|
Post by tenka on Sept 24, 2023 6:51:44 GMT -5
I was explaining as to why there is no outer world. If there is no outer world, then what you are looking at is arising out of yourself. In this case, you are the creator of the appearance that you are looking at. But what I was saying earlier was, even though you are a creator, you wouldn't be creating pink elephant to make sure your experience is stable. It's just creation and perception are simultaneous, so you can't say "I will perceive a pink elephant" and then it happens. It's either already happening or it's not. Most can create an appearance of a pink elephant in their imagination. We can all now create a pink elephant juggling fire sticks . Gopal says that the elephant in the walking world is arising out of oneself. It's funny that we can all create an appearance of the juggling pink elephant in one way but not in another . That should be the end of the matter, but Gopal swaps platforms and tries to make it fit that he is creating the grey elephant and not the pink elephant purely down to it not being a stable experience to be had. For myself seeing so called strange things is normal .. that is stable in my eyes . Not stable in another's I dare say .
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 24, 2023 7:54:54 GMT -5
Can there be "creating" without time? Without before and after? Is it an illusion of an illusion?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2023 9:41:06 GMT -5
Can there be "creating" without time? Without before and after? Is it an illusion of an illusion? No. That's like asking can I plant tomato seeds this morning, and have tomatoes, from those seeds, on my salad at lunch, today.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2023 12:09:21 GMT -5
I guess that you meant something else by that, than what I mean. When you say "I will ...", what will happen or not is already established, and you just get conscious about it with a delay manifested in your perception of the physical world. When I ask a question to my inner guide, most of the time I get the reply before finishing to formulate my question. It is like I become conscious of what I want to ask with some delay. It is like I become conscious of a dialogue that happens elsewhere, at another level, and there is some transmission or processing delay until I become aware of it. The intent happens before formulation, before you become conscious of it, and that is what and when creates your physical-reality. You become aware of the physical-reality after the fact. EDIT: - In the "physical-reality is like a video-game" analogy, the game is played at player level, not at game-character level.
- In my view, "creation and perception are simultaneous" is incorrect.
You can't be aware of what happened or what will happen, you can only be aware of what happens now. Since 'this' is 'already here' intent is always future based and is therefore a side effect of reactive tendencies. However, on a more sublime level, intent is more nuanced than we first suppose because will exerted through reactivity is definitively unintentional. On the other hand, one can have 'good intent' such as love and compassion without any volitional urge to make 'This' other than it is. Hencewhy we meditate by 'just observing' having removed reactive tendencies from the mind and thereby ceased to exert volition upon the world. That's like you're just aware of what's happening anyway. However that is done with intent, and even determination, so the intent to cease volition isn't a contradiction in terms, nor is unintentional exertion of will. This isn't accurate. You can be aware of what you experienced, but you can also choose another probable one from the present, and this is what most people unconsciously do. Unconsciously, with an unconscious purpose. It isn't that "there is no physical-time", but that "physical-time isn't what people think it is". It is one of the coordinates of the physical-reality framework, as physical-space, and physical-probability, are too. They define your present, past, and future, in the physical-reality. From your current point, unconsciously and continuously changing, you draw a life-path both as a past and as a future. On the same lines, "there is no cause-effect as people think it is", but that "a present effect could be reached from an endless number of probable causes, and you can actualize any of those". This doesn't mean that it was the past that your personality experienced, which could've been vastly different. Nothing happens to you, but you cause what happens to you, a.k.a. "you create your own reality". Overall, I see things differently than you do as I understand you, which we knew, and it's okay. Just comparing notes.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2023 12:22:16 GMT -5
Can there be "creating" without time? Without before and after? Is it an illusion of an illusion? No. That's like asking can I plant tomato seeds this morning, and have tomatoes, from those seeds, on my salad at lunch, today. But, you can have tomatoes on your salad now, from seeds that you recall having planted whatever "needed" time ago, although you haven't actually done that: you unconsciously changed the past. You don't know it, because of your your beliefs (hypnotized). But, you could eventually unhypnotize yourself. Now you don't recall your past as experienced, but as you unconsciously and continuously re-create it now. There is physical-time, just nor as we're hypnotized into believing it is.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2023 13:10:16 GMT -5
I spoke only on my behalf. Ok no worries .. I am not not sure why you felt the need to say what you did .. Your views, as stated in your post, attracted my attention, so I stated my views on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2023 13:27:29 GMT -5
Can there be "creating" without time? Without before and after? Is it an illusion of an illusion? There is change, motion, action, transformation. This is undeniable. In common perception, this is linear, and happens according to certain rules. There are, however, uncommon modes of perception, and these hint at potential realizations about the nature of space and time. Sometimes people will state these realizations in dramatic terms of a denial of space and time, and there is a reason for that drama. This all happens at the edge of reason, where language and intellect fails. And even the intellect and common experience provide us with these hints. I know these are not news to you, but .. Lorentz, and later Einstein (far more profoundly) both revealed that space and time are interchangeable. This can be understood in far less formal terms by considering the way a film reel operates. In even more common terms, we all know what "time flies when you're having fun" refers to, and how intervals of time seemed longer when we were younger and compress more and more as we age. Tolle used a distinction between "psychological time" and "physical time", which is a good way to hint to people how they create mind-movies, but, of course, there's so much more (really, so much less) to it, than that.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2023 13:45:50 GMT -5
Can there be "creating" without time? Without before and after? Is it an illusion of an illusion? There is change, motion, action, transformation. This is undeniable. In common perception, this is linear, and happens according to certain rules. There are, however, uncommon modes of perception, and these hint at potential realizations about the nature of space and time. Sometimes people will state these realizations in dramatic terms of a denial of space and time, and there is a reason for that drama. This all happens at the edge of reason, where language and intellect fails. And even the intellect and common experience provide us with these hints. I know these are not news to you, but .. Lorentz, and later Einstein (far more profoundly) both revealed that space and time are interchangeable. This can be understood in far less formal terms by considering the way a film reel operates. In even more common terms, we all know what "time flies when you're having fun" refers to, and how intervals of time seemed longer when we were younger and compress more and more as we age. Tolle used a distinction between " psychological time" and "physical time", which is a good way to hint to people how they create mind-movies, but, of course, there's so much more (really, so much less) to it, than that. I call "psychological time" the game-player time, and "physical time" the time as perceived by the game-characters. I'd likely call Tolle's "psychological time" something like "perceived time". The "physical time" is a dimension of the physical reality framework. The "perceived time" is an interpretation of each participant in that framework, and not only human participants.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 24, 2023 17:39:13 GMT -5
You can't be aware of what happened or what will happen, you can only be aware of what happens now. Since 'this' is 'already here' intent is always future based and is therefore a side effect of reactive tendencies. However, on a more sublime level, intent is more nuanced than we first suppose because will exerted through reactivity is definitively unintentional. On the other hand, one can have 'good intent' such as love and compassion without any volitional urge to make 'This' other than it is. Hencewhy we meditate by 'just observing' having removed reactive tendencies from the mind and thereby ceased to exert volition upon the world. That's like you're just aware of what's happening anyway. However that is done with intent, and even determination, so the intent to cease volition isn't a contradiction in terms, nor is unintentional exertion of will. This isn't accurate. You can be aware of what you experienced, but you can also choose another probable one from the present, and this is what most people unconsciously do. Unconsciously, with an unconscious purpose. It isn't that "there is no physical-time", but that "physical-time isn't what people think it is". It is one of the coordinates of the physical-reality framework, as physical-space, and physical-probability, are too. They define your present, past, and future, in the physical-reality. From your current point, unconsciously and continuously changing, you draw a life-path both as a past and as a future. On the same lines, "there is no cause-effect as people think it is", but that "a present effect could be reached from an endless number of probable causes, and you can actualize any of those". This doesn't mean that it was the past that your personality experienced, which could've been vastly different. Nothing happens to you, but you cause what happens to you, a.k.a. "you create your own reality". Overall, I see things differently than you do as I understand you, which we knew, and it's okay. Just comparing notes. You can remember stuff, but can't be aware of what already happened or what's going to happen. You can only be aware of 'this' as it is now. I don't know if your time theory is true or false, but I have no sense that I can change what is current or what happened in the past. The future seems like an as yet unresolved possibility, though.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 24, 2023 17:56:59 GMT -5
It's just creation and perception are simultaneous, so you can't say "I will perceive a pink elephant" and then it happens. It's either already happening or it's not. Most can create an appearance of a pink elephant in their imagination. We can all now create a pink elephant juggling fire sticks . Gopal says that the elephant in the walking world is arising out of oneself. It's funny that we can all create an appearance of the juggling pink elephant in one way but not in another . That should be the end of the matter, but Gopal swaps platforms and tries to make it fit that he is creating the grey elephant and not the pink elephant purely down to it not being a stable experience to be had. For myself seeing so called strange things is normal .. that is stable in my eyes . Not stable in another's I dare say . It's all 'arising' like an aware space and everything is 'watching', but saying someone created it implies a willful creator. It seems to me that perception/creation are one and the same. I look out at the world and it mutually looks back. Will seems omnipresent and in the moment I conceive I already perceive. Yet, I can't say 'Presto' and a pink elephant appears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2023 22:39:01 GMT -5
I was explaining as to why there is no outer world. If there is no outer world, then what you are looking at is arising out of yourself. In this case, you are the creator of the appearance that you are looking at. But what I was saying earlier was, even though you are a creator, you wouldn't be creating pink elephant to make sure your experience is stable. It's just creation and perception are simultaneous, so you can't say "I will perceive a pink elephant" and then it happens. It's either already happening or it's not. yes, yes, that's correct. The whole being creates and perceives at the same time. But the at place where it perceives, it doesn't have any control over what arising. But since it feels like there is a control, whole being creates the reality where we experience the kind of control. Whole being believes the wrong thing and creates the reality accordingly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2023 22:46:30 GMT -5
I was explaining as to why there is no outer world. If there is no outer world, then what you are looking at is arising out of yourself. In this case, you are the creator of the appearance that you are looking at. But what I was saying earlier was, even though you are a creator, you wouldn't be creating pink elephant to make sure your experience is stable. Well there is a picture of a rare pink elephant, so how does that fit in with your stable experience? You see many perceive things that are not common to folk. In these instances this would violate your so called common ground. It's simply not true that you can't create certain appearances based upon your premise. I have seem plenty of extra dimensional appearances that would perhaps blow peoples minds .. You are just saying what you are saying simply because you can't create certain appearances.. Pink Elephant, Black Lion, and Blue Tiger may exist in the cartoon film, and you may see them as such, but are you feeling anything in your reality? You might be able to fly in your dreams, but are you able to fly right now? So why not? This is because we will not be establishing such a reality only to ensure that our experience is stable. We are deeply desiring this reality our experience.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 25, 2023 0:30:58 GMT -5
Well there is a picture of a rare pink elephant, so how does that fit in with your stable experience? You see many perceive things that are not common to folk. In these instances this would violate your so called common ground. It's simply not true that you can't create certain appearances based upon your premise. I have seem plenty of extra dimensional appearances that would perhaps blow peoples minds .. You are just saying what you are saying simply because you can't create certain appearances.. Pink Elephant, Black Lion, and Blue Tiger may exist in the cartoon film, and you may see them as such, but are you feeling anything in your reality? You might be able to fly in your dreams, but are you able to fly right now? So why not? This is because we will not be establishing such a reality only to ensure that our experience is stable. We are deeply desiring this reality our experience. Yes. Not many people realise that 'this' is what they want
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 25, 2023 7:54:41 GMT -5
Can there be "creating" without time? Without before and after? Is it an illusion of an illusion? No. That's like asking can I plant tomato seeds this morning, and have tomatoes, from those seeds, on my salad at lunch, today. Time's a flimsy idea, dependant on who's measuring it. And space too. Mass as well. The only constant is light, it's speed. It seems to be fundamental to everything. This is why this idea of "creating" is dubious, IMO. It's bothersome. Could be just a personal thing, a vasana. Folks who proclaim we create our own reality strike me as self-serving, little self. I remember a leadership seminar my work sent me to where that was the mantra. Reminded me of a cousin, a real conniving, sneaky a-hole. He would always jump me when I wasn't looking and close enough to my parents so they'd hear his screams when I started pounding him. I'd get the belt then. In the seminar, I pointed out that based on that view child molesting and rape are victimless. The seminar did not go well from then on. It's a mystery how this all unfolds, magic. Folks look for simple answers. Haha.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2023 8:39:52 GMT -5
No. That's like asking can I plant tomato seeds this morning, and have tomatoes, from those seeds, on my salad at lunch, today. Time's a flimsy idea, dependant on who's measuring it. And space too. Mass as well. The only constant is light, it's speed. It seems to be fundamental to everything. This is why this idea of "creating" is dubious, IMO. It's bothersome. Could be just a personal thing, a vasana. Folks who proclaim we create our own reality strike me as self-serving, little self. I remember a leadership seminar my work sent me to where that was the mantra. Reminded me of a cousin, a real conniving, sneaky a-hole. He would always jump me when I wasn't looking and close enough to my parents so they'd hear his screams when I started pounding him. I'd get the belt then. In the seminar, I pointed out that based on that view child molesting and rape are victimless. The seminar did not go well from then on. It's a mystery how this all unfolds, magic. Folks look for simple answers. Haha. Bashar (or Darryl) explains it by saying that everything always exists ....all seeming past, present and future, it all exists Now. So nothing moves or changes except our focus which moves through different aspects of what already exists. In this sense, there's no creation. I like that idea, but as much as I like his insight in small chunks, I also find him very contradictory and inconsistent (even what I said in the first paragraph, I can find problems with).
|
|