Originally Posted by God-Like
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.
I quite plainly did cover the relationship between what you are and the body. I even used the word ‘relationship’. Again this may be a case of you not reading carefully or appreciating or perhaps understanding the answer given (as you say, some things don’t make sense to you.)
Originally Posted by Moondance
The ‘you’ that IT is doing is what is sometimes known as the ‘conventional self’ which is roughly synonymous with the body-mind-matrix - which as I’ve explained several times is not an entity - it’s closer to an activity - an activity OF Source.
So we could say that Life/Source is like the ocean and the BMM is like a wave. In a sense there is no wave there is just the ocean waving.
So the relationship is like the ocean and a wave. And back to the original point - a wave is not a fixed, immutable, separate entity - a wave is not a separate self.
Originally Posted by Moondance
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.
What this means is you are not other than Source - but in this expression (BMM) it is Source presenting as limitation. This body-mind-matrix known here as God-Like, despite the name, cannot leap across the Bristol channel or have knowledge about a distant galaxy. This is due to sentient limitation. To use another analogy, your substance or essential nature is gold (Source) yet your expression or conventional nature is a ring or charm (BMM.)
In a no-separation sensibility (to put it in extremely simplistic terms) there is the felt-sense that THIS that is going on is the movement of the whole (so to speak.) You (the apparent BMM) are not moving about in Life - Life or THIS (as it is) is the movement. You scratch your nose and just that is a movement of Source. But sentient/biological limitation (obviously) remains the case - because Source presents as that too.
Please can you avoid making references to others on the forum - apart from anything else, I have not read all of their input as yet.
The rest of this is about where we disagree. So it’s not actually anything to do with answering questions it’s about disagreement - which is fine - there’s no shame in agreeing to disagree. And as you point out, we actually do have some areas of agreement.
Now if you have any further questions perhaps you could make them concise and to the point and number them - then I will precisely address each number. Let’s try that.