Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 22:57:00 GMT -5
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. Yeah, FGM is a global issue and it may also be more common in your own country than as yet is known. There are some huge movements to educate women and girls, and men, about it. Male circumcision has within it a bonding element that is experienced within all the males of that culture. Though female circumcision doesn't happen from within a comparable vibration. And yeah, we discussed the roots of the word Religion some years back. I remember Beingst and Maxdprophet being involved in it. We eventually uncovered that it can also mean.. respect for perfection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 22:58:33 GMT -5
Attending ego strengthens and enhances ego. Don't try this at home, kids. No. Satch is right on this, it takes the energy out of ego-structure. If you don't ~see~ ego, it remains unconsciously active. (Connect this to the new Let's just make this simple, thread). That's right. I've always thought we were on the same page, so I'm somewhat confused about some of the current misunderstandings between us. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 23:06:03 GMT -5
Pronouns are such treacherous thingys. It's so very confusing for peeps looking for a nice, simple explanation of it all.  Seems like it IS simple. We all have a sense of existing, and we've all created stories about what it is that exists. We don't even have to quote from some teacher to be able to talk about it. Yes, it is simple, but peeps still look beyond that. It always comes back to self-honesty. I wonder how many peeps might read about the false sense of self here and think "hmmmm maybe there's something to that...", and never bother saying boo much less logitating and blustering about what the dead guys said. Much less turn the inward existential search into a merit badge contest complete with a free vacation to Perpetugastia as the grand prize. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 23, 2017 23:30:39 GMT -5
Well no, the disagreement here is very clear and not trivial. What you wrote here isn't far off. What's "axed" is false, but self-reference is inevitable, it just doesn't happen in the same way as before. Webber was forced to make his distinction about what he meant by "all thought stopped" because he was obviously engaging with abstractions as he moved through the world free of the illusion that rests on self-reference. Notice the movement of mind that's interested in the wordplay between "I", "I am", "being" and "ego". Which party is the source of that in this dialog? The only thing I'd add to what you wrote is that there's no 3rd-party understanding what the absence of the illusion is like. It's one of those "you kinda' had to have not been there to see what I mean" dealios.  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. Sasquatch believes the sense of existence is the same as ego. Hencely, he makes no distinction between that which is true (the fact of your own existence as Being) and that which is false (the identification with mind/body). This is a major issue that goes to the heart of SR and any practice meant to help bring it about. Now he even encourages focusing attention on the ego as a practice to destroy ego. Ego exists by attention only, as it is a thought structure in the mind. If you think this has all been an argument over the definition of concepts, you haven't been paying attention. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 23:36:22 GMT -5
Seems like it IS simple. We all have a sense of existing, and we've all created stories about what it is that exists. We don't even have to quote from some teacher to be able to talk about it. Yes, it is simple, but peeps still look beyond that. It always comes back to self-honesty. I wonder how many peeps might read about the false sense of self here and think "hmmmm maybe there's something to that...", and never bother saying boo much less logitating and blustering about what the dead guys said. Much less turn the inward existential search into a merit badge contest complete with a free vacation to Perpetugastia as the grand prize. You quite rightly started by saying it's simple, but then finished by turning it into a story again. You will subsequently forget you said it was simple and engage once again in stories until you again remind someone that it's simple. The question is, are you reminding someone else that it's simple or is it that you need to remind yourself that it's simple when you catch yourself not being simple. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 23:39:23 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. Sasquatch believes the sense of existence is the same as ego. Hencely, he makes no distinction between that which is true (the fact of your own existence as Being) and that which is false (the identification with mind/body). This is a major issue that goes to the heart of SR and any practice meant to help bring it about. Now he even encourages focusing attention on the ego as a practice to destroy ego. Ego exists by attention only, as it is a thought structure in the mind. If you think this has all been an argument over the definition of concepts, you haven't been paying attention. No I don't believe that because I'm not using your definition of ego. It is I we are concerned with. The sense of being, of existing. Who am I? Sound familiar? I think you're just into playing games now. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 23:43:46 GMT -5
Yes, it is simple, but peeps still look beyond that. It always comes back to self-honesty. I wonder how many peeps might read about the false sense of self here and think "hmmmm maybe there's something to that...", and never bother saying boo much less logitating and blustering about what the dead guys said. Much less turn the inward existential search into a merit badge contest complete with a free vacation to Perpetugastia as the grand prize. You quite rightly started by saying it's simple, but then finished by turning it into a story again. You will subsequently forget you said it was simple and engage once again in stories until you again remind someone that it's simple. The question is, are you reminding someone else that it's simple or is it that you need to remind yourself that it's simple when you catch yourself not being simple. The truth is simple. Peeps, their theories, their stories and their emotions. No so much.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 9:12:51 GMT -5
No. Satch is right on this, it takes the energy out of ego-structure. If you don't ~see~ ego, it remains unconsciously active. (Connect this to the new Let's just make this simple, thread). That's right. I've always thought we were on the same page, so I'm somewhat confused about some of the current misunderstandings between us. E set out the main issue quite well, which I likewise tried to speak to again last night. I will speak to the attention-to-ego question, next post. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 9:14:45 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. Sasquatch believes the sense of existence is the same as ego. Hencely, he makes no distinction between that which is true (the fact of your own existence as Being) and that which is false (the identification with mind/body). This is a major issue that goes to the heart of SR and any practice meant to help bring it about. Now he even encourages focusing attention on the ego as a practice to destroy ego. Ego exists by attention only, as it is a thought structure in the mind. If you think this has all been an argument over the definition of concepts, you haven't been paying attention. I agree the sense of existence question is a problem. The question of attention to ego is something else, and he (satch) is correct on this. Yes, ego lives and is fed and sustained by attention. But this Is by a passive attention, where attention is stolen. There is a difference between attention going-into and being-taken, as analogy, when you are totally absorbed in a movie, and actually disappearing into the movie, and and active attention TO ego. The former feeds ego, the latter removes energy from ego-structure. But you have to know the difference between the two. The former, the process is mostly unconscious. The latter, it can't be. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 9:27:33 GMT -5
Niz talked about it. It's a concept. Niz axed the 'I' too? I thought his bloodlust ended with the 'I am'.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 9:45:07 GMT -5
Sasquatch believes the sense of existence is the same as ego. Hencely, he makes no distinction between that which is true (the fact of your own existence as Being) and that which is false (the identification with mind/body). This is a major issue that goes to the heart of SR and any practice meant to help bring it about. Now he even encourages focusing attention on the ego as a practice to destroy ego. Ego exists by attention only, as it is a thought structure in the mind. If you think this has all been an argument over the definition of concepts, you haven't been paying attention. I agree the sense of existence question is a problem. The question of attention to ego is something else, and he is correct on this. Yes, ego lives and is fed and sustained by attention. But this Is by a passive attention, where attention is stolen. There is a difference between attention going-into and being-taken, as analogy, when you are totally absorbed in a movie, and actually disappearing into the movie, and and active attention TO ego. The former feeds ego, the latter removes energy from ego-structure. But you have to know the difference between the two. The former, the process is mostly unconscious. The latter, it can't be. You know what. I don't need to know anything about what you just said to know the sense of being, existing, sentience, self awareness​, call it what you will, that appears prior to thought, feelings ideas and concepts. I don't need to give it a name other than what I just described. End of story. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 9:48:30 GMT -5
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. Come on Laffy. You know that's not true. That Niz used the phrase "I am" to refer to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort is exactly what I have been saying incessantly since I arrived here and will continue to say. It's very clear from what I write. I'm actually quite shocked you would suggest otherwise. Maybe it gave him the wrong impression when you said 'I am'=ego. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 9:50:32 GMT -5
Most peeps won't grasp the profundity behind what you just said.  They not only don't grasp it, they're actually throwing tomatoes at you!  |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 24, 2017 10:08:54 GMT -5
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. Wow. Enjoyed reading all this you guys. I'm interested to know what you think about Energy workers, and having your energy cleared etc? One seems to have come into my life, hence my question. That's a pretty broad umbrella. What type of energy worker? Generally speaking, I would say level of consciousness is paramount regarding who you work with in life. I would also say clearing energy will ultimately not cure or heal the experience if the causal emotions are not addressed. So for example, while I may have cleared the poltergeist from the woman during a healing meditation, as the causal emotions were not addressed, her experience would then create a new poltergeist that would in turn bring disease to her form in some way. In this way, energy workers (this would include physical therapists) can actually create or develop a facade that relies on others' dependence on their work. Nobody gets healed, but everybody gets what they want for a little while, facade re-enforcement and feeling superior for the worker, and temporary relief for the one working. With all that said, I met a woman at an enlightenment meeting a long time ago. I could pontificate on consciousness with anybody, but I was still in the presence of a fairly dense albeit mostly dormant pain body. We walked off after a meeting and got to chatting, and she said something was off with my energy. I was tilted (possessed). I opened my energy to her for a distance healing and credit her with opening a gateway into the most fruitful relationship of my life. I have no idea how she did it. I'm certainly not crediting her with my healing, but she did something that helped, and I appreciate that. So anyway, if it smells like bull, it probably is. Beware of the potential to be cloaked. Be aware that the person working on you may not even be conscious of how they are cloaking people. They might just think they're helping. Bring up the word 'causal emotion'. If they don't know what that is, I'd steer clear. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 10:10:13 GMT -5
Seems like it IS simple. We all have a sense of existing, and we've all created stories about what it is that exists. We don't even have to quote from some teacher to be able to talk about it. OK, then tell me about this illusory separate self business again, and what SR IS. As most people are not-SR, then most people live-through the illusory self, then wherefrom commeth this "we all have a sense of existing"? We all have a sense of existing from something that doesn't exist? No, we have a sense of existing that comes from the fact of our existence. Do you exist or don't you? It's not a trick 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. 
