Enlightenment Genetics

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

It isn't...you see...you are placing Infinity into a box.  Infinity can never be... that statement alone is a limit onto Infinity. 

Take some time with that one. Sleep on it and re-read the convo, and see if you still see that as what was said. 

 

3 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

In a sense, yes.  It was.  It was my finite mind trying to grasp Infinity, which cannot be done.   Infinity cannot be grasped with language.   If you think it can, you are clearly misled.   

There is no such things as finite minds. 

Interesting the word ‘misled’ was used. 

Could’ve been misunderstanding, etc. 

 

[Blessed2]

 

The best medicine.

 

"If you do not abstain from the world, you will not find the kingdom."   - Gospel of Thomas

[Robed Mystic]

2 minutes ago, Devin said:

Words are very important to him, I don't think he's trying to explain reality, I think he's just focussed on word meaning.

Indeed.  I see that.   But then one runs the risk of being lost in words.  In concept. When in Truth, infinity cannot be captured that way. And that is what should be expressed...not the that the Infinite cannot be something.  

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

He wants to nail down the answers to all of reality via concept.   That's the bottom line.  This will only lead to deception 

Lmao! Infinite is not a concept!

5 minutes ago, Devin said:

Words are very important to him, I don't think he's trying to explain reality, I think he's just focussed on word meaning.

There’s no him! There is no meaning, purpose, value or worth. Just the thoughts!

Appearance & illusion. 

There is no meaning “behind” any of these words. 

[Robed Mystic]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

Take some time with that one. Sleep on it and re-read the convo, and see if you still see that as what was said. 

 

There is no such things as finite minds. 

Interesting the word ‘misled’ was used. 

Could’ve been misunderstanding, etc. 

 

There is no such thing is also a limit you are placing on reality.  I will stop using the word infinity and just use Reality.

[Phil]

Just now, Robed Mystic said:

There is no such thing is also a limit you are placing on reality.  I will stop using the word infinity and just use Reality.

No. Again, this is precisely why so to speak, you’re participating on this forum. To clear up the confusion which is the rhetoric shared on act.org. 

[Phil]

Just now, Devin said:

They're just words Phil.

There are no “words”! Lol! 

Infinite means no finite. 

[Phil]

😂 🙏🏻♥️

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

No. Again, this is precisely why so to speak, you’re participating on this forum. To clear up the confusion which is the rhetoric shared on act.org. 

I'm don't know what beliefs you have as to why I'm participating in this forum.  Why does there have to be a reason?  There is a lot of speculation in your tone that I don't understand.   I don't understand where it is coming from.  Why can't I just participate?

[Robed Mystic]

2 minutes ago, Devin said:

I don't think Phil tries to explain infinity, by infinity I think he means  what you would call consciousness, consciousness cannot be a thing or unconscious, those are within consciousness not consciousness.

Those things are still consciousness.  A part is the whole.   Just as if you stare at one of the fingers of your hand, it, simultaneously is the whole hand.

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Devin said:

Sure, it's just semantics.

When it comes to spirituality, there cannot be semantics.   It is actual and literal.  It cannot be properly expressed and never will be through words.

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

I'm don't know what beliefs you have as to why I'm participating in this forum.  Why does there have to be a reason?  There is a lot of speculation in your tone that I don't understand.   I don't understand where it is coming from.  Why can't I just participate?

34 minutes ago, Phil said:

The relevance is that ‘you’ are welcomed here, though the rhetoric, deception, manipulation and mind games indicative of act.org aren’t. 

 

7 minutes ago, Devin said:

I don't think Phil tries to explain infinity, by infinity I think he means  what you would call consciousness, consciousness cannot be a thing or unconscious, those are within consciousness not consciousness.

Nothing’s meant, what’s pointed to is the very awareness aware now. 

[Robed Mystic]

2 minutes ago, Devin said:

Right, but you two are arguing about words.

I don't find it an argument.  He made a lot of use of capital letters and telling me why I'm here, and a whole bunch of other stuff.  I was simply stating what is true.  Followed by accusations of spouting rhetoric and deception.  If you want to call it an argument, I'd say it's a one sided one at best  

[Robed Mystic]

Just now, Devin said:

Would you call it disagreeing? Looked like an argument to me(my definition of argument, not yours apparently).

 

*I think your disagreement is rooted in semantics.

Yes a discussion can be a disagreement on things.   I guess the main disagreement here is that duality exists.   Which it does.   Just as an illusion exists. 

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, Devin said:

Right, but you two are arguing about words.

There’s very literally no one here. 😂 

 

4 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

I don't find it an argument.  He made a lot of use of capital letters and telling me why I'm here, and a whole bunch of other stuff.  I was simply stating what is true.  Followed by accusations of spouting rhetoric and deception.  If you want to call it an argument, I'd say it's a one sided one at best  

It’s “an argument” like “we have a problem”. There is actually neither. 

 

You’re here because so to speak, your head gets filled with egocentric misinformative nondual nonsense at actualized.org, and just as has played out in this thread, you again ‘find’ clarity here. 

 

It’s no different then when Nahm was demoted and asked to lave actualized.org for sharing the truth that all there actually is is unconditional love, and to put well being first. It’s exactly the same. 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Devin said:

The word "exists", you two have different definitions of this.

Because there is literally no one here, there is no one which has a definition of duality. 

 

4 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Yes a discussion can be a disagreement on things.   I guess the main disagreement here is that duality exists.   Which it does.   Just as an illusion exists. 

Ops I spoke too soon 😂 

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

Because there is literally no one here, there is no one which has a definition of duality. 

 

Ops I spoke too soon 😂 

Why does no one have to be a self?  Why are you limiting that to a self?  Why can't it just exist?

[Robed Mystic]

5 minutes ago, Devin said:

The word "exists", you two have different definitions of this.

Yes because his perspective is limited to that of a self.   From his perspective, for something to exist there has to be a finite self.   This is a very narrow view of reality.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Robed Mystic

[Robed Mystic]

3 minutes ago, Devin said:

I think phils perspective is that nothing actually exists, it's all what you call illusion.

And my rebuttle would be that - and look at  your own words - "nothing actually exists".  And what if everything IS nothing?  In the spirit of Oneness, everything is nothing.  Thus, everything actually exists. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Robed Mystic

[Phil]

15 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Why does no one have to be a self?  Why are you limiting that to a self?  Why can't it just exist?

That isn’t what was said. The twister is the twisted. 

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

 

14 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Yes because his perspective is limited to that of a self.   From his perspective, for something to exist there has to be a finite self.   This is a very narrow view of reality.

The rhetoric of selves and the overlooking of the projection of, onto … a “separate self”. 

In direct experience that’s just an assumption. 

 

9 minutes ago, Devin said:

I think phils perspective is that nothing actually exists, it's all what you call illusion.

Nothing can never be in a perspective. Put another way, nothing is never the idea or concept of nothing. Put yet another way, there is no such thing, experience or happening of a “nondual perspective”. 

 

6 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

And my rebuttle would be that - and look at  your own words - "nothing actually exists".  And what if everything IS nothing?  In the spirit of Oneness, everything is nothing.  Thus, everything actually exists. 

That’s perfectly indicative of the deception, ‘twisting’ and game playing mentioned, and is simultaneously the revealing that the deception is yet to be noticed. It’s obviously very much believed.