|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2017 15:37:58 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Are we clear now? As long as one or the other of you agrees that the other one has been explaining it correctly all along, it will be all clear. Otherwise, just unending speaking past each other. It's just that satch has not been precise with words, he even said he doesn't care about words. That's fine when you are talking to yourself, but if you are conversing with other people, having the same definitions of words...kind of helps communication. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2017 15:41:17 GMT -5
The question is what is the nature of the small s self? Do you derive your sense of being from self, or Self? Is that a silly question? No, that's not a silly question. We derive our sense of being from Self because Self is all there is. The small self is simply a structure of thought, a fictitious story. When the thought structure/story of "me" collapses, the truth becomes evident. Imagining a separate self is like imagining a cartoon character. It doesn't exist except in our imagination. According to brain studies that Weber cites, self-referentiality is one of three primary modes of mental functioning. Most brain researchers now think that the brain has plasticity and is physically altered by many things, including meditation. I suspect that by focusing upon sensory input rather than thoughts (ATA-T) the sense of "me," as a thought structure, eventually collapses. IOW, imagination, as a primary focus of mental activity, loses its dominance in relationship to direct perception. Well, as just stated, sometimes satch doesn't care about mutual understanding of word definitions (or phrases). And then he didn't like it that I pressed him so. E was better at clearing that up than I was. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 15:45:31 GMT -5
Sure, but nobody has talked about axing the false I. Bingo. Niz talked about it. It's a concept. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 15:50:53 GMT -5
I have seen no inconsistency. It's a disagreement without a substantial difference. All sides have acknowledged the limitations of language and what is referred to as being primary. All sides have been clear about what is referred to. The primary thing I've noticed is the perpetudisagreement. A disagreement founded on disagreement itself. Hey, whatever floats thy boat. Being is necessary for ego, ego is not necessary for being. The substantial disagreement is what Niz meant by "I am". Satch' has said that "I am" is the root of ego, and has even equated the two. I say that Niz used "I am" contextually, and in one of those contexts, there's no equating the two, and that self-reference ("the 'I' thought") does not mean ego -- it depends on what the person saying "I" is saying "I" to/about. No, there's no agreement between myself and Satch' on this. The disagreement is very clearly defined, and substantive. The personality sideshow between the characters involved in the dialog is just that. A sideshow. How can the "I am" not be the root of ego? Gotta start somewhere. Yes, that's one context. You feel like Satch denies Niz used different contexts? Are you sure? Satch himself slips around in contexts like an otter in water. That is, easily and comfortably and out of fun. No biggy. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 15:50:58 GMT -5
As long as one or the other of you agrees that the other one has been explaining it correctly all along, it will be all clear. Otherwise, just unending speaking past each other. It's just that satch has not been precise with words, he even said he doesn't care about words. That's fine when you are talking to yourself, but if you are conversing with other people, having the same definitions of words...kind of helps communication. At this point we've all gone around enough times on this and other topics that precise definitions aren't necessary in order to understand where we're each coming from and what it is that we're trying to convey. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 15:52:34 GMT -5
As long as one or the other of you agrees that the other one has been explaining it correctly all along, it will be all clear. Otherwise, just unending speaking past each other. It's just that satch has not been precise with words, he even said he doesn't care about words. That's fine when you are talking to yourself, but if you are conversing with other people, having the same definitions of words...kind of helps communication. Well I haven't seen it. I see folks passing over fundamental agreement then sloshing around in the kiddie pool about semantics. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 23, 2017 15:52:44 GMT -5
He seems pretty sharp, although didn't watch the entire vid. Definitely talking about cloaking type stuff when he mentions Charles Manson. What I've learned to process is that these cloaks do indeed date back to Pagan-esque thinking in addition to the fundamental mechanics of mind control. I find the idea of the Virgin Mary was a brilliant way to subconsciously shame, and hence compartmentalize and enslave, the feminine aspect through deification of the Jesus archetype. If you need to be a virgin to have a perfect kid...dot dot dot. Then we can look at the collective masculine compensation for this loss of the sacred feminine, and how that can be manipulated. Some famous rappers are more effeminate with clothes and jewelry than any woman I've ever seen. The way money is used to separate body from spirit body (one quintessential form of mind control) would not be possible without first dividing the mind. Money is not the root of all evil. The split mind is!! Regardless, I find the history of it all quite interesting. My attention is always drawn to dynamics, because the identification complex really can be ignited and the tendrils of mind control severed right now, no history degree required. As Jkrishnamurti once noticed, it's da.mn strange that peeps actually like being controlled. The bottom line is most folks would be terrified to see this stuff we're talking about here, and so it's not that folks want to be controlled, but they're unconscious of how terrified they are of the truth. Yeah, you can look at it that way. Though it may also be that it is only the feminine, or receptive principle in either gender, that can Anoint or 'make' Christ. So to call Mary a virgin was akin to calling Mary a saint, that gave birth. I don't mean to single out the Catholics. I was listening to a girl on BBC radio, who was not in Saudi Arabia at the time but was planning a visit, and she discussed being mutilated during a routine female circumcision. I guess they botched it. But apparently this is a very common thing that no one talks about over there, with roots stemming from I believe Africa. And she discussed how betrayed she felt, as she was only 8 or 9 when this took place. I view the bible and all religions in the form of thought programs, and while there is some quality literature out there these programs can be quite energetically divisive. Passio mentions the word religion comes from Latin, and it actually means 'to bind' the mind. Get the car honey, we're going to Church to bind our minds. Sweety, we're going to temple to place restrictive coils around our brains that will take years to slice away. Dear, mosque in twenty minutes, time to tie knots around brain cells. Don't forget the sandwiches. Anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 16:10:11 GMT -5
Being is necessary for ego, ego is not necessary for being. The substantial disagreement is what Niz meant by "I am". Satch' has said that "I am" is the root of ego, and has even equated the two. I say that Niz used "I am" contextually, and in one of those contexts, there's no equating the two, and that self-reference ("the 'I' thought") does not mean ego -- it depends on what the person saying "I" is saying "I" to/about. No, there's no agreement between myself and Satch' on this. The disagreement is very clearly defined, and substantive. The personality sideshow between the characters involved in the dialog is just that. A sideshow. How can the "I am" not be the root of ego? Gotta start somewhere. Yes, that's one context. You feel like Satch denies Niz used different contexts? Are you sure? Satch himself slips around in contexts like an otter in water. That is, easily and comfortably and out of fun. No biggy. Yes, quite sure. He's directly rejected the idea. Multiple times. And I disagree that satch is comfortable with context shifts. In my opinion he doesn't recognize when the existential contexts have been conflated. "I am" can be said to be the root of the ego. I already acknowledged the relationship between the two. I'm all for fun and games ...  and at this point I've got zero illusions about trying to change minds or really any interest in that or even the debate about the semantics. When the dialog reaches full circle, I'm out. But I'm not so disinterested as to agree with you that there's no substantive disagreement. The fact that conveys the largest gap here is how much attention he and andy have focused over the years on the times Niz spoke about the "I am concept". By far, most of the times Niz used the phrase "I am" he wasn't referring to the "I am concept", he was referring to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort. Someone unfamiliar with the dialogs reading what satch' and andy have written about the topic on this forum could easily come to the exact opposite conclusion. Niz advised people to attend an open, embodied moment of being. He didn't advise them to harden their sense of self-reference. From what satch' and andy have written about this -- repeatedly -- I honestly don't believe they have an experiential point of reference for the difference. Satch' is very well studied on the topic of Advaita and sometimes writes in a very clear 2nd-mountain voice, but when he goes off that script what he conveys is more along the lines of the positionless position. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 16:16:44 GMT -5
How can the "I am" not be the root of ego? Gotta start somewhere. Yes, that's one context. You feel like Satch denies Niz used different contexts? Are you sure? Satch himself slips around in contexts like an otter in water. That is, easily and comfortably and out of fun. No biggy. Yes, quite sure. He's directly rejected the idea. And I disagree that satch is comfortable with context shifts. In my opinion he doesn't recognize when the existential contexts have been conflated. I'm all for fun and games ... and at this point I've got zero illusions about trying to change minds or really any interest in that or even the debate about the semantics. When the dialog reaches full circle, I'm out. But I'm not so disinterested as to agree with you that there's no substantive disagreement. The fact that conveys the largest gap here is how much attention he and andy have focused over the years on the times Niz spoke about the "I am concept". Most of the times Niz used the phrase "I am" he wasn't referring to the "I am concept", he was referring to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort. Someone unfamiliar with the dialogs reading what satch' and andy have written about the topic on this forum could easily come to the exact opposite conclusion. Niz advised people to attend an open, embodied moment of being. He didn't advise them to harden their sense of self-reference. From what satch' and andy have written about this -- repeatedly -- I honestly don't believe they have an experiential point of reference for the difference. Satch' is very well studied on the topic of Advaita and sometimes writes in a very clear 2nd-mountain voice, but when he goes off that script what he conveys is more along the lines of the positionless poisition. Yea it's interesting. I don't have that experience interacting with folks here. But yes, I see that your impression of Satch underlies a lot of disagreement. And vice versa, in a similar way. Seems like the old I-see-clearly-and-you-do-not thing. Certitude can be blinding perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 16:18:51 GMT -5
It's just that satch has not been precise with words, he even said he doesn't care about words. That's fine when you are talking to yourself, but if you are conversing with other people, having the same definitions of words...kind of helps communication. Well I haven't seen it. I see folks passing over fundamental agreement then sloshing around in the kiddie pool about semantics. How certain are you that there's not a nuance here that you're missing? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 16:22:03 GMT -5
Yes, quite sure. He's directly rejected the idea. And I disagree that satch is comfortable with context shifts. In my opinion he doesn't recognize when the existential contexts have been conflated. I'm all for fun and games ... and at this point I've got zero illusions about trying to change minds or really any interest in that or even the debate about the semantics. When the dialog reaches full circle, I'm out. But I'm not so disinterested as to agree with you that there's no substantive disagreement. The fact that conveys the largest gap here is how much attention he and andy have focused over the years on the times Niz spoke about the "I am concept". Most of the times Niz used the phrase "I am" he wasn't referring to the "I am concept", he was referring to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort. Someone unfamiliar with the dialogs reading what satch' and andy have written about the topic on this forum could easily come to the exact opposite conclusion. Niz advised people to attend an open, embodied moment of being. He didn't advise them to harden their sense of self-reference. From what satch' and andy have written about this -- repeatedly -- I honestly don't believe they have an experiential point of reference for the difference. Satch' is very well studied on the topic of Advaita and sometimes writes in a very clear 2nd-mountain voice, but when he goes off that script what he conveys is more along the lines of the positionless poisition. Yea it's interesting. I don't have that experience interacting with folks here. But yes, I see that your impression of Satch underlies a lot of disagreement. And vice versa, in a similar way. Seems like the old I-see-clearly-and-you-do-not thing. Certitude can be blinding perhaps. Unfortunately that's what it comes down to lots of time and yeah, dwelling on that is most definitely the shallow end of the pool. In terms of "enlightenment", the focus on the individual is the wrong place for the spotlight. My interest here was to challenge the notion that he and I were saying the same thing. We're not. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 23, 2017 16:29:10 GMT -5
What exactly is the ego in Seth terms? Just the thinking mind or person? Does Seth differentiate between ego and mind identification, or between ego and mind? He makes a distinction between inner and outer ego. The outer ego belongs to the physical realm and can only perceive what belongs to the physical realm because that's it's function, and the inner ego belongs to the non-physical realm. Together, inner and outer ego, make a personality. Personalities are part of a larger entity. I worked with this guy for a couple years, and he was a true genius in charting energy. He took an entirely mathematical approach to this stuff, and maybe that would be more suitable for some. At the same time, some people love talking about spirits, so much so that they develop spirit obsessions. I see myself as a medium to the spirit world, but more pointedly as someone who can lay the bricks to anyone who wants to walk away from the umbrella of a cloak. Seth is also mentioning that there's a certain order and mathematics behind the creation process. Kinda reminds me of astrology. Occult means hidden or unknown. So de-occulting is making the unknown, known, particularly in the realm of hierarchical compartmentalization programming present everywhere at all times. Mark Passio is the first person I heard use that term, and it just sound better than a 'light occult worker' or a 'light worker'. Peeps that on those kinds of terms tend to be completely cloaked themselves, so I'll stick with de-occultist spiritual medium on my business card. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4e8BlvpUIoOkay. He says in the video that the persons have to have supportive emotional conditions or else such influences couldn't occur. And I think that's key to this cloaking issue and pain body or the Id. Even though cloaking and possessions sound like something asserting itself into your reality, there is no actual assertion. It's just LOA at work again. ETA: I finally watched a video of Jane channeling Seth on youtube. Wow! Talk about theatrics!  However, A-H say that this is a sign of resistance in the channel. In the early days, Esther used to have a strange accent as well when she was channeling Abraham. Seth talks a lot about Jane's mental hiccups and she's been physically sick a lot, too. So this actually makes sense. I came across some interesting information about how Seth contacted Jane. He didn't contact her directly. He did it thru someone who was closer to her, Frank Watts. You can see that in the first few sessions where Jane and Robert were using the ouija board, they were talking to Frank Watts, not Seth directly. Seth told Frank to contact them, sorta. Ok so inner ego is like spirit body, and then of course there is the consciousness that transcends. Yea, on the math. Because of the logic function implicit in mind and energy, the personal experience can be fragmented and brought back together, seemingly. Minds think illogically on the surface for logical reasons beneath the surface, and then we can use ideas like inner ego and spirits to talk about the driving forces of delusion. A natural law class would be nothing more than a class on logic. My buddy called it life math. In life math, we can talk about things like parallel planing and the highlander syndrome, and this is very much in tune with the spirit cloaking discussion. Parallel planing takes place when minds are in competition for the best dream, and can lead to some really nasty stuff. The highlander syndrome is the result of seeking and cloaking others, and then using the best dream or the illusion of the best dream to maintain cloaks, premised on the delusion that one is a person in control of life that needs to enhance or maintain the identity structure. The two tenants of shared dreaming are that the best dream always wins, and the best dream is the one shared, which happens to be the one we're in. Yes, on the supportive emotional conditions, it really comes down to the unhealed emotional condition of primary caretakers, parents, etc. That allows spirit cloaking and influence that can do funky things to a child's law of attraction, which then rolls over into adulthood where it degrades and disconnects consciousness from the person through identification. There is a built in correction in that everyone can become conscious and de-cloak, and this brings to life a new dimension to experience that would not be possible through unconscious living, the universe flying together, so to speak. That sounds pretty cool about contacting the spirit. With Maharaj, I mentioned I was meditating on I Am That for about 6 months prior to the spirit visiting me. I read this book on Mentalism, and made the decision one day, to contact the spirit world. I sat alone in my then house (where I was living alone like a true hermit), had the lights off, and asked if there are any spirits present, and if there are, make your presence known. I sat in silence for maybe 30 seconds, and BAM! There was a little box on a table in the room, and the sound was as if something lifted the lid and then slammed it shut. Needless to say, I almost wet myself, but didn't see the lid lift and close, so can't say for sure what it was. Then the Maharaj spirit shows up not but a week later. So it would make sense that was old Nizzy. I'm resonating a lot as I'm writing, so I could probably channel Niz at any point I want to. Ironically, with the house dream, and this is where I've come to believe in the idea of spirit repoir, I stumbled onto the site www.themystic.org . And from reading his writing I got the idea to attempt a spiritual healing. And it was perhaps the most selfless act I could have done from my state of consciousness, but this healing was nuts. My body lit up like a Christmas tree and after a certain period of time I had to stop the healing meditation because I got scared at how intense the energy was. I guess this is a kundalini experience, or whatever. Anyway, the person who I was attempting to heal had a tumor in her lung. She had a successful operation after receiving a bad prognosis. I can't say what effect the healing had on her (prior to the surgery), but the next time I saw her, she said, Jason, you always give the best hugs. I'd never hugged the woman in my life, but based on how I found the house, and the texture of the dream preceding the OBE, I notice a direct link to that event. Can a kundalini-bliss healing actually be a poltergeist possession? Did I remove the potergeist from her and invite it into my aura? I don't actually know. But hey, maybe I'll try channeling Niz one day. Thanks for the exchange Reefs. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jun 23, 2017 16:35:48 GMT -5
Well I haven't seen it. I see folks passing over fundamental agreement then sloshing around in the kiddie pool about semantics. How certain are you that there's not a nuance here that you're missing? Haha! I can be absolutely certain that there is a very fine nuance I am missing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 16:53:31 GMT -5
How certain are you that there's not a nuance here that you're missing? Haha! I can be absolutely certain that there is a very fine nuance I am missing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 17:20:52 GMT -5
Does attending to ego produce the same result? (Since they are the same) Haven't you just answered your own question? Can't go wrong answering ones own question.  |
|
and at this point I've got zero illusions about trying to change minds or really any interest in that or even the debate about the semantics. 
