Being God - Questions

[4201]

35 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It would be like one of your skin cells asking "If I am a human being, why can't I have sex".

Nice comparison, love it

Why does one say "I am the forest" rather than say "I am the consciousness which experiences the forest"? Would you disagree with Eckhart Tolle saying that ego is identification with form, that is, mixing up the feeling of Being with thoughts? "I am God" makes sense, especially if God is just a label to mean consciousness. But being the forest? I would go more for "there's thoughts of a forest currently flowing and they are separate from I".

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Mattie said:

@Serotoninluv how do you know that this is a higher level of consciousness or a higher level of psychosis, all that you are saying is happening in your mind and if you believe it it will feel profound, so when to make the step to thinking this to make yourself feel better or to say to other people that what you say is real, you cant say that because you cant give any proof, its all happening in your own mind

This is a really important question. A rational mind will be skeptical and won't want to be duped into irrational beliefs just to make itself feel better. A rational mind wants to believe in things that are real and true. For example a rational mind may see it as irrational to believe in an external god, that is providing us support. A rational mind asks, what is the evidence and proof for this - without evidence and proof, I won't believe it. . . I know this mindset well, I am a trained scientist and spent 20+ years immersed in rational, analysis, evidence etc. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it is within something more expansive. 

One thing that threw me off balance was direct experience and "prior". This changed the way I related to "knowing". . . Direct experience and what lies "prior" is key to transcend rational thought. One trap my mind got into was I thought that I would have to reject rationale thought and accept some type of irrational feeling. The good news is this isn't true. We are not rejecting rational thought and replacing it with something else. This is not an "either / or" scenario in which we have to choose between rational thought or something else. We get to keep rational thought. My mind uses rational thought everyday. Rather, we are expanding beyond rational thought in which the expansion includes rational thought. 

As well, one cannot expand beyond rational thought through the contraction of rational thought. One of the heaviest weights that dragged me down was that I would figure out what lies beyond figuring out. It doesn't work that way. . . Direct experience is a key. Here is a simple exercise of direct experience to illustrate a "knowing" prior to rational thought. See if you can have a direct experience of "prior knowing" here. Also notice if the rational mind jumps in and starts intellectualizing. Don't go into thinking mode. There is a *knowing* prior to the thinking that is first order. Rational thoughts are second order.  Look around you right now. Become aware of your environment. . . How do you *know* that this is Now? How do you know Now is not yesterday or tomorrow? . . (Don't think!!!) . . . Can you experience that *knowing* prior to thought??. . . The knowing that Now is Now is prior to evidence. Any evidence that Now is Now is second order to the first order truth that Now is Now. You don't need any evidence. You don't need to go to a physicist for evidence and proof that Now is happening Now. The truth of Now is prior to evidence that Now is Now. . . Most rational minds will try to regain control of the narrative and start making up "yea, but. . . " stories. This is a distraction from the direct experience of the truth of Now. 

Another key point is the mind's obsession to determine what counts as "real" and "not real". For example, the mind may think that waking life reality is "real" and things like psychedelic experiences or dreams are "not real". This gives the mind and body a sense of grounding and stability. This is really important to function in life. However this mindset is a contraction and can be expanded by digging deeply into what is "real" and what is "imagined". For example, a rational mind may believe a psychedelic experience is an "altered" state of consciousness with imaginary hallucinations. In one context this is true, in another context this is false. . . The mind wants to control what counts as "real" - that is: my normal waking life is real and psychedelic experiences are imaginary. Again, this can be helpful for a mind-body to maintain a sense of grounding and avoid going insane. . .. However, every state of consciousness is and "altered" state of consciousness. A psychedelic mindstate is as real and imaginary as a sober mindstate. Yet, a sober, rational mind will resist realizing this, because it can induce extreme groundless discomfort and is threatening to the survival of a sober, self construct. 

Question the minds assumption as what counts as "real" and what counts as "imagined". Start breaking that duality down. Start seeing aspects of real in imagined. See aspects of imagined in real. Observe "sorta real" and "sorta imagined". 

[Forestluv]

18 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Nice comparison, love it

Why does one say "I am the forest" rather than say "I am the consciousness which experiences the forest"? 

Both are fine. They are different forms of expanded awareness and will have unique essences. "I am the forest" is identification as being the forest. "I am the consciousness which experiences the forest" is a detached non-identified awareness of the forest. Both conscious states are expansive and transformative.

18 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Would you disagree with Eckhart Tolle saying that ego is identification with form, that is, mixing up the feeling of Being with thoughts? "I am God" makes sense, especially if God is just a label to mean consciousness. 

That is one contextualization and I don't agree with it. It is helpful in certain contexts. It just depends on the context. If a mind is conflating feelings and thoughts, that is a helpful context. Yet from other perspective, the duality between feeling and thought collapse. Imo, this is one reason why resonance is so important. If a person is in tune with their resonance, they will be attracted to insights of that are in the proper context for what they need.

The thinking that "I am God" makes sense, especially if God is just a label to mean consciousness is a mind trying to "make sense" of things - its' even in the phrase!! There is nothing wrong with this, yet if a mind is limited to this - it is limited to a contracted state. There is much much more than the intellectual mind trying to make sense of God. For example, if god = consciousness, then god is limited to that person's understanding of consciousness. 

18 minutes ago, 4201 said:

But being the forest? I would go more for "there's thoughts of a forest currently flowing and they are separate from I".

This is ok, yet to me there is still an element of the mind trying to control perception and the internal narrative. "I am the forest" means that the personal self dies. Bye-bye personal self. . . And it will resist. To me, the above statements have subtle hints of a mind still trying to control the internal mental narrative. The self is still in the game. For example, "there's thoughts of a forest currently flowing and they are separate from I" .. . There is still an "I"!!! Who/what is that "I"??. Pull back the curtain and reveal that sneaky self. . . 

[Mattie]

@Serotoninluv thank you for your expanded explanation, im not saying there is no truth to your answer and also that i could not be convinced maybe later in life, but i still have to give a question to your answer.

You say that the rational mind always wants to explain everything, you give the answer that we dont question that now is now, wich i agree with... but the fact that now is now is a rational thought and therefore does not need to be questioned, however saying something a bit more irrational like you are the forest is not rational therefore is subject to questioning and hence i cannot believe it to be as true as the fact that now is now

[Thewritersunion]

@Mattie why not. If God can make all of reality then why can’t Leo reunify with God and create apart of reality itself? 

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Mattie said:

@Serotoninluv thank you for your expanded explanation, im not saying there is no truth to your answer and also that i could not be convinced maybe later in life, but i still have to give a question to your answer.

You say that the rational mind always wants to explain everything, you give the answer that we dont question that now is now, wich i agree with... but the fact that now is now is a rational thought and therefore does not need to be questioned, however saying something a bit more irrational like you are the forest is not rational therefore is subject to questioning and hence i cannot believe it to be as true as the fact that now is now

You bring up another very good point. And that is the limitation of language and "the map is not the territory".

As you say, the thought "Now is Now" is a rational thought. This involves a construct called "Now", which is may be interpreted as Now, relative to the past and present. I am pointing to what is prior to the rational thought of "Now is Now". That's why I said "Dont' think about it". It is ineffible. It cannot be explained because any explanation comes after the more fundamental truth. One word is too many. Yet we use words to try and communicate and "point". This is essential to realizing how important direct experience is and that "it" cannot be figured out intellectually. 

As well, consider the differences between maps and territory. Is the map the territory? Of course not. The map is a representation of the territory (yet the map itself is territory). . . When you say "You are the forest is irrational", you are saying a map of territory is irrational. This is focusing on the map and not the territory. The phrase "you are the forest" is not the ISness of the direct experience. It is a construct attempting to represent the ISness (which is ineffable). The reason it doesn't seem rational to you is that your mind has created a map of what a "forest" is and a map of what "I am". According to this map, the forest and me are different and to say they are I can be the forest seems irrational. You are essentially telling me "The territory you try to explain through drawing a map is not the same as the map I have drawn". I have no disagreement with that. According to the map you have drawn, the statement is irrational. According to the map, you have drawn, someone that believes they are the forest should be getting some therapy. According to your relative map of reality, I would agree that it is irrational. The contraction here is the belief in an objective, external reality. This provides the mind and body with a sense of grounding and can be very difficult to transcend. I would question what is "rational" vs "irrational". Break down this duality. See the irrational in the rational. See the rational in the irrational. See "sorta rational, sorta irrational". If you dig deep enough, the grounding of rational vs. irrational will collapse. 

I'll try to explain another way. Imagine being out in a "forest" and all of your mental constructs dissolve. Your construct of a "forest out there" and a "me in here" dissolves and an ineffible ISness is revealed. Just like the thought of "Now is Now" is a rational thought after the ISness, an contextualization the mind gives is a contextualization. It is a map of the ISness, not the actual ISness. Anything I write is not "it". All I write is an extremely limited representation of "it". I could write "I had an experience of being the forest" <= That aint it. . . I could write "I was the forest" <= That aint it,. . . I could write one million different descriptions and none of them is "it". . . . One of the keys is not to get attached to literal analysis of the words. 

[Primeval]

4 hours ago, fi1ghtclub said:

Considering I'm GOD - the formless.

The absolute intelligence that designed and is running the intricate system for the finite being to speak about itself.

Why can't I engineer or recreate/clone such a sophisticated system like the human body or any sentient being?

Why form cannot be materialized out of thin air by sheer will as it is already happening?

Have you heard of procreation?

[Muhammad]

You can try lucid dreams to help uou get a richer perspective on consciousness. It's easy. This has actually happened several times in my dreams. I have became so conscious of the fact that this is a dream, that i literally imagined things into existence. It feels like the boundary between the mind and the external reality collapses and they both merge together. (By the way these dreams are more vivid then "real life", and when i ask people in the dreams if they think that they are real they say "of course". They are convinced.) when you experience such things it messes up with your reality and makes you question it. I have also practuced meditation in dreams. It works much better then waking life. I imagin that it feels somwhat similar to reslize that "real life" is also a dream, but also much more profound

[abrakamowse]

@Muhammad I had a lucid dream once. And everything looks "sharper" than real life. Like real life in high definition. 

It's crazy. So real that in the dream you wonder if when you get awake you will know the difference. 

[Schahin]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I didn't create a miracle. But I was so conscious that I could literally change reality simply via infinite imagination.

Like, I could imagine a drop of divine water falling on a sick person's head and healing or awakening him. Because at that level of consciousness it is totally clear that physical reality is just my imagination and I can imagine it any way I want.

I understood how someone like Jesus could heal. He just imagined it.

I'm still toying around with this stuff. Mastering it would take a lot of work.

That is still somehow a huge pradoxical question though. It is me imagining all of this entire incredible reality but at the same time it isnt cause I am not immensely conscious yet to have such willpower. How can I imagine it but not be absoluteky sure of how I imagine it. Is it that the non dual god me is working consciously somewhere in the background? 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Mattie said:

@Leo Gura and how do you know all this without ever doing it?

How does God know all?

How do you know anything?

4 hours ago, 4201 said:

Can you use this to fix climate change please? Just materialize a continent full of trees as large as Australia in the middle of the pacific, should be good. Remove the plastic that's there while at it.

Thanks

How about you fix your own mess rather than asking God to fix it for you?

Thanks

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Schahin said:

How can I imagine it but not be absoluteky sure of how I imagine it.

That's the mindfuck of it

Why are you playing so stupid? God, grow up!

[4201]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Both are fine. They are different forms of expanded awareness and will have unique essences. "I am the forest" is identification as being the forest. "I am the consciousness which experiences the forest" is a detached non-identified awareness of the forest. Both conscious states are expansive and transformative.

That is one contextualization and I don't agree with it. It is helpful in certain contexts. It just depends on the context. If a mind is conflating feelings and thoughts, that is a helpful context. Yet from other perspective, the duality between feeling and thought collapse. Imo, this is one reason why resonance is so important. If a person is in tune with their resonance, they will be attracted to insights of that are in the proper context for what they need.

The thinking that "I am God" makes sense, especially if God is just a label to mean consciousness is a mind trying to "make sense" of things - its' even in the phrase!! There is nothing wrong with this, yet if a mind is limited to this - it is limited to a contracted state. There is much much more than the intellectual mind trying to make sense of God. For example, if god = consciousness, then god is limited to that person's understanding of consciousness. 

This is ok, yet to me there is still an element of the mind trying to control perception and the internal narrative. "I am the forest" means that the personal self dies. Bye-bye personal self. . . And it will resist. To me, the above statements have subtle hints of a mind still trying to control the internal mental narrative. The self is still in the game. For example, "there's thoughts of a forest currently flowing and they are separate from I" .. . There is still an "I"!!! Who/what is that "I"??. Pull back the curtain and reveal that sneaky self. . . 

Thanks for the nice insights. Any book about resonance you would suggest to me? Bonus point if it targets a rationally minded audience.

I see what you mean here about being limited to the conceptual understanding of god and consciousness rather than consciousness itself, which is unlimited. I want to make sure I don't limit myself to my own understanding, yet I prefer using the word "consciousness" than "god" for practical reasons. Everybody claims they know what god is, if it exists or not and blablabla. It makes hard to talk about it to anyone. Consciousness though? Most people would agree that its a good thing and people who have no clue what consciousness is at least don't carry a negative stigma against the word.

In "there's thoughts of a forest currently flowing and they are separate from I", "I" in this case is not the ego or what the mind think it is but your true self, that is consciousness or god. It's true that the usual "I" employed is the conceptual version of myself, but I prefer naming the conceptual self the ego and the true self I. But in this sentence the I is consciousness.

What I don't like about I am the forest is that there's a mixing with the sense of Being with the forest, it's true that it could mean "I stop identifying with the monkey and I start identifying with the forest" and perhaps the first part of this is much more meaningful than the second. Although harmless, the second part is still a bit absurd. To me there's nothing to the right hand side of "I Am." I try to stop identifying with my thoughts so I can stop being this guy I think I am and I can start simply being. I'm not doing that to be something else. 

But it's mostly just a matter of preference of the naming. Same concepts underneath

[Forestluv]

 

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

To me there's nothing to the right hand side of "I Am." I try to stop identifying with my thoughts so I can stop being this guy I think I am and I can start simply being. I'm not doing that to be something else. 

That sounds great. The "I AM" realization is a major one. As you say, most minds are attached/identified to the right side of "I AM", I am a man, I am Canadian, I am kind. I am a scientist. and on and on. Simply "I AM" is really profound. We can go further and drop the "I" part. Then there is simply "AMness". 

So lets say pure "AMness" reveals itself. What now? . . .  Pure AMness is a great place to visit, yet there is so much to create and explore. AMness expressed as a human is beautiful. AMness expressed as a forest is also beautiful. AMness expressed as paranormal phenomena is magical. There are infinite number of AMness expressions. 

AMness is Everything. Once AMness is revealed and embodied, the chains come off. . . 

[Schahin]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That's the mindfuck of it

Why are you playing so stupid? God, grow up!

I dont know, I assure you trillion percent I dont do it on purpose.mostly I feel like a human but I already know that I imagine all of reality but how, if I feel like I am only a human? It can only be that this "I" is not asleep at all but awake at all times working from a non dual position. What do you say? 

[4201]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

That sounds great. The "I AM" realization is a major one. As you say, most minds are attached/identified to the right side of "I AM", I am a man, I am Canadian, I am kind. I am a scientist. and on and on. Simply "I AM" is really profound. We can go further and drop the "I" part. Then there is simply "AMness". 

So lets say pure "AMness" reveals itself. What now? . . .  Pure AMness is a great place to visit, yet there is so much to create and explore. AMness expressed as a human is beautiful. AMness expressed as a forest is also beautiful. AMness expressed as paranormal phenomena is magical. There are infinite number of AMness expressions. 

AMness is Everything. Once AMness is revealed and embodied, the chains come off. . . 

While I fully understand it conceptually, I haven't realized it fully yet, only partially. I do notice though when a little bit of my identification with thoughts fall appart, and these few seconds of consciousness are always very pleasurable. So I can imagine how it will feel to walk in a forest with pure AMness.

Great discussion with you as always

Edited January 29, 2020 by 4201

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, 4201 said:

I do notice though when a little bit of my identification with thoughts fall appart, and these few seconds of consciousness are always very pleasurable.

Those are gaps and they are a great sign.

What you wrote about the “I AM” is spot on and a good way to be grounded. 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

My only question is why the Leo avatar told the delivery guy at the door he was recording here 

[Mattie]

@Serotoninluv did you get this insight of being and the isness of the moment trough meditation and reading books? If so can you recommend something?

[fi1ghtclub]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

1) It can!

2) Precisely because it is already happpening. Remember, if you ask for an apple, you will get an apple, not an orange. Right now you are so busy materializing apples yet you're asking why you don't have oranges.

The problem is your current state of consciousness is far too low to allow you to change how you are materializing physical reality. If your state was 1,000,000 times higher, you could change that.

I have been so conscious that miracles become possible. But this is not a state I can sustain (yet). It's utterly radical. You are not human any more at those levels of consciousness. People will preceive you as an alien. And they will come after you with pitchforks.

This is dangerous territory, and ripe for abuse.

I've had such radical levels of consciousness on psychedelic trips where one just could imagine something into existence.

I know it's completely plausible.

In fact there is no such distinction between reality and imagination.

Your imagination is already happening and it is as good as reality.

But the question still remains - 

Why can't you completely materialize something like apple and eat it?

If you're that pure consciousness and intelligence itself, why is it only accessible at certain levels?