How is reality being created on the fly if you are God cosplaying as a finite being?

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   There are two consistent realisations, the devil and the godhead. Other realizations, including the I am GOD, is much less common for a reason. It's like a fan, what is the key pin head, is the god head, that connects to all parts of the fan, and connects each segment. Where the devil is, is the ability to create further patterns that seperate each node in each segment from each other, and blurs the line that would make your true nature obvious. Why? Because you wanted to live a finite existence originally,  so god fooled itself, turning into the devil,  and creates multiplex layers of separations, dualities, and boundaries that make you you. Frankly embodying god realization makes living as a finite being a bit difficult.

In other words you're too intelligent for your own good ? 

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 I thought the ego is already made up of its beliefs? So, I already am what I believe is true, no?

No that's still concept.  I mean the level of Being.

[softlyblossoming]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

15 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 I thought the ego is already made up of its beliefs? So, I already am what I believe is true, no?

No that's still concept.  I mean the level of Being.

@Inliytened1 How is it possible that there is a level of Being without a belief in a level of Being?

Edited January 28, 2022 by softlyblossoming
italicised 2nd 'is'

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 How is it possible that there is a level of Being without a belief in a level of Being?

It's a great question and it cant be answered...when your Being your just Being..there's no need to conceptualize about it and any explanation I give you will be more concepts.

[Danioover9000]

@softlyblossoming

5 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 How is it possible that there is a level of Being without a belief in a level of Being?

   When you're mind becomes silent, the answer will be revealed to you.

   Try dancing without thinking.

[softlyblossoming]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

9 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 How is it possible that there is a level of Being without a belief in a level of Being?

It's a great question and it cant be answered...when your Being your just Being..there's no need to conceptualize about it and any explanation I give you will be more concepts.

@Inliytened1 How are you Being without believing you are Being? And how do you enter the state of Being without believing your way there?

 

[softlyblossoming]

12 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

18 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 How is it possible that there is a level of Being without a belief in a level of Being?

   When you're mind becomes silent, the answer will be revealed to you.

   Try dancing without thinking.

@Danioover9000 How can my mind be silent if I'm not believing my mind is silent? How do you stop thinking? How is it possible to not believe in something?

Edited January 28, 2022 by softlyblossoming
removed section

[The0Self]

6 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 How are you Being without believing you are Being? And how do you enter the state of Being without believing your way there?

 

It's in the story, but you could say one would have to cease being aware of objects (or the not-self), which would automatically bring about focus on the underlying constantly changing stillness which is infinite, everywhere, and nowhere, forever. There would no longer be the sense of other-ness.

[Inliytened1]

19 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 How are you Being without believing you are Beingl

 

By Being silly!

[softlyblossoming]

40 minutes ago, The0Self said:

52 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 How are you Being without believing you are Being? And how do you enter the state of Being without believing your way there?

 

It's in the story, but you could say one would have to cease being aware of objects (or the not-self), which would automatically bring about focus on the underlying constantly changing stillness which is infinite, everywhere, and nowhere, forever. There would no longer be the sense of other-ness.

@The0Self Thanks. I have a few questions about this, if you have the time.

51 minutes ago, The0Self said:

It's in the story,

1. In what story? Were you referring to the story that I believe about my quest to realise Absolute Truth; i.e., my 'life story', or were you referring to some other story? 

2. What is in the story? Did you mean to say that the answer to one or both of my questions is in the story (which?), or that Being is in the story, or something else?

In the interest of making those questions a bit easier to answer, here's my current interpretation of your communication: The answer to my question — which of course is Being — is in my 'life story'; i.e., the story I am writing, in and with my beliefs, about what I am and have been doing, which in this particular case was, and is, attempting to establish causes (in this case; high quality problem solving) that will lead to my desired effect (realising Absolute Truth). Therefore, because Being is in my 'life story', that is where I should look to find it; therefore, to discover Being: I ought to investigate my life story.

Please let me know where I've misunderstood you, my good sir.

41 minutes ago, The0Self said:

but you could say one would have to cease being aware of objects (or the not-self),

1. By '(or the not-self)', are you referring to 'the not-self' as an example of an object to cease being aware of, or is it another term that means 'one would have to cease being aware of objects'? If the latter case, could 'the not-self' also translate to 'not being aware of objects'?

In the interest of receiving the message you meant to send, here's my current interpretation of what you said: However, in order to discover Being, I must also cease any awareness of objects; therefore, I ought to investigate my life story with the crucial caveat that I mustn't do it whilst being aware of objects.

2. Are beliefs objects?

48 minutes ago, The0Self said:

which would automatically bring about focus on the underlying constantly changing stillness which is infinite, everywhere, and nowhere, forever. There would no longer be the sense of other-ness.

When you wrote 'the underlying constantly changing stillness which is infinite, everywhere, and nowhere, forever', were you describing Being?

Following on from my previous (potential mis- interpretations), here's what I took away from this part of your communication: If I can do that, it would automatically bring my awareness, single-pointedly, to Being. At this point, having discovered Being, there would no longer be the self-object duality. Because the loss of the self-object duality necessitates some sort of an inability to believe, I would now be Being without believing that I'm Being.

If you'd be so kind as to answer the above questions and let me know where I've misinterpreted you, that would be divinely spectacular and incredibly appreciated. 

 

19 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

39 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 How are you Being without believing you are Beingl

 

By Being silly!

@Inliytened1 Is Being the opposite of believing? How then do you know that you are in fact not believing, and aren't believing in not believing? How do you know for certain that Being isn't believing in Being? Is Being not believing?

[Chris365]

3 hours ago, softlyblossoming said:

How are you Being without believing you are Being? And how do you enter the state of Being without believing your way there?

What is believing? what are beliefs? Are they any thing else, or more, than thoughts, repeated as true?

If this is seen, Being and believing have no such relationship you're implying above, i.e. Being cannot 'be' without 'believing in it'. ?? Where did that come from... 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Chris365

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@The0Self Thanks. I have a few questions about this, if you have the time.

1. In what story? Were you referring to the story that I believe about my quest to realise Absolute Truth; i.e., my 'life story', or were you referring to some other story? 

2. What is in the story? Did you mean to say that the answer to one or both of my questions is in the story (which?), or that Being is in the story, or something else?

In the interest of making those questions a bit easier to answer, here's my current interpretation of your communication: The answer to my question — which of course is Being — is in my 'life story'; i.e., the story I am writing, in and with my beliefs, about what I am and have been doing, which in this particular case was, and is, attempting to establish causes (in this case; high quality problem solving) that will lead to my desired effect (realising Absolute Truth). Therefore, because Being is in my 'life story', that is where I should look to find it; therefore, to discover Being: I ought to investigate my life story.

Please let me know where I've misunderstood you, my good sir.

1. By '(or the not-self)', are you referring to 'the not-self' as an example of an object to cease being aware of, or is it another term that means 'one would have to cease being aware of objects'? If the latter case, could 'the not-self' also translate to 'not being aware of objects'?

In the interest of receiving the message you meant to send, here's my current interpretation of what you said: However, in order to discover Being, I must also cease any awareness of objects; therefore, I ought to investigate my life story with the crucial caveat that I mustn't do it whilst being aware of objects.

2. Are beliefs objects?

When you wrote 'the underlying constantly changing stillness which is infinite, everywhere, and nowhere, forever', were you describing Being?

Following on from my previous (potential mis- interpretations), here's what I took away from this part of your communication: If I can do that, it would automatically bring my awareness, single-pointedly, to Being. At this point, having discovered Being, there would no longer be the self-object duality. Because the loss of the self-object duality necessitates some sort of an inability to believe, I would now be Being without believing that I'm Being.

If you'd be so kind as to answer the above questions and let me know where I've misinterpreted you, that would be divinely spectacular and incredibly appreciated. 

 

@Inliytened1 Is Being the opposite of believing? How then do you know that you are in fact not believing, and aren't believing in not believing? How do you know for certain that Being isn't believing in Being? Is Being not believing?

Being is God.  God has no opposites.  Opposites are something it dreams up.  If you have a shift in consciousness to God consciousness you will be just pure Being..but God consciousness is not "an experience" as of the ego.  It can't be pinned down with words because words are finite and God is Infinite 

[The0Self]

43 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

@The0Self Thanks. I have a few questions about this, if you have the time.

1. In what story? Were you referring to the story that I believe about my quest to realise Absolute Truth; i.e., my 'life story', or were you referring to some other story? 

The story of existence.

2. What is in the story? Did you mean to say that the answer to one or both of my questions is in the story (which?), or that Being is in the story, or something else?

Nothing. It has absolutely no substance. The pure Being is beyond story and can't be comprehended.

In the interest of making those questions a bit easier to answer, here's my current interpretation of your communication: The answer to my question — which of course is Being — is in my 'life story'; i.e., the story I am writing, in and with my beliefs, about what I am and have been doing, which in this particular case was, and is, attempting to establish causes (in this case; high quality problem solving) that will lead to my desired effect (realising Absolute Truth). Therefore, because Being is in my 'life story', that is where I should look to find it; therefore, to discover Being: I ought to investigate my life story.

Please let me know where I've misunderstood you, my good sir.

1. By '(or the not-self)', are you referring to 'the not-self' as an example of an object to cease being aware of, or is it another term that means 'one would have to cease being aware of objects'? If the latter case, could 'the not-self' also translate to 'not being aware of objects'?

One turns away from all objects by using all objective experience as a bootstrap to turn toward what seems to be aware of it. The culmination of this is a state in which there are no objects. Pure subjectivity. Then the pointer is to inquire into who enters and exits that state.

In the interest of receiving the message you meant to send, here's my current interpretation of what you said: However, in order to discover Being, I must also cease any awareness of objects; therefore, I ought to investigate my life story with the crucial caveat that I mustn't do it whilst being aware of objects.

The cessation of being aware of all objects can be done at any time. It's not even a practice, it's a pointer. There is already no separate being aware of objects. There are no separate objects. There's just what appears and it happens for no one.

2. Are beliefs objects?

Yes

When you wrote 'the underlying constantly changing stillness which is infinite, everywhere, and nowhere, forever', were you describing Being?

Yes. But it is indescribable.

Following on from my previous (potential mis- interpretations), here's what I took away from this part of your communication: If I can do that, it would automatically bring my awareness, single-pointedly, to Being. At this point, having discovered Being, there would no longer be the self-object duality. Because the loss of the self-object duality necessitates some sort of an inability to believe, I would now be Being without believing that I'm Being.

There is already no causality so it's all in the story anyway (i.e. it has no substance). Nothing is really happening.

If you'd be so kind as to answer the above questions and let me know where I've misinterpreted you, that would be divinely spectacular and incredibly appreciated. 

No problem! 

 

[Scholar]

On 27.1.2022 at 9:09 PM, Inliytened1 said:

This is a question that perhaps  many of you, even after awakening, may have wondered.

If there is nothing behind the scenes and you are right now indeed God limiting itself - then how the hell is reality happening without you as God being conscious of it? In other words if you are finite right now then there must be some entity, God for example, doing stuff to create these higher levels of imagination that actually create reality or what we would refer to as the "subconscious" or "Infinite conscioisness" or what you as this little finite human,  is currently not conscious of right now.

Well here is the answer and it was realized by me during an awakening in which I hit the floor and cried "oh my fucking God I thought I grasped Infinity before!!"

Even if you have hit the floor in tears with the realization of Infinity - it still hasn't hit you.

You are doing it - you have never been finite!! That's the illusion!  you are creating all of reality- out of thin air - because YOU ARE INFINITY!!!!!.   Infinity can fucking do that!!  Has that sunk in?!!!  It's infinite! It doesn't need ANYTHING!  God can generate reality or the dream on the fly and have the most granular detail right fucking now because it is Infinite!! What I am telling you is there is NO subconscious or absolutely anything behind the scenes..infinity doesnt need it...

This to me is the absolute ultimate realization.  Infinity has the ability to completely fool itself into being finite yet still be Infinite simultaneously.  Thats what infinity means.  It took me years to realize, and is one of the biggest mindfucks I have ever had - but it is actually quite amazing and astounding .

Yes, it's beyond realization even. Reality is so Divine and Impossible, that all that can exist is this, without any fooling. That this is not fooling, that it is not illusion, because reality does not require illusions. Reality has no limitation. This is Absolute. The ants mind us Truth, Absolute Truth. There is no untruthfulness, unless it is true that there is Untruthfulness.

The Divine, the Impossible, the Groundless Ground is found in the mundane, because the mundane is the Infinte, it is the Impossible, it is the Divine.

 

See, when you lacked the realization you had, that was still Absolute, that was still Truth. Nothing about your realization is more real than your non-realization.

 

And when you realize this, you realize that the Christian singing in the church or the Muslim praying on his carpet, fearing God, is Divinity. It is not Ignorance, it is Absolute Truth. The Contradiction is intentional.

 

There needs to be no fooing of anything, there needs to be no trickery, no illusion, no depth. There has never been any trickery, because the finite is the infinite. Nothing in existence is removed or seperated. Existence simply is.

 

See, all of this, is just more of it. See how it continues, and it continues, can you see the groundess ground? It is right here, the abyss, the infinite. Free Will.

 

It's so free, it could forget what you just realized for Eternity, and it would not be an issue. It does not need a Ground, it never had a Ground. And any realization you will ever have, will be your attempt to Ground yourself. But look, look and see the Abyss, that it is even more impossible than you could have ever imagined. That it is so impossible, not even impossibility captures it, that it is so uncapturable, that it is captured.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Scholar

[softlyblossoming]

13 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

3 hours ago, softlyblossoming said:

How are you Being without believing you are Being? And how do you enter the state of Being without believing your way there?

 

What is believing? what are beliefs? Are they any thing else, or more, than thoughts, repeated as true?

@Chris365 'Thoughts repeated as true' makes enough sense to me. My working definition, off the top of my head, is that a belief is something known to be true and believing means knowing something. So understanding is believing, and thinking is predicated upon believing.

17 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

If this is seen, Being and believing have no such relationship you're implying above, i.e. Being cannot 'be' without 'believing in it'. ?? 

If someone is Being, but doesn't know that they're Being, they can literally just look to their direct experience to see for themselves that they aren't Being. On the other hand, if someone is Being, and knows that they're Being, they can literally just look to their direct experience to see for themselves that they are Being. If you don't know you're Being, by what means do you know you're Being?

2 hours ago, Chris365 said:

Where did that come from...

Well, I'll tell ya. Here's the story of a profound experience I had, and the events that followed:

• I became certain that I was experiencing non-duality and, simultaneously, found myself experiencing in a way that matched descriptions of non-duality. However, as soon as I doubted that what I was experiencing was indeed non-duality, it simultaneously stopped being identical to descriptions of non-duality. Then, non-duality again, and utterly simultaneously, I wasn't doubting. Then, no more non-duality, the very same moment I started doubting. And so on and so forth. So I thought to myself, "there's a correlation here: whenever I'm Being, I'm certain that I'm Being, and whenever I'm not Being, I'm not certain that I'm Being".
• After that, I started to take notice of my beliefs quite a bit more in every day life. I found a similar correlation was present in conventional happiness: I am happy when I have reason to be happy, and I am unhappy when I have reason to be unhappy, or doubt my reasons to be happy.
• So now I'm like: If the presence of a particular state of consciousness coincides with the belief that it is justified (in the case of conventional happiness), or that it is what is (in the case of non-duality), it would make some sense to conclude that states of consciousness are intimately related to belief, be it in the form of justifications for that state being the state that should predominate now or simply the belief that 'this experience is this experience'.
• And I've noticed something else interesting...
  • Non-dual pointers ← convince people non-duality is true, which I propose is what's leading to people directly experiencing non-duality.
  • Meditation techniques ← do the same.

As such, I'm trying to wrap my head around how Enlightenment transcends belief. Think about it...every time you've experienced non-duality, you've known for sure that the experience was non-dual (because it was immediately obvious), and notice that every time you haven't been in that state, you'd either had your doubts or known for sure that you weren't enlightened. Likewise, when you've been happy, it has always correlated with a reason to be happy, and when you've been unhappy, it has always correlated with a reason to be unhappy. Now, is that just a coincidence or are your beliefs responsible for your state of consciousness?

I've since been drawn to (almost) conclude that the truth of something is literally the presence of the belief that it is true, including states of consciousness (which, by definition, are experienced directly), and that; therefore, even a direct experience is predicated on a belief. The down-side of this is that it's caused me to have a super hard time taking anything to be absolutely certain, which, if my almost-conclusion is true, should prevent me from realizing Absolute Truth. I'm hoping someone here can help me to deconstruct the conclusions I've drawn, and I'm very open to that possibility. I'm not trying to debate for the sake of trolling, this is just how I learn .

FYI, I believe that the opposites of belief are doubt (partial disbelief in x), closed-mindedness/dogma (complete disbelief in x) and forgetting (literal non-existence of x). In accordance with this model, experiences of self-transcendence can be explained as disbelief in the ego, or it having been forgotten. Think about all those reports of, upon awakening, someone pronouncing "consciousness has always been this way, I'd just never noticed before" in light of the absurdly obvious truth that: you can't remember what you've forgotten.

[softlyblossoming]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

3 hours ago, softlyblossoming said:

@Inliytened1 Is Being the opposite of believing? How then do you know that you are in fact not believing, and aren't believing in not believing? How do you know for certain that Being isn't believing in Being? Is Being not believing?

Being is God.  God has no opposites.  Opposites are something it dreams up.  If you have a shift in consciousness to God consciousness you will be just pure Being..but God consciousness is not "an experience" as of the ego.  It can't be pinned down with words because words are finite and God is Infinite 

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for being such a stubborn donkey about all this . I do have some more questions though:

1. Is Absolute Infinity the same as absolutely no dualities?
   • If there are absolutely no dualities, and belief is a duality, then I get how God isn't a belief — It's God/Itself/Non-Duality.
   • And another word for duality is opposite, so your reply makes sense and it clarifies a lot (thanks  ).
2. Can Being result from taking on the Belief* in Being? 
   • *Absolute Belief means believing in one thing to the exclusion of all else, such that it becomes the only thing one is conscious of. I understand that defining belief like this sort of 'cancels out' its nature as "belief" (because "belief", as with any object within consciousness (unless there's only one left), is indeed a distinction/duality). However, if becoming completely certain of the truth of non-duality was the method by which one arrived at God — just as recognizing unconditional love or goodness to the exclusion of their opposites might be — I think it's fair to call holding a single belief "Absolute Belief".
3. If relative truths are beliefs*, why can't absolute Truths be Beliefs?
   • *Please see my last reply (the post above this post) for a quick run-down on the experiences that've led me to all but conclude that truth = belief, and the logic behind this. 
4. Does this explain the many facets of awakening?*
   • *Here, each Belief would account for each of the different 'truths' (facets) by which someone experiences non-duality. As such, by taking on a belief with absolute certainty, it becomes a Belief. Are the many facets of awakening Belief(s)?
5. You said you're a meditator and non drug-user. I am too. What techniques have been working so well?

[softlyblossoming]

4 hours ago, The0Self said:

One turns away from all objects by using all objective experience as a bootstrap to turn toward what seems to be aware of it. The culmination of this is a state in which there are no objects. Pure subjectivity. Then the pointer is to inquire into who enters and exits that state.

@The0Self So let me get this right. I try to become aware of everything at once, which culminates in becoming aware of nothing in particular (aka no object at the expense of another object), at which point awareness automatically flips around to become aware of itself (awareness of awareness). Next, I openmindedly wonder about who enters and exits this state of "self-aware awareness". Good enough?

When doing the inquiry, do I (a) try to notice who's entering and exiting whilst the entering and exiting is occurring by intentionally calling up & giving up the state repeatedly (or should I say, "unintentionally losing it a gosh darn millisecond later" in my case ), or do I (b) just contemplate it from the state?

4 hours ago, The0Self said:

The cessation of being aware of all objects can be done at any time. It's not even a practice, it's a pointer. 

But for now: by using the above method. Gotcha.

4 hours ago, The0Self said:

There is already no causality so it's all in the story anyway (i.e. it has no substance). Nothing is really happening.

In the story means no true/ultimate/absolute/real/inherent substance. Wonderful.

Thanks again, man.

[The0Self]

@softlyblossoming You know that you are, and it needs no evidence. How do you know that? Seek for it. Hold it. You can't grasp it because it's not an object. Hunting for it involves retracting attention from experience itself. If you think you've got it, what knows you got it? Look for that. Continuously and literally eventually at all times, which is impossible but that is actually how the practice culminates -- it's recognized that you were trying to do what was already the case. It doesn't make sense, but to make it simple just continually hunt for your self. I know I am. How? Who knows that they are. When this is done continuously a spaciousness is revealed and it can be a bit strange almost as if there's no longer someone looking out at a world.

[Matthew85]

11 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

So everything that is happening in my life is something that I truly want but from ego perspective doesn't seem that way.

@Tyler Durden Not always what you truly want, but what your dominant belief's, assumption's and expectations will show you. 

[softlyblossoming]

@Matthew85 Hey what's up? I enjoyed reading your comment, and it made for a great pointer after The0Self and Inliytened1 readied me for it with our back and forth's. Here's my thoughts regarding what you said. I'd love to hear what you think about them — for example:

• Do they sound like good insights? 
• What would you modify? 

2 hours ago, Matthew85 said:

13 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

So everything that is happening in my life is something that I truly want but from ego perspective doesn't seem that way.

@Tyler Durden Not always what you truly want, but what your dominant belief's, assumption's and expectations will show you. 

1. AKA your conditionings/karmas/habitual ways of experiencing.
2. And what we truly want is desirelessness, as all desires are the desire for the satisfaction of that desire, a partial/finite version of desirelessness.
3. And complete/infinite version of desirelessness is Absolute Truth.

Have a nice evening