My Bashar Consult

[Salvijus]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

How do you know?

You have zero evidence.

The moment you accept the idea of Indra’s net, even if it's imaginery. It automatically implies there being multiple heads that are interdependent and interconnected. And Indra being the god. The maker of all heads. And it automatically places you in a position of a single head(soul) among many rather than a single concious sentient being in existence. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

How do you know?

You have zero evidence.

The evidence of Indra’s net is easy to prove whenever your state of conciousness gets influenced by the presence of another being. 

And the moment Indra’s net is proved. The rest of what I said or what Bashar and every other major religion has said gets proved automatically. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The moment you accept the idea of Indra’s net,

I accept nothing.

[Salvijus]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I accept nothing.

Indra’s net is true tho. Even if it's imaginery. Implications of it don't change. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Indra’s net is true tho.

How do you know?

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

How do you know?

It just means interconnectedness and interdependence. If a presence of another being can influence how you feel, that's evidence for Indra’s net. Even if you call it imaginary. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

The moment you see another point in space and time having influence over your experience, it makes you equal to them. So you both become equal in the ability to create. So one end of the snake cannot be more real than the other end of the snake. Then it becomes clear that every head comes from the same source sharing equal sentience and power to create. That your head is not the end of all things. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

If a presence of another being can influence how you feel, that's evidence for Indra’s net. Even if you call it imaginary. 

A pic of naked girl can make you feel something. Don't mean shit.

Have you learned nothing of how illusion works?

[Sincerity]

15 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

If a presence of another being can influence how you feel, that's evidence for Indra’s net.

That's not evidence. That's your interpretation.

Notice your view of "a presence of another being". It doesn't have to be viewed this way. You can view all that happens as Reality/Consciousness with no distinctions inside of it. It can be whole, undivided, without separate beings. Then your "evidence" of Indra's net collapses.

Also, does the "presence of someone else" REALLY influence you? In other words, is there really any external influence on your emotions/state or is your state always changing to due your reactions to what you are seeing? Maybe what you are seeing doesn't have its own energy

[Salvijus]

15 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

Also, does the "presence of someone else" REALLY influence you? In other words, is there really any external influence on your emotions/state or is your state always changing to due your reactions to what you are seeing? Maybe what you are seeing doesn't have its own energy

Sometimes it is your own reactions that change how you feel. And sometimes it has nothing to do with you at all. 

It is those moments where your energy changes without you having nothing to do with it, that I consider evidence for Indra’s net. 

I know the counter argument would be. But it's all happening inside one bubble. One dreamer. Yes. But regardless it places you in a position of being a single entity among many where you're not the only influence and simultaneously it places you in a position as a Source of The Dream. Making solipsism and individuality both true at the same time. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

I think a dream example could be useful here. 

For example when we go to sleep and dream people chasing us and what not. Every character has an equal amount of reality. So not only the guy who chases you is not real. But also you who are being chased is not real. The whole drama is not real. 

The same principle applies to waking state. Everyone has the same amount of reality or unreality. If you consider yourself sentient, than every other figure in the dream has the same amount of sentience. If fact the whole creation even the inanimate things have sentience in them. Including nude pictures. 

Whatever amount of reality you ascribe to yourself is the same amount of reality you have to ascribe to the whole of creation. Otherwise you're creating duality. And if you think you're sentient than it makes everyone else sentient aswell. With the same power to create and influence that you have also. Plugged into the same source God. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[vibv]

5 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Sometimes it is your own reactions that change how you feel. And sometimes it has nothing to do with you at all. 

It is those moments where your energy changes without you having nothing to do with it, that I consider evidence for Indra’s net. 

I know the counter argument would be. But it's all happening inside one bubble. One dreamer. Yes. But regardless it places you in a position of being a single entity among many and simultaneously it places you in a position as a Source of The Dream. Making solipsism and individual both true at the same time. 

Or you're having all experiences RIGHT NOW, but you twisted your perspective enough that it seems that all so-called others are outside of your control.

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, vibv said:

Or you're having all experiences RIGHT NOW, but you twisted your perspective enough that it seems that all so-called others are outside of your control.

Not only are they out of my control. 

I myself have no control. Nobody has any control. 

[Salvijus]

Not only are they out of my control. 

I myself have no control. Nobody has any control. 

This makes all of us equal in our reality or unreality. God is trying to experience himself through each of us. Making solipsism and individuality of souls both true at the same time. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

The thing about dreams is that the characters there are not your imagination even. When you're dreaming of someone, you're actually communicating with a deep part of their unconscious. You're having a real experience, not a hallucination. 

Some dreams are unfulfilled fantasies tho. But if you go deep enough you realize, those fantasies have a spirit of their own. Like a mind virus or something with its own intelligence and sentience. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

People think when they wake up from the dream, the dream disappears. But that's not true. That realm is still there, you can go back there if you want. The beings you were communicating inside that realm are still there also. The virus that was causing the fantasies is not out of your system either. It still exists. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Bufo Alvarius]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Is Indra's Net real? Or just another fantasy your mind constructed to keep itself in the company of imaginary others?

You ain't escaping solipsism so easy.

@Leo Gura how do you interpret Bashar's statement? As I see it, nothing that can be said will ever escape one's own direct experence, any notion of other will always be part of one's own perception.

The only way how solipsism could be disproven imo, is how Ethan Kahn @Synchronicity (from 'Everything Explained' on yt) described it to me:

He explained having two (in his case infinite) seperate experiences simoultaneously. While each perspective in itself is whole and closed off to the possibility of having an outside, he simoultaneously also inhabited all other perspectives. It was a paradox in the end.

Have you ever experienced anything similar, like holding two perspectives at the same time?

Edited August 5 by Bufo Alvarius

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, Bufo Alvarius said:

@Leo Gura how do you interpret Bashar's statement?

I interpret Bashar as my imagination.

35 minutes ago, Bufo Alvarius said:

The only way how solipsism could be disproven imo, is how Ethan Kahn @Synchronicity (from 'Everything Explained' on yt) described it to me:

He explained having two (in his case infinite) seperate experiences simoultaneously. While each perspective in itself is whole and closed off to the possibility of having an outside, he simoultaneously also inhabited all other perspectives. It was a paradox in the end.

Ethan is the only one might has a clue.

But then again, he is my imagination.

35 minutes ago, Bufo Alvarius said:

Have you ever experienced anything similar, like holding two perspectives at the same time?

No

[Salvijus]

To any solipsist I would ask this. 

What proof do you have that you're the only vessel through which conciousness can experience itself? 

What rules out the possibility of conciousness having many vessels to experience itself through and have these vessels even share the same place, earth for example. 

Why would God only have one vessel and not infinite amount of vessels? That would make you just one son of God. One with God. But also individual from all the other vessels/souls. 

Edited August 5 by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Why would God only have one vessel and not infinite amount of vessels?

Why would God waste effort on multiple when one is enough?