It isn't ONE Self it is Self that is all there is ..

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by God-Like

In my eyes the moon exists independently unto itself because it is fundamentally no different from what we are and I don't require you or anyone to look at me in order for me to exist .

this is the best argument I've heard either way on this topic! kudos!

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

this is the best argument I've heard either way on this topic! kudos!

I am glad you think so

It stands to reason in my eyes for one has to have a foundation reflecting what we are in the first instance and then relate what that is to everything else .

It makes no sense for things to disappear and reappear simply because there is a perceiver perceiving something ..

I have heard some strange concepts over the years, the concept of the moon disappearing when I look away is in the top 5


x daz x

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by JustBe

Thanks for your sharing moonglow.

I think at times when another has experienced a particular stream of awareness through direct experience, where by they’ve dived from one end of the spectrum of themselves to that point of ‘emptiness’ ‘no self’ the understanding integrates more directly, this often becomes the ‘forefront of experience’ ..Think people like adyashanti, Tolle, and many others of course. They have ‘become’ through their being the ‘no self’ ‘emptiness’ as a direct experience, where everything has dissolved and they no longer ‘feel’ contained or in conflict inwardly and outwardly. For those in this stream, the ‘truth’ has been illuminated to such a degree, they now ‘live’ through this awareness. It’s ‘very clear’..their is nothing more than what they are connected as within. I see many of those ‘types’ teaching through that stream as part of the whole ‘understanding’ of the ‘self aware’ ..living and breathing this. For those in this stream the ‘one self’ is everything. Nothing outside of themselves is separate even as others still perceive through their individuation.


Now we come to those who are opening through a step by step process, building a greater picture through increments, their understanding deepens through ‘self awareness’ of all this, so often they, then build understanding, more as a ‘self inclusive’ awareness. This step by step process as I’ve come to understand it in myself, is that both the steps, the wholeness and the self are important for this particular lived experience. Both ways, supporting the creation of life through the purpose both bring to life.

As we’ve evolved, enlightenment and awakening has and continues to build as a lived experience. Not something removed from itself or life. In the past many gurus and awakened people often moved ‘away’ from everyday life to sustain themselves in the ways they experienced their process. It wasn’t as acceptable as it is today. It was often foreign unless they were confined with others in similar practices or experiences.

As a totality of ‘being’ and through my own awareness it all fits through my direct experience. I’m aware of myself in all streams directly and so in myself it all fits. I have no conflict in myself, have no need to question others as they feel and see.

As far as I see myself now, I feel like the no self part of my experience, is ‘without’ attachment in me, it bears witness without ‘conflict’ or confusion. Those still trying to make sense of themselves through external views deciding for themselves what it all means in them, often are still becoming aware that it all fits ‘the whole’ and the ‘no self’ and ‘emptiness’ is a state of ‘being. The self is still participating but their is no one their suffering, conflicted or confused. Emptiness and non attachment move the mind body ‘more clear’ ..

Think open clear vessel, uncontained, yet fully immersed.

Thank you.

The last bit you present; "Think open clear vessel, uncontained, yet fully immersed" , is good visual for me.

I notice the connections by observing nature and at times just sitting on a bench and watch the flow of activities going on around me.

This just happens. I don't try to notice, it is just natural for me.

In this notice a flow created by life unfolding as it has, will, and continues to be.

. I find these conversations interesting at times
They widen my view and bring a better understanding of others and in a way myself as well.

I also have met those who are in the "flow". They are sincere and accepting.
I remember a women I met when I was younger who would just have the slightest smile on her face, while I rambled on a bit. Which calmed me down. It was interesting and felt a calm energy from her.

There are others and the authentic ones wil just know. Not by what is said so much as by thier presence. Authentic meaning they are not putting on an act.

Some are not necessarily into all this stuff, but have this inner power and presence that reflects thier wisdom.

Even through my experiences find to have peace with in is reflected without.

Which brings a deepening connection to Being.

Sharing my thoughts.

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey :)

As I see it, self is a thought of oneself within I AM awareness ... So if it is suggested that the thought related self is illusory then I AM awareness is also illusory because they are not separate . They're cannot be one without the other in these instances .

If there isn't really an individuated self within awareness and what is present instead of is simply a dreamy illusion then there really is no self present that exists unto itself.

This is another aspect of being independent within individual existence while still being part of wholeness .. This causes countless issues when peeps don't see that there can be independent existence within wholeness .. and again something that presents issues is the nature of impermanence and permanence relating to what we are ...

Some cannot see that in the short term there can be something just as real as something that outlives time so to speak .

When there is wholeness or oneness it doesn't matter if it rains for 5 minutes or 500 million years, if we are working from a real foundation of what we are it matters not how permanent anything is for it changes nothing fundamentally .


x daz x

Hi daz,

First thank you for the exchange.


If one feels a seperation, then what creates that feeling?

Individuality or another way to put it can be diversity is reflected through life here. Reflected in nature. There is also an interaction going on forming connections and influences. Yeah I too may repeat myself.

This goes on whether I notice it or not or even think about it. At the same time my thoughts influence my outlook and feeling towards myself. At times they can distract away from what is going on or muddle the view. Other times can help make sense of what is being conveyed.

Misunderstandings, misinterpretations, stubbornness, and arrogance are among some things I have experienced through over thinking and held thoughts/beliefs.

Through the years have become more open towards others and more honest with myself. Have learned when to speak and when to be silent. To just be with it.

Sure don't have it down pact, but through the experiences in life realize, yes we are all a part of the experience of life unfolding of itself. Yes, this goes on in its own ways. Moments are real and add to the story and what manifests. Creates changes around me and with in me.

This confirms there is no seperation, unless thought to be seperated. Even this is entwined with in what may unfold with in the Wholeness of it all.

It is not this or that. It is both and possibly what may yet unfold.

Not attempting to argue or prove anything. It is just the way I see it.

There are choices to make, adjustments to make, and for me a continuing of learning. There is you, me, us, them, and we. All formed by existance, as with all lifeforms and beings. There are also diversities. All enmeshed with in life and creating a consciousness of Oneness in the sense of how it is emmeshed, not so much to prove anything, IMO, it just happens.

Just some reflections on this.

Originally Posted by God-Like

So what is the moon in reflection of yourself? We need to establish this first . The moon has to be either fundamentally what you are or something else . Then understand why the moon would disappear and not you when the moon perceives you in someway .

Again, we need to establish what I AM is in reflection of yourself . If we establish this then there would be no doubt about what disappears and what doesn't in regards to you and I and all things at large .

You say that I AM is all there is, when this is not strictly true . I AM is a point of awareness that is fundamentally the same as everything else .

What you are is all there is, I AM is not all there is, I AM is simply not separate from all there is .

This is why individuality is not the entirety, this is why the finite is not infinite, the wave is not the ocean in entirety blah blah blah ...

The tree exists in it's own right because it doesn't depend on another individual for it's existence . It is an individualised part of the whole . Things don't just disappear when you turn your back ..

You say that I disappear when you no longer perceive me but an individualised I AM conscious perceiver always remains aware of IAMness of the mind .

If I can self verify my own existence then how is it possible to disappear when I can be conscious aware of my solitude / isolation?

x daz x

Well now sensei, I would have to say that the moon is made by and out of that which holds the I am idea. So yes, that phraseology I used was not quite right. I am, and the moon, are indeed the same substance, but both are created by and from the substance of that which is creating and perceiving them. That which creates the I am and the perception of what I am is, is the same as that which creates the moon and perceives what it has created. As well as everything else within its perception. Yet, perhaps not all of the information it uses to create its reality is arising from within itself, IDK as I am unable to see beyond that self that perceives I am et al.

I am told that scientists have successfully carried out the double slit experiment using molecules as large as 114 atoms, which seems like quite the feat. If one were an advanced enough race, then perhaps they could carry out the double slit experiment shooting moons instead of electrons or large molecules. I don’t know how you feel about it, but I think that under the right experimental conditions, those big ol moons would act just like big ol molecules. They would cease to be moons when no one was looking, or even if the experiment were just designed so that no one could ever know which slit they went through, and instead become mathematical waves of probability describing where the moon might appear if one were to look, but isn’t there until they do. Now, if I accept that the probability wave function of where the moon might be seen to exist counts as the moon existing, then I might agree that the “moon” does exist when I am not looking, but transforms into a mathematical function predicting the probability of where it might reappear as a moon. Though the moon is not there, information about the probability of where it might appear still exists….depending on how we define exists.

So, if in the middle of one of the experimental runs, I choose to look and see where the moon is, and it obligingly appears as a moon because I did so, then one might say I created the moon by observing it, and it has no independent existence as a moon, when I nor any other conscious observer is not looking.

Think of going about with virtual reality video goggles on. As you turn your head, a virtual reality is created and displayed for you to see. Perhaps a nice night time scene in a desert, camping out beneath a full moon. When you turn your head, that part of the landscape disappears, and another part scrolls into view, turn back and there is that first part once again. Did that first part of the landscape exist as a landscape when you turned the other way? It seemed to, as when you turn back there it is again.

Of course, if I get preoccupied with toasting my marshmallows and hot dogs over the fire, I might not look up at the moon for several hours. Yet when I do it will be right there in the sky moved to a location right where the lunar charts say it should be based on its track across the sky that whole time I was not looking at nor perceiving it…..so one might say that was proof it existed that whole time I was not looking. But then I might remember that I have virtual reality goggles on. The computer just calculated where it should be and then created it there to keep the experience feeling real. In fact, it is really the middle of the day, I am nowhere near a desert, the desert is not real, the moon was not really there, nor the stars or the campfire either. Of course, in another sense they were there, just there in the virtual reality, during the times I was looking in that direction, perhaps that is as real as it gets anyway.

You may or may not have an independent existence. I may be having a discussion with myself. I doubt it as you are a much more pleasant conversationalist than I would be with myself so we will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to exist independently…....don’t mention it. Yet, you can still disappear for me when I am not perceiving you, even if for you, within your own consciousness, you would still perceive your existence, still hold that I am thought.

Yet I might have completely forgot all about you and am no longer holding any perception of your existence. When I refer to you, I am actually referring to me. Because like ‘I am’ and the moon, you are something I create and then perceive, albeit perhaps based on information that may be coming from outside of my consciousness….or maybe not.

Of course, you may become engaged in something that requires 100% of your attention. Then perhaps you might become so focussed on free climbing that cliff face, that all thoughts of self and anything other than that cliff, and maybe some fingers and toes, might otherwise be lost to your awareness. You may have no time at all to think or feel that I am ness, or even think about whose fingers and toes those are, as your consciousness becomes fully engrossed in and flows through the present moment directly. No you, no me, just the face of the cliff, and those disembodied fingers and toes searching for a hold. Once you reach the top, the I am thought will surely return and may feel more real than ever. But did it exist in the meantime, or like the moon, was it out of sight, out of mind, out of perception, out of existence, for you. To warp things a bit more, perhaps I was at the bottom watching you climb, now perhaps you existed for me that whole time, but not for you.

BTW: I hear they are trying to reproduce the double slit experiment results with even larger things. The goal is to try to do it with something as large as a virus. Think about that! One day viruses may actually just disappear, like magic they would just disappear. Of course only if we are not looking for them, the more we look for them, the more we would find them. In fact looking for them would cause them to appear, out of nothing.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well now sensei, I would have to say that the moon is made by and out of that which holds the I am idea. So yes, that phraseology I used was not quite right. I am, and the moon, are indeed the same substance, but both are created by and from the substance of that which is creating and perceiving them. That which creates the I am and the perception of what I am is, is the same as that which creates the moon and perceives what it has created. As well as everything else within its perception. Yet, perhaps not all of the information it uses to create its reality is arising from within itself, IDK as I am unable to see beyond that self that perceives I am et al.

I am told that scientists have successfully carried out the double slit experiment using molecules as large as 114 atoms, which seems like quite the feat. If one were an advanced enough race, then perhaps they could carry out the double slit experiment shooting moons instead of electrons or large molecules. I don’t know how you feel about it, but I think that under the right experimental conditions, those big ol moons would act just like big ol molecules. They would cease to be moons when no one was looking, or even if the experiment were just designed so that no one could ever know which slit they went through, and instead become mathematical waves of probability describing where the moon might appear if one were to look, but isn’t there until they do. Now, if I accept that the probability wave function of where the moon might be seen to exist counts as the moon existing, then I might agree that the “moon” does exist when I am not looking, but transforms into a mathematical function predicting the probability of where it might reappear as a moon. Though the moon is not there, information about the probability of where it might appear still exists….depending on how we define exists.

So, if in the middle of one of the experimental runs, I choose to look and see where the moon is, and it obligingly appears as a moon because I did so, then one might say I created the moon by observing it, and it has no independent existence as a moon, when I nor any other conscious observer is not looking.

Think of going about with virtual reality video goggles on. As you turn your head, a virtual reality is created and displayed for you to see. Perhaps a nice night time scene in a desert, camping out beneath a full moon. When you turn your head, that part of the landscape disappears, and another part scrolls into view, turn back and there is that first part once again. Did that first part of the landscape exist as a landscape when you turned the other way? It seemed to, as when you turn back there it is again.

Of course, if I get preoccupied with toasting my marshmallows and hot dogs over the fire, I might not look up at the moon for several hours. Yet when I do it will be right there in the sky moved to a location right where the lunar charts say it should be based on its track across the sky that whole time I was not looking at nor perceiving it…..so one might say that was proof it existed that whole time I was not looking. But then I might remember that I have virtual reality goggles on. The computer just calculated where it should be and then created it there to keep the experience feeling real. In fact, it is really the middle of the day, I am nowhere near a desert, the desert is not real, the moon was not really there, nor the stars or the campfire either. Of course, in another sense they were there, just there in the virtual reality, during the times I was looking in that direction, perhaps that is as real as it gets anyway.

You may or may not have an independent existence. I may be having a discussion with myself. I doubt it as you are a much more pleasant conversationalist than I would be with myself so we will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to exist independently…....don’t mention it. Yet, you can still disappear for me when I am not perceiving you, even if for you, within your own consciousness, you would still perceive your existence, still hold that I am thought.

Yet I might have completely forgot all about you and am no longer holding any perception of your existence. When I refer to you, I am actually referring to me. Because like ‘I am’ and the moon, you are something I create and then perceive, albeit perhaps based on information that may be coming from outside of my consciousness….or maybe not.

Of course, you may become engaged in something that requires 100% of your attention. Then perhaps you might become so focussed on free climbing that cliff face, that all thoughts of self and anything other than that cliff, and maybe some fingers and toes, might otherwise be lost to your awareness. You may have no time at all to think or feel that I am ness, or even think about whose fingers and toes those are, as your consciousness becomes fully engrossed in and flows through the present moment directly. No you, no me, just the face of the cliff, and those disembodied fingers and toes searching for a hold. Once you reach the top, the I am thought will surely return and may feel more real than ever. But did it exist in the meantime, or like the moon, was it out of sight, out of mind, out of perception, out of existence, for you. To warp things a bit more, perhaps I was at the bottom watching you climb, now perhaps you existed for me that whole time, but not for you.

BTW: I hear they are trying to reproduce the double slit experiment results with even larger things. The goal is to try to do it with something as large as a virus. Think about that! One day viruses may actually just disappear, like magic they would just disappear. Of course only if we are not looking for them, the more we look for them, the more we would find them. In fact looking for them would cause them to appear, out of nothing.

It all depends on what meaning/definition you give to percieve/perception.

Perceiving the moon means 2 things: 1. you are observing the moon by you looking at the moon directly and/or 2. you have a mental image/concept of the moon in your mind- 1. you observe the moon from earth, in the night's sky, then, 2. you remember/have a memory, which is an image of you observing the moon from earth in the past in your mind, when you are not observing the moon directly.

You are conscious of and you are observing both #1 and #2 above, However in #1, you are observing the moon in the infinite eternal right here and right now and in #2 you are observing the moon from a limited mental image/memory/concept that you experienced in the past.

Now take the above observation, which is new to you, and apply it to your false beliefs, knowledge, mental and emotional conditioning/programming that makes you believe there is no absolute/objective reality are just memories/mental images you have in your mind from your past ( by the way, absolute/objective reality is just the infinite eternal right here and right now and there is nothing mystical/magical about it, it just is/exists, where anything is possible, including fear, conflict, contradiction, pain and suffering and where non of these things are possible).

[MikeS80]

I accidentally double posted

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well now sensei, I would have to say that the moon is made by and out of that which holds the I am idea. So yes, that phraseology I used was not quite right. I am, and the moon, are indeed the same substance, but both are created by and from the substance of that which is creating and perceiving them. That which creates the I am and the perception of what I am is, is the same as that which creates the moon and perceives what it has created. As well as everything else within its perception. Yet, perhaps not all of the information it uses to create its reality is arising from within itself, IDK as I am unable to see beyond that self that perceives I am et al.

I am told that scientists have successfully carried out the double slit experiment using molecules as large as 114 atoms, which seems like quite the feat. If one were an advanced enough race, then perhaps they could carry out the double slit experiment shooting moons instead of electrons or large molecules. I don’t know how you feel about it, but I think that under the right experimental conditions, those big ol moons would act just like big ol molecules. They would cease to be moons when no one was looking, or even if the experiment were just designed so that no one could ever know which slit they went through, and instead become mathematical waves of probability describing where the moon might appear if one were to look, but isn’t there until they do. Now, if I accept that the probability wave function of where the moon might be seen to exist counts as the moon existing, then I might agree that the “moon” does exist when I am not looking, but transforms into a mathematical function predicting the probability of where it might reappear as a moon. Though the moon is not there, information about the probability of where it might appear still exists….depending on how we define exists.

So, if in the middle of one of the experimental runs, I choose to look and see where the moon is, and it obligingly appears as a moon because I did so, then one might say I created the moon by observing it, and it has no independent existence as a moon, when I nor any other conscious observer is not looking.

Think of going about with virtual reality video goggles on. As you turn your head, a virtual reality is created and displayed for you to see. Perhaps a nice night time scene in a desert, camping out beneath a full moon. When you turn your head, that part of the landscape disappears, and another part scrolls into view, turn back and there is that first part once again. Did that first part of the landscape exist as a landscape when you turned the other way? It seemed to, as when you turn back there it is again.

Of course, if I get preoccupied with toasting my marshmallows and hot dogs over the fire, I might not look up at the moon for several hours. Yet when I do it will be right there in the sky moved to a location right where the lunar charts say it should be based on its track across the sky that whole time I was not looking at nor perceiving it…..so one might say that was proof it existed that whole time I was not looking. But then I might remember that I have virtual reality goggles on. The computer just calculated where it should be and then created it there to keep the experience feeling real. In fact, it is really the middle of the day, I am nowhere near a desert, the desert is not real, the moon was not really there, nor the stars or the campfire either. Of course, in another sense they were there, just there in the virtual reality, during the times I was looking in that direction, perhaps that is as real as it gets anyway.

You may or may not have an independent existence. I may be having a discussion with myself. I doubt it as you are a much more pleasant conversationalist than I would be with myself so we will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to exist independently…....don’t mention it. Yet, you can still disappear for me when I am not perceiving you, even if for you, within your own consciousness, you would still perceive your existence, still hold that I am thought.

Yet I might have completely forgot all about you and am no longer holding any perception of your existence. When I refer to you, I am actually referring to me. Because like ‘I am’ and the moon, you are something I create and then perceive, albeit perhaps based on information that may be coming from outside of my consciousness….or maybe not.

Of course, you may become engaged in something that requires 100% of your attention. Then perhaps you might become so focussed on free climbing that cliff face, that all thoughts of self and anything other than that cliff, and maybe some fingers and toes, might otherwise be lost to your awareness. You may have no time at all to think or feel that I am ness, or even think about whose fingers and toes those are, as your consciousness becomes fully engrossed in and flows through the present moment directly. No you, no me, just the face of the cliff, and those disembodied fingers and toes searching for a hold. Once you reach the top, the I am thought will surely return and may feel more real than ever. But did it exist in the meantime, or like the moon, was it out of sight, out of mind, out of perception, out of existence, for you. To warp things a bit more, perhaps I was at the bottom watching you climb, now perhaps you existed for me that whole time, but not for you.

BTW: I hear they are trying to reproduce the double slit experiment results with even larger things. The goal is to try to do it with something as large as a virus. Think about that! One day viruses may actually just disappear, like magic they would just disappear. Of course only if we are not looking for them, the more we look for them, the more we would find them. In fact looking for them would cause them to appear, out of nothing.

To be honest I don't follow the inns and outs of these types of experiments so I don't understand them, I am more of a red belt in these fields .

I am trying to establish a foundation of what we are here that reflects in all things .

You said 'I am, and the moon, are indeed the same substance, but both are created by and from the substance of that which is creating and perceiving them'

So using your premise why for instance doesn't the moon or the sun when not perceiving you in their own way reflect in you no longer being in the form of a human being?

It works both ways doesn't it .

When you are alone sitting on your sofa you would no longer exist as human form by your premise ..

When a family member isn't perceiving you then you no longer exist within human form ...

How is it that you can still perceive the laptop when you have no eyes to see .

How can you be aware of the stars at night when there is no perceiver perceiving you into being?

We are all cut from the same cloth so to speak but in a physical world environment we are not creators of moons and suns or other people through the art of perceiving .

Something has to be there for it to exist . There is no individual creator god here creating the appearances of something that isn't there when you don't perceive it .

When there was the birthing of the physical universe there was no one here perceiving the world into being .

When a car hits an unconscious deaf person from behind the person didn't perceive the car or the person driving the car ..

Things effect us from a far, I for one can feel the energy from a full moon without perceiving it .

How can a peep feel the influence of something that doesn't exist?

There are about a million holes in this premise that relates to perceiving things into being from this perspective .



x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I accidentally double posted

3 strikes and your out


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It all depends on what meaning/definition you give to percieve/perception.

Perceiving the moon means 2 things: 1. you are observing the moon by you looking at the moon directly and/or 2. you have a mental image/concept of the moon in your mind- 1. you observe the moon from earth, in the night's sky, then, 2. you remember/have a memory, which is an image of you observing the moon from earth in the past in your mind, when you are not observing the moon directly.

You are conscious of and you are observing both #1 and #2 above, However in #1, you are observing the moon in the infinite eternal right here and right now and in #2 you are observing the moon from a limited mental image/memory/concept that you experienced in the past.

Now take the above observation, which is new to you, and apply it to your false beliefs, knowledge, mental and emotional conditioning/programming that makes you believe there is no absolute/objective reality are just memories/mental images you have in your mind from your past ( by the way, absolute/objective reality is just the infinite eternal right here and right now and there is nothing mystical/magical about it, it just is/exists, where anything is possible, including fear, conflict, contradiction, pain and suffering and where non of these things are possible).

From a scenario where all things are the same, all things from this perspective are god creators .

From a conscious aware individual perspective all life exists in the form that it exists in .

We have to therefore see the moon in the same light as we do a family member for example .

When each family member is not perceiving one another then all ceases to be and yet all can self verify still existing ..

It makes no sense does it to say the moon disappears and not your partner ... for they are both individual self conscious beings in their own right while not being separate from the wholeness of what we are .


x daz x