|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 22, 2016 17:31:18 GMT -5
Well on sages, and considering I've been a bit lacking on the substantive end around here, I wanted to give a note about Mooji. I became interested in the idea of self reflective telemetry and the spirit world. What's exactly is going on in the sleep state? Well anyway, Mooji came to me in a vision a couple weeks ago. I was in somewhat of a bind, and he gave me an indicator of an open avenue for value adding expression.
In the vision, he told me I have two angels with me, one of which was a little girl in the barrio, although perhaps it might point closer to say a light energy behind her. He specifically said, 'You're going to talk to her'.
I woke up, and said, well that ain't gonna happen cuz I ain't talking to her. Another wacky vision. But in the meantime started writing on collective engine stuff and before I know it a couple weeks pass and I find myself in this girls house. I only ended up there because Yadira fled in the interim, and was sleeping there.
Nevertheless, I found myself in the middle of a conversation with the little girl about Yadira and I, and at that exact moment saw the open avenue. Then just today I watched a Mooji vid, and saw either the "Ohm" or whatever that squiggly line is next to a picture of Maharshi, and in my room there is a giant painting of the planets and a circular object in the middle with the same symbol (someone else put the painting here, not me).
Anyway, it was at that point when a channel opened to talk about what exactly an angel is, and how the light of consciousness reflects back to itself through pockets of darkness. The Self took form as Mooji in a dream. You'd probably like the tech analysis but I think angels and demons are really interesting stuff, and that ultimately speaking there was a subconscious logical sequence where my mind was already two steps ahead of itself but couldn't get 'there' (which ironically is always 'here') without first working through some emotional blockages. Then we can contextualize a universal mind and the potential for networking through creatures.
 30 years ago I would have sneered at the idea of dream visions, 15 years ago I would have been condescendingly tolerant and 6 years ago I would have been genuinely open-minded. Experience is a wonderful teacher, and while I've never had the experience of a dream vision I've got enough ghost stories and improbable synchs to empathize, and I've also known a few peeps who are sensitive enough to have encountered them like yourself. As far as the tech description is concerned, well, one experience I do have is of finally recognizing how none of them touch what you and I really are, only what appears to us. You might not have noticed the specific expression of that recognition while it was happening but you were an integral part of the network of creatures that were involved in the process of it. We could use Swammi-G as an example of my current orientation. Now, to her, it seems like she had the experience of controlling the weather. I wouldn't question that it felt that way to her at the time, and I wouldn't call her crazy either. But I'd interpret her experience differently. I'd say that during those events she was in the midst of an experiencerless experience where movement and change is perceived but with no center to the perception. In those moments, she was the Earth, the sky and the clouds, and in a very literal experiential sense. The only subtle error I might ascribe to her description would be in that the will to make it rain was an after-the-fact conceptual overlay. That she made it rain though, I have no doubt.  I didn't watch that whole swami-G vid, but I don't question the idea of a non-intellectual intelligence or the possibility to align intellect with a creative principle when coming out of identification (or to get lost in that alignment in an unconscious way hehe). Visions and dreams are certainly not a requisite to conscious alignment, but what Jung calls an acausal connecting principle embodies a force Adyashanti once spoke about, the universe wanting to wake up. Maharaj and other sages speak on this force through a seeing of degradation implicit in seeking.
Jung did an interesting analysis on the infamous scarab in the context of coincidence. Basically, a patient of his had a dream of a bizarre beetle, and during the recollection and relay of the dream, Jung walked over to his window, and found the scarab. He couldn't say whether the dream 'caused' the scarab to be there that day, so labeled synchronicity an acausal connecting principle.
Dreams and visions are information. If we start there, everything else follows.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2016 17:32:14 GMT -5
I'm not upset. Dismayed and frustrated perhaps. Why do you consider that a trap? Dismayed and frustrated is upset. Is that denigration? Is it one-upmanship? Maybe I'm trying to win a debate? Maybe I'm just pointing out how disagreeable you can get. WHAT!? I've never found quinn to be disagreeable. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 22, 2016 19:06:12 GMT -5
To be able to pay is the best possession man can have. JG Bennett This is a great example of a "potential", since this "best possession" is only yours for as long as you don't pay.  ... you see, once you pay, you've lost the ability to pay ... .. You say so because you know my interest in 'potential'.. but I put the sentence without context there, he was talking about talents in the previous section. And the very place of this quote is about whether one's 'spiritual payment' can help one's parents or not.. he says yes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 19:11:18 GMT -5
Heh, a vision of Mooji that takes the attention deeper into Mr Mind is amusing and an oxymoron. What's amusing is that you think commenting on someone's writing when you have no apparent interest in what was written is somehow not Mr. Mind. That would be amusing. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 22, 2016 19:12:42 GMT -5
This is a great example of a "potential", since this "best possession" is only yours for as long as you don't pay. ... you see, once you pay, you've lost the ability to pay ... He's talking about payment via conscious efforts. There is no practical limit, one is only limited by sleep. One point: Someone asks him (Bennett) whether some people have no (spiritual) talents at all.. he answers as, no, everyone, even the weakest has a pattern of possibilities *but some people cannot do anything alone*.. then they should join others, etc.. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 19:26:00 GMT -5
Dismayed and frustrated is upset. Is that denigration? Is it one-upmanship? Maybe I'm trying to win a debate? Maybe I'm just pointing out how disagreeable you can get. WHAT!? I've never found quinn to be disagreeable. Well what the hell do you know!  Haha! Just kidding. (Thanks) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 19:30:52 GMT -5
Well the 'pitchfork thing is repeated as a sort of affirmation and used strategically i the discourse, so we can imagine the language flowing like a river and exerting a force, which is simply an unavoidable facet of discourse. These allisios such as 'youve grown cynical' are all part of the game. It's disempowering the voice of the accused, and thats the reason it's said. It doesn't 'converse' like the flow of the river going to endless seas, and it sets up the attack and the defensive position. I think it's pretty obvious that is what it does. People often call me cynical, but I refute it, and I know these projections are common and that other readers 'get an impression' from it. Mud sticks, as they say. Lolly is presented as some sort of disease, and not of the physical type. It's a psychological aspersion that I have something infectious to spread and instills fear that others around will contract it and be rendered nonsencical. The implication is that lolly infected whoever it is whom is said to have 'become cynical'. It's clear that lolly is the center of blame ad cause and locale ot 'the problem'. There is a lot being done in those few lines. It's by no means kind, and I'd describe it as 'an underhand insinuation'. Now I question, is this an assertion that sort of slides by, but impresses minds with self-imagery portrayed in derogatory light? These depictions don't actually represent lolly or Quinn; they're more like toilet graffiti charactures; but the assertions do serve a particular purpose, or at least, have a certain effect, and effect implies power. You notice Satch opened his two previous posts to me with you... something something something, so as to diminish the image of lolly and take the dominant position . Thats 'what it does'. I know these uses of language, and I can't communicate on such terms. Re: the "I think you've grown cynical" comment. Good point about it's aim, not at the content but at the deliverer of the content. Good ole' ad hominem in play yet again. This discussion is about behavior in general, and mine in particular. Assuming you don't see your comments about me as ad hominem attacks, how can my comments about you be? I don't understand what you're saying there. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 19:32:36 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Socrates waxed on about just about everything. He was a philosopher.  But that was in service to his greatest contribution: deconstructing folks' preconceptions. Can't get much teenier of a greasy spot than "I know that I don't know." Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 19:37:03 GMT -5
Her interpretation was "he knows the ones who don't know". Perhaps you will interpret that for me? Welp, actually it was: "He said that he knows the ones who don't know. Hence, I know I don't know." IOW, 'I know that I don't know' is expressed publicly to provide contrast to a prevailing pretense. Your interp works on it's own too; when stated publicly, it's certainly to make a statement about the misconceptions of others as well. y'know? No problem. I still don't understand how you interpret her interpretation that way, but it's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 19:46:33 GMT -5
You think I got something else from her posts? Do tell. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 19:59:14 GMT -5
Re: the "I think you've grown cynical" comment. Good point about it's aim, not at the content but at the deliverer of the content. Good ole' ad hominem in play yet again. This discussion is about behavior in general, and mine in particular. Assuming you don't see your comments about me as ad hominem attacks, how can my comments about you be? Good point. It's not ad hominem, it's deflection. Not important. Just a potential theory to say that there are other possible reasons behind your 'cynical' comment. (I don't think I'm being cynical, btw.) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 20:04:23 GMT -5
That's precisely the attitude and energy Lolly brings to the forum, and rather than revealing the mechanics of conflict from a position of superiority, as intended, it's the fundamental source of the conflict in question. The Lolly position is that nobody ever says anything true, that it's all about manipulation tactics to gain control. You asked me if I thought what you said was denigration and one-upmanship. I said yes. Why are you talking about Lolly? Why are you talking about me? This is about you. Ostensibly, yes. In actuality, it's about you and Lolly. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 20:14:10 GMT -5
Yes, that was the implication. Outrageousness does not substitute for passion. And no, I don't refer to spirituality. Lolly's passion is not spiritual, it's social. So is yours. Yes. That's true. Are you talking to yourself again? And I "don't refer to spirituality" either, Enigma. And yes, my passion is "not spiritual", but merely "social", just like Lollys. Somethin' wrong with dat? You said "I don't talk neo-advaita drivel." implying that I was talking about spirituality. I wasn't, but you were. (Neo-advaita is spirituality, BTW) |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 21:12:47 GMT -5
You asked me if I thought what you said was denigration and one-upmanship. I said yes. Why are you talking about Lolly? Why are you talking about me? This is about you. Ostensibly, yes. In actuality, it's about you and Lolly. Does that ever work both ways? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 21:34:16 GMT -5
Are you paying attention, like, at all? Well....seems as if I'm not, Enigma. And you? |
|
30 years ago I would have sneered at the idea of dream visions, 15 years ago I would have been condescendingly tolerant and 6 years ago I would have been genuinely open-minded. Experience is a wonderful teacher, and while I've never had the experience of a dream vision I've got enough ghost stories and improbable synchs to empathize, and I've also known a few peeps who are sensitive enough to have encountered them like yourself.
