peachboy

Member
  • Content count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About peachboy

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Location
    Bristol UK
  • Gender
    Male
  1. Thanks for posting. Never heard of this guy before. Very good.
  2. First, start with the logical certainty that unconsciousness cannot manifest in the first-person. There is no such thing as first-person unconsciousness. In the absence of first-person unconsciousness, all that remains is first-person consciousness. Or in other words, there can never be a moment when you're not having an experience. All that can change is the nature of that experience. That is true without end, and without beginning, and transcendental of time. It is simply not possible to experience a lack of experience. So when it comes to understanding who you are, there are clearly two parts: a part that is eternally constant, and a part that has the potential to change. The question is, which part should you identify with? The entire definition of identity is predicated on a constant, as there is no such thing as variable identity. Therefore, when looking for a true identity, it makes no sense to identify with anything other than a constant, and in this case the constant is the constant nature of your consciousness. Therefore the two parts of your being can be expressed in terms of both identity and state. Your identity is your eternal consciousness, and your current state is the particular incarnation of experience presently being experienced (commonly and erroneously known as personal identity). Clearly, given that consciousness is eternal, the nature of your true identity is eternal. Or in other words, your true age is infinity. You have never not existed. For that reason, there is no need for a creator. Consciousness doesn't have to be created by anything, simply because it is fundamental. It has no opposite. Death is merely the opposite of birth, not the opposite of life. Science and religion often makes the mistake of assuming that something came from nothing, but in reality there is no such thing as nothing, as there is always consciousness which has the imaginative potential to manifest anything. Consequently the starting proposition is false: Nothingness is not fundamental. Everythingness is fundamental. That is to say, you start with everything and simply work backwards. Life is an exercise in subtractive synthesis. We are not creating stuff, we are simply filtering stuff out. We start with an infinite block of clay (everythingness) and filter and filter and filter until we have a clay figurine. When the clay figurine dies, the clay does not turn back into nothing, but rather the surrounding nothing, turns back into clay. Comprehend all of that, and then just simply substitute the word Consciousness for the word God, and your Grandad's good to go.
  3. 1. God wants to go on vacation from being God. 2. God realises such a vacation implies ignorance. 3. God (worried about becoming eternally ignorant) imagines a fail safe mechanism for a safe return home. 4. God also realises God could realise God is God while ignorant. 5. God (worried about realising God is God while ignorant) imagines a fail safe mechanism for a stable existence on vacation. 6. God invents brain. 7. Hitler invades Poland.
  4. A MAN WALKS INTO A DOCTOR'S OFFICE DOCTOR: "How can I help you today?" MAN: "I keep forgetting I'm God." DOCTOR: ...
  5. Never alone, merely all-one.
  6. Thanks guys. Really appreciate the responses. Yep. If life has a meaning then it's right there in that sentence. I agree. It seems these days like we're standing on the precipice of a nightmare. Definitely time to reign it back a little.
  7. Could someone post the name of the video and channel so I could look it up? The link is null for me.
  8. Philosophical Reflections on PacMan From Hebrew, Satan is defined as adversary, foe or antagonist. In a game, there is no functionality without counterpoint. A game cannot exist without an antagonist. In the game of Pac-Man, there are three antagonists:- 1. The multi-coloured ghosts that chase the protagonist. 2. The maze, of which the protagonist is prisoner that restricts movement to certain dimensions. 3. The rules, which stipulate all dots need to be eaten before the protagonist can transcend. The conflict between protagonist and antagonist implies destruction of one or the other. Yet if we remove the antagonist, as per the convictions of the protagonist, the game collapses. Let's start with the removal of the first antagonist - the multi-coloured ghosts. Absent the chase, the protagonist is now able to traverse the maze at a leisurely pace. Still though, it remains a prisoner of the maze and is bound by the rules that pertain to ascension. Next then, we remove the second antagonist - the maze itself. With the maze gone, the environment is but a black-screen full of dots. The protagonist is no longer limited to horizontal / vertical movements and has the option of diagonal and even circular movements. Yet the protagonist is still bound by the rules that require eating up of all the dots. Finally therefore, we remove the last antagonist. The protagonist is no longer bound by the burden of having to eat all of the dots. In fact, the protagonist no longer has to eat any of the dots. With all antagonists now gone, a coin is inserted into the slot. A title appears that reads “Welcome to Pacman” which is then immediately followed by a second message: “Congratulations, you won the game.” The screen goes blank and the game ends. Clearly, that would be a commercial disaster. Herein lies the paradox of the game they call life. On the surface the protagonist seeks the destruction of the antagonist. Yet without an antagonist we would simply drift back into omniscience and the game of non-omniscience would surely end. If destruction of the antagonist occurs as a result of a competent player the result is the same. The predictability of winning marks the end. Conversely, if the antagonist becomes too competent for the protagonist, again the game collapses. The dream turns into a nightmare and the protagonists wakes. Therefore, as in the case of Pac-man the sweet spot of non-omniscient stability is found at the point where the protagonist and the antagonist is a perfect match. Anything other than that and you'll find yourself back home in non-duality.
  9. God is first-person consciousness. The opposite of first-person consciousness is first-person unconsciousness. There is no such thing as first-person unconsciousness. Therefore all that remains is first-person consciousness. Therefore all that exists is God. It's not created by anything. It's fundamental by way of the logic there is no opposite.
  10. Divinity is easily found but sovereignty takes work. When divinity and sovereignty is out of alignment you will definitely lose your mind. Sit within your own divinity. Take control of the controls and control it. You don't need advice on how to be God.
  11. When one decides to go to war with the Cartesian Evil Demon, it's worth pondering to what extent she can raise her game. Have you dropped the ball recently? Did you remember to cross the Ts and dot the Is? A lot of conjecture can be thrown around as if true; we can take it to the bank and celebrate, only to wake up and find ourselves staring down the barrel of the gun while the evil demon smirks. Oh shit, I screwed up and didn't even see it. For me, it seems absolute to say that unconsciousness cannot manifest in the first-person. There is no such thing as first-person unconsciousness. Therefore all that remains is consciousness. There can never be a moment when one is not having an experience. All that can change is the nature of that experience. An existence without beginning, without end, and transcendental of time itself. In view of the evil demon, omnipotence is not the problem. We have known non-omnipotence, and one day we may experience it again. Just as someone develops Alzheimers, all that work, all that knowledge and wisdom, all that Enlightenment....all gone. And suddenly we are back in the nebithera of ignorance again. To those who have the ability to understand, and the ability to pass on understanding, what is your strategy for navigating eternity? I have a saying: "If you care more about your own mother than the homeless person down the street, then you're doing it wrong". Why? Because while I can prove that I am eternal, I cannot prove that I am not the homeless person down the street, and therefore I should assume that I am also the homeless person down the street that currently is at a different point in eternity. After all, there is no escape from eternity. Even that which is omniscient cannot escape. Ever. I will assume that I am everything. I will assume that by the time eternity is done (!!) I will have experienced every experience there is to possibly experience limited only by imagination. I will be every human, animal, male, female, black, white. All of the things. I will prepare for Hiroshima, Auschwitz, every kitchen-sink drama, every homelessness, every animal slaughter, every rape and house-fire. All of the bad things, and all of the good things. I will take the strain, because I have no choice. To do otherwise would be to deny the consciousness in others, which as eternal strategy we must assume to be the consciousness in us, merely at a different point in eternity. Perhaps if we can teach this... perhaps if we can adopt eternal strategy as fundamental, while we move toward turquoise... we can accelerate true empathy. A place where compassion and wisdom are one.
  12. Unconsciousness cannot manifest in the first-person. There is no such thing as first-person unconsciousness.... therefore all that remains is consciousness. There will never be a moment when you're not having an experience. All that can change is the nature of that experience. That is true without end, and without beginning, and transcendental of time.
  13. Imagine you're playing a video game. In that game you visit a hospital. In the hospital, Dr Murphy tells you that you have a tumor on the brain, and cancer in the lungs. Given that you're playing a video game, is the illness true? Or does it just come down to pixels and computer code?
  14. @ivankiss As long as I can remember I've always been plagued by a little voice in my head replaying the same statement over and over: "If you could do anything in the world, what would you do?" As a teenager, lost in ignorance, the voice would come in at the most randomest of moments: "If you could do anything in the world, what would you do?". I would ignore it, rationalising it to neurochemical chaos. In my twenties, again it would persist. I would be walking along, minding my own business, and suddenly out of the blue: "If you could do anything in the world, what would you do?". Once again I would ignore. Throughout my thirties the voice would continue, popping up at the most irregular of times: "If you could do anything in the world, what would you do?". Finally in my forties, after discovering my divinity and experimenting with manifestation, and knowing that voice to be the I AM of my eternal soul it would again sound: "If you could do anything in the world, what would you do?". And for the first time, I replied back: "No.... If you could do anything in the world, what would you do?" And the voice said "I'd be you." And I smiled the biggest smile.
  15. I regard this more of a sovereignty test more than a not-eating test. Anyone can discover their own divinity, but if you haven't done the necessary groundwork concerning your own sovereignty, then that's the moment you get dragged to the asylum. Divinity with sovereignty = Enlightenment. Divinity without sovereignty = Hell. I wish the brother all the love the universe has to give.