Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2020 11:14:33 GMT -5
Jesus called it "one's True Self." It is what sees, hears, feels, ... That doesn't sound like a typical Christian phrase. Was this in one of the alternative gospels, like Gospel of Thomas? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 20, 2020 12:07:07 GMT -5
Jesus called it "one's True Self." It is what sees, hears, feels, ... That doesn't sound like a typical Christian phrase. Was this in one of the alternative gospels, like Gospel of Thomas? No, I think it's in the New English Bible, a slightly different translation than the King James. Apparently Jesus spoke Aramaic, but his words were translated into Greek and from Greek into English. As some of us have pointed out, the Greeks had many words that do not translate easily or directly into English, so the thinking and understanding of the translator is often a significant factor. I used to have ten different translations of the Tao Te Ching, and all of them were different. Same same with the sermons of Meister Eckhart. Some translations are rather mundane, but some are cosmic. Anyone who has discovered the non-dual truth will do a better job of translating the words of sages from one language to another. In English we only have one word for love, but the Greeks had many different words, each pointing to a slightly different thing. I can't remember all of them, but eros, philia, and agape come to mind. I once wrote a book about non-duality for Christians, and in the introduction I spelled out just a few of the translational issues regarding the Bible, but there are many more besides the ones I pointed out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Despair.
Jul 20, 2020 12:23:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2020 12:23:02 GMT -5
That doesn't sound like a typical Christian phrase. Was this in one of the alternative gospels, like Gospel of Thomas? No, I think it's in the New English Bible, a slightly different translation than the King James. Apparently Jesus spoke Aramaic, but his words were translated into Greek and from Greek into English. As some of us have pointed out, the Greeks had many words that do not translate easily or directly into English, so the thinking and understanding of the translator is often a significant factor. I used to have ten different translations of the Tao Te Ching, and all of them were different. Same same with the sermons of Meister Eckhart. Some translations are rather mundane, but some are cosmic. Anyone who has discovered the non-dual truth will do a better job of translating the words of sages from one language to another. In English we only have one word for love, but the Greeks had many different words, each pointing to a slightly different thing. I can't remember all of them, but eros, philia, and agape come to mind. I once wrote a book about non-duality for Christians, and in the introduction I spelled out just a few of the translational issues regarding the Bible, but there are many more besides the ones I pointed out. Jesus has never said that! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 20, 2020 13:48:05 GMT -5
No, I think it's in the New English Bible, a slightly different translation than the King James. Apparently Jesus spoke Aramaic, but his words were translated into Greek and from Greek into English. As some of us have pointed out, the Greeks had many words that do not translate easily or directly into English, so the thinking and understanding of the translator is often a significant factor. I used to have ten different translations of the Tao Te Ching, and all of them were different. Same same with the sermons of Meister Eckhart. Some translations are rather mundane, but some are cosmic. Anyone who has discovered the non-dual truth will do a better job of translating the words of sages from one language to another. In English we only have one word for love, but the Greeks had many different words, each pointing to a slightly different thing. I can't remember all of them, but eros, philia, and agape come to mind. I once wrote a book about non-duality for Christians, and in the introduction I spelled out just a few of the translational issues regarding the Bible, but there are many more besides the ones I pointed out. Jesus has never said that! Jeremiah 1:5, Before you were born I knew you. (new self) Ephesians 4:22,24 Lay aside the old self, and put on the new self Colossians 3:9,10 Since you laid aside the old self, and have put on the new self Jesus, Matthew 16:25 If you seek to save your self (Paul's old self) you will lose your self (new self), but if you seek to lose your self (old self) you will save your self (new self). In Luke 14:26 Jesus said you have to hate your own life to be my disciple. You have to hate the self you-are-not, the old self. How did Jesus pick the disciples? He didn't choose them for any outward reason. He chose on the basis of seeing their true self, who God formed them to be (Jeremiah 1:5). For example, meeting Peter (Simon) he saw the true nature of Simon, and he gave him a new name, he said, I'm going to call you Peter. Jesus saw what they were going to become, not what they seemed to be, or who they presently were. They all kept messing up during the ministry/teaching of Jesus. The night before Jesus was crucified Peter denied even knowing Jesus. Near the end the brothers James and John were arguing over who was going to be next to Jesus in the Kingdom. So these two natures exist in us, the conditioned self and one's true self. So Jesus definitely knew of the existence of these two aspects of our nature, one's true self and the old self, and he talked in these terms. (Or do you think Paul knew more than Jesus?) Why did Jesus dislike the Pharisees? Because they were all the old self, functioned through old self and were full of pride. (Except a few of them, like Nicodemus). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 20, 2020 15:29:17 GMT -5
Jesus has never said that! The New English Bible: Luke 9:25: "What will a man gain by winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self?" The New Jerusalem Bible: Luke 9:25: "What benefit is it to anyone to win the whole world and forfeit or lose his very self?" The New International Version Bible: (same as NJB, above) King James Bible: Luke 9:25: "For what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?" What do you think he was talking about? What is one's "very self" or "true self?" SDP explained the issue; how would you explain it? How about Jesus' statement, "Before Abraham was, I am?" FWIW, Nisargadatta said the same thing. What we ARE was here before this universe existed and will be here after this universe disappears. This can be known, but not through the intellect.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 20, 2020 20:26:37 GMT -5
From what I've read (not a lot, it's true), everything Jesus "said" was symbolical. Almost nothing he's quoted to have said can be taken at face value. That was necessary because words and images are prone to distortion, and anyway it is impossible to accurately translate the non-physical inner knowledge into the language of the physical five senses. You can't interpret his words using your intellect; you have to use your intuition.
Regarding:
What Jesus seems to say is that he "is situated earlier" on the same gestalt as Abraham. He, probably, uses "I am" in that sense. There is also the consideration that the physical time is unrelated to the psychological time of the wider reality, so "I was" doesn't make sense.
This is similar to Seth's:
"Higher self" is a phrase people use meaning quite different things, in most cases just parroting the phrase with no concept of what that actually means. An entity creates a multidimensional personality (the way we create our dream semi-personalities). In Jesus' case that entity is what he called Father.
A personality is like a coin with two sides: one toward the inner reality, the inner-self, the other toward this physical reality, the outer-self (aka ego). The thick of the coin is the subconscious.
Those are the "true" / "very" / "new" / "to be" self as the inner-self, and the "old" / "to hate" as the outer-self. The inner-self is the one you should strive to get lucid to (as you get lucid in a dream).
Surely "there's no death", in the sense of dissolution of the personality. That is just a change of primary focus, away from the physical reality.
On another forum somebody brought in discussion the Gospel of Thomas. Its symbolism is quite clear, in my interpretation. That is because it is less fudged with by the church professionals, intentionally and unintentionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 20, 2020 21:56:47 GMT -5
What would seekers want to encounter in the spiritual supermarket that would be helpful? Like any product one would hope to have a clear description of what is on offer, and perhaps some reviews and recomendations by customers/guru's ect:) Yes and after hitting the light switch, what does it means now that the feeling of disconnection has ended? For example does it mean that it is Oneness manifest as all the abuse in the world that is disliked so much? If 'I' am Oneness manifest, am 'I' the abuser? How do seekers reconcile such questions? No doubt some explore such questions with different teachers, speakers, writers, perhaps on forums like this, until all is included as Oneness manifest (suffering just regarded as a mystery) and the resonance is consolidated, or perhaps such questions are not satisfied and the search continues. People search for the truth for many different reasons--to end suffering, to find understanding, to attain peace of mind, to become enlightened, to find God, etc. If they search with sufficient earnestness, they find something that cannot be described. Jesus called it "one's True Self." It is what sees, hears, feels, thinks, and acts, and it is not a thing. It is what one IS. The monumental illusion that captivates most humans is that they are separate volitional entities living in an external universe. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are is both the abuser and the abused, the observer and the observed, self and other, everything and nothing. Humans have the capacity to imagine, but the truth cannot be imagined. All paths to truth involve leaving imagination behind. This is quite an interesting post from my perspective because has many elements that parallel some of my views. Probably "parallel" is an appropriate qualifier, because they are in the same direction, without intersecting ...  I believe that people should search for what they have to do here, now. Finding the truth is probably more difficult, and less useful, because we'd still have to figure out what to do, and our intellect and intuition aren't good enough for that. I agree that you can't accurately describe in the language of your five senses the knowledge you can acquire about the wider reality. I believe that what Jesus said, symbolically, is much more than discovering your inner-self, which is only one part of your multidimensional personality anyway. I know that I mean something differently than you meant with that statement. My ego sees, hears, feels, the reality created by my subconscious, directed by my inner-self which co-creates the blueprint of the physical universe, without actually creating an objective physical universe, but each subconscious creating a virtual individual universe for its personality. Hence the parallel universes, that aren't identical although they're based on the the same blueprint (animals, plants, ... are co-creators too). I am not my inner-self; I am a multi-dimensional personality (operate in more than one reality) that has at least 3 main parts: inner-self, outer-self, subconscious. I also include dream semi-personalities, past incarnations, probable selves, I am part of an entity, which is part of higher gestalts, ... We aren't living in an external universe, we operate in several realities, depending where we focus. There is no objective physical universe. We project our focus of attention into different parts of our whole selves, and depending where we project we act in that specific reality. That formulation about we're both sides of everything, makes sense to me only from the perspective that my ego perceives only my reality built by my own subconscious. Everything in that reality is created only for my ego by my subconscious, and is a virtual reality. Every person, animal, plant rock in my reality "exists" only in my reality, as a secondary creation, even if it has counterparts in others' realities; counterparts that aren't identical. Surely, you pushed here concepts you believe to be true. I agree that "the truth" can't be imagined, especially because our imagination is based on our five senses, which can't perceive the wider reality. Also, "the truth" is infinite, and beyond our comprehension, and I believe not that important to know. Leaving imagination behind I interpret as meaning to become "lucid" while awake, to identify / merge with your inner-self, know its goals and powers, and work with them, have access to the higher (inner) knowledge that you have to learn to apply to further evolve. So, that's why I started by saying "This is quite an interesting post ..." |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 21, 2020 9:42:54 GMT -5
Jesus main teaching was redemption of sin through a blood sacrifice (His). The condition was that you had to believe in him, but apparently God could waive this condition if it so suited him and save you anyway. None of it has anything to do with nonduality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 21, 2020 11:37:05 GMT -5
From what I've read (not a lot, it's true), everything Jesus "said" was symbolical. Almost nothing he's quoted to have said can be taken at face value. That was necessary because words and images are prone to distortion, and anyway it is impossible to accurately translate the non-physical inner knowledge into the language of the physical five senses. You can't interpret his words using your intellect; you have to use your intuition. Regarding: What Jesus seems to say is that he "is situated earlier" on the same gestalt as Abraham. He, probably, uses "I am" in that sense. There is also the consideration that the physical time is unrelated to the psychological time of the wider reality, so "I was" doesn't make sense. This is similar to Seth's:"Higher self" is a phrase people use meaning quite different things, in most cases just parroting the phrase with no concept of what that actually means. An entity creates a multidimensional personality (the way we create our dream semi-personalities). In Jesus' case that entity is what he called Father. A personality is like a coin with two sides: one toward the inner reality, the inner-self, the other toward this physical reality, the outer-self (aka ego). The thick of the coin is the subconscious. Those are the "true" / "very" / "new" / "to be" self as the inner-self, and the "old" / "to hate" as the outer-self. The inner-self is the one you should strive to get lucid to (as you get lucid in a dream). Surely "there's no death", in the sense of dissolution of the personality. That is just a change of primary focus, away from the physical reality. On another forum somebody brought in discussion the Gospel of Thomas. Its symbolism is quite clear, in my interpretation. That is because it is less fudged with by the church professionals, intentionally and unintentionally. The best interpretation of the Gospels I've read so far is from Meister Eckhart. And based on that interpretation, those teachings are on par with traditional advaita teachings. Which means the teachings of Jesus have a lot more in common with Niz, Ramana or Ramakrishna than Seth. Seth's entity concept has a personal creator concept at its basis. That's very different from the "I AM" that's been talked about here. Also, be careful when comparing waking state experience to your dream state experience. A lot of people who have some experience in lucid dreaming tend to do that and then start drawing the wrong conclusion about the actual nature of reality, based on comparing different personal experiences. And when they find out that advaita is also using the dream metaphor, they often think they've figured out what advaita is pointing to. Unfortunately, that's not it. What advaita is pointing to is simple and obvious, but not that simple, and not obvious in that way. It is simple and obvious in a different way, a much more direct way, a way that cannot be imagined or concluded. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 21, 2020 12:17:14 GMT -5
Jesus main teaching was redemption of sin through a blood sacrifice (His). The condition was that you had to believe in him, but apparently God could waive this condition if it so suited him and save you anyway. None of it has anything to do with nonduality. Paul's main teaching was redemption from sin through a blood sacrifice (Jesus). The main teaching of Jesus, which you can gather by reading the red, was about transformation. He did refer to a new birth, but the Christian idea it developed into is a distortion of what Jesus taught. The most famous reference is when Nicodemus came to Jesus (John 3). Jesus told Nicodemus, you must be born again. Nicodemus replied, how can I return to my mother's womb and be born again? And nobody gets what Jesus said next. he said, How can you be the preeminent teacher of Israel and not know what I'm talking about? IOW, what Jesus was teaching wasn't new. So the new birth wasn't new teaching with Jesus. Jesus was a teacher of Kabbalah (and undoubtably an Essene). Now, that name didn't exist yet but the inner teaching of Judaism existed probably at least all the way back to Abraham. This is the school of the prophets, some of which authored OT books. Kabbalah has an elaborate knowledge of hidden inner dimensions, and the existence of the spirit and soul. The inner aspect of man consists of three parts, the highest, neshamah, which is the breathe of God (Spirit). The lowest is nefesh, which is associated with the physical body. Ruach is the middle part, which in our discussion would be the true self. So the transformation Jesus was always about is shifting one's identity, one's sense of self, from the conditioned self (old man) to the ruach (new self). And so this is what Jesus was telling Nicodemus, you have to learn to function through your ruach, and not the man born of woman, not the outer man. And this is why Jesus told Nicodemus, you really already should know about all this, it's not new. Much of what Jesus taught can be understood from this context. You can't put new wine in old wineskins because if you do the old wineskin will burst and you will lose both the new wine and the old wineskin. New wine must be put into a new wineskin. The conditioned self doesn't have the capacity to take in the teaching. Only ruach has the capacity to understand what I'm teaching (what Jesus taught). ruach can grow and expand and can take in more. The conditioned self, which is the conditioning, can't. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. (You access the Kingdom through ruach). You cannot separate Jesus from his Jewish background. This is what Christianity has done, the early church (Fathers) mostly married Jesus to Greek philosophy. Today's Christianity is mostly from Paul and the early Church Fathers. The Eastern Orthodox Church has things more correct. Jesus was about transformation, here, now. Even in his on life Jesus always lived in the here, now. And that is nondual. See a three-part system in link. www.aish.com/sp/k/Your-Divine-Soul-An-Introduction.html |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 21, 2020 12:25:06 GMT -5
From what I've read (not a lot, it's true), everything Jesus "said" was symbolical. Almost nothing he's quoted to have said can be taken at face value. That was necessary because words and images are prone to distortion, and anyway it is impossible to accurately translate the non-physical inner knowledge into the language of the physical five senses. You can't interpret his words using your intellect; you have to use your intuition. Regarding: What Jesus seems to say is that he "is situated earlier" on the same gestalt as Abraham. He, probably, uses "I am" in that sense. There is also the consideration that the physical time is unrelated to the psychological time of the wider reality, so "I was" doesn't make sense. This is similar to Seth's:"Higher self" is a phrase people use meaning quite different things, in most cases just parroting the phrase with no concept of what that actually means. An entity creates a multidimensional personality (the way we create our dream semi-personalities). In Jesus' case that entity is what he called Father. A personality is like a coin with two sides: one toward the inner reality, the inner-self, the other toward this physical reality, the outer-self (aka ego). The thick of the coin is the subconscious. Those are the "true" / "very" / "new" / "to be" self as the inner-self, and the "old" / "to hate" as the outer-self. The inner-self is the one you should strive to get lucid to (as you get lucid in a dream). Surely "there's no death", in the sense of dissolution of the personality. That is just a change of primary focus, away from the physical reality. On another forum somebody brought in discussion the Gospel of Thomas. Its symbolism is quite clear, in my interpretation. That is because it is less fudged with by the church professionals, intentionally and unintentionally. The best interpretation of the Gospels I've read so far is from Meister Eckhart. And based on that interpretation, those teachings are on par with traditional advaita teachings. Which means the teachings of Jesus have a lot more in common with Niz, Ramana or Ramakrishna than Seth. Seth's entity concept has a personal creator concept at its basis. That's very different from the "I AM" that's been talked about here. Also, be careful when comparing waking state experience to your dream state experience. A lot of people who have some experience in lucid dreaming tend to do that and then start drawing the wrong conclusion about the actual nature of reality, based on comparing different personal experiences. And when they find out that advaita is also using the dream metaphor, they often think they've figured out what advaita is pointing to. Unfortunately, that's not it. What advaita is pointing to is simple and obvious, but not that simple, and not obvious in that way. It is simple and obvious in a different way, a much more direct way, a way that cannot be imagined or concluded. Sorry, I feel like your reply suggests that I didn't make myself clear. I made an effort, but the result matters. Anyway, again, I didn't form my beliefs based on rationalizations, so I didn't draw conclusions based on comparing anything (I actually don't practice lucid dreaming, although I have nothing against that; it just isn't useful to me) . I rely exclusively on direct channeled knowledge, making all the possible efforts to minimize distortions. As I mentioned in other posts, I make references to Seth just because others might pay more attention to what Seth said than what I have to say. I read only 1.5 books form the Seth material, and some quotes. I found many of my beliefs confirmed in those writings, and I identified several Seth concepts widely misunderstood. To me, all the other systems of thought, more or less religious (science included), are mostly irrelevant. I'm just stating it with no dismissive or pejorative intention. Just matter of fact. I don't intend to argue against anybody else's beliefs, nor in support of mine. For me all this was and is about what do I have to do here, now. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 21, 2020 12:40:05 GMT -5
Jesus main teaching was redemption of sin through a blood sacrifice (His). The condition was that you had to believe in him, but apparently God could waive this condition if it so suited him and save you anyway. None of it has anything to do with nonduality. Paul's main teaching was redemption from sin through a blood sacrifice (Jesus). The main teaching of Jesus, which you can gather by reading the red, was about transformation. He did refer to a new birth, but the Christian idea it developed into is a distortion of what Jesus taught. The most famous reference is when Nicodemus came to Jesus (John 3). Jesus told Nicodemus, you must be born again. Nicodemus replied, how can I return to my mother's womb and be born again? And nobody gets what Jesus said next. he said, How can you be the preeminent teacher of Israel and not know what I'm talking about? IOW, what Jesus was teaching wasn't new. So the new birth wasn't new teaching with Jesus. Jesus was a teacher of Kabbalah (and undoubtably an Essene). Now, that name didn't exist yet but the inner teaching of Judaism existed probably at least all the way back to Abraham. This is the school of the prophets, some of which authored OT books. Kabbalah has an elaborate knowledge of hidden inner dimensions, and the existence of the spirit and soul. The inner aspect of man consists of three parts, the highest, neshamah, which is the breathe of God (Spirit). The lowest is nefesh, which is associated with the physical body. Ruach is the middle part, which in our discussion would be the true self. So the transformation Jesus was always about is shifting one's identity, one's sense of self, from the conditioned self (old man) to the ruach (new self). And so this is what Jesus was telling Nicodemus, you have to learn to function through your ruach, and not the man born of woman, not the outer man. And this is why Jesus told Nicodemus, you really already should know about all this. Much of what Jesus taught can be understood from this context. You can't put new wine in old wineskins because if you do the old wineskin will burst and you will lose both the new wine and the old wineskin. New wine must be put into a new wineskin. The conditioned self doesn't have the capacity to take in the teaching. Only ruach has the capacity to understand what I'm teaching (what Jesus taught). ruach can grow and expand and can take in more. The conditioned self, which is the conditioning, can't. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. (You access the Kingdom through ruach). so called You cannot separate Jesus from his Jewish background. This is what Christianity has done, the early church (Fathers) mostly married Jesus to Greek philosophy. Today's Christianity is mostly from Paul and the early Church Fathers. The Eastern Orthodox Church has things more correct. Jesus was about transformation, here, now. See a three-part system in link. www.aish.com/sp/k/Your-Divine-Soul-An-Introduction.html It is already Oneness manifestiog as the conditioned self so no incease in connection to Oneness is achieved by transformation. Both before and after is already totally Oneness. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 21, 2020 22:16:11 GMT -5
The best interpretation of the Gospels I've read so far is from Meister Eckhart. And based on that interpretation, those teachings are on par with traditional advaita teachings. Which means the teachings of Jesus have a lot more in common with Niz, Ramana or Ramakrishna than Seth. Seth's entity concept has a personal creator concept at its basis. That's very different from the "I AM" that's been talked about here. Also, be careful when comparing waking state experience to your dream state experience. A lot of people who have some experience in lucid dreaming tend to do that and then start drawing the wrong conclusion about the actual nature of reality, based on comparing different personal experiences. And when they find out that advaita is also using the dream metaphor, they often think they've figured out what advaita is pointing to. Unfortunately, that's not it. What advaita is pointing to is simple and obvious, but not that simple, and not obvious in that way. It is simple and obvious in a different way, a much more direct way, a way that cannot be imagined or concluded. Sorry, I feel like your reply suggests that I didn't make myself clear. I made an effort, but the result matters. Anyway, again, I didn't form my beliefs based on rationalizations, so I didn't draw conclusions based on comparing anything (I actually don't practice lucid dreaming, although I have nothing against that; it just isn't useful to me) . I rely exclusively on direct channeled knowledge, making all the possible efforts to minimize distortions. As I mentioned in other posts, I make references to Seth just because others might pay more attention to what Seth said than what I have to say. I read only 1.5 books form the Seth material, and some quotes. I found many of my beliefs confirmed in those writings, and I identified several Seth concepts widely misunderstood. To me, all the other systems of thought, more or less religious (science included), are mostly irrelevant. I'm just stating it with no dismissive or pejorative intention. Just matter of fact. I don't intend to argue against anybody else's beliefs, nor in support of mine. For me all this was and is about what do I have to do here, now. I like your attitude re: Seth and channeled material. However, from my perspective, I think what's getting in the way of communicating clearly with you on subjects that go beyond the Seth context of reality (channeled material) is your belief that everyone here is necessarily pushing some kind of belief. That may or may not be the case. Communication can be free from belief and even non-conceptual. That's the whole point of zen koans. In most cases you are probably right about people on online forums speaking merely from belief systems, but ruling out categorically freedom from belief in communication will put unnecessary limits on what can be known or communicated. That's the whole point of non-duality, to get out of such tiny mental boxes, any mental box. And that's mostly been the focus on this forum. So people will mostly approach you from that perspective or steer discussion back into that direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 21, 2020 22:48:02 GMT -5
Jesus has never said that! The New English Bible: Luke 9:25: "What will a man gain by winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self?" The New Jerusalem Bible: Luke 9:25: "What benefit is it to anyone to win the whole world and forfeit or lose his very self?" The New International Version Bible: (same as NJB, above) King James Bible: Luke 9:25: "For what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?" What do you think he was talking about? What is one's "very self" or "true self?" SDP explained the issue; how would you explain it? How about Jesus' statement, "Before Abraham was, I am?" FWIW, Nisargadatta said the same thing. What we ARE was here before this universe existed and will be here after this universe disappears. This can be known, but not through the intellect. Gopal believes in a personal God. And with that mental filter, the scriptures read a bit differently. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 22, 2020 0:04:39 GMT -5
Sorry, I feel like your reply suggests that I didn't make myself clear. I made an effort, but the result matters. Anyway, again, I didn't form my beliefs based on rationalizations, so I didn't draw conclusions based on comparing anything (I actually don't practice lucid dreaming, although I have nothing against that; it just isn't useful to me) . I rely exclusively on direct channeled knowledge, making all the possible efforts to minimize distortions. As I mentioned in other posts, I make references to Seth just because others might pay more attention to what Seth said than what I have to say. I read only 1.5 books form the Seth material, and some quotes. I found many of my beliefs confirmed in those writings, and I identified several Seth concepts widely misunderstood. To me, all the other systems of thought, more or less religious (science included), are mostly irrelevant. I'm just stating it with no dismissive or pejorative intention. Just matter of fact. I don't intend to argue against anybody else's beliefs, nor in support of mine. For me all this was and is about what do I have to do here, now. I like your attitude re: Seth and channeled material. However, from my perspective, I think what's getting in the way of communicating clearly with you on subjects that go beyond the Seth context of reality (channeled material) is your belief that everyone here is necessarily pushing some kind of belief. That may or may not be the case. Communication can be free from belief and even non-conceptual. That's the whole point of zen koans. In most cases you are probably right about people on online forums speaking merely from belief systems, but ruling out categorically freedom from belief in communication will put unnecessary limits on what can be known or communicated. That's the whole point of non-duality, to get out of such tiny mental boxes, any mental box. And that's mostly been the focus on this forum. So people will mostly approach you from that perspective or steer discussion back into that direction. Thanks I don't know if I understand correctly ... I believe you're saying that people can discuss ignoring their own beliefs, and that is the whole point of non-duality. I confess I never thought from this perspective. I think that non-duality is a system of beliefs. What I was trying to say is that I trust my inner source of knowledge and guidance over any possible external source (of knowledge in guidance), so I see no point in arguing the validity of my beliefs. I recognize that everybody has their own sources of knowledge and guidance (inner, guru, dogma), and I recognize everybody's right to feel about theirs the same way I feel about mine. I might want to learn more about somebody's beliefs, and somebody might want to learn more about mine, but I see no point in arguing about them, or proving their validity. I think that the zen koans are a tool to attain a certain state. I attain that using self hypnosis, and more recently mostly simple direct suggestions. When I want to clear my mind, I just ask that from my subconscious, and so it is. Actually even clearing my mind is a coarse tool I don't use anymore. I directly ask my subconscious to put me in the optimum state for whatever I intend to do: read, workout, drive, get in contact with my inner guide, get an out-of-body (I rarely do this anymore, as have no use for it), ... I also use suggestions for remembering dreams, having true dreams (no symbolism), accelerated mental processing (compressing or expanding the psychological time vs. the clock time for a purpose), automatic subconscious reaction to certain stimuli (for example, when while dreaming or being awake negative emotions develop). |
|
