Consciouness vs Energy

re-pete-a

Without intent energy is inert.
 

re-pete-a

Consciousness V energy , The falling apple or the apple, one observes the other IS.
 

The crowned one

re-pete-a said:
Without intent energy is inert.

re-pete-a my friend I respect your private reasons to post in degree's of cryptic prose, but sometimes it makes understanding you very hard for me! :)

Intent would a state of mind or even a purpose. Inert is having no inherent power of action (outside of chemisty). Enegy can not have this state. It can have a potential state but can not be inert. Energy is the capacity to do work. Are you talking about Brahman?
 

The crowned one

re-pete-a said:
Consciousness V energy , The falling apple or the apple, one observes the other IS.
Not if you are the apple. ( it was a metaphor ;) )
 

Milfoil

Is there a separation?

Big bang, start of the universe would seem, according to some ancient tribal people and some quantum physicists to be a conscious energy creation/expansion.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what we understand the word consciousness to mean?
 

The crowned one

Milfoil said:
Is there a separation?

Big bang, start of the universe would seem, according to some ancient tribal people and some quantum physicists to be a conscious energy creation/expansion.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what we understand the word consciousness to mean?

I think energy exists without consciousness but not the other way around, so there is a seperation.

I can not define consciousness, I believe it it arises from physical systems of the brain, but I have no idea how, yet I do have a bit of a idea why. I feel It will turn out to be a blending of neuroscience, cognitive science and something we can't quite grasp yet. I feel it is a natural phenomenon and therefor will fall within natural laws. Perhaps laws we do not know of yet, laws to be discovered. I am not even saying they will be physical laws, but we will be able to understand it one day and it will be natural.
 

re-pete-a

TCO, Experience has taught that there is no point in Theorising ,discussing or proving . Let it rest at there is a universe of difference between intellectualising
and Being. Your not being pushed away ,it's just that it's a different world, and discussion, and thinking while in that world destroys the connection.Talk intuition, or BE intuitive.
 

The crowned one

We are two sides of the same coin. I plan to continue as my experience has shown it to be worthwhile. I am very intuitive, it helps me understand much, but then I look for science (for lack of a better word) to back up my intuition. It is just my process and I enjoy sharing it. I have no intention of forcing you to change your view, but I would love to be able to open a door or two to expand your view, as you do for me on occasion. What part of the discussion am I not a part of? Are my thoughts not valid, my friend?
 

re-pete-a

TCO, Your path is your path and vise versa, there's enough leeway between both to spike each others curiousity, the underlying motive for both is to expand. Thats good .
Here's something that you may find odd, the highest that has ever been gained was by slowly pressing a sharp object into the back of the hand , The motive was trust , the object , to open that door (blockage) , Fears being the construct of that door. The end result was a stepping through .
To talk about it is useless, To look for proofs is pointless, to say that 's the way for everyone is madness. It's where one was in the mind at that time . End result, Thinking ,feeling, being. Three different worlds. each separated by fears of all kinds. All part of the same thing, all separated , but combined .
The sharp object pressed through to the table but didn't pierce the skin. Now the understanding of willing ritual suffering is understood.
 

re-pete-a

Each level is able to experience it's own form of enlightenment. But each level is better than the previous, which way to go? It's dependant on the person's state at the time.