Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moondance
Right, so I have clearly answered your question. That’s an indisputable fact. The issue then becomes whether or not the answer satisfies you. Can you see the distinction? Whether an answer is to your satisfaction involves the elements of subjectivity and interpretation. This subjectivity and interpretation is based on your experience and understanding, what you believe, how you see things and so on.
But if you say you have more questions - as long as we are not going around in circles - we can continue.
You wrote:
Yes, Life/Source is what you are - IT is ALL there is.
The con-self or BMM does not exist of its own accord. It is a play, patterning or expression of Source.
We covered the identification part of the topic before. I agreed that all sorts of secondary or relative identifications are necessary for many practical and social transactions. I pointed out that “they don’t bind us in any way unless we are totally immersed in them and are unable to intuit our deepest nature.” And that they “are relative and therefore - by default - can be sublated by a more fundamental principle.”
Included in those secondary identifications is the identification with this particular BMM (or con-self) but this is not an entity it’s closer to an activity - an activity OF Source. In realisation, this is never lost sight of.
We also disagreed that there can be no functioning in life without a sense of self identification. I’m certain that there are many moments in a day where the human brain is not making those connections (and there are many species who simply don’t have the mental architecture to make those connections.) I think that it would be pointless to argue this point so best to agree to differ here.
———
Right, on to your bits in bold:
The ‘body and such likes’ are a play or patterning or expression of Source. So they are equivalent to waves in the ocean analogy. So (and this is important to note) a wave is made of the ocean but a wave is NOT the ocean. Can you see the difference there? A individuated wave is not the Totality - it’s not Source - yet it is made from Source (so to speak.)
So yes, I concur there is nothing other than Source. But Source in all its magnificence plays the game of limitation.
A body-mind-matrix is Source presenting as sentient limitation. This is why I don’t know your thoughts or know what colour socks you are wearing. I am the stuff of God - but I (as in this BBM, Moondance) am not God.
I’m not really a fan of ‘neti neti’ so we don’t need to go there.
———
Again, it should be clear that I have actually answered your questions. Again, whether or not this satisfies or is understood is dependent on factors mentioned above.
———
I may come on to my question that I put to you, later.
|
You have clearly answered the question which didn't however cover the relationship between what you are and the body. Without this explained your answer didn't make complete sense. You can say it's an indisputable fact if you like in that you answered me but it would be similar to Rains instance where there could be the answer of consciousness as being what you are without any further information than that. It would make no sense to me at all.
Why it also didn't make sense to me was because as said you made distinctions between 'you' and 'life' despite there being only what you are present.
This was a very simple point I made continuously. The conventional self might as well be a smoke screen because it holds no weight by itself.
One might as well put a mask on one's face and then say that's not what I AM because of the mask lol.
This could be rectified in an instant by saying that the mask doesn't alter the fact at all.
You now go on to say that the conventional self is an expression of Source which I can work with.
I kept saying what else is there other than what we are?
It kinda fell on deaf ears and it still does in regards to some of my other conversations had with others.
If you had said, GL from the start that there is only what you are, I would have agreed with you.
There seemed to be more distinctions between 'what you are' and other self aspects.
The whole point I was making was to unite all these self aspects including the mind-body-matrix and place them in one Self box.
The conversations as you know that I am having not with you so much, where there is still this divide between Self and me and my hand lol.
Jones boy is now speaking of the ego attachment as not being what you are (roughly translated).
It seems there are plenty of self references that peeps want to let go of or disassociate with or from because it's supposedly 'not what they are' on some level.
In regards to your wave and ocean analogy I went into detail about the ocean and the drop. I can see the differences between the ocean and the drop but fundamentally there is no difference.