Inspiration vs Originality

[Jonas Long]

49 minutes ago, Jane said:

@Jonas Long Nothing exists except in this conception.

 

Nothing is original.

You said originality has no origin, does that not make it infinite?  Does it have an ending? 

[Marcel]

@Jane @Jonas Long

 

I suppose „originality“ in its essence is God/Love/Truth/Infinity and therefore nothing and everything.
 

The groundless ground. Like ideas that randomly come to mind, they come from nowhere and are essentially nothing at all.
 

I suppose nature doesn’t make a „claim“ on anything. There is no point to begin with as far as I understand. 
 

Or as Alan Watts put it once.

 

„We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe“

[Jane]

@Marcel @Jonas Long

 

♾️👍💯

 

It has come to my understanding, that every conceptual word uttered, is nothing more than just pure dreamscape, overlaid upon the blank empty screen of consciousness. The contents of consciousness, can be likened to a secondary reality, an imprint of consciousness, an image of the imageless, and is identical to consciousness itself. 

 

Words then are basically empty of apparent meaning, they only exist as illusions, like images in a dream.

 

 

 

[Phil]

Truly originality and inspiration aren't found in an illusion of a separate self in or of a world of time and distinct things. Instead, they’re aspects of the whole of experience. This 360-degree entirety is a once-only, never-before, and never-again present appearance. This is ‘in & of itself’ the stark, all-encompassing, undeniable and shockingly intimate evidence.

 

Alan Watts is ostensibly accurate in saying a we doesn’t come into a world, but he's likewise deeply mistaken in suggesting that a we or a self or selves come out of a world like leaves on a tree. 

 

If you think about it, there’s no actual direct experience of separate leaves coming from a separate tree, nor of said tree coming from a seed. There is no experience of something chronologically becoming some other thing. Seed, tree, apple - are thoughts, presently appearing labels which may seem to, but don't actually define separation, as thoughts are apparent and separation doesn’t truly exist. 

 

It seems logical to say a seed grows into a tree, which produces apples, which produce more seeds. This appears rational, but the truth of this ‘entire lifetime’ if you will is that ‘it’ is present-only and therein perfectly contrary to attachment. Thought attachment seeming & experientially reduces the beauty, wonder & majesty of reality to an experience of separate things on behalf of a separate self. What, via thought attachment or ‘through the veil’ seems to be - reduction or reductionism, is actually the very obscuring of the truth of self and experience.

 

“If you think about it” is just as the seed, tree, and apple… and Emily, Alan and Joan Watts as well. Experience, preference, manifestation; delightfully seamless, with there never being separation at all. Truly, originality and inspiration arise not from an appearance or illusion of causation, but from the boundless wonder of being; oneself. 

 

The Origin.

🥹

[Jonas Long]

Yeah, Watts wasn't quite so pedantic, and had a personality and charisma which helps.

[Marcel]

To put it in very simple terms.

 

God is. „It“ just is. Nothing more. Nothing less. 
 

Any interpretation Safe then direct experience is basically falsehood already. Which is also why communicating this, can become so convoluted.

 

Words are merely pointers. Not a point in themselves. Like the finger pointing at the moon. The finger is not what is ultimately important metaphorically speaking. 

 @Phil

@Jane

[Phil]

@Marcel

Unless of course God isn’t. 

[Jonas Long]

[Phil]

How funny would that be. 

[Jonas Long]

How funny and relatable would I be if I were funny and relatable... 

[Marcel]

11 hours ago, Phil said:

@Marcel

Unless of course God isn’t. 

Thats a good point. 
 

But in my direct experience God definitely is.

 

Because what else would it be other then „be“?

[Jane]

2 hours ago, Marcel said:

Thats a good point. 
 

But in my direct experience God definitely is.

 

Because what else would it be other then „be“?

No one to claim a direct experience of God.

The one apparently claiming to have a direct experience of God, doesn't exist. As that implies two.

 

Nothing can know God, not even God.

 

There's no room in oneness for two. Two, meaning, a knower and what is known. Naming the nameless, no name is doing that.

 

 

[Phil]

7 hours ago, Marcel said:

Thats a good point. 
 

But in my direct experience God definitely is.

 

Because what else would it be other then „be“?

The one for whom God is in direct experience would be, not God. 

[Jonas Long]

Don't you realize all your life affirming experiences are invalid? C'mon

[Reena]

There's a strange difference between invalid and invalidation. 

God's experience can be either invalid or invalidated.

[Phil]

God’s experience is inherently invalid.

[Jonas Long]

Imagine if I made a joke right now, how funny it would be.  And if I wrote a book, how awesome that book would be too. 

[Reena]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

God’s experience is inherently invalid.

Sounds odd. Nothing can be inherently invalid as inherent itself doesn't exist outside human dimension. Inherence is a scope, not reality. 

Edited August 9 by Reena

[Phil]

@Reena

A god which has or even knows of experience would be finite. Thus God’s experience is inherently invalid. (There is no God’s experience). 

Human dimension is a thought, a belief. 

Dimension or dimensions as well. 

 

This is dimensionless, just like (as it were) when you were a child. 

[Reena]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

@Reena

A god which has or even knows of experience would be finite. Thus God’s experience is inherently invalid. (There is no God’s experience). 

Who are we to know if something is finite or infinite. In what way have we measured if something is infinite?