The Big SR Sticking Point

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by mysterygal

Steve's posts were not directly aimed at you. They were aimed at any person who desires personal development. So when he says "you" he is referring to every reader, not the just you. I think the problem is that you've been taking it too personally.

When he says everyone is a manifestation of your thoughts, he really means: Everyone is a manifestation of the Universal Consciousness' thoughts. And since we are all from that Universal Consciousness, we can all identify with it. Hense why he said "your thoughts". You are a manifestaion of Consciousnes' thoughts. Other people are equally a manifestation of "conciousness's thoughts." You are no more or no less aware, or conscious than anyother person on this planet.

Steve says....

"No one has thoughts but you, you are the only conscious one here, when you think someone has thoughts, they don't, you are projection thoughts onto them"

That contradicts what you say Steve is trying to relate. He is saying it's all me (my consciousness) and you and even Steve (confimed in his SR Q&A where he says he is a projection of my consciousness) are projections, so from his explanation of SR which is totally acceptable if anyone wishes to believe it, it's all me.

But remember when I say me, I do not mean me as in my body/mind but me as in god consciousness, not ego, not phyical being, but true self, true consciousness, not collective, not shared, but singular. That may sound arrogant, but that's only from an ego POV, from god consciousness it's truth.

He doesn't say anywhere that we are all consciousness and we split off into separate little selfs and interact with each other on independent conscious being levels, where we work together with each other. That's an ok way to look at it, but it is not the SR he is explaining. From what I can gather, SR is about singular oneness or god consciousness, there can't be a joint multiple consciousness where we are break off from into separate consciousness and/or beings.

Max Power

[DaveTyler]

Max Power, Hi again, youwere the guy who thought I didnt exist. Lol.
It's funny and confusing cause Steve Pavlina eventuallly realized he had got it wrong, then changed his perspective to more enlightenened non duality.
Everyone is conscious, everyone is aware, everyone got thoughts and emotions.
YOUR NOTHING more than ANYONE else. God is everything, "you" is a illusion.
The only thing YOUR mind has done, is make a false belief system that will get you nowhere. Its all perception, I suggest reading into Oness.

InfiniteThoughts: no, I'm not enlightened, I've experienced it temporarily twice though so I know what it is. I wouldnt be here on this forum to help people if I was enlightened? Lol, you seem to think you get Jesus powers, religion has brainwashed you, you got mad and started hating it, became a atheist and just want to spread misery:P
Nah I'm just joking, I got love for everybody, we're all God.
Judging others is like judging yourself, NOT EGO PERSPECTIVE.
As I said I respect your opinion, if you had had my experiences you would know what I mean, but describing a enlightening moment is like describing the color purple to someone who was born blind.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Max Power

SR is about singular oneness or god consciousness, there can't be a joint multiple consciousness where we are break off from into separate consciousness and/or beings.

Max Power

But we could all have SR and meet.

[absvan]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

But we could all have SR and meet.

that idea can happen only on paper......but when you experience SR, you will realize that you are the only one there is (when I say you I mean the consciousness and not the body/mind). So you will realize that you are the single consciousness or Oneness. I agree with what Max says.

You think that we can all meet because you are identifying all of us as separate thro our bodies. Hope that makes sense.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by absvan

that idea can happen only on paper......
but when you experience SR, you will realize that you are the only one there is (when I say you I mean the consciousness and not the body/mind). So you will realize that you are the single consciousness or Oneness.

.....in your universe.

There are other beings around.

And no, not just on paper. It happens here in this reality.
Everyone has their own universe.

When two people are in a room looking at a chair, there is not one chair, but two.

[absvan]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

.....in your universe.

There are other beings around.

you are right if you are in an objective reality. In SR there is no you and others. There is just I.

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

.....in your universe.


When two people are in a room looking at a chair, there is not one chair, but two.

How do you know there are two people?? Because you see two separate bodies. You identify them as separate.

In SR there are no two or three. There is just "I" - again I am not refering to the body but the single consciousness. The body is just a way for you two experience the dream you created.

You might have to read the first two questions here http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...ve-reality-qa/ and think about them before you understand what Steve means. Hope that will clear your confusion.

[carenkh]

Wasn't it Ram Dass who wrote about a friend who was in a mental institution because he believed he was Christ? The problem was, he didn't believe anyone else was...

It IS my reality, I DID create it. AND it IS your reality, you DID create it. Both true. It's only when ego gets caught up in there that that's a problem... let the ego go.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

Everyone is conscious, everyone is aware, everyone got thoughts and emotions.

As I understand SR, that is not true. It may be true from another belief system, but SR defines everything including all bodies/minds/thoughts/emotions as projections of singular consciounsess/awareness. Ownership of that consciousness/awarenss can only be mine as I am the only one with my awareness. It could be that we are all singular consciousness's, merging and interacting together, but that's not SR.

You could sit in front of me and tell me all day long that you are conscious, you are aware, but that is not proof. I could be making you and myself up as I go, from a god consciousness POV, not an ego POV. As Steve says, the only thing I know for sure is that I'm the only one aware and conscious, I can't prove or know for sure anything else.I could easily be creating you and this forum as a way to enlighten myself, not my mind/body, but my awareness.

I'm not defending or encouraging SR as a belief, just seeing if it can be helpful understanding my life.

Max

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by carenkh

It IS my reality, I DID create it. AND it IS your reality, you DID create it. Both true. It's only when ego gets caught up in there that that's a problem... let the ego go.

Again from SR POV that is not true either.

Also, if what you state is true, what happens when two creators want the same thing?? You want the job, but so do I. Who wins?? The stronger consciousness?? The better manifestor??

Interesting about Christ being in a nut house, last time I heard they stuck him on the cross.

Power to the Max

[DaveTyler]

How can you say there is 2 chairs, if you were in two different universes, why the ************ would you share the same exact room. Thats just far off man. Or is it like if 5 people see you, theres 5 of you and your none of them, lol. Thats ludacris
If someone killed you in their "universe", you would still die in your universe. Or simply say it all happened in the same universe, Just different perceptions.:P
Why try to make 2+2 = 8?

[haider]

Wow, I leave this thread for a couple of days, and the posts go forth and multiply!

Max, thank you for your thoughtful response, but I'd like to explain what I said, since some of my statements were ambiguous. You responded to 3 issues, so I will focus only on these:

1) The Law of Attraction: When I said that LoA is "based on the idea that: this is what the world is like, so learn to accept it," I wasn't defining LoA, I was stating a premise that LoA is based on. Joe Vitale says in The Secret (something along the lines of): "LoA is working in your life, whether you believe in it or not." This means that the law is objective, and is not based on your beliefs (i.e. it is not subjective). Therefore, to believe in the LoA, you are accepting an objective reality premise. LoA cannot be switched on or off based on your beliefs. It can only work for you or against you based on what you make of it. This is pure objectivism, and cannot be said to be subjective.

2) Steve's beliefs: Your statement: "He [Steve] actually says (somewhere) that he accepts all beliefs SR/OR whatever to help people who believe in one thing but not others," deserves some elaboration:

- In the True Nature of Reality podcast, Steve rejects both objective reality and a mixture of objective and subjective reality. He says reality is fully subjective. What I'm saying is that nobody can believe in pure subjectivism without coming across a contradiction (whether the person acknowledges it or not).

- I don't see how Steve can accept a belief himself, and act on that belief, in order to help others who share that belief. I believe in objective reality and can explain subjective reality to others, but I wouldn't adopt subjective reality beliefs in order to convince subjectivists. I think where Steve makes use of objective reality, he's walking into a contradiction without realising it (actually, he explains it as him being so used to the OR premise, that it's difficult to escape it).

Many posts by Steve are based on objectivism, and there's no way of escaping it. For example, why should I quit smoking or drinking coffee, if I can pretend (and, therefore, change reality) that smoking and coffee are not harmful? Why can't I eat all the meats that I want, and stuff my face every time I eat, but still be as healthy as I want? Why should I accept the premise that killing humans or hurting animals are "immoral" when, in my subjective reality, I make the rules?

3) The nature of belief: I'm a Muslim, and I come across Muslims who say that they only follow Islam because they were born into it, or that their belief in God is based on faith and not evidence. My response is usually: then why are you still Muslim? And why do you still accept the belief in God? This isn't to undermine the beliefs themselves, but to condemn the approach to these beliefs. If somebody can accept the belief in God based on faith, then he can accept any other belief based on faith as well. He can be an atheist, a Christian, a Nazi, a racist, a whateverist, and base his belief on faith. That attitude, to me, doesn't seem to respect the Truth, but is a form of whim-worship, where we want to define the Truth for ourselves, based on what we want it to be.

I would certainly disagree with the notion that all religions and beliefs are based on faith, or the deliberate neglect of evidence. Many religions are irrational and disregard reality, others express a misunderstanding of reality, but this does not mean that in order to hold "fundamental beliefs" you must suspend your reasoning and deny the evidence of your senses.

Again, I don't mean to offend, but the vast majority of posts in this thread seem to be a play on words (consciousness, Consciousness, CONSCIOUSNESS, avatar, maya, etc, etc). The discussion is being taken into the realm of wishful thinking, precisely because people are defining reality based on what they want, and not what reality is really like.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Max Power

SR defines everything including all bodies/minds/thoughts/emotions as projections of singular consciounsess/awareness. Ownership of that consciousness/awarenss can only be mine as I am the only one with my awareness.

A simple thought experiment illustrates this:

I close my eyes and I imagine that there is nothing (everything is gone, including my body).
One "thing" is still there: the "I" who's imagining this.
As everything else is gone, there is only one "I", only one consciousness.
This "I" is my true identity.


PS. To avoid misunderstandings and comments like "yeah, but from my POV, only MY "I" is real", read this text as if you wrote that by yourself.

[absvan]

Originally Posted by haider

Again, I don't mean to offend, but the vast majority of posts in this thread seem to be a play on words (consciousness, Consciousness, CONSCIOUSNESS, avatar, maya, etc, etc). The discussion is being taken into the realm of wishful thinking, precisely because people are defining reality based on what they want, and not what reality is really like.

I am not an enlightened person and so dont have first hand experience with SR. But having read the works of different enlightened people from different parts of the world with different cultural backgrounds, I am sure there should be a reason why they all speak the same.

Its not easy to understand SR, because the premise of SR is that you are not your body. Having been identified as your body for all your life, it wont be easy for anyone to accept it. Thats why there are different terms like consciousness etc which can confuse people because its hard to think that I "Absvan" is not Absvan but Consciousness -- What the heck does that mean

I think the problem here is that everybody is trying to see SR only with respect to LOA. I never understood SR the first time Steve wrote on his site. But later when I read books written about Advaita (where the focus was on spiritual growth and not LOA), everything became clear to me. SR wont be experienced just by reading alone. When you stop identifying with your body then chances are that you will get a better picture of reality.

So give it a practical shot before you conclude that wishful thinking and people are defining reality based on what they want.......not trying to offend you, its just a suggestion

I close my eyes and I imagine that there is nothing (everything is gone, including my body). One "thing" is still there: the "I" who's imagining this. As everything else is gone, there is only one "I", only one consciousness. This "I" is my true identity.

Nice experiment.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

How can you say there is 2 chairs, if you were in two different universes, why the ************ would you share the same exact room. Thats just far off man.

I can say there are two chairs because each 'I' is in it's own universe.
When two "I's" meet up, then two chairs exist.

One 'I' is sitting by itself, one chair exists.

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

If someone killed you in their "universe", you would still die in your universe.

I have my own universe, as you do.
Why would I create myself dying?

Seems like a silly thing to do. I'm having too much fun in this realm.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Frans

I close my eyes and I imagine that there is nothing (everything is gone, including my body).
One "thing" is still there: the "I" who's imagining this.
As everything else is gone, there is only one "I", only one consciousness.
This "I" is my true identity.


PS. To avoid misunderstandings and comments like "yeah, but from my POV, only MY "I" is real", read this text as if you wrote that by yourself.

I'm doing the same thing in my universe.
Now we have two 'I's.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

I'm doing the same thing in my universe.
Now we have two 'I's.

To avoid comments like this one, I added a PS to my post. Apparently you didn't read it.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Frans

To avoid comments like this one, I added a PS to my post. Apparently you didn't read it.

No worries, mate.
I was just using your post to make a point about there not being a Singular consciousness....... to anybody else reading this thread.

[haider]

Absvan,

I think we're mixing in too many ideas into this OR/SR discussion, and the result is a sweet and sour dish (you can guess which part of the discussion I think is sweet :P).

Firstly, I don't think the fundamental premise of SR is that "you are not your body," since this can also be shared by the belief in OR. I don't believe that I can be defined by my body. For one thing, a person's character is more important than his physical appearance. An objectivist can accept that we are thinking beings, or that we even have souls detached from our bodies (this would still be objective, but not all objectivists would agree). SR is the belief that there is no existence outside your consciousness, whereas OR states that your consciousness exists within reality.

OR states that there is a relation between you and reality, but this relation is *not* an identity (i.e. you = reality). For the record, I believe in God, and believe we all have a spiritual connection with God. But just because we have that connection does not mean that we = God, or that you = me, etc.

Now, you mentioned "enlightened" people. To me that is a very vague term: on what basis are they enlightened? and how can you assert that they are enlightened? I would need a more exact definition of what "enlightened" is in order to discuss this issue.

But, nonetheless, to point out similarities between ideas that sprang in different cultures does not necessarily mean that they are valid, or originate from the same source. The idea that morality is to renounce pleasure has popped up in every corner of the world, but this does not mean that it is a correct belief. All humans think, and share the same array of emotions. We are all prone to happiness and to sadness, to pleasure and to pain, to contentment and to greed, etc. We can reach the same conclusions about the world around us, or about our inner world, irrespective of our cultures. An Indian, or an Arab, or a Brazilian can all reach the conclusion that the ends justify the means, but this does not make the belief correct or "enlightened."

I don't see how I can practice SR, or have an SR experience. Like I said, I believe in OR, but don't relate solely to my body.

Finally, Frans, I must point out that your experiment is flawed and biased. If you choose to ignore the existence of everything around you, does that mean they don't exist? The problem is, you cannot escape your own existence, which only asserts that you do exist, and not that other things don't exist. Again, what discredits SR is the idea that you must abandon your senses (hence, closing your eyes) in order to "prove" the validity of SR.

I'm not denying that "I" exist, but this does not mean that the world doesn't.

I feel that I'm going against the grain in this thread (in this forum, actually), which is why I feel compelled to add: I hope I'm not offending anyone! While I feel strongly about objective reality, this does not mean that I hold a grudge against anyone here! Writing in a forum lacks tone and facial expressions, which can make words ambiguous.

[DaveTyler]

Infinitethoughts. So when two "souls" meet up in the physical realm, theres sddenly two physical realms?
So if the one "I" throws a rock at you in his universe just because he felt like it, but you dont feel like it, so you dont create it, it wont happen? You realize how retarded that is? If this were true, prove it, show it to the kids in IRAQ etc thats being shot down each day, I doubt they intended it to happen.
Or to go back to the magic selfcloning chair. me and you, individuals "I's" stand infrnt of a door, we discuss, and chose to have a different colored chair in our "universes", I think to myself "black" you think to yourself "white". WE walk in, ************ the chair is pink, what happened there, did we enter a third universe that was created by the gay spider in the corner of the roof?

Theres one universe, one god, 6 billion personalities, and perceptions...

We all have some sort of chance to alter reality, and what WE want to experience in life, but its not like you create absolute reality, if so, why the ************ dont you have money trees in your garden... Its jst ludacris to believe your God like that.
If you kick a ball through someones window, in your perception this happens "i kicked a ball through someones window, ************ I better run".
The person who owned the windows perception will be like this: "WHAT THE ************, A BALL CAME THROUH MY WINDOW".
Still same universe man
I understand you need to feel unique, special, seperate. Thats cool, we are unique and special, all of us in our unique way, UNIQUE EXPRESSIONS of God.

[absvan]

Haider,

Firstly let me use the term Advaita instead of SR because Advaita is the real term given to this philosohpy of salvation which orignated in India.

I think you have it wrong. The premise of Advaita is that Brahman (creator or god or whatever you call it) and Atman (self) is the same.

Why/What is Enlightenment a.k.a moksha - P.S. I have taken this answer from Advaita Vedanta A very important assumption in all vedAnta is that man suffers from bondage in the course of his life in this world. This is said to be samsAra, which involves being caught in an endless cycle of births and deaths. The quest therefore is to seek a way out of this bondage, to break the cycle of rebirths and attain moksha or liberation. The most important issues in vedAnta have to be understood with respect to what constitutes bondage and what constitutes liberation. The advaita school is of the view that jnAna (knowledge) of man's true nature is liberation. Bondage arises from ignorance (avidyA) of man's true nature, and therefore removal of ignorance roots out this bondage. Liberation is therefore nothing more or nothing less than man knowing his true nature. This true nature is his innermost essence, the Atman, which is nothing other than brahman. He who knows this, not merely as bookish knowledge, but through his own Experience, is liberated even when living. Such a man is a jIvanmukta, and he does not return to the cycle of rebirths.

Haider, as I have mentioned, SR cannot be understood just by reading. The books I have read talks about understanding SR by doing meditation where you will be searching for "Who am I" and once you overcome the incessant chatter of the mind and experience pure silence, you will reach the stage where you will realize your true nature...................I am sure you must know how hard it is to keep your mind quiet.

Ofcourse NO GRUDGE AT ALL. I keep writing here because I see people having wrong interpretations of Advaita. If you think you will be comfortable with OR, then thats fine. Each one of us are entitled to what we feel is comfortable.