GENIUS FORUMS

IJesusChrist wrote:I still encourage any of you to try this experiment;

Attempt to hear your first language unbiased, i.e. as just sounds. It will show you how difficult it truly is to lose touch.

I know you're rankled over something, but it would be better if you addressed actual individuals, rather than just spraying bile blindly into the room. It makes you sound resentful and unfocused.

-

IJesusChrist wrote:I still encourage any of you to try this experiment;

Attempt to hear your first language unbiased, i.e. as just sounds. It will show you how difficult it truly is to lose touch.

My first language is my own voice in my head, I can blank it out for about 10 seconds, and that's about all I can do. I have a sleeping disorder, and I can't switch off. Sometimes I stay awake for up to 2 weeks, my mind just keeps working things out. When I try to sleep, it tries to work out how people manage to sleep so easily, or it works on something else. Sometimes my brain even works things out in my sleep. So some of these tests are impossible for me.

David Quinn wrote:

movingalways wrote:For those who desire to respond to my thoughts in this thread, I ask that you come in the spirit of the wisdom of what has been put forward. That is, the wisdom of committing self-sense suicide so that that which brings this wisdom into awareness, can be (metaphorically) revealed. In other words, deal with the thesis that has been presented by the originator of the thread and not use this thread as a vehicle for your personal beliefs of human wisdom.

The problem is, people are sensing your hypocrisy. Telling people not to bring their own views and that they do not know anything, while you are constantly pouring forth your own personal views in a tone which implies that you, and you alone, know - well, it's not exactly conducive to interesting discussion.

Oscar Wilde once said, with some insight, that people tend to become what they hate. It might explain the strong stench of self-righteousness which permeates your every post....

-

David, what is surprising about those who believe in logic is that they also speak of their "own" "interesting" views. How can that which is logical, also be personal? How can that which is logical, also be interesting? Is not the idealism or philosophy behind logic that is absent of emotion, of attachment? If this not the idealism of logic, then what is?

The strong stench of self-righteousness that you believe you smell in my posts is your own stench, for it is you who gave life to that stench by bringing it into the dialogue. You say "the trouble is, people are sensing your hypocrisy" as if you are the voice of the people. Have all who post here accepted this position you have presented as being their self-appointed mouthpiece?

I bring my awareness that the sense of the personal is reconciled unto the impersonal once the personal is realized to be selfish (self-righteous) by its very definition - personal. And not only that this reconciliation of thought unto thought is the righteousness of thought by its very nature of being only Itself to Itself, of Itself, but that all who are on this journey of surrendering their self-righteousness unto their righteousness need not fear they will "go insane" or "crazy" or "become mentally ill." Nor do they need to practice any "spiritual" exercises such as yoga or chemically alter their consciousness with the taking of drugs.

This is my awareness. Plain and simple. So when someone comes into my thread with their personal thought nature which I am aware will eventually be reconciled unto their impersonal thought nature, how else am I to respond, except with this awareness? For those who do not accept my unconditional statements about that of which I have become aware, no problem. Simple solution: do not enter my threads or posts. For those who do step into my awareness of "God, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself", all I ask is that they enter this awareness fully aware of what will happen - that their "I thinks" will be challenged every time, for it is my understanding that to place "I think" and "truth" in the same thought is the oxymoron to end all oxymora.

I ask you or anyone else who believes that my thoughts presented here are of the self-righteousness of belief that God or Life is personal unto them to truly read the words of Jesus or of the Buddha. Every word that both uttered after their commitment to being obedient to their awareness of thought to be impersonal at its source was a word of unconditional "this is so" awareness. Jesus or the Buddha never said "I think" or "I believe", for they had discovered the foundation of Self that was so, not only for themselves, but for every child [living thought] of God or for every sentient [living] being.

And for those who believe my unconditional statements about the Christ in Jesus or the Buddha in Gautama to be self-righteous in nature, and desire to challenge me on this belief, bring it on, but if you do come into my post with your rejection of my statements, please do not bring your personal/emotional views about how I smell or do not smell, rather, come with your evidence that what I say is so or not so.

movingalways wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

movingalways wrote:For those who desire to respond to my thoughts in this thread, I ask that you come in the spirit of the wisdom of what has been put forward. That is, the wisdom of committing self-sense suicide so that that which brings this wisdom into awareness, can be (metaphorically) revealed. In other words, deal with the thesis that has been presented by the originator of the thread and not use this thread as a vehicle for your personal beliefs of human wisdom.

The problem is, people are sensing your hypocrisy. Telling people not to bring their own views and that they do not know anything, while you are constantly pouring forth your own personal views in a tone which implies that you, and you alone, know - well, it's not exactly conducive to interesting discussion.

Oscar Wilde once said, with some insight, that people tend to become what they hate. It might explain the strong stench of self-righteousness which permeates your every post....

-

David, what is surprising about those who believe in logic is that they also speak of their "own" "interesting" views. How can that which is logical, also be personal? How can that which is logical, also be interesting? Is not the idealism or philosophy behind logic that is absent of emotion, of attachment? If this not the idealism of logic, then what is?

The strong stench of self-righteousness that you believe you smell in my posts is your own stench, for it is you who gave life to that stench by bringing it into the dialogue. You say "the trouble is, people are sensing your hypocrisy" as if you are the voice of the people. Have all who post here accepted this position you have presented as being their self-appointed mouthpiece?

I bring my awareness that the sense of the personal is reconciled unto the impersonal once the personal is realized to be selfish (self-righteous) by its very definition - personal. And not only that this reconciliation of thought unto thought is the righteousness of thought by its very nature of being only Itself to Itself, of Itself, but that all who are on this journey of surrendering their self-righteousness unto their righteousness need not fear they will "go insane" or "crazy" or "become mentally ill." Nor do they need to practice any "spiritual" exercises such as yoga or chemically alter their consciousness with the taking of drugs.

This is my awareness. Plain and simple. So when someone comes into my thread with their personal thought nature which I am aware will eventually be reconciled unto their impersonal thought nature, how else am I to respond, except with this awareness? For those who do not accept my unconditional statements about that of which I have become aware, no problem. Simple solution: do not enter my threads or posts. For those who do step into my awareness of "God, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself", all I ask is that they enter this awareness fully aware of what will happen - that their "I thinks" will be challenged every time, for it is my understanding that to place "I think" and "truth" in the same thought is the oxymoron to end all oxymora.

I ask you or anyone else who believes that my thoughts presented here are of the self-righteousness of belief that God or Life is personal unto them to truly read the words of Jesus or of the Buddha. Every word that both uttered after their commitment to being obedient to their awareness of thought to be impersonal at its source was a word of unconditional "this is so" awareness. Jesus or the Buddha never said "I think" or "I believe", for they had discovered the foundation of Self that was so, not only for themselves, but for every child [living thought] of God or for every sentient [living] being.

And for those who believe my unconditional statements about the Christ in Jesus or the Buddha in Gautama to be self-righteous in nature, and desire to challenge me on this belief, bring it on, but if you do come into my post with your rejection of my statements, please do not bring your personal/emotional views about how I smell or do not smell, rather, come with your evidence that what I say is so or not so.

Oh I see, so this is about God. No wonder I was confused.

PP: Oh I see, so this is about God. No wonder I was confused.

If you are going to come into my post telling me that you are confused about God, you need to give me evidence of why you are confused about God. Of what value is it to me or anyone else just to come in and dump your "I think" and run away?

movingalways wrote:

PP: Oh I see, so this is about God. No wonder I was confused.

If you are going to come into my post telling me that you are confused about God, you need to give me evidence of why you are confused about God. Of what value is it to me or anyone else just to come in and dump your "I think" and run away?

I am confused about posts that use God because God would be the 5th dimension, and time would be the 4th dimension. being as I can theorise without the need for time, I can easily theorise without the need for God. Everything about the Universe must be in the Universe, and should be close enough for us to examine in the X,Y,Z dimensions. The mind is an energy that may be invisible, but the invisible can be found by looking for its effects. Like Gravity effects Mercury in it's orbit, it has an invisible force that makes it's orbit very strange, and nobody so far has figured out why it is strange. There will be a solution found for this some day, and I have already proposed one. Finding the invisible is possible.

Okay, PP, into your thought world I step with mine:

I am confused about posts that use God because God would be the 5th dimension, and time would be the 4th dimension.

You need to provide your definitions of God and of time before we can have an expansive exchange. My definition of God is that It is the omnipresent moment by moment expression of Laws, Principles and Patterns of Pure Thought Awareness, metaphorically suggested as The Spoken Word in Genesis I. Please note my use of the word "metaphorically."

My definition of time is the thought continuum of man's moving thoughts of good and evil relativity, brought into man's awareness by his belief that he stands outside the omnipresent laws, principles and patterns of God's Pure Thought Awareness [belief in dualism] and being that he believes that he stands outside God's Pure Thought Awareness, he also believes he stands outside his own Pure Thought Awareness. This seeing of himself as standing outside Life's Omnipresence is the bubble of man's repetitious intellect that gives him no relief or release from his ever moving thoughts of time, space, distance and matter.

being as I can theorise without the need for time, I can easily theorise without the need for God.

Again, your definition of time and of God is needed before we can dialogue fruitfully.

Everything about the Universe must be in the Universe, and should be close enough for us to examine in the X,Y,Z dimensions.

Right here, in this statement, you have pointed out why we cannot examine any dimension the intellect perceives in the Universe so as to find out everything about the Universe. My evidence of this is that you would have to literally remove yourself from being in the Universe so as to examine the Universe. This is the very lie or illusion of the dual awareness of man. He sees himself as being outside of the Universe so he believes himself able to peer inside the Universe.

Man is never outside of his own awareness of himself, by whatever name he calls this awareness of himself - Universe, Tao, God, Consciousness, Totality. This is the meaning of "I Am, That I Am."

The mind is an energy that may be invisible, but the invisible can be found by looking for its effects.

The invisible cannot be found by looking for its effects, for effects are products of sense interpretation. This is why the sense interpreting intellect is to be silent if the invisible is to reveal itself, not as an object or a subject which are effects/affects, but as revelations of the metaphorical nature of SELF, your SELF, my SELF, THE SELF.

Like Gravity effects Mercury in it's orbit, it has an invisible force that makes it's orbit very strange, and nobody so far has figured out why it is strange.

There is a reason for this. Sense awareness cannot become one with "gravity" or "Mercury" or "strange" so as to know these concepts, for these concepts are all products (effects) of the temporal, spatial sense mind. How can that which is temporal and spatial ever be "figured out" by that which is also of the temporal and of the spatial?

There will be a solution found for this some day, and I have already proposed one.

As with all solutions born of the dividing intellect that sees itself separate from the omnipresence of thought, there is never a going beyond the proposition stage. This is the ceiling of the bubble of the human experience of "perhaps" and "maybe" that no man who denies the existence of this ceiling within his own awareness can hope to escape. It is by acknowledging the limitations of the temporal and spatial intellect that man begins to prick holes in his bubble ceiling and begins to realize the light of his own awareness (of himself).

Finding the invisible is possible.

Finding your invisibility (spirit thought awareness) with your visibility (sense thought awareness) is not possible. The finite cannot find the infinite, for it is the finite that is an extension (an effect) of the infinite. However, what it possible, is the touching of one's sense awareness with one's spirit awareness so that one's spirit awareness expands into (consumes) one's sense awareness. Which is what I write about on this forum, to be accepted or rejected by all who step into the world of words that I write. From my comprehension, this is what I have done with what you have presented to me, thought by thought.

David Quinn wrote:

IJesusChrist wrote:I still encourage any of you to try this experiment;

Attempt to hear your first language unbiased, i.e. as just sounds. It will show you how difficult it truly is to lose touch.

I know you're rankled over something, but it would be better if you addressed actual individuals, rather than just spraying bile blindly into the room. It makes you sound resentful and unfocused.
-

Really? I see some irony in this post.

movingalways wrote:Okay, PP, into your thought world I step with mine:

I am confused about posts that use God because God would be the 5th dimension, and time would be the 4th dimension.

You need to provide your definitions of God and of time before we can have an expansive exchange. My definition of God is that It is the omnipresent moment by moment expression of Laws, Principles and Patterns of Pure Thought Awareness, metaphorically suggested as The Spoken Word in Genesis I. Please note my use of the word "metaphorically."

My definition of time is the thought continuum of man's moving thoughts of good and evil relativity, brought into man's awareness by his belief that he stands outside the omnipresent laws, principles and patterns of God's Pure Thought Awareness [belief in dualism] and being that he believes that he stands outside God's Pure Thought Awareness, he also believes he stands outside his own Pure Thought Awareness. This seeing of himself as standing outside Life's Omnipresence is the bubble of man's repetitious intellect that gives him no relief or release from his ever moving thoughts of time, space, distance and matter.

being as I can theorise without the need for time, I can easily theorise without the need for God.

Again, your definition of time and of God is needed before we can dialogue fruitfully.

Everything about the Universe must be in the Universe, and should be close enough for us to examine in the X,Y,Z dimensions.

Right here, in this statement, you have pointed out why we cannot examine any dimension the intellect perceives in the Universe so as to find out everything about the Universe. My evidence of this is that you would have to literally remove yourself from being in the Universe so as to examine the Universe. This is the very lie or illusion of the dual awareness of man. He sees himself as being outside of the Universe so he believes himself able to peer inside the Universe.

Man is never outside of his own awareness of himself, by whatever name he calls this awareness of himself - Universe, Tao, God, Consciousness, Totality. This is the meaning of "I Am, That I Am."

The mind is an energy that may be invisible, but the invisible can be found by looking for its effects.

The invisible cannot be found by looking for its effects, for effects are products of sense interpretation. This is why the sense interpreting intellect is to be silent if the invisible is to reveal itself, not as an object or a subject which are effects/affects, but as revelations of the metaphorical nature of SELF, your SELF, my SELF, THE SELF.

Like Gravity effects Mercury in it's orbit, it has an invisible force that makes it's orbit very strange, and nobody so far has figured out why it is strange.

There is a reason for this. Sense awareness cannot become one with "gravity" or "Mercury" or "strange" so as to know these concepts, for these concepts are all products (effects) of the temporal, spatial sense mind. How can that which is temporal and spatial ever be "figured out" by that which is also of the temporal and of the spatial?

There will be a solution found for this some day, and I have already proposed one.

As with all solutions born of the dividing intellect that sees itself separate from the omnipresence of thought, there is never a going beyond the proposition stage. This is the ceiling of the bubble of the human experience of "perhaps" and "maybe" that no man who denies the existence of this ceiling within his own awareness can hope to escape. It is by acknowledging the limitations of the temporal and spatial intellect that man begins to prick holes in his bubble ceiling and begins to realize the light of his own awareness (of himself).

Finding the invisible is possible.

Finding your invisibility (spirit thought awareness) with your visibility (sense thought awareness) is not possible. The finite cannot find the infinite, for it is the finite that is an extension (an effect) of the infinite. However, what it possible, is the touching of one's sense awareness with one's spirit awareness so that one's spirit awareness expands into (consumes) one's sense awareness. Which is what I write about on this forum, to be accepted or rejected by all who step into the world of words that I write. From my comprehension, this is what I have done with what you have presented to me, thought by thought.

Actually.. electrons are invisible, and inside a brain, and we can find those already. But even our bones are hidden, and we can find them with X-Ray. We can see sounds with sonar, we can see heat with other cameras, we can see distant planets with telescopes. We can see atoms with electron microscopes. The invisible is always being found. I would not have to look inside my own head, I could look in another person's head. Sentience is just around the corner.

God means to me.. the madness of man's illusions.
Time means to me.. a concept created to explain another medium incorrectly.

We can see sounds with sonar, we can see heat with other cameras, we can see distant planets with telescopes. We can see atoms with electron microscopes. The invisible is always being found. I would not have to look inside my own head, I could look in another person's head. Sentience is just around the corner.

What you are leaving out of your explanation to me of the invisible, is the invisible wherein the thought "sonar" and "camera" and "planet" and "telescopes" exists before you become aware of them. Man can manifest these things, this is true, but man is not the originator of these things. Without going into the depth of you to discover who or what is the originator of the things that you touch, taste, smell, and hear (and sonar, camera, planet, telescope, sounds, electrons, x-ray are all things of your sense awareness, no matter by what 'thing' they are revealed to your awareness of 'things') one cannot truly speak of the invisible.

A story to expand on my thoughts:

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just leave us be.”

God listened patiently to the man and after the scientist was finished talking, God said, “Very well. How about this? Let’s have a man making contest.”

The scientist, with great arrogance said, “That would be fine.”

The Lord added, “Now, we are going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”

The scientist said, “Sure, no problem,” then bent down and grabbed a handful of dirt.

God said to the scientist, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!”

God means to me.. the madness of man's illusions.
Time means to me.. a concept created to explain another medium incorrectly.

Again, simply to say that God is "the madness of man's illusions" does not make it so. You must give evidence to me, which is also giving evidence to yourself, of why God is the madness of man's illusions. I placed forward my evidence of my God of laws, principles and patterns of all thought, be it of the senses or be it not of the senses. Evidence that you cannot leave your awareness of you, that you cannot step outside you so as to peer into you, evidence that "God" is the omnipresent reality of you. Instead of stepping into my thoughts of God to challenge them, head to head with your belief that God is the madness of man's illusions, you ignored the benefit to both of us of point to point dialogue in favor of dumping your belief as if that is all that is necessary for me to believe as you believe. Again, I ask for evidence that God is the madness of man's illusions. Likewise, give me evidence that time is a concept created to explain another medium incorrectly so that I can step into your evidence with my evidence.

It requires discipline and obedience to be still so that the answer that awaits the question can come forth. But if we not perform this activity of consciousness that is discipline and obedience, are we not stuck in our questions?

Never I have look at spirituality as a focus on consciousness. I have always deemed it to be a discipline for men to set a standard for observing the human law of reciprocity, and then setting a foundation to eliminate the twin pillars of dualism in themselves. Of course the standard to be set is a watching of what one digest as thought because

"An undiscerned mind is as a tree it absorps all it takes in, even the poison."

So to myself, spirituality is a metaphor.

Neither can I see spirituality as

the acceptance of beyond even consciousness

for the mind cannot accept that which it is not aware of. Certainly the mind cannot grasp the reality of itself when it sees only its own hypnotic reflection. And so, while men are still hypnotized by the belief of only being human, there can be no beyond, no less an acceptance of beyond.

The stages for men to reach and begin to build their Spirit fortitude, I have experienced, is in the principle of "precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little." Until this principle and pattern, I've found, is complete, God can never be direct when dealing with men in their mentality of human thoughts.

I am not saying this eliminates God as the substance and essence of man' life of thoughts nor mental images his human mind projects, and his imagination gives volume too. I am saying God cannot act directly within the mortality which has divided His/Her/It's objective will of intent into man's subjective world of possessive thoughts of illusions.

This is the reasons for the 'why's always being asked by man. This is the reason 'why' the questions always come forth as 'if' God exist 'why doesn't He/She/It do this? Or 'if' God is a loving God 'why' does He/She/It allow this to happen?

The questions will always be there. But in asking the question it must be remembered the answer already is. That is the metaphor. And the metaphor can never be understood nor accepted. It must be lived. To live the metaphor, there has to be a conscious union with God. To be in conscious union with God one must realize they are the answer to the questions of 'why' and 'if.'

And in realizing man is the question and answer he has to begin searching for that space within himself where there is the vacuum where Spirit is, and matter is not. This space eliminates all levels, degrees, realm, dimensions, and spheres of human thinking and focus points. This is the space in man where infinity meets infinity. This is the space where man realize the central is everywhere.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

The questions will always be there. But in asking the question it must be remembered the answer already is. That is the metaphor. And the metaphor can never be understood nor accepted. It must be lived. To live the metaphor, there has to be a conscious union with God. To be in conscious union with God one must realize they are the answer to the questions of 'why' and 'if.'

What I discovered in my journey "for wisdom of myself" is that no amount of ingestion of wisdom of the intellect could pop the bubble of my eternal, infernal Who am I? Why am I? When am I? Where am I?

I came to realize that only by ceasing to look for an answer outside of my own conscience could I be released of my eternal questions of who, why, when and where. This is why, I also discovered, that logic can never bring an end to the tension of the recycling "Question" for the very survival of logic depends on 'it' never finding THE answer. Should the answer be found, of what use is logic? None. There is no fear, however, of this end of logic coming in the finding of THE answer, for it is by way of the appearance of belief that life is logical that the why came into existence in man's awareness. Logic is the question without THE answer.

So many seekers of themselves misunderstand the teachings of the Masters such as Jesus the Christ and Gautama the Buddha. They fail to realize that both went into the wilderness of themselves so as to demonstrate the WAY to BE enlightened of oneself. And that any teachings they or their predecessors gave of The Word by way of parables or laws or commandments were but ways of taming the mind so that going into the wilderness of oneself could be endured and be fruitful to the one standing still on his question(s).

Committing self-sense suicide is not the easy path (Jesus called it the narrow path) but it is the only way to end the repetitious, recycling, ever appearing question of Who or What or Why or How am I? The success of committing self-sense suicide is entirely dependent on the strength of the will of the one who is determined, once and for all, to be permanently free of his WHY/HOW/WHEN/WHERE/WHO?