Living in the Now has a beguiling pull to it, however it is not all it seems from my experiences. I have been look at why this is.
Certainly there are a number of advocates of this way of being, yet when I look I see not the open, horizonless spaces, instead I see the benefits enclosed within barriers and boundaries. The devotees of the Now do not see these, they suppose that the space is limitless, encompassing all, but they allow themselves to be blinded by their zest into seeing only what they wish was the case.
The trouble is that living in the now forces an exclusion of aspects that do not fit well. We cannot live in the past, but that does not mean that that we cannot get benefit from ‘reliving the past’ – yet this is excluded. We cannot predict the future but that does not mean that we should not prepare for it – yet this is seen as worthless and is excluded. We are complex beings and should not deny ourselves the richness of our past or of looking forwards to the future.
Take for instance a formula 1 driver, sitting in his car waiting for the race to start – is he living in the now? Not at all, he will be once he sets off, but for now he is reliving the past (laps) and seeing where he will be in the laps to come. He works with the past and the future in order to become better at his job, better able to operate in the now when he needs to.
Actually even those who claim to live in the now understand the need to plan – they compose shopping lists, fill the car with fuel before it runs out and clean their teeth to stop decay later in life. They strive to somehow remain in the now while having to deal with things that drag them out of it.
Now living in the now is seen by many as enlightenment, as some kind of step forwards – yet this is not necessarily the case. Along with living in the now often comes a sense of joy or perhaps bliss, this is highly attractive and many would say that if one can have this then why have anything else, why have the issues and problems that come with not living in the now? Seems a valid argument. That is until one changes the words to reflect perhaps what a heroin addict would say, they would use the same argument if they were offered unlimited access to heroin. It is much what a child would say if offered only sweets and crisps rather than a balanced diet that included fruit and vegetables.
So what possibly could be the reason to not live only in the Now, what possibly could be the benefits?
Firstly let’s look at the example of the heroin addict – for many of the same circumstances apply. Given the access to unlimited supplies of heroin they will spend all their time high, this creates an isolationist state, a state where only the addict matters, and others are of no consequence. The same can be said about living in the now, the focus moves only to activities that are self-serving, while one marvels at the wonder of the Now others are excluded, the sense of total connection to the universe and all in it is internalised, it is real only to the person experiencing the Now, just as the marvellous hallucinations and sense of peace are real only to the heroin addict – outsiders cannot see them and are not part of them.
The heroin addict has no worry about the future, they will allow themselves to grow thin from not eating, from not planning their future health, they will not worry about servicing many of the things that need servicing just to live in this world. Those living in the now advocate exactly this – pensions planning for an old age retirement are of no consequence because the they may never grow old, insurance is only purchased when required by law, because the need to claim may never arise – deal only with what is here now, do not worry about the future for it cannot be predicted.
The heroin addict (actually I have never taken heroin or any other addictive stuff so I write about my perceptions of it all), has no need of the past – it is gone and issues from it can be discarded, only the next fix matters they dip out of the now only to get it all ready for injecting the next shot, and the same is true of those in the now, the past is gone and has no relevance other than memories in the Now. In both cases behaviour is not governed by care for others, it does not allow for compassion or love, only the self is important, for that is the nature of the trip or the now – it is self-serving.
Now some might say that animals live in the now, they understand about dealing with what is here now and needs dealing with. Yes they do ‘squirrel’ away food for winter, but that is not really planning for the future – well…perhaps – it does seem to be mostly instinctive. The problem with this kind of argument is that it assumes that we are just animals.
Something happened to humans a long time ago that altered this, we became able to review the past, relive it and retell it, we became able to predict with varying degrees of accuracy the future, and to respond to the statistical probabilities and risks involved of that future. This is apparent from as far back as when cave paintings were first produced. The paintings were used as stories to relive the past and record it so that others might also relive it in the future. The paintings were done as a part of planning for the future, they were used as a way of preparing for the next hunt, they were even used as a way of insuring against spiritual attack by being used as wards. These people were different to the animals, they had achieved the means to see images and understand them, and they had learned to plan for things that were not threatening in the now. They collected healing herbs for ailments that would arrive when winter came, this was a means of insurance. They were often faced with problems of the now and had to deal with them, but they also gained the ability to relive and recount the past, they learned to foretell, however accurately, the future and to prepare for it. They became spiritually aware, as well as aware of the now and the past and future. They became humans rather than animals – they developed a thinking mind and they were able to synergise new concepts by reliving the past, existing in the now and visualising the future. Our cave painings of today are books and films, photos and heirlooms, and yes, even religious relics and amulets.
This is not something that we just discard because we suddenly have access to the ‘unlimited supply of heroin’. It is a part of us that is important, it has survival relevance, and it has developmental relevance. When we understand this we stop behaving like a child and become mature. By living only in the now one creates barriers that exclude these abilities that we have that differentiate us from the other animals, the barriers work selfishly to exclude that part of us that many describe as the mind, and yet this is a valid element of who we are, by denying it a share of our being we effectively kill who we are and reduce our capacity to become who we can be. That chattering mind that is so often distracting and that many seek to still has a legitimate place in our existence so long as it remains in balance with all the other aspects of our intricate being and if we just exclude it by devising barriers than we are reducing the possibilities of developing fully.
So don’t get me wrong I think there is a need for both, actually for all aspects of ourselves – the barriers that the now creates are selfish and protect only a part of us, excluding all the other parts of who we are in favour only of the now, this no better than denying the now completely. We are a complex balance of complex parts, and it is only when we are balanced that we have the opportunity to develop fully into who we can be.
love
chris
Hi Giles,
Welcome back.
“But is that not an assumption on the motives of others” – yes – it is a translation of what I see – as such of course it can be challenged, it is not evidence, but we make these evaluations every day.
It may be that those who see themselves as separate have motives as well – each case, each person has to be judged on its own situation. Generally I don’t think that I see this with the ‘separatists’, they are few and far between I think. I do not think from close personal examination that it applies to me…..
“Any anyway, what's to say that all people are not divine” – generally people do not exhibit the qualities that we associate with being divine. From the free dictionary “Having the nature of or being a deity” – this goes back to the conversation about miracles and being a creator, and I see no God scale miracles or creations that can be described as divine – this does not mean we will never be, or that we are reduced in some way to recognise this – what aspects do you think everyone exhibit that confirm our divine nature?
Well there are a number of religious texts that state that god made the world and made us – but these threads also have views that express that. Of course if god did not make the world, and did not make us, then what can be the explanation apart from there being either no god or that gd created something that has given rise to the world and us?
The connection between those who have made contact with god is just like the mother/child connection, it exists. The specific beliefs about creation do not change that connection. The connection does not change whether we are a part of god or ‘simply made by god’, it is a connection. The act of creation does not imply that a specific part of the creator must be used (apart from the concept), a person can create a chair from wood, but the chair is not part of the person. “Is there not therefore a connection between us and God that, by your own reasoning of the "mother" means that we are always that creation of God, and thus a part of God?” – nope, that is the whole point. “God is everywhere and within everything, so that too would ascribe to the concept of us all being a part of God” – this too makes an assumption, air is everywhere (that we are) but we are not a part of air, light is everywhere but we are not a part of light.
“how can you have looked at it to know for sure it is simply a wish?” – simply what I said, I have looked and that is what I saw, there is always the possibility that I was blind to some aspect, that my view was constrained, or simply mistaken, but looking and describing is something we do al the time, it is the best we can do. Have you looked and seen differently?
“I don't believe I am a fish, so I can only imagine in the mind what it must be like to be a fish. hehe!”” – agreed, but isn’t it wonderful that we can imagine what it is like to be a fish, this is how empathy works, and it is a valuable trait. We will never get it quite right, but we do use this skill all the time, it is what books depend on, it is core to describing ‘stabbing pains’, it is everywhere, it is part of us (hehe).
“How do we know all systems require balance?” – ok – I have yet to see a system that does not eventually require balance, overwhelming numbers make me think so, but if you think there is a god example of a system that does not then let me know. Usually those who choose to ignore this kind of function are those who try to take advantage from others for themselves, they think they will get away with it.
Good and evil are just words to describe what people feel, the fact that in most cases they describe opposite things at least does show that people perceive that there are two values that are opposing in their results. This again is something we all do, all the time. Values from person to person may change, but the understanding that there is a difference does not. I have not mentioned good or evil, this is your introduction.
“I think I understand what Daz was saying. For it to be "free" will, it must be "free" – yes I understand as well – but free will does not mean unlimited options, if you go to a restaurant you choose from the menu, in the same way we can choose from the options available, this is what is free, and this is important, for seeing free will as the ‘more expansive’ option of being able to do anything at all one again elevates oneself to god status. We can choose what path we walk, starting from where we are standing – this is free will.
Well – Jesus was careful about what he said, he lived in a very dangerous political time, but he did claim to be the son of God, (earlier warnings that I am no biblical scholar still in force) – “9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.”. Again we are supposed to be created in the image of God, by God, but that is different to being a part of god, a sculptor make create an image of a person, but the image is not part of that person.
“and that he perceived all of humankind as equal to himself” – equality does not make two things the same, for instance (because I know you like equations) it may mean that K = B, but that does not make K part of B, or B part of K, neither does it imply that they are indistinguishable. We (shold) treat all people as equal but we still recognise them as individuals.
“If he were the only one that was a part of God whilst everyone else isn't then he would have known the ultimate goal of his teachings would not have been possible.” – he was a teacher, and he showed us how we could be like him, this is what a teacher does, but it does not make the pupil part of the teacher.
“for something to return to the start through the evolutionary process was a failure” – as an evolutionary process yes, from the freedictionary (I can hear Dazzle chuckling), “A gradual process in which something changes
into a different and usually more complex or better form” – we have evolved from unicellular organisms, to return to those would not be seen as a success. Put another way, if we stay as we are, if this is the best we can be than we will not have succeeded. A return to the original state may well be the best available option, but that makes the process that tested the various states as not having achieved improvement. Words again.
“A distraction can be considered as anything that leads us away from the needs of this present moment that we are attending to lol – here we go again, forget the present moment, it is broader than that, it is about processes not just this moment, a distraction may well be ‘at this moment’ but it may well go on for a long time, it may well only apply to one aspect of ‘the needs of the moment’, and it may apply to the needs of others as well – sometimes things distract us form being too ‘in the moment’, subconscious warnings or warnings from guides may well be a case of this. One assumes that ‘the needs of the moment’ are paramount and correct, what if one is attending the ‘wrong’ needs of the moment?
“But you could spend all your time "looking" for the goal” – yes – and this is why I think that Buddha got it wrong, by reading the front page and the last page of the book he got to the end, but he missed the bit in the middle. I do not focus ‘only on the goal’ it is an and point and I will make my way towards it enjoying the ‘bit in the middle’ and making the most of it. It is not a distraction, though I see that the ‘moment’ thing tries to make it so. If you need shopping you set off towards the supermarket – it is a journey with an end point, a destination – the needs of the now say to watch where you are going only, but you still keep the destination in mind, or else you would get lost – the same is true of our journeys, if we only look to the present moment, we lose sight of the future and we will get lost.
“It also assumes that the "final objective" is something that doesn't already exist within you.” – how can a final objective exist within one when one is striving towards it, this is the nature of the evolutionary journey we are on, when we arrive we will not be the same as we are now, we will be the same entity, but changed and different through our experiences.
Yes – I know a bit about quantum physics, and I see that some have extrapolated the fact that particles and waves sometimes alter their states when we observe them, the connection may well be what we call consciousness, so far it is not understood apart from some statistics, but that is very different from creating a world or changing the world so that we get what we ‘want’. Observation by ‘an entity’ of quantum processes seems to stabilise them, but that does not explain how that stabilisation happened before the earth was formed does it. We still have a long way to go in our understanding, and it is a brilliant time to be part of it, I see that the faster than light particles have been doing their stuff again for instance, perhaps they are only doing it because the scientists wish they would eh – or perhaps they always could and did.
We have no evidence to assume that the universe is or is not god energy, unless you have some?
“Energy exists, organising it is different to donating it” – ummm – what I was trying to say was perhaps that creating a chair from wood is much easier than creating from scratch the tree and the environment to make the tree. Cooking a bean stew is different to growing the beans and then cooking it, So (theoretical here so hunting a bit) if god wanted to create a universe taking some existing energy and reforming it would be different to actually separating a part of the godself and then manipulating it.
Yes – the tree is a good example “A flower on a fruit tree turns to a fruit and the fruit creates a seed. The tree itself may provide the energy needed to do this, but the tree itself does not need to direct the fruit to grow, it is the flower, fruit etc. that uses the tree given energy to grow how it is 'designed' (to use the term loosely) to grow. The fruit can be removed from the tree and it can still grow and ripen after that. They are seperate and yet their energy is co-existent. So why should we be seperate? co-existing does not impart puppet mastery control over 'other' unless you choose to believe that.”
The tree does not decide how the new tree will grow, it generates the conditions for a new tree to exist and then if the new tree does ok in the environment it finds itself, if it can adapt well enough, then it will thrive. The original tree and the new tree are not joined, they are not part of the same ‘tree existence’, the new tree may have to adapt in order to thrive, both live their own lives in the environment.
Occasionally of course trees can ‘reproduce’ by suckering, exact copies of the original, and in that case they are often still joined, but that is different to the blending of genes and production of a new genetically different being.
love
chris
“But is that not an assumption on the motives of others” – yes – it is a translation of what I see – as such of course it can be challenged, it is not evidence, but we make these evaluations every day.
It may be that those who see themselves as separate have motives as well – each case, each person has to be judged on its own situation. Generally I don’t think that I see this with the ‘separatists’, they are few and far between I think. I do not think from close personal examination that it applies to me…..
I'm sure we'd all like to think we don't have motives... unforunately our mind loves to play.... 😉
“Any anyway, what's to say that all people are not divine” – generally people do not exhibit the qualities that we associate with being divine. From the free dictionary “Having the nature of or being a deity”
Perhaps the divine is exhibited in all people, just that others judgments prevent that divinity from being seen. The dictionary definition of divine is a somewhat dualistic one where it puts some on a pedestal above others, which is just like saying that one flower is more beautiful than another, when in truth all flowers are beautiful, by their very nature.
– this goes back to the conversation about miracles and being a creator, and I see no God scale miracles or creations that can be described as divine – this does not mean we will never be, or that we are reduced in some way to recognise this – what aspects do you think everyone exhibit that confirm our divine nature?
confirm in what way? in a scientifically measurable way? Likely to be none. In a self knowledge way... everything and no-thing. Confused? of course. hehe! What do we mean by divine in the first place. As I said above, if we're talking of the dualistic concept of one 'being' being a deity above and beyond 'others' then this will never be proven as this is the ego at work creating a hierarchy for the purposes of control and to create seperateness, thus maintaining duality, and where one is seen as seperate from 'other' then conflict will always appear... but I digress. If we talk of true divinity, this exists in all things, but is often masked by the perceptions created by the dualistic mind. Of course, just like the balance of good and evil, the true divinity cannot be recognised without the dualism of subjective quality, but when we let go of those judgements/subjectiveness the divinity of all things comes to our awareness (or perhaps we should say, becomes one with our consciousness)
Well there are a number of religious texts that state that god made the world and made us – but these threads also have views that express that. Of course if god did not make the world, and did not make us, then what can be the explanation apart from there being either no god or that gd created something that has given rise to the world and us?
One first has to believe that there was "creation" and to do that one would also have to believe in there being a "beginning", thus we get the paradox of "what was there before?" which itself cannot be answered. The human mind is limited and cannot comprehend no-thingness and infinity (which go hand in hand), so has to create boundaries in space and time to try and explain things to itself, but then can't explain the paradoxes that arise, so goes off and distracts itself with something else. LOL! 😀
The connection between those who have made contact with god is just like the mother/child connection, it exists. The specific beliefs about creation do not change that connection. The connection does not change whether we are a part of god or ‘simply made by god’, it is a connection. The act of creation does not imply that a specific part of the creator must be used (apart from the concept), a person can create a chair from wood, but the chair is not part of the person.
Does the person not feel loss if the chair it taken from them? Has the person not imparted an energy of themselves into the creation of the chair. This of course does lead to the subjectiveness of quality where we could say that different amounts of a person are put into their creations, such as a chair made by a skilled craftsman who has taken great care and attention to detail in making the chair, shows a better quality and sense of that workmanship than a chair that has been knocked together out of a few lengths of wood with some nails in 5 minutes by someone who doesn't care. To say that the chair does not contain a part of that person to some degree or other is to be completely cold and seperated from all others. This would be like saying that a mother who loses her child doesn't have a sense of loss of herself.... yet so many would say that they have lost a part of themselves. Of course the child contains a part of the parents.
“Is there not therefore a connection between us and God that, by your own reasoning of the "mother" means that we are always that creation of God, and thus a part of God?” – nope, that is the whole point. “God is everywhere and within everything, so that too would ascribe to the concept of us all being a part of God” – this too makes an assumption, air is everywhere (that we are) but we are not a part of air, light is everywhere but we are not a part of light.
But is not God the air and the light, just as we are? If you are completely seperate from God, then why do you believe in God?
“how can you have looked at it to know for sure it is simply a wish?” – simply what I said, I have looked and that is what I saw
My point was that it's like saying you can't fly a plane, when you've never even tried.
there is always the possibility that I was blind to some aspect, that my view was constrained, or simply mistaken, but looking and describing is something we do al the time, it is the best we can do. Have you looked and seen differently?
That's why I talk of putting things into practice. Not just looking at something, but experience it and know it for sure, as much as we possibly can. I've tried the belief in God thing and was brought up to believe and to understand I was created by God. As I've grown, I've tested these beliefs and not found them to show any evidence of truth, yet I do re-read 'religious' texts and have insights and understanding of what the meaning is of these things aside from it just being a belief in the 'written word as truth', because I can put those teachings to the test outside of the relgious belief in God and find that in a lot of cases such teachings hold truth, but when coupled with the belief of a church and the 'taken literally' thing, they do no work. Tested from both sides... one side yields truth, the other... just beliefs.
“I don't believe I am a fish, so I can only imagine in the mind what it must be like to be a fish. hehe!”” – agreed, but isn’t it wonderful that we can imagine what it is like to be a fish, this is how empathy works, and it is a valuable trait. We will never get it quite right, but we do use this skill all the time, it is what books depend on, it is core to describing ‘stabbing pains’, it is everywhere, it is part of us (hehe).
Saying that though, have you ever expanded your awareness to simply BE with something else (or everything else)? Doing so, can allow us to 'see' (use that word loosely) through the eyes of the other, to sense, feel and experience what they do (the words I'm using are dualistic, but there are no words to describe BEing at one with everything easily, one can only point to it). This is like ceases to consider oneself as seperate and allowing expansion to become everything at once. Using my dualistic mind I can say "i've done it, and it works" hehe! This is perhaps along the lines of what Paul was talking about when he said that he heals by entering into the consciousness of the client. It's not something easily described, but it is something without ego, seperateness or selfishness.
“How do we know all systems require balance?” – ok – I have yet to see a system that does not eventually require balance, overwhelming numbers make me think so, but if you think there is a god example of a system that does not then let me know. Usually those who choose to ignore this kind of function are those who try to take advantage from others for themselves, they think they will get away with it.
The universe itself is not balanced... for it moves. Yet this in itself is a form of balance. The point I was making however is that 'balance' is subjective.
Good and evil are just words to describe what people feel, the fact that in most cases they describe opposite things at least does show that people perceive that there are two values that are opposing in their results. This again is something we all do, all the time. Values from person to person may change, but the understanding that there is a difference does not. I have not mentioned good or evil, this is your introduction.
It was an example of balance and the subjectiveness of quality. It could be applied to anything. A blank wall and a wall with a picture... one may say that the room is more balanced with a picture on the wall as the blank wall looks stark, but in truth it's completely subjective and if we never knew any different from a blank wall, then we wouldn't consider a wall with a picture to be necessary, just as we place subjectiveness of quality in the picture itself i.e. one picture can be seen as 'better' than another. I simply used good and evil as a classic example. 😉
“I think I understand what Daz was saying. For it to be "free" will, it must be "free" – yes I understand as well – but free will does not mean unlimited options, if you go to a restaurant you choose from the menu, in the same way we can choose from the options available, this is what is free, and this is important, for seeing free will as the ‘more expansive’ option of being able to do anything at all one again elevates oneself to god status. We can choose what path we walk, starting from where we are standing – this is free will.
No... elevating oneself to a "god status" is about ego... but what is to really stop you from doing anything at all that you want?
Well – Jesus was careful about what he said, he lived in a very dangerous political time, but he did claim to be the son of God, (earlier warnings that I am no biblical scholar still in force) – “9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.”. Again we are supposed to be created in the image of God, by God, but that is different to being a part of god, a sculptor make create an image of a person, but the image is not part of that person.
See previous on the chair. 😉
“and that he perceived all of humankind as equal to himself” – equality does not make two things the same, for instance (because I know you like equations) it may mean that K = B, but that does not make K part of B, or B part of K, neither does it imply that they are indistinguishable. We (shold) treat all people as equal but we still recognise them as individuals.
If we recognise people as individuals we treat them as other from ourselves, and to do that we allow ourselves to treat them differently to ourselves, and this is where conflict and control stems from, created by this mind set that others are not ourselves.
“If he were the only one that was a part of God whilst everyone else isn't then he would have known the ultimate goal of his teachings would not have been possible.” – he was a teacher, and he showed us how we could be like him, this is what a teacher does, but it does not make the pupil part of the teacher.
A teacher does not exist without pupils.
“for something to return to the start through the evolutionary process was a failure” – as an evolutionary process yes, from the freedictionary (I can hear Dazzle chuckling), “A gradual process in which something changes
into a different and usually more complex or better form” – we have evolved from unicellular organisms, to return to those would not be seen as a success.
Matter of opinion. Note the dictionary does say "usually" a more complex or better form. There's nothing to say that going back to a unicellular organism is not a success, if that meant the best evolutionary surivival of the species. That's just your own perception that sees it as a failure.
Put another way, if we stay as we are, if this is the best we can be than we will not have succeeded. A return to the original state may well be the best available option, but that makes the process that tested the various states as not having achieved improvement. Words again.
This is really the ego creating a conflict by seeing one thing as better than another.
“A distraction can be considered as anything that leads us away from the needs of this present moment that we are attending to lol – here we go again, forget the present moment, it is broader than that, it is about processes not just this moment, a distraction may well be ‘at this moment’ but it may well go on for a long time, it may well only apply to one aspect of ‘the needs of the moment’, and it may apply to the needs of others as well – sometimes things distract us form being too ‘in the moment’, subconscious warnings or warnings from guides may well be a case of this. One assumes that ‘the needs of the moment’ are paramount and correct, what if one is attending the ‘wrong’ needs of the moment?
How do you judge something to be wrong, if you meet the only needs that are in front of you. There are no other needs to be met. And I'm afriad we can't forget the present moment. I know you have some odd aversion to it, but the fact is that a distraction, nomatter how long it lasts can only distract you at this moment... and this moment... and this moment... and this moment etc. as it happens.
“But you could spend all your time "looking" for the goal” – yes – and this is why I think that Buddha got it wrong, by reading the front page and the last page of the book he got to the end, but he missed the bit in the middle. I do not focus ‘only on the goal’ it is an and point and I will make my way towards it enjoying the ‘bit in the middle’ and making the most of it. It is not a distraction, though I see that the ‘moment’ thing tries to make it so. If you need shopping you set off towards the supermarket – it is a journey with an end point, a destination – the needs of the now say to watch where you are going only, but you still keep the destination in mind, or else you would get lost – the same is true of our journeys, if we only look to the present moment, we lose sight of the future and we will get lost.
“It also assumes that the "final objective" is something that doesn't already exist within you.” – how can a final objective exist within one when one is striving towards it, this is the nature of the evolutionary journey we are on, when we arrive we will not be the same as we are now, we will be the same entity, but changed and different through our experiences.
Ah, the voice of dualism. 😀
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Yes – I know a bit about quantum physics, and I see that some have extrapolated the fact that particles and waves sometimes alter their states when we observe them, the connection may well be what we call consciousness, so far it is not understood apart from some statistics, but that is very different from creating a world or changing the world so that we get what we ‘want’.
You haven't read the book and already you have judged it. :confused:
All the time you asked for evidence of a scientific nature to act as proof towards what we discussed, and now there is a book that offers a good scientific background showing the connection between quantum principles (tested experiments, not just the theories) and consciousness and the universe we live in, and you put it down without even reading it.
The book isn't just an extrapolation of quantum theories by some joe bloggs, this is a quantum physicist who examines and details the quantum experiments and how they relate to the spiritual aspect of ourselves and consciousness. I recommended it because I would consider it the sort of thing you would like to read to perhaps move along on your journey towards your goal, even if that allowed you to discredit certain things as well as accept certain things... but you seem to choose not to even look at that thing because it may go against your existing beliefs. Surely that is a contradiction of what you were saying above about experiencing the full journey to your goal.
Observation by ‘an entity’ of quantum processes seems to stabilise them, but that does not explain how that stabilisation happened before the earth was formed does it.
Actually, it does if you understand quantum theories. It's well explained in that book.
We still have a long way to go in our understanding, and it is a brilliant time to be part of it, I see that the faster than light particles have been doing their stuff again for instance, perhaps they are only doing it because the scientists wish they would eh – or perhaps they always could and did.
We have no evidence to assume that the universe is or is not god energy, unless you have some?
As I don't believe in God in that Christian sense, I of course cannot answer that question, aside to say that I understand all to be energy.
“Energy exists, organising it is different to donating it” – ummm – what I was trying to say was perhaps that creating a chair from wood is much easier than creating from scratch the tree and the environment to make the tree. Cooking a bean stew is different to growing the beans and then cooking it, So (theoretical here so hunting a bit) if god wanted to create a universe taking some existing energy and reforming it would be different to actually separating a part of the godself and then manipulating it.
But if God were the energy then it would simply be reforming the god self into the universe which is no different either way you look at it. Only when you seperate God from the energy do you experience the issue you describe.
Yes – the tree is a good example “A flower on a fruit tree turns to a fruit and the fruit creates a seed. The tree itself may provide the energy needed to do this, but the tree itself does not need to direct the fruit to grow, it is the flower, fruit etc. that uses the tree given energy to grow how it is 'designed' (to use the term loosely) to grow. The fruit can be removed from the tree and it can still grow and ripen after that. They are seperate and yet their energy is co-existent. So why should we be seperate? co-existing does not impart puppet mastery control over 'other' unless you choose to believe that.”
The tree does not decide how the new tree will grow, it generates the conditions for a new tree to exist and then if the new tree does ok in the environment it finds itself, if it can adapt well enough, then it will thrive. The original tree and the new tree are not joined, they are not part of the same ‘tree existence’, the new tree may have to adapt in order to thrive, both live their own lives in the environment.
But the new tree does have the DNA of the original tree and the ground on which the new tree grows may also be protected by the original tree, e.g. providing shelter from the wind or simply (a la chaos theory) the butterfly effect. To say the new tree is not in connection with the original tree is not truly correct.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Hi Giles,
“I'm sure we'd all like to think we don't have motives... unforunately our mind loves to play...” – true, so all we can do is investigate and evaluate as best we can, if we do not then the motives may well remain hidden. Those who choose not to look will never uncover the truth, those who do seek the truth will uncover it.
“Perhaps the divine is exhibited in all people, just that others judgments prevent that divinity from being seen. The dictionary definition of divine is a somewhat dualistic one where it puts some on a pedestal above others, which is just like saying that one flower is more beautiful than another, when in truth all flowers are beautiful, by their very nature “ – Yes – but so what if it is dualistic, we know from every aspect of life that some people are taller than others, some richer, some older. These are just differences, they are not to be disparaged. Some hold that no everyone can heal, and some think others’ words are not to be trusted, these are just differences we accepts and live with. So if one wants to state that everyone is of the same height then there is an easy test for this, it can be proven or disproven by measuring. If we are gods, if we are the equal of god, or if we are indeed god, then the test should be whether we can do what we perceive god does, and while we can do some astonishing things we have no evidence of doing ‘miracles’.
“confirm in what way? in a scientifically measurable way? Likely to be none. In a self knowledge way... everything and no-thing.” – well, let’s start with god created the universe, I (jokingly) suggested that Dazzle test this out by (say) creating a orange, the point being that we cannot create these kind of things (not that we cannot create concepts, art and beauty), but if god did create the universe then that seems beyond us, if god sees all and knows all, if god directs every aspect of all that we all do, then that too seems beyond us. These are simple (at the extremities) empirical tests of our abilities. It is no good decrying the dualistic nature of this, as if that is to blame, if it is just a non-dualistic wish, a longing to somehow be more than we are, then it is simply self-deception. It is no good avoiding the ‘chance of conflict’ simply because one would like to believe that one is a god, that is simply living in a world of fantasy. If it is true, if we are god, or part of god, then we should in the holographic way have the abilities of god, and I see no evidence in any way of that (yet).
Feeling the connection to god, as many do, sensing the expansiveness of god’s existence allows us a view into god’s existence, but that alone does not bestow goodness upon us or confirm that we are part of god, we mistake our closeness to god with being god, we long to be like god so much we convince ourselves we are.
“If we talk of true divinity, this exists in all things” – said with true feeling and conviction, and of course most would nod knowingly at this, but it just has no substance behind it. God created the universe perhaps, and that makes us all part of god’s creation, but divinity, godhood, has no need in the structure to exist in all things. This is a wish, it is used to support a fantasy of our own godhood. Of course if it masked by the dualistic mind, then we have a villain, someone to blame for our inability to support in any way the wish that we project upon ourselves, duality becomes a dirty word, and we blame it for this blindness to the truth of our godhood. We use duality to self-deceive, to bolster a self-inflated pipe-dream, yet it is evident that we do not exhibit god abilities of creation, we actually exhibit very few aspects that we would associate with god, and it is only when we honestly face this that we begin to accept who we really are, until then we live with a vision of who we would like to be and will continually be unsatisfied with ourselves. Why are we unhappy with the fantastic beings we already are and with the fantastic chance that we have to become more than we currently are? Therein lies the dualistic problem if it lies anywhere.
“One first has to believe that there was "creation" and to do that one would also have to believe in there being a "beginning" – again this is the kind of thinking that sits badly with us being a god, if we are part of god then we should know how this all started or what the path was that got everything to this point, but you are right, we struggle with concepts like infinity, and yet a god would not struggle with this, we blame the human mind, yet our spirit fares no better at this, we connect to god yet gather no insights into understanding this, and yet we claim that this is not because we are not god, for we are god, but because we allow a distraction, or dualism to interrupt us in some way. Our dissatisfaction with ourselves, the manner in which we belittle ourselves because of our aspirations, drives us to construct blame and reasons, conspiracies and hidden agendas as to why we are confused or unable to do what god surly can. “"what was there before?" which itself cannot be answered” – not by us, but I’m sure god knows – and this is the whole point.
“Does the person not feel loss if the chair it taken from them?” This is about the person, not the chair, “Has the person not imparted an energy of themselves into the creation of the chair” – only if you see a mother rather than a worker. The chair is part of the past of the person who created it, there is, just as there is with all that we meet, a connection formed, and this is within our creative abilities for sure. The chair may even retain a view of this history, and some of the energy of the love given during its forming, but this does not mean that it is god created, it means that we have done what we can do, it is within our abilities to do this, it does not imply god abilities.
“This would be like saying that a mother who loses her child doesn't have a sense of loss of herself.... yet so many would say that they have lost a part of themselves. Of course the child contains a part of the parents” – and of course I would never say that – I see the connections clearly that bind one to the other.
“But is not God the air and the light, just as we are?” – show me how. I think that if god created this universe (and I do) then there is no reason to assume that god is in the air and the light, and I see no reason to judge that we are in the air and the light. There is a vast difference between having a connection to something and actually being that something. I see I am pert of this universe, I feel connected to this universe, but I do not think that I am the moon. The moon (an old friend who I greet frequently lol), and I are separate characters in this universe.
“My point was that it's like saying you can't fly a plane, when you've never even tried” – and if this was true then I agree, however I think it is more like saying that simply because you have never tried something that you can do it. The fact that one has never tried something does not render the task possible, it just means that so far it is untested, it remain a possibility just as it remains a possibility that it is no possible (lol). So you are right to say that we cannot say that we cannot do something if we have not had a go, but it is wrong too to claim to be able to do something when we have not had a go, and so it is wrong to claim to be god when we have not exhibited any god powers and simply to say that simply having the powers renders the need to exhibit them unnecessary. What is wrong is to claim those things that we are not.
“Saying that though, have you ever expanded your awareness to simply BE with something else (or everything else)?” – connections – the interconnected web of beings, including god that we have access to, this does not make us part of them, but allows us a view of them. In order to connect to the internet one needs a device of some sort, this allows access to many places, it does not place us there, just gives a view of ‘there’, in some cases the connection to ‘everything’ is made by entering the ‘now’, some find this by accident, some seek it, it is not the only way to make these connections, many have made them over history in many different way, but in each case the results are similar – an expansion of awareness and ‘simply being’ are some ways to describe it. When one is connected to the internet one becomes ‘part of the internet’, for it is made of many ‘beings’ all connecting together, all are separate but the connections give a sense of ‘oneness’. What then if someone claimed that they were the internet? I’m not sure this example holds up fully in every detail but it is the best view I can give at the moment, it attempts to give a flavour.
“This is perhaps along the lines of what Paul was talking about when he said that he heals by entering into the consciousness of the client. It's not something easily described, but it is something without ego, seperateness or selfishness.” – perhaps, these are bold claims that are based on impressions from within the process.
“he point I was making however is that 'balance' is subjective.” – nope – our view at this moment about what we see as balance is subjective, but if the view is broad enough, or detailed enough, or long enough it will demonstrate balance. Some may well feel that they can hurt others and get away with it, to pay no kind of ‘rebalancing’ and so claim that there is no balancing process at work, they are wrong, in the long term everything is balanced eventually.
“No... elevating oneself to a "god status" is about ego... but what is to really stop you from doing anything at all that you want?” – eventually I believe the answer is nothing, but no matter how I may try at this time I cannot be 3 foot taller, or twenty years younger, or create a universe. If all that one wants is something that others have than one is dissatisfied with oneself, if all that one can do is claim to be able to do the things that others do, but never show that they can, then one is demonstrating that one is dissatisfied with oneself, and that dissatisfaction is about ego, and that is all it is about. This is part of the issue about being self-limiting – if we are part of god then it is god who limits us, we can never point to ourselves and say we have become self limiting, god is responsible for our limitations, be they real or perceived. Only by being separate beings can we take responsibility for our selves, and then being self limiting becomes possible.
“If we recognise people as individuals we treat them as other from ourselves, and to do that we allow ourselves to treat them differently to ourselves, and this is where conflict and control stems from, created by this mind set that others are not ourselves” = hmm – I think this is true, however what you describe as ‘mind-set’ is actually factual, it exists, we are all different, I do not want to be you, I want to be me, ‘mind-set’ has nothing to do with the facts. It is a ‘mind-set’ that makes us wish to be like others, and this leads to us wishing we were not who we are, and that starts up the competitive control systems where we seek to dominate or behave tribally. To simply wish that we were all the same is just that, a wish – and if it includes god than it just escalates the porblem.
“A teacher does not exist without pupils” – haha – I’ll save that for another time – I think we are back to seeing the mother or the worker. A mother is a mother inside and that exists, whether others choose to see that or not does not change it.
Then return to a previous state by definition means that the process of evolution, of changing to a more viable state, has failed, this does happen all the time in evolution, there are many dead ends and attempts that fail.
“ This is really the ego creating a conflict by seeing one thing as better than another.” – no again, this is based on empirical survival, to blame the ego again is not right, evolution is based on evidential survival and procreation, by success and failure. Sometimes one thing is better at this than another, it is actually self-deception to not see this.
“I know you have some odd aversion to it, but the fact is that a distraction, nomatter how long it lasts can only distract you at this moment” – I see the now as part of life, but only as part – in terms of a distraction it can distract you at this moment, and the next and the next, and if it is to continue it allows us to see that it wil distract for some time, it is not just a momentary thing. Oh and the use of odd is judgemental.
“You haven't read the book and already you have judged it.” – no again – I simply told you what I think about it all – I have no knowledge what the book says, please do not jump to conclusions. When the opportunity to read it appears I will with an open mind. I do not play this blame game – I’ve told you that. If all you can do is try to offend it will not work.
“But if God were the energy then it would simply be reforming the god self into the universe which is no different either way you look at it. Only when you seperate God from the energy do you experience the issue you describe” – agreed, but forming the god self into the universe allows no room for free will, and makes us only puppets to a cruel god, only when you separate the universe from god does the evidence begin to make sense.
“To say the new tree is not in connection with the original tree is not truly correct.” – sharing DNA does not constitute a connection, if the seed is carried far away then there is no connection made. If trees, perhaps of many different types, live closely to each other they can have a connection without sharing DNA.
love
chris
Phew that's a lot to read... ok, I'll pick out bits as time permits (hey that rhymes hehe!)
“Perhaps the divine is exhibited in all people, just that others judgments prevent that divinity from being seen. The dictionary definition of divine is a somewhat dualistic one where it puts some on a pedestal above others, which is just like saying that one flower is more beautiful than another, when in truth all flowers are beautiful, by their very nature “ – Yes – but so what if it is dualistic, we know from every aspect of life that some people are taller than others, some richer, some older. These are just differences, they are not to be disparaged.
Absolutely, they are just differences. But that is different from when you put a subjective value on something. Saying some people are tall and others small is absolutely fine in itself, but when you put value on that and, for example, suggest that a taller person is 'better' than a smaller person, then you create the subjective quality rather than the objective quality which is what it was. When we have subjective quality, we have conflict. Thus saying one person is a deity over and above another person is not objective and will lead to conflict.
“confirm in what way? in a scientifically measurable way? Likely to be none. In a self knowledge way... everything and no-thing.” – well, let’s start with god created the universe, I (jokingly) suggested that Dazzle test this out by (say) creating a orange, the point being that we cannot create these kind of things (not that we cannot create concepts, art and beauty), but if god did create the universe then that seems beyond us, if god sees all and knows all, if god directs every aspect of all that we all do, then that too seems beyond us.
So an unproven god has apparently (and unprovenly) created a universe and now you want Daz to create an Orange and expect him to prove it. Hmmm. :rolleyes:
Based on the quantum theories, it's perfectly possible that Daz creating an orange on an orange tree via his true Self awareness is really creating an orange on a tree somewhere else. However, if one of the observers of this experiment were to try and observe the creation, then the wave (probability) function will collapse and the creationary self awareness is prevented from being connected to the creation of the orange, thus preventing it from happening. For all we know the creation of all oranges on trees are due to the awareness of those who expect oranges to grow on those orange trees, but anyone trying to prove it will prevent it from happening. Ah, quantum principles... doncha just love em. 😀
These are simple (at the extremities) empirical tests of our abilities. It is no good decrying the dualistic nature of this, as if that is to blame, if it is just a non-dualistic wish, a longing to somehow be more than we are, then it is simply self-deception.
No, it's progression/evolution and awareness of more than just the materialist realism that many scientists are still struggling to get their understanding past. Even Einstein wouldn't accept it and posited "paradoxes" and "hidden variables" to try and prove against such quantum theories, but experiments have shown that the paradoxes and hidden variables only exists when one is limited to the materialist realism viewpoint of science. As for "a longing to somehow be more than we are", I though you believed that was the point of evolution, to try and progress to your ultimate goal?
It is no good avoiding the ‘chance of conflict’ simply because one would like to believe that one is a god, that is simply living in a world of fantasy.
No, I wouldn't believe that one is a god.... I would believe that ALL is god.
If it is true, if we are god, or part of god, then we should in the holographic way have the abilities of god, and I see no evidence in any way of that (yet).
Or perhaps you just have a misconception about the abilities that your seperate god is supposed to have?
Feeling the connection to god, as many do, sensing the expansiveness of god’s existence allows us a view into god’s existence, but that alone does not bestow goodness upon us or confirm that we are part of god, we mistake our closeness to god with being god, we long to be like god so much we convince ourselves we are.
I can't relate to that, as I do not see the seperateness and limits you obviously do.
“If we talk of true divinity, this exists in all things” – said with true feeling and conviction, and of course most would nod knowingly at this, but it just has no substance behind it.
Just as a seperate God that we are not a part of has no substance to it.
God created the universe perhaps, and that makes us all part of god’s creation, but divinity, godhood, has no need in the structure to exist in all things. This is a wish, it is used to support a fantasy of our own godhood.
That would only be true if one perceived oneself as seperate from "others". If one is At One with all, then there is no subjective quality to see oneself as 'better' in any sense of the word.
Of course if it masked by the dualistic mind, then we have a villain, someone to blame for our inability to support in any way the wish that we project upon ourselves, duality becomes a dirty word, and we blame it for this blindness to the truth of our godhood.
LOL! It's not about blame remember. Blame requires you to place some-thing as seperate from an 'other' thing. Duality exists in the mind, but we don't have to place blame upon that or indeed upon anything. Recognising dualism for what it is allows us to be At One and connected with all.
We use duality to self-deceive, to bolster a self-inflated pipe-dream, yet it is evident that we do not exhibit god abilities of creation, we actually exhibit very few aspects that we would associate with god, and it is only when we honestly face this that we begin to accept who we really are,
Self limiting beliefs of the mind.
“One first has to believe that there was "creation" and to do that one would also have to believe in there being a "beginning" – again this is the kind of thinking that sits badly with us being a god, if we are part of god then we should know how this all started or what the path was that got everything to this point, but you are right, we struggle with concepts like infinity, and yet a god would not struggle with this, we blame the human mind, yet our spirit fares no better at this, we connect to god yet gather no insights into understanding this, and yet we claim that this is not because we are not god, for we are god, but because we allow a distraction, or dualism to interrupt us in some way.
But you still assume that there was a beginning. If there was no beginning then it's not there to be recognised and of course you will struggle to find it, just as you would trying to find a fliggledemopdepop.
Our dissatisfaction with ourselves, the manner in which we belittle ourselves because of our aspirations, drives us to construct blame and reasons, conspiracies and hidden agendas as to why we are confused or unable to do what god surly can. “"what was there before?" which itself cannot be answered” – not by us, but I’m sure god knows – and this is the whole point.
But if you don't know the things that god knows, then how do you know what god can surely do?
In discussion with someone a while back, they said that there were "beings" that were mining the centre of the moon and it was all going on on the 'far side' of the moon so we couldn't see. When I pointed out that we have various satellites and probes out in space and we (the scientists/space programs etc.) would be able to see it happening, I was told that we can't see it because "they" (the beings) don't want us to know. I then asked "well how do you know then?" to which there was obviously no answer.
“Does the person not feel loss if the chair it taken from them?” This is about the person, not the chair, “Has the person not imparted an energy of themselves into the creation of the chair” – only if you see a mother rather than a worker.
This discussion wasn't about the needs of the moment, it was about one being a part of an 'other'.
The chair is part of the past of the person who created it, there is, just as there is with all that we meet, a connection formed, and this is within our creative abilities for sure. The chair may even retain a view of this history, and some of the energy of the love given during its forming, but this does not mean that it is god created, it means that we have done what we can do, it is within our abilities to do this, it does not imply god abilities.
It also doesn't mean that it isn't god created.
“But is not God the air and the light, just as we are?” – show me how.
Show me how not. Or simply show me god.
“My point was that it's like saying you can't fly a plane, when you've never even tried” – and if this was true then I agree, however I think it is more like saying that simply because you have never tried something that you can do it. The fact that one has never tried something does not render the task possible, it just means that so far it is untested, it remain a possibility just as it remains a possibility that it is no possible (lol).
So don't dismiss it till you've tried it.
So you are right to say that we cannot say that we cannot do something if we have not had a go, but it is wrong too to claim to be able to do something when we have not had a go, and so it is wrong to claim to be god when we have not exhibited any god powers and simply to say that simply having the powers renders the need to exhibit them unnecessary. What is wrong is to claim those things that we are not.
Nothing wrong... but it's just a claim, just as you claim to know what god powers are.
“Saying that though, have you ever expanded your awareness to simply BE with something else (or everything else)?” – connections – the interconnected web of beings, including god that we have access to, this does not make us part of them, but allows us a view of them.
If you are viewing them, then you are doing so from "outside", or merely considering you are just your physical form. I'm not talking of viewing them, I'm talking of "BEing" them.
In order to connect to the internet one needs a device of some sort, this allows access to many places, it does not place us there, just gives a view of ‘there’, in some cases the connection to ‘everything’ is made by entering the ‘now’, some find this by accident, some seek it, it is not the only way to make these connections, many have made them over history in many different way, but in each case the results are similar – an expansion of awareness and ‘simply being’ are some ways to describe it. When one is connected to the internet one becomes ‘part of the internet’, for it is made of many ‘beings’ all connecting together, all are separate but the connections give a sense of ‘oneness’. What then if someone claimed that they were the internet? I’m not sure this example holds up fully in every detail but it is the best view I can give at the moment, it attempts to give a flavour.
Correct it doesn't quite hold up (good try though *applaude*), but that's because it's limited to the physical nature of the internet.
“This is perhaps along the lines of what Paul was talking about when he said that he heals by entering into the consciousness of the client. It's not something easily described, but it is something without ego, seperateness or selfishness.” – perhaps, these are bold claims that are based on impressions from within the process.
Not sure what you mean by "within the process". It is no more a bold claim than claiming there is god or that god created the universe.
“the point I was making however is that 'balance' is subjective.” – nope – our view at this moment about what we see as balance is subjective, but if the view is broad enough, or detailed enough, or long enough it will demonstrate balance. Some may well feel that they can hurt others and get away with it, to pay no kind of ‘rebalancing’ and so claim that there is no balancing process at work, they are wrong, in the long term everything is balanced eventually.
How do you know?
“No... elevating oneself to a "god status" is about ego... but what is to really stop you from doing anything at all that you want?” – eventually I believe the answer is nothing, but no matter how I may try at this time I cannot be 3 foot taller, or twenty years younger
Ever heard the expression "you're as old as you feel". 😉
If all that one wants is something that others have than one is dissatisfied with oneself, if all that one can do is claim to be able to do the things that others do, but never show that they can, then one is demonstrating that one is dissatisfied with oneself, and that dissatisfaction is about ego, and that is all it is about.
And that is what happens when you view yourself as seperate. You want what "others" have got because you do not see that "others" are already your self.
“If we recognise people as individuals we treat them as other from ourselves, and to do that we allow ourselves to treat them differently to ourselves, and this is where conflict and control stems from, created by this mind set that others are not ourselves” = hmm – I think this is true, however what you describe as ‘mind-set’ is actually factual, it exists,
Yes I agree, but it only exists in the same way that the memory of the past exists, but the past itself no longer does. The mind-set creates an untrue existence, not wanting to accept that we are all part of One.
we are all different, I do not want to be you, I want to be me
Ah, well, not sure you get much choice in the matter ultimately. 😀
‘mind-set’ has nothing to do with the facts. It is a ‘mind-set’ that makes us wish to be like others, and this leads to us wishing we were not who we are, and that starts up the competitive control systems where we seek to dominate or behave tribally. To simply wish that we were all the same is just that, a wish – and if it includes god than it just escalates the porblem.
No, you've just said it yourself, the mind set is creating duality, so it's not about just wishing we are all the same (another concept created in mind), but about letting go of the duality and recognising we already have everything. The wishes disappear and the knowledge and awareness simply IS.
“A teacher does not exist without pupils” – haha – I’ll save that for another time – I think we are back to seeing the mother or the worker. A mother is a mother inside and that exists, whether others choose to see that or not does not change it.
😉
Then return to a previous state by definition means that the process of evolution, of changing to a more viable state, has failed, this does happen all the time in evolution, there are many dead ends and attempts that fail.
It's a successful evolutionary process that finds that one way of evolving is not the path to follow. You cannot recognise the subjective successes without the subjective "failures", so they are not really "failures" if you wish to recognise the "successes".
“This is really the ego creating a conflict by seeing one thing as better than another.” – no again, this is based on empirical survival, to blame the ego again is not right, evolution is based on evidential survival and procreation, by success and failure. Sometimes one thing is better at this than another, it is actually self-deception to not see this.
So why not all return to single celled organisms where there is plenty of food and space for all and more chance at increasing the population many-fold. That sounds like a successful progression to me. Or would you (your mind) be afraid of losing your mind. hehe! 🙂
“I know you have some odd aversion to it, but the fact is that a distraction, nomatter how long it lasts can only distract you at this moment” – I see the now as part of life, but only as part – in terms of a distraction it can distract you at this moment, and the next and the next, and if it is to continue it allows us to see that it wil distract for some time, it is not just a momentary thing. Oh and the use of odd is judgemental.
Judgement accepted (hey I'm not perfect with this mind! :p)
Once you start to see the distraction as though "it will distract for some time" then you are making an assumption about the future, but this is not fact and the distraction could just as easily stop unexpectedly. The distraction itself only exists now, it is expectations of the future that exist now to make you believe the distraction itself will exist, but expectations are not fact.“You haven't read the book and already you have judged it.” – no again – I simply told you what I think about it all – I have no knowledge what the book says, please do not jump to conclusions. When the opportunity to read it appears I will with an open mind. I do not play this blame game – I’ve told you that. If all you can do is try to offend it will not work.
I'm not trying to offend. But you responded against the principles that the book talks about without any knowledge of them. That seemed a most unusual thing to do for someone who asks for facts and proof of things.
“But if God were the energy then it would simply be reforming the god self into the universe which is no different either way you look at it. Only when you seperate God from the energy do you experience the issue you describe” – agreed, but forming the god self into the universe allows no room for free will, and makes us only puppets to a cruel god, only when you separate the universe from god does the evidence begin to make sense.
How do you know there would be no free will? After all, we apparently have free will, but we don't know if we are a part of or seperate from god, so it's possible either way until futher evidence is given.
“To say the new tree is not in connection with the original tree is not truly correct.” – sharing DNA does not constitute a connection, if the seed is carried far away then there is no connection made. If trees, perhaps of many different types, live closely to each other they can have a connection without sharing DNA.
So a mother has no connection to her child even if the child is taken away from her? Isn't that the opposite of what you said previously?
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Hi Giles,
“Absolutely, they are just differences. But that is different from when you put a subjective value on something” – this is just a wish, if someone is tall then they are better at some things and worse at others, they can reach the top shelf in a supermarket but suffer more from low door lintels. It seems a fine aspiration to be totally non judgemental, however this can be stretched to the point where it becomes effectively a lie. We each look form our own point of view most of the time, that alone makes what we perceive subjective, we experience different things, and that alone gives us subjective judgment every day about all sorts of things. If someone is tall then we see that and accept that, it is not better or worse than any other state, it brings different qualities from not being tall, this is honest assessment. If someone therefore exhibits the qualities that we describe as a deity then we describe them as that, if they do not then we do not. The qualities still allow each to be who they are, the real problem comes when people wish to be something they are not, that is when the conflict arises. I accept that god is god, god can do lots of things I cannot (though I may be able to one day – who knows), I am not jealous of god, I am ok with who I am, no conflict. If I had this burning wish to be god, and then went round proclaiming that I am god, or trying to align myself with god so as to gather some of the reflected glory, then I am not accepting who I am, conflict arises and then in order to quell the conflict I have to start moaning about subjective assessment by others who do not see what I wish them to see. It is not about being better, but about being different – and happy to be so.
“So an unproven god has apparently (and unprovenly) created a universe and now you want Daz to create an Orange and expect him to prove it. Hmmm.” – Daz suggests that he had creator (god) abilities, and that by having them he knew there was no need to use them, I simply suggested that this left room for doubt, and that he try something small to prove (to himself, I require no prrof) that this was correct. Certainly quantum theories can offer many possibilities (in theory), but making them actual and permanent is another problem, are we god, or part of god, if so than we should be able to do this, if we can then someone will or will have, I see no evidence of this, just claims and wishes.
“As for "a longing to somehow be more than we are", I though you believed that was the point of evolution, to try and progress to your ultimate goal?” – there is a fundamental difference between being and becoming, wishing to be something, but no actually being it is just a lie, wanting to become something is an aspiration.
“No, I wouldn't believe that one is a god.... I would believe that ALL is god.” – and so by definition one must be part of god, if this is the case then one will be directed by god, the illusion of being an individual takes hold and faith has to take over.
“Or perhaps you just have a misconception about the abilities that your seperate god is supposed to have?” – perhaps true, for how can one know all of the abilities of another. Perhaps though this is true even if we are part of god, the difference is that if we are part of god, we should have the abilities of god, and yet do not seem to.
“If one is At One with all, then there is no subjective quality to see oneself as 'better' in any sense of the word” – it is you that continue to bring up the word better – I see that we are different, that is not subjective, it is objective, and that it is the wish, the fantasy that we could be the same as someone else that creates the conflict. Better and worse or the ideas woven through the concept of oneness – and by being so they create conflict.
“Recognising dualism for what it is allows us to be At One and connected with all.” – a bold statement, and delivered with authority, but without explanation it is meaningless.
“Self limiting beliefs of the mind” – hahaa – let’s blame ourselves again, realistic evaluation is not self limiting, wishfulness and fantasy is, being unhappy with who we are and wishing we were more or different or someone else, especially a god perhaps, just limits us to never being good enough for ourselves.
“But you still assume that there was a beginning. If there was no beginning then it's not there to be recognised and of course you will struggle to find it, just as you would trying to find a fliggledemopdepop.”
And this solves part of the problem for the wishful mind – it is a get out for those that fear to seek for they may find that their wishful world is an illusion.
““But is not God the air and the light, just as we are?” – show me how I asked.- your reply “Show me how not. Or simply show me god” – hang on – you made the claim – it is your statement that began this – so anyone can make a claim and then when challenged say ‘prove it wrong’, this is the ultimate in wishfulness, a fantasy world where any claim is true. This is just a nonsense argument if it depends upon this kind of support.
“Nothing wrong... but it's just a claim, just as you claim to know what god powers are” – see the other thread about miracles, some for instance are what we describe as miracles – this is part of the definition of being a god – without those one is not a god, just another being.
“If you are viewing them, then you are doing so from "outside", or merely considering you are just your physical form. I'm not talking of viewing them, I'm talking of "BEing" them.” – or perhaps this is the illusion that is created, if you are being them, and not just experiencing what they experience, then you can do what they do, so once again we come back to the orange test. If you are just connected and experiencing what they are experiencing then you are not being them, so you will gain the feeling of being them but not be able to do what they do – the test is simple, the segments are easy, but the peel is more difficult. This is the conflict that arises from wishing one was someone else, of not being good enough for oneself.
“in the long term everything is balanced eventually” you asked – “How do you know?” – it is based on what we know so far, so far there are no examples where balance is not demanded by our universe (unless you know of one). The wish to see this as wrong is generated by the greedy side of us, the wish to take and never give, I think the credit crunch is a good example of this for instance.
“Ever heard the expression "you're as old as you feel"” - yes – it is a metal view of oneself, but not a physical, we age, some are unhappy with that, they wish (again) that this was not true and wish (again) that they were exempt, they are unhappy with who they are so there is conflict.
“And that is what happens when you view yourself as seperate. You want what "others" have got because you do not see that "others" are already your self” – Once one accepts that one is a unique and separate individual then the step to accepting who we are, and being happy with that is not too hard. The last thing I think one sees is that “"others" are already your self” “ whatever that means.
“the mind set is creating duality” – no – I think that duality exists, if anything the mind set that relates to duality reflects it, It is the mind set that wishes for duality to be incorrect, the mind set that wishes that we are all the same, all one that creates conflict, this is the real illusion. “but about letting go of the duality and recognising we already have everything. The wishes disappear and the knowledge and awareness simply IS.” And this is the real self-deceiving illusion, for once achieved there is no need to progress, godhood seems to be intrinsic, and the puppet is happy for they have become god, well sort of I suppose as long as they never try to prove it or utilise their godhood – so to complete the illusion, to protect it one must then say that having godhood means never having to use it.
“so they are not really "failures" – except that they failed to achieve improvement in evolution – hmm.
“So why not all return to single celled organisms where there is plenty of food and space for all and more chance at increasing the population many-fold. That sounds like a successful progression to me.” – nope – the chance then of ever spreading beyond this earth will never be realised for instance, we would choose to be isolated instead – backward step for sure.
“distraction could just as easily stop unexpectedly” – so you expect the distraction to continue – and that is what most do, that is until they stop. Of course you have judged that what you are focussed on is the thing needing to be focussed on, sometimes a distraction reminds us that it is not, that what is distracting us needs dealing with first. There is no ‘moment’ in a distraction, the moment exists only with you, and that is because you choose to let it.
“But you responded against the principles that the book talks about without any knowledge of them” – I repeat, I told you only what I know, I cannot know what I have not experienced, including the principles of the book – no offense taken.
“After all, we apparently have free will” – this is the problem, if you are a puppet of god then you may well believe you have free will, but that cannot be, only if you are free and set aside from god can your will be free from the god’s will. Wishing that you do have free will realises nothing but self deceit.
“So a mother has no connection to her child even if the child is taken away from her? Isn't that the opposite of what you said previously?” – without looking back I think what I said was that the mother is still a mother, it is within her that this exists, any connections to the child are those that have been forged, some during foetal growth and some post birth. Nevertheless, the mother is still a mother. I have dealt with many women who have had miscarriages and lost children – they were all mothers – and I see them as such. I do not think an IVF, surrogate baby will have any significant connections to the genetic mother, and I’m not even sure she would regard herself as a mother – but perhaps she would, not sure.
love
chris
“Absolutely, they are just differences. But that is different from when you put a subjective value on something” – this is just a wish, if someone is tall then they are better at some things and worse at others, they can reach the top shelf in a supermarket but suffer more from low door lintels.
You seem to like wishes for some reason. It's nothing to do with wishes, all to do with the difference between subjectiveness and objectiveness.
But we weren't talking of specific examples, we were just talking about tall people compared to small people. Collectively, saying that tall people are 'better' would be subjective. When you start to break it down to those specific examples then you actually see that the 'better' or 'worse' aspects are not exclusive to one whole category... as you say the tall people are only 'better' at some things, whilst the small people may be 'better' at others, so in such a respect everything is subjective and we cannot truly seperate. When you place subjective value on something you create attachment, when there's attachment then you create a fear of loss and when you fear loss you create conflict against those things that may take from you what you are attached to. Subjective value and dualism creates conflict. This is not a wish, this is usual spiritual teachings of many of the great spiritual teachers (as their subjective label goes hehe!)
“No, I wouldn't believe that one is a god.... I would believe that ALL is god.” – and so by definition one must be part of god, if this is the case then one will be directed by god, the illusion of being an individual takes hold and faith has to take over.
There are bacteria, enzymes, acids etc in our body that are a part of us. Do we direct them, or do they do what they choose? Being a part of something does not exclude free will.
It seems a fine aspiration to be totally non judgemental, however this can be stretched to the point where it becomes effectively a lie. We each look form our own point of view most of the time, that alone makes what we perceive subjective, we experience different things, and that alone gives us subjective judgment every day about all sorts of things. If someone is tall then we see that and accept that, it is not better or worse than any other state, it brings different qualities from not being tall, this is honest assessment. If someone therefore exhibits the qualities that we describe as a deity then we describe them as that, if they do not then we do not.
That's fine, just so long as we recognise that a deity is no better or worse than any other subjective category of thing.
The qualities still allow each to be who they are, the real problem comes when people wish to be something they are not, that is when the conflict arises. I accept that god is god, god can do lots of things I cannot (though I may be able to one day – who knows), I am not jealous of god, I am ok with who I am, no conflict. If I had this burning wish to be god, and then went round proclaiming that I am god, or trying to align myself with god so as to gather some of the reflected glory, then I am not accepting who I am, conflict arises and then in order to quell the conflict I have to start moaning about subjective assessment by others who do not see what I wish them to see. It is not about being better, but about being different – and happy to be so.
I've never said I'm better so not sure why you believe that to be the case. And if you're going to start insulting me again by saying that I'm "moaning" when I was trying to have a serious philosophical discussion then this just seems to indicate that you obviously don't want to discuss anything. Chris knows what chris is, and everyone else it wrong it seems. What's the point in dicussion with someeone who chooses to be so unfriendly and uncaring towards others. There is no need to discuss any more.
Daz suggests that he had creator (god) abilities, and that by having them he knew there was no need to use them, I simply suggested that this left room for doubt, and that he try something small to prove (to himself, I require no proof) that this was correct.
Hi Chris
Perhaps I may bring forth some clarity .. The orange keeps coming up (lol) .
When the realization of what you are becomes an Individual the Individuality aspect dissolves so that there Is no I . There Is no self . There Is awareness of everything that Is what you are . The universe disappears because their In no-one to perceive It . The form that was In experience of at the time of the realization doesn’t exist within the realization moment - Only what you are exists . Perhaps this Is what paul Is describing as oneness I am not sure . Anyhow when there Is awareness of the I once again the individual Is back with a reality where the self can think, feel, evaluate, sense . etc ,etc . Via human form or whatever .
So daz Is back (now) and pondering on what has just happened and Is now knowing the creative potential of what we are . Daz now knows that there Is no-thing other than what we are that Is In existence . When the realization of this Is happening there Is no-one present to think of conjuring up an orange .
To think of conjuring up an orange one will be back within the ordinary mind . Within the ordinary mind one cannot conjure up an orange out of thin air . Although what we are created the universe . Do you understand that bit chris .
When the realization Is In motion the thought of using the creative powers doesn’t present It’s self . All Is good . Everything In place . Everything just Is as It Is .
This Is why I have mentioned that there would be no need or desire to do anything . This state of being Is where there Is no-one doing anything . The minute daz wants to do something like conjure up an easter bunny then I am no longer being .
That’s also why I said anyone that wants proof that they are God and wants evidence of such will be In an ordinary mind state and will block the realization which surpasses any evidence that one could try and manifest .
x dazzle x
Hi Giles,
“You seem to like wishes for some reason. It's nothing to do with wishes, all to do with the difference between subjectiveness and objectiveness.”” – I use the word wishes when I see people saying that they can do or be something, with no evidence at all that they can or are simply because they would like to be able to or simply be something. This is not subjective, it is about claiming something that is a wish and not actual. I do not personally like wishes and try to avoid them – they express dissatisfaction with who or what we are.
I agree with the bit on subjective vs. objective – and that worse and better are only useful for very defined aspects – they should not be used generically.
“Subjective value and dualism creates conflict” – many thing create conflict, dissatisfaction with who we are creates conflict, however I think that dualism can create clarity, and that removes conflict – if we see the truth, and accept the truth then there is no conflict – only when we see a lie, and wish for the lie is there conflict.
“There are bacteria, enzymes, acids etc in our body that are a part of us. Do we direct them, or do they do what they choose?” – actually the enzymes and acids are part of us, and we direct their activities, even when they seem out of control (as with an ulcer) we are still directing it, as for bacteria, well they are not part of us, they are separate individuals, we have no directive control over these, all we can do is direct our bodies to react to them. What you have provided is a perfect example of how being part of something removes free will, while being separate, even if ‘within’ provides free will.
“That's fine, just so long as we recognise that a deity is no better or worse than any other subjective category of thing.” – lol, of course a deity is by definition a supreme being, (actually I suppose that should be Supreme Being), if you see that that is no better or worse than any other category of thing then you have an interesting viewpoint. I guess there must be some aspects where we are better at something than the Supreme Being.
“I've never said I'm better so not sure why you believe that to be the case” – read back – neither did I say so.
“by saying that I'm "moaning"” – read back – I said about *me* moaning if… – not you – I used myself as the example.
No attempt to insult was meant or deliberatly made.
Hi Dazzle,
Yes- I understand the ‘oneness’ or whatever label one places on it, the aspects you describe are familiar. This is only one aspect of our existence though as you suggest, it is a view of the universe that allows us to connect to (what I would call god) the oneness, and see how we fit in with the universe. This gives no evidence that we are part of god however, it does allow us to see that we are part of the universe. The return to the “I once again the individual Is back with a reality” is also part of our existence within the universe, we have the same opportunity to realise our place while we are ‘back with reality’.
So what is our creative potential – well one thing I do think is that what it is now is greater than what it was, and what it will be in the future will be greater still – and yes, the orange was a silly example, but the point I have been trying to make is that whether we are ‘in the oneness’ or ‘back in reality’, actually understanding what we are, who we are and accepting it, without claiming to be something we are not is what allows the end of conflict. Accepting that we will change, and that change is ok allows us to live without conflict. Only when we desire more than we are, or we have, only when we pretend to have more, or be more than we are does conflict arise, because the lie is always there, nagging in the background, and the only way to silence it is to shout louder, refuse to talk about it and storm off, or to close our senses to what is evidentially obvious (in an objective manner of course).
“Within the ordinary mind one cannot conjure up an orange out of thin air” – I agree (for the minute lol) but like your elephant on a bicycle (or whatever) it can be created within, and this can lend itself to the idea that it can be created without.
“All Is good . Everything In place . Everything just Is as It Is .” – yes – this is the peace that comes with just being (or just BEing), it is a nice space, and very calming, it is when we are connected to god or ‘in the oneness’, but it is available also in other aspects of our existence. Like many experiences it is only part of who and what we are, without balance, without partaking of all the other aspects we become stagnant, for this space offers no chance to progress, there is nothing to learn, for one feels all is known, and there is no aspiration for the future – like this “no need or desire to do anything . This state of being Is where there Is no-one doing anything” – it is a beguiling space.
“That’s also why I said anyone that wants proof that they are God and wants evidence of such will be In an ordinary mind state and will block the realization which surpasses any evidence that one could try and manifest” – so it is impossible to prove, but easy to claim – no evidence because the moment one tries to get some the chance disappears or dissipates, all that is left is the knowledge that the feeling of connectedness to god made all things seem possible, but that is what connecting to god does – it still does not make us god.
love
chris
Yes- I understand the ‘oneness’ or whatever label one places on it, the aspects you describe are familiar. This is only one aspect of our existence though as you suggest, it is a view of the universe that allows us to connect to (what I would call god) the oneness, and see how we fit in with the universe. This gives no evidence that we are part of god however, it does allow us to see that we are part of the universe. The return to the “I once again the individual Is back with a reality” is also part of our existence within the universe, we have the same opportunity to realise our place while we are ‘back with reality’.
Hi Chris .
Yes - what happens Is that whatever experience we find ourselves In experience of allows us to Integrate what we are within our present environment whether It be In spirit form In the spirit world, physical form In the physical world, spiritual form In the physical world or whilst In physical form utilizing our spirit body to explore other realms / planets or whatever .
So what is our creative potential – well one thing I do think is that what it is now is greater than what it was, and what it will be in the future will be greater still – and yes, the orange was a silly example, but the point I have been trying to make is that whether we are ‘in the oneness’ or ‘back in reality’, actually understanding what we are, who we are and accepting it, without claiming to be something we are not is what allows the end of conflict. Accepting that we will change, and that change is ok allows us to live without conflict. Only when we desire more than we are, or we have, only when we pretend to have more, or be more than we are does conflict arise, because the lie is always there, nagging in the background, and the only way to silence it is to shout louder, refuse to talk about it and storm off, or to close our senses to what is evidentially obvious (in an objective manner of course).
Ah - another thing I have come across In regards to what Is mentioned about the oneness . You mentioned whether we are ‘in the oneness’ or ‘back in reality . The oneness “Is” beyond mind and ‘is” within / of the mind - The oneness Is what Is real or what Is known as an illusion . There Is no oneness being here and being absent over there . The One Is all there Is . The ant Is a part of the Oneness . The table that my computer sits on Is . The mind can perceive separation of Oneness because something has a form that Is located In another part of space (location) from where ‘what we are Is’ perceiving It .
“Within the ordinary mind one cannot conjure up an orange out of thin air” – I agree (for the minute lol) but like your elephant on a bicycle (or whatever) it can be created within, and this can lend itself to the idea that it can be created without.
Yes . You said . (it can be created within, and this can lend itself to the idea that it can be created without.).
This Is correct and a valid point . This type of creating and manifesting via our Imagination happens In 4d / spirit realm . It’s only a stones throw away . (lol) . It’s not that a spirit form has any greater powers (lol) than what a physical Individual has Its all about the vibration and the science that governs their current dimension . What the spirit can do seems unbelievable to those In physical experience but what abilities that lie beyond the spirit realms like the angelic realms or whatever would seem miraculous to those In spirit . None of the above are miracles . It just Is how It Is .
“All Is good . Everything In place . Everything just Is as It Is .” – yes – this is the peace that comes with just being (or just BEing), it is a nice space, and very calming, it is when we are connected to god or ‘in the oneness’, but it is available also in other aspects of our existence. Like many experiences it is only part of who and what we are, without balance, without partaking of all the other aspects we become stagnant, for this space offers no chance to progress, there is nothing to learn, for one feels all is known, and there is no aspiration for the future – like this “no need or desire to do anything . This state of being Is where there Is no-one doing anything” – it is a beguiling space.
I agree . No-thing Is present other than what you are . Everything like knowing, balance, progression etc . Isn’t present . Such terms/aspects only comes Into existence In mind when there Is a someone supposedly In experience of life to feel or have the desire or need to be balanced or whatever . hehehe .
“That’s also why I said anyone that wants proof that they are God and wants evidence of such will be In an ordinary mind state and will block the realization which surpasses any evidence that one could try and manifest” – so it is impossible to prove, but easy to claim – no evidence because the moment one tries to get some the chance disappears or dissipates, all that is left is the knowledge that the feeling of connectedness to god made all things seem possible, but that is what connecting to god does – it still does not make us god.
Yes that’s It chris . It’s Impossible to to prove and easy to claim and most difficult to realize . In a way the proof lies within the realization but what Is realized cannot be proven .
If for example what we are can be known by the Intellect (by means of evidence) then only those that are Intellectual will know what we are .
You don’t need to be Intellectual to realize what you are . The less you know the better hahhah .
You don’t need to be anything In particular to realize what you are . No-thing Is what Is realized . No-one realizes what everything Is .
x dazzle x
Hi Dazzle,
“Yes - what happens Is that whatever experience we find ourselves In experience of allows us to Integrate what we are within our present environment whether It be In spirit form In the spirit world, physical form In the physical world, spiritual form In the physical world or whilst In physical form utilizing our spirit body to explore other realms / planets or whatever .”
Yes – I agree but I think it is wider than just looking at our ‘current’ state, the point i try (badly) to make is that people find the state of understanding in many forms, for some it is ‘the now’, for others it comes from contact with god, and each of us has our own multitude of access points to experience this. Often some use only one small point, the misconception then is that this is the only way, and it becomes all consuming – be it the now or religious ecstasy in some form (like whirling). This drive towards peace of course (as an aside) is often why people choose to end their lives, death is seen as the only way.
“The mind can perceive separation of Oneness because something has a form that Is located In another part of space (location) from where ‘what we are Is’ perceiving It .” and herein lies the conundrum for some – for what then is the illusion? Is it that we have a mind that deceives, or is it that the mind allows us to see the reality that other parts hide from us? Every part of us has a purpose, each is designed for a reason, I see no evidence that having a mind that deceives us in some can ever be seen as an evolutionary advantage, so I started from the point that it must then be true and have an advantage. This then makes the oneness concept appear incomplete, it is a window only that allows us some magnificent insights, but is still not ‘everything’, the illusion is one of completeness – that it is not complete is what raises conflict.
I agree, none of the above, by the definition of miracle are miraculous except to those who inhabit places where the actions are not naturally explainable. Ultimately though it comes down to god being the creator, for this is the grand act that only god can manage. In terms of the spirit world and its connection here I would count (from our point of view) the manifestation of (say) scent by spirit as miraculous, for we cannot do this (from nowhere is it were), and yet, as you say that may well be seen as (difficult but) perfectly possible in spirit.
“Such terms/aspects only comes Into existence In mind when there Is a someone supposedly In experience of life to feel or have the desire or need to be balanced or whatever . hehehe .” – yes – for sure, and it is often only mind that reminds us not to become becalmed by this illusion of ‘knowing everything’, it is mind (actually sometimes we have other indications as well, like a jog on the elbow from a guide) that reminds us that living in a peaceful place, where there is no need for progress, where there is no need to discover things because the perception is that all is known already, is not allowing us to become who we can be, it stifles us unless we allow all the other aspects of our existence to play their part. Of course we also choose to ignore the disparity of what these feelings tell us in that peaceful place where all is known, and the reality, for when we ‘return’ we have no evidence that we know everything, our ignorance becomes uncovered, the illusion and the lie become obvious. Yet this is so strongly ingrained that the insistence that we know everything, that we can perform miracles, that there is no spirit, just consciousness, demands that it is true, in the face of all the evidence it insists that it is valid, and it is only the mind that tells us, if we choose to listen that this is an illusion. If we try to hear the mind’s message conflict arises, conflict between what is obviously true and what has been ‘consciously’ felt – it is based on faith rather than honesty, and from this people are dissatisfied and they express that dissatisfaction by either complaining or attacking – this is the only recourse left.
You say “In a way the proof lies within the realization but what Is realized cannot be proven .” and this I think is perhaps one of the problem areas, deciding whether ‘knowing’, ‘knowledge’, can be reliable when there is no evidence other than ‘knowing’, it is our mind that often reminds us of this, and in order to maintain the illusion the mind is cast out, silenced like a pariah (lol) or overshouted by loud insistence that the illusion is ‘the truth’.
love
chris
Hi Dazzle .
Yes – I agree but I think it is wider than just looking at our ‘current’ state, the point i try (badly) to make is that people find the state of understanding in many forms, for some it is ‘the now’, for others it comes from contact with god, and each of us has our own multitude of access points to experience this. Often some use only one small point, the misconception then is that this is the only way, and it becomes all consuming – be it the now or religious ecstasy in some form (like whirling). This drive towards peace of course (as an aside) is often why people choose to end their lives, death is seen as the only way.
Hi Ya .
I agree there Is a multitude of access points for an Individual to experience the oneness or God or whatever the word may be . What does that suggest? . To me that suggests that It matters not If one Is religious an atheist a shaman a rich man a beggar man or thief (lol) No-thing can stand In the way of an Inner calling for use of a better word .
All pathways eventually lead back to the self even those paths that seemingly head off In the opposite direction (lol) .
I would say that the many paths lead back to only one path . The path to the self Is very narrow . That path was only made for one to take . Similar to the eye of the needle In the bible (perhaps) The eye of the needle being the third eye center .
Many say that the journey Inwards Is through that eye center . The eye of the needle Is very narrow just as the path to self Is narrow . Only what you are can make It through the eye of the needle (no form, no Identity, no baggage, be It emotional or mental) and only the self can walk the path .
“The mind can perceive separation of Oneness because something has a form that Is located In another part of space (location) from where ‘what we are Is’ perceiving It .” and herein lies the conundrum for some – for what then is the illusion? Is it that we have a mind that deceives, or is it that the mind allows us to see the reality that other parts hide from us? Every part of us has a purpose, each is designed for a reason, I see no evidence that having a mind that deceives us in some can ever be seen as an evolutionary advantage, so I started from the point that it must then be true and have an advantage. This then makes the oneness concept appear incomplete, it is a window only that allows us some magnificent insights, but is still not ‘everything’, the illusion is one of completeness – that it is not complete is what raises conflict.
The mind allows what we are to perceive . The mind has no agenda . Is our soul a slave to our senses or are our senses a slave to our soul . The same mind allows us to transcend one plane to another .. ‘what we are’ Is keeping us within ego or enlightenment or whatever .
It would be easy to blame the mind for our weaknesses .
You say “In a way the proof lies within the realization but what Is realized cannot be proven .” and this I think is perhaps one of the problem areas, deciding whether ‘knowing’, ‘knowledge’, can be reliable when there is no evidence other than ‘knowing’, it is our mind that often reminds us of this, and in order to maintain the illusion the mind is cast out, silenced like a pariah (lol) or overshouted by loud insistence that the illusion is ‘the truth’.
Cast your thoughts back to my comments made regarding the narrow path back to the self . No so called belief systems or so called evidence of what you are can be carried or passed through the eye of the needle . No amount of knowings can allow you to pass through the eye . Only the knowings and the wisdom and the realizations and such forth becomes you from the return journey back through the eye . You cannot take anything Into the realization other than what you are . That’s why many Individuals understand the Importance of detachment . You have to enter the eye of self naked 😮 . hehehehe .
x dazzle x
Hi Dazzle,
“It matters not If one Is religious an atheist a shaman a rich man a beggar man or thief” – dangerous talk, almost subversive – but of course it is true, there is no barrier to personal progression except one’s own desires. Part of the problem comes that many cannot see that this is the case – this was my comment earlier about how many people have found ‘the now’ by chance, it just happened in an instant without looking, but of course they then write a book about how to seek it. There is a big difference though between finding a space where one feels some kind of revelation or ecstasy, and the progression that is part of the journey we are on. The way Jesus put it was that in order to ‘enter the kingdom of heaven’ (read reach the final stage of one’s journey if you wish), that he had demonstrated the way, the truth and the life – it was about how we live, not about moments spent in some kind of religious bliss, not about a personal state, but about how we live. Yet the illusion of these states is that they seem to offer direct contact with the ‘end of the journey’ (having said that they are very nice for a while!). The advocates needless to say see any dissent as heresy.
“All pathways eventually lead back to the self even those paths that seemingly head off In the opposite direction (lol) .” – yes – I sort of see what you mean, eventually we will move forward and progress towards the ‘end’ (perhaps apotheosis who knows), however there are places where one can get stuck (stagnant), and even paths where one loses ground rather than just wanders a bit (lol). For many this is just the way it is, it is all part of the big experience, but it can be hard to get back on track, and this is often the reason for ‘lost souls’ that fail to move on. The stagnation is a particular problem in many cases, for if one simply dwells in the illusion of being, assuming that all is known and all is as it ever will be, then there is no progression, it is effectively a backwater, peaceful and calm, beguiling and convincing, but there is only one entrance and it serves as the exit as well. Once one leaves then the illusion of knowing all becomes apparent, for what one assumed one knew is not lost, for that assumes it was found, but not accessible, as it never was it still is inaccessible, the peace and calm are lost and the return to reality seems painful – the illusion is broken. These paths lead nowhere, however sometimes one has to investigate all paths in order to divine the correct one, a bit like a maze.
“I would say that the many paths lead back to only one path” – on this I think may disagree – for I think that we each have our own path, but our own ‘one path’, and so perhaps it is about translation. I do not think we have to tread any well worn path that others have trodden perhaps.
Ah – I blame the mind for nothing, it is an integral part of each of us, it is not a slave not does it demand slavery, but it is important that everything is balanced. WE cannot exist fully without it, nor can we exist fully if we are overwhelmed by it. “You cannot take anything Into the realization other than what you are .” – I agree, but equally you have to take all that you are, there can be no bits left behind. Expunging parts does not make it easier, it just makes it more difficult, for those pats have to be re-found before commencement – they are all part of the ticket.
love
chris
“It matters not If one Is religious an atheist a shaman a rich man a beggar man or thief” – dangerous talk, almost subversive – but of course it is true, there is no barrier to personal progression except one’s own desires. Part of the problem comes that many cannot see that this is the case – this was my comment earlier about how many people have found ‘the now’ by chance, it just happened in an instant without looking, but of course they then write a book about how to seek it. There is a big difference though between finding a space where one feels some kind of revelation or ecstasy, and the progression that is part of the journey we are on. The way Jesus put it was that in order to ‘enter the kingdom of heaven’ (read reach the final stage of one’s journey if you wish), that he had demonstrated the way, the truth and the life – it was about how we live, not about moments spent in some kind of religious bliss, not about a personal state, but about how we live. Yet the illusion of these states is that they seem to offer direct contact with the ‘end of the journey’ (having said that they are very nice for a while!). The advocates needless to say see any dissent as heresy.
Hi Ya .
I agree with much of what you say here . My only thoughts regarding your quote ‘how many people have found ‘the now’ by chance, it just happened in an instant without looking’ Is that no-thing happens by chance . If an Individual Is not conscious of something / anything whether Its Is a lottery win (to come) or that It Is your name brought forward for redundancy - It Is neither by good luck or by bad luck or by chance that what has happened has happened . The same goes for an Individual that gets a whiff of oneness or enlightenment .
“All pathways eventually lead back to the self even those paths that seemingly head off In the opposite direction (lol) .” – yes – I sort of see what you mean, eventually we will move forward and progress towards the ‘end’ (perhaps apotheosis who knows), however there are places where one can get stuck (stagnant), and even paths where one loses ground rather than just wanders a bit (lol). For many this is just the way it is, it is all part of the big experience, but it can be hard to get back on track, and this is often the reason for ‘lost souls’ that fail to move on. The stagnation is a particular problem in many cases, for if one simply dwells in the illusion of being, assuming that all is known and all is as it ever will be, then there is no progression, it is effectively a backwater, peaceful and calm, beguiling and convincing, but there is only one entrance and it serves as the exit as well. Once one leaves then the illusion of knowing all becomes apparent, for what one assumed one knew is not lost, for that assumes it was found, but not accessible, as it never was it still is inaccessible, the peace and calm are lost and the return to reality seems painful – the illusion is broken. These paths lead nowhere, however sometimes one has to investigate all paths in order to divine the correct one, a bit like a maze.
I do get what you mean but It’s not a race to realize what you are or to feel at peace or whatever . It does seemingly appear that we can get stuck within mind for sure . I like the analogy of the river where the river Is like our journey of life from perhaps a state of forgetfulness to a state of remembrance of what we are .
If we go with the current of the river progression can be made In life where resistance Is at a minimum . When we swim against the current and we resist the natural flow of life then much effort Is required just to keep our heads above the water . At some point one will surrender to the natural flow . When one Is stuck within mind one Is swimming against the current .
“You cannot take anything Into the realization other than what you are .” – I agree, but equally you have to take all that you are .
I think It’s the same thing . (lol) .
All that you are would be nothing other than that .
x dazzle x
Hi Dazzle,
You say “no-thing happens by chance” – and to some extent I can agree, in that often we place ourselves in a position where things are likely to happen, or at least more likely. Say for instance someone starts to investigate/discover their spiritual side in some way, simply by doing that they open themselves up to some of the ‘happenings’ that accompany the development of one’s spiritual nature.
However (and I’ve already said this) I do not accept that these things are per-ordained. They may be bound to happen at some stage, but the timing and circumstances are more uncertain. There is I think a degree of ‘randomness’ involved. The example of redundancy is a good one I think, if one walks around ‘certain’ that one is going to be made redundant then it seems to me not only that one is probably in the group of ‘most likelys’, but that that attitude makes one ‘more likley’. In the case of a lottery win however, no matter how positive one is, no matter how certain, or wishful the chances of winning are not changed. So for many with enlightenment, who seem to find it by ‘chance’, I agree that their developing mind-set may have a part to play, but even so in those cases they did not go actively seeking it. How much credence would you place on the advice given from a lottery winner who chose the winning numbers by lucky-dip, and then told you how to choose numbers using some sort of system?
Yes – the river is a good example, swimming against the flow will definitely make life harder and give less for the effort, it also seems to be ‘unrewarding’ I suppose. However, any river has many tributaries, and of course exploring them may well be part of the fun, and part of the experience. Sometimes we need to reach a dead-end to realise it is time to go back, and sometimes we need to swim against the flow in order to realise the benefits of going with it. There is often little gained by simply ‘going with the flow’ – it expresses nothing of who we are (unless of course we are just ‘compliant’).
Part of the problem with ‘compliance’ for me (lol) is that too often I see people accepting what others say, they go with the flow, never questioning whether what is being said is either right, or right for them – if what they hear is not right, or it is not right for them then the worst thing they can do is go with the flow, they need to change position and find what is right. Many of these books, methods and discussions are never challenged, some of the most outlandish statements are seemingly accepted as truth, some of the most obviously incorrect claims are allowed to stand in support of what are just weak or false constructions, illusions and a sort of legerdemain.
It is difficult – the statements are made with conviction, and repeated until one assumes they must be true, the flow attempts to overwhelm all in its path with bluster and quasi-accurate sounding fabrications, the use of words is deliberately chosen to obfuscate and repel questions, and those that are overwhelmed go with the flow, it is a diversion to nowhere, a false step in their journey from which they will have to recover later, and all because they did not think for themselves and allowed their compliant ‘go with the flow’ nature to mislead them. These are often like this because they are vulnerable, and they make the easiest targets, for they seldom challenge so the ‘forceful sage’ gets away with it and may even feel vindicated, but in truth they are really only spiritual parasites, existing on the susceptible.
So while I think the river is a good example, there are many dangers that are part of ‘going with the flow’.
love
chris
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" Wittgenstein
You say “no-thing happens by chance” – and to some extent I can agree, in that often we place ourselves in a position where things are likely to happen, or at least more likely. Say for instance someone starts to investigate/discover their spiritual side in some way, simply by doing that they open themselves up to some of the ‘happenings’ that accompany the development of one’s spiritual nature.
Hi Ya .
Yes there Is that side to It In your example given . Good luck, bad luck, and chance are all things that we label when Instances occur that we were not aware of prior to the experience happening . We can sit In traffic for many hours on the only day that we decide to venture out In the car . We could of washed the car for the occasion and whilst sitting In traffic we endure an almighty storm . When traffic starts to move an Impatient driver tries to make up ground and overtakes too many cars and clips your bumper whilst manoeuvring back on to the right side of the road .
Some may say that the day was filled with bad luck . (lol) - Nah - No such thing . If the Individual was aware of what the weather was going to be like and the amount of traffic that was going to be on the road etc, then one could avoid the experiences had . So what this boils down to Is awareness . If an Individual was aware of such a day ahead and still ventures out then the experiences were still going to unfold but they couldn’t put that down to bad luck . .. or by chance . . .
However (and I’ve already said this) I do not accept that these things are per-ordained. They may be bound to happen at some stage, but the timing and circumstances are more uncertain. There is I think a degree of ‘randomness’ involved. The example of redundancy is a good one I think, if one walks around ‘certain’ that one is going to be made redundant then it seems to me not only that one is probably in the group of ‘most likelys’, but that that attitude makes one ‘more likley’. In the case of a lottery win however, no matter how positive one is, no matter how certain, or wishful the chances of winning are not changed. So for many with enlightenment, who seem to find it by ‘chance’, I agree that their developing mind-set may have a part to play, but even so in those cases they did not go actively seeking it. How much credence would you place on the advice given from a lottery winner who chose the winning numbers by lucky-dip, and then told you how to choose numbers using some sort of system?
I think chris nowadays there Is a lot of emphasis on millionaires telling others how to become millionaires . I think there Is much talk of psychics and mediums and an approach of cosmic ordering where you can create the Ideal partner, you can manifest everything that your heart can desire etc . .
What I am slowly getting at Is that no-thing will happen that Is not apart of your blueprint . You will not experience what It Is like to be In abundance of wealth and material possessions If one Is In need of an experience of poverty .
It’s funny I saw something the other day on t.v. - It was a david Icke thing where he speaks of Presidents already being pre selected for the job prior to anyone voting for them (I agree with him) . It all about blood-line selection . I have had a lot of my own spirit connections with certain Individuals that were a part of an elite group that he also speaks of which I won’t go Into right now but the funny thing Is which I am now getting back to - Is that not only are they pre-selected within physicality they are pre selected prior to Incarnating . It’s nothing to do with good luck or chance . It Isn’t bad luck either that another candidate doesn’t win .
Yes – the river is a good example, swimming against the flow will definitely make life harder and give less for the effort, it also seems to be ‘unrewarding’ I suppose. However, any river has many tributaries, and of course exploring them may well be part of the fun, and part of the experience.
Sometimes we need to reach a dead-end to realise it is time to go back, and sometimes we need to swim against the flow in order to realise the benefits of going with it. There is often little gained by simply ‘going with the flow’ – it expresses nothing of who we are (unless of course we are just ‘compliant’).
Absolutely . If one doesn’t swim against the current one doesn’t know how It Is to go with the flow .
Part of the problem with ‘compliance’ for me (lol) is that too often I see people accepting what others say, they go with the flow, never questioning whether what is being said is either right, or right for them – if what they hear is not right, or it is not right for them then the worst thing they can do is go with the flow, they need to change position and find what is right.
But In this Instance one Is going with anothers flow . Going with anothers flow Is the same as swimming against your own current .
Many of these books, methods and discussions are never challenged, some of the most outlandish statements are seemingly accepted as truth, some of the most obviously incorrect claims are allowed to stand in support of what are just weak or false constructions, illusions and a sort of legerdemain.
I think there Is a level of acceptance In respect to resonating and believing what Is written as truth by the hand of another for It Is not the same as discovering whatever that Is for themselves . You hear many saying ‘well this book says this and that book says that’ I am more confused than ever (lol) . Each book written may be In an expression of their perception and as there are many perceptions to attain there will always be differences reflected In their understandings . What I have mentioned previously Is that a self realized Individual will not have a different perception to that of another self realized individual . So who Is challenging the words expressed by a self realized Individual? Those that are coming from a different perception I would say .
it is difficult – the statements are made with conviction, and repeated until one assumes they must be true, the flow attempts to overwhelm all in its path with bluster and quasi-accurate sounding fabrications, the use of words is deliberately chosen to obfuscate and repel questions, and those that are overwhelmed go with the flow, it is a diversion to nowhere, a false step in their journey from which they will have to recover later, and all because they did not think for themselves and allowed their compliant ‘go with the flow’ nature to mislead them. These are often like this because they are vulnerable, and they make the easiest targets, for they seldom challenge so the ‘forceful sage’ gets away with it and may even feel vindicated, but in truth they are really only spiritual parasites, existing on the susceptible.
So while I think the river is a good example, there are many dangers that are part of ‘going with the flow’.
If a preacher for example speaks of the truth and a deluded prophet speaks of the untruths then there are always going to be those that believe the preacher and not the prophet and there are always going to be those that believe the prophet and not the preacher .
Who’s swimming against the current and who’s going with the flow by believing In either of them .
x dazzle x
Hi Richard,
Sure - of course there is always something to be gained by speculation, conjecture, exploration and synergistic theorising I suppose.
Hi Dazzle,
“If an Individual was aware of such a day ahead and still ventures out then the experiences were still going to unfold but they couldn’t put that down to bad luck . .. or by chance . . .” – to some extent I agree with you, however I do think that there are events that no one would be able to predict – take for instance the person who runs into you, just take it for the minute that they did not predict their day – then their unpredictable stuff impacts onto you. This is all due to the complexity of the system at the very least. Even if we could find every atom, every particle and plot them, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes it impossible to fully predict the next step.
“you can manifest everything that your heart can desire etc” – this too I think is a misapprehension. Those that seem to have things they have wanted to happen become real assume that they had a part to play in it. In some cases they may well have changed their attitude or looked harder for something, but you cannot win the lottery by wishing, visualising or manipulating reality.
“You will not experience what It Is like to be In abundance of wealth and material possessions If one Is In need of an experience of poverty .” – now I sort of agree, however i do not think that we are ‘obliged’ to fulfil the needs of this life from an experiential point of view – I think we are ‘offered’ the opportunity, but can ‘refuse’, in that case the chance is wasted, and there will have to be another life spent getting there.
“I have had a lot of my own spirit connections with certain Individuals that were a part of an elite group that he also speaks of” – maybe – but this is more likely to be about where one is on one’s journey, as we become more evolved, more spiritual we of necessity have to adopt more spiritual roles – that is evolution. “It’s nothing to do with good luck or chance” – in this case it is to do with planning.
“But In this Instance one Is going with anothers flow . Going with anothers flow Is the same as swimming against your own current” – not necessarily – sometimes we do meet people who show us the way we need to go, teachers appear all the time, and for a bit our journey may well coincide – however there are equally many who covet a following, who seek to drag people into the same flow as them, and mostly this is not of benefit to the followers.
“so who Is challenging the words expressed by a self realized Individual” – yes – there are many honest internal views expressed, and they do not always agree, but the spiritual world is also full of those who are less honest. We each need to find our own truth really.
“If a preacher for example speaks of the truth and a deluded prophet speaks of the untruths then there are always going to be those that believe the preacher and not the prophet and there are always going to be those that believe the prophet and not the preacher .” - agreed, but it is also more than that, for we often follow the message that we think is the ‘easiest’ (out of lazyness), or the ‘most grand’ (out of being impressionable), or the ‘most rewarding’ (out of greed), when the true message is available to us, we just do not bother to search.
love
chris
Hi Dazzle,
“If an Individual was aware of such a day ahead and still ventures out then the experiences were still going to unfold but they couldn’t put that down to bad luck . .. or by chance . . .” – to some extent I agree with you, however I do think that there are events that no one would be able to predict – take for instance the person who runs into you, just take it for the minute that they did not predict their day – then their unpredictable stuff impacts onto you. This is all due to the complexity of the system at the very least. Even if we could find every atom, every particle and plot them, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes it impossible to fully predict the next step.
Hi Chris .
Perhaps If we look at It chris where at some point we will not be aware of how anything will react to anything whether It be referenced to the Heisenberg principles etc . . If we take chemistry for example I would say we are still making discoveries In relation to how chemical elements react under certain environments with one another .
It’s not the case that we do not know or that we cannot predict what reaction will occur from our experimenting It’s just that we have not reached a point of observing and understanding what happens prior to the realization .
One element when combined with another will always have the same reaction whether It be a combustive reaction or whatever because that Is Inevitable (It’s written In It ‘s blueprint) . Copper for example was always going to be a good conductor of electricity prior to our discovery of that . To say In the first Instance prior to the knowing and understanding of such an experiment we could say we are not sure of how this will pan out because It Is unknown to us . We cannot ascertain on one level only how one element will react to another or one atom with another until we have become aware of the outcome .
Who’s to say that a being on another planet hasn’t already discovered and put Into practice what one has now ascertained regarding chemical reactions / processes 10 thousand years ago . What seems unknown to us now doesn’t mean that It Isn’t known somewhere else In the universe and by someone else .
If we apply these analogies to our life experiences / processes had we can relate certain actions made to certain results had . Who or what Is consciously aware of such reactions and outcomes to such experiences . It’s normally not the conscious Individual that functions within an ordinary mind set . If we relate to the alien that knows something that we don’t know to our subconscious mind or our higher self (to some) for example then It all points back to what we are aware of and what we are not aware of .
So to wrap this up - It matters not what we can or cannot predict In ways of outcomes and results had because It does not alter what actually happens . It doesn’t matter If an Individual Is or Is not aware of how karma or the law of attraction works or that copper turns a green colour when It oxidizes but nevertheless certain things do happen because It cannot happen any other way . It’s just on some level we don’t know that .
I’ll get back to the other points made later chris . . . 🙂
x dazzle x
Hi Dazzle,
Some interesting points – actually most of chemistry is based on statistical chances, although reactions do seem like they always obey the same route, they do not always – I think one example was bucky balls – the new form of carbon that no one expected.
I do agree that although what we see seems fixed it may well be because a prior group (prior to those of us on earth) may well have fixed some or all of it in place – this is the problem though, who fixed it for them?
“It matters not what we can or cannot predict In ways of outcomes and results had because It does not alter what actually happens” – I think it may, forewarned is fore-armed, and so it does matter, and the outcome is never necessarily fixed, if it is then what is the point of anything, for we are nothing more than clockwork mice??
love
chris
Hi Dazzle,
Some interesting points – actually most of chemistry is based on statistical chances, although reactions do seem like they always obey the same route, they do not always – I think one example was bucky balls – the new form of carbon that no one expected.
Hi Ya
From where do these statistics originate from ??.
What mind state does one ascertain these so called statistical chances . This new form of carbon that no one expected - to who Is this form of carbon new too?? .
“It matters not what we can or cannot predict In ways of outcomes and results had because It does not alter what actually happens” – I think it may, forewarned is fore-armed, and so it does matter, and the outcome is never necessarily fixed, if it is then what is the point of anything, for we are nothing more than clockwork mice??
I agree forewarned has It’s advantages but so does being Ignorant . What I am saying Is that for example - when your time Is up your time Is up . Being able to predict when that Is or not will not change when that will be . Somethings are Inevitable .
In regards to your clockwork mice quote . Are many not already a slave to their senses and not aware of such .
x dazzle x
Living in the Now.
When one begin to think about it, one imagines a horse running with blinders on. If the horse cant see whats on the left or on the right, its limited in it's perception of the world (which in the case of blinders, is the point, not allowing the animal to be distracted/afraid of something around it).
This feeling of being limited is what pulls me away from the accepted concept of living in the Now.
However, it is understood that a person is always in between past and future.
It is interesting how we could remove this limitness of this concept?
Looking at it from another way, to simplify, lets imagine something existing in two dimensions, space and time. If we make a diagram, with two axis, the horizontal being space and the vertical being time, then when this something lives in this two dimensional existance, it will go along an imaginary (for that something) line between those two axis. Each point on this line will be the point of "now" for that something. For it, each point of now, will be where space and time meet.
Now, lets come back to us, who live in a 3 dimensional existance, with time (as a 4th dimension). If someone who exists in a dimension higher than us can draw a graph with 4 axis, then to us each point of Now will be a point along the imaginary line, where space meets time.
This is why saying that Now is neither past nor future is not entirely correct, because Now is not just about time. Space should come into the equation. When space comes into effect, you can't ignore what you were doing (past) and what you will be doing (future).
Only then can you get the whole picture. Same with a horse, if you take off the blinders, she will be able to see where she came from and where she is going.