Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Just a few more responses for TT:

Quote:
Rash? I see it as a segue for the revival of your case, or to move it from rest to activity.


A segue? Applied by whom? Why would either of us wish to bring about such a revival?

You mentioned definition.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
You begin to see grasshopper.


You cast yourself as the “master”?

I know more than some and less than others.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
However does that mean respect is now exchanged for something else?


Why might you infer that from what I said?

If you didn't say that then say so. However you did mention respect.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
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.


“Facilitates” what? Or is the lack of a direct object with a transitive verb intended to convey some esoteric meaning?

It is meant to convey the idea that there is more to ones self in creativity than the body and its fleshy components.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Impressive as your assertion might be it does not address the point to which it apparently purports to respond.
It may take some time for you to put it all together, if you are not into the instant gratification thing where everything has to be put into a box.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
No. In this case knowledge is the difference between belief and reality.


Earlier you seemed to deny that distinction. Can you have it both ways, or is one just empty verbosity?

You hear but do not listen.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

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


Are you saying that it is the becoming that is an illusion or that being what one experiences is an illusion?

The soul in the reflection of being human is always becoming, the illusion is that it becomes something.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

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


Quaintly Biblical, but what does it actually mean in terms of knowledge, either of the self, or anything else.

It means the ego becomes a product of its own thoughts rather than being that which imagines.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
God does not leave its ascended status to lose itself in the dreams and fancies that are the manifestations of God.


I suspect you will have to do better than make bald statements, however convincing your air of authority may be, if you are to be taken seriously.
Not interested in convincing anyone. People who wish to stay where they are at figure they have to be convinced to move further. It is usually obvious when someone wants more then they think they have.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Let’s go for another round.

let's
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Beliefs are irrelevant to the reality of the ONE.


Surely that depends on the relationship between the “ONE”, whatever that might be, and the being holding the belief. Furthermore, if your idea that belief can be tantamount to knowledge has any veracity, such beliefs might amount to knowledge, which cannot be irrelevant.

The ONE is all that is. It is knowledge it is emotion it is wisdom it is niether. It is potential, and the one with the belief sees itself as separate from it rather than, that. The ONE does not become the other, it contains the other within itself so to speak. So,... your argument is without knowledge and experience of the one.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
The infinite consciousness is not so much fragmented as individuality chooses to see it fragmented, with varying degrees of wholeness based on what is needed to fill the gaps, where the belief in gaps exist.


Apparent fragmentation of the infinite, conscious or otherwise, must always be an illusion. Are you really making an exception for consciousness?
The infinite is consciousness.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
However if one has risen above beliefs to engage the subtle senses, the nature of the universe is fully integrated as ones self, and knowledge will supersede belief.


Your rhetoric fails to disguise the fact that this statement is based on a personal belief system.
If the universe to which you refer is infinite, as it must be, and the “self” is part of that, then integration must be the permanent reality. Any seeming lack of integration will be an illusion.

The seeming lack of integration would be the illusion, as is the belief in separation. Altho the above statement which you quoted can be a belief, it can also be directly experienced. When mastered it supersedes any beliefs in mastery or imagination of Unity.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
You believe the human nervous system is finite in its capabilities?


Now, there’s something I didn’t say.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Any limitation would necessarily be imposed by our 4-dimensional perception of reality. A lot depends on whether or not you regard the scope of choice as realisable within our finite perception or as a potential that might require some preternatural support for its realisation.

you mentioned our finite perception...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
No. when one knows the indefinable there is resonance.


I stand admonished! I should have said you would need to define:
a. what you mean by “God”
b. what you understand as knowledge of God.

You would have to hear what I have said to begin to understand what is being said.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
such as the experience of the infinite which hasn't the need for belief to exist,


Whilst the infinite, whatever one might understand by that, would have no need of belief in order to exist, that would not explain what you mean when you talk of “experience of the infinite”.

You still look for finite definition, rather than hear that experience does not require belief or definition.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
The infinite exists throughout the course of time where beliefs about it come and go and never capture it. So it lives within the belief system as the belief system is a reflection of potential. That reflection however can never capture or define potential.


If “the infinite” and “time” actually co-exist, one could not say that “The infinite exists throughout the course of time”. Infinity and time are entirely different concepts. There can be no time, or any other divisions in infinity, it simply “is”. Time is an integral quality of the illusion we call a finite Universe.

yes time is a construct which the mind uses to experience dimensional quality, based on its immersion into defining properties of itself with beginnings and endings. But to say the infinite is not capable of having qualities is to deny the infinite of its infinite status. It is beyond qualities but it has within it inherent qualities which are perceived by a mind that determines itself to be contained within qualitative ideals.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
It is belief that pushes one toward opening doors of perception but belief has to be dropped to go thru the door and to perceive.


True as this might be, can you claim it is anything other than a belief?
Would you believe me if I did make such a claim?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!