|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 2, 2024 2:55:06 GMT -5
You can't trust people that want something from you unless they are upfront about it. Yes. And some people aren't even aware of what they want as they interact with you. I just assume it's sexual  . (Though, that might just be my vanity and have nothing to do with my smouldering good looks). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2024 3:44:27 GMT -5
Yes. And some people aren't even aware of what they want as they interact with you. I just assume it's sexual . (Though, that might just be my vanity and have nothing to do with my smouldering good looks). .. (** takes two sideways steps away from lolz **) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2024 16:09:34 GMT -5
Speaking from experience, the materialist assumption is embedded pretty deep. Even when it's being questioned, consciously, it's still influential on the overall perspective. The story I tell about debating E' on freewill a year after the bottom dropping out of "I" is a related example. During that time, I knew in my bones there was no intellectual explanation, but still, the existential questions would recur, centered around the interpretation of QM. I would respectfully disagree with the conclusion that noting the charlatans and the alternative rational explanations is a straw man. Below is a quote from the book Anything Can Be Healed by Martin Brofman. It basically describes deliberate creation from a healer's perspective. @ Inavalan: I think you are going to like this, it should be pretty close to your own model of reality @ Robert: This is basically what I have been trying to convey in our other conversations. MB presents it in a very logical, easy to understand way. Let me know if that makes some sense to you. @ Lolly: This speaks also to the point I made some time ago that in terms of health, diet or the chemical level is the lowest and least effective level of engagement. Here's the quote: Notice how a quiet mind, a mediator's mind, never would have created the reality of shouting at the farmer in delusion. From direct experience, I can say that the formula of ( quiescent mind ) + ( not knowing ) leads to some of the most delightful and innocent synchronicity. The less likely the coincidence, the more convincing such an occurrence becomes. The not-knowing, has to be what I suspect for most people, of a heightened intensity. It was for me. The dream/dreamer metaphor relates quite precisely to the writer's observations about people's varying mind-based interpretations of events. LOA, if considered in the impersonal, nondual context, is what it is. There's no topping ZD's pointing to "THIS", so I'm not going to try, nor is it necessary to repeat it on this forum where anyone can read it. But notice that the writer here doesn't write from that context. An information bubble is a duality, defining a boundary. The model implies an objective, base reality. There's no way to state that reality is subjective without doing that. This is the nature of duality. The following pointing, with one exception, is not for intellect to ponder: reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. The question of causality is the existential question. One particular form of it. To say that the primary cause of what we experience is our beliefs is ultimately just as flawed as to say that the cause is the laws of Physics, or to say that the primary cause is a personified version of the "God" concept. Insight demands a complete renunciation of any such place for mind to rest. "Afterwards", of course, life goes on.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 2, 2024 18:27:18 GMT -5
Notice how a quiet mind, a mediator's mind, never would have created the reality of shouting at the farmer in delusion. From direct experience, I can say that the formula of ( quiescent mind ) + ( not knowing ) leads to some of the most delightful and innocent synchronicity. The less likely the coincidence, the more convincing such an occurrence becomes. The not-knowing, has to be what I suspect for most people, of a heightened intensity. It was for me. The dream/dreamer metaphor relates quite precisely to the writer's observations about people's varying mind-based interpretations of events. LOA, if considered in the impersonal, nondual context, is what it is. There's no topping ZD's pointing to "THIS", so I'm not going to try, nor is it necessary to repeat it on this forum where anyone can read it. But notice that the writer here doesn't write from that context. An information bubble is a duality, defining a boundary. The model implies an objective, base reality. There's no way to state that reality is subjective without doing that. This is the nature of duality. The following pointing, with one exception, is not for intellect to ponder: reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. The question of causality is the existential question. One particular form of it. To say that the primary cause of what we experience is our beliefs is ultimately just as flawed as to say that the cause is the laws of Physics, or to say that the primary cause is a personified version of the "God" concept. Insight demands a complete renunciation of any such place for mind to rest. "Afterwards", of course, life goes on. It seems, to me, that when you mused about reef's post and wrote your reply, you didn't use your formula. Obviously you think "you know", and your mind wasn't "quiescent" either; you recall, rationalize, reason, and make assertions you're sure of. I see a contradiction between what you claim and what you do. This is an observation that I'm sure you disagree with, so, from my part, it isn't a beginning of an argument. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2024 21:02:13 GMT -5
Notice how a quiet mind, a mediator's mind, never would have created the reality of shouting at the farmer in delusion. From direct experience, I can say that the formula of ( quiescent mind ) + ( not knowing ) leads to some of the most delightful and innocent synchronicity. The less likely the coincidence, the more convincing such an occurrence becomes. The not-knowing, has to be what I suspect for most people, of a heightened intensity. It was for me. The dream/dreamer metaphor relates quite precisely to the writer's observations about people's varying mind-based interpretations of events. LOA, if considered in the impersonal, nondual context, is what it is. There's no topping ZD's pointing to "THIS", so I'm not going to try, nor is it necessary to repeat it on this forum where anyone can read it. But notice that the writer here doesn't write from that context. An information bubble is a duality, defining a boundary. The model implies an objective, base reality. There's no way to state that reality is subjective without doing that. This is the nature of duality. The following pointing, with one exception, is not for intellect to ponder: reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. The question of causality is the existential question. One particular form of it. To say that the primary cause of what we experience is our beliefs is ultimately just as flawed as to say that the cause is the laws of Physics, or to say that the primary cause is a personified version of the "God" concept. Insight demands a complete renunciation of any such place for mind to rest. "Afterwards", of course, life goes on. It seems, to me, that when you mused about reef's post and wrote your reply, you didn't use your formula. Obviously you think "you know", and your mind wasn't "quiescent" either; you recall, rationalize, reason, and make assertions you're sure of. I see a contradiction between what you claim and what you do. This is an observation that I'm sure you disagree with, so, from my part, it isn't a beginning of an argument. The not-knowing described is a facet of existential seeking. It can come to an end. "what comes after", can only be pointed to, but is not any sort of relative, material. knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 6, 2024 23:39:23 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. That's very interesting. The way I see it, if something unusual happens, then the science must expand to explain it. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it will be unexplainable after the event. The power of 'mind' (in the broadest sense) is infinite, and while the 'individual mind' is necessarily limited so that we can have a finite experience, I'm sure...as humans... we haven't gotten anywhere close to maximizing our mind-potential. It doesn't even seem to me that there's much in the way of resources put into investigating the idea of 'placebo/nocebo', which I find very odd really. Here's a presentation from the author of the Healing Is Voltage book I've mentioned. This model of the physical body, i.e. the body seen in a electrical/bio-physical context also explains why EFT works: Now, notice that he is still very much set in the allopathic approach and so this also has its limits. So what he offers seems like a bridge in some way, because in the end, especially in the Patanjali/Moorjani context, it essentially comes down to this: Back to the manufacturer!  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 7, 2024 3:07:23 GMT -5
I look at the health, healing, placebo from the perspective of the physical body being the materialization of a gestalt of consciousness. The health of the body is a reflection of the gestalt's health.
Its organs and cells are materializations of the gestalt's elements, with their individual free will, and their condition is individually determined by the condition of the corresponding gestalt-element.
The elements of the gestalt that don't resonate with the state of the gestalt leave it, and other elements that resonate join that gestalt.
As everything is connected, the elements of one gestalt are connected with the elements of all the other gestalts, potentially being influenced more by the elements in closer focus proximity.
The health, healing, placebo observed at body / gestalt level are largely independent of those observed at cell and organ / gestalt-element level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 8, 2024 9:16:57 GMT -5
If you think in terms of game theory, each game comes with a certain set of rules that are accepted the moment you enter the game. And if those rules are cleverly designed, the game becomes fun or even addictive. Overriding the rules of the game or ignoring them altogether would essentially go against the purpose for playing the game in the first place. So while on the one hand, self-imposed limitation can take the fun out of life, on the other, if seen from the right perspective, they can actually put more fun into your life. Let's say you have some errands to run, the usually lap, e.g. stop at the bakery, the supermarket and then at the bank. Now you could approach it from a perspective of drudgery and drag yourself thru your day that way, or you could gamify your day by breaking new records in terms of lap times. What's interesting about the doctrine of signatures though is that it is not an "A causes B" thing, but more a "A goes with B" thing. For example, in astrology, pessimism does not cause sternness, a deadpan sense of humor or a strict work ethic, it's rather that pessimism, sternness, deadpan humor and a strict work ethic all go together because they all belong to the signature of Saturn. In deliberate creation terms it would be a certain level of vibration. This is why the same action does not always lead to the same result, but why the same level of vibration or state of being always leads to the same experience, regardless of circumstances or the action taken. Peeps give analogies of the game or the dream and it just sets a theme that doesn't work for me in real life. Life is life and if you walk in front of an oncoming bus you're not going to continue living life in this reality. No dream or game stuff is necessary, butt I understand your analogy. In regards to the same action doesn't always lead to the same result it depends on many things, and this is why I said that left untainted certain actions will create the same results time and time again.
I have said it before that Self realisation is a science. I remember my mum speaking about a book called the science of self realisation years ago and that is because it is a process. A process that works time and time again despite peeps who think it's random. Everything has a process and the process will result in whatever happens that reflects that. Certain conditions need to be in place, just like a peep that goes to the gym and builds muscle does. That's because you are confusing SR with alignment. And that's actually very common. In yoga, they have essentially the same perspective. However, SR is acausal because it is the absolute realm, never the relative realm. Alignment though, can be both causal and acausal, i.e. causal in the relative context (aka flow), but acausal in the absolute context (aka natural state). Also, if you look at the statistics, there's no proof for your claim in real life. And the gym analogy is the relative context. But SR is the absolute context. So that's apples and oranges. SR is not a science. By definition, SR can never be a science. Alignment though, you could call a science. That's why yoga, IMO, teaches alignment, but not SR, and why non-duality teaches SR but not alignment. Which is also why yoga puts such great importance on samadhi, karma and purification, and why that plays no role at all in non-duality. So when I see people talking about SR as a process, they are actually talking about alignment, not SR. And they do that because they can't tell the difference. And they can't tell the difference because they approach this topic from the SVP perspective. And the SVP does not grok SR. By definition, the SVP cannot grok SR. So the SVP has no understanding of nor interest in SR. The SVP only has an interest in alignment, and that's also what the SVP can understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 8, 2024 9:44:58 GMT -5
Notice how a quiet mind, a mediator's mind, never would have created the reality of shouting at the farmer in delusion. From direct experience, I can say that the formula of ( quiescent mind ) + ( not knowing ) leads to some of the most delightful and innocent synchronicity. The less likely the coincidence, the more convincing such an occurrence becomes. The not-knowing, has to be what I suspect for most people, of a heightened intensity. It was for me. The dream/dreamer metaphor relates quite precisely to the writer's observations about people's varying mind-based interpretations of events. LOA, if considered in the impersonal, nondual context, is what it is. There's no topping ZD's pointing to "THIS", so I'm not going to try, nor is it necessary to repeat it on this forum where anyone can read it. But notice that the writer here doesn't write from that context. An information bubble is a duality, defining a boundary. The model implies an objective, base reality. There's no way to state that reality is subjective without doing that. This is the nature of duality. The following pointing, with one exception, is not for intellect to ponder: reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. The question of causality is the existential question. One particular form of it. To say that the primary cause of what we experience is our beliefs is ultimately just as flawed as to say that the cause is the laws of Physics, or to say that the primary cause is a personified version of the "God" concept. Insight demands a complete renunciation of any such place for mind to rest. "Afterwards", of course, life goes on. I'm not sure what your point is. Brofman does not teach non-duality. I thought that was a given. So he obviously speaks from the relative context and for the relative context. And once you play the "THIS" card, the discussion is essentially over. Because it's a context flip. And the objective, base reality that is assumed here is LOA, obviously. And in the relative context LOA trumps the laws of physics or any other 'laws'. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 8, 2024 9:48:35 GMT -5
Notice how a quiet mind, a mediator's mind, never would have created the reality of shouting at the farmer in delusion. From direct experience, I can say that the formula of ( quiescent mind ) + ( not knowing ) leads to some of the most delightful and innocent synchronicity. The less likely the coincidence, the more convincing such an occurrence becomes. The not-knowing, has to be what I suspect for most people, of a heightened intensity. It was for me. The dream/dreamer metaphor relates quite precisely to the writer's observations about people's varying mind-based interpretations of events. LOA, if considered in the impersonal, nondual context, is what it is. There's no topping ZD's pointing to "THIS", so I'm not going to try, nor is it necessary to repeat it on this forum where anyone can read it. But notice that the writer here doesn't write from that context. An information bubble is a duality, defining a boundary. The model implies an objective, base reality. There's no way to state that reality is subjective without doing that. This is the nature of duality. The following pointing, with one exception, is not for intellect to ponder: reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. The question of causality is the existential question. One particular form of it. To say that the primary cause of what we experience is our beliefs is ultimately just as flawed as to say that the cause is the laws of Physics, or to say that the primary cause is a personified version of the "God" concept. Insight demands a complete renunciation of any such place for mind to rest. "Afterwards", of course, life goes on. It seems, to me, that when you mused about reef's post and wrote your reply, you didn't use your formula. Obviously you think "you know", and your mind wasn't "quiescent" either; you recall, rationalize, reason, and make assertions you're sure of. I see a contradiction between what you claim and what you do. This is an observation that I'm sure you disagree with, so, from my part, it isn't a beginning of an argument. He's mixing contexts, consciously or unconsciously. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 8, 2024 9:54:22 GMT -5
I look at the health, healing, placebo from the perspective of the physical body being the materialization of a gestalt of consciousness. The health of the body is a reflection of the gestalt's health. Its organs and cells are materializations of the gestalt's elements, with their individual free will, and their condition is individually determined by the condition of the corresponding gestalt-element. The elements of the gestalt that don't resonate with the state of the gestalt leave it, and other elements that resonate join that gestalt. As everything is connected, the elements of one gestalt are connected with the elements of all the other gestalts, potentially being influenced more by the elements in closer focus proximity. The health, healing, placebo observed at body / gestalt level are largely independent of those observed at cell and organ / gestalt-element level. Agreed, except for that last paragraph. That seems to contradict everything that you said before that. Maybe you can clarify? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 8, 2024 14:48:04 GMT -5
I look at the health, healing, placebo from the perspective of the physical body being the materialization of a gestalt of consciousness. The health of the body is a reflection of the gestalt's health. Its organs and cells are materializations of the gestalt's elements, with their individual free will, and their condition is individually determined by the condition of the corresponding gestalt-element. The elements of the gestalt that don't resonate with the state of the gestalt leave it, and other elements that resonate join that gestalt. As everything is connected, the elements of one gestalt are connected with the elements of all the other gestalts, potentially being influenced more by the elements in closer focus proximity. The health, healing, placebo observed at body / gestalt level are largely independent of those observed at cell and organ / gestalt-element level. Agreed, except for that last paragraph. That seems to contradict everything that you said before that. Maybe you can clarify? I intended to say that the health of the biological body, as a materialization of a gestalt of consciousness, can't generally be asserted from the observed health of its cells and organs, which are materializations of the elements of the gestalt of consciousness. In other words, medical tests, at cell and organ level, don't reflect the health of the body, nor the actual cause for the symptoms observed and felt at the body level. There isn't a deterministic relation between life at cell or organ levels, and life at body level. An illness observed at cell or organ levels disappears spontaneously in a healthy body, while an unhealthy body may not show any abnormality at cell or organ levels, at any given moment. Health, as well as placebo / nocebo effects observed at cell level are firstly the result of non-physical connectivity at that level, in and beyond that body, in a proximity of focus. That condition doesn't affect the biological body they are elements of, and they may further align, or not, with the body condition. If they don't fully align, they still won't affect that body. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 8, 2024 15:04:42 GMT -5
Peeps give analogies of the game or the dream and it just sets a theme that doesn't work for me in real life. Life is life and if you walk in front of an oncoming bus you're not going to continue living life in this reality. No dream or game stuff is necessary, butt I understand your analogy. In regards to the same action doesn't always lead to the same result it depends on many things, and this is why I said that left untainted certain actions will create the same results time and time again.
I have said it before that Self realisation is a science. I remember my mum speaking about a book called the science of self realisation years ago and that is because it is a process. A process that works time and time again despite peeps who think it's random. Everything has a process and the process will result in whatever happens that reflects that. Certain conditions need to be in place, just like a peep that goes to the gym and builds muscle does. That's because you are confusing SR with alignment. And that's actually very common. In yoga, they have essentially the same perspective. However, SR is acausal because it is the absolute realm, never the relative realm. Alignment though, can be both causal and acausal, i.e. causal in the relative context (aka flow), but acausal in the absolute context (aka natural state). . I am speaking of the unrealised to the realised. A point between the two. I didn't make that clear to be fair. So Self Realisation endures a process to that point from the unrealised to the realised. Alignments come and go. One minute you are the bliss bunny the next you are Mr. Angry and it really depends on what S.R. constitutes as there are many understandings of what it means and entails. At the point of S.R. one reaches that point because one reaches that point, just like the ripe apple will fall from the tree. This is the science I am talking about. These are the conditions that encompass a process, a process that is a science in motion and in of itself. If the same conditions are present time and time again then it is a process. The thing is that peeps don't ordinarily know where they are at when they are at a certain point and then something happens which is unexpected and seems random or spontaneous. Peeps don't remember a thousand lifetimes of inner workings of the spirit. If we were to refer to S.R. as beyond the self and beyond the mind as I do then nothing that relates to a scientific process exists. So in a way everything we speak about pertaining to the journey, and the process up until a point of S.R is a science. I don't normally talk in such terms butt it was an extension of my thoughts along the same lines as if a peep eats well and goes to the gym then the body will reflect such actions. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 8, 2024 15:09:38 GMT -5
Peeps give analogies of the game or the dream and it just sets a theme that doesn't work for me in real life. Life is life and if you walk in front of an oncoming bus you're not going to continue living life in this reality. No dream or game stuff is necessary, butt I understand your analogy. In regards to the same action doesn't always lead to the same result it depends on many things, and this is why I said that left untainted certain actions will create the same results time and time again.
I have said it before that Self realisation is a science. I remember my mum speaking about a book called the science of self realisation years ago and that is because it is a process. A process that works time and time again despite peeps who think it's random. Everything has a process and the process will result in whatever happens that reflects that. Certain conditions need to be in place, just like a peep that goes to the gym and builds muscle does. Also, if you look at the statistics, there's no proof for your claim in real life. And the gym analogy is the relative context. But SR is the absolute context. So that's apples and oranges. .. That's cos peeps don't know the whole picture behind the scenes. They can only relate to what happens in the moment with no background memory of what led one to that moment. How many peeps on this forum have memory of lifetimes had that have led one to a realisation in this life time. Stats don't mean much if a peep kant remember. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 8, 2024 15:18:04 GMT -5
Peeps give analogies of the game or the dream and it just sets a theme that doesn't work for me in real life. Life is life and if you walk in front of an oncoming bus you're not going to continue living life in this reality. No dream or game stuff is necessary, butt I understand your analogy. In regards to the same action doesn't always lead to the same result it depends on many things, and this is why I said that left untainted certain actions will create the same results time and time again.
I have said it before that Self realisation is a science. I remember my mum speaking about a book called the science of self realisation years ago and that is because it is a process. A process that works time and time again despite peeps who think it's random. Everything has a process and the process will result in whatever happens that reflects that. Certain conditions need to be in place, just like a peep that goes to the gym and builds muscle does. So when I see people talking about SR as a process, they are actually talking about alignment, not SR. And they do that because they can't tell the difference. And they can't tell the difference because they approach this topic from the SVP perspective. And the SVP does not grok SR. By definition, the SVP cannot grok SR. So the SVP has no understanding of nor interest in SR. The SVP only has an interest in alignment, and that's also what the SVP can understand. .. So what is one aligned with or too when not realising what they are? When I speak about these subjects I am not coming from A SVP position, so where does that leave things in the grand scheme of things. I speak often about throwing out the SVP because it's not essential for one's beliefs to reflect them as such. It's toadally possible for the SVP mind set to not be present and yet maintain an understanding of what I speak about. |
|
. (Though, that might just be my vanity and have nothing to do with my smouldering good looks).
.. (** takes two sideways steps away from lolz **)
