Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 14:06:58 GMT -5
Creator implies an entity and those can't be found. So yes, creation is just what seems to have appeared. There seems to be two kinds of creation. One is when something appears from nothing and the other is when one form changes into another form, like a lump of clay changing into a pot.Or a chestnut growing into a tree.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 14:25:51 GMT -5
I don't think it matters if there is thought, or no thought. but society couldn't wait for some non conscious thinker to create the power grid so we put some of our best thinkers on that temporary project Yea an anti thought mentality is often just a split mind identified as a thought controller. Think when you want to. Don’t think when you don’t want to. ( which is what’s going on already anyway ) If you’re thinking and don’t want to be, that’s inner division, or an underlying emotional issue. That’s when meditation practices start, to get rid of unwanted emotions, which never works, but does create a side effect and the enlightened ego issue, which can last a lifetime apparently. Absolutely. Thinking when you don't want to be is a split mind issue.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 14:59:48 GMT -5
You are now agreeing with me that "you yourself to be a creator" of what appears? Now the question is , you said to me that you are not the doer but now you are saying me that you are the doer(you are creating). How come? You are contradicting,eh? Gopal, picture the following. Gopal sits down and takes a nap in a park. While asleep somebody takes the sunglasses off Gopal and replaces them with green tinted glasses. Gopal wakes up, looks out, everything is shaded green. This is amazing, the whole world has turned to green, what is going on? Now, if such a thing happened, Gopal would of course immediately recognize what had happened. However, this is exactly, metaphorically, but in a very real sense the way we are "constructed". This is true physically, but also psychologically. Physically, this is easy to understand with a little examination. Philosopher Thomas Nagel explored this in an article, What it's like to be a bat. Different animals experience different worlds because their senses are constructed differently. Everybody knows dogs can hear higher pitched sounds than humans. Dog whistles are silent to humans, but not to dogs. So this is an epistemological problem. Now, for the most part all humans experience the same physical world (there are variations). But psychologically, there are thousands of different worlds people live in. The world they experience is determined by their own psychology, that is, their conditioning. Now, example, most of my family has gone bonkers. They still back and support President Trump. But I see Trump as a danger and a threat, a narcissist, a liar, and egomaniac, I could go on and on. "I am a stable genius", whoTF says that? A not-stable not-genius. Of course, they consider me the one who is bonkers. The facts that we deal with are the same, the news, events, words, actions. But they interpret it all in one way, I in a vastly different way. But there are numerous other example I could give. Right now, on London Bridge, a terrorist stabbed some people and has been shot by police. The terrorist has a vastly different world view than the ordinary people who were on the bridge. We all have to deal with this, the manner our own conditioning colors our world view. People here on ST's disagree to what extent this is a problem or concern. I won't get into that, here, now. But I will say that it is exceptionally to ~get past~ the coloring-the-world via our own psychology, and maybe suggest you look further into this. Now, I also know we have examined this thoroughly, previously, as have others. I call it backing up to get a more expansive view, of self, that is, what we think is self or what some of used to think of as self, the little self, ego, a clearer view of the tiny self. Over and over we can consider it the case that we can be objective towards self, that is, we back up to a wall. But almost invariably, if we keep exploring, we find that what is viewing, is still the little self, that we still have not reached a point of objectivity. That's all I'm suggesting, keep exploring. "The Creator is the created". Yes, and no. In the teachers section zazeniac has started a most excellent thread on self-inquiry (or Self-Inquiry, just covering the bases). It is Ramana in a nutshell. SCA gave you a very good answer, I cannot agree or disagree. Ask yourself why it is a good answer. 99.99% of the people on earth, the 7 billion, think, both physically and psychologically, they see the world as it is. There is usually a wow involved, an aftershock of recognition when we realize we have had a distorted view of something, and now see things more objectively, that is, have gotten outside of our own psychological position. That is usually remembered. A bold enough shock, leaves people changed forever. I missed where that was said. If it was, I share your concern. What I heard him say is that Awareness is both creating and perceiving.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 15:09:33 GMT -5
pretty sure she sees me as an enemy. maybe you don't see it from your perspective, but from mine she's completely adversarial. I remember a scene from a film I saw years ago. It was a made-up scene, but it forever stuck in my mind. Max Von Sydow played Jesus, I think it was The Greatest Story Ever Told. Jesus and the disciple were under a bridge. Someone, I think maybe John, discovered his coat missing. He was very angry, blasting the person who took his coat, how valuable it was, who gave it to him, bla, bla, bla. And when he was spent, Jesus calmly pulled out the coat, and showed it to him. Now, that event isn't in the NT, but the words the event is based on, are. Maybe Sharon is just playing a part, pushing your buttons. Everything that happens to us passes through our own psychological conditioning. If you (or anyone) think you are past your own conditioning, that is, that it has no effect or is even gone, I have news, it's still there, and everything passes through, it. Maybe, don't take the bait. If a surge goes over your entire body when you read something, even your face turning red, words arising, emotions showing up, take it as a sign. Maybe Sharon has swiped your coat. I also see Sharon as adversarial without cause toward Roy, and I assure you my face is not red and my coat is still hanging on the back of the chair where I left it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 17:23:04 GMT -5
I don't actually have a goal, I just find it humorous that a man that wants to eliminate the whole of humanity within twenty years, can so easily be triggered by a non-agreement with his ideas. i'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that there is "triggering" occurring. i have found, like Gary Weber, emotions don't really occur within this consciousness anymore. There's a steady baseline of stillness that is now the main focus/perspective. Maybe there is, and it's just that it's not you who's being triggered.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 17:38:25 GMT -5
Can't lose either way. Loss would only be possible if there were actual separation. That's like saying thirst would only be possible if the mirage was an actual oasis in the desert. He means in order for what you are to lose something, there would have to be something that is other than what you are.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 17:48:25 GMT -5
An appearance that has only recently appeared. So, say, the moon, is not a creation?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 30, 2019 19:47:17 GMT -5
That's like saying thirst would only be possible if the mirage was an actual oasis in the desert. He means in order for what you are to lose something, there would have to be something that is other than what you are. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 20:13:03 GMT -5
Creation and perception are the same. If they are the same, in other words, two words which have the same meaning, then I prefer to use only one word and that is appearance. They don't have the same meaning, which is why I can point out that ultimately they refer to the same process. Glad you've embraced the 'appearance' term.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 30, 2019 21:01:32 GMT -5
That's like saying thirst would only be possible if the mirage was an actual oasis in the desert. He means in order for what you are to lose something, there would have to be something that is other than what you are. Just telling someone there is no separation doesn't make it so for their experience.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 30, 2019 21:04:09 GMT -5
If they are the same, in other words, two words which have the same meaning, then I prefer to use only one word and that is appearance. They don't have the same meaning, which is why I can point out that ultimately they refer to the same process. Glad you've embraced the 'appearance' term. I've always said that everything is an appearance in consciousness. I think that's pretty obvious. But so what? That's true for both the ignorant and the wise.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 22:30:55 GMT -5
He means in order for what you are to lose something, there would have to be something that is other than what you are. Just telling someone there is no separation doesn't make it so for their experience. So there is the experience of losing stuff. Of course. Yet another reason not to trust your experience.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 30, 2019 22:47:14 GMT -5
Just telling someone there is no separation doesn't make it so for their experience. So there is the experience of losing stuff. Of course. Yet another reason not to trust your experience. Why wouldn't you trust your experience? How could you live without trusting your experience? But to know that what you essentially are is prior to experience means going back to the source as a spiritual practice in a regular and systematic way. That's the only solution. Thinking about not being separate won't make it so. Thinking about not being able to lose anything because there's nothing to lose won't make it so.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 22:52:07 GMT -5
So there is the experience of losing stuff. Of course. Yet another reason not to trust your experience. Why wouldn't you trust your experience? How could you live without trusting your experience? But to know that what you essentially are is prior to experience means going back to the source as a spiritual practice in a regular and systematic way. That's the only solution. Thinking about not being separate won't make it so. Thinking about not being able to lose anything because there's nothing to lose won't make it so. I'm talking about trusting your experience to tell you a transcendent truth. I thought that was obvious, like your comments about thinking.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 30, 2019 22:56:06 GMT -5
Why wouldn't you trust your experience? How could you live without trusting your experience? But to know that what you essentially are is prior to experience means going back to the source as a spiritual practice in a regular and systematic way. That's the only solution. Thinking about not being separate won't make it so. Thinking about not being able to lose anything because there's nothing to lose won't make it so. I'm talking about trusting your experience to tell you a transcendent truth. I thought that was obvious, like your comments about thinking. Experiencing the transcendent is the only experience you can trust.
|
|