|
|
Post by YoMadreGorda on Nov 15, 2024 22:06:16 GMT -5
As he said previously, he believes there is no shared reality, in which we all share. Therefore, he is only speaking about this private, personal universe. Cancer may be caused by psychic factors in his universe, but that has nothing to do with your universe, or mine, so you don't need to concern yourself with it. As a medical doctor should I not be concerned with it? No. You can have no effect on his separate and private universe. You have your hands full with your universe. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 15, 2024 22:25:19 GMT -5
As a medical doctor should I not be concerned with it? No. You can have no effect on his separate and private universe. You have your hands full with your universe. How do you know my hands are full in my universe? Have you been to Krsnaloka? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 16, 2024 0:17:05 GMT -5
You mean the cancers of Nisa, Ramana, Enigma and many more were that as you say? As he said previously, he believes there is no shared reality, in which we all share. Therefore, he is only speaking about this private, personal universe. Cancer may be caused by psychic factors in his universe, but that has nothing to do with your universe, or mine, so you don't need to concern yourself with it. This isn't accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 16, 2024 0:28:06 GMT -5
As a medical doctor should I not be concerned with it? No. You can have no effect on his separate and private universe. You have your hands full with your universe. As formulated this is accurate, but it depends on how you interpret it, what that actually means and why. He should be interested in what pain and suffering represent, and in what that means for him as a multidimensional personality. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 16, 2024 0:59:26 GMT -5
Yes. That is what I mean. Does this premise of yours holds true for leukemia? I believe that it applies to every illness, although the same physical illness (symptoms) may have a different psychic or psychological basis. In the case of the three individuals you mentioned, considering what they are known here for, it seems likely that their terminal illnesses resulted from the same psychic and psychological condition, consequence of where their spiritual paths led them. This doesn't negate in any way their merits, but it is a warning to others, warning the three might've not been aware of. As others here, they believed they knew (tasted, ...) thee Truth. That prevented them from going deeper. When tapping your inner source of knowledge and guidance the "Don't ask! Don't tell!" applies. This means "you don't ask about something; then your guide doesn't tell you about it" (because you aren't ready for it), which is different from the widely known "we don't ask you about that; and you don't tell us about it" (to keep the appearances). |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 16, 2024 3:52:04 GMT -5
Does this premise of yours holds true for leukemia? I believe that it applies to every illness, although the same physical illness (symptoms) may have a different psychic or psychological basis. In the case of the three individuals you mentioned, considering what they are known here for, it seems likely that their terminal illnesses resulted from the same psychic and psychological condition, consequence of where their spiritual paths led them. This doesn't negate in any way their merits, but it is a warning to others, warning the three might've not been aware of. As others here, they believed they knew (tasted, ...) thee Truth. That prevented them from going deeper. When tapping your inner source of knowledge and guidance the "Don't ask! Don't tell!" applies. This means "you don't ask about something; then your guide doesn't tell you about it" (because you aren't ready for it), which is different from the widely known "we don't ask you about that; and you don't tell us about it" (to keep the appearances). The hypothalamus is part of the brain that regulates/controls the activities of the master gland/pituitary. The latter releases stimulating hormones that trigger the other glands in the body say, the thyroid, adrenal gland, the sexual glands, testes/ovaries/ pancreatic glands to produce hormones. Abnormal amounts of these hormones if released/ left unchecked lead to various diseases and one of them is cancer. It's not the fault of the master/pituitary gland but the hypothalamus. This organ in the brain is sensitive to stress. Prolong stress disables the monitoring system of the hypothalamus to regulate the hormonal imbalances in the body failing to slow down the master/pituitary gland its release of stimulating hormones that triggers the rest of the glands in the body to produce hormones. That's why you have hypertension, diabetes, toxic goiter, prostate enlargement, etc. What I am trying to point at is by chanting and singing the Hare Krishna mantra aids the hypothalamus in relieving it of stressors which impede this part in the brain to do its job. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 16, 2024 7:13:40 GMT -5
You get cancer for psychic and psychological reasons, not for physical reasons. You mean the cancers of Nisa, Ramana, Enigma and many more were that as you say? Here's Enigma's take... Yes. Everything is to be taken back to consciousness as the source, and all else is expression. How the body functions is an expression of mind, and both body and mind are expressions of consciousness, as are 'external' events like food consumption and exercise and accidents that seem to be the cause of changes to the body. The only thing acting as a cause in all of this is consciousness itself. However, there is a hierarchy, as mind is more indicative of the movement of consciousness than the body, and the body is more indicative of that movement than 'external' events. So, the least effective way to see what's going on is to focus on nutrition, as though the body were a machine that requires the correct maintenance, which is why the rules of that game keep changing. The more effective way is to observe the movements of mind, which are expressed in the form of body and daily events. Mind isn't particularly interested in noticing how harmful and self destructive it can be. what's more damaging.... what you put in your body, or what you put in your mind? As I see it, everything originates in consciousness, including the body itself. I accept that there is an energy system in the body that actually forms and maintains or degrades the body, and this energy flow is clearly highly sensitive to thought and feeling. I don't really know what role nutrition plays in physical health beyond what we 'think' it does, which is not to suggest that the body can't be harmed by what it consumes, as thought structures become solidified into a practical actuality, (as with the body itself) so if one is frightened about their nutritional intake, it's wise to respond to that fear and do what one 'thinks' is the right thing. (As opposed to doing what one 'thinks' is the wrong thing) As a reflection of mind, the body reflects thought as feeling and physical function (or dysfunction). Since mind is not understood by most (unconsciousness), this reflection is not always apparent. Heart problems are often about a 'broken heart'. Arthritis may be a reflection of resistance to movement. Cancer may symbolize internal conflict. Immune disorders may reflect a victim attitude toward the environment. Vision and hearing disorders may be about not wanting to see and hear. The expression may be subtle and complex because mind is subtle and complex, but it seems to me the nutritionists have the same constricted view of cause/effect that allopathic medicine does. There is only one cause of everything. To understand, one must continually return to that cause. |
|
|
|
Post by YoMadreGorda on Nov 16, 2024 8:50:58 GMT -5
As he said previously, he believes there is no shared reality, in which we all share. Therefore, he is only speaking about this private, personal universe. Cancer may be caused by psychic factors in his universe, but that has nothing to do with your universe, or mine, so you don't need to concern yourself with it. This isn't accurate. I may have the screen names wrong. Someone - I thought you - said there is "no objective reality". In common use of the term, the "objective" reality is a shared reality, and the "subjective" reality is the private world, the mind – unknown to others, unless you communicate about it via words, artistic expression, facial expressions, etc. However in other contexts, spiritual contexts, the "subjective" reality can also be considered as shared. For example, some consider there is "one pure Consciousness", that is the same in all living beings, so that the pure subjective reality, beyond the personal mind and it's fantasies, is also shared. In my reality, cancer is caused by (among other things) physical factors. For example, if we spent time hanging around the Chernobyl reactor meltdown site, we would develop physical problems which the biologists call "cancer" - ie, damaged cell DNA and it's associated symptoms and physical death. There are also psychic and psychological causes for cancer and other diseases. It's all connected. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 16, 2024 11:53:17 GMT -5
I may have the screen names wrong. Someone - I thought you - said there is "no objective reality". In common use of the term, the "objective" reality is a shared reality, and the "subjective" reality is the private world, the mind – unknown to others, unless you communicate about it via words, artistic expression, facial expressions, etc. However in other contexts, spiritual contexts, the "subjective" reality can also be considered as shared. For example, some consider there is "one pure Consciousness", that is the same in all living beings, so that the pure subjective reality, beyond the personal mind and it's fantasies, is also shared. In my reality, cancer is caused by (among other things) physical factors. For example, if we spent time hanging around the Chernobyl reactor meltdown site, we would develop physical problems which the biologists call "cancer" - ie, damaged cell DNA and it's associated symptoms and physical death. There are also psychic and psychological causes for cancer and other diseases. It's all connected. My very short assessment was strictly intended to your interpretation of my beliefs: in the post I replied to, there are some elements that are closer to what I currently believe, but interpreted differently. I chose the path of a quick answer, just stating that your post didn't accurately reflect my beliefs, as I wasn't inclined to take longer time to reply. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 16, 2024 12:38:35 GMT -5
I may have the screen names wrong. Someone - I thought you - said there is "no objective reality". In common use of the term, the "objective" reality is a shared reality, and the "subjective" reality is the private world, the mind – unknown to others, unless you communicate about it via words, artistic expression, facial expressions, etc. However in other contexts, spiritual contexts, the "subjective" reality can also be considered as shared. For example, some consider there is "one pure Consciousness", that is the same in all living beings, so that the pure subjective reality, beyond the personal mind and it's fantasies, is also shared. In my reality, cancer is caused by (among other things) physical factors. For example, if we spent time hanging around the Chernobyl reactor meltdown site, we would develop physical problems which the biologists call "cancer" - ie, damaged cell DNA and it's associated symptoms and physical death. There are also psychic and psychological causes for cancer and other diseases. It's all connected. An objective physical reality, the way I use these terms, implies the existence of one physical reality that exists out there that does its own thing, that I and the other participants in it perceive through our individual independent physical senses with some degree of accuracy; one objective reference. I believe there is no such objective physical reality. I believe that what I perceive is a subjective physical reality, meaning that what I observe and participate in as physical reality is a unique version, somewhat different from all the other versions perceived by all the other participants, created by my subconscious (a part of my multidimensional personality) based on the information received through my inner senses from a nonphysical framework. The physical reality that I perceive is subjectively created, meaning that it reflects my individual beliefs and expectations, independently from all the other participants. I continuously join and leave gestalts of reality, function of how they resonate with my beliefs and expectations. Ultimately, I aim to learn to consciously handle my inner senses, to shed my limiting beliefs, to set and sustain my expectations, so that I experience a reality as I intend to. This requires a growth of my multidimensional entity that is achieved over many attempts, some of them being classes taken in this physical reality framework. Those classes are chosen, and have a predetermined curriculum that I go through. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 16, 2024 14:52:54 GMT -5
You mean the cancers of Nisa, Ramana, Enigma and many more were that as you say? Here's Enigma's take... Yes. Everything is to be taken back to consciousness as the source, and all else is expression. How the body functions is an expression of mind, and both body and mind are expressions of consciousness, as are 'external' events like food consumption and exercise and accidents that seem to be the cause of changes to the body. The only thing acting as a cause in all of this is consciousness itself. However, there is a hierarchy, as mind is more indicative of the movement of consciousness than the body, and the body is more indicative of that movement than 'external' events. So, the least effective way to see what's going on is to focus on nutrition, as though the body were a machine that requires the correct maintenance, which is why the rules of that game keep changing. The more effective way is to observe the movements of mind, which are expressed in the form of body and daily events. Mind isn't particularly interested in noticing how harmful and self destructive it can be. As I see it, everything originates in consciousness, including the body itself. I accept that there is an energy system in the body that actually forms and maintains or degrades the body, and this energy flow is clearly highly sensitive to thought and feeling. I don't really know what role nutrition plays in physical health beyond what we 'think' it does, which is not to suggest that the body can't be harmed by what it consumes, as thought structures become solidified into a practical actuality, (as with the body itself) so if one is frightened about their nutritional intake, it's wise to respond to that fear and do what one 'thinks' is the right thing. (As opposed to doing what one 'thinks' is the wrong thing) As a reflection of mind, the body reflects thought as feeling and physical function (or dysfunction). Since mind is not understood by most (unconsciousness), this reflection is not always apparent. Heart problems are often about a 'broken heart'. Arthritis may be a reflection of resistance to movement. Cancer may symbolize internal conflict. Immune disorders may reflect a victim attitude toward the environment. Vision and hearing disorders may be about not wanting to see and hear. The expression may be subtle and complex because mind is subtle and complex, but it seems to me the nutritionists have the same constricted view of cause/effect that allopathic medicine does. There is only one cause of everything. To understand, one must continually return to that cause. Questions that arise: Coulda / shoulda / woulda one do anything about it? Preventively? Curatively? |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 16, 2024 15:29:23 GMT -5
You mean the cancers of Nisa, Ramana, Enigma and many more were that as you say? Here's Enigma's take... Yes. Everything is to be taken back to consciousness as the source, and all else is expression. How the body functions is an expression of mind, and both body and mind are expressions of consciousness, as are 'external' events like food consumption and exercise and accidents that seem to be the cause of changes to the body. The only thing acting as a cause in all of this is consciousness itself. However, there is a hierarchy, as mind is more indicative of the movement of consciousness than the body, and the body is more indicative of that movement than 'external' events. So, the least effective way to see what's going on is to focus on nutrition, as though the body were a machine that requires the correct maintenance, which is why the rules of that game keep changing. The more effective way is to observe the movements of mind, which are expressed in the form of body and daily events. Mind isn't particularly interested in noticing how harmful and self destructive it can be. As I see it, everything originates in consciousness, including the body itself. I accept that there is an energy system in the body that actually forms and maintains or degrades the body, and this energy flow is clearly highly sensitive to thought and feeling. I don't really know what role nutrition plays in physical health beyond what we 'think' it does, which is not to suggest that the body can't be harmed by what it consumes, as thought structures become solidified into a practical actuality, (as with the body itself) so if one is frightened about their nutritional intake, it's wise to respond to that fear and do what one 'thinks' is the right thing. (As opposed to doing what one 'thinks' is the wrong thing) As a reflection of mind, the body reflects thought as feeling and physical function (or dysfunction). Since mind is not understood by most (unconsciousness), this reflection is not always apparent. Heart problems are often about a 'broken heart'. Arthritis may be a reflection of resistance to movement. Cancer may symbolize internal conflict. Immune disorders may reflect a victim attitude toward the environment. Vision and hearing disorders may be about not wanting to see and hear. The expression may be subtle and complex because mind is subtle and complex, but it seems to me the nutritionists have the same constricted view of cause/effect that allopathic medicine does. There is only one cause of everything. To understand, one must continually return to that cause. The Metaphor of Something We Ate Have you experienced looking over your wastes, urine and fecal? The color? They range from white, yellow, green, brown, red, to tarry. In urine, it's normally amber. In extreme cases, pathologically red. But it can also be non pathological that turns our urine/fecal to red if we eat beets, drangonfruit, etc. Same with what we put into our minds, the kind of music we love to play, the type of lessons we learned, the teachings and principles we uphold, the friends and community we personally associate with, the religions, philosphies we embrace. These are the things we feed into our minds. The result is a physical, emotional symptom. It could either be the feeling of euphoria, ecstasy, pain, depression, laughter, and sorrow. So, it depends on what we put in and out into our bodies/ minds, for the day or at the moment that becomes us. All of these we do is oblivious to the one observing, who has nothing to do. It does not squirm if we eat roasted pig, piqued if we watch a porno video. It lets do what we please. It does not contests what we eat or what we believe. THIS IS what we should be seeking out. IT lies in everyone's hearts. This being is not something we eat, or a philosophy we follow. It is the One we have to realize, cancer or no cancer. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 16, 2024 20:48:37 GMT -5
This part is not accurate, Jesus was very clear on this. He said if you seek to save yourself, you lose yourself. The church is full of people who think they are saving their self. They don't have a clue as to how it all works. In at least three different places Paul writes about the old man (self) and the new man in Christ. (John the Baptist also understood, he said I must decrease, he must increase). Paul understood what Jesus was talking about. Jesus taught mainly in parables, which were designed to sneak past the self-old man, and reach the new man. So the way he taught confounded people who lived from self, like the Pharisees, and simple people could understand. When he met Simon, Simon was functioning through the self, the old man. But Jesus could see who Simon really was, his true self (the new man in Christ), so he only communicated to the hidden true self, who Simon actually was, Peter. And Simon eventually became Peter. Jesus told the Pharisees exactly who they were, as self, as the old man, "you are like a white-washed tombs, pretty on the outside, but on the inside you are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness". I know and have posted for 15 years here, self is a dead end, is nothing and is going nowhere. I agree with ZD that self is imaginary. But self is formed from memories, neural connections in the brain. self is just a complicated tangle of copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies. But this does not negate the influence and control of self, most people function through this imaginary self. I have said nothing otherwise in 15 years here. People function just like on autopilot from their small s self, their programming. And ZD has said nothing otherwise than, that's OK, that's just the way it is, it's just the Whole doing it's thing. This makes me want to puke. I see ZD has replied to me, haven't read it yet, but I probably answered him herein. There's a context mix there, can you see it?
When ZD says the self is imaginary he does that from the prior to self perspective. When SDP says the self is imaginary, he does that from the self perspective. That's why to SDP self is a big problem that has to be dealt with, but to ZD there is no problem.
We're here, on earth, at this time. That doesn't go away, it has to be factored in. Why questions are not irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 16, 2024 21:06:35 GMT -5
I just use Jesus, as most of you have knowledge of the scriptures. It doesn't really matter if he was real or not, if he isn't real, then the author was a very wise guy. When I started here I said I don't write about how-to-do practices (#1), I don't share personal experiences (#2), but I write from experience, and (book) knowledge, but I won't draw a line as to what's what. I've kept to #1 precisely, #2, mostly. But I had 25 years of "Jesus"-like direct ~in the flesh~ experience. So I know whereof I write. I don't care if anyone ~believes~ me. I just post. The path to the truth and knowing truth comes through the ~person-as-a-whole~ (the mind-absent conditioning, and the body). It doesn't come through the self (conditioning, the software), I agree on that. A aid, the self is a dead end, is nothing, and is going nowhere. And it's sad that, despite all this, people still continue to function through-their-self, their conditioning. All I've got to communicate with, here, are squiggles on the computer screen. I think your main mistake in these discussions is you conflating SR and alignment. And you are not alone, there are others who do that, too. And there's no way that you can stop this unless you have a direct reference for SR. As the AI (thru Melvin) mentioned the other day, Yoga (alignment) and Advaita (SR) are complementary. One doesn't depend on the other, but in combination, one enhances the other so to speak. I've talked about this before, there are 4 basic scenarios or 'levels': 1) SR and alignment 2) SR but no alignment 3) No SR but alignment 4) No SR and no alignment Level #1 is basically the Avatar level, which is extremely rare. Anandamayi Ma comes to mind, or Jesus, if you will. Level #2 is more common, especially on the internet. Those are your "non-dualists". Level #3 is even more common, because that's something you can work at. Level #4 is the most common, it's the typical seeker position. It's basically the "hungry ghost" position. Your position is #4. Which means to you SR is a myth, it doesn't exist, because from the #4 position, SR is the unthinkable. So you are essentially aiming at reaching #3, because that's what's thinkable from your current position. You see, #1 would be SR without a personal touch, #2 would be SR with a personal touch. Which, from the SR perspective, is same same but different, as ZD keeps telling you. But from your #4 position, #1 looks like #3 and #2 looks like #4. And that's a difference like heaven and hell, as you keep telling us. So you see, it's quite natural that we keep talking past each other. It can't be any other way. And I think after 15 years, maybe it's time you give it a rest. I post. Nobody has to read what I post, nobody has to answer me. I agree on nonvolition. I agree on the imaginary self. I just put everything in a different context. You people have never explained what individuation is. We both agree it has something to do with the body, the body acting without conditioning. (J Krishnamurti explained this very well. There is a kind of conditioning, knowing how to operate in-the-world, be a mechanic or a plumber, stopping at a red light, that is not disruptive, that is in fact necessary. But conditioning-as-the-psychological-self is a distorting unnecessary factor, it's what's responsible for food fights here, which, without rules we'd have every day. I don't know how you don't see that's a problem. I know what individuation is. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 16, 2024 22:00:15 GMT -5
You people have never explained what individuation is Your attachment to your mind is the only thing keeping you from realizing the answer to that question for yourself. |
|
