individual and collective consciousness

[Jonas Long]

Just now, Isagi Yoichi said:

isn't this a belief ? 

...ish... it's really just an observation or acceptance that whatever is doing it knows what it's doing....in a manner of speaking. 

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

isn't this a belief ? 

You realize gravity can't be circumvented by you desire for it to be, right? Is that a belief? 

[Isagi Yoichi]

2 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

You realize gravity can't be circumvented by you desire for it to be, right? Is that a belief? 

we can test gravity now

 

but with the hot stove analogy it is not in accordance with immatuble laws 

[Isagi Yoichi]

"

LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

Keeping The Law of Divine Oneness in mind, the Law of Cause & Effect points out there is in actuality no luck, chances, randomness, chaos or odds. There is an experience of the thoughts, but like the word unicorn, there isn’t an actuality which the thoughts point to. Experience, creation - the spheres, are One indivisible Whole.

"

[Isagi Yoichi]

" 

The Law of Attraction denotes how we create the experiential ‘things’, events, circumstances and situations of our lives. Our thoughts, emotions, words, and actions perpetually transmute “energy” into vibration which in turn attracts like, similar energies, or ‘things’, events & circumstances in kind. Focus upon wanted attracts desired circumstances, relationships & outcomes.

The Law of Attraction is the recognition of the right-now-synchronicity, and the appreciation resulting in coherence of the vibration of your desires, with the vibration of your thoughts, emotions and inspired actions." 

 

how would this stupid law apply to innocent children?

 

 

and the emotional scale too how would a child be at the bottom of the emotional scale its impossible 

Edited January 31 by Isagi Yoichi

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

 

how would this stupid law apply to innocent children?

Same way it applies to innocent adults, innocent mice, innocent cows getting turned into hamburger, innocent germs that make you sick, innocent cells that decide to try something new and become innocent cancers.

[Isagi Yoichi]

1 minute ago, Jonas Long said:

Same way it applies to innocent adults, innocent mice, innocent cows getting turned into hamburger, innocent germs that make you sick, innocent cells that decide to try something new and become innocent cancers.

done take it out of context lol I am not talking about children specifically 

[Jonas Long]

3 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

done take it out of context lol I am not talking about children specifically 

It's no different if you're talking about children or duck billed platypus, it's it's same "law" which applies.  

[Isagi Yoichi]

Just now, Jonas Long said:

It's no different if you're talking about children or duck billed platypus, it's it's same "law" which applies.  

no the law is not working lol

[Jonas Long]

Just now, Isagi Yoichi said:

no the law is not working lol

How is it not working?

 

What is this actually about for you right now?  I feel like there's a direct question you're not asking.

Edited January 31 by Jonas Long

[Isagi Yoichi]

4 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

How is it not working?

 

What is this actually about for you right now?  I feel like there's a direct question you're not asking.

if a child is getting consistent abuse this means that the law of attraction is trash because according to it he must be at the bottom of the emotional scale to get that treatment but this is impossible bec a child can't be at the bottom of the emotional scale like how adults are, children are innocent and don't have discordant beliefs like adults this is my question 

 

 

[Jonas Long]

4 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

if a child is getting consistent abuse this means that the law of attraction is trash because according to it he must be at the bottom of the emotional scale to get that treatment but this is impossible bec a child can't be at the bottom of the emotional scale like how adults are, children are innocent and don't have discordant beliefs like adults this is my question 

 

 

I don't like the "law of attraction" because pretty much everyone misunderstands it, and think that means something like "you get what you want/deserve", it's not that.  We've been made to understand "attraction" in a romantic or desire sense, but it's not that.  The truth is the abuser is as "innocent" as the victim, just not in the colloquial sense of the way we understand the terms "innocent" or "attraction".

[Isagi Yoichi]

6 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

We've been made to understand "attraction" in a romantic or desire sense, but it's not that. 

who said its romantic i am very objective here, read the definition it is false it is not in accordance with what happening 

 

6 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

The truth is the abuser is as "innocent" as the victim, just not in the colloquial sense of the way we understand the terms "innocent" or "attraction".

this means that the law of attraction is false if we are talking in terms of the emotional scale

 

 

Edited January 31 by Isagi Yoichi

[Jonas Long]

3 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

who said its romantic i am very objective here, read the definition it is false it is not in accordance with what happening 

 

this means that the law of attraction is false if we are talking in terms of the emotional scale

 

 

I think the law of attraction is false if you are going strictly by the definition you mean.  That's why I don't like it.  Attraction in the loa sense is like the way magnets are drawn together, it's dispassionate.  

[Phil]

11 hours ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

But if he doesn't have beliefs and meanings about the stove he will still put his hand on it

The subject which has beliefs (as if objects) and the objects implied, are actually thoughts. There is also perception and sensation. 

 

So to speak, the body removes the hand from the hot stove instantly because of how it feels. ‘Because of’ sensation, and not because of thoughts.

 

No thinking is necessary. No thinking actually happens. No “thinking” ever actually happens, only an appearing assumption that there is, or that I am, a “thinker”.

 

That there is a thinker thinking, is - in accordance with direct experience and not concepts, ideologies & philosophies - a thought.

Believed, a belief.

Effortlessness, obscured by, apparent thoughts, about there being - “a thinker”. (Doer, knower, believer, etc). 

 

 

2 hours ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

I thought its analogy for abuse 

 

Youre saying this (Nothing. Curiosity, innocence, not knowing) attracted abuse right?

No. 

There is no source of ‘bad’. Goodness is nondual. 

 

This (Nothing. Not a finite thing. Curiosity, innocence, not knowing) is real, reality, actual (infinite) self. 

Abuse only occurs as thoughts are believed… and beliefs… obscure… This. The Truth. 

This would never harm, This. 

 

As a thought appears about there being a subject (“the me”, “individual”, “separate self of thoughts”)… simultaneously there is an apparent presumed belief in “not me” - a separate, physical, objective reality. This the illusion of ignorance, the illusion of the separate self, or as Buddha ostensibly said “Life (the belief in a separate objective reality) is suffering”. 

 

51 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

we can test gravity now

 

but with the hot stove analogy it is not in accordance with immatuble laws 

Gravity is an assumption via overlooking the true nature of oneself, and the apparent nature of experiential reality.

 

Put another way, it doesn’t seem like this is appearing in an upward manor… so…. “There must be some kinda downward force, and we’ll call it gravity, even though no one’s ever actually seen or experienced “it””. 

 

It is as if there is a movie projector in the center of the earth, projecting 360 degrees, making it seem like there is “an earth”. 

Nothing (not a thing, infinite), curiosity, innocence, not knowing - are indicative of the eternal nature of the screen, and thus are never actually found in the movie / appearance. Same for peace, happiness, intelligence and love. 

 

49 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

"

LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

Keeping The Law of Divine Oneness in mind, the Law of Cause & Effect points out there is in actuality no luck, chances, randomness, chaos or odds. There is an experience of the thoughts, but like the word unicorn, there isn’t an actuality which the thoughts point to. Experience, creation - the spheres, are One indivisible Whole.

"

The “keeping the law of Oneness in mind” is being overlooked. 

 

47 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

" 

The Law of Attraction denotes how we create the experiential ‘things’, events, circumstances and situations of our lives. Our thoughts, emotions, words, and actions perpetually transmute “energy” into vibration which in turn attracts like, similar energies, or ‘things’, events & circumstances in kind. Focus upon wanted attracts desired circumstances, relationships & outcomes.

The Law of Attraction is the recognition of the right-now-synchronicity, and the appreciation resulting in coherence of the vibration of your desires, with the vibration of your thoughts, emotions and inspired actions." 

 

how would this stupid law apply to innocent children?

Innocence is being overlooked, and linguistically changed to innocent.

 

Innocence is inherent. The ‘fabric of reality’.

Innocent is a thought, belief, assumption.  

 

There are no separate selves, and therein that there is anyone which is guilty or innocent, at fault or not at fault, right or wrong - are exactly as actually experienced - just thoughts. Believed; beliefs. Identified by; misidentification. 

 

If it seems like what’s being said here is that all religion, politics, science & philosophy are based on a fundamental misunderstanding (belief) -  for the sake of clarity in communication - that is exactly what’s being said here. The Truth is self-evident and simple, such as the body removing the hand from the hot stove. It is conditioning which is seemingly complex & radical. 

 

47 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

and the emotional scale too how would a child be at the bottom of the emotional scale its impossible 

28 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

if a child is getting consistent abuse this means that the law of attraction is trash because according to it he must be at the bottom of the emotional scale to get that treatment but this is impossible bec a child can't be at the bottom of the emotional scale like how adults are, children are innocent and don't have discordant beliefs like adults this is my question 

 

 

As there aren’t separate selves, there is no one which is at the bottom or top of the emotional scale. It is not ‘The Separate Selves Scale’, it is The Emotional Scale. 

 

Emotion is guidance… to the experiencing of… what is wanted.
Expression of emotions experienced is not ‘about myself’.
It’s just about the expressing.
Keep it simple.
🤍

[James123]

14 hours ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

hi guys I am thinking about the relationship between the individual consciousness and the collective one is there any equation to explain how both work together?

 

You can open any door with love.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Jonas Long If you say people misunderstand Law of Attraction you should at least say what you think the correct understanding is.  Otherwise you’re not saying they misunderstand, LOA, you’re saying LOA is nonsense.  

[Jonas Long]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Jonas Long If you say people misunderstand Law of Attraction you should at least say what you think the correct understanding is.  Otherwise you’re not saying they misunderstand, LOA, you’re saying LOA is nonsense.  

I said, it's dispassionate, like magnets attracting, not like human desire or lust for results.  The law of attraction is simply like attracts like, but the way we are taught to understand attraction culturally generally is not it, so I don't like the term really, but in essence I do think it's true.

[Phil]

@Isagi Yoichi

Imo these are really great questions / inquires btw, and it might be worth mentioning that as This appears, that equals or is inherently the overlooking. So well before it’s ever (so to speak) thought about, the ignorance has already occurred. 

[Joseph Maynor]

I find the division between individual and collective perspectives useful.  Generally, individual thing is Masculine (the I/the Individual) and the collective relation is Feminine (the Whole/the Group).  What I call Divine Marriage is the link or relation between the Divine Masculine (I am God) and the Divine Feminine (the Whole is God).  Spinoza thought the Whole is the only real thing and that all humans are illusory and the idea that "I am that" is illusory.  Advaita Vedanta says you are it, but not the way you think.  Atman(s) = Brahman.  So, when I integrate Divine Marriage, I wobble the duality between Divine I vs./and Divine Whole.  It's very useful to think of the Collective as a thing that is missing the I (no separate selves, no I's).  But that's only one aspect of thinking about things.  You can also think of the Divine as Me.  I look at these as aspects that are in a Marriage together.  In other words, for integration purposes, Spinoza can be joined with Advaita Vedanta in their two accounts of the Absolute.  Spinoza would say only the Whole exists and you ain't that; and Advaita Vedanta would say you are the Universal Self that each Atman also is too.  It's kinda two ways of saying the same thing (sort of but also not), like 2 sides of the same coin.  The key is to make sure you're not mixing the human and the Divine, although there's a wobble in that duality too.  Also, there's a wobble between stories and transcendence.  But if we're talking about stories, we're there and we want to treat them as things or else why bother.  You have to be able to isolate something as a thing to integrate it using language.  Both Spinoza and Advaita Vedanta leave out proper respect for the human (the human Masc and human Fem), which I correct in my work.  The Divine is set up and over the human which I think is a mistaken hierarchy. 

All this stuff is theory, including the Divine.  It's just useful stories to help people do self-help work and to have a common language of communication so we can talk to each other about it.  Otherwise, we wouldn't share a common lingo, and we know how that ends up.  What I try to do with my stories is try to take them seriously, while also not taking them seriously too.  The most important thing is -- are you getting improvement in your life by working with these narratives.  Your life is #1, all the stories are models to you -- and the most important thing is to find fragments of models you can piece together to help your life, because you are an original -- there is nobody that is exactly like you.  Be open to extending models and creating your own models, to tailoring models to suit you and your unique experiences.  There are going to be people who will disagree with this and they will say, no there's one true model.  But that's their baby.  That works for them right now.  I try not to argue directly with people like this because, naturally, they have to decide what they want to do with their stories and how those relate to their life.  Stories are more relative and flexible than "true believers" assume in my judgment.

Edited January 31 by Joseph Maynor