Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 7:31:05 GMT -5
Yes, it's tricky. It's basically the question if God is all perfect and complete or still evolving and therefore incomplete. They who speak a word in reply has erred! Well, in the spirit of absolute freedom, sometimes mistakes just have to be made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 7:34:43 GMT -5
In one context this is true if those moments are taken in isolation as disjointed points, but in terms of what a CC reveals, the pathos I was referring to is in recognition of the movement as a totality, and there's no theory involved in this, just a lingering after effect. In the relative context, the ordering of the moment points isn't arbitrary. The scientists can quantify what they think of as the duration since the Big Bang. A CC basically makes you realize what eternity really means. In the end the ordering is arbitrary. It's just that we all share the same consensus trance (basic agreements on how to decipher reality) and so there seems to be an order in the chaos, a method to the madness. Ever watched any of those movies where they mess with the timeline? www.imdb.com/title/tt0945513/
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2018 14:54:47 GMT -5
Yes. The pertinent question is, what (re)incarnates? An analogy. Do you (does anyone) have early memories, say from age 6, 5, 4 or even younger? In what sense are you the-same-person, then and now? There is something that is continuous from then to now, but atst there is much more that is not continuous. So what carries over from one incarnation to another? The person we consider ourselves to be (speaking for most people) does not carry over, it dies, this is the experience of the Bardo in Tibetan Buddhism. Does that mean we should have no concern for a ~future self~?...as this future self will be FAIAP be ~somebody else~. Everybody, in some sense, answers this question, their whole life is an answer to the question. Samkaras and vasanas carry-over from one life to another, they form a kind of foundation for subsequent lives, IOW karma does carry over. But also, an undeveloped field of potential also carries over, you could say a kind of spiritual DNA. www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1058023-difference-between-samkaras-and-vasanas/So, if anyone holds the view that there-is- only an undifferentiated Whole, and nothing else, that's an incomplete picture. www.nevernotpresent.com/satsangs/vasanas-samskaras-and-karma/According to Seth it actually does. Egos do reincarnate. He also says that incarnations can occur simultaneously, that is, during the same historical time-frame. So one would seem to be mutually exclusive of the other. And the use of the word ego has to be specifically defined. www.energeticforum.com/psychic-paranormal/3225-inner-self-ego-lesson-1-a.html
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 13, 2018 19:06:24 GMT -5
But not all pain is transient, some pain recurs, and there really is such a thing as unbearable pain. If someone hears that they should allow the pain, and they take it to heart, they're going to start to try allowing it. Do you see the potential for a person to arrive at a bind in this scenario? A-H often use the expression 'relax into the pain' which is basically what JLY was suggesting and it works really well for physical pain. The idea is to stop the struggle, to accept that you are where you are right now for now and that everything will take care of itself since well-being is the predominant force no matter what (see cork analogy). It works for emotional pain as well. Grief, separation anxiety and the likes, are all facilitated to the quickest resolution by accepting that emotion - and attending thoughts - as present and unavoidable.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 13, 2018 22:31:27 GMT -5
A-H often use the expression 'relax into the pain' which is basically what JLY was suggesting and it works really well for physical pain. The idea is to stop the struggle, to accept that you are where you are right now for now and that everything will take care of itself since well-being is the predominant force no matter what (see cork analogy). It works for emotional pain as well. Grief, separation anxiety and the likes, are all facilitated to the quickest resolution by accepting that emotion - and attending thoughts - as present and unavoidable. It's basically the whole principle of meditation, but not quite as simple, because we deal in real lives and not ideals.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 15, 2018 10:05:02 GMT -5
A-H often use the expression 'relax into the pain' which is basically what JLY was suggesting and it works really well for physical pain. The idea is to stop the struggle, to accept that you are where you are right now for now and that everything will take care of itself since well-being is the predominant force no matter what (see cork analogy). It's excellent advice, but for as long as the false sense of self is active it has it's limits. Pain and suffering form a feedback loop, and the pain of the sufferer is very real, which is ultimately why suffering, in the extreme, can be so illuminating as to the unreality of the apparent cause of that pain. Until SR, relaxing into the pain can only mitigate this, but as we are not machines, the failure of that mitigation is as unpredictable (acausal), as the realization. I wasn't talking about suffering. It's all within the context of the relative realm. That's why I would limit it to physical pain only.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 15, 2018 10:14:48 GMT -5
Yes, pain basically means stop doing whatever you are doing. Once that is understood, the falsity of the 'no pain no gain' doctrine can be seen as well. Well, that term comes from athletes. Have you ever experienced a gradual improvement in physical health by investing in exercise and calorie reduction? Both can cause short-term pain but a longer term improvement in ongoing experience. Take lolz and his weightlifting. In the extremes, pumping iron can cause damage, but it can also build muscle gradually without any negative effects if it's done within the constraints of one's current limitations. Over time those limitations become expanded. The 'no pain no gain' philosophy is deeply ingrained in our culture. It basically is a worthiness issue. A-H would say that no exercise is required in order to get in shape and build muscles. All that is required is belief and expectation. So what the exercise actually does is gradually (and sometimes painfully) change our beliefs and expectation. If the exercise is done from a place of motivation, then it is indeed the hard way of going about it. If the exercise is done from a place of inspiration, then you can get results with such ease that defies any (conventional) logic.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 15, 2018 10:23:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I figured. But it always amazes me how scientist can in all seriousness come up with such specific numbers. It's interesting how the number's changed over the course of history, and given that there's no current theoretical consensus backed by observation on what 95% of the Universe is comprised of, it's likely to change, and the current mystery of "dark energy/matter" is directly related to the changing age number. But if you shift scale from the Universe to the Solar System, the science is far more settled, and one of the reasons that they get confident in the numbers is a multi-discipline convergence on various observations: the particle physicist, the cosmologist and the geologist each have very intricate and detailed models that don't depend on one another and that wind up in the same ballpark. Very true. And we all have first hand experience in that corner of the universe, we can't say that about the beginnings of the beginnings of the universe. Such speculations say a lot more about the inner workings of the speculator than the object of speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 15, 2018 10:29:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 15, 2018 10:31:05 GMT -5
A-H often use the expression 'relax into the pain' which is basically what JLY was suggesting and it works really well for physical pain. The idea is to stop the struggle, to accept that you are where you are right now for now and that everything will take care of itself since well-being is the predominant force no matter what (see cork analogy). It works for emotional pain as well. Grief, separation anxiety and the likes, are all facilitated to the quickest resolution by accepting that emotion - and attending thoughts - as present and unavoidable. I know form my own experience that it works for physical pain. But I have my doubts about emotional pain. Can you elaborate how that works for grief, step by step?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 15, 2018 11:04:52 GMT -5
It works for emotional pain as well. Grief, separation anxiety and the likes, are all facilitated to the quickest resolution by accepting that emotion - and attending thoughts - as present and unavoidable. I know form my own experience that it works for physical pain. But I have my doubts about emotional pain. Can you elaborate how that works for grief, step by step? My experience is that emotional pain is not unlike physical pain. In fact, the breakup of a relationship, death of a spouse, the guilt of some accident one caused, etc, is often felt exactly like physical pain is, in the body, except it is usually located in the pit of the stomach (solar plexus). It can be just as intense, wave-like or constant, and debilitating as a broken rib, broken back or abscessed tooth. It is affected by the same laws as physical pain. If you resist, it persists. If made friends with (accepted as unavoidable) it follows its natural course of resolution. "Surrender comes when you no longer ask, “Why is this happening to me?” Acceptance of the unacceptable is the greatest source of grace in this world.”
“Bring acceptance into your non-acceptance. Bring surrender into your non-surrender. Then see what happens.”
“Sometimes surrender means giving up trying to understand and become comfortable not knowing.” ~ Eckhart Tolle
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 15, 2018 15:52:45 GMT -5
It's excellent advice, but for as long as the false sense of self is active it has it's limits. Pain and suffering form a feedback loop, and the pain of the sufferer is very real, which is ultimately why suffering, in the extreme, can be so illuminating as to the unreality of the apparent cause of that pain. Until SR, relaxing into the pain can only mitigate this, but as we are not machines, the failure of that mitigation is as unpredictable (acausal), as the realization. I wasn't talking about suffering. It's all within the context of the relative realm. That's why I would limit it to physical pain only. Ah yes, ok. (fwiw, jly was writing about emotional pain). On the flip side, there can be an opportunity for someone in intense physical pain to have a sudden insight about suffering or even for mind to be informed after SR. But that's certainly not what I'd recommend if someone was interested in finding that insight.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 15, 2018 15:58:03 GMT -5
Well, that term comes from athletes. Have you ever experienced a gradual improvement in physical health by investing in exercise and calorie reduction? Both can cause short-term pain but a longer term improvement in ongoing experience. Take lolz and his weightlifting. In the extremes, pumping iron can cause damage, but it can also build muscle gradually without any negative effects if it's done within the constraints of one's current limitations. Over time those limitations become expanded. The 'no pain no gain' philosophy is deeply ingrained in our culture. It basically is a worthiness issue. Yes, I see your point, it's definitely one worth making. A-H would say that no exercise is required in order to get in shape and build muscles. All that is required is belief and expectation. So what the exercise actually does is gradually (and sometimes painfully) change our beliefs and expectation. If the exercise is done from a place of motivation, then it is indeed the hard way of going about it. If the exercise is done from a place of inspiration, then you can get results with such ease that defies any (conventional) logic. Right, I don't have an issue shifting perspective to abandon the notion of physical causality ... but for the most part, the appearance of a physical result will correlate with an appearance of physical effort, and anyone who expects to bodybuild by thought alone is unlikely to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 15, 2018 16:05:50 GMT -5
It's interesting how the number's changed over the course of history, and given that there's no current theoretical consensus backed by observation on what 95% of the Universe is comprised of, it's likely to change, and the current mystery of "dark energy/matter" is directly related to the changing age number. But if you shift scale from the Universe to the Solar System, the science is far more settled, and one of the reasons that they get confident in the numbers is a multi-discipline convergence on various observations: the particle physicist, the cosmologist and the geologist each have very intricate and detailed models that don't depend on one another and that wind up in the same ballpark. Very true. And we all have first hand experience in that corner of the universe, we can't say that about the beginnings of the beginnings of the universe. Such speculations say a lot more about the inner workings of the speculator than the object of speculation. It's definitely an interesting journey to follow the cultural roots of the sciences down to the bedrock of their conditioning, that's for sure. The one at issue here is the idea that physical reality should follow the same rules at all points in space time. The inflationary theory of the Big Bang can be viewed in terms of bending that assumption, if not essentially breaking it. But looking up and out over billions of years in the past, their general cosomological framework seems to hold up to observation, at least in the broad strokes, and inflation only applies to a very narrow window out past the 30th decimal point in terms of seconds since creation. My comments are of course all in the context of the current 95% mystery.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 16, 2018 0:19:07 GMT -5
Well, that term comes from athletes. Have you ever experienced a gradual improvement in physical health by investing in exercise and calorie reduction? Both can cause short-term pain but a longer term improvement in ongoing experience. Take lolz and his weightlifting. In the extremes, pumping iron can cause damage, but it can also build muscle gradually without any negative effects if it's done within the constraints of one's current limitations. Over time those limitations become expanded. The 'no pain no gain' philosophy is deeply ingrained in our culture. It basically is a worthiness issue. A-H would say that no exercise is required in order to get in shape and build muscles. All that is required is belief and expectation. So what the exercise actually does is gradually (and sometimes painfully) change our beliefs and expectation. If the exercise is done from a place of motivation, then it is indeed the hard way of going about it. If the exercise is done from a place of inspiration, then you can get results with such ease that defies any (conventional) logic. Yes, I have found that much of the training is creating the psychological profile of an athlete through the mind/body connection, and good musculature is really a byproduct of direct conscious awareness of the sensation in the body as one exercises. The issue is, the movement which entails the stretch and contraction of the muscle is that sensation which alters ones psychological profile through conscious awareness of it. If a person was very well formed in that mindful way, I don't actually see how the body would know the difference between the mentality of it and the actual practice of the exercise - hence the body would adapt to the 'neural map' without actually lifting a weight. But, it's also true that suc neural mapping is cultivated through the conscious awareness of the sensation as one lifts - so this would make lifting necessary. There is also a disconnect between lifting to get big muscles and lifting for the sake of expressing physical strength, which adds another layer of complexity to it, and lifting for an aesthetic consequence is quite different to lifting for the mere sake of lifting heavy as weights. I tell you, though, if a person is spiritually inclined, there is nothing so truthful as a barbell. You may be interested in Henry Rollins essay called 'Iron and the soul'.I like the voice in the video, too.
|
|