|
|
Post by andrew on May 29, 2022 15:19:23 GMT -5
... That's a very important point. I was always assuming you believed in predetermination. Because if you would believe in predetermination, then any talk about deliberate creation would be ultimately meaningless, even though it may be predetermined that you think and feel you create your own reality and whatever you perceive reinforces that belief. But since it all happens in the larger context of predetermination, it would only be a simulation of deliberate creation, not actual deliberate creation. So we have to get very clear about this point. ... Deleted - forum not working! Is there Gremlins today? my post went all cattywampus, strange font and missing chunks out.
One of my posts is also gone (and one of Gopal's). Maybe the forum is glitchy, because I don't think anything was said that was inappropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 16:49:38 GMT -5
Deleted - forum not working! Is there Gremlins today? my post went all cattywampus, strange font and missing chunks out.
One of my posts is also gone (and one of Gopal's). Maybe the forum is glitchy, because I don't think anything was said that was inappropriate. Thanks, yes I saw you mention. I would've liked to see Gopal's elaboration on his reading. I'll try my post again tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2022 18:26:10 GMT -5
Why so? Why didn't you marry? This reply has created a little sadness in me. Well, that's funny, Gopal. Isn't everyone 'stamped' a certain way, according to you? And if Lolly is stamped that way, what else could he possibly do?  callin' out the kid with his own named thread. my my. I understand raji's "stamping" notion to mean, essentially, deep conditioning. Andy points out that you know the difference between clean and dirty water. Every human being is "stamped" to instinctively know the difference between clean and dirty water, and, as an ex-secular-humanist, I understand this in terms of genetics. In terms of people who move in and out of your life by loa, I understand that "stamping" in terms of what I've learned of the Buddhist notion of "dependent origination". My ex-secular-humanist perspective on this is one word: "culture", but, individualized, as in, the unique cultural experience of the person. There is a pretty deep insight gopal expresses with these notions, what E' used to refer to as "the power of futility". No comment on the "solipsism" thread of the ongoing dialog.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 18:50:21 GMT -5
It's like when the credits roll at the end of the movie and it says, cast in order of appearance. You shed a tear when the hero died even though you knew it wasn't a "real" person. Feelings of sympathy arise when you hear about kids and parents you didn't know in a school shooting in Texas, a place you've never visited. And then when it comes to real people you really do know, even they just drift in and out of our experience from time to time. We are affected and then we forget what we felt about them until the next encounter and then we are reminded. It starts all over again, it changes, it's transformed, relationships change, they become diminished or they are renewed, so in that sense all of these movie characters and real people they're equally the same, they're just experiences forever changing and in that sense there are no others. But there are others. To say there are no others is more of a realization about oneself and how the world is experienced like a bee flitting from flower to flower. From a purely intellectual or philosophical perspective, Gopal is correct, you cannot know. You can only assume. yes gopal is correct. But in practical terms I act as though there are independently thinking conscious others. I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow but it's still an assumption. We don't go about our daily lives philosophically. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 18:58:16 GMT -5
Deleted - forum not working! Is there Gremlins today? my post went all cattywampus, strange font and missing chunks out.
One of my posts is also gone (and one of Gopal's). Maybe the forum is glitchy, because I don't think anything was said that was inappropriate. Maybe they had been stamped to disappear. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:12:58 GMT -5
It's like when the credits roll at the end of the movie and it says, cast in order of appearance. You shed a tear when the hero died even though you knew it wasn't a "real" person. Feelings of sympathy arise when you hear about kids and parents you didn't know in a school shooting in Texas, a place you've never visited. And then when it comes to real people you really do know, even they just drift in and out of our experience from time to time. We are affected and then we forget what we felt about them until the next encounter and then we are reminded. It starts all over again, it changes, it's transformed, relationships change, they become diminished or they are renewed, so in that sense all of these movie characters and real people they're equally the same, they're just experiences forever changing and in that sense there are no others. But there are others. To say there are no others is more of a realization about oneself and how the world is experienced like a bee flitting from flower to flower. If One reaches to clarity that outer world is being experienced in consciousness that automatically brings another question about "others" , The question then would be whether there are others who appears to be perceiving like me. The obvious answer would then be it can never be known because the creation stems from the impersonal automatically and it doesn't have the control over what it creates and creation of the world arises from impersonal and it starts to wonder where the hell is it coming from. Once it starts to becomes conscious of its creation, It would come to know certain things and this knowing blocks the impersonal to create certain nonsense. More clarity it reaches the more beautiful it's creation will be. Something is coming from nothing and the another thought coming from the same nothing and it starts to wonder where does this something comes from and the searching starts. That's speculating. That's not clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:17:13 GMT -5
If One reaches to clarity that outer world is being experienced in consciousness that automatically brings another question about "others" , The question then would be whether there are others who appears to be perceiving like me. The obvious answer would then be it can never be known because the creation stems from the impersonal automatically and it doesn't have the control over what it creates and creation of the world arises from impersonal and it starts to wonder where the hell is it coming from. Once it starts to becomes conscious of its creation, It would come to know certain things and this knowing blocks the impersonal to create certain nonsense. More clarity it reaches the more beautiful it's creation will be. Something is coming from nothing and the another thought coming from the same nothing and it starts to wonder where does this something comes from and the searching starts. I don't know if it's going to rain tomorrow but I'm taking an umbrella with me just in case. That's clarity! I wouldn't call that clarity either. I'd call that common sense. Here's why: It's just common sense that in the rainy season you would take an umbrella with you. And most of the time you will be proven right. But there will also be many incidences where you take your umbrella with you and actually don't need it. And that's not worth calling clarity because it's a bit of a hit and miss and you are just playing it safe. Clarity in that (relative) context would mean having greater knowing, i.e. you know/feel on a deeper level that it is going to rain so you take your umbrella with you without even second guessing yourself or you know/feel on a deeper level that it is not going to rain and don't take your umbrella with you without a thought of worry. In one case you just feel an impulse to take your umbrella, in the other case you don't feel that impulse, but in both cases you act accordingly and it is going to work out every single time. That's clarity in the relative realm, you are guided by broader perspective and act on it. You just know. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:21:05 GMT -5
For peeps who attain clarity there is no "outer world" or "inner world." There's just THIS--a field of being that is unified, infinite, and intellectually incomprehensible. The imaginary boundary between "inner" and "outer" disappears. For me there is only inner, there is no outer. Nothing is happening "out there" everything is happening in here. That's a nonsensical statement. Positing an 'inner always also 'posits' an outer. You want to have it both ways again. You want to make the impersonal perspective fit into your personal framework again. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:24:58 GMT -5
For me there is only inner, there is no outer. Nothing is happening "out there" everything is happening in here. Isn't that the same as what zd is saying? Just you are labeling your experience as "inner." No, it's not. The statement is supposed to point beyond duality, but the way Gopal phrased it reveals that his perspective is still deeply rooted in duality. Only ZD's statement actually does point beyond duality. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:27:07 GMT -5
Excellent! Only two significant distinctions still imagined--"me" and "inner." Nope. We both are talking the same. No, you're not. You don't even realize how illogical your statement is, both from a mere linguistic as well from a philosophical perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:32:38 GMT -5
Yeah, he used to be a firm believer in olas and used it to prove that everything is predetermined. Maybe his ola said that he is not stamped? It seems that by Gopal's own logic, if he is the only one in his reality that is not stamped, then he must also be the only one who has no ola. (Assuming that ola's and stamping go hand-in-hand, and it was my understanding that they do). Depends on what 'stamped' actually means. I still don't know what he is really trying to convey by that term. I am wondering if he is referring to some kind of Sanskrit or Tamil term that may have several possible meanings/translations. Maybe Gopal can use a different word or give us some examples so that we can infer a bit more. Gopal is the center of his world and everything is appearing to him. So far so good. But Gopal's perspective is the personal perspective, that's where it gets all screwy at some point, specifically when he starts borrowing words and concepts that only make sense in the impersonal context. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 21:32:43 GMT -5
I don't know if it's going to rain tomorrow but I'm taking an umbrella with me just in case. That's clarity! I wouldn't call that clarity either. I'd call that common sense. Here's why: It's just common sense that in the rainy season you would take an umbrella with you. And most of the time you will be proven right. But there will also be many incidences where you take your umbrella with you and actually don't need it. And that's not worth calling clarity because it's a bit of a hit and miss and you are just playing it safe. Clarity in that (relative) context would mean having greater knowing, i.e. you know/feel on a deeper level that it is going to rain so you take your umbrella with you without even second guessing yourself or you know/feel on a deeper level that it is not going to rain and don't take your umbrella with you without a thought of worry. In one case you just feel an impulse to take your umbrella, in the other case you don't feel that impulse, but in both cases you act accordingly and it is going to work out every single time. That's clarity in the relative realm, you are guided by broader perspective and act on it. You just know. what other clarity is there apart from in the relative? If there is clarity there has to be clarity about something. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:36:52 GMT -5
Okay, thank you for clarifying. Although that raises a few questions, right. Like, what is the difference between (what I presume are) the predetermined aspects of our lives that allow for predicting ola's …. and stamping? What the heck is 'ola'? It's a branch of nadi astrology. It's a combination of astrology and cold reading that can give impressive results if done correctly. The theory is that every man (or woman) has their fate written on a palm leaf that is stored somewhere. We've discussed the mathematical impossibility of this before, but to no avail.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:46:58 GMT -5
Gopal says that everyone's life has been predicted and written out a long time ago, transcribed onto palm leaves, and stored somewhere. Apparently you can go there and pay some money, and you give your name and birth date and then someone goes off into the archive and fetches it for you and translates it. Reads it, if you like, because as if I recall correctly, there is an art to the interpretation. They call these 'prophecies' olas. At last that is how I remember Gopal describing the situation, he can correct me if I'm wrong. Obviously this all necessiates some measure of predetermination. Depends on how detailed the prediction is. You see, astrology (on which the olas are based) doesn't really support the idea that events are predetermined, only that they are fated, in the same that when you throw a ball into a certain direction at a certain angle with a certain speed it will land on a spot that can be determined before it is going to hit that spot. Now, predetermined would mean that you could calculate the impact point before you even hit the ball. Fated would mean that you can only determine the impact point after you threw the ball. If you don't throw the ball, nothing will hit the ground. But once you throw the ball, you can predict with relative certainty where it is going to hit the ground because it will follow a predefined trajectory. Similarly with our lives, they follow a certain trajectory. Predetermined would negate free will. Fated does not negate free will, it only negates randomness or that anything goes. Fate allows for a spontaneous but orderly unfolding. So that you can predict what happens when the ball gets thrown, but you cannot predict if the ball gets thrown at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:57:02 GMT -5
Gopal, can you give a brief explanation of stamping again ... People would be conditioned to act in a certain way to bring out certain reaction in you. So, it's a predisposition then? |
|
callin' out the kid with his own named thread. my my.
