an interesting excerpt:
The whole of this universe is therefore is as it were, a peculiar form, the Absolute is that ocean while you and I, the suns, and stars, and everything else are various waves of the ocean. And what makes the waves different? Only the form, and that form is time, space and causation, all entirely dependent on the wave. As soon as the wave goes, they vanish. As soon as the individual gives up this Maya, it vanishes for him and he becomes free. The whole struggle is to get rid of this clinging onto time, space and causation which are always obstacles in our way. What is the theory of evolution? What are the two factors? A tremendous potential power which is trying to express itself, and circumstances which are holding it down. The environments not allowing it to express itself. So in order to fight with these environments, the power is taking new bodies again and again. An amoeba in the struggle gets another body and conquers some obstacles, then gets another body and so on until it becomes man.
Now if you carry this idea to it's logical conclusion, there must come a time when that power that was in the amoeba and which evolved as man will have conquered all the obstructions that nature can bring before it and will this escape all the environments. This idea expressed in metaphysics will take this form: there are two components in every action, the one the subject, the other the object, and the one aim of life is to make the subject master of the object. For instance, I feel unhappy because a man scolds me. My struggle will be to make myself strong enough to conquer the environment, so that he may scold and I shall not feel. That is how we are all trying to conquer. What is meant by morality? Making the subject strong by attuning it to the Absolute, so that nature ceases to have control over us. It is a logical conclusion of out philosophy that there must come a time when we shall have conquered all the environments, because nature is finite.
Full Version: The Absolute and Manifestation
Simply remove the struggle that is caused by belief and reason and manifestation becomes the byproduct of desire/intent/awareness.
Time is the creation of ego to put things into a linear perception of how do I become. God is, Man is the expression of God, evolution is the idea of expression in relative terms.
There is only Now, always only Now, never anything other than now. Manifest reality is the changing of awareness within the absolute infinite now. What was, is and always will be.
Time is the creation of ego to put things into a linear perception of how do I become. God is, Man is the expression of God, evolution is the idea of expression in relative terms.
There is only Now, always only Now, never anything other than now. Manifest reality is the changing of awareness within the absolute infinite now. What was, is and always will be.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=#msg14901 date=1066933929]
Time is the creation of ego to put things into a linear perception of how do I become.
[/quote]
umm, why would an ego create time? and why would it bother to put things into linear perception? Inquiring minds want to know. 8)
Time is the creation of ego to put things into a linear perception of how do I become.
[/quote]
umm, why would an ego create time? and why would it bother to put things into linear perception? Inquiring minds want to know. 8)
[quote]umm, why would an ego create time? and why would it bother to put things into linear perception? Inquiring minds want to know. [/quote]
For the same reason you ask this question....
For the same reason you ask this question....
do you like to dance?
Classical, disco, hip hop or universal?
tribal? 
you lead.
ohh noo, you see, I'm just a bear who enjoys watching others dance and I must say that you dance well. ;D Oh wait! My ego has just now created timelessness! I experience Past, Present, and Future at same time. My silly ego, what a silly little bear you are! Do you believe me? Do I believe you? And where is an open mind in all of this?
Where is mind in this determination of time or timelessness and the watching of the other?
From where is the point of reference? In the universal One or the dual me and the other?
Nothing complicated about living in the world but not of it but the complication arises when making issues with reality as in purpose and final intent.
This is my dance from your perspective if you wish to sparate yourself from the known as the knower.
It is your dance if you unite the knower and the known and it is always your lead.
From where is the point of reference? In the universal One or the dual me and the other?
Nothing complicated about living in the world but not of it but the complication arises when making issues with reality as in purpose and final intent.
This is my dance from your perspective if you wish to sparate yourself from the known as the knower.
It is your dance if you unite the knower and the known and it is always your lead.
Are you a monist or transcendental idealist? Have you considered that this Universal One is all in your head? Why would you want to unite my bear essence with your essence in some Universal One? Have you considered that maybe we're fundamentally different at the most basic level? In short, have you considered that there is no Universal One? If not, then where is the open mind in all of it?
I have considered and experienced the varying levels of duality.
What I have found in all experiences is the One essence that supports all ideas in form and identification. The hypnosis that overcomes the knower in identification with experience as essence is broken once one experiences the essence of all identities. When engaged it unites all identities and experiences at its subtlest level. Pure isness and stillness. The presence of that is much more than any limited definition in identity as a form or personality. From that point of reference there is no mind that is closed or open just universal mind.
You may wish to hold on to your bear, and separate me from you, but it does not mean we are separated, for there is nothing ever separate in the universe. Like the cells in a body that are always in close communication they work with the whole as the whole without the thought of being different or the thought of needing to be special.
In the microcosm of the Human personna the aspects of the whole are inherent in each and never separate in knowing or being. Only Ego separates and divides the whole into the many parts. It desires to be noticed and unique in and amongst the whole to build a level of self worth, only because it wishes to define the infinite universe and itself within it. From the platform of the absolute one there is no need because the infinite presence of the one is totally fulfilling due to the fact that you are the universe.
I and my Father are one, heaven on earth and that sort of thing.
But I can tell you are more interested in making a place for yourself in the universe as a blue bear.
What I have found in all experiences is the One essence that supports all ideas in form and identification. The hypnosis that overcomes the knower in identification with experience as essence is broken once one experiences the essence of all identities. When engaged it unites all identities and experiences at its subtlest level. Pure isness and stillness. The presence of that is much more than any limited definition in identity as a form or personality. From that point of reference there is no mind that is closed or open just universal mind.
You may wish to hold on to your bear, and separate me from you, but it does not mean we are separated, for there is nothing ever separate in the universe. Like the cells in a body that are always in close communication they work with the whole as the whole without the thought of being different or the thought of needing to be special.
In the microcosm of the Human personna the aspects of the whole are inherent in each and never separate in knowing or being. Only Ego separates and divides the whole into the many parts. It desires to be noticed and unique in and amongst the whole to build a level of self worth, only because it wishes to define the infinite universe and itself within it. From the platform of the absolute one there is no need because the infinite presence of the one is totally fulfilling due to the fact that you are the universe.
I and my Father are one, heaven on earth and that sort of thing.
But I can tell you are more interested in making a place for yourself in the universe as a blue bear.
History has taught me that people are willing to believe all sorts of fanciful notions. You may experience Oneness, but its a non sequitur to conclude that therefore everything is part of that Oneness. These fanciful notions do not describe all of reality. They're incommensurate.
You say "What I have found in all experiences is the One essence that supports all ideas in form and identification" but this may be a fantasy and it doesn't mean that the One essence supports all. Maybe my One essence is different from yours. At this point, we can't prove either side. It comes down either to belief and blind faith, or remaining open minded.
You say "Only Ego separates and divides the whole into the many parts" and since you believe you have seen through the falsity of the ego, you conclude the many is thereby false too, but this conclusion does not necessarily follow.
There are doors you have not opened yet. You see through one illusion only to see into another one. If you would be a master of disillusion, you must see past the illusion of illusions and past the illusion of non-illusions. You may experience the One as remaining constant throughout your experiences, but it does not necessarily follow that this One is all that exists. To identify oneself as One is to deny experience of Other. And even if we denied the experience of Other, it does not imply the Other does not exist independent of our experience.
You say "What I have found in all experiences is the One essence that supports all ideas in form and identification" but this may be a fantasy and it doesn't mean that the One essence supports all. Maybe my One essence is different from yours. At this point, we can't prove either side. It comes down either to belief and blind faith, or remaining open minded.
You say "Only Ego separates and divides the whole into the many parts" and since you believe you have seen through the falsity of the ego, you conclude the many is thereby false too, but this conclusion does not necessarily follow.
There are doors you have not opened yet. You see through one illusion only to see into another one. If you would be a master of disillusion, you must see past the illusion of illusions and past the illusion of non-illusions. You may experience the One as remaining constant throughout your experiences, but it does not necessarily follow that this One is all that exists. To identify oneself as One is to deny experience of Other. And even if we denied the experience of Other, it does not imply the Other does not exist independent of our experience.
[quote]History has taught me that people are willing to believe all sorts of fanciful notions. You may experience Oneness, but its a non sequitur to conclude that therefore everything is part of that Oneness. These fanciful notions do not describe all of reality. They're incommensurate. [/quote]
Indeed to compare one to another means nothing for any basis in truth has to have a point of reference. The diversity of God/Self allows infinite expression and interpretation and experience. Underlying all of that is the Self which is a constant. The experience of that even can change but in effect it never changes. This point of non changing stillness can be taken for an experience and an illusion when weighed against history in experience and everchanging points of reference.
I think therefore I am: a statement of being and a statement that says I am a something. The relationship built upon history and experience is built upon waking life and not the consciousness within that lives even while the body is not.
For those that have had death experiences and experienced the self amongst other aparitions know that the expeerience is as defining as the physical and so knows that the experience both in and out of body does not define the self for now there is no point of reference in history to compare reality. What physical history has accumulated now has limited impact when non-physical reality is experienced.
A dream an aparition of fantasy? maybe to the one who bases fact upon their own personal history and with a closed mind accepts no other possibility. The Self is multidimensional and is not limited to time or experience.
[quote] You say "What I have found in all experiences is the One essence that supports all ideas in form and identification" but this may be a fantasy and it doesn't mean that the One essence supports all. Maybe my One essence is different from yours. At this point, we can't prove either side. It comes down either to belief and blind faith, or remaining open minded.[/quote]
If you are open minded you cannot deny my experience as fantasy but as probability, for you cannot know my experience or reality if you deny that I can know yours or if you deny anything.
I have in fact experienced the essence of you, and it is me, it is Self. Fantasy you assume, possible reality then if not proven in any direction. Choice leaves your mind only open to what you have experienced and can know from your experience and what you have learned so far.
You would have to let go of any attachment to past impressions and experience to allow something different to impress itself upon your awareness, otherwise you continually recreate the same paradigm.
[quote]You say "Only Ego separates and divides the whole into the many parts" and since you believe you have seen through the falsity of the ego, you conclude the many is thereby false too, but this conclusion does not necessarily follow. [/quote] The many are the manifest from the interpretation of Self drawn forth from the absolute. It cannot be separated from the absolute or the Self, it (manifest reality) is a thought an aparition a chimera of the mind, but never that totality or the essence of the Self.
[quote]There are doors you have not opened yet. You see through one illusion only to see into another one. If you would be a master of disillusion, you must see past the illusion of illusions and past the illusion of non-illusions. You may experience the One as remaining constant throughout your experiences, but it does not necessarily follow that this One is all that exists. To identify oneself as One is to deny experience of Other. And even if we denied the experience of Other, it does not imply the Other does not exist independent of our experience.[/quote]
You haven't understood the essence of the One. It does not deny anything, but unites all as one. All experiences all identities. Just as you have experienced being the child, the adolescent, the adult and the aged. You are niether just one or the other but all of them and much much more. Why limit yourself or any other to perception of being some thing or idea when "Being" is timeless and immortal?
Indeed to compare one to another means nothing for any basis in truth has to have a point of reference. The diversity of God/Self allows infinite expression and interpretation and experience. Underlying all of that is the Self which is a constant. The experience of that even can change but in effect it never changes. This point of non changing stillness can be taken for an experience and an illusion when weighed against history in experience and everchanging points of reference.
I think therefore I am: a statement of being and a statement that says I am a something. The relationship built upon history and experience is built upon waking life and not the consciousness within that lives even while the body is not.
For those that have had death experiences and experienced the self amongst other aparitions know that the expeerience is as defining as the physical and so knows that the experience both in and out of body does not define the self for now there is no point of reference in history to compare reality. What physical history has accumulated now has limited impact when non-physical reality is experienced.
A dream an aparition of fantasy? maybe to the one who bases fact upon their own personal history and with a closed mind accepts no other possibility. The Self is multidimensional and is not limited to time or experience.
[quote] You say "What I have found in all experiences is the One essence that supports all ideas in form and identification" but this may be a fantasy and it doesn't mean that the One essence supports all. Maybe my One essence is different from yours. At this point, we can't prove either side. It comes down either to belief and blind faith, or remaining open minded.[/quote]
If you are open minded you cannot deny my experience as fantasy but as probability, for you cannot know my experience or reality if you deny that I can know yours or if you deny anything.
I have in fact experienced the essence of you, and it is me, it is Self. Fantasy you assume, possible reality then if not proven in any direction. Choice leaves your mind only open to what you have experienced and can know from your experience and what you have learned so far.
You would have to let go of any attachment to past impressions and experience to allow something different to impress itself upon your awareness, otherwise you continually recreate the same paradigm.
[quote]You say "Only Ego separates and divides the whole into the many parts" and since you believe you have seen through the falsity of the ego, you conclude the many is thereby false too, but this conclusion does not necessarily follow. [/quote] The many are the manifest from the interpretation of Self drawn forth from the absolute. It cannot be separated from the absolute or the Self, it (manifest reality) is a thought an aparition a chimera of the mind, but never that totality or the essence of the Self.
[quote]There are doors you have not opened yet. You see through one illusion only to see into another one. If you would be a master of disillusion, you must see past the illusion of illusions and past the illusion of non-illusions. You may experience the One as remaining constant throughout your experiences, but it does not necessarily follow that this One is all that exists. To identify oneself as One is to deny experience of Other. And even if we denied the experience of Other, it does not imply the Other does not exist independent of our experience.[/quote]
You haven't understood the essence of the One. It does not deny anything, but unites all as one. All experiences all identities. Just as you have experienced being the child, the adolescent, the adult and the aged. You are niether just one or the other but all of them and much much more. Why limit yourself or any other to perception of being some thing or idea when "Being" is timeless and immortal?
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
Indeed to compare one to another means nothing for any basis in truth has to have a point of reference. The diversity of God/Self allows infinite expression and interpretation and experience.
[/quote]
it is not Self-evident that the Self exhausts God's power of expression, nor that it is in any way identical to it. The Self, to the extent that it constitutes our existential being, does not imply that it constitutes all being. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that the Self is God, unless you're willing to admit that you are not identical to the Self. In any event, God is something that we are a part of, but it is not necessarily something we are absolutely identical to. For God, insofar as God is defined as inclusive of any sort of existential totality, must encompass this thing we can experience as the Self. The experience of the Self is perhaps itself but a phantom of the brain, it is your own creation. To confuse your own creation with all of creation and with all that exists is an error.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
Underlying all of that is the Self which is a constant.
[/quote]
To say that the Self is a constant in all of your experiences is to say that this presence that you experience is always present. It is a statement about the endurability and sameness of your Self-awareness, given that this Self is something beyond the facade of ego. New experiences are normally readily integrated into our Self, but this is falling prey to the same mode of Self-integration over and over again. Your experience of Self as the sole reality may well be nothing more than your experience of Self as your own reality. It does not preclude the experience of Other or that which lies beyond the Self.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
If you are open minded you cannot deny my experience as fantasy but as probability
[/quote]
I accept your experience, but do not accept your conclusions or the way that you have interpreted your experience. And while I accept your interpretation as possible, it in no way constitutes the only possible interpretation.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
I have in fact experienced the essence of you, and it is me, it is Self.
[/quote]
this is a conjecture. If you were ever to meet a completely alien lifeform that had been around for much longer than humans and that was much more advanced than humans, you would have no idea whether it's essence was identical to this thing you experience as the Self. The Self may well be merely a human creation, born of the human mind. To conjecture that the Self constitutes the essence of other non-human minds, or of all possible minds, does not seem to have much evidence in support of it, and remains, nonetheless, a mere conjecture. While I recognize this conjecture as possible, I also recognize other possibilities. Namely, that this experience you call the Self may well be a merely human experience, and that it would be a mistake to identify it with God, for God is something that is inclusive of all that exists, and all that exists is inclusive of the Self. Thus, to identify the Self with God is to claim that a part of God is equal to the totality of God, and even if you maintain God's immanence, I would reply that God's immanence does not compromise his transcendence and that the part is not identical to the whole though the whole may well express itself in each part.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
You haven't understood the essence of the One. It does not deny anything, but unites all as one.
[/quote]
But then the One is not a totality, and as such, it is not God. It is your conjecture regarding the unity of all, but this does not invalidate the multiplicity. Both the unity and multiplicity, both the Self and Other, are expressions of God. To pay undue emphasis to the One is to take away or deny God's other attributes and modes of expression. The more that we experience the totality, insofar as our meager abilities enable us, the more that we experience God. But to claim absolute identity with God based on experience of One is an error.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
Why limit yourself or any other to perception of being some thing or idea when "Being" is timeless and immortal?
[/quote]
because I also recognize the validity of Becoming and Time. Recall Krishna's response to Arjuna in the Gita when asked about his identity during the cosmic vision.
Indeed to compare one to another means nothing for any basis in truth has to have a point of reference. The diversity of God/Self allows infinite expression and interpretation and experience.
[/quote]
it is not Self-evident that the Self exhausts God's power of expression, nor that it is in any way identical to it. The Self, to the extent that it constitutes our existential being, does not imply that it constitutes all being. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that the Self is God, unless you're willing to admit that you are not identical to the Self. In any event, God is something that we are a part of, but it is not necessarily something we are absolutely identical to. For God, insofar as God is defined as inclusive of any sort of existential totality, must encompass this thing we can experience as the Self. The experience of the Self is perhaps itself but a phantom of the brain, it is your own creation. To confuse your own creation with all of creation and with all that exists is an error.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
Underlying all of that is the Self which is a constant.
[/quote]
To say that the Self is a constant in all of your experiences is to say that this presence that you experience is always present. It is a statement about the endurability and sameness of your Self-awareness, given that this Self is something beyond the facade of ego. New experiences are normally readily integrated into our Self, but this is falling prey to the same mode of Self-integration over and over again. Your experience of Self as the sole reality may well be nothing more than your experience of Self as your own reality. It does not preclude the experience of Other or that which lies beyond the Self.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
If you are open minded you cannot deny my experience as fantasy but as probability
[/quote]
I accept your experience, but do not accept your conclusions or the way that you have interpreted your experience. And while I accept your interpretation as possible, it in no way constitutes the only possible interpretation.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
I have in fact experienced the essence of you, and it is me, it is Self.
[/quote]
this is a conjecture. If you were ever to meet a completely alien lifeform that had been around for much longer than humans and that was much more advanced than humans, you would have no idea whether it's essence was identical to this thing you experience as the Self. The Self may well be merely a human creation, born of the human mind. To conjecture that the Self constitutes the essence of other non-human minds, or of all possible minds, does not seem to have much evidence in support of it, and remains, nonetheless, a mere conjecture. While I recognize this conjecture as possible, I also recognize other possibilities. Namely, that this experience you call the Self may well be a merely human experience, and that it would be a mistake to identify it with God, for God is something that is inclusive of all that exists, and all that exists is inclusive of the Self. Thus, to identify the Self with God is to claim that a part of God is equal to the totality of God, and even if you maintain God's immanence, I would reply that God's immanence does not compromise his transcendence and that the part is not identical to the whole though the whole may well express itself in each part.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
You haven't understood the essence of the One. It does not deny anything, but unites all as one.
[/quote]
But then the One is not a totality, and as such, it is not God. It is your conjecture regarding the unity of all, but this does not invalidate the multiplicity. Both the unity and multiplicity, both the Self and Other, are expressions of God. To pay undue emphasis to the One is to take away or deny God's other attributes and modes of expression. The more that we experience the totality, insofar as our meager abilities enable us, the more that we experience God. But to claim absolute identity with God based on experience of One is an error.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14943 date=1066966439]
Why limit yourself or any other to perception of being some thing or idea when "Being" is timeless and immortal?
[/quote]
because I also recognize the validity of Becoming and Time. Recall Krishna's response to Arjuna in the Gita when asked about his identity during the cosmic vision.
Blah!
I think you should know that I do respect your experiences and am not in any way trying to invalidate them, though I do run into problems with your interpretations because, even though I regard them as possible, and perhaps on occasion even probable, I nonetheless can't rule out other possible interpretations. There's something about existing interpretations that doesn't seem right to me and that seems incomplete, and so I seek for the interpretations that have not been thought of yet and that will make all the pieces of the puzzle of our experiences and existence fall into place. This "Self is One is All" business, while I think there's certainly some truth there, nonetheless, I feel it's incomplete. It doesn't answer all of my questions. No current interpretations that I've come across answer all of my questions completely, and so I continue to seek for a better interpretation of my experiences, and of experiences and existence in general, finding little bits and pieces here and there, but still yearning for and striving towards a complete synthesis. And so, if I seem overly critical, often opting to play the role of devil's advocate, please understand that it's not out of any disrespect, but rather it's from my highest respect, for Truth.
What comes to mind is Achems Razor: All things being equal the simplest explanation must be true.
When will you find Truth? When you have exhausted the intellect to finally listen to your heart or when your heart finds the truth in the intellect?
When will you find Truth? When you have exhausted the intellect to finally listen to your heart or when your heart finds the truth in the intellect?
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14979 date=1067050057]
What comes to mind is Achems Razor: All things being equal the simplest explanation must be true.
[/quote]
but what's regarded as simplest is not always so straightforward. For example, many people who first learn about physics think that Newton's law of gravitation is simpler than Einstein's general theory of relativity, and yet when looked at geometrically, Einstein's theory is much simpler than Newton's.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14979 date=1067050057]
When will you find Truth? When you have exhausted the intellect to finally listen to your heart or when your heart finds the truth in the intellect?
[/quote]
On the face of it, Truth seems to admit of a dual nature. On the one hand, we can experience Truth directly through mystical or otherwise enlightening experiences, and yet on the other hand, our intellects demand rationalization, explanation, and in general, making sense of our myriad experiences and sense of identity. Should we disregard our intellects? I don't think so. Or rather, I am not in a position to disregard mine. Our experiences constitute raw material for our intellects to further process and make sense of. Correlating our experiences has its value too, to the extent that it reveals a universal intelligence in action, underlying the structures of our experiences. Our experiences give us glimpses into a Totality consisting of the sharpest contrasts of Being-Becoming, Time-Timelessness, Actuality-Potentiality, Meaningfulness-Absurdity, Substance-Form, Thought-Extension, Harmony-Discord, Representation-Will, Materialism-Idealism, Absolute-Relative, Tragedy-Comedy, Life-Death, Necessity-Chance, Real-Unreal, Design-Purposeless, Unity-Multiplicity, Individuality-Universality, Infinite-Infinitesimal, Perception-Action, Personal-Transpersonal, Transcendence-Immanence, Isolation-Communion, Self-Other, One-Many, Infinity-Zero, Existence-Nothingness.... and the list goes on and on indefinitely. The contrasts comprising this Totality cannot be exhausted with words. It is a Totality overflowing with such seemingly endless contradictions that I believe we must embrace it with our full being and consciousness if we are to remain faithful to Truth and if we are to synthesize our experiences and sense of identity into a coherent whole, the likes of which are wholly beyond words since muted awe seems the only apt response to the actual merging of the two strands of Truth and the realization and reconciliation of all contradictions into one all-encompassing vision and experience.
What comes to mind is Achems Razor: All things being equal the simplest explanation must be true.
[/quote]
but what's regarded as simplest is not always so straightforward. For example, many people who first learn about physics think that Newton's law of gravitation is simpler than Einstein's general theory of relativity, and yet when looked at geometrically, Einstein's theory is much simpler than Newton's.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14979 date=1067050057]
When will you find Truth? When you have exhausted the intellect to finally listen to your heart or when your heart finds the truth in the intellect?
[/quote]
On the face of it, Truth seems to admit of a dual nature. On the one hand, we can experience Truth directly through mystical or otherwise enlightening experiences, and yet on the other hand, our intellects demand rationalization, explanation, and in general, making sense of our myriad experiences and sense of identity. Should we disregard our intellects? I don't think so. Or rather, I am not in a position to disregard mine. Our experiences constitute raw material for our intellects to further process and make sense of. Correlating our experiences has its value too, to the extent that it reveals a universal intelligence in action, underlying the structures of our experiences. Our experiences give us glimpses into a Totality consisting of the sharpest contrasts of Being-Becoming, Time-Timelessness, Actuality-Potentiality, Meaningfulness-Absurdity, Substance-Form, Thought-Extension, Harmony-Discord, Representation-Will, Materialism-Idealism, Absolute-Relative, Tragedy-Comedy, Life-Death, Necessity-Chance, Real-Unreal, Design-Purposeless, Unity-Multiplicity, Individuality-Universality, Infinite-Infinitesimal, Perception-Action, Personal-Transpersonal, Transcendence-Immanence, Isolation-Communion, Self-Other, One-Many, Infinity-Zero, Existence-Nothingness.... and the list goes on and on indefinitely. The contrasts comprising this Totality cannot be exhausted with words. It is a Totality overflowing with such seemingly endless contradictions that I believe we must embrace it with our full being and consciousness if we are to remain faithful to Truth and if we are to synthesize our experiences and sense of identity into a coherent whole, the likes of which are wholly beyond words since muted awe seems the only apt response to the actual merging of the two strands of Truth and the realization and reconciliation of all contradictions into one all-encompassing vision and experience.
you seem awfully familiar, 'bluebear'
(p.s. Joesus, it's Occam's Razor
)
(p.s. Joesus, it's Occam's Razor
)
[quote author=Dan link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14999 date=1067059639]
you seem awfully familiar, 'bluebear'
[/quote]
yeah, I get that a lot. It's the mystery of mysteries. There seem to be a lot of incredibly cute and adorably cuddly blue bears that look just like me perhaps? ???
you seem awfully familiar, 'bluebear'
[/quote]
yeah, I get that a lot. It's the mystery of mysteries. There seem to be a lot of incredibly cute and adorably cuddly blue bears that look just like me perhaps? ???
[quote](p.s. Joesus, it's Occam's Razor [/quote]
Thanks :
The only problem I have with the intellect is that if it is not based in the essence of all of creation, manifest and unmanifest, it is based in the limited surface perspectives, trying to rationalize the unbounded or to put God in a box.
Thanks :
The only problem I have with the intellect is that if it is not based in the essence of all of creation, manifest and unmanifest, it is based in the limited surface perspectives, trying to rationalize the unbounded or to put God in a box.
Joesus, how can anything not be based in the essence of all creation? There is no other base! I think your idea of a separate 'surface' base indicates that you can't resolve how a manifestation of the essence of all creation can act blindly or destructively
what's the paradigm you're using, Joe? Is it that the 'formless' is absolute, whereas 'form' is relative?
[quote author=Dan link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg14999 date=1067059639]
you seem awfully familiar, 'bluebear'
(p.s. Joesus, it's Occam's Razor )
[/quote]
ha, i was gonna say the same thing, like ive heard your 'voice' before, bluebear. you are a very cute little bear too!
the thing im left wondering, affter going thru all that is, is it useless to even talk about this?
somebody please let me kno if im going off on a mad tagent, but it seems that there is a kinda self-referential thing goin on here that i cant get past.
just like you can say with language "this statement is false" and Godel showed you can do the same thing with math, is consciousness in the universe thinking about consciousness in the universe (or 'of the universe' or even the cosmos considering itself, whatevr way you wanna say it) is this the ultimate self referential trip?
you seem awfully familiar, 'bluebear'
(p.s. Joesus, it's Occam's Razor
)[/quote]
ha, i was gonna say the same thing, like ive heard your 'voice' before, bluebear. you are a very cute little bear too!
the thing im left wondering, affter going thru all that is, is it useless to even talk about this?
somebody please let me kno if im going off on a mad tagent, but it seems that there is a kinda self-referential thing goin on here that i cant get past.
just like you can say with language "this statement is false" and Godel showed you can do the same thing with math, is consciousness in the universe thinking about consciousness in the universe (or 'of the universe' or even the cosmos considering itself, whatevr way you wanna say it) is this the ultimate self referential trip?
[quote author=v3d4 link=board=34;threadid=367;start=#msg15011 date=1067064215]
you are a very cute little bear too!
[/quote]
awww, shucks! you're making me blush!
[quote author=v3d4 link=board=34;threadid=367;start=#msg15011 date=1067064215]
it seems that there is a kinda self-referential thing goin on here that i cant get past....is this the ultimate self referential trip?
[/quote]
the observer trying to catch herself as the observed. Do you think that this self-referential trip is produced by duality, by separation of perceiver and the perceived? Does this self-referential trip still occur when one dissolves away such duality by entering into the unitive state? I'm not going to try to answer these now. I just wanted to throw these questions out before heading for bed. Hopefully, I'll dream about this self-referential trip instead, cause roller-coaster rides can be fun sometimes.
you are a very cute little bear too!
[/quote]
awww, shucks! you're making me blush!
[quote author=v3d4 link=board=34;threadid=367;start=#msg15011 date=1067064215]
it seems that there is a kinda self-referential thing goin on here that i cant get past....is this the ultimate self referential trip?
[/quote]
the observer trying to catch herself as the observed. Do you think that this self-referential trip is produced by duality, by separation of perceiver and the perceived? Does this self-referential trip still occur when one dissolves away such duality by entering into the unitive state? I'm not going to try to answer these now. I just wanted to throw these questions out before heading for bed. Hopefully, I'll dream about this self-referential trip instead, cause roller-coaster rides can be fun sometimes.
[quote]Joesus, how can anything not be based in the essence of all creation? There is no other base! I think your idea of a separate 'surface' base indicates that you can't resolve how a manifestation of the essence of all creation can act blindly or destructively [/quote]
I'm not sure of this separate surface base you are referring to. Creation is not blind or destructive, nor without intelligence.
Interpretation into relative explanation has given description to nature, or in vedic terms the Gunas. Creation destruction and the tension of intelligence that keeps the process active by its nature to give impetus to the other aspects. But this is only interpretation.
Below all action is pure stillness of the absolute. From that is consciousness/intelligence and manifestation of energy in multidimensional levels of awareness, as the nature of consciousness in activity.
Any name you give it is irrelevant for no particular name can lock it into definition. Only in relative terms within the construct of relative boundaries does meaning occur in labeling energy/Spirit in any form or in its formless state.
I'm not sure of this separate surface base you are referring to. Creation is not blind or destructive, nor without intelligence.
Interpretation into relative explanation has given description to nature, or in vedic terms the Gunas. Creation destruction and the tension of intelligence that keeps the process active by its nature to give impetus to the other aspects. But this is only interpretation.
Below all action is pure stillness of the absolute. From that is consciousness/intelligence and manifestation of energy in multidimensional levels of awareness, as the nature of consciousness in activity.
Any name you give it is irrelevant for no particular name can lock it into definition. Only in relative terms within the construct of relative boundaries does meaning occur in labeling energy/Spirit in any form or in its formless state.
[quote]I'm not sure of this separate surface base you are referring to.[/quote]
you said it, Joe! right here:
[quote]if (the intellect) is not based in the essence of all of creation, manifest and unmanifest, it is based in the limited surface perspectives[/quote]
as for denying that blindness or destructiveness of intelligence is possible, I suggest you are actively in denial and are literally interpreting events so that they will fit your preconceived notions. You believe it should be so, so you interpret the world to make it so unto yourself.
you said it, Joe! right here:
[quote]if (the intellect) is not based in the essence of all of creation, manifest and unmanifest, it is based in the limited surface perspectives[/quote]
as for denying that blindness or destructiveness of intelligence is possible, I suggest you are actively in denial and are literally interpreting events so that they will fit your preconceived notions. You believe it should be so, so you interpret the world to make it so unto yourself.
[quote]you said it, Joe! right here:[/quote]
I say a lot of things, yet I am not always in synch with your interpretations of what I say or how you interpret life.
[quote]as for denying that blindness or destructiveness of intelligence is possible, I suggest you are actively in denial and are literally interpreting events so that they will fit your preconceived notions. You believe it should be so, so you interpret the world to make it so unto yourself.[/quote]
That is your definition of life and what I have been saying about the way you see it, me and my ideas.
I don't deny anything other than limits to experience and perceptions of reality.
You say Tomato I say Tomahto.... :-*
I say a lot of things, yet I am not always in synch with your interpretations of what I say or how you interpret life.
[quote]as for denying that blindness or destructiveness of intelligence is possible, I suggest you are actively in denial and are literally interpreting events so that they will fit your preconceived notions. You believe it should be so, so you interpret the world to make it so unto yourself.[/quote]
That is your definition of life and what I have been saying about the way you see it, me and my ideas.
I don't deny anything other than limits to experience and perceptions of reality.
You say Tomato I say Tomahto.... :-*
[quote]I say a lot of things, yet I am not always in synch with your interpretations of what I say or how you interpret life.[/quote]
you must have attended 'Lame Cop-Outs 101' in enlightenment school
[quote]That is your definition of life and what I have been saying about the way you see it, me and my ideas.
I don't deny anything other than limits to experience and perceptions of reality.
You say Tomato I say Tomahto.... [/quote]
yes, but you are also unable to prove that limits do not exist. All you do is claim it and say that the evidence is available only if I join your religion
you must have attended 'Lame Cop-Outs 101' in enlightenment school
[quote]That is your definition of life and what I have been saying about the way you see it, me and my ideas.
I don't deny anything other than limits to experience and perceptions of reality.
You say Tomato I say Tomahto.... [/quote]
yes, but you are also unable to prove that limits do not exist. All you do is claim it and say that the evidence is available only if I join your religion
[quote]you must have attended 'Lame Cop-Outs 101' in enlightenment school[/quote]
That is the reoccuring theme of your argument..
[quote]yes, but you are also unable to prove that limits do not exist.[/quote]
No one can force a blind man to see. [quote]All you do is claim it and say that the evidence is available only if I join your religion[/quote]
I do make the claim however the idea that one has to join any religion or system of belief to experience life at its fullest potential is simply paranoid delusion. When one tries to defend their position from the idea that I have not "experienced" so it can't be true, there is no reason to allow experience to manifest reality or the proof.
You have simply cut your own heart out to your greatest awareness.
That is the reoccuring theme of your argument..
[quote]yes, but you are also unable to prove that limits do not exist.[/quote]
No one can force a blind man to see. [quote]All you do is claim it and say that the evidence is available only if I join your religion[/quote]
I do make the claim however the idea that one has to join any religion or system of belief to experience life at its fullest potential is simply paranoid delusion. When one tries to defend their position from the idea that I have not "experienced" so it can't be true, there is no reason to allow experience to manifest reality or the proof.
You have simply cut your own heart out to your greatest awareness.
[quote]That is the reoccuring theme of your argument..[/quote]
maybe because it's TRUE? ???
[quote]No one can force a blind man to see. [/quote]
and no one can force a fool to be wise
[quote]I do make the claim however the idea that one has to join any religion or system of belief to experience life at its fullest potential is simply paranoid delusion.[/quote]
Yes, but you do in fact proselytize for your religion, Joey. And this is what I am referring to
[quote]When one tries to defend their position from the idea that I have not "experienced" so it can't be true, there is no reason to allow experience to manifest reality or the proof.[/quote]
I am not defending my position from such an idea. I am saying that my experience has enlightened me with respect to what you do and it is not as you present it to be
[quote]You have simply cut your own heart out to your greatest awareness.[/quote]
and you have simply cut your own brain out to your intelligence
maybe because it's TRUE? ???
[quote]No one can force a blind man to see. [/quote]
and no one can force a fool to be wise
[quote]I do make the claim however the idea that one has to join any religion or system of belief to experience life at its fullest potential is simply paranoid delusion.[/quote]
Yes, but you do in fact proselytize for your religion, Joey. And this is what I am referring to
[quote]When one tries to defend their position from the idea that I have not "experienced" so it can't be true, there is no reason to allow experience to manifest reality or the proof.[/quote]
I am not defending my position from such an idea. I am saying that my experience has enlightened me with respect to what you do and it is not as you present it to be
[quote]You have simply cut your own heart out to your greatest awareness.[/quote]
and you have simply cut your own brain out to your intelligence
[quote]maybe because it's TRUE?[/quote]
Is that a possible maybe or a definite maybe? :-
[quote]and no one can force a fool to be wise
[/quote] So true
[quote]Yes, but you do in fact proselytize for your religion, Joey. And this is what I am referring to
[/quote] So you tell me
[quote]I am not defending my position from such an idea. I am saying that my experience has enlightened me with respect to what you do and it is not as you present it to be[/quote]
Well we definitely have a difference in experience in what enlightenment is don't we?
[quote]and you have simply cut your own brain out to your intelligence
[/quote] Thank you, yes!
Is that a possible maybe or a definite maybe? :-
[quote]and no one can force a fool to be wise
[/quote] So true
[quote]Yes, but you do in fact proselytize for your religion, Joey. And this is what I am referring to
[/quote] So you tell me
[quote]I am not defending my position from such an idea. I am saying that my experience has enlightened me with respect to what you do and it is not as you present it to be[/quote]
Well we definitely have a difference in experience in what enlightenment is don't we?
[quote]and you have simply cut your own brain out to your intelligence
[/quote] Thank you, yes!
[quote]Is that a possible maybe or a definite maybe?[/quote]
that's a maybe you can stop acting like such a tool?
[quote]So you tell me[/quote]
and so you seem unable to recognize
[quote]Well we definitely have a difference in experience in what enlightenment is don't we?[/quote]
that's probably one of the smartest statements you've ever made, Joey
[quote]Thank you, yes![/quote]
hey, don't thank me! I didn't do it
8)
that's a maybe you can stop acting like such a tool?
[quote]So you tell me[/quote]
and so you seem unable to recognize
[quote]Well we definitely have a difference in experience in what enlightenment is don't we?[/quote]
that's probably one of the smartest statements you've ever made, Joey
[quote]Thank you, yes![/quote]
hey, don't thank me! I didn't do it
8)
[quote]that's a maybe you can stop acting like such a tool?[/quote] I could but, Why should I?
[quote]and so you seem unable to recognize[/quote]
I guess I'll never be the One without your blessing...
[quote]that's probably one of the smartest statements you've ever made, Joey[/quote]
Just call me master of the obvious ;D
[quote]hey, don't thank me! I didn't do it[/quote]
I was thanking you for recognizing the truth.
[quote]and so you seem unable to recognize[/quote]
I guess I'll never be the One without your blessing...
[quote]that's probably one of the smartest statements you've ever made, Joey[/quote]
Just call me master of the obvious ;D
[quote]hey, don't thank me! I didn't do it[/quote]
I was thanking you for recognizing the truth.
[quote]I could but, Why should I?[/quote]
'cuz I said so!
[quote]I guess I'll never be the One without your blessing...[/quote]
for a mere $50,000 I'll anoint you one of the Ones
[quote]Just call me master of the obvious [/quote]
I think you're going to need a better track record to warrant such a title
[quote]I was thanking you for recognizing the truth.[/quote]
in that case, Your Welcome :-*
8)
'cuz I said so!
[quote]I guess I'll never be the One without your blessing...[/quote]
for a mere $50,000 I'll anoint you one of the Ones
[quote]Just call me master of the obvious [/quote]
I think you're going to need a better track record to warrant such a title
[quote]I was thanking you for recognizing the truth.[/quote]
in that case, Your Welcome :-*
8)
[quote]'cuz I said so! [/quote]
Your not at all convincing though...
[quote]for a mere $50,000 I'll anoint you one of the Ones[/quote] No Sh*t!!!????
[quote]I think you're going to need a better track record to warrant such a title [/quote] We don't run on the same track so how would know what my track record is?
[quote]in that case, Your Welcome[/quote]
Your not at all convincing though...
[quote]for a mere $50,000 I'll anoint you one of the Ones[/quote] No Sh*t!!!????
[quote]I think you're going to need a better track record to warrant such a title [/quote] We don't run on the same track so how would know what my track record is?
[quote]in that case, Your Welcome[/quote]
I want my mommy
:
:
Awwwww...... don't stop now guys!
I don't understand the words anymore, but the pictures were just getting veryyyyy interesting !!!!!!!!
I do have have a question though.
This post is all to do with experiences in ones head (or body).
Do any actions (by using knowledge gained) or capabilities (special capabilities which non-experiencers don't have) arise from the knowledge or experience that has been claimed?
Best regards, Bill.
I don't understand the words anymore, but the pictures were just getting veryyyyy interesting !!!!!!!!
I do have have a question though.
This post is all to do with experiences in ones head (or body).
Do any actions (by using knowledge gained) or capabilities (special capabilities which non-experiencers don't have) arise from the knowledge or experience that has been claimed?
Best regards, Bill.
[quote]I do have have a question though.
This post is all to do with experiences in ones head (or body).
Do any actions (by using knowledge gained) or capabilities (special capabilities which non-experiencers don't have) arise from the knowledge or experience that has been claimed?
[/quote]
Excellent question. Do you experience or do you experience from belief, or do you experience and establish belief?
What Science has designed from inspiration and thought have been fruitful in the expression which in turn brings further experience. But does belief need to be present in order to experience or produce thought?
As a child we learn to accept an understanding life as it is from our parentsand societal interpretations of life. Maybe we see angels, celestial vision but because our parents say it is not a real experience we then may confine or deny our expereinces that aren't supported by belief.
If we can experience something what gives us the ability to experience it?
If it is not real why is it part of experience.
Someone once said whatever we can dream we can experience. What limits our ability?
This post is all to do with experiences in ones head (or body).
Do any actions (by using knowledge gained) or capabilities (special capabilities which non-experiencers don't have) arise from the knowledge or experience that has been claimed?
[/quote]
Excellent question. Do you experience or do you experience from belief, or do you experience and establish belief?
What Science has designed from inspiration and thought have been fruitful in the expression which in turn brings further experience. But does belief need to be present in order to experience or produce thought?
As a child we learn to accept an understanding life as it is from our parentsand societal interpretations of life. Maybe we see angels, celestial vision but because our parents say it is not a real experience we then may confine or deny our expereinces that aren't supported by belief.
If we can experience something what gives us the ability to experience it?
If it is not real why is it part of experience.
Someone once said whatever we can dream we can experience. What limits our ability?
Hi Joe,
"Excellent question." Unfortunately you have not answered it, but have asked me some questions which I can answer.
"Do you experience". To answer, I first define what I call an experience. It is anything that enters my head or affects my body. It includes a ghost, hallucination, an original thought, the sound of a waterfall. one of your posts, etc,. If a bullet goes through my brain without me feeling pain, not hearing the shot and not being affected in way at all, I have not had an experience, even though my body has been changed. When I find the hole or see the blood, or am told tyhat I have been shot, I will have many experiences, because I have become aware of something.
Yes I experience.
"do you experience from belief,"
Yes because a belief involves thought.
or "do you experience and establish belief?"
I cannot establish belief without experience (thought).
I firstly establish a probability of the truth of all claims I or others make.
I then establish belief in a thought concept (or model of the truth) when there is a consensus of agreement (I do not rely on unique interpretations) and all my previous experience (including all other peoples ideas that I have read) support the thought or model.
"What Science has designed from inspiration and thought have been fruitful in the expression which in turn brings further experience. "
I agree that scientists have created exceptionally accurate models of the truth of the real world in we live.
Their results are repeatable, consistent and most probably explain the truth of their topic.
"But does belief need to be present in order to experience or produce thought?"
I do not think so.
To have a belief one needs previous experience (thought).
I witness something 'strange'; ie., I have not experienced it before. I analyse all the information I can muster. I consider possible explanations and usually choose a 'most probable' belief in the most likely explanation. If all my past experience supports this explanation, then I believe (ie., have a belief) I have modelled a good expanation, and with repeat occurences, presume that I know the truth.
Belief follows experience.
"As a child we learn to accept an understanding life as it is from our parentsand societal interpretations of life. Maybe we see angels, celestial vision but because our parents say it is not a real experience we then may confine or deny our expereinces that aren't supported by belief."
Your statement is true, and is called indoctrination. However, as the child is replaced by the adult, Father Christmas's are undone every day. The more testing the observer and seeker of truth, the more fantasies are revealed.
"If we can experience something what gives us the ability to experience it?"
All the senses of the body collect information. The brain analyses, memorises, recalls, and designs experiments to fine-tune or find out more detail. (there is more).
"If it is not real why is it part of experience."
If it is experienced, then it is real.
If you consider a hypothetical 'ghost', seen by one just one person, and there existed guaranteed knowledge that no-one else has, or ever will see this ghost, then that person alone saw a real 'ghost'. Of course, it would not be a spiritual something-or-other as far as I am concerned. So I would say that this person witnessed an event within his/her head which was self-interpreted as 'aunt kath sending bad vibes'.
The experience was real. The interpretation is false, as far as I am concerned.
"Someone once said whatever we can dream we can experience."
A dream is an experience.
Imaginations are an experience.
What occurs in some dreams can occur also in the outside world.
Anyone who imagines they can fly, can easily test whether that thought is imagination or representative of reality.
The same goes for anyone who believes they can fly.
" What limits our ability?"
Our ability is limited by the truth of the world.
I have expressed my own knowledge and beliefs in my responses.
Just as I had a problem with 'heart' previously, I realise that you have hijacked some of the words I use (with normal dictionary definitions). Because of this I do not respond to many of your posts. I do believe you are sincere in all your posts, and apologise if I am wasting your time with stupid questions and responses, because of such ambiguous word usage.
Can I suggest, that as a teacher who seems keen to share your knowledge with others, that you provide alist of your current terminology? This will allow people like myself at least a chance to comprehend your ideas.
And, can you answer my previous question:-
This post is all to do with experiences in ones head (or body).
Do any actions (by using knowledge gained) or capabilities (special capabilities which non-experiencers don't have) arise from the knowledge or experience that has been claimed?
Best regards, Bill.
"Excellent question." Unfortunately you have not answered it, but have asked me some questions which I can answer.
"Do you experience". To answer, I first define what I call an experience. It is anything that enters my head or affects my body. It includes a ghost, hallucination, an original thought, the sound of a waterfall. one of your posts, etc,. If a bullet goes through my brain without me feeling pain, not hearing the shot and not being affected in way at all, I have not had an experience, even though my body has been changed. When I find the hole or see the blood, or am told tyhat I have been shot, I will have many experiences, because I have become aware of something.
Yes I experience.
"do you experience from belief,"
Yes because a belief involves thought.
or "do you experience and establish belief?"
I cannot establish belief without experience (thought).
I firstly establish a probability of the truth of all claims I or others make.
I then establish belief in a thought concept (or model of the truth) when there is a consensus of agreement (I do not rely on unique interpretations) and all my previous experience (including all other peoples ideas that I have read) support the thought or model.
"What Science has designed from inspiration and thought have been fruitful in the expression which in turn brings further experience. "
I agree that scientists have created exceptionally accurate models of the truth of the real world in we live.
Their results are repeatable, consistent and most probably explain the truth of their topic.
"But does belief need to be present in order to experience or produce thought?"
I do not think so.
To have a belief one needs previous experience (thought).
I witness something 'strange'; ie., I have not experienced it before. I analyse all the information I can muster. I consider possible explanations and usually choose a 'most probable' belief in the most likely explanation. If all my past experience supports this explanation, then I believe (ie., have a belief) I have modelled a good expanation, and with repeat occurences, presume that I know the truth.
Belief follows experience.
"As a child we learn to accept an understanding life as it is from our parentsand societal interpretations of life. Maybe we see angels, celestial vision but because our parents say it is not a real experience we then may confine or deny our expereinces that aren't supported by belief."
Your statement is true, and is called indoctrination. However, as the child is replaced by the adult, Father Christmas's are undone every day. The more testing the observer and seeker of truth, the more fantasies are revealed.
"If we can experience something what gives us the ability to experience it?"
All the senses of the body collect information. The brain analyses, memorises, recalls, and designs experiments to fine-tune or find out more detail. (there is more).
"If it is not real why is it part of experience."
If it is experienced, then it is real.
If you consider a hypothetical 'ghost', seen by one just one person, and there existed guaranteed knowledge that no-one else has, or ever will see this ghost, then that person alone saw a real 'ghost'. Of course, it would not be a spiritual something-or-other as far as I am concerned. So I would say that this person witnessed an event within his/her head which was self-interpreted as 'aunt kath sending bad vibes'.
The experience was real. The interpretation is false, as far as I am concerned.
"Someone once said whatever we can dream we can experience."
A dream is an experience.
Imaginations are an experience.
What occurs in some dreams can occur also in the outside world.
Anyone who imagines they can fly, can easily test whether that thought is imagination or representative of reality.
The same goes for anyone who believes they can fly.
" What limits our ability?"
Our ability is limited by the truth of the world.
I have expressed my own knowledge and beliefs in my responses.
Just as I had a problem with 'heart' previously, I realise that you have hijacked some of the words I use (with normal dictionary definitions). Because of this I do not respond to many of your posts. I do believe you are sincere in all your posts, and apologise if I am wasting your time with stupid questions and responses, because of such ambiguous word usage.
Can I suggest, that as a teacher who seems keen to share your knowledge with others, that you provide alist of your current terminology? This will allow people like myself at least a chance to comprehend your ideas.
And, can you answer my previous question:-
This post is all to do with experiences in ones head (or body).
Do any actions (by using knowledge gained) or capabilities (special capabilities which non-experiencers don't have) arise from the knowledge or experience that has been claimed?
Best regards, Bill.
[quote]Can I suggest, that as a teacher who seems keen to share your knowledge with others, that you provide alist of your current terminology? This will allow people like myself at least a chance to comprehend your ideas.[/quote]
You are asking me to meet You at your level of understanding and stay within your boundaries of beliefs?
This is like Someone saying "God if you are real show yourself so that I may understand you within my own terms rather than to rise above any limited idea I may hold as truth that may blind me to your vision."
(Simply an analogy so don't take offense again at my choice in words and expression of possible points of view and reference.)
A resonable request but this type of thinking is what most people perpetuate when dealing with what they don't understand. Rather than coming out of their house to play they wait in their house for understanding to come to them.
The current state of the world is a good example.
The general population of the world follows what the leaders of the world have described as being the state or condition or reality. These people here are doing this and that and we are doing this and that and that is what we spend your money on and that is what we need your money for and don't ask why just support us because we represent you.
Joe shmoe says "ok,'" jane doe says, "no way," Mr. smith says, "I need more info," and sally sucker says I don't care as long as I get to keep doing what I am doing and as long as you leave me alone I could give a rip."
The leaders do their thing and the population murmurs and the next day comes and everything is repeated again.
This is an application of repeatable actions that define truths in your description.
If you are the student and the teacher gives the lecture there would be in effect an opportunity for the teacher to prescribe action from the student to derive his/her own experience in relationship to what is being taught.
In terms of what I teach I would be proseltyzing if I said these are my terms, agree with them rather than discover the meaning behind my words.
Whether you agree or do not agree is irrelevant. What you do to accept in following the herd or not, is what you will do.
I would suggest in your analogy of truth from the answer to my questions, is that you have accepted truth based on what you have been able to do physically so far within the terms of experience. That you separate the minds experience and the bodies experiences. That you see limits to the body but not to the mind and you limit yourself to what the body can do rather than what your mind can do. Which is the master? The mind or the body?
To give an example: A schizophrenic with 2 distinct personalities was studied. One personality needed glasses to see the other had perfect vision. One believed they were allergic to carrots and broke out in hives while the other had no adverse reaction to carrots. These distinct physical traits existed within the same body.
I would also suggest that what you experience as truth by majority or by democratioc process is not necessarily the limit to your abilities and that history repeatedly shows that what we are capable of continues to expand as our conscious awareness expands.
[quote]And, can you answer my previous question:-
This post is all to do with experiences in ones head (or body).
Do any actions (by using knowledge gained) or capabilities (special capabilities which non-experiencers don't have) arise from the knowledge or experience that has been claimed?[/quote]
Of course!
You are asking me to meet You at your level of understanding and stay within your boundaries of beliefs?
This is like Someone saying "God if you are real show yourself so that I may understand you within my own terms rather than to rise above any limited idea I may hold as truth that may blind me to your vision."
(Simply an analogy so don't take offense again at my choice in words and expression of possible points of view and reference.)
A resonable request but this type of thinking is what most people perpetuate when dealing with what they don't understand. Rather than coming out of their house to play they wait in their house for understanding to come to them.
The current state of the world is a good example.
The general population of the world follows what the leaders of the world have described as being the state or condition or reality. These people here are doing this and that and we are doing this and that and that is what we spend your money on and that is what we need your money for and don't ask why just support us because we represent you.
Joe shmoe says "ok,'" jane doe says, "no way," Mr. smith says, "I need more info," and sally sucker says I don't care as long as I get to keep doing what I am doing and as long as you leave me alone I could give a rip."
The leaders do their thing and the population murmurs and the next day comes and everything is repeated again.
This is an application of repeatable actions that define truths in your description.
If you are the student and the teacher gives the lecture there would be in effect an opportunity for the teacher to prescribe action from the student to derive his/her own experience in relationship to what is being taught.
In terms of what I teach I would be proseltyzing if I said these are my terms, agree with them rather than discover the meaning behind my words.
Whether you agree or do not agree is irrelevant. What you do to accept in following the herd or not, is what you will do.
I would suggest in your analogy of truth from the answer to my questions, is that you have accepted truth based on what you have been able to do physically so far within the terms of experience. That you separate the minds experience and the bodies experiences. That you see limits to the body but not to the mind and you limit yourself to what the body can do rather than what your mind can do. Which is the master? The mind or the body?
To give an example: A schizophrenic with 2 distinct personalities was studied. One personality needed glasses to see the other had perfect vision. One believed they were allergic to carrots and broke out in hives while the other had no adverse reaction to carrots. These distinct physical traits existed within the same body.
I would also suggest that what you experience as truth by majority or by democratioc process is not necessarily the limit to your abilities and that history repeatedly shows that what we are capable of continues to expand as our conscious awareness expands.
[quote]And, can you answer my previous question:-
This post is all to do with experiences in ones head (or body).
Do any actions (by using knowledge gained) or capabilities (special capabilities which non-experiencers don't have) arise from the knowledge or experience that has been claimed?[/quote]
Of course!
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=#msg15182 date=1067367119]This is like Someone saying "God if you are real show yourself so that I may understand you within my own terms rather than to rise above any limited idea I may hold as truth that may blind me to your vision."
[/quote]
that's lame!
[/quote]
that's lame!
Hi joe,
I got no further than your first para.
I speak english, and cannot understand your constructs (excluding this last post of yours) because your words seem to have a different usage than english defines. That is why I ask you for a list of what words mean to you. [I don't mean the whole dictionary, but words which are being used ambiguously, like 'heart']. I presume others are similarly being so used because I can't even begin to learn what you are saying, let alone decide whether to accept it.
I quote one of your sentences. "there is only now". This means there is no past and there is no future! That is nonsense. So what do you mean?
I suspect that the opposite is the truth. There is only the past and the future really and 'now' is a human concept, a moving snapshot of all sequences of events occurring. As a matter of interest, how long does 'now' last? Is it 3.3924 seconds, a day or a week or is a variable?
I suspect that you 'know' what you 'know' and proclaim it. It is up to readers to accept it or not, without proof. And, proving something isn't necessary because you 'know' it is the truth.
Your suspicion about me accepting truth based on physical capabilities rather my thoughts is totally wrong. I successfully do more physical things than most of the people I know (self trained) (excluding sporty things). I am also mentally capable of solving complex problems. I regard both mental and physical events as experiences and simply differentiate them.
I did not mean to imply anything about human limitations, either physical or mental. I can find no reference to limitations in terms of capability in my post.
Regarding mastery, I would be inclined to say that the mind is the decider and carer of the body, and the body is the container of the mind and the doer. They are both masters and both depend on the other.
Neither can exist without the other (except for politicians - who try their hardest and fail).
all the best, Bill.
I got no further than your first para.
I speak english, and cannot understand your constructs (excluding this last post of yours) because your words seem to have a different usage than english defines. That is why I ask you for a list of what words mean to you. [I don't mean the whole dictionary, but words which are being used ambiguously, like 'heart']. I presume others are similarly being so used because I can't even begin to learn what you are saying, let alone decide whether to accept it.
I quote one of your sentences. "there is only now". This means there is no past and there is no future! That is nonsense. So what do you mean?
I suspect that the opposite is the truth. There is only the past and the future really and 'now' is a human concept, a moving snapshot of all sequences of events occurring. As a matter of interest, how long does 'now' last? Is it 3.3924 seconds, a day or a week or is a variable?
I suspect that you 'know' what you 'know' and proclaim it. It is up to readers to accept it or not, without proof. And, proving something isn't necessary because you 'know' it is the truth.
Your suspicion about me accepting truth based on physical capabilities rather my thoughts is totally wrong. I successfully do more physical things than most of the people I know (self trained) (excluding sporty things). I am also mentally capable of solving complex problems. I regard both mental and physical events as experiences and simply differentiate them.
I did not mean to imply anything about human limitations, either physical or mental. I can find no reference to limitations in terms of capability in my post.
Regarding mastery, I would be inclined to say that the mind is the decider and carer of the body, and the body is the container of the mind and the doer. They are both masters and both depend on the other.
Neither can exist without the other (except for politicians - who try their hardest and fail).
all the best, Bill.
[quote]I got no further than your first para[/quote]
You know that's not true otherwise you wouldn't have written your second paragraph in reference to the mind -body connection as your response to what I said.
I suspect you just want to argue rather than really have some sort of conversation. If you are as capable/intelligent as you say I don't think the definitions of my words are as distant from your ability to comprehend as you say.
You know that's not true otherwise you wouldn't have written your second paragraph in reference to the mind -body connection as your response to what I said.
I suspect you just want to argue rather than really have some sort of conversation. If you are as capable/intelligent as you say I don't think the definitions of my words are as distant from your ability to comprehend as you say.
[quote author=Joesus link=board=34;threadid=367;start=0#msg15201 date=1067384932]
I suspect you just want to argue rather than really have some sort of conversation.
[/quote]
Excuse me Mister holier-than-thou but that sounds like another cop-out. Why don't you just say what you mean.? :-X
I suspect you just want to argue rather than really have some sort of conversation.
[/quote]
Excuse me Mister holier-than-thou but that sounds like another cop-out. Why don't you just say what you mean.? :-X
Hi joe,
My statement was true asI started responding to your post.
Out of respect, I then read further down your post to see if there was anything else I might respond to! I did.
Your suspicions are wrong.
Arguments are caused by people who are not prepared to listen to what others say.
I don't even comprehend what you are trying to say! I sought clarification - no more.
I considered myself to be in discussion rather than argument.
And, I am sufficiently intelligent to now realise I am wasting my time reading your posts. You do not honestly answer questions which are asked of you. Nobody with unusual knowledge would do that, and get away with it for very long.
Bye.
I have to conclude that you cannot answer my questions and won't admit it, or you feel they are beneath you, or you don't understand the questions for the same reason that I don't understand your posts.
Best regards, Bill.
PS.
If you do happen to sense my 'essence', what perfume am I wearing?
To say I am a bit off would be wide of the mark.
Good luck to you.
I hope we can agree to differ, because your posts have been stimulating, and help to make people think even harder about what they should believe. I thank you for that. I apologise sincerely if I have bored you. It is finished.
My statement was true asI started responding to your post.
Out of respect, I then read further down your post to see if there was anything else I might respond to! I did.
Your suspicions are wrong.
Arguments are caused by people who are not prepared to listen to what others say.
I don't even comprehend what you are trying to say! I sought clarification - no more.
I considered myself to be in discussion rather than argument.
And, I am sufficiently intelligent to now realise I am wasting my time reading your posts. You do not honestly answer questions which are asked of you. Nobody with unusual knowledge would do that, and get away with it for very long.
Bye.
I have to conclude that you cannot answer my questions and won't admit it, or you feel they are beneath you, or you don't understand the questions for the same reason that I don't understand your posts.
Best regards, Bill.
PS.
If you do happen to sense my 'essence', what perfume am I wearing?
To say I am a bit off would be wide of the mark.
Good luck to you.
I hope we can agree to differ, because your posts have been stimulating, and help to make people think even harder about what they should believe. I thank you for that. I apologise sincerely if I have bored you. It is finished.
[quote]It is finished.[/quote]
Oh, I seriously doubt that. You have taken offense to my posts in the past and made similar remarks only to come back to conversation.
It may seem unfortunate that you do not make sense of my words but I have faith that one day they will make perfect sense.
Oh, I seriously doubt that.
You have taken offense to my posts in the past and made similar remarks only to come back to conversation. It may seem unfortunate that you do not make sense of my words but I have faith that one day they will make perfect sense.
Sounds to me like you've all been watching too much Star Trek and smoking crack.
This is an interesting thread too. It's amusing too, when the dullard (from above post) pokes his head in to make completely irrelevant comments.
Joesus, you said:
| QUOTE |
| You are asking me to meet You at your level of understanding and stay within your boundaries of beliefs? This is like Someone saying "God if you are real show yourself so that I may understand you within my own terms rather than to rise above any limited idea I may hold as truth that may blind me to your vision." |
I am amused by this blatantly condescending tone, regardless of whether it's true or not. It's like you're purposely trying to close off communication because, according to you, your too high above everyone for them to understand. But if this is the case, then why bother communicating in this forum at all? Are you trying to re-affirm your own beliefs about your god consciousness to yourself in order to re-assure yourself or make you feel good about yourself, or are you trying to convince other people that you're above them somehow? Hey man, you brought this on yourself. I don't think anyone with real god consciousness would be so condescending to others or would engage in discussion in the manner you have.
So, what does god have to say for himself?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.