The observer

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    681

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The observer

  1. Posted

    2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

    Form is limited to that particular form for one.

    No, it is not. I mean, sure, the appearance seems like limitation but where are the limits exactly? Really.

    2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

    Lack of all distinction is formless.  So Form is a distinction.

    What is a distinction but another arbitrary distinction (mind, imagination, illusion, etc...)? And just like with fear, look closer and it disappears. You see the sleight of hand? Creating something out of nothing. The formed is, in fact, completely formless, but thought/distinction makes it looks like it's not. That's exactly why form = formlessness. Once you think of distinctions, they get created and you see form. Once you stop thinking of them, they disappear and that's formlessness. Formlessness is not the absence of form. It is the absence of distinction. A distinction is not actually a thing. It does not actually exist unless you allow it to do. As long as you are able to make distinctions, you are living in form. When you move to no-mind/no-thought/no-distinction, you will abide in the formless. One way to achieve this is to surrender everything, including all questions and desires. As long as you accept reality as it is, you are one with it. Once you start resisting/minding/desiring/seeking/questioning again, you create distinction and you separate yourself.

    2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

    And Its finite intelligence - not omniscience.  Form is localized to one location.  If i am in Georgia I'm not in Chicago.  Formlessness is omnipresent and not localized.   Form is impermanent.  Formlessness  cannot be killed.

    This is all illusory and part of the communication process. None of it is actually true. Form cannot be killed either, because life vs. death is an arbitrary duality.

    2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

    God is not omnipotent in finite form.   You can't lift a building.  But God is omnipotent in its purest state.

    This, again, is dualistic language. You can't compare yourself to yourself unless you believe that you are not who you are. In which case, you would be operating from the dualistic mind. However, if you truly believed in duality, and that's your right, then that would mean that there is an external God which you/Leo deny and which the Abrahamic religions worship. Which side are you on right now? You're either pantheistic or monotheistic. You can't be both.

  2. Posted

    @UnconsciousHuman 

    Okay, I think I get that. But regarding Orange people, you're giving them only one characteristic which is the desire to be right. I don't think that's accurate. I think anyone at tier one regardless of their stage would want to be right, and that desire declines as one moves up to Green until they reach tier two where one stops caring at all about being right or wrong and they become "completely" objective in a sense.

  3. Posted

    @UnconsciousHuman 

    I hope you will like the suggestions I've made below.

    .

    RED: You are looking for ways to develop power and go about it in an impulsive manner. (Trolling, belittling, hating etc...)

    +RED: YOU ARE LOOKING FOR YOUR OWN INTERESTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING OTHER PEOPLE AT ALL (YOU DON'T SHOW RESPECT OR ANY EMOTIONS, YOU DON'T THANK PEOPLE AFTER GETTING WHAT YOU WANTED).

    +RED: YOU ARE INTENTIONALITY AIMING AT TRIGGERING OTHERS BY USING SNEAKY MANIPULATIVE LANGUAGE.

    BLUE: You are here to conform, belong, create ideology, follow rigid rules, and preserve principles.  

    +BLUE: YOU ARE HERE TO SPREAD YOUR WORLDVIEW WHATEVER IT IS.

    +BLUE: YOU ARE NOT OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING OUTSIDE YOUR CURRENT PERCEPTION AND UNDERSTANDING.

    ORANGE: You are looking to prove everyone else wrong, and show that you are right. (ACCORDING TO LOGIC/RATIONALITY).

    +ORANGE: YOU ARE LOOKING FOR PRACTICAL ADVICE.

    +ORANGE: YOU ARE SEEKING TO IMPROVE YOUR COMMUNICATION SKILLS.

    +ORANGE: YOU ARE USING THE FORUM AS A TOOL FOR MARKETING YOUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL, WEBSITE, OR BUSINESS.

    GREEN: You want to contribute to the forum community, connect, bond, and help individuals as well as receive guidance.

    +GREEN: YOU ARE HERE TO SPREAD HUMANITARIAN VALUES. (INTERSECTION WITH BLUE).

  4. Posted · Edited by The observer

    @Consept 

    And I agree. It's good to see this subject being discussed. No one said it should be perfect. We're just stating possibilities for more comprehensiveness. Like for example, someone at stage Orange does not exclusively seek to prove his worldview. He could be looking for practical solutions to some problems he's having without necessarily having to be systematic about them. That's just one thought for expanding the model. Nothing is perfect, yet it does not hurt to try to get closer to perfection. Especially that the OP seems to value accuracy and to be open. It's really good to see him open because then we can offer him our expertise on how to best be open without wasting years of his time (like I did) going about open-mindedness in the wrong direction. Of course, all of our experiences are limited by nature, but what isn't?

  5. Posted

    @Shiva99

    Possible causes:

    • Lack of vision.
    • Lack of direction.
    • Overthinking.
    • FOMO: fear of missing out.
    • Lack of disciplined, passionate, and purpose-driven friends.
    • Lack of alignment with your core values.
    • Lack of expression of your true feelings (e.g. through a journal).
    • Might be some basic stuff like diet, lack of fresh air, lack of sleep, bad postures, or unorganised lifestyle.
    • Addiction.
    • Victim's mindset.

  8. Posted · Edited by The observer

    17 minutes ago, Ya know said:

    @The observer 

    I felt like it wasn't a choice though. I think things were destined to happen this way.

    Of course, there's nothing personal about anything. Personal is illusory, as is choice. To put it another way, let's just say you were unaligned with God's will (even though that's technically false), and now you are. (I've been there too ?)

  9. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    You are God. It's just a question of how conscious you are of this fact. How deeply do you dare awaken from your dream?

    Okay. I know this probably sounds basic to you Leo, but the depth of awakening is infinite, right? Isn't infinitely chasing awakening just another form of God? God is free to seek and chase forever and He will still be God. As well, if God drops seeking once and for all, He's also still God. The difference sounds relative to me. There isn't an objective to God because God is Its own objective.

    For me, letting go of the chase wasn't so difficult. Desire is equal to identifying with imagination. I have very little desire so probably that's why. I don't know why I'm saying this maybe I'm trying to change your mind. I should just stop haha.

  10. Posted · Edited by The observer

    47 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

    @The observer 

    Notice in yourself how you are trying to prove me wrong, If you chose to do the opposite, and look for the ways that I'm saying is reasonable, you wouldn't be so persistently critical. 

    I wouldn't say you're wrong, just limiting yourself. We've agreed that there's no right or wrong in SD. And sure, you have valid points, no one is denying that. I would say your model is correct but not quite comprehensive, that's all. I think your model could use some optimisations, and people here are offering you that.

    47 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

    @The observer 

    The point on circular reasoning, true I did use that logic but notice how you use that to prove your agenda thatI'm closed-minded and not open to reinterpretation. 

    It's not my agenda. These are just my observations which are basically projections in the form of thoughts which then were typed by me as "possibilities" and then got interpreted by you as "agenda" probably because of the attachment you have to your model. Not that the attachment is bad or wrong. Again, just limiting in certain ways.

    47 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

    @The observer 

    Also I'm not sure what you meant by "when we say approach" and "we differ in understanding intentionality". Who are you referring to by "We" and what do you mean by difference of use of those two words.

    I mean me and others who you are arguing with. We're not here to argue, prove, or disprove anything. We don't know you in person and we have no stakes in this game. We're just sharing our thoughts. Yes, perhaps you could sometimes find some people who are looking to condescend your views (Orange and below, according to your model) but it's not likely here on this platform, and also since the different perspectives are multiple and agreeing on a core issue which is that there's more than just one simple way to interpret intentions, then that should ring some bells for you that they probably have a valid perspective and not just trying to prove your model wrong.

    47 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

    @The observer 

    Could you help me out a little and tell me the multiple interpretations I dismissed?

    I would say just try reading all the comments again from a non-attached place and see how different things can be. I think others have offered good insights. If you don't think so, then how can I make any difference? You see the paradox? You don't know until you know. But then how can you know? Sounds impossible, right? But not really. If you've never been to Paris, you don't know Paris yet but you know some other places. How do you get to know Paris while staying in New York? You can't, you see. You have to leave New York and come visit Paris. In other words, you have to let go of your perspective temporarily and try other ones.

  11. Posted

    5 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

    @The observer

    My approach is to create a better map of reality and I want to prove this model is right and those who dismiss it wrong. This is combined intentionality YELLOW + ORANGE. Which only further proves the accuracy of the model.

    This is circular reasoning (early Orange and below). You're proving your model is true according to your model. You're dismissing all outside insights and putting them all in one category: "wrong". Our insights are not necessarily to prove or disprove your model, they're just observations from multiple subjective points of view. And I'm sure we're not on the same page when we say "approach". You probably mean intention but we mean the way this intention is manifesting in the real world. You can't have an objective view if you keep denying different ways of interpretation. Accuracy is not usually gained by circular reasoning but by open-mindedness and careful observation. I would look into the mechanics of creating models before starting to make conclusions.

    14 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

    @The observer

    I should mention, there is no right or wrong intentionality, of course, RED and BLUE intentionality are usually not suitable for high-level communication to happen, you could then call them "wrong" but that's because of how ineffective they are.

    This sounds like a late Green/early Yellow approach which is great in terms of SD.

  12. Posted

    @UnconsciousHuman

    I think your approach here is Blue/Orange. You seem eager to prove your model is true and universal and you don't seem to be able to get what others are trying to say but rather you're conveniently deflecting and denying every other way of viewing or talking about your model. I think @lmfaomade a good point. It's not just about the model itself, it's also about how you relate to it.

  13. Posted · Edited by The observer

    3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    It's complicated. You are both. And it depends what state of consciousness you are in.

    I've never denied that humans are limited while in their human form. But you can become other forms, or even formless. You are not limited to the human form.

    But Leo, haven't you watched your Absolute Infinity series? ?

    I mean, of course, a human being is a different form than a toilet paper but that's just appearance. Aren't they both infinite in essence? Where does the human begin and the toilet paper end? Besides, aren't there infinite depths to the being of form? Like for example infinite zooming capacity (cells, organelles, atoms, quarks, strings, etc...). The forms do change, obviously, but the change is an infinite chain, so every single form (appearance) is fundamentally both finite and infinite at the same time, regardless of what state of consciousness it is in. Right?

  14. Posted

     

    1 hour ago, Ya know said:

    Are you just a lucky one in a lottery?

    There's no luck, but there is gratitude or jealousy.

    Quote

    Someone who has the right attributes in the right environment to discover these tools? And everyone else who doesn't do it was never going to do it?

    A grateful person is unable to feel jealous and cannot fathom gratitude from a jealous person's perspective. And vice-versa for a jealous person. Jealousy is not a problem for the jealous, they're comfortable being devils, they're comfortable being themselves. Ignorance is bliss. However, when a devil awakens to his devilry, it's like when a vampire comes out to light. He has to burn in order to become pure, so he pays for it by dying. There's nothing new about this, it's just evolution and giving birth to new form. Labour has never been an easy task. Some things have to die in order to make way for new things. There's nothing bad about jealousy per se. It's rather simply 'outdated'. You're where you are because you've paid for it. No one point of view is actually better than any other. It's just a matter of perspective.

  16. Posted

    3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Form is mutually exclusive. If you are a human, you ain't a kangaroo. You can't be a human and a kangaroo at once. You must pick one. Just like if you were making a video game you'd have to pick if the main character was a human or a kangaroo. Those are two very different games. You can play both games, but not at once.

    This isn't rocket science. Just some basic logic.

    Do you realise that many people have been literally saying this to you for the last 3-4 years? Do you remember how you used to answer us? What's changed? You seemed to have broken out of the limitations of logic (the mind), so why limit yourself again?

  17. Posted

    Reading patterns is no ordinary thing. Some people are simply gifted. That's what differentiates between explicit-oriented and implicit-oriented minds. If you are able to read between the lines, man, you are gifted with quite a power! Most people get lost in the appearances and overlook the essence, which certainly has incredible power too. Being immersed in the content makes you forget (unaware of) the context. Your survival (pragmatism) hinges upon being immersed in the content. Then again, the quality of your life (well-being/inner peace) is determined by the degree of your awareness, i.e. of the context. So, apparently, both work hand in hand to create the best life. Although, ultimately the truth is that neither of them really has an effect on anything since causality is an illusion. But, hey, enjoy the illusion while you can.

  21. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Go outside, find a giant boulder. There's God unable to lift that rock.

    ye of little faith how do u know for sure im not gonna be able to lift it? sounds like ur giving too much trust to the dream rules u forgot to count that they could break at any point for u. rationality distorts truth

    23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    God can limit itself by incarnating into a finite form. All finite forms are limited in power. To be unlimited in power requires being totally formless.

    ur imagining a human being with human powers and a rock to lift but thats all an appearance which is ultimately not true and maya. look past that i am a human being who cannot lift that rock and i am the land on which the rock is being lifted

    dont settle for being less than infinity 

  22. Posted

    @Leo Gura  this discussion reminds me of the old omnipotence paradox. can god create a rock so heavy that it itself cannot carry? what if god is doing just that every single moment without any one realizing? haha hard to believe but still true. god is both finite and infinite and it exists and does not exist all together and at the same time. impossible does not even exist for god he created impossibility and broke it

  23. Posted · Edited by The observer

    19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    Every single way you could slice 'God' are neither true and untrue. You can't take a slice out of an infinite pie and know the actual nature of the pie. 

    The human mind can't fathom of this. There is no ultimate conclusion about God that the finite human mind could fathom. The human mind can only slice.

    God is infinite. God is finite. God is only you. God is everyone. God is no one. God is nothing. All of these are neither true nor untrue.

    But from the human perspective, the way to be at peace is to surrender. The pie is what it is. There is nothing to fix about it or understand about it. Just be a piece of pie for a while.

    close ur eyes theres no pie no slices no pieces. theres infinite potential dont get tricked by the manifest feel what u are u are infinite and boundless. its impossible to communicate this through language but u can know it in no mind and with no mind i dont mean no thoughts but rather i mean unlearning everything uve ever learned. infinite finite pieces etc are all categories which can never capture the essence of the present moment (i have to give it a label for communication purposes) however capturing the essence is something and it is limited but the essence itself is something else and it is unlimited at all times. u are absolutely infinite and its maya to believe otherwise. limitations only exist in thought.

  24. Posted · Edited by The observer

    @Emerald its a matter of perspective u could think of god as infinity or u could think of him as zero but in reality @zeroISinfinity hahaha hi man just thought of u and wanted to send a ?

    @Emerald the point is theres no god nor infinity nor anything these all are just thoughts so unless u identify with them theyre just appearing inside of u b cuz theres just u. period.