Phil

Consciously creating is This, consciousness, love, what’s already the case (not a bigger picture). Free will is This appearing as a dualistic conceptualization about This on behalf of a conceptual self of thoughts which This is appearing as. There would seem to be the one which knows there is meaning, what “nobody doing anything” means, and that there is an individual / human character, which is not in control & powerless. Happiness isn’t doing or knowing. Happiness is appearing as thoughts about a second self, a doer / knower for which there is meaning. And teachers. Consciousness is conscious of the thought; meaning, yet is not conscious of any meaning in perception or sensation. Meaning, purpose, value & worth are part & parcel of separation… of there being a separate self which isn’t infinite consciousness… and knows this about infinite consciousness. This, without conceptualization. 🌞 👓 Presumed. There just isn’t a you / separate selves. All there really is unconditional love. The comments about how or what a Phil is are nothing more than the holding up of spiritual ego as a mystic or whatever. There is no self which can dream & have a dreamboard. Direct experience though, non-conceptually.

There might be an apparent experience of misunderstanding or lost, yet there’s no you / other which is misunderstanding or lost. Appearance. Inclusive of the apparent thoughts that there’s a you being asked what appearance is. Limitation isn’t found in perception or sensation. It’s a thought, a presumption about perception & sensation. The belief is dispelled by inspecting direct experience. Same for that belief, which is on behalf of “the knower”, the sep self of thoughts which is separate of consciousness and knows about consciousness. Again the separate self of thoughts (a self which isn’t, or is separate of, ‘the house’). Self is appearing as thought & perception, not finite separate selves & things. It only seems so in believing thoughts define perception. The lack projected is on behalf of a nonexistent self. Same as saying a unicorn can’t lift a house because a unicorn is limited consciousness. Infinite doesn’t have something because infinite is, infinite. “Your state of consciousness” is not on behalf of consciousness. It’s on behalf of a sep self of thoughts. Again, anthropomorphization. Figment: A thing that someone believes to be real but that exists only in their imagination. Rhetoric: Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. The you of your house, your imagination, their imagination, etc is again the sep self of thoughts.

Appears. Doing, doer, is again thoughts on behalf of a separate self. (Anthropomorphization). Thinker is a presumed separate self which thinks. Thinker & thinks are experienced as apparent thoughts, not separate entities. Appearing isn’t limiting. Appearing is appearing. Limit is the apparent thought, limit. It’s on behalf of a separate self which knows about consciousness. That there is an “it” which “limits itself”. It’s not possible for infinite to limit, due to… the inherent infinitude. There isn’t infinite consciousness and a you which see’s it. There are apparent thoughts that there is, apparently. Everything is the thought, everything. ‘All the finite things’. Before ‘it could be’, is the presumption there is a separate self, a knower, which knows there is, everything. Consciousness is infinite being. There isn’t a second being, a finite being, which infinite being could “incarnate into”. “Every angle” is an overlooking of direct experience, of one perspective. An assumption there are “other angles” which “God must be exploring”. Consciousness is infinite, appearing as the thought or concept “point of view of someone else”.

Consciousness appears yet doesn’t become a who or a you. “It’s infinity” is being said on behalf of the separate self of thoughts for whom there is other, you or AI.

The you which could be missing the I am is the separate self of thoughts. Misidentified as a separate self it’s presumed there are other separate selves which lack is projected onto as in you are missing x, y or z. Again, spirituality which revolves around the separate self of thoughts.

That I am is one sphere is a self referential thought, as if the I am were known, on behalf of a knower. The assumption is that “I am separate”, and “there are other separate selves”, and “you”, a separate self, have put “it” (the I am which is not me) “into the duality pool”, which is actually two spheres.

The I am is one, infinite, not two... appearing as two (spheres), or amness being is isness.

♥️ Ask & It Is Given by Esther Hicks. Using the emotional scale clarifies there isn’t a separate self which feels overwhelmed, but rather the emotion overwhelment is felt. Same for fear & pessimism.

Appearance. Me being two spheres.

Yes, exactly. The separate self, the knower… of time, past lives, karmic content, a / the relative, a my consciousness, transcendence, other separate selves which transcend, and understanding… is actually an experience of apparent thoughts. None of those concepts pan out in perception or sensation. A separate self & a there are thoughts, which also don’t pan out in perception or sensation / there is no actual experience of either. There’s an apparent experience of the thoughts. The separate self is actually thoughts.

Extract: Remove or take out, especially by effort or force. "the decayed tooth will have to be extracted". Obtain (something such as money or an admission). Obtain (a substance or resource) from something by a special method. The separate self is thoughts, not a who / thing which could be extracted or obtain.

This is on behalf of the separate self of thoughts, which allegedly isn’t love / consciousness. For whom there is time. For whom suffering is pain. For whom there is karmic content. For whom there are others. The one who didn’t give her money; the one whom money was taken from. For whom there is a / the relative. For whom there is choice and karmic repetition. The one separate of consciousness, which has consciousness. For whom there is a past, past life and karmic memory. For whom yoga is useless. The one who has / knows there are states of consciousness. The one who knows thoughts are things which can be destroyed & destroyed is not a thought. The one who knows it has a life, there are karmic thoughts, understanding & this is not heaven. The one for whom there are kinds of thoughts, separate selves which are higher & lower, separate selves which understand and transcend, and not emotions. It seems spirituality can be interpreted in just such a way as to revolve around the separate self of thought. This is sometimes referred to as spiritual bypassing, aversion & suppression.

That’s really funny. 😆

Self improvement, raising consciousness, all indoctrination. Conjecture. Thoughts.

@Mandy He’s doing his best not to say that’s what she said. It’s challenging. That isn’t about anyone though. It’s just judgmental thoughts on behalf of a fictitious knower of good and bad, right and wrong, etc. Same ‘knower’ of states of yourself. Because the separate self is just thoughts, there’s no one there’s anything wrong with to fix. There is only the judgmental thoughts believed that there is and how the thoughts feel. There’s certainly no need to apologize as the discord and beliefs aren’t experienced. Seeking (state chasing) is entirely innocence. Trying to get back to Good. Not possible. Never left. I got being sorry. Boy do I get being sorry. Just not to anyone or having anything to do with this place. Karma’s a bitch.

For what?

Maybe it’s clearer now the guidance “was” (Is) present, ever-present, and was overlooked via thoughts about the separate self, the knower. It would seem so “to the knower”. Yet without “the knower”, those are just thoughts. The thoughts aren’t known to be true (by ‘the knower’). What’s true is there’s an apparent experience of apparent thoughts (and emotions intrinsically felt). Letting thoughts go is focusing instead on perception and or sensation. (Clarity naturally ensues). Doubling down on the separate self of thoughts, the I which cannot… is doubling down on suffering. Yes. Of course. Right? Part & parcel of conceptualization & suppression. Phone only rings louder. 🙏🏼♥️ “The knower” is as in = insecure & afraid… as knower, insecure & afraid… are thoughts. Emotions are felt. Therein, thoughts about there being a separate self, are felt by, you, awareness, consciousness. That which is aware of, conscious of, appearing as… thoughts. Quite simple… without conjecture, conditioning, indoctrination, etc. All seemingly very complex.

Suppressed emotion plays out as separate self of thoughts, actions & behaviors. Hell of a documentary.

♥️✊🏼 Happened to me. Happened. Isn’t happening now. Didn’t happen to me.

The thought that there are states of consciousness is on behalf of a separate self, the knower or understander, separate of & which knows or understands consciousness; that there are states of consciousness. It’s not that ‘there is someone else who doesn’t like it’. It’s experiential misidentification, delusion. The separate self of thoughts / how those thoughts feel, is what suffering is. Illusory identity is fundamentally “I’m here”, “I know”. ‘States of consciousness’ is conceptualization on behalf of a false identity based on aversion / intense attachment with thought / emotional suppression. Objectification of consciousness (states) on behalf of a nonexistent subject (knower). Notice the implied identity separation, the one for whom there’s an it, the one which is not it, the one which knows about it. The one who knows there are states of consciousness, the one who knows there’s an it… these thoughts feel ‘off’, and the emotion fear is conceptualized on behalf of the separate self of thoughts as that scares me. (Subject object duality, concept). Actually the one perspective is steady as all get out, and all thoughts & interpretations appear within. ‘Nothing steady about perspective’ is an apparent interpretation. That there’s an experience of an interpretation about how not steady perspective is… is how steady perspective is. I mean really. The ‘whole show’ disappears every night as it were, and reappears every morning - and this is unnoticed. What kind of steady is you lookin for? Even the states paradigm resumes perfectly. So steady in fact, an interpretation arises on behalf of a separate self, a knower, which knows what nothing is. You’re infinite. Stability & security are not an issue. There are these thoughts, and there is the guidance of emotion. There is also aversion & suppression, such as believing there is a separate self, the knower. It might be clarifying to note ‘the emperor’s new clothes’. The point is you’re already naked. So to speak. You can ‘put on all kinds of knowing / clothes’. You’re still naked obviously / there is still how thoughts you’re appearing as feel to you. You are Being, being. Might also be clarifying to notice the comparison implied by thought. To derive ‘this state of consciousness’ is to compare with ‘that state of consciousness’. Where is this state of consciousness and that state of consciousness? Thought / memory, isn’t it? Perhaps there’s an opportunity to notice and no longer believe comparative thoughts, and to feel the emotion of comparative thoughts. Pain is bodily & localized. As in can be pointed to. Suffering is not, and can’t be pointed to. Something to consider if interested… emotional suppression doesn’t hold up in relationships like theories & concepts don’t hold up in two way conversations (communication). A one-way video can be very convincing as consciousness is innocence & must initially overlook the reality of itself (Being, being). The free monthly two-way calls may be more conducive to relationships than one-way videos. Consider the relationships and or isolation of the source of the theories, in the ‘is what you’re convinced of & emulating conducive with what you actually want to create & experience’ sense. Make sense? Also if interested, consider the obviousness of the discord not only relationships wise, but health & well-being wise, and maybe allow some exercise. Draw directly of the source vs resources. If that isn’t clarifying just imagine a boyfriend, husband, s.o., which doesn’t share the same beliefs in states, knowing & understanding. What would it be like, just presence, actually hearing what you’re saying & responding, unfettered of such (separate) self referential activities of thought & reactionary actions & behaviors? Then of course flip the scrip on yourself. How are you relationship wise? Are your theories even compatible with relationships in terms of authenticity, sincerity, transparency, honesty? I for one wouldn’t hang around long. The ensuing manipulation just doesn’t resonate. This love isn’t coming from me. Enablement, codependency, emotional rollercoaster. No thanks. Pass.

Had the power, lost the power, how to regain the power… is a narrative about a self in time. It’s like asking ‘how can the clouds shine again?’. Acknowledge powerlessness as how some thoughts feel, and note whether it resonates or not, rather than look for or expect a ‘thoughts answer’.

If that were true it would resonate, right? Does it resonate?

@judy How do you believe the thoughts of a separate self which is not good enough & is insecure, suppressing the unworthiness & insecurity felt, and yet have emotional connection with someone else?

@judy If you’re insecure, what is insecurity?