|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 12:40:23 GMT -5
. There is only what you are . That's my line  I know! And it's the answer to Gopal's question about the existence of other perceivers. But for some reason, he can't hear the answer. And ironically, if you go thru the dialog about the Infinite I just had with Gopal, he is actually saying the same but doesn't even realize it. Which tells me that when he talks about the Infinite, that this is just a concept, something conjured up by the intellect in order to make sense of things, not something intimately and directly known. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 12:40:46 GMT -5
The same principle applies across the board, strangers or family and friends alike. Whatever shows up in your experience is a reflection of your state of being, and that applies to things and events as well as to people. This is an attraction based universe. Your state of being is your point of attraction which is directly linked to your field of awareness, or focus. So you have no power over other people and they have no power over you other than the power of influence (they can catch your attention), but since you cannot focus or think for them and they cannot focus or think for you, this means you can't create in their reality and they can't create in your reality. All you can do is co-create with them if you happen to focus on one and the same thing and are on a similar wavelength (aka vibrational match), which usually happens with family and friends for longer periods of time and with strangers only for short moments. But the principles at work are exactly the same. And they work in the exact same way for the enlightened ones as they do for the unenlightened ones. This has nothing to do with separation vs. oneness. Both the enlighted one and the unenlightend one have a body and a mind and are therefore to that extent subject to the laws of creation. After all, both the enlightened one and the unenlightened one can get angry, have to eat, go to the bathroom and answer when you call their name. So let's not mix contexts. If so, you don't believe the fact that we are all one consciousness? If we are all one consciousness, then how can individual create the reality?
how come there is a co-creation if we are all one consciousness?
See, this is why I'm inclined to want to make the delineation referred to in my previous post. I would say that we are all one Consciousness, but not one consciousness. Consciousness is collective, but consciousness is individuated. I feel that I can say we're not one consciousness without violating the principle that everything moves as One. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 12:47:29 GMT -5
If so, you don't believe the fact that we are all one consciousness? If we are all one consciousness, then how can individual create the reality?
how come there is a co-creation if we are all one consciousness?
See, this is why I'm inclined to want to make the delineation referred to in my previous post. I would say that we are all one Consciousness, but not one consciousness. Consciousness is collective, but consciousness is individuated. I feel that I can say we're not one consciousness without violating the principle that everything moves as One. Consciousness is not divided for individual. If it's not divided then individual doesn't exist as an entity. If it doesn't exist as an entity, then it can't act out individually so it can't create the reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 13:03:49 GMT -5
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. I think the issue has always been that peeps think that individuals reflect there being other's that are not in essence the same as what you are fundamentally and are in someway separate . That is why this blinking SVP has been dragged around the bushes for eternity when there has been no need for it whatsoever. There are many individuals, there are billions of individuals, that is self evident and true enough to say, but one has to Self realise in order to know what a individual represents and constitutes in the grand scheme of things . In practical terms, the SVP just refers to a perspective that is identified with how the world is perceived thru the intellect. And from that perspective, it is natural to confuse 'distinct' with 'separate' and 'interconnectedness' with 'oneness'. That's a very common mistake on these forums, because people are trying to grasp intellectually what is beyond the reach of the intellect. Sure, the intellect can call something the Infinite and define it in relation to other concepts, but being able to define something and actually understanding something is not the same thing. It doesn't take any words or concepts in order to understand the Infinite. In fact, with words and concepts, the Infinite can never be understood. When talking to Gopal, you'll notice that he is very clear as long as he talks about the perspective of the intellect. But as soon as he introduces concepts that point beyond the intellect, like oneness or the Infinite, then he begins to struggle to keep his argumentation coherent and usually fails, because he has no actual reference for what these concepts are pointing to (impersonal) and so he can't really make it fit into the perspective he actually has a reference for (personal). |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 13:03:53 GMT -5
See, this is why I'm inclined to want to make the delineation referred to in my previous post. I would say that we are all one Consciousness, but not one consciousness. Consciousness is collective, but consciousness is individuated. I feel that I can say we're not one consciousness without violating the principle that everything moves as One. Consciousness is not divided for individual. If it's not divided then individual doesn't exist as an entity. If it doesn't exist as an entity, then it can't act out individually so it can't create the reality. I'm not really making an argument for reality being created at an individuated or surface level, although having said that, I do see it as a sort of feed-back loop and therefore in some sense we can be said to be 'world-builders'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 13:16:53 GMT -5
Consciousness is not divided for individual. If it's not divided then individual doesn't exist as an entity. If it doesn't exist as an entity, then it can't act out individually so it can't create the reality. I'm not really making an argument for reality being created at an individuated or surface level, although having said that, I do see it as a sort of feed-back loop and therefore in some sense we can be said to be 'world-builders'. The argument is only because he said individuals are co-creating their reality. Co-creation is possible only if individual can create the reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 13:17:23 GMT -5
It's like when the credits roll at the end of the movie and it says, cast in order of appearance. You shed a tear when the hero died even though you knew it wasn't a "real" person. Feelings of sympathy arise when you hear about kids and parents you didn't know in a school shooting in Texas, a place you've never visited. And then when it comes to real people you really do know, even they just drift in and out of our experience from time to time. We are affected and then we forget what we felt about them until the next encounter and then we are reminded. It starts all over again, it changes, it's transformed, relationships change, they become diminished or they are renewed, so in that sense all of these movie characters and real people they're equally the same, they're just experiences forever changing and in that sense there are no others. But there are others. To say there are no others is more of a realization about oneself and how the world is experienced like a bee flitting from flower to flower. From a purely intellectual or philosophical perspective, Gopal is correct, you cannot know. You can only assume. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 13:18:26 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 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. , the infinite as Gopal is where the unmanifest becomes manifest. For me, the manifest is literally limitation incarnate. That's why it never makes sense to me when folks talk about unlimited potential in the context of the manifest. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 13:30:43 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! I don't really resonate with 'infinite', but if we think of the unmanifest (Source) as pure potential, then as the manifest arises, even fundamentally as God or I-I, then that potential becomes actualised. That path in action, that very 'cascade' IS limitation incarnate. So I see your underlined bit differently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 13:33:20 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! I don't really resonate with 'infinite', but if we think of the unmanifest (Source) as pure potential, then as the manifest arises, even fundamentally as God or I-I, then that potential becomes actualised. That path in action, that very 'cascade' IS limitation incarnate. So I see your underlined bit differently. Infinite or source doesn't have limitations even while it perceives. Infinite remains infinite even while it drives the dream. Limitation is only when it believes something else other than what it really is! |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 13:34:38 GMT -5
I don't really resonate with 'infinite', but if we think of the unmanifest (Source) as pure potential, then as the manifest arises, even fundamentally as God or I-I, then that potential becomes actualised. That path in action, that very 'cascade' IS limitation incarnate. So I see your underlined bit differently. Infinite or source doesn't have limitations even while it perceives. Infinite remains infinite even while it drives the dream. Perception is limitation incarnate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 13:35:58 GMT -5
Infinite or source doesn't have limitations even while it perceives. Infinite remains infinite even while it drives the dream. Perception is limitation incarnate. Not when it has perception. Its only when it believes itself to be something else . |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 13:41:08 GMT -5
In the matrix some of the rules can be bent and some can be broken. But only some!
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 14:53:28 GMT -5
... That's a very important point. I was always assuming you believed in predetermination. Because if you would believe in predetermination, then any talk about deliberate creation would be ultimately meaningless, even though it may be predetermined that you think and feel you create your own reality and whatever you perceive reinforces that belief. But since it all happens in the larger context of predetermination, it would only be a simulation of deliberate creation, not actual deliberate creation. So we have to get very clear about this point. ... Deleted - forum not working! Is there Gremlins today? my post went all cattywampus, strange font and missing chunks out.
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 29, 2022 15:13:56 GMT -5
As limitation incarnate is a bit lustreless I should also say that the manifest is divine expression, at every level.
|
|
