The egg experiment

[Salcedoop]

@Emanyalpsid

7 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Sorry, if I have offended you.

lol, no. takes a lot more to offend me! xDDDD

it was just an observation.

[here-now]

15 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

What is the difference?

Perception arises from the apparent interplay of a perceiver (or limited mind/"subject") and that which is perceived (the "object"). 

Perceiver, perception, and perceived all are appearances arising in infinite consciousness, are made of infinite consciousness.

[here-now]

9 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

The whole experiment is trying to find out if you can make this distinction. Read how 'here-now' did the experiment.

@here-now can you help me/ him here?

I did the experiement, but I still don't see how it proves that an egg comes from outside of consciousness?... it just appears to come from outside (and appears to be "other than") the limited mind/subject/perceiver... but that's a limited, distorted perception of the greater reality (i.e. infinite consciousness).

[Nahm]

Has eggistential been used yet?

[abrakamowse]

52 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Has eggistential been used yet?

Eggcellent! 

[here-now]

 

[Emanyalpsid]

14 hours ago, here-now said:

I did the experiement, but I still don't see how it proves that an egg comes from outside of consciousness?... it just appears to come from outside (and appears to be "other than") the limited mind/subject/perceiver... but that's a limited, distorted perception of the greater reality (i.e. infinite consciousness).

You believe that it is infinite consciousness. Therefore the egg for you is an appearance of consciousness. The experiment showed you that for the egg to appear it is dependent upon the appearances of matter and gravity. This shows that the appearance of it (consciousness) does not exist upon itself but that it is of dependent origin. If you however believe that infinite consciousness exists upon itself, like you do, then you can perceive or give meaning to this infinite consciousness through itself (appearances). So everytime you perceive an appearance you believe that it is an appearance in or of (infinite) consciousness. By doing so sustaining your believe.

But infinity consciousness does not exist on itself, but it is an endless string of appearances and every appearance is of dependent origin. Therefore the infinite consciousness is also of dependent origin. 

Ask yourself this; what would you be conscious of if you would not perceive anything? If you think infinite consciousness, then how do you perceive this infinity consciousness? If you think through consciousness, you are exactly right.  

[PsiloPutty]

@Nahm  You're clever. You deserve a standing ovation! Heh, get it? Ova-tion?   *ba-dum-dum-tssss!*

 

 

[now is forever]

you take the egg, smash it over your head. instant enlightenment!

afterwards you can try to separate yourself from the egg.

[QandC]

Reminds me of this

[here-now]

5 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

But infinity consciousness does not exist on itself, but it is an endless string of appearances and every appearance is of dependent origin. Therefore the infinite consciousness is also of dependent origin. 

Ask yourself this; what would you be conscious of if you would not perceive anything? If you think infinite consciousness, then how do you perceive this infinity consciousness? If you think through consciousness, you are exactly right.  

Thank you for your patience in going through this with me.

So, you believe that without the string of interdependent appearances, there's no infinite consciousness?

(Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you) but to me, this is like saying that without the appearance of clouds in the sky, there's no sky... Or without any waves, there's no ocean... Or without a desert mirage, there's no desert.

 

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, here-now said:

Thank you for your patience in going through this with me.

So, you believe that without the string of interdependent appearances, there's no infinite consciousness?

(Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you) but to me, this is like saying that without the appearance of clouds in the sky, there's no sky... Or without any waves, there's no ocean... Or without a desert mirage, there's no desert.

 

22 hours ago, here-now said:

 

No I mean it is the other way around. Without the sky there would be no clouds. Without space and time there would be no sky. Without appearances infinite consciousness is empty. The only thing you feel then is the energy in your brain. The only way to test if consciousness creates the brain or the other way around, is to hit someone unconscious while the energy in the brain is measured. If he loses his consciousness and there is still energy in the brain, the brain prevails. If he loses the energy in his brain but sustains consciousness, consciousness prevails.

I already know who wins. I was in a coma for 3 weeks after an accident. I was unconscious, but there was still energy in my brain. Therefore I know that consciousness is of dependent origin. Have you experienced this? Or do you just believe consciousness created the brain? Have you ever had the experience that you just fell asleep, you didn't dreamed yet, but someone woke you? Where was infinite consciousness then? Asleep? 

I will not put anymore energy into this. May you all be well, in infinite consciousness or reality. ?

Edited September 27, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[here-now]

7 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

May you all be well, in infinite consciousness or reality. ?

Same to you 

I found this to be interesting... but I suppose all that Dr. Alexander is saying could be just based on belief:

 

[now is forever]

18 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

I will not put anymore energy into this. May you all be well, in infinite consciousness or reality. ?

in infinite conciousness of reality and infinite reality of conciousness, dependent arising. 

[abrakamowse]

On 9/27/2018 at 5:34 PM, Emanyalpsid said:

I will not put anymore energy into this. May you all be well, in infinite consciousness or reality. ?

 Leave all the concepts aside and you will see that the only thing not dependent on anything is consciousness.

[Nahm]

@abrakamowse

Eggaxctly.

[abrakamowse]

Just now, Nahm said:

@abrakamowse

Eggaxctly.

[Matt8800]

@Emanyalpsid Did "you" touch the egg? Is your hand "you"? If your hand isnt "you", how did "you" touch the egg?

Is your body separate and distinct from the environment it is in? Are your lungs separate and distinct from your body? Are the cells in your lungs separate and distinct from your lungs? Molecules/cells? Atoms/molecules? There is no such thing as boundaries other than where you want to subjectively and arbitrarily draw them.

Are you separate from the egg? Who determines the boundaries? 

If this seems like mere semantics, it is because assumptions can run deep.  

[abrakamowse]

Just now, Matt8800 said:

@Emanyalpsid Did "you" touch the egg? Is your hand "you"? If your hand isnt "you", how did "you" touch the egg?

Is your body separate and distinct from the environment it is in? Are your lungs separate and distinct from your body? Are the cells in your lungs separate and distinct from your lungs? Molecules/cells? Atoms/molecules? There is no such thing as boundaries other than where you want to subjectively and arbitrarily draw them.

Are you separate from the egg? Who determines the boundaries? 

If this seems like mere semantics, it is because assumptions can run deep.  

[Matt8800]

On 9/25/2018 at 11:55 AM, Emanyalpsid said:

Let's say it is all created by our consciousness; for this experiment you still need an egg. Can you create the egg out of nowhere? No, so apparently your consciousness is bounded. How is it bounded? You need a chicken to lay the egg. So how is the egg created?

Don't focus on concepts but go into your sense experience.

When you use the word "you", what are you referring to? You have to define "you" before you can determine if the "you" is bounded or not. Can you name anything your consciousness creates? Consciousness doesnt do anything...it is simply aware of the images, symbols and thoughts produced and interpreted by the physical brain.

You also creating boundaries in your claim that the chicken created the egg. Is there a precise moment in which it went from non-egg to egg? Isnt whatever is responsible for creating the chicken also responsible for creating the egg? You have infinite regress.

I see where you are trying to take the argument but it is built on dualistic assumptions. If those assumptions where objectively correct, your argument would be correct. The foundation upon which those assumptions are built is where this debate lies.

These questions are similar to Zen Koans where the only correct answer is a paradox that cannot be logically understood within a dualistic perspective. 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Matt8800