Everything is an expression of conciousness

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Here's the $64,000.00 question. What happens to the here & now when the body dies or before it was born? How about when the universe dies or before it was born?

I'm not knocking The Power of Now, of being present in the moment. It's a very good way to be and I do my very best and will continue to so as long as this 180 pound lump of flesh is still animated. LOL!

I'm just asking a question about material reality and to me the answer is obvious, hence as I see it the ultimate existential truth lies beyond mind-body and objective reality, and as far as I can determine the obvious candidate is what the made-up word consciousness represents. It's the finger pointing at the Moon.

As an example, what of the here and now when...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=2a03c30a2c59

Today, of course, it’s full of galaxies, stars, planets, heavy elements, and in at least one location, intelligent and technologically advanced life. These structures weren’t always there, but rather arose as a result of cosmic evolution. In a remarkable scientific leap, 20th century scientists were able to reconstruct the timeline for how our Universe went from a mostly uniform Universe, devoid of complex structure and consisting exclusively of hydrogen and helium, to the structure-rich Universe we observe today.

If we're making human observation and perception central to the existential question it's simply not a viable philosophy. It's a wholly anthropomorphic view and doesn't even begin to do justice to the Divine.

The here & now (both the physical and spiritual here and now existence) will be here when the body dies and before the body is born. You can/will not personally observe or witness the universe dying or being born, so you can/will not know and personally experience and witness the universe dying or being born, thus is irrelevant.

A thought experiment or imagining the universe dying or being born is not the same as if you were to observe/witness the universe dying or being born with your own 2 eyes.

The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because the rest of what you wrote is based on the made up mental/mind imaginary premise/foundation that you have directly experienced consciousness, when consciousness is a made up word/foundation/concept/scam of the mind etc, and is abusing the use of the imagination, in the name of spirituality, and an abuse of the same very mind, you seem to dismiss. Metaphors, concepts, analogies etc etc are products of the imagination. This is why 99% of spiritual people use metaphors, concepts, analogies etc etc, instead of being frank and direct.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

All words are "made up", and macro-infinite non-occupied space is not a state of mind, it is what surrounds/embraces our finite, occupied space Uni-V-erse.

Yes, I agree, this is my point, it's all made up .

Again, pray tell on how you have realised what you have .

I don't want to hear anything other than your personal truth on this .

I don't want any scientific jargon, because again, these are just words conformed into a particular line of thinking and understanding .

Nothing of the sort is realised . Its made up into a formula of sorts isn't it . A formula of understanding the universe .

A poet can do the same thing by making what he says rhyme .

It's no different .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

The word is created to convey a conceptually, what we experience or believe to be exists. Macro-infinite non-occuipied space ---the only true void--- embraces/surrounds, our finite occupied space Universe.

This very simple concept to grasp, yet so many have so much difficulty with it.

Many would agree, that words don't fit the bill in regards to what lies beyond the concept .

So we have to base the foundation of truths around the concept and not the actual .

You seem to be swayed scientifically or mathematically and there is nothing wrong with that, if that is what resonates with you, but like said, it's no different to the poet expressing themselves in verses as a way to explain beyond the concepts .

No point in the poet arguing with the scientist because both are simply coming from their resonated expression .

All I am pointing out is the nature of the expression ..


x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hehehe ..

I can imagine as good as the next man, but one needs to know what is actual and what isn't when speaking about these type of things ..

Some will say anything mindful is imagination .

All these grand spiritual texts .. simply imagination ..


x daz x

I hear ya bud and that was a compliment, while I was teasing/being sarcastic lol, I am not against the imagination at all. I am against people using their imagination to keep themselves locked in an infinite mental and spiritual imagining loop, with made up words and definitions for words.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I have no idea what a "pure consciousness" specifically means. Once you can clearly define, then perhaps we will know what a tainted consciousness is.

My point has been that pure consciousness is just made up as a reference . It cannot be realised as that .

You're right in that to define pure consciousness one has to know it's opposite .

One has to be present as pure consciousness, knowing that, and knowing why one knows that and not something else lol .

This would give away the actual point of self knowing and by what means .

This would in a roundabout way give ones location, i.e. of the mind, of self, or not .

This is why you cannot realise what you are as anything per se .

What is concluded is another matter . What is imagined is another matter .

What is constructed into mathematical equations is another .

The list is endless .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I hear ya bud and that was a compliment, while I was teasing/being sarcastic lol, I am not against the imagination at all. I am against people using their imagination to keep themselves locked in an infinite mental and spiritual imagining loop, with made up words and definitions for words.

I am all for the imagination as well . I just like to be clear from the very start about what one has concluded and what one has actually realised .

We have to get the foundations straight and matched as you know .. you can have a man realising that fire is hot, but you can't have a realisation that one is pure awareness or super duper consciousness ..

One can associate anything they like to what they are, that's not a problem, but one has to understand that's all they are doing .


x daz x

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by God-Like

*snip*...I can speak to you about many direct experiences I have had and I can make a wordfull reference to them all if pushed .
-So when you had a direct experience of the void, did you have the word void come to mind as a realisation?
-Did your pure awareness have a thought about what the void is compared to what it isn't ?

I always like to hear about direct exps....the 2 ques are for later long day and won't be over for me for another 4 hrs.
This is my mindless rest break. :)

This is part of what I'm speaking to from 49:00 to 51:00 https://youtu.be/MJE54C7Qu60?t=2947

It's not made-up words, imagination or only philosophy. It's actual experience borne out of the practices embodied in the philosophy. It's not 24x7 but increasing with practice.

This body moves in relationship to other things but I'm always the same. I'm always in the same place. I don't go anywhere.

That's the unchanging "space" I refer to and know is my true nature. It's that made-up word. It's consciousness or more appropriately and according to the philosophy Sat-Chit-Ananda.

It's not even anything mystical. It's there for everyone but is largely unrealized. It's the extraordinary masquerading as the ordinary. That's the real laugh of it all. It's so darned obvious, so darn close yet so hard to see until it's seen and then it can't be unseen. LOL!

Another observation I find quite humorous is the subject line of this thread is "Everything is an expression of conciousness" and yet in the thread consciousness is being dismissed as a made-up word.

[r6r6]

God-Like...So how did you personally realise that the void refers to what you declare?

True void = true macro-infinite non-occupied space, that surrounds/embraces the finite, occupied space Universe { Uni-V-erse } and Ive explained how I came that conclusion on many thread here at SF over a few years time now.

Did the thoughts come to your mind while you were what?

Huh? While I was thiking.

The universe itself?

Huh? Yes Universe is a myriad composition of varying degrees of consciousness, beginnging with twoness and the Gravitatonal lines-of-relationship between them i.e. that connects them to each other.

Trying to gauge how you personally ocame to the realisation .

If Universe is finite there my conclusion is the only possible one. You have to start there. Can you rmind grasp a finite occupied space Universe? It is rather simple, tho the hard part is the trying to grasp the size of known Universe.

Now that is really hard for us to get our heads around. So again, start with this latter above, then, and only then are we prepared to forward with irrational, conclusions of anything other than what Ive stated, in these regards to Universe.

Finite = integrity ergo wholeness ergo a structured compostion of system

Infinite = lack of structural and systemic integrity ergo not wholeness

[Miss Hepburn]

God-Like: On second thought - I don't think I can help you out with these questions below:

-So when you had a direct experience of the void, did you have the word void come to mind as a realisation?
-Did your pure awareness have a thought about what the void is compared to what it isn't ?