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.

[DaveTyler]

absvan yo seem to have a lot of knowledge in this field. What I wonder is, I've heard a enlightened being and chose after death to merge with the eternal bliss or be reincarnated without karma to help the world.
Is this true or does a enlightened being automatically become nothing after death

[haider]

Absvan,

There are three important themes in your last response that deserve some consideration:

1) Most of the explanation you have given is based on "empty terms": words that suggest a meaning, but don't give a precise definition of what these words mean. To list some of the most prominent terms: salvation, true nature, knowledge, ignorance.

You see, most philosophers would say: the true nature of man is X, Y or Z. The term "true nature" in itself is empty. What is this nature? And how can you prove that this is really the case?

You will find this same problem popping up in politics, where parties diametrically opposed to one another use the same terms to refer to opposite meanings. "Justice" and "freedom" have opposite meanings to a capitalist and a communist. To simply use those terms is, therefore, meaningless, unless you define what you actually mean by these terms. Nonetheless, people can feel so attached and moved by these terms, even though they don't know what's meant by them!!

2) What's most striking about your reply is that there is no evidence in support of it. Reality can be explained in so many ways, and all these explanations can make sense precisely because we are not linking these explanations to the evidence of reality. I can give you Greek mythology, or the Christian trinity or Islamic monotheism to explain what the world is like, but if these explanations are not tied to the evidence of reality, then they are the work of the imagination, and not of reality.

We can imagine castles on the clouds. In fact, we can even imagine what it would be like to live in such castles, but this does not mean that such castles exist.

3) My primary objection to SR and all its derivatives is that it is based on the neglect of the intellect, and the denial of sensory experience. If you seek to end the "chatter of the mind," then you are essentially exposing yourself to any belief, without evaluating what that belief is.

To me, any belief that seeks to silence the mind, or to claim that the truth can be known only through bypassing the mind is *promoting* ignorance, regardless of what claims to ultimate truth it pretends to have.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by haider

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.

1. I consider imagination the most powerful force I have.
If I remove everything around me (in my imagination), it really means that nothing exists (in my imagination).

2. Like many other people on these forums have said: I have only one certainty: "I exist".
Nobody can prove to me that I don't exist and nobody can prove to me that they exist.
I don't say that you do not exist, I say only: nobody can prove to me that you exist on the same level (consciousness/awareness) like me.

3. There are other methods to prove the validity of subjective reality:

a) I can only perceive reality through my body's senses.
As my senses cannot register everything, and as not everything what I perceive is "real", I can safely assume that I cannot see reality "as it is".
With the filtered input from my senses, I construct a mental image of reality.
What I call "reality" is only a mental image, a perception of reality.
This personal perception of reality is per definition a "subjective reality".

b) Everything in my life happens around me.
I'm in the center of everything that happens.
I have a unique point of view.
It's MY life, it's MY reality.

c) At first sight, I'm locked up in a bag of skin (my body).
To survive, my body must be on a planet where there is enough oxygen, water and food. That planet must have a mild climate, so it must be in orbit around a certain kind of warm star. A star can only be found in a galaxy, etc...
This environment is just as essential to the existence of my body as my internal organs (heart, lungs, brain...). So, if I want to describe myself, I must also describe my environment: my body > Earth > galaxy > universe. If one element is left away, I cannot exist. Therefore, the only correct way to describe myself is: my body is an aspect of mine, the Earth is an aspect of mine, this galaxy is an aspect of mine, the universe is an aspect of mine. In other words: I am the universe, this reality is mine.

etc...


Once I had a lucid dream (I realized in my dream that I was dreaming).
I told to the people in my dream that I was only dreaming, but they tried to convince me that they were as real as me and that I wasn't dreaming at all.
Then I woke up...

Since that moment I'm very suspicious when people try to convince me that this reality is real and that they are as real as I.

[haider]

Frans,

You seem to jump to conclusions in your reasoning and, therefore, your arguments are not entirely logical.

No matter how powerful your imagination is, it is only a means by which you can form *mental* images based on concepts you have perceived with your senses. You can integrate different perceptions together (castle + clouds = castle on clouds), but you cannot escape the realm of your perceptions. You cannot imagine a colour you've never seen before, and any scenery or creatures you can imagine are based on your perceptions, and the concepts you extracted from what you have seen, which you then integrated in different ways.

Having said that, if you can imagine your life better than what it is, you are able to shift your reality towards what you would *like* it to be, by using your vision as a template. But this does not mean that you have created a new reality, or that your imagination dictates what reality is like. You can jump off a building and imagine that you have wings, but the end result is: SPLAT!!

To quickly run through the points you mentioned:

* Removing things around you in your imagination doesn't remove them from reality. If you don't like me, I will still exist! You can ignore me, but that's not a nice thing to do :P (and I would still exist)

* "Nobody can prove to me that I don't exist": Based on your later reasoning, it is entirely possible that you don't even exist! You can just be a thought of some dude in a totally different universe who thought: "What would it be like if I was a human being that looked like such and such...?"

* "... and nobody can prove to me that they exist": Of course they can't, if you choose to deny all possible forms of proof (sense perception and reasoning).

* "As my senses cannot register everything": This does not undermine what you do get to experience and register. If I can't see beyond a mile, it does not mean that the mile I perceive is fake.

* To accept that there *is* something your senses can perceive - regardless of how distorted your sense-perceptions are - you admit that there is an objective reality, even though you are not good at perceiving it. And this certainly doesn't grant you the ability to shape the objective reality around you.

* To describe the universe as an aspect of yourself is a play on words. YOU are a part of the universe! You were created with a consciousness, and are able to perceive the environment around you. Just because you depend on this environment does not make it a part of you.

And if the universe is an aspect of you, as you say, then do you know and understand everything about you? If not, why is that? You will realise that there are factors beyond your control, which goes to prove that you're not the only existent in existence!!

Finally, about the lucid dream: You seem to enjoy mixing imagination with reality. Dreams are the work of your sub-conscious mind, and depend on your experiences in reality to form the mental images you get in a dream. They may feel vivid and more real than reality (that's because your mind can amplify your emotions, and include details that would not be present in reality), but you cannot equate reality to your dreams.

If I dream one day that all those around me are, in fact, aliens pretending to be humans, you can safely assume that I will not wake up with that impression.

The problem with the belief in SR is that you can continue digging for yourself a hole that will be more and more difficult to escape from. The more you use your imagination to define reality, and the more you deny your intellect and your sense experience, the more you erode your ability to realise that the world you exist in is objective, but that you are choosing to deny that it exists, or that it is possible to know what it is like.

[Max Power]

I cannot tell you what is true for you are what is true. You are the only one that matters, but you are never alone. No matter what happens, you will last forever, across time, across space, you are the one, the most important.

Up and down we go, over and over, post after post, thread after thread, but it doesn't really matter, you do your best always in the moment, for that is all that is.

I search and I search, but I see the truth, I see the real, look in the mirror, look at your love, look at the sunset, look for love, it's there right in front of you, all the power, all the moment.

Max

[haider]

I believe ideas have consequences. If somebody thinks he's an insignificant blob in the universe, he will always feel terrible. If he thinks that he can achieve whatever he wants just by thinking happy thoughts, he will be deluded and frustrated.

There are many issues about which we need to be clear and certain. To default to undertainty and doubt is spiritual suicide.

I hope that people can take ideas more seriously, and to analyse and evaluate their ideas, rather than accept them at face value, or go with the flow of cultural values and beliefs.

I ultimately believe that subjectivism is destructive, and would hope that subjectivists entertain the possibility that subjectivism is not what it pretends to be, and to re-activate their minds, so that they can see reality for what it is...

[Max Power]

On and on we go, where we end, nobody knows.

I started this thread to gain knowledge, but I did not gain much other than to see the ultimate truth, when I asked the question....

Who is the conscious one?

Can you guess what it is?

There is only one kind of power.

Max Power

[DaveTyler]

Everyone is conscious and aware.
You cannot create yourself, you was made by your conscious parents.
When you cant even create ************ in your reality, only perceptions, it kind of proves it all.
But its true, you dig yourself a deep whole, I think after 1-2year of phiosophing about this I think your ************edup beyond repair and wil never get out of it..

[absvan]

Originally Posted by haider

My primary objection to SR and all its derivatives is that it is based on the neglect of the intellect, and the denial of sensory experience. If you seek to end the "chatter of the mind," then you are essentially exposing yourself to any belief, without evaluating what that belief is.

To me, any belief that seeks to silence the mind, or to claim that the truth can be known only through bypassing the mind is *promoting* ignorance, regardless of what claims to ultimate truth it pretends to have.

Haider, let me give an example. I dont beleive in hell but if I tell this to someone raised as a Strong Catholic, it will hard for them to beleive it.........and if they ever want to understand me, they have to drop the idea of Hell completely from their mind.

SR is about rising above your mind and not neglecting anything. I get a feeling that my explanations are conveying a different point. So I stop here. If you are interested in knowing more about SR, I can give you links and books that talk about it in detail.

There is one thing you can do on your own. Have you ever tried experiencing silence. I mean pure silence where there are no thoughts?? Do it, go into the gaps of silence and you will see it.

P.S. - I have nothing against people who beleive in Hell. Just used as an example. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

[absvan]

Originally Posted by Max Power

On and on we go, where we end, nobody knows.

I started this thread to gain knowledge, but I did not gain much other than to see the ultimate truth, when I asked the question....

Who is the conscious one?

ANSWER - You are the only one conscious.

My Explanation-

Max, I dont know if you followed the discussion b/n Haider and I. SR was created with the idea of salvation/enlightenment. So when one rises above the mind-ego and realizes that he is not the body and is one with God Consciousness, everything else with a body is unreal.

Hope that makes sense. Thats what Steve meant by I am the only one consious here. Remember the 'I' is not the body but the Oneness. As explained in the first two questions here http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...ve-reality-qa/