Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 4:33:16 GMT -5
I think we have a huge disagreement now. I thought you too believe in one consciousness so far. But you seems to be believing in some kind of source which is taking care of everything and there is a part which comes from the source which is actually individuated and the energy flows from the source to individuated aspect. But that's not One Consciousness.
If we are one consciousness, then individual can't create reality.
Roller coaster experience can't be avoided, Existence of other view point can never be known. But now I can make sense as to why you still believe that other people existence can be known, it's because you don't believe in one consciousness. Your theory is quite different.
Then what, according to you, is an individual? Who are you and who are all the other people in your experience that you interact with all the time? You have a wife and a child. Who or what are they? What do you know about them? You see, you can only be in doubt about the true nature of others if you and the others are separate. If you and the others are one, how could there be any doubt about their true nature? What you seem to be saying here is that you know who you are, that you have realized your own true nature, but you don't know who all the others are, you haven't realized their true nature, and so there is you and there are all the others you don't know much about except the aspects of them that appear to you, but as to what's behind that appearance, you don't know, you can only speculate. Is that right? If so, that's separation 101. That's not oneness consciousness. You say categorically that you cannot know if there are other perceivers. Why? If you think in terms of THIS, or Source or God, what could there possibly be that THIS/Source/God cannot know? If there is indeed something that THIS/Source/God cannot know, then does it still deserve to be called THIS/Source/God? Or said differently, if you put limits on the Infinite, is it still the Infinite? I think let us agree to disagree because we don't have any common ground here.
From my observation, you clearly believe in separation but I don't I believe in separation instead I believe in one consciousness. When you imply there is one consciousness, you must be knowing the truth that individual can't create the reality. When you said to me other people can't create reality in my reality, that's the clear indication that you believe in separation.
If there is one consciousness, then there is no separate reality for you and for me. When there is no separate reality for you and me, Individual can't create the reality. There is no source from which energy flows to you. That Source itself is expressing as YOU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2022 4:50:24 GMT -5
Then what, according to you, is an individual? Who are you and who are all the other people in your experience that you interact with all the time? You have a wife and a child. Who or what are they? What do you know about them? You see, you can only be in doubt about the true nature of others if you and the others are separate. If you and the others are one, how could there be any doubt about their true nature? What you seem to be saying here is that you know who you are, that you have realized your own true nature, but you don't know who all the others are, you haven't realized their true nature, and so there is you and there are all the others you don't know much about except the aspects of them that appear to you, but as to what's behind that appearance, you don't know, you can only speculate. Is that right? If so, that's separation 101. That's not oneness consciousness. You say categorically that you cannot know if there are other perceivers. Why? If you think in terms of THIS, or Source or God, what could there possibly be that THIS/Source/God cannot know? If there is indeed something that THIS/Source/God cannot know, then does it still deserve to be called THIS/Source/God? Or said differently, if you put limits on the Infinite, is it still the Infinite? I think let us agree to disagree because we don't have any common ground here.
From my observation, you clearly believe in separation but I don't I believe in separation instead I believe in one consciousness. When you imply there is one consciousness, you must be knowing the truth that individual can't create the reality. When you said to me other people can't create reality in my reality, that's the clear indication that you believe in separation.
If there is one consciousness, then there is no separate reality for you and for me. When there is no separate reality for you and me, Individual can't create the reality. There is no source from which energy flows to you. That Source itself is expressing as YOU.
I still don't know where exactly we agree and where we disagree. That's why I am trying to get to the very basis of your understanding. The foundation your ontology is built upon. Because if you should argue from a sound basis and get to a flawed conclusion, then there's something wrong with your logic. But if you argue from a flawed basis, then no matter how flawless your logic, you can only come to a flawed conclusion. So let's first establish the very basis of your understanding about the nature of reality. Just try to answer these questions. We will get to the deliberate creation part later. 1) Who/what are you? 2) Who/what are the other people in your experience? 3) Are there limits to what can be known for the Infinite as Gopal or Reefs? 4) Are there limits to what can be know for the Infinite as the Infinite? 5) What does one consciousness mean in terms of what can be know and what cannot be known? Are there limits to what can be know? Is consciousness finite or infinite? You see, you say it's all 'one consciousness' but then you say that I (that 'one consciousness') cannot know if you (that 'one consciousness') is a perceiver or not. Which would essentially mean that this 'one consciousness' cannot know itself. Please note, this is a purely philosophical discussion, not about making you right or wrong, it's only about a logically consistent argumentation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 4:56:45 GMT -5
I think let us agree to disagree because we don't have any common ground here.
From my observation, you clearly believe in separation but I don't I believe in separation instead I believe in one consciousness. When you imply there is one consciousness, you must be knowing the truth that individual can't create the reality. When you said to me other people can't create reality in my reality, that's the clear indication that you believe in separation.
If there is one consciousness, then there is no separate reality for you and for me. When there is no separate reality for you and me, Individual can't create the reality. There is no source from which energy flows to you. That Source itself is expressing as YOU.
I still don't know where exactly we agree and where we disagree. That's why I am trying to get to the very basis of your understanding. The foundation your ontology is built upon. Because if you should argue from a sound basis and get to a flawed conclusion, then there's something wrong with your logic. But if you argue from a flawed basis, then no matter how flawless your logic, you can only come to a flawed conclusion. So let's first establish the very basis of your understanding about the nature of reality. Just try to answer these questions. We will get to the deliberate creation part later.
Consciousness(The one who perceives the moving appearance)
Other view point of mine.
Yes, it can't know whether it has other view point.
Nope.
You have to answer this question about what do you think one consciousness is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2022 5:03:38 GMT -5
I still don't know where exactly we agree and where we disagree. That's why I am trying to get to the very basis of your understanding. The foundation your ontology is built upon. Because if you should argue from a sound basis and get to a flawed conclusion, then there's something wrong with your logic. But if you argue from a flawed basis, then no matter how flawless your logic, you can only come to a flawed conclusion. So let's first establish the very basis of your understanding about the nature of reality. Just try to answer these questions. We will get to the deliberate creation part later.
Consciousness(The one who perceives the moving appearance)
Other view point of mine.
Yes, it can't know whether it has other view point.
Nope.
You have to answer this question about what do you think one consciousness is.
Okay, thanks. Then you are not speaking from the perspective of the Infinite as the Infinite, but from the perspective of the Infinite as Gopal. So far so good. 'One consciousness' is your term of choice. So you tell me what that means. Then I can see what the equivalent in my vocabulary would be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 5:06:07 GMT -5
Consciousness(The one who perceives the moving appearance)
Other view point of mine.
Yes, it can't know whether it has other view point.
Nope.
You have to answer this question about what do you think one consciousness is.
Okay, thanks. Then you are not speaking from the perspective of the Infinite as the Infinite, but from the perspective of the Infinite as Gopal. So far so good. How come? Infinite is perceiving the moving appearance. I would like to name my view point as Gopal, your view point as Reefs. But I can't know whether I have the other view point named Reefs.
Only One perceiver! You and I are not separate perceivers. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2022 5:15:19 GMT -5
Okay, thanks. Then you are not speaking from the perspective of the Infinite as the Infinite, but from the perspective of the Infinite as Gopal. So far so good. How come? Infinite is perceiving the moving appearance. I would like to name my view point as Gopal, your view point as Reefs. But I can't know whether I have the other view point named Reefs.
Only One perceiver! You and I are not separate perceivers. The Infinite as Gopal, by definition, is a perspective that has limits. In that context what you say is logically consistent. The Infinite as the Infinite, by definition, is a perspective that has no limits. In that context, what you say is logically inconsistent. If you and I are not separate and one and the same perceiver, then how can you be unsure if I am a perceiver or not? You see, if you play a game and you operate two players simulataneously, player A and player B, how can you be unsure if player B is human or AI? You should know. How could you not know? So you are mixing two contexts here. From the perspective of the Infinite as the Infinite, one consciousness or unity consciousness or oneness is what's the case. There are no others. So your question has no basis. Only from the perspective of the Infinite as Gopal, a perspective of apparent separation, the question about the nature of others arises, and you cannot know for sure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 5:21:32 GMT -5
How come? Infinite is perceiving the moving appearance. I would like to name my view point as Gopal, your view point as Reefs. But I can't know whether I have the other view point named Reefs.
Only One perceiver! You and I are not separate perceivers. The Infinite as Gopal, by definition, is a perspective that has limits. In that context what you say is logically consistent. The Infinite as the Infinite, by definition, is a perspective that has no limits. In that context, what you say logically inconsistent. What's this logic? I am saying Infinite is looking through the first window which I would like to name it as Gopal, that aspect or view point I would like to name it as Gopal. How come it suddently has the limits since I name it as Gopal? Infinite remains Infinite!
Because Perpetual movement is isolated. Are they not? Otherwise in your perception my perception will be crossing over. You still did not tell me what's your definition of one consciousness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 15:38:15 GMT -5
The Infinite as Gopal, by definition, is a perspective that has limits. In that context what you say is logically consistent. The Infinite as the Infinite, by definition, is a perspective that has no limits. In that context, what you say logically inconsistent. What's this logic? I am saying Infinite is looking through the first window which I would like to name it as Gopal, that aspect or view point I would like to name it as Gopal. How come it suddently has the limits since I name it as Gopal? Infinite remains Infinite!
Because Perpetual movement is isolated. Are they not? Otherwise in your perception my perception will be crossing over. You still did not tell me what's your definition of one consciousness.
Because the window named Gopal is finite. Isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2022 21:58:18 GMT -5
The Infinite as Gopal, by definition, is a perspective that has limits. In that context what you say is logically consistent. The Infinite as the Infinite, by definition, is a perspective that has no limits. In that context, what you say logically inconsistent. What's this logic? I am saying Infinite is looking through the first window which I would like to name it as Gopal, that aspect or view point I would like to name it as Gopal. How come it suddently has the limits since I name it as Gopal? Infinite remains Infinite!
Because Perpetual movement is isolated. Are they not? Otherwise in your perception my perception will be crossing over. You still did not tell me what's your definition of one consciousness.
The logic is very simple. You said that you (as the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal) cannot know if there are other perceivers. That's putting limits on what can be known by the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal. And if there are limits to what can be know for the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal, then it is not the Infinite looking with the eyes of the Infinite but the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal with the eyes of Gopal. Looking with the eyes of the Infinite means recognizing everything you see as the Infinite as well. Which means there are no others and the question if there are other perceivers doesn't even occur. Looking thru the eyes of Goapl means seeing other people that you cannot know anything about other than that they appear to you. Big difference! And you can't have it both ways. You either see others as separate from you and then are in doubt about their true nature or you see everything as one and then there are no others and the question about the nature of others has no basis to begin with. But the way you argue, you keep conflating both perspectives. You want to tell me that everything is one and at the same time you also want to tell me about other people and how you cannot know anything about their nature. That's logically inconsistent. Which means you haven't really thought this thru. Now, if you would say that your perspective is limited and therefore that's how the world looks to you, i.e. that there are others that you cannot know anything about another than that they appear to you, then you would be arguing consistently and perfectly logically. But if you keep insisting that you are the Infinite looking as the Infinite and then see others appearing that you cannot know anything about other than that they appear to you, then you argue inconsistently and illogically. So which is it? You have to choose one or the other. You can't have it both ways. You either are looking with the eyes of the Infinite and recognize everything as the Infinite, or you are looking with the eyes of Gopal and don't recognize what you are looking at. Unity consciousness. That's why the moment I realize my true nature, I also realize your true nature. There is only what you are. There are no others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 22:17:24 GMT -5
What's this logic? I am saying Infinite is looking through the first window which I would like to name it as Gopal, that aspect or view point I would like to name it as Gopal. How come it suddently has the limits since I name it as Gopal? Infinite remains Infinite!
Because Perpetual movement is isolated. Are they not? Otherwise in your perception my perception will be crossing over. You still did not tell me what's your definition of one consciousness.
Because the window named Gopal is finite. Isn't it? I am calling view point as window. There is no window exist in itself. Infinite is witnessing the ongoing appearance so there is no limit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 22:17:56 GMT -5
What's this logic? I am saying Infinite is looking through the first window which I would like to name it as Gopal, that aspect or view point I would like to name it as Gopal. How come it suddently has the limits since I name it as Gopal? Infinite remains Infinite!
Because Perpetual movement is isolated. Are they not? Otherwise in your perception my perception will be crossing over. You still did not tell me what's your definition of one consciousness.
The logic is very simple. You said that you (as the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal) cannot know if there are other perceivers. That's putting limits on what can be known by the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal. And if there are limits to what can be know for the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal, then it is not the Infinite looking with the eyes of the Infinite but the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal with the eyes of Gopal. Looking with the eyes of the Infinite means recognizing everything you see as the Infinite as well. Which means there are no others and the question if there are other perceivers doesn't even occur. Looking thru the eyes of Goapl means seeing other people that you cannot know anything about other than that they appear to you. Big difference! And you can't have it both ways. You either see others as separate from you and then are in doubt about their true nature or you see everything as one and then there are no others and the question about the nature of others has no basis to begin with. But the way you argue, you keep conflating both perspectives. You want to tell me that everything is one and at the same time you also want to tell me about other people and how you cannot know anything about their nature. That's logically inconsistent. Which means you haven't really thought this thru. Now, if you would say that your perspective is limited and therefore that's how the world looks to you, i.e. that there are others that you cannot know anything about another than that they appear to you, then you would be arguing consistently and perfectly logically. But if you keep insisting that you are the Infinite looking as the Infinite and then see others appearing that you cannot know anything about other than that they appear to you, then you argue inconsistently and illogically. So which is it? You have to choose one or the other. You can't have it both ways. You either are looking with the eyes of the Infinite and recognize everything as the Infinite, or you are looking with the eyes of Gopal and don't recognize what you are looking at. Unity consciousness. That's why the moment I realize my true nature, I also realize your true nature. There is only what you are. There are no others. Okay I disagree here . |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2022 22:31:49 GMT -5
The logic is very simple. You said that you (as the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal) cannot know if there are other perceivers. That's putting limits on what can be known by the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal. And if there are limits to what can be know for the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal, then it is not the Infinite looking with the eyes of the Infinite but the Infinite looking thru the window called Gopal with the eyes of Gopal. Looking with the eyes of the Infinite means recognizing everything you see as the Infinite as well. Which means there are no others and the question if there are other perceivers doesn't even occur. Looking thru the eyes of Goapl means seeing other people that you cannot know anything about other than that they appear to you. Big difference! And you can't have it both ways. You either see others as separate from you and then are in doubt about their true nature or you see everything as one and then there are no others and the question about the nature of others has no basis to begin with. But the way you argue, you keep conflating both perspectives. You want to tell me that everything is one and at the same time you also want to tell me about other people and how you cannot know anything about their nature. That's logically inconsistent. Which means you haven't really thought this thru. Now, if you would say that your perspective is limited and therefore that's how the world looks to you, i.e. that there are others that you cannot know anything about another than that they appear to you, then you would be arguing consistently and perfectly logically. But if you keep insisting that you are the Infinite looking as the Infinite and then see others appearing that you cannot know anything about other than that they appear to you, then you argue inconsistently and illogically. So which is it? You have to choose one or the other. You can't have it both ways. You either are looking with the eyes of the Infinite and recognize everything as the Infinite, or you are looking with the eyes of Gopal and don't recognize what you are looking at. Unity consciousness. That's why the moment I realize my true nature, I also realize your true nature. There is only what you are. There are no others. Okay I disagree here . Where do you disagree exactly? This is simply an issue of correct thinking. You see, you have a basic logic issue in your argumentation. That's why no one else here can make sense of what you are saying. Only your friends on gab can, because they have the exact same logic problem. If you want to have a meaningful conversation with us here, which I would welcome, then you have to clean up your logic. I showed you how to do it. Now it's your turn. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2022 22:37:23 GMT -5
Because the window named Gopal is finite. Isn't it? I am calling view point as window. There is no window exist in itself. Infinite is witnessing the ongoing appearance so there is no limit. Exactly! Now hold that thought and tell me why you cannot know the nature of all the others in your experience. It can't be because the Infinite has limits, it can only be because Gopal has limits, right? When you are in doubt about the nature of others, that can only make sense from the limited perspective of Gopal that sees others as separate from himself, it makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of the Infinite that only sees the Infinite everywhere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 22:37:25 GMT -5
Where do you disagree exactly? This is simply an issue of correct thinking. You see, you have a basic logic issue in your argumentation. That's why no one else here can make sense of what you are saying. Only your friends on gab can, because they have the exact same logic problem. If you want to have a meaningful conversation with us here, which I would welcome, then you have to clean up your logic. I showed you how to do it. Now it's your turn. I just dont want to do much argument in this place because I find logical fallacy in yours and you say it is in mine. So moving further doesn't go anywhere I think. So let disagree here . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 22:40:15 GMT -5
I am calling view point as window. There is no window exist in itself. Infinite is witnessing the ongoing appearance so there is no limit. Exactly! Now hold that thought and tell me why you cannot know the nature of all the others in your experience. It can't be because the Infinite has limits, it can only be because Gopal has limits, right? When you are in doubt about the nature of others, that can only make sense from the limited perspective of Gopal that sees others as separate from himself, it makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of the Infinite that only sees the Infinite everywhere. You can't know the name of a stranger unless he tells you, does that mean infinite has limits? |
|
