There’s no one in control!

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Adrian colby said:

I tried. It didn’t work!

Shows as the correct font on my compooter 

wrong on my iFail

[Adrian colby]

17 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

So you say mind is the first movement. So what caused the first movement to happen if the source has no will? What willed the first movement to happen then? 

If we ask ‘what caused the first movement,’ are we not already assuming a distinction between stillness and movement? What if that distinction only arises after mind appears? What if, at the level of the Source, there was never truly a movement, but only the appearance of movement within timeless being?

It’s a subtle paradox that mystics, nondual philosophers, and contemplatives wrestle with before or if they ever ( it’s not an experience but I’m going to say) experience it.

At the level of the Source, “cause” and “will” themselves do not apply.From the perspective of mind, everything needs a cause, an origin, an agent.But from the perspective of the Source, there is no before and after, no movement from something to something else, because there is no second thing. The Source does not “cause” or “will” movement. Movement spontaneously arises as the appearance of difference, but without an agent behind it and it does so with the simultaneous differentiation of the mind. God mind sees ‘good’ or ‘better’ creating a movement towards better in an entropic or Co operative oneness kind of way. As more finite and limited forms of mind split off there come deeper and deeper self deceptions and dualities ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and the arrow of time. 

we can’t see or grasp it only become it and intuit its nature. We only experience what it does, but we never experience what it is. We can’t prove or see or point to it. It is ‘nothing’ but not an emptiness. It’s infinitely potential bursting because of its infinite nature, open and unbounded, uncontrolled. Prior to allowing, absolute love. There’s nothing to be said of it so we spend our moments in the exploration of infinite mind. 

 

[Adrian colby]

29 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Shows as the correct font on my compooter 

wrong on my iFail

It still showing as bold on mine 🤣

[Yimpa]

6 minutes ago, Adrian colby said:

It still showing as bold on mine

8 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

What do you mean by "full human beings"?

Edited Wednesday at 09:07 PM by Yimpa

[Salvijus]

55 minutes ago, Adrian colby said:

If we ask ‘what caused the first movement,’ are we not already assuming a distinction between stillness and movement? What if that distinction only arises after mind appears? What if, at the level of the Source, there was never truly a movement, but only the appearance of movement within timeless being?

It’s a subtle paradox that mystics, nondual philosophers, and contemplatives wrestle with before or if they ever ( it’s not an experience but I’m going to say) experience it.

At the level of the Source, “cause” and “will” themselves do not apply.From the perspective of mind, everything needs a cause, an origin, an agent.But from the perspective of the Source, there is no before and after, no movement from something to something else, because there is no second thing. The Source does not “cause” or “will” movement. Movement spontaneously arises as the appearance of difference, but without an agent behind it and it does so with the simultaneous differentiation of the mind. God mind sees ‘good’ or ‘better’ creating a movement towards better in an entropic or Co operative oneness kind of way. As more finite and limited forms of mind split off there come deeper and deeper self deceptions and dualities ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and the arrow of time. 

we can’t see or grasp it only become it and intuit its nature. We only experience what it does, but we never experience what it is. We can’t prove or see or point to it. It is ‘nothing’ but not an emptiness. It’s infinitely potential bursting because of its infinite nature, open and unbounded, uncontrolled. Prior to allowing, absolute love. There’s nothing to be said of it so we spend our moments in the exploration of infinite mind. 

 

If the source has no will and the first movement happened indipendant of the source, then it implies it has an indipendant existence, as if it has it's own agency and will. It creates duality. 

Or maybe the source has an inherent will to it. And there is no seperation between the source and its will. 

I just think the second option makes more sense.

Edited Wednesday at 09:57 PM by Salvijus

[Yimpa]

7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I just think the second option makes more sense.

Don't forget about The Sixth Option:

 

Treat me like a full human being, my ass!

Edited Wednesday at 09:21 PM by Yimpa

[Aaron p]

It could be argued that everything is in ultimate control and the only thing that exists is control. 

I mean, I've seen major evidence that there is a force above and beyond us that manipulates all of reality to it's will. I do whatever it says and I win every time in ridiculous ways

[Salvijus]

21 minutes ago, Adrian colby said:

Movement spontaneously arises

But if you look closely, movement is not happening accidentally or randomly. Movement happens according to the Law. The Law of God rules everything. This Law is inherent in the Source and is one with the Source. The Source is then responsible for all creation. 

[Salvijus]

New argument:

The Source is the source of everything. That's why it's called the Source. Who else is responsible for everything if not the Source? The Source is responsible for everything. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:34 PM by Salvijus

[Adrian colby]

2 hours ago, Salvijus said:

If the first movement happened indipendant of the source, then it implies it has an indipendant existence, as if it has it's own agency and will. It creates duality. 

Or maybe the source has an inherent will to it. And there is no seperation between the source and its will. 

I just think the second option makes more sense.

What I’ve seen is that the Source is not an agent that wills or chooses. The arising of illusion, mind, logos happens spontaneously, without a subject willing it into being. The moment mind appears, it immediately begins projecting — creating meanings, causes, narratives. But these are not caused by an intentional will; they are the spontaneous play of appearance itself.

this doesn’t imply will is separate or independent from the Source. Nothing is separate. Will appears within the Source, as an aspect of the arising illusion of mind. The Source doesn’t will illusions.  illusions simply arise, like ripples on still water, without an agent making them. Any sense of ‘will’ or ‘intention’ is already part of the illusion that arises with mind. The Source is prior to will, prior to agency, prior to the distinction between movement and stillness. It simply is.

That is why I say: there is no one in control. Existence is unfolding by itself, without a doer.

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

New argument:

The Source is the source of everything. That's why it's called the Source. Who else is responsible for everything if not the Source? The Source is responsible for everything. 

the Source is not “responsible” in the moral, causal, or intentional sense.

Responsibility implies a separation between a doer and a deed, a creator and a creation but you’ve seen that there is no second, no other, no separate act. The Source is not an agent among others; it is Being itself.  not “doing” existence, but ‘is’ existence.

You’re implying relational causality with your argument? Is responsibility and therefore agency not also an illusion within it?

what I just experience was simply being and there is no control or conditionality as a prerequisite to anything arising. At this end it certainly looks like control and or will and agency but the mind likes to make sense of things that are a-rational and prior to being. Not ‘a’ being but being. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:18 PM by Adrian colby

[Osaid]

3 hours ago, Salvijus said:

love is in control of everything. 

Love wouldn't be separate.

[Someone here]

True .that's because there is no "one". All of existence is egoless . Its just a runway train .

[Salvijus]

7 hours ago, Adrian colby said:

Responsibility implies a separation between a doer and a deed, a creator and a creation but you’ve seen that there is no second, no other, no separate act. The Source is not an agent among others; it is Being itself.  not “doing” existence, but ‘is’ existence.

Creation is an extention of the Creator. There is still oneness. Only a Creator can be responsible for extending himself into multiple forms of creation. Everything is an extention of the Source. It's just One Self changing forms. And One Self is responsible for all the changes. 

Edited Thursday at 05:58 AM by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

7 hours ago, Osaid said:

Love wouldn't be separate.

Control doesn't imply seperation if what you're controlling is yourself. One Self is dancing to its own tune. The tune dictates the course of action, the tune is one with the Source, the tune is love. 

@Adrian colby

Edited Thursday at 06:39 AM by Salvijus

[Adrian colby]

2 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Control doesn't imply seperation if what you're controlling is yourself. One Self is dancing to its own tune. The tune dictates the course of action, the tune is one with the Source, the tune is love. 

@Adrian colby

yes, it’s all One, no separation, no other. I see that too.

Where we might differ is here: for me, even saying ‘the Source extends itself,’ or ‘controls itself,’ or is ‘responsible for itself,’ still carries the subtle implication of an agency, a doer. But in what I’ve seen, the Source is prior even to the distinction between actor and action, between controller and controlled, between extension and non-extension.

It’s not an actor doing something to itself; it’s Being simply being. And in that is-ness, appearance arises not as an act of will, but as spontaneous unfolding.

Control and responsibility are beautiful metaphors from within mind, but from the point prior to mind, they dissolve into pure is-ness, prior to allowance or acceptance, no willing, no controlling. 

You see it if you practice no self before dream yoga. The new environment, mind, body and story unfold out of the void with no intention. It and the mind spontaneously appear and it grasps at it immediately the second it’s attention is drawn to a happening perceived as external.. mind within mind has the illusion of agency and can create intention to shift between realities and environments but that is still not the one or the whole. Back at the point of undivided one, there is only being and nothing controlling or to be controlled( that all happens within the formation of mind)

[Salvijus]

11 minutes ago, Adrian colby said:

yes, it’s all One, no separation, no other. I see that too.

Where we might differ is here: for me, even saying ‘the Source extends itself,’ or ‘controls itself,’ or is ‘responsible for itself,’ still carries the subtle implication of an agency, a doer. But in what I’ve seen, the Source is prior even to the distinction between actor and action, between controller and controlled, between extension and non-extension.

It’s not an actor doing something to itself; it’s Being simply being. And in that is-ness, appearance arises not as an act of will, but as spontaneous unfolding.

Control and responsibility are beautiful metaphors from within mind, but from the point prior to mind, they dissolve into pure is-ness, prior to allowance or acceptance, no willing, no controlling. 

You see it if you practice no self before dream yoga. The new environment, mind, body and story unfold out of the void with no intention. It and the mind spontaneously appear and it grasps at it immediately the second it’s attention is drawn to a happening perceived as external.. mind within mind has the illusion of agency and can create intention to shift between realities and environments but that is still not the one or the whole. Back at the point of undivided one, there is only being and nothing controlling or to be controlled( that all happens within the formation of mind)

What if we were to say: everything is One Self in different forms. So the pure isness prior to everything that you're talking about, and everything else are part of the same One Self. And that One Self is dancing to its own tune. The One Self is doing everything. Even the pure isness is done by the same One Self. 

Edited Thursday at 08:12 AM by Salvijus

[Breakingthewall]

16 hours ago, Adrian colby said:

 

Good insight. The source of reality is its infinity, and the only law is logical coherence, since what is incoherent cannot manifest, because nothing exists apart from its synchronous reflection.

Manifestation is only possible possibilities. No one has control because ultimate reality is limitlessness, which translates into absolute potential, which translates into the infinite fractal of the infinite flow of form, without a center, where each relational node is the center from its own perspective.

[Adrian colby]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Good insight. The source of reality is its infinity, and the only law is logical coherence, since what is incoherent cannot manifest, because nothing exists apart from its synchronous reflection.

Manifestation is only possible possibilities. No one has control because ultimate reality is limitlessness, which translates into absolute potential, which translates into the infinite fractal of the infinite flow of form, without a center, where each relational node is the center from its own perspective.

Nicely put!

”Manifestation is only possible possibilities”

that would explain the rigidity of this world in contrast with less finite worlds like that experienced in trance. Plenty of incoherent appearances there but again all within the creation/ mind. 
 

your words offer another way of seeing or describing and bring it a bit closer to my understanding of the second law of thermodynamic and entropy. Or like hydrodynamics. Water is hydrodynamics, incoherence cancels out and doesn’t manifest. Where coherence forms patterns and form. There’s no agency behind it. 
thankyou for your way of describing it. It has added to the clarity of what was being pointed at. 
 

im aware that my own mind is clearly making a distinction here but I see all phenomenological appearance including mind as the creation or illusion ( I don’t dismiss it) but I see a clear distinction between that and what it comes from. Personally I’ve always called it ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ aka the source and its dream aka infinity itself and infinite mind. 

Edited Thursday at 05:14 PM by Adrian colby

[Adrian colby]

On 08/05/2025 at 9:10 AM, Salvijus said:

What if we were to say: everything is One Self in different forms. So the pure isness prior to everything that you're talking about, and everything else are part of the same One Self. And that One Self is dancing to its own tune. The One Self is doing everything. Even the pure isness is done by the same One Self. 

Everything is one and that one at a fundamental level is a void. Unlimited, infinite, boundless. If it has total sovereignty and control over itself, that has to be when it becomes aware of itself being a self otherwise there’s no thing to have sovereignty or control over. Prior to it being a self constructed mind, there is no control. The self and the mind come into being by the very nature of it being unlimited. 
 

having said that, it’s just various levels of consciousness in limitation on top of limitlessness simultaneously. The limited and controlled, willing version of it is the part that focuses into ever more finite possibilities or the many. 
 

working backwards from the beleif the mind has in finitude, you can dissolve all the way back to a source that is unbounded void where nothing and no one is in control. To control, a mind or self must first form from that void. Discussing it, grasping it and trying to describe it, I end up loosing connection with it. 
 

leos recent video touched on it in a few of the proofs he discussed. 

[Salvijus]

26 minutes ago, Adrian colby said:

Prior to it being a self constructed mind, there is no control. The self and the mind come into being by the very nature of it being unlimited. 

Then it would follow that the unlimited is responsible for the arising of everything. 

Without the void nothing could exist, therefor the void is responsible for everything. Everything depends on it. 

Edited Sunday at 06:13 PM by Salvijus