God is bias.

[Water by the River]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Water by the River good one! But This: 

For me is a mistake. Just my perception. There is not a director of the orchestra, nobody is imagining, nobody wants nothing, nobody is looking through your eyes, you are the sight.

the flow of the reality is moving in that direction, just that. Why? Because it's it's direction now. This "who" is identification, the thing is absolutely wild, it's infinite, no limited, no intention, it's a infinite fractal of reality infinitely synchronized, interconnected. If the infinity would want anything, it would be relative, finite. The infinity flows, and this is it's flow. 

There is no "it" or "the".

Impersonal it is... Yet, "it" is YOU. True You. Reality. Infinite Being.

And yet in "that" Reality, there are many directors of the orchestra. As many as there are realms, and more. Other perspectives of your Infinite Being "containing" (with no outside) and manifesting Indras Net, that you just forget in real time. Reality/manifestation creating and maintaining archetypes/divinities containing whole universes. Holons upon Holons upon Holons, up to Infinity. Chris Bache has some nice descriptions of these reality creating/manifesting archetypes, but you find that in any spiritual traditions ("Divine beings, Gods, Archetypes...")

And yet, all of these are also just appearances, mirage, dreams...

True You are these realm-manifesting beings/perspectives right now also, and also Leos Aliens, you just forget them...

 

Who is thinking these concepts right now? Who is understanding these words?

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Water by the River said:

Who is thinking these concepts right now? Who is understanding these words?

Understanding is a relative construction, like sight or anything else. Understanding is an experience and experience are relative, "who" is having the experience is the infinite field of consciousness, the absolute. The absolute is not having an experience, the experience is taking place in the absolute due the inevitable relative movement 

reality is infinite right? This means that at an absolute level there is no understanding, no sight, no nothing, there is existence, since nothing is related to anything, that means absolute, total, no other. You can place yourself in the absolute pov and perceive the nature of reality, your nature, without the mirage of the relative, but the fact of the absence of limits makes it inevitable that reality is infinitely relative.

It moves (apparently) in infinite cycles upon infinite cycles, thus to infinity, not because it wants to but because it is infinite. It cannot be static, it has no limits, so it is infinitely dynamic. Since reality is one, its infinite cycles are interconnected, synchronized, and this infinite mosaic is the only orchestra conductor that is needed, an infinite hive that, being necessarily perfectly synchronized, is infinitely intelligent. It doesn't want anything, it simply exists.

2 hours ago, Water by the River said:

Chris Bache has some nice descriptions of these reality creating/manifesting archetypes, but you find that in any spiritual traditions ("Divine beings, Gods, Archetypes...")

Bache is the one who said that in a LSD trip he had a conversation with god, and god asked him: didn't we learn nothing? And at first he was stuck in suffering, right? Well, God, or the absolute, can't learn anything, because it's infinite. There is nothing to learn, because learn is a movement from a point where you know some to another point where you know more. The absolute doesn't come from any point and doesn't go to any point, it's absolutely immutable, total, always. All the movement is relative, apparent, manifestation in relationship with another manifestations, but from the absolute pov they aren't moving, they just move from it's relative pov, then any learning is just relative and means absolutely nothing. And from the absolute pov suffering is the same than anything else. It's just a tool for change that the infinite intelligence of the reality creates spontaneously to equalize infinite perfection. Everything creates itself in infinite movement, like an infinite kaleidoscope that moves incessantly, fitting its infinite pieces together perfectly.

There is not God, it's impossible, god would be a will and a creator, then relative and finite. The only creator is the absence of limits, and the only will is the synchrony of the infinite movement. It's absolutely wild, absolutely inevitable, and same time, absolutely perfect, without then slightest imperfection. Imperfection in impossible, because it's infinite, and it's synchronized to the infinite power. 

Edited Saturday at 09:56 AM by Breakingthewall

[Purple Man]

@Water by the River Thank you so much for the thorough, interesting answer.

After the explanatory part of your post, you conclude: "...Who is actually imagining this story of "beings" needing saving by boddhisattvas? Who is looking through all eyes? And what would a "being" having realized that "it" is literally the only being in existence do? Who are you again?"

And that´s exactly what I meant when I made my comment. In the game of Absolute and relatives, there is a fine equilibrium in which perfection is to remain totally anchored in static True Impersonal Identity/Awareness, although not too absorted in transcendence as to not engage in playing the Expression game that has the refinement of the infinite number of Space/time avatars as only purpose, the game of one vibratory field looking like a trillion things through vibration frequency ("Eternity John-ing", "Shiva-Shakti", are nice descriptions of this perfect equilibrium). But a certain, conscious "dumbing down" is necessary for the "Expression" side to have sense and keep going (upwards hopefully).

On the argument on the existence or non existence of a "True I", I would say that there being Identity as an Impersonal, Absolute "I", is self-evident, with doubts about it probably being the consequence of trying to avoid the reminiscences of manifested individuality, which is not what we´re talking about here when we say "I". 

Edited Saturday at 11:32 AM by Purple Man