The Illusion of Movement

[bito]

Man lives under the illusion that thought moves, that this thought becomes that thought, and that by manipulating this sense of becoming, he can create a conclusion to or of himself. He believes that somewhere, 'out there' or 'in here' is a philosophy that will 'hold me still' so I can be me within the thoughts of this philosophy.

Man also lives under the illusion that his awareness moves, that in the seeking for this or that thought that he believes is moving, his awareness is also moving in the seeking for the moving thought!

What then, takes us out of this repetitious seeking for 'self' conclusion in thought when none can ever be found?

Discovery of our true and permanent :dancing: (spirit) nature. There is no greater discovery than this.

[loveGOD]

Hello my loving friend...Great post, I agree with your statement...
Discovery of our true and permanent :dancing: (spirit) nature. There is no greater discovery than this.
The first I heard of thoughts being moving images was during a Bill Moyers special wher he had a Indian Guru, a Neuro-Specialist, and a Physics Professor as guests. It was a 4-hour discussion and it was good. Bottom line I got from it was... ah how about practicing alittle self-control and stop the thoughts completly. I have been able to be thoughtless and whoa it do tickle my fancy. I'm used to having elaborate fantasys that can be a thrill. However
I hadn't ever experienced the near climax sensation that no thought can produce. Honestly I asked GOD to stop the sensation because I didn't believe
it heaven sent. The Quakers practiced stillness of thought and they did indeed Quake with overwhelming sensation. The process of reaching no-thought for me is I first slow the bouncing {dancing} spirit to a steady state and then lower it to the ground of my being. Hope You,Yours, and All experience Divine Peace and Joy...:loveyou:

[loveGOD]

Hello my loving friend...Great post, I agree with your statement...
Discovery of our true and permanent :dancing: (spirit) nature. There is no greater discovery than this.
The first I heard of thoughts being moving images was during a Bill Moyers special when he had a Indian Guru, a Neuro-Specialist, and a Physics Professor as guests. It was a 4-hour discussion and it was good. Bottom line I got from it was... ah how about practicing alittle self-control and stop the thoughts completly. I have been able to be thoughtless and whoa it do tickle my fancy. I'm used to having elaborate fantasys that can be a thrill. However
I hadn't ever experienced the near climax sensation that no thought can produce. Honestly I asked GOD to stop the sensation because I didn't believe
it heaven sent. The Quakers practiced stillness of thought and they did indeed Quake with overwhelming sensation. The process of reaching no-thought for me is I first slow the bouncing {dancing} spirit to a steady state and then lower it to the ground of my being. Hope You,Yours, and All experience Divine Peace and Joy...:loveyou:

[bito]

Thank you, loveGOD, yes, the Glory that is the Pleasure of God! :loveyou:

[MultipleTentacles]

Man lives under the illusion that thought moves, that this thought becomes that thought, and that by manipulating this sense of becoming, he can create a conclusion to or of himself. He believes that somewhere, 'out there' or 'in here' is a philosophy that will 'hold me still' so I can be me within the thoughts of this philosophy.

Man also lives under the illusion that his awareness moves, that in the seeking for this or that thought that he believes is moving, his awareness is also moving in the seeking for the moving thought!

What then, takes us out of this repetitious seeking for 'self' conclusion in thought when none can ever be found?

Discovery of our true and permanent :dancing: (spirit) nature. There is no greater discovery than this.

This permanence is called "vajra" by the tantrists. Vajra means unmovable, permanent. We speak of obtaining the "vajra body", and talk of enlightened ones having a "body as hard as a vajra."

If we were in a room together, I would suggest we meditate on this.

[jufa]

God is Life, and Life does not move. Where can Life move to? It is omnipresent. Consciousness does not move. Where can it move to? It is omniscient, and omnipresent. Divine Thought does not move. Where can It move to? It is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. But the omnipresent Spirit of Life moves. Just as the omniscient Spirit of Consciousness moves, as well as the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Spirit of divine Thought moves. [Note: all that moves in Gen.1, is the Spirit of God. Even the Word of God does not move]. They, One and All represent the totality of the unchanging Creator. And, They, One and All are the Body of the Godhead Completely. It is the movement of Spirit when created the Vision, Intent, Purpose, and thought which theWord said "let there be." And all the foundation of the heaven, earth, night, day, plant life, sun, moon, stars, animal life, living creatures, and man. All this is created, and formed within the Godhead. and there never a separation of God's creation from the Godhead. This is why man is told "in God we live, and move, and have our being."

Spirit has no choice, or option within the Godhead but to do the will of God's Vision, Intent, Purpose, and Thought. I repeat, Spirit has no choice, or option. for all this is, and will ever be dwells within the Godhead. Man has no choice to choose anything for man is a creation of Spirit. So where does man live outside of Spirit, and what Choice does man truly have or represent which is not of Spirit?

To say man has a choice, or that he is independently whole outside of God because Jesus had the mantle of Son of Man, and Son of God is to deny that Jesus did not walk out of this world with a purified Spirit Body, and elimination once and for all the notion that a man of flesh could ascend to be with the Father.

[Smurf]

Hypocrisy Bito, I would have thought you to argue on better grounds than this.

[bito]

Hypocrisy Bito, I would have thought you to argue on better grounds than this.

So be it according to your expectations of what I should or shouldn't say. It is these expectations that man puts upon man that keeps him a prisoner to his belief that he has an arguing, dual nature that must be thrust upon world.

[Smurf]

You're arguing a conclusion brought about from a process of thought. No matter how you put it, you "found/created" the god-consciousness through an exercise of thought.

There is no greater discovery than this.

Conclusive, wouldn't you say?

[bito]

You're arguing a conclusion brought about from a process of thought. No matter how you put it, you "found/created" the god-consciousness through an exercise of thought.



Conclusive, wouldn't you say?


Thought that suggests that which is beyond thought will always fall short of its mark of perfect suggestion. I do not seek conclusion, and yet, am aware that my words can be interpreted as such. The wielded sword of purification cuts without drawing blood. :)

[Smurf]

So you are content with what you have "found"? Comfortable as it were, in what you have found?

[bito]

So you are content with what you have "found"? Comfortable as it were, in what you have found?

Smurf, in asking me if I am content with what I have "found", there is no answer I can provide that will conclude, for you, your questioning of my discovery, for I do not discern from your words a sincere desire to understand, rather, I discern a thought attitude that is one of "poking bito's thoughts with a stick to get her to holler "ouch!" :)

Should I not be discerning your attitude toward my thoughts to be as you discern your attititude toward my thoughts to be, please set me straight and perhaps then, I can answer your question so that there is some understanding between us.

[jufa]

You're arguing a conclusion brought about from a process of thought. No matter how you put it, you "found/created" the god-consciousness through an exercise of thought.



Conclusive, wouldn't you say?

How can one reach a conclusion on another's thoughts except if they themself have by no other way than thinking thoughts "found/created the god-consciousness through an exercise of thought."

To create, find anything, or channel of belief, and not deviate from it, is serving that which one has created, or believed they have found. So in asking about contentment of what one has created, or found is hypocritical when the exact same disposition is displayed concerning the questioner's question.

[Smurf]

Smurf, in asking me if I am content with what I have "found", there is no answer I can provide that will conclude, for you, your questioning of my discovery, for I do not discern from your words a sincere desire to understand, rather, I discern a thought attitude that is one of "poking bito's thoughts with a stick to get her to holler "ouch!"

Naturally, I am as ever a curious child :)

I accept my contemptment, my comfrotable-ness as it were. I rejoice in these feelings as they allow me to see where the various stepping stones are in the journey of philosophy. I do not, however, cling to them as if they were the end to all thought. As much as I would love to find that specific thought that would set my mind in congruent harmony, I resign myself to the fact that I probably never will. For me, "God" is just another stone to be supported by.

I think I need to clarify what I say by "create/find". It's like, existence is just that game where you have to put the square peg in the square hole. However you can find out that you can put various other things in there too, you just have to create the shapes. Whether they fit, justifies their nature.

[bito]

Naturally, I am as ever a curious child :)

I accept my contemptment, my comfrotable-ness as it were. I rejoice in these feelings as they allow me to see where the various stepping stones are in the journey of philosophy. I do not, however, cling to them as if they were the end to all thought. As much as I would love to find that specific thought that would set my mind in congruent harmony, I resign myself to the fact that I probably never will. For me, "God" is just another stone to be supported by.

I think I need to clarify what I say by "create/find". It's like, existence is just that game where you have to put the square peg in the square hole. However you can find out that you can put various other things in there too, you just have to create the shapes. Whether they fit, justifies their nature.

Curious child :), I challenge your use of the phrase "I accept." By saying "I accept", you are declaring your belief that you are separate from your thoughts, for in order to accept, you must believe there is something tangible and absolute apart from your awareness that you can accept or reject.

Do you believe that there is an subject called "Smurf" that can be separate from an object called "philosophy" so that this subject called "Smurf" can manipulate this "philosophy" object so as to fit the nature that is absolutely known to be Smurf, by Smurf?

How can there be 'other things', when the I that is you cannot leave your own consciousness, your own awareness?

[Smurf]

I don't think of philosophy as objective as my experience is subjective. I understand philosophy to be an expression of this subjective experience. -I am- and so philosophy is just a term used to define my specific expression. I would prefer to say an expression of character though.

There is other only in the perspective sense.

[bito]

I don't think of philosophy as objective as my experience is subjective. I understand philosophy to be an expression of this subjective experience. -I am- and so philosophy is just a term used to define my specific expression. I would prefer to say an expression of character though.

There is other only in the perspective sense.

How can you have a subjective experience without an object? Without an object as reference, there is no subjective experience. If you use the term 'experience', then you are speaking of subjective-objective awareness. Philosophy, by its very nature, is an object for contemplation by the subject, for one cannot say I AM philosophy.

You state that there is other only in the perspective sense. Is this not the same as stating a relationship between a subject and an object?

Smurf, when you say I AM, and not I think or I believe or I opine, then you will truly (unconditionally) be expressing Smurf. Until then, you will think of yourself as having a personality or character - a self - that is having an experience called philosophy, or science, or wisdom, or religion, or spirituality or ?

[Smurf]

And you cannot have an objective experience without the subject, I did not say otherwise.I remain that the point of origin for experience remains with the subjective, hence "objective" is a perspectivist concept. Indeed, I am toying with the idea that there is no true "object", if something has capacity for object then it must have capacity for subject (or maybe this is just a human posit to better understand the objective).

I never said "I am philosophy" I said "-I am-" separately to establish my subjective experience. I then identify that "philosophy" is a collective object that is upheld by communication between fellow subjects. I contribute to this impermanent covenant with the knowledge that my communication goes to other subjects. Hence, subject defines itself and the objective. Objective alone does not always define the subjective.

Example:
I define a pen as a pen. But the pen does not define me.
I can say "I am not pen" which contributes to my definition. However, that is subject using object to define itself.

[chandrakant parmar]

And you cannot have an objective experience without the subject, I did not say otherwise.I remain that the point of origin for experience remains with the subjective, hence "objective" is a perspectivist concept. Indeed, I am toying with the idea that there is no true "object", if something has capacity for object then it must have capacity for subject (or maybe this is just a human posit to better understand the objective).

I never said "I am philosophy" I said "-I am-" separately to establish my subjective experience. I then identify that "philosophy" is a collective object that is upheld by communication between fellow subjects. I contribute to this impermanent covenant with the knowledge that my communication goes to other subjects. Hence, subject defines itself and the objective. Objective alone does not always define the subjective.

Example:
I define a pen as a pen. But the pen does not define me.
I can say "I am not pen" which contributes to my definition. However, that is subject using object to define itself.



nice thoght, lovly ideas ,

[schrodinger]

Example:
I define a pen as a pen. But the pen does not define me.
I can say "I am not pen" which contributes to my definition. However, that is subject using object to define itself.

While I agree with what you are saying, perhaps that may not be the best example to make your point, as a pen is a physical thing that is fairly easy to define and for many observers to come to consensus of opinion on. In contrast, “philosophy” consists of propositions, ideas and concepts which can be interpreted in many different ways by many different “observers” or thinkers. It does not possess the properties of a physical thing and not even the properties of a mental image so the definition of philosophy must then be a “personal” interpretation. That personal definition can only come from the “self” of personal experience, the “I”, the ego, or the “character” that each individual accommodates somewhere within his own mind. How could it be otherwise? Rather than think it is delusional to believe in the separate subject who represents this “I”, I think it is delusional to believe there is an Oneness, where “I” does not exist. As long as we exist as separate individuals in a physical world, it seems to be a denial of our present state of being to deny our unique “self”. Why not just be what we appear to be and not try to transcend the apparency of it all? Can the ultimate purpose of our very short physical life be: to ponder the long (eternal?) spiritual life which follows? Just as we needed to learn to walk before we could run, we may need to learn to deal responsibly with our physical, distinct selves and the physical reality we find ourselves in, before we can take responsibility over our collective spiritual inheritance.

[Smurf]

While I agree with what you are saying, perhaps that may not be the best example to make your point, as a pen is a physical thing that is fairly easy to define and for many observers to come to consensus of opinion on. In contrast, “philosophy” consists of propositions, ideas and concepts which can be interpreted in many different ways by many different “observers” or thinkers. It does not possess the properties of a physical thing and not even the properties of a mental image so the definition of philosophy must then be a “personal” interpretation. That personal definition can only come from the “self” of personal experience, the “I”, the ego, or the “character” that each individual accommodates somewhere within his own mind. How could it be otherwise? Rather than think it is delusional to believe in the separate subject who represents this “I”, I think it is delusional to believe there is an Oneness, where “I” does not exist. As long as we exist as separate individuals in a physical world, it seems to be a denial of our present state of being to deny our unique “self”. Why not just be what we appear to be and not try to transcend the apparency of it all? Can the ultimate purpose of our very short physical life be: to ponder the long (eternal?) spiritual life which follows? Just as we needed to learn to walk before we could run, we may need to learn to deal responsibly with our physical, distinct selves and the physical reality we find ourselves in, before we can take responsibility over our collective spiritual inheritance.

Ok
I should have invested further into my understanding of philosophy. I understand it to be "a collective object that is upheld by communication between fellow subjects". It does not, however, adhere to a particular set of regulations to impose on those that support it. Perhaps I should have referred to it more as a medium of communication. One that is sought upon in opposition to say discussing a medium of science, or bridge-building. It's not set in stone as to what philosophy is or what people get out of it. But more from an observant's point of view there is a medium of communication that one can call upon in order to discuss life-experience.

The objective is always only an observation on the part of the subjective. This leaves room for the physical to still have importance on the subjective.