|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 10, 2024 13:09:59 GMT -5
We start our journey believing ourselves to be individuals. This perception arises naturally because it seems like we are looking through our own eyes, seeing a tree over there and another person over here. However, we soon realize that our understanding is flawed; everything moves as one. At that moment, we understand that we are all interconnected. Initially, I thought there was a super consciousness linking all individual minds, orchestrating everything. But when I saw the truth—that the mind, informed by truth, changes reality—I understood that ‘All That Is’ is looking through our eyes. There is no separation like conscious, subconscious, or super consciousness. There is only ‘All That Is,’ perceiving through all points of view. Totally agree. Spoken like a true individual  . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 11, 2024 11:01:53 GMT -5
Popped up on my FB just now, thought of this thread.
Seth/Jane:
''"This leads me rather naturally to my next topic (which concerns our questions about evolution)."
"First of all, there are verbal difficulties having to do with the definition of life. It appears that there is living matter and nonliving matter, leading to such questions as: “How does nonliving matter become living?”"
"There is no such thing, in your terms, as nonliving matter. There is simply a point that you recognize as having the characteristics that you have ascribed to life, or living conditions — a point that meets the requirements that you have arbitrarily set."
"This makes it highly difficult in a discussion, however, for there is no particular point at which life was inserted into nonliving matter. There is no point at which consciousness emerged. Consciousness is within the tiniest particle, whatever its life conditions seem to be, or however it might seem to lack those conditions you call living."
"Give us a moment… If we must speak in terms of continuity, which I regret, then in those terms you could say that life in the physical universe, on your planet, “began” spontaneously in a given number of species at the same time. I am going slowly in order to get the material as clear as possible."
"There were fully developed men — that is, of full intellect, emotion, and will — living at the same time, in your terms, as those creatures supposed to be man’s evolutionary ancestors. Species have come and gone of which you have no knowledge. There are parallel developments. That is, there were “apes” who attained their own “civilizations,” for example. They used tools. They were not men-to-be, nor did they evolve into men."
"It is erroneous to say that they did not develop, or that their progress was stunted, for it was not. Their reality explored the ramifications of animalhood in a completely different fashion. Their development paralleled man’s in many respects, in that they lived simultaneously upon the earth, and shared the environment."
"I have referred to them at various times as animal medicine men, for man did learn from them. The impact of many of my statements of the past goes unrecognized, or perhaps the words sound pat, but there are other conditions of life that you do not perceive, sometimes because your time sequences are too different. Before the smallest cell appeared, in your terms, there was the consciousness that formed the cell."
"In those terms there was a point where consciousness impressed itself into matter through intent, or formed itself into matter. That “breakthrough” cannot be logically explained, but only compared to, say, an illumination — that is, a light everywhere occurring at once, that became a medium for life in your terms. It had nothing to do with the propensity of certain kinds of cells to reproduce, but with an overall illumination that set the conditions in which life as you think of it was possible — and at that imaginary hypothetical point, all species became latent."
"There was no point at which consciousness was introduced, because consciousness was the illumination from which the first cells emerged. That illumination was everywhere then at every point aware of itself, and of the conditions formed by its presence."
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 11, 2024 13:10:51 GMT -5
Popped up on my FB just now, thought of this thread. Seth/Jane: ''..." I wonder what are you making of it (?) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 11, 2024 14:37:44 GMT -5
Popped up on my FB just now, thought of this thread. Seth/Jane: ''..." I wonder what are you making of it (?) It sat easily with me. Though that's not to say that something that sits more 'uneasily' with me has no value for me. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Aug 11, 2024 17:29:42 GMT -5
I am a planet of brain cells, a solar system of neurons and dendritic cells, a galaxy of liver cells, a galaxy clusters of intestinal flora, a galaxy superclusters of nephron cells, a nebulae of red and white blood cells, a milky way of bone and cartilage cells, a cluster supernova of muscle cells. I am a body universe, a micro bubble in space. When ripped, disintegrates into nothingness.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 12, 2024 6:05:15 GMT -5
Popped up on my FB just now, thought of this thread. Seth/Jane: ''"This leads me rather naturally to my next topic (which concerns our questions about evolution)." "First of all, there are verbal difficulties having to do with the definition of life. It appears that there is living matter and nonliving matter, leading to such questions as: “How does nonliving matter become living?”" "There is no such thing, in your terms, as nonliving matter. There is simply a point that you recognize as having the characteristics that you have ascribed to life, or living conditions — a point that meets the requirements that you have arbitrarily set." "This makes it highly difficult in a discussion, however, for there is no particular point at which life was inserted into nonliving matter. There is no point at which consciousness emerged. Consciousness is within the tiniest particle, whatever its life conditions seem to be, or however it might seem to lack those conditions you call living." "Give us a moment… If we must speak in terms of continuity, which I regret, then in those terms you could say that life in the physical universe, on your planet, “began” spontaneously in a given number of species at the same time. I am going slowly in order to get the material as clear as possible." "There were fully developed men — that is, of full intellect, emotion, and will — living at the same time, in your terms, as those creatures supposed to be man’s evolutionary ancestors. Species have come and gone of which you have no knowledge. There are parallel developments. That is, there were “apes” who attained their own “civilizations,” for example. They used tools. They were not men-to-be, nor did they evolve into men." "It is erroneous to say that they did not develop, or that their progress was stunted, for it was not. Their reality explored the ramifications of animalhood in a completely different fashion. Their development paralleled man’s in many respects, in that they lived simultaneously upon the earth, and shared the environment." "I have referred to them at various times as animal medicine men, for man did learn from them. The impact of many of my statements of the past goes unrecognized, or perhaps the words sound pat, but there are other conditions of life that you do not perceive, sometimes because your time sequences are too different. Before the smallest cell appeared, in your terms, there was the consciousness that formed the cell." "In those terms there was a point where consciousness impressed itself into matter through intent, or formed itself into matter. That “breakthrough” cannot be logically explained, but only compared to, say, an illumination — that is, a light everywhere occurring at once, that became a medium for life in your terms. It had nothing to do with the propensity of certain kinds of cells to reproduce, but with an overall illumination that set the conditions in which life as you think of it was possible — and at that imaginary hypothetical point, all species became latent." "There was no point at which consciousness was introduced, because consciousness was the illumination from which the first cells emerged. That illumination was everywhere then at every point aware of itself, and of the conditions formed by its presence." This is pretty close to the Theosophical Society literature I studied at age 17. Mineral consciousness proceeds the mineral kingdom, and forms stars and planets. And then plant consciousness guides the formation of plant life. Same with animals, same with humans. Consciousness is always first. Biologists even know something is wrong with the theory of evolution. Stephen J Gould invented Punctuated Equilibrium to fix the problem. Francis Crick invented Panspermia because he knew there was not enough time for life to have developed from random processes, on Earth, so he had life coming from other planets. And this is a kind of form of the principle of the 100th Monkey. But the 100th Monkey probably works in reverse. 99 monkeys doing the same thing, doesn't form the Morphogenic field, Sheldrake came up with, the Morphogenic field comes first, influences the "99 monkeys". |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 13, 2024 0:06:45 GMT -5
Spoken like a true individual . The "All That Is" is observing through these eyes is uncertain if it also sees through another pair of eyes. The story it witnesses includes characters who might just be figments of its imagination, rather than real individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 13, 2024 11:36:36 GMT -5
Spoken like a true individual . The "All That Is" is observing through these eyes is uncertain if it also sees through another pair of eyes. The story it witnesses includes characters who might just be figments of its imagination, rather than real individuals. Gopal, In India is there a holiday where you wear masks? But never mind, just lay down two masks in front of you, or imagine it, visualize it. Pick up one, lift to your face, look around. Put it down, lift the other to your face, look around. Tell me what you see. This is what Reefs, and some others, have been trying to get you to see, for years. Set the logical, categorizing mind aside, for some things. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 13, 2024 13:19:09 GMT -5
Spoken like a true individual . The "All That Is" is observing through these eyes is uncertain if it also sees through another pair of eyes. The story it witnesses includes characters who might just be figments of its imagination, rather than real individuals. You allude to 'all there is' being something that is uncertain of another. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Like said a hundred million billion, trillion, gazillion times before, Individuality doesn't have to reflect there being others' that reflect separation. For some reason it's something that isn't even contemplated at times. It's really odd. There's obviously a reason, butt odd nevertheless. It would end certain strains of non duality madness in an instant if understood clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 13, 2024 23:43:35 GMT -5
The "All That Is" is observing through these eyes is uncertain if it also sees through another pair of eyes. The story it witnesses includes characters who might just be figments of its imagination, rather than real individuals. Gopal, In India is there a holiday where you wear masks? But never mind, just lay down two masks in front of you, or imagine it, visualize it. Pick up one, lift to your face, look around. Put it down, lift the other to your face, look around. Tell me what you see. This is what Reefs, and some others, have been trying to get you to see, for years. Set the logical, categorizing mind aside, for some things. Please. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 13, 2024 23:44:34 GMT -5
The "All That Is" is observing through these eyes is uncertain if it also sees through another pair of eyes. The story it witnesses includes characters who might just be figments of its imagination, rather than real individuals. You allude to 'all there is' being something that is uncertain of another. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Like said a hundred million billion, trillion, gazillion times before, Individuality doesn't have to reflect there being others' that reflect separation. For some reason it's something that isn't even contemplated at times. It's really odd. There's obviously a reason, butt odd nevertheless. It would end certain strains of non duality madness in an instant if understood clearly. Everything appears to 'All That Is', by the nature of appearance, it can't know whether it is looking via any other view point. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 15, 2024 13:14:25 GMT -5
You allude to 'all there is' being something that is uncertain of another. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Like said a hundred million billion, trillion, gazillion times before, Individuality doesn't have to reflect there being others' that reflect separation. For some reason it's something that isn't even contemplated at times. It's really odd. There's obviously a reason, butt odd nevertheless. It would end certain strains of non duality madness in an instant if understood clearly. Everything appears to 'All That Is', by the nature of appearance, it can't know whether it is looking via any other view point. Do you understand that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Individuality doesn't have to reflect there being others' that reflect separation. Do you understand that this could be so even though you kant prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 15, 2024 23:20:32 GMT -5
Everything appears to 'All That Is', by the nature of appearance, it can't know whether it is looking via any other view point. Do you understand that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Individuality doesn't have to reflect there being others' that reflect separation. Do you understand that this could be so even though you kant prove it. As there are no other individuals anyway. But the point taken here for the discussion is, whether 'Infinite Being' has some other viewpoint like yours. And very obviously it doesn't have the way to know it. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 16, 2024 13:32:14 GMT -5
Do you understand that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Individuality doesn't have to reflect there being others' that reflect separation. Do you understand that this could be so even though you kant prove it. As there are no other individuals anyway. But the point taken here for the discussion is, whether 'Infinite Being' has some other viewpoint like yours. And very obviously it doesn't have the way to know it. Who said anything about 'other' individuals? I said it doesn't have to be one or the other didn't I. You spoke about individual perspectives on the other thread. So why is it so difficult for you to envisage individuality as I have put it across? You disagree then you speak about individuality as I have spoken of it lol. Let me say it again. Individuality doesn't reflect separation. It's something I have spoken about for a decade butt non dualists just put the blinkers on and put their fingers in their ears. Like said. If you understand this, the premise of individuals must equate to illusory separate peeps will fall flat on it's face. The SVP has always been a red herring. It always will be until peeps understand the nature of individuality. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 17, 2024 1:03:12 GMT -5
As there are no other individuals anyway. But the point taken here for the discussion is, whether 'Infinite Being' has some other viewpoint like yours. And very obviously it doesn't have the way to know it. Who said anything about 'other' individuals? I said it doesn't have to be one or the other didn't I. You spoke about individual perspectives on the other thread. So why is it so difficult for you to envisage individuality as I have put it across? You disagree then you speak about individuality as I have spoken of it lol. Let me say it again. Individuality doesn't reflect separation. It's something I have spoken about for a decade butt non dualists just put the blinkers on and put their fingers in their ears. Like said. If you understand this, the premise of individuals must equate to illusory separate peeps will fall flat on it's face. The SVP has always been a red herring. It always will be until peeps understand the nature of individuality. I disagree about separate individual but not with individuated perspective of "All That Is" |
|
.