Life Changing Money Insight

[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 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 by Reborn2

[Isagi Yoichi]

@Joseph Maynor

 

In delving into the profound depths of existential philosophy and metaphysical speculation, one must navigate the labyrinthine intricacies of consciousness and the illusory nature of the self. At the core of this inquiry lies the paradoxical notion that consciousness, in its boundless infinitude, transcends the confines of individual identity and temporal existence.

 

The assertion that consciousness is infinite challenges the conventional understanding of selfhood as a discrete entity encapsulated within the confines of personal identity. Instead, it posits that the experience of selfhood arises as a transient phenomenon within the vast expanse of consciousness, akin to a fleeting mirage amidst the boundless desert of existence.

 

In this paradigm, the notion of abundance transcends its conventional interpretation as a material accumulation or attainment. Rather, abundance is redefined as the inherent richness of being, manifesting in the limitless potentiality of consciousness to express and experience itself in myriad forms and manifestations.

 

Moreover, the assertion that there is no separate self of thoughts challenges the dualistic notion of subject-object duality, wherein the observer and the observed are perceived as distinct entities. Instead, it suggests that the experience of thoughts arises within the boundless field of consciousness, devoid of a separate knower or observer.

 

To overlook the actuality of reality by clinging to the belief in a separate self is to perpetuate the illusion of individual agency and control. In truth, the notion of a separate self as the "knower" who comprehends and manipulates reality is but a facade, obscuring the deeper truth of interconnectedness and interdependence.

 

Furthermore, the denial of a separate doer challenges the conventional understanding of agency and volition. It suggests that the notion of personal agency is illusory, as all actions and manifestations arise spontaneously within the infinite expanse of consciousness, devoid of a discrete agent or actor.

 

In this cosmic dance of Creator-Creating-Creation, the boundaries between subject and object, knower and known, dissolve into the ineffable mystery of existence.

 

Each moment becomes an expression of the infinite creativity and potentiality inherent in the fabric of consciousness, unfolding in a symphony of cosmic proportions.

[Isagi Yoichi]

6 minutes ago, Reborn2 said:

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 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

 

 

Certainly, let's engage with this perspective and challenge the notion that the analogy of a night dream falls flat in the context of understanding spirituality and manifestation.

 

Firstly, while it's true that in a night dream, one might not always have conscious control over the events or contents of the dream, the analogy serves to illustrate a deeper point about the nature of reality and consciousness. In a dream, even though the dreamer may not consciously control every aspect, they are still the creator of the dream world and the experiences within it. Similarly, in waking life, while we may not have direct control over every external circumstance, we are still active participants in shaping our reality through our thoughts, beliefs, and intentions.

 

Furthermore, the analogy of a dream highlights the fluid and malleable nature of reality. Just as one might learn to become lucid in a dream and exert greater influence over its unfolding, individuals can cultivate awareness and intentionality in waking life to manifest desired outcomes. This process involves aligning one's beliefs, desires, and actions with the vibrational frequencies of abundance and prosperity.

 

Regarding the assertion that the only way to attract wealth is through persuading others to give it, it's important to recognize that abundance is not solely dependent on external factors or the actions of others. While interpersonal relationships and collaboration certainly play a role in the acquisition of wealth, the principles of manifestation suggest that one's internal state of being and vibrational frequency also significantly influence the flow of abundance into one's life.

 

In this view, attracting wealth involves more than just convincing others to provide resources; it entails cultivating a mindset of abundance, aligning with the frequency of prosperity, and taking inspired action towards one's goals. This approach acknowledges the interconnectedness of all phenomena and empowers individuals to become active participants in co-creating their reality.

 

In summary, while the analogy of a night dream may have limitations in illustrating the intricacies of manifestation, it nonetheless offers valuable insights into the nature of consciousness and the role of perception in shaping reality. By expanding our understanding of spirituality and manifestation beyond the confines of conventional thinking, we open ourselves to new possibilities and pathways towards realizing our desires and aspirations.

[Joseph Maynor]

26 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:

 

 

Certainly, let's engage with this perspective and challenge the notion that the analogy of a night dream falls flat in the context of understanding spirituality and manifestation.

 

Firstly, while it's true that in a night dream, one might not always have conscious control over the events or contents of the dream, the analogy serves to illustrate a deeper point about the nature of reality and consciousness. In a dream, even though the dreamer may not consciously control every aspect, they are still the creator of the dream world and the experiences within it. Similarly, in waking life, while we may not have direct control over every external circumstance, we are still active participants in shaping our reality through our thoughts, beliefs, and intentions.

 

Furthermore, the analogy of a dream highlights the fluid and malleable nature of reality. Just as one might learn to become lucid in a dream and exert greater influence over its unfolding, individuals can cultivate awareness and intentionality in waking life to manifest desired outcomes. This process involves aligning one's beliefs, desires, and actions with the vibrational frequencies of abundance and prosperity.

 

Regarding the assertion that the only way to attract wealth is through persuading others to give it, it's important to recognize that abundance is not solely dependent on external factors or the actions of others. While interpersonal relationships and collaboration certainly play a role in the acquisition of wealth, the principles of manifestation suggest that one's internal state of being and vibrational frequency also significantly influence the flow of abundance into one's life.

 

In this view, attracting wealth involves more than just convincing others to provide resources; it entails cultivating a mindset of abundance, aligning with the frequency of prosperity, and taking inspired action towards one's goals. This approach acknowledges the interconnectedness of all phenomena and empowers individuals to become active participants in co-creating their reality.

 

In summary, while the analogy of a night dream may have limitations in illustrating the intricacies of manifestation, it nonetheless offers valuable insights into the nature of consciousness and the role of perception in shaping reality. By expanding our understanding of spirituality and manifestation beyond the confines of conventional thinking, we open ourselves to new possibilities and pathways towards realizing our desires and aspirations.

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.

Edited March 25 by Joseph Maynor

[Isagi Yoichi]

10 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.

 

😂 you're funny 

 

 

why are you quoting a reply not made for you lol 

 

Edited March 25 by Isagi Yoichi

[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’.