|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2017 13:38:44 GMT -5
There defo seems a get out of jail free card by what some suppose / suggest what they don't know or can't know or don't understand It's like saying something that can't be questioned so that makes it somehow right lol . Lets make something up about something and call that something, something that can't be questioned . Then apply that unquestionable something in relation to everything I say ... ... IOW, mind playing with itself. Questions like "How can you arrive from 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' at 'everything that appears is conscious'? give it away already. Faction 1 starts with 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' and faction 2 starts with 'everything that appears is conscious'. Big difference! One statement reveals an abstraction, one statement reveals direct knowing. Hint: nouns are total abstractions. Because Faction 1 starts with an abstraction, they are naturally assuming faction 2 did the same but arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence questions like: How did you get from all is consciousness to all is conscious? Well, nothing like that ever happened! ETA: The real issue here is an incomplete realization. On the one hand, it has been realized that the Self is all there is. On the other hand, it hasn't been realized yet what the nature of Self actually is. And so mind has been trying to fill in the gaps in order to make the picture complete. Which then leads to concepts like unconscious/consciousless consciousness (i.e. the term consciousness has been assassinated and rendered meaningless - and now you've got your out of jail free card!). Maybe it's like playing Peek-a-boo with a baby. When the baby hides its face, baby is gone (as far as baby is concerned). But other half of the game knows baby hasn't disappeared, (but plays along for the baby's sake). (I'll have to think on that for a while to see if it makes sense, OTOH, maybe not. [Maybe I don't care...too-much...] or maybe I care enough not-to-care...).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2017 13:50:56 GMT -5
There defo seems a get out of jail free card by what some suppose / suggest what they don't know or can't know or don't understand It's like saying something that can't be questioned so that makes it somehow right lol . Lets make something up about something and call that something, something that can't be questioned . Then apply that unquestionable something in relation to everything I say ... ... IOW, mind playing with itself. Questions like "How can you arrive from 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' at 'everything that appears is conscious'? give it away already. Faction 1 starts with 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' and faction 2 starts with 'everything that appears is conscious'. Big difference! One statement reveals an abstraction, one statement reveals direct knowing. Hint: nouns are total abstractions. Because Faction 1 starts with an abstraction, they are naturally assuming faction 2 did the same but arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence questions like: How did you get from all is consciousness to all is conscious? Well, nothing like that ever happened! ETA: The real issue here is an incomplete realization. On the one hand, it has been realized that the Self is all there is. On the other hand, it hasn't been realized yet what the nature of Self actually is. And so mind has been trying to fill in the gaps in order to make the picture complete. Which then leads to concepts like unconscious/consciousless consciousness (i.e. the term consciousness has been assassinated and rendered meaningless - and now you've got your out of jail free card!). The Universe is alive and it's called the Universe because .. well .. like .. there's only one. I exist, I'm a human being -- as do and are you -- and the same consciousness looks out of every pair of eyes. But clearly, I'm not you and you're not me, and dude, the Moon sure as hell ain't made of cream cheese. None of that is intellectually defensible, and a peep's reaction to the fact of that indefensibility is where it becomes clear that those questions are coming from that place of an incomplete realization. To be fair, most of that paragraph is 1st/3rd mountain. It's like the duck/bunny or hag-matron/maiden optical duality: For as long as a peep is wandering around the base of 2nd mountain "You exist. You are a human being. The Moon's made of rocks" are all debatable points of mental confusion. On the pathless paths of those foothills, the rocks might have eyes, peeps might be robot-figgymints and existence itself not only can, but must, be questioned. Until then, it's doing them a favor to reassure them that yeah, peeps can be, once again, peeps.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Aug 22, 2017 16:28:37 GMT -5
Bingo with a cherry on top . The notion that the moon disappears when we no longer perceive it is just pants . Notice also that our solipsists are actually suggesting that there is something like unconscious consciousness and that the whole is less than its parts, not to mention a belief in actual separation as a cherry on top. So reefs do you see Seth as an awakened sage as say Ramana or Buddha. Tenka mentioned on one post, correct me if I'm wrong he feels he is a indigo child. It seems rainbow child is the new norm going by the new age crew in Glastonbury. Reefs are you looking at what most new age channellers are pointing at, a change in the story from being class c prisoners to class A prisoners who have been pointing at this since the 60's at a new earth,ascension etc. I don't understand your idea of self realisation and Seth and ND and how that all fits in. I know Krishnamurti went past the ascended masters he was exposed to under the Theosophical society, the bringing in the maitreya where his brother died as result of being a vessel for his appearance, and the great American sage Joe Miller too seems to have distanced himself from the ascended masters and channellers. A must watch if you haven't seen or heard of him. Same with UG.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Aug 22, 2017 17:22:42 GMT -5
Notice also that our solipsists are actually suggesting that there is something like unconscious consciousness and that the whole is less than its parts, not to mention a belief in actual separation as a cherry on top. So reefs do you see Seth as an awakened sage as say Ramana or Buddha. Tenka mentioned on one post, correct me if I'm wrong he feels he is a indigo child. It seems rainbow child is the new norm going by the new age crew in Glastonbury. Reefs are you looking at what most new age channellers are pointing at, a change in the story from being class c prisoners to class A prisoners who have been pointing at this since the 60's at a new earth,ascension etc. I don't understand your idea of self realisation and Seth and ND and how that all fits in. I know Krishnamurti went past the ascended masters he was exposed to under the Theosophical society, the bringing in the maitreya where his brother died as result of being a vessel for his appearance, and the great American sage Joe Miller too seems to have distanced himself from the ascended masters and channellers. A must watch if you haven't seen or heard of him. Same with UG. Here's footage of Joe Miller of you've never come across him before, the American sage. It's in nine parts.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 24, 2017 6:21:22 GMT -5
There defo seems a get out of jail free card by what some suppose / suggest what they don't know or can't know or don't understand It's like saying something that can't be questioned so that makes it somehow right lol . Lets make something up about something and call that something, something that can't be questioned . Then apply that unquestionable something in relation to everything I say ... ... IOW, mind playing with itself. Questions like "How can you arrive from 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' at 'everything that appears is conscious'? give it away already. Faction 1 starts with 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' and faction 2 starts with 'everything that appears is conscious'. Big difference! One statement reveals an abstraction, one statement reveals direct knowing. Hint: nouns are total abstractions. Because Faction 1 starts with an abstraction, they are naturally assuming faction 2 did the same but arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence questions like: How did you get from all is consciousness to all is conscious? Well, nothing like that ever happened! ETA: The real issue here is an incomplete realization. On the one hand, it has been realized that the Self is all there is. On the other hand, it hasn't been realized yet what the nature of Self actually is. And so mind has been trying to fill in the gaps in order to make the picture complete. Which then leads to concepts like unconscious/consciousless consciousness (i.e. the term consciousness has been assassinated and rendered meaningless - and now you've got your out of jail free card!). Another Bingo with a cherry on top!! (I mean with a bit of cheese on top)
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 24, 2017 18:49:11 GMT -5
I got curious about the nature of energy part! Especially whether it will include different 'types' of energy. (I guess not, but still I am interested) Re 'types' of energy: there is energy and then there is pure energy. Do the outer self and inner self work with the same kind of energy?
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Aug 24, 2017 19:26:13 GMT -5
IOW, mind playing with itself. Questions like "How can you arrive from 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' at 'everything that appears is conscious'? give it away already. Faction 1 starts with 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' and faction 2 starts with 'everything that appears is conscious'. Big difference! One statement reveals an abstraction, one statement reveals direct knowing. Hint: nouns are total abstractions. Because Faction 1 starts with an abstraction, they are naturally assuming faction 2 did the same but arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence questions like: How did you get from all is consciousness to all is conscious? Well, nothing like that ever happened! ETA: The real issue here is an incomplete realization. On the one hand, it has been realized that the Self is all there is. On the other hand, it hasn't been realized yet what the nature of Self actually is. And so mind has been trying to fill in the gaps in order to make the picture complete. Which then leads to concepts like unconscious/consciousless consciousness (i.e. the term consciousness has been assassinated and rendered meaningless - and now you've got your out of jail free card!). Another Bingo with a cherry on top!! (I mean with a bit of cheese on top) Reefs and tenka that's not the way I see it. As a child I would see the back office. The inner moon and stars. The rulers of the inner regions, the sounds too to match the ripples from the stillness that make up the play out world. Just as the young school girl, now a woman learning to drive a car in Canada I go to see would as a child see a hand appear in her room with deities calling to her from a spiral hierarchy which would open up in her room, a spiral stair case to the heavens as she would describe as she was only fourteen at the time. As a school kid she would tell me she would be made still during lessons knowing this is it as her mind would become still and yet coming home just wiping her feet at the door she knew the sound could rearrange her reality from the the softness to pressing down of her feet and then not being able to mix in with others to share over her troubles and truth. Where at night she would see the inner stars, moon, shoot towards the right inwardly through a tunnel just as in Kabirs and nanaks works. Practitioners in meditation stuck hearing the sound of Om Talking of non duality, And then a block. Yet she knew this was not it. Like in the sea, All within the undercurrent with a sound/s before the stillness, the pre-reality yet sold over in the marketplace as the real deal, the last stage. The egg of creation in Kabirs works, why he would say go beyond the egg to the Yogis. Brahmand that contains all including many of the channellers and non duality teachers you see in the marketplace and on Batgap too. It's all mind, lower and pure mind and it has its own light, teaching and following. It all serves its part of the One Being One but you may find the sage with the least presentation is closer to pointing at That. Yet look at the marketplace. The ratings of different sages, the channelled message of different deities. Which words to use for the mystery that is which is beyond any words. Ramana in the west is worshipped, yet pretty much unknown in India. Hitler's mein kampf is known more and of course Osho. The ordinary cup would not sell well over there. The cup of Christ, it has to have its jewels and glamour to coax in the mind of the Indian. The illusion more engrained, established in the collective psyche. Same here in the West. Just gazing at her, tearing through the layers, the story, projections, bringing her to more stillness, away from much that has kept her, have now but all disappeared. Sitting next to her at a lake and saying the lake is a lake, the ducks playing upon it are ducks. Why she smiled when I was pointing it out to her. Nothing interfering, no Channelling, no ascended masters, no talk of non duality, no hand of God appearing. Just what is seeing what is. Just because a sage keeps a silence on creation it's because anything that has led up to it holds little weight against the pure stillness and silence that is. The real mystery, magic and science. Much falls away, fades away. No charge, pull for the opposites as the mind was so accustomed to, no channeling or seeking a golden age as the mind seeks. A completion in some future ascension, a new earth, a reaction to the past, the animal drive for an evolutionary change against That which doesn't evolve, is unborn, yet is everything and no-thing at the same time, a mystery that science will not come to unless the individual turns within and not without and doesn't stop off. An indigo child is taking on the burden in the story to give way to crystal and rainbow children. And they will channel who knows who. Set up shop and have their fans. Yet, never the pointing to stillness and silence beyond the scripts of the many me. Always pointing at you can be more. Rise like lions from your slumber. We are many they are few. Yet from the video shared over earlier of Joe Miller in his story, he wasn't educated. He loved his children. They were taken away from him as a young man as he was poor, which broke his heart loosened him out of the story on some level that kept him where he was at. Just that and him taking a walk, as he describes, just one day breathing a different way and the story was seen through. Many marriages came in and left but the peace, stillness and silence of Being never did. And that's grace. On his death bed he said thank you to each person present. A great sage a man of deep understanding. Never took on a title from the theosophical society, or Buddhist or Sufi sages who recognised him as a sage. He said I'm just a guy named Joe. Rumi on the other hand had everything a title, prestige, the Sultan at the time would shower his family with gifts and land. Yet he came to the same deep understanding as Joe did In the existence of your Love I have become non existent This nonexistence next to you Is better than all existence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2017 23:16:18 GMT -5
Its all a dream, all a made up illusion so to speak. Perhaps the most significant difference between what we accept as thecommon realityversus the individual'sdream is that in this common reality that we are alldreaming together weareoperating in a kind of "consesus" dream where the Laws of Nature and physics and other common beliefs create a Rosetta Stone of commonality from which we can interact with each other in this dream. Whereas in the individual dreams that we Descend into need no basis in common experience to interact with others from, so the Laws of Nature are not needed and typically do not hold sway. Some Laws of Nature still occur in our individual dreams though, because the individual dream is a bit like a dream within a dream, so some habitual carryover occurs often. But because the Laws of Nature in the common shared dream are also part of a dream, they can and sometimes are altered or suspended if there is enough consensus to do so. Very charismatic people like Jesus have shown a capacity to get enough people to participate with enough force of belief to suspend the accepted Laws of Nature breifly even in this common consensus dream. And of course, charismatic visionaries have shifted or pulled nearly the entire consensus reality dream in whole new or expanded directions throughout history. This idea of a "consensus dream" is just a particular version of a shared objective reality. If someone turns away from that, and also adopts a world-view based on oneness, then they naturally wind up with a question similar to "what are these others?". It's just a natural progression from "what is this Consciousness?". Now, combine that with self-evidence, and it's clear that the individual in this situation can never know from what appears to them whether the other people appearing to them perceive and feel in the same way. By this, I mean: whatever the source and the mechanism by which these appearances of inanimate objects appear might also be the same source and mechanism by which the animated appearances appear. Put bluntly, as you've said, it's all an illusion, so how can we discern whether or not the other people in that illusion are just more illusion? As a philosophy, this position is bullet proof -- sort of the inverse of a self-defeating life strategy .. like, say, doubling down on a gamble to win back a loss. No matter what evidence you offer, it's countered with the notion that the evidence is a product of "Consciousness", just like any other product of "Consciousness". Really, it's just another way of saying that self-inquiry can't be answered objectively with the tools of empiricism and observation. Now, these questions -- and different forms of them, can be answered. Experience won't provide a direct and concrete answer no more than any philosophy can. But if one gets honest with themselves about where they are, and remains genuinely open and is intensely sincere about the questioning, then the existential merry-go-round can stop spinning. There's a potential trap for a person in this position who insists that the question has no answer. In that case they're no longer "not knowing", but are instead certain that they can never know. You mean like, "All that I know is that I know nothing"? I don't have a problem with knowing stuff, though it's most useful to know an illusion when you encounter it, and the notion that one can know something beyond experience by experiencing it is an illusion. It's not about seeing the inviolable Truth beyond the illusion which somehow informs us about what's going on in the dream. There will the color of Love if one is sensitive to it, the reflection of Wonder and a glimmer of Peace, but only because the painter of the pictures is remarkably talented. Not because He has become the dream.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2017 0:25:44 GMT -5
This idea of a "consensus dream" is just a particular version of a shared objective reality. If someone turns away from that, and also adopts a world-view based on oneness, then they naturally wind up with a question similar to "what are these others?". It's just a natural progression from "what is this Consciousness?". Now, combine that with self-evidence, and it's clear that the individual in this situation can never know from what appears to them whether the other people appearing to them perceive and feel in the same way. By this, I mean: whatever the source and the mechanism by which these appearances of inanimate objects appear might also be the same source and mechanism by which the animated appearances appear. Put bluntly, as you've said, it's all an illusion, so how can we discern whether or not the other people in that illusion are just more illusion? As a philosophy, this position is bullet proof -- sort of the inverse of a self-defeating life strategy .. like, say, doubling down on a gamble to win back a loss. No matter what evidence you offer, it's countered with the notion that the evidence is a product of "Consciousness", just like any other product of "Consciousness". Really, it's just another way of saying that self-inquiry can't be answered objectively with the tools of empiricism and observation. Now, these questions -- and different forms of them, can be answered. Experience won't provide a direct and concrete answer no more than any philosophy can. But if one gets honest with themselves about where they are, and remains genuinely open and is intensely sincere about the questioning, then the existential merry-go-round can stop spinning. There's a potential trap for a person in this position who insists that the question has no answer. In that case they're no longer "not knowing", but are instead certain that they can never know. You mean like, "All that I know is that I know nothing"? I don't have a problem with knowing stuff, though it's most useful to know an illusion when you encounter it, and the notion that one can know something beyond experience by experiencing it is an illusion. It's not about seeing the inviolable Truth beyond the illusion which somehow informs us about what's going on in the dream. There will the color of Love if one is sensitive to it, the reflection of Wonder and a glimmer of Peace, but only because the painter of the pictures is remarkably talented. Not because He has become the dream. Yes, knowledge is such a clumsy and pretentious claim. The glorious free-fall described by the absence of questions, the absence of any explanation, and the absence of any constriction of form at all is far more suggestive of the openness involved. But with that comes the absence of any uncertainty, and the absence of any doubt about the illusion. The dream is the dream, and there ain't no way I could have dreamed you up dude.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2017 22:15:19 GMT -5
You mean like, "All that I know is that I know nothing"? I don't have a problem with knowing stuff, though it's most useful to know an illusion when you encounter it, and the notion that one can know something beyond experience by experiencing it is an illusion. It's not about seeing the inviolable Truth beyond the illusion which somehow informs us about what's going on in the dream. There will the color of Love if one is sensitive to it, the reflection of Wonder and a glimmer of Peace, but only because the painter of the pictures is remarkably talented. Not because He has become the dream. Yes, knowledge is such a clumsy and pretentious claim. The glorious free-fall described by the absence of questions, the absence of any explanation, and the absence of any constriction of form at all is far more suggestive of the openness involved. But with that comes the absence of any uncertainty, and the absence of any doubt about the illusion. The dream is the dream, and there ain't no way I could have dreamed you up dude. Certainty is the requirement for illusion. There is no certainty or uncertainty in the notion that something cannot be known, and I say the world of appearances cannot be known for anything more than the appearances they are. I have issues with the complex descriptions that Seth provides for how things works, and even greater issues with the conclusions derived thereon. There are no mechanics to creation, and here too we are likely to slip on one of those greasy spots.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2017 0:54:16 GMT -5
Yes, knowledge is such a clumsy and pretentious claim. The glorious free-fall described by the absence of questions, the absence of any explanation, and the absence of any constriction of form at all is far more suggestive of the openness involved. But with that comes the absence of any uncertainty, and the absence of any doubt about the illusion. The dream is the dream, and there ain't no way I could have dreamed you up dude. Certainty is the requirement for illusion. There is no certainty or uncertainty in the notion that something cannot be known, and I say the world of appearances cannot be known for anything more than the appearances they are. I have issues with the complex descriptions that Seth provides for how things works, and even greater issues with the conclusions derived thereon. There are no mechanics to creation, and here too we are likely to slip on one of those greasy spots. CC's are sometimes described as an experience with no experiencer. Now, that doesn't even come close to describing what it's like, and the minds that have described them haven't always been informed by SR. I'm not referring to Seth btw. I've already registered my specific objections to using Seth's ideas to resolve the "not-knowing" in question. But what a CC reveals to the "experiencer" isn't that the world of appearances are more than the appearances that they are, but instead, it is the ineffable revealed, in all it's stunning totality, to itself. CC's are timeless and the "experience" is quite literally of the absence of boundary. Now when I say I don't have this question of whether or not other peeps may or may not be points of perception similar to myself, I'm not referring to any appearance-based knowledge of form. What I am referring to is the absence of illusion with regard to the question (any question) of Consciousness. Your point about how the dream characters may or may not be real has a flip side. In a lucid dream, it can become very clear to the movement of mind that is your dream character that you're in the sleeping dream if what manifests is outlandish enough. So the metaphor cuts both ways: while the illusion can be convincing, there is a distinction between illusion and what we can point to by any myriad of terms, as not illusion. This question of the nature of other dream characters is "am I One, or am I one of Many?". The illusion seen for what it is illuminates the answer to the question. It's true that there is no experience that reveals that answer, and no knowledge that directly conveys it. Isn't that in fact where the lucid dream metaphor breaks down? Yes, there is no higher outer truer actual movement of form "outside of the dream", which is why the ineffable is ineffable. But the existential question isn't open ended.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 5:46:03 GMT -5
Even the solipsist has to reconcile their mental position with the convincing nature of sensory experience, and align themselves with the way most peeps think: .. "I act as if appearances are real". That's exactly where the credibility gap is. Yes, of course we have to be careful with context. Maybe someone can eventually explain it some day. But until then, it's interesting to note that any thinker that arrives at that limit by thinking will state things in existentially conflated terms. Take Spence' for example: Where he invites mind to keep churning into a context mix is really obvious to me here, as is just the right pointer to decline the invitation. The appearance doesn't appear without awareness of the appearance, but "that which is aware" of the appearance isn't a "that" at all, and of course, never makes an appearence. Yes, the 'appearances in awareness' model has its drawbacks because it can't get more abstract than this. The 'appearances as extensions' model undercuts such TMT. Both models are valid, but one is more prone to TMT than the other. And so our solipsists clearly prefer one over the other.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 5:59:14 GMT -5
Maybe it's like playing Peek-a-boo with a baby. When the baby hides its face, baby is gone (as far as baby is concerned). But other half of the game knows baby hasn't disappeared, (but plays along for the baby's sake). (I'll have to think on that for a while to see if it makes sense, OTOH, maybe not. [Maybe I don't care...too-much...] or maybe I care enough not-to-care...). The way I see it, it has something to do with speaking from different platforms (and not noticing it) as Tenka calls it, which is basically a context mix re the statement that 'perceiving and creating are one and the same thing' which seems also related to the 'if a tree a falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?' koan.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 6:08:05 GMT -5
The Universe is alive and it's called the Universe because .. well .. like .. there's only one. I exist, I'm a human being -- as do and are you -- and the same consciousness looks out of every pair of eyes. But clearly, I'm not you and you're not me, and dude, the Moon sure as hell ain't made of cream cheese. None of that is intellectually defensible, and a peep's reaction to the fact of that indefensibility is where it becomes clear that those questions are coming from that place of an incomplete realization. To be fair, most of that paragraph is 1st/3rd mountain. It's like the duck/bunny or hag-matron/maiden optical duality: Excellent analogy! For as long as a peep is wandering around the base of 2nd mountain "You exist. You are a human being. The Moon's made of rocks" are all debatable points of mental confusion. On the pathless paths of those foothills, the rocks might have eyes, peeps might be robot-figgymints and existence itself not only can, but must, be questioned. Until then, it's doing them a favor to reassure them that yeah, peeps can be, once again, peeps. The human condition can't be ignored. And peeps with different levels of understanding find different solutions (or workarounds).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2017 6:36:40 GMT -5
So reefs do you see Seth as an awakened sage as say Ramana or Buddha. Tenka mentioned on one post, correct me if I'm wrong he feels he is a indigo child. It seems rainbow child is the new norm going by the new age crew in Glastonbury. It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. They speak from different platforms. The Buddha and Ramana and Niz all had to deal with the human condition and had to operate in the physical camouflage system. And so there are certain limitations (or distortions) to their message and perspective that are more or less unavoidable. Seth and Abraham on the other hand, don't have those limitations. Our masters in the flesh primarily had to rely on the physical senses and found a way to look with the inner senses beyond the root assumptions of the physical system. Our non-physical friends already by default look with the inner senses and beyond the root assumptions of the physical system. Reefs are you looking at what most new age channellers are pointing at, a change in the story from being class c prisoners to class A prisoners who have been pointing at this since the 60's at a new earth,ascension etc. I don't understand your idea of self realisation and Seth and ND and how that all fits in. The only channeled material I have ever paid attention to is the Seth material and the A-H material. Which are basically identical teachings, just a slightly different angle and vocabulary. Seth is closer to ND, A-H is closer to self-help material. And so Seth actually works as a conceptual bridge between ND concepts and self-help concepts. The basic premise of Seth/Abraham is that you are the creator of your own reality, you make your own experience. Humans are all multi-dimensional beings. The physical part of your experience is just a tiny part of your overall experience. The largest part of you stays non-physical. From that larger perspective, you choose the parameters of your physical experience. You choose your time and place of birth, you choose your parents and your parents choose you. So since this is all deliberately, the prison story makes no sense whatsoever. There are families of consciousness, streams of consciousness. That's your actual family or home - it's prior to any time or place or group of beings. I know Krishnamurti went past the ascended masters he was exposed to under the Theosophical society, the bringing in the maitreya where his brother died as result of being a vessel for his appearance, and the great American sage Joe Miller too seems to have distanced himself from the ascended masters and channellers. A must watch if you haven't seen or heard of him. Same with UG. Not sure what ascended master means to you. You see, the physical is not a lesser or lower realm than the non-physical realms. So this ascending and moving up the rungs of certain universal ladders doesn't really make sense. It's all cheese. Same same but different. Consciousness will forever expand and forever seek new experiences.
|
|