Is it possible to materialise things into existence?

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Again ..it depends on how do you define the ego .If you define it as a unicorn then it doesn’t exist .however if you define it as the body-mind organism .then it does exist. Without an ego..you wouldn't even know who's shoes to put on in the morning. You 

What dictionary are you using that defines the ego as such? 

Here's what the word "ego" actually means: https://www.britannica.com/topic/ego-philosophy-and-psychology

"ego, in psychoanalytic theory, that portion of the human personality which is experienced as the “self” or “I” and is in contact with the external world through perception."

There's no "body organism" in that definition, and I challenge you to come up with one dictionary that states otherwise.

The word ego is merely a reference to a psychological phenomenon that does not exist in the real world. But feel free to create your own dictionary and talk with yourself.

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Obviously you don't know me and how spiritualy developed I am. And I'm gonna prove this right now by not even engaging in this "I'm right ,you are wrong " childish debate that you are trying to push me towards. 

You are deeply wrong. Sorry, but there's no way around it. And the earlier you come to terms with this fact, the better.

You are not awake to your true nature, and all you have ever done is philosophy, not spiritual practice.

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Again you are falling into neo advaita nonsense with these kind of questions .I think it's ridiculous to police ourselves to such a degree that we avoid any use of words like "we " and "me "..these words exist in all languages in the worlds because they are corresponding to something. 

Nobody is policing you. You just don't want to do the practices, e.g. self-inquiry, and you want to continue with your arm-chair philosophy instead.

And I'm not against using dualistic language. In fact, I'm all for that. I use any words that I like, if you ever notice. The difference between you and me is that you are not aware of what you are saying. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

To think that I was in any way trying to oppose the use of dualistic language is an indicator of where you are coming from and your lack of practice and understanding. Again, how many hours of self-inquiry have you put in so far? I don't need the answer. I'm just trying to show you how greatly you are overestimating yourself and your understanding.

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

You are creating a duality here .ego VS consciousness  .the ego IS consciousness. Since there is only one substance out of which everything is made. 

The ego is not consciousness. Anyone with any level of understanding realizes this fact.

Sure, you might say that the ego is made of consciousness, but it is not and never will be consciousness itself. The part is not the whole.

And by the way, this duality is not of my creation. It's in language itself. It only makes sense to use two words to refer to two different things. Otherwise, let's all just use one word for everything and be done with all of language.

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

I manifested online friends. A job offer .and good grades in my university course.

it works like magic. You just have to believe in it that it's already done. You don't have to be desparate for the wish you had asked or doubt on it, just feel it that it's already yours and detach yourself by handing your wish to the Universe  . That's how it works. 

I think that you're talking about the law of attraction, and you seem to rather have a vague/naïve understanding of how it works. It doesn't matter much to me, as long as it's convincing to you that it is working and giving you results.

[Someone here]

1. 16 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

   What dictionary are you using that defines the ego as such? 

   Here's what the word "ego" actually means: https://www.britannica.com/topic/ego-philosophy-and-psychology

   "ego, in psychoanalytic theory, that portion of the human personality which is experienced as the “self” or “I” and is in contact with the external world through perception."

   There's no "body organism" in that definition, and I challenge you to come up with one dictionary that states otherwise.

   The word ego is merely a reference to a psychological phenomenon that does not exist in the real world. But feel free to create your own dictionary and talk with yourself.

Sorry I'm not playing this "dictionary" game .the ego is simply the sense of separate self. That Is well known in all spiritual circles. And the neo-advaita teaches that the ego is completely illusory. And that's simply false .

I choose the words, then I type them out on my keyboard.Then I edit and hit post.It was all me.it certainly seems like I am doing all this.But is that really true?How did I choose this answer? I don’t know.Why do these words occur to me? I don’t know.How do I move my fingers on the keyboard to type this out? I don’t know that either.Somehow, someway all of it is just happened. And yet, the  neo advaita  nonsense teaches that this Self doesn't exist .This is the great misunderstanding: it’s not whether the self exists, but rather what is the nature of the real self?

Clearly, there is something or someone here that is aware of what is happening, of words being thought and written.Call it awareness, consciousness, or knowing.

And this is the distinction:

The true you is the awareness that observes every thought, feeling, sensation, and experience.

This awareness isn’t anything in and of itself: it has no color, sound, smell, taste, or feeling.

It is formless and invisible.

And yet it’s there.

22 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

You are deeply wrong. Sorry, but there's no way around it. And the earlier you come to terms with this fact, the better.

You are not awake to your true nature, and all you have ever done is philosophy, not spiritual practice

OK.

22 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Nobody is policing you. You just don't want to do the practices, e.g. self-inquiry, and you want to continue with your arm-chair philosophy instead.

And I'm not against using dualistic language. In fact, I'm all for that. I use any words that I like, if you ever notice. The difference between you and me is that you are not aware of what you are saying. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

To think that I was in any way trying to oppose the use of dualistic language is an indicator of where you are coming from and your lack of practice and understanding. Again, how many hours of self-inquiry have you put in so far? I don't need the answer. I'm just trying to show you how greatly you are overestimating yourself and your understanding

I think it's time to tell you to go get wasted because you are talking about me and what I know and what I don't know based on what?  Do you know me ?I don't even have to prove to you how much spiritual work I did because it's unimaginable amounts. And it's something you will never comprehend. I have fully deconstructed my entire sense of reality and all of my false beliefs until all  I'm left with is pure Truth . So spare me your "I'm better than you, you don't know, but I know " silly little game because I'm not gonna engage in this BS .and don't reply me to this post because I'm not gonna waste my time responding to you once again because you don't care about truth or understanding. All you care about is being right and debating endlessly. 

28 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

The ego is not consciousness. Anyone with any level of understanding realizes this fact.

Sure, you might say that the ego is made of consciousness, but it is not and never will be consciousness itself. The part is not the whole.

And by the way, this duality is not of my creation. It's in language itself. It only makes sense to use two words to refer to two different things. Otherwise, let's all just use one word for everything and be done with all of language.

The ego is consciousness. Since everything is consciousness. Full stop .nothing more needs to be added .

29 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I think that you're talking about the law of attraction, and you seem to rather have a vague/naïve understanding of how it works. It doesn't matter much to me, as long as it's convincing to you that it is working and giving you results

Again I have to tell you to stop your arrogant ass tone (you don't know me ).so spare me again your judgement of my understanding. 

Yes I'm talking about the law of attraction. It works. What you send out is what you get back. Your frequency determines the reality you will experience. Your vibration of being activates the Law of Attraction in a specific way, making the things in your life appear a certain way, as a reflection of what you "send out ".

Don't reply to this post (or do if you wish ).because I'm not gonna continue playing your stupid little game of trying to outsmart each others.

[Nilsi]

11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

1. I think it's time to tell you to go get wasted because you are talking about me and what I know and what I don't know based on what? Do you know me ?I don't even have to prove to you how much spiritual work I did because it's unimaginable amounts. And it's something you will never comprehend. I have fully deconstructed my entire sense of reality and all of my false beliefs until all I'm left with is pure Truth . So spare me your "I'm better than you, you don't know, but I know " silly little game because I'm not gonna engage in this BS .and don't reply me to this post because I'm not gonna waste my time responding to you once again because you don't care about truth or understanding. All you care about is being right and debating endlessly. 

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

 

You're really making a fool out of yourself

[Someone here]

@Nilsi OK.

[RMQualtrough]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

I like the analogy of the words on the screen. If by the words you mean individual egos .and by the screen you mean our true ultimate nature as pure consciousness itself .that can never die.was never born .doesn't come from anywhere and doesn't go anywhere. It's always in its eternal static absolute state which is not even a "state " but again, that's the limits of language. 

However, you still create a subtle duality with this analogy..that is ..of the words AND the screen .its like we have two things here .and nondual understanding says that there is only one thing in existence. Which is existence itself with no divisions .

So we must at the ultimate analysis agree that the words are indistinguishable from the screen . And the words can awaken to their ultimate nature as just pure screen.because the screen is reality. Like what Robert Adams says "all appearance are like moving pictures on the eternal screen of consciousness "

When it comes to manifesting things into existence..we first have to have some degree of awakening. To recognize that we are absolutely infinite. And everything that we ever wanted is already contained in infinity. But we have to tap into our infinite power and infinite intelligence to be able to manifest our dreams .

And finally i will just leave this quote here by Robert Adams "

 

Dude you can't mention subtle dualities when you don't rn comprehend the thing you're trying to discuss...

Example: In Vedanta they have a process they call neti neti, which is where the people are taught to understand they are not the thoughts, not the images, etc... Say a guy came in without having touched realization of Brahman and was like "nah that's BS, that's a duality" it's like, oh okay, guess you'll just never get it ever then...

Only the entity referred to universally as "I" can """awaken""", AKA recognize itself. The images, your entire personness, cannot... Example: Imagine an elephant in your mind. Now stop imagining the elephant. Is the elephant now enlightened? Could the image of the elephant recognize it is only an image? Could the image of the elephant start "manifesting" things it desires?

Well there you go....... ALL of your person-ness is exactly like that. All just images. Your desire to manifest something, is an idea and that is ALSO an image...

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, amanen said:

You are still making a distinction between the "screen" and the "images in it", as if they are separate things. They are the same thing. Life is not like a movie that cannot be changed that is predetermined that you just watch.

You also have to keep in mind that at this level of consciousness distinctions do matter, and that consciousness is capable of producing apparent distinctions, even though at the ultimate highest level they do not exist. Ignoring distinctions at the regular level of consciousness would be complete nonsense and lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering.

There aren't "levels of consciousness" that is some Leo BS. "Higher levels" of consciousness are not in fact raising consciousness but moreso shattering the layers of masks that reside on top of it.

And nondual nature is not about consciousness and the images that it knows, it's the ultimate "substance" of both which is Brahman. Nothing. Reality itself. Etc.

No Western person will ever understand the ground of being as "consciousness". Maybe in the East their definition makes it as simple as "existence itself" makes it to us.

[Gesundheit2]

@Someone here There are different ways to interpret what I wrote. Arrogant and condescending is one way. Honest and true is another. Choose whichever one you like, you only get what you give, according to the LoA at least.

[JuliusCaesar]

2 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

There aren't "levels of consciousness" that is some Leo BS. "Higher levels" of consciousness are not in fact raising consciousness but moreso shattering the layers of masks that reside on top of it.

Those two are not mutually exclusive, and from my own experience and understanding, I'd say there's some validity to both of those perspectives.

[RMQualtrough]

18 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

Those two are not mutually exclusive, and from my own experience and understanding, I'd say there's some validity to both of those perspectives.

I'm not sure there is validity. Uhm, I mean, can God "become" more God? Can nothing "become" more nothing? Can the screen "become" more screen?

It's more like ceasing to identify with the elements of it. In actuality nobody and no thing is ever more or less "it". Whatever term you use. Because there is only it. There is only it, always whole and complete and fully it, and never NOT it, because it is nothing but itself. And the images on it, like a movie scene on your TV screen, don't make it any less it or any less whole or complete.

Levels of consciousness is like... Completely not that.

There is one level of consciousness and you don't reach it, you can only recognize it. You don't do things to "become" it for example. You don't for example gain superpowers. You have to go the OPPOSITE direction to recognize it. Which is the opposite of focusing on the elements out there (e.g. becoming more powerful and manifesting objects etc - it's the opposite direction away from what people want to recognize).

[AtheisticNonduality]

5 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

There's no "body organism" in that definition, and I challenge you to come up with one dictionary that states otherwise.

Existential psychology (in the form of Existential Phenomenological Therapy) would speak of an embodied self, which is when the somatic organism is identified with as part of the subject and not just an external phenomenon observed by a subject.

Edited August 7, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[JuliusCaesar]

10 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

I'm not sure there is validity. Uhm, I mean, can God "become" more God? Can nothing "become" more nothing? Can the screen "become" more screen?

Naturally, since we're all powerful, for us the impossible is possible.

 

12 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

It's more like ceasing to identify with the elements of it. In actuality nobody and no thing is ever more or less "it". Whatever term you use. Because there is only it. There is only it, always whole and complete and fully it, and never NOT it, because it is nothing but itself. And the images on it, like a movie scene on your TV screen, don't make it any less it or any less whole or complete.

Sure.

 

12 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Levels of consciousness is like... Completely not that.

What we are, existence/truth is. And obviously, as any normal human can tell you, there are varying levels of consciousness in their experience eg waking consciousness, unconscious deep sleep, dreaming sleep, etc etc.

 

16 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

You don't do things to "become" it for example. You don't for example gain superpowers. You have to go the OPPOSITE direction to recognize it.

 Is meditating not doing something? Is ingesting powerful mind-altering substances not doing something?

 

19 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Which is the opposite of focusing on the elements out there

There is no such thing as "out there", "in there" and "out there" are one and the same.

 

19 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

it's the opposite direction away from what people want to recognize

Well naturally, most humans are far too cowardly to confront such a thing as death. This problem is further compounded by laziness rampant in our modern culture where reward is desired without effort.

 

[Gesundheit2]

12 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Existential psychology (in the form of Existential Phenomenological Therapy) would speak of an embodied self, which is when the somatic organism is identified with as part of the subject and not just an external phenomenon observed by a subject.

I'm not sure how this kind of therapy looks like, but it sounds like aided spiritual practice. In other words, it seems like scientified spirituality with similar foundations and goals to spiritual practice.

[AtheisticNonduality]

This exact argument of the screen vs. the words was resolved here as Emptiness vs. form or Absolute vs. relative or Spaceless Timelessness vs. space and time.

 

[RMQualtrough]

37 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

There is no such thing as "out there", "in there" and "out there" are one and the same.

But this is just being a parrot... Because if you saw everything was "one and the same" you wouldn't at the same time be discussing "levels of consciousness" etc.

No matter how wavey an ocean is, it's just the ocean. That's it....... If you don't separate yourself from the appearances you won't ever find the oneness you're believing in on faith from randoms on YouTube and forums.

It is logically inevitable, that there is nothing outside of reality, anything that is, is reality itself. Is is-ness itself. So anything aside from that, even from a logical standpoint, is certainly wrong.

Consciousness is typically a failure of a term because it is not intuitive enough that a rock or lamppost is consciousness. Maybe in the East I don't know if they define it differently. But no way in a million years will that word be anything other than unintuitive and misleading to a Westerner... A rock or lamppost being reality itself, you being reality itself. That's like "duh". We all get it. It's intuitive and obvious.

[RMQualtrough]

31 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

This exact argument of the screen vs. the words was resolved here as Emptiness vs. form or Absolute vs. relative or Spaceless Timelessness vs. space and time.

 

You absolutely will not understand it until you stop obsessing over collapsing perceived duality, and find what you actually are first... Otherwise you're never going to find your "true nature". You can't get it by just saying "oh yeah I'm everything". You're still thinking you're a person with consciousness and all sorts...

Find the nothing that sits permanent and unchanging. You won't find the literal nothingness without dissociating from the images.

You can't take a screen with a movie on it and say "oh it's all screen" when you haven't even NOTICED the screen. You haven't even recognized it and are just repeating something that sounded deep in a book or YouTube video... AFTER you recognize the screen upon which the images appear, you might then notice that the images themselves are also the screen and that there only ever was the screen and the shapes it contorts itself into.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@RMQualtrough I know the Emptiness and dissociating from the images, and yet still the images are the Emptiness. It's just simply true.

[How to be wise]

@Someone here It’s called the law of attraction.

[Loba]

When I was a little girl, I wished I could turn into a bird a fly away.  Why didn't that happen?  Was I just not attracting enough magic into my life?  The world may never know...

Winx Club but you transform into a horse instead of a fairy

Believix, You're magical.
All you gotta do is believe in yourself.
And everything will change.
You got the power!
Believix, so wonderful.
Feel the magic coming out from your heart.
Everything is possible.
It's a higher energy!

[JuliusCaesar]

3 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

If you don't separate yourself from the appearances you won't ever find the oneness you're believing in on faith from randoms on YouTube and forums.

I know reality to be one from my own experiences. If I didn't I would think those people are psychotic and delusional. In a similar fashion to how I view those same people, you and Leo probably fit into that category as being overly self-limiting.

 

3 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

But this is just being a parrot... Because if you saw everything was "one and the same" you wouldn't at the same time be discussing "levels of consciousness" etc.

Whatever you say lol.

 

3 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

Consciousness is typically a failure of a term because it is not intuitive enough that a rock or lamppost is consciousness. Maybe in the East I don't know if they define it differently. But no way in a million years will that word be anything other than unintuitive and misleading to a Westerner... A rock or lamppost being reality itself, you being reality itself. That's like "duh". We all get it. It's intuitive and obvious.

This highlights the crux of the issue. I'm basically using different definitions of consciousness when I say levels of consciousness and when I refer to consciousness as nothing/everything or as absolute truth. When I say levels of consciousness, I'm of course using the western psychological perspective to articulate the differences in being and capability that exist in different states of being. The fact that they're all ultimately the same thing doesn't in anyway undermine the reality of the imaginary differences that are present.

 

 

[RMQualtrough]

47 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

I know reality to be one from my own experiences. If I didn't I would think those people are psychotic and delusional. In a similar fashion to how I view those same people, you and Leo probably fit into that category as being overly self-limiting.

 

Whatever you say lol.

 

This highlights the crux of the issue. I'm basically using different definitions of consciousness when I say levels of consciousness and when I refer to consciousness as nothing/everything or as absolute truth. When I say levels of consciousness, I'm of course using the western psychological perspective to articulate the differences in being and capability that exist in different states of being. The fact that they're all ultimately the same thing doesn't in anyway undermine the reality of the imaginary differences that are present.

Well I was trying to say something on topic to OP but I forgot what we were all discussing earlier and why I brought up the line that led to here.

Must be relating to manifesting stuff though, and hence the idea that you "become infinitely conscious" and suddenly you can magic into being anything you want. When the want itself is a product of the unstoppable creation itself which is the ground of all being... If you wanted to "manifest" money out of thin air or w.e., there would initially be an idea of wanting money. The idea is itself something you are aware of and a product of creation itself..... It is also the case in lucid dreams, but the thought may align with the manifestation of the thing, which tricks you into thinking it was chosen. E.g. you might want to fly and begin to fly in the same moment, but neither of these involved active choice.

In some trips I was able to make things appear by having the idea of them, but who chose the idea?

There has to be a point at which something arises as a known object, which includes ideas/desires, and prior to that there is nothing to choose as the idea is not even present... Just now I "decided" to randomly think of a thought, and observe what it's like, and I thought "donkey". But who chose that it should be "donkey" before donkey spontaneously arose in my mind as a known thought? If I decide to pick a random color, first who chose the idea of that? Then "green..... yellow..." the word yellow popped up at the same time as the idea of it. There was no moment of choice where I was presented an array of possible thoughts and actively chose to have one. To be presented with an array of thoughts, the array is already a thing and already something which appeared.

This is why I think reality is merely unfolding without the "free" part of free will, OR maybe better termed, without the will part, just the free... There's nothing preventing one thought appearing over another, but there's nobody willing it to be that way... It is all just being spat out by creation itself. Reality itself. Consciousness itself. Whatever... It IS creation.