|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 21, 2012 12:49:38 GMT -5
Law of Attraction says: If you don't believe, you won't see it. That's the trouble with 'oneness', you can believe in it, but you can never see it... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 21, 2012 12:51:57 GMT -5
The 'actuality' of the matter is that the body is an appearance in consciousness and not a separate object that needs to be fed and watered. The collective consciousness has decided that it does, and so almost everybody aligns with that consensus, but it's really little more than an unspoken agreement about how things should be. Well then, hasn't the collective consciousness decided that we humans can't breath under water too? Basically, yes. Thats why I have said that its quite possible that humans wont 'die' this time round. We are beginning to see that perception is not a 'neutral objective' function, it is subjective and creative. As this is 'realized' more and more there will be a shift away from lack consciousness and towards a consciousness of abundance. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 13:33:55 GMT -5
Yeah, gotta feel down if we wanna feel up, though it's not even a necessary evil. Before we place judgments on particular feelings and start struggling with them, feelings are just different flavors of the same thing, and they are all enjoyed. So when Andrew wants to find just the good stuff, he's misunderstanding on two levels. He thinks he can find a one-ended stick, and he also thinks there's something wrong with one of the ends of the stick he has. Why would I say that a one ended stick is possible? It makes no sense because sticks have two end points. So a two ended stick is the belief in 2 absolutes. It is an illusion of the dualistic thinking mind. The actuality is that 'This' is non-dual in nature. There is the potential of a reality of unconditional love though. In which there is still contrast and difference, yet no conscious experience or sense OF contrast and difference. You're imagining an experience of no experience in which there is the condition of unconditional love. I would say this is how YOUR mind presently works, but it's just duality gone wild. Contrast does not obscure Love. Love does not have an issue with differences. Conditions would turn contrast and differences into actual boundaries, and Love doesn't understand boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 21, 2012 13:57:01 GMT -5
Why would I say that a one ended stick is possible? It makes no sense because sticks have two end points. So a two ended stick is the belief in 2 absolutes. It is an illusion of the dualistic thinking mind. The actuality is that 'This' is non-dual in nature. There is the potential of a reality of unconditional love though. In which there is still contrast and difference, yet no conscious experience or sense OF contrast and difference. You're imagining an experience of no experience in which there is the condition of unconditional love. I would say this is how YOUR mind presently works, but it's just duality gone wild. Contrast does not obscure Love. Love does not have an issue with differences. Conditions would turn contrast and differences into actual boundaries, and Love doesn't understand boundaries. You missed out a key word I used. I didnt say that contrast obscures love or that love has an issue with differences. Its the CONSCIOUS experience, or sense of contrast and difference, obscures unconditional love. So I actually agree with what you said in the second paragraph. As for the first paragraph, my mind has the ability to imagine a non-dual experience, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 21, 2012 13:57:19 GMT -5
Why would I say that a one ended stick is possible? It makes no sense because sticks have two end points. So a two ended stick is the belief in 2 absolutes. It is an illusion of the dualistic thinking mind. The actuality is that 'This' is non-dual in nature. There is the potential of a reality of unconditional love though. In which there is still contrast and difference, yet no conscious experience or sense OF contrast and difference. You're imagining an experience of no experience in which there is the condition of unconditional love. I would say this is how YOUR mind presently works, but it's just duality gone wild. Contrast does not obscure Love. Love does not have an issue with differences. Conditions would turn contrast and differences into actual boundaries, and Love doesn't understand boundaries. You missed out a key word I used. I didnt say that contrast obscures love or that love has an issue with differences. Its the CONSCIOUS experience, or sense of contrast and difference, that 'obscures' unconditional love. So I actually agree with what you said in the second paragraph. As for the first paragraph, my mind has the ability to imagine a non-dual experience, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 14:00:05 GMT -5
Yup. Dat's true in a way. Mayhaps more accurately, peeps are happy when they aren't feeling positive feelings all the time. It's a misunderstanding when we say we want to feel good feelings all the time and never feel sad or angry or afraid. If that were true, we would never watch the news! Hehe. As Ive said, for many, its better to feel something, even if its not good, than to feel numb. Its a question of priorities and values. Watching the news is never going to be a joyful experience as such, but I used to watch it in the old days, so I can see the appeal. It's a distortion of our nature to feel numb, and then to crave any feeling to dispel that numbness, which comes from habitually protecting our feelings. I'm saying something different. Some feelings are called bad because they have the potential to lead to suffering, not because we don't enjoy feeling them. As long as we believe we can control the power and duration of those feelings, we seek them out. You can verify this in your actual experience. Hencely, it's not the quality of the feeling that we want to avoid, but the intensity of those darker feelings. What makes them too intense is when we go to war with them. In an attempt to end the war, we go numb, and then create negative drama so that we can feel something. Noticing the insanity puts an end to that game and feeling is simply allowed to be what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 14:01:50 GMT -5
The 'actuality' of the matter is that the body is an appearance in consciousness and not a separate object that needs to be fed and watered. The collective consciousness has decided that it does, and so almost everybody aligns with that consensus, but it's really little more than an unspoken agreement about how things should be. Yes. Do you eat meat? Yes. And you? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 14:22:36 GMT -5
Yeah, gotta feel down if we wanna feel up, though it's not even a necessary evil. Before we place judgments on particular feelings and start struggling with them, feelings are just different flavors of the same thing, and they are all enjoyed. So when Andrew wants to find just the good stuff, he's misunderstanding on two levels. He thinks he can find a one-ended stick, and he also thinks there's something wrong with one of the ends of the stick he has. Maybe Andrew can build an extremely long stick, and travel very very slowly towards the happy end. Theoretically, it should work. The problem is that it's all relative; the length of the stick keeps changing. Zaklie. What you describe is axchully what almost everybody does. They try to move continually toward the happy end, and as soon as the movement stops, venture back toward the unhappy end, and ultimately finding themselves precisely in the center again. The experience of happiness is only in the movement toward a goal, and in the momentary cessation of any movement toward something, which occurs when the goal is accomplished. If nothing at all is done, then the experience of happiness fades, which is the movement toward the unhappy end of the stick. So we figure the trick is to keep moving toward better goals, like a donkey chasing a carrot dangling in front of him. Even when we see that we're never going to get to the carrot, we don't know what else to do, so we keep walking. The key is that brief moment of satisfaction when we reach a goal, and just before another movement starts. That moment is not the happiness of getting what we want, but the peace of no longer seeking. THAT'S what everybody wants. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 14:29:33 GMT -5
The 'actuality' of the matter is that the body is an appearance in consciousness and not a separate object that needs to be fed and watered. The collective consciousness has decided that it does, and so almost everybody aligns with that consensus, but it's really little more than an unspoken agreement about how things should be. Well then, hasn't the collective consciousness decided that we humans can't breath under water too? And everyone aligning with that consensus, seems to be a good idea... ;D I think the longer the awareness has to self realize itself, the better... Starving and drowning the human consciousness, doesn't seem the prudent way to go in the long run...hehe Yer probly right. I don't remember seeing either of those on Steve's list of practices. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 14:37:50 GMT -5
Law of Attraction says: If you don't believe, you won't see it. 'Believing is seeing' is a bit closer to the truth of the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 14:39:10 GMT -5
Law of Attraction says: If you don't believe, you won't see it. That must be why that Law doesn't quite appear over here. Sounds like it does! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 14:40:43 GMT -5
Law of Attraction says: If you don't believe, you won't see it. That's the trouble with 'oneness', you can believe in it, but you can never see it... ;D And yet there is no need because there is nothing to see. What does the absence of an idea look like? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 14:45:39 GMT -5
That must be why that Law doesn't quite appear over here. Sounds like it does! tushé <points at moon> |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2012 14:48:49 GMT -5
You're imagining an experience of no experience in which there is the condition of unconditional love. I would say this is how YOUR mind presently works, but it's just duality gone wild. Contrast does not obscure Love. Love does not have an issue with differences. Conditions would turn contrast and differences into actual boundaries, and Love doesn't understand boundaries. You missed out a key word I used. I didnt say that contrast obscures love or that love has an issue with differences. Its the CONSCIOUS experience, or sense of contrast and difference, obscures unconditional love. The CONSCIOUS experience of contrast and differences does not obscure unconditional love. The assumptions, conclusions and implications ABOUT those contrasts and differences does. |
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Feb 21, 2012 15:32:23 GMT -5
And yet there is no need because there is nothing to see. What does the absence of an idea look like? "____________" Nomination for the all time list of gems! |
|
