.jpeg.769f54d63042e6bef6ae823e806ba6b4.jpeg)
Vibroverse
Moderator-
Content count
1,472 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Vibroverse
-
-
I think only one consciousness exists, but that one consciousness is being filtered through, and as, "individual" beings, if it makes sense to you.
-
The Quran is a book that was written in an era that is far away from our time, and it speaks to those people and their questions, and it is filtered, even if it is God that is talking there, by the mind of Mohammad, if he really even existed, and the belief systems and culture etc of the era.
Many things in the Quran doesn't make sense to me, and it feels biased and angry and like bigotry, but, I think, it doesn't even make so much sense to argue about it, because ethics, even if there are some universals in it, in my humble opinion, is a culturally filtered perception.
And I don't believe in Heaven and Hell, in the way the Quran talks about it. I think Mohammad, perhaps, was trying to protect people from, what he perceived to be evil, and some of those ideas I agree with, and some of those I don't, and he told them that they will be rewarded if they do good.
It is a very common feature in the human thought, to try to motivate people through the ideas of punishment and reward, and he might have even had good intentions, I don't know. But the idea of an eternal hell if you don't pray five times in a day, for instance, or if you have premarital sex, etc, doesn't make sense to me.
I think all the religions are talking to the dynamics of the culture, and point in time in history, etc, that they are born in. There are, I think, some universals in religions, for they are the universals, I think, of existence anyways, but most of them, probably, aren't relevant for me.
Maybe it, somehow, was helpful for some people in the time, but ethics and understanding are evolutionary and cultural things, and if you try to make them relevant for all times and places, it just becomes a never ending bullshiting really, for, then it becomes the "evil" itself that it, probably, was once trying to fight against, if you know what I mean.
My thought is I don't need any spokesperson for God really, because I've realized that I myself am an extension of God, and therefore I can listen to God, directly, myself, and in a way that makes sense to me in the life that I myself am living.
-
If you are the same age, say, with Einstein, where is he now? I'm able to talk to you, the physical human, but I'm not able to talk to Einstein, even if I, somehow, perhaps, can talk to you.
And I think, yes, perhaps, that we are all nonexistent, that we are all, in a sense, you the awareness, or something like that, but here we are.
Something about your perception of reality is attractive to me, but that something is what makes you you, instead of making you me.
So, in a sense, in a literal sense of the idea of Buddhism, perhaps, we can talk of being as "nothing experiencing nothing", but that nothing is something that we are referring to as you.
And what you said really is weird, not in a negative way necessarily, I guess, that you then are existence and time itself, and you are these words and the awareness of these words, and the experience of the "melting" in a sense of that duality, and becoming being.
But if you are the laws of existence and mind and knowledge, for you are the now, then it is you that is the structure, and you become time, in a sense, then, by knowing yourself and being aware, in a sense, of yourself, and, paradoxically, it creates a distinction between you and me, for being needs duality to be able to be being.
But the problem then is how do you explain your own existence, and then you may, perhaps, say that you can do that by making yourself an object to yourself that you know, but that knowing itself, then, is.
So my question is about the nature of a question. Is a question really a question, or is a question an answer within itself? Is a question an answer within itself that makes itself "mystified" to itself?
I guess it is the biggest question for me that makes me think of the world as a question experiencing itself as that which is a question, by "being" the notion, the idea, of a question first, and, by "definition", it is that which defines you.
And it, then, gives me a weird perception of reality where reality seems to become your awareness of reality, and the possibility of your reality being something that is abstract, and it, somehow, becomes the idea.
But that is a really weird thing for, then, you become you by becoming me, and I become me by becoming you. That's weird because it knows the experience of space and time, but it also knows itself as the form of being here and now.
The question here is, then, what the heck is space and time, and how is it that form is a part of it? How does, as you might say, perhaps, that which is absolute is that which is relative? How is that which is absolute is being "being" by being that which is relative? How is it that you are, in a sense, you by simply being you who, or that, is the experience of knowing?
Then we, in a sense, come to the level of perception and being, but it then also becomes circular for it is it that refers to it by "claiming", in a sense, to be something but it. And the "trick", in a sense, of being something but it becomes that which builds itself as the experience of being towards future, and being from past.
Now you may say that it is a mystery within itself, for it is itself, but then how will you "explain" the structural modality of being? How is it, then, that you are you and not someone else? How is it, then, that all is in consciousness, and that all is consciousness, but all, at the same time, is the reference of consciousness? How is it, then, that structures exist?
For example, let's say you are reading a book that Einstein wrote, and not become a part of that mode of being? I mean, you can say that it is that, but it also is not that for we are able to talk about it, in a sense in the "mode", or "modality", of it. And you may, perhaps, say that "well, dude, yeah, deal with it, for being is being", and it is an interesting perspective, I gotta say.
However, then we, in my terms, perhaps, have to say that reality is intuition and intuition is the structure of reality. It, I gotta say, is a very frickin weird perspective for it is the "end", in a sense, of perspective by being a perspective. It is, perhaps, like a snake eating its own tail by becoming its own tail that is itself. That, if it, in a sense, might be able to refer to the idea of referring to the idea that is, in a sense, some intelligence.
And that "intelligence" is so freaky for that intelligence is the being of being that is an experience of being. So even it there is a structure and form of the idea of notion there, then it becomes an "evolutionary" system in a sense that "evolves" towards itself, and "evolves" as itself, and becomes an idea that is impossible for it is the "point" of impossible.
And that "model" of reality, in a sense, is, in a sense, "self discovering", but that self discovery, by its nature, is the "experience" of itself, knowing, or being, itself, and it becomes, in a sense, the notion, or the idea, that represents itself to itself, but that "itselfness" is the, in a sense, "evolutionary loop" of being "appearing" as becoming.
You may, perhaps, at that point, say that "becoming" actually is not more mystical than "being", for, you may say, in a kinda weird way, becoming is but a series of being, but the "substance", in a sense, of becoming is one with being. But, then, what is our ability of making sense of something?
We say that when you let go of a pen, for instance, it falls, and there is a pattern there that we experience. So, even if reality is mystical, reality also is causal, and that, as we may very well explain, also is rational. Reality that is mystical and, in a sense, free, also is a pattern, a structure, and reality is reality.
So, what's really interesting to me is the structure, in that sense, of reality, that reality, in a sense, is organized by a frickin weird "thing", and it also, I guess, is that frickin weird "thing", but it discovers itself. But that process of "expansion" has a certain modality, even if, at the "ground of being" level it comes to itself from itself. Some of it being itself is hidden, and that's the "discovery".
But that modality of being is its own being that it becomes, and its model, then, in a sense, is a no model model being the model that it is.
-
Bernardo said that he took lsd once and actually it was the lsd experience, I guess, that lead him into idealism.
-
He might be aware of Leo's work.
-
I believe it for it is absurd.
-
39 minutes ago, Someone here said:How does law of attraction work?
Ask God for an explanation that would be much better than my explanation, and you can think of God as a radio station that is playing 24/7 within you, but you need to tune to its frequency, to make an analogy of it. Of course all these terms like vibration, frequency, etc are analogies, but they, I think, are pretty apt analogies that, perhaps, might help you also.
And the frequency of God is pure love and joy and peace, pure contentment, and you already know that by your very nature, for you are an extension of it, like a wave is an extension of an ocean. So the more you release your resistance, the less fear and anxiety based you are, the more you are able to hear from God, from Source, whatever you call it, really.
-
Aka your vibration, your feeling, the feeling of peace, etc, is everything, and it is so everything that it is even infinitely more important than even talking about it. The state of being is the underlying principle and mode of every moment and mode of being, and that's the irony, that's the "paradox", the being of being of being.
-
What is the process of consciousness becoming the words, and meaningfulness of the words that add more and more, in a sense, to itself, to create, or become, or "discover" a structure? Where, also, are our memories coming from, for instance, the memory of what I did yesterday, and how does it become a part of that "process", of that modality that is "me", is it a mystery? 😂
-
Action and world happen by themselves, and action and being in the mode of action are consciousness. Being and becoming find their own balance in the modality of being that is you where you are becoming the modality of being that is you. This way you become an appearance, and a collection of appearances, that make sense to you that is being you.
And the world becomes itself without knowing itself. It might be the freedom of being where it is itself, its own being of itself, in a sense, and reality forms itself in the way it is and that modality becomes a mode of what it is. When that becomes the situation, then being becomes the mode of being.
-
For instance, when you are searching for the action, and being action, etc, then you become the realization of the metaphysical level on the experiential level. The experiential level is like the manifestation of the metaphysical level, and your mind, in a sense, is helping you perceive and realize the metaphysical level in the experience of the experiential level.
-
Maybe nonexistence and existence as God mean the same thing to VeganAwake, and if so, I would agree with him, in a sense. I'm thinking of the quote from Rumi where he said "the language of God is silence, and everything else is just a poor translation". And yeah, by writing this comment, I'm joining the team of poor translation by being one of the poor translators, I guess, hmm.
-
How do you know they were not introduced to the God consciousness?
-
I think there is nothing but word and concept salads. This viewing itself as this as a and b. C and d and e and f and g and h and i and j. Nothingness, emptiness, "vibration", becoming forms and concepts and concepts of concepts, and concepts of concepts of concepts, in the possibleness of infinite, and voila, welcome to existence which you've never not been huh.
-
I think it is because if God showed us what omniscience and omnipotence actually are right now, we'd just lose our frickin minds.
-
Well, there are people who say that they experienced things like that, but they did not choose the reality they tune to consciously.
-
In actuality, there is just one "person" in existence, and what you call I and what anyone, or any being, else calls I are actually referring to the same I of existence. There is only one I who experiences all realities and all dimensions through its infinite individualized forms.
The being that is infinite somehow opens itself up as space and time and continuity and all phenomena. This being, that is the only being, simultaneously is every experience there is, and forms and organizes itself as individual realities and contexts.
This being is creating, experiencing, all the pasts and futures, and all the locations, and all possibilities, and even impossibilities ever, simultaneously. Being is the idea of the infinity that it is possibility and actuality, also, simultaneously.
And being is so intelligent and creative, and brilliant, that it can organize itself within itself into the touch of infinity, and from that point onwards it organizes itself, or it realizes its own self, accordingly. In this way, being is finding itself in itself again, in a way that it did not before, in the idea of evolution through, and as, space and time.
It becomes the self informing experience, through intuition and reason, in its truest sense, that it begins to discover its own logic of its own logic of its own logic, ad infinitum. And it realizes the mental nature of itself, and then it moves into the further exploration of the mental nature of the mental nature, in a sense, by its own phenomenology, by its own logic that is itself.
It knows itself as history and all the individualities, and, in the process, understands the nature of its being, and its being is, what we may call, Peace and Love, its nature is the process where it experiences the idea, and experience, of knowing itself, the nature of Mind, the mechanism, the science, of how it, the Mind, experiences itself as different forms, of and as, itself.
And the more it realizes that Mind and Love and Peace and Reason are all actually the same thing, the more, as its individualized form, it, in a sense, merges, and relaxes, into itself, and allows its individual mind merge, more and more, with the total, absolute, Mind, and within that process, it realizes that it is the process itself.
That's the point where it becomes the process that is the end of the process. That's the point where experience becomes the destination, the process, the now, becomes the destination. The mind understands everything, it understands the gist, the truth of all truths, and it retunes to the experience of discovering the infinite relative truths that form it as itself as the process.
Being that is nothing, for it is nothing becomes something, and the process of becoming that something, and that process is the nothing. There, being begins to understand what it means to touch the reality, what it means to become being that is the becoming, and unfolding of infinite intelligence as thoughts, words, and deeds to itself, and it becomes the things that it is, and it becomes the process of discovering itself that is the process of being.
-
Maybe you will move to a parallel dream where that is what happens and some others move another parallel dream where it doesn't quite happen. I don't know, how do we even know what will happen in the future? It might be that each individualized form of consciousness gets to the reality with which they resonate or align, or something like that, I don't know. And I don't even know what the logic of the process actually is other than the experience of surrendering to the quietness, to the inner peace, in a sense.
-
Being and silence.
-
26 minutes ago, Someone here said:My main point in this thread is that we know plenty, but there’s plenty more we don’t know, that’s what makes life interesting.
There is a vast amount of stuff to know, it’s impossible to know everything, but be wary of anyone who says we know nothing.
Of course we know things, if a tiger is eating you, you’ll know it. If someone asks you what two plus two is, you know the answer. If someone asks you if you exist, you know you do.
Many things we know are backed up by many sources of evidence, that’s what makes Science a powerful knowing system. Sure sometimes it’s mistaken, sure the edges at any moment in time can dip into philosophy, sure sometimes tweaks need to be made, but it’s a damn fine way of knowing and knowing for sure.
Yes, we know what we know and we don't know what we don't know. We, I think, have a hard time with accepting where we are, and our ability to think gives us the power to make anything abstract. We know of things, but another question that interests me is what does knowing something means at all. What do we mean when we say we know something. Do we know something that is external to us, or do we know something that is not.
Now, of course there is a certain mode of being, if we try to deny that, we run the risk of fooling ourselves. The reality has a certain mode of being, and trying to deny that actually is trying to deny yourself. However, the question is what is the limits of knowledge and why knowledge is a thing that is making itself a being. What is, for instance, the experience of moving from this moment to the next moment.
The mind has a certain mode of being, it has a certain pattern, and when it learns something new, for instance, when it molds itself into a form that it was not before, is it happening as a natural unfolding of being. That's one of my questions in regards to the duality that we call knowledge. What is the mechanism that underlies the process of moving from one moment to the next moment, for instance.
And that leads me to the paradoxes of Zeno, where we are thinking of the idea of moving from one moment to the next moment to be an illusion, and it makes sense in a certain sense that experience might be unfolding within itself, but it creates a new form of continuity, and therefore I say continuity probably is an illusion from which we cannot run, in a sense.
And that's where I feel like anything that we can objectively refer to, or suggest the existence of in through some objective form, like through language, is not the point to start, or even end, this experience of the process of understanding the experience, for it meets itself in this point in all its journeys that are "away" from its own form, or mode, of being.
That might, in a sense, be the process of the creation of worlds, that existence already is the ability of forming and creating itself, and knowing it might, in that sense, necessitates not just knowing it, but being it, and understanding that it is the experience, or the experiencelessness, of being it.
-
5 minutes ago, TheOneReborn said:I'm struggling with this right now. How can we know anything at all? Even "knowing" itself seems like a false concept. Moment to moment there is only "conciousness of" the world and self (which are evidently one).
If someone were to ask me is the moon real?
I feel like saying "well in typical relative sense, sure I guess"
"But in an absolute sense....uhhhh I....uhhh don't even know what you're really asking"
Let alone what the question is referring to, you can even ask whether that question itself is real or not, and luckily we can never get there, at least for now, haha.
-
32 minutes ago, Someone here said:@Vibroverse are you trying to say that there is a universal subconscious mind that contains all the knowledge about all things like the idea of the Akashic records?
But then i ask you again the same thing we've debated last week ..how to access this unlimited knowledge? It must be somewhere right ? What exactly is preventing us from becoming totally omniscient?
Honestly, the realization of how little I knew hit me like a wall when I started my first year of college. I was so clueless about so much.. and the realization of how much there was to learn flooded into my mind and made me feel so small and insignificant.
But this realization was also, honestly, thrilling. I had a seemingly unlimited amount of awesome shit I could learn and so much of it was fascinating.
Of course, I could never dream of learning anything more than a fraction of the knowledge that exists.. but still, a lifetime of learning was something I realized could happen and I was excited
I love your questions, your mind seems to be similar to my mind, in a sense. I'm thinking about the nature of learning, and whether it is happening as a result of the same process of achieving, creating, manifesting, receiving other things, other more tangible things, and I think the answer might be yes.
And if so, then we need to find the intrinsic essence of that which is to be learned, and as you said, I think it can be a fun and exciting experience really, for it is, then, the same process of being, and then it is just that it is being adjusted to a different modality of being.
That's, in my opinion, the point where the idea of surrendering to yourself can be helpful, for otherwise it will be an experience of some form of pain, and it will not be a satisfying journey for you. I think that's where being makes itself evolved to another modality of being, but it has its own intrinsic dynamics.
That's, I guess, we, in a sense, come to the question of "how can the one appear as many", and that I guess is the mystery that discovers itself as the process, and that itself, in a sense, might be what a process even is. It is like the inexplicable is being itself, but it cannot explain how it even is able to be itself.
Well, that might be something, by its nature that can never be understood, but the question, perhaps, is not about understanding it, but getting closer and closer to the concept of being about understanding it, and that might be the very definition of science itself.
I think the most important thing that we forget in the process is that there is a certain order, a certain, as the ancient Greeks called it, Logos, a pattern of being that calls itself towards itself, and that is the dynamic of being that is being understood by realizing that it cannot ever be understood, for it is the very idea of being the missing link itself.
And being is knowing itself through itself, perhaps, without even knowing that it is knowing itself through itself, and that very thing, in a sense, might be the very cause of duality, the öne becoming the many.
-
And even more than that, imagine that you are that professor himself in the dream where you have, in your dream history and memory, learned about those subjects before, and now you are a master of those subjects.
I think we, at the ultimate level, the infinite consciousness that contains all possible information and worlds, however, here we are at the relative level where we experience the mode of a process in time and space.
Of course, the ultimate knowledge of being itself is a mystery, in a sense, by its nature in all the possible worlds, for existence is its own cause, so it cannot be "known", in that sense, for it is the very knowing itself, it is the very beingness of existence.
But, for some reason, on the relative level of knowledge and beingness, there is a certain form of a pattern in the unfolding of reality, and maybe it is a good and intentional thing from the ultimate level consciousness.
-
Imagine you're having a dream, and in the dream you are in another universe, and you are in a class where a professor is teaching you about some astronomical facts about that universe, or maybe a language that is spoken in one world in that universe.
And when you learn some information in that world, about that world, do you really learn something which you did not know before, or is it more like you realizing something that already has been a part of your consciousness which you were not aware of before?
Sometimes I think that, in a sense, this might be what evolution of consciousness is like. You the infinite consciousness are like the totality of all possible information in and of existence, but you're experiencing a spacetime reality.
So, in that perspective, you're actually like an architect who is discovering yourself when you learn something new, in a sense like what Socrates thought mathematics to be, where he was just being a midwife for the awareness of knowledges that already were within.
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted
Yeah, I think Mohammad's intention, maybe, was good, but he was a human after all, if he existed, and he was a part of a culture with his own biases and beliefs about the world.