Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 9:49:45 GMT -5
Have you used Law of attraction to create your reality? Your intention creates your reality,If so, Isn't it your intention is cause of your reality? In my view intention itself is already been a creation and this creation is in preexisting flow along with it's manifestation. Have you ever used law of attraction to create anything? Culturally I was conditioned to plan and envision the future that I wanted to live and to make choices and take action to make that happen, so, in a sense, yes, you could say that I have. The thing to notice about intent -- a noticing which is, btw, counter to the LOA-type conditioning -- is that any statement of intent is an answer to a question in the form of: "Why did I/you do/think/feel/say/write that?" So isn't intent really the demand for a story about choices?Now this isn't to say that these stories don't have their place in a practical context, but if you read what I wrote previously, I'm not presenting acausality as a practical notion. I haven't understood this question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 9:50:04 GMT -5
hi, Are you talking to me? I am confused, If so, Could you please include the quotes of mine? Sure gopal, yes, I was writing to you ... and everyone else who might read it .. .. but no, there was nothing specific of yours that the writing was intended as in reply. Oh ok, All right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 9:53:25 GMT -5
First off, you haven't answered my question, I asked you that how does this intelligent comes from deep sleep to waking world?When you say intelligent is creating within creation, it automatically speculates that, it continues it's creation from the present thought, This intelligent has to have the present movement thought to create next thought,that being said,at deep sleep this intelligent is left with no thought in your view,that being said, how did this intelligent find the way to come into this waking world? Or how does it starts it's first thought when it comes out of deep sleep? When you say intelligent continued to create within it's creation, it automatically presume that next thought is created from the present thought, If so, why not future event depended upon a past one? because next thought is created from present thought. There is a two kind of focus we have, one is outer world focus and another one is inner world focus, this division doesn't exit in fact, because both appears in awareness(consciousness in my terms), but if you look into this very carefully, what we call as outer world world perception is shared by every one, If I take a pen from my table, pen would be not there in table for every other people who share my reality, but what I do in inner world is not shared by anyone, So what we call outer world focus is maintained by our inner level all the time. So How God manages to make all the apparent pieces fit together is not misconceived because outer world is always maintains it's stability. Another choice is, God doesn't need to maintain the outer world stability if everyone else in this universe is figments in your awareness, Are we? Note :Outer world and Inner world both appear in awareness. What I'm calling Intelligence doesn't sleep. You are playing with words now, I admit Intelligence never sleeps, what I say 'sleeping' is equal to saying 'intelligent perceives nothing'. So When you sleep, intelligence perceive nothing isn't it? If so, how is this intelligent finds the way to get back to the waking world? where is the reference? Because you have already admitted that Intelligent continues it's creation from within it's own creation,Isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 9:54:36 GMT -5
you replied to my post and I replied back to you, what's the problem? No problem, just curious as to what it was about my post that caused you to reply.. Please use the notification to trace back where this answer comes from, it's easy I guess, Because in notification you can have my name and my reply to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 9:58:10 GMT -5
We are talking different topic at this same thread, about God, about perception, about predetermination, but If you trace back through this converse, there is nothing we have talked about religious, you can't refute I and stardustpilgrim about religious when we actually asking something else. This shows that you are trying to elude from what we are talking or trying escape by refuting us. You're both talking about a personal God, and that's religion whether you declare it or not. I AM avoiding discussing it for the most part for the same reason I would avoid discussion with a Christian. Both your views are more intellectualized than Christian views, which is yet another reason to avoid them. Since you believe past is imagined in present, many obvious becomes unnoticed. What we call outer world is very stable, it wouldn't change it's structure if you are not there or other individual comes and changes. Note : Outer world and inner world appears in our consciousness(awareness in your term). Outer world focuses are shared focuses by others, so if you take your pen from your desk it would not be there for other person as well, if he takes it away it wouldn't be available to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 9:59:33 GMT -5
Awareness by definition it's aware of something,Isn't it? Awareness is not 'something' to be aware of. Not by my definition. Awareness, as I'm talking about it, is prior to perception, and can therefore be empty. I think this contradiction never comes to an end between you and me. To me perception holds the perceiver as it's own part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 10:03:07 GMT -5
Have you used Law of attraction to create your reality? Your intention creates your reality,If so, Isn't it your intention is cause of your reality? In my view intention itself is already been a creation and this creation is in preexisting flow along with it's manifestation. Have you ever used law of attraction to create anything? If it were that simple, everybody would get what they intend to get. Haven't you used Law of attraction to create something in your life? Of course, intention creates the reality without fail, I am not going to say I could change the rotation of earth in opposite direction using Law of attraction or I am not going to say I could defy the gravity power of earth using Law of attraction, but we could create our experience inevitably with others.But this creations moves between it's polarity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 10:15:39 GMT -5
No problem, just curious as to what it was about my post that caused you to reply.. As inquiring as to why someone replied to a given post is unusual, it naturally arouses curiosity as to why the inquiry would be directed to that specific post.Now, by "unusual" the intended meaning is not "strange" or "eccentric", but simply a reference to the fact of the frequency with with such a query arises -- not every message is subject to such query after all, and for the most part, few are. So, why did you inquire as to what motivated that particular response? Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 20, 2014 10:33:51 GMT -5
As inquiring as to why someone replied to a given post is unusual, it naturally arouses curiosity as to why the inquiry would be directed to that specific post.Now, by "unusual" the intended meaning is not "strange" or "eccentric", but simply a reference to the fact of the frequency with with such a query arises -- not every message is subject to such query after all, and for the most part, few are. So, why did you inquire as to what motivated that particular response? Absolutely. It is an inquiry as to what is was that caused you to reply, what processes motivated you.. it's a fairly simple question if you're not over-thinking it.. and, if you're not interested in answering, just say so..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 20, 2014 10:37:03 GMT -5
You're both talking about a personal God, and that's religion whether you declare it or not. I AM avoiding discussing it for the most part for the same reason I would avoid discussion with a Christian. Both your views are more intellectualized than Christian views, which is yet another reason to avoid them. Since you believe past is imagined in present, many obvious becomes unnoticed. What we call outer world is very stable, it wouldn't change it's structure if you are not there or other individual comes and changes. Note : Outer world and inner world appears in our consciousness(awareness in your term). Outer world focuses are shared focuses by others, so if you take your pen from your desk it would not be there for other person as well, if he takes it away it wouldn't be available to you. Why do you create a barrier between inner/outer when there is none, it's imagined..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2014 11:03:47 GMT -5
Culturally I was conditioned to plan and envision the future that I wanted to live and to make choices and take action to make that happen, so, in a sense, yes, you could say that I have. The thing to notice about intent -- a noticing which is, btw, counter to the LOA-type conditioning -- is that any statement of intent is an answer to a question in the form of: "Why did I/you do/think/feel/say/write that?" So isn't intent really the demand for a story about choices?Now this isn't to say that these stories don't have their place in a practical context, but if you read what I wrote previously, I'm not presenting acausality as a practical notion. I haven't understood this question. Intent is not the same idea as volition, and neither is the same idea as will or determination.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2014 11:04:16 GMT -5
Sure gopal, yes, I was writing to you ... and everyone else who might read it .. .. but no, there was nothing specific of yours that the writing was intended as in reply. Oh ok, All right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 11:06:09 GMT -5
Understood, For an example, assume a condition you are staring at your kettle for long time, that means there is only thought in your awareness that's kettle, If there is no feedback to interact with you that 'you are staring long time' or 'we need to go to market now' or some other thought, you can't know how long you are staring at there, I am saying feedback is completely absent. Assume such a condition in your deep sleep, one particular thought repeated continuously without any feedback behind it, thought with has no content in it. Feed back is necessary for you to operate. I can understand sense-perception as needing feedback. Like how seeing/vision requires saccades, at the very least -- continuous automatic eye movement -- to constantly provide feedback so that what is seen is constantly refreshed or kept in view. Without the saccade the object in view would fade away. The kettle would disappear from view without saccades. So without saccade the kettle would be an empty senseperception. With the saccades the kettle would be a senseperception. Am I getting you right there?Seems to me a mantra could be an empty thought. Concentrated on over and over, focused on and attended to, that it just disappears. No no, you got me wrong. I am directly coming to the consciousness as our base, everything else is appearing in our consciousness, this inner appearance we usually call 'thought' and outer world appearance we usually call 'perception', but I don't have any difference because everything appears in our consciousness so let me call by the world 'thought'(could be inner world perception or outer world perception), there is no outer world in itself. Now what's this feedback? Feed back is nothing but a thought is tellling about other thought. When you are perceiving a kettle, you are experiencing a 'kettle thought' and another thought would come and tell you that's kettle or something else about kettle, this is what I would like to call feed back, there is same kind of thought is being repeated again and again without feed back thought in deep sleep(it would be like what you are experiencing or perceiving when you close your eyes), without announcing where you are, Or what are you looking at. Hope it would be clear now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 11:09:28 GMT -5
Understood, For an example, assume a condition you are staring at your kettle for long time, that means there is only thought in your awareness that's kettle, If there is no feedback to interact with you that 'you are staring long time' or 'we need to go to market now' or some other thought, you can't know how long you are staring at there, I am saying feedback is completely absent. Assume such a condition in your deep sleep, one particular thought repeated continuously without any feedback behind it, thought with has no content in it. Feed back is necessary for you to operate. Gopal: I'm curious why you think there must be thought if you are staring at what is called "a kettle?" I'm also curious why you think that there must be feedback. The body/mind is intelligent, and it does not need to think ABOUT what is seen. It also does not need feedback (if I correctly understand what you are calling "feedback) in order to operate. People who have learned to stop thinking at will can function in the world just like anyone else. The only difference is that their minds are silent, and no thoughts arise. The intellect is a tool, but the tool is rarely necessary for ordinary life. A sage understands the world (gnosis) directly, and functions quite well in the total absence of verbal linear thought. hi, you are confusing the terms which I am using, please read my last answer to "maxdprophet" you would get clear about my idea, if not, just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2014 11:10:48 GMT -5
It is an inquiry as to what is was that caused you to reply, what processes motivated you.. That much is very obvious from the question itself. it's a fairly simple question if you're not over-thinking it.. As was mine to you. and, if you're not interested in answering, just say so.. What you might notice if you investigate is that I first explained why I was asking you of your intent before I asked the question. It's a matter of courtesy. Courtesy is about symmetry.
|
|