Isn't it more accurate to say --

[Anahata]

@A Fellow Lighter

❤

[XxxDenyYourLies]

On 3/15/2022 at 5:42 PM, Anahata said:

Try to think about something that happens outside your ---. If you become conscious of something like that, then you're dreaming it up the same way you're imagining this screen, these words, the light and the sounds.

Incoherent, uninformative. dishonest and false. Either you're purposefully misguiding people or you're too naive.

First remove phrases like "indirect experience", because they are already assumed as true in conversations so people ignore then fact it's nonsense to use these terms. "It's not an experience, let alone direct, those are different senses.

For you to see, you need a fully functional eye and its cells, any malfunction will not allow you to see. The retina reacts to light (external light), none of that is imaginary, no process is imaginary or requires your imagination, that's ridiculous to even ponder that. And the "experience" whatever you label that, is after the fact. Seeing is not an experience, seeing is just the act of seeing, you see because of your eyes. And many processes occur for you to even see.

Vsauce has a great video called "you live in the past" where he shows how the brain process things we see before we are even aware of them, which fully debunks this "process if imaginary" nonsense, and don't get me started with "oh but it's layers of imagination man, it's a deeper subconscious level, no, if you can't demonstrate that with evidence, it's just wishful hating talk, because you hate science and want it not to be true.

If this process is not imaginary, then what is imaginary? Most likely nothing you say is imaginary is. Probably not even you believe that. Hence the reason you tell people that.

For example, Leo used to say because you trip on drugs and your vision get distorted that means your hand really get distorted , and if that's so that means his conclusion was that he could apply that to the world and say "we are consciousness imagination", and that means consciousness is imagining your parents and you and so on and on. He used that niche to pretend this applied to the world and make up a whole theory about it. But I still think he was trying to irritate people by saying "man look your hands, it's consciousness imagining it. Or mixing double-slit experiment saying when some sort of consciousness is not looking at your parents they get sucked into codes and nothingness  ". That had to be to irritate people.

He even had a video saying when you're not looking at an elephant , the elephant stays in a superposition of every single elephant it could possibly be. Still the elephant was there tho, but that's still false. The elephant still an elephant , when you're not looking at it and quantum mechanics doesn't scale up to the macro world. Also nothing in quantum mechanics say that when a quantum particle is not observed it becomes 8182718818181.....particles... it still one particle that splits in many, there is no number for it, you can't assume infinite, if it's indefinite.

For the record, no, you are not imagining your human self into existence. But I can also say "we are the imagination of ourselves" and pretend I sound deep

Edited March 22, 2022 by XxxDenyYourLies

[XxxDenyYourLies]

On 3/16/2022 at 8:35 AM, Fernanda said:

@A Fellow Lighter god daddy= loves to play divide and conquer woth Zeus cos daddy daddy God plays with Zeus for its own amusement. It's part of my/nonsense/theory. It's also luv man. daddy god cuddles its "creations" like a cute daddy, because it is his own creation. He loves his creations so much that he can cuddle his co-creation. Love is what is in your jigga jugg . It's obviously oll zoobly that is . sorry I couldn't avoid editing this, also  (must not avoid calling god a being or a he, cos the only definition for "god" comes from scriptures. that's why the word exists, you don't get to strip out the word from the word from religious scriptures and distort it to mean what you think it should mean. want not to be called tha way, don't call "it" god then)

You seem to be invested with cute  fancy words we've heard before.. " luv ol dat is man" "luv in ur xixect expexienxe" "GodGod-yo-you" "godn multiply..."

No evidence for any of that. Must be a personal theory? Where does this premise for god come from? Just out of curiosity, just out of curiosity for sure. And how do you know any of that? how do you know what the "god" you imply here, did or do? where does your whole special knowledge about this "god" (that you assume) comes from?

Or maybe, perhaps, you're making all of this up? Like a cope? ... maybe not tho, maybe I'm wrong, let's see

Edited March 22, 2022 by XxxDenyYourLies

[Anahata]

@XxxDenyYourLies @XxxDenyYourLies By 'direct experience' I mean 'this right now'. The wholeness of what is. 'It' is absolute. This is it. What else are you talking about? 

Much love ❤

[Anahata]

@XxxDenyYourLies

God's Imagination is Reality / Your direct experience. Which is identical to Being

The Absolute cannot be divided into separate parts.

 

[Anahata]

@XxxDenyYourLies The Creator and The Creation are One 

This dream that is occuring rn is occuring within Consciousness because Consciousness is INFINITE. It can dream up anything. Anything.