|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 17, 2024 2:57:06 GMT -5
Questions that arise: Coulda / shoulda / woulda one do anything about it? Preventively? Curatively? Yes, that's the elephant in the room. But then again, from broader perspective, the goal of physical life is not to cross the finish line with the most possessions in your pocket or the healthiest body. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 17, 2024 3:02:20 GMT -5
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. Your true nature is eternal, non-local, non-physical. Which means at best, going with your narrative, only a tiny part of you is focused here, on earth, at this time. And even that isn't entirely correct. You've got it all backwards. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 17, 2024 3:23:36 GMT -5
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. There you go mixing contexts again. You have to decide from which context you want to approach this issue. If you agree on non-volition and the self being imaginary, that's the impersonal perspective, i.e. as seen from prior to the self. If you agree conditioning is distorting perception and therefore being a problem that you need to do something about, that's the personal perspective, i.e. as seen from the self. ZD obviously prefers to look at this issue from the impersonal context. I'm fine with looking at it from either context. But what you are doing is mixing contexts. First you agree that self is imaginary and then you insist that its problems are real - that's Niz' 'child of a barren woman'! It's flawful reasoning.
So if you see it as a problem, then you are talking from the personal context. Which means you assume volition and an actual entity called self. And in that context we can talk about purification and brick polishing.
But if you insist on non-volition and the self being imaginary, then you are talking from the impersonal context. And in that context there is no self to purify and no bricks to polish, i.e. no problem.
So, you can't have it both ways. Either see the self as false and there is no problem to deal with, or see the self as real and then try to deal with its problems. But don't try to dismiss self as false and at the same time acknowledge its problems as real. Because that's flawful logic which will lead to mental confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 17, 2024 10:39:53 GMT -5
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. There you go mixing contexts again. You have to decide from which context you want to approach this issue. If you agree on non-volition and the self being imaginary, that's the impersonal perspective, i.e. as seen from prior to the self. If you agree conditioning is distorting perception and therefore being a problem that you need to do something about, that's the personal perspective, i.e. as seen from the self. ZD obviously prefers to look at this issue from the impersonal context. I'm fine with looking at it from either context. But what you are doing is mixing contexts. First you agree that self is imaginary and then you insist that its problems are real - that's Niz' 'child of a barren woman'! It's flawful reasoning.
So if you see it as a problem, then you are talking from the personal context. Which means you assume volition and an actual entity called self. And in that context we can talk about purification and brick polishing.
But if you insist on non-volition and the self being imaginary, then you are talking from the impersonal context. And in that context there is no self to purify and no bricks to polish, i.e. no problem.
So, you can't have it both ways. Either see the self as false and there is no problem to deal with, or see the self as real and then try to deal with its problems. But don't try to dismiss self as false and at the same time acknowledge its problems as real. Because that's flawful logic which will lead to mental confusion. Yes. When I talk to people on a day-to-day basis, I use words in the same way that most people do--from the perspective of the concensus paradigm because I know that's the way that they think about the nature of reality. However, on this forum, and with other ND discussion groups, I talk from the perspective of non-separation and non-self-referentiality because that's what people are interested in. I attend a weekly ND zoom group. About 22-25 people show up, and there are usually 3-4 people who show up who have become free from the illusion of selfhood and separateness. They ask questions and make suggestions in an effort to help others see through the CP (concensus paradigm). Several of the seekers have changed significantly as a result of the interactions, and those changes are obvious to some of us. One young guy initially had lots of negative self-referential thoughts, but he began doing what many of us suggest (ATA-T, self-enquiry, etc), and although he hasn't yet become free from the illusion of separateness, his ATA-T-type activities have freed him from many of his past thinking habits. He, like many others, "has his head in the tiger's mouth," and sooner or later he'll probably attain freedom because he has what Niz said was so important--extreme earnestness. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 17, 2024 20:35:36 GMT -5
Questions that arise: Coulda / shoulda / woulda one do anything about it? Preventively? Curatively? Yes, that's the elephant in the room. But then again, from broader perspective, the goal of physical life is not to cross the finish line with the most possessions in your pocket or the healthiest body. I agree that those aren't goals of physical life. But, to the degree that achieving them alleviate pain and suffering they may gauge your (impersonal use) doing what's right for achieving whatever true goals of your current physical life. Coming back to pain and illness, experienced by gurus or by yourself ... When you experience them it means that you are doing something wrong psychically or psychologically; the physical manifestation is a consequence and a signal to be observed and intuitively investigated. This isn't about alleviating the pain, but about interpreting what is it about, and addressing that; otherwise the cause will manifest again in the same or different way, progressively stronger pain and suffering. When a guru experiences pain and illness, that is what you observe, and not what that guru experiences; this isn't about his ignoring or transcending his pain and suffering, but about the fact that what you only-observe that in your subjective reality. Those pain and illness apparently experienced by the guru are still meant for you to interpret, to get guidance for yourself. They may be about your understanding of what that guru teaches, which is not right for you as you understand it. Surely, that doesn't exclude the possibility that that guru experiences pain and illness in his subjective reality, but you have no way to know that, and it doesn't matter for you. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Nov 18, 2024 3:14:14 GMT -5
Yes, that's the elephant in the room. But then again, from broader perspective, the goal of physical life is not to cross the finish line with the most possessions in your pocket or the healthiest body. I agree that those aren't goals of physical life. But, to the degree that achieving them alleviate pain and suffering they may gauge your (impersonal use) doing what's right for achieving whatever true goals of your current physical life. Coming back to pain and illness, experienced by gurus or by yourself ... When you experience them it means that you are doing something wrong psychically or psychologically; the physical manifestation is a consequence and a signal to be observed and intuitively investigated. This isn't about alleviating the pain, but about interpreting what is it about, and addressing that; otherwise the cause will manifest again in the same or different way, progressively stronger pain and suffering. When a guru experiences pain and illness, that is what you observe, and not what that guru experiences; this isn't about his ignoring or transcending his pain and suffering, but about the fact that what you only-observe that in your subjective reality. Those pain and illness apparently experienced by the guru are still meant for you to interpret, to get guidance for yourself. They may be about your understanding of what that guru teaches, which is not right for you as you understand it. Surely, that doesn't exclude the possibility that that guru experiences pain and illness in his subjective reality, but you have no way to know that, and it doesn't matter for you.This idea that 'subjective realities' never meet or have any influence on each other is most unusual. I am writing this post to show your subjective reality something that it has overlooked. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 18, 2024 5:21:07 GMT -5
I agree that those aren't goals of physical life. But, to the degree that achieving them alleviate pain and suffering they may gauge your (impersonal use) doing what's right for achieving whatever true goals of your current physical life. Coming back to pain and illness, experienced by gurus or by yourself ... When you experience them it means that you are doing something wrong psychically or psychologically; the physical manifestation is a consequence and a signal to be observed and intuitively investigated. This isn't about alleviating the pain, but about interpreting what is it about, and addressing that; otherwise the cause will manifest again in the same or different way, progressively stronger pain and suffering. When a guru experiences pain and illness, that is what you observe, and not what that guru experiences; this isn't about his ignoring or transcending his pain and suffering, but about the fact that what you only-observe that in your subjective reality. Those pain and illness apparently experienced by the guru are still meant for you to interpret, to get guidance for yourself. They may be about your understanding of what that guru teaches, which is not right for you as you understand it. Surely, that doesn't exclude the possibility that that guru experiences pain and illness in his subjective reality, but you have no way to know that, and it doesn't matter for you.This idea that 'subjective realities' never meet or have any influence on each other is most unusual. I am writing this post to show your subjective reality something that it has overlooked. The way I understand it, you experience a physical reality (perceive it, and act in it) that is created by your subconscious. This applies to everything that participate in the physical-reality framework. Your beliefs and expectations shape your experience by dynamically associating your personality to one of an endless number of possible reality gestalts. This means that your subconscious doesn't show you another element of your current reality gestalt as that element experiences itself, but it shows you a subjective translation that matches your beliefs and expectations. In one of my altered-state lessons, I experienced watching at the same time others both how they perceived their experience, and how I perceived it differently according to what I believed and expected to happen in the physical-reality. For example, I saw an old man who intentionally broke his old and and deformed legs, and to my amazement, he grew back a pair of healthy rejuvenated legs. I could alternate my focus between the man's perception, as described, and my perception of him that satisfied my beliefs and expectations, in which an old man was in pain and suffering from broken legs. So, it isn't that his and my subjective physical-realities didn't meet, as if they were existing disjunct realities, but that my subjective reality was reflecting a distortion of the reality that that man was experiencing. And, actually for me it didn't matter what he was experiencing, but only what i was perceiving as being his experience. According to my beliefs and expectations, breaking your legs doesn't grow you better ones, but brings pain and suffering. In the interpretation and guidance phase of that lesson I realized, suddenly knew, that it is often the case that the more incredible the feat experienced by a more advanced co-participant in my physical-reality gestalt, the more I perceive it as intense pain and suffering. This warns me of the relative magnitude of my ignorance. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 18, 2024 5:43:41 GMT -5
This idea that 'subjective realities' never meet or have any influence on each other is most unusual. I am writing this post to show your subjective reality something that it has overlooked. The way I understand it, you experience a physical reality (perceive it, and act in it) that is created by your subconscious. This applies to everything that participate in the physical-reality framework. Your beliefs and expectations shape your experience by dynamically associating your personality to one of an endless number of possible reality gestalts. This means that your subconscious doesn't show you another element of your current reality gestalt as that element experiences itself, but it shows you a subjective translation that matches your beliefs and expectations. In one of my altered-state lessons, I experienced watching at the same time others both how they perceived their experience, and how I perceived it differently according to what I believed and expected to happen in the physical-reality. For example, I saw an old man who intentionally broke his old and and deformed legs, and to my amazement, he grew back a pair of healthy rejuvenated legs. I could alternate my focus between the man's perception, as described, and my perception of him that satisfied my beliefs and expectations, in which an old man was in pain and suffering from broken legs. So, it isn't that his and my subjective physical-realities didn't meet, as if they were existing disjunct realities, but that my subjective reality was reflecting a distortion of the reality that that man was experiencing. And, actually for me it didn't matter what he was experiencing, but only what i was perceiving as being his experience. According to my beliefs and expectations, breaking your legs doesn't grow you better ones, but brings pain and suffering. In the interpretation and guidance phase of that lesson I realized, suddenly knew, that it is often the case that the more incredible the feat experienced by a more advanced co-participant in my physical-reality gestalt, the more I perceive it as intense pain and suffering. This warns me of the relative magnitude of my ignorance. As I understand these, the actual experience we go through in the physical-reality is much less continuous than it seems to us. It is formed from lots of reworked segments that imply reshaped memories of the awake life, chages in configurations, sequences, associations, but closely following a pre-established curriculum, like when attending a course, like learning from a book already written with a purpose, a succession of lessons, and you work on every lesson until you learn them all to an acceptable degree. Then you graduate to the next level. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 18, 2024 11:45:53 GMT -5
This idea that 'subjective realities' never meet or have any influence on each other is most unusual. I am writing this post to show your subjective reality something that it has overlooked. The way I understand it, you experience a physical reality (perceive it, and act in it) that is created by your subconscious. This applies to everything that participate in the physical-reality framework. Your beliefs and expectations shape your experience by dynamically associating your personality to one of an endless number of possible reality gestalts. This means that your subconscious doesn't show you another element of your current reality gestalt as that element experiences itself, but it shows you a subjective translation that matches your beliefs and expectations. In one of my altered-state lessons, I experienced watching at the same time others both how they perceived their experience, and how I perceived it differently according to what I believed and expected to happen in the physical-reality. For example, I saw an old man who intentionally broke his old and and deformed legs, and to my amazement, he grew back a pair of healthy rejuvenated legs. I could alternate my focus between the man's perception, as described, and my perception of him that satisfied my beliefs and expectations, in which an old man was in pain and suffering from broken legs. So, it isn't that his and my subjective physical-realities didn't meet, as if they were existing disjunct realities, but that my subjective reality was reflecting a distortion of the reality that that man was experiencing. And, actually for me it didn't matter what he was experiencing, but only what i was perceiving as being his experience. According to my beliefs and expectations, breaking your legs doesn't grow you better ones, but brings pain and suffering. In the interpretation and guidance phase of that lesson I realized, suddenly knew, that it is often the case that the more incredible the feat experienced by a more advanced co-participant in my physical-reality gestalt, the more I perceive it as intense pain and suffering. This warns me of the relative magnitude of my ignorance. Something I have observed over many years of looking after pets, is that in the first half of a house sit, the pets adapt to our way of living. They adapt to our energy, our routines, the particular ways that we love and look after them (and that might include some dog-training). But, in the second half of a house sit, the pet usually begins to adapt/revert back to the energy of the pet-owner. It's an interesting thing (and has been kind of frustrating at times if we've been training them lol), but I do appreciate it, because it means the pet doesn't have to make a huge 'leap' when the pet-owner returns home. And also, I don't have to make a huge leap in leaving them, which can often be quite painful for me. To give a specific example....we spend a lot of time with the pets, but some pet-owners leave the pets home alone for hours. And I notice that in the days before the owner comes home, the pet will begin to isolate him/herself more. In your model of how things work, how would you explain this phenomenon? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2024 12:09:55 GMT -5
The only way to resolve this issue is conduct a survey. Those chanting for several years the Hare Krishna mantra and incidence of cancer from this group. Those not chanting Hare Krishna mantra and the incidence of cancer from this non-chanting of the Hare Krishna group. That would be a good start. The information of chanting the Hare Krishna mantra to prevent/cure cancer has not been widely spread yet. You see, if one is into Krishna consciousness people may start to go vegetarian, become non-alcoholic drinkers, non-coffee drinkers, and all that stuff that can give you stress/cancer, Hare Krishna chanters will stop from smoking cigarettes. These vices can give one cancer, right? You get cancer for psychic and psychological reasons, not for physical reasons. The appearance is that of a tangled hierarchy. Physical factors causing psychological reactions and those reactions, causing, in turn, physical manifestations. In general, it's a chegg. Aligning toward health is an interesting topic. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2024 12:18:29 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 Trump Card.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2024 12:28:42 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. Alignment happens one way if there has been a realization as to the question of "what aligns, with what?", and another way, otherwise. Funny thing is though, that most of the alignment material seems to me to have been generated from the dark on that. One reason for this is simple: the biggest question is going to be the one that draws the most interest, especially for anyone who gets close to it. So the sickly guru phenomenon can be understood, at least partly, by the pull to expressing the existential truth outweighing the pull toward alignment. Said another way, you don't go to Niz or Ramana or E' for advice on weight loss. There is actually a backstory arc on that with E' that is particularly rather comical. And, one can read a value judgment into that first sentence that isn't really there, but getting into that is unwrapping a box of potential confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2024 12:44:11 GMT -5
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. Individuation is the subject of self-inquiry. On one hand, it is the great mystery, as in, what the Catholics sing-chant as "♪ The Mys-ter-y of Faith ♪", soon after the transubstantiation, during each Mass. Equally true, however, is that it is as plain as the nose on your face. Seeking that " explanation" is natural. But, expecting one ... well, I'd say, with all due respect Mr. 'Pilgrim, perhaps you should know better. By now. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2024 12:52:34 GMT -5
We're here, on earth, at this time. That doesn't go away, it has to be factored in. Why questions are not irrelevant. Your true nature is eternal, non-local, non-physical. Which means at best, going with your narrative, only a tiny part of you is focused here, on earth, at this time. And even that isn't entirely correct. You've got it all backwards. "non-physical" can be heard as a denial of physicality rather than putting it into the context of a potential misinterpretation/misconception, and a distracting misconception, at that.  |
|
|
|
The Truth
Nov 18, 2024 13:34:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by andrew on Nov 18, 2024 13:34:39 GMT -5
You get cancer for psychic and psychological reasons, not for physical reasons. The appearance is that of a tangled hierarchy. Physical factors causing psychological reactions and those reactions, causing, in turn, physical manifestations. In general, it's a chegg. Aligning toward health is an interesting topic. Tangled' is an excellent word here....I almost used it myself 😁 I've had back pain, on and off, for 25 years. I sometimes say it's because I played too much rugby as a teenager, and I have a slight frame, and there's an aspect of truth to that. A more sophisticated truth is that I can see subtle levels of energy, and deeper beliefs, that very likely express as back pain. And I'm also aware that house sitting can be a contributing factor at times (though is also an expression of my inner state) So I can see the factors involved, and can even see what would be necessary in order to resolve them. I see excellent steps I could take both internally and externally, but that doesn't mean that taking those steps is appropriate. There's a divine timing to all things and there are appropriate lessons and growth for me in the issue. The reality is FAR more nuanced (and tangled) than Abraham presents it as, though I also appreciate the straight forward nature of their message. Sometimes folks die of illness, or manifest disease, and that's just the way it's meant to be for them. It doesn't necessarily mean they are blind to the issues, or failing to address them, it just means they have a different, perfect, life path and exploration. I feel the back issues will resolve. Inshallah. |
|
