Spirituality is the only way out of "the Matrix"

a reply to: daskakik
Incarnation means to be 'in flesh'.
Do you think you are 'inside flesh'?

a reply to: Itisnowagain
But how is a holographic movie put together?

Using the holodeck from Star Treck as an example. You would have something that was built for that purpose and you would have characters who existed outside of the movie and others that where created by the system.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: daskakik
Incarnation means to be 'in flesh'.
Do you think you are 'inside flesh'?

For all practical purposes, yes.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Itisnowagain
But how is a holographic movie put together?

It is a mystery.

a reply to: Profusion

“Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens.” —Carl Jung

Even though temporal reality is, essentially, an illusion, it cannot be ignored, because as long as we are bound by a body and brain, we are bound by its temporal limits.

By the same token, we can't live in pure illusion, hiding behind the veil, maya; hence, if we look within, we can find truth, we can awaken, and we can see the temporal world for what is truly is, and learn to adjust ourselves, our lives, and our perspectives properly, using the right thought, and right perspective, right perception.

It is then that we can successfully navigate "the matrix" of the world that has been constructed around us and operates largely outside our individual influence and control.

Awaken.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Without knowing the mechanics behind this "reality" I find it hard to accept your claim that there is no one. You can be right but then again that might not be how it works.

Like I said in an earlier post, I have had OBEs. From that POV I was able to appreciate the difference between being inside flesh and being outside of it. If I was to apply your reasoning to those experiences then the "then and there" was something really different to every instance that I have experienced while incarnate. I don't think that I could have carried out the tasks that I do daily, like interact physically with the world.

So, to me, when you said that the point was not to reincarnate it had a very different meaning than what you seem to be trying to say.

a reply to: daskakik
When you had the OBE where were you seeing from? Did you look down and see that there was no body to be seen?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
When you had the OBE where were you seeing from?

Another mystery.

Did you look down and see that there was no body to be seen?

Right, there was no body? I could still see me but it wasn't a body.

originally posted by: daskakik

Right, there was no body? I could still see me but it wasn't a body.

So what did you see when you looked down?
Please don't say 'me'.
If there was no body there - what was there that you are calling 'me'?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
If there was no body there - what was there that you are calling 'me'?

That is where your claim fails. What else could I call it?

a reply to: daskakik

When you had the OBE where were you seeing from?

Another mystery.

Where are you seeing from right now?
You might assume it is from the body but you might realize from further inspection that the body is actually being seen.
The body is just part of the whole scene.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
If there was no body there - what was there that you are calling 'me'?

That is where your claim fails. What else could I call it?

What claim??
You stated:

I could still see me but it wasn't a body.

So what was being seen? What was appearing?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Where are you seeing from right now?
You might assume it is from the body but you might realize from further inspection that the body is actually being seen.
The body is just part of the whole scene.

I don't know why you have a hard time grasping that I understand that.

What claim??

During my OBEs I still identify something that is "me"/"someone". There isn't "no one" as you claim, so, that claim.

So what was being seen? What was appearing?

Whatever it was, it was not flesh.

It's like Liquesence said above, no matter what mental gymnastics you perform, you cannot ignore temporal reality. You can say that it isn't you pressing keys but that is just semantic shoehorning.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: daskakik

Right, there was no body? I could still see me but it wasn't a body.

So what did you see when you looked down?
Please don't say 'me'.
If there was no body there - what was there that you are calling 'me'?

Hey ItsNow,
Your still on the same thing, neo-advaita as an absolute. "There is no you" is just one part of reality. There is also a pure you, a pure subjectivity, there is also a Soul, as well as a State that seems to be no you. Even in your case, lol, who is experiencing and who can, how can it, be known that there is no you?

"There's no you" is dying a slow death. It was big the last 68 years, but its on its way out because its only a fraction of the whole. So, you're not wrong, but just have half of it right.

Then again, to most people i'm just trolling, playing the devil's advocate, don't know anything, and only humanism/nihilism/atheism is correct...lol

so many people intent on vacating the vehicle while its still in motion. perhaps there is a destination to reach before you disembark the craft eh?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
so many people intent on vacating the vehicle while its still in motion. perhaps there is a destination to reach before you disembark the craft eh?

This made me think of a time when I was a kid and I was in the back of a pick-up, sitting against the tailgate, and up pops old Murphy. Good thing we were on an off ramp.

Don't know if it is the destination or just a scenic route.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
so many people intent on vacating the vehicle while its still in motion. perhaps there is a destination to reach before you disembark the craft eh?

There is no one driving the vehicle, it is just moving all by itself. The illusion is that there is a you in the vehicle steering it - there isn't and never has been! There is no destination - this is it.

Who's Driving the Dream Bus?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I didn't see him mention a driver at all.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I didn't see him mention a driver at all.

The film is called 'Who's driving the dreambus?'

a reply to: Itisnowagain

But TzarChasm wasn't talking about the film.