What is prayer, and how do you do it?

[Beingist]

Hey, CL, do you ever notice how there are some people that seem to simply lack the capacity to see beyond the material universe?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

A where, a who, and a what are all conceptual entities from which things appear to come. My point is that there is nowhere, no one, and nothing from which they arise, except for Being itself. I identify with that Being.

So you again appear to defer to the same non-definition; that your 'Being' is an indefinable nothingness?

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

There is no one to be one with anything. There is just One. Your words elude to separation.

Incorrect! Your subjective perception/interpretation of my words allude to separation.

Beingist: Hey, CL, do you ever notice how there are some people that seem to simply lack the capacity to see beyond the material universe?

That's a bit uncalled for, my friend.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So you again appear to defer to the same non-definition; that your 'Being' is an indefinable nothingness?

Not sure how you're getting this, Reject, but this is not what he's saying at all.

Incorrect! Your subjective perception/interpretation of my words allude to separation.

Uh. What are you talking about?

That's a bit uncalled for, my friend.

Sorry, Reject, I wasn't referring to you. In fact, I wasn't really referring to anyone in particular.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Not sure how you're getting this, Reject, but this is not what he's saying at all.

Ok then, how about you attempt to define 'Being' and how it/he is relevant for prayer. Let's see where that takes us ...

Originally Posted by Beingist

Uh. What are you talking about?

This is about subjective perception. I might say; "Beingist is a great guy", but you might interpret these words along subjective lines, as such hearing a snide attack, for instance. This has been occurring of late on this very site, so you would appreciate this, surely.

Originally Posted by Beingist

Sorry, Reject, I was referring to you. In fact, I wasn't really referring to anyone in particular.

Accepted, yet I still don't think the question/observation wasn't so helpful in any context.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Ok then, how about you attempt to define 'Being' and how it/he is relevant for prayer. Let's see where that takes us ...

Being is just what is. What is, is One. CL stated correctly that "there is nothing to be one WITH. All is just One." Makes perfect sense to me.

How it relates to prayer is that when you focus on/contemplate/commune with God, you are simply Being in Oneness. That's how CL and I experience what is commonly called "prayer" (he likes "communion"; I like "contemplation").

Otherwise, my apologies if you don't understand this.

This is about subjective perception. I might say; "Beingist is a great guy", but you might interpret these words along subjective lines, as such hearing a snide attack, for instance. This has been occurring of late on this very site, so you would appreciate this, surely.

What I don't understand, Reject, is how you are relating your subjective perception thing to to what CL said about separation? He never asserted separation. He doesn't perceive it.

Accepted, yet I still don't think the question/observation was so helpful in any context.

Well, an answer might be helpful to me, which is why I asked. That was the context.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

(btw, I think you meant "allude". Butterflies "elude" the net. )

I knew that.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by sk8joyful

TRUE, as far as -
1. self-Healing... from parental, doctor, & preacher, abuses...
2. self-Healing... from heart dis-ease.
3. self-Healing... from drug stupidity.
4. self-Healing... from cancers, for GOD created us also with this ability.
5. self-Healing... from broken bones, etc.
6. self-Healing... from so many accidental & intentional conditions.
Yet,
when a person's been DEAD for days, it takes GOD to restore said person to this LIFE - PRAISE God!
&
when a person's vital-organs were stolen, it takes GOD to restore said person to Completion (sans any need for immuno-suppressants).

PRAISE God!

These are great acts, but it does not imply a personal God behind them.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Hey, CL, do you ever notice how there are some people that seem to simply lack the capacity to see beyond the material universe?

I have. One must, to some extent, stop putting so much faith in the material universe in order to see beyond it.

It seems important to you. Haven't you asked this question before?

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So you again appear to defer to the same non-definition; that your 'Being' is an indefinable nothingness?

Being is Being. Being "is". No definition can grasp it.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Incorrect! Your subjective perception/interpretation of my words allude to separation.

It seems to be important to you that I believe in separation. What is your consciousness reflecting?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

What I don't understand, Reject, is how you are relating your subjective perception thing to to what CL said about separation? He never asserted separation. He doesn't perceive it.

Ok then, this issue really isn't worth the effort, so let's drop it with perhaps; it's just as possible that my subjective perception created the misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Beingist

Being is just what is. What is, is One. CL stated correctly that "there is nothing to be one WITH. All is just One." Makes perfect sense to me.

Right there, you again stated it - Being is 'nothing'. So you relate your prayer to some indefinable nothingness!

Originally Posted by Beingist

How it relates to prayer is that when you focus on/contemplate/commune with God, you are simply Being in Oneness. That's how CL and I experience what is commonly called "prayer" (he likes "communion"; I like "contemplation").

I have nothing against contemplation nor prayer, yet I don't see them as equitable concepts. Unlike contemplation, prayer by definition is a reference to a 'higher source', yet nothingness, also by definition; cannot possibly fit this reference.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Being is Being. Being "is". No definition can grasp it.

Well then, why do you and Beingist thus far, seem to both define 'Being', as 'nothing'?

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

It seems to be important to you that I believe in separation. What is your consciousness reflecting?

It's absolutely NOT important to me whatsoever. Your own words however, or my perception of them perhaps, seemed to relay a requirement for separation - as I've previously explained.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by sk8joyful

TRUE, as far as -
1. self-Healing... from parental, doctor, & preacher, abuses...
2. self-Healing... from heart dis-ease.
3. self-Healing... from drug stupidity.
4. self-Healing... from cancers, for GOD created us also with this ability.
5. self-Healing... from broken bones, etc.
6. self-Healing... from so many accidental & intentional conditions.
Yet,
when a person's been DEAD for days, it takes GOD to restore said person to this LIFE - PRAISE God!
&
when a person's vital-organs were stolen, it takes GOD to restore said person to Completion (sans any need for immuno-suppressants).

PRAISE God!

There still seems to be an assumption going on here that God is some external creature, entity or some-thing outside of you. Are you saying you were dead for days?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Right there, you again stated it - Being is 'nothing'. So you relate your prayer to some indefinable nothingness!

I still don't get your logic here, Reject. Where do I say that "Being is nothing." No one is saying this. This is completely your inference.

It's like this--you have one pie. Any other pie wanting to be one with that pie is still another pie. Now there are two pies, not one pie.

If you were to combine all the ingredients of one pie into the other pie, and make a single pie from the mix, then you'd have one pie. Even if it had the sum of all the ingredients of two pies, it would still be one pie.

What CL and I are saying is that there is only One in Oneness. Not two, as it would be implied if it is said that something is "being One WITH" something else. And not nothing. You're completely manufacturing this nothing thing.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well then, why do you and Beingist thus far, seem to both define 'Being', as 'nothing'?

*facepalm*

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well then, why do you and Beingist thus far, seem to both define 'Being', as 'nothing'?

Neither of us have done so. You are indeed simply perceiving that.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I still don't get your logic here, Reject. Where do I say that "Being is nothing." No one is saying this. This is completely your inference.

It's like this--you have one pie. Any other pie wanting to be one with that pie is still another pie. Now there are two pies, not one pie.

If you were to combine all the ingredients of one pie into the other pie, and make a single pie from the mix, then you'd have one pie. Even if it had the sum of all the ingredients of two pies, it would still be one pie.

What CL and I are saying is that there is only One in Oneness. Not two, as it would be implied if it is said that something is "being One WITH" something else. And not nothing. You're completely manufacturing this nothing thing.

It shall heretofore be recognized in all metaphysical discussions that: God is pie.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

It shall heretofore be recognized in all metaphysical discussions that: God is pie.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I still don't get your logic here, Reject. Where do I say that "Being is nothing." No one is saying this. This is completely your inference.

Is that right? If you read your own words a little more objectively, you perhaps will see things a little differently.

You know Beingist, this is sheer conflation. In your subjectivity, both you and CL seemingly WANT to believe there is no contradiction, for opening your eyes to such would require a little deeper investigation and a little more clarity. So rather than go there, you justify your conflation of concepts, and support each other in this.

Originally Posted by Beingist

It's like this--you have one pie. Any other pie wanting to be one with that pie is still another pie. Now there are two pies, not one pie.

If you were to combine all the ingredients of one pie into the other pie, and make a single pie from the mix, then you'd have one pie. Even if it had the sum of all the ingredients of two pies, it would still be one pie.

What CL and I are saying is that there is only One in Oneness.

This I get, the pies I don't.

Originally Posted by Beingist

Not two, as it would be implied if it is said that something is "being One WITH" something else.

Again I've no problem to this point.

Originally Posted by Beingist

And not nothing. You're completely manufacturing this nothing thing.

Did I manufacture CL's and your posts?

Look, you say your indefinable 'Being' can't be expressed, whilst you both in fact offered a definition - nothing. Yet your 'Being' should be a far easier concept to define than what we're working over on the other thread. Simply because you have difficulty in putting your concept into words, my friend, doesn't really give you licence to throw your arms up in the air and conflate, confuse and confound everyone else with a belligerent; "impossible, yet here it is, so get over it!"

[Beingist]

Throwing up my hands, here, Reject. Obviously, I can't reach you. Apologies.

[ChristsLight]

Lol, Reject, you are making this all up, seriously. No one said that Being is nothing, and I know this for a fact because neither Beingist nor I believe that Being is nothing. That would be quite the ridiculous statement.

Perhaps it is you who are not perceiving our posts "objectively".

But now we have established that Being is pie, so we're all good, I think. Everyone can understand pie. Hopefully even you.

*hush* Just don't ask what kind of pie *hush*

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Is that right? If you read your own words a little more objectively, you perhaps will see things a little differently.

The statement was: There is nothing to be one with.

As Beingist said, this means that if we are trying to be one with something, there are two things: the one trying to be one, and the thing that it is trying to be one with. This is an illusion, because as we all know, there are not two things. There is only Being, which is One. You cannot try to be one with Being, because you are Being. If you weren't, then you could never be one with it, and it would no longer be One itself.

But Being is not nothing (ugh, double negative much?), and no one here has ever said it was nothing.

[Apopohis Reject]

I just deleted my last post in favour of this one....

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

The statement was: There is nothing to be one with.

As Beingist said, this means that if we are trying to be one with something, there are two things: the one trying to be one, and the thing that it is trying to be one with. This is an illusion, because as we all know, there are not two things. There is only Being, which is One. You cannot try to be one with Being, because you are Being. If you weren't, then you could never be one with it, and it would no longer be One itself.

But Being is not nothing (ugh, double negative much?), and no one here has ever said it was nothing.

Ok thankyou. I understand this a little more clearly, and again I have no issue with anyone relating to all existence and self, as one and the same, however how do you then explain man's natural tendency towards separation/fragmentation rather than 'ONE'?

Also if you will; attempt to define your 'Being' for me with just a few words (or more perhaps), please. This is how communication is done in Australia.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Ok thankyou. I understand this a little more clearly, and again I have no issue with anyone relating to all existence and self, as one and the same, however how do you then explain man's natural tendency towards separation/fragmentation rather than 'ONE'?

Ego.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I just deleted my last post in favour of this one....

Ok thankyou. I understand this a little more clearly, and again I have no issue with anyone relating to all existence and self, as one and the same, however how do you then explain man's natural tendency towards separation/fragmentation rather than 'ONE'?

Also if you will; attempt to define your 'Being' for me with just a few words (or more perhaps), please. This is how communication is done in Australia.

I am hesitant to continue much further along this line here because this thread is on prayer, not on the nature of Being.

I will say that if you are seeing a "natural tendency towards separation," it is you who are seeing it. You could not see it unless you had it within yourself on some level. Perhaps, then, you can ask yourself what within you reflects the natural tendency towards separation?

You speak as one who believes in oneness but sees separation. There will be no question of separation when your belief has turned into a seeing.

When you have seen it, you will no longer need a definition, because you will realize that you are that which you have seen.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I am hesitant to continue much further along this line here because this thread is on prayer, not on the nature of Being.

Point taken, even though it might appear that Bluth gave up on this thread a long ways back.

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I will say that if you are seeing a "natural tendency towards separation," it is you who are seeing it. You could not see it unless you had it within yourself on some level. Perhaps, then, you can ask yourself what within you reflects the natural tendency towards separation?

Anyone (hopefully you as well) has emotions into their consciousness. As such we ALL need to deal with these ALL the time. As these emotions continually seek to separate, divide, fragment us, then only by delusion can we assume ourselves as not having a natural tendency towards separation.

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

You speak as one who believes in oneness but sees separation. There will be no question of separation when your belief has turned into a seeing.

When you have seen it, you will no longer need a definition, because you will realize that you are that which you have seen.

I accept this in principle, however whilst your text-book rote may convey a valid precept, I'm again wondering how much delusion is behind it?

I might say; "I've realised perfection is so much more rewarding than imperfection", which sounds valid enough, yet presents me as attaining this status. As such my valid words are underpinned not by awareness, but by delusion.

[Bluth]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Point taken, even though it might appear that Bluth gave up on this thread a long ways back.

Feel free to discuss what you want in this thread, it belongs to the people now.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Anyone (hopefully you as well) has emotions into their consciousness. As such we ALL need to deal with these ALL the time. As these emotions continually seek to separate, divide, fragment us, then only by delusion can we assume ourselves as not having a natural tendency towards separation.

I disagree with that. Yes, if you respond unconsciously to emotion, then they will drag you into greater unconsciousness. But if you respond consciously, then they will actually help you to grow and experience greater oneness. Emotions that trigger suffering within you point out a place within you that is somehow attached to an expectation of reality being a particular way. So such "negative" emotions actually help you to see these limiting beliefs. It is limiting beliefs that help you to experience greater separation, so the removal of them will remove that separation from your experience. Do you see what I mean?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I accept this in principle, however whilst your text-book rote may convey a valid precept, I'm again wondering how much delusion is behind it?

I might say; "I've realised perfection is so much more rewarding than imperfection", which sounds valid enough, yet presents me as attaining this status. As such my valid words are underpinned not by awareness, but by delusion.

Again, it seems important for you to see delusion in others. I wonder why?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I disagree with that. Yes, if you respond unconsciously to emotion, then they will drag you into greater unconsciousness. But if you respond consciously, then they will actually help you to grow and experience greater oneness. Emotions that trigger suffering within you point out a place within you that is somehow attached to an expectation of reality being a particular way. So such "negative" emotions actually help you to see these limiting beliefs. It is limiting beliefs that help you to experience greater separation, so the removal of them will remove that separation from your experience. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, emotions are just visitors. It is the stories that accompany emotions which are believed in and perceived to be true which cause problems and artificial separation. The struggle itself is what makes up the bed, cooks dinner for and invites the emotion to linger. It is not the 'negative' emotion itself that causes suffering but rather the struggle that ensues to remove it. The ultimate struggle is of course the belief that you are the one who regulates, controls and needs to keep a constant watch on emotions.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I disagree with that. Yes, if you respond unconsciously to emotion, then they will drag you into greater unconsciousness. But if you respond consciously, then they will actually help you to grow and experience greater oneness.

One doesn't generally so much as recognise they are acting emotionally. We don't respond to emotions (except in others), we enact their orders into our reasoning.

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Again, it seems important for you to see delusion in others. I wonder why?

I wouldn't see it if I didn't understand the process, and if I didn't see delusion, or at least the indicators of it.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

One doesn't generally so much as recognise they are acting emotionally. We don't respond to emotions (except in others), we enact their orders into our reasoning.

Not so. As I've said, you have two choices for responding to an emotion: give in to it and allow it to take control, or to learn from it and notice that something has been believed that has been manifested in this emotion. The awareness of this belief collapses it.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I wouldn't see it if I didn't understand the process, and if I didn't see delusion, or at least the indicators of it.

One cannot see that which is not within oneself.