Life Changing Money Insight

[Reborn2]

6 minutes ago, Orb said:

Thats what's called "inspired action" we take action and feel inspired to take more action and so on...

This makes sense and it's understandable

[Phil]

12 hours ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

 infinite consciousness doesn't inherently know the thing called money because it is finite.

Infinite consciousness doesn’t know any thing because infinite consciousness is actually infinite. There isn’t any thing. Put another way, the thought money is the thought money, and like any appearance (thought) doesn’t define perception (appearance).

 

Loa isn’t ’some thing’, some ‘teachers’ or ‘people’ ‘know about’ and share. Loa is experiential reality, and inherently a FUBU (for u by u) backdrop story.  Reality is direct experience only. “All the rest”, religion, science, history, lineage, etc, etc - everything (as it were)… is “filled in” to make Now make sense. 

 

12 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

By the way when I use the word "industrious", I used it to refer to that "get it done" quality that some "people" have.  Some people have the opposite of this, they get very little done.  So, this is something that can be observed in "people".  It's a strength.  "I'm" actually not high in industriousness "myself".  I'm rather low in it.  It's been something I've had to work on now hard for like 3 years to make pretty significant changes to habits and priorities.  You're not going to snap your fingers and become financially abundant; It's not gonna just fall in your lap.  

As consciousness is infinite, there isn’t the separate self of thoughts, there’s an experience of thoughts that there is.  It’s again, the ‘filling in’ of a backdrop story. Therein abundance isn’t of people, and there isn’t anyone who or which becomes anything. Infinite consciousness is already abundance inherent in being… infinite, and an obviously in being This.

 

To believe so strongly “it’s not just gonna fall in your lap” is to overlook the actuality of the entirety of reality, by believing there is a separate self, “the knower”, who “knows how reality works”. You’re being experiential reality, so there is no “knower”. To continue to believe that requires overlooking the countless examples you’re appearing as, to the contrary of “it’s not just gonna fall in your lap”. 

 

There’s no “doer”! No one which was born, no one which actually dies. No one “here” “doing”!

 

You are creating. You are Creator-Creating-Creation. 

 

2 hours ago, Reborn2 said:

I don't understand the alternative to what I or @Joseph Maynor are claiming, like do you think you'll just sit on the chair, write a bunch of stuff on some board or imagine you already have it, and it's just going to come to you on it's own without you putting in any deliberate effort at all?

There is no reason you can’t instantaneously manifest reality, evidenced by that you already are right now. There isn’t one second ago or one second from now - because there is no universe. This is yourself, appearing. 

 

Consider the dream analogy. If you fell asleep and realized you were dreaming, there would be no ‘how you got here’ or ‘how the universe came to be’, etc, etc, etc - there would be no understanding. There would only be the assumption, that there is a separate you inside the dream, while you’re the One dreaming. There dream could be about how there is a thinker thinking, how there’s a “dreamboard”, how there is a second or separate self, which “imagines”, and an “it” which “it” “has” or “doesn’t have”, which has to “put in deliberate effort”… and that would all be dreamt, and none of “it” would actually exist as separate things. 

 

Another dream interpretation, and not as in an interpretation of or about a dream or dreams… as in… this next interpretation is also dreamt, is your dream, right now….

 

Unconditional love is - unconditional. Boundaries, limits, borders, etc would all be conditions. As unconditional love dreams, be’s somewhere and someway for it to seem like it is somewhere… these ‘conditions’ (thoughts) would be felt by unconditional love, which is appearing as ‘them’. The alignment therein would not only be like breadcrumbs to self-realization / The Truth - but also the attracting / allowing / receiving - of what “dream you are wanting” (more specifically, preferences, aligned, manifesting). 

 

A contemplative angle… you’re already being This. Without any resources or need for any thing whatsoever. It’s no trouble to appear differently either. 

 

12 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

Abundance is attracted in general, and money is included in that.

Yes!

12 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

Kind of the scarcity mindset which keeps repelling abundance.  It's not just semantic language it's actually the way it works.  Nonduality, energy, attraction, doesn't only apply to certain things, it's the essential way of things.  Money is just an idea afterall, and ideas flow easily toward that which attracts them.   Momentum seems to keep things stagnant or flowing, it's just inertia, habit, grooves worn in over time.  

Yes! Yes! Yes! 

 

♥️

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Orb said:

Thats what's called "inspired action" we take action and feel inspired to take more action and so on...

Yes! Momentum. 

 

The better it gets - the better it gets! 

 

There is no assertion!

 

There is no regression!

 

Rejoice!! 😂 Good is Good! 

 

Idk bout this “we” stuff thought. 

[Joseph Maynor]

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

To believe so strongly “it’s not just gonna fall in your lap” is to overlook the actuality of the entirety of reality, by believing there is a separate self, “the knower”, who “knows how reality works”.

 

Wait a minute @Phil.  Let's slow down right here.  All you do is play the role of the knower who purports to know how reality works and you're telling all of us you're right and then deciding that others are right or wrong to the degree they comport with you.

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Wait a minute @Phil.  Let's slow down right here.  All you do is play the role of the knower who purports to know how reality works and you're telling all of us you're right and then deciding that others are right or wrong to the degree they comport with you.

There’s only to actually check direct experience. Simply attempt to point to a knower and or knowing. Attempt to point to right & wrong. 

See that these are beliefs. 

 

By your being you’ve ’weaved in’ a story about ‘eating from the tree of the knowledge of right & wrong’. Listen to yourself. Go as it were to the ‘tree of life’. 

 

Notice the reflexivity, the reactionary response… but don’t react (as it were)… just notice only. All veils are therein lifted. 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

There’s only to actually check direct experience. Simply attempt to point to a knower and or knowing. Attempt to point to right & wrong. 

See that these are beliefs. 

 

Notice the reflexivity, the reactionary response… but don’t act (as it were)… just notice only. All veils are therein lifted. 

 

I'm just holding you to your own standard.  

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

I'm just holding you to your own standard.  

All you’re holding is beliefs. The belief there is an other, and a separate self, which is holding other to others standards. 

 

Standards and selves are thoughts. 

 

Notice the reflexivity, the reactionary response… but don’t react (as it were)… just notice only. All veils are therein lifted. 

 

So to speak, spend the whole dream shooting the ‘messenger’. 

 

Or, don’t. Receive the message. 

 

That you can “go either way” there… is the evidence of the truth of what’s being said, which there is not a separate self saying. 

[Joseph Maynor]

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

All you’re holding is beliefs. The belief there is an other, and a separate self, which is holding other to others standards. 

 

Standards and selves are thoughts. 

 

Notice the reflexivity, the reactionary response… but don’t react (as it were)… just notice only. All veils are therein lifted. 

 

So to speak, spend the whole dream shooting the ‘messenger’. 

 

Or, don’t. Receive the message. 

 

That you can “go either way” there… is the evidence of the truth of what’s being said, which there is not a separate self saying. 

What about your reactionary responses including but not limited to this one?  I think you have a blind spot and are kind of projecting onto me and others.  You can't own it yourself, so it's always gotta be scapegoated in others.  To me it's very obvious shadow issues.

Edited March 25, 2024 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What about your reactionary responses including but not limited to this one?  I think you have a blind spot and are kind of projecting onto me and others.

Look at what was actually said….

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

Notice the reflexivity, the reactionary response… but don’t react (as it were)… just notice only. All veils are therein lifted. 

What was not said was “your reactionary responses”. 

 

“As it were” as in, it seemed there was a separate self, such as “your” reactionary responses. 

“Just notice only” as in, awareness is ample. 

 

What was said was contextually changed to accommodate an apparent ‘mental’ or ‘psychological’ paradigm of separate selves. That is the reflexivity, the reactionary response. The defending of a separate finite self - of thoughts. Pointings to “that”… deflection & projection. 

 

There is no one to whom the reflexivity or reactionary response belongs to or is indicative of.  You are appearing as “that” exactly the same as the sun & the moon, which like the truth, can not remain hidden for long. 🙂

 

 

[Jonas Long]

@Joseph Maynor it's all there in the Tao teh ching, give it another read.

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You can't own it yourself, so it's always gotta be scapegoated in others.  To me it's very obvious shadow issues.

That’s all judgment based on beliefs. Delusion. “Shadow issues” is… shadow issues. 

 

Nothing is hidden.

 

You can’t own it yourself because there isn’t a you and yourself, nor a you and an it to own. These are beliefs. You can’t “scapegoat it to others” because there aren’t any. 

 

“To me” (the illusory separate self) “it” is….

 

But “it”… isn’t. 

 

If thoroughly convinced there is a body and you / your actual identity is, a finite body (person, human, thing, etc)… 

love will obliterate. 

 

So start where you’re at; love yourself. The truth that I love you is therein inevitable. 

[Joseph Maynor]

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

That’s all judgment based on beliefs. Delusion. “Shadow issues” is… shadow issues. 

 

Nothing is hidden.

 

You can’t own it yourself because there isn’t a you and yourself, nor a you and an it to own. These are beliefs. You can’t “scapegoat it to others” because there aren’t any. 

 

“To me” (the illusory separate self) “it” is….

 

But “it”… isn’t. 

 

If thoroughly convinced there is a body and you / your actual identity is, a finite body (person, human, thing, etc)… 

love will obliterate. 

 

So start where you’re at; love yourself. The truth that I love you is therein inevitable. 

Allow me one more comment and I'm done.  Ponder this one: If there are no separate selves, why are you so concerned with sending these messages to separate selves?  It's almost like you're assuming in your very project that there are separate selves.  Why identify in the characteristic ways that @Phil identifies?  I guess you just assume that's just the way it is, but still there are no separate selves.  But I would think you would do even more to excise "yourself" from the illusion you've identified.  If there are no separate selves, why teach?  This would be a perfect interview prompt.  What I'm picking up is the separate self thing is being tacitly presumed but denied in the lingo.  You can't kill it that way though.  It's still in there, it's just being on the surface disparaged.  It boggles my mind.  I just don't see the consistency.  It reminds me of having one's cake, eating it, and then finding ways to redefine "eating" so we don't have to look at the fact that we're eating it too.  Lol.  Explain my misunderstanding here, if any.  I appreciate your work by the way.

Edited March 25, 2024 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Allow me one more comment and I'm done.  Ponder this one: If there are no separate selves, why are you so concerned

There isn’t a separate self (which is concerned). 

 

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 with sending these messages to separate selves? 

There aren’t separate selves which The Message is sent to - that is The Message. 

 

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

It's almost like you're assuming in your very project that there are separate selves. 

It totally does seem exactly like that yes - but the truth is… “it” -  isn’t. 

 

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Why identify in the characteristic ways that @Phil identifies?

🤷‍♂️ idk… why?

 

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I guess you just assume that's just the way it is, but still there are no separate selves. 

Check direct experience (vs guessing). That there’s a you assuming is an assumption. 

 

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But I would think you would do even more to excise "yourself" from the illusion you've identified. 

The illusion is that there is a separate self. No separate self = no other (separate self). 

 

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

If there are no separate selves, why teach?

As there aren’t separate selves there are no teachers. 

 

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

  This would be a perfect interview prompt. 

Totally!

 

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What I'm picking up is the separate self thing is being tacitly presumed by denied in the lingo.  You can't kill it that way though.  It's still in there, it's just being on the surface disparaged.  It boggles my mind.

Try to actually point to what is being claimed to be or exist. (Check direct experience). 

 

The Truth that there aren’t separate selves is not disparaging to or of…. separate selves. 

[Reborn2]

@Phil I understand your point of view and what spirituality is about, but I think that night dream analogy falls flat, due to the fact that you don't actually fully control what you dream about even while lucid dreaming, the same way you can only control the human you are in real life. The only way you can attract wealth is throught persuading other people to give it to you, even if these people were all dreamt up alongside the rest of everything, this would still not change

Edited March 25, 2024 by Reborn2

[Phil]

23 minutes ago, Reborn2 said:

@Phil I understand your point of view and what spirituality is about, but I think that night dream analogy falls flat, due to the fact that you don't actually fully control what you dream about even while lucid dreaming, the same way you can only control the human you are in real life. The only way you can attract wealth is throught persuading other people to give it to you, even if these people were all dreamt up alongside the rest of everything, this would still not change

With respect, what’s being said isn’t there isn’t the separate self of thoughts. That would indicate there isn’t an understander and someone which has point of view and which is understood. Point of view is the lens by which the world you are being can be experienced. Within the point of view, which there is only one of, interpretations arise. One interpretation is that reality consists of material, and Oneself is, material. Another interpretation is idealism, which is essentially that there isn’t matter / material. 

 

With some scrutiny of direct experience there are ‘clues’ in this regard. 

 

First and foremost - you are aware. You are aware that you are, aware. There is no example of ‘something else’ which is aware. 

 

There is an experience of forgetting and remembering. There is no material ‘thing’ which can or does forget & remember. This is a ‘clue’ that there are not material things. 

 

Creativity in & of ‘itself’. There is no experience of anything or anyone which is creative. You are creative. Via the believing of thoughts, there can seem to be an experience of something else or someone else which is aware and or creative. 

 

Morality & intuition - while not separate finite things, point directly to that there is a true absolute unconditional nature which is not a material thing.

 

One kind of blatant clue is that while many many claims seem to be made - no one has ever experienced death or knows what death is. The ‘clue’ aspect is that this points to the obviousness that it’s a belief.

 

Quantum mechanics is arguably the most blatant a ‘clue’ could possibly be. Quantum Observer Effect: The act (so to speak) of observation in quantum mechanics alters the behavior of “particles”, suggesting that consciousness plays a fundamental role in shaping so called physical reality at a fundamental level. The “fundamental level” & “reality” is the very same consciousness. 

 

Psychedelics are a ‘clue’ which reveal there are neither psychedelics or clues, and are now being used therapeutically to dispel the materialist’s paradigm. (As always direct experience is king). 

 

If reality is made of material or matter and there is separation, and separate selves, and separate thinkers separates by material / matter, anomalous phenomena would not be experientially possible. 

 

 

As far as lucid dreaming / (Infinite) consciousness & control… that would be where the dream analogy ends, as this is a dream. This points to the reflexivity & reactivity it seems @Joseph Maynor is struggling with. Control is essentially that there is no assertion to act upon an appearing thought. That there is appearing thought is a ‘clue’ that all thoughts being apparent do not point to material things. 

 

Neuroplasticity is a ‘clue’. So to speak, the so called brain can re-wire ‘itself’, because ‘it’ is an appearance of infinite consciousness - ‘it’ is infinite consciousness.

 

 Time Dilation (feel free to go down that rabbit hole) is kind of the ‘ultimate clue’. 

 

49 minutes ago, Reborn2 said:

@Phil you don't actually fully control what you dream about even while lucid dreaming, the same way you can only control the human you are in real life.

The human you are in real life - is dream. 

 

49 minutes ago, Reborn2 said:

The only way you can attract wealth is throught persuading other people to give it to you, even if these people were all dreamt up alongside the rest of everything, this would still not change

As the human you are in real life is the dream, so is “other people”. 

 

There is the thought, “control”, and there is shedding conditioning, allowing emotion(s)… and therein non-reaction (to thoughts), and therein… control. Yet no controller, nor anything being controlled. Can be no other way because consciousness is infinite. 

[Phil]

28 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I don't respond to you because I think you've been overly personal in how you've taken shots at me on here.  I might question things more than anyone on here, but I'm a good guy and deserving of a degree of respect like those who agree with you.

That essentially is what defending of the separate self of thought is. As a funny reference, I made an account (“Phil”) on ChristianityBoards.com (a christian forum). I made a thread about how in accordance with the Bible, there are no people in heaven and there aren’t good people and there aren’t bad / evil people. The point was the ‘in accordance with the Bible’ aspect. Nowhere in ‘the Bible’ does it actually say there are people in heaven (it says heaven is within you) and nowhere does it actually say there are good and or bad people. I was banned. Lol. No warning. Nothing. Again, just a reference, and example of reactionary being, reflexiveness, and defending of the sep self. One member there commented, “if Jesus Christ returned and made an account on this forum he’d be banned for sharing the Truth”. 🎯

 

Acknowledging beliefs & emotions and questioning what you’re saying / believing deflates / dispels, liberates… reactionary being (discord / suffering).  

[Reborn2]

21 hours ago, Phil said:

If reality is made of material or matter and there is separation, and separate selves, and separate thinkers separates by material / matter, anomalous phenomena would not be experientially possible. 

Yes they would be. The effects of psychadelics and every single one of the points you've made do have scientific explanation within a materialistic paradigm, you can search them for yourself, they are just reductionist in their nature. But in a way, so are yours.

 

One thing all paradigms can agree on though is this - there is such a thing as infinity. In fact, there is no way there couldn't be. But what kind of infinity? I don't think anyone can ever confidently know the answer to this question. Direct experience may be the king, but that doesn't mean it is infallible in my opinion.

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Reborn2 said:

Yes they would be. The effects of psychadelics and every single one of the points you've made do have scientific explanation within a materialistic paradigm, you can search them for yourself, they are just reductionist in their nature. But in a way, so are yours.

Direct experience is ‘first’ (direct) & nonconceptual - prior to believing concepts / the activity of conceptualizing.

 

Scientific explanations, including that there even is science (subject(s)) studying objects or an objective reality, is secondary explanation, entirely conceptual (belief). It’s a means of projection of suppression, via what really just amounts to self referential thoughts / self-conceptualization… “I’m right”, “I know”, “I understand”… and “science” doesn’t / “scientists” don’t. 

 

The materialist’s paradigm is thoughts arising & being believed. The paradigm goes on for as long as thoughts are believed, until thoughts aren’t believed / beliefs are dispelled… and therein it’s obvious it (a materialist’s paradigm) wasn’t in the first place because it was always / is always -now. Thoughts appear about things, time, and a separate self (‘what I know’, ‘my understanding’, etc).. while (separate finite) things never actually appear. 

 

Reductionist is yet another thought / interpretation - of the same (materialist’s) paradigm, of believing thoughts. There’s no such ‘thing’ as “a reductionist” or “reductionism”, like there’s not actually a materialist. There is only (seemingly) reductionism and or reductionists… from the illusory perspective of / as, a separate self of… the materialist’s paradigm. “The self” is what “materialist” points to - that what there actually isn’t, is that (the materialist). 

 

Cause & effect (in regard to ‘the effect of psychedelics’)… are (hindsight) thoughts on behalf of a “knower which knows”… not actual things. “Psychedelic” is a thought, not a separate thing. That psychedelics cause any thing is a belief, a thought believed about perception. There is no cause & effect actually found in perception.

 

“So are yours” is precisely the overlooking of what’s being said, and the reinforcing of the materialist’s paradigm. Nothing ‘wrong’ with that & any judgment of would be senseless… but it’s essentially ignore-ance of suffering & suppression and of guidance which dispels suffering & suppression. To continue to believe this / hold this view, essentially requires believing in, but projecting / suppressing… the discord felt, of the interpretations, along the lines of shortage, lack, inferiority, etc. 

 

1 hour ago, Reborn2 said:

 

One thing all paradigms can agree on though is this - there is such a thing as infinity. In fact, there is no way there couldn't be. But what kind of infinity? I don't think anyone can ever confidently know the answer to this question. Direct experience may be the king, but that doesn't mean it is infallible in my opinion.

“There is such a thing as infinity” is basically ann egocentric illusory perspective of / as a separate self… a “thing which knows things”.  Objectification goes hand & hand with believing in shortage, lack, etc. The materialist’s paradigm is not compatible with reality as far as far as there being ‘one thing’ ‘all paradigms can agree on’.

 

That there is infinity in that way (kinds of infinity) is like the beliefs “infinite numbers”, or “infinite infinities”., “infinity goes on forever”. These are apparent / appearing concepts / self-conceptualizations of infinite, which infinite is aware of… and aren’t true about, infinite. Unconditional is precisely not a kind, as that would be, a condition. That anyone could ever know the answer is the presumption there is a knower in direct experience. Direct experience is infallible in that direct experience dispels concepts & beliefs about… direct experience… such as ‘in my opinion’.