personally, I don't wish for that. Because any time it happens I am made to go sit inside alone.

So if you enjoy truth, then truth is your path of least resistance towards your greater allowed realisation.
If you do not enjoy truth, then truth is your path of more resistance towards your greater allowed realisation.

MikeS80,

I very much enjoyed that article. Thank you.

Is it not ironic that despite its ineffable wisdom....

....we still attempt to use words and definitions (non-duality or advaita) to "capture" the Infinite Essence ? :dontknow:

Yes, but we can't describe oneness without using words and concepts, such as Non-duality, god etc etc. As long as we are conscious of Non-duality or any other concept as being only a concept of oneness, not oneness itself, words and concepts will not have a negative effect on our monkey brains (ego I). :biggrin: Take the analogy below as an example:

Looking out into reality while wearing red glasses, you will say - reality is red

Another person wearing blue glasses will say - No, reality is blue.

Another person wearing yellow glasses will say - No, no, you are both wrong, I see reality as being yellow.

When you are not wearing colored glasses (knowing the truth about words, concepts and beliefs, and apply said truth), your reality is not colored by words, concepts and beliefs.

What creates these colored glasses? Words, and concepts create beliefs. These beliefs created by words and concepts create the colored glasses

Edit: changed oneness to Non-duality above.

Any Science or Religion without Truth is both lame AND blind.
 

MikeS80,

....why describe that which cannot be described, colored, created, conceptualized, or perceived at all?

Even I AM THAT is insufficiently paltry.

And why attempt to use language to "pass along, transmit, or understand" to "an other", THAT which is the OTHER, Itself?

Does removing the colored glasses called "ineffable" render this state "effable", or make the "differentiated", "un"-differentiated.

Seems a colossal waste of time, and yet....here we are with blinders (glasses) still on.

We don't even own the breath it takes to say, or the energy it takes to think...

...I AM THAT I AM.

The "edit" of language, applied to perception, is the "tie that binds" and "blinds"...whether spoken or thought.

Then again, perhaps that's the whole point: for the Unspeakable to even be able to speak to Itself AS us. In the reference below, Genevieve Behrend describes the cause acting as the effect, thusly:

"Endeavor to bear in mind that your mental picture is Universal Mind specifically exercising its inherent powers of initiative and selection. God, or Universal Mind, made man for the special purpose of differentiating Himself through him. Everything there is, came into existence in this same way, by this self-same law of self-differentiation, and for the same purpose. First came the idea, the mental picture, or the prototype of the thing, which is the thing itself in its incipiency. The Great Architect of the Universe contemplated Himself as manifesting through his polar opposite—matter—and the idea expanded and projected itself until we have not only a world, but many worlds."

And ...."your mind is the mirror in which the Infinite power and Intelligence in the universe sees itself reproduced"

This same power that brought universal substance into existence will bring your individual thought or mental picture into physical form. There is no difference in the power. The only difference is a difference of degree. The power and the substance themselves are the same. Only in working out your mental picture, it has transferred its creative energy from the Universal to the particular, and is working in the same unfailing manner from its specific center, your mind.

I would daresay, not only is Infinite power and Intelligence in the universe reproduced from its specific center, (your mind), but is also the place where It is "described", as well.

Don't you think? :smile:

Reference: http://www.lightisreal.com/YourInvisiblePower.pdf From Genevieve Behrend's book, Your Invisible Power

Yup. The Knower can never directly know Itself. The Seer can never directly see Itself.

The face can only see itself in the mirror. Unmanifested Consciousness can only experience Itself via manifested consciousness.

The purpose of maya is...

Any Science or Religion without Truth is both lame AND blind.
 

JustASimpleGuy,

...very succinctly and well stated.

However, while reading the "only" and "never" qualifiers above, it "strangely" occurred to me to wonder WHY the limitations to which our use of "only" and "never" are utilized, could possibly be applied to a Being Who is, Itself, the very Substance comprising All the Potential There Is? I think not.

The analogy seems to be that what we term "Unmanifested Consciousness" is not actually "unmanifested" at all, but is a form of Being we are no more capable of understanding at Its level....

....than we can appreciate why grass is NOT ACTUALLY green just because we SAY it is. Why? because the form of energy we call "green", appears that way because the constituent atoms of the grass absorb all the electromagnetic light energy, except that energy which we label as "green".

We wouldn't designate all those "absorbed" colors of the electromagnetic light spectrum as "unmanifest consciousness", just because we can't see it, would we? Or the atoms of Earth's atmosphere which absorb all the electromagnetic light spectrum, except for different "hues of blue"?

I think not. :smile:

Consider that there really is no name for what "absorbed light spectrum" or "unmanifested consciousness" truly is....not even with the very terms "only" and "never", we've invented to apply.

Just me.....:hug3:

You asking-why describe that which cannot be described, colored, created, conceptualized, or perceived at all?, Is a false concept based on a belief that oneness can't be described, and will prevent you from describing it. Nothing describes oneness better than oneness, don't you think? How does calling oneness, indescribable or unknowable help anyone? Oneness is all there is, so trying to intellectually go further and deeper into and/or searching for something other than oneness is pointless. Oneness is just oneness and just exists.

True.

For people to learn and to know the truth. On one hand the truth does not require the use of concepts as the truth, just is the truth. On the other hand the truth uses language and concepts to try to get through/past the ego, thus language and concepts are not bad or negative on thier own, problems arises, when a person who does not fully and completely understand a concept and language turns that language and concept into a belief system that is way out of context, and maybe even the opposite of the concept's original intended purpose.

Most spiritual concepts (including beliefs, analogies, myths etc) are meant to unite/align the feeling of I AM inner/higher self with the outer body ego I, but some people turn those concepts into beliefs that keeps the outer body ego I seperate from the feeling of I AM inner/higher self. The real kicker is, some people do this while they talk about and promote a half truth oneness and non-duality. An example would be taking a concept literally, not figuratively. Or taking one part of a concept literally and another part of the concept figuratively.

Both-differentiated means seperate/seperated and un-differentiated means oneness. It only seems like a waste of time to you because we are talking about it using words in a discussion forum. How and in what context I am talking about it matters because I talk about it according to what is going on inside my head, you have no clue what is going on inside my head. It all comes down to me: if I am talking in concepts because I do not know what I am saying, or if I AM talking about the truth, which requires me to not talk in concepts to prevent misunderstanding.

The whole perception and concept thing depends entirely on who is saying or thinking I AM. Is the feeling of I AM/inner/higher self aligned/united with the outer ego/I, thus the feeling of I AM inner/higher self is saying/thinking I AM and lives life through/via the outer body ego/I or is the outer body ego/I saying/thinking and I AM, and lives life when the outer body ego/I is seperate from the feeling of I AM inner/higher self?

Notes: the inner and outer self(s) are not seperate from each other, however, the outer ego self thinks/believes it is seperate and different from the inner self. The inner self is in fact oneness. The outer self thinks either with the inner self (not based on memory) or without the inner self (based on memory). The inner self giving the outer self a thought or feeling is called intuition.

MikeS80,

I appreciate your views, which reflect the I AM expression in you, as mine do in me. Onward and upward....

:thumbsup: