|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 11, 2023 15:20:42 GMT -5
There's controversy around this news item...the fog of war is confusing. That's not to say I believe it is false, or that I'd be surprised, but the source of this news items is Israel, so....right now, I think caution is sensible. However, I agree that LOA cannot adequately explain our reality...or the human experience, even if it is a universal principle. It depends on what you interpret the LOA to mean. I don't use this term as part of my view of reality, but it points to elements of it. You can interpret reality only from your perspective, level of evolvement, beliefs, expectations, emotions. What you see isn't exactly what it is, but a materialization of an inner reality, and this materialization is only yours; it isn't identical with anybody else's. There is no objective reference. At inner level you use inner senses, so the events and experiences are multi-dimensional, and are something else than what you perceive physically. Nobody dies in terms of destruction and annihilation. When you wake up, or go to sleep you just change focus; same when being born, or dying. You are immersed, hypnotized in some of these states, part by choice, part by mistake. In any state your experience is determined only by your level of evolvement, beliefs, expectations, emotions. This is what LOA actually points to; not what most people believe to be. Nothing is imposed on you, nor from the physical world, nor from the inner world. Nobody to blame, nor to forgive, nor to put on a pedestal. Maybe this analogy will clarify how I see it... Let's say someone is in a play, on stage. And in that play, they are asked to forgive, or feel imposed upon, or whatever. It's not 'real'. because they are acting. And yet a good actor will connect to the role and genuinely experience those things, even though it's not real. And that's kind of how I see the human reality. It's a play...and in a sense, it's a lie - you are right, there's nothing to forgive and no imposition. And yet, playing this human role might still engender finding forgiveness, and it being useful, from within the story. And it might engender feeling imposed upon too. We can't avoid it IF those are the themes of the play, and that is our role in the story. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2023 15:59:20 GMT -5
You don't understand what I write. On the other hand, I have no intention to convince you of anything. Your premise is wrong, and it is detrimental to you because that causes you negative emotions that you can't tend to, and that escalate materializing eventually into nightmarish scenarios. I have no inclination to keep repeating what I wrote, nor to engage in arguing. I perceive reality as being fundamentally different than you apparently do. No, I am interested. I just don't see anything except a conceptual house of cards. Show me something besides theory. It isn't a "conceptual house of cards", nor a "theory"; it is my view on reality, that I live by. It is my "rubber hits the road" test. I don't differentiate between me when I discuss from my spiritual point of view, and me when I live the physical reality. Everything that attracts my attention, I intuitively interpret and fit with my views. Learning is a process of differentiation rather than accumulation of knowledge. I learn not from the experiences per se, but from my interpretations, intuitive, or with my inner guidance's help. It doesn't matter what somebody thinks, nor what he tries to convey, but what I interpret it to mean, which is a pointer to some inner knowledge, to learn or to be tested. You see, sometimes it is difficult to answer some questions because they make no sense from my perspective, and need my guess of where they're coming from, then my attempt to overcome that filter. Sometimes I reply with less hope to communicate, but more from respect toward the person who tries to understand what I say, or to learn in general. I have no interest in arguing, not in convincing, because I don't want to mislead where I might be wrong in my views. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2023 16:21:15 GMT -5
It depends on what you interpret the LOA to mean. I don't use this term as part of my view of reality, but it points to elements of it. You can interpret reality only from your perspective, level of evolvement, beliefs, expectations, emotions. What you see isn't exactly what it is, but a materialization of an inner reality, and this materialization is only yours; it isn't identical with anybody else's. There is no objective reference. At inner level you use inner senses, so the events and experiences are multi-dimensional, and are something else than what you perceive physically. Nobody dies in terms of destruction and annihilation. When you wake up, or go to sleep you just change focus; same when being born, or dying. You are immersed, hypnotized in some of these states, part by choice, part by mistake. In any state your experience is determined only by your level of evolvement, beliefs, expectations, emotions. This is what LOA actually points to; not what most people believe to be. Nothing is imposed on you, nor from the physical world, nor from the inner world. Nobody to blame, nor to forgive, nor to put on a pedestal. Okay, what I mean is that, given the specific structures of this human dimensional reality, it's inadequate as an explanation to say that a baby that suffers/dies has vibrationally created/attracted that. Even if I accept that it's true at a higher level, it's still inadequate, because many souls aren't here to explore that higher level truth. These babies are here to experience brutality. That was hard for me to say, but brutality is a valid exploration in this dimensional reality. Then again, so is accountability! So my view of what you are saying is that it's all true in a higher sense, I'm likely to be inclined to talk about experience in terms of themes/explorations, just as much as I might be inclined to talk about the higher truths you are talking about. For many folks (including me), forgiveness has been an excellent tool. Compassion and empathy too. Even if it's misconceived at the higher level truths you are offering, it's still useful within our vibrational reality. 's not what I'm saying. The baby is an avatar. It has no "vibration" (this is another term I don't use because I think that it is a misinterpretation, or at least causes misinterpretations). What happens to the baby, and this isn't the same thing from his perspective and from your perspective (because that is what happens to you), isn't determined by the "vibration" of the baby, nor by what others might do to him, but by the baby's inner-reality. No baby comes here to "experience brutality". The brutality is just a chosen way out of this reality when the baby's player initial purpose was fulfilled, or when he determined that the current experience is derailed beyond correction, and a new start is preferable. Forgiveness and compassion infer that somebody else than you did something in your reality, uninvited. Those concepts take away your actual power and shift incorrectly the responsibility for what you perceive. Hence they distract you from your purpose here: to learn and grow (which are not what it is widely believed and preached). The process isn't of learning through random experiencing, but of conscious and guided learning. So, I believe that thinking in terms of forgiveness and compassion is detrimental to you (impersonal use of "you"). It doesn't mean that you don't care about others' suffering or guilt, but that those aren't what they seem to you. It doesn't mean that you don't have to respond in some way (you do), but you have to respond constructively, from the point of view of your inner reality. For that, you have to become aware of that reality and your purpose, to the deepest degree that you can. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2023 16:21:25 GMT -5
I came here just now to start another thread, checked my notifications. At some point LOA breaks down, just breaks, period. I think I've found the dividing line, to put it not-delicately, but succinctly. This gives me a little pause to consider how to do the thread. Announced about 25 minutes ago, they have found babies and toddlers decapitated by Hamas in Kfar Aza just outside of Gaza from the Saturday attack. Announced and verified about 25 minutes ago, about 11:30 AM ET. Every time in the past I found my ~view of how the universe works~ lacking, I continued my search. I don't know if your view is merely theoretical, or you have experientially verified it, I've put off asking. But I'd like to ask, does having babies heads cut off fit into your paradigm? Obviously that is an unfair question, has you formulated it, that isn't a base for a spiritual discussion because it says more about you than it asks about me. Firstly, I don't discuss a paradigm, but my view and beliefs about the nature of reality. I see this as a significant nuance. You didn't reply, or I missed it, to my question to you about why Jews were / are persecuted over the "known" history, according to your views on the nature of reality. This is the only kind of angle I think to be worth discussing, and willing to discuss here.My views offer me a way to understand what I perceive, and a way to respond. I state them as part of my interaction to sustain my learning and growth quest. Having babies die in a terrorist attack, self-protection military action, natural disaster, crime, famine, medical malpractice, is as bad. It is as bad as having anybody die in the same conditions. You give significance to differentiations where they aren't significant, as I see reality. You don't see your own contribution to the image of reality that you perceive. You consider your experience imposed on you by an objective reality. I don't. The Kabbalists say the Hebrew language came first, that the universe was formed out of the Hebrew letters. The original of the first 5 books of the Torah was written as a block, no spaces between letters, no punctuation. The reader had to divide it up into words and sentences. For centuries the Kabbalists believed there were codes in the Torah, they found a few here and there. Before WWII a guy named Michoel Weissmandl began finding codes in the Torah, his work was interrupted by WWII. (That story is told in Satinover's book, listed below, one of the best on Bible/Torah Codes, I read it many years ago, over 20 years ago). His discovery was picked up and investigated by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Harold Gans, in the 1990s, mathematicians. Words and phrases are coded in the Torah via equidistant letter sequencing, ELS. The whole future of humanity could be coded in the first 5 books of the Torah, as probabilities. Events are not usually found as an ELS code, until after the fact. Some are found before they occur. One of the most famous in the prediction of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Statistically Verifiable Torah Codes Doron Witztum, a Biblical scholar living in Jerusalem, is a world-renowned Codes researcher. When he made some astonishing discoveries, he acted in a responsible manner. He was only interested in determining whether or not his discoveries were valid. He did not mislead the public by running around claiming that he had found Codes proving a particular religious belief. Realizing that the fundamental issue one must address when finding codes is whether or not they are a coincidence, he first showed all of his research to world-class statisticians. After a few years of further research, under the scrutiny of these statisticians, he finally brought his results to the world - renowned Institute of Mathematical Statistics located in Hayward, California. The Institute publishes four different types of mathematical journals. One of them is Statistical Science. Professional scientific and mathematical journals consult with a cadre of world class experts for the purpose of insuring that an article containing a mathematical or scientific flaw is not published in their journal. Since the implications of Witztum's experiments were so controversial, validation and subsequent publication of the experiment's results would only be accomplished if all of the following requirements were met: In order to be considered valid, the probability of the codes being found at random must be based solely on the letters comprising the encoded words, and the distribution of the letters in the text, and must be totally independent of the meaning of the words or the narrative of the text in which they are found, since "meaning" is subjective. The words to be searched for must be derivable by a -priori35 specified and repeatable methods. The probability of the codes being found must be calculated by a-priori, objective, and mathematically precise methods, and must be less than 0.001 (odds of their being accidental must be less than 1 in 1000). Computation of such probability must be subjected to repeated verification, well-designed control experiments, and, most importantly, to peer-review by objective, qualified mathematicians who fail to find any error in the computations. Doron Witztum's "Famous Rabbis" experiment met all of these requirements (The "Yeshua codes" meet none of these requirements). World-class statisticians subjected his successful results to a six-year evaluation and attempted refutation. They were given the programs Witztum used to find these "Torah Codes" and to perform the required control experiments. Witztum's "Famous Rabbi's" experiment was finally published in Statistical Science in August 1994. Since its publication over two and a half years ago, world-class statisticians36 and Bible scholars have reproduced and verified these results. Doron Witztum and Harold Gans have succeeded in discovering additional statistically verifiable Codes. They are in the process of submitting them for publication in mathematical journals. Authentic Codes Methodology - "Famous Rabbis" Experiment What is the difference between the methodology used in the "FamousRabbis" experiment and what Christian missionaries are using? The methodology employed by Witztum for the "Famous Rabbis" experiment (and his more recent discoveries) relies on a fundamentally different process altogether. It is the specifics of this methodology that makes it even possible (unlike all the "Yeshua" findings) to verify that the "Famous Rabbis" Codes he found were deliberately encoded in the Torah. Although a complete and thorough explanation of the authentic Codes methodology is beyond the scope of this paper, let us briefly state how this unique system works. (More details of the methodology are published in Statistical Science, August 1994 issue). The Torah Codes were based on selecting the names of many famous rabbis and their respective dates of birth and death. The relationship between the words being searched for was, therefore, objective. To further insure total objectivity, all of the words that were searched for were extracted from an encyclopedia in a way that was specified completely beforehand. Equally spaced encodings of these words were then searched for in a pre-determined and objective way (e.g., the minimum jump). The proximity of each encoding of related words was then measured using an a-priori specified mathematical formula. When you have a very large document, and the related words could appear encoded anywhere in the document, the fact that you find them encoded in close proximity, as we have observed, cannot be reasonably attributed to chance. This can be scientifically demonstrated. The odds of finding these related words accidentally encoded in the Torah, as close as they were, were accurately computed. It is the computation of these odds that enables one to distinguish between random appearances of "codes," that are nothing more than coincidences, and Codes purposely placed into the document (when the odds against random appearance are at least 1000 to 1). In fact, the odds that were obtained for the "Famous Rabbis" experiment were far greater than this (62,500:1) and were enough to convince world class mathematicians and statisticians to agree to publish the results. The mathematical technique that was used, and the control experiments that were performed, also eliminated any possibility that the effect was caused, in some unexpected way, by the grammatical or syntactical structure of the text itself. [ emphasis sdp] Torah Codes Presentations Doron Witztum's "Famous Rabbis" experiment is presented around the world as part of public seminars produced by Aish HaTorah/Discovery, an international organization devoted to Jewish education. www.publishersweekly.com/9780688154639 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, it could just be true that the Jews are God's Chosen people. If so that's a heavy burden, in one word, maybe jealousy. Even Christians have underestimated the Jews, as it says in the NT that the Jews will be grafted back in. IOW, I wouldn't bet a nickel against Israel EVER being defeated in war. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2023 16:23:47 GMT -5
No, I am interested. I just don't see anything except a conceptual house of cards. Show me something besides theory. It isn't a "conceptual house of cards", nor a "theory"; it is my view on reality, that I live by. It is my "rubber hits the road" test. I don't differentiate between me when I discuss from my spiritual point of view, and me when I live the physical reality. Everything that attracts my attention, I intuitively interpret and fit with my views. Learning is a process of differentiation rather than accumulation of knowledge. I learn not from the experiences per se, but from my interpretations, intuitive, or with my inner guidance's help. It doesn't matter what somebody thinks, nor what he tries to convey, but what I interpret it to mean, which is a pointer to some inner knowledge, to learn or to be tested. You see, sometimes it is difficult to answer some questions because they make no sense from my perspective, and need my guess of where they're coming from, then my attempt to overcome that filter. Sometimes I reply with less hope to communicate, but more from respect toward the person who tries to understand what I say, or to learn in general. I have no interest in arguing, not in convincing, because I don't want to mislead where I might be wrong in my views. I have no problem with any of that. All I'm asking is how did you view originate. I understand your view whether you believe me, or not. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2023 16:25:47 GMT -5
You're stuck with an incorrect interpretation of reality. Nobody does anything to you. You don't do anything to anybody. The you that you experience as alive and awake is a role you're playing. You're immersed in it, hypnotized and don't realize it. What you experience is like in a dream, or like when playing a videogame. This you is the avatar, dream-character, game-character. Same with all the others, and everything. What a physical-reality avatar does and experiences isn't a reflection of its role in the physical reality, but of his inner-reality player's level of evolvement, and what results from it. Put aside everything you believe and expect, and tap your intuition, if you can't directly tap your inner source of knowledge and guidance. How do you know [what you call] your intuition isn't merely subconscious processing? Just give me a yes or a no. Have you experientially verified the most basic ~you~ that is playing the avatar? Yes. Although the formulation "experientially verified" isn't something I would use. Also, although "the most basic ~you~ that is playing the avatar" isn't right either. As I wrote to you earlier: your questions come from your perspective on reality, which is different than my perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2023 16:35:09 GMT -5
How do you know [what you call] your intuition isn't merely subconscious processing? Just give me a yes or a no. Have you experientially verified the most basic ~you~ that is playing the avatar? Yes. Although the formulation "experientially verified" isn't something I would use. Also, although "the most basic ~you~ that is playing the avatar" isn't right either. As I wrote to you earlier: your questions come from your perspective on reality, which is different than my perspective. Our view of reality doesn't change reality. It doesn't work that way. IOW, ontology always trumps epistemology. Our view of reality changes our view of reality, a window is merely a window. The two are vastly different. Call me back when you're between a rock and a hard place, or in one of laughter's double-binds. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2023 16:43:41 GMT -5
It depends on what you interpret the LOA to mean. I don't use this term as part of my view of reality, but it points to elements of it. You can interpret reality only from your perspective, level of evolvement, beliefs, expectations, emotions. What you see isn't exactly what it is, but a materialization of an inner reality, and this materialization is only yours; it isn't identical with anybody else's. There is no objective reference. At inner level you use inner senses, so the events and experiences are multi-dimensional, and are something else than what you perceive physically. Nobody dies in terms of destruction and annihilation. When you wake up, or go to sleep you just change focus; same when being born, or dying. You are immersed, hypnotized in some of these states, part by choice, part by mistake. In any state your experience is determined only by your level of evolvement, beliefs, expectations, emotions. This is what LOA actually points to; not what most people believe to be. Nothing is imposed on you, nor from the physical world, nor from the inner world. Nobody to blame, nor to forgive, nor to put on a pedestal. Maybe this analogy will clarify how I see it... Let's say someone is in a play, on stage. And in that play, they are asked to forgive, or feel imposed upon, or whatever. It's not 'real'. because they are acting. And yet a good actor will connect to the role and genuinely experience those things, even though it's not real. And that's kind of how I see the human reality. It's a play...and in a sense, it's a lie - you are right, there's nothing to forgive and no imposition. And yet, playing this human role might still engender finding forgiveness, and it being useful, from within the story. And it might engender feeling imposed upon too. We can't avoid it IF those are the themes of the play, and that is our role in the story. The "actor" analogy is less fitting than others, in my opinion. I was actually wondering if method actors who immerse in their roles by identifying with their characters, and who feel strongly their characters' emotions, bring to some degree the effect of those emotions into their off stage lives, when they don't take steps to intentionally shake them off. I believe that you have to play your role here, but consciously and as guided, and not to get taken over by the tole itself. You perceive and make choices, you respond, but applying the lessons that you learned at inner-level. You practice, and get tested. The difference may come from the fact that you believe that some come here to play negative roles on purpose, or to experience negative feelings and situations on purpose, which I don't believe to be the case. Negative emotions are meant to be interpreted and addressed, and the earlier the better, as untended negative emotions will always escalate. I don't believe in random or themed experiences that cause suffering, pain, brutality, ... |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2023 16:46:59 GMT -5
Yes. Although the formulation "experientially verified" isn't something I would use. Also, although "the most basic ~you~ that is playing the avatar" isn't right either. As I wrote to you earlier: your questions come from your perspective on reality, which is different than my perspective. Our view of reality doesn't change reality. It doesn't work that way. IOW, ontology always trumps epistemology. Our view of reality changes our view of reality, a window is merely a window. The two are vastly different. Call me back when you're between a rock and a hard place, or in one of laughter's double-binds. I have to say: your reply rubs me wrong. So, my response will be to ignore it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2023 16:55:58 GMT -5
I was actually wondering if method actors who immerse in their roles by identifying with their characters, and who feel strongly their characters' emotions, bring to some degree the effect of those emotions into their off stage lives, when they don't take steps to intentionally shake them off. People speculate that this is what happened to Heath Ledger. There are other examples, but less black-and-white, more obscure. Life is neither a school nor a video game. These conceptualizations are way too limiting for what is happening, which is far more profound, vast and certainly beyond the grasp of intellect or emotion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 11, 2023 17:08:35 GMT -5
Maybe this analogy will clarify how I see it... Let's say someone is in a play, on stage. And in that play, they are asked to forgive, or feel imposed upon, or whatever. It's not 'real'. because they are acting. And yet a good actor will connect to the role and genuinely experience those things, even though it's not real. And that's kind of how I see the human reality. It's a play...and in a sense, it's a lie - you are right, there's nothing to forgive and no imposition. And yet, playing this human role might still engender finding forgiveness, and it being useful, from within the story. And it might engender feeling imposed upon too. We can't avoid it IF those are the themes of the play, and that is our role in the story. The "actor" analogy is less fitting than others, in my opinion. I was actually wondering if method actors who immerse in their roles by identifying with their characters, and who feel strongly their characters' emotions, bring to some degree the effect of those emotions into their off stage lives, when they don't take steps to intentionally shake them off. I believe that you have to play your role here, but consciously and as guided, and not to get taken over by the tole itself. You perceive and make choices, you respond, but applying the lessons that you learned at inner-level. You practice, and get tested. The difference may come from the fact that you believe that some come here to play negative roles on purpose, or to experience negative feelings and situations on purpose, which I don't believe to be the case. Negative emotions are meant to be interpreted and addressed, and the earlier the better, as untended negative emotions will always escalate. I don't believe in random or themed experiences that cause suffering, pain, brutality, ... Yes, that sounds like it could be the difference, in a nutshell. Though I do believe that, at this time, there are unprecedented numbers of 'souls' here to learn the higher lessons that you speak of i.e conscious creation, sovereignty etc Given that, throughout human history, the vast majority have NOT learned those lessons, do you basically see it as mass ongoing failure? Why is this failure happening in your view? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2023 17:15:59 GMT -5
Our view of reality doesn't change reality. It doesn't work that way. IOW, ontology always trumps epistemology. Our view of reality changes our view of reality, a window is merely a window. The two are vastly different. Call me back when you're between a rock and a hard place, or in one of laughter's double-binds. I have to say: your reply rubs me wrong. So, my response will be to ignore it. This is an example of negative emotions which, untended, escalated. At some point, replying and not being understood started to become annoying and frustrating. I was aware of it, but I kept replying and ignoring it, from the wrong motivation of attempting to make myself understood, and why-not, to even offer a better path to another. As expected, this escalated into receiving a reply that caused a more negative emotion. So, it isn't his fault for that. It is mine. I could've avoided it (not necessarily by ignoring), but I was pressed a little by other obligations, and negligently let this follow its course. It wasn't random; it wasn't inflicted on me; it wasn't an intended experience, nor a planned one. But, it is a refresh lesson, and I'll take this from it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 11, 2023 17:17:46 GMT -5
Our view of reality doesn't change reality. It doesn't work that way. IOW, ontology always trumps epistemology. Our view of reality changes our view of reality, a window is merely a window. The two are vastly different. Call me back when you're between a rock and a hard place, or in one of laughter's double-binds. 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...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. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2023 17:23:09 GMT -5
So, my response will be to ignore it.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2023 19:21:20 GMT -5
The "actor" analogy is less fitting than others, in my opinion. I was actually wondering if method actors who immerse in their roles by identifying with their characters, and who feel strongly their characters' emotions, bring to some degree the effect of those emotions into their off stage lives, when they don't take steps to intentionally shake them off. I believe that you have to play your role here, but consciously and as guided, and not to get taken over by the tole itself. You perceive and make choices, you respond, but applying the lessons that you learned at inner-level. You practice, and get tested. The difference may come from the fact that you believe that some come here to play negative roles on purpose, or to experience negative feelings and situations on purpose, which I don't believe to be the case. Negative emotions are meant to be interpreted and addressed, and the earlier the better, as untended negative emotions will always escalate. I don't believe in random or themed experiences that cause suffering, pain, brutality, ... Yes, that sounds like it could be the difference, in a nutshell. Though I do believe that, at this time, there are unprecedented numbers of 'souls' here to learn the higher lessons that you speak of i.e conscious creation, sovereignty etc Given that, throughout human history, the vast majority have NOT learned those lessons, do you basically see it as mass ongoing failure? Why is this failure happening in your view? I see this as only one of the endless versions of physical reality that continuously unfold, with about the same avatars, but different players. Not all the current players of this version experienced the same past, not all of them experience exactly the same present, not all of them will experience the same future. There is no unique history, no unique present, no unique future. |
|
