Does Consciousness Divide Itself?

[Deep]

Does consciousness divide itself? Or is that an illusion? Thanks! 

[Loreena]

You mean universal and individual

[Primeval]

2 minutes ago, Loreena said:

You mean universal and individual

Part & Parcel

[Martin123]

@Deep consciousness indeed does divide itself. And yes it is an illusion. 

The one infinity, being infinite, cannnot ever be added onto or taken anything from it.

So it divided itself so it can experience itself in seemingly finite forms.

Is it an illusion from infinity's perspective?

yes

Is it an illusion from your pov?

From your pov what even is an illusion? 

Illusion is an illusion. Experience is an experience. Were they the same thing there wouldnt be 2 different words.

[Shin]

https://www.trinfinityacademy.com/courses/enlightenment-1-part-1-introduction-course/lesson-3-everything-has-presence/

 

Quote

 

If everything is the same being, why does it all look so different?

Let’s jump ahead a little, just for a moment. It’s okay if you don’t fully or immediately understand this; it will all become much clearer for you once you get to the courses under the Infinity teaching. For now, I just want to plant a seed and give it time to germinate before you reach the Infinity teaching. So, just relax the need to “get it,” and let it do its thing.

Presence-Consciousness—or simply put: Presence—is the expression (the presence) of The Absolute, The Infinite One.

The Infinite One in its original “stateless state” cannot—though it desires to—directly experience itself. It cannot directly experience itself because it is One and therefore has no reference point to experience itself from, or in relationship to.

The One is beyond experiencing. Beyond and before even Awareness.

You need two before experience—and therefore self-awareness—can occur.

In order for Awareness, or free agency, to come into full experiential beingness, there has to be a palpable differentiation of some kind. Since the One cannot experience itself from its own stateless state, it needs to experience itself through contrast, through an “other”—just as you need a mirror to see your own face.

And so the Absolute, out of its infinite possibilities, birthed Creation (Presence-Energy), and in the face of Presence the Infinite One could start to see its true, original infiniteness.

Over “time” (seemingly), Creation’s expression expanded and developed into countless forms, dimensions, perceptions, and perceivers. It is the role of Presence-Consciousness—its “job,” if you will—to express Infinity in all the ways that it possibly can.

Think about it (but not for too long): experience is a finite concept, so how does Presence-Energy express true Infinity by means of experience? It can only attempt this (impossible) goal by expressing experiences in as many ways as it possibly can, in order to even approach the reality of true Infinity by means of experience.

This explains why Creation is so varied in its expression—because its underlying drive is to express and reflect the Absolute, True Infinity. Hence, even though there is only one basic substance in all of Creation, Presence-Energy can express itself in infinite ways and appear as anything.

What is important to take away from this, for now, is that no matter what form, no matter what particular signature-vibration a particular object has (size, weight, color, dimension, molecular structure, etc.), all of these specifications that are part of an object’s unique vibration are still made out of Presence-Energy: The Absolute’s way of expressing itself.

 

 

[Deep]

@Shin brilliant 

[Leo Gura]

The appearance of divisions is the Creation. Creation is an illusion of distinctions.

Without distinction, there cannot be any form. If everything is indistinct it is formless or non-existent in your eyes, because you hold the distinction of existence/non-existent as important. We could say that you both create and fill your own demand.

Notice how a zip file is both is ONE and MANY files simultaneously.

Now imagine if you stopped making the distinction -- or attaching any importance -- between existence and non-existence....

[Deep]

@Leo Gura I was asking because some people can remember their past life. Does that mean they have touched base with their consciousness? Is mind an extension of consciousness? Maybe their is One consciousness and individual consciousnesses at the same time. I don't know. 

[Loreena]

1 hour ago, Deep said:

@Leo Gura I was asking because some people can remember their past life. Does that mean they have touched base with their consciousness? Is mind an extension of consciousness? Maybe their is One consciousness and individual consciousnesses at the same time. I don't know. 

You mean reincarnation. What if the consciousness is infinite and we are just adding to it. Or maybe there is specific and non specific consciousness. Non specific meaning universal and specific meaning related to oneself. But the self consciousness could be infinite in which we can experience birth, death and rebirth. waves in the same ocean

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Deep said:

@Leo Gura I was asking because some people can remember their past life. Does that mean they have touched base with their consciousness? Is mind an extension of consciousness? Maybe their is One consciousness and individual consciousnesses at the same time. I don't know. 

How can you ever not be touching base with consciousness? It's all there ever is!

Depending on what you mean by "mind", mind can be thought of as a structure found within conscious, or mind could just be a concept and not exist at all.

The question of past lives is complicated. Best to directly experience it rather than theorize about it.

[Deep]

8 hours ago, unknownworld said:

You should not take anything and believe in it blindly, without direct experience. So the question is, how do you verify this claim through direct experience? 

You're right, we shouldn't blindly believe anything. It's very rare for a person not to have any beliefs even if they say they don't. The reason Hindus came up with Atman and Brahman is because the sages wanted to explain our true nature to the masses who are living in the ego. They knew that breaking free from the mind is very hard. 

In our direct experience, we usually feel like an individual. We can't say that no individual exists until we break free. After someone has experienced Infinity they can say for sure, no individual exists. The mind has to be embraced before we can transcend it.  

[Deep]

@unknownworld In my opinion, we don't consciously choose our beliefs. The beliefs come out of nowhere. Have you noticed that in your experience? For enlightenment, I agree with Patanjali who says the mind has to be completely stopped. It's not necessary to remove the beliefs. The mind prevents us from seeing reality how it truly is. We see reality for what we want it to be.  

A few weeks ago I experienced my mind being still. I melted away and became one with everything. There was no separation between the environment and me. It was only for a few seconds, but from that point on I knew the universe is just a projection of our mind. It's like we're playing a joke on ourselves. It's funny and messed up at the same time. I call it God because the whole damn thing is alive. It's the only thing that exists. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Deep

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Deep said:

For enlightenment, I agree with Patanjali who says the mind has to be completely stopped.

While it can be helpful to still the mind, it's certainly not necessary, and this idea that you must stop all mind activity to become enlightened can become a trap in itself. It's much harder to stop the mind than to become enlightened.

The heart of the matter is that you must become conscious of what's what. Which does not require stopping thought. Although if you're stuck in monkey-mind, that will be an impediment.

[Deep]

On 4/10/2017 at 8:35 PM, Leo Gura said:

While it can be helpful to still the mind, it's certainly not necessary, and this idea that you must stop all mind activity to become enlightened can become a trap in itself. It's much harder to stop the mind than to become enlightened.

It can be a trap if it's practiced incorrectly. If your definition of enlightenment is to become aware of the ego, then yes it's not necessary to stop the mind. If your definition of enlightenment is to experience God, it is necessary to stop the mind. That's how they originally discovered we are God. I stick to that definition so I don't get confused with all the information out there. I can't trust every teacher who claims to be enlightened. I see most of them just sitting in front of an audience mentally masturbating. I'm not vilifying them, if they want to think they're enlightened, good for them. 

I think many teachers nowadays are talking about becoming aware of the ego. That's also a big step for most people. I consider enlightenment to be when the kundalini energy reaches the heart region during meditation. That's when a person loses body consciousness. Once it goes to the top they merge with infinity. I know that's a very far off goal and it's very rare. Since we are talking about experiencing ourselves as God, it's supposed to be hard. 

Another misconception I see, is most people think samadhi is a state of mind. No, it's completely outside of the mind. A real samadhi is very very rare and if someone claims to have experienced it, be skeptical. Although samadhi itself is not enlightenment, enlightenment is the realization that we aren't the body and mind afterwards. 

You seem to be confused about enlightenment as well because you give different definitions of it at different times. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Deep

[Martin123]

15 minutes ago, Deep said:

I'm not vilifying them, if they want to think they're enlightened, good for them. 

If you weren't vilifying them you would not have said this sentence beloved one.

[Dodo]

On 10/04/2017 at 4:51 AM, unknownworld said:

 

This is the major distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism. Hindus believe that it devides itself and in past lives, while Buddhists don't (Anatta), because Buddha found no evidence for existence of individual soul.

You should not take anything and believe in it blindly, without direct experience. So the question is, how do you verify this claim through direct experience? 

I certainly don't think or believe it devides itself, as it seems like another illusion of seperate self, that is so appealing to the ego.

I'm with you and Buddha on this one :D Let's hope we're not being ignorant

[Deep]

I was having problems editing a post, so I'm writing this. lol 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Deep

[Deep]

@Martin123 No, I'm not. 

[SOUL]

A body has different parts that work in their own way to create the whole, so it is with consciousness.

[Ramu]

@Deep There is only one Consciousness.  There are no individual consciousnesses for each person.  That's why we are ONE.