does reality remain there????????????

[solosthere]

I would think that most of us, if not all, can agree that there is a God, Source, Alah what ever you want to call it!!! I also think we can all agree that God does not waste anything. God turns off the lights when it leaves the room. We all also know that matter is energy. Now if we agree that consiousness give rise to matter, which I think many do. Then we have to ask this question. If I am sitting in my bedroom with the door closed and there is no one else in the house. Is the hallway, bathroom, livingroom, ect. there? If there is no one around to percieve the matter then would it not be a waste of energy to not use that energy somewhere else? Im not saying that we all have a universe unto ourselfs but rather asking if it does not need to be there for a life form to percieve it is it there? Im sure we have all heard of Schrodinger's cat in a box? Tell me what you think!!!

[nf857]

Yes its an interesting theory, i would recommend you read a holographic universe, as it touches on this, but lots of interesting theories as well, very scientific lol! I think if something is solid, its solid in this dimension, so its not so much a waste of energy as its solid matter x

¤=[Post Update]=¤

P.S To be clear in what i meant, its solid matter in this dimension, but could be another type of energy matter in another dimension, hence why beings seem to materialise and de-materialise in strange places at times, so its never being wasted-do you get what i mean? x

[solosthere]

Im just wondering what others think but yes i do but there is no way to ever be sure?????? Like the tree in the woods that fell.

[cloud9]

I wonder myself.... last night I was i my backyard wondering if the neighbors houses really existed at all or they were just my imagination...

[nf857]

I think we do know, science tells us that the universe/earth is composed of matter solid/gas/liquid however this theory touches on qutum phsychics excuse the typo there i know ive not spelt that correctly, if a solid is perceived as such in this dimension that is all it is in this dimension, however it can be any number of things in another dimension, so when close the door, the hallway is still there in the material world, however it may look different to a being not in the material world. When you split an atom in two and watch what they do the both do the exact same thing on opposite sides of the time/space. But they still are doing something? Its just not maybe how we perceive them? Sorry its very techinical science i understand it in my own mind, but getting it down on paper is another matter, i would need to have gone and done a degree to truely put this down in the way my mind understands it x

[alienHunter]

Even in our reality/dimension the only 'real' thing is consciousness. The rest is filler called 'quantum foam'.

But, I suspect if we attempt to live our lives/consciousness in that state of 'mind' we'd be headed for some BIG problems, no?

[Tony]

Nothing in the universe is constant. Things have beginnings, middles and ends.
They therefore have no absolute reality: they do, however, have a relative reality.
What you are looking for has to be constant, never changing.
If a thing truly exists, it can never not exist.
So all things have a seeming reality, which we mistake as being a permanent state because we don't look closely enough to see the constant changes.

We need something provable that is an absolute reality.
That which looks out of your eyes, now, and that which looked out of your eyes when you were very young, has never changed - that pure, inner, conscious space.
Likewise, waving your hand in front of you will not change that outer space.

So the two non-things that are permanent are your pure inner consciousness and outer space.

If I find a third, I'll let you know...I'm toying with mathematical formulae (are they a constant or not?)

Tony

[alienHunter]

Hi pie'n'eal,

Now there's a discussion that could go on for awhile. My personal belief is that no not even mathematical formulae are ALWAYS correct. I hate mathematicians...no, not really. Really, that's just idle speculation but I think EVEN mathematicians will at some point catch up with the mystics.

[nf857]

So i perceive your picture of a bald man who is 65 yes? Can i ask therefore in your beleif that things constantly change when your bald head will change? Sorry i dont mean to offend merely using as an example, you could put a hat on, i could perceive you as different, maybe even that you had hair, however the fact remains that in the material world you do not have hair? Yes? That is a constant/permanent reality and i can think of countless other things other than consiciousness and outer space that are permanent. Of course you change my mind here and say well you could got for hair replacement treatment and the likes, however your consicious constantly changes and adapts to the environment it thrives in x

[another bob]

Tell me what you think!!!

Greetings, Friend!



Your inquiry can be resolved in any of the following 4 ways, and depending on one's angle of vision, they are all valid:


There is an objective world.

There is no objective world.

There both is and isn't an objective world.

There is neither an objective world nor an un-objective world.


Now, does this knowledge grant any sense of real relief from the subtle but chronic sense of contraction you (as in anybody) feel just below the surface of your being, or does it merely pile yet another layer of useless information onto the mountain of hearsay and speculative opinion with which the 3-D mind typically constructs its dreamy world view?


:yo:

[nf857]

So alien hunter, you are saying the only realy thing in the known universe is consiousness? Yes? How does consiousnes knows itself to be real? If nothing else is? x

¤=[Post Update]=¤

What is consiousness comparing itself too thats not real if consiousness itself is the only thing that is? x

[nf857]

Another bob, that is part way of explaining all this, the objective world is a great description, however we are in the real world, that consists of material things made up of particals that are solid,liquid, gas x

[alienHunter]

you got me...even the foam is conscious. There is no duality...only a perceived one. But only one consciousness is all encompassing (in my opinion) that of the creative force. Consciousness from a spiritual perspective can be both discrete and continuous. If you want explanation beyond that, I'll have to defer to a higher consciousness.

[another bob]

Another bob, that is part way of explaining all this, the objective world is a great description, however we are in the real world, that consists of material things made up of particals that are solid,liquid, gas x

Greetings, Friend!

The "real world" is beyond the mind's comprehension!

Now, I realize that doesn't help a materialist very much, but then again, neither does the philosophy of materialism, so there it is, then, eh -- the only real option: going beyond.

:yo:

[nf857]

Foam? Duality? hmmm lost me there. Duality is the idea that two sprits can coinside in one material body? Yes? Its plausible however if there is only one cosciousness, that means that every living thing on the known universe including the fauna, the animals, the solids, liquids and gas all derive from the same thing? Yes? If so there would be no wars, no disagreements only differening opnions from differening perspectives of consiousness? Un-less consious itself likes to kill and harm itself? Looking at consciousness from a spiritual perspective is closing your mind off to other perspectives yes? Higher consiousness i certainly don't beleive in, i beleive there are many things outside of the this material dimension/space and time that we will never understand, with regards measurement they may be above us in time/space, however not above us in consiousness x

[alienHunter]

yeah, that makes sense...but it's our own work...can't blame it on the Godhead...He just stands back and shakes his/her head/chakra/spirit/consciousness (call it what you will) with sadness. Your belief could very well be true...but frankly, I don't think so.

[nf857]

Sorry im finding this topic very hard to come across well and mean well as i truely do, im not debating peoples beliefs only their ideas. Everybody is free to beleive in what they want to beleive in. I myself like to keep a level head in all this, if i can see it,hear it, taste it, smell it, or sense it, then i beleif in it, otherwise no i dont. If a being calls itself a higher being i would say really, how high up in the galaxy are you then? How high up is in earth in relation? lol x

[alienHunter]

I respect that...many people feel as you do.

[nf857]

I dont blame anything on a Godhead/Consiousness/Source, im responsible for myself, im a free-thinking individual with my own thoughts in my own head. x

[meat suit]

hi solosthere,

thats a thought provoking idea......
you know on a hard drive, say its written full of data, this data stays on it until something overwrites it. it just 1's and O's arranged in one or the other way.
so if there was a limitation to the amount of 'reality data' being manifested, then maybe this is where 'decay' removes stuff for recycling .....
maybe thats why everything needs constant maintainance ......

[nf857]

Hi Friend,

Im not a materialist, in fact material is a common word we use to describe something in the here and now,but it is in reality, when you recycle something it just transforms into something else that is real, im a realist. Forgive me if im wrong, but materialists are people who prize their posessions as there greatest assets on the planet. I think its great that we all hold different beliefs/values etc etc, thats what makes us individuls, not part of one collective consious, this only confirms my way of thinking. I beleive we all have our individual consious, however i dont think all that different consious make up one whole, take the hologram theory as an example of how all this works. x

[nf857]

PPS Contrary to beliefs of the NWO, as much as the theory goes that they are brainwashing us into their agendas/goals at the end of the day, we still hold our own beleifs, regardless of how controlled those beleifs may become, you cant change a free-thinking individual 100% into part of a collective consious, all though i think that is the big picture here, thats what they want us to be so they can have that control, proclaim thereselves as higher than us, make us think we arnt responsible for ourselves, make us think we can't think for ourselves, or act for ourselves and need a higher power to help us, or organisation i.e. a church, with its rules, a school with its rules, a job with its rules etc etc! However we have our identity so no matter what we beleive to be true, we will always have our material bodies-identities to distinguish us from each other x

[another bob]

The world you perceive is made of consciousness; what you call matter is consciousness Itself.
You are the space in which it moves, the time in which it lasts, the love that gives it life.

~Sri Nisargadatta


:yo:

[Mulder]

Just a short note to say I DO believe in a higher power, and also in a Matrix that surrounds us & we can access like David Icke calls the "wireless Internet", or Karl Jung called the "Universal Uncounsciousness". Evidence I believe supports this is the 100 Monkey Syndrome - where monkeys on another Island learn the same things with no training as trained monkeys on different Islands.

[aranuk]

I would think that most of us, if not all, can agree that there is a God, Source, Alah what ever you want to call it!!! I also think we can all agree that God does not waste anything. God turns off the lights when it leaves the room. We all also know that matter is energy. Now if we agree that consiousness give rise to matter, which I think many do. Then we have to ask this question. If I am sitting in my bedroom with the door closed and there is no one else in the house. Is the hallway, bathroom, livingroom, ect. there? If there is no one around to percieve the matter then would it not be a waste of energy to not use that energy somewhere else? Im not saying that we all have a universe unto ourselfs but rather asking if it does not need to be there for a life form to percieve it is it there? Im sure we have all heard of Schrodinger's cat in a box? Tell me what you think!!!

You ask " If I am sitting in my bedroom with the door closed and there is no one else in the house. Is the hallway, bathroom, livingroom, ect. there?" I think they are there whether you can see them or not. The world IZ. Just because nobody is seeing them doesn't mean they vanish. I must revisit Deeprak Chopra's videos explaining this. If my memory serves me at all I think he says that they do indeed vanish.
Great question BTW and welcome to Avalon kiddo!
Stan

[nf857]

Hi Yes,

Consious can produce material things in any dimension it wants, however once its produced these things, it maybe doesnt like what these things do? I.E Satan for those of you who are religious, bad souls for those of you who are spiritual, defunct designs for those who are scientific/ rogue agents/viruses for those of you who are technoligically minded . If we once belonged to one source/consicouness then we are sent into the material world to understand this so we can therefore join it again?

What if we are just here, born and then we die, thats it-thats all there is? x

[nf857]

PPS If all there is, is consiousness again i ask the question, how does consiousness know about itself? It it has nothing to compare itself too? Real/Unreal. Its a lovely neat theory but does not answer itself entirely. If there is only one thing that can ever only be conceived at the 1 true real thing to exist, then that 1 true thing would not exist and would not be real would it? Or would at least need another real thing to compare itself to as being real? Im putting myself in god/source/creations point of view here, and if i was god/source/creation/consious and the 1 and only i would need something else as mighty to compare myself to this proclaiment otherwise how would i know i was real? x

[nf857]

PPPS hence god made man in his imagination, a figment of his imagination, in other words, nothing can only ever be nothing, nothing can only be all there ever was, ever can be and ever will be and i dont beleive we are all nothing all the fauna, life, energy, natural resources, had to start from somewhere, and that somewhere is something we will never know, because not even sourse knows? i hope you understand my meanings x

[nf857]

Last post on this, my understanding is there is not a start,middle,end, there is just inifinty, the figure of 8. Thats why we can got back in time, forward in time, sideways in time, the one thing we cant do is ever get out of time. Sure our material bodies die out, thats when we are locked in time, or our spiritual bodies can be locked into one timeframe, however if we beleive in reincarnation and the many other msytical teachings about life/soul, we just recycle that soul back to its original form or back into another material body. We can step sideways and end up in another dimension, we can go forwards and end up in the year 2030 or go back to the year 1. There is no higher power, no source, no godhead,it just is, no words in the english language can express what is is in its greatness. x

[Jenci]

I would think that most of us, if not all, can agree that there is a God, Source, Alah what ever you want to call it!!! I also think we can all agree that God does not waste anything. God turns off the lights when it leaves the room. We all also know that matter is energy. Now if we agree that consiousness give rise to matter, which I think many do. Then we have to ask this question. If I am sitting in my bedroom with the door closed and there is no one else in the house. Is the hallway, bathroom, livingroom, ect. there? If there is no one around to percieve the matter then would it not be a waste of energy to not use that energy somewhere else? Im not saying that we all have a universe unto ourselfs but rather asking if it does not need to be there for a life form to percieve it is it there? Im sure we have all heard of Schrodinger's cat in a box? Tell me what you think!!!


How about before asking this question, you establish if the person asking the question is real.

So are you real?

I don't mean your body, I mean the person which is Solosthere and is asking the question.
What happens when you look for this person?
In the looking for this person, does the sense of this person remain or fade?



Jeanette

[nf857]

Hi Jeanette,

Good post btw, he is real or the person who answer in this name is real, however he might be busy doing something else right now x

[Jenci]

Hi Jeanette,

Good post btw, he is real or the person who answer in this name is real, however he might be busy doing something else right now x

Thank you and welcome to Avalon.

Most of us have never questioned whether we are real. We take for granted our existence as the person - in my case Jeanette.
Jeanette asks questions and wonders if reality still exists outside a closed door.
Rather than finding the answer what happens if I look to see if Jeanette exists?


Only the individual can find this out for themself. If we have never looked for ourselves before, then we need to really look to see if we are real or we fade in the looking, otherwise we automatically answer from the conditioned mind which says Yes.

Jeanette

[Bollinger]

I would think that most of us, if not all, can agree that there is a God, Source, Alah what ever you want to call it!!! I also think we can all agree that God does not waste anything. God turns off the lights when it leaves the room. We all also know that matter is energy. Now if we agree that consiousness give rise to matter, which I think many do. Then we have to ask this question. If I am sitting in my bedroom with the door closed and there is no one else in the house. Is the hallway, bathroom, livingroom, ect. there? If there is no one around to percieve the matter then would it not be a waste of energy to not use that energy somewhere else? Im not saying that we all have a universe unto ourselfs but rather asking if it does not need to be there for a life form to percieve it is it there? Im sure we have all heard of Schrodinger's cat in a box? Tell me what you think!!!

Philosophy asks very interesting questions and on failing to answer them with anything like the kind of universal consensus that the material sciences enjoy, wraps and entangles itself in needless complexity.

On the subject of whether or not something exists when we are not observing it, the matter can easily be settled simply by applying the same logic and common sense we apply in almost all physical situations (sometimes without even thinking) that gets us through the day. Why this should suddenly seize to be the case because we’ve come up with an interesting question can be nothing but idle curiosity.

Here is my proposition. If you are sitting in your bedroom with the door closed and cannot see the bathroom or the landing outside, you have to consider what it is that connects you to those other places. In this case, I would guess you have horizontal struts that run underneath the floor boards which act as the support for both your bedroom floor as well as the floor outside which you cannot see. The very fact that you are able to sit in your bedroom is the final result of a long chain of things that must be in place before it can happen.

People sometimes use a different example. If a bird sings in the forest and no one is there to witness it, is the bird really singing? If we cannot hear it sing, can we assume it exists? If you can name at least one connection from your locality to the place where the event is happening which gives rise to the possibility of existence by association, that provides us with the intellectual license to assume the bird is truly singing even if no one is there to hear it.

So our question must be centred on the nature of this “possibility”. What exactly is it? If I can be convinced of my own existence and there is a connection between me and everything else, everything becomes instantly possible with a probability attached to it. The probability is driven by many things such as locality, terrain, physical laws and other universal considerations that perhaps we don’t yet know about. In our world, the connections are generally physical. In other words, I can draw a line on the physical ground from my feet all the way to the coordinates of where the bird is singing. This connection can be said to be continuous (i.e. I don’t suddenly come across something around which I cannot go). If the connection exists, so does the possibility.

Let’s go into space. What physical connection do we have between one star and another that should give rise to the possibility of either one existing? The answer is space itself. It must be a physical connection (i.e. it is not absolute nothing). So there you have it. The possibility of existence (in all its glory) is afforded by the connection that permeates everything. In the physical world it is knows as space and if you wanted to start getting cute, you could call it space-time.

If the universe comprises nothing but physical (i.e. 3-dimensional considerations), do we have any cause to think there might be realms (quite different from our universe) that exist with connections other than the one we know and love, that is, space. Here one has nothing but experience and opinion to fall back on. If you have access to a world that allows you to fly and communicate telepathically with other entities, clearly that realm isn’t the same as this one. The closest experience to such a thing that I can boast is when dreaming. The physical laws that hold so true in our waking world are no longer valid and so other possibilities are open to us. The connection isn’t space but something else. One can only speculate as to the nature of the possibilities when the nature of the connection is different and so it doesn’t surprise me in the least that people report all sorts of weird and wonderful experiences that most of us can only imagine. This part, i.e. beyond the physical, at least to me since I haven’t experienced it, is a complete mystery.

[Adi]

I wonder myself.... last night I was i my backyard wondering if the neighbors houses really existed at all or they were just my imagination...

Hahah love it :)

[alienHunter]

Hi Bollinger,

That's a great reality check...but it seems I remember physical possibilities that suggest if something goes unobserved then it is within the realm of quantum probability to be in an undetermined state. Just a thought...gotta run...

[nf857]

Hi Jeanette,

Totally lost me in this theory, if i go outside my door now looking to see if the hall exists, and i find out the hall exists still, ive found my answer to the question. The hall being a space outside of myself, i know exist otherwise i would be looking in the first place? x

¤=[Post Update]=¤

typo sorry i know i exist otherwise i would not be looking for the hall in the first place? Chicken before egg/egg before chicken, infinity x

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Bollinger . It Is they have never been very good works to ecompass what it or is -IS LOL x

¤=[Post Update]=¤

words i meant typo ha ha i do a lot of these due to having neurological problems but people will get used to that from me on here lol x

[Bollinger]

Hi Bollinger,

That's a great reality check...but it seems I remember physical possibilities that suggest if something goes unobserved then it is within the realm of quantum probability to be in an undetermined state. Just a thought...gotta run...
There's no need to run off. The operative phrase in your statement is "undertermined state". I don't actually know what you mean by that but we are talking about a very two-sided concept of whether something exists or not. Its state (determined or not) doesn't really come into it as far as I've understood it.

[solosthere]

Wow I was just asking a hypothtical question but I love the replies U all gave all of them as correct as the next for the consiousness is the only thing is truely real and therefore your consious belief is what is true for you. If the consiousness is all that is real then what each of us percieve as real is real for that person. It is a question just like the cat theortical in it nature. That I have though about alot. Personally I think the answer that is correct for you is correct but maybe it is only correct for you.

[alienHunter]

I see,

Not a state of existence or non-existence...an unknown state/undetermined. I'm neither a physicist or a mystic, but I enjoy your perspective.

This might have been your point but I realized it would have been more appropriately termed non-determined as opposed to undetermined. It's been awhile since I've exercised my brain in that regard. I've been stuck thinking about my job which is ok I suppose.

[solosthere]

Hi there jenci. I know that my consiousness is real but I can not speak to anything else about myself. I am the 1 person who can never see "ME" I am condemmed to looking a mirror and for all I know that isnt real either

[Bollinger]

Wow I was just asking a hypothtical question but I love the replies U all gave all of them as correct as the next for the consiousness is the only thing is truely real and therefore your consious belief is what is true for you. If the consiousness is all that is real then what each of us percieve as real is real for that person. It is a question just like the cat theortical in it nature. That I have though about alot. Personally I think the answer that is correct for you is correct but maybe it is only correct for you.
That is the great conundrum. If you say something like “what you believe is true for you”, you have effectively ended the discussion. Why? If the aim is to never reach a consensus, there is no point in any endeavour to learn or understand. I say apples are great, you say they are horrible. In that case, it doesn’t matter. If you say sound travels at the speed of light and I say it is much slower, that most definitely does matter for obvious reasons.

[nf857]

Hi Solosthere,

I think if thats what you beleive that we all are right in our one consious source according to your theory yes, considering that in your thought form consious that is your beleif. However it is completly contracditory, therefore why people will never get the answers to such big questions. However my biggest question that nobody has ever been able to answer for me is, if there is just one form of conscious/one source/one real thing & everything else is not real? How does source knows its real? Im not trying to change your beleif, but this is the major flaw in beleiving there is one thing in the whole universe that is real x

[Jenci]

i know i exist otherwise i would not be looking for the hall in the first place?


You assume you know you exist. That's what I was saying - this is our conditioned automatic assumption.

I'm suggesting that before asking the question if reality exists outside the door, how about establishing first if the person who asks the question exists.
Jeanette

[solosthere]

jenci quite the oppisite I dont think I exist. I dont think any of us really do except for our thought. The material is just a matter of percieving matter/energy. The thought is the only thing is true for me and that is all that should be true for any of you. For all any of you know I am "god" jiust messing with your minds. Which takes me to the next thing I feel we are all god and god is all of us at all time. I think that is what Christ meant when he said I am in the father and the father is in me.

[Jenci]

I agree, yes we are all God.


jenci quite the oppisite I dont think I exist.
So if you don't exist, why the question about whether reality exists outside the door?
Where does this question come from?

Some more good questions to ask :)
Keep looking within.
Jeanette

[solosthere]

its just something I have thought about...... I like phylosiphy there are no answers right or wrong. Its just the way my mind works i guess

[nf857]

The greatest philosphical motto i ever heard was 'i think, therefore i am' I EXIST, I AM lol x

[ROMANWKT]

Try these if they make more sense to you nf857

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15834-Its-all-nonsense-part-1


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?32896-MANIFESTING-IN-THE-MATRIX-its-all-nonsense-part-2

Regards to all
roman

[Tony]

Finding yourself, is an impossibility.
Not finding a self, is possible.

If you find a self, kill it.

That which seeks to find, is already found,
That which keeps looking will never be found.

If you find a self, kill it.

Do you have a soul?
Are there two of you?

If you find a self, kill it.

Do you have a higher self?
Are there two of you?

if you find a self, kill it.

You are not your body.
You are not your thoughts.
You are not anything.
You are just...pure awareness.
Nothing more, nothing less.

When you realise this,
The killing can stop!

[markpierre]

You can experience that if you want to. The answer to all those questions is yes. But you've misidentified reality.

Here's a way to say it that might fit some of the ideologies.

It's illusion when your looking at it. So what would it be if you weren't looking at it?

[Tony]

So i perceive your picture of a bald man who is 65 yes? Can i ask therefore in your beleif that things constantly change when your bald head will change? Sorry i dont mean to offend merely using as an example, you could put a hat on, i could perceive you as different, maybe even that you had hair, however the fact remains that in the material world you do not have hair? Yes? That is a constant/permanent reality and i can think of countless other things other than consiciousness and outer space that are permanent. Of course you change my mind here and say well you could got for hair replacement treatment and the likes, however your consicious constantly changes and adapts to the environment it thrives in x

Dear nf
Good questions!
I understand what you are saying...but all phenomena constantly change! If you take any object - including my bald head - and speed up time so that a million years happen in a second, it will disappear. Things are constantly deteriorating and being created.
They therefore have no permanent reality.
Our ideas about phenomena change, and therefore also don't have any permanent reality.
But that which is aware can never change - otherwise we would be in total confusion for ever, and there would be no such thing as enlightenment (a totally unconfused state).
If we believe that we have just this lifetime, then all this is irrelevant...but if we can see that we are not the physical body, then this changes one's view entirely.
All the best
Tony

[nf857]

You assume you know you exist. That's what I was saying - this is our conditioned automatic assumption.

I'm suggesting that before asking the question if reality exists outside the door, how about establishing first if the person who asks the question exists.
Jeanette

Hi Jeanette, in my view i don't assume i exist, i know i exist, otherwise i would not exist, therefore would not be typing now to you or speaking to my loved one or anything else that i do in this space.

Your question above establishing whether first the person exists, the question would not be there if the person was not asking? Its a chicken/egg conundrum. I.E. Does the hall exist? Well as the hall was built by man, man has to exist, therefore man came before the hall, the hall would not exist if man was not there to build it with earthbound materials.

Nic

[nf857]

I understand what you are saying...but all phenomena constantly change! If you take any object - including my bald head - and speed up time so that a million years happen in a second, it will disappear. Things are constantly deteriorating and being created.
They therefore have no permanent reality.
Our ideas about phenomena change, and therefore also don't have any permanent reality.
But that which is aware can never change - otherwise we would be in total confusion for ever, and there would be no such thing as enlightenment (a totally unconfused state).
If we believe that we have just this lifetime, then all this is irrelevant...but if we can see that we are not the physical body, then this changes one's view entirely.
All the best
Tony

Hi Tony,

Im so pleased you did not take offense with my example, my partner is rather short on top too & i love bald men, they seem to be the most intelligent, wise men ive known lol!

Your theories are hypothetical, phenomena is that which can't be explained by todays sciences, so therefore becomes the strange/weird/ wonderful, & we can hypothisize about what it is and it brings up thousands of questions for all walks of life to debate about whether your are sceintifical minded, philosophicaly minded, religiously minded, mathematically minded, technoligically minded, they are all just theories, that can't be proven beyond doubt. I deal in terms of the here and now, so if you speeded up time yes your bald head would change, however you would cease to exist, depending how far in the future time/space you went, your bald head would still be there or you would cease to exist in this time space and maybe jump into your next life.

I beleive that we are inifinity, no start,no middle, no end- the figure of 8.If we re-incarnate into the material world in a human body or any other material body be it animal/alien, we are just recycling our soul. If you beleive in enlightenment, this would mean going beyond this inifinity of existence in the material realm and advancing into an astral body or another form x

[solosthere]

So what is every1's conclusion..... Does "God" turn the lights off? Personal I have to believe that if an illision (reality) does not need to exist then why would it? You say that man came before the hall. However I would say that God came b4 man and therefore GOD bullt the hall not man. The hall is built by GOD through man for man's use but only when man needs the hall. I can say this if I build something for some1 and then they dont need well I would take that apart and use it else where and recycle it. If the spirit of man is created in GOD's image and man's true nature is not to waste but to recycle then is that not GOD's nature??? We can see this true nature in the American Indians before they were corrupted by the white man. They took only what was needed and used it all no waste!!!!!! This same attitude is seen in other hunter gather cultures.

[Jenci]

So what is every1's conclusion..... Does "God" turn the lights off? Personal I have to believe that if an illision (reality) does not need to exist then why would it? You say that man came before the hall. However I would say that God came b4 man and therefore GOD bullt the hall not man. The hall is built by GOD through man for man's use but only when man needs the hall. I can say this if I build something for some1 and then they dont need well I would take that apart and use it else where and recycle it. If the spirit of man is created in GOD's image and man's true nature is not to waste but to recycle then is that not GOD's nature??? We can see this true nature in the American Indians before they were corrupted by the white man. They took only what was needed and used it all no waste!!!!!! This same attitude is seen in other hunter gather cultures.


Hi Solosthere
How about - God is the lights, God is also man, God is also the hall and God is also the building which occurs.
When we realise this, is there a question which asks about turning off lights?


...and I think if we were all perceiving life from the reality of our true nature, then the world would look a very different place, indeed.
Jeanette

[Jenci]

Hi Jeanette, in my view i don't assume i exist, i know i exist, otherwise i would not exist, therefore would not be typing now to you or speaking to my loved one or anything else that i do in this space.


Hi Nic
The knowledge that you exist, is your sense of self - Nic. This sense of self you have as Nic is always changing. It's impermanent. You think it is real, because it's never occurred to you to think otherwise. Like the rest of us, you have also experienced tremendous programming from the PTB to constantly reinforce this idea that you are your sense of self - Nic.

But this is not true. This sense of self does not exist as reality. The reason why I suggested that you look for for the person who is asking the questions, this sense of self called Nic, is that if you do this....and look really hard, the sense of self will change in the looking. The more you look, the more it will fade. This is the false self.

If you can observe this, then you can ask the next question, "What is aware of this?"
What is here which observes the changing and coming and going of the sense of self - Nic?
You will notice that this Awareness is constant, unlike the sense of self- Nic.
This is the real Self.

The more you become this Awareness which is real, constant, unchanging, the more you discard the false sense of self - Nic - as Tony was saying "kill the self"

This is not easy for the mind to understand. But spending quiet and still time exploring these questions, allows Reality to emerge.
Jeanette

[solosthere]

Jenci i agree with you on the idea GOD is all; the universe is gods way expieriencing the idea of "I AM" . If you were the "all" and had nothing to compare yourself to then how could u say "I AM". So, if we believe the universal consious and if "God" is "all" then "the hall" must exist at all times for god is percieving at all time even if only from the point of view of a bacteria. So, at no time is there not consiousness within "the hall'. Futher if you were to sterilize "the hall" it would still be there. For is god experienceing the being of "the hall".

[Jenci]

Jenci i agree with you on the idea GOD is all; the universe is gods way expieriencing the idea of "I AM" . If you were the "all" and had nothing to compare yourself to then how could u say "I AM".
Perfect.



So, if we believe the universal consious and if "God" is "all" then "the hall" must exist at all times
Time is just the mind's way of putting everything into order. Minds are like that, they tend to like everything ordered and labelled into boxes.
Reality is that there is only this moment, here right now.




So, at no time is there not consiousness within "the hall'.
Yes :)

If not, where does consciousness end?
We can point to the outside edge of our body, but where is the outside edge or boundary to our consciousness?
Does our consciousness end at the shut door?
Or are we conscious of a hallway outside the door?
If so, are we conscious of a front door to our home?
What about the road we live in? does our consciousness extend that far?
Are we conscious of our town we live in? the country we live in?
Are we still conscious of it or have we reached the limit of our consciousness?
What about the world, are we conscious of it?
Are we conscious of space, planets, stars?

Where does consciousness stop? Where is its boundary or limit?

If I can't find a limit to what I am conscious of, is it infinite?

If this consciousness is here now - I am it and it is infinite...

then What Am I ?

Jeanette

[nf857]

Reality is that there is only this moment, here right now.

Hi Jeanette, reality is not all there is. Conscious/sub-consious two separte realities just in the mind itself. However i will not ever be convinced that there is just one thought form who created all this, its a nice theory, however it only fits that which you want to belief. If you listen to this teaching/disisplin/doctrin which is a very arrogant being btw, you are handing yourself over to a beleif that you are not responsible for yourself or another's life as GOD/SOURCE/CONSIOUSNESS is! Its a doctrine, its no different that going to church or any other cult known to man and listening to just one perspective. If One Consiousness/God/Source is all there is, then how does it know it exists? Seen as though it has no other to compare to? x

[nf857]

This is not easy for the mind to understand. But spending quiet and still time exploring these questions, allows Reality to emerge.
Jeanette

Reality does not emerge, it already existed, reality is no more real if i type on a computer, go into a dreamstate, access the astral plane in meditation, with my mind quiet, have an out of body experience. I still exist on no matter whan plane of existance i exist in x

[wolf_rt]

Do you have a better theory nf857? There is an increasing body of 'hard' evidence to suggest what Jeanette says is true...

[nf857]

Hi Roman,

I understand it perfectly & i dont need to read all of those two documents to understand it, its the belief that only one source called conscious is real & we are just a part of it, nothing else is real! I think if you watch the matrix it basically explains this theory, & also shows its not true, thats what NEO fights x

[nf857]

Hi Wolf,

Do you have a better theory nf857? There is an increasing body of 'hard' evidence to suggest what Jeanette says is true...

What HARD evidence? Its just a theory, even with the little science we know about it, scientists will tell you this......My theory is that life & everything on it is infinity-the figure of 8! We can go back in time, forward in time, sideways in time, diagnoally in time, and many other ways in time, we can go into a different dimension in a different form, however we still ARE we still EXIST, anything that teaches me i dont exist or that im just part of the BIG DADDY's existence i will refute, as i am far more than my body, my mind, my ego, my intelligence, my personality, my character, everything, & anything that purports to be above all that and more, would have to show me x

[nf857]

So in answer to your question Wolf, my theory IS just IS, there is no explanation for IS, it just IS however IS has to have many other lifeforms and existence to view it x

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Not explaning myself well here what i mean is we will never know in this level plain of existenance, & even if we go off-world or in another dimension, its just another plain of existence, until i could reach a higher state of existence maybe like the GOD people talk about i could join it, in my own level of existence & my own place in space/time and tell you x

[Jenci]

If you listen to this teaching/disisplin/doctrin which is a very arrogant being btw, you are handing yourself over to a beleif that you are not responsible for yourself or another's life as GOD/SOURCE/CONSIOUSNESS is! Its a doctrine, its no different that going to church or any other cult known to man and listening to just one perspective.

Hi nf857

Of course you don't have to agree with me here but this is the Spirituality section of the forum and this is what we discuss here. It's important to a lot of us here as part of the awakening of the whole human race.

It's not everyone's cup of tea but there are plenty of other sections on this forum to accommodate all. I'm happy to discuss this topic with anyone but I am not interested in having a debate as to whether it is right or wrong.
Debating about beliefs has gone on for centuries and no-one has ever won.
Jeanette

[ulli]

yeah, that makes sense...but it's our own work...can't blame it on the Godhead...He just stands back and shakes his/her head/chakra/spirit/consciousness (call it what you will) with sadness. Your belief could very well be true...but frankly, I don't think so.

Why project sadness at the Godhead?
If I was giving birth (been there, done that...) and had a midwife who projected negative emotions at me,
and was sad for me in my suffering I would look for a different midwife.
I would want to be cheered in such a process, with full faith in a positive outcome.

[nf857]

It's not everyone's cup of tea but there are plenty of other sections on this forum to accommodate all. I'm happy to discuss this topic with anyone but I am not interested in having a debate as to whether it is right or wrong.
Debating about beliefs has gone on for centuries and no-one has ever won.
Jeanette

Hi Jeanette, the debate was whether reality exists & beliefs are just beleifs whatever form they come in, so in my view, thats what peoples beliefs are about, they can change on a day to day basis, hence the reasons for debate, just becuase this section is about spiritual beliefs, does not mean that only people who belief in one view are welcome. My belief embraces all spiritual/scientific,mathematical & philosophical as i have always thought there is more to life than meets the eye, i just dont beleive in just ONE GOD is all there is x

[wolf_rt]

the evidence as i see it, comes from the many scientists who say that all matter is energy, hence all reality is energy, hence all energy is one... i cant really put it better than that.. i'm no scientist...lol.

if you move in time... are you in the past? or the now?
you can't touch the past from now... and if you went back or forward in time, anything you touched would be the nowfor you at that time. So for YOU, only the now ever exists. Therefore time doesn't exist.

so did 'you' create me? 'I' don't think so. did 'you' create 'you'?


as i am far more than my body, my mind, my ego, my intelligence, my personality, my character,
if 'you' are more than that, then what is all that stuff? you? and 'who' is more?

WHO is aware of this thing you call 'you'?

If there is more than one god, who made 'them'?

[nf857]

the evidence as i see it, comes from the many scientists who say that all matter is energy, hence all reality is energy, hence all energy is one... i cant really put it better than that.. i'm no scientist...lol.

Yes that only explains that we all made of energy, but not all energy is one, as a scientist would tell you there are many things in life that do not act as whole. Like myself im unique, i dont act as a whole collective energy source, im far more than that, hence the un-explained/phenomena/weird and wonderful!!!

Also you need to understand time/space if you move back in time, you are actually back in that timeline, in the same space? !!!!

So did 'you' create me? No i dont think so, your praternal parents did. No i didn't create 'Me' my parents did whilst making love, its simple biology which is definitly 100% fact that can be proven, un-like the hypothetical beliefs we like to help make sense of this world x I am aware of this thing i call 'ME' as i am a being in existence on the material plain x

[wolf_rt]

if you move back in time you are in your NOW... the only thing we ever experience is now.

you have already stated that you believe in life after death... so if your parents created 'you', you don't believe in reincarnation.

nobody is trying to say we're not individuals while incarnated on this planet, or even after, possibly ever... but if you believe in a creator (and i don't see how you can't, 'who' made the space for this big bang to happen in?) then you ARE a part of him, in one way or another, and hence 'part' of the 'one'

[nf857]

if 'you' are more than that, then what is all that stuff? you? and 'who' is more?

nobody is more we are all equal, however anything that is more than me, is still me, just me that has not been realised.

If there is more than one god, who made 'them'? -made me laugh with this one, that is the questions i used to ask in church when i was 5!!! Hence why i don't beleive in one god, exactly who made god? If you beleive in A GOD - you would need to ask them that question wouldnt you? As i dont beleive in there being a 1 GOD or 1 anything i shant be asking x

[nf857]

if you move back in time you are in your NOW... the only thing we ever experience is now. - NO i am in my past, there is still a ME in my NOW!!!

you have already stated that you believe in life after death... so if your parents created 'you', you don't believe in reincarnation. I beleive in reincarnation, but to be re-incarnated/created we need our parents as that vessel, its a random event, its a miracle called life!!!

nobody is trying to say we're not individuals while incarnated on this planet, or even after, possibly ever... but if you believe in a creator (and i don't see how you can't, 'who' made the space for this big bang to happen in?) then you ARE a part of him, in one way or another, and hence 'part' of the 'one' -Yes and No, i beleive that for something to exist it has to have come from another something, without that something there is only nothing, presumably if you beleive in just ONE something you are saying that ONE something, created itself from NOTHING!!! Chicken/Egg conundrum again!!! If you beleive in ifinity as in No beginning/No Middle/No End- the figue of 8 which is attached to our DNA Codes, then it answers itself, IS just IS x

[wolf_rt]

who made god? lol... that is a sticking point, and not something i expect to find the answer to soon :-)

don't get too set in your beliefs, or you wont get much out of life. (not trying to pick on you here... but you seem a little rigid, this is a place of learning.)

“It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning.”~ Claude Bernard

anyway.. i'm off to bed...later mate.

[nf857]

who made god? lol... that is a sticking point, and not something i expect to find the answer to soon :-)

don't get too set in your beliefs, or you wont get much out of life. (not trying to pick on you here... but you seem a little rigid, this is a place of learning.)

No it seems my views do not fit into the rigid view that there is just one GOD on this forum not that i am rigid? I can off this topic & into many more beliefs that are not proven & i would say the same on those topics, until something is proven without a shawdow of doubt everything is upto for debate, its a free for all, hence why we have our own free wills, not a will belonging to A ONE GOD/SOURCE!!! x

[ROMANWKT]

who made god? lol... that is a sticking point, and not something i expect to find the answer to soon :-)

don't get too set in your beliefs, or you wont get much out of life. (not trying to pick on you here... but you seem a little rigid, this is a place of learning.)

No it seems my views do not fit into the rigid view that there is just one GOD on this forum not that i am rigid? I can off this topic & into many more beliefs that are not proven & i would say the same on those topics, until something is proven without a shawdow of doubt everything is upto for debate, its a free for all, hence why we have our own free wills, not a will belonging to A ONE GOD/SOURCE!!! x

Source and god was put in by me for your consumption, as there are people here who believe in all sort of nonsense of all doctrines, even creating within their own entities that they pursue on a daily basis. I do not follow source or anything within and outside of myself and never had, but if you don't mention at least source, they don't get it.

If you wish to continue this conversation, read part 1 and 2 so I know where you are or not coming from as all this is all over the place including yourself.

[nf857]

And yes your are right this a great place of learning & one of the best places to learn as it ties in lots of different perspectives, walks of life, opnions, theories, etc etc. All im saying is nothing is ever 100% certain, take the idea of the christian GOD for him to be real so is SATAN, or ALPHA & OMEGA, or BLACK and WHITE, or EVIL and GOOD, or NORTH and SOUTH, EAST or WEST, Male or Female, its called polarity, this is a very rigid view!

There are many other colours than black or white, you can be good and evil at the same time, that is the human condition, you can go south-east, you can be a male with female hormones x

[nf857]

Hi Roman,

I myself was only using those words for peoples consumptions on here as well, all i mean is there isnt just a 1! there are numbers after 1 too lol! Ok i will read when i have some time, however from what i read of it, it was pointing towards there being just a 1 lol x

[Jenci]

Hi Jeanette, the debate was whether reality exists & beliefs are just beleifs whatever form they come in, so in my view, thats what peoples beliefs are about, they can change on a day to day basis, hence the reasons for debate, just becuase this section is about spiritual beliefs, does not mean that only people who belief in one view are welcome.


Hi Nf
There are different ideas and beliefs discussed here and we allow them all. It's not helpful to label someone else's belief as 'very arrogant' though.

I say this with the best intentions because you are new to this forum but you have posted mulitple posts, one after another on this thread. Each time you do this it changes the flow of discussion on this forum and knocks someone else's discussion off the front page, which is not fair on them and can create suspisicion. We are a suspiscious lot on this forum for good reasons. ;)

If you need to edit a post to add something, you can use the edit function on the right hand side.

Jeanette

[nf857]

''There are different ideas and beliefs discussed here and we allow them all. It's not helpful to label someone else's belief as 'very arrogant' though''.

Hi Jeanette, i think you mis-understood what i put, i put GOD/SOURCE'S/CONSCIENCE's belief is arrogant, not any individual beleiving in 1 GOD/SOURCE/CONSCIENCE is arrogant!!! I.E. If i beleive that i am above all, created all, know all, see all, am all, and all can be-I AM a very ARROGANT being is what i meant, i put capitals so nothing is understood here!

Thanks for the advice jeanette, as you said im new to the forum so dont know how to do this yet, was not my intention to change the flow or knock somebody's elses off the front page, why does it create suspision? Its just one person has obviously typed a few notes on that subject? x

[another bob]

"If one is attached to the swamp of debate, it is the māra of the afflictions."

~ Tantra of The Great Self-liberated Vidyā


:yo:

[nf857]

If one is attached to the swamp of debate, it is the māra of the afflictions."

~ Tantra of The Great Self-liberated Vidyā

However if things are never debated we never get anywhere apart from stay in one place, un-less you are a gifted being called Vidya who can go beyond the material realms lol x

[Jenci]

Thanks for the advice jeanette, as you said im new to the forum so dont know how to do this yet, was not my intention to change the flow or knock somebody's elses off the front page, why does it create suspision? Its just one person has obviously typed a few notes on that subject? x

I know and I didn't think you were doing anything deliberately.

People are paid by the PTB - agents - to work on this forum and others. If a topic is being discussed that they don't want us discussing, the will use various techniques to bury it out of view. Here's some information on cointelpro on forums
http://www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dreams/2011/04/cointelpro-techniques-for-dilution-misdirection-and-control-of-an-internet-forum.html

Jeanette

[nf857]

Hi Jeanette,

Who IS PTB? I can understand this, have you evidence of them doing this? Do you know the names of these people? If this is how they operate? Are they not easy to eliminate? I would not have thought a question of Does Reality Exist in a spiritual forum would have them worried, i beleive if people do purposely spread dis-information, it goes a little higher up than this? Wouldnt you think? x

[Jenci]

Hi Jeanette,

Who IS PTB? I can understand this, have you evidence of them doing this? Do you know the names of these people? If this is how they operate? Are they not easy to eliminate? I would not have thought a question of Does Reality Exist in a spiritual forum would have them worried, i beleive if people do purposely spread dis-information, it goes a little higher up than this? Wouldnt you think? x

Hi nf857

The PTB are the powers that be. In other words the people who rule the world, unseen by us, way above the governments. This is a very big subject you will find lots of reading/videos do around here. It's a lot to take in. You may like to post a thread in General Discussions asking people for ideas on where to start your research on this subject. I would guess you would get plenty of help. I don't want to add too much as it is off topic here.

But on the subject of spirituality, people waking up to their true nature is a threat to the PTB. They have programmed us and manipulated society for centuries to keep us trapped in indentification with our body/mind. This is all part of a very big plan.

They have had control in religions too. Many would also say that religious differences/arguments which have led to so many wars, have been deliberately manipulated by the PTB to keep us all divided and fighting and distracted from then. The situation in Iran right now is not looking good and this situation is being manufactered by the PTB.

Things are changing though. Many people have been waking up to the idea that they are the One - Consciousness, or whatever name they choose to use. It's important for the bigger picture in terms of change happening and disaster being avoided.

The more people who become this Consciousness, the more it will spread. It's very encouraging to see people on this forum talking about this, with us all learning and growing together. :)
Jeanette

[nf857]

Hi Jeanette,

Im well aware of the NWO/Elite Government/Illunimati theory, have read most of David Icke & lots of history and conspirarys book on it. I just didnt know what PTB stood for, now i do lol! Ive heard Powers That Be said a lot of the time.

The part about religion is very true, its the Art of War, divide and conquer, that can be applied to many organisations that have power over people and their thoughts, another is education. I beleive religion was just created to control people, whilst the people who stood to gain from its riches are the people you mention i.e. The Pope!

However this one consciousness idea is just another thought form indoctrinating you, its no different than One God, be careful is all i say if you do beleive it!, it has come from Channeling in the main part as far as im aware

''The more people who become this Consciousness, the more it will spread'' your not kidding like viruses and any other cult beleifs

''It's important for the bigger picture in terms of change happening and disaster being avoided''- why?.

I ask why as why is the belief that there is 1 Consciousness contributing to avoiding disasters? Certainly it brings about some change for the people who belief it as it changes their world view, but i cant see how it helps disasters or helps build a bigger picture?

''But on the subject of spirituality, people waking up to their true nature is a threat to the PTB. They have programmed us and manipulated society for centuries to keep us trapped in indentification with our body/mind. This is all part of a very big plan''- this i can agree with, however how do you know all this conspirary stuff is not orchestrated by them, if you beleive in this one consciouness-to manipulate that manifestation coming about? If we didnt know all this supposed secret information about them, maybe they would not be this powerful to begin, thats if you beleive in this one consiousness beleif, as they are part of this one consiousness? Do you beleive that maybe the elite are the bad guys within consiousness? Satan? Its very interesting, its push/pull.

However if you only beleive in yourself being a real, life,living being, & dont get struck down by set dogmas they cant have this control can they? x

[solosthere]

Hi all im back from the store and just got done catching up. Nf yu mention the movie the "Matrix" the thing I would say to that is how can Neo know that Zion is not within the Matrix. He cant from his point of view. In the movie he is able to effect the programs within the matrix with his mind and then later he is able to effect the machines he at first believed were outside the matrix. At first he was not able to have any control over these machines it is not until later that he has this ablity. Then when he goes blind he is able to see the machine world. Why because he never left the Matrix. So his reality in fact has not changed only his perception of has. He has always in all three movies been in the matrix. This is the point the movie was tring to make the the only thing that is real is our consiousness our perception of what is real is just that only perception it is not nessisarily real and there is no way for us to know one way or the other.

[solosthere]

what i mean is we just can really ever know one way or the other

[nf857]

Hi Solosthere,

Yes thats all i meant too, we would never know, i merely mentioned he matrix to highlight this 'one conscious' idea as perception is just one view, however there are many views other than perception. Its a whole chicken/egg conundrum as one cant be/without the other. Duality. However i think we are living proof that we can be split from duality if it at all exists. x

[solosthere]

NF but there is no duality if the universe is a part of God and therefore so would everything in it be a part of god. This is what Christ meant when he stated " I am in the father and the father is in me" and this point of the universe being a part of god is stated in the verse "look under a rock and you will find me break open a piece of wood and i will be there". We have only been conditioned to percieve duality and in turn seperation. All life has what we would call experience and the universe is god way of experiencing. It is the only way god can for if you were all there is and all that ever was and will be then the only thing you could experience would be within yourself.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

As we use god and need god so god uses us and needs us

¤=[Post Update]=¤

it is not a one way street

[nf857]

Hi Solosthere,

I dont beleive in A GOD, A 1, A SOURCE, i might beleive in many, however i dont beleive in just there being 1 real thing & everything else not. I think if i was a theologist the 'I am in the father & the father is in me' i would understand it to mean lifes biological code i.e. Sperm or DNA, so therefore under a rock or breaking open a piece of wood-these are all things on earth so something biological is what GOD purports to be., maybe DNA? Its a bit of a riddle isnt it when you try and understand the bibles teachings? However i beleive religion is just something that was made up to control people & whilst the others got rich off of it.

If the bibles teachings are true, which i think so of what is wrote may well be as its just a book like no other, a recording in history. However it was wrote by a normal human being so either that person could channel GOD's word or they recorded the life of JESUS's teachings, which was apprently the word of GOD- yes? This is no different than all the other Channelings about, & i would not trust their word either.

Also we get back to my question here if GOD is the only thing that has ever existed, how does it know it exists? It has nothing to compare itself to real/un-real. Hypothetical here.....''My name is GOD, i am the only REAL being who is ALL, seeing, ALL knowing,& the creater of all things-who created me? Why am i here? How do i know im here and the creater of everything if nobody else is here to see it? Duality does exist, but there is more than just Duality to life x

[solosthere]

For all any of you know god is a kid with a petri dish running an experiment. But i would say this. DON'T READ THE BIBLE!!!!!!!! Read the Quran. I know both and i will tell u the Quran is unadulterated. The bible is not.

[nf857]

Ha ha, if god was a kid with a petri dish wed all b dead by now.....lol! As i dont beleive in GOD we will leave it here, thanks for the recommendation, i would sooner read the Quran than the Bible, however they are both indoctrination, so i probably wont bother, wont help me make sense of the world anymore as my views are very selective x

[markpierre]

If i beleive that i am above all, created all, know all, see all, am all, and all can be-I AM a very ARROGANT being .............. x

Why is that?

And how would a 'God' 'Source' etc, get above itself? Just curious.

[<8>]

Hi guys..

A dumb question from me maybe.

If you rig up a camera on the object in mind, don't that record whatever you were looking for.??

P.s...you might even here the tree falling, if you got the sound turnd on...:rolleyes:

[another bob]

Rather than trying to figure consciousness out by manipulating concepts, one practice that has proven to be a more skillful use of one's attention is to turn it around and observe one's own inner motivation over the course of a day or week or month, simply to recognize what we are always doing, in a very direct experiential sense, until we have no more doubt about the matter.

We may even now imagine we already have gotten that, but if we really do the practice with honesty and sincerity, there is something very crucial about ourselves and consciousnes that can be discovered.

For most of us, it can be very humbling. If we pay close attention, we will likely notice that we are animating habits, patterns, and fixations that are not often inspected, but which tend to rule us without our knowledge or consent, and infect all our relations with a subtle (or maybe not so subtle)sense of of craving and fear.

Nevertheless, it is important to see it all, and to understand that our usual approach to life is based on an unexamined case of mistaken identity. We are not our fixations and habit patterns, nor anything like what we have taken ourselves to be.

In this realization, we begin to awaken to what we truly are -- before the superimposition of all concepts, filters, and programs -- before our parents were even born. If we still need a concept for what that is, what we are, we can call it love.


“In the womb, it’s called the body. In the state, it’s called a person. In the eyes, it’s called seeing. In the ears, it’s called hearing. In the nose, it tells the difference between smells. In the tongue, it talks. In the hands, it grabs and clings. In the feet, it walks and runs. It appears all over, containing all things; innumerable worlds are collected in one atom. People who can see know that this is Buddha-nature, the Essence of Enlightenment. Those who don’t call it a ‘soul’.”

Chinul


:yo:

[solosthere]

wel if u rig the camera then u need that matter to be there you need it to be recorded and so you are still have a way to percieve it. do you not? yes you do obviously.

[nf857]

''Why is that?

And how would a 'God' 'Source' etc, get above itself? Just curious.''

Not sure about getting above itself as it it was the only thing that was real, it coudn't really go above itself could it? However it is an arrogant being if it beleives it is all these things, with no around to give it any constructive critism if you like or different view on its beleifs? x

[nf857]

''In this realization, we begin to awaken to what we truly are -- before the superimposition of all concepts, filters, and programs -- before our parents were even born. If we still need a concept for what that is, what we are, we can call it love''

Yes and no, i think a lot about what you write about holds just one perception and one view of things, this enlightened/philosophical view as it can't be tested with todays sciences, it something the ''I'' can only test, & again that ''I'' is only your knowning, which can be different from anothers.

I happen to like my filters/programs as you call them they are what tell me who i am, they give me my existence in this time/space, otherwise i would loose my mind/identity/personality/character etc etc-i think there is a great flaw in loosing one's mind-dont you? x

[solosthere]

I dont dont say that what we are one with is all things ever. I only say it is all in this universe. We can not know if there are more like it or not. Perhaps there is a individual god for each universe. Each having its own "I am" experience. Then that would lead to the question. If we are part of a 1 are what we are part of is it a part of a larger 1. After all we see in our own universe that the micro mirrors the macro and so we must ask does what occurs to infinity in the micro occur to infiity in the macro

[wolf_rt]

I happen to like my filters/programs as you call them they are what tell me who i am, they give me my existence in this time/space, otherwise i would loose my mind/identity/personality/character etc etc-i think there is a great flaw in loosing one's mind-dont you? x

No not really :-)

the video in the first part of
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?36911-A-Call-to-Look-Deeply-into-Our-Collective-Perception

may answer some questions for you....PLEASE have a look at it... its a really awesome video, and isn't pushing any 'one' (lol) viewpoint.

[nf857]

Hi Solos,


I dont dont say that what we are one with is all things ever. I only say it is all in this universe. We can not know if there are more like it or not. Perhaps there is a individual god for each universe. Each having its own "I am" experience. Then that would lead to the question. If we are part of a 1 are what we are part of is it a part of a larger 1. After all we see in our own universe that the micro mirrors the macro and so we must ask does what occurs to infinity in the micro occur to infiity in the macro

However this is what the teachings of a one god/one source/one consiousness teaches, if you beleive there is only 1 of these things the macro/micro does not really come into it does it? As we are the micro and it is the macro, but nothing is far greather than this 1 macro?


No not really :-)

the video in the first part of
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ive-Perception

may answer some questions for you....PLEASE have a look at it... its a really awesome video, and isn't pushing any 'one' (lol) viewpoint

Thanks will take a look at this perception vid, i like to listen to anybody which has more than one viewpoint lol, however i do think there is flaw in loosing ones filters, as this is losing ones mind, without filters, the mind would quite literally go mad x

[another bob]

I happen to like my filters/programs as you call them they are what tell me who i am, they give me my existence in this time/space, otherwise i would loose my mind/identity/personality/character etc etc-i think there is a great flaw in loosing one's mind-dont you? x

One way to find out -- let it go and see what remains.

"Men are afraid to forget their minds, fearing to fall through the Void with nothing to stay their fall. They do not know that the Void is not really void, but the realm of the real Dharma." ~Huang Po

:yo:

[markpierre]

''Why is that?

And how would a 'God' 'Source' etc, get above itself? Just curious.''

Not sure about getting above itself as it it was the only thing that was real, it coudn't really go above itself could it? However it is an arrogant being if it beleives it is all these things, with no around to give it any constructive critism if you like or different view on its beleifs? x

Exactly what confounded me. I was only quoting you, so it was indeed a rhetorical question. Your rhetoric not mine however.

So next curiosity, how is a being arrogant if it believes itself is everything, if in fact it is everything?

Not trying to be pedantic, I just would like to get inside your reasoning a little. I have had experiences that showed me quite unarguably that I am that, and many people on these boards have. I wouldn't begrudge a Source that same experience.

You can deny that you are all that, if you haven't had experience that defies that denial, but you can't deny it on the basis of that no one has.

Consider the ramifications of that realization. It's more like awesome responsibility than arrogance.

[bodhii71]

My perceptions; you gotta get fractal.
At some level whatever makes up the atoms that make up the areas that YOUR consciousness is unaware, still possess it's own level of awareness.
Due to our limited ability for awareness we perceive that there is a limit to what is manifest. It is also an inherent flaw of perception due to our own singularity, and in thinking we are the center of the universe, which may be a relative truth.
This is the true rabbit hole. Probably for true grand understanding, ones consciousness needs to explode chasing two lines, infinite smallness/ largeness, and also why those who look too close into the abyss can lose themselves.
The ability to experience bliss acts as a valve for our understanding/perception.

Note; Jumped in to express my feelings and perceptions without perusing previous posts, as to not color my own truth or understanding. Hope I didn't derail the course of the exchange.

[nf857]

Exactly what confounded me. I was only quoting you, so it was indeed a rhetorical question. Your rhetoric not mine however.

So next curiosity, how is a being arrogant if it believes itself is everything, if in fact it is everything?


Not trying to be pedantic, I just would like to get inside your reasoning a little. I have had experiences that showed me quite unarguably that I am that, and many people on these boards have. I wouldn't begrudge a Source that same experience.

You can deny that you are all that, if you haven't had experience that defies that denial, but you can't deny it on the basis of that no one has.

Consider the ramifications of that realization. It's more like awesome responsibility than arrogance

Which is a good thing as it means ive made you think, & you have made me think with each othere beliefs/perceptions lol. The question was not rhetorical as i was asking it as a real question? If i beleive i am the only real thing on this universe & i created all of the other non-real things that exist, how do i know myself to be real? Its frankenstein and his monster, his monster becomes more real than him or jeckyl & hyde - is jerckl the real him or hyde the real him,both is the answer as they both exist inside his mind, as a split personality, alter ego, hence the term duality. One can't exist without the other, if the is only 1 real true living thing-what created that 1 true living thing? What gave that one true living thing reason to beleive it to be so? Your not being pendantic at all, merely questioning my views as i am yours lol! Are you saying through your experiences that you are the same as god with the statement that yours and others experiences are that you are everything and all? I beleive if you beleif this one being is all & everything it can be looked at positivly and negativly, you are an awesome responsiblity, however you are also awesomely arrogant as you place yourself above everything else?


One way to find out -- let it go and see what remains.

"Men are afraid to forget their minds, fearing to fall through the Void with nothing to stay their fall. They do not know that the Void is not really void, but the realm of the real Dharma." ~Huang Po


Let go of what? My mind? All my memories/recollections/baggage good and bad? Who I am? Who I was? Who i May Become? Where does that leave me? A very lost soul who doesnt know what it is or where it came from, where it began? Where It was going? P.S Who is Dharma? Not the being that lives underground with this cult followers i hope that was based on the character in Battlestar Galactica? x

[markpierre]

Well, it wasn't that I need to be tricked into thinking, I do fairly well on my own. But thanks. I'm not too busy trying to organize concepts anymore.

I'm pretty certain that I understand what Bob was suggesting can be let go of. If your baggage and filters are what define you to yourself, your missing out on something pretty spectacular. But that's your journey.

You won't lose your mind, don't be concerned. You might find out find that it was nothing that you thought it was. .

[nf857]

Well, it wasn't that I need to be tricked into thinking, I do fairly well on my own. But thanks. I'm not too busy trying to organize concepts anymore.

I'm pretty certain that I understand what Bob was suggesting can be let go of. If your baggage and filters are what define you to yourself, your missing out on something pretty spectacular. But that's your journey.

You won't lose your mind, don't be concerned. You might find out find that it was nothing that you thought it was. .

You seem very arrogant in your rigid beleifs, noboy was suggesting it was trickery or vodoo magic or anything along that nature, im making you think, i was just suggesting that debate helps you question your beleifs, which is a good thing, as your mind still belongs to you, if you follow blindly into any one viewpoint you are lost in indoctrination of that thought form, is all i meant, if you only beleif in your own beliefs you are shutting yourself off to others beleifs yes? Trying to organise concepts is what helps your mind filter what seems true for yourself and what doesnt, if you dont organise concepts of beleif and are firm in the belief that your beleif is what is right. It is the saying ''the greatest student of life is one that takes on information from all sources'' however it makes it its own, that way it can always change its mind, as your mind belongs to you. My baggage and filters are just part of me, not the whole me, so you have mis-understood what i meant, why would i want to let go of something that makes up the whole me? I think people who want to let go of their baggage are the people who are missing out as they are trying to delete or erase that which was already apart of them. I should not have to let go of anything that is apart of me, and anything that teaches me i have to let go of a part of me is not enlightened.

So in essensce what i am saying is i have yet to meet somebody who is truely enlightened by their very teaching, filters/concepts of beleif/perceptions, what is my reality/ baggage in all the many forms are not what define me they merely are a part of me. Something that is truely enlightened does not need to be defined, as it does not need that classification, its does not need to be defined by anything or anyone. Further to that i would add that this is why we misundertand any great teachings in mystics, religion, spirituality, it is lost in translation as we try to define its meaning. x

[solosthere]

When one looks into the abyss as "Bod" put it; most will see the nothing and turn away before they see what is truely there. There "abyss" can, from our perceptioin be a scary place. However, as many have experienced when you truely allow your sub-consiousness to do the looking into that abyss; the only thing that looks back is yourself. Yourself is all that is and there ,even within what should be percieved as nothing, it is not nothing at all. One of the greatest abysses to look into is the eyes of another, truth comes when looking into the abyss of anothers eyes and you find yourself. We are taught to see differences and feel seperation but try looking at another and not see yourself.

[nf857]

When one looks into the abyss as "Bod" put it; most will see the nothing and turn away before they see what is truely there. There "abyss" can, from our perceptioin be a scary place. However, as many have experienced when you truely allow your sub-consiousness to do the looking into that abyss; the only thing that looks back is yourself. Yourself is all that is and there ,even within what should be percieved as nothing, it is not nothing at all. One of the greatest abysses to look into is the eyes of another, truth comes when looking into the abyss of anothers eyes and you find yourself. We are taught to see differences and feel seperation but try looking at another and not see yourself.

I agree with this, when your bring in the sub-conscious, as fear is another thought form of control, if you are not afraid to look at the unknown- you find it is not unknown, you already knew it. However this has nothing to do with letting go of your baggage or filters or concepts, you can look at the unknown, with all three intact, & still you come back to the same place you was before of that which you already knew to be true, it has a lot to do with time/space, alternate realities, parralel universes, which ive read a lot about, if you already knew something to be true when you looked at it, then you are still in the same place, in time/space, how you knew it is another matter, as it involves our different selves in alternative universes/parralel universes/different dimensions etc etc. Also if you look into that unknown, then you have not changed what you were ever intended to do as your future self knew it in the first place, however if you dont look at that unknown, it means you didn't already know it, which means you have changed that which you were going to know, but didnt I could draw this up as a mathematical eqution however i think you get the gist as its simple probabliliy x

[markpierre]

Well I would hope to not sound contentious or arrogant. That's certainly far from the case, so your filters aren't serving you all that well at the moment. I don't find a lot of value in debates, so I would respectfully decline.
You did answer my real question though. Thanks for that.

I've only met a couple of people who I felt were truly enlightened, and I've been around a fair bit. But I wouldn't compare them to any archetype, or ideas of what enlightened would be or look like conceptually. Mostly it looks like complete freedom from conceptual thinking and dependence on self identification.
I know of the joy and freedom in that. That's the only thing I would have ever been looking for when I was still looking. When you find it, or it finds you, you stop looking. You start developing from that as your reference.

It doesn't mean you lose your preference for jelly over jam.

Teachings are just methods. They don't represent any sort of 'truth'. They might elude to it in concepts because that's all conceptual mind can hear. Truth would be recognized in the experiences that they would hope to train you to.
Some people have them, some people don't. For some people it seems spontaneous, for most it requires a discipline,
and that's how teachings come to represent 'truths' as ideas by undisciplined minds.

But understanding is an effect of experience. You'll understand 'hot' when you encounter a flame.
Experience changes you fundamentally. All experiences, common and phenomenal.

Concepts are embraced and discarded continually. 'Beliefs' are much more to the core of the unconscious than ideologies and concepts and judgements. Those are superficial conscious activities mostly influenced by unconscious memory.

Understanding includes certainty by default. Once you know, you know. You've been revealed. You can't pretend you don't. You can't really lie to yourself and you sort of lose the ability to participate in sleepwalking.
And for people who rely on concepts, especially concepts that are wrapped and rewrapped as belief systems, there is no certainty. Certainty is experiencial.

Concepts are just isymbols. As far from what they conceive of as a picture of a swimming pool in a magazine is from being wet.

[nf857]

Once you know, you know.

How do you know?, i agree with everything you have just said, i didnt bring up concepts or beliefs, it seems that this philosphical beleif in all what you have said here is one beleif, it might be amassed from many sources, but at the end of the day, this is what you beleive from your own being, everything you said makes rational sense, however there is no medium as to test it with to proove the theory, only yourself as witness?.

[QUOTE]Well I would hope to not sound contentious or arrogant. That's certainly far from the case, so your filters aren't serving you all that well at the moment. I don't find a lot of value in debates, so I would respectfully decline.
You did answer my real question though. Thanks for that.

You would have been alright here, if you have not turned it back on me saying my filets arn't serving me, as i could say the same back to you, obviously were we are both coming from is being lost in translation, mis-understoodl however there is no one more right than the other, implying my filters arnt working correctly is saying that my truth is wrong yes? If you dont value debate, i would suggest not to get involved in it in the first place, forums are full of debate lol x

[QUOTE]Teachings are just methods. They don't represent any sort of 'truth'. They might elude to it in concepts because that's all conceptual mind can hear. Truth would be recognized in the experiences that they would hope to train you to.
Some people have them, some people don't. For some people it seems spontaneous, for most it requires a discipline,
and that's how teachings come to represent 'truths' as ideas by undisciplined minds.

Yes i know this. everything you said i already know about, but i know i will never ever find anybody who is truely enlightened, if you let go of your identity as self, you have transformed the old self,into a new one, not let go of self, as self is something all humans are, regardless of how much they may try and escape themselves. Its pure escapisim, however its far healthier than video games and t.v. Its just and idea, a model, a concept with concepts and beleifs within beleifs. Further to that you statement i have quoted above i would presume comes from some sort of teaching that is not known fact? That is why estoreic beleifs are never proven as they got lost in transalation in trying to define there meanings, when something does not want to be definied by anything & remain classless, it means it just is, there is no hidden meanings to it at all, its a very simple method, its called the art of simplicity, which is also understood. Simpllicity does not mean leaving an amish lifestyle or not having as many material possesions, it just means its simple, easy to understand, and does not need further refinement that you call being defined-to be understood.

Basically if i want to escape that which identify as 'self' i will just change my perception of 'self' not 'self' itself, this higher self is not acutally 100% fact, you are going with the theory that anything outside of what you perceived is 'self' as REAL. It is not proven scientifically, & maybe it never will be, however as far as im aware there is no 100% evidence that anything outside of 'self' is REAL -hence why The Holographic Universe & Divine Matrix are excellent theories they bridge the gap between spiritual/sicientific/mathematic/relgion etc etcx

[markpierre]

I'm not really sure what you're on about now, but I'm not really interested if I can't add anything useful to your experience. Sorry, I don't bother much with theories. Just keep doing your work and it sorts itself out for you eventually.

The only thing I can think of that might be helpful is to suggest that you don't draw conclusions from theories. You're trying to use reason where experience is lacking. Play with them but don't believe in them. Experience just happens with either time or diligence or both.
And certainly don't make assumptions about who you're relating with.

Debates are common in forums, you're right. If you have something so precious that you need to assert and defend through debating, knock yourself out, but I didn't enter a debate.
I asked a couple of questions. They weren't asked disrespectfully. It's you who values filters, but the evidence is that they block communication. Unfortunately filters also block our awareness of them.

No one escapes from themselves, they just find themselves waiting patiently under the uproar and babble of the baggage that you fondly regard as a 'self'.

Just drop the concept of 'enlightened' because it is just a concept. You set the criteria to suit you. If you're looking for something outside of you to prove or disprove your theories of it, you'll find it.
You invented it, it has to prove to you what you ask it to. It's all just happening in your own head. No where else.

But if you want to convince anyone that you're 'right', for whatever reason you need to do that, consider how you relate it to them. You won't BE right, but you'll have valuable things to offer.
Otherwise people just learn that whenever they see your avatar, they should skip ahead a few pages. Or not to reply to the risk of a diatribe.
I don't think that's really what you'd want.

[nf857]

And certainly don't make assumptions about who you're relating with.

As it makes an 'ass' out of you and an 'ass' out of me, you assumed my filters were not working? Re-read what you have put is my advice to you, no point in being hypocritical is there?However where have i assumed something? as by my very teaching i don't assume anything, or i do my very best not too.

[
QUOTE] I'm not really sure what you're on about now, but I'm not really interested if I can't add anything useful to your experience. Sorry, I don't bother much with theories. Just keep doing your work and it sorts itself out for you eventually


Its fine if you don't understand what im on about,however if your not really interested, then why are you asking me questions & why did you want to get behind my reasoning? Also Why do you feel the need to add something useful to my experience? as it should be your own experience your trying to add to here, un-less you think you are well experienced enough?. I beleive im adding to my experience here and you are adding to yours or we are both adding to each others. Its fine that you dont bother much with theories, when we are talking about such big topics like this, everything is just theory, i.e. whether reality exists or spirtuality, even psychology has its limits as its a pseudo-science, however most of these topics are not things that can be scientifcally or mathematically proven. We can theorise all day long, however we will never know will we? Pondering the mysteries of life is what most people do, however some people view it more deeply than others. If you no longer like the topic of conversation i.e. theories/concepts, its upto you wether you still participate in them, if its no longer been a positive experience for you, you dont have to continue with the thread do you? For me this whole topic of debate/theories/opinions/views has been a very positive experience for me, i might not agree with all, however i have gleamed a lot.

Im not trying to use reason/logic, it seems you are assuming im trying to use these things. All im doing is trying to separate what we know to be true, whats fact, away from what is not fact or can't be proven to be fact, it may seem im using reason to understand your logic, however, this is the only way i will do my best to understand your view, as im being reasonable and logical in my steps!



[
QUOTE]Debates are common in forums, you're right. If you have something so precious that you need to assert and defend through debating, knock yourself out, but I didn't enter a debate.
I asked a couple of questions. They weren't asked disrespectfully. It's you who values filters, but the evidence is that they block communication. Unfortunately filters also block our awareness of them.


I never said they were asked disrespectifully, it seems you are assuming i think you questions are disrespectful, so your filters quite evidently block communication too, however this is nothing new, its apart of being human, having words lost in translation. Whether you wanted to enter debate or not, we have enterted a debate of sorts, as we cant really not enter debate when it comes to beleifs/philosphical teachings/concepts/theories to such a wide audience of opposing views. Your understanding of what debate is or its point its all based in ego, asserting or defending comes from the personal, debate is not personal, its just an active discussion with a hope to finally meet a general consensous most can be happy about. If you ask somebody a question and dont like the answer, you can either debate each others reasonings, or accept them, whether we agree with them or not. Its called either being active/passive or aggresive. As neither of us have been or intend to be aggresive in this debate, we are actively taking part in a discussion and questioning each other's reasoning,beliefs/thoughts/ideas etc etc, which is called debate on a forum and many other platforms in life or thats my understanding, as the forums at my university were exactly the same.



No one escapes from themselves, they just find themselves waiting patiently under the uproar and babble of the baggage that you fondly regard as a 'self'

Im glad we can agree on something here, however you have mis-understood whan i mean when its comes to baggage, when i look under my baggage what is so special that baggage needed to be lifted up to see it? You have mis-used what i meant, the original consensus was you have to let go of your baggage to see your real self, that is different to what you are quoting here. I question if baggage is part of my self?, than how can letting go of a part of myself be my higher self, as it would seem to be lower? Hence the term lightening ones load-which is where the baggage term has come from. Its an interesting theory that in order to get to a higher understanding we have to lower ourselves to see it! I mean that in a literal sense as an analogy btw so you don't misinterpret what im saying. A hologram when you chop it in pieces can still project a whole, however i dont think we can compare humans to mere holograms can we?


[QUOTE]Just drop the concept of 'enlightened' because it is just a concept. You set the criteria to suit you. If you're looking for something outside of you to prove or disprove your theories of it, you'll find it.
You invented it, it has to prove to you what you ask it to. It's all just happening in your own head. No where else.


Why are you telling me what to put?,its my choice of word, which is a common term for all this, & to me its better than just calling IT-IT, however it does not mean i understand IT or its meaning or concept, i merely choose this word, however what would you prefer I replace it too? You say you dont like to seem pedantic, however this to me comes accross quite pedantic as you are picking on my choice of words here, its quite irrelvant & overly fussy on detail. If you pay too much close attention to detail you miss the message itself.


If you're looking for something outside of you to prove or disprove your theories of it, you'll find it.
You invented it, it has to prove to you what you ask it to. It's all just happening in your own head. No where else

I cant get my head round this, can you explain it better to me,? my view is that whilst its good to stay in ones head all the time as a vacation, i wouldnt want to be there all year round.



But if you want to convince anyone that you're 'right', for whatever reason you need to do that, consider how you relate it to them. You won't BE right, but you'll have valuable things to offer.
Otherwise people just learn that whenever they see your avatar, they should skip ahead a few pages. Or not to reply to the risk of a diatribe.
I don't think that's really what you'd want.

Im not trying to convince you of anything & especially not that im right, im my own best critic as im not the type to blow my own trumpet,very far from it. I dont feel the need to prove myself to anybody other than myself & my current goals,endeavours, aspirations. I fail to undestand why you have made this personal? Asserting that im trying to proove to everybody that im right is presuming thats what im doing, when im not. I have not presumed things about your personal character.

Confidence/arrogance are two separate things.. If people dont like long discourses, however are enjoying the chat, they can always swap emails/pms etc, however nobody upto now has seemed to mind this debate, other than you. If you enter into topic about reality, its bound to get off-topic, its a big subject, so you would hope it would go off into lots of different arenas. Ive learnt on forums, that if people quote you for going off-topic, its because they dont like which way the thread is going as its is not their views etc etc, & want control of it & want to get it back into their way of thinking modus operandi. Im generalising here, as its important that if the topic is about e.g. numbers, we dont start talking about letters.e

However i take your point here that i may need to work on how i relate to people, however its a two-way street, other people also have to learn how to relate to me dont they? As im new, on here, people will get to know me over time, & the relating will get easier, however does not happen overnight. If people want to skip what i put down, thats upto them, not really a problem is it that? Be nice if everybody could relate to everybody else, however not realistic, however there is always going to be people who are like-minded to you & who you can relate to more & people who you relate to less. However i ask again why you have turned this personal? Im not questioning how you relate to people am i?


The only thing I can think of that might be helpful is to suggest that you don't draw conclusions from theories

The thing i would suggest to you that might be helpful, is perhaps not always viewing it as you are helping somebody, whilst its nice you feel your are contributing to helping somebody, if you only view it this way you may want to re-think how you relate to people.? A theory is just a theory i draw no conclusions on theories as they cant really be concluded. Please dont take offense at this last paragraph, as i dont think there is anything wrong we how you relate to people at all, im not a judgemental person, however its best not to give adice to other people on how they should better relate to people, as this might come accross as arrogant, in beleiving that their view in how they relate to people is better than anothers- its subjective, never get caught in the subjective view x

[markpierre]

If I ask a question it's usually for a reason. But granted it's for my sake if I ask a question. If you address me, I'm inclined to answer. It's at least the polite thing to do. Sometimes it's not such a wise or helpful thing to do, and so a little discernment helps.
But this 'debate' that's evolved isn't particularly on topic, though you might think so, or not be concerned if it is or it isn't.
I'm not in on it. It's not interesting to me. I don't have any questions about truth or enlightenment, and I don't have any opinions that I need to have heard. Sometimes I'm compelled to express what comes into my mind,
that's all that is.

I do know what I know, and I have to decide whether it's useful or not. Sometimes it's not. It isn't gleaned from teachings. A lot of it clarifies the meanings of teachings, but always in retrospect.
It's from being burned. It's from actually getting wet. I studied and practiced and even fancied I was a teacher and a healer for a very long time. I'm sort of over it. I just am what I am.

Credentials don't mean much of anything, but that kind of single focus does often enough net the purpose of it. We do it for a reason, whether we know the real reason or not.
All of the belief systems that I've ever bought into have been quite effectively pruned away. Sometimes dramatically. All of the different identities were all as false as the ones before. They disolve because they were never real in the first place.
I made them up and maintained them until they no longer served any purpose. It's purely ego. It can't remain loyal to anything, it just does whatever it needs to to survive.

It's tricky participating in discussions when they generally end up being all over the shop, and you have to know which identities can handle bluntness, and which ones need to be nurtured and supported in other ways.
Everyone has something useful to offer, in one way or another.
Some guys are right there with you, and some don't get you at all. It's all fine, none of it matters.
It's not fine when it's disrespectful or condescending, and we need to stay aware of that.
It takes a bit of time and a bit of care. Everyone here is up to it.

We can learn to relate. That's a great idea. I enjoyed your posts on Tony's new video thread. You have a great mind.

And you're new here? I didn't know! Welcome, and best wishes...

[nf857]

If I ask a question it's usually for a reason. But granted it's for my sake if I ask a question. If you address me, I'm inclined to answer. It's at least the polite thing to do. Sometimes it's not such a wise or helpful thing to do, and so a little discernment helps.
But this 'debate' that's evolved isn't particularly on topic, though you might think so, or not be concerned if it is or it isn't.
I'm not in on it. It's not interesting to me. I don't have any questions about truth or enlightenment, and I don't have any opinions that I need to have heard. Sometimes I'm compelled to express what comes into my mind,
that's all that is.


The part i meant about enlightment is when the consensus changed from whether reality exists into philosphical debate about baggage and letting it all go, trading it all in for a new empty baggage to fill. You started to join in on this topic, & try explain it to me better & a lot of what you state is about enlightenment, being in oneself, etc etc please re-read where this all started & you will see. Its fine if you dont want to go off-topic, most big topics, get segregated into smaller topics that are something to do with the original topic, the thread would not have gone in that direction otherwise, as it takes at least two continue on a thread of conversation. We have totally gone off topic it now, as its become just me and you, so im guessing we should stop this right now.


I do know what I know, and I have to decide whether it's useful or not. Sometimes it's not. It isn't gleaned from teachings. A lot of it clarifies the meanings of teachings, but always in retrospect.
It's from being burned. It's from actually getting wet. I studied and practiced and even fancied I was a teacher and a healer for a very long time. I'm sort of over it. I just am what I am

Its good to know what you know, everything else you dont really know, yes experiences are what makes us, us, exactly what i was getting at, when i said why would you want to let go off your 'getting wet/burned' i think most of us can identify with that, its lifes lessons. I can only be honest here with you, your are not over this aspiration, truely you are not, please look back at all what you have said to me, this idenitity you wanted to become, is clear in the way you come accross and relate to people, hence the wanting to help people all the time or at least as you said ''only wanting to contribute if you felt you were helping somebody''.


It's tricky participating in discussions when they generally end up being all over the shop, and you have to know which identities can handle bluntness, and which ones need to be nurtured and supported in other ways.
Everyone has something useful to offer, in one way or another.
Some guys are right there with you, and some don't get you at all. It's all fine, none of it matters.
It's not fine when it's disrespectful or condescending, and we need to stay aware of that.
It takes a bit of time and a bit of care. Everyone here is up to it.




I would honestly suggest you dont get caught up in how others perceive you, however i think this feeling the need to nuture is a 'teacher/student' role for you. There is no harm in being blunt if somebody is not understanding you, sometimes you have to be, especially on forums, otherwise you can come accross as condensending etc etc.

P.S Thanks for your compliment, i always enjoy a lot of what you had to say, however if a student never questions a teacher, how will he/she ever learn lol! Night night for me anyways & i agree with all of the above btw x

[Jenci]

Confidence/arrogance are two separate things.. If people dont like long discourses, however are enjoying the chat, they can always swap emails/pms etc, however nobody upto now has seemed to mind this debate, other than you.
I did actually.

Perhaps it got missed because I chose to do it gently rather than bluntly because you are new here.

What you are seeing as our theories and beliefs are actually our experiences. We like to explore these experiences in this spiritual section of the forum. No one experience is right or wrong and we can all learn and grow as we share with each other.

When you use words like 'arrogant' and 'indoctrination' to describe someones experience, then you are missing what is going on here. If you want to understand the difference between experience and theories/beliefs, then there are plenty of people who would be willing to share some pointers on this.

But the same people are not necessarily going to be interested in debating when their experiences are challenged because challenging experiences is pointless - they are what they are.

On the other hand, there are plenty of topics on this forum which are crying out to have a challenging mind applied to them where people are believing things when they should be questioning them.




The thing i would suggest to you that might be helpful, is perhaps not always viewing it as you are helping somebody, whilst its nice you feel your are contributing to helping somebody, if you only view it this way you may want to re-think how you relate to people.?
MarkPierre is doing just fine in the way he is relating to people. Many, myself included, really appreciate his wisdom and input.

Perhaps being new you may want to get the feel of the place around here before asking for changes to be made. As I said I am not interesed in a debate about this and I dropped out of this conversation because of it. I've only stepped in because you claimed no-one else had minded this debate and I realised that maybe, the gentle approach that I had used had been missed.

Enjoy your time on this forum......there's a great experience to be had and you can make some friends along the way.
Jeanette

[Tony]

NOTICING WHAT IS GOING ON>

Consciousnesses...?...and beyond!
This from a Tibetan Buddhist viewpoint.

We generally think of consciousness as one 'thing'.
We are conscious, and that's it.
However, consciousness can be broken up into many components.
Let's try eight. After all, the brain is divided into areas, so why not consciousness, the mind?

It's quite simple, but takes a little practice to notice it in action.

The first five consciousnesses are the senses: touch, smell, taste, hearing and sight.
These are non- conceptual. This is where we receive most of the information from the outside world...generally.

The sixth consciousness is perception.

The seventh consciousness is judgement.

The eighth consciousness is the 'storehouse' or library of experiences, memories and karma.
This consciousness can be thought of as the hard drive, with software in it.
This hard drive is referred to as the 'all-ground' in Tibetan Buddhism, and is an important area.

In our normal life, the sixth consciousness – perception - views the world through the five senses.
Now this goes to the seventh, but quickly goes unnoticed to the eighth, where perception looks for
a memory to understand what the sixth consciousness has seen (it does this because perception
is unaware of its true essence, and is therefore searching for an answer).
Perception then returns to the seventh consciousness to see if it likes or dislikes what has been recalled.

If no break enters this patterning, we just go round in circles in a habitual pattern or personality.
We fixate on ideas, we fix our conclusions and we fix ourselves in a prison.
And...the outer world plays on and exploits this behaviour...
We are NOT free! We are caught in a cycle of concepts - which we learn at an EARLY AGE!

So how do we break out?

In meditation, thoughts and the clinging to thoughts gradually die down.
In this way, a space is created in the mind...a gap!

Now, when perception (the sixth consciousness) sees something,
because of the space created through meditation,
we have a chance to look into what is perceived and that which perceives it.
At that moment NO karma is created.
(our reactions are due to karma = past experiences).

So we can now respond (or not) in a different way, if this is what we choose.
We are no longer controlled by outside forces...good eh?!

Now we come to a very subtle process (forgive me, but as my own understanding develops, so will this description).

Because of this inner space created by meditating in the sixth consciousness, this perception expands to the seventh and eighth.
A state of non-thought can arise (which is the 'raw' hard drive in the eighth consciousness revealing itself), as thoughts have subsided.
We are now dwelling in space...in the now.
This is a high state - one could call it higher consciousness, or mistake it for higher self. However, it is still in the realm of relative truth.
It still has duality about it...'me' in 'now'!

The trick is to merely look into that which is aware of now...and rest naturally.

Nothing can be found!
That is Empty Essence.
That is absolute truth.
The Emptiness of Emptiness is pure.
Once that is realised, it can radiantly express itself with joy! Good eh?

Resting in ultimate truth is not enough – then bless all with compassion.
This is how the two truths work nicely together.

When resting in Empty Consciousness, whatever arises in the mind is seen as if
Empty Consciousness was a clear mirror, and all appearances are merely reflected.
Therefore, appearances and Empty Cognisance are inseparable.
At this stage, do not try to see if ego is present or not.
Merely rest naturally without modification - all clinging will naturally release.

When going to spiritual centres, remember not leave your brains at the front door!

[markpierre]

.....Cheeky......

[Tony]

.....Cheeky......

Well......we can all empathise being grumpy! Been there done that...er....am still doing it!

Love and compassion may express itself even in a cloud of frustration...er..been there...am still doing it!

[markpierre]

I would honestly suggest you dont get caught up in how others perceive you, however i think this feeling the need to nuture is a 'teacher/student' role for you. There is no harm in being blunt if somebody is not understanding you, sometimes you have to be, especially on forums, otherwise you can come accross as condensending etc etc.

P.S Thanks for your compliment, i always enjoy a lot of what you had to say, however if a student never questions a teacher, how will he/she ever learn lol! Night night for me anyways & i agree with all of the above btw x

That's really really true, I know exactly what you mean.

And thanks for your compliment also. That's really sweet. You remind me a lot of my brother, the way you express yourself. You'd feel honored by that if you knew him. My favorite human.

Anyway welcome to the forum. Have fun, what the heck.

[markpierre]

.....Cheeky......

Well......we can all empathise being grumpy! Been there done that...er....am still doing it!

Love and compassion may express itself even in a cloud of frustration...er..been there...am still doing it!

You've had your pants leg hooked on the fence yourself? I don't believe it.

[nf857]

I did actually.

Perhaps it got missed because I chose to do it gently rather than bluntly because you are new here.

What you are seeing as our theories and beliefs are actually our experiences. We like to explore these experiences in this spiritual section of the forum. No one experience is right or wrong and we can all learn and grow as we share with each other.

When you use words like 'arrogant' and 'indoctrination' to describe someones experience, then you are missing what is going on here. If you want to understand the difference between experience and theories/beliefs, then there are plenty of people who would be willing to share some pointers on this.

But the same people are not necessarily going to be interested in debating when their experiences are challenged because challenging experiences is pointless - they are what they are.

On the other hand, there are plenty of topics on this forum which are crying out to have a challenging mind applied to them where people are believing things when they should be questioning them.

Hi Jeanette, dont worry nothing is personal is it? It people mind the way a conversation is going on a thread thatts exactly what they should do 'drop-off it'. Otherwise you are expecting the topic off conversation to go your way, even when its about people's spiritual experiences, however this topic of conversation on whether reality is real- can be viewed from a spiritual sense & also from a scientically sense. Its a very hypothetical topic off conversation, that which can't be proven. However i fail to understand how 'Whether reality is real or un-real?' can have been experienced? Have you ever been to the un-known? If so how would you know this? Its a chicken/egg conundrum, so now we are back where we are started when this thread began!!! Highlighting my analogy of chicken/egg.

Anybody who beleives that there view is more right than other's or assumes what somebody means without asking is arrogant. It is perfectly alright to use this word if you beleive somebody is coming accross this way to you when picking out every word you say or ask? Jeanette you should re-read this thread as you will the other person started questioning my experiences? I completly agree with you with that no one is right or wrong in a hypothetical or paranormal/spiritual debate, however ive already stated that, so should not have to repeat myself. I was not challening anybody, i was simply trying to gleam what other's experiencers were, trying to understand them, all i did was ask quetions? I didnt know asking questions was wrong? I agree that people should far more question than they should do believe as common sense should be applied here, especially when it comes to such big ideas/concepts like 'Whether Reality Exists?' Its great that mark is doing fine by relating to people, as i never judged him how he related to people, rather he judged me, or advised me i needed to think how i relate to people, it seems you should be pointing out that was just his viewpoint? Ive not had any problems in my relation with people on here upto now, as im new, however i merely pointed out the fact that not all minds think alike and will not always agree, its not realistic, however there is no need to keeping pointing this out to me.


Perhaps being new you may want to get the feel of the place around here before asking for changes to be made. As I said I am not interesed in a debate about this and I dropped out of this conversation because of it. I've only stepped in because you claimed no-one else had minded this debate and I realised that maybe, the gentle approach that I had used had been missed.

When have i asked for changes? Ive never asked once for changes, nor would i if i had been on here for a million years, un-less i had very good reason to as by my very nature i dont have a lot to grumble or moan about. Its funny how you are only pointing this out to me & not mark because you know him more, thats very un-fair on this 'new person' you keep referring too called Nicola btw. It takes two to tango and two to carry out this 'debate' you minded, so i would say your opnion is biased to the person who have you known longer or is more spiritually in-tune with you. The gentle approach to what? You either wanted to carry on with the topic of conversation or you didnt? As the thread came just about what me and mark were discussing the only thing i gleamed is you didnt want to take part in this but now have?

Can i aslo point out to you that which you keep pointing out to me about being new? Just from my perspective upto now, as im new, & dont know you very well yet, you are coming accross to me as if im not welcome here, with keeping directing me to other topics, when this topic off conversation 'does reality remain there?' was what interested me as ive read a couple of books on it already from the scientific standpoint, & the standpoint that can be proven. You are coming accross to me as only the spiritually experienced or philosphically experienced are welcome on this thread of 'Does Reality Exist'. I think the problem with your opnions about what is subject to this topic and what is not, is biased? As it can been viewed from the spiritual perspective and the scientifical, as im more scientifically minded & have tried to bridge this gap by questioning the more spirituallly minded some questions for my own learning experience. These is why we have moderators, i used to be a moderator myself, was taught if a topic of conversation had varying perspectives regardless of which forum it was posted in all are entitled to take the converstation where they want. This is not the 'Only spiritual perspectives allowed debate' is was a topic 'Does reality exist' posted in a spiritual forum. The problem is when people post a topic up for discussion its somebody else's discernment on where they post it, so if they post it in spiritual they are only wanting to talk about the spiritual perspectives, i would have posted it in a general discussion as there are other perspectives to be had.

Thanks jeanette well hopefully ive already found some friends already as im familiar with you, mark, and a few others already, thanks for all your help everybody, its a great learning experience upto now x

[nf857]

Once that is realised, it can radiantly express itself with joy! Good eh?


Or boredom lol! Joke Joke I find it hard to put these things into practice, i find meditation so hard in the first place, I suffer with M.E./Fibromyalgia as my body is mostly raked with pain and my muscles twitch all the time, its very hard for my body to become completly relaxed no matter how much i will my mind to do it so. For me it takes so much un-concentration to do this, by trying to un-concentrate i end up concentrating lol!

Very good ideas, i love the way of the Budda, however how do we know about these steps of consiousness? Are they just viewed as steps? Or dimensions? These numbers of consiousness? Are they gates of perception? What are your experiences?


That's really really true, I know exactly what you mean.

And thanks for your compliment also. That's really sweet. You remind me a lot of my brother, the way you express yourself. You'd feel honored by that if you knew him. My favorite human.

Anyway welcome to the forum. Have fun, what the heck.

Aww thats super, super sweet, im definitly honounered to be compared to him with such high regard. Thanks for the welcome, i already feel very, very welcome, the fact that evan one person is listening to half of what im waffling about surprises me, will help when i can finally get a picture up of me, its hard to relate to a person with no face or even body lol x;)

[Jenci]

I did actually.

Perhaps it got missed because I chose to do it gently rather than bluntly because you are new here.

What you are seeing as our theories and beliefs are actually our experiences. We like to explore these experiences in this spiritual section of the forum. No one experience is right or wrong and we can all learn and grow as we share with each other.

When you use words like 'arrogant' and 'indoctrination' to describe someones experience, then you are missing what is going on here. If you want to understand the difference between experience and theories/beliefs, then there are plenty of people who would be willing to share some pointers on this.

But the same people are not necessarily going to be interested in debating when their experiences are challenged because challenging experiences is pointless - they are what they are.

On the other hand, there are plenty of topics on this forum which are crying out to have a challenging mind applied to them where people are believing things when they should be questioning them.

Hi Jeanette, dont worry nothing is personal is it? It people mind the way a conversation is going on a thread thatts exactly what they should do 'drop-off it'. Otherwise you are expecting the topic off conversation to go your way, even when its about people's spiritual experiences, however this topic of conversation on whether reality is real- can be viewed from a spiritual sense & also from a scientically sense. Its a very hypothetical topic off conversation, that which can't be proven. However i fail to understand how 'Whether reality is real or un-real?' can have been experienced? Have you ever been to the un-known? If so how would you know this? Its a chicken/egg conundrum, so now we are back where we are started when this thread began!!! Highlighting my analogy of chicken/egg.

Anybody who beleives that there view is more right than other's or assumes what somebody means without asking is arrogant. It is perfectly alright to use this word if you beleive somebody is coming accross this way to you when picking out every word you say or ask? Jeanette you should re-read this thread as you will the other person started questioning my experiences? I completly agree with you with that no one is right or wrong in a hypothetical or paranormal/spiritual debate, however ive already stated that, so should not have to repeat myself. I was not challening anybody, i was simply trying to gleam what other's experiencers were, trying to understand them, all i did was ask quetions? I didnt know asking questions was wrong? I agree that people should far more question than they should do believe as common sense should be applied here, especially when it comes to such big ideas/concepts like 'Whether Reality Exists?' Its great that mark is doing fine by relating to people, as i never judged him how he related to people, rather he judged me, or advised me i needed to think how i relate to people, it seems you should be pointing out that was just his viewpoint? Ive not had any problems in my relation with people on here upto now, as im new, however i merely pointed out the fact that not all minds think alike and will not always agree, its not realistic, however there is no need to keeping pointing this out to me.


Perhaps being new you may want to get the feel of the place around here before asking for changes to be made. As I said I am not interesed in a debate about this and I dropped out of this conversation because of it. I've only stepped in because you claimed no-one else had minded this debate and I realised that maybe, the gentle approach that I had used had been missed.

When have i asked for changes? Ive never asked once for changes, nor would i if i had been on here for a million years, un-less i had very good reason to as by my very nature i dont have a lot to grumble or moan about. Its funny how you are only pointing this out to me & not mark because you know him more, thats very un-fair on this 'new person' you keep referring too called Nicola btw. It takes two to tango and two to carry out this 'debate' you minded, so i would say your opnion is biased to the person who have you known longer or is more spiritually in-tune with you. The gentle approach to what? You either wanted to carry on with the topic of conversation or you didnt? As the thread came just about what me and mark were discussing the only thing i gleamed is you didnt want to take part in this but now have?

Can i aslo point out to you that which you keep pointing out to me about being new? Just from my perspective upto now, as im new, & dont know you very well yet, you are coming accross to me as if im not welcome here, with keeping directing me to other topics, when this topic off conversation 'does reality remain there?' was what interested me as ive read a couple of books on it already from the scientific standpoint, & the standpoint that can be proven. You are coming accross to me as only the spiritually experienced or philosphically experienced are welcome on this thread of 'Does Reality Exist'. I think the problem with your opnions about what is subject to this topic and what is not, is biased? As it can been viewed from the spiritual perspective and the scientifical, as im more scientifically minded & have tried to bridge this gap by questioning the more spirituallly minded some questions for my own learning experience. These is why we have moderators, i used to be a moderator myself, was taught if a topic of conversation had varying perspectives regardless of which forum it was posted in all are entitled to take the converstation where they want. This is not the 'Only spiritual perspectives allowed debate' is was a topic 'Does reality exist' posted in a spiritual forum. The problem is when people post a topic up for discussion its somebody else's discernment on where they post it, so if they post it in spiritual they are only wanting to talk about the spiritual perspectives, i would have posted it in a general discussion as there are other perspectives to be had.

Thanks jeanette well hopefully ive already found some friends already as im familiar with you, mark, and a few others already, thanks for all your help everybody, its a great learning experience upto now x

Hi Nf857

You are making many points here and asking many questions. Rather than answer them all, I will pick a couple which I think are important.


Can i aslo point out to you that which you keep pointing out to me about being new? Just from my perspective upto now, as im new, & dont know you very well yet, you are coming accross to me as if im not welcome here, with keeping directing me to other topics, when this topic off conversation 'does reality remain there?' was what interested me as ive read a couple of books on it already from the scientific standpoint, & the standpoint that can be proven.
Let me reassure you, you are welcome here and I am not doing this to make you unwelcome - quite the opposite.

We are on a forum here where many people believe that mass spiritual awakening is the key to getting humanity out of the mess we are in. When people wake up collectively to the "unknown" then the game will be over for the PTB. The PTB know this and put much effort into keeping people spiritually asleep by keeping them worshipping false gods, keeping them identified with body/mind through mind control and conditioning and by diverting the spiritual seekers into a false ideas of what Consciousness is. We see this on this forum and there are agents here working to ensure people don't wake up spiritually.

We can be a suspiscious lot here and it does pay to be discerning. People will call out people who are derailing discussions, particularly if it is an important topic, and question their motives. My point about you being new is I am guessing that maybe you don't know this and rather than question your motives for what you are doing in this thread, I am making allowances for your newness and hinting at how you can approach things differently so you don't end up with people up against you questioning your purpose on this forum.

I don't agree that it is ok to use the word 'arrogant' or 'indoctrinated'. I think there are better ways to present your point of view - and your point of view is equally welcome here. The issue here is you are arguing with what you think are people's beliefs but they are not beliefs, they are experiences. They can't be argued with but others' experinences and beliefs can sit along side them. It's like my Mum always used to say to me for some reason ;) it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Or I could put it this way - go for the message, not the messenger.



However i fail to understand how 'Whether reality is real or un-real?' can have been experienced? Have you ever been to the un-known? If so how would you know this? Its a chicken/egg conundrum, so now we are back where we are started when this thread began!!! Highlighting my analogy of chicken/egg.
Yes I have been to the unknown.
Many others here have too and this is what they have been pointing to in this thread.
When you are at the unknown, then there is no chicken/egg question. It's just irrelevant, this is why there is no point for us, who experience the unknown, debating the topic.

The OP question itself if very useful for someone developing their experience of the unknown. You can think of it like meditation. Taking the question deep within and letting the question find the answer rather than scientifically trying to explain the question. Someone on the path of spiritual seeking will get to the point where the scientific answer is never enough and they have to go within to the unknown.

We do, however, have discussion here on spirituality and how it meets science. If you have a look back in this section you may find some that interest you.

Going back to the experience of the unknown. If you wish to experience this, I can assure you there are plenty of people here who are willing to offer you their experience and suggestions to reach this place and they will keep going, all the time you have questions.

But if you are not interested in this experience, what I am suggesting is that your challenging and questioning mind would be most welcome in some other threads where stuff is being believed which really is not true. I am sure the longer you spend around here you will notice this.:)

You may also want to put up an avatar picture. You can still be anonymous but these pictures do help us all to get to know who we are talking to. There are so many members on this forum it's difficult to keep track of who is who.



Hi Jeanette, dont worry nothing is personal is it?
Absolutely not. We are all here to learn and grow. Unfortunately the personal does happen sometimes on this forum and it's not pleasant but most of the time here we can air our opinions without making it personal to other people.

I am sure we will see you around here alot and you are welcome, not only to be here but also bring your own style too. :)
Jeanette

[nf857]

We can be a suspiscious lot here and it does pay to be discerning. People will call out people who are derailing discussions, particularly if it is an important topic, and question their motives. My point about you being new is I am guessing that maybe you don't know this and rather than question your motives for what you are doing in this thread, I am making allowances for your newness and hinting at how you can approach things differently so you don't end up with people up against you questioning your purpose on this forum.



You do not have to make allowances for me, im allowed, its a free country, i was no de-railing anything, i was fully immersed in the topic of conversation, hence my interest in it. However your point about 'its not what you say, its how you say it', if you are suspicious & think im trying to De-Rail a topic (when acutally i was just quesiontining your experiences against my own) then you should question why you have made this obvious to me jeanette? They key to being suspicious of somebody is not to make that obvious. Im glad you welcome me here, & i was just pointing out that telling me to go elsewhere, was making me feel quite the opposite of welcome, whether you choose to acknowledge that is upto you? I acknowledge what you are saying about the PTB, however upto now ive had no proof myself that the PTB have a problem with people's belief or experiences of the spiritually minded? I think if the PTB do exist, they are far more concerned with what can be proven scientifcally or beyond a shadow of a doubt, that which beleives there is a PTB. Whistle-blowers are not spiritually minded to have woke up? I woke up because it suddenly dawned on me that alien's could possibly be real,because of some very strange/unknown/paranormal experiences.

Buddha/Hindu/Christian/Pagan/Satanism/Quran are all just spiritiual perspectives, so what you all experience of the un-known is an indoctrination of that perspective, it involves a teacher & a student, i.e following a book/guide/teacher is following in one's beleif. When people experience a perspective on the un-known they are experiencing that beleif of the unknown- hence why i ask how you know you have been to the un-known, if it is in fact not known as it can't be tested or proven? I myself am spiritual in heart, that is my heart tells me that there is a creater or there is creater's & that there is a way of experiencing this, however i like to look at what can be proven so it adds weights to my beleif, i.e. divine matrix/holographic universe, these models have been tested to the limits of what can be proven in bringing the scientific/spiritual together, however it is far more scientific in theory as experience is subjective & can't be proven, it just adds good logic/reason into what might be going on when people experience this 'one consiciousness' subjectivley. This is why i ask if its just what you as one person or even many have experienced through following a guide of thought,then how do you know its real? E.G I follow a buddist's teachings, i then experience that what the buddist teachings, from a buddist's teachings perspective is experiencing, however it is no different to what another doctrine/dogma is experiencing, its just a different take on it. Again i feel the need to point out here thats why i ask the questions? As expereince is subjective it can't be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt. You could call me skeptical if you like, however that would imply i doubt all this, & i dont as my heart tells me this is real, however my mind question its reality. It seems anybody who is skeptical though, is viewed as a 'debunker' or 'dis-information' agent, so it is a form of mind-control in itself as it has you conditioned into beleiveing that if anybody questions their beliefs rationally they are part of the PTB. I sit on the fence in this debate 'scientific/spiritual', as ive know way of knowing one way or the other, however i lean towards science more as it can be proven, and its not just my experience of a sharing of the experience from one perspective i.e budda teachings.


We are on a forum here where many people believe that mass spiritual awakening is the key to getting humanity out of the mess we are in. When people wake up collectively to the "unknown" then the game will be over for the PTB. The PTB know this and put much effort into keeping people spiritually asleep by keeping them worshipping false gods, keeping them identified with body/mind through mind control and conditioning and by diverting the spiritual seekers into a false ideas of what Consciousness is. We see this on this forum and there are agents here working to ensure people don't wake up spiritually.



However i point out again, this is just one perspective, it could be viewed that mass ''spiritual awakening'' is ''mass spiritual sending to sleep'' as if we only view humanity as either asleep/awake how do we know which is which? There is no proof that being spiritually minded is the awakening? As i point out the awakening that we all talk about comes from many perspectives not just the spritual, other people have experienced the awakening without any pre-conceived ideas/beleifs at all. As the idea that there is 'one consciousness' this is itself a a form of 'mind-control' as its makes you think that no mater what happens its 'one consiousness' way of dealing with everything & takes away any responsiblity for the individual, and if you beleive in 'one consiousness' you also beleive that the PTB are part of this one consiousness? So the PTB have just as much right to be here as the rest of us, as we are all one consiousness, consiousness itself is battling its own beleifs? I dont beleive in the 'one consiousness idea' as time and time again, i see people battling over there belief in it? The PTB themselves worship false gods, if everything that is wrote about them are real, so are no different to what we beleive from a spiritual sense of 'one cosiousness' this could be a false god called 'consiousness' couldnt it? Here i am questioning again your experiences against your belief's, if you beleive in 'one consiousness' do you beleif that 'consousness' is at war with itself? If so we could all just die couldn't we when the battle is over. I dont beleive it at all. What if we are are just monkey in shoes & then we die? Not that i beleive it at all, as i think there is more to life than life's **** then you die thought form, and there is too many questions that can't be answered in thinking this way? However what it if? I like to beleive we are all just here in this material plain of existence & it is infinity iself, so in inifinity that i make the anolgy of the figure 8, we go round and round the racetrack, but we always end up back where we started, on the same racetrack, hence chicken/egg.


The OP question itself if very useful for someone developing their experience of the unknown. You can think of it like meditation. Taking the question deep within and letting the question find the answer rather than scientifically trying to explain the question. Someone on the path of spiritual seeking will get to the point where the scientific answer is never enough and they have to go within to the unknown

Yes thats the theory isnt it? However if i go off to the 'un-known' ive become asleep never questioning or knowning it, just following it blindly to see where it takes me. I agree that the spiritual seeking model no longer see the validity of the question, however the question is still very valid, its just that if you have gone down the 'rabbit hole' of the spirituall-unknown you no longer see the original question for its worth? When alice goes down the rabbit-hole she comes back no longer questioning herself, agreed she comes back much happier in her existence , however she still has to get on with her life, as she can't stay in 'wonderland' for ever, if you watched the latest version, it explained Lewis Carroll even better, as it more updated/modern take on how 'Wonderland' could possibly exist, it involved themes of her having been there before & however she had forget she had been there before, it implies that there is two 'alice's' in separate dimensions, as if she already knew about 'wonderland' no matter how many times she had been there, she already knew of its existence, it can be viewed as just fractals of your own mind, or duality of your own mind, however if duality exists if prooves we are not all one consiousness, it proves that the other you that is harder to find, has broke off from that which you beleive the PTB wants us to beleive

[
QUOTE]We do, however, have discussion here on spirituality and how it meets science. If you have a look back in this section you may find some that interest you.



Hi again, this is a general debate & doesnt really bring the debate into a way we can test it, however 'Whether reality exists' bring them both together, so i would prefer to talk about the way it can be tested, rather than whether it can be brought together, it prefer to see how it can be brought together, not question if it can;).

[/QUOTE]


Going back to the experience of the unknown. If you wish to experience this, I can assure you there are plenty of people here who are willing to offer you their experience and suggestions to reach this place and they will keep going, all the time you have questions.

Yes thats the idea of sharing one's beleif's with anothers, or sharing one's experiences of anothers. It can be viwed that no matter how many times i keep going with my questions your suggestions don't bring me this experience about.

[Jenci]

We can be a suspiscious lot here and it does pay to be discerning. People will call out people who are derailing discussions, particularly if it is an important topic, and question their motives. My point about you being new is I am guessing that maybe you don't know this and rather than question your motives for what you are doing in this thread, I am making allowances for your newness and hinting at how you can approach things differently so you don't end up with people up against you questioning your purpose on this forum.



You do not have to make allowances for me, im allowed, its a free country, i was no de-railing anything, i was fully immersed in the topic of conversation, hence my interest in it. However your point about 'its not what you say, its how you say it', if you are suspicious & think im trying to De-Rail a topic (when acutally i was just quesiontining your experiences against my own) then you should question why you have made this obvious to me jeanette? They key to being suspicious of somebody is not to make that obvious. Im glad you welcome me here, & i was just pointing out that telling me to go elsewhere, was making me feel quite the opposite of welcome, whether you choose to acknowledge that is upto you? I acknowledge what you are saying about the PTB, however upto now ive had no proof myself that the PTB have a problem with people's belief or experiences of the spiritually minded? I think if the PTB do exist, they are far more concerned with what can be proven scientifcally or beyond a shadow of a doubt, that which beleives there is a PTB. Whistle-blowers are not spiritually minded to have woke up? I woke up because it suddenly dawned on me that alien's could possibly be real,because of some very strange/unknown/paranormal experiences.

Buddha/Hindu/Christian/Pagan/Satanism/Quran are all just spiritiual perspectives, so what you all experience of the un-known is an indoctrination of that perspective, it involves a teacher & a student, i.e following a book/guide/teacher is following in one's beleif. When people experience a perspective on the un-known they are experiencing that beleif of the unknown- hence why i ask how you know you have been to the un-known, if it is in fact not known as it can't be tested or proven? I myself am spiritual in heart, that is my heart tells me that there is a creater or there is creater's & that there is a way of experiencing this, however i like to look at what can be proven so it adds weights to my beleif, i.e. divine matrix/holographic universe, these models have been tested to the limits of what can be proven in bringing the scientific/spiritual together, however it is far more scientific in theory as experience is subjective & can't be proven, it just adds good logic/reason into what might be going on when people experience this 'one consiciousness' subjectivley. This is why i ask if its just what you as one person or even many have experienced through following a guide of thought,then how do you know its real? E.G I follow a buddist's teachings, i then experience that what the buddist teachings, from a buddist's teachings perspective is experiencing, however it is no different to what another doctrine/dogma is experiencing, its just a different take on it. Again i feel the need to point out here thats why i ask the questions? As expereince is subjective it can't be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt. You could call me skeptical if you like, however that would imply i doubt all this, & i dont as my heart tells me this is real, however my mind question its reality. It seems anybody who is skeptical though, is viewed as a 'debunker' or 'dis-information' agent, so it is a form of mind-control in itself as it has you conditioned into beleiveing that if anybody questions their beliefs rationally they are part of the PTB. I sit on the fence in this debate 'scientific/spiritual', as ive know way of knowing one way or the other, however i lean towards science more as it can be proven, and its not just my experience of a sharing of the experience from one perspective i.e budda teachings.


We are on a forum here where many people believe that mass spiritual awakening is the key to getting humanity out of the mess we are in. When people wake up collectively to the "unknown" then the game will be over for the PTB. The PTB know this and put much effort into keeping people spiritually asleep by keeping them worshipping false gods, keeping them identified with body/mind through mind control and conditioning and by diverting the spiritual seekers into a false ideas of what Consciousness is. We see this on this forum and there are agents here working to ensure people don't wake up spiritually.



However i point out again, this is just one perspective, it could be viewed that mass ''spiritual awakening'' is ''mass spiritual sending to sleep'' as if we only view humanity as either asleep/awake how do we know which is which? There is no proof that being spiritually minded is the awakening? As i point out the awakening that we all talk about comes from many perspectives not just the spritual, other people have experienced the awakening without any pre-conceived ideas/beleifs at all. As the idea that there is 'one consciousness' this is itself a a form of 'mind-control' as its makes you think that no mater what happens its 'one consiousness' way of dealing with everything & takes away any responsiblity for the individual, and if you beleive in 'one consiousness' you also beleive that the PTB are part of this one consiousness? So the PTB have just as much right to be here as the rest of us, as we are all one consiousness, consiousness itself is battling its own beleifs? I dont beleive in the 'one consiousness idea' as time and time again, i see people battling over there belief in it? The PTB themselves worship false gods, if everything that is wrote about them are real, so are no different to what we beleive from a spiritual sense of 'one cosiousness' this could be a false god called 'consiousness' couldnt it? Here i am questioning again your experiences against your belief's, if you beleive in 'one consiousness' do you beleif that 'consousness' is at war with itself? If so we could all just die couldn't we when the battle is over. I dont beleive it at all. What if we are are just monkey in shoes & then we die? Not that i beleive it at all, as i think there is more to life than life's **** then you die thought form, and there is too many questions that can't be answered in thinking this way? However what it if? I like to beleive we are all just here in this material plain of existence & it is infinity iself, so in inifinity that i make the anolgy of the figure 8, we go round and round the racetrack, but we always end up back where we started, on the same racetrack, hence chicken/egg.


The OP question itself if very useful for someone developing their experience of the unknown. You can think of it like meditation. Taking the question deep within and letting the question find the answer rather than scientifically trying to explain the question. Someone on the path of spiritual seeking will get to the point where the scientific answer is never enough and they have to go within to the unknown

Yes thats the theory isnt it? However if i go off to the 'un-known' ive become asleep never questioning or knowning it, just following it blindly to see where it takes me. I agree that the spiritual seeking model no longer see the validity of the question, however the question is still very valid, its just that if you have gone down the 'rabbit hole' of the spirituall-unknown you no longer see the original question for its worth?

It seems you misunderstand everything I say, Nf857, and I can see that responding to all of these questions you ask again, is not going to help. So I'll leave it there.
Thank you.
Jeanette

[nf857]

It seems you misunderstand everything I say, Nf857, and I can see that responding to all of these questions you ask again, is not going to help. So I'll leave it there.


I can only gleam from that, that you mis-undertand me as well, no need for NF857, ive said my name is Nicola, as we are more familiar now arnt we? It seems common manners do not apply to the 'Spiritually Awakened', It's ok no one is asking you to answer my questions, however if somebody questions your beleif's and you can't answer those questions about your beliefs/ or experiences of that beleif, this should make you question it yourself.


But if you are not interested in this experience, what I am suggesting is that your challenging and questioning mind would be most welcome in some other threads where stuff is being believed which really is not true. I am sure the longer you spend around here you will notice this.



I dont beleive you have a right to keep telling me where to go, it seems the spiritually awakened beleives it is the only truth, as you have just stated above. I may well notice where i prefer to spend my time on here, however i dont think its kind or helpful, to start telling people where they should go, if i had an interest in this question im entitled to be on here, just as much as you. Re: my avatar, also upto me isnt it? It seems the spiritually awakened that you speak for when ive found most people on here quite welcoming, represent the rude & arrogant. I say this as you jeanette are coming accross this way, not that you are as a person, as i dont know you.

[wolf_rt]

I would think that most of us, if not all, can agree that there is a God, Source, Alah what ever you want to call it!!! I also think we can all agree that God does not waste anything. God turns off the lights when it leaves the room. We all also know that matter is energy. Now if we agree that consiousness give rise to matter, which I think many do. Then we have to ask this question. If I am sitting in my bedroom with the door closed and there is no one else in the house. Is the hallway, bathroom, livingroom, ect. there? If there is no one around to percieve the matter then would it not be a waste of energy to not use that energy somewhere else? Im not saying that we all have a universe unto ourselfs but rather asking if it does not need to be there for a life form to percieve it is it there? Im sure we have all heard of Schrodinger's cat in a box? Tell me what you think!!!

Soooo....

I used to think about this quite a bit. These days, i'm of the opinion that since all matter IS consciousness, then the 'rest of the house' doesn't disappear when no body's looking.
A friend of mine did relate a strange experience though... He claims to have changed the album art of some black metal album to include a 'streaky lightning' pattern in the background.. (some sort of time line manipulation?)
I wouldn't have thought twice about this, except that my mother related the same story (that he had told her about 4 years earlier) the VERY next time i saw her... out of the blue... she mentioned that she had seen my friend drawing this pattern intently, over and over, and it creped her out. (he was institutionalised at the time)... weird.

I often do wonder if objects vanish if nobody gives them conscious thought though.

[solosthere]

Wolf I have to agree that it remains. The reason I say this is because iif the universe is god's way of experiencing the statement "I AM" then even if we sterilize the hall then God is saying I am the hall. God is experiencing what is like to be the hall.

[Jenci]

Wolf I have to agree that it remains. The reason I say this is because iif the universe is god's way of experiencing the statement "I AM" then even if we sterilize the hall then God is saying I am the hall. God is experiencing what is like to be the hall.

But what is the hall?
Is it the walls that make the hall or the space?

I've thought about this question too, for a long time, lol
Jeanette

[Tarka the Duck]

Hi guys..

A dumb question from me maybe.

If you rig up a camera on the object in mind, don't that record whatever you were looking for.??

P.s...you might even here the tree falling, if you got the sound turnd on...:rolleyes:


I love this...;)

[Tarka the Duck]

Wolf I have to agree that it remains. The reason I say this is because iif the universe is god's way of experiencing the statement "I AM" then even if we sterilize the hall then God is saying I am the hall. God is experiencing what is like to be the hall.

But what is the hall?
Is it the walls that make the hall or the space?

I've thought about this question too, for a long time, lol
Jeanette

Reminds me of the hammer story: my grandad lent my dad a hammer.
My dad broke the handle and so he bought a new one and fitted it.
He then lent it to me and I twisted the head, so bought a new one and fitted it.
Then my grandad asked for his hammer back.
Was it still "his" hammer?...:confused:

Every thing is made up of components - and then we give it a label and think that is what it is!

[nf857]

Soooo....

I
used to think about this quite a bit. These days, i'm of the opinion that since all matter IS consciousness, then the 'rest of the house' doesn't disappear when no body's looking.
A friend of mine did relate a strange experience though... He claims to have changed the album art of some black metal album to include a 'streaky lightning' pattern in the background.. (some sort of time line manipulation?)
I wouldn't have thought twice about this, except that my mother related the same story (that he had told her about 4 years earlier) the VERY next time i saw her... out of the blue... she mentioned that she had seen my friend drawing this pattern intently, over and over, and it creped her out. (he was institutionalised at the time)... weird.

I often do wonder if objects vanish if nobody gives them conscious thought though.



Now we are up my street with this, as it involves different dimensions/worm holes/parrelel universes as above highlights. Very good story & also some proof as not just 1 person experienced the very same thing in a different time/space to this one. Its as if both the mother and the experiencer were both viewing somthing out of the ordinary in another realm & it became reality in this. Its marvelous when you bring the idea that anything is possible, it you beleive it.


Reminds me of the hammer story: my grandad lent my dad a hammer.
My dad broke the handle and so he bought a new one and fitted it.
He then lent it to me and I twisted the head, so bought a new one and fitted it.
Then my grandad asked for his hammer back.
Was it still "his" hammer?...

Every thing is made up of components - and then we give it a label and think that is what it is!


Bravo brillant anology, i suppose as both components of 'Grandad's Hammer' have been replaced it is not 'Grandad's Hammer' anymore? Or is there is some part i.e. screws that keep the handle in place or head in place, still apart of 'Grandad's Hammer'?

[wolf_rt]

Yeah, i don't think 'anything is possible if you believe it'

But i'm tempted to think 'anything is possible if you get a critical mass of people to believe it'

[nf857]

Hi guys..

A dumb question from me maybe.


If you rig up a camera on the object in mind, don't that record whatever you were looking for.??

P.s...you might even here the tree falling, if you got the sound turnd on...

I love this...

I dont as its outdated/outmoded question, it was obviously queried before we had technology to answer the question with some obvious logical answer. However if we now ask the question 'does the tree fall, or can the tree fallend be heard- if nobody,no object,nothing or medium' can view it? I think the tree still crashes or still make a noise, its just that no medium is in the time/space to view it.


But what is the hall?
Is it the walls that make the hall or the space?


I've thought about this question too, for a long time, lol

Good one jeanette, chicken/egg conundrum. It depends how you perceive it, no right/wrong answer. I would say both space and walls make the hall, i know im simplefying here, but im a great beleiver in the art of simplicity, as when presented with a very difficult question, you break it down into a simple answer.

[Jenci]

Wolf I have to agree that it remains. The reason I say this is because iif the universe is god's way of experiencing the statement "I AM" then even if we sterilize the hall then God is saying I am the hall. God is experiencing what is like to be the hall.

But what is the hall?
Is it the walls that make the hall or the space?

I've thought about this question too, for a long time, lol
Jeanette

Reminds me of the hammer story: my grandad lent my dad a hammer.
My dad broke the handle and so he bought a new one and fitted it.
He then lent it to me and I twisted the head, so bought a new one and fitted it.
Then my grandad asked for his hammer back.
Was it still "his" hammer?...:confused:

Every thing is made up of components - and then we give it a label and think that is what it is!

Sorry, couldn't resist, Kathie ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbha4XclSMU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL62A1D30555C72B5E&v=pbha4XclSMU&feature=player_detailpage

[nf857]

Yeah, i don't think 'anything is possible if you believe it'

But i'm tempted to think 'anything is possible if you get a critical mass of people to believe it'

Yes first implys just one experiencer, second implies if more than i person experience's it we can change that which was going to happen into happening.However no matter if the collective changed what was going to happen or just the individual the intent was still it was going to happen. I.E. Collective focus's on bring about change, that change happens. Does not mean collective changed anything, its just that it was going to happen anyway, as individual could have done the opposite of collective's bringing about change, & still happens, if it happens in that time/space. Its not that focused intent does anything, it just that was what was meant to happen in the future. No matter how you try and change you future in the 'now' you are not messing with the probabilitys, you dont have that power, its just that some outside factor changed it from what was going to happen, into happening. Exactly why i don't beleive in just ONE thought form or a collective of that ONE thought form, it seems more are in play.


Yes I have been to the unknown.
Many others here have too and this is what they have been pointing to in this thread.
When you are at the unknown, then there is no chicken/egg question. It's just irrelevant, this is why there is no point for us, who experience the unknown, debating the topic.



Can i ask in your opnion then jeanette why you and others are debating this very thing again ,now the topic is back at the start of the figure 8? That as quoted above in your own words you were not as a collective or individual as it was in your own words 'irrelevant'. Please don't think im being rude or trying to 'De-Rail' beleifs, its just that you were talking for everybody as collective, when its quite apparent we are all individuls, & nobody or no-thing can speak for everybody, as everybody's experiencers, regardless of their beliefs, even if they are the same belief's are subjective & to the individual experiencer. I think i point out here that 'Does Reality Exist' is not one beleif/one experiences/one collective of beleifs or experiences, they are all just perceptions. Therefore you would think it was healty to have a different view or perspective to the consensus, as you are putting your theories of 'false god's' or 'one consiousness' to its biggest test, your are proving your beleif's or changing your views on said belief rather than doing what you think the PTB want in separating mind from body or visa versa as if you go with any one source your mind has been separated, especially with a beleif that we are not in control of our existence. And even more especially if it has you thinking that your beleif or the spiritual beleif is the only truth & everything else is a lie. Not only are you beleiving in just 'conspirarcy theory' without question you are also beleivig that the way to fight the 'conspiracy theories' is to follow in your own beleifs only.

I wont say anymore, i think ive made my points, i dont beleive in PTB, or what people want you to beleive about them, there is always going to be people in power & secrets in governments as its the private sector, people used to respect that. However beleiving its use against them is 'divide and conquer' its is pitting humans against humans, i think that speaks volumes. Can you imagine if your 'channel' turns out not to be telling the truth. OMG!!! Disasterous!!! If an alien race landed we would all start get along fine, hmmm yes right, we would stop fighting & all join hands in one renuion, id love to know who said that, it was a president & he was very mis-guided. Obviously an alien race infiltrating biggest wepon is to disarm us, 'Consiousness' -is all there is' & then 'Divide Us' 'Consiousness Means Its The Only Truth'

One thing that guardian angels continually seek to do is create situations where people find it hard to avoid facing their biggest psychological problems/weaknesses – or at least being aware of them. This is because that brings accurate identification of the problem(s), which is already more than halfway to their solution – at least on an individual level. At Avalon people talk about the Matrix of control. Well, to anybody from a higher dimension who gets born here the social matrix looks insanely arbitrary and ridiculous. I have noticed that in my own life, and also in the lives of other people I have known who I believe were incarnated guardian angels, a line has been drawn. No matter how hard we may have tried to conform, still, at various stages of life, including childhood, we took a stand. Many stands. We decided that society is just so ridiculous in certain ways that we won’t take it seriously any more in those areas.

Well, the ruling elite are basically just copies of you. They’re the mirror you and all of humanity need to look in.

[solosthere]

jeneci I would say the hall is both. What ever contains the space and the space itself. If did not have one or the other then you wouldnt have it. If you dont have the walls you have open space and if you have walls with out the space then you would have 2 walls up agianst eachother. Our concept of a room is defined by the combination of the 2 elements

[Jenci]

jeneci I would say the hall is both. What ever contains the space and the space itself. If did not have one or the other then you wouldnt have it. If you dont have the walls you have open space and if you have walls with out the space then you would have 2 walls up agianst eachother. Our concept of a room is defined by the combination of the 2 elements

Hi Solosthere,

How about this.....

The hall is defined by the space within.

If there was no space within, there would be no hall.

There could be no vertical walls, just a pile of bricks.

But what defines the piles of bricks? The space which surrounds them.

How could the pile of bricks exist without the space? No space, no bricks.

Everything is dependent on space for existence.

Space is the source of all. Experientially I see that everything arises out of space, the no-thingness.
That is what I am.
Jeanette

[nf857]

jeneci I would say the hall is both. What ever contains the space and the space itself. If did not have one or the other then you wouldnt have it. If you dont have the walls you have open space and if you have walls with out the space then you would have 2 walls up agianst eachother. Our concept of a room is defined by the combination of the 2 elements

Exactly my answer as well, it seem very simple to me. You can't have one without the other. Love the two walls up against each other lol. Simplicity is great. I think jenci means that space outside of ourself is it real or not? Or do we just perceive it as real? Any space or any object? As were in 3D we will never know will we? x

[Jenci]

jeneci I would say the hall is both. What ever contains the space and the space itself. If did not have one or the other then you wouldnt have it. If you dont have the walls you have open space and if you have walls with out the space then you would have 2 walls up agianst eachother. Our concept of a room is defined by the combination of the 2 elements

Hi Solosthere,

How about this.....

The hall is defined by the space within.

If there was no space within, there would be no hall.

There could be no vertical walls, just a pile of bricks.

But what defines the piles of bricks? The space which surrounds them.

How could the pile of bricks exist without the space? No space, no bricks.

Everything is dependent on space for existence.

Space is the source of all. Experientially I see that everything arises out of space, the no-thingness.
That is what I am.
Jeanette

This is a video of Nassim Haramein discussing free energy. It's a good video - skip to 12.05 if you want to hear the explanation from a physics point of view which relates to my experience from equiry, that everything arises out of space.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgHTAzAtt-M&feature=player_embedded

source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgHTAzAtt-M&feature=player_embedded




Jeanette

[nf857]

The hall is defined by the space within.

If there was no space within, there would be no hall.

There could be no vertical walls, just a pile of bricks.

But what defines the piles of bricks? The space which surrounds them.

How could the pile of bricks exist without the space? No space, no bricks.

Everything is dependent on space for existence.

Space is the source of all. Experientially I see that everything arises out of space, the no-thingness.
That is what I am.


What if the the space within is defined by the halls? If you beleive you are made of the no-thingness that which you call space, im sure your creater won't be happy with its designs being de-valued to mere no-thingness, they are some thing that should not try to be defined they just are 'chicken/egg', if something wishes not be defined 'classless' it is simple and easy to understand, in essenense you miss 'the woods' for 'the trees' . x

[solosthere]

ok we need to remove the chicken and the egg. we know the egg comes first from a mutation that occurs in an animal that is like a chicken but not quite. so no problem there we also no that birds developed from raptor type dinos so we can take it back a long way. b4 that we can say that dinos came from reptiles and they came amphibians which came from fish

[markpierre]

Chicken or egg. I don't know. It sort of feels like what came first was the question. Where did that come from?

[nf857]

ok we need to remove the chicken and the egg. we know the egg comes first from a mutation that occurs in an animal that is like a chicken but not quite. so no problem there we also no that birds developed from raptor type dinos so we can take it back a long way. b4 that we can say that dinos came from reptiles and they came amphibians which came from fish

Yes your right that is how the egg came about, but then as above you have highlighted no matter how far you take it backwards, you end up in the same place. So the chicken/egg thing is just a simple analogy of that, its just 'If Nothing Is Nothing-What Created Something From Nothing' i.e. If there is only 'One Source' what created 'One Source' & even if we find that 'Source' what created that 'Source' its ifinity. Like Buzz Lightyear 'To Ifinity & Beyond' until we get 'Beyond' we will never know. Jeanette great video from a scientifical standpoint we can then understand that everything comes from 'Space' however how did 'Space' bring about 'Creation', 'Space' Is just 'Nothing' so how can 'Nothing' 'Create-Anything?'.

We will never know, my belief is the only way we would get 'Out Of Source-Space' is getting out of 'Ifinity' from a spiritual perspective i would make the 'Ifinity'- 'Purgatory' as all spiritual teachings tell you, to get beyond 'Time-Space' which is the material plain or inhabiting a material body, you need to get beyond 'Space/Time' even if you could travel faster than the speed of light, you still would not get beyong 'Space/Time' as you would go into your future, un-less your future, you had figured out how to get beyond it, you would never do. So its a question of 'Transcendance' which is why i make the point that i have never met a truely 'Enlightened' person in this lifetime as they would not be here in this 'Time/Space' however might use material bodies to influence effects/change, i.e. changing a destiny, as all lifelines have a probability, those lifelines can correct their paths, if your path was enlightment, you would not be here in existence-un-less you are inhabiting that body right now & don't know it. I suggest that if anybody feels that way, they should try & think what 'Dimension' being one might be, as there are many,many.many.

I feel as if i belong to the 'Guardian Angel' faction, as everything i know about 'Guardian Angels' resonates with me, i also have very many recollections of my past lives in material existence, however im well aware how i choose to become into being a 'human' i choose 'Nicola', may sound crazy, however from my standpoint its is 'humanity' that is crazy as a collective, you can't ever make sense of it as that is 'the human condition' on planet earth we have all this 'control' however 'who do you think is pulling the string's? If just 'One Source' existed it would not be at battle with itself, the 'controlers' are not of this 'One Source' or 'Unconciousness' as this is too simplified as to how all this plays out. You can think of life as a 'Video Game' we are the characters, however we don't have a choice about how 'Our World' is affected. Everything we see/hear/smell is part of the control, however no matter how many people 'wake up' as you like to say, it can't change 'the fact'.

'The Matrix' 'Waking-Up To This' as Neo finds out, no matter how much he fights 'The Machines-Of Control' he is not out of the 'Matrix' rather just being able to see it, or under its 'Web' rather than 'Caught In Its Web' however 'Neo & Morphious & The Gang' never quite figure out how to 'detach' from it. You can see if for what it is, & fight it all day long, however you can never beat it. So to get beyond 'The Matrix' you have to be able to become more than you are, more than you were, more than you will ever be, ive never met anybody in this lifeline who can change the 'Spirit Of One's Destiny' 'Destiny' no matter how you 'affect it' it will always be your 'Destiny' as if you change its lifeline to another path it is already ahead of you, it already knew you were going to change, it correct its course before you knew it. x

[solosthere]

Jenci what i really like about the video yoof it we are also coming to u put up is the end where he say that while we are getting to a point of understanding the physics we are also coming to a new understanding of how we are all connected on a fundamental level and that he feels this is going to lead to a fundamental change is how we relate to eachother. That is what this is all about mna kind is on a th threshold of an understanding that will to an evolution of the consiousness and our selfs. I think most of us on this site have had this epiphany or are at the edge of it. It is a leap that i think all life forms have to take in order to continue past where we are currently on this world.

[Jenci]

Jenci what i really like about the video yoof it we are also coming to u put up is the end where he say that while we are getting to a point of understanding the physics we are also coming to a new understanding of how we are all connected on a fundamental level and that he feels this is going to lead to a fundamental change is how we relate to eachother. That is what this is all about mna kind is on a th threshold of an understanding that will to an evolution of the consiousness and our selfs. I think most of us on this site have had this epiphany or are at the edge of it. It is a leap that i think all life forms have to take in order to continue past where we are currently on this world.


Yes he is saying that science shows that we are all interconnected. I would guess this is not new, just like the idea of free energy is not new (dates back a century). This has all been supressed and it's good to see some brave people talking about it.

I believe too that when more people wake up to the realisation that they are Consciousness, not the individual body/mind that they believe they are, then we will fundamentally change how we relate to each other. And that's when the pyramid will come tumbling down because they will no longer be able to keep us trapped in their fear.
Jeanette

[aranuk]

I don't know if what I am going to say has been said here. If you close the door of the bedroom and go to bed, the other rooms of the house are still there, otherwise the electric cables to lights and sockets and for that matter the pipes of the central heating would all have to be blanked off. If they were not blanked off the heating system wouldn;t work and the electrical system would short. The fact that none of these occurrencies actually happen means that the rooms which you cannot see must still be there.

Stan

[nf857]

I don't know if what I am going to say has been said here. If you close the door of the bedroom and go to bed, the other rooms of the house are still there, otherwise the electric cables to lights and sockets and for that matter the pipes of the central heating would all have to be blanked off. If they were not blanked off the heating system wouldn;t work and the electrical system would short. The fact that none of these occurrencies actually happen means that the rooms which you cannot see must still be there.

Stan

Well said Stan, who controls the electricity/heating system pipes etc etc, see if you like we build our own nests, however we didn't build them, somebody else did for most of us, this is why people like 'to live off the grid', that we we are un-touchable, however how do we all stay in conctact in this 'union' if we go 'off the grid', arn't we here at this time for a reason in this awakening? Rather than be all here talking about whether 'Reality' exists, we should be prooving we are 'out of' the pretence of this 'reality' into our own 'reality'. This is beating 'control', however no 'daggers/swords' are needed, just 'thought forms' i think everybody just needs to be themselves, be true to themselves, be honest.

The biggest farce of all of this is 'fear' are we are trancending from 'fear' as to be truely awake we need 'no fears' 'fears' are just allusion, however can we really be honest & say yes we fear it? If we do fear it, rather we 'dont let fear' 'control' our lives we just acknowledge it 'exists' & 'laugh' & is futile attempts at control, its biggest mistake was 'internet', however when 'frankenstein' built its 'monster' it never conceived its monster would have a mind of its own and become more than its 'CREATER'. x

[Dennis-G]

I also think we can all agree that God does not waste anything. God turns off the lights when it leaves the room.

Interesting train of thought. I like people who think for themselves, so I applaud you for that.

The part I quoted is where your theory falls apart for me. Quite simply, I think God has an unlimited supply of energy. There is no need for God to conserve that which God has in infinite amount.

[nf857]

Interesting train of thought. I like people who think for themselves, so I applaud you for that.

The part I quoted is where your theory falls apart for me. Quite simply, I think God has an unlimited supply of energy. There is no need for God to conserve that which God has in infinite amount.

If you beleive in 'one source/god' etc etc, you are not thinking for 'yourself' you are not breaking the 'mold', beleifs in gods,angels, demons etc, are all thought forms of 'control' if you acknowledge that you will never 'have true control' but, you can use 'control' to your own 'good uses' this is a very positive step to enlightment x

[Dennis-G]

If you beleive in 'one source/god' etc etc, you are not thinking for 'yourself' you are not breaking the 'mold', beleifs in gods,angels, demons etc, are all thought forms of 'control' if you acknowledge that you will never 'have true control' but, you can use 'control' to your own 'good uses' this is a very positive step to enlightment x

Sorry, but there is no logic to your argument. Without logic, your beliefs are unconvincing. Thinking for yourself doesn't have to mean rejecting all known beliefs. And breaking a mold isn't necessarily thinking for yourself -- sometimes it's just useless posturing and a rejection of truth. More importantly though...

We all filter reality according to our own experiences, biases, emotions, thought habits and mental ability. Your "positive step to enlightenment" may be part of your path, but you can't judge the reality of others using your own individual mental and emotional filters. Well, you can, but you will be wrong nearly every time.

Each person has their own path to enlightenment. There are as many paths as there are people. This is necessarily so because we all start from a different place. If there were only one path, we would all have to start at the same place. To reject someone else's reality according to your own interpretation of it is to deny the importance of their own journey through life.

[nf857]

Sorry, but there is no logic to your argument. Without logic, your beliefs are unconvincing. Thinking for yourself doesn't have to mean rejecting all known beliefs. And breaking a mold isn't necessarily thinking for yourself -- sometimes it's just useless posturing and a rejection of truth. More importantly though...

We all filter reality according to our own experiences, biases, emotions, thought habits and mental ability. Your "positive step to enlightenment" may be part of your path, but you can't judge the reality of others using your own individual mental and emotional filters. Well, you can, but you will be wrong nearly every time.


Logic is part of 'control', & also you contradict yourself in these 2 paragraphs, first you say my arguement is wrong, then you say you can't judge anothers perception, as its likely to be wrong, you have just judged my perception & told me im wrong, as its not logical!!! LOL!!!

I dont reject anybodys perception, its just not my perception, i cant reject what was not mine to begin with .......

[tonyp]

the only matter that really may matter maybe the minds matter of reality maybe..in fact taking it a step further perhaps all posts prior to mine were created by my subconcious matter ...ie ..the part of my grey matter which is disfunctional

[Dennis-G]

Sorry, but there is no logic to your argument. Without logic, your beliefs are unconvincing. Thinking for yourself doesn't have to mean rejecting all known beliefs. And breaking a mold isn't necessarily thinking for yourself -- sometimes it's just useless posturing and a rejection of truth. More importantly though...

We all filter reality according to our own experiences, biases, emotions, thought habits and mental ability. Your "positive step to enlightenment" may be part of your path, but you can't judge the reality of others using your own individual mental and emotional filters. Well, you can, but you will be wrong nearly every time.


Logic is part of 'control', & also you contradict yourself in these 2 paragraphs, first you say my arguement is wrong, then you say you can't judge anothers perception, as its likely to be wrong, you have just judged my perception & told me im wrong, as its not logical!!! LOL!!!

I dont reject anybodys perception, its just not my perception, i cant reject what was not mine to begin with .......

I didn't contradict myself at all -- you saw what you wanted to see if you think that. I never said your argument was wrong . . . I said your beliefs are unconvincing. If you don't understand the difference this will be a very difficult conversation for you.

And for those who haven't followed each post, let's not forget how this conversation started. I paid a compliment to solosthere, and you thought it was wise to quote me and tell us we weren't thinking for ourselves and that our beliefs were wrong. Was that nice?

Furthermore, despite you saying that you can't reject what is not yours, you did exactly that when you wrote:



If you beleive in 'one source/god' etc etc, you are not thinking for 'yourself' you are not breaking the 'mold', beleifs in gods,angels, demons etc, are all thought forms of 'control'

Those words are a public rejection of our beliefs. Saying you didn't or can't reject our perceptions because they aren't yours doesn't change the fact that you did.

If you believe one source/god <-- that is our perception
You re not thinking for yourself <-- that is your rejection

beleifs in gods,angels, demons etc <-- more beliefs
are all thought forms of 'control' <-- more rejection

I'm sorry, but in your attempt to paint my words as contradictory, it seems you have spilled the paint all over yourself. Still laughing out loud at me?

Saying you can't reject what is not yours is a straw man argument. You can reject anything you perceive, including someone else's beliefs.

In fact, many perceptions/beliefs are contradictory, which means we have to reject some of them. I believe in God. My neighbor does not believe in God. If you believe one belief you automatically reject the other because you can't believe in God and not believe in God at the same time.

Any concept that is not believed is, by default, a rejection of the concept -- or else you'd believe it! So, LOL right back at you.

Now . . . going back to your original point of contention with me -- because I believe something you reject does not mean I'm not thinking for myself. It only means I'm not thinking like you. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to accept . . . perhaps you're the victim of some form of thought control. ;)

[nf857]

I
didn't contradict myself at all -- you saw what you wanted to see if you think that. I never said your argument was wrong . . . I said your beliefs are unconvincing. If you don't understand the difference this will be a very difficult conversation for you.

And for those who haven't followed each post, let's not forget how this conversation started. I paid a compliment to solosthere, and you thought it was wise to quote me and tell us we weren't thinking for ourselves and that our beliefs were wrong. Was that nice?

Furthermore, despite you saying that you can't reject what is not yours, you did exactly that when you wrote:



From my perspective thats all, its not about 'nice' its about 'truth'......however if you thing i mis-understood what you meant about 'my quote not being very convincing', you would have to explain better what you meant for me to understand, as you were speaking of my quote in the negative. I was not trying to be convincing in the 1st place, your perceptions are your perceptions, my perceptions are mine. Do you understand?


Those words are a public rejection of our beliefs. Saying you didn't or can't reject our perceptions because they aren't yours doesn't change the fact that you did.



So un-less i beleive what you beleive, im rejecting what you believe because i don't believe what you beleive, thats the biggest load of BS ive ever heard, & its certainly not the way forward, its the way back. We our supposed to share peceptions not argue over who's perceptions are more convincing. It seems you were the one who brought that word up?


If you believe one source/god <-- that is our perception
You re not thinking for yourself <-- that is your rejection

beleifs in gods,angels, demons etc <-- more beliefs
are all thought forms of 'control' <-- more rejection

I'm sorry, but in your attempt to paint my words as contradictory, it seems you have spilled the paint all over yourself. Still laughing out loud at me?

Saying you can't reject what is not yours is a straw man argument. You can reject anything you perceive, including someone else's beliefs.

In fact, many perceptions/beliefs are contradictory, which means we have to reject some of them. I believe in God. My neighbor does not believe in God. If you believe one belief you automatically reject the other because you can't believe in God and not believe in God at the same time.

Any concept that is not believed is, by default, a rejection of the concept -- or else you'd believe it! So, LOL right back at you.

Now . . . going back to your original point of contention with me -- because I believe something you reject does not mean I'm not thinking for myself. It only means I'm not thinking like you. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to accept . . . perhaps you're the victim of some form of thought control.

Everything is apart of 'control' in the material realm, there is no getting away from that in this reality. What happens when we die, we will never know. Im LOL are how sarcastic you are, as there is no need for arguement, for arguements sake, as its really petty.

You try to simplfy something that can't be simplified this way, i may beleive in god one week, i may not a next, thats called being human. I may beleive some stuff about God, some i may not, this is called the art of learning, you take all knowledge that resonates with you and make it your own. Just because i think there's more to life than 'one consiousness' as i see plenty of evidence of that in my day to day life in this REALITY!!! Does not mean i reject budda teachings, im learning in my own way, not your way, as you said yourself about ways & how we get there LOL, doesn't mean we all meet in the middle to go on the 'MERRY-GO-ROUND' once again, it means we make our own path in life. Budda Teachings is about our own perceptions, hence why its not good to 'ASSUME' what somebody else means as it makes an 'ASS' out of you and an 'ASS' out of me'. So i may have 'ASSUMED' that you meant my 'quote was not convining' that you meant it was wrong' my point was 'why were you even pointing it out'? When i state something from somebody's elses quote does not mean i have to always agree with it, this happens all day on here. Life is about individuals, & individuality, thats what we are experiencing here, whether we all go back to 'ONE CONSIOUSNESS' after we never know til we go do we?


are all thought forms of 'control' <-- more rejection

Just because i think is everything is part of 'control' as it see it all around me in one form or another, is not rejecting it, its acknowldging it, however not letting it have full control as you aware of it. Why do you presume to know what i mean?


I'm sorry, but in your attempt to paint my words as contradictory, it seems you have spilled the paint all over yourself. Still laughing out loud at me

LOL, yes i find you endearing, im not LOL at you in a nasty way, im LOL as i find you funny, trust me i did not have a paint or a paintbrush in my hand, i was merely pointing out that saying my quote was un-convincing, however then saying you can't judge anothers perception as you are likely to be wrong, was a contradiction. You either accept we all have our own perceptions in this awakening, or you don't. Its very black/white, no paint needed. I think you meant my quote was un-convining to your eyes/ears, not that it was un-convincing in actuality.

P.S Saying somebody doesn't understand something you said, before even realising they did or didn't is a bit daft to say the least. It seems yo imagine in your perception that this conversation is only difficult if i don't agree with you, so what you really mean is the conversation is getting difficult in itself, not that i find it difficult LOL x

[nf857]

the only matter that really may matter maybe the minds matter of reality maybe..in fact taking it a step further perhaps all posts prior to mine were created by my subconcious matter ...ie ..the part of my grey matter which is disfunctional

Yes this is my understanding, is our peceptions, the ones that we make our own just our imagingings, the only real perception is the one that goes with the consensus, or the collective. If its true im definitly pschzophrenic lol, but i like to make my pschozophrenic discourse my own, instead of following blindly with methods of madness lol!!! Thats just me, an individual, free thinker!!! When i was 5, & the 1st time i really embarrased my parents, i was the head dancer of about 15 other children on a stage production, i was supposed to be leading all the other children, & i just went & did my own thing, & even start talking to the adults in the crowd, it had them all in stitches, but i did not half get into trouble off my dance teacher & my parents afterwards. They still laugh about that day now, so in the end it turned out to be a great memory, my single mindedness lol x

[Seikou-Kishi]

I would think that most of us, if not all, can agree that there is a God, Source, Alah what ever you want to call it!!! I also think we can all agree that God does not waste anything. God turns off the lights when it leaves the room. We all also know that matter is energy. Now if we agree that consiousness give rise to matter, which I think many do. Then we have to ask this question. If I am sitting in my bedroom with the door closed and there is no one else in the house. Is the hallway, bathroom, livingroom, ect. there? If there is no one around to percieve the matter then would it not be a waste of energy to not use that energy somewhere else? Im not saying that we all have a universe unto ourselfs but rather asking if it does not need to be there for a life form to percieve it is it there? Im sure we have all heard of Schrodinger's cat in a box? Tell me what you think!!!

You would find the works of George Berkeley very interesting. He was the Church of Ireland Bishop of Cloyne and argued that things exist because they are perceived (his famous phrase esse est percipi means "to be is to be perceived"). He said that we could only be sure that something existed while we were perceiving it, and that the status of a non-perceived object could never truly be known. In this regard, it might be seen as a foreshadowing of the example of Shrödinger's Cat. He later went on to say that all things continued to exist even when they were perceived by no sentient being because all things continued to be perceived by God, who was omnipresent and therefore continually perceiving all of creation.

I never regarded this argument highly, but now I think it fits in well with ideas of the universe as a dream in the mind of God, and so on.

[Dennis-G]

...however if you thing i mis-understood what you meant about 'my quote not being very convincing', you would have to explain better what you meant for me to understand, as you were speaking of my quote in the negative.

So un-less i beleive what you beleive, im rejecting what you believe because i don't believe what you beleive, thats the biggest load of BS ive ever heard, & its certainly not the way forward, its the way back. We our supposed to share peceptions not argue over who's perceptions are more convincing. It seems you were the one who brought that word up?

Sigh. No one said you had to believe what I believe, and frankly, I don't care what you believe. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, it's YOU who said my beliefs were wrong, insinuating I'm under the influence of mind control.

When I stated your arguments were unconvincing I was replying to that. If you want to call me out on my beliefs as you did, then you need to present a convincing case as to why my beliefs are wrong. You don't get to call someone out on their beliefs and then play all innocent.

You can share your beliefs/perceptions all you want, but when you quote my words and challenge my beliefs, that is going beyond simply sharing your beliefs. Apparently you're unable to understand this simple fact. You could have posted your beliefs without quoting me and calling me out on my beliefs, but you didn't. You chose to pose as having superior knowledge.

Let's go back to my original point:


Because I believe something you reject does not mean I'm not thinking for myself, it just means I'm not thinking like you.

That's the original point that you keep ignoring. You pretend the problem is with me, but it's not, it's with you. You originally said I and solosthere are not thinking for ourselves. That's insulting, and you keep ducking the issue.

Get it yet? The words are right there for everyone to see. You're not fooling anyone but yourself with all your sidestepping.

I've wasted enough time with your "mind control" issues. You may be under mind control, but you can only speak for yourself. When you tell me my beliefs are wrong, your ego is making statements you can't prove and have no business making.

[nf857]

Sigh. No one said you had to believe what I believe, and frankly, I don't care what you believe. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, it's YOU who said my beliefs were wrong, insinuating I'm under the influence of mind control.

No, but you did say i was rejecting your beleives because mine arnt the same as yours, which is simply not the case. I never said you were trying to convince me of anything, you really do go off on tangents. I never said your beleives were wrong, i said they were still apart of 'control' i never even mentioned 'mind control' either, seems you like to twist my words, im not interested in games on here, im a bit past that!!!


When I stated your arguments were unconvincing I was replying to that. If you want to call me out on my beliefs as you did, then you need to present a convincing case as to why my beliefs are wrong. You don't get to call someone out on their beliefs and then play all innocent.



I never called you on your beleifs, here we are again, twisting a simple sentenance that i said, your are reacting out of 'ego' which is everything 'budda' teachings tells you not to do, you have go on the defensive for no reason, & seem to thing im against you, when i don't even know you. Grow up. All because i said 'relgions' of anytime are type of 'control'. I dont have to beleive in 'One Consiousness' theory, if i don't want to, end of. Just because you do, does not mean your going to convince me too. I was not trying to convince you of anything, i was just stating my opnion on something, which we are all entitled to do on here, as everybody else
does.


You can share your beliefs/perceptions all you want, but when you quote my words and challenge my beliefs, that is going beyond simply sharing your beliefs. Apparently you're unable to understand this simple fact. You could have posted your beliefs without quoting me and calling me out on my beliefs, but you didn't. You chose to pose as having superior knowledge.


Why are you telling me what I CAN & CAN'T DO???? Everybody does this on here, highlights a quote so we know who's quote it is, people are referring to, thats how forums works. Ive been on forums for years, they are no different anywhere else, If you don't like people having a say on something you have said, i won't not bother posting on here if i was you, as this is what a forum is, people chat, discuss ideas, shares thoughts etc. My thought was that 'everything is part of control' which related to something you said, is all. Grow up. I dont think i have Superior Knowledge, where do you get off? You just make things up in your head.


Because I believe something you reject does not mean I'm not thinking for myself, it just means I'm not thinking like you.
That's the original point that you keep ignoring. You pretend the problem is with me, but it's not, it's with you. You originally said I and solosthere are not thinking for ourselves. That's insulting, and you keep ducking the issue.



Your twisting it again, i can see whatever i say you will twist, so im not going to reply to anything else you say, as you just put words in other peoples mouth. I did no reject anything, i acknowledge that everything is apart of 'control' because we are 'control' that what 'enlightment' is about. I dont pretend anything, as for me theRE is not 'PROBLEM'. So i will leave you with your 'PROBLEM' that you think is there.


That's the original point that you keep ignoring. You pretend the problem is with me, but it's not, it's with you. You originally said I and solosthere are not thinking for ourselves. That's insulting, and you keep ducking the issue.



What point that I have a right to an opnion as well as you??? I did not mean to offend you, so i am sorry for that, however it wont only be who offends you on here, if you think that everybody should believe what you beleive. Im not ducking anything, if i was i would not be replying to you. As I see it, there is nothing to DUCK in the 1st place. Seems you are extremley sensitive person, however im not going to stand here and let you twist my words & put words in my mouth over ONE SENTANCE i made. Im moving on now as im sick of this conversation. Im entitled to an opinion just like the rest, don't tell me again what i can/can't do.


Get it yet? The words are right there for everyone to see. You're not fooling anyone but yourself with all your sidestepping.

I've wasted enough time with your "mind control" issues. You may be under mind control, but you can only speak for yourself. When you tell me my beliefs are wrong, your ego is making statements you can't prove and have no business making.

Seems you now think you can read everybody's mind as well, as this is just a two-way convo why are you involving an imaginery 3rd person??? At the end of the day im entitled to my opnion as much as you, END OF!!! I have just as much right to my opnion as you do, as i type this IT IS MY BUSINESS!!! Just where the hell you get off i Don't Know, telling me what i can/can't type on my own LAPTOP!!! My Ego has nothing to do with this, as you are the one so offended & have made this a massive ORDEAL & PROBLEM that is all in your head, i would say it is your EGO that is the problem, trying to make this PERSONAL, as i refuse to, i dont know, you dont me, grow up. Im certainly not under 'mind-control', however im aware we are 'control' & there is lot of 'control' that affects your thoughts around you, in your senses, what you read, watch on t.v., books you read, religions, its all apart of 'control' i like budda teachings to a point, however i don't like 'one consiousness' theory as it doesn't hold much weight for me. If there was just 'one consiousness' we were all connected to, this would inlcude all the 'evil' in the world & would mean we have 'no control' over it, this for me is wrong, as it teaches not to accept responsibility for you own life. However i do appreciate methods of 'budda teachings'.

If anybody is under 'mind-control' it is you, as you are 'paranoid' thinking im trying to 'mind-control' you or that i am 'mind-controlled', actually this is the first conversation ive had on 'mind-control' with anybody on here, its nuts!!! As for prooving my beleif's they are my beleif's so i don't have to proove anything to anybody, i own my own beleif's noboy else does. As for you prooving your theories of a 'one consiousness' as far as im aware this can't be proven either, so im doing no better/worse with what i beieve than you. FOR THE RECORD I NEVER SAID YOUR BELEIF'S ARE WRONG, I REPEAT FOR THE 3RD TIME!!! X

[Dennis-G]

nf857, I could respond to everything you just said, but what's the use? You'd just twist things around with your semantics anyway. I give up.

In all my years of using forums, you're the first person I've ever added to my ignore list. Congratulations.

[nf857]

nf857, I could respond to everything you just said, but what's the use? You'd just twist things around with your semantics anyway. I give up.

In all my years of using forums, you're the first person I've ever added to my ignore list. Congratulations.



Actually it is the other way round, ive copied and pasted everything you have said to the exact words, i suggest you look back, it is you who has used your own words to define mine in what way you want & make up what you want. Everything i have put is an exact copy/paste of your words so i can't have twisted anything you have said, its you have twisted everything i have said. What you are congratulating me for i will never know, as i was not up for any prize in the 1st place. All i have done is posted my opnion, something you seem to think is wrong. Whether you agree with me or not, does not change the fact that i have just as much right to an opnion as you. There is no right/wrong in this debate. We have looked at it from a spiritual perspective, a scientifical perspective, a philopshical perspective, im sure there is many more perspectives one could look at the theory 'does reality exist?', its an individual thing, on what somebody beleives. I suggest you get used to the idea that no everybody has the same opnion on something x

Why would you think it would bother me that i would be on your ignore list, considering i don't know you? You have a high opnion of yourself if you think this would bother me, if you want to put me on you ignore list, thats upto you isnt it? Won't change anything for me.


Interesting train of thought. I like people who think for themselves, so I applaud you for that.

To highlight, heres another quote you made, you clearly dont like people who can think for themselves, as this is all i have done, & you have took great offence at the fact that i don't have the same opnion as you. Its not cool to contradict yourself. With all your 'applauding' & 'congratulating' people, its seems you think 'you' know best on who deserves applaudes and congratulations, when this is not a CONTEST!!! It is how you think that is the problem here, as it seems you think, if somebody agrees with you, you will give out 'applaudes' however if they don't agree with you, you can sarcastically 'CONGRATULATE' them, to quote you 'I ASK IS THAT NICE?'. What do you hope to achieve by telling people you have put them on your ignore list ill never know? Seems you think this is some way to 'THREATEN' people, i would like to take the opportunity to state, IT DOES NOT WORK WITH ME

Look back it is me who suggested you were twisting my words, seems now you are the one ducking the issue & trying to accuse me of something you have done, as im not the one who has twisted words. Ive had to use semantics, its the only way of trying to understand where you are coming from in accusing me of rejecting your beleifs, accusing me of me thinking i have superior knowledge, & accusing me of thinking im wise, which im none of, i dont claim to be any of these things, its you who has accused me of this. It seems you are ducking the issue that 'my beleif' is 'not your beleif' that this is all it boils down to, i have 'right' to an 'opnion' as you 'do' its as black/white as that. I have done nothing wrong, however i have already appoligied for offending your 'ego', i appoligist once again, for 'offending' you, however the problem here is 'you' have made this a 'BIG ORDEAL' when it isnt one, just forget it, so much more to life, than 'arguing' with somebody, its clear we have 'separate' views, that is all, you did not have to make it PERSONAL by saying you were 'GOING TO BLOCK ME', i wish you the best of luck with that, if you think 'it will make you feel better'. However from what i know of this forum, people have to be in your friends list to begin with, ive made quite a few already, & have them on my contacts, i would not personally have you in mine either, as there is nothing positive to be gained by this contact, we have opposing views in your eyes, as you have took this far to PERSONAL, & it wasn't. No point in me deblierating any further, i wish you no harm, or upset . You have mistook the oversight that my original quote was a deliberate insult at you, & it wasn't. Think on is my advice. Why would I want to insult somebody on here i don't even know? Stop thinking everybody is out to get you, or that people are trying to mind-control you, as its you who are mind-controlled if you think that. You need to stop thinking everything is about you or your beleifs is my opnion, for what its worth. I made a simple comment on your quote that had nothing to do with you personally & you have tried to turn it around it in being about you & your beliefs, which as stated are not my beleifs. Mine are mine, your's are your's, just because we dont' agree, does not mean, war, or arguements, its not personal, we just have different perspectives. Its all psychological with you at the end of the day, i would think if I were you, why you were so offended in the 1st place? If you think im so Wrong why would you even continue the conversation? To me you doubt your own beleifs to take such a offense and get all defensive about them. If you had 100% faith in them, you would not feel this way. I dont have 100% faith in anything, seeing is beleiving as they say, for me it is not enough to convince me of anything.


One of the oldest wisdoms that we know is "The truth hurts".

But it only hurts those who resist it.


To end it here, i quote from another member's post, that is very true quotation & quite relevant to this 2-way discussion, that has De-Railed the thread.


What do we have to do? Nothing. We don’t need to kick anyone’s arse. The peaceful warrior just knows what they are seeing and calls it out so everyone else can see it as well. That's it.



Another viable quote from another member is of great revalance here- PEACE/LOVE/HUMANITY/FREEDOM is all we need in this world x