Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 24, 2020 18:39:41 GMT
So there are two things again now: the "overlay from which suffering arises" and "the suffering." That again is back in the land of the causal. That's like the ground and the seed that sprouts from it, etc. Right, and that's a causal notion. "Hinges upon" = "arises from"... all these metaphors are causal. Not really... argument proceeds by analogy. If you want to say my analogy is inapt, you have to distinguish the relevant point by which it is so. I asked for the difference between an actual catalyst and a non-actual catalyst, and your response is that nothing in the dream is "actually causing/catalyzing anything else" -- but that is using the thing to be defined in your definition. Again, what's the difference between "actual" and "non-actual" cause? I understand that you're asserting that God/Source is the actual cause, but what I'm asking is the meaning of actual here. If actual has no meaning, then why use that word? So now you are openly using the word cause. So there is causation? Realization at its basis = realization as causing it? Is that actual or non-actual cause? I like to say one event leads to another where there is a correlation. This is not meant to imply causation within the events, though the correlation is to be taken seriously. I don't think one would observe a correlation without first thinking that causation could be happening. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Feb 24, 2020 23:03:18 GMT
Well I was taking you at your word that you were interested in discussing the Truth, etc. It seems, however, like you're not actually interested in discussing your statements (except to hear some variety of agreement)... because you simply say you're "pointing" whenever any statement is challenged on its logic or internal contradictions. That's fine, I guess. I'm not sure what you mean about your strong interest in discussing truth, then, though. Does that mean you simply have a strong interest in "pointing" people who you think are seekers to the truth with your statements? Or are you mainly looking for other people to chime in to talk about how their realizations agree with your pointers? Or what?What she is not looking for is an intellectual logic debate.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 25, 2020 0:25:24 GMT
SR doesn't make one go blind. The sage sees the world arising. He sees distinction and differences. What he does not see is otherness and causation. The sage does not see the the world arising because if something arises it must arise from some thing else. When the sage sees the mountain it is no different to Self which alone exists. The mountain is consciousness appearing as form. Nothing is arising because that would create a difference where there is none. But there IS a difference. You're conflating difference and separation again. Consciousness appearing as form is form arising as Consciousness. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 25, 2020 0:30:34 GMT
I like to say one event leads to another where there is a correlation. This is not meant to imply causation within the events, though the correlation is to be taken seriously. I don't think one would observe a correlation without first thinking that causation could be happening. Scientists are taught to distinguish between correlation and causation lest they be deceived by their evidence. I observe them all the time, all the while knowing for certain cause/effect is not happening in form. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 0:31:32 GMT
This is such a nice topic to be discussed, Interesting argument going on.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 25, 2020 0:32:11 GMT
What she is not looking for is an intellectual logic debate. Are you agreeing to disagree?  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Feb 25, 2020 0:34:18 GMT
This is such a nice topic to be discussed, Interesting argument going on. I agree to agree with that.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 0:35:38 GMT
This is such a nice topic to be discussed, Interesting argument going on. I agree to agree with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 0:39:20 GMT
This is such a nice topic to be discussed, Interesting argument going on. I agree to agree with that. If one believes in outer world, then there is cause and effect, If one doesn't believe in outer world, then consciousness is the cause for each moment. Simple! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2020 1:57:56 GMT
The sage does not see the the world arising because if something arises it must arise from some thing else. When the sage sees the mountain it is no different to Self which alone exists. The mountain is consciousness appearing as form. Nothing is arising because that would create a difference where there is none. You're conflating difference and separation again. Consciousness appearing as form is form arising as Consciousness. Yeah....it's kinda funny 'cause he was accusing us of being the ones who were denying the experiential. |
|
