|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 5:52:12 GMT -5
You're a funny guy. You went from Tolle to Niz to Catholic. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I don't think he's a card carrying ideologue just yet. Maybe he's just being a good husband and a good neighbor. But wouldn't that be the definition of phony?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 5:58:39 GMT -5
You're a funny guy. You went from Tolle to Niz to Catholic. Shouldn't it be the other way around? heh heh .. well, on a serious note, it took questioning every single belief I ever had down to the core before it became clear, on experiential terms, that true insight will drop you to your knees, and true devotion can never fail to enlighten. If I told you the family history it would get even more interestinger in terms of cycles of patterns, and if you get sincere enough about the scientific method it's bound to lead you to the void. It's as if completing a grand circle, and the labels, beliefs and monikers of identity are all like a cloud of fireflies. I'm sure you have your reasons. It just seemed funny phrasing it the way I phrased it. Never mind.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 5:59:55 GMT -5
Generally speaking, your point is valid, of course. Your timing seemed way off though. But that may have something to do with your particular culture or subculture. I'm sure you have noticed that some jokes sometimes fall flat due to cultural differences. In the same way, insults can fall flat, too. I realized that when I read Figgles' exit post. I was really just curious man, and it was funny. She deleted her account, right? Would take some work to find that, got the link handy? Probably in this thread somewhere. Not important though.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 6:03:07 GMT -5
I'm a reformed Catholic myself, and while I harbor no love for the institution, ideally there may well be value in the system of belief together with the ritual and sense of community/communion in terms of elevating one's state of being so as to bring about a better alignment with creation, or 'what is'. Some New Age leaning systems may refer to this alignment as 'vibrational' or 'vortex' alignment, and there is a personal, though not likely transcendental, benefit to the experience. Most peeps are just trying to get through the week, and attending mass is their version of satsang. Most would look down their noses at Native American traditions that are very closely tied to nature, inseparable from the flow of creation and actually containing great wisdom. This may actually result in a quite elevated state of being. It's the state of being that is significant, not the particular belief system that fostered it. No doubt. It can also help to get historical perspective on the phenomenon of institutions generally and Christianity and the Catholic church in particular. It all just is what it is, and ultimately, just the Universe doin' it's thing, neither good nor bad but what the mind makes of it. I think it's worth noting that basically all major religions have a mystical branch. And my theory is that if that weren't so, these major religions would have been gone a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2020 6:15:21 GMT -5
heh heh .. well, on a serious note, it took questioning every single belief I ever had down to the core before it became clear, on experiential terms, that true insight will drop you to your knees, and true devotion can never fail to enlighten. If I told you the family history it would get even more interestinger in terms of cycles of patterns, and if you get sincere enough about the scientific method it's bound to lead you to the void. It's as if completing a grand circle, and the labels, beliefs and monikers of identity are all like a cloud of fireflies. I'm sure you have your reasons. It just seemed funny phrasing it the way I phrased it. Never mind. Oh, I get the humor in it, and I'm sure that if anyone at the church ever wanted me to really open up about my path or what I really think of Catholicism generally that there are many of them who would call me a phony.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 6:18:56 GMT -5
I'll raise you a southern babtist evangelical speaking-in-tongues level intensity Interesting that you mention evangelicals cuz that's the first hint I had that something other than religious nonsense might be going on. Though there's clearly a lot of fakery surrounding evangelical healings, it seems that the fakery was capitalizing on some genuine 'miraculous' healings, which begs the question, WTF? But again, a strong belief in the healing powers of almighty God, coupled with a willingness toward total surrender and the mind state altering effects of a good revival meetin may be all that's needed to produce a temporary 'level of being' conducive to radical changes in one's physical experience. You won't hear me talking about vibrations and vortex because all I see is Consciousness, nothing more, but the point remains. Don't know about speaking in tongues specifically, but maybe Seth, Abraham and Bashar can clarify. Yes, those miracles certainly mess with people's concepts of reality. Such occurrences make it rather obvious that our so-called physical 'laws' aren't actually laws but more like agreements. That doesn't mean, however, that anything goes as some might then conclude. There's always more to the story. It just tells you who's boss, hehe. I think the term 'speaking in tongues' specifically refers to instances where people suddenly go into a different state of mind and start transmitting messages in a foreign (often ancient) language that they have never actually learned, like Aramaic. In contrast, Seth, Abraham and Bashar all seem to have managed to come out in plain, contemporary American English. Thank God!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2020 6:20:17 GMT -5
I was really just curious man, and it was funny. She deleted her account, right? Would take some work to find that, got the link handy? Probably in this thread somewhere. Not important though. Sure, but folks perceptions are interesting in the way they can distort to the extreme of conflict-seeking, which they might even deny as it's happening. Which is, of course, the other side of the coin of being easily offended.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 6:27:52 GMT -5
I was talking about this in a more practical sense. In terms of personality types, there really is millions of identical Gopals (or Reefs or Satch) types out there. You'll notice that when you travel around a bit in the world. After all, people are people, as they say, no matter where you are. So in that sense, there's no shortage of Gopals (or Reefs) and it's not all that varied. It does make a lot of sense if you think about it in terms of vibration or vibrational essence or signature. Seth and A-H used to talk about families of consciousness, streams of consciousness, consciousness streaming. So in that sense, there's literally an endless stream of Gopals (or Reefs or Satchs). You can see that often playing out in relationships. Some people get stuck on a person representing a certain vibrational essence or signature, like let's say Gopal or Reefs or Satch and when they leave Gopal #1 (or Reefs #1 or Satch #1) they walk right into Gopal #2 (or Reefs #2 or Satch #2). On a suface level it may be different places, different faces, but in terms of vibrational essence, it's basically an identical experience. Do you think Gopal in ST is unique as what SDP told me? In terms of what? His style of expressing his views in his writings makes one unique? That there is no other dude like Gopal who could debate with you this and that way? So, what makes SDP say Gopal is unique? Is Consciousness unique? If SDP only said Gopal is inconceivable I would have agreed. To me, those question belong into the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" category. Really fun to speculate about and try your logic at on a day when you've got too much time on your hands. But ultimately, nothing of actual value or importance or anything life-changing coming out of pursuing such questions.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 6:29:55 GMT -5
Yeah, we usually call it TMT. Well, ok then. Apply that same standard to your use of the word "solipsist" over the last year and a half or so. Translation: Don't look here, look over there!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 6:37:16 GMT -5
Well, he started it. He can end it, too. Let's see. the irony of feeling insulted by being called a people-peep is as thick as it can ever get. Well, every time Laffy starts reaching for doofus guy ("heh heh"), I tell myself: Beware! There may be more to this than meets the eye!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 6:45:33 GMT -5
I'm sure you have your reasons. It just seemed funny phrasing it the way I phrased it. Never mind. Oh, I get the humor in it, and I'm sure that if anyone at the church ever wanted me to really open up about my path or what I really think of Catholicism generally that there are many of them who would call me a phony. Ramakrishna, after SR, felt the strong desire to experience ALL aspects of God, not just the Hindu versions. So for a while, he suddenly started hanging around with Muslims and lived like a Muslim. After he realized their version of God, he moved on to Christianity and fully immersed himself into that aspect of God. I don't remember how many religions he adopted that way, but judging by the talks he has given and that have been preserved, he got a rather well rounded view not only on most major religions, but also on non-duality. That's why he kept stressing this point about God with form and God without form.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 28, 2020 6:47:03 GMT -5
Do you think Gopal in ST is unique as what SDP told me? In terms of what? His style of expressing his views in his writings makes one unique? That there is no other dude like Gopal who could debate with you this and that way? So, what makes SDP say Gopal is unique? Is Consciousness unique? If SDP only said Gopal is inconceivable I would have agreed. To me, those question belong into the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" category. Really fun to speculate about and try your logic at on a day when you've got too much time on your hands. But ultimately, nothing of actual value or importance or anything life-changing coming out of pursuing such questions. It simply means you don't want to waste your time on this. Me, too. Time to move on to another topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 6:50:25 GMT -5
Probably in this thread somewhere. Not important though. Sure, but folks perceptions are interesting in the way they can distort to the extreme of conflict-seeking, which they might even deny as it's happening. Which is, of course, the other side of the coin of being easily offended. There is the opinion that suggests that being outraged is a relatively recent development in evolutionary terms. And goes some way to explain the exploration of it being perpetuated by the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 28, 2020 6:52:44 GMT -5
Probably in this thread somewhere. Not important though. Sure, but folks perceptions are interesting in the way they can distort to the extreme of conflict-seeking, which they might even deny as it's happening. Which is, of course, the other side of the coin of being easily offended. Yes, and judging by the screenshot Farmer posted, Satch seemed to have been rather conscious of this, Figgles not at all. And while it ended the same way for both, their version of the story is significantly different for exactly that reason.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2020 6:55:37 GMT -5
Well, ok then. Apply that same standard to your use of the word "solipsist" over the last year and a half or so. Translation: Don't look here, look over there! (** throws copy of "The Power of Now" at rastaphant **)
|
|