|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2023 2:06:42 GMT -5
Tenka, I don't if you're aware that a butt is what you sit on and 'but' is the conjunction. We won't even get into the pronunciation of "Kant", but reading your posts literally and phonetically is hilarious. He's fully aware of it; it's called Tenka-language.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 26, 2023 3:57:08 GMT -5
When peeps say it's all arising I normally run for the hills. It's kinda poetic, with nothing much that backs it up. How does the appearance of any coloured elephant simply arise? This is the type of conversation I have had for many years with no answers pertaining to how consciousness or whatever word suits arises. Now we have the perception of something being the same as the creating of it . My understanding of everything is what you are does reflect the world looking back atcha cos the perceived and the perceiver are what you are, but when we subset the watcher or the observer from the one that actually looks then it just goes pear shaped rather quickly. There seems to be the watcher that isn't personalised per se, but everything points to that which observes is what you are that effects you rather than me. To speak about nutrition with a passion and speak about how it effects your body reflects something that refers to you on a personal level. Then there is just things arising as a watcher with no one there .. May I dare say it on Enigmas behalf .. Sounds like a split mind thang going on I don't care about the semantics, so any preferred word will do provided some meaning is implied through context, but elephants arose through natural selection. It's just that the standard way of thinking about the universe is material rather than a sort of living energy. I just imaging the world being made of observation because my sense is it's all watching. Please don't ask 'how does a stone watch' because I have no idea. Of course I have particular personal interests, but I don't want to be the subject unless people rave about how awesome I am.
Well it was worth the question because appearances arising just gets thrown around to fit a variety of premises. When a peep says the appearance of their wife for examples sake just arises in consciousness, it actually doesn't mean anything to me without an explanation of how that is so. These arising appearances has to abide by the natural laws of this dimensional reality. This is why you kant (muttley laugh) have a cartoon (excuse the pun) elephant coming out of your t.v. screen and raiding your fridge for food. This has always been points made in order to get to the nature of appearances. I don't know how a natural selection in your eyes ends up with an appearance arising, butt that's okay. I am curious of how there is a watcher somehow watching, and that is in someway not what you are that is of the doer doing .. You can't really have a watcher and not a doer. There is either something or there isn't . It's like some mysterious watcher that is floating about somewhere, somehow, that distances itself from itself.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 26, 2023 4:04:03 GMT -5
Blimey O'Reilly ... We spent years trying to prise apart that which happens in the dream to that which happens in the waking state in order to make such comparisons.. You never could differentiate between the two. Now you are using the two different states to make your point . You kant make it up.You keep going on about maintaining a stable experience butt it's totally flawed. One experience I had of an alien race, I was left petrified unable to move praying for it to go away and leave me alone. Now that experience isn't ensuring that my experience is stable. I don't know where you get your premises from for there isn't anything credible there to back up your claim. I think perceiving a pink elephant would be a walk in the park compared to what I have seen and experienced. I dare say other's have been left traumatised to various degrees because they saw something that wasn't inline with a stable experience. I assure you, I’m not fabricating anything. It seems you might have overlooked the point I was trying to make. You have totally turned your original premise on it's head by reverting to what a few of us were trying to tell you all along. In stead of looking at the comparisons of the dream state and the waking state in regards to what you could not do, you stood firm by referring to what you could do in a dream and in the waking state. You haven't commented on peeps that have traumatic experiences that are not reflecting a stable experience. This is the crux of your premise where peeps don't create experiences of pink elephants. It's not correct is it . Hiding behind the premise of not being able to create anything that would upset the apple cart is false.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 26, 2023 4:07:28 GMT -5
Tenka, I don't if you're aware that a butt is what you sit on and 'but' is the conjunction. We won't even get into the pronunciation of "Kant", but reading your posts literally and phonetically is hilarious. He's fully aware of it; it's called Tenka-language. Absolutely .. Kant is in reference to Immanuel Kant, and butt is well .. a reference for your butt
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 5:11:50 GMT -5
Tenka, I don't if you're aware that a butt is what you sit on and 'but' is the conjunction. We won't even get into the pronunciation of "Kant", but reading your posts literally and phonetically is hilarious. He's fully aware of it; it's called Tenka-language.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 5:12:27 GMT -5
I assure you, I’m not fabricating anything. It seems you might have overlooked the point I was trying to make. You have totally turned your original premise on it's head by reverting to what a few of us were trying to tell you all along. In stead of looking at the comparisons of the dream state and the waking state in regards to what you could not do, you stood firm by referring to what you could do in a dream and in the waking state. You haven't commented on peeps that have traumatic experiences that are not reflecting a stable experience. This is the crux of your premise where peeps don't create experiences of pink elephants. It's not correct is it . Hiding behind the premise of not being able to create anything that would upset the apple cart is false. I am sorry I am unable to make you understand.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Sept 26, 2023 5:28:45 GMT -5
However, that’s not the case here; there’s only a single timeline extending from the past into the future. This timeline cannot be altered because we are intrinsically part of it. Well that's taking a very narrow view of things, Gopal. I suspect you're not a big science fiction fan. I think most people have got their heads around the double slit experiment showing that there are many possible 'nows' of which we experience only one, but the suggestion that this could extend back into the past as well is not something I imagine many people will see. Hawking was big on this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_cosmologyHo ho, narrow view. <-- double slit humour
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2023 5:32:47 GMT -5
I don't care about the semantics, so any preferred word will do provided some meaning is implied through context, but elephants arose through natural selection. It's just that the standard way of thinking about the universe is material rather than a sort of living energy. I just imaging the world being made of observation because my sense is it's all watching. Please don't ask 'how does a stone watch' because I have no idea. Of course I have particular personal interests, but I don't want to be the subject unless people rave about how awesome I am.
Well it was worth the question because appearances arising just gets thrown around to fit a variety of premises. When a peep says the appearance of their wife for examples sake just arises in consciousness, it actually doesn't mean anything to me without an explanation of how that is so. These arising appearances has to abide by the natural laws of this dimensional reality.This is why you kant (muttley laugh) have a cartoon (excuse the pun) elephant coming out of your t.v. screen and raiding your fridge for food. This has always been points made in order to get to the nature of appearances. I don't know how a natural selection in your eyes ends up with an appearance arising, butt that's okay. I am curious of how there is a watcher somehow watching, and that is in someway not what you are that is of the doer doing .. You can't really have a watcher and not a doer. There is either something or there isn't . It's like some mysterious watcher that is floating about somewhere, somehow, that distances itself from itself. This is a good point. We obviously live in a shared reality. We agree at a traffic light that red means stop and green means go. And Gopal has agreed that India launched a Sun-probe into space a few weeks ago. And then there's the elephant in the room. So it seems we have to operate within certain constraints, one of those is the laws of physics. Pigs can't fly.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2023 7:47:50 GMT -5
One example is that Bashar sometimes talks about 'everything always exists' as literally, everything always exists....but at other times, he talks about is as you did i.e potentials. You explained it well. (I am more inclined to the potentials view). The biggest contradiction I see relates to this, I'd be interested in your view. Sometimes he speaks of infinite parallel realities, sometimes he will indicate that there are many worlds (i.e many, but not infinite). And then sometimes, when talking about both future and past, he will say something like (just as a made up example), ' alien technology created the pyramids'. How can he say that? If there are infinite parallel worlds, then there are infinite ways of creating the pyramids. If there are infinite pasts, there's no way at all of ever talking about the past. We have no history. But even if there are just 'many' worlds (as opposed to infinite), then there would have to be many different ways of creating the pyramids. But he very consistently indicates that there was one past. He doesn't say, 'well in this world, humans created them, and in this world, dogs created them, and in this world, aliens created them'. He talks very linearly about the past. Equally he often confidently makes predictions about the future, based on probability. But if there are infinite actual worlds, there are no probabilities, because it's all happening. The way the "contact with the inner-" works, is that you receive an instantaneous download of information / knowledge, and you put it into words in order to become conscious of it. This always introduces distortions caused by your level of evolvement, by your beliefs, expectations, emotions. Then the more you think about it and reformulate it, the more you distort it. Trying to intellectually make sense of it adds more distortions. To minimize distortions, firstly you have to be aware of the process; secondly, you need to intentionally leave aside the factors that distort, as much as you can. Most people believe that they got it right: Darryl Anka, Jane Roberts, Ramana, JC, ... almost everybody! This is the case with almost everything: time, oneness, no separation, incarnation, everything already exists, ... " Parallel realities" can be understood as parallel instances of a video-game played by multiple players at the same time. It is like an online website where you can play this video-game. There are many people who visit the site at the same time, and who play this same game, make their own choices, so the game sequences vary from a player to another. You can choose to enter the game with different initial data: historical time, geographical space, possible version of reality that satisfy the game's restrictions; you can play it as king, pauper, victim, criminal, whatever characters are available. This means that the same character is played over and over by many players, in different ways, making different choices, with various player skills; the outcomes can be quite different: Haven on Earth, Earth destruction, same character being successful or a looser, dying old or dying young, having children or not, ... Potentially all possibilities are tried by some player, but considering the enormous number of combinations of choices, it seems likely that there are always new scenarios never encountered before. This doesn't mean that "all that is" tries to know itself. It means that the experience accumulated at game level could influence the choices made by other players who encounter the same choices, by subconsciously tapping that knowledge base. As most awake (not sleeping) people aren't aware of their subconscious' works, they are oblivious to that knowledge, and often override their inner guidance that advises them which are the more constructive paths, from the point of view of their personality, and of their whole-self. So, while we experience this reality, in other realities (same time and space, but different possible points of the physical-reality virtual game) there might be no Pyramids, there might be no JC's Christianity, humans might use levitation, telepathy, and / or have other features unknown to us. It is also possible that some of such features have been available, and forgotten.
The way I understand it, our outer-selves (the part of our personality that interacts with the physical / outer reality) could work consciously together with our inner-selves (the part of our personality that interacts with the non-physical / inner reality). We intentionally chose to incarnate into this point of the physical hyperspace where we don't access that connection, not because it isn't available to us, but because we aren't aware of it. To me, this is the best thing we could work on firstly. Regarding what Anka says (even when channeling Bashar), as it is also the case with what everybody else says: It doesn't matter what they say, nor what they intend to say. Those are only symbols for us to intuitively interpret as deep as we are able to, and by also tapping our inner guidance, to improve our choice making, to grow. I think I touched all the points you mentioned (?) Do you believe in 'many' other actual worlds/realities or that there are infinite other actual worlds/realities? Thanks for your explanation, I read it all, but want to focus on that key point I can't see how 'infinite' is possible, but 'many' is possible if the point of divergence in choice comes from a higher level. The reason I say this is because I can't see how, practically, I could have ever made a different choice to the one I made. So the only way a different choice could have happened is if I was downloaded with a different insight at a given moment, therefore changing the choice I made. So then something 'higher' than me (Bashar might call it an OverSoul) is determining how many 'andrews' there are.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2023 7:48:36 GMT -5
Bashar (or Darryl) explains it by saying that everything always exists ....all seeming past, present and future, it all exists Now. So nothing moves or changes except our focus which moves through different aspects of what already exists. In this sense, there's no creation. I like that idea, but as much as I like his insight in small chunks, I also find him very contradictory and inconsistent (even what I said in the first paragraph, I can find problems with). If this were accurate, we must be having parallel universe to hold all the past and present. However, that’s not the case here; there’s only a single timeline extending from the past into the future. This timeline cannot be altered because we are intrinsically part of it. Maybe read the conversation I'm having with Inavalan.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2023 7:51:09 GMT -5
Well it was worth the question because appearances arising just gets thrown around to fit a variety of premises. When a peep says the appearance of their wife for examples sake just arises in consciousness, it actually doesn't mean anything to me without an explanation of how that is so. These arising appearances has to abide by the natural laws of this dimensional reality.This is why you kant (muttley laugh) have a cartoon (excuse the pun) elephant coming out of your t.v. screen and raiding your fridge for food. This has always been points made in order to get to the nature of appearances. I don't know how a natural selection in your eyes ends up with an appearance arising, butt that's okay. I am curious of how there is a watcher somehow watching, and that is in someway not what you are that is of the doer doing .. You can't really have a watcher and not a doer. There is either something or there isn't . It's like some mysterious watcher that is floating about somewhere, somehow, that distances itself from itself. This is a good point. We obviously live in a shared reality. We agree at a traffic light that red means stop and green means go. And Gopal has agreed that India launched a Sun-probe into space a few weeks ago. And then there's the elephant in the room. So it seems we have to operate within certain constraints, one of those is the laws of physics. Pigs can't fly. Yes, I believe we create agreed meaningful limitations. Without it, there would be absolute chaos...no coherent experience. There has to be general consensus in meaning (don't get me started on the folly of 'what is a woman?' haha).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 11:02:07 GMT -5
However, that’s not the case here; there’s only a single timeline extending from the past into the future. This timeline cannot be altered because we are intrinsically part of it. Well that's taking a very narrow view of things, Gopal. I suspect you're not a big science fiction fan. I think most people have got their heads around the double slit experiment showing that there are many possible 'nows' of which we experience only one, but the suggestion that this could extend back into the past as well is not something I imagine many people will see. Hawking was big on this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_cosmologyHo ho, narrow view. Let us assume infinite realities run in parallel and our physical universe is one amongst them, yes? No one has the power to choose, Said that, it runs from past to future in a single line without interruption of others, yes?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 26, 2023 13:52:54 GMT -5
Well it was worth the question because appearances arising just gets thrown around to fit a variety of premises. When a peep says the appearance of their wife for examples sake just arises in consciousness, it actually doesn't mean anything to me without an explanation of how that is so. These arising appearances has to abide by the natural laws of this dimensional reality.This is why you kant (muttley laugh) have a cartoon (excuse the pun) elephant coming out of your t.v. screen and raiding your fridge for food. This has always been points made in order to get to the nature of appearances. I don't know how a natural selection in your eyes ends up with an appearance arising, butt that's okay. I am curious of how there is a watcher somehow watching, and that is in someway not what you are that is of the doer doing .. You can't really have a watcher and not a doer. There is either something or there isn't . It's like some mysterious watcher that is floating about somewhere, somehow, that distances itself from itself. This is a good point. We obviously live in a shared reality. We agree at a traffic light that red means stop and green means go. And Gopal has agreed that India launched a Sun-probe into space a few weeks ago. And then there's the elephant in the room. So it seems we have to operate within certain constraints, one of those is the laws of physics. Pigs can't fly. As Andy implied, there would be chaos if there wasn't certain constraints in regards to what happens and what doesn't. The laws of physics do apply even if we don't totally understand them. What we do know ordinarily is that elephants don't birth out of fig trees and as you say pigs can't fly. It's not to say that somewhere pigs can fly cos they can thru genetics or the atmosphere's gravity allows them to float around as if they can. What isn't correct, is that Gopal can't create a flying pig simply because it would go against the norm in regards to experience. It's totally flawed for so many reasons. I can't for the life of me understand someone who knows that their ideas are totally flawed butt continue to uphold them. It's sheer madness .
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2023 15:08:14 GMT -5
Well that's taking a very narrow view of things, Gopal. I suspect you're not a big science fiction fan. I think most people have got their heads around the double slit experiment showing that there are many possible 'nows' of which we experience only one, but the suggestion that this could extend back into the past as well is not something I imagine many people will see. Hawking was big on this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_cosmologyHo ho, narrow view. Let us assume infinite realities run in parallel and our physical universe is one amongst them, yes? No one has the power to choose, Said that, it runs from past to future in a single line without interruption of others, yes? Please read the last paragraph first before you read the rest. As soon as the capacity to envision the future developed the future started effecting the past. And that's just a statement about the common, conventional mind: by planning for what you think the future might be, you change the present. And the potential for the future to effect the past, in unconventional terms, is much broader. There are two such lines of thought to consider: one from the science of physics, the other from anecdotal accounts of supernatural premonition. Physicists give us the tachyon, and once you have the potential for faster than light speed travel you have at least the potential to exchange information with your relative past. That's just one example. Wormholes are a distinct theoretical possibility, which would also theoretically allow travel into the past. While beyond my knowledge and experience with the mathematical technicalities, I'm at least aware of the notion of a "close timelike curve". There's also quantum entanglement. Getting metaphysical, if we accept the "quantum observer" as a premise, along with the big bang, we encounter the possibility that the event of initial creation did not actualize until the observer instantiated .. whatever that observer may or may not be. There are many accounts of supernatural premonition, and if these are not discounted, then you have examples of the future affecting the past. You see, if the future is predicted, the past that contains the prediction is a different timeline from the one that doesn't. People behave differently based on whether they encounter the prediction and whether or not they believe it. There are also similar, but lesser degree experiences possible, such as thinking the exact same thought as someone else at the exact same time. Any manifestations of non-deliberate synchronicity (a highly improbable coincidence) is related to this class of potential experience. From my experience, the frequency of perceiving sychronicitites increases once you become aware of the phenomenon, and can be enhanced by engaging in deliberate quiescence of mind by meditation, prayer, or ATA. But that's all just krazy talk. These are all interesting patterns, but they are blueprints for a machine, and you, are not a machine. These ideas might be fun to play around with sometimes. But they are not of any existential import. They are not for people who are seriously interested in the existential truth. The existential truth is beyond that capacity of mind that engages with these sorts of notions.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2023 17:07:21 GMT -5
Godel was at Princeton while Einstein was there. Einstein said the best part of his day was his walk with Godel. So Godel got very interested in Relativity, and looked into seeing if it forbid time travel into the past. Godel realized how time travel would be possible, so he wrote a paper on it. Godel saw time travel into the past would be possible in a rotating universe, now called Godel's rotating universe. As a tribute to Einstein his paper is in the book Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist, The Library of Living Philosophers Vol VII. BTW, a rotating universe would be an ideal state, we don't live in a rotating universe. Short article about it here . Another article here.
|
|