Questions about the two spheres

[Blessed2]

Isn't the two spheres the same as a subject and an object?

 

The lens, the subject. The sphere of the world, object?

 

Is the sphere of the world what seems to be the physical universe?

 

When the sphere of the world is created, is stars, galaxies, planets, water, trees and animals also created at the same time?

 

Or is stars, galaxies, trees, animals etc. "created" via the relationship of the lens and the world-sphere?

 

Is the sphere of the world like limitless and formless no-thing, like white paper, and things, the "stuff" in the world-sphere is "added" or "brought up" via the lens of focus?

 

Is the sphere literally a three-dimensional sphere? If/when I would die, would I see a sphere of the world like a snowglobe, with a planet inside? Could I move to a different position and see the globe & what's inside it from above, and then below? 😁

Edited October 4, 2023 by Blessed2

[Phil]

7 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

Isn't the two spheres the same as a subject and an object?

The lens, the subject. The sphere of the world, object?

Is the sphere of the world what seems to be the physical universe?

Apparently - yes. 

As things, identity, finite, form or anything thinkable or believable, no. 

 

7 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

When the sphere of the world is created, is stars, galaxies, planets, water, trees and animals also created at the same time?

Thoughts of time, a past (created) and things appear as, and as if inside of the lens-sphere. The thoughts of all those things is a richness, a depth of story, similar to the perfection of thoughts ‘held’ as “memories” arising now which imply there is so much beyond or prior to, now. When you try to grasp just how amazing of a creator you are, it will always slip through the fingers, because that’s how amazing of a creator you are. Just as a pointing, when there is no difference whatsoever between loving “and” creating, that is “it”.  Creator-Creating-Creation. 🤍

 

7 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

Or is stars, galaxies, trees, animals etc. "created" via the relationship of the lens and the world-sphere?

That’s perception, the effect of both spheres, which thought, rightfully so, can’t define.

 

7 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

 

Is the sphere of the world like limitless and formless no-thing, like white paper, and things, the "stuff" in the world-sphere is "added" or "brought up" via the lens of focus?

It may or may not be satisfying but the only honest answer is thought can not define perception. All else would be purporting / misleading. Even though no one stands to be mislead, it simply doesn’t resonate with well-being / the Truth.

 

7 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

 

Is the sphere literally a three-dimensional sphere?

Dimensionless. The belief in dimensions is an overlooking which is ever so slightly & subtly discordant, stacked upon spacetime of course, yet in terms of momentum and the ‘stream of finite minds’ is an overlooking contrasting with the truth of dimensionless-ness, or one’s own infinitude and unconditionality, and this forgetting / overlooking manifests as is apparently referred to as dementia such as Alzheimer’s etc. Likewise and not at all unrelated, diagnosis of kids, ‘new finite minds in the stream’, with an assumed inability to fully feel. The diagnosis are based on the assumption concentration and focus are something people possess, which is of course based on the materialist’s paradigm or that people possess, or have, varying levels or degrees of consciousness / awareness - which in actuality is infinite. The levels etc are just appearing self referential thoughts & an experience of thought attachment, in overlooking the true unconditional nature of light and the unreality of the “knower” of. 

 

7 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

If/when I would die, would I see a sphere of the world like a snowglobe, with a planet inside?

Yes. But not per se when you die, because there already is no you which is alive. Good inquiry material for the QM thread, Schodringers cat etc. There is no this and that, now and then, here & there.

 

Also no, as far as there would not be a planet seen inside. Just a sphere of light. Mesmerizing Beauty (a hindsight though in all honesty). But even more so, not even, as no thought would arise, such as ’sphere of light’, planet, etc. Infinite can not know finite. For an infinite being there is no “thinker” or anything to “think” about. 

 

7 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

Could I move to a different position and see the globe & what's inside it from above, and then below? 😁

The term ‘through the looking glass’ might be a helpful pointing term. The way it seems like you’re inside the world-sphere you are being, is the lens-sphere, which you are being. Analogously, finite is like looking through a magnifying glass since ‘day 1’, and therein not quite noticing that you even are. Without the magnifying lens, it’s obvious there is no “magnification”. It’s basically a trick of the lens, but maybe more so, it’s why the lens & initial overlooking is is necessary. So that there maybe be, experience, creation. 

 

Also a great pointing… some of your best work…

 

"When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the upper like the lower… when you make the male and female one, so that the male is no longer male and the female no longer female, and when you put eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in the place of a hand, and a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image, then you will enter the Kingdom.”

 

[Blessed2]

@Phil Thank you. 🙏 I'll go over your response later with greater focus and express more questions if they come up.

 

Though one question comes to now:

 

How come I haven't heard anyone else talk about "the two spheres" before? I have only heard of that from you. Even on this forum, I dare say "Phil" seems to be the only one sepaking about two spheres. Any other sources / books / videos to share that touches the same subject? Not necessarily with the same terminology, but the same subject.

 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Blessed2 said:

@Phil Thank you. 🙏 I'll go over your response later with greater focus and express more questions if they come up.

 

Though one question comes to now:

 

How come I haven't heard anyone else talk about "the two spheres" before?

To offer some kind of answer, it seems to be the knower aspect of ego & the hijacking that ensues. Like believing as it relates to a finite identity, such as believing in meaning, purpose, worth, value, insights, awakenings, via un-inspected financial & self image ambitions, and unaddressed underlying traumas, etc. Self deception basically. Also there are enticing traps for the knower more along the lines of spiritual ego like higher consciousness, enlightenment, siddhis, angels, understanding, dmt entities, elves, aliens, solipsism, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, etc. 

 

In the story of Phil sense, he was just curious what this is and wasn’t interested in that stuff. There’s really no ‘why’ as to why that is. 

1 hour ago, Blessed2 said:

I have only heard of that from you. Even on this forum, I dare say "Phil" seems to be the only one sepaking about two spheres. Any other sources / books / videos to share that touches the same subject? Not necessarily with the same terminology, but the same subject.

There seems to be a lot of references that are aligned, but no, I’m not aware of any either. The spheres are definitely not what Phil would ever have thought up, dreamed up, imagined or guessed, and these all seem like more of the same purporting. 

 

Something else that just ‘comes to mind’ is it seems very rare that (all so to speak of course) anyone actually puts or can put someone else’s interests and or well being ahead of their own gain. Care for one’s own conscience, well-being, alignment, might be a factor worth pointing to. Idk. Ultimately it’s just sort of a grasping for reasons activity of thought.

[Blessed2]

44 minutes ago, Phil said:

unaddressed underlying traumas,

 

What do you mean by "trauma"? 🤔

 

 

Thank you. Very insightful.

[Phil]

@Blessed2

Were you born?

[Blessed2]

29 minutes ago, Phil said:

Were you born?

 

Yes, it seems that I was born.