|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2015 18:41:10 GMT -5
Ivitsnorp? Don't you think that's a bit harsh given the circumstances?? plurb plef ploop perp pond! Ivitsnorp lomdimnitshells in the opperatizackly. Ok? Um....Okay.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Apr 10, 2015 19:05:05 GMT -5
Yeah, it's really hard to take credit for a 'first thought' in which there was no prior thought that lead to it that one is aware of. But when there's a chain of thoughts connected by association and logic, it's much easier to imagine 'I' orchestrated the connections and thought my way to the conclusion. As Gopal meant to say, those are also spontaneous. I'm curious E to hear what you make of this (in particular,' thought as thinker'): "Thought that is projected, now thinks. So it's not possible to separate the thinker from the thought, because the thinker thinks a thought, and then the thought thinks and becomes a thinker, and then the thought, that was a thought that is now a thinker, thinks another thought, which becomes a thinker, also. And so, there is a constant summoning of Life Force. Now, a thought that is thought longer becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, in a very clear undiluted fashion, as from Nonphysical Perspective where there is no resistance, becomes physical matter. That's why the physical universe is a by-product of the Nonphysical attention or focus. So, the Nonphysical Energy that created this physical mass from the Energy of the Universe, the mass itself, now becomes a thought that is thinking, that is attracting the Energy. " ---Abraham Excerpted from the workshop: Los Angeles, CA, on August 02, 1998 Ones actual nature is not the thinker of thought.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 10, 2015 19:18:44 GMT -5
I'm curious E to hear what you make of this (in particular,' thought as thinker'): "Thought that is projected, now thinks. So it's not possible to separate the thinker from the thought, because the thinker thinks a thought, and then the thought thinks and becomes a thinker, and then the thought, that was a thought that is now a thinker, thinks another thought, which becomes a thinker, also. And so, there is a constant summoning of Life Force. Now, a thought that is thought longer becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, in a very clear undiluted fashion, as from Nonphysical Perspective where there is no resistance, becomes physical matter. That's why the physical universe is a by-product of the Nonphysical attention or focus. So, the Nonphysical Energy that created this physical mass from the Energy of the Universe, the mass itself, now becomes a thought that is thinking, that is attracting the Energy. " ---Abraham Excerpted from the workshop: Los Angeles, CA, on August 02, 1998
I think it's pretty convoluted. I don't really see how we can say a thought thinks. What's more interesting is the underlined. For Pilgrim, that's what I mean when I say everything is imagined into apparent existence. yeah, it's an interesting take on thinking, for sure. AT first I figured they were referring to human form as 'thought made manifest' and that made some sense then, but then they go on to talk specifically about 'thought form,' so I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 10, 2015 20:01:13 GMT -5
We have different understandings of the same experience.. when you choose your thoughts to write posts, are those choices random?.. is there a puppeteer pulling your strings? I am not saying these thoughts are random, I would say this 'I' is choosing, but it's choosing for everyone simultaneously, you and I can't operate separately. If I choose to write, then at the same time it chooses to do something different in the expression of you. You're encouraging your mind to continue to abuse you, stop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 21:45:07 GMT -5
I am not saying these thoughts are random, I would say this 'I' is choosing, but it's choosing for everyone simultaneously, you and I can't operate separately. If I choose to write, then at the same time it chooses to do something different in the expression of you. You're encouraging your mind to continue to abuse you, stop. you're encouraging your mind to continue to deceive you, stop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 21:46:22 GMT -5
plurb plef ploop perp pond! Ivitsnorp lomdimnitshells in the opperatizackly. Ok? Um....Okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 21:52:37 GMT -5
Yeah, it's really hard to take credit for a 'first thought' in which there was no prior thought that lead to it that one is aware of. But when there's a chain of thoughts connected by association and logic, it's much easier to imagine 'I' orchestrated the connections and thought my way to the conclusion. As Gopal meant to say, those are also spontaneous. I'm curious E to hear what you make of this (in particular,' thought as thinker'): "Thought that is projected, now thinks. So it's not possible to separate the thinker from the thought, because the thinker thinks a thought, and then the thought thinks and becomes a thinker, and then the thought, that was a thought that is now a thinker, thinks another thought, which becomes a thinker, also. And so, there is a constant summoning of Life Force. Now, a thought that is thought longer becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, in a very clear undiluted fashion, as from Nonphysical Perspective where there is no resistance, becomes physical matter. That's why the physical universe is a by-product of the Nonphysical attention or focus. So, the Nonphysical Energy that created this physical mass from the Energy of the Universe, the mass itself, now becomes a thought that is thinking, that is attracting the Energy. " ---Abraham Excerpted from the workshop: Los Angeles, CA, on August 02, 1998 The above paragraph of Abraham is complete nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 22:11:59 GMT -5
I am not saying these thoughts are random, I would say this 'I' is choosing, but it's choosing for everyone simultaneously, you and I can't operate separately. If I choose to write, then at the same time it chooses to do something different in the expression of you. Well, yes and no. Whatever we each do is interconnected in some way but the effects can be so negligible that we can consider the actions to be unrelated. This interconnection is not what "not two" refers to but is a sort of shawdowy reflection of it. What's happening is that there is a movement, that we can call consciousness, expressing and experiencing through multiple unique perspectives. Quite obviously, the choices that you are presented with as an individual are different from the choices that I'm presented with as a different individual. "Not two" doesn't mean "no differences", it is a pointer to the absence of separation, often expressed with the secondary idea that what is looking out of my eyes, your eyes, and dumb-lookin' dooooood's eyes, is all the same consciousness.Peeps that don't like oneness are all like "uh-huh ... heh heh, right doooood, so if we're all the same consciousness then what am I thinkin', huh? ... ha! ha! gotchya'" The above statement has the premise of other individuals are real. But unfortunately you can't know whether I am real or figment in your consciousness, So the bolder line completely fall away. All you can know is, you exist and everything is appearing to you, nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 10, 2015 22:38:58 GMT -5
I'm curious E to hear what you make of this (in particular,' thought as thinker'): "Thought that is projected, now thinks. So it's not possible to separate the thinker from the thought, because the thinker thinks a thought, and then the thought thinks and becomes a thinker, and then the thought, that was a thought that is now a thinker, thinks another thought, which becomes a thinker, also. And so, there is a constant summoning of Life Force. Now, a thought that is thought longer becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, becomes Thought Form. A thought that is thought upon by many, in a very clear undiluted fashion, as from Nonphysical Perspective where there is no resistance, becomes physical matter. That's why the physical universe is a by-product of the Nonphysical attention or focus. So, the Nonphysical Energy that created this physical mass from the Energy of the Universe, the mass itself, now becomes a thought that is thinking, that is attracting the Energy. " ---Abraham Excerpted from the workshop: Los Angeles, CA, on August 02, 1998 The above paragraph Abraham is complete nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2015 3:53:15 GMT -5
Well, yes and no. Whatever we each do is interconnected in some way but the effects can be so negligible that we can consider the actions to be unrelated. This interconnection is not what "not two" refers to but is a sort of shawdowy reflection of it. What's happening is that there is a movement, that we can call consciousness, expressing and experiencing through multiple unique perspectives. Quite obviously, the choices that you are presented with as an individual are different from the choices that I'm presented with as a different individual. "Not two" doesn't mean "no differences", it is a pointer to the absence of separation, often expressed with the secondary idea that what is looking out of my eyes, your eyes, and dumb-lookin' dooooood's eyes, is all the same consciousness.Peeps that don't like oneness are all like "uh-huh ... heh heh, right doooood, so if we're all the same consciousness then what am I thinkin', huh? ... ha! ha! gotchya'" The above statement has the premise of other individuals are real. But unfortunately you can't know whether I am real or figment in your consciousness, So the bolder line completely fall away. All you can know is, you exist and everything is appearing to you, nothing else. It might seem that way, but I'm not stating a logical conclusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 5:28:46 GMT -5
The above statement has the premise of other individuals are real. But unfortunately you can't know whether I am real or figment in your consciousness, So the bolder line completely fall away. All you can know is, you exist and everything is appearing to you, nothing else. It might seem that way, but I'm not stating a logical conclusion. So you are speaking by simply assuming,huh? "what is looking out of my eyes, your eyes, and dumb-lookin' dooooood's eyes, is all the same consciousness " The above line comes from assumption,huh?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2015 5:35:18 GMT -5
It might seem that way, but I'm not stating a logical conclusion. So you are speaking by simply assuming,huh? "what is looking out of my eyes, your eyes, and dumb-lookin' dooooood's eyes, is all the same consciousness " The above line comes from assumption,huh? No, not an assumption, just not anything I can prove with reason. If you're genuinely interested a suggestion does come to mind, but if you're not, you're not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 5:42:07 GMT -5
So you are speaking by simply assuming,huh? "what is looking out of my eyes, your eyes, and dumb-lookin' dooooood's eyes, is all the same consciousness " The above line comes from assumption,huh? No, not an assumption, just not anything I can prove with reason. If you're genuinely interested a suggestion does come to mind, but if you're not, you're not. If you can't prove anything with reason, then that's called assumption, what other English word would you use for that? If some thing could be directly seen then that could not be an assumption, for an example, everything is appearance in this consciousness can be directly seen.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2015 6:43:40 GMT -5
No, not an assumption, just not anything I can prove with reason. If you're genuinely interested a suggestion does come to mind, but if you're not, you're not. If you can't prove anything with reason, then that's called assumption, what other English word would you use for that? If some thing could be directly seen then that could not be an assumption, for an example, everything is appearance in this consciousness can be directly seen. Just 'cause I can't prove a cats whiskers doesn't make them any less sublime. No assumption, no. Love can't be proven.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 6:48:46 GMT -5
If you can't prove anything with reason, then that's called assumption, what other English word would you use for that? If some thing could be directly seen then that could not be an assumption, for an example, everything is appearance in this consciousness can be directly seen. Just 'cause I can't prove a cats whiskers doesn't make them any less sublime. No assumption, no. Love can't be proven. How could you even make such statement that God is looking into every eye when you do not know whether other individual exist or not? Don't you feel the foolishness behind the statement? If I can't prove something, then I can't frame the statement from there or any other conclusion there.
|
|