|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 18, 2024 2:41:00 GMT -5
Ultimately everything moves as one. No doubt. If there is only one movement and no individuals then how is it that there are a multitude of different attractions playing out? All of them are aspects of one Infinite. That's why we attract people according to our belief because we are all one. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 18, 2024 6:15:48 GMT -5
In weight lifting we appreciate the benefit of psychology but it's more involved than you think. I can't remember the actual theories all that well, but the most important psychology is something like fortitude, basically confidence, grit and determination closely followed by focus and awareness. A lifter has a pre-lift ritual to habitualise the 'right' mind-state. When a lifter comes on stage, he/she will do it the same way every time, step up the same, chalk hands the same way, stride to center the same, aproach the bar the same, do a tribal yell or something, and the set up to grip that bar is always the same. Body building not so much because it's not a performance sport. It's getting in shape for a beauty show. But lifting sports like olympic lifting and power lifting are like religious practices. Moving the weight as efficiently as possible in training repeat repeat repeat until it's the same thing every time - just keep dialing it in. There's more, but enough psychological aspects on various levels already to illustrate the thing. 'Visualsation', 'talking your self up' are also important psychological strategies, but not the most important, and they usually comes naturally. When it's a part of your life you visualise the routine at least twice a day and between every lift, but sometimes specific visual and or vocal strategies are used. For example, Eddie Hall who holds the deadlift record (competition lift) of 500 kilos went full cooked with psychology including hypnosis while training for his successful attempt. Not a replacement for physical training by any means, but psychology is a big part of his game.
I have leg training tomorrow, so I have to sleep, and being rested is also good psychology, so you can try to say 'belief alone' but people who don't actually train are the people who don't place at the meets, and everyone placing at a meet knows how big the full picture really is.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 18, 2024 7:56:48 GMT -5
If there is only one movement and no individuals then how is it that there are a multitude of different attractions playing out? All of them are aspects of one Infinite. That's why we attract people according to our belief because we are all one. I am a little lost based upon what you don't say and then what you do end up saying at times. You avoid commenting / referring to there being an individual that isn't separate from what everything is on a fundamental level, but then speak about the individual level on another thread. So do you concur that the 'aspect' of the the one (using your terms) can be referred to as an individual that isn't separate from everything that is? Cos that's all I was saying all along. Do you see a difference between an aspect of all there is and an individual that isn't separate from all there is? You see all this movement as one, again using your terms can encompass individuality. This is also why LOA works in relation to each individual and not 'One' amongst other things like karma, transcendence, realisations etc. Another thing is where you speak about not being able to control the natural laws whist being an advocate of creating the moon by perceiving it. How does that work? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 18, 2024 8:12:34 GMT -5
It takes an extremely rare individual to be congruent in a belief that goes against the way that things overwhelmingly seem to be. I actually basically agree with Reefs, and I hold some strange and unusual beliefs, but I also acknowledge that I'm not fully congruent with them, and I honor that lack of congruence. I don't tend to do stupid sh/t because I acknowledge where I'm 'at' within my own mind. Also, just to note (which Reefs probably did)....let's say I hold a joyful vision of myself as super-healthy. The unfolding path might then have me lifting weights, doing cardio and changing my diet! In this sense, what you and Reefs are saying isn't mutually exclusive. Reefs is basically just saying it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Like those rare cases that people go against doctor's expectations of dying from a 'terminal' illnesses, by doing something unusual. Sure, I have no doubt about the power of belief, but there's also just facts, and when everyone believed the solar system was geocentric, it didn't make it so. The planets were going round the sun the whole time and everyone was wrong. I just say, if you want more muscle mass, if you eat in a certain way and do sufficient volumes of resistance training - that will work every time regardless of who doubts it. Belief will be important with the confident 'I can' or 'it's possible' attitude, but it's not actually necessary, so if there's a ton of doubt, that won't make any difference if you maintain the diet and exercise volume. Since it works for everyone, we say 'that's how it works'. It's not a 'mass belief'. We just looked and found out how it works, same as we looked at the planets and found out they all go round the sun. Not that this undermines the power of belief. It just says you can belief things and turn out to be wrong - and that happens all the time. Without a doubt if you eat the right foods and do certain exercises there would be certain results had every time. Everything has a signature in this reality that contains a certain quality for use of a better word. Putting certain beliefs aside for a minute, the trees in the forest will grow under certain conditions butt if a lightning bolt sets fire to it and burns it to the ground then the tree will no longer grow despite what anyone believes. However, it doesn't mean that beliefs can't move mountains but how many muscle men who are bursting at the seams eat junk food all day long and never exercise do peeps know? I don't know of any. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 18, 2024 9:10:31 GMT -5
All of them are aspects of one Infinite. That's why we attract people according to our belief because we are all one. I am a little lost based upon what you don't say and then what you do end up saying at times. You avoid commenting / referring to there being an individual that isn't separate from what everything is on a fundamental level, but then speak about the individual level on another thread. So do you concur that the 'aspect' of the the one (using your terms) can be referred to as an individual that isn't separate from everything that is? Cos that's all I was saying all along. Do you see a difference between an aspect of all there is and an individual that isn't separate from all there is? You see all this movement as one, again using your terms can encompass individuality. This is also why LOA works in relation to each individual and not 'One' amongst other things like karma, transcendence, realisations etc. Another thing is where you speak about not being able to control the natural laws whist being an advocate of creating the moon by perceiving it. How does that work? One single consciousness exists, and it is experiencing itself from all viewpoints, Understood? |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 18, 2024 10:36:27 GMT -5
It takes an extremely rare individual to be congruent in a belief that goes against the way that things overwhelmingly seem to be. I actually basically agree with Reefs, and I hold some strange and unusual beliefs, but I also acknowledge that I'm not fully congruent with them, and I honor that lack of congruence. I don't tend to do stupid sh/t because I acknowledge where I'm 'at' within my own mind. Also, just to note (which Reefs probably did)....let's say I hold a joyful vision of myself as super-healthy. The unfolding path might then have me lifting weights, doing cardio and changing my diet! In this sense, what you and Reefs are saying isn't mutually exclusive. Reefs is basically just saying it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Like those rare cases that people go against doctor's expectations of dying from a 'terminal' illnesses, by doing something unusual. Correct. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand. This is spirituality 101 after all, and absolute beginner level. And those instances of healing you mention are also well documented, even by doctors (see Moorjani). I'm reading an interesting book right now, The Body Electric, it's basically about how healing works, and specifically about how salamanders regrow limbs. There was one case where a salamander fully regrew one limb several times in just three months, I think. That sounds fantastical at first, but once you understand the forces at work and how they work, nothing fantastical about it, especially if you use scientific terms instead of spiritual terms, e.g. replace 'life force' by 'voltage'. So as with Patanjali, this is not make-belief, it can actually be explained scientifically. Unfortunately, as with the previous karma discussion, it doesn't seem Lolly actually understands the argument, not to mention the constant logical errors in his argumentation. It's potentially an interesting discussion, but under such circumstances a total waste of time, I'm afraid. It's cool that some salamanders regrow limbs, but it's also worth noting that we don't observe that in more complex species like mammals. That includes dogs, cats, deer - not just humans with their "limiting beliefs". Different species, different bodies, different traits. It doesn't matter how spiritual someone thinks they are, they don't shoot rope out their ass and hang from it, like a spider. They don't dive to 2500 meters with a sperm whale. You're flirting (or more) with something that is common in New Age circles - like Deepak Chopra with his "quantum healing" for example. They use a few science terms, but skip the essential part, which is the detail and logical connections that make it rigorous. I know this is not a physics or biology forum, but this trick is used by some believers, in a vain attempt to elevate their beliefs to the same level of science. Simply saying "voltage" and hand waving about salamanders is not the same as "explained scientifically". Not even close. If your point is simply, hey, we don't know everything, keep an open mind — well, then sure, I think many would agree. But then that position doesn't justify the aggressive attempt to push these mere beliefs, or act like you've "proven" them. That suggests an attachment to fake "explanations" which comfort the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2024 14:20:58 GMT -5
Are you familiar with Richard Bach? So the conclusion would seem to be what I referred to as synchronicity relates to what Esther calls deliberate creation by the non-deliberate nature of the attractions. "Synchronicities" happen unconsciously, in Tolle-speak. The metaphor of a human body/mind as a lens or an antenna comes to mind here. We could say that various forms are attuned to various vibes. The form of a domesticated dog is attuned to scents and human emotions. The form of a squirrel is attuned to trees and chewing. Some human beings are attuned to various unusual states of consciousness. Certain people might be more finely attuned to a CC or NS, for example. Others, less so. So, I can try to bridge your and lolz positions by saying that the explanation for why most people don't usually manifest low BMI and defined muscle growth on the couch is that these manifestations are out of tune (out of alignment) with individuals who are attuned to sedentary inaction + high calorie intake. It's not like the vibes and the manifestations aren't related to one another, after all. No, I'm not familiar with Richard Bach. The conclusion (at least for me) is that we usually are unaware of the whole creation process, i.e. how our state of being attracts the circumstances, people and events that we call our experience or our life. But when we suddenly notice it, we call it magical or synchronicity, but in reality this is just the normal functioning, the process of creation, be it personal or impersonal. And the only requirement for your desires to manifest is to be a vibrational match to your desires. That's it. This is how 'miraculous' healings and recoveries work (see Anita Moorjani's story that ZD mentioned). So in order to have that kind of body that you want you just have to hold that image and it will be. How long that takes, depends solely on your ability to focus purely (see Abe's 17 seconds rule). This is where the Patanjali connection is. So, in theory, it's really simple. However, simple doesn't mean easy, as Inavalan already mentioned, because you can only manifest within the confines of your own beliefs which are the framework of your reality. So if you believe, like Lolly, that you have to exercise a lot and only eat the right things in order to get to that body shape that you want, then that's what you have to do. Your beliefs don't allow you any different route. Now, the challenge here is that false, hindering beliefs that slow you down or flat-out declare such ways of manifesting impossible are constantly reinforced onto us by our environment. So if you are someone who is realistic, rational and factual, you are doomed to failure because the limits of the consensus trance beliefs will also be your own limits. But once there is one who goes beyond that, everyone suddenly can do that too. A good example is the "10-second barrier", i.e. 100m sprint below 10 seconds. It was to be thought impossible for a long time, then someone broke that barrier, and suddenly it became normal. And so, what Abe and Patanjali and Yogananda see as normal, from the consensus trance perspective seems miraculous or fantastic. But once you understand how LOA works and alignment, it will seem perfectly rational and even predictable. Now, here's a bit of a twist: Action in alignment is fun, action in misalignment is not. And as Abe always say, we didn't come here to create thru action, we came here to create thru thought, the action was only intended as a way for us to enjoy what we've created thru thought. So while you could teleport yourself from NYC to LA in an instant, taking the the long road trip can be so much more fun! Similarly, lifting weights and doing pushups can also be fun. Even being dead tired after a workout can be very satisfying. It's a way of enjoying the physical realm, in the most physical way, thru our body, directly. And here's another twist: The old computer games usually had a cheat code, that gave you unlimited lives, time and power etc. So when you entered that code, the default rules of the game suddenly didn't apply to you anymore and you could just run thru that game in 1/10 of the usual time with zero challenges or risks. Now, how often would you actually do that? Maybe once or twice and you'd be bored. So that would be missing the point of the game, right? Now, given what Patanjali and Abe tell us, we could do basically the same. But why should we? Why would we? What would be the point, right? If you know who you are, there's no need for that. But if you don't know who you are, you may feel the need for that. Here's a quote from RM: I understand folks objections to these ideas. On the flip side, there's quite a bit going on with that notion . Seth's ideas - as an example - are complex, but so is science. Perhaps I should read all the material before I question whether or not Seth's idea of incarnation implies a re-creation of the source of perception in each instance of it. I'll leave the current debate about the role of belief in manifestation on a tenkautology .. whatever is possible, is whatever is possible.  Now, I know that your interest here is practical. There's a good chance I'll follow up with your suggested reading, thanks again. But like I said, my contribution to that debate is limited as stated. Beyond that, in the abstract, Andy, as an example, explores various ideas about creation-by-belief, but to me it seems like trying to architect with the wrong set of tools. Trying to make sense and blue-print the outlines of a mystery. At the root of it I perceive an unanswerable and ultimately misconceived question: "is reality subjective, or objective?". I know how I would give the long answer to that one, accounting for creation. For example, Spira makes some good points here, but he makes that suggestion - which I find a form of solipsism - that reality is subjective, rather than objective. He calls out the fallacy of an objective reality, but he doesn't stop there, planting the seeds of what might just turn into yet another fallacy. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2024 16:02:39 GMT -5
FYI: Not really. Although it doesn't matter for this discussion.  EDIT: linkCentre of mass is a good example of something that exists, yet has no substance. And the topic of orbits is another example of what you were referring to, because Copernicus couldn't see beyond the Solar system with the tech he had. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Feb 18, 2024 17:33:36 GMT -5
Correct. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand. This is spirituality 101 after all, and absolute beginner level. And those instances of healing you mention are also well documented, even by doctors (see Moorjani). I'm reading an interesting book right now, The Body Electric, it's basically about how healing works, and specifically about how salamanders regrow limbs. There was one case where a salamander fully regrew one limb several times in just three months, I think. That sounds fantastical at first, but once you understand the forces at work and how they work, nothing fantastical about it, especially if you use scientific terms instead of spiritual terms, e.g. replace 'life force' by 'voltage'. So as with Patanjali, this is not make-belief, it can actually be explained scientifically. Unfortunately, as with the previous karma discussion, it doesn't seem Lolly actually understands the argument, not to mention the constant logical errors in his argumentation. It's potentially an interesting discussion, but under such circumstances a total waste of time, I'm afraid. It's cool that some salamanders regrow limbs, but it's also worth noting that we don't observe that in more complex species like mammals. That includes dogs, cats, deer - not just humans with their "limiting beliefs". Different species, different bodies, different traits. It doesn't matter how spiritual someone thinks they are, they don't shoot rope out their ass and hang from it, like a spider. They don't dive to 2500 meters with a sperm whale. You're flirting (or more) with something that is common in New Age circles - like Deepak Chopra with his "quantum healing" for example. They use a few science terms, but skip the essential part, which is the detail and logical connections that make it rigorous. I know this is not a physics or biology forum, but this trick is used by some believers, in a vain attempt to elevate their beliefs to the same level of science. Simply saying "voltage" and hand waving about salamanders is not the same as "explained scientifically". Not even close. If your point is simply, hey, we don't know everything, keep an open mind — well, then sure, I think many would agree. But then that position doesn't justify the aggressive attempt to push these mere beliefs, or act like you've "proven" them. That suggests an attachment to fake "explanations" which comfort the mind. Deers regrow their antlers as shown in Number 2 of this list.. www.thecoldwire.com/animals-that-can-regrow-limbs/ |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2024 20:56:23 GMT -5
Effects of Mental Imagery on Muscular Strength in Healthy and Patient Participants: A Systematic ReviewlinkJ Sports Sci Med. 2016 Sep; 15(3): 434–450. Published online 2016 Aug 5. From the abstract: - ... Overall, the results reveal that the combination of mental imagery and physical practice is more efficient than, or at least comparable to, physical execution with respect to strength performance. Imagery prevention intervention was also effective in reducing of strength loss after short-term muscle immobilization and ACL. The present review also indicates advantageous effects of internal imagery (range from 2.6 to 136.3%) for strength performance compared with external imagery (range from 4.8 to 23.2%). Typically, mental imagery with muscular activity was higher in active than passive muscles, and imagining “lifting a heavy object” resulted in more EMG activity compared with imagining “lifting a lighter object”. Thus, in samples of students, novices, or youth male and female athletes, internal mental imagery has a greater effect on muscle strength than external mental imagery does. Imagery ability, motivation, and self-efficacy have been shown to be the variables mediating the effect of mental imagery on strength performance. ...
This is well researched, actually. As the study suggests, how far it can be taken, depends on your ability to purely work with imagery, which is a skill that can be developed, of course. And that's not different from what Patanjali says. Another interesting story comes from Oliver Sachs' book, I think, about multiple personalities, where one individual had several different personas that all had different tastes and also different allergies. So depending on what persona was dominant in the moment, that individual was allergic to peanuts or not, for example. All the same body, but operated by a different individual intelligence, and therefore totally different results. And then, of course, there are always these stories of people in a state of emergency or under hypnosis who suddenly have physical powers that go far beyond what physics would deem possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2024 20:59:40 GMT -5
In weight lifting we appreciate the benefit of psychology but it's more involved than you think. I can't remember the actual theories all that well, but the most important psychology is something like fortitude, basically confidence, grit and determination closely followed by focus and awareness. A lifter has a pre-lift ritual to habitualise the 'right' mind-state. When a lifter comes on stage, he/she will do it the same way every time, step up the same, chalk hands the same way, stride to center the same, aproach the bar the same, do a tribal yell or something, and the set up to grip that bar is always the same. Body building not so much because it's not a performance sport. It's getting in shape for a beauty show. But lifting sports like olympic lifting and power lifting are like religious practices. Moving the weight as efficiently as possible in training repeat repeat repeat until it's the same thing every time - just keep dialing it in. There's more, but enough psychological aspects on various levels already to illustrate the thing. 'Visualsation', 'talking your self up' are also important psychological strategies, but not the most important, and they usually comes naturally. When it's a part of your life you visualise the routine at least twice a day and between every lift, but sometimes specific visual and or vocal strategies are used. For example, Eddie Hall who holds the deadlift record (competition lift) of 500 kilos went full cooked with psychology including hypnosis while training for his successful attempt. Not a replacement for physical training by any means, but psychology is a big part of his game.
I have leg training tomorrow, so I have to sleep, and being rested is also good psychology, so you can try to say 'belief alone' but people who don't actually train are the people who don't place at the meets, and everyone placing at a meet knows how big the full picture really is.
Just to clarify, are you saying that Patanjali and the yoga tradition are bogus? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2024 21:03:52 GMT -5
All of them are aspects of one Infinite. That's why we attract people according to our belief because we are all one. I am a little lost based upon what you don't say and then what you do end up saying at times. You avoid commenting / referring to there being an individual that isn't separate from what everything is on a fundamental level, but then speak about the individual level on another thread. So do you concur that the 'aspect' of the the one (using your terms) can be referred to as an individual that isn't separate from everything that is? Cos that's all I was saying all along. Do you see a difference between an aspect of all there is and an individual that isn't separate from all there is? You see all this movement as one, again using your terms can encompass individuality. This is also why LOA works in relation to each individual and not 'One' amongst other things like karma, transcendence, realisations etc. Another thing is where you speak about not being able to control the natural laws whist being an advocate of creating the moon by perceiving it. How does that work? Yes, he mixes some mutually exclusive statements together. My guess is that's because he has no actual reference for anything beyond 'separation' and 'individual'. After all he got most of that from Enigma. And even Enigma had some logical errors in his ontology. So what Gopal means by 'everything moves as one' is likely interconnectedness, but that's not oneness or no separation. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2024 21:24:02 GMT -5
Sure, I have no doubt about the power of belief, but there's also just facts, and when everyone believed the solar system was geocentric, it didn't make it so. The planets were going round the sun the whole time and everyone was wrong. I just say, if you want more muscle mass, if you eat in a certain way and do sufficient volumes of resistance training - that will work every time regardless of who doubts it. Belief will be important with the confident 'I can' or 'it's possible' attitude, but it's not actually necessary, so if there's a ton of doubt, that won't make any difference if you maintain the diet and exercise volume. Since it works for everyone, we say 'that's how it works'. It's not a 'mass belief'. We just looked and found out how it works, same as we looked at the planets and found out they all go round the sun. Not that this undermines the power of belief. It just says you can belief things and turn out to be wrong - and that happens all the time. Without a doubt if you eat the right foods and do certain exercises there would be certain results had every time. Everything has a signature in this reality that contains a certain quality for use of a better word. Putting certain beliefs aside for a minute, the trees in the forest will grow under certain conditions butt if a lightning bolt sets fire to it and burns it to the ground then the tree will no longer grow despite what anyone believes. However, it doesn't mean that beliefs can't move mountains but how many muscle men who are bursting at the seams eat junk food all day long and never exercise do peeps know? I don't know of any. Yes, eating the right foods does contribute to health, however, it's the chemical level, and that's the lowest level in terms of effectiveness. There are other factors, like intention, mood and state of being which usually get ignored because it's difficult to qualify, quantify and analyze them in scientifically satisfying terms. Nevertheless, those other factors are of a much higher order in terms of effectiveness and therefore have a lot more influence on health. And without considering these factors you cannot explain why some people who eat all the right food and do all the right exercises still get cancer and why some people who do the exact opposite remain healthy. As the basic rules of deliberate creation state, your actions don't matter much, what matters is your state of being while you perform those actions. Eating only healthy foods but from a state of fear of cancer will still get you cancer in the end (see Moorjani's story). Your mood and state of being is way more powerful, it can override everything, even those seeming 'laws' of physics, chemistry and biology (again, see Moorjani's story). So while food and exercise are factors to consider, they are not the main factor, or the only factor as some want us to believe. Butt... you have to somewhat radically depart from the default collective belief system in order to pull that off. And you can't talk to normies about that, not even to spiritually oriented people as we've seen here, because they will make you doubt with their realism and what-is-itis. So I'd say it's not by accident that the Patanjali yogis go into the forest or into the mountains to practice, so that these false belief systems that usually surround one in the company of others, are eliminated. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2024 21:36:18 GMT -5
No, I'm not familiar with Richard Bach. The conclusion (at least for me) is that we usually are unaware of the whole creation process, i.e. how our state of being attracts the circumstances, people and events that we call our experience or our life. But when we suddenly notice it, we call it magical or synchronicity, but in reality this is just the normal functioning, the process of creation, be it personal or impersonal. And the only requirement for your desires to manifest is to be a vibrational match to your desires. That's it. This is how 'miraculous' healings and recoveries work (see Anita Moorjani's story that ZD mentioned). So in order to have that kind of body that you want you just have to hold that image and it will be. How long that takes, depends solely on your ability to focus purely (see Abe's 17 seconds rule). This is where the Patanjali connection is. So, in theory, it's really simple. However, simple doesn't mean easy, as Inavalan already mentioned, because you can only manifest within the confines of your own beliefs which are the framework of your reality. So if you believe, like Lolly, that you have to exercise a lot and only eat the right things in order to get to that body shape that you want, then that's what you have to do. Your beliefs don't allow you any different route. Now, the challenge here is that false, hindering beliefs that slow you down or flat-out declare such ways of manifesting impossible are constantly reinforced onto us by our environment. So if you are someone who is realistic, rational and factual, you are doomed to failure because the limits of the consensus trance beliefs will also be your own limits. But once there is one who goes beyond that, everyone suddenly can do that too. A good example is the "10-second barrier", i.e. 100m sprint below 10 seconds. It was to be thought impossible for a long time, then someone broke that barrier, and suddenly it became normal. And so, what Abe and Patanjali and Yogananda see as normal, from the consensus trance perspective seems miraculous or fantastic. But once you understand how LOA works and alignment, it will seem perfectly rational and even predictable. Now, here's a bit of a twist: Action in alignment is fun, action in misalignment is not. And as Abe always say, we didn't come here to create thru action, we came here to create thru thought, the action was only intended as a way for us to enjoy what we've created thru thought. So while you could teleport yourself from NYC to LA in an instant, taking the the long road trip can be so much more fun! Similarly, lifting weights and doing pushups can also be fun. Even being dead tired after a workout can be very satisfying. It's a way of enjoying the physical realm, in the most physical way, thru our body, directly. And here's another twist: The old computer games usually had a cheat code, that gave you unlimited lives, time and power etc. So when you entered that code, the default rules of the game suddenly didn't apply to you anymore and you could just run thru that game in 1/10 of the usual time with zero challenges or risks. Now, how often would you actually do that? Maybe once or twice and you'd be bored. So that would be missing the point of the game, right? Now, given what Patanjali and Abe tell us, we could do basically the same. But why should we? Why would we? What would be the point, right? If you know who you are, there's no need for that. But if you don't know who you are, you may feel the need for that. Here's a quote from RM: I understand folks objections to these ideas. On the flip side, there's quite a bit going on with that notion . Seth's ideas - as an example - are complex, but so is science. Perhaps I should read all the material before I question whether or not Seth's idea of incarnation implies a re-creation of the source of perception in each instance of it. I'll leave the current debate about the role of belief in manifestation on a tenkautology .. whatever is possible, is whatever is possible. Now, I know that your interest here is practical. There's a good chance I'll follow up with your suggested reading, thanks again. But like I said, my contribution to that debate is limited as stated. Beyond that, in the abstract, Andy, as an example, explores various ideas about creation-by-belief, but to me it seems like trying to architect with the wrong set of tools. Trying to make sense and blue-print the outlines of a mystery. At the root of it I perceive an unanswerable and ultimately misconceived question: "is reality subjective, or objective?". I know how I would give the long answer to that one, accounting for creation. For example, Spira makes some good points here, but he makes that suggestion - which I find a form of solipsism - that reality is subjective, rather than objective. He calls out the fallacy of an objective reality, but he doesn't stop there, planting the seeds of what might just turn into yet another fallacy. Seth is actually pretty close to the QM model of reality. And this is the point I wanted to make with the salamander story, that contemporary science and yogic science are not that far apart actually, you just need the right bridge, as in the case of QM bridging contemporary physics and spirituality and religion in some way. If you look at what I say about health and healing from the extensions of Source perspective, it should all makes sense. I'll post some details from the Moorjani cancer case later, she let doctors document it. It will be a good example for what I am getting at. Spira is a bit too theoretical. He seems to talk himself into realizations that he apparently never had. A bit like Figgles. On the surface, really beautiful and elegant oneness and emptiness poetry. But if you take a closer look, you'll see it's all just theory. His other video against solipsism, for example, is basically him positioning himself as a solipsist, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2024 21:44:16 GMT -5
It's cool that some salamanders regrow limbs, but it's also worth noting that we don't observe that in more complex species like mammals. That includes dogs, cats, deer - not just humans with their "limiting beliefs". Different species, different bodies, different traits. It doesn't matter how spiritual someone thinks they are, they don't shoot rope out their ass and hang from it, like a spider. They don't dive to 2500 meters with a sperm whale. You're flirting (or more) with something that is common in New Age circles - like Deepak Chopra with his "quantum healing" for example. They use a few science terms, but skip the essential part, which is the detail and logical connections that make it rigorous. I know this is not a physics or biology forum, but this trick is used by some believers, in a vain attempt to elevate their beliefs to the same level of science. Simply saying "voltage" and hand waving about salamanders is not the same as "explained scientifically". Not even close. If your point is simply, hey, we don't know everything, keep an open mind — well, then sure, I think many would agree. But then that position doesn't justify the aggressive attempt to push these mere beliefs, or act like you've "proven" them. That suggests an attachment to fake "explanations" which comfort the mind. Deers regrow their antlers as shown in Number 2 of this list.. www.thecoldwire.com/animals-that-can-regrow-limbs/There is a well documented case by Dr. Morse with week by week pictures of someone who regrew a toe. There are also lots of cases of people who remineralized their teeth, i.e. fillings falling out and being replaced naturally. And also some cases of actually regrowing missing teeth. Now, of course, 'they' didn't do that, only nature can heal. |
|
