What "I am God" implies

[Hojo]

@Princess ArabiaThank you for admitting your arguments should not be considered because im essentially talking to a chat gpt that wansnt programmed to think and form rational thought patterns.

[Princess Arabia]

2 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Princess ArabiaThank you for admitting your arguments should not be considered because im essentially talking to a chat gpt that wansnt programmed to think and form rational thought patterns.

Just because i laughed doesn't mean I was saying I was talking crap. It's all funny when trying to explain the unexplainable and the unknowable. 

[Hojo]

23 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Just because i laughed doesn't mean I was saying I was talking crap. It's all funny when trying to explain the unexplainable and the unknowable. 

 

I am not talking crap either this is just what you are saying. You are saying you dont exist and nothing exist , if this is true everything I say and anyone says is true and you cant have an opinion. Whats having a disagreeing opinion?

Edited February 23 by Hojo

[UnbornTao]

On 2/22/2025 at 5:07 PM, Eskilon said:

Are you a Buddhist rat? 
How do you know that a thought is a thought？
 

I'd start with experience: thinking about eating isn't the same as eating. So, we notice a difference here. But it is a good question.

As an analogy, no matter how big a cup is, it will never be able to hold the entirety of the ocean. Hence the assertion that what existence is can't be thought. Yet, we still confuse about it with it. We can remain open, though, and go after breakthroughs. 

Edited February 23 by UnbornTao

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, Hojo said:

 

I am not talking crap either this is just what you are saying. You are saying you dont exist and nothing exist , if this is true everything I say and anyone says is true and you cant have an opinion. Whats having a disagreeing opinion?

Where did i say I don't exist and nothing exists. Nothing is appearing as everything. In order for something to appear as something, it has to be nothing. This conversation is getting weird. Call it craps. Doesn't matter.

[UnbornTao]

On 2/23/2025 at 0:26 PM, Davino said:

It's more wavy, I can see the walls and objects around me breathing but surely I'm still localized in the centre of my brain and parts of my body, which are solidities that don't allow non-localized spatious consciousness to be locked in.

In my case they come from a Consciousness stance. I wasn't vague, I am very clear: this moment is Infinity happening. It can become more Infinity surely but it is a permutation in Infinity and whole in itself.

Sometimes when I touch the corner of my table it feels like scratching my pinky toe.

We use the vehicle of thought as far as it can go, its limitations don't imply its premature discard.

Surely Consciousness is the One size fits all vehicle

I wasn't dismissing thought but rather pointing out its inadequacy when it comes to grasping infinity. We really live as if our notions, wants, experience, can be a consciousness of it.

Take into account beliefs can straight up generate experiences and states so that they are self-confirming and consistent with one's worldview. "What is my experience in the matter? Is this a state, perception, conviction, concept? When everything else is set aside: What am I for real?" 

I bring this up because you is still held as your self -- localized, embodied.

Edited February 24 by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

As an analogy, no matter how big a cup is, it will never be able to hold the entirety of the ocean. Hence the assertion that what existence is can't be thought. Yet, we still confuse about it with it. We can remain open, though, and go after breakthroughs. 

Yes, I understand you. You are right in this, but we must not forget that this also assumes a certain state of consciousness and a perspective.

[UnbornTao]

3 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Yes, I understand you. You are right in this, but we must not forget that this also assumes a certain state of consciousness and a perspective.

Sure.

[Hyperion]

14 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

At the time it was, now it's just an absolutely true concept.

Can a concept exist without the complementary opposite concept?

Can the concept of "self" exist without the concept of "no self"?

Can the concept of "no self" exist without the concept of "self"?

Can there be white without black?

Can there be Yin without Yang?

 

Edited February 24 by Hyperion

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Hyperion said:

Can a concept exist without the complementary opposite concept?

Can the concept of "self" exist without the concept of "no self"?

Can the concept of "no self" exist without the concept of "self"?

Can there be white without black?

Can there be Yin without Yang?

 

Can anything exist without you?

[Hyperion]

47 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Can anything exist without you?

A "not you" cannot exist without a "you", just as a "you" cannot exist without a "not you". They are interdependent relative concepts, as all concepts are.

[Davino]

[Princess Arabia]

9 hours ago, Hyperion said:

A "not you" cannot exist without a "you", just as a "you" cannot exist without a "not you". They are interdependent relative concepts, as all concepts are.

By your definition, The Absolute cannot exist without a "not the absolute" and the Universe without a "not the Universe". Aren't they considered concepts as soon as they become defined.

[UnbornTao]

@Davino Cute. What's our conscious experience in the matter when all is said and done? That's the key.

Edited February 25 by UnbornTao

[Hyperion]

11 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

By your definition, The Absolute cannot exist without a "not the absolute" and the Universe without a "not the Universe". Aren't they considered concepts as soon as they become defined.

Of course. Relative reality exists to make the recognition of absolute reality possible. Something exists to make the recognition of nothing possible. Form exists to make the recognition of formlessness possible. The self exists to make the recognition of no self possible. All of these experiences arise together and are dependent on each other for their existence.

No contrast = no appearance = no experience of reality. It's as simple as that.

 

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Hyperion said:

Of course. Relative reality exists to make the recognition of absolute reality possible. Something exists to make the recognition of nothing possible. Form exists to make the recognition of formlessness possible. The self exists to make the recognition of no self possible. All of these experiences arise together and are dependent on each other for their existence.

No contrast = no appearance = no experience of reality. It's as simple as that.

 

Ok. No ok..lol

[Hyperion]

22 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ok. No ok..lol

Thaaaat's the spirit. 

And also, it isn't. 

[Letho]

On 22/02/2025 at 5:33 PM, Will1125 said:

I am God is realising ego does not have control on anything.

It implies true nature of existence, what is.

It implies total letting go, accepting ego is illusory, everything that is, is perfect because this is what is and it can't be any other way.

It implies observing the dream as it is, a dream.

It implies accepting anything that was, is and will be.

While ego is really seen as something that have no real existence and as something that does not control reality, compassion emerges naturally because there are no more resistance, the illusion of duality starts to fade.

If your name is John, see John as an actor and you are who experiences John's movie.

There is just God, the true and only spectator.

@Will1125 it just means mutual dimensional mapping.

In practical terms, this means the connecting point between where your consciousness creates itself better overlaps with the connecting point by which the universe creates its perceived reality within you.

So "I am God", becomes what would otherwise be interpreted as an oxymoron by ego consciousness.

It's not a big deal. And it is a big deal. Ego just makes it into a big deal though, including in its opposite or nearly stance it as say in the protestation that you're not god you're just deluded. 

So its very important to understand that in the theoretical sense this is very much a physical redirection that is occurring between and within consciousness and its self-perception, its not merely a re-theorisation but a new physical manifestation in phenomenological self-relational theory between consciousness and conscious universe. The idea of a 'conscious universe' in other words no longer becomes an idea or a theory of the universe your mind has but an inseparable reality of how you experience the universe as an intrinsic fabric. 

Because you're now at the intersection of aligned intelligence, consciousness increases itself at the intersection of what intelligence is meant to mean at that intersection. Aka you're not bound by the mere semi-sentience of rigid identities instead this is the 'infinite' self-realised in consciousness flexibility in its capacity to self-realise itself through alternate states of consciousness and the intelligence of managing that relationship. Thus, "God realisation", is a physical intersection that describes the unique temporal plane that all consciousnesses express where "God realisation' represents purely the described alignment of intelligence which has biological impacts on awareness and vice versa, that in this self-awareness, is a growing reality. Which, therefore one learns to cultivate not as an identity but in understanding the actual identity of the lived experience of the universe at the most pure dimensional ends, with the former representative of fixed rigid points of ego identification whereas the latter is by definition fixed rigid points of function. Therefore intelligence and the purity it implies with all the flexible solid clarity that comes with this superpositional alignment of higher temporal communication between our conscious experience and its underlying universal sentience.

Edited February 25 by Letho