sssssssssss
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 690
well whatever is thinking, probably would realize its pointless being caged inside a limited host.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
A few reflections on "does time exist?"
- Thread starter Dedbeet
- Start date
Well, it's a good thing the 'limited host' is actually "caged" inside the pointless then, eh?
.sssssssssss
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 690
i see what youre doing lol
I'm telling you the truth, is what I'm doing; you aren't inside a body, your body is inside you. Exactly as things appear right now, nothing looking different to the senses at all.
sssssssssss
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 690
i still think the fourth state of matter is one huge counsiousness. and our body along with everything else runs off of it.
which would fall under everything you and i have said.
which would fall under everything you and i have said.
The trouble all comes from wanting contact with "other consciousnesses", and fearing the absence of such contact.
sssssssssss
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 690
but really, its all part of the same shit.
cause ur brain is limited! you only have so many ways to percieve something. there is no soul if the universe of souls is taking turns interchanging itself incrementally, so you will always have part of the previous mixed in which is why you hold onto your past, and things appear to change.
cause ur brain is limited! you only have so many ways to percieve something. there is no soul if the universe of souls is taking turns interchanging itself incrementally, so you will always have part of the previous mixed in which is why you hold onto your past, and things appear to change.
Last edited:
Well, you're my consciousness; I'm your consciousness. The shit, I guess, is not being able to have oneself, only to be oneself.
sssssssssss
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 690
were saying the same thing.
sssssssssss
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 690
i agree, everything is trying to tackle the same concept
it just takes one person to miss the concept. because they want others to find the 'answer' for them. but someone else's answer is just hope that yours is out there. they just have to seek it themselves to grasp it.
now that i found it all i can do is come up with metaphores for other people.
it just takes one person to miss the concept. because they want others to find the 'answer' for them. but someone else's answer is just hope that yours is out there. they just have to seek it themselves to grasp it.
now that i found it all i can do is come up with metaphores for other people.
sssssssssss
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 690
or they want it handed to them, and when it is, they cant relate, so they give up thinking theres only one way to do something rather than 6 billion+ ways.
My talk of "Time"
I'm looking at life as happening or occurring from moment to moment, in/as a
ceaseless stream.
The reason I look at it that way, is because that is the way it actually occurs.
My interest in discussing "nonduality" is looking at the way things actually
are. It's understood here that one is free to think about time, to imagine time.
There's no need to note that.
The fact that "time" occurs as a steady, ceaseless stream is *way* too obvious
to be obvious -- which is why I talk about it on nondual forums.
Everything "nondual" is so obvious that it constantly escapes the mind, which
ends up falling straight into dream and then suffering from its own nightmares.
Peace...
I'm looking at life as happening or occurring from moment to moment, in/as a
ceaseless stream.
The reason I look at it that way, is because that is the way it actually occurs.
My interest in discussing "nonduality" is looking at the way things actually
are. It's understood here that one is free to think about time, to imagine time.
There's no need to note that.
The fact that "time" occurs as a steady, ceaseless stream is *way* too obvious
to be obvious -- which is why I talk about it on nondual forums.
Everything "nondual" is so obvious that it constantly escapes the mind, which
ends up falling straight into dream and then suffering from its own nightmares.
Peace...
More timeless timing...
> ~~~There came a time when the same message
> remained on the walls of Findlater's church.
There mayhaps come a time when "there's no time for that now", and now there's
no time to get it back.
That's the time of the ending of time as anything actual.
That time is now, but if there's time for it to be a different time, it's not
that time yet.
> ~~~There came a time when the same message
> remained on the walls of Findlater's church.
There mayhaps come a time when "there's no time for that now", and now there's
no time to get it back.
That's the time of the ending of time as anything actual.
That time is now, but if there's time for it to be a different time, it's not
that time yet.
modern buddha
Bluelighter
Now exists. That is all.
Now exists if you don't mind the definition of existence to be "change", rather than staticity.
Thought likes its definition of existence as "static being that spans over time".
It don't apply to Now.
A physicist seeing the universe as atoms and molecules in constant movement would probably agree.
The crime of *real* time....
> Justice already arrived in the letter box today, the form of my
> solicitor's letter which is sitting here beside me already opened
> and read.
It's entirely just that it's sitting beside you already opened and read.
To talk about it arriving, of you going to the mailbox and getting it, etc. is
unjust, if such talk is taken seriously.
"What is", is always the impartial justice one never believed to exist.
Peace...
> Justice already arrived in the letter box today, the form of my
> solicitor's letter which is sitting here beside me already opened
> and read.
It's entirely just that it's sitting beside you already opened and read.
To talk about it arriving, of you going to the mailbox and getting it, etc. is
unjust, if such talk is taken seriously.
"What is", is always the impartial justice one never believed to exist.
Peace...
^^
Change or stacicity, is the most enduring question out there. Just look at how the Eleatics and Heraclitus et al fomented the Ancient mind upon the same topic.
I for one would not be prepared to side 100 per cent with either ontology, for both laid out something which neither scientia nor philosophia have adequdetly answered yet, I don't see scientia doing so anytime soon.
(excusee English not 1st spoken)
Change or stacicity, is the most enduring question out there. Just look at how the Eleatics and Heraclitus et al fomented the Ancient mind upon the same topic.
I for one would not be prepared to side 100 per cent with either ontology, for both laid out something which neither scientia nor philosophia have adequdetly answered yet, I don't see scientia doing so anytime soon.
(excusee English not 1st spoken)
True.
The attempt at continuity is the most persistent struggle... because "self" is the attempt to continue over time that keeps failing, and the mind can't see it.
The mind only imaginarily exists over a span of time. The mind is itself that ceaseless imagining and dreaming, and it never seems to clue in to why it's so important.
You see, the self existing in/as memory, the self that is *remembered* -- is not what is doing the remembering.
Peace...
Last edited: