Does Observing want to be Observed?

[Mellowmarsh]

@kavaris Observer means infinity observing an infinite number of finite appearances for eternity.
 

That’s God. 
 

Finite appearances are the infinite God observing what it’s like to experience a finite observing experience, like the experience of being a human that is also able to observe for itself, apparently, but not actually, as God being the only solo omnipresence already knows this omnipresence is the only observer looking through every finite human eye, and already knowing that no human being ever observed anything because the human is just a dreamt up character that God has imagined to appear in his dreamworld. God doesn’t need to observe his dreamworld, but God wants to observe his dream characters because that’s where all the noise, action and drama happens. When the dream is absent,  God is just pure dreamless unaware unconscious consciousness, as if he was enjoying a very long deep sleep or coma. Which is blissful, but then God it seems wanted  to wake up from his deep dreamless comatose sleep as the desire to participate in his dreamscape reality was an option, or, for want of a better word, was a potential that could be actualised.
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

 ^ ^                 
(O,O)                
(   )
-"-"-----------------

There is no "want to be", that would be anthropomorphic. It’s simply what it is.

God is all-encompassing, which includes both the observed and the observer, the being and the self-understanding.

It’s like having a set of numbers from 1 to 10, and then asking, "Does 7 really need to be here?"

Of course it does, because without 7, the set wouldn’t be a complete set of all 10 numbers; it would be something else entirely.

For God to be fully God, He must be able to both be and observe. Otherwise, He would be limited by His inability to observe and would only exist, not fully experiencing himself.

In fact, "observing" isn’t even the best word; perhaps a better term would be something like immersion, hypnosis, or entrancement, becoming so completely encapsulated in the object. You understand it in its entirety: how it came to be, its purpose, what it does, how it survives.

Eventually, if you become so immersed in the object, the duality of observer and observed collapses, and it returns to just being. That’s what pure understanding would be, when self and other collapse into oneness. In other words, observing is simply a fragmented, dualistic version of complete being and union. Complete being and union is what God is. Once you fragment it into self and other, you get the duality of observed and observing.

Edited 3 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Mellowmarsh]

10 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Can you locate your "real-self"? What are you?

I am a human being who knows I am a finite role infinite God is playing. As a human person who is being played, I know nothing, and that knowing that I know nothing is known by infinite God who is playing this human character in his conception. Concepts are known by the only knowing there is which is infinite omnipresent consciousness.
Consciousness is this immediate infinite observer observing itself as and through finite physical eyes. 

I can’t locate the omnipresence I am because where would the centre of infinity be…. The centre must be everywhere all at once. Attributed to "God is a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere"

 

[Mellowmarsh]

@Xonas Pitfall My words are very clumsy I am aware of this. I’m more of a listener than a speaker.

 

I understand what God is, but can never find the right or exact words to use to express God. 
 

Sorry for the mess I leave here. 

[UnbornTao]

@Mellowmarsh Okay, thank you for sharing that. In any case, those were rethorical questions meant to be personally contemplated. I emphasize the experiential component because we tend to get easily lost in the intellect.

Are we enlightened yet?

Edited 1 hour ago by UnbornTao

[Breakingthewall]

13 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

 

 

No word can define IT, or, every word define IT… even not it ..is it.

Reality in its absolute sense is not a thing, nor consciousness, nor energy.
It is openness without limits: the absence of any possible boundary.

Within this openness, forms arise: coherent configurations that sustain themselves.
An electron, a stone, a cell, a human mind are expressions of that openness in different modes of coherence.

Each form exists because it preserves a certain internal order.
This preservation of order is its “will-to-be”, "chit" in the spirituality: not a psychological desire, but the structural tendency to remain coherent.

Consciousness is not a separate substance but a particular kind of form: a system that constructs a model of itself and of the world in order to act.
Where there is no internal model, there is no consciousness;
where the model becomes reflexive, a “self” appears.

The self is a complex expression of the will-to-be: a structure that protects its own symbolic and emotional continuity.
It is not an illusion or a mistake, but simply a phase.

What is called “spiritual opening” adds nothing to the absolute but changes the vibration of the self. 
It is just the relaxation of the tensions of the self, until the form becomes transparent to the openness it has always been, and then all the structure mutates to be aligned with the flow of the reality, stopping being a veil, starting to be an interface. 

Nothing is separate from the absolute.
Every atom, every cat, every human being, is the openness itself expressed in a different pattern of coherence and complexity in relation with all the others possible manifestations. 

What varies being human is only the clarity with which that openness recognizes itself within that form, this is a change of phase, a change of the energetic pattern that the mind is. 

The openess is perceived as Ananda, the fullness, the end of the lack, the unlimited that is total potential. The source of any possibility.

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall