|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 21, 2020 15:26:07 GMT -5
The way I think about it, unrelated to the belief systems discussed here, is that a current situation (that may be perceived as an effect) can propagate its influence into the past (not only into the future), creating a causative chain of events in reverse order. The space-time construct isn't less "real" because it is a construct, as everything is a construct, and it is part of the basic assumption of this reality. This reality's basic assumptions are the training wheels for the emerging conscious entities. Where Abe, Seth and non-duality agree is that there is only NOW. Because no matter if you think of the past, the present or the future, you are always doing it NOW. That's why Seth says, the point of power is in the present and why Tolle talks about the power of NOW. Seth usually talks about different concepts of time, clock time and psychological. Clock time is fixed, psychological time is flexible. And then there's what Seth calls 'the spacious present' (in Abe-speak: 'the vortex') which does away with both concepts of time. So sometimes you will hear Seth talk about 'probable selves' or how your past self gets inspired by your future self or vice versa. In the spacious present, your past self, present self and your future self all exist simultaneously, NOW. So once the idea of linear time goes out the window, the concept reincarnation goes out with it as well, as does the conventional idea of cause and effect. So while Niz and Seth have a different approach to this, they come to the same conclusion. But this has to be realized in order to have any effect in your life. You have to see how concepts of time and space just fall away, and then you suddenly stand in the NOW, which actually is your natural state. Are you familiar with Tolle? He talks a lot about this. I'd say a reference for the NOW is absolutely essential for understanding non-duality. Actually, by default everyone has that reference, because that's how we typically spend our early childhood, in the NOW. But most adults seem to have 'lost' that reference. Because most adults live in their heads (lost in their own conceptual overlays) and the NOW is something mind cannot touch, it can't be conceptualized. So when you hear people talk about non-duality, you have to look beyond the mere concepts that are presented to you. What is said here can easily be mistaken for a belief system because language forces us to use concepts and concepts usually refer to belief systems. However, ideally, that's not the case in non-duality discussions. Here, concepts are only a way of communicating, mere pointers. What is important is not the concept, but what's standing behind the concept, which is a realization, i.e. seeing things from a perspective that is prior to mind, prior to any conceptualization. Thanks for taking time to explain. Obviously you're well read, as some other posters on this site are. I understand what you're saying, but I have a different view of several concepts mentioned here. After replying to a few posts today, I feel that I slide on a path I didn't intend to go, that doesn't benefit anybody, neither me nor anybody else. I believe that I can acquire knowledge only first hand, not following any guru or dogma, as I have no way to figure out who's right, if any of them is. This is why I'm looking more to dialogue about ways of acquiring knowledge, than learning what others believe to be that knowledge. Practically everything I believe has been acquired from my inner source of knowledge and guidance. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 22, 2020 21:17:45 GMT -5
Relationships (6)Focus on the best you can in others: and when characteristics you want are missing, practice seeing them anyway— for when you practice the thoughts of the things that you desire, they must show up in your experience. It is Law. Every person with whom you interact holds a wide variety of Vibrational potential for you to choose from. And in the same way that you deliberately select the things you want to experience for lunch as you choose from the food buffet, you can choose the characteristics of the people you are interacting with as well. Even if the majority of what others are living and feeling and being is not pleasing to you, still you have the ability to look for and find characteristics that do please you. And when you make that your common practice, you will attract increasingly better experiences to yourself from each of them. Abraham-Hicks, Getting into the Vortex, 2011 Gosh I needed to hear this. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2020 11:02:45 GMT -5
Thanks for taking time to explain. Obviously you're well read, as some other posters on this site are. I understand what you're saying, but I have a different view of several concepts mentioned here. After replying to a few posts today, I feel that I slide on a path I didn't intend to go, that doesn't benefit anybody, neither me nor anybody else. I believe that I can acquire knowledge only first hand, not following any guru or dogma, as I have no way to figure out who's right, if any of them is. This is why I'm looking more to dialogue about ways of acquiring knowledge, than learning what others believe to be that knowledge. Practically everything I believe has been acquired from my inner source of knowledge and guidance.That's exactly how it should be. I don't think that anyone here will disagree with you on that point. However, the term knowledge has several meanings. Knowledge in the sense of concepts and beliefs, while usually of practical value, is mostly considered useless around here. OTOH, knowledge in the sense of being able to discern the real from the false and the relative from the absolute is considered to be the actual goal. Some here would even refuse to call that knowledge, they would rather call it not-knowing because it isn't something you can store in your memory and then recall at will. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 24, 2020 20:41:29 GMT -5
Thanks for taking time to explain. Obviously you're well read, as some other posters on this site are. I understand what you're saying, but I have a different view of several concepts mentioned here. After replying to a few posts today, I feel that I slide on a path I didn't intend to go, that doesn't benefit anybody, neither me nor anybody else. I believe that I can acquire knowledge only first hand, not following any guru or dogma, as I have no way to figure out who's right, if any of them is. This is why I'm looking more to dialogue about ways of acquiring knowledge, than learning what others believe to be that knowledge. Practically everything I believe has been acquired from my inner source of knowledge and guidance.That's exactly how it should be. I don't think that anyone here will disagree with you on that point. However, the term knowledge has several meanings. Knowledge in the sense of concepts and beliefs, while usually of practical value, is mostly considered useless around here. OTOH, knowledge in the sense of being able to discern the real from the false and the relative from the absolute is considered to be the actual goal. Some here would even refuse to call that knowledge, they would rather call it not-knowing because it isn't something you can store in your memory and then recall at will. This sounds interesting, but as far as I "downloaded": the goal of this life is to practice creating reality. Nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2020 11:24:14 GMT -5
That's exactly how it should be. I don't think that anyone here will disagree with you on that point. However, the term knowledge has several meanings. Knowledge in the sense of concepts and beliefs, while usually of practical value, is mostly considered useless around here. OTOH, knowledge in the sense of being able to discern the real from the false and the relative from the absolute is considered to be the actual goal. Some here would even refuse to call that knowledge, they would rather call it not-knowing because it isn't something you can store in your memory and then recall at will. This sounds interesting, but as far as I "downloaded": the goal of this life is to practice creating reality. Nothing else. I think you may actually resonate a lot more with non-duality than it seems at the moment. Let's see if you resonate with this: You see, questions like "What is the purpose or goal of life?" we call here existential questions. And you've found a good answer, IMO. Other people may find different answers. According to A-H the goal of life would be 'joy' (Seth calls it 'exuberance'). According to some other teachers, the goal of life is self-realization. These are all good answers, too. However, what these answers all have in common is that they only make sense in a specific context, which we call the personal. From a larger context, which we call the impersonal, none of these answers even matter. In fact, in that larger context, none of these answers would be even necessary because those existential questions wouldn't even arise in the first place. So from that larger context, the impersonal perspective, all these existential questions as well as their specific answers actually do indicate some fundamental error in perception. And pointing that out, that's what non-duality and this forum is mostly about. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 3, 2020 9:43:52 GMT -5
All, the discussion about Seth and intuition has been moved here. R |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 21, 2020 10:07:35 GMT -5
financial well-being (1)
the stream of abundance flows generously and it is time, for you to receive your share; it is time for the financial abundance that you have been seeking to materialize into your experience, not because you have paid a large enough price for it through diligence and hard work, but because you now understand that it is not diligence and hard work that brings it—but vibrational alignment with abundance…
the stream of abundance is not a quantifiable volume to be fairly proportioned until its limits have been reached, for there is no limit to this abundance or to those who drink from its stream; the stream of abundance expands proportionately to satisfy the ever-increasing requests, not only keeping perfect pace with the requests, but expanding because of them…
because your requests have been in the process of becoming for some time, and because the stream has expanded to accommodate those requests, your only work now is to come into vibrational alignment with your requests in order to experience the complete satisfaction of their certain materialization…
abraham-hicks, getting into the vortex, 2011
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 24, 2020 5:33:14 GMT -5
financial well-being (2)
From your human perspective, you often believe that you must work hard to overcome obstacles and satisfy shortages and solve the problems that are before you; but often, in that attitude or approach, you work against yourself without realizing it. Attention to obstacles makes them bigger and more stubborn; attention to shortages makes them bigger and prolongs them—and attention to a problem prevents any immediate resolution or solution.
In the absence of that resistance, your vibration will naturally begin to rise until it will align with the higher vibration of the very solutions you have been longing for. In the absence of longing, in the absence of doubt—in the absence of obstacles and shortages and problems—will be the solutions and abundance that you seek. And the evidence of your vibrational shift will become obvious in two ways: first, you will feel better; and next, physical evidence of financial improvement will begin flowing to you from a variety of different directions.
Your releasing of resistance will be apparent to you in the releasing of tension in your body. You will not only feel more ease, but also you will feel more clarity and more physical invigoration.
Abraham-Hicks, Getting into the Vortex, 2011
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 27, 2020 22:15:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 27, 2020 23:25:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 27, 2020 23:44:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 28, 2020 0:16:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 29, 2020 20:37:27 GMT -5
How can both of these be right? A very intense guy who has had a very deep search for most of his life carefully has crafted his question for Abraham, he has written it in advance, a few minutes long. It is a question I have raised here several times, zd usually answers. Why are certain individuals, and even groups of people, squeezed into a corner where there is unavoidable suffering? If we all create our own reality, how can this be? (Nobody would create such a reality). Abraham doesn't shrink from the question, t(he)y answer it very aptly, without disagreeing with the guy with the hat, without disallowing his view. So how can two such divergent views both be right? Yet they are both right. Ya know, when first reading about Don Juan's cubic centimeter of chance, that phrase has always stuck in my mind. The hat-guy-questioner is almost there, at understanding, just a tiny shift needed. But he is ATST he's a million miles away. This is a very powerful dialogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 29, 2020 21:58:23 GMT -5
How can both of these be right? A very intense guy who has had a very deep search for most of his life carefully has crafted his question for Abraham, he has written it in advance, a few minutes long. It is a question I have raised here several times, zd usually answers. Why are certain individuals, and even groups of people, squeezed into a corner where there is unavoidable suffering? If we all create our own reality, how can this be? (Nobody would create such a reality). Abraham doesn't shrink from the question, t(he)y answer it very aptly, without disagreeing with the guy with the hat, without disallowing his view. So how can two such divergent views both be right? Yet they are both right. Ya know, when first reading about Don Juan's cubic centimeter of chance, that phrase has always stuck in my mind. The hat-guy-questioner is almost there, at understanding, just a tiny shift needed. But he is ATST he's a million miles away. This is a very powerful dialogue. I believe that Abraham is correct, but he doesn't explain it clearly, while the red cap guy doesn't get it. We don't consciously create our reality. Our subconscious creates our own reality based on our subconscious expectations, powered by our emotions. We can't create anybody else's reality. Nobody else can create our reality. Misunderstanding leads to frustration, then anger, which are the emotions that power the red cap guy's expectations, which materialize in his own reality into more situations that confirm his expectations, and that cause him more anger. The red cap guy says he's "sensitive", and proud of it. His heart is bleeding for the pain, suffering, injustice in the world, and he's proud of it. He doesn't realize that those emotions create his reality, and nobody else does it. Abraham tangentially makes this point, but talks mostly besides the point. The red cap guy is divorcing, but he doesn't realize that there isn't anybody else to blame for his unhappiness, but himself for indulging in those negative emotions. He's thinking and feeling against his own well-being. Chance has nothing to do with this. Ignorance does, but you can't blame anybody for being ignorant of the matter: that's why we all are here. They aren't both right. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 30, 2020 8:52:17 GMT -5
How can both of these be right? A very intense guy who has had a very deep search for most of his life carefully has crafted his question for Abraham, he has written it in advance, a few minutes long. It is a question I have raised here several times, zd usually answers. Why are certain individuals, and even groups of people, squeezed into a corner where there is unavoidable suffering? If we all create our own reality, how can this be? (Nobody would create such a reality). Abraham doesn't shrink from the question, t(he)y answer it very aptly, without disagreeing with the guy with the hat, without disallowing his view. So how can two such divergent views both be right? Yet they are both right. Ya know, when first reading about Don Juan's cubic centimeter of chance, that phrase has always stuck in my mind. The hat-guy-questioner is almost there, at understanding, just a tiny shift needed. But he is ATST he's a million miles away. This is a very powerful dialogue. I believe that Abraham is correct, but he doesn't explain it clearly, while the red cap guy doesn't get it. We don't consciously create our reality. Our subconscious creates our own reality based on our subconscious expectations, powered by our emotions. We can't create anybody else's reality. Nobody else can create our reality. Misunderstanding leads to frustration, then anger, which are the emotions that power the red cap guy's expectations, which materialize in his own reality into more situations that confirm his expectations, and that cause him more anger. The red cap guy says he's "sensitive", and proud of it. His heart is bleeding for the pain, suffering, injustice in the world, and he's proud of it. He doesn't realize that those emotions create his reality, and nobody else does it. Abraham tangentially makes this point, but talks mostly besides the point. The red cap guy is divorcing, but he doesn't realize that there isn't anybody else to blame for his unhappiness, but himself for indulging in those negative emotions. He's thinking and feeling against his own well-being. Chance has nothing to do with this. Ignorance does, but you can't blame anybody for being ignorant of the matter: that's why we all are here. They aren't both right. They both come to agree with each other to a very great extent. About half way through the conversation hat-guy begins to agree on points with Abraham, acknowledges agreement. And Abraham agrees to a great extent with hat-guy also. Abraham brings up contrasts, and agrees that there are sometimes very big greatly divergent contrasts. This is essentially agreement concerning hat-guy's biggest example, the death of six million Jews during WWII at the hands of Germans. But what I mean by both right is hat-guy is right in terms of his own views. He doesn't see he is validating his own view, because of his suffering. I think Abraham clearly points this out, but he doesn't beat hat-guy over the head with it. That's why I say hat-guy is at the very verge of getting it, one cubic centimeter of chance away. But he doesn't see it so he is actually still a million miles away from getting it. ("Cubic centimeter of chance" is just a phrase, a memorable phrase. Chance here just means opportunity. Hat-guy has an opportunity, here, of getting a bigger picture). What hat-guy can't give up is his idea that the innocent are caught up in the Holocaust (he throws in other examples also) without in some sense agreeing to it. Hat-guy would rather suffer than consider giving up his own view. I mean he is right in that he is causing his own suffering. That's where hat-guy's anger and passion comes from, he sees the suffering of the innocent as unfair. I think he understands the ordinary LOA processing, he just doesn't think it's fair to the nth degree. I watched it only once, but I will go back and watch it again. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Apart from that discussion, since you mentioned it, a short point on we don't consciously create our reality. Abraham makes the point that 95% of the people on the planet don't consciously create their reality, meaning, it is as you say, it's unconscious processing. (I would put it closer to 1%, but the point is not to arrive at an accurate percentage). Abraham puts Esther in his 5% of those trying to consciously create. The point is if there were no conscious creation, then there would be no point to the whole enterprise, being here on earth in the physical. If it were all unconsciously taking place, every person would merely be another cog in a mechanism, every event and response would be merely knee-jerk reactions. For me becoming conscious means making the subconscious, conscious. But first baby steps, crawling even, "First you have to row a little boat". So first means merely seeing when we are operating on auto-pilot (this is the impartial witness), and then eventually putting a stick (metaphorically) in the mechanism so that we are not merely operating from the subconscious, but with some deliberation, some intention. In the beginning this really isn't doing, doing is too big. We begin with not-doing (putting a stick in the mechanism). This is breaking a chain of (unconscious) cause and effect, which leads to expansion (taking in more of What Is), which leads to freedom (from unconscious processing). If one brings the unconscious processing into the light, this brings the possibility for conscious creation. |
|
