system which means that eventually the energy dispersal will be so evenly distributed throughout the universe that nothing will happen without the flow of energy from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. Entropy will have run its course until the next quantum fluctuation brings back the energy differential requirement for a functional Maya.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2019 22:25:15 GMT -5
Where does your perception come from then? Is the ocean the creator of the wave? The creation of the wave comes about from the interaction of other phenomena like wind and tide. Creation as we perceive it is just the never ending dance of Maya. There is no agency in ocean just as there is no agency in awareness, yet perception of phenomena is dependent on awareness just as wave is dependent on ocean. But you cannot attribute agency or entity to awareness so it is not the creator. Modern physics doesn't even recognize creation. Matter, which is ultimately energy, is just changing from one form to another. Nothing is gained and nothing is lost. The universe is a zero sum game in terms of the quantity of energy available. Thermodynamically, the universe is a closed system which means that eventually the energy dispersal will be so evenly distributed throughout the universe that nothing will happen without the flow of energy from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. Entropy will have run its course until the next quantum fluctuation brings back the energy differential requirement for a functional Maya. First paragraph, that's the meaning of the analogy of an echo, time and space are the warp and woof between the voicing and the (2nd) hearing. Second paragraph, not necessarily. The universe was formed (by Big C Consciousness) with virtually no curvature, IOW, flat. Why? So little c consciousness could oppose entropy. Life counteracts entropy. Left to itself, yes, eventually there would be a cold dark universe, open. But man-like and woman-like beings throughout the cosmos are the pivotal fulcrum, *~we~* are the middle-ground acting agents that can tilt the balance to a closed universe, Self-perpetuating, as we see in the Upanishads. But nothing is guaranteed.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 2, 2019 22:35:37 GMT -5
First paragraph, that's the meaning of the analogy of an echo, time and space are the warp and woof between the voicing and the (2nd) hearing. Second paragraph, not necessarily. The universe was formed (by Big C Consciousness) with virtually no curvature, IOW, flat. Why? So little c consciousness could oppose entropy. Life counteracts entropy. Left to itself, yes, eventually there would be a cold dark universe, open. But man-like and woman-like beings throughout the cosmos are the pivotal fulcrum, *~we~* are the middle-ground acting agents that can tilt the balance to a closed universe, Self-perpetuating, as we see in the Upanishads. But nothing is guaranteed. Life depends on positive entropy. The sun illuminates the planet causing photosynthesis. Plants are then eaten by animals and other animals eat these animals all the way to the top of the food chain. But when that positive entropy turns to negative entropy then life cannot be sustained. But that's quite separate from Consciousness itself which doesn't need a body.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 2, 2019 22:46:15 GMT -5
A steam engine for instance is not a closed system. It only works because it expels steam outside of its own system into the atmosphere creating a flow of energy which is converted to kinetic movement. If you put a steam engine inside an airtight container it wouldn't work because there is no flow of energy. It would be a closed system like the universe. So eventually it's inevitable that there will be no differential of energy anywhere in the universe which is how that particular quantum fluctuation would have come into existence. But although it seems like something comes from nothing that's not really the case. Stephen Hawking described it like this. He said if you dig a hole it seems that you have nothing but you mustn't forget that there's now a pile of dirt next to the hole. If something appears to come from nothing then the exact equivalent amount of negative energy must also exist which is the equivalent of the dirt that made the hole possible.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 0:33:42 GMT -5
no, in this context there is no 'you' that could be a brain. At best, this 'you' could be said to be a thought in mind. But as i'm a spiritual dude, I think there's more to life than biology. You are boring me. Changing concept time to time really bores me a lot. You introduced the personal context when you addressed Tenka's objective world belief. When Andy followed you down that rabbit hole, you started thinking it was andy's belief. When Andy tried to find his way out of the rabbit hole, you accuse him of changing concepts. (maybe you mean contexts?) IOW, the story that bores you a lot is really of your own making.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 1:38:26 GMT -5
Was this concept realized? I still don't know what you realized that was beyond the pointer of consciousness .. Are you going to say? Nothing exist, only consciousness. So no prior to consciousness. He's not asking you what's prior to Consciousness. He wants you to talk about a transcendent realization without pointing. (Stick to using transcendent words and you'll be okay)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 1:49:25 GMT -5
I can conclude anything from what I know. I simply can't speculate something.
You see there is a perception and you are looking at it. So who is creating it? And also you proclaimed to have known the greater fac that awareness is the only that exist. If so, who is creating other than awareness? What's the problem do you see here? Enigma somehow knows the truth that awareness is creating those perception but he doesn't know how because he is busy looking at those perceptions.
It really seems like you are trying to resolve something in your mind...perhaps satch understands what that is, but I can't follow your thoughts here. I can only think it relates in some way to your not knowing if there are other perceivers. no matter, you are bored with me Gopal is bored with you and Satch is bored with Gopal, and I'm about to jump on the bored bandwagon too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 1:59:52 GMT -5
I am said I am consciousness. But my daughter is appearing in my consciousness. So I can't know whether she is real. Do you get me? i think i do, yes. I'm glad somebody does.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 3:05:15 GMT -5
Because you said everything is consciousness and consciousness is aware lol . Do you understand what your saying or implying? Gopal is master of honesty and logic. Did you ever see the movie Tron? Probably not. Jeff Bridges play Flynn. He is a programmer. He used to work for a company working on AI. The company head is up to nefarious purposes. He had stolen some of Flynn's programming, actually some important stuff that led to breakthroughs in AI. Flynn breaks in the corporation and hacks looking for proof the bad guy stole his ideas. And then he is kidnapped by the Master Control Program, a laser digitizes Flynn, transforms his flesh and blood into information. So now Flynn is actually in the computer. He begins to interact with people-like programs. These are kept in the dark about their creator-programmers. But there are rumors among the people-like-programs that, outside the computer exists beings who programmed them, their User. Flynn eventually meets Tron. Flynn is friends with Tron's User, Alan. So then Flynn spills the news, He (Flynn) is a User. So he confirms to the people-like-programs that Users are in fact real, that he himself is a User. Well...they treat him like a god. OK, it moves on from there...pretty good for 1982. So what Gopal is saying, by way of analogy, is he knows that he is a User. But he doesn't know if his daughter, or anyone else, is a User or merely a people-like-program. And, from the principle of non-volition, we could all be merely programming, living as simulations in a computer world. We could really already be living in a "Second World", and Second Worlds are really third worlds. Another pretty good movie along these lines, The Thirteenth Floor. I have watched it actually Pilgrim .. When you say ''So what Gopal is saying, by way of analogy, is he knows that he is a User. But he doesn't know if his daughter, or anyone else, is a User or merely a people-like-program''. Gopal therefore has to know that there is the comparison. He can't know the comparison by his own admission . He has to know what is real and what isn't real . He hasn't explained his realization of what is real and he hasn't had a realization of what isn't .. You can't therefore have a quandary about who isn't real when you don't no what being unreal is ... I am not sure if anyone can see this simplistic requirement that is needed in order to have a quandary in the first place . The fact that he believes everything is consciousness and consciousness is aware say's it all . The way that he speaks about appearances is irrelevant if he doesn't address his own and this must entail the knowing of what is unreal and real as a foundation .. He can't know anything about other's, so his own foundation works against itself.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 3:58:42 GMT -5
Yes, as I said, if you have the conception that appearances appear, then you will have the question as to how they appear, and you will have to posit a God who creates them... But appearances cannot be said to appear. Yes, perhaps I am in a separate boat on this point, hard to say. I would say appearances seem to be appearing, which is therefore 'uncertain'. i know you and tenka spent some days hashing something out, but actually I see your boats as quite similar in many regards. Have you started on the xmas sherry early?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 7:14:31 GMT -5
Yes I agree. If I choose to, I can completely stop thinking for as long as I want. (without any effort). Not a single thought will arise. What I cannot tell you is who, how or why stops the thinking and starts it again.This is one of the fantastic question. Consciousness is witnessing the movement of thoughts/Perceptions. This consciousness is also inseparable from what's being perceived, If so, who is creating the movement of thoughts? Ask this question to yourself. Answer might surprise you! Realization will completely undermine any thought process, logic, or reasoning, to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 7:25:43 GMT -5
"West til you smell it. South til you step in it." Um. It's like. A whole state. Establishing a required first step out of mind to Here is likely not gonna pass the smell test. A strange state of affairs.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 7:26:47 GMT -5
So what you call unbounded awareness is the only that exist,right? Yes it exists as both the formless and with form so that includes everything. And no thing
|
|