|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2015 11:34:42 GMT -5
As we are currently in the 3rd plane, our conscious activities, (intentions), cannot surpass the limitations of the domain...Yes there's 4-12th dimensional beings that watch our daily duties. I say our intentions are limited in this plane, because that's the ONLY gap between the conscious self of our plane and their plane...(though only the 4th dimensional beings are the ones who really watch us.) So, do you see how your question of, "For what purpose," is irrelevant because you have not yet grasp that consciousness is the all!?.....Of course we have souls!..but how one experiences their soul is where the big dilemma manifests. The nature of the soul, will always be about the Self. That intimate part of "YOU" that only "YOU" know......For me, if you will, my soul experience is interpreted by the way I present myself to others. For example, I consciously try, no matter who I may come across, to be as genuine as I can...For the PURPOSE of experiencing myself, (soul), as genuine.... What would life be like if you didn't have to consciously try to be as genuine as you can? It sounds like AlphaA is saying there is this deeper level, which he is calling soul. The self of ordinary life is subject to distortions, being illusory, so AlphaA is seeking to express the level of soul as he goes about experiencing other people in life, to be as genuine as he can. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2015 11:41:03 GMT -5
What would life be like if you didn't have to consciously try to be as genuine as you can? It sounds like AlphaA is saying there is this deeper level, which he is calling soul. The self of ordinary life is subject to distortions, being illusory, so AlphaA is seeking to express the level of soul as he goes about experiencing other people in life, to be as genuine as he can. SDP: Yes, that's what it sounds like, but I'm curious to know if this is his take on the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaA on Jun 23, 2015 11:43:29 GMT -5
What would life be like if you didn't have to consciously try to be as genuine as you can? It sounds like AlphaA is saying there is this deeper level, which he is calling soul. The self of ordinary life is subject to distortions, being illusory, so AlphaA is seeking to express the level of soul as he goes about experiencing other people in life, to be as genuine as he can. |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaA on Jun 23, 2015 11:47:26 GMT -5
In general or more specifically. I'm just curious about what you mean by "trying to be as genuine as possible." It sounds like AlphaA is saying there is this deeper level, which he is calling soul. The self of ordinary life is subject to distortions, being illusory, so AlphaA is seeking to express the level of soul as he goes about experiencing other people in life, to be as genuine as he can. SDP: Yes, that's what it sounds like, but I'm curious to know if this is his take on the issue.
Intention is the assurance of conscious mind, so the question isn't what would life be like without being genuine; rather it's, what's the relevance between intention and being genuine. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2015 12:10:18 GMT -5
It sounds like AlphaA is saying there is this deeper level, which he is calling soul. The self of ordinary life is subject to distortions, being illusory, so AlphaA is seeking to express the level of soul as he goes about experiencing other people in life, to be as genuine as he can. Well, then arises the idea of a split mind. Most folks around here are afraid of the idea of a split mind. They run from it or sweep it under the rug or just say it isn't so. I don't think it can be avoided. |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaA on Jun 23, 2015 14:04:38 GMT -5
Well, then arises the idea of a split mind. Most folks around here are afraid of the idea of a split mind. They run from it or sweep it under the rug or just say it isn't so. I don't think it can be avoided. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2015 15:53:23 GMT -5
.................bumped to refer to...........
As we are currently in the 3rd plane, our conscious activities, (intentions), cannot surpass the limitations of the domain...Yes there's 4-12th dimensional beings that watch our daily duties. I say our intentions are limited in this plane, because that's the ONLY gap between the conscious self of our plane and their plane...(though only the 4th dimensional beings are the ones who really watch us.) So, do you see how your question of, "For what purpose," is irrelevant because you have not yet grasp that consciousness is the all!?.....Of course we have souls!..but how one experiences their soul is where the big dilemma manifests. The nature of the soul, will always be about the Self. That intimate part of "YOU" that only "YOU" know......For me, if you will, my soul experience is interpreted by the way I present myself to others. For example, I consciously try, no matter who I may come across, to be as genuine as I can...For the PURPOSE of experiencing myself, (soul), as genuine.... What would life be like if you didn't have to consciously try to be as genuine as you can? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2015 15:54:11 GMT -5
Well, then arises the idea of a split mind. Most folks around here are afraid of the idea of a split mind. They run from it or sweep it under the rug or just say it isn't so. I don't think it can be avoided. Maybe someone else would be better explaining this, but I think this is where ZD was headed with his question, bumped above. What does it mean that OToneH you are not genuine always, and OTOH you would try to be genuine? Are there two different AlphaA's, one not always genuine and then one that is genuine? But this is not a problem from my POV. What you express makes sense from my POV. Earlier I had the image of a chess board (in relation to your posts), if there were no empty spaces, there could be no movement. "Conceptual" non-dualism is like a chess board with no empty places, for there to be movement there would have to be simultaneous movement throughout the whole board. (A movement of the Whole). We don't see reality working that way (IMvhO). Have you taught this tai chi-type practice to anyone else? If so have they had similar results? |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaA on Jun 23, 2015 18:30:05 GMT -5
What's the implication, when saying split mind? Maybe someone else would be better explaining this, but I think this is where ZD was headed with his question, bumped above. What does it mean that OToneH you are not genuine always, and OTOH you would try to be genuine? Are there two different AlphaA's, one not always genuine and then one that is genuine? But this is not a problem from my POV. What you express makes sense from my POV. Earlier I had the image of a chess board (in relation to your posts), if there were no empty spaces, there could be no movement. "Conceptual" non-dualism is like a chess board with no empty places, for there to be movement there would have to be simultaneous movement throughout the whole board. (A movement of the Whole). We don't see reality working that way (IMvhO). Have you taught this tai chi-type practice to anyone else? If so have they had similar results? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2015 18:57:39 GMT -5
SDP understood where I was going with my question. It appears that one more step is necessary. *smile*
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2019 7:52:35 GMT -5
What's the implication, when saying split mind? Maybe someone else would be better explaining this, but I think this is where ZD was headed with his question, bumped above. What does it mean that OToneH you are not genuine always, and OTOH you would try to be genuine? Are there two different AlphaA's, one not always genuine and then one that is genuine? But this is not a problem from my POV. What you express makes sense from my POV. Earlier I had the image of a chess board (in relation to your posts), if there were no empty spaces, there could be no movement. "Conceptual" non-dualism is like a chess board with no empty places, for there to be movement there would have to be simultaneous movement throughout the whole board. (A movement of the Whole). We don't see reality working that way (IMvhO). Have you taught this tai chi-type practice to anyone else? If so have they had similar results? sdp likes again (this reminds me of chapter eleven the Tao Te Ching, a wheel with 30 spokes is only useful because of the emptiness of the center. A room is useful only because of its emptiness and the empty doorway whereby one enters. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 22, 2019 9:31:29 GMT -5
Maybe someone else would be better explaining this, but I think this is where ZD was headed with his question, bumped above. What does it mean that OToneH you are not genuine always, and OTOH you would try to be genuine? Are there two different AlphaA's, one not always genuine and then one that is genuine? But this is not a problem from my POV. What you express makes sense from my POV. Earlier I had the image of a chess board (in relation to your posts), if there were no empty spaces, there could be no movement. "Conceptual" non-dualism is like a chess board with no empty places, for there to be movement there would have to be simultaneous movement throughout the whole board. (A movement of the Whole). We don't see reality working that way (IMvhO). Have you taught this tai chi-type practice to anyone else? If so have they had similar results? sdp likes again (this reminds me of chapter eleven the Tao Te Ching, a wheel with 30 spokes is only useful because of the emptiness of the center. A room is useful only because of its emptiness and the empty doorway whereby one enters. The reason I questioned his postings was the idea underlying them that there is an entity capable of being intentional and making things happen. When the illusion of selfhood is seen through, this idea is also seen through. Superficially we can talk about intentionality, practices, cause and effect, etc, but after seeing through the illusion of separateness, all of these ideas are then seen from a different perspective--what we might call a "unified psychological perspective." |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaA on Feb 22, 2019 10:27:00 GMT -5
sdp likes again (this reminds me of chapter eleven the Tao Te Ching, a wheel with 30 spokes is only useful because of the emptiness of the center. A room is useful only because of its emptiness and the empty doorway whereby one enters. The reason I questioned his postings was the idea underlying them that there is an entity capable of being intentional and making things happen. When the illusion of selfhood is seen through, this idea is also seen through. Superficially we can talk about intentionality, practices, cause and effect, etc, but after seeing through the illusion of separateness, all of these ideas are then seen from a different perspective--what we might call a "unified psychological perspective." |
|
