|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 15, 2023 13:19:30 GMT -5
"Who would've thought about this?" is one of the excuses I find (almost always) unacceptable. Talking about "realizations"... I don't know if you ever experienced a "false awakening"; that is when you're dreaming, then you wake up, have some activity, then suddenly you wake up again to realize that your previous awakening was actually another dream. Also, you might've watched one of those hypnosis shows in which a person is suggested to not see his shoe in his hand, or forget their own name, or a number, or to speak, ... Just looking around you can easily see people being absolutely sure about all kind of ridiculous things regarding themselves and / or others. Look at a kid who believes in Santa. From another perspective, we all are kids of different ages and abilities. There is no way to "ultimately realize" anything, beyond that you exist, and that what you perceive changes. " Realizing without any doubt" anything should be a warning for you that you have to step back, put aside all your beliefs and expectations, and start again. Knowing isn't cumulative, but it is a process or differentiation, seeing more and more clearly, new and more details, ad infinitum. As I understand these, in the sense you seem to mean it: there are no realizations. That's a gross misconception of what non-duality is pointing to. The dream state/waking state analogy doesn't work here. Let's go back to the basics. We have the true Self, the phenomenal self and the fictitious self. The normal waking state as well as the dream state never go beyond the realm of the phenomenal self. We could even argue that the dream state is limited to the realm of the fictitious self. Which means both physical reality as well as non-physical reality belong to the realm of the phenomenal self. Non-duality, however, is prior to that. Which means to what non-duality is trying to point to, by definition, to the phenomenal self does not and cannot exist. So this is basically the level you are arguing from. The level we are arguing from is prior to that (i.e. that which to you does not exist because you cannot even imagine it to exist). Now, from your perspective, Seth or your inner guide would be higher evolved than the rest of the world, because compared to those guys everyone is far down the ladder of spiritual evolvement. From the non-duality perspective, however, Seth and your inner guide are as deluded as the rest of the world, because no matter how far they got on that spiritual ladder of evolution, it's still always the realm of the phenomenal self in the end. And so there is no real difference. So from the perspective of true Self, you're either there or you are not, there is no closer or farther away, higher or lower level. Which is why when people only talk about levels and layers of reality, they can only be talking about some relative truth, not the absolute truth. Doubt belongs to the relative realm of comparative knowledge and experience. In the absolute realm there is comparison or doubt possible. So in a sense, you are right from your perspective, this non-duality is highly suspect and reeks of self-deception. It's the only logical conclusion given the limits of your perception. From the non-duality perspective, however, your stance of categorically denying the existence of what you have no reference for, comes across as small mindedness and spiritual arrogance. So either you open up your mind a bit and accept that there might be something you and even your guides haven't realized yet or we will continue to call each other hopelessly deluded. From our perspective you are like the little frog in his dilapidated well who tries to convince the sea turtle that is visiting him that there is no such thing like an ocean. Ridiculous, isn't it? In my post you replied to, my reference to dreaming wasn't an analogy, but an exemple of being sure of something then realizing that you were wrong. In your reply you operate with a terminology that I don't use, relevant to your perspective, and probably to non-duality. I am not tempted to go deeper into this because it isn't useful to me, and very likely neither to you. I don't consider the differences ridiculous, but understandable. There are instances when a particular individual, post, or phrase might seem to me ridiculous, but it isn't a generalization. It isn't condescension either, but acceptance of an inherent situation. Considering that we are here for a reason, for having to learn something, to grow, overwhelmingly all of us here not having graduated yet, I would say that any spiritual movement, that has a more than negligible number of adepts, can't predicate accurately the lesson(s) we're here for. The few people who are on the right tail of the knowledge distribution, those more learned and grown, can't belong to a larger spiritual grouping, because that isn't characteristic for those alive here now. Even if some of the most evolved would inspire a larger grouping, obviously the grouping's philosophy as understood by the rest of its adepts has to be substantially distorted, because of the larger number of adepts. For example, let's assume that Ramana was on the point to graduate (even this doesn't mean that he knew the ultimate Truth, but that he distorted it less than most), it doesn't mean that Ramana's followers understand what he understood, no matter how sure they are that they do. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 16, 2023 1:23:47 GMT -5
There's a fair bit of higher level anthropomorphizing going on, I'd admit. But as a counterpoint, Seth's story is a much better story than the one SDP has to offer in terms of personal suffering potential. SDP is lost in the specifics, so it looks extra bleak because it is so narrow. Seth goes more into the big picture perspective, so it looks brighter because it is so much broader. I find this is very much related to what I wrote to zd here. What I'll say about Seth's narrative is that it definitely better fits what one can discern by dispassionately observing the arising of thoughts and emotions from the source. Seth states some really great descriptive prescription along those lines. Now, what we were talking about here, is the suffering of innocents, and this is as pointed a consideration of the existential question as someone on the personal side of the gateless gate will encounter. Most people just don't spend too much time considering it. Guys like the 'pilgrim, are the exception. The ancient Hebrews devoted the Book of Job to this issue. Side note: there is a mapping between the Seth material and what the Christians characterize as angels and demons, but, of course, without the ideas of reincarnation and "oversoul" (at least for the common man or woman). This is interesting, in and of itself, as the differences between these two narratives reflect a cultural attempt to reconcile the one/many dichotomy: Consciousness is singular (so, "One God"/"Holy Spirit"), but unique perspective is multiple (but related, grouped and interconnected, rather than isolated, so, "oversoul", and any given "demon" "is legion"). Said many times before, science is a similar cultural project, a sort of collective "neti-neti". Now, coming back to the suffering of innocents, the brown bears are not wrong (like, for instance, here) that these are all stories. Each is only one possible narrative among many .. such as Seth's ideas or the Book of Job or the angels and the demons. But, of course, that understanding is incomplete, as we all well know. My read of Ourboros' "interdependent origination" is about as close to what we can offer common mind (or even, uncommon but seeker mind). I find that he tends to reify the person when he debates on the topic. I'd say (already said in more detail here) that while it's "easy", on "this side of the gateless gate", to witness the suffering of innocents "without suffering", there is a converse. The suffering is " real", because it is felt, because it is perceived, because it is experienced, because of the answer to the question "what suffers?". As you well know, there is no explaining this for people on the other side of the gate. All they hear is confusion and, often, callousness, even if you're really good at pointing, like zd!  It seems the baby story that triggered SDP has yet to be confirmed, according to the internet's most trusted fact checker. So there's something for SDP to ponder. I remember Jerry Hicks telling a story about babies dying in an airplane crash. He had a lot of questions regarding that incident. So when he went to church the next Sunday, the explanation he was given was that all the people that died there were sinners, including the babies. Jerry, still a young boy, couldn't believe what he was hearing, how could these babies be sinners? That made no sense to him. So he quit church. I think Seth mentioned it somewhere that he would probably pass as a demon and Jane as possessed by demons based on that particular paradigm. There is one incident in the Seth books in the context of thought forms where Seth shows himself to Robert as an apparition. Esther had to face similar resistance, her mother once performed an exorcism on her when she talked about channeling Abraham. It shocked Esther. But then she thought, how can something that feels so good and true be evil? That made no sense to her. So she continued channeling but stopped mentioning it to those who might object based on religious reasons. The brown bear is not wrong, that's right. But it is only one side of the coin. So it's only half circle, incomplete, as you say. There is only one context. And if you can approach life from only one context, no matter what context that is, that's where it gets wrong. Because that's not living spontaneously in the here and now. So in a sense, the brown bear is also stuck in a story, albeit a meta-story, but a story nevertheless which makes the brown bear extremely inflexible, rigid and outright dogmatic (thanks for the link to brown bear central, btw). In Zen they say that a bird in flight leaves no trace. In that sense, the brown bear is leaving a trace. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 16, 2023 1:37:30 GMT -5
That's a gross misconception of what non-duality is pointing to. The dream state/waking state analogy doesn't work here. Let's go back to the basics. We have the true Self, the phenomenal self and the fictitious self. The normal waking state as well as the dream state never go beyond the realm of the phenomenal self. We could even argue that the dream state is limited to the realm of the fictitious self. Which means both physical reality as well as non-physical reality belong to the realm of the phenomenal self. Non-duality, however, is prior to that. Which means to what non-duality is trying to point to, by definition, to the phenomenal self does not and cannot exist. So this is basically the level you are arguing from. The level we are arguing from is prior to that (i.e. that which to you does not exist because you cannot even imagine it to exist). Now, from your perspective, Seth or your inner guide would be higher evolved than the rest of the world, because compared to those guys everyone is far down the ladder of spiritual evolvement. From the non-duality perspective, however, Seth and your inner guide are as deluded as the rest of the world, because no matter how far they got on that spiritual ladder of evolution, it's still always the realm of the phenomenal self in the end. And so there is no real difference. So from the perspective of true Self, you're either there or you are not, there is no closer or farther away, higher or lower level. Which is why when people only talk about levels and layers of reality, they can only be talking about some relative truth, not the absolute truth. Doubt belongs to the relative realm of comparative knowledge and experience. In the absolute realm there is comparison or doubt possible. So in a sense, you are right from your perspective, this non-duality is highly suspect and reeks of self-deception. It's the only logical conclusion given the limits of your perception. From the non-duality perspective, however, your stance of categorically denying the existence of what you have no reference for, comes across as small mindedness and spiritual arrogance. So either you open up your mind a bit and accept that there might be something you and even your guides haven't realized yet or we will continue to call each other hopelessly deluded. From our perspective you are like the little frog in his dilapidated well who tries to convince the sea turtle that is visiting him that there is no such thing like an ocean. Ridiculous, isn't it? In my post you replied to, my reference to dreaming wasn't an analogy, but an exemple of being sure of something then realizing that you were wrong. In your reply you operate with a terminology that I don't use, relevant to your perspective, and probably to non-duality. I am not tempted to go deeper into this because it isn't useful to me, and very likely neither to you. I don't consider the differences ridiculous, but understandable. There are instances when a particular individual, post, or phrase might seem to me ridiculous, but it isn't a generalization. It isn't condescension either, but acceptance of an inherent situation. Considering that we are here for a reason, for having to learn something, to grow, overwhelmingly all of us here not having graduated yet, I would say that any spiritual movement, that has a more than negligible number of adepts, can't predicate accurately the lesson(s) we're here for. The few people who are on the right tail of the knowledge distribution, those more learned and grown, can't belong to a larger spiritual grouping, because that isn't characteristic for those alive here now. Even if some of the most evolved would inspire a larger grouping, obviously the grouping's philosophy as understood by the rest of its adepts has to be substantially distorted, because of the larger number of adepts. For example, let's assume that Ramana was on the point to graduate (even this doesn't mean that he knew the ultimate Truth, but that he distorted it less than most), it doesn't mean that Ramana's followers understand what he understood, no matter how sure they are that they do. Having realized your true nature doesn't mean you've reached the end of physical experience. What it means is that you've reached the end of existential suffering. Obviously, Ramana and some other sages still were missing something about alignment. So while these sages may have been masters in the absolute sense, they were not masters in the relative sense. That's why on existential matters these masters are worth listening to but are better ignored on everyday life matters. So life continues, the journey continues. Although now with a spring in your step and a sense of peace that passes all understanding. On the other hand, Seth and other non-physical entities are missing something about the nature of reality. And so they may be masters in the relative sense, but not masters in the absolute sense. Which means when it comes to the describing the process of creation and practical, everyday life matters, they are worth listening to, but on existential matters, the ultimate truth and nature of reality, they are ultimately misleading and are better ignored. This is why the school model, the positioning of teachers on different rungs of an evolutionary ladder is misleading and ultimately meaningless. What counts is what is right HERE right NOW, spontaneous living. All else is imagination, contrived living. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2023 15:46:35 GMT -5
That's perhaps a bigger ask that I'd expect but then I have to question that thought on my part as what inavalen might call out as a limiting belief. People who followed the news were less surprised by the Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2020 than those who didn't. In a wider context, people who've followed the news for decades are presented with an opportunity to free themselves from the manipulation by fear, if, by no other means than jadedness. Well, I don't have high expectations regarding regular people. But from folks who regularly talk about quieting the mind, meditation and awareness, as is the case here, I'd expect a bit more. Well, one possibility is a witnessing of the news, instead of a common-mind "watching" of the news.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 16, 2023 20:44:24 GMT -5
I find this is very much related to what I wrote to zd here. What I'll say about Seth's narrative is that it definitely better fits what one can discern by dispassionately observing the arising of thoughts and emotions from the source. Seth states some really great descriptive prescription along those lines. Now, what we were talking about here, is the suffering of innocents, and this is as pointed a consideration of the existential question as someone on the personal side of the gateless gate will encounter. Most people just don't spend too much time considering it. Guys like the 'pilgrim, are the exception. The ancient Hebrews devoted the Book of Job to this issue. Side note: there is a mapping between the Seth material and what the Christians characterize as angels and demons, but, of course, without the ideas of reincarnation and "oversoul" (at least for the common man or woman). This is interesting, in and of itself, as the differences between these two narratives reflect a cultural attempt to reconcile the one/many dichotomy: Consciousness is singular (so, "One God"/"Holy Spirit"), but unique perspective is multiple (but related, grouped and interconnected, rather than isolated, so, "oversoul", and any given "demon" "is legion"). Said many times before, science is a similar cultural project, a sort of collective "neti-neti". Now, coming back to the suffering of innocents, the brown bears are not wrong (like, for instance, here) that these are all stories. Each is only one possible narrative among many .. such as Seth's ideas or the Book of Job or the angels and the demons. But, of course, that understanding is incomplete, as we all well know. My read of Ourboros' "interdependent origination" is about as close to what we can offer common mind (or even, uncommon but seeker mind). I find that he tends to reify the person when he debates on the topic. I'd say (already said in more detail here) that while it's "easy", on "this side of the gateless gate", to witness the suffering of innocents "without suffering", there is a converse. The suffering is " real", because it is felt, because it is perceived, because it is experienced, because of the answer to the question "what suffers?". As you well know, there is no explaining this for people on the other side of the gate. All they hear is confusion and, often, callousness, even if you're really good at pointing, like zd! In Zen they say that a bird in flight leaves no trace. In that sense, the brown bear is leaving a trace. I like that. Yes, the brown bear leaves 'a trace'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 16, 2023 20:52:30 GMT -5
I can see why that could rub you wrong. SDP has direct experience of a 'dark night of the soul', and I surmise that intrinsic to any 'dark night', there is a sense of choicelessness to it.
I am reminded of a guy called Jeff Foster...who is known in non-dual circles. Recently had Lyme disease and documented it. It left him begging to God for mercy. He's on the mend now. One thing I can say with sureness, is that in these moments of begging, all belief goes out of the window. Every scrap of spiritual ideology. And I think there's value in that for most folks that experience it, as awful as it is in the moment. To be clear, I absolutely do not wish that for you or anyone! I have learned that people have their own unique spiritual paths with their own lessons...some suffer, some don't. I have come to appreciate that diversity. And for those that do suffer, I wish for them to speedily move through it. We have touched upon this before regarding a complete turnaround regarding Jeff. He seems a nice guy doesn't he, butt it really does require attention when peeps start to talk about no-one is here, or what is here is not real etc .. He kant of had a realisation that there is no one here, to then beg for mercy to God lol . You kant have a reversal of realisation. You either realise without any doubt that there is what you are here as an individual or not. You kant change your mind afterwards to that extent otherwise the realisation wasn't a realisation at all. A realisation, is a realisation . The idea of 'spiritual realization' does imply a finality...a non-reversal, and so perhaps in Jeff's case...and many cases....there was 'insight', but not realization. I'm probably more an insight guy than a realization guy too, though I reflected for a minute before I wrote that sentence, and certainly there have been moments in which there has been an internal 'shift' in which I've been aware that nothing would be quite the same, ever again. And so far, I've been right about the moments. Of course, in one sense, every moment is unique, but I guess you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 16, 2023 20:57:25 GMT -5
In Zen they say that a bird in flight leaves no trace. In that sense, the brown bear is leaving a trace. I like that. Yes, the brown bear leaves 'a trace'. in the woods... |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 16, 2023 23:05:45 GMT -5
Well, I don't have high expectations regarding regular people. But from folks who regularly talk about quieting the mind, meditation and awareness, as is the case here, I'd expect a bit more. Well, one possibility is a witnessing of the news, instead of a common-mind "watching" of the news. Yes, that's been my position for decades. But then LOA still applies, you mentioned something similar about Heath Ledger recently, i.e. whatever you focus upon you draw its essence into your experience. And since putting attention on something is adding energy to that something, watching doom and gloom news is adding to the doom and gloom in the world. The trick then would be to see it as contrast, things on the global buffet table that you don't want to put into your mouth again because it leaves a bad aftertaste and so you keep trying different things until you find something you truly enjoy. Times of high contrast are also potentially times of high clarity and heightened desires for something better. And if a significant number of people would focus only on the desire for something better that was born out of that contrast, we would see a global shift in mood, then experience and then manifestation. But people usually don't do that. They point out all the wrongs of their current situation and whose to blame. And so their predominant focus remains on what is, which is what is not wanted. And so that will be their overall point of attraction. Which means they will attract more of what is, of what is not wanted. So, from the LOA perspective, watching the news and getting sucked into the emotional click baiting and then shaking your fist at your screen in anger, demanding that someone should do something will guarantee that things will get worse or at least stay the same. But watching the news and, having a negative feeling reaction and then realizing that you don't want that and then asking yourself what you actually do want, and then focus exclusively on that clear, new desire - that's how things can improve. You withdraw attention and energy from unwanted and shift attention and energy to what is wanted. In theory it's that simple, but it does take a clear decision and some determination in the beginning. Now, this should all be intuitive knowledge. Every child knows that good feels good and bad feels bad and is naturally drawn to and makes an effort towards what feels good. But for adults and even people on the spiritual path, it's somehow not that simple anymore. Adults actually believe that if you just put up with the bad long enough and pull thru that good will be awaiting you at the end. Which, of course, is utterly illogical if you understand LOA, because an unhappy journey cannot lead to a happy ending. Conversely, a happy journey cannot lead to an unhappy ending, which is something adults who are waiting for the other shoe to drop don't seem to understand either. So really, I am not telling anybody anything new. We all knew this as children and lived accordingly. But we've been trained to not pay attention to our inner guidance and now 99.9% of adults are hopelessly confused, even non-duality gurus. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 16, 2023 23:07:24 GMT -5
I have to say: your reply rubs me wrong. So, my response will be to ignore it. I can see why that could rub you wrong. SDP has direct experience of a 'dark night of the soul', and I surmise that intrinsic to any 'dark night', there is a sense of choicelessness to it. I am reminded of a guy called Jeff Foster... Here's Tolle on the dark night of the soul... Does this resonate with you? Is that what SDP meant? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 18, 2023 1:52:07 GMT -5
I like that. Yes, the brown bear leaves 'a trace'. in the woods...  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 18, 2023 1:57:53 GMT -5
Well, one possibility is a witnessing of the news, instead of a common-mind "watching" of the news. Yes, that's been my position for decades. But then LOA still applies, you mentioned something similar about Heath Ledger recently, i.e. whatever you focus upon you draw its essence into your experience. And since putting attention on something is adding energy to that something, watching doom and gloom news is adding to the doom and gloom in the world. The trick then would be to see it as contrast, things on the global buffet table that you don't want to put into your mouth again because it leaves a bad aftertaste and so you keep trying different things until you find something you truly enjoy. Times of high contrast are also potentially times of high clarity and heightened desires for something better. And if a significant number of people would focus only on the desire for something better that was born out of that contrast, we would see a global shift in mood, then experience and then manifestation. But people usually don't do that. They point out all the wrongs of their current situation and whose to blame. And so their predominant focus remains on what is, which is what is not wanted. And so that will be their overall point of attraction. Which means they will attract more of what is, of what is not wanted. So, from the LOA perspective, watching the news and getting sucked into the emotional click baiting and then shaking your fist at your screen in anger, demanding that someone should do something will guarantee that things will get worse or at least stay the same. But watching the news and, having a negative feeling reaction and then realizing that you don't want that and then asking yourself what you actually do want, and then focus exclusively on that clear, new desire - that's how things can improve. You withdraw attention and energy from unwanted and shift attention and energy to what is wanted. In theory it's that simple, but it does take a clear decision and some determination in the beginning. Now, this should all be intuitive knowledge. Every child knows that good feels good and bad feels bad and is naturally drawn to and makes an effort towards what feels good. But for adults and even people on the spiritual path, it's somehow not that simple anymore. Adults actually believe that if you just put up with the bad long enough and pull thru that good will be awaiting you at the end. Which, of course, is utterly illogical if you understand LOA, because an unhappy journey cannot lead to a happy ending. Conversely, a happy journey cannot lead to an unhappy ending, which is something adults who are waiting for the other shoe to drop don't seem to understand either. So really, I am not telling anybody anything new. We all knew this as children and lived accordingly. But we've been trained to not pay attention to our inner guidance and now 99.9% of adults are hopelessly confused, even non-duality gurus. Yer breathin' some rarified air! But I would say that the complexity of the 10 gazillion thingies also leaves room for certain patterns - like experiencing the shock of cold water immersion for example - .. patterns that run counter to gravitating toward less resistance. Niz once told a seeker something to the effect of "you seek pleasure and avoid pain", in describing the common mind. And Kipling seemed to me to be echoing Lau Tzu with his "two imposters". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 18, 2023 2:01:18 GMT -5
I can see why that could rub you wrong. SDP has direct experience of a 'dark night of the soul', and I surmise that intrinsic to any 'dark night', there is a sense of choicelessness to it. I am reminded of a guy called Jeff Foster... Here's Tolle on the dark night of the soul... Does this resonate with you? Is that what SDP meant? Anyone who has ever flirted with nihilism - and not necessarily consciously/intellectually as a theory, but rather, as an emotional/mood overlay of lived experience - has a point of reference for something similar. It's not the same, because if it happens when you're young, you're very far from the end of your rope. But operating in the absence of meaning can be illuminating .. especially if one doesn't make a meaning out of the meaninglessness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2023 13:00:38 GMT -5
AFAIAC, sometimes s**t just happens. I think in terms of ~your being attracts your life~, rather than LOA. There is a continuum running from order to chaos. I have no problem with LOA operating on most of that continuum, say the upper 95%. One's being puts one somewhere on that continuum. At the ~top~ you find flow and synchronicities and a sense that everything is operating perfectly as it should be. Most people live somewhere in the middle. What I've been writing about, since last Saturday, poking, exploring, is the bottom 5% where chaos reigns. This is the realm of hardened criminals, terrorists, serial killers and others of the sort, they have no rules. This is where s**t can just happen. A group of the nasty guys of the 5%-and-lower have imposed their will and chaos upon some innocents of the higher continuum. I've ~battled~ ZD (mostly) over this issue for years. I don't mind calling my view a paradigm, I haven't made it up. For me it explains certain aspects of what happens. All this, in a nutshell, is why I said at some point LOA breaks down. You'll never convince me that the babies and toddlers who were decapitated are part of a natural flow of the universe, they are not responsible in any way for getting their heads cup off. They got caught up in an unnatural flow of the ~5%~ chaos. Everybody does not live at the same level of being, there's a continuum. And now we have a *more ordered group* trying to restore and maintain order, fighting the no-rules-chaos of a 5%, and lower-down to a negative 1%. You could even say the 2,3,4,5% are caught up in the really-nasty-1%. IOW, we have a terrible mess. There is no good outcome coming. I think we've past the point of a better-outcome. LOA, the way I use that term, is "your being attracts your life"! If you reduce LOA to a serial cause and effect theory, you're missing the point. You have to look at it in the context of jiji muge (aka interdependent origination/arising) and the eternal now (aka the point of power is in the now). Well, Abe always say "these are the best of times" because they look at it from the big picture perspective, i.e. that contrast creates desires and desires summon life force and more life force flowing means greater potential for joy. The more contrast (or variety) you have, the more options you have and the more options you have the more choices you have and the more choices you have the more opportunities for joy you have. In times of heightened contrast, when you know very clearly what you absolutely do not want, you also automatically know what you absolutely do want. And here you have a choice. Either you stay focused on what you do not want and argue against it, or you turn your focus on what you actually do want and argue for that. Apparently, you chose the first option, while I chose the second option. The difference in experience between these two choices of focus is huge after a while. You see, the news give you an extremely disproportionate picture of the world in terms of what goes well and what goes wrong. You'll notice that once you get a bit around in the world, on different continents and in different cultures. There are terrible things happening, no doubt. But there are also wonderful things happening at the same time. But the news media, which lives from the attention of people like you, has to somehow get your attention and they discovered that they best get your attention with negative news, and not with facts but with emotions, and not presented in a fair and balanced way but in a highly partial and exaggerated way. So don't expect the news media to give you an accurate and balanced picture of the world, that would not be in their best interest, it would destroy their business model. So keep that mind next time you are reading or watching the news. I only use ~deliberate~ "LOA" for health reasons (plus supplements, food, and walking). I actually learned this at age 17 when I met my first teacher, and read her book Who's the Matter With Me? (Alice Steadman). It's about psychosomatic illness, and I-me-self vs them consequences. I learned more along the way about the power of the subconscious, if you don't give it something to do, past programs, which you didn't choose in the first place, will sabotage your life. Basically I use visualization and relaxation. I use it secondarily somewhat for money, but my money-needs are few. Otherwise, I trust "your being attracts your life". The key is to work on change of being. So I don't use (deliberate) LOA to try in any way to engineer life circumstances (1001 Nights and some of the Jinn stories will cure you of thinking you can know what's best). I leave that to the universe, who is infinitely better at it, than I. So the hard[er] part is recognizing this higher flow, and rejecting the lower flow [I-me-self-decisions]. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2023 13:18:22 GMT -5
I've never found anything the Gurdjieff teaching doesn't explain. (Above, trying to avoid the words he used, what he called the law of accident. This is why 'your being attracts your life' trumps LOA). "Your being attracts your life" is LOA. Watch some more A-H videos and pay attention to those parts where Abe talk about "state of being" and "point of attraction". I just make this slight distinction. Your being can put you into the chaos-wacko-zone which is collective, not individual. Somewhere between birth and about age 21 ~the person~ lives in this collective, your choices are not your own, or you have not reached maturity to be able to make good choices. So I don't consider the baby that gets killed in Gaza, directly responsible for its death. This is what I mean by s**t sometimes just happens. inavalan has a very complicated view that I'm sure he would say the baby is responsible (baby would include its whole ~upward~ structure of the individuation). For example, Gaza would equal chaos-wacko-zone. A major city crime-slum would equal chaos-wacko-zone. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 20, 2023 14:13:39 GMT -5
We have touched upon this before regarding a complete turnaround regarding Jeff. He seems a nice guy doesn't he, butt it really does require attention when peeps start to talk about no-one is here, or what is here is not real etc .. He kant of had a realisation that there is no one here, to then beg for mercy to God lol . You kant have a reversal of realisation. You either realise without any doubt that there is what you are here as an individual or not. You kant change your mind afterwards to that extent otherwise the realisation wasn't a realisation at all. A realisation, is a realisation . is one of the excuses I find (almost always) unacceptable. Talking about "realizations"... I don't know if you ever experienced a "false awakening"; that is when you're dreaming, then you wake up, have some activity, then suddenly you wake up again to realize that your previous awakening was actually another dream. Also, you might've watched one of those hypnosis shows in which a person is suggested to not see his shoe in his hand, or forget their own name, or a number, or to speak, ... Just looking around you can easily see people being absolutely sure about all kind of ridiculous things regarding themselves and / or others. Look at a kid who believes in Santa. From another perspective, we all are kids of different ages and abilities. There is no way to "ultimately realize" anything, beyond that you exist, and that what you perceive changes. " Realizing without any doubt" anything should be a warning for you that you have to step back, put aside all your beliefs and expectations, and start again. Knowing isn't cumulative, but it is a process or differentiation, seeing more and more clearly, new and more details, ad infinitum. As I understand these, in the sense you seem to mean it: there are no realizations. There is a lot going on in your response that I don't have time at present to go into. I have previously spoken about the difference between being what you are beyond self. There are no thoughts or realisations pertaining to this. It's when there is self awareness then one comes to the conclusion that they have realised this and that about what they are. Realising the world is a dream or that self is an illusion are not realisations if one refers to being what you are beyond the self as Self Realisation. |
|
