|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 8, 2021 10:17:43 GMT -5
Notice how different treatments work for different people. [...] I'm glad he got better, but his story doesn't show that Ivermectin works, either in general or for him specifically. There is an important difference between anecdotes like this and a good double-blind placebo-controlled study like they did for the vaccines, where they take two big groups of people (vaccine/drug and placebo) and look at the health differences between the two. I had covid too, and I got better. I had chicken soup the day before my fever subsided. I could say: "chicken soup cures covid." If I managed to get 1,000 people to try chicken soup as a cure, many would report that it worked. I think science, math, and logic are aspects of reality. Yes, you can go astray if you get too arrogant about rationality, and think it is the only way to "God", or Self-Realization, or ___. But you can acknowledge the limitation without going contra-logic. From what I've seen, nothing about essential spirituality is "anti" rational. I didn't actually watch the video. But I've heard from different people and doctors that they've found 'the' cure. And well, you would also have to define what 'cure' means. Some people say huge doses of Vitamin C and D helped them. There's even light therapy. So there's obviously quite a spectrum of possible 'cures'. Which ones prove to be universal and which ones only for specific cases, that's for the doctors to figure out. But it's good to know that there's a lot more remedies available than most people are aware of. I'd agree that there's a certain rationality to spiritual matters. But ultimately, the rational realm is subject to the spiritual realm and not the other way around. That's why we are still waiting for a genius philosopher who finally brings the ultimate proof that God exists (or doesn't exist), hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 8, 2021 10:24:48 GMT -5
I'm glad he got better, but his story doesn't show that Ivermectin works, either in general or for him specifically. There is an important difference between anecdotes like this and a good double-blind placebo-controlled study like they did for the vaccines, where they take two big groups of people (vaccine/drug and placebo) and look at the health differences between the two. I had covid too, and I got better. I had chicken soup the day before my fever subsided. I could say: "chicken soup cures covid." If I managed to get 1,000 people to try chicken soup as a cure, many would report that it worked. I think science, math, and logic are aspects of reality. Yes, you can go astray if you get too arrogant about rationality, and think it is the only way to "God", or Self-Realization, or ___. But you can acknowledge the limitation without going contra-logic. From what I've seen, nothing about essential spirituality is "anti" rational. Sure, I don't mean for anyone to confuse it with a study, it's just a positive story. There are plenty of good Ivermectin studies though, and some countries are using it as medicine. I think you raised an interesting question at the end, as to what is 'rational' and what isn't. For example, the law of attraction is perfectly rational in its explanation and reasoning, but is obviously not scientifically proven (though I think even neuroscience might accept that 'what we focus on, we get more of'). In that model, whether we 'catch' the virus, or get sick from it, actually has nothing to do with how 'contagious' the virus is. Or to give another (related) example, if there is some (perhaps a lot of) truth to the idea that 'my beliefs create my reality', then it changes everything in regard to science as we know it. The arsenic example is a good one. Or the jumping off a building and flying (I don't know if you read the small exchange of messages between Reefs and me). My most people's standard, I'm sure I could be judged as having a crazy and irrational view, but by spiritual standards, I consider myself fairly moderate in the 2 regards I just mentioned. So while I believe in LOA, and I believe that our beliefs create our reality, I discern the wisdom (for me at least) to be cautious and sensible. If I was 'extreme' in a spiritual sense, I probably wouldn't advocate for Ivermectin. On the flip side, I think large swathes of society has dipped into an extreme mindset BECAUSE they have no reference for the idea of 'I create my reality'. In essence, the LOA is actually just a description of how mind (in the most expansive sense of the word) works, and subsequently, creation. So the laws of science are necessarily subject to LOA. IOW, the LOA is a superior law that supersedes all other laws known to man. Which means science is never going to prove the validity of LOA. That would be preposterous. And, if you really think it thru, while you can't prove it, you can't disprove it either, because disproving it would actually be proving it! How funny is that?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 8, 2021 10:36:39 GMT -5
I think, in part, the government-media axis have MASSIVELY ramped up the idea that 'death is something terrible and to be fearful of'. Prior to the pandemic, I don't even think non-spiritual people were hugely afraid of death. If we perceived death as that bad, nobody would drive cars. Nobody would eat unhealthy food. Nobody would do dangerous sports. Nobody would have babies. In days gone by, in which giving birth was dangerous, nobody would get pregnant. Some folks risk and sacrifice their lives for others. Some will risk and sacrifice their lives for a pet. Some folks take their own lives. If death was perceived as being that bad, we wouldn't allow 9 million to die of hunger each year. We wouldn't allow 1 million to die of bad sanitation. Somehow, the government-media axis has persuaded the population that death is WORSE than we truthfully believe it to be. Might want to add 'pharma' to that axis. I think this is key to understanding Abe's comments on vaccines. Their take on life and death is similar to breathing in and out. And they also prefer quality of life over length of life (like Seth). So someone dying of a disease that puts an end to a life that has no quality at all left to it, would be a good thing in their eyes. Because there would be a fresh new opportunity. That's counter the conventional view, of course, i.e. you only have one life and so the longer you can hang on to that life, the better (or more heroic). But that's the difference between seeing things thru the eyes of Self (or Source) and seeing things thru the eyes of self (or others). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 8, 2021 15:59:02 GMT -5
In my view, the reality I perceive isn't an expression of my beliefs. It is created by my subconscious directed by my inner-self and my inner guidance, in the framework of the physical reality root assumptions, and inside the limits of my beliefs. When I perceive something I don't want to experience I need to identify and suspend, eliminate, and / or replace that limited belief. Beliefs aren't thoughts, as I define these terms, but limits. I see. I know you have no particular use for 'teachings' but you might find this of interest...Bashar's '9 levels of consciousness' (though ultimately there are as many levels as we want to talk about) I believe too that consciousness is infinite (as far as it concerns us), organized in an infinite number of levels. I think that the wider reality model isn't stacked, as I think that the table suggests, but nested. It is like the dreams are apparently nested in the awake reality, as well ad dreams nested in dreams (again, apparently only). Not sure exactly what "oversoul" is in Bashar's model, but I don't think "we all are one" at any conceivable level. We may be part of entities, and nested in gestalts, with the intention of infinite expansion and individual potential fulfillment, not returning to origins, as far as I understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 8, 2021 16:21:56 GMT -5
In my view, the reality I perceive isn't an expression of my beliefs. It is created by my subconscious directed by my inner-self and my inner guidance, in the framework of the physical reality root assumptions, and inside the limits of my beliefs. When I perceive something I don't want to experience I need to identify and suspend, eliminate, and / or replace that limited belief. Beliefs aren't thoughts, as I define these terms, but limits. In regard to the question I asked....the way that I believe 'change' happens is basically.... I project a 'world'. Someone else puts projects a 'world'. Those 2 projections meet, negotiate, and then we have a product... a combined projected world. I then respond to that combined projected world from within my world. Though in reality, there's more than 2 projections being put out there. There's lots! And there's a ' totality projection'...a combined projected product of all creator's projections. We each respond to this totality from within the boundaries of our own world. And on it goes.... So in my view, there's always a negotiation happening. I 'work' with my world, but there's a relationship between me (and my world), and you (and your world). For me that negotiation/relationship is a fun thing. So, what I'm interested in, is what you would say you are negotiating with? What are you in a relationship with? That's if those 2 concepts apply to your view of things (I understand they might be meaningless) ; but I (my subconscious) create a reality, similarly (for illustrative purposes) to the way we create our dream worlds, not created with others, not reflecting what others perceive / create themselves. Those realities, the way I see it, aren't the result of negotiation, nor agreement, as our dream realities aren't either. To a certain degree they influence each other, as our dream realities are influenced by our awake relations with others. Those who are more evolved create more, and react less to the influences of others. What we experience in our physical realities, as in our dreams too, is symbolical. We create only the segment of reality we're focusing on, when we focus on it. For example, when you fall asleep you don't create physical reality anymore. You start again creating it from the moment when you wake up. If you fell asleep at 8 am, until you wake up at 11 am, for you the physical reality is stuck at 8 am. This is similar to how virtual realities are created on computers. To directly answer your last questions ... I am potentially connected with all the existing structures of consciousness, but I don't negotiate a version of the physical reality, although I am influenced as much as I allow it (consciously and unconsciously) by those I'm focused on. They can't influence my reality creating, if I don't focus on them.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 8, 2021 16:36:09 GMT -5
Lots of good stuff in there. Reminds me also of Bashar, who talks in terms of 'permission slips'. For example, he might say that taking a Tylenol is a 'permission slip' for releasing a headache. Or EFT is a 'permission slip' for releasing a conditioned belief/emotion. And I think there are interesting issues here relating to 'possibility' and 'congruence'. Theoretically, I could take arsenic for a headache and it works (or just eat arsenic for dinner), if I congruently believe and expect that to be true. [...] That reminds me of the infamous A-H clorox bleach example. People would ask Abe if they'd truly be invincible when in alignment as Abe suggest then could they just drink clorox for breakfast without having it kill them? And Abe always replied: "If you would be in alignment/in the vortex, you wouldn't be so stupid and drink that." And I always thought their answer was a bit of a cop-out. But they have a point. If you identify as a human, you accept the limitations that come with it. So I'd say, if that's the case, then there can only be one inevitable result after drinking that stuff. Nevertheless, you hear similar stories from India where some yogi drinks poison and is just fine, or takes LSD without going on a trip. So, assuming this to be true, what's the difference here?
What the forum taught me over the last year or so is that spiritually awake people are not necessarily politically awake. I was assuming that spiritual awareness would go hand in hand with cultural/political awareness. But that obviously isn't necessarily the case. Very interesting. The way I see it ... Esther slipped with the "wouldn't be so stupid and drink that" answer. It was probably her distortion. The difference in those Indian situations, is that when we observe, or read about those incredible feats, we actually get a symbolical message that anything is possible; and it is. Many spiritually awake people are only apparently spiritually awake. Politically awake, in my opinion is a bit of oxymoron. You can't be truly spiritually awake and also be overwhelmed by emotions, or intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 8, 2021 16:55:12 GMT -5
I see. I know you have no particular use for 'teachings' but you might find this of interest...Bashar's '9 levels of consciousness' (though ultimately there are as many levels as we want to talk about) I believe too that consciousness is infinite (as far as it concerns us), organized in an infinite number of levels. I think that the wider reality model isn't stacked, as I think that the table suggests, but nested. It is like the dreams are apparently nested in the awake reality, as well ad dreams nested in dreams (again, apparently only). Not sure exactly what "oversoul" is in Bashar's model, but I don't think "we all are one" at any conceivable level. We may be part of entities, and nested in gestalts, with the intention of infinite expansion and individual potential fulfillment, not returning to origins, as far as I understand it. We are not oneness at a conceivable level because oneness can only be apprehended non-conceptually. If one looks around, what's seen is infinite. Imagination is solely responsible for the illusion of separateness. The 10,000 things only appear in imagination, not in actuality. In truth there is neither stacking nor nesting because there is no separateness. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 8, 2021 19:34:43 GMT -5
I believe too that consciousness is infinite (as far as it concerns us), organized in an infinite number of levels. I think that the wider reality model isn't stacked, as I think that the table suggests, but nested. It is like the dreams are apparently nested in the awake reality, as well ad dreams nested in dreams (again, apparently only). Not sure exactly what "oversoul" is in Bashar's model, but I don't think "we all are one" at any conceivable level. We may be part of entities, and nested in gestalts, with the intention of infinite expansion and individual potential fulfillment, not returning to origins, as far as I understand it. We are not oneness at a conceivable level because oneness can only be apprehended non-conceptually. If one looks around, what's seen is infinite. Imagination is solely responsible for the illusion of separateness. The 10,000 things only appear in imagination, not in actuality. In truth there is neither stacking nor nesting because there is no separateness. Your truth ... not mine (see the quote). To me, your "no separateness" concept seems to mean no individuality, no individual self-determination; something like saying there is no separation between the cells of my body because they eventually form my body. Also ... In my opinion there is no actuality; that implies objective perception. There is no objective physical reality, but a practically infinite number of individually subjective segments of physical reality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 22:01:50 GMT -5
We are not oneness at a conceivable level because oneness can only be apprehended non-conceptually. If one looks around, what's seen is infinite. Imagination is solely responsible for the illusion of separateness. The 10,000 things only appear in imagination, not in actuality. In truth there is neither stacking nor nesting because there is no separateness. Your truth ... not mine (see the quote). To me, your "no separateness" concept seems to mean no individuality, no individual self-determination; something like saying there is no separation between the cells of my body because they eventually form my body. Also ... In my opinion there is no actuality; that implies objective perception. There is no objective physical reality, but a practically infinite number of individually subjective segments of physical reality. So would you say your opinions are final and will never change, or are you open to new experiences that might show you things you had never seen before? If you had been deaf at birth and then got the ability to hear at age 15, no one would have been able to explain to you, in word-language, what it's like to hear – until you directly experienced it for yourself. Maybe there are still undiscovered modes of experience like that, waiting to be discovered. Why not stay open to the possibility? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 8, 2021 23:04:34 GMT -5
Your truth ... not mine (see the quote). To me, your "no separateness" concept seems to mean no individuality, no individual self-determination; something like saying there is no separation between the cells of my body because they eventually form my body. Also ... In my opinion there is no actuality; that implies objective perception. There is no objective physical reality, but a practically infinite number of individually subjective segments of physical reality. So would you say your opinions are final and will never change, or are you open to new experiences that might show you things you had never seen before? If you had been deaf at birth and then got the ability to hear at age 15, no one would have been able to explain to you, in word-language, what it's like to hear – until you directly experienced it for yourself. Maybe there are still undiscovered modes of experience like that, waiting to be discovered. Why not stay open to the possibility? I don't know the truth. Never claimed I know it. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression about that. Usually I try to formulate this in my posts. I just believe certain things. I know that as they got clarifications and / or incurred changes, so will continue to happen. I am open, but not to rationalizations and / or people's claims (dead or alive) in the matters discussed here. I hear somebody saying they know the truth, I understand that they might believe so, but I don't accept that they know the truth, although there is a chance that it might be so. There is no way that they can prove that to me. Experiencing something doesn't make it so. You want an example? You in your dreams believe you're awake. I consider that aligning to the teachings of any guru or dogma is a mistake, because there is no way to know which one, if any, knows the truth. You can temporarily go along with one or another, especially in the beginning when you are disoriented, but only for a relatively short period. I understand that others might disagree. It's okay. I think there can be no argument about the truth of the things we seek to learn about this and the wider reality. I'm here to share, get challenges, form questions, but only individually look for answers, even if temporary and incomplete. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Feb 9, 2021 8:27:28 GMT -5
Lots of good stuff in there. Reminds me also of Bashar, who talks in terms of 'permission slips'. For example, he might say that taking a Tylenol is a 'permission slip' for releasing a headache. Or EFT is a 'permission slip' for releasing a conditioned belief/emotion. And I think there are interesting issues here relating to 'possibility' and 'congruence'. Theoretically, I could take arsenic for a headache and it works (or just eat arsenic for dinner), if I congruently believe and expect that to be true. I could also jump off a building a fly if I believe and expect that to be true. Mostly though, I find that I'm not congruent with 'contemporary science-defying' events, and I'm okay with that. In a sense, I pay attention to my intuition, which is normally a good guide for me. If my intuition says, 'take a tylenol', that's fine. In general, I do require some level of 'permission slip'...for example, I strongly believe in energy medicine, but without an understanding of how that works, I probably would believe it less, so in a sense, the understanding is part of the permission slip. It's also why I support folks taking the vaccine if they want it...if their intuition is to take it, then no problem. And it seems to me that the creative structures/beliefs of reality run deep within us. So, a baby or a dog won't hold conscious beliefs about arsenic, but considerably more often than not, arsenic will kill them both. So these creative structures/beliefs run deeper than the conscious mind. As humans, we have the 'advantage' of bringing these deeper beliefs into our conscious minds to be examined, which is a useful thing to do. While the vast majority of those deeper beliefs are 'relatively true', we also hold 'relatively false' beliefs at a level that is deeper than the conscious mind. A simple example night be a collective (false) deep belief that resources are finite. I'm aware too that I still carry that false belief to some extent, hence why I create a headache from time to time. In a sense, part of functioning in the broader consensus reality, requires to us to carry some level of the consensus false belief. Money might be a good example of that. Viruses/illness/authoritarianism is another good example of a manifestation of a deep consensus false belief. About the most I feel I can do, is examine the beliefs and structures within myself. There are times when accepting a level of falsity within me is about the best thing I can do. Going to war with falsity isn't always the path of least resistance. But then equally, there are times when I will see falsity in me, and the opportunity is there to release it, or clear it, or use whatever permission slip I feel is useful to make a shift. I pay attention to these shifts, because it also gives me a clue as to what is going on in the wider consensus reality. The forum has been interesting lately to me because in the past, there have been many periods when we have been very good at exploring our beliefs and how it relates to our emotions, and how this relates to awakening. We've also discussed manifestation and possibility at length (the arsenic example has come up more than once). I think it's fair to say that many spiritual folks around the world have been unusually swept up in strong consensus beliefs. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we should be exploring this in conspiracy terms, but in a classic spiritual sense. Putting the manifestation stuff to one side, even in a Byron Katie sense we can ask....''There's a pandemic. Is that true? How do we react to that belief? How would it be without that belief?'' That reminds me of the infamous A-H clorox bleach example. People would ask Abe if they'd truly be invincible when in alignment as Abe suggest then could they just drink clorox for breakfast without having it kill them? And Abe always replied: "If you would be in alignment/in the vortex, you wouldn't be so stupid and drink that." And I always thought their answer was a bit of a cop-out. But they have a point. If you identify as a human, you accept the limitations that come with it. So I'd say, if that's the case, then there can only be one inevitable result after drinking that stuff. Nevertheless, you hear similar stories from India where some yogi drinks poison and is just fine, or takes LSD without going on a trip. So, assuming this to be true, what's the difference here? What the forum taught me over the last year or so is that spiritually awake people are not necessarily politically awake. I was assuming that spiritual awareness would go hand in hand with cultural/political awareness. But that obviously isn't necessarily the case. Very interesting. Listen to WimHoff, he had the poison and used mind over matter. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Feb 9, 2021 8:32:12 GMT -5
That reminds me of the infamous A-H clorox bleach example. People would ask Abe if they'd truly be invincible when in alignment as Abe suggest then could they just drink clorox for breakfast without having it kill them? And Abe always replied: "If you would be in alignment/in the vortex, you wouldn't be so stupid and drink that." And I always thought their answer was a bit of a cop-out. But they have a point. If you identify as a human, you accept the limitations that come with it. So I'd say, if that's the case, then there can only be one inevitable result after drinking that stuff. Nevertheless, you hear similar stories from India where some yogi drinks poison and is just fine, or takes LSD without going on a trip. So, assuming this to be true, what's the difference here?
What the forum taught me over the last year or so is that spiritually awake people are not necessarily politically awake. I was assuming that spiritual awareness would go hand in hand with cultural/political awareness. But that obviously isn't necessarily the case. Very interesting. The way I see it ... Esther slipped with the "wouldn't be so stupid and drink that" answer. It was probably her distortion. The difference in those Indian situations, is that when we observe, or read about those incredible feats, we actually get a symbolical message that anything is possible; and it is. Many spiritually awake people are only apparently spiritually awake. Politically awake, in my opinion is a bit of oxymoron. You can't be truly spiritually awake and also be overwhelmed by emotions, or intellect. To me it’s as though I step in and out of 3D consciousness. When I’m in 3D, I’m triggered by a lot of stuff but when I take a step back and examine my triggers and beliefs, I soon realise nothing is real but thinkjng makes it so. I always question my own beliefs and have done throughout the year. Ultimately, I have some sort of intuition and go with that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2021 9:26:47 GMT -5
I believe too that consciousness is infinite (as far as it concerns us), organized in an infinite number of levels. I think that the wider reality model isn't stacked, as I think that the table suggests, but nested. It is like the dreams are apparently nested in the awake reality, as well ad dreams nested in dreams (again, apparently only). Not sure exactly what "oversoul" is in Bashar's model, but I don't think "we all are one" at any conceivable level. We may be part of entities, and nested in gestalts, with the intention of infinite expansion and individual potential fulfillment, not returning to origins, as far as I understand it. We are not oneness at a conceivable level because oneness can only be apprehended non-conceptually. If one looks around, what's seen is infinite. Imagination is solely responsible for the illusion of separateness. The 10,000 things only appear in imagination, not in actuality. In truth there is neither stacking nor nesting because there is no separateness. Mathematicians have been comparing "infinities" for hundreds of years now, and you'd think it might be some sort of clue to them that this is still an area of ongoing fundamental research. Seems the human intellect will never stop grasping at what it can never hold. One trouble is: multiple, quantified infinities turns out to be a very useful, practical concept, so the intellect, in isolation, remains not only clueless, but misled by intellectual utility. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 9, 2021 10:23:41 GMT -5
We are not oneness at a conceivable level because oneness can only be apprehended non-conceptually. If one looks around, what's seen is infinite. Imagination is solely responsible for the illusion of separateness. The 10,000 things only appear in imagination, not in actuality. In truth there is neither stacking nor nesting because there is no separateness. Your truth ... not mine (see the quote). To me, your "no separateness" concept seems to mean no individuality, no individual self-determination; something like saying there is no separation between the cells of my body because they eventually form my body. Also ... In my opinion there is no actuality; that implies objective perception. There is no objective physical reality, but a practically infinite number of individually subjective segments of physical reality. Yes, I've read your posts, so I have a fair idea of what you believe. I responded because other people read these discussions. Also, as has been pointed out many times by many posters here, words can only be used as pointers. The truth cannot be captured in words, and each human will either follow the pointers and discover the incomprehensible, unspeakable, infinite, and unified field of all being for themselves, or they won't. Furthermore, it's possible for humans to discover that what they are is "what is," that awareness is primordial, and that even if the entire universe disappeared, awareness would still be here. Bankei called the absolute "The Unborn." I like to call it "THIS." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 10:58:50 GMT -5
I deleted my previous post, because I felt the mistake in 'arguing' about this topic with people who are not interested in it.
But I do value this forum as a resource for people who are interested in these things. I'm not sure what the viewpoint is called, but it's pointed to by Tolle, Niz, and others. I think the forum was originally founded with that viewpoint, and I hope it remains a part of the forum.
I'll try to do my part by not getting too sucked into political discussions and ungrounded debates.
|
|
