Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
Not sure what your case is

Could that be because you see in other's posts only what you choose to see?

Interesting question.
Is one capable of seeing what they choose to see, and is what one sees inclusive to the experience of the potential within all that is, or exclusive to personal belief? How would you recognize one for the other?
If one can choose, is choice limited or infinite in possibility?
Can one know God or simply see what they want to see, and if one can know God could they recognize when someone is simply following a belief or immersed in a constant that is beyond individual belief but also within the belief system?
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

But assume you are resting in your own idea and belief of whatever that is

That's a rash assumption, do you have any real evidence?
Wait, though; if belief and knowledge can be synonymous for you, could it be that your assumptions automatically become knowledge?
Rash? I see it as a segue for the revival of your case, or to move it from rest to activity.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Within all changing experiences and beliefs, is a stable unified field which does not change, as it permeates all realities within the changing system of beliefs and experiences that follow belief.

That! is tangible and is in itself resonant.
Consciousness recognizes consciousness, and it is beyond the judgments and limitations of the ego.

If the first part of this quote is an expression of your belief, then it should be respected as such, but, interestingly, your final sentence negates that as a personal belief.
You begin to see grasshopper. However does that mean respect is now exchanged for something else? What may that be?
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If, on the other hand, the provenance of the first statement is in a logical assessment of the possible nature of that unchanging “stable unified field”, then the final sentence is vacuous, because the ego is necessarily infinite.
The ego in itself is a construct which emerges from the infinite consciousness and facilitates in the experience. It can play a role as master or servant. As the master one assumes the role of being secondary to creation, where one believes everything happens to ones self, rather than the obverse which is where everything emerges from ones Self.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Without the anchor of the absolute/infinite in all changing beliefs and experience, Knowledge is based on illusion.

If knowledge is part of “the absolute/infinite”, then all change, and knowledge of that change, is illusion; so your argument, although it may be true, becomes tautologous.
No. In this case knowledge is the difference between belief and reality. One changes and evolves where the other is the constant which supports changing experiences and knowledge of the constant.

The anchor keeps the knower in the process of knowing the known, stable and without the illusion that it itself, becomes what it experiences.

One then lives in the world but does not become of it.

This is knowledge of ones Self.

God does not leave its ascended status to lose itself in the dreams and fancies that are the manifestations of God. Therefore its opinions (if it had any) of itself do not change the way it feels about itself to become exalted or detached and downtrodden in judgment and belief. This happens when the ego creates illusions of reality and its relationship with the manifest.

The ego was created to facilitate the linear progression of time and space for individual experience, not to dictate time and space as the boundary of the human experience. The soul is not bound by the human experience any more than the human is bound to an idea of itself according to the clothes it wears. But that doesn't keep the ego from imagining it is the sum of its experience, or to idolize itself within a few decades as being worthy or not based on the individual/personal measure that is temporary.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!