|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2023 9:53:50 GMT -5
Time's a flimsy idea, dependant on who's measuring it. And space too. Mass as well. The only constant is light, it's speed. It seems to be fundamental to everything. This is why this idea of "creating" is dubious, IMO. It's bothersome. Could be just a personal thing, a vasana. Folks who proclaim we create our own reality strike me as self-serving, little self. I remember a leadership seminar my work sent me to where that was the mantra. Reminded me of a cousin, a real conniving, sneaky a-hole. He would always jump me when I wasn't looking and close enough to my parents so they'd hear his screams when I started pounding him. I'd get the belt then. In the seminar, I pointed out that based on that view child molesting and rape are victimless. The seminar did not go well from then on. It's a mystery how this all unfolds, magic. Folks look for simple answers. Haha. Bashar (or Darryl) explains it by saying that everything always exists ... .all seeming past, present and future, it all exists Now. So nothing moves or changes except our focus which moves through different aspects of what already exists. In this sense, there's no creation. I like that idea, but as much as I like his insight in small chunks, I also find him very contradictory and inconsistent (even what I said in the first paragraph, I can find problems with). This is essentially a block universe, Einstein believed in a block universe. PD Ouspensky had a pet theory, eternal recurrence. He believed we repeat our life, when we die we go back to birth (and we forget our previous repeat-life). We repeat our life until we can break-out-of-the-repeating. When he was near death, knew he was dying, he made a strange journey. He revisited important locations where important events happened in his life, in England. He did this to *fix* in his consciousness these events, so he had a better chance of remembering earlier the next repeat. When he spoke about it, he emphasized this is not a part of the [Gurdjieff] System. [IOW, at the end, Ouspensky knew he had not achieved what he had wanted to]. Just briefly here is an aspect of my view of time-and-events. There is a movement of (semi-objective) time, past-to-present-to-future. The present moment is the moment of actualization. The future exists as probabilities, it's like a branching tree. Certain things are more-likely to occur, have a higher degree of probability. This comes from past-causation. In the present moment, there are opportunities for changing the course of events, but most people are *swamped* by the past and their own subconscious, so what occurs is mostly inevitable. But I like Don Juan's expression, given by Castaneda, in the present moment, we have a cubic centimeter of chance. IOW, we have a tiny opportunity in any given moment, to do otherwise. But once done, the present-becomes-the-past and is recorded and fixed as a copy in a higher dimension. It always remains accessible under certain conditions, in altered states of consciousness. We can also access probable and possible futures. It's possible to access a likely, and an even almost inevitable future, but being able to access it gives us that cubic centimeter of chance, to change an outcome in the coming-up-future, an-upcoming-present moment. So what would it mean that we can change the past? We are not really changing the past. But, in the past, which is the then present, it's possible to access a probable future, and change the future by changing the past. But it's not changing the future, it's taking the path of an alternative future (branch), because of accessing a probable future and *deciding*, I don't want that future, so I know-I-have-to-change-right-Now, in order to take a future-branch. But all this depends upon achieving an altered state of consciousness, which can traverse different dimensions. If you will notice, we repeat certain patterns in our life. These are life lessons we f-ed up and have to redo, until we get it right. It's easier to see in other people. So, having said that, we can access an old memory of having f-ed up, and be at the very point of f-ing up again, and the past can change the present-future by a realization: I just don't want to do that again, it's a light-bulb moment. And, experiencing these shifts is like being in a 3D hologram, like on Star Trek NG, the Holodeck. They are almost indistinguishable from actual present-moment-experience. Your first time, when over, you'd probably say, WTF was THAT??? This is what occurs when you die, you view the whole-of-your-life in a flash, you re-live the whole of your life, virtually instantaneously. In the Bible this is called the last judgement. We live in a semi-block universe. The past is like a block universe, the future is not. The future is like a branching tree, many alternatives, many possibilities. In the present-now-future, we are always coming to multiple branches. This was DRAMATICALLY expressed in the film No Country for Old Men. The bad guy had a perverse sense of possibility for certain people-situations he encountered. When he flipped a coin, and said call it... well, that was dramatic. Cormac McCarthy was really a philosopher... He liked to study science also.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 25, 2023 12:13:23 GMT -5
Time's a flimsy idea, dependant on who's measuring it. And space too. Mass as well. The only constant is light, it's speed. It seems to be fundamental to everything. This is why this idea of "creating" is dubious, IMO. It's bothersome. Could be just a personal thing, a vasana. Folks who proclaim we create our own reality strike me as self-serving, little self. I remember a leadership seminar my work sent me to where that was the mantra. Reminded me of a cousin, a real conniving, sneaky a-hole. He would always jump me when I wasn't looking and close enough to my parents so they'd hear his screams when I started pounding him. I'd get the belt then. In the seminar, I pointed out that based on that view child molesting and rape are victimless. The seminar did not go well from then on. It's a mystery how this all unfolds, magic. Folks look for simple answers. Haha. Bashar (or Darryl) explains it by saying that everything always exists ....all seeming past, present and future, it all exists Now. So nothing moves or changes except our focus which moves through different aspects of what already exists. In this sense, there's no creation. I like that idea, but as much as I like his insight in small chunks, I also find him very contradictory and inconsistent ( even what I said in the first paragraph, I can find problems with). The "creation" is the choosing; the actualization from the totality of potentialities. In the video game analogy, there is an endless number of potential paths that each player draws with his choices. All those potential paths exist, but each game played is a unique creation, practically never repeated. EDIT: What problems do you find with what you wrote?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 25, 2023 13:22:39 GMT -5
Most can create an appearance of a pink elephant in their imagination. We can all now create a pink elephant juggling fire sticks . Gopal says that the elephant in the walking world is arising out of oneself. It's funny that we can all create an appearance of the juggling pink elephant in one way but not in another . That should be the end of the matter, but Gopal swaps platforms and tries to make it fit that he is creating the grey elephant and not the pink elephant purely down to it not being a stable experience to be had. For myself seeing so called strange things is normal .. that is stable in my eyes . Not stable in another's I dare say . It's all 'arising' like an aware space and everything is 'watching', but saying someone created it implies a willful creator. It seems to me that perception/creation are one and the same. I look out at the world and it mutually looks back. Will seems omnipresent and in the moment I conceive I already perceive. Yet, I can't say 'Presto' and a pink elephant appears.
When peeps say it's all arising I normally run for the hills. It's kinda poetic, with nothing much that backs it up. How does the appearance of any coloured elephant simply arise? This is the type of conversation I have had for many years with no answers pertaining to how consciousness or whatever word suits arises. Now we have the perception of something being the same as the creating of it . My understanding of everything is what you are does reflect the world looking back atcha cos the perceived and the perceiver are what you are, but when we subset the watcher or the observer from the one that actually looks then it just goes pear shaped rather quickly. There seems to be the watcher that isn't personalised per se, but everything points to that which observes is what you are that effects you rather than me. To speak about nutrition with a passion and speak about how it effects your body reflects something that refers to you on a personal level. Then there is just things arising as a watcher with no one there .. May I dare say it on Enigmas behalf .. Sounds like a split mind thang going on
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 25, 2023 13:33:51 GMT -5
Well there is a picture of a rare pink elephant, so how does that fit in with your stable experience? You see many perceive things that are not common to folk. In these instances this would violate your so called common ground. It's simply not true that you can't create certain appearances based upon your premise. I have seem plenty of extra dimensional appearances that would perhaps blow peoples minds .. You are just saying what you are saying simply because you can't create certain appearances.. Pink Elephant, Black Lion, and Blue Tiger may exist in the cartoon film, and you may see them as such, but are you feeling anything in your reality? You might be able to fly in your dreams, but are you able to fly right now? So why not? This is because we will not be establishing such a reality only to ensure that our experience is stable. We are deeply desiring this reality our experience. Blimey O'Reilly ... We spent years trying to prise apart that which happens in the dream to that which happens in the waking state in order to make such comparisons.. You never could differentiate between the two. Now you are using the two different states to make your point . You kant make it up. You keep going on about maintaining a stable experience butt it's totally flawed. One experience I had of an alien race, I was left petrified unable to move praying for it to go away and leave me alone. Now that experience isn't ensuring that my experience is stable. I don't know where you get your premises from for there isn't anything credible there to back up your claim. I think perceiving a pink elephant would be a walk in the park compared to what I have seen and experienced. I dare say other's have been left traumatised to various degrees because they saw something that wasn't inline with a stable experience.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 25, 2023 17:26:14 GMT -5
It's all 'arising' like an aware space and everything is 'watching', but saying someone created it implies a willful creator. It seems to me that perception/creation are one and the same. I look out at the world and it mutually looks back. Will seems omnipresent and in the moment I conceive I already perceive. Yet, I can't say 'Presto' and a pink elephant appears.
When peeps say it's all arising I normally run for the hills. It's kinda poetic, with nothing much that backs it up. How does the appearance of any coloured elephant simply arise? This is the type of conversation I have had for many years with no answers pertaining to how consciousness or whatever word suits arises. Now we have the perception of something being the same as the creating of it . My understanding of everything is what you are does reflect the world looking back atcha cos the perceived and the perceiver are what you are, but when we subset the watcher or the observer from the one that actually looks then it just goes pear shaped rather quickly. There seems to be the watcher that isn't personalised per se, but everything points to that which observes is what you are that effects you rather than me. To speak about nutrition with a passion and speak about how it effects your body reflects something that refers to you on a personal level. Then there is just things arising as a watcher with no one there .. May I dare say it on Enigmas behalf .. Sounds like a split mind thang going on I don't care about the semantics, so any preferred word will do provided some meaning is implied through context, but elephants arose through natural selection. It's just that the standard way of thinking about the universe is material rather than a sort of living energy. I just imaging the world being made of observation because my sense is it's all watching. Please don't ask 'how does a stone watch' because I have no idea. Of course I have particular personal interests, but I don't want to be the subject unless people rave about how awesome I am.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2023 19:47:23 GMT -5
Bashar (or Darryl) explains it by saying that everything always exists ....all seeming past, present and future, it all exists Now. So nothing moves or changes except our focus which moves through different aspects of what already exists. In this sense, there's no creation. I like that idea, but as much as I like his insight in small chunks, I also find him very contradictory and inconsistent ( even what I said in the first paragraph, I can find problems with). The "creation" is the choosing; the actualization from the totality of potentialities. In the video game analogy, there is an endless number of potential paths that each player draws with his choices. All those potential paths exist, but each game played is a unique creation, practically never repeated. EDIT: What problems do you find with what you wrote? One example is that Bashar sometimes talks about 'everything always exists' as literally, everything always exists....but at other times, he talks about is as you did i.e potentials. You explained it well. (I am more inclined to the potentials view). The biggest contradiction I see relates to this, I'd be interested in your view. Sometimes he speaks of infinite parallel realities, sometimes he will indicate that there are many worlds (i.e many, but not infinite). And then sometimes, when talking about both future and past, he will say something like (just as a made up example), 'alien technology created the pyramids'. How can he say that? If there are infinite parallel worlds, then there are infinite ways of creating the pyramids. If there are infinite pasts, there's no way at all of ever talking about the past. We have no history. But even if there are just 'many' worlds (as opposed to infinite), then there would have to be many different ways of creating the pyramids. But he very consistently indicates that there was one past. He doesn't say, 'well in this world, humans created them, and in this world, dogs created them, and in this world, aliens created them'. He talks very linearly about the past. Equally he often confidently makes predictions about the future, based on probability. But if there are infinite actual worlds, there are no probabilities, because it's all happening.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2023 19:54:44 GMT -5
Bashar (or Darryl) explains it by saying that everything always exists ... .all seeming past, present and future, it all exists Now. So nothing moves or changes except our focus which moves through different aspects of what already exists. In this sense, there's no creation. I like that idea, but as much as I like his insight in small chunks, I also find him very contradictory and inconsistent (even what I said in the first paragraph, I can find problems with). This is essentially a block universe, Einstein believed in a block universe. PD Ouspensky had a pet theory, eternal recurrence. He believed we repeat our life, when we die we go back to birth (and we forget our previous repeat-life). We repeat our life until we can break-out-of-the-repeating. When he was near death, knew he was dying, he made a strange journey. He revisited important locations where important events happened in his life, in England. He did this to *fix* in his consciousness these events, so he had a better chance of remembering earlier the next repeat. When he spoke about it, he emphasized this is not a part of the [Gurdjieff] System. [IOW, at the end, Ouspensky knew he had not achieved what he had wanted to]. Just briefly here is an aspect of my view of time-and-events. There is a movement of (semi-objective) time, past-to-present-to-future. The present moment is the moment of actualization. The future exists as probabilities, it's like a branching tree. Certain things are more-likely to occur, have a higher degree of probability. This comes from past-causation. In the present moment, there are opportunities for changing the course of events, but most people are *swamped* by the past and their own subconscious, so what occurs is mostly inevitable. But I like Don Juan's expression, give by Castaneda, in the present moment, we have a cubic centimeter of chance. IOW, we have a tiny opportunity in any given moment, to do otherwise. But once done, the present-becomes-the-past and is recorded and fixed as a copy in a higher dimension. It always remains accessible under certain conditions, in altered states of consciousness. We can also access probable and possible futures. It's possible to access a likely, and an even almost inevitable future, but being able to access it gives us that cubic centimeter of chance, to change an outcome in the coming-up-future, an-upcoming-present moment. So what would it mean that we can change the past? We are not really changing the past. But, in the past, which is the then present, it's possible to access a probable future, and change the future by changing the past. But it's not changing the future, it's taking the path of an alternative future (branch), because of accessing a probable future and *deciding*, I don't want that future, so I know-I-have-to-change-right-Now, in order to take a future-branch. But all this depends upon achieving an altered state of consciousness, which can traverse different dimensions. If you will notice, we repeat certain patterns in our life. These are life lessons we f-ed up and have to redo, until we get it right. It's easier to see in other people. So, having said that, we can access an old memory of having f-ed up, and be at the very point of f-ing up again, and the past can change the present-future by a realization: I just don't want to do that again, it's a light-bulb moment. And, experiencing these shifts is like being in a 3D hologram, like on Star Trek NG, the Holodeck. They are almost indistinguishable from actual present-moment-experience. Your first time, when over, you'd probably say, WTF was THAT??? This is what occurs when you die, you view the whole-of-your-life in a flash, you re-live the whole of your life, virtually instantaneously. In the Bible this is called the last judgement. We live in a semi-block universe. The past is like a block universe, the future is not. The future is like a branching tree, many alternatives, many possibilities. In the present-now-future, we are always coming to multiple branches. This was DRAMATICALLY expressed in the film No Country for Old Men. The bad guy had a perverse sense of possibility for certain people-situations he encountered. When he flipped a coin, and said call it... well, that was dramatic. Cormac McCarthy was really a philosopher... He liked to study science also. Thanks, I'll try and read this tomorrow, my brain doesn't seem to be tuned into complexity right now. A quick scan suggests to me that it's worth reading.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2023 20:32:31 GMT -5
This is essentially a block universe, Einstein believed in a block universe. PD Ouspensky had a pet theory, eternal recurrence. He believed we repeat our life, when we die we go back to birth (and we forget our previous repeat-life). We repeat our life until we can break-out-of-the-repeating. When he was near death, knew he was dying, he made a strange journey. He revisited important locations where important events happened in his life, in England. He did this to *fix* in his consciousness these events, so he had a better chance of remembering earlier the next repeat. When he spoke about it, he emphasized this is not a part of the [Gurdjieff] System. [IOW, at the end, Ouspensky knew he had not achieved what he had wanted to]. Just briefly here is an aspect of my view of time-and-events. There is a movement of (semi-objective) time, past-to-present-to-future. The present moment is the moment of actualization. The future exists as probabilities, it's like a branching tree. Certain things are more-likely to occur, have a higher degree of probability. This comes from past-causation. In the present moment, there are opportunities for changing the course of events, but most people are *swamped* by the past and their own subconscious, so what occurs is mostly inevitable. But I like Don Juan's expression, give by Castaneda, in the present moment, we have a cubic centimeter of chance. IOW, we have a tiny opportunity in any given moment, to do otherwise. But once done, the present-becomes-the-past and is recorded and fixed as a copy in a higher dimension. It always remains accessible under certain conditions, in altered states of consciousness. We can also access probable and possible futures. It's possible to access a likely, and an even almost inevitable future, but being able to access it gives us that cubic centimeter of chance, to change an outcome in the coming-up-future, an-upcoming-present moment. So what would it mean that we can change the past? We are not really changing the past. But, in the past, which is the then present, it's possible to access a probable future, and change the future by changing the past. But it's not changing the future, it's taking the path of an alternative future (branch), because of accessing a probable future and *deciding*, I don't want that future, so I know-I-have-to-change-right-Now, in order to take a future-branch. But all this depends upon achieving an altered state of consciousness, which can traverse different dimensions. If you will notice, we repeat certain patterns in our life. These are life lessons we f-ed up and have to redo, until we get it right. It's easier to see in other people. So, having said that, we can access an old memory of having f-ed up, and be at the very point of f-ing up again, and the past can change the present-future by a realization: I just don't want to do that again, it's a light-bulb moment. And, experiencing these shifts is like being in a 3D hologram, like on Star Trek NG, the Holodeck. They are almost indistinguishable from actual present-moment-experience. Your first time, when over, you'd probably say, WTF was THAT??? This is what occurs when you die, you view the whole-of-your-life in a flash, you re-live the whole of your life, virtually instantaneously. In the Bible this is called the last judgement. We live in a semi-block universe. The past is like a block universe, the future is not. The future is like a branching tree, many alternatives, many possibilities. In the present-now-future, we are always coming to multiple branches. This was DRAMATICALLY expressed in the film No Country for Old Men. The bad guy had a perverse sense of possibility for certain people-situations he encountered. When he flipped a coin, and said call it... well, that was dramatic. Cormac McCarthy was really a philosopher... He liked to study science also. Thanks, I'll try and read this tomorrow, my brain doesn't seem to be tuned into complexity right now. A quick scan suggests to me that it's worth reading. Thanks. Sounds kind of like Bashar's view. Aside, additionally. I think our past can change in the sense we can come to a different meaning of what occurred, have a different attitude about it, but what-actually-happened-physically doesn't change. I'm not a proponent of ~what happened was inevitable~, basically, because it happened. Despite what a lot of people say and believe, accidents do happen. I've seen right in front of me deer jump across the road in front of a car, and I've seen many deer laying beside the highway, obviously hit by a car. You can't convince me that that deer, at precisely that time, was determined to die. I could give hundreds of examples.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 25, 2023 22:04:17 GMT -5
When peeps say it's all arising I normally run for the hills. It's kinda poetic, with nothing much that backs it up. How does the appearance of any coloured elephant simply arise? This is the type of conversation I have had for many years with no answers pertaining to how consciousness or whatever word suits arises. Now we have the perception of something being the same as the creating of it . My understanding of everything is what you are does reflect the world looking back atcha cos the perceived and the perceiver are what you are, but when we subset the watcher or the observer from the one that actually looks then it just goes pear shaped rather quickly. There seems to be the watcher that isn't personalised per se, but everything points to that which observes is what you are that effects you rather than me. To speak about nutrition with a passion and speak about how it effects your body reflects something that refers to you on a personal level. Then there is just things arising as a watcher with no one there .. May I dare say it on Enigmas behalf .. Sounds like a split mind thang going on I don't care about the semantics, so any preferred word will do provided some meaning is implied through context, but elephants arose through natural selection. It's just that the standard way of thinking about the universe is material rather than a sort of living energy. I just imaging the world being made of observation because my sense is it's all watching. Please don't ask 'how does a stone watch' because I have no idea. Of course I have particular personal interests, but I don't want to be the subject unless people rave about how awesome I am.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 25, 2023 23:24:12 GMT -5
The "creation" is the choosing; the actualization from the totality of potentialities. In the video game analogy, there is an endless number of potential paths that each player draws with his choices. All those potential paths exist, but each game played is a unique creation, practically never repeated. EDIT: What problems do you find with what you wrote? One example is that Bashar sometimes talks about 'everything always exists' as literally, everything always exists....but at other times, he talks about is as you did i.e potentials. You explained it well. (I am more inclined to the potentials view). The biggest contradiction I see relates to this, I'd be interested in your view. Sometimes he speaks of infinite parallel realities, sometimes he will indicate that there are many worlds (i.e many, but not infinite). And then sometimes, when talking about both future and past, he will say something like (just as a made up example), ' alien technology created the pyramids'. How can he say that? If there are infinite parallel worlds, then there are infinite ways of creating the pyramids. If there are infinite pasts, there's no way at all of ever talking about the past. We have no history. But even if there are just 'many' worlds (as opposed to infinite), then there would have to be many different ways of creating the pyramids. But he very consistently indicates that there was one past. He doesn't say, 'well in this world, humans created them, and in this world, dogs created them, and in this world, aliens created them'. He talks very linearly about the past. Equally he often confidently makes predictions about the future, based on probability. But if there are infinite actual worlds, there are no probabilities, because it's all happening. The way the "contact with the inner-" works, is that you receive an instantaneous download of information / knowledge, and you put it into words in order to become conscious of it. This always introduces distortions caused by your level of evolvement, by your beliefs, expectations, emotions. Then the more you think about it and reformulate it, the more you distort it. Trying to intellectually make sense of it adds more distortions. To minimize distortions, firstly you have to be aware of the process; secondly, you need to intentionally leave aside the factors that distort, as much as you can. Most people believe that they got it right: Darryl Anka, Jane Roberts, Ramana, JC, ... almost everybody! This is the case with almost everything: time, oneness, no separation, incarnation, everything already exists, ... " Parallel realities" can be understood as parallel instances of a video-game played by multiple players at the same time. It is like an online website where you can play this video-game. There are many people who visit the site at the same time, and who play this same game, make their own choices, so the game sequences vary from a player to another. You can choose to enter the game with different initial data: historical time, geographical space, possible version of reality that satisfy the game's restrictions; you can play it as king, pauper, victim, criminal, whatever characters are available. This means that the same character is played over and over by many players, in different ways, making different choices, with various player skills; the outcomes can be quite different: Haven on Earth, Earth destruction, same character being successful or a looser, dying old or dying young, having children or not, ... Potentially all possibilities are tried by some player, but considering the enormous number of combinations of choices, it seems likely that there are always new scenarios never encountered before. This doesn't mean that "all that is" tries to know itself. It means that the experience accumulated at game level could influence the choices made by other players who encounter the same choices, by subconsciously tapping that knowledge base. As most awake (not sleeping) people aren't aware of their subconscious' works, they are oblivious to that knowledge, and often override their inner guidance that advises them which are the more constructive paths, from the point of view of their personality, and of their whole-self. So, while we experience this reality, in other realities (same time and space, but different possible points of the physical-reality virtual game) there might be no Pyramids, there might be no JC's Christianity, humans might use levitation, telepathy, and / or have other features unknown to us. It is also possible that some of such features have been available, and forgotten. The way I understand it, our outer-selves (the part of our personality that interacts with the physical / outer reality) could work consciously together with our inner-selves (the part of our personality that interacts with the non-physical / inner reality). We intentionally chose to incarnate into this point of the physical hyperspace where we don't access that connection, not because it isn't available to us, but because we aren't aware of it. To me, this is the best thing we could work on firstly. Regarding what Anka says (even when channeling Bashar), as it is also the case with what everybody else says: It doesn't matter what they say, nor what they intend to say. Those are only symbols for us to intuitively interpret as deep as we are able to, and by also tapping our inner guidance, to improve our choice making, to grow. I think I touched all the points you mentioned (?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 0:04:10 GMT -5
Pink Elephant, Black Lion, and Blue Tiger may exist in the cartoon film, and you may see them as such, but are you feeling anything in your reality? You might be able to fly in your dreams, but are you able to fly right now? So why not? This is because we will not be establishing such a reality only to ensure that our experience is stable. We are deeply desiring this reality our experience. Yes. Not many people realise that 'this' is what they want yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 0:06:45 GMT -5
Pink Elephant, Black Lion, and Blue Tiger may exist in the cartoon film, and you may see them as such, but are you feeling anything in your reality? You might be able to fly in your dreams, but are you able to fly right now? So why not? This is because we will not be establishing such a reality only to ensure that our experience is stable. We are deeply desiring this reality our experience. Blimey O'Reilly ... We spent years trying to prise apart that which happens in the dream to that which happens in the waking state in order to make such comparisons.. You never could differentiate between the two. Now you are using the two different states to make your point . You kant make it up.You keep going on about maintaining a stable experience butt it's totally flawed. One experience I had of an alien race, I was left petrified unable to move praying for it to go away and leave me alone. Now that experience isn't ensuring that my experience is stable. I don't know where you get your premises from for there isn't anything credible there to back up your claim. I think perceiving a pink elephant would be a walk in the park compared to what I have seen and experienced. I dare say other's have been left traumatised to various degrees because they saw something that wasn't inline with a stable experience. I assure you, I’m not fabricating anything. It seems you might have overlooked the point I was trying to make.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 0:19:56 GMT -5
This isn't accurate. You can be aware of what you experienced, but you can also choose another probable one from the present, and this is what most people unconsciously do. Unconsciously, with an unconscious purpose. It isn't that "there is no physical-time", but that "physical-time isn't what people think it is". It is one of the coordinates of the physical-reality framework, as physical-space, and physical-probability, are too. They define your present, past, and future, in the physical-reality. From your current point, unconsciously and continuously changing, you draw a life-path both as a past and as a future. On the same lines, "there is no cause-effect as people think it is", but that "a present effect could be reached from an endless number of probable causes, and you can actualize any of those". This doesn't mean that it was the past that your personality experienced, which could've been vastly different. Nothing happens to you, but you cause what happens to you, a.k.a. "you create your own reality". Overall, I see things differently than you do as I understand you, which we knew, and it's okay. Just comparing notes. You can remember stuff, but can't be aware of what already happened or what's going to happen. You can only be aware of 'this' as it is now.
yes. exactly. The events that have occurred up to this point will shape what is to come. The future is predetermined; the question is whether someone has already set it in motion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 0:23:56 GMT -5
Time's a flimsy idea, dependant on who's measuring it. And space too. Mass as well. The only constant is light, it's speed. It seems to be fundamental to everything. This is why this idea of "creating" is dubious, IMO. It's bothersome. Could be just a personal thing, a vasana. Folks who proclaim we create our own reality strike me as self-serving, little self. I remember a leadership seminar my work sent me to where that was the mantra. Reminded me of a cousin, a real conniving, sneaky a-hole. He would always jump me when I wasn't looking and close enough to my parents so they'd hear his screams when I started pounding him. I'd get the belt then. In the seminar, I pointed out that based on that view child molesting and rape are victimless. The seminar did not go well from then on. It's a mystery how this all unfolds, magic. Folks look for simple answers. Haha. Bashar (or Darryl) explains it by saying that everything always exists ....all seeming past, present and future, it all exists Now. So nothing moves or changes except our focus which moves through different aspects of what already exists. In this sense, there's no creation. I like that idea, but as much as I like his insight in small chunks, I also find him very contradictory and inconsistent (even what I said in the first paragraph, I can find problems with). If this were accurate, we must be having parallel universe to hold all the past and present. However, that’s not the case here; there’s only a single timeline extending from the past into the future. This timeline cannot be altered because we are intrinsically part of it.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 26, 2023 0:29:15 GMT -5
Tenka, I don't if you're aware that a butt is what you sit on and 'but' is the conjunction. We won't even get into the pronunciation of "Kant", but reading your posts literally and phonetically is hilarious.
|
|