Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 10:50:30 GMT -5
Most philosophers consider Ludwig Wittgenstein the greatest philosopher of the first half of the 20th century. He was claimed by the Vienna Circle as one of them, they were atheistic. I'm 99% sure Wittgenstein was a closet Christian. He may not have come out of the closet because of shame, because he was in the closet in THAT way too. That's not a secret. When WWI started he left Cambridge and joined the army of his country to fight. During the war he was in a certain city and went into a bookstore there. The only book they had was Tolstoy's Gospel In Brief. Tolstoy was a great authentic Christian. Wittgenstein was later captured and remained a prisoner of war the rest of the war. There, he read over and over The Gospel In Brief. Wittgenstein also completed his first great philosophical work while a prisoner of war. He was able to send it to his teacher at Cambridge, Bertrand Russell who gave it the name Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Almost nobody understood it. Why? Well, for one thing, in describing it Wittgenstein said the most important part was the part not written. Wittgenstein's family was rich, his Father had a made a lot of money. Wittgenstein gave all his money away, most of it to his sister. he didn't even keep enough to give himself a living the remainder of his life. he didn't say why he gave his money away. I'm about 97% sure he gave it away because: it is difficult for a rich man to enter heaven. It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. He quit philosophy because he felt he had solved all the problems of philosophy, he taught elementary school for a while, built a house, that is, was the contractor for building a house for his sister. Then after some years in talking to a friend, he decided he had found another way to do philosophy, so went back to Cambridge to teach. he had a few students and taught in his own room-housing-quarters, a small room. But he sometimes used the NT in his teaching examples. But it's surmising to say Wittgenstein was a Christian, I don't think he ever said or wrote explicitly. So, all that to say, Gopal should not be compelled or even feel compelled to say he is a Christian. Yes. I have a some books about him on my shelf. Wiigenstein. In regards to Gopal, I am visualizing him telling me he is a Christian, so I'm sure it will happen.ππππ Feeling part is important while it comes to manifestation. Feel as if it's real, it will happen for sure  . If you can't create the feeling, then it won't . |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 14, 2023 11:14:27 GMT -5
I was only referring to people I know well, all of whom are long-time seekers. I became curious about this issue many years ago when I discovered that my daughter knew exactly what I was referring to by the term "hard-core sense of selfhood" and my wife did not. I've related this before, but my wife only understood what I was describing after watching the movie "Men In Black." In that science fiction movie there is a scene where an alien in a human body is lying on a gurney. Will Smith touches an odd button on the side of the human's head and the head opens up and reveals the tiny alien sitting at a set of controls that apparently operates the body. My wife turned to me during that scene and said, "Oh, that's the sense of selfhood that you've been talking about!" That scene is a great depiction of the phenomenon! As I say, I don't think anyone would consciously lie. Just that some folks might not be conscious (or present) enough to know what's driving them a lot of the time. Especially when acting reactively which is when we tend to go more unconscious. So I mean they may have no insight into what's going on in their psyche in those instances, so effectively no recollection. Having essentially been not present, hehe. Bit of a pretzel. Anyway, the one's who I consider might ironically be swayed by ego to 'upgrade' themselves, wouldn't be doing so consciously. Interesting question. The user Q once asked me, 'are you still an ego'. My answer was something along the lines, 'yeah and it's a whopper!, but I'm highly conscious of it so it doesn't necessarily have a lot of power'. I would say I predmoninantly tend to vary between 1 and 2 on your 'scale', situationally. Then periodically there have been 'cosmic' experiences where the sense has all but disappeared, albeit temporarily. And there is realisation, which means there is insight into it's merely apparent nature, ever-presently. Along with the circumstance of it's arisal and the depth to which it runs in that capacity. So it's complicated, hehe.
I have to say I'm sceptical about number 3 on your list though. At least as relating to what I might term as enlightenment. Sounds more like Katie Byron's dissociative phase, or just operating highly unconsciously. That's the interesting one. I think that you're probably correct about the unconscious or disassociative aspect of people in category #3. From what I've read in psychology textbooks about human development, there is an attachment phenomenon that occurs early in childhood (such as bonding between a mother and child), and if that doesn't occur, it might explain why some people have no distinct sense of selfhood (or strong center) and why they may look outside of themselves at other people in order to determine how to react to various situations. I've noticed that people in category #3 usually do not identify with particular interests or talents, so the kind of thought structure or neural pathway that neuroscientists call "the default mode network" may not develop in the same way for them as for people with a stronger sense of personal identity. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 14, 2023 12:47:11 GMT -5
I have to say I'm sceptical about number 3 on your list though. At least as relating to what I might term as enlightenment. Sounds more like Katie Byron's dissociative phase, or just operating highly unconsciously. That's the interesting one. I think that you're probably correct about the unconscious or disassociative aspect of people in category #3. From what I've read in psychology textbooks about human development, there is an attachment phenomenon that occurs early in childhood (such as bonding between a mother and child), and if that doesn't occur, it might explain why some people have no distinct sense of selfhood (or strong center) and why they may look outside of themselves at other people in order to determine how to react to various situations. I've noticed that people in category #3 usually do not identify with particular interests or talents, so the kind of thought structure or neural pathway that neuroscientists call "the default mode network" may not develop in the same way for them as for people with a stronger sense of personal identity. It's interesting. Like some sort of external and fluid locus of identity. I've heard that associated with people who inordinately seek approval and validation from others. Which may fit in with your theory about early childhood development. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 14, 2023 20:43:39 GMT -5
Why don't you tell me what the true nature of the cat actually means? You can't. This question inspired me. I asked ChatGPT this question: "If all characters in my dream, seemingly real and individuated, are only ever within my mind and therefore are a part of me, could I be an individuated character in a Cosmic Dreamer's mind? ChatGPT answer: "Yes, the perspective that all characters in your dream, despite appearing real and individuated, are ultimately within your own mind and a part of you can lead to the hypothesis that you might be an individuated character within a Cosmic Dreamer's mind. If we extrapolate from the idea that your dream characters are extensions of your own consciousness, it suggests that you, as an individual, could be a manifestation or expression within the larger framework of a cosmic dreamer's mind. Just as the characters in your dream reflect aspects of your own self, you, as an individuated character, could be a representation of the cosmic dreamer's imagination or creative expression. This viewpoint implies that the cosmic dreamer encompasses and includes all individual experiences and identities. Each being, including yourself, could be considered a unique expression or manifestation within the vast scope of the cosmic dreamer's mind." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 21:07:04 GMT -5
The original teachings.....as presented by the first century authors, right? Paul's writings, which were penned between 48 AD and 52 AD, are the earliest books in the New Testament. He unequivocally stated that Jesus is the Son of God and had no notion of Jesus being God or being born of a virgin. Mark wrote his gospel in 70 AD, and his account aligned with Paul's. Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels around 80 AD and introduced the idea of virgin birth. The gospel of John, written between 90 AD and 120 AD, popularized the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, the teachings gradually deviated from the original doctrine. This reminds me of a common expression in English where if you want to be emphatic about something being true you can say, "it's gospel". So if you want to be awkward you could respond by asking, which one? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 14, 2023 22:25:24 GMT -5
Paul's writings, which were penned between 48 AD and 52 AD, are the earliest books in the New Testament. He unequivocally stated that Jesus is the Son of God and had no notion of Jesus being God or being born of a virgin. Mark wrote his gospel in 70 AD, and his account aligned with Paul's. Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels around 80 AD and introduced the idea of virgin birth. The gospel of John, written between 90 AD and 120 AD, popularized the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, the teachings gradually deviated from the original doctrine. This reminds me of a common expression in English where if you want to be emphatic about something being true you can say, "it's gospel". So if you want to be awkward you could respond by asking, which one? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 14, 2023 22:56:46 GMT -5
Most philosophers consider Ludwig Wittgenstein the greatest philosopher of the first half of the 20th century. He was claimed by the Vienna Circle as one of them, they were atheistic. I'm 99% sure Wittgenstein was a closet Christian. He may not have come out of the closet because of shame, because he was in the closet in THAT way too. That's not a secret. When WWI started he left Cambridge and joined the army of his country to fight. During the war he was in a certain city and went into a bookstore there. The only book they had was Tolstoy's Gospel In Brief. Tolstoy was a great authentic Christian. Wittgenstein was later captured and remained a prisoner of war the rest of the war. There, he read over and over The Gospel In Brief. Wittgenstein also completed his first great philosophical work while a prisoner of war. He was able to send it to his teacher at Cambridge, Bertrand Russell who gave it the name Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Almost nobody understood it. Why? Well, for one thing, in describing it Wittgenstein said the most important part was the part not written. Wittgenstein's family was rich, his Father had a made a lot of money. Wittgenstein gave all his money away, most of it to his sister. he didn't even keep enough to give himself a living the remainder of his life. he didn't say why he gave his money away. I'm about 97% sure he gave it away because: it is difficult for a rich man to enter heaven. It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. He quit philosophy because he felt he had solved all the problems of philosophy, he taught elementary school for a while, built a house, that is, was the contractor for building a house for his sister. Then after some years in talking to a friend, he decided he had found another way to do philosophy, so went back to Cambridge to teach. he had a few students and taught in his own room-housing-quarters, a small room. But he sometimes used the NT in his teaching examples. But it's surmising to say Wittgenstein was a Christian, I don't think he ever said or wrote explicitly. So, all that to say, Gopal should not be compelled or even feel compelled to say he is a Christian. Yes. I have a some books about him on my shelf. Wiigenstein. In regards to Gopal, I am visualizing him telling me he is a Christian, so I'm sure it will happen.ππππ But even if...Gopal would not be a Christian in the ordinary sense. He finds no evidence in the early scriptures that Jesus was God (in the flesh). Gopal would be a Christian in the true sense, "Jesus is our example that we should follow in his steps". That's somewhere in 1st or 2nd Peter. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 15, 2023 8:01:53 GMT -5
Yes. I have a some books about him on my shelf. Wiigenstein. In regards to Gopal, I am visualizing him telling me he is a Christian, so I'm sure it will happen.ππππ Feeling part is important while it comes to manifestation. Feel as if it's real, it will happen for sure . If you can't create the feeling, then it won't . "Pass the dutchie up on the left hand side." π |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2023 9:33:58 GMT -5
Feeling part is important while it comes to manifestation. Feel as if it's real, it will happen for sure . If you can't create the feeling, then it won't . "Pass the dutchie up on the left hand side." π Sure, no problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 18, 2023 9:29:55 GMT -5
Well, unlike you, I don't have to infer the true nature of the cat. But you have to, because your only reference for oneness is NS. If you would have a reference for kensho as well, you wouldn't have to infer the true nature of the cat. So when it comes to creation, this is one example where you lose sight of oneness and argue from a perspective of separation again. Why don't you tell me what the true nature of the cat actually means? You can't. οΌΏοΌΏ γγγ γγοΌοΌγγγ γγγ γγ| γ_γ _ l γ γγ γοΌ` γοΌΏxγ γγ γ /γγγ γ | γγγ /γ γ½γγ οΎ γ γ βγγ|γ|γ| γοΌοΏ£|γγ |γ|γ| γ| (οΏ£γ½οΌΏ_γ½_)__) γδΊγ€ |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 18, 2023 9:31:59 GMT -5
Understood. (Was chatbot involved in this one, I can't quite tell?) Why it is so important if chatBot involved or not? I am communicating my thoughts, that's all. It's not authentic if you use chatbot. We don't want a fake Gopal. We want the real Gopal. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 18, 2023 9:37:07 GMT -5
"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you donβt know how or why. All great discoveries are made in this way." - Albert Einstein I am pretty sure he has directly witness how new creation happens. The line "the solution comes to you and you donβt know how or why" can only be spoken by the one who directly experienced it. New creation is beautiful and it can't be done by individual. It just comes to you. Correct. However, from the perspective of no separation, then the creator is the creation is the created. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 19, 2023 21:27:22 GMT -5
Why don't you tell me what the true nature of the cat actually means? You can't. οΌΏοΌΏ γγγ γγοΌοΌγγγ γγγ γγ| γ_γ _ l γ γγ γοΌ` γοΌΏxγ γγ γ /γγγ γ | γγγ /γ γ½γγ οΎ γ γ βγγ|γ|γ| γοΌοΏ£|γγ |γ|γ| γ| (οΏ£γ½οΌΏ_γ½_)__) γδΊγ€   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 19, 2023 21:27:56 GMT -5
You can read what he wrote there as if he was humoring someone who hasn't had the realizations you described a few days ago. But, of course, that's only if you want to "give him the benefit of the doubt". Let Source will supply the energy for you! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2023 3:07:59 GMT -5
Why it is so important if chatBot involved or not? I am communicating my thoughts, that's all. It's not authentic if you use chatbot. We don't want a fake Gopal. We want the real Gopal. Once I rephrase my text using ChatGPT, I will review it once again. If it retains the same meaning, I will proceed to post it here. In any case, I am the one speaking. |
|
. If you can't create the feeling, then it won't . 
