|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 23, 2016 19:48:37 GMT -5
Then we both agree. You are attached to the idea. If I didn't even mean it, how could I be attached to it?? You mean to say that you were only kidding when you said "I say a peep is ready to see through beliefs before he is ready to see through them"? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 24, 2016 2:04:08 GMT -5
The things is, many can want to change their perspective / line of thought, but many can't seem to manage it . It took 60 years for someone I know to see through the brainwashing effects of their religious beliefs . I am suggesting that a peep isn't ready to see through beliefs until they are ready to see through them . There is a common theme I would say in that Seth and Bashar would encourage a peep to change their reality NOW . It doesn't seem to work like that . Perhaps millions of searchers of Self would like to change their reality and become Self realized NOW and yet it doesn't seem to work like that .. A peep that is deeply unhappy potentially wants to be happy, an unloved peep wants to be loved and yet there is something rather deep and worthwhile about getting to know who you are for the reasons why a peep feels the way they do . If one keeps changing the reality that they don't find pleasing to them, then all one is going to do is know that they don't feel comfortable with a particular reality . From one perspective I had a twenty year spell where I thought my life sucked and yet it was the catalyst for my enquiry .. Just think how many peeps suffer in the same way and yet there is a teaching floating around of change your reality if your not happy with it .. .. I think it would be beneficial to self enquire as to why one is unhappy rather than simply change the scenery .. however I do see benefits / requirements for wanting / needing to change one's line of thought .. Bashar, Seth and Abraham all speak from their perspective where space/time is a non-issue. From the normal human perspective there don't exist such degrees of freedom. Also, in Seth terminology, we are all just fragments of an entity. So from that perspective, self-realization as goal equally for all fragments doesn't even make sense. It only makes sense from the (limited and lackful) fragment perspective. Bashar, Seth and Abraham speaking from their perspective is fine and from their perspective/s it more than just makes sense for it is 'actually' how they experience their own existence . For the peep that endures a lifetime where linear time is a factor and a fragmented non realized self is a factor then from one perspective speaking of beyond the linear experience and beyond the fragmented / limited / lackful self won't change too much in relation to the one that experiences that . Like said, a non linear peep that encourages or suggests one to change and invite a different reality into their lives 'now' won't actually experience a different reality 'now' for one is experiencing a linear process 'now' and it does appear that effort / focus needs to be applied in order for the different reality to come about eventually . What I have been pointing towards is the linear process that does have a bearing on the proceedings of selecting a new reality . So from their perspective where space/time is a non issue doesn't help matters in a roundabout way where peeps find it impossible to ignore the linear process . It's like a peep that flies a helicopter to work doesn't have an issue with the traffic jams and yet he is trying to tell the peep stuck behind the wheel to invite a new reality for themselves 'now' where there is no traffic lol .. in the moment it doesn't help too much for the peep that is actually experiencing the traffic . A Self realized peep that can relate to experiencing self prior to the realization can relate to those having not realized . So perhaps the helicopter peep whom has experienced the traffic can relate to the whole situation rather than just from 'their' perspective . Maybe Bashar and the likes can (I don't know) I haven't read much about their background/s . As said I do like the way that such peeps like Bashar encourage / empower others, it's just that living a life as a being that is not of the physical linear environment will perhaps always endure some difficulties in seeing that things don't quite work in the same way here as it does from where they come from .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 24, 2016 3:09:49 GMT -5
The things is, many can want to change their perspective / line of thought, but many can't seem to manage it . It took 60 years for someone I know to see through the brainwashing effects of their religious beliefs . I am suggesting that a peep isn't ready to see through beliefs until they are ready to see through them . There is a common theme I would say in that Seth and Bashar would encourage a peep to change their reality NOW . It doesn't seem to work like that . Perhaps millions of searchers of Self would like to change their reality and become Self realized NOW and yet it doesn't seem to work like that .. A peep that is deeply unhappy potentially wants to be happy, an unloved peep wants to be loved and yet there is something rather deep and worthwhile about getting to know who you are for the reasons why a peep feels the way they do . If one keeps changing the reality that they don't find pleasing to them, then all one is going to do is know that they don't feel comfortable with a particular reality . From one perspective I had a twenty year spell where I thought my life sucked and yet it was the catalyst for my enquiry .. Just think how many peeps suffer in the same way and yet there is a teaching floating around of change your reality if your not happy with it .. .. I think it would be beneficial to self enquire as to why one is unhappy rather than simply change the scenery .. however I do see benefits / requirements for wanting / needing to change one's line of thought .. I say a peep is ready to see through beliefs before he is ready to see through them. (Not attached to that idea, like, at all.)  How so? On what level? Is one simply ready or not? It's like saying a cake is ready to eat prior to it being ready to eat .. (still not made / baked) .. and supposedly still ready to eat . A slice of cake anyone? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2016 5:24:54 GMT -5
How certain are you of that opinion? How attached to it are you? I was addressing a Tenkatology with sarcasm and humor. A tautology cannot be false by definition, which you would have realized had you actually been paying attention to the discussion rather than focused on making me wrong. To be clear, in case you're still not paying attention, it was a joke and I didn't even mean what I said. it can be a tough crowd down here at open mike night but you nailed it! you tell jokes, and don't mean what you say.. uber-enlightened internet forum sages aren't supposed to do that |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 24, 2016 9:03:43 GMT -5
I quite like bashar for obvious reasons regarding the channeling and the ET links . Similar to Seth tho, I haven't as yet heard how one 'changes' their reality 'NOW' . I mean we can all change our line of thought, butt not a lot changes in an instant when one decides to 'think' in a particular way .. a way that is different from their usual line of thought .. As I see it (not really an opinion but not held particularly tightly) creation isn't really a function of thought but of feeling, and involves thought only to the extent that it influences feeling. And even at that (Involves some gnosis so still not an opinion, but might be incomplete, so I'm open to seeing it more clearly)it seems that negative feeling has no particular creative power. In any event, "deciding to think" something has no power at all. That's A-H in a nutshell!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 24, 2016 9:28:58 GMT -5
A Self realized peep that can relate to experiencing self prior to the realization can relate to those having not realized . So perhaps the helicopter peep whom has experienced the traffic can relate to the whole situation rather than just from 'their' perspective. Yes, the self-realized peep can relate but the ordinary peep can't. The self-realized peep sees clearly that whatever the ordinary peep tries in order to initiate self-realization is bound to fail. And the ordinary peep doesn't even have a clue what self-realization actually is. If the ordinary peep would have a clue, then that wouldn't be self-realization. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 9:49:35 GMT -5
If I didn't even mean it, how could I be attached to it?? You mean to say that you were only kidding when you said "I say a peep is ready to see through beliefs before he is ready to see through them"? Yes. My statement is absurd, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 9:55:26 GMT -5
You mean to say that you were only kidding when you said "I say a peep is ready to see through beliefs before he is ready to see through them"? Yes. My statement is absurd, isn't it? "Waiting for Godot" is absurd. You are just ..... (fill in the blank yourself). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 10:09:25 GMT -5
I say a peep is ready to see through beliefs before he is ready to see through them. (Not attached to that idea, like, at all.) How so? On what level? Is one simply ready or not? It's like saying a cake is ready to eat prior to it being ready to eat .. (still not made / baked) .. and supposedly still ready to eat . A slice of cake anyone? Sorry, I guess my sarcasm was too subtle. You said a peep isn't ready to see through beliefs until he's ready to see through them. You recognize this as a tautology, right? Like saying a cake is ready to eat when it is ready to eat. I was pointing out the tautology by disagreeing with it, which of course is impossible and looks absurd, as you point out. JLY missed the boat as well, and even went on to somehow conclude that I was kidding myself about it. I get criticized for suggesting that some peeps are misreading posts and not paying attention and being unconsciously triggered. I'm told that I'm using manipulative control tactics and trying to win arguments and denigrating uneven playing fields, blah, blah. There can't be a more clear example of what I'm talking about than this. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 24, 2016 10:11:51 GMT -5
You mean to say that you were only kidding when you said "I say a peep is ready to see through beliefs before he is ready to see through them"? Yes. My statement is absurd, isn't it? Not so absurd. Peeps are attached to all kinds of absurdities. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 10:13:55 GMT -5
How so? On what level? Is one simply ready or not? It's like saying a cake is ready to eat prior to it being ready to eat .. (still not made / baked) .. and supposedly still ready to eat . A slice of cake anyone? Sorry, I guess my sarcasm was too subtle. You said a peep isn't ready to see through beliefs until he's ready to see through them. You recognize this as a tautology, right? Like saying a cake is ready to eat when it is ready to eat. I was pointing out the tautology by disagreeing with it, which of course is impossible and looks absurd, as you point out. JLY missed the boat as well, and even went on to somehow conclude that I was kidding myself about it. I get criticized for suggesting that some peeps are misreading posts and not paying attention and being unconsciously triggered. I'm told that I'm using manipulative control tactics and trying to win arguments and denigrating uneven playing fields, blah, blah. There can't be a more clear example of what I'm talking about than this.Yes. Thank you, Enigma. You once again showed perfectely what projection is all about. Please continue to expose what "being unconsciously triggered is". It's big fun. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 10:21:25 GMT -5
How certain are you of that opinion? How attached to it are you? I was addressing a Tenkatology with sarcasm and humor. A tautology cannot be false by definition, which you would have realized had you actually been paying attention to the discussion rather than focused on making me wrong. To be clear, in case you're still not paying attention, it was a joke and I didn't even mean what I said. it can be a tough crowd down here at open mike night but you nailed it! you tell jokes, and don't mean what you say.. uber-enlightened internet forum sages aren't supposed to do that I don't know what's expected of me on open mike night. I try out a few routines and sometimes I get boo'ed off the stage. I guess I could try my karaoke version of 'Up With People'.  |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 10:24:08 GMT -5
it can be a tough crowd down here at open mike night but you nailed it! you tell jokes, and don't mean what you say.. uber-enlightened internet forum sages aren't supposed to do that I don't know what's expected of me on open mike night. I try out a few routines and sometimes I get boo'ed off the stage. I guess I could try my karaoke version of 'Up With People'. What's your best James Brown impersonation? Maybe that will do. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 10:25:20 GMT -5
As I see it (not really an opinion but not held particularly tightly) creation isn't really a function of thought but of feeling, and involves thought only to the extent that it influences feeling. And even at that (Involves some gnosis so still not an opinion, but might be incomplete, so I'm open to seeing it more clearly)it seems that negative feeling has no particular creative power. In any event, "deciding to think" something has no power at all. That's A-H in a nutshell! Then A-H obviously know what they're talking about. (For the hecklers in the crowd, that was a joke ) |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 10:26:47 GMT -5
That's A-H in a nutshell! Then A-H obviously know what they're talking about. (For the hecklers in the crowd, that was a joke ) You should carry a sign that says..... |
|
