mikiel wrote:Sapius wrote:Mikiel;
Gnosis is knowing the One Omnipresent Consciousness is Creator of all, a very real cosmos, including our physical brains and metaphysical minds.
“One Omnipresent Consciousness”, cannot be the
Creator of any thing at all, since it would necessary be dependant on all creation itself, meaning, Thing-NESS (not Things itself) has to also then be necessarily Omnipresent for consciousness to be or mean anything at all.
In my opinion it is the
interdependent interactivity of Thing-ness itself, which is the self-creationary and destructive force infinitely omnipresent, which absolutely everything is ultimately
interactively dependant on, in a yin/yang fashion. Even the
knowing (Gnosis) itself is necessarily dependant on what it itself is not, hence not absolute in and off its-self either, but only comparatively, including against all other
knowings.
Is it possible for OOC to be without Thing-Ness itself? Which of course is not it I take it.
Realizing that all manifestaion ("Thing-ness) is "the body" of One Omnipresent Consciousness, is enlightenment,
Well, the word ‘enlightenment’ does not really excite my senses, but knowing the truth does, and as I see it, Thing-ness has to necessarily be as Omnipresent as Consciousness, so assuming that OOC is the creator, or is
that which manifests, is a mistake, because in that one assumes OOC to be the “first cause”, not realizing and forgetting the 'chicken or the egg' question/fallacy you mention below. Hence one cannot ask which came first, consciousness or thing-ness, or what is the manifestation of what either, and that is my point, for I see them both inter-creatively interdependent on the other, with no externality at all; purely an eternal ongoing strife with no beginning or end.
often, these days called non-dual awareness, merely the negative way to say "conscious unity", the title of my website.
Personal preferences as in calling ‘it’ (which is as you say a
realization, and hence a change of
perspective) a ‘non-dual awareness’ or ‘conscious unity’ does not really matter or bother me much; end of the day it still remains an emotional or say logical feeling towards all that is not “I”, but the not-I
and the “I” remain however; it is just a
change of perspective in my opinion, which I do not deny can be sensed of felt, but is exactly just that.
So both the transcendental OOC and the physical cosmos are real, simultaneous and interdependent. "Which came first?" is a question generated by the linear mind, which believes, erroneously in beginnings and endings.... the "chicken or the egg" question/fallacy.
Well, neither do I ask whether OOC came first or Thing-ness, nor do I assume what manifests what, for whatever one considers to be the creator of the other, will be making the mistake of actually imagining to
have the answer to the “chicken or the egg” question/fallacy. I might as well say that Thing-ness manifests Consciousness, and I wouldn’t be wrong in your books, because you consider them to be equally real, but that wouldn't be the whole truth either. So why not say that they both are the creators of each other, or say interdependently manifest each other, and be done with it once and for all.