|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 26, 2017 16:31:16 GMT -5
The lady who worked on me was Korean. She was the apprentice of a Reiki master. At the time, I didn't have any interest in listening about Reiki or this idea of being an apprentice to a master. I was an enlightenment guy above and beyond need for energy work, albeit completely cloaked by unconscious forces. But her character was so genuine and light that when she offered to clear I said, yea sure sounds dope. I stay connected with her to this day (energetically). Cloaking. Hmmm. Welp lemme think of a simple example. You become conscious of cloaks by seeing the forces that hold up the facade. So, if one is living entirely through the facade, de-cloaking isn't going to happen. There has to be some discontent with the facade identity. The facade identity, is created as a compensation for our blockages. Shame is the most common energy that allows facade construction and maintenance to unfold. Some people would rather die than experience their shame. And because of that, this fear of shame creeps up from the shadows. Whatever one feels ashamed about, is then compensated for through facade construction. If I'm ashamed of being abandoned, then one dynamic of my facade will be preventing a feeling of abandonment from surfacing. 'Clinging', the belief that I am invincible or can't be hurt, are one dynamic and belief that would make up the facade. Making the belief and dynamic conscious, can begin the deconstruction of the facade. The spiritual energy holding the facade together will run in opposition to this deconstruction. This is where addictions come in. Addictions, as I mention them here, are split mind tendencies. Meaning, something you want to stop but want to continue, and that's an indication that there's some spiritual energy cloaking the facade trying to maintain its hold on the mind. Spirits can drop thoughts in your mind through dreams, and 'cause' you to self seek through images and confirmations you may receive throughout the day. Some people are completely unconscious of how spirits are programming the subconscious during sleep. And others think that dark spirits perpetuating addictive behaviors are actually guides and guardians, when in truth it points closer to say the spirits are using the mind and body, they are cloaking and enjoying the addictions through degrading the person. Many of these addictions are facade addictions. Addiction to being validated, needed, desired, and in some cases victimized, hurt, or abandoned. The vibrational sequencing of the facade often perpetuates (actually always perpetuates) the unconscious energy holding the facade together. Meaning, the facade is an effective short term solution with no long term answer to the problems of life. The facade itself is the problem. This topic interests me greatly. However, I won't lie, it is all a bit 'out there' for me. I have only just started believing in channelling and astral travel although not experienced anything remotely like it. Energy work, spirits etc, is like a whole new world to me. AH's alignment resonnates a lot so that's why I listen there but I had considerable amount of resistance at the start. I still feel, as with Tolle's painbody metaphore, we are over complicating things..but let's not go there again lol! I am genuinely interested in reading these kind of posts, thanks P. Thanks for the honesty. It's refreshing. Truth is really simple. Spirit can be quite complex. If there's a break in logic then there has either been a shift in context or someone doesn't know what they're talking about. I will say, if you want to understand the realm of spirit more thoroughly, I would suggest starting with your dreams and sleep experiences. The ancients, and in many Indian tribes and such, placed a lot of weight on dreams, almost an obsessive amount, when it came to the realm of navigation. So a desire to navigate with less resistance or more efficiency can lead to a desire to understand the unconscious realm more intricately (it's where the obstructions are), that can bring heightened awareness to spiritual energy. It does open the gate to more information, and thus a greater need to process. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 26, 2017 17:02:16 GMT -5
On miscreation, I agree that there is a logic to healing identification. Reverse compartmentalizing solves everything. But it isn't something the individual does, but path of least resistance allows. As far as Niz, I had a free moment the other day when I was cooking eggs, and asked, Niz, why are you with me? He said, "To eat eggs".  Reverse compartmentalizing is an interesting choice of words. Reminds me of Niz' term 'retracing your steps'. If you're really into channeling and alternate realities and reincarnation etc I think you should read Seth's early sessions. It's basically like a manual, a study course that teaches you the basic knowledge and skills you need in order to explore those realms safely and woo-woo free. Seth's approach is to keep the ego intact and in charge so that the data from the inner senses can be integrated in real life. And I think that's a very reasonable approach because, as he says, a lot of folks, after they've had some experiences with inner sense data, overwhelmed their outer ego or conscious self and went loco. And about dissociation. Seth is saying that kind of dissociation Jane is using is similar to the kind of dissociation you experience after you've just had a glass of wine! When I'm done with Seth, I think I'll take another look at Carlos Castaneda's books again. I read them years ago, but it felt too spaced out at the time. But with the Seth background now it should make a lot more sense. Welp, I'm not really into reincarnation and channeling, I sort of just fell into it based on channel alignment. I pick up reflections with information through use of self reflective spherical telemetry. It isn't something I'm using, but rather, the laws that I'm conscious of that allows information to be processed more effectively. You could say I am into the use of 'telepathy', and that telepathy is nothing more than energy travelling along path of least resistance. Seth sounds a lot like my bud Randy. Randy taught me the language of predatory pre self defense, and how to use assaultive and inviting energy to shape trajectories. Parallel planing is a bit like skiing down a mountain, in slalom fashion, kicking up snow. When someone attempts to cloak you through shared dreaming, and you remove yourself from the equation, all that energy now enters a new path of least resistance in re laws of shared dreaming. AKA, the cloaking energy percolates in the form of despair, and the people in despair are very easy to control and manipulate. Not saying I have interest in controlling desperate people, reverse compartmentalizing and de cloaking is fun for the whole family is the point. That's the tax of cloaking, and why Jed Mckenna avoids ego like the plague. Seeing all people really want is to use a trajectory with you to self seek through, will lead to a repulsive effect in the one becoming conscious. And to be clear, there is only One, in the broader context. Then there's the boogie man in the horse trailer program that can be used to move energy, more pointedly, perpetuate the best dream through fear of a nightmare. This is why autonomy is important-learning to be your own best dream, or unlearning the idea that you are in any way unworthy of God's love. I would liken this to eradicating the identification complex, and say wholeheartedly pursuit of anything else pails in comparison to this eradication. Of course this eradication can and often does involve alignment with the opposite energy or what some folks call soul mates or twin souls. I have found that working through my identification issues with my partner has been the key to salvation, but that a degree of spiritual work often precedes soul unions and such, so I wouldn't want to sell the idea of a twin soul to anyone interested in breaking the chains of ego. I really appreciate and am grateful to not just AJ at Divine Truth but the spirits that are with him, not to mention his partner Mary. While I feel he does not approach the idea of identification with pristine clarity, as far as spirits go, I could immediately see that he was in a better or lighter soul condition than myself when I started his teachings, and I noticed that at times through what felt like cloaking energy. So I am now reconciling the ideas of cloaking and reincarnation, in the name of truth and not in furtherance of any line or lineage. In some ways I feel as if the reverse compartmentalization process leads the human form to be cloaked by the Holy Spirit, a conglomeration of spiritual energy from Jung's collective unconscious. In my case, I feel Maharaj is a very large part of my spiritual DNA, and that whatever his remaining desires were have 'reincarnated' through my life sequencing due to path of least resistance. My middle name is actually Ernest, and we all know how Niz felt about earnestness. I do not in any way believe I am the reincarnated soul of Maharaj, and I feel myself being more and more drawn to dispensing with the idea of the human soul entirely, breaking it down into spirit and soul complex, and the math and aftermath of reverse compartmentalizing or eradicating identification to help people who aren't into the staying unconscious stuff. And thank you too Reefs. You're a true treat here on the forum. I'm happy you took over as moderator. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jun 26, 2017 20:25:15 GMT -5
more self honesty? What the 'pilgrim wrote was an excellent particular example of the distinction between attention and awareness. But notice that his use of "awareness" is subtly different from the awareness that Rupert is inviting you to rest in/as. This distinction isn't important if it seems confusing, but can be an interesting one to explore. Some folks like to distinguish between the two by calling what Rupert was speaking about "awareness", and what the 'pilgrim was referring to as "consciousness". The natural state of our consciousness is fragmented into a multitasking of different concurrent segments of attention. We most often have some primary focus of attention, like when we're driving or balancing a checkbook. Awareness abhors a vacuum, so if the task at hand doesn't need our complete attention, our consciousness naturally divides into various threads. There is a process that scans all the different threads of thought in our mind at any given time for the interests to amplify and demand more attention. This is how we suddenly become cognizant of how we forgot to mail the electric bill last week. This process is subconscious, and has evolved to be very efficient at detecting threats and identifying opportunities. Tolle's prescription to "watch the thinker" is all about becoming conscious of the content of our interests, and the process of how those interests play out, and Tolle tells us that we can find what Rupert was referring to as that object-free "Presence of Awareness" in the silent still space between thoughts. As Ramana would have said ... who is it that asks the question: "is that it?". You have at a great expression |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2017 21:15:39 GMT -5
(** shakes head sadly **) (**doubts the honesty of that**) A joke is never really a lie! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 27, 2017 17:26:38 GMT -5
I recall that Satch equates the sense of existence (I am) with ego, and so here we are again, only this time the sense of existence is called 'I'. (cuz it wasn't confusing enough already) Yea, something is amiss. It looks like one Niz quote would put this to rest: Observe what you are not, until you find out what you are. (What you are-not, would be ego. But I know satch you have (tried to) explain this, don't have to try again). Oops, almost forgot, but you (E) disagree with that (quote), too. I see the value in becoming conscious and in questioning one's assumed identity, and Neti-Neti. I don't get observing ego until the real deal magically appears. I'm not certain he means to say that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 27, 2017 17:30:25 GMT -5
I recall that Satch equates the sense of existence (I am) with ego, and so here we are again, only this time the sense of existence is called 'I'. (cuz it wasn't confusing enough already) You don't actually read, digest and understand the content of posts do you? No, I'm just an idiot who doesn't understand much, but I think I understand "I am = ego". (The '=' sign means equals) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 19:57:07 GMT -5
This topic interests me greatly. However, I won't lie, it is all a bit 'out there' for me. I have only just started believing in channelling and astral travel although not experienced anything remotely like it. Energy work, spirits etc, is like a whole new world to me. AH's alignment resonnates a lot so that's why I listen there but I had considerable amount of resistance at the start. I still feel, as with Tolle's painbody metaphore, we are over complicating things..but let's not go there again lol! I am genuinely interested in reading these kind of posts, thanks P. Thanks for the honesty. It's refreshing. Truth is really simple. Spirit can be quite complex. If there's a break in logic then there has either been a shift in context or someone doesn't know what they're talking about. I will say, if you want to understand the realm of spirit more thoroughly, I would suggest starting with your dreams and sleep experiences. The ancients, and in many Indian tribes and such, placed a lot of weight on dreams, almost an obsessive amount, when it came to the realm of navigation. So a desire to navigate with less resistance or more efficiency can lead to a desire to understand the unconscious realm more intricately (it's where the obstructions are), that can bring heightened awareness to spiritual energy. It does open the gate to more information, and thus a greater need to process. I'm not at all interested in what you talk about, but you are free to talk about it. But this thread is supposed to be about Nisargadatta. Can you start your own thread on your subject. Thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 6:38:16 GMT -5
Thanks for the honesty. It's refreshing. Truth is really simple. Spirit can be quite complex. If there's a break in logic then there has either been a shift in context or someone doesn't know what they're talking about. I will say, if you want to understand the realm of spirit more thoroughly, I would suggest starting with your dreams and sleep experiences. The ancients, and in many Indian tribes and such, placed a lot of weight on dreams, almost an obsessive amount, when it came to the realm of navigation. So a desire to navigate with less resistance or more efficiency can lead to a desire to understand the unconscious realm more intricately (it's where the obstructions are), that can bring heightened awareness to spiritual energy. It does open the gate to more information, and thus a greater need to process. I'm not at all interested in what you talk about, but you are free to talk about it. But this thread is supposed to be about Nisargadatta. Can you start your own thread on your subject. Thanks. If you're unable to go for a very long walk, then try wearing this Amen sign for awhile.. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 28, 2017 11:03:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the honesty. It's refreshing. Truth is really simple. Spirit can be quite complex. If there's a break in logic then there has either been a shift in context or someone doesn't know what they're talking about. I will say, if you want to understand the realm of spirit more thoroughly, I would suggest starting with your dreams and sleep experiences. The ancients, and in many Indian tribes and such, placed a lot of weight on dreams, almost an obsessive amount, when it came to the realm of navigation. So a desire to navigate with less resistance or more efficiency can lead to a desire to understand the unconscious realm more intricately (it's where the obstructions are), that can bring heightened awareness to spiritual energy. It does open the gate to more information, and thus a greater need to process. I'm not at all interested in what you talk about, but you are free to talk about it. But this thread is supposed to be about Nisargadatta. Can you start your own thread on your subject. Thanks. I think I was responding to someone else when we tangented off satch. Maybe you're directing this at the wrong person. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 11:51:08 GMT -5
I'm not at all interested in what you talk about, but you are free to talk about it. But this thread is supposed to be about Nisargadatta. Can you start your own thread on your subject. Thanks. I think I was responding to someone else when we tangented off satch. Maybe you're directing this at the wrong person. Oh maybe. It's not a big deal preciocho. Just trying to keep things tidy. I think your stuff has also morphed from the Hicks thread. I don't mean to disparage what you discuss about cloaking. It's totally unfamiliar to me and I wouldn't have a clue about how to contribute sensibly to such a discussion. It's really quite alien to me. I've never heard of Seth or Abraham - Hicks. Is that two people? Why the hyphen between the names? Never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2017 12:04:32 GMT -5
Oh maybe. It's not a big deal preciocho. Just trying to keep things tidy. I think your stuff has also morphed from the Hicks thread. I don't mean to disparage what you discuss about cloaking. It's totally unfamiliar to me and I wouldn't have a clue about how to contribute sensibly to such a discussion. It's really quite alien to me. I've never heard of Seth or Abraham - Hicks. Is that two people? Why the hyphen between the names? Never mind. Satch, That's not your job here. Threads evolve. Your job is to keep your interactions with others respectful. Focus on that. R |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2017 15:51:29 GMT -5
I think I was responding to someone else when we tangented off satch. Maybe you're directing this at the wrong person. Oh maybe. It's not a big deal preciocho. Just trying to keep things tidy. I think your stuff has also morphed from the Hicks thread. I don't mean to disparage what you discuss about cloaking. It's totally unfamiliar to me and I wouldn't have a clue about how to contribute sensibly to such a discussion. It's really quite alien to me. I've never heard of Seth or Abraham - Hicks. Is that two people? Why the hyphen between the names? Never mind. Honestly, my initial and natural reaction to sources like Jane and Esther is an annoyed skepticism. But that's 99% acculturated conditioned reaction. Some of the "Seth" material, in particular, is quite insightful. Prec's cloaking idea is 1000% woo-woo, but I've found his psychological insights over the years to be dead on, and that's from self-observation. Each of these three sources have an acknowledgement and awareness of where nonduality is pointing in common. Do you recall what your initial reaction to TM and Advaita was when you were first exposed to them? Were they a natural fit with the organic culture you grew up in, or were they in some respects foreign? For me astrology is an interesting case. I was exposed to it very young and didn't start dismissing it with derisive impatience until I was a teenager, and now I could still name all the signs, and learned about the interplay of Eastern and Western astrology as an adult 'cause of my wife won't stop talking about it. How old were you when you first encountered TM? Advaita? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 21:47:15 GMT -5
Oh maybe. It's not a big deal preciocho. Just trying to keep things tidy. I think your stuff has also morphed from the Hicks thread. I don't mean to disparage what you discuss about cloaking. It's totally unfamiliar to me and I wouldn't have a clue about how to contribute sensibly to such a discussion. It's really quite alien to me. I've never heard of Seth or Abraham - Hicks. Is that two people? Why the hyphen between the names? Never mind. Honestly, my initial and natural reaction to sources like Jane and Esther is an annoyed skepticism. But that's 99% acculturated conditioned reaction. Some of the "Seth" material, in particular, is quite insightful. Prec's cloaking idea is 1000% woo-woo, but I've found his psychological insights over the years to be dead on, and that's from self-observation. Each of these three sources have an acknowledgement and awareness of where nonduality is pointing in common. Do you recall what your initial reaction to TM and Advaita was when you were first exposed to them? Were they a natural fit with the organic culture you grew up in, or were they in some respects foreign? For me astrology is an interesting case. I was exposed to it very young and didn't start dismissing it with derisive impatience until I was a teenager, and now I could still name all the signs, and learned about the interplay of Eastern and Western astrology as an adult 'cause of my wife won't stop talking about it. How old were you when you first encountered TM? Advaita? Thank you laffy. Your comment was more constructive than the one from reefs. My initial interest in my teens was in Buddhism, Alan Watts and JJ Krishnamurti. TM was in my early twenties. It's true that you can have ideas in opposition to something less familiar. For instance at the time TM was very popular, so was Osho, known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh back then. I thought my guru Mahesh Yogi was authentic and Osho was a complete charlatan. A showman. It was only recently, listening particularly to some of his early talks that I realized he was a true master. Somewhere I found an interview which addressed my issue with his showmanship back then. Someone very close to Osho heard from him that when he started to talk about his realization no one wanted to listen. So he added " a bit of sugar" in his words, and he got more interest, and he thought, "I can do this". So he added more and more which was in line with his natural tendencies as a speaker and performer. He had previously been a Philosophy professor. He did what he saw was necessary to share his knowledge. To "sex it up" for the masses. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2017 23:16:03 GMT -5
Honestly, my initial and natural reaction to sources like Jane and Esther is an annoyed skepticism. But that's 99% acculturated conditioned reaction. Some of the "Seth" material, in particular, is quite insightful. Prec's cloaking idea is 1000% woo-woo, but I've found his psychological insights over the years to be dead on, and that's from self-observation. Each of these three sources have an acknowledgement and awareness of where nonduality is pointing in common. Do you recall what your initial reaction to TM and Advaita was when you were first exposed to them? Were they a natural fit with the organic culture you grew up in, or were they in some respects foreign? For me astrology is an interesting case. I was exposed to it very young and didn't start dismissing it with derisive impatience until I was a teenager, and now I could still name all the signs, and learned about the interplay of Eastern and Western astrology as an adult 'cause of my wife won't stop talking about it. How old were you when you first encountered TM? Advaita? Thank you laffy. Your comment was more constructive than the one from reefs. My initial interest in my teens was in Buddhism, Alan Watts and JJ Krishnamurti. TM was in my early twenties. It's true that you can have ideas in opposition to something less familiar. For instance at the time TM was very popular, so was Osho, known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh back then. I thought my guru Mahesh Yogi was authentic and Osho was a complete charlatan. A showman. It was only recently, listening particularly to some of his early talks that I realized he was a true master. Somewhere I found an interview which addressed my issue with his showmanship back then. Someone very close to Osho heard from him that when he started to talk about his realization no one wanted to listen. So he added " a bit of sugar" in his words, and he got more interest, and he thought, "I can do this". So he added more and more which was in line with his natural tendencies as a speaker and performer. He had previously been a Philosophy professor. He did what he saw was necessary to share his knowledge. To "sex it up" for the masses. I'm familiar with some of the negative reaction to Osho, and a few of the trappings of his appearance and some of the stories about his spending suggest to me that I might have the same reaction if I took the time to familiarize myself with him. But every quote I've read has been deep and truthful. I wouldn't have guessed that about Buddhism as your first interest. Sounds like there's a story there about a turning point.  I'm interested in how you got introduced to both Buddhism and Advaita, and by whom. But first, to bring this full circle to our conditioned responses to the beliefs of other peeps ... did everyone you knew back in your early 20's react the same way when you told them about what you'd gotten interested in? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 23:52:18 GMT -5
Thank you laffy. Your comment was more constructive than the one from reefs. My initial interest in my teens was in Buddhism, Alan Watts and JJ Krishnamurti. TM was in my early twenties. It's true that you can have ideas in opposition to something less familiar. For instance at the time TM was very popular, so was Osho, known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh back then. I thought my guru Mahesh Yogi was authentic and Osho was a complete charlatan. A showman. It was only recently, listening particularly to some of his early talks that I realized he was a true master. Somewhere I found an interview which addressed my issue with his showmanship back then. Someone very close to Osho heard from him that when he started to talk about his realization no one wanted to listen. So he added " a bit of sugar" in his words, and he got more interest, and he thought, "I can do this". So he added more and more which was in line with his natural tendencies as a speaker and performer. He had previously been a Philosophy professor. He did what he saw was necessary to share his knowledge. To "sex it up" for the masses. I'm familiar with some of the negative reaction to Osho, and a few of the trappings of his appearance and some of the stories about his spending suggest to me that I might have the same reaction if I took the time to familiarize myself with him. But every quote I've read has been deep and truthful. I wouldn't have guessed that about Buddhism as your first interest. Sounds like there's a story there about a turning point. I'm interested in how you got introduced to both Buddhism and Advaita, and by whom. But first, to bring this full circle to our conditioned responses to the beliefs of other peeps ... did everyone you knew back in your early 20's react the same way when you told them about what you'd gotten interested in? I wasn't introduced by anyone. I had the heart and mind of a seeker and looked around at what was available. I had a simple view of Hinduism (Vedanta was unknown to me) that seemed polytheistic, but Buddhism seemed more consistent. My contemporaries, including myself I might add, were usually surrounded by a haze of cannabis smoke, so I didn't find much rapport there. Mahesh Yogi who introduced TM to the west really came from the yoga tradition rather than pure Advaita. I didn't discover Ramana and Niz until many years later. Agree about Osho. He just wanted the ashram in Oregon to work so he didn't mind if he was given twenty Rolls Royce's. People focus on that. He didn't care about the trappings of materialism. I'm sure about that. It was just part of the show. |
|
I'm interested in how you got introduced to both Buddhism and Advaita, and by whom. But first, to bring this full circle to our conditioned responses to the beliefs of other peeps ... did everyone you knew back in your early 20's react the same way when you told them about what you'd gotten interested in?