|
Post by tenka on Mar 9, 2024 14:42:29 GMT -5
.. So what is one aligned with or too when not realising what they are? When I speak about these subjects I am not coming from A SVP position, so where does that leave things in the grand scheme of things. I speak often about throwing out the SVP because it's not essential for one's beliefs to reflect them as such. It's toadally possible for the SVP mind set to not be present and yet maintain an understanding of what I speak about. Another word for alignment, depending on context, is blending or connection. It's the personal perspective dissolving into the impersonal perspective, in a sense, like a river or stream merging with the ocean. Because alignment basically means the 'extensions of Source' perspective, seeing the world thru the eyes of Source. And SVP and beliefs go together. So you are certainly approaching this from the SVP level if you give any importance to beliefs. I don't know why peeps only relate the personal level to a SVP. It makes no sense to me. I believe I am an individual that isn't separate from anything. That's part of my understanding had from my transcendence. Alignment, merging or whatever word suits only reflects something that can merge, or align, so all of the above can only relate to the person. If the person only refers to a SVP and the SVP is illusory then as said before to a few members here, what is left? LOA, Karma, and processes that reflect one state over another have to have at the centre point someone that can entertain them. Kan't an individual that isn't separate from everything else hold a belief that doesn't reflect a SVP? The answer is obviously yes, but it seems that some Non Dualists can only see the person one way.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 9, 2024 16:07:30 GMT -5
... but it seems that some Non Dualists can only see the person one way. A non-dualist, by name, is someone who denies a duality, similarly to believing that light has only a wave-nature, and denying light's dual particle-nature.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 21:38:31 GMT -5
Okay, then I understood you correctly and I have to disagree. Because from my perspective, fundamentally, all those boundaries (cellular level, body level, gestalt level) are imaginary. Therefore it would be illogical to conclude that abnormality on the gestalt level would not also show up on the cellular level, or that abnormality on a cellular level would not be found on the gestalt level as well. By definition, the properties of a gestalt aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and it doesn't impose its properties on its elements. The gestalt isn't a deterministic relation. You may not agree that reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness, and that it is a duality consciousness - awareness, as I do. This is okay too. It can't be solved by arguing it. Gestalt is a German term, which basically just means form or shape. So in that sense I have no issue with your "reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness" model, since by "reality" you mean the relative realm. I am just pointing out that the conclusion you've reached, given your premise and the way you usually argue, is illogical.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 22:00:56 GMT -5
Okay, I understand your point, it's a fairly standard argument, actually. It's the ripe mango model, or the accident prone model. But no matter how you look at it, in the end, it is just that, a mental model. So when it comes to SR (beyond self and mind), it will suffer the fate as all other mental models, i.e. it answers some questions that arise at a certain level of understanding, but in the end it is rather meaningless and cannot be relied upon. So it has to be discarded. So we have to make clear in what context we are speaking. If we are speaking in the relative context (self and mind), those models can be useful. But if we are speaking in the absolute context (beyond self and mind), these models are useless. Yep I would agree that in the end it's just a mental model in some shape or form butt some mental models make more sense than others and ring more true than others. My context pertaining to S.R. is beyond mind and self and perhaps only a few would agree, so the science of S.R. based upon that context wouldn't entertain a process, it would be everything leading up to that point of transcendence that is. (I think we are both clear and in agreement with that). Some say S.R. is of the mind and it's a constant state for use of a better word when experiencing life, so that would entertain a process. As Satch might say, SS is SR, so we are in a way transforming from one mindful state to another which would fall under a process of sorts. Exactly, some models make more sense than others because they explain more than other models. That's why LOA trumps LOK. This doesn't mean that LOK is wrong per se, it just means that, when it comes to explaining creation and experience, LOK has more limits than LOA. I can agree with the "up to a certain point" argument, because that's basically what the gateless gate argument is that I often use, i.e. there's a process that can get you to the gateless gate, but there's no process that can get you thru to the other side. To explain how to pass thru the gateless gate you have to use yet another model, the grace model. SR certainly has an affect on the mind and experience, and there's been a lot of discussion about that, especially in terms of peace of mind. But, if we argue that SR causes peace of mind, then we are speaking about a conditional kind of peace of mind again. So, SR in a sense of a transformation will always limit you to the relative, cause and effect realm, and that is just not what we mean by SR, nor what Niz or RM mean by liberation or the natural state. SR is not a radical transformation, SR is a radical shift in perspective. That's why SR is unconditional and acausal and why there cannot be a path to SR. That's also why SR as well as the natural state cannot be an achievement. Papaji always used the coming home analogy. SR is realizing that you are already home. Being a seeker is not realizing that you are already home. Now, if you are already home, what kind of action or transformation can get you closer to home? None. All it takes is a realization that you are already home, which means there has to be a radical shift in perspective. RM argued exactly the same way, that there is no such things as SR or liberation in the sense of a transformation, and that as long as one sees it in those terms, one will remain in bondage. You cannot become what you already are.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 9, 2024 22:36:04 GMT -5
By definition, the properties of a gestalt aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and it doesn't impose its properties on its elements. The gestalt isn't a deterministic relation. You may not agree that reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness, and that it is a duality consciousness - awareness, as I do. This is okay too. It can't be solved by arguing it. Gestalt is a German term, which basically just means form or shape. So in that sense I have no issue with your "reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness" model, since by "reality" you mean the relative realm. I am just pointing out that the conclusion you've reached, given your premise and the way you usually argue, is illogical. dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gestalt- gestalt: something such as a structure or experience that, when considered as a whole, has qualities that are more than the total of all its parts
This is pretty much what I understand by gestalt. You (as most people) interpret what I say through the filter of your beliefs, so it is possible that you might misunderstand what I say. On the other hand, for you, it doesn't matter what I say, but only what you understand, which means that if my assertion is incorrect, or limited, it is actually up to you to understand, or be pointed to something better, more accurate, ... Also, we aren't here looking for "logical" arguments, or shouldn't, as we aren't looking for instinctual reactions, nor emotional arguments either. Intuition could be useful to some degree, but it is extremely rare. Still, in my opinion, only your inner guidance could bring you more accurate and clearer knowledge, and only if you make the effort to leave aside all your beliefs, which most people don't do. I don't use the concept of "relative realm". It doesn't make sense to me. Also, I understand that you make a difference between personal and impersonal contexts, but I don't subscribe to that point of view; I think it is a crutch. My opinions aren't conclusions, but direct knowledge that I formulate, put it in words, being aware that I might distort it somewhat, although I don't know how. When something doesn't make sense to me, I ask for clarifications, until I get it, or I'm suggested to leave it aside for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 22:36:34 GMT -5
I don't think you can actually resolve this issue, certainly not on an intellectual, statistical level. Because, how can you prove that your memory of your past lives is actually your memory and those past lives are actually your past lives? Once it's a memory, it's just data and you can't tell anymore how that data came to be, based on an actual event or based on an imaginary event. For sure, I wouldn't be able to prove anything butt one has to have faith in that what unfolds in such a manner results directly in your own interest. I have had confirmations over the years in many shapes and forms relating to my past lives. If we base statistics only on what one is immediately conscious of in the moment then those stats would only reflect that. Our multidimensional aspects of what we are as individuals won't be reflected in those stats, so wouldn't really hold much weight in the grand scheme of things. LOA will prove your own beliefs as facts to you in the form of personal experience and statistics. That's why your personal experience cannot be used as a measuring stick for what is ultimately true or not. I see the reincarnation model as somewhat related to the transhumanist model. The transhumanists believe that what we are is data. And by getting control over that data, you get control over those life cycles. This is their (technological) version of reincarnation and eternal life. And what I was referring to by statistics was the number of people who follow a path to SR compared to the people who follow a path and actually 'achieve' SR, as well as compared to the people who do not follow a path but still 'achieve' SR regardless. So if you look at those stats, following a path to SR, despite all the brobbaganda of it being scientific, is basically just gambling, or hopium.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 22:48:28 GMT -5
I don't think you can actually resolve this issue, certainly not on an intellectual, statistical level. Because, how can you prove that your memory of your past lives is actually your memory and those past lives are actually your past lives? Once it's a memory, it's just data and you can't tell anymore how that data came to be, based on an actual event or based on an imaginary event. Actually, "past lives" is a misunderstood concept, as far as I believe, both because the historical-past is just one possible perspective drawn from the present (there is an infinite number of others), and because what we recall as past-lives is observing other (many) materializations that the entity sprung initially or that branched from choices made by personalities. The past-lives aren't over and done, as future-lives already exist. On the other hand, all these lives synergistically work together to accomplish whatever the entity'a goals are. Again, all the relationships are of gestalt nature, and imply free-will at all levels, but there is a bias, and a guidance toward accomplishing the goals, and not devolving in chaos. The same in the relation between the biological body and its organs and cells, as materializations of non-physical awarenesses, at their individual levels of evolvement. Yes, it's tied to the linear, sequential time model. This is how the intellect functions. So only from that perspective, the SVP perspective, do reincarnation and karma make any sense and are of any interest. From the Eternal Now perspective though, prior to the SVP perspective, time is seen as a mental construct, as is creation. And this is where reincarnation and karma fall apart and what remains is LOA.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 22:54:15 GMT -5
Another word for alignment, depending on context, is blending or connection. It's the personal perspective dissolving into the impersonal perspective, in a sense, like a river or stream merging with the ocean. Because alignment basically means the 'extensions of Source' perspective, seeing the world thru the eyes of Source. And SVP and beliefs go together. So you are certainly approaching this from the SVP level if you give any importance to beliefs. I don't know why peeps only relate the personal level to a SVP. It makes no sense to me. I believe I am an individual that isn't separate from anything. That's part of my understanding had from my transcendence. Alignment, merging or whatever word suits only reflects something that can merge, or align, so all of the above can only relate to the person. If the person only refers to a SVP and the SVP is illusory then as said before to a few members here, what is left? LOA, Karma, and processes that reflect one state over another have to have at the centre point someone that can entertain them. Kan't an individual that isn't separate from everything else hold a belief that doesn't reflect a SVP? The answer is obviously yes, but it seems that some Non Dualists can only see the person one way. That's the reason why I make a distinction between person and individual. Person implies a perspective of separation, individual does not. It's true that a lot of 'non-dualists' don't or cannot make that distinction. And that, as you have been pointing out, can lead to ridiculous arguments, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2024 23:21:02 GMT -5
Gestalt is a German term, which basically just means form or shape. So in that sense I have no issue with your "reality is a structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness" model, since by "reality" you mean the relative realm. I am just pointing out that the conclusion you've reached, given your premise and the way you usually argue, is illogical. dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gestalt- gestalt: something such as a structure or experience that, when considered as a whole, has qualities that are more than the total of all its parts
This is pretty much what I understand by gestalt. You (as most people) interpret what I say through the filter of your beliefs, so it is possible that you might misunderstand what I say. On the other hand, for you, it doesn't matter what I say, but only what you understand, which means that if my assertion is incorrect, or limited, it is actually up to you to understand, or be pointed to something better, more accurate, ... Also, we aren't here looking for "logical" arguments, or shouldn't, as we aren't looking for instinctual reactions, nor emotional arguments either. Intuition could be useful to some degree, but it is extremely rare. Still, in my opinion, only your inner guidance could bring you more accurate and clearer knowledge, and only if you make the effort to leave aside all your beliefs, which most people don't do. I don't use the concept of "relative realm". It doesn't make sense to me. Also, I understand that you make a difference between personal and impersonal contexts, but I don't subscribe to that point of view; I think it is a crutch. My opinions aren't conclusions, but direct knowledge that I formulate, put it in words, being aware that I might distort it somewhat, although I don't know how. When something doesn't make sense to me, I ask for clarifications, until I get it, or I'm suggested to leave it aside for the time being. I know what you mean by it. It's Seth 101, isn't it? What you don't seem to understand though is that what you are presenting here are just a mental models of reality. We are basically just philosophizing, whether you are aware of it or not. As such, it actually does matter what you say as does logical consistency of your argument. If I can't find either in your presentation then I have to conclude that your argument is either not well thought-out or your grasp of reality erroneous, especially since you have no reference for anything prior to mind. You see, if you had a reference for anything prior to mind, you would be aware that those are just models and there is no way of actually describing, let alone explaining what reality is. So in that case, if your model would have some loose ends or shows some logical errors, wouldn't really matter, because it has been clear from the start that it is just a mental model and that no model could ever represent anything actual. This is basically the context of my conversations with Laughter on these topics. But if you have no reference for anything prior to mind, then you would not be aware that those are just models and actually believe that you are able to describe and explain reality. So in that case, if your model has some loose ends or shows some logical errors, it actually matters, because your model is directly related to your actual grasp of reality. And if your model is flawed, your grasp of reality is also necessarily flawed. So this is basically the context of my conversations with you and why I have to insist on logical consistency. It should also be noted that what you call inner guidance also belongs in that context, since to you it's all about knowledge. Now, you are going to reject and deny this, but keep in mind what you usually say, that you cannot know what you don't know. And one final point: If you have no reference for what we call the impersonal or absolute perspective (or context), then you also have no reference for consciousness or awareness. All you can have a reference for is what we call the personal or relative perspective, i.e. different levels and layers of mind. And I readily admit that all this context talk is a crutch. But that crutch is necessary, or else we could not talk about this at all.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 0:22:09 GMT -5
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gestalt- gestalt: something such as a structure or experience that, when considered as a whole, has qualities that are more than the total of all its parts
This is pretty much what I understand by gestalt. You (as most people) interpret what I say through the filter of your beliefs, so it is possible that you might misunderstand what I say. On the other hand, for you, it doesn't matter what I say, but only what you understand, which means that if my assertion is incorrect, or limited, it is actually up to you to understand, or be pointed to something better, more accurate, ... Also, we aren't here looking for "logical" arguments, or shouldn't, as we aren't looking for instinctual reactions, nor emotional arguments either. Intuition could be useful to some degree, but it is extremely rare. Still, in my opinion, only your inner guidance could bring you more accurate and clearer knowledge, and only if you make the effort to leave aside all your beliefs, which most people don't do. I don't use the concept of "relative realm". It doesn't make sense to me. Also, I understand that you make a difference between personal and impersonal contexts, but I don't subscribe to that point of view; I think it is a crutch. My opinions aren't conclusions, but direct knowledge that I formulate, put it in words, being aware that I might distort it somewhat, although I don't know how. When something doesn't make sense to me, I ask for clarifications, until I get it, or I'm suggested to leave it aside for the time being. I know what you mean by it. It's Seth 101, isn't it?What you don't seem to understand though is that what you are presenting here are just a mental models of reality. We are basically just philosophizing, whether you are aware of it or not. As such, it actually does matter what you say as does logical consistency of your argument. If I can't find either in your presentation then I have to conclude that your argument is either not well thought-out or your grasp of reality erroneous, especially since you have no reference for anything prior to mind. You see, if you had a reference for anything prior to mind, you would be aware that those are just models and there is no way of actually describing, let alone explaining what reality is. So in that case, if your model would have some loose ends or shows some logical errors, wouldn't really matter, because it has been clear from the start that it is just a mental model and that no model could ever represent anything actual. This is basically the context of my conversations with Laughter on these topics. But if you have no reference for anything prior to mind, then you would not be aware that those are just models and actually believe that you are able to describe and explain reality. So in that case, if your model has some loose ends or shows some logical errors, it actually matters, because your model is directly related to your actual grasp of reality. And if your model is flawed, your grasp of reality is also necessarily flawed. So this is basically the context of my conversations with you and why I have to insist on logical consistency. It should also be noted that what you call inner guidance also belongs in that context, since to you it's all about knowledge. Now, you are going to reject and deny this, but keep in mind what you usually say, that you cannot know what you don't know. And one final point: If you have no reference for what we call the impersonal or absolute perspective (or context), then you also have no reference for consciousness or awareness. All you can have a reference for is what we call the personal or relative perspective, i.e. different levels and layers of mind. And I readily admit that all this context talk is a crutch. But that crutch is necessary, or else we could not talk about this at all. Sorry, I am convinced you don't understand what I mean, my views on reality. Even saying that what I write is Seth 101 is incorrect for several reasons. I believe that you don't understand Seth, and I repeatedly said that I didn't draw my model from Seth, but just that the Seth material is the closest, less distorted external source of knowledge I am aware of, and that needs to be interpreted individually thorough one own's inner source of guidance, while leaving aside all the beliefs and expectations, which you don't do. I just replied with a comment about our reciprocal views. You "know" that I am wrong. I am highly confident that you are wrong. There is no way to resolve it now. Still, I am interested in your views, as I said, because trying to relate them to mine, occasionally draw my attention to concepts and situations worth interpreting deeper, in my own way. For example, I am sure that we differ in our understanding of what are consciousness and awareness, in relation to the reality, as I am sure I am highly confident that I understand them clearer and more accurate. Your reference about them is a distortion, in my opinion, and I'm okay with that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 0:50:16 GMT -5
I know what you mean by it. It's Seth 101, isn't it?What you don't seem to understand though is that what you are presenting here are just a mental models of reality. We are basically just philosophizing, whether you are aware of it or not. As such, it actually does matter what you say as does logical consistency of your argument. If I can't find either in your presentation then I have to conclude that your argument is either not well thought-out or your grasp of reality erroneous, especially since you have no reference for anything prior to mind. You see, if you had a reference for anything prior to mind, you would be aware that those are just models and there is no way of actually describing, let alone explaining what reality is. So in that case, if your model would have some loose ends or shows some logical errors, wouldn't really matter, because it has been clear from the start that it is just a mental model and that no model could ever represent anything actual. This is basically the context of my conversations with Laughter on these topics. But if you have no reference for anything prior to mind, then you would not be aware that those are just models and actually believe that you are able to describe and explain reality. So in that case, if your model has some loose ends or shows some logical errors, it actually matters, because your model is directly related to your actual grasp of reality. And if your model is flawed, your grasp of reality is also necessarily flawed. So this is basically the context of my conversations with you and why I have to insist on logical consistency. It should also be noted that what you call inner guidance also belongs in that context, since to you it's all about knowledge. Now, you are going to reject and deny this, but keep in mind what you usually say, that you cannot know what you don't know. And one final point: If you have no reference for what we call the impersonal or absolute perspective (or context), then you also have no reference for consciousness or awareness. All you can have a reference for is what we call the personal or relative perspective, i.e. different levels and layers of mind. And I readily admit that all this context talk is a crutch. But that crutch is necessary, or else we could not talk about this at all. Sorry, I am convinced you don't understand what I mean, my views on reality. Even saying that what I write is Seth 101 is incorrect for several reasons. I believe that you don't understand Seth, and I repeatedly said that I didn't draw my model from Seth, but just that the Seth material is the closest, less distorted external source of knowledge I am aware of, and that needs to be interpreted individually thorough one own's inner source of guidance, while leaving aside all the beliefs and expectations, which you don't do. I just replied with a comment about our reciprocal views. You "know" that I am wrong. I am highly confident that you are wrong. There is no way to resolve it now. Still, I am interested in your views, as I said, because trying to relate them to mine, occasionally draw my attention to concepts and situations worth interpreting deeper, in my own way. For example, I am sure that we differ in our understanding of what are consciousness and awareness, in relation to the reality, as I am sure I am highly confident that I understand them clearer and more accurate. Your reference about them is a distortion, in my opinion, and I'm okay with that. Your views are not rocket science. It's mostly standard new age beliefs, maybe with a personal twist. And I didn't imply you copy Seth. Seth is representative for a certain level of understanding, Abe is another level of understanding. And your level of understanding matches Seth more or less, mine better matches Abe. Abe is the Seth2 level, which means Seth's entity level of understanding, i.e. a higher level of understanding than Seth. That's why we differ in our interpretation of Seth. Also, I've read all the Seth books, cover to cover, in chronological order, except for the personal sessions. Your understanding of Seth, however, seems to be limited to out of context quotes that you get with the help of search engines. That's not the same. I see this often with people who argue what Niz or RM actually meant, without them ever having read any of their books. It's not the same understanding. And again, your views are not wrong per se, there is a context for it. And in that context, you are correct. It's just that this is not the largest context. There is a much larger context for you to discover. But you have to let go of your current belief that you've figured it all out already, to discover that there is a further. So the way to resolve that conflict is simply that you take a healthy dose of your own medicine. And I, too, think, that on an unconscious level, you are drawn here because there is more for you to discover. It's just not what and where you think it is. The best thing that could happen here to you is that you suddenly see the limits not only of your own beliefs, but beliefs in general. But you seem to avoid that all costs. And you still don't seem to understand that our means of communication is what adds most of the distortion. Nothing what is said here is the truth. Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 10, 2024 7:03:32 GMT -5
... but it seems that some Non Dualists can only see the person one way. A non-dualist, by name, is someone who denies a duality, similarly to believing that light has only a wave-nature, and denying light's dual particle-nature. I find it all a bit odd at times.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 10, 2024 7:07:08 GMT -5
Yep I would agree that in the end it's just a mental model in some shape or form butt some mental models make more sense than others and ring more true than others. My context pertaining to S.R. is beyond mind and self and perhaps only a few would agree, so the science of S.R. based upon that context wouldn't entertain a process, it would be everything leading up to that point of transcendence that is. (I think we are both clear and in agreement with that). Some say S.R. is of the mind and it's a constant state for use of a better word when experiencing life, so that would entertain a process. As Satch might say, SS is SR, so we are in a way transforming from one mindful state to another which would fall under a process of sorts. Exactly, some models make more sense than others because they explain more than other models. That's why LOA trumps LOK. This doesn't mean that LOK is wrong per se, it just means that, when it comes to explaining creation and experience, LOK has more limits than LOA. .. Well some models make more sense I would say because the foundation supports them and one's life experience reflects them.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 10, 2024 7:23:37 GMT -5
Yep I would agree that in the end it's just a mental model in some shape or form butt some mental models make more sense than others and ring more true than others. My context pertaining to S.R. is beyond mind and self and perhaps only a few would agree, so the science of S.R. based upon that context wouldn't entertain a process, it would be everything leading up to that point of transcendence that is. (I think we are both clear and in agreement with that). Some say S.R. is of the mind and it's a constant state for use of a better word when experiencing life, so that would entertain a process. As Satch might say, SS is SR, so we are in a way transforming from one mindful state to another which would fall under a process of sorts. if you are already home, what kind of action or transformation can get you closer to home? None. All it takes is a realization that you are already home, which means there has to be a radical shift in perspective. RM argued exactly the same way, that there is no such things as SR or liberation in the sense of a transformation, and that as long as one sees it in those terms, one will remain in bondage. You cannot become what you already are. .. It's all about returning within awareness of the self and the mind which then can muddy the waters. For some as discussed by many the state of oneself for use of a better word can change like the weather in regards to mental and emotional irritation or whatever but it doesn't change a thing about what you fundamentally are. It can be argued that realising that or just being that is S.R. but where there is a change in oneself in regards to how one feels or perceives the world day by day peeps can still transform and align. It doesn't matter if one has realised what they are for at times even the masters become subjected to life as we know it which can still push their buttons. For myself I meditate daily to realign, I don't know about other's butt I don't live in a monastery, my daily life is kinda hectic.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 10, 2024 7:35:44 GMT -5
For sure, I wouldn't be able to prove anything butt one has to have faith in that what unfolds in such a manner results directly in your own interest. I have had confirmations over the years in many shapes and forms relating to my past lives. If we base statistics only on what one is immediately conscious of in the moment then those stats would only reflect that. Our multidimensional aspects of what we are as individuals won't be reflected in those stats, so wouldn't really hold much weight in the grand scheme of things. LOA will prove your own beliefs as facts to you in the form of personal experience and statistics. That's why your personal experience cannot be used as a measuring stick for what is ultimately true or not. . Well to some non dualists there isn't a person present to experience anything so any stats to back them up in some way won't hold too much weight lol. That's why I always try and get to the bottom of the actual platform or foundation that supports such a premise to begin with. One would have to question why certain things become known to a peep who self enquires regardless of LOA. Why would a sincere seeker attract something that wasn't true? You see at a point where things became known to me it resolved aspects within me that allowed me to be more at peace, if it were not true then surely the result would of been different. Surely genuinety and sincerity attracts the same in these regards.
|
|