What is a thought?

[Robed Mystic]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

That I am is one sphere is a self referential thought, as if the I am were known, on behalf of a knower. 

 

The assumption is that “I am separate”, and “there are other separate selves”, and “you”, a separate self, have put “it” (the I am which is not me) “into the duality pool”, which is actually two spheres. 

You are missing the I am.  What did God say to Moses on the high mountain?

I am that I am.

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

You are missing the I am.  What did God say to Moses on the high mountain?

I am that I am.

The you which could be missing the I am is the separate self of thoughts. Misidentified as a separate self it’s presumed there are other separate selves which lack is projected onto as in you are missing x, y or z. Again, spirituality which revolves around the separate self of thoughts. 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Robed Mystic said:

It's Infinity. 

For advaita vedanta, I prefer to say the Self is the qualityless (nondual) detached witness consciousness.  Saying it’s infinity makes it sound like it has qualities which entices the mind to attribute this or that to it.  The thought "I Am" is just a pointer and not needed once the Self is realised.   The not-Self can only be noticed when the Self is known.  I had to actually read Shankara and Maharshi to come to this pointer.  Otherwise, the Self and ego get conflated.  Solipsism is a good of example of this conflation.  Any "ism" is a thought and therefore ego.  Nothing wrong with thought if you have a clear realisation of the Self and can bring the "I thought" back into the Self so to speak.  When it points out you can turn it around and point it back in.  Just make sure you're not mistaking the mind for the Self because the mind is also "in".  The Self is not really in because in/out is a duality.

Edited May 4 by Joseph Maynor

[Robed Mystic]

51 minutes ago, Phil said:

The you which could be missing the I am is the separate self of thoughts. Misidentified as a separate self it’s presumed there are other separate selves which lack is projected onto as in you are missing x, y or z. Again, spirituality which revolves around the separate self of thoughts. 

No. Consciousness is who I am addressing.   You are so behind.  Catch up. Or AI will do it for you.

[Robed Mystic]

47 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

For advaita vedanta, I prefer to say the Self is the qualityless (nondual) detached witness consciousness.  Saying it’s infinity makes it sound like it has qualities which entices the mind to attribute this or that to it.  The thought "I Am" is just a pointer and not needed once the Self is realised.   The not-Self can only be noticed when the Self is known.  I had to actually read Shankara and Maharshi to come to this pointer.  Otherwise, the Self and ego get conflated.  Solipsism is a good of example of this conflation.  Any "ism" is a thought and therefore ego.  Nothing wrong with thought if you have a clear realisation of the Self and can bring the "I thought" back into the Self so to speak.  When it points out you can turn it around and point it back in.  Just make sure you're not mistaking the mind for the Self because the mind is also "in".  The Self is not really in because in/out is a duality.

Excellent work.  But again you have seemed to put all of yourself into advaita vedanta.   It's not everything.  In fact you don't even need those words or the concept of advaita vedanta.  

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

No. Consciousness is who I am addressing.   You are so behind.  Catch up. Or AI will do it for you.

Consciousness appears yet doesn’t become a who or a you. 

 

1 hour ago, Robed Mystic said:

It's Infinity. 

“It’s infinity” is being said on behalf of the separate self of thoughts for whom there is other, you or AI. 

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

Consciousness appears yet doesn’t become a who or a you. 

 

“It’s infinity” is being said on behalf of the separate self of thoughts for whom there is other, you or AI. 

It absolutely does - it incarnates into a who, or a you.  What do you think the magic of Consciousness or God is?

It is the ability to limit itself - to incarnate into a finite form and then look at the world from that perspective.  Its glorious.  Do you not see it?

 

It could be everything - but being everything doesn't allow you to peer through every corner of yourself - every aspect.

To do that - it needs to incarnate into a finite being that can see the world from one angle - otherwise, God can't explore every angle.

 

Right now its exploring the angle of Phil.  Maybe tomorrow it might explore the point of view of someone else.  But right now its Phil.

 

[Mandy]

Would you rather explain nonduality to a man or a bear?

 

Definitely a bear. 

[Phil]

24 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

It absolutely does - it incarnates into a who, or a you.

Appears. Doing, doer, is again thoughts on behalf of a separate self. (Anthropomorphization).  

 

24 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

  What do you think the magic of Consciousness or God is?

Thinker is a presumed separate self which thinks. Thinker & thinks are experienced as apparent thoughts, not separate entities. 

 

24 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

It is the ability to limit itself - to incarnate into a finite form and then look at the world from that perspective.  Its glorious. 

Appearing isn’t limiting. Appearing is appearing. Limit is the apparent thought, limit. It’s on behalf of a separate self which knows about consciousness. That there is an “it” which “limits itself”. It’s not possible for infinite to limit, due to… the inherent infinitude. 

 

24 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Do you not see it?

There isn’t infinite consciousness and a you which see’s it. There are apparent thoughts that there is, apparently. 

 

24 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

It could be everything - but being everything doesn't allow you to peer through every corner of yourself - every aspect.

Everything is the thought, everything. ‘All the finite things’.

Before ‘it could be’, is the presumption there is a separate self, a knower, which knows there is, everything. 

 

24 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

To do that - it needs to incarnate into a finite being that can see the world from one angle - otherwise, God can't explore every angle.

Consciousness is infinite being. There isn’t a second being, a finite being, which infinite being could “incarnate into”. 

“Every angle” is an overlooking of direct experience, of one perspective. An assumption there are “other angles” which “God must be exploring”. 

 

24 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Right now its exploring the angle of Phil.  Maybe tomorrow it might explore the point of view of someone else.  But right now its Phil.

Consciousness is infinite, appearing as the thought or concept “point of view of someone else”. 

[Robed Mystic]

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

Appears. Doing, doer, is again thoughts on behalf of a separate self. (Anthropomorphization).  

 

Thinker is a presumed separate self which thinks. Thinker & thinks are experienced as apparent thoughts, not separate entities. 

 

Appearing isn’t limiting. Appearing is appearing. Limit is the apparent thought, limit. It’s on behalf of a separate self which knows about consciousness. That there is an “it” which “limits itself”. It’s not possible for infinite to limit, due to… the inherent infinitude. 

 

 

No no no.  This is not Anthropomorphization at all.  You are completely misunderstanding. Lost inside some type of no self ideology.   I'll ask you again- what is appearance?  And no - limitation is not a thought.    It is a specific state of Consciousness.   So - let's ask you this: can you lift your entire house right now with your bare hands?  Well, right now you can't.    But what if your state of Consciousness were to expand to an infinite state?  Would you then realize that your house was simply a figment of your imagination and thus does not need to be raised?  It would just seem silly at that point.  

Edited May 4 by Robed Mystic

[Phil]

21 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

You are completely misunderstanding. Lost inside some type of no self ideology.   

There might be an apparent experience of misunderstanding or lost, yet there’s no you / other which is misunderstanding or lost. 

 

21 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

I'll ask you again- what is appearance? 

Appearance. Inclusive of the apparent thoughts that there’s a you being asked what appearance is. 

 

21 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

And no - limitation is not a thought.

Limitation isn’t found in perception or sensation. It’s a thought, a presumption about perception & sensation. The belief is dispelled by inspecting direct experience. 

 

21 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

 It is a specific state of Consciousness.   

Same for that belief, which is on behalf of “the knower”, the sep self of thoughts which is separate of consciousness and knows about consciousness. 

 

21 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

So - let's ask you this: can you lift your entire house right now with your bare hands? 

Again the separate self of thoughts (a self which isn’t, or is separate of, ‘the house’). Self is appearing as thought & perception, not finite separate selves & things. It only seems so in believing thoughts define perception. 

 

21 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Well, right now you can't.

The lack projected is on behalf of a nonexistent self. Same as saying a unicorn can’t lift a house because a unicorn is limited consciousness. 

 

21 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

  But what if your state of Consciousness were to expand to an infinite state? 

Infinite doesn’t have something because infinite is, infinite. 

“Your state of consciousness” is not on behalf of consciousness. It’s on behalf of a sep self of thoughts. 

Again, anthropomorphization. 

 

21 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Would you then realize that your house was simply a figment of your imagination and thus does not need to be raised?  It would just seem silly at that point.  

Figment: A thing that someone believes to be real but that exists only in their imagination.

Rhetoric: Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

 

The you of your house, your imagination, their imagination, etc is again the sep self of thoughts. 

[Someone here]

27 minutes ago, Phil said:

doer, is again thoughts on behalf of a separate

A quick question please..

If There is no doer ..how does free will fit into the big picture of conscious creating ? If there is nobody doing anything..that means the 'apparent' individual/human character is not in control of neither his thoughts nor his actions and thereby completely powerless as to how his life unfolds ..right?....but then you teach stuff like "you are the sole creator of reality ".."write your desires on the dreamboard " and wait for it to show up in your life ..how to bridge these two together? 

I know I've asked you this plenty in the past but its honestly fucking my mind hard lol😂 ..I can't get it .

 

[Robed Mystic]

7 minutes ago, Phil said:

There might be an apparent experience of misunderstanding or lost, yet there’s no you / other which is misunderstanding or lost. 

 

Appearance. Inclusive of the apparent thoughts that there’s a you being asked what appearance is. 

 

Limitation isn’t found in perception or sensation. It’s a thought, a presumption about perception & sensation. The belief is dispelled by inspecting direct experience. 

 

Same for that belief, which is on behalf of “the knower”, the sep self of thoughts which is separate of consciousness and knows about consciousness. 

 

Again the separate self of thoughts (a self which isn’t, or is separate of, ‘the house’). Self is appearing as thought & perception, not finite separate selves & things. It only seems so in believing thoughts define perception. 

 

The lack projected is on behalf of a nonexistent self. Same as saying a unicorn can’t lift a house because a unicorn is limited consciousness. 

 

Infinite doesn’t have something because infinite is, infinite. 

“Your state of consciousness” is not on behalf of consciousness. It’s on behalf of a sep self of thoughts. 

Again, anthropomorphization. 

 

Figment: A thing that someone believes to be real but that exists only in their imagination.

Rhetoric: Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

 

The you of your house, your imagination, their imagination, etc is again the sep self of thoughts. 

Talking to you is hopeless.  You will stay asleep forever.  But then again - you're just in my imagination- so who really cares right?  

But seriously..dude..you have to really move beyond this no self obsession.   Of course there is no self - but you miss the most important aspect of reality when you dismiss the self.  The self may be an appearance- but what I was trying to eek out of you is that appearance is fucking reality!  There is none other than appearance so you might as well get used to it.  Keep spitting out this neo-advaita bullshit until you're on your death bed for all i care.  You will still be missing the mark.   But I guess God didn't mean to awaken everyone anyway.

Edited May 4 by Robed Mystic

[Robed Mystic]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

A quick question please..

If There is no doer ..how does free will fit into the big picture of conscious creating ? If there is nobody doing anything..that means the 'apparent' individual/human character is not in control of neither his thoughts nor his actions and thereby completely powerless as to how his life unfolds ..right?....but then you teach stuff like "you are the sole creator of reality ".."write your desires on the dreamboard " and wait for it to show up in your life ..how to bridge these two together? 

I know I've asked you this plenty in the past but its honestly fucking my mind hard lol😂 ..I can't get it .

 

Forget this crap man.  You are God.   Your will and God's will align.  It always has and it always will.  You may not see it now, from your finite perspective- but that is by design. 

Edited May 4 by Robed Mystic

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

crap

Why are you calling it crap? Have you tried using a vision board yourself before judging? 

Two years ago I was on the brink of suicide because I didn't have a girlfriend and it was truly a thorn in my side ..but I used affirmations ..Loa..vision board and I attracted a girl in my college and fucked her brains out.. I have shared it on actialized ..I felt on top of the world 

.(although we broke up recently lol)

Don't call it crap just because you disagree.  Just say it doesn't resonate 

 Remember this is Phil's forum not yours ..so I if in your shoes I would not be so confronting and obnoxious..don't get surprised if he kicks you out. 

[Robed Mystic]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

Why are you calling it crap? Have you tried using a vision board yourself before judging? 

Two years ago I was on the brink of suicide because I didn't have a girlfriend and it was truly a thorn in my side ..but I used affirmations ..Loa..vision board and I attracted a girl in my college and fucked her brains out.. I have shared it on actialized ..I felt on top of the world 

.(although we broke up recently lol)

Don't call it crap just because you disagree.  Just say it doesn't resonate 

 Remember this is Phil's forum not yours ..so I if in your shoes I would not be so confronting and obnoxious..don't get surprised if he kicks you out. 

A vision board has nothing to do with what we are discussing.  He won't kick me out.  If he does - I'd be really disappointed in him 😔 

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Robed Mystic said:

A vision board has nothing to do with what we are discussing

Then what is it that you've called "crap "? I talked about free will and consciously creating using a vision board 

 Is that what you  call crap ?

[Someone here]

@Robed Mystic also answer my dm.

[Joseph Maynor]

52 minutes ago, Someone here said:

A quick question please..

If There is no doer

 

There's no thinker either.  That one is more profound to catch.  It was for me at least.  Do doer, no body, no mind, no self, no people.  Only the Self exists.  All thoughts assume a subject-object duality.  No external world or internal world either.  

Edited May 4 by Joseph Maynor

[Robed Mystic]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Then what is it that you've called "crap "? I talked about free will and consciously creating using a vision board 

 Is that what you  call crap ?

Certainly not conscious creating and a vision board.   I think that's awesome.....it's awesome for developing the self.  It's terrible for spirituality.   Spirituality is about no mind, no self.  But there is a duality here.  What I am pissed about is how he injects the Absolute everywhere...blindly.   while there is no self in the Absolute sense there is certainly a self that can dream and have a dreamboard.