The Root cause Of Suffering .

Hi Chris

"If their future choices do not serve them in a positive and self serving way and they choose to create more inner conflicts, then that is a personal choice. We would be happy to see them again and heal the new inner conflicts" - I see, if they leave the now, then it is their fault, and they will then have to return to you for further work. A captive audience in more ways than one I guess.

Unfortunately, no you still do not understand the Now, people are always within the Now, but they can choose to ignore it or get side tracked and fixated upon the future or past, everyone is creating their reality in the now - right now, but they do not have to experience what is happening in the now, their thoughts can be locked somewhere else.

We heal people so that they can once more choose to experience and shape this existence as it is unfolding right now, within the now.

Hi Wild Strawberry

Paul, isn't that 'everyday' reality simply a divine/higher (urgh words, I hope you know what I mean) still being viewed through limiting or "mistaken" thought patterns and core beleifs?

I don't see it that way, to me everyday reality is getting up and having breakfast etc, they are all influenced by our thought patterns and beliefs, so if someone has say a fear of water, then that will have a bearing upon the everyday reality, by healing the thought patterns which are causing th the fear belief, then they are free to consider if they would like to learn how to swim or go paddling in the sea etc.

I wonder if the misunderstanding going on between Yourself (& Giles (don't want to drag you in on this Giles if I've misperceived matters)) & cactuschris is simply a natural difference in the Male and Female perspective:

No, In our natural state of pure consciousness we have not got a body, so we are genderless. Healing and personal development is the same for each person, that is because in consciousness we are all one and here on this planet we are all human beings.

I can see why as a Male you take everything on board as you/only you/youself being soley responsible for your own life and the life/reality you choose to create for yourself and family - "Getting the Job done" - is what can seem like an attractive prospect when it comes to the healing of suffering. And you have helped BeckyBoop, who has been singing your praises.

It seems to me (maybe I'm wrong) that what you are referring to as Self is what I would see/call as Ego (ego can be seen as a dirty word in some spiritual/self development setting - but I don't mean it that way) & that what myself, Nice & cactuschris (from a female perspective) would perceive Self to be is that part of us relating to God (Love/Source/Universe ~whatever).

And so I think this the misunderstanding is occuring : the Male aspect want to solve the problems ASAP/ get the job done swiftly and efficiently ~ admirable, persuasive and necessary. The Female aspect wants to nuture (a bit of a cheesy overused word~ but I'm kind of running out of time here) the 'Issues/Suffering' allow the pace to be dictated by the client (as cactuschris is advocating), making sure that every tiny bit of gravel is removed from the scratched Knee before the dressing is applied.

The self is all aspects of self, the ego is one aspect of self but is not the whole being so should not be addressed in isolation to the whole being.

I do not think that gender comes into a healing equation at all, consciousness is still down to personal choice, but we should put self aside when healing others, it is after all their healing and what they think is the important thing, not what we think.

Hello everyone,

Last post from me on this forum. I just wanted to say that I understand where you are all coming from... and cactuschris, I think you are very impressively holding your own space... I understand exactly what you're saying.... and what everyone else is saying....

Maybe someone should start a a 'sitting in silence' thread where we all post blank replies to each others posts ~ letting our minds do all of the exercise instead of our tippy-tappy typing fingers:)

Best Wishes xxx

Hi WildStrawberry,

Hello everyone,

Last post from me on this forum.

I hope not. Your questions are great for allowing us to enquire of ourselves what our truth is and to confirm for ourselves that it still holds true. And I can tell you do understand what we are all saying. :hug:

Maybe someone should start a a 'sitting in silence' thread where we all post blank replies to each others posts ~ letting our minds do all of the exercise instead of our tippy-tappy typing fingers:)

LOL! My tippy tappy typing fingers love to type (after all, it's part of my job too). Unfortunately the forum has a minumum post size, but I like the idea of a 'silence' thread. Nice one. 😀

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Daz,
You say that being a healer and being selfish do not go hand in hand, and I would agree that they should not. You see when we review the great healers, this is usually the case, and some of the greatest would never have called themselves a healer. I so agree that what we give returns, and that when we give healing we receive as well, but it is more than that, for when we give healing, if it is done with love and compassion rather than as a process to be followed, then we also make connections to people that last through all our lives.

So - perhaps another question, why do people call themselves healers? Is this more about self than the question about why people do healing?

Ahhh " so many different Individual Issues that can be In motion regarding when a patient sees a healer" - this is so true, and yet if one simply takes them on face value the whole thing may appear simple and clear cut. Each and every client is different and a 'process' will never suit all.

"The self realized have very few needs or wishes for there Is contentment for just being what they are . Everything Is present" - yes - this is a good place, it is a place of grace.

When people try to manifest things they often go for the trappings that they think will make them happy. Usually these are the wrong things, but in any case they seldom manifest because of all the competition of others trying to do the same for themselves. When one begins to understand what abundance really means to oneself, then this becomes easier, because no one else is after the same thing - and yes, love is often at the core of the whole thing.

Hi Wildstrawberry,
Interesting exploration, and sometimes the balance of yin and yang, male and female, dark and light is neglected in all the rush to "get the job done". If we are to be balanced we cannot ignore these aspects (and in any case they are fun to develop).

Hi Giles,
What I did was to apply the brackets as they were written removing them from the outside first, and suddenly it did all make sense. You see Paul and you talk about dealing with those things that are in the now, and not what has been and is just a memory, and this was just what your formulas described, it may not have been what you wanted to describe but it worked.
Certainly the way you describe it lends no credence that you deal with the cause, when you say that anything that is passed is passed, that the cause is an inner conflict and that it is in the now, that the original issue is just a memory.

I'm not convinced that all of what you say is in line and makes sense, you both repeat and repeat things as if they are fact and logical, but when they are analysed they do not stack up, and yet your formula suddenly did.
When I challenged Paul on many of the things he claimed as fact it turned out that they had no real factual or scientific basis behind them, and yet in some way the act of repeating them is supposed to lend them credence - I see no evidence that, even if reversed your formula provides any evidence that it will result in the removal of the cause.
What you call the cause is the thing making the symptoms appear (at least that’s what I think you said), but it has no connection to the original event or the resulting issue, both of which are not in the now, so it is not really a cause (even though it may be 'causing' some symptoms or suffering). It is actually a result of the original issue (from the past), and that means it is actually a symptom. I therefore remain unconvinced that you are getting to the true causal agent, and while I'm sure that you may be healing some of the underlying causes of suffering that these are not the fundamental causes that are at the origin.
Now it is no use just repeating that you are, or repeating the it is me misunderstanding, I've tried and looked and looked and analysed, and what you say does not stack up. It feels like smoke and mirrors with the use of words like transformational (in other words changing) to add credence - well of course any healing is changing. You claim to be doing the healing, changing people from within, but them claim that they have control over what you do and this too does not stack up.

So what you call twisting things is only applying a different vantage to them, if a process is robust and honest no matter what angle it is seen from it will be complete and unaltered, like a hologram.

What I have experienced and seen is that working in the now can provide a great deal of relief from those things that we suffer from, that the act of existing only in the now excludes many of the things that intrude into our lives and cause us issues, it is isolational and so prevents external disturbance, but I also see that this is only effective so long as one remains in the now, and the exclusions that this imposes are fundamental to living and developing, and yes love and compassion.
love
chris

Hi Chris

What you call the cause is the thing making the symptoms appear (at least that’s what I think you said), but it has no connection to the original event or the resulting issue, both of which are not in the now, so it is not really a cause (even though it may be 'causing' some symptoms or suffering).

Sorry but your logic is missing the point, the thing which is causing the manifestations of disease etc, is the underlying cause, if it was a symptom of the underlying cause as you are saying, then it would not be the thing which is producing the symptoms.

Please examine things within a time line, then remove everything within that time line which is no longer exsists in real time to influence them right now and the calculation is, when everything is removed which can no longer produce a direct effect right now (something needs to be happening right now to be capable of producing a direct effect), then whatever is left is the things we need to address.

So in 1960 someone experienced something, that something whatever it was lasted 1 hour then ceased to exists in real time as soon as it finished, in 2011 the symptoms therefore can't be caused by something which no longer exists in real time, so what is left in 2011? The only thing which is in evidence right now which can cause something to happen right now is the person who is here in 2011, so we heal the person who is the cause of their suffering, because in the reality of real time 2011, there is nothing else in existence which can cause it.

The reality is you are trying to get them to focus and heal something outside of them self which no longer exists, what is the probability of them succeeding?

Hi Daz,
You say that being a healer and being selfish do not go hand in hand, and I would agree that they should not. You see when we review the great healers, this is usually the case, and some of the greatest would never have called themselves a healer. I so agree that what we give returns, and that when we give healing we receive as well, but it is more than that, for when we give healing, if it is done with love and compassion rather than as a process to be followed, then we also make connections to people that last through all our lives.

Hi Chris .

I would agree chris I am aware of many spiritual / alternative therapists / healers that are doing It not out of love but for the money . There’s no right or wrong doings happening here but I am just emphasizing the point that not all healers are coming from a place of love and compassion although wanting to do any form of healing I would say occurs when the Individual Is connecting with their caring side In some shape or form .

So - perhaps another question, why do people call themselves healers? Is this more about self than the question about why people do healing?

I think many like the title chris . I do healing but I am not a healer . lol . I remember when I started healing 20 years ago and I was full of doubt as to whether I was good enough or that I could make people better etc, I was sitting In a healing circle at the time and the man that run the circle said to me YOU ARE A NATURAL HEALER - I think he wanted to boost my self confidence - I had a grin on my face similar to a cheshire cat . I labelled myself a healer In that moment and I felt proud and full of self esteem - I realized that my big fat ego was saying hello . he hee . A great lesson for me - A great moment .

In reference to the root cause of all suffering In connection with an Individual healing another I feel that a healer cannot heal the root cause of suffering for anyone else . Only his or her Individual self can heal themselves at a root level . A healer can guide another In the same way a master can guide their disciple .

I cannot remember where I have read It on the forums but I think you said similar . Symptoms of sufferings can be cured and at times the symptoms may never return within their present Incarnation but the cause remains until the Individual Is at peace within . If we don’t pull a weed up by It’s root It will come back another day .

Each and every client is different and a 'process' will never suit all.

Self love Is the only process that will work for all .

The self realized have very few needs or wishes for there Is contentment for just being what they are . Everything Is present" - yes - this is a good place, it is a place of grace.

Yep . You can knock on grace’s door until your knuckles bleed, but only when you stop knocking will grace become you .

When one begins to understand what abundance really means to oneself, then this becomes easier, because no one else is after the same thing - and yes, love is often at the core of the whole thing.

Yes Indeedy chris .

dazzle .

Hi All,
I have been looking at the concept of the Now model for a while now, and slowly it all begins to fall in place.
I started out by looking at healing in the Now, the comments that the events that sparked off the problems do not exist in the Now and are gone so no longer accessible felt wrong, and yet it seems to be logical.
The comments that memories can not be erased but the effects of those memories can be 'healed' or somehow excluded from the Now and result in healing sounded reasonable, but worried me when someone mentioned brain washing.
The suggestion that people were being healed in a manner that said that the issues were being weighed and discarded based on whether they were self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner also sounded as if it made sense.
The comments that this was a process that did not use any form of love or compassion, and the 'harsh' attitudes I saw left me a bit bemused because I had not encountered them before in healing.
The stated fact that the healer did the healing, not the client bothered me, the apparent choice was up to the client but the contents of the actual healing were not in their command.
The idea that all healing was good, and that if the client did not want it the healing would be refused at a consciousness level I know can be the case, but only if the client knows how, and I also know that we as energy workers can impose energy changes on others, so this sounded extremely dubious to me - wishful thinking at best.
The idea that "we can always ask permission on one level of consciousness or another and receive an answer or some form of indication as to the validity of what we are setting our intention to do" can be used reliably as permission to apply energy changes (healing or whatever) scared me, it assumes that one's discernment is so acute that no errors can be made, not ever.
The absolute certainty that there is no judgement of our actions, all is ok no matter what also worries me, it is a license to do whatever one wants without ever having to face the resulting outcomes or effects that these have on others, it is sanctioned anarchy. That the future is considered of no consequence simply bolsters the same premise.
The focussed use of apparently 'non-judgemental' values, coupled with the ""self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner" allows only a disharmony of concepts - like there is a wish to be non-judgemental but the modality is riddled with it.

Yes something is not adding up.

Partly I was diverted by some of the apparent supporting 'evidence' that was obviously neither factually, scientifically or even logically correct, and for a while I tackled that until Giles told me I was being unkind pointing out these inaccuracies.

And yes something was still bothering me.

Then I bothered to start to look at what the meaning of the terms 'self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner' were actually meaning and something began to fall into place.

It all started back when I saw Paul's posts about defining professional healing - defining what it would encompass, and using words like responsible and competent, it seemed to me to be trying to elevate a humble practise that has been at the heart of every community into an exclusive group. This is not unusual, a number of bodies do this, not least the medical profession, but it is in my mind a attempt at controlling and excluding that made me feel very uncomfortable as I see that healing is for everyone and can be done by everyone. The post suggested that "the whole profession will be able to elevate itself up from it present situation" to the level of his system.

I found that the descriptions that were just repeated and repeated as if somehow that would make it all fundamentally true sounded more like something from an established church or a desperate sales pitch, and this is usually a sign that suggests it must be taken on faith or one has to admit that one is too stupid to understand. I do not take things on faith and I am not too stupid to understand, so I kept searching and questioning.

When I began to look at the use of the direction that this modality advocates I became very uneasy, and it has slowly been dawning on me why.
At the heart of this is "self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner". The whole basis of this revolves around these few but frequently repeated words, it is not so much about the Now or about consciousness, but the application of those words and how they are applied.

That they are at the centre of this modality means that they apply to the healer just as much as the client.

Take the idea that memories and the results of those memories should just be discarded if they are not "self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner". On the face of it this seems fairly innocent, however what are the possible effects of that? Firstly when we put up barriers, and that is what this is, then we not only exclude the unwanted, but we exclude the wanted, and we disallow the outward flow of many of these things too. So along with the banishment of the suffering goes the banishment of the give and take of love and compassion, and this process potentially becomes entirely cold and loveless, bleak and compassionless. It risks generating within the person a sense of self only, of a lack of caring for others and of almost narcissistic reflection.
This may feel like healing because of the relief of current suffering but it risks a prison of isolation. These changes can be reflected in the responses of those who have become part of this modality.
The focus on the self-serving and the now removes the worry of the future, and this may feel like freedom, but it will not when the future arrives - for it has the potential to cause more suffering than was experienced in the first place.

The next concern was about the statements that the Healer 'did' all the healing. Again this sounds ok, until the "self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner" is added. The healer is doing the healing - and so the healing inevitably will be coloured (shall we say) to some extent by what is "self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner" for the healer this cannot be avoided or disclaimed - it is the nature of the process.
It is the results not the client that matters may well be the outcome, even the objective. The client may pay for the result in more ways than one.
Upon results are based the 'professional' standing of this healer. Changes apparently made with the permission given by the consciousness of the person are made that are defined as never being able to harm by the healer, yet the director of the changes cannot be divorced from the possibly corrupting "self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner" end point that defines their profession, and that person is not the client, but the healer, the last person who should judge what is needed. This is perhaps the 'healer' who sees other modalities as needing elevation to this modalities level while being non-judgemental.
There is no love or compassion in this process, for that is not self-serving in some way - so the attitudes that prevail give rise to the 'no procrastination' mind-set, the focus is only on 'doing the healing' - an activity undertaken by the healer and this can well result in a harshness overtone to the process.

Are the changes permanent? Well in some ways if they are primarily what are only "self-serving" for the practitioner then it may be more alarming than if only some parts or symptoms are temporarily altered.

People who come for healing are often in a particularly vulnerable position, many have tried everything open to them, they are often suffering from chronic conditions, and when they get some relief they are grateful, and this may well suit the 'professional healer', but if those changes were not entirely in the their interests but were 'adjusted' by the healer than the client may well be in danger.
The issue of whether the changes are permanent and done at the causal level are not so important, all healing systems can work at this level and effect permanent changes, so this one is potentially no different. The speed of changes is no indicator, for fast changes made without care may be worse that slower changes made with care. So at the heart of this in terms of quality is the care for the client. If one accepts that love and compassion play no part, that this is a quick fix solution, and that this is what the client is after, then so be it. If however one sees healing as a caring profession where the client's needs come first, where personal love and compassion play a part in the healing, where nurturing the client is seen as important, then the picture changes dramatically in my view - and that is important - but remember this is my view only.
love
chris

Hi Giles,
What I did was to apply the brackets as they were written removing them from the outside first, and suddenly it did all make sense.

Exactly. You took my second example that was supposed to show E as encompassing all the others (i.e. not a seperate thing) and you turned it into your own understanding which was what was demonstrated by the first example where E was just another thing chained on seperately from the others. Essentially I gave two analogies... one for how you seem to be perceiving it, and one for how we are perceiving it, but you've turned the second one into the same as the first. Why would I have given two different things if they were to have the same meaning? Your misinterpretation of it is your own doing I'm afraid.

Perhaps if I were to give it as a real life analogy...

Let's take an egg.
After some time, that egg hatches to become a small chick.
After some more time, that chick grows up to become a chicken.

Now, if I eat that chicken, it doesn't mean that the chick still exists or that the egg still exists, yet only the chicked can exist in the present moment, even though it wouldn't have existed without having been a chick or an egg before that. What is in the present moment is a product of what has been in the past, but what was in the past no longer exists.

If you can't get it from that analogy, or from Paul's example, then there is no point in me trying to explain it any other way.

You see Paul and you talk about dealing with those things that are in the now, and not what has been

Wrong. We never said we're not dealing with what has been, we are saying that we deal with however that past is existing in the present moment, in whatever form it takes. It is impossible to deal with something in the past, except conceptually by considering what is present in front of you as having come from the past. What is here, right now, is all that exists.

and is just a memory, and this was just what your formulas described, it may not have been what you wanted to describe but it worked.

Likewise, we never said it was just a memory, we said that the past event creates a memory and the effects of that memory change over time and exist in the present moment in a state that is reflective of the changes over time, but cannot be the effects as they were at the time of the event itself. You can only deal with the effects as they are Now, cumulatively built up from the past to the present. Those effects in the Now, contain all the effects of the past as they have been changed by our perceptions of mind over time.

Certainly the way you describe it lends no credence that you deal with the cause, when you say that anything that is passed is passed, that the cause is an inner conflict and that it is in the now, that the original issue is just a memory.

The original event and the effects of it at that time are just a memory, because the effects have changed to what manifest in the present moment.

I'm not convinced that all of what you say is in line and makes sense, you both repeat and repeat things as if they are fact and logical, but when they are analysed they do not stack up, and yet your formula suddenly did.

The fact things are repeated and that we both say the same, shows a consistency in understanding, and that is because it comes from the truth. They are fact, as they have been put personally to the test and known to be true, to say otherwise would be to deny the truth that has been experienced. It's not a belief, it's not something someone has told me and I'm taking their word for it, it's something that has been put into practice and found personally to be true. It's all perfectly logical, that the past no longer exists, and the future doesn't exist, and the only thing that does is the present moment; I would ask you to prove otherwise. The "formula" in the analogy suddenly made sense to you, simply because you turned it into your own understanding, to try and make out we are talking untruthfully, yet other people, such as Rebecca, can clearly see (and know from their own experience) that what we talk about is true.

When I challenged Paul on many of the things he claimed as fact it turned out that they had no real factual or scientific basis behind them, and yet in some way the act of repeating them is supposed to lend them credence

Science has not "scientific basis" behind it. Science (skeptics!) will quite happily say that some complementary therapy or other is Woo because there is no scientific proof for it, and that the positive effects that people get from it are just placebo. Yet they quite happily say that electrons exist. Electrons are only a conceptual particle that exist because of consistent observation of the effects of what an electron is supposed to do, so why should a complementary therapy that consistently benefits many people not also be considered to be valid? The only real proof someone needs for something is from putting it into personal practice and finding it to be true themselves, rather than just taking someone else's word for it. This is the difference between information and knowledge... one we are told, the other we know.

- I see no evidence that, even if reversed your formula provides any evidence that it will result in the removal of the cause.
What you call the cause is the thing making the symptoms appear (at least that’s what I think you said),...

Symptoms are a physiological manifestation of the underlying issue. It is the underlying issue that exists in the Now, and the symptoms are merely a side effect of those. Dealing with the issue in the present moment will remove any symptoms that manifest from it.

... but it has no connection to the original event or the resulting issue, both of which are not in the now,

How can they not be in the Now? If they are not in the now, then a person doesn't have an issue. :confused:

... so it is not really a cause (even though it may be 'causing' some symptoms or suffering). It is actually a result of the original issue (from the past), and that means it is actually a symptom. I therefore remain unconvinced that you are getting to the true causal agent, and while I'm sure that you may be healing some of the underlying causes of suffering that these are not the fundamental causes that are at the origin.

They can't be "at the origin". That time no longer exists.

If a car accident happens on a road, I can't, one week later, return to see that car accident happen.

Now it is no use just repeating that you are, or repeating the it is me misunderstanding, I've tried and looked and looked and analysed, and what you say does not stack up. It feels like smoke and mirrors with the use of words like transformational (in other words changing) to add credence - well of course any healing is changing. You claim to be doing the healing, changing people from within, but them claim that they have control over what you do and this too does not stack up.

I've never claimed to heal. I can provide a person with techniques and understanding so they can deal with their own issues. It's not about control. Sorry, but what you say doesn't "stack up"

So what you call twisting things is only applying a different vantage to them, if a process is robust and honest no matter what angle it is seen from it will be complete and unaltered, like a hologram.

That's why living in the present moment is a practice that has been ongoing for longer than most can remember. It is part of the advaita practice, and described in the texts of many other ancient traditions. It's is complete and unaltered, because being present cannot be altered, except for the mind clouding over it and preventing it from being seen.

What I have experienced and seen is that working in the now can provide a great deal of relief from those things that we suffer from, that the act of existing only in the now excludes many of the things that intrude into our lives and cause us issues, it is isolational and so prevents external disturbance,

You really do not understand the Now.
Living in the Now does not isolate from issues that happen or exclude them. In fact it's the complete opposite. If you're not in the present moment, you are "in your mind" (to coin a phrase) and that can lead to lack of awareness of issues going on in the present moment. Being present allows awareness of everything going on Now and allows Action to be taken as best as possible in that moment. Living in the now is about Oneness, whereas isolation is about seperation and duality. The two are mutually exclusive and cannot be considered the same.

but I also see that this is only effective so long as one remains in the now,

Which can become second nature. You keep on implying that it takes continual effort to live in the Now, but that is your miscomprehension that it requires some sort of effort of the mind, when infact it does not require the mind at all.

and the exclusions that this imposes are fundamental to living and developing, and yes love and compassion.

Not sure what you mean by that. Living in the now is all inclusive. There are no exclusions.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Chris

I have been looking at the concept of the Now model for a while now, and slowly it all begins to fall in place.
I started out by looking at healing in the Now, the comments that the events that sparked off the problems do not exist in the Now and are gone so no longer accessible felt wrong, and yet it seems to be logical.

We are dealing with thought patterns, not feeling which are created by them, it is the way you are choosing to perceive things which is causing the problem, the method is sound but it does not fit in with the way you think, so they must be wrong.

The comments that memories can not be erased but the effects of those memories can be 'healed' or somehow excluded from the Now and result in healing sounded reasonable, but worried me when someone mentioned brain washing.

That is correct the memories remain and are in no way excluded or buried or rejected from the now, but what changes is the way we apply judgements to the memories, removing the judgements allows memories to be looked at in a fresh way and accepted, once accepted in a non-judgemental way then they become nothing more than a memory amongst many memories, a record of what we have experienced, the conflict which has been built upon the memory is healed.

As for the brain washing, I said it to indicate that brain washing was not employed with healing.

The suggestion that people were being healed in a manner that said that the issues were being weighed and discarded based on whether they were self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner also sounded as if it made sense.

No that is wrong, what is happening right now has to be assessed not past events which no longer exist and can't be changed.

The comments that this was a process that did not use any form of love or compassion, and the 'harsh' attitudes I saw left me a bit bemused because I had not encountered them before in healing.

You can feel as much compassion toward someone as you like but it will not heal them, you can feel love toward someone as much as you want but it will not heal them, what heals them is healing.

I do not say that because I am not compassionate toward other people, because I am, but that compassion does not perform the healing it just allows me to empathise with them.

The stated fact that the healer did the healing, not the client bothered me, the apparent choice was up to the client but the contents of the actual healing were not in their command.

We can't force someone to become something which they do not want to become and that includes being healed, they are the focus of the healing, they have chosen what they want, our job is to perform it for them so they can step from one way of being into another way of being, the healee always calls the shots.

The absolute certainty that there is no judgement of our actions, all is ok no matter what also worries me, it is a license to do whatever one wants without ever having to face the resulting outcomes or effects that these have on others, it is sanctioned anarchy. That the future is considered of no consequence simply bolsters the same premise.

But there are responsibilities and a potential price to pay in real time for everything which we choose to do, if we choose to step outside of the law, then if we are caught we will be judged and penalised for our choices.

It would help you if you could understand the difference between being judgemental which does not serve us in a positive manner and creates inner conflicts and being responsible which does serve us in a positive self serving manner.

The focussed use of apparently 'non-judgemental' values, coupled with the ""self-serving in a positive and meaningful manner" allows only a disharmony of concepts - like there is a wish to be non-judgemental but the modality is riddled with it.

No that is because you are fixed upon the concept that we need to be judgemental in this life in order to spiritually grow and develop in future lives, to judge aspects of self as being wrong, not good enough, evil etc, causes inner division which is inner conflict.

With personal development we need to accept self in an open and non-judgemental way and make personal choices which will allow us to develop as human beings right now, there is no conflict within this only self acceptance and wholeness.

It all started back when I saw Paul's posts about defining professional healing - defining what it would encompass, and using words like responsible and competent, it seemed to me to be trying to elevate a humble practise that has been at the heart of every community into an exclusive group. This is not unusual, a number of bodies do this, not least the medical profession, but it is in my mind a attempt at controlling and excluding that made me feel very uncomfortable as I see that healing is for everyone and can be done by everyone. The post suggested that "the whole profession will be able to elevate itself up from it present situation" to the level of his system.

Yes healing is for everyone, like you I was not happy with a lot of the modalities which were being taught and I learnt quite a few of them, the concept that a healer is corrupt or not good enough to perform healing just serves to put prospective healers down and potentially creates inner conflicts.

Since I could already heal before I learnt any of the modalities, I went back to the drawing board and started again, what I have ended up with is a modality which teaches healers how to heal, teaches healers how inner conflicts/core issues are created within self and how to heal them, how people create their own realities and how to help them to reverse the process should they choose that path through personal development in a competent and responsible manner.

I did not do this to be elitist or better than anyone else nor to exclude anyone for learning how to do this, I did it simply because it needed doing.

Chris,

There is little else we can say without just repeating ourselves again and again.

Your perception of living in the now, the way you describe it, indicates that you cannot see past a dualistic idea of what it is, rather than the non-dualistic principle of what it truly is.

Maybe, one day you will become aware of it, and you will realise that it's not about self-serving in the selfish manner that you describe, it's not about putting up barriers and hiding from what's there, it's not about control and it's certainly not a temporary fix.

You talk about it as though it's something terrible that should never be in the lives of people, yet everyone who has encompassed it in their lives have realised it's the truth they've been looking for all the time and it heals by it's very nature, so it's not about whether it's logical or not, it's about finding through personal experience that it's simply the truth.

I wish you all the best in your efforts to understand.

All Love and Reiki hugs

Hi Giles,
Thanks for the egg to chicken example - it is actually quite a good one, you see if the chick was harmed when it was young, and lost a leg, then you would have to eat the chicken with the effects of the missing leg (actually I don't really like the example because I do not eat any animals out of compassion lol). It is the same thing with emotional, mental and spiritual scarring, the scars are there and they are still connected to the causal event. Treating the chicken for the loss of its leg will not deal with the scars and connection to the causal event.

You see you have tried to explain and I have listened, and I am not convinced, you state things as fact, and yet when I test them they are not, they are opinions stated as fact - this is why I am still looking for the solidity underlying it all.
"The fact things are repeated and that we both say the same, shows a consistency in understanding, and that is because it comes from the truth. They are fact," this is a prime example, no evidence other than personal experience is offered, yet it is fact, the truth and not a belief, and this just does not stand up to scrutiny. That it is consistently repeated adds no credence to it all.

Now in terms of science and how it manages proof I agree it is far from perfect, but the methods it employs seem to be the best we have. I think, I believe, that when someone finally does some proper research into many of the healing practises they will find that they work, and that they are more than just placeboic or brainwashing, I am convinced from doing healing that they work, but this does not make it truth, it adds no factual basis and I accept that. You claim that your method works, but you have no evidence that it is not brainwashing, you see your personal experience as evidence, but that does not make it so - what it does is relegate it to faith, and it is precisely this kind of thing that places much of healing into the 'Woo' bracket.

"I've never claimed to heal." - actually this was aimed at Paul, who has.

Hi Paul,
"the method is sound but it does not fit in with the way you think, so they must be wrong" - I have not said they are wrong, I've said that they do not stack up, just as saying ""the method is sound" seems like the truth, it is said as if it is fact, but if it is then why does it not stack up when I look at it? Your suggestion that it is my choice that is wrong just attempts to pass the blame for it and divert attention away from it.

"As for the brain washing, I said it to indicate that brain washing was not employed with healing" - what can I say? So I should just accept that without any evidence? (actually I think that brainwashing is probably not involved but that too does not change things).


"With personal development we need to accept self in an open and non-judgemental way and make personal choices which will allow us to develop as human beings right now" - I agree - this for me was self-healing - but we also have to develop as spiritual beings, if we ignore that we lose sight of much of the reason we are here.

"We can't force someone to become something which they do not want to become and that includes being healed" - another case of a statement made to look like fact, actually this is probably not true if one accepts spells, and it is further complicated by the fact that many are not clear about what is really going on, at least on a conscious level anyway. I'm reverting to being unkind again (sorry Giles), but this continual use of statements dressed to appear actual makes the whole thing just look like 'woo' including "the healee always calls the shots".

"It would help you if you could understand the difference between being judgemental which does not serve us in a positive manner and creates inner conflicts and being responsible which does serve us in a positive self serving manner." - and here it is again, using non-judgemental but positive in the same sentence, and back to the self-serving process. Repetition does not add credence. Your whole system seems to be about self-serving - and that includes the healers.

love
chris

Hi Chris

"the method is sound but it does not fit in with the way you think, so they must be wrong" - I have not said they are wrong, I've said that they do not stack up, just as saying ""the method is sound" seems like the truth, it is said as if it is fact, but if it is then why does it not stack up when I look at it? Your suggestion that it is my choice that is wrong just attempts to pass the blame for it and divert attention away from it.

OK. if you believe that two and two makes six, then no matter how many times someone tells you that it makes four, you will always look for a way to disprove that and make it make six, for in your mind two and two make six.

If you did not believe in self condemnation and suffering as a way of making amends for spiritual and future life growth, then you would be able to evaluate what we are saying to you in an open and non-judgemental way.

Until you are prepared to put your fears and beliefs that personal judgement, suffering and self condemnation helps people to heal in a positive manner, then trying to understand something which works on the principle of helping people to relieve their suffering right now so that they can experience life to the full right now as it unfolds around them, instead of being to preoccupied with pasts or potential futures, will never make sense to you.

Please remember that you make lots of statements which have no scientific basis or evidence to substantiate them, to us the proof of the pudding is always in the eating, it is the results which we rely upon to tells us if something is correct or not within the here and now, with your method it can never be proved, we would have to await a future existence to see if what you say stacks up within reality or not.

Hi Paul,
I never seek to prove that two and two make six, quite the opposite, I seek to prove only that which is true, and as I've said I will keep looking, but so far the system you propose has not managed to provide any proof of theory at all.
I do say things that are opinion, but that is a very different case from some of the things that you have produced to support your system that have been nothing more than pseudo-scientific sounding stuff that has no basis in fact - I tackled some of these until Giles told me I was being unkind - however take for instance "to us the proof of the pudding is always in the eating", this on the face of it sounds wonderful, but it adds no factual basis to the argument, all it says is that you believe in something, it could be placebo, psychological manipulation or simply statistical chance, so putting yourself forwards as a witness is not substantiation. This is really important, for only when we know how things work can they be applied to the maximum, in the meantime it is just another face of 'faith' and no matter how many witnesses you quote it adds no substance whatsoever.
Applying logic adds nothing, remember the flat-earthers applied logic, and they had many followers, but they seem to have been proved wrong.
I keep trying to add your system's two and two and so far they do not make four.
love
chris

Hi Chris

however take for instance

"to us the proof of the pudding is always in the eating",

this on the face of it sounds wonderful, but it adds no factual basis to the argument, all it says is that you believe in something, it could be placebo, psychological manipulation or simply statistical chance, so putting yourself forwards as a witness is not substantiation.

The criteria of assessment that I use is as follows, if something has up to a 65% positive result then it could be classed as a placebo effect, it therefore requires further assessment in the form of - what aspects if any is working to create a positive change and if it is not working then why is it not working and if it is shown to be working then how is it working.

For me to accept something as a valid method of doing something, then the results needs to be over 90% positive, then the results speak for themselves and that is good enough for me.

I have used the same method to evaluate many forms of therapies and healing over the years, it is a bit cut and dried but there are lots of things that do not work consistently so we need a way of assessing them, as I said before the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. 🙂

But, as demonstrated by many (a good example is explained in the book [url]Flatland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]), it doesn't matter how much someone attempts to explain what they know to be True, the only truth can be found by experiencing it for yourself.

At this time Chris, it sounds as though you won't even entertain the concept, let alone put it into practice, until someone can show it to you to a point that you know it as true, which would mean us having to impart the truth directly into your brain, which obviously we cannot do. Hence the proof of living in the Now (or the Power of Now as Eckharte Tolle calls it), is entirely down to your own choices.

It's like asking a child to eat an apple because it's "tasty", but the child won't eat the apple until you can prove it's "tasty" to them. (That's an analogy Chris, I'm not actually calling you a child. :))

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi,

I have been watching this thread from afar with great interest.

Going back to the original post I do agree that all our suffering is caused by self. I believe that we choose a path to experience good and bad so that our understanding and spiritual enlightenment may progress. To truly understand we must experience.

However, as I see it, on our journey we allow emotional injuries to get trapped inside our mind and body – mainly from our childhood when we were only learning and learned that what was all around us was the truth - when in fact it was not!

These injuries rear their painful head in many forms later in life in order to remind us that they are still trapped in there and that we must deal with them in order to progress. The longer we avoid them through misunderstanding (or miss-guidance) the longer we allow ourselves to suffer the symptoms and the reminders.

Up to this point I have believed that the emotional residue of our past experiences affect us in the present but only because we are letting them affect us. However, (for me anyway) I don't actually remember much of the experiences that have had an emotional impact on me, therefore, the only way (so far) for me is to dig deep into my past and actually look at my memories and see what has happened to cause the injury. When I do go back in my healing I do see things I’d long forgotten. I realise the truth of the pain I suffered in them and I feel the emotional impact of the event. From doing that I get a movement in the emotion. The effect or problem that I’m experiencing in the present then seems to go. However, this is a tough, tough thing to do but I’ve done it with the understanding that until we go through it, feel the emotion of it and then move it we can't actually learn from the experience.

Am I being a complete nunce for doing it this way even though it’s only way I’ve found yet to help? Am I causing myself even more pain – unnecessarily? From some of the earlier posts on ‘living in the now’ it seems to suggest so. So that’s why I’m questioning myself now.

With regards to how this thread has unfolded I see no evidence of the brain washing or underhandedness that Chris seems to be trying to suggest in Paul's methods. It seems like Chris has got some other information that is not present in this debate and is making conclusions from that. Or it's personal - either way your arguments have become weak because of the conspiracy theory. More understanding will be gained by continuing to probe with an open mind.

At the same time I feel that the Paul's healing methods have not been explained at all well and Paul & Co. do seem to be repeating the same thing at a certain level without actually going into the roots of the method. Having said that I am interested in it as I do understand the bit that we’re only ever present in the now – those events from the past can’t actually be re-lived in the physical. Mind you given how my body shakes uncontrollably sometimes when I go into a past memory or feel the emotion of it coming through I’d wonder – seems pretty real then!

So I’m questioning a lot at the moment – mainly because new problems seem to be coming to me in stronger waves all the time.

So, is it right at all to go back into the emotional injuries of past events to remember them and feel them again? Am I just dragging up stuff I’ve no need to?

If we are not on earth to learn, experience and progress in spirit then why are we here at all?

But if we just remove how the problems are affecting us in the now then how do we learn from the original experience and progress spiritually? Is it just a quick fix? - which for me at the moment is very appealing but I want to leave this life a better soul than when I entered it as well as having enjoyed life! Is the quick fix just like the confessional where all is forgiven and therefore removed?

How does the ‘living in the now’ theory that you’ve all been talking actually work in real life? Tell us about how you live and how you deal with responsibilities, problems, conflicts, money etc. Without being rude, from your posts earlier it does seem a little bit like living life ‘up in the clouds’ – in a sort of ‘everything will be fine’ kind of way. Forgive me if that’s a bit harsh but it’s just what I picked up from the posts. I spent a year ‘living in the clouds’ when I first realised about Angels and listening to Angel healers who professed that the angels would take all my problems away. I went into such a chilled mode of living that it nearly put me on the street.

I may simply not be understanding your ‘living in the now’ concept so I’d really be grateful if you’d explain it more. If I understand it and agree with it I will try it as I do have an open mind.

Thanks in advance.

Hi Paul,
I'm not going to start again on dissecting your scientific statements, I merely make the point that if something works then there is a reason, and it is important to find the reason. Simply accepting that it works adds nothing but questions and doubts about the process. Placebo effects range from 0% to over 90% depending on the group tested and whether it is a double blind experiment so for individual issues it is difficult to simply use a single number - and this is why the proof of the pudding is not always in the eating.

Hi Giles,
I seek the reasons rather than the truth, the truth is as you say bound to people, the flatlanders believed the world was flat, they knew it to be true, yet we know differently now. If they had instead examined the reasons they thought that, and really looked at them they might just have come to a different conclusion.
I understand the benefits from living in the now, I see the lowering of stress and the release (while we exist in the now) from the daily problems that keep us worrying, and so I see it has a part to play, but we also need to be learning from the past, and planning for the future - this is part of the complex being we are - so much of this for me is not about the Now, but about how Paul does healing in the Now.
In terms of the healing aspects I think that many of the arguments that have been put forward are flawed, they do not stack up, and yet are being claimed (in some cases now as 90%+ effective - there are many drugs with a lower success rate than that - that is why this evaluation is so important).
Paul says he looked and investigated many modalities before he decided to invent one basically because (my interpretation) that they did not 'stack up'. If what he has come up with is so effective then it should stack up, it is not enough simply to roll out untested numbers or witnesses without some form of evidence as to why it stacks up and is 90%+ effective. It is not enough to throw in pseudo-scientific statements presented as facts, they just add to the doubts, it is not good enough to say that explicit permission is not needed because the client will reject what they don't want without evidence, if this is in the least untrue, just once, then those affected are essentially being at the least manipulated and at the worst abused. It is not good enough to say that the healer knows what the issues are and will heal them without recourse to the healing power of the client, when no evidence is presented that this discernment is either possible or even accurate.
None of this is about living in the Now, which I have done and have seen the effects - it is about a modality that claims to heal in the now with some methods that have not been clarified or tested.

As for the child, the child within is still 100% alive and well, free and enjoying all aspects of life, running with the wind and seeing all aspects of nature and people with wonder, I set my child free a long time ago.

love
chris

Am I being a complete nunce for doing it this way even though it’s only way I’ve found yet to help? Am I causing myself even more pain – unnecessarily? From some of the earlier posts on ‘living in the now’ it seems to suggest so. So that’s why I’m questioning myself now.

... cut ...

So I’m questioning a lot at the moment – mainly because new problems seem to be coming to me in stronger waves all the time.

So, is it right at all to go back into the emotional injuries of past events to remember them and feel them again? Am I just dragging up stuff I’ve no need to?

Erm... yes and no. 🙂

If you look at mind therapies they can work in different ways. For example, with EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) the general principle is to help the client get back to the root cause of the issue (or as close as can be recalled) and then focus on how that event makes them feel Now. It no good asking them how they felt at the time of the event as you could get an answer such as "I was furiously angry and felt like punching them" whereas how they feel now could be "I'm really sad and upset that I no longer have the confidence I used to". EFT will treat how the person feels now about the event of the past. How they felt back then is the seed of how they feel now, but only how they feel now actually exists. Of course, once you start to treat that feeling from the Now, you may uncover other issues that have become embroiled into the held on feelings along the way, and those need treating too.

Another example would be with Freeway CER, which has similar techniques to EFT, but works slightly differently. Unlike EFT, it doesn't require time delving back into the deep past to try and determine the root cause, but can just look at a recent event that the client associates with the emotions they want to deal with. Treating how they feel Now about that recent event, and any issues that arise during the treatment, naturally deal with the emotions that are associated with the events of the past, and this can be tested with the client by taking them back to the events of the past (if they know them) to check that the emotions have gone.

Living in the Now, is not so much a set of techniques that can just be laid down in a set of steps like these other therapies, but a practice that is done as and when we remember, and like most things we practice, the more we do it, the more a part of our daily living it becomes and the more naturally it comes to us. Sometimes it can be better to look at it the other way around... as in ... we don't practice being in the Now, we practice recognition/awarness of when we are not in the Now i.e. when our mind is wandering to the past or the future and being taken away from the needs of what is right there in front of us. When we recognise our mind wandering we can bring it back to the needs of the present moment. This isn't avoiding what's happened in the past, but ensures that what is needed in the present is met. If the opportunity arises in the present moment that allows us to resolve something we are attached to from the past, such as negative emotions, we can choose to deal with it in the present moment. After all, you wouldn't choose to go back and get emotional about something from the past, whilst you're in the middle of driving your car, or while preparing a meal using a sharp knife (people do though, but you wouldn't choose to), you would wait until the Now presented the right moment to deal with it.

If we are not on earth to learn, experience and progress in spirit then why are we here at all?

To live. And, putting the focus on the past and the future isn't living.

But if we just remove how the problems are affecting us in the now then how do we learn from the original experience and progress spiritually? Is it just a quick fix? - which for me at the moment is very appealing but I want to leave this life a better soul than when I entered it as well as having enjoyed life! Is the quick fix just like the confessional where all is forgiven and therefore removed?

We learn from the knowledge of the past events, but we don't need the emotions that are attached to them. Living in the Now isn't going to remove the memories of the events or the memories of how we felt about the event at the time, but those emotions serve us no purpose in the present as no event in the present moment can ever be exactly as it was in the past. As an example, in some advaita teachings, they use the phrase "Meet everyone as if for the first time". So, e.g. just because someone made you angry or upset last week by something they did, are you going to meet them again and be full of anger and upset at them? What would it achieve that would be beneficial to all? Answer: Nothing.

How does the ‘living in the now’ theory that you’ve all been talking actually work in real life? Tell us about how you live and how you deal with responsibilities, problems, conflicts, money etc. Without being rude, from your posts earlier it does seem a little bit like living life ‘up in the clouds’ – in a sort of ‘everything will be fine’ kind of way. Forgive me if that’s a bit harsh but it’s just what I picked up from the posts. I spent a year ‘living in the clouds’ when I first realised about Angels and listening to Angel healers who professed that the angels would take all my problems away. I went into such a chilled mode of living that it nearly put me on the street.

I can't speak for those who believe in Angels, and trust me you are not being harsh, it's certainly a fair question to ask.
Of course problems, conflicts etc. arise during our lives, it does for everyone. Living in the Now for those situations would involve looking at what is available to us in the present moment at the time those things happen and what can be done about it with what we have to hand (so to speak). We could get all caught up in emotions, dragging up similar things from the past and letting it cloud our judgement, but that isn't going to help what is there in front of us, but only serve to distract us. e.g. We may feel anger arise, but we can choose to recognise that the anger is not productive and comes from attachments to the past, and let it go in that moment. That doesn't mean we are suppressing the anger on an ongoing basis, but we can recognise it, and choose to deal with the cause of that anger at a later time if the correct opportunity arises, because it certainly will not help in the needs of the present event that must be met. What's the point in holding onto anger that arises when somebody cuts you up driving down the road, if that anger is going to distract you from your awareness of the person who's blindly crossing the street who you need to act to avoid? Looking at why we felt anger at the person cutting us up can be dealt with when the time is right, but in that moment, the need is to drive safely with full awareness.

I may simply not be understanding your ‘living in the now’ concept so I’d really be grateful if you’d explain it more. If I understand it and agree with it I will try it as I do have an open mind.

Well, I can only speak for myself, and I certainly wouldn't call myself perfect at living in the Now. Yet experience has shown me that if I'm not in the Now then it is certainly detrimental to living compared to being in the Now, like the time I nearly sliced my finger off with a kitchen knife I'd just sharpened, I was distracted from putting my focus on the needs of the washing and drying I was doing, my mind took hold and ... well... I ended up with 3 stitches in my finger. I don't have to think back to that event though to be present when I do the washing up now. You have to experience it to know it.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

I may simply not be understanding your ‘living in the now’ concept so I’d really be grateful if you’d explain it more. If I understand it and agree with it I will try it as I do have an open mind.

Thanks in advance.

Hi Malchy

My thoughts . .

I am not very scientifically wired up ha ha - So when I speak of the past present and the future all happening at once I don’t really know what I am talking about but like many others I have been able to be conscious of past events and have seen future events and have been aware of energies/emotions connected with them . Of course In the present now moment that also applies .

So perhaps living In the now or embracing the now moment has an element of all so called time frames within It .

What keeps an Individuals focus or energy within the so called past . What Is It that will take an Individuals mind away from the present and projecting wishes for a healthy and prosperous future .

Everything points to a lack of peace within their now moment . How does one attain “real” Inner peace within the moment If there are Issues that lay unresolved throughout time (as we know It) .

About 3-5 years ago I was experiencing sufferings from many time-frames and my spirit guide put It to me that I was living 40% In the past 20% In the now and 40% In the future (and yet all there Is Is now) .

It’s one of those situations/scenarios that doesn’t make sense because the Intellect cannot fathom out the type of natural science thas In motion and In effect .

The process of self enquiry In my experience always brings to the surface all that keeps you from being at peace within your self .

Therefore when you are at peace you can be 100% present within the now .

daz .

Hi Malchy

Welcome to the forum, it is good to know that the debate has prompted thoughts within you. 🙂

At the same time I feel that the Paul's healing methods have not been explained at all well and Paul & Co. do seem to be repeating the same thing at a certain level without actually going into the roots of the method. Having said that I am interested in it as I do understand the bit that we’re only ever present in the now – those events from the past can’t actually be re-lived in the physical. Mind you given how my body shakes uncontrollably sometimes when I go into a past memory or feel the emotion of it coming through I’d wonder – seems pretty real then!

What is happening here is people are trying to perceive something new within the framework of old concepts and formulations, each concept needs to be evaluated from a fresh blank sheet, otherwise it will be interpreted or judged against that which we already perceive to be correct.

Yes. we cannot go back and experience something which happened years ago, but what we can do is to recreate the scenario right now using our current thought patterns and beliefs which will produce an emotional response based upon our current understanding right now.

Our current understandings, thought patterns and beliefs are being created right now out of our current way of being and this is where the problems lie, when we have experienced something which we do not know how to embrace in an open and non-judgemental way, we create an inner conflict by attempting to believe in two opposing thought patterns or beliefs at the same time, this creates a stumbling block which we will keep falling over until we resolve it.

So I’m questioning a lot at the moment – mainly because new problems seem to be coming to me in stronger waves all the time.

So, is it right at all to go back into the emotional injuries of past events to remember them and feel them again? Am I just dragging up stuff I’ve no need to?

If you write down the problems which are manifesting, then there will be a pattern, the pattern will guide you to the cause within you which needs addressing.

Our emotions are created within the body in response to our environment or our thoughts, if you wish to feel differently about something then you need to change your underlying thought patterns and beliefs (not the surface thoughts) which are creating them.

When an inner conflict that has arisen out of our problem of embracing any experience is healed, then we can replay the situation from start to finish without any emotional response, it is then just a memory, this is how we heal in the now, the problem is manifesting right now, it is sorted right now, the problem no longer exists right now, so it is healed.

If we are not on earth to learn, experience and progress in spirit then why are we here at all?

No, that is one of the main beliefs that stops a lot of people from seeking healing, if people believe that sickness is inflicted upon them because of them doing or have done things which are wrong, then that makes sickness a punishment and suffering judgement based and something which people have to endure until they have leaned their lessons before they can contemplate becoming healed and whole.

Now if a healer believes this, then that will in effect create a conflict of interest between the healer who believes that they need to learn the lesson before they can become healed and the person who requires healing right now.

We are here to experience a physical existence, to experience what it is like to have our consciousness attached to a physical body which can feel, without a body there can be no feelings, they are a physiological response which require a physical body to generate them.

To fully experience this reality we need to focused within the now, inner conflicts make it hard to experience the now and often sends us into negative or self destructive modes of being, this will manifest as disease or sickness to alert us to the underlying problems which need addressing so we can get ourselves back on track of experiencing life to the full in the now.

But if we just remove how the problems are affecting us in the now then how do we learn from the original experience and progress spiritually? Is it just a quick fix? - which for me at the moment is very appealing but I want to leave this life a better soul than when I entered it as well as having enjoyed life! Is the quick fix just like the confessional where all is forgiven and therefore removed?

We do not deal with spiritual development, for to our understanding we are complete within the oneness and this is just an experience.

A quick fix will not last the test of time, to stop this happening we use personal development to ensure that the person fully understands how the problem has manifested and how to avoid doing the same thing again, when we put that together with the transformational healing and the other tools we give them, to stop what you are describing from automatically happening, they can choose to create disharmony within them at some point within the future, but that is a personal choice and nothing to do with what we do or give them.

How does the ‘living in the now’ theory that you’ve all been talking actually work in real life? Tell us about how you live and how you deal with responsibilities, problems, conflicts, money etc. Without being rude, from your posts earlier it does seem a little bit like living life ‘up in the clouds’ – in a sort of ‘everything will be fine’ kind of way. Forgive me if that’s a bit harsh but it’s just what I picked up from the posts. I spent a year ‘living in the clouds’ when I first realised about Angels and listening to Angel healers who professed that the angels would take all my problems away. I went into such a chilled mode of living that it nearly put me on the street.

I may simply not be understanding your ‘living in the now’ concept so I’d really be grateful if you’d explain it more. If I understand it and agree with it I will try it as I do have an open mind.

One of the main aspects of living in the now, is being real, that equates to understanding personal responsibilities and being able to evaluate each opportunity as it is offered in an open and non-judgemental way.

Believe me there is nothing airy fairy about what we do or how we use it in our own existence, what it does do is it allows us to look life straight in the eye and make personal choices which we take responsibility for which avoids inner conflicts, it allows us to understand how we create our realities so we can steer life in the direction which we want it to go right now, which might change in the future, but that will be addressed when it becomes the now.

The now is about you becoming responsible for your own existence, taking responsibility for the way you are, changing the things which do not serve you and choosing to embrace the things that do.

Hi Chris

I'm not going to start again on dissecting your scientific statements, I merely make the point that if something works then there is a reason, and it is important to find the reason.

Good because we do not run our transformational healing and personal development practice upon scientific or medical science, nor do we run it based upon spiritual development.

We do run it to help people to overcome their problems that are affecting them now and give them the understanding and tools which will empower them to live their lives within the now should they choose to embrace it. 🙂

I still do not think that you have explained anywhere what you do and what lies behind the methods that you employ, perhaps if you give us that understanding, then we could understand the problem you are having with people living responsible and happy lives within the now?

Hi Malchy,
Welcome to the thread.
Regarding the brainwashing, this was not my introduction to the thread, it was someone else that brought it up. The online dictionary reports as option "2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation." - I am interested, like you, in the process, and like you I have not felt that it has been explained, even though I am familiar with the Now it still does not stack up - this is not a personal attack, I investigate and check, query and evaluate, it is too important to allow those things that are bogus to interfere, and those things that are honest to go un-noticed. I believe healing really works, scientific studies have found little or no evidence so far (though they have hardly bothered to look - no money in it unless they can bottle it I suppose).
The past experiences you describe, and much of how you are dealing with them could broadly be covered under the banner of self-healing, and this is a vital process to deal with those issues. The more you do the more you find, and yes - some are difficult to identify, but keep at it and it happens in time.
love
chris

Hi Paul,
Good description for Malchy - I like it and picked up on sever parts that also help things to fall into place.
Your examples of EFT and CER are good ones and you seem to suggest that your process uses something similar - a sort of detachment (my translation) from the emotions both from the past and then from the present in order to stop them affecting one in the present. This is not about mental stuff, memories and learning from events I think is a sort of mental process, and they are not affected.
What I also see is from "We do not deal with spiritual development, for to our understanding we are complete within the oneness and this is just an experience".
You also say "We are here to experience a physical existence, to experience what it is like to have our consciousness attached to a physical body which can feel, without a body there can be no feelings, they are a physiological response which require a physical body to generate them."

What these tell me, actually explain to me is that your process somehow seeks to disconnect one from two of the conceptual bodies, the emotional and the spiritual.
Now for me the emotional body is a very important part of who we are, I think that useless anger plays a negative part in one's life, but actually the memory of that anger does play an important part in the learning process, and our ability to replay it and examine it is important. I see that it has little bearing if one is just concerned about the Now, but I do not see it as valueless and something to be excluded in some way. Equally I also see that this process can incorporate in some way the exclusion not only of what we judge negative emotions but many that are actually not negative, but may be associated with negative emotions. I like your example of 'meeting someone again but for the first time' or whatever it was, it is a fine ideal (Jesus practised this by turning the other cheek), but there are also times where we have to learn that if we do we will just re-suffer the same treatment we got last time, eventually I think enough is enough, so there are limits to it in my (practical) mind.
In terms of the development of the spiritual body I could not disagree more, and I think that the statement for instance that without a body there can be no feelings is 100% wrong. A parson in spirit, with no corporeal body is just as able to fell emotional, mental and spiritual feelings, and this exclusion is dangerous and perhaps highlights why I think that living in the Now can be a trap, for if it excludes spiritual development it completely misses the point of our time on earth.
If all we are left with is the physical and mental bodies then living in the now is possible and may appear attractive, but the price for it is that we shelve our emotional and disregard our spiritual sides.

Finally "No, that is one of the main beliefs that stops a lot of people from seeking healing, if people believe that sickness is inflicted upon them because of them doing or have done things which are wrong then that makes sickness a punishment and suffering judgement" - I agree with, if things are inflicted upon one, and sometimes I think they are, then I do not believe it can be blamed on something they have done that was wrong. I do believe that we live in a world of balance, as we give, we receive and so perhaps this was what you meant. I do also think that suffering is a natural process, just like pain.

For example what happens when we suffer a physical injury like a cut?
The first indication is often pain and then some blood loss. These effects are quite often reasonably short lived, and it is following this that the body steps in to heal the wound.
This is a remarkable process, clotting, immune system responses, formation of protective scabs and finally new skin production.
The final result if that often the person is now more resistant to another event like this, better adapted to face future tests, scars are harder than the original skin, immune systems have built up long lasting immunity to invading organisms, and the person has learned the benefits of avoidance.
Does the scar form a reminder that allows to learn from the incident? - perhaps but not really, and the blood has flowed, so it is the pain that we remember and the recovery period, the event that we see when we remember it, our memories that are linked to the event outcome that allow us the benefit from the incident, these are what make us stronger.

If we remove any part of the sequence the process does not work. If we remove the pain for instance, all of the warnings that this allows for us to be vigilant, are lost. The consequences of this can be catastrophic - take for instance where the ability to feel pain is lost, for example in the case of leprosy, the result is that (unless other strategies are employed like VSE) the person will suffer cuts and infections without realising to the point that whole limbs are lost to infection, and the result is a long, disintegrating slide towards death.

If we interfere in the process, for instance by 'picking at the scab' the result will be a longer recovery period, increased likelihood of infection and further pain and blood.
There are ways to assist in the process, antibiotics can stop the invading bacteria from multiplying and give our bodies time to destroy those that are there, but whatever we do the process still has to happen in the fixed manner.

Of course this is the overt view of the process, we can see blood, and feel the ongoing process, including the pain, as our body heals.

The non-physical aspects of our 'selves' are no different. Our non-physical being still knows how to heal, it is inbuilt, and it will start up automatically.
If some incident in our lives causes a 'non- physical injury' we still feel pain, we still 'bleed' in a way, we still form scabs to cover the wound, and finally when the scab falls away we still end up as stronger than we were before.
If we remove any part of the process, just as in the physical process we risk dangerous side effects, if we remove the 'pain' than we change ourselves from being feeling individuals to unfeeling, warm to cold, loving to distant.
Just as in the physical model, if we pick at the scabs we risk further injury or longer recovery.
Giving healing is akin to the use of antibiotics, it gives us encouragement to heal, it promotes inner personal healing, it is protective, but at the end of the day the process still has to be followed.
We know from studies also that laughter, enjoyment, love and mediation can help in a similar manner to healing.

These are natural processes, yet many would seek to circumvent them out of fear. We fear pain, we fear problems that wounds bring, and it is this fear of natural processes that drives us and yet there is nothing actually to fear. The process is natural and we are equipped to deal with it. The fear itself can cause more problems that the issue itself.
The attempts to avoid the pain - and suffering as well have been developed over a long, long time. Buddha for instance suggested that suffering arose from a craving or is about ownership, and so by removing the feelings of craving, of wanting to own things, the suffering would go, and it did. The result was a life that to me was bereft of many of the things that make life worthy of being called life, the fear of suffering isolates one and far from being expansive and free, imprisons one in separation. The result is a kind of selfish, narcissistic avarice for a suffering-free existence, the very opposite of freedom, accentuating the hard, bitter being in one and quelling the soft, loving and compassionate person within.

So while we should not 'pick at the scabs' of suffering, to regard it is something to avoid at all costs is like having all physical pain removed, the result is a kind of leprosy of the soul, with bits becoming unused and vestigial, a reduction in ones very being, driven by anxiety and resulting in diminution, a phobia of living and experiencing and loving - while to experience life, including the highs of love, and lows of suffering leaves one more able to face life, more able to celebrate our time here and make the most of it otherwise what is the point, for simply to experience the safe haven of the highs adds nothing to our understanding of ourselves.
love
chris

Inability to deal with critisism & manipulation

In addition to the other very valid comments,

I suggest to consider how important it is for us to learn a good way to deal with critisism and manipulation. Just by increasing this ability, you will remove a large amount of frustration, tension, break ups in relationships or perhaps supressed feelings.

1. Show the other person you listen to them

2. Convey your point of view or what you want

3. Return to the other person by making an open question,
something that keeps the dialogue going.

What do you think on this? Would be glad to listen in and adjust anything if you would have additional ideas.

thank you,

johan

Hi Chris

That is a long post to work through. 🙂

What I also see is from

"We do not deal with spiritual development, for to our understanding we are complete within the oneness and this is just an experience".

You also say

"We are here to experience a physical existence, to experience what it is like to have our consciousness attached to a physical body which can feel, without a body there can be no feelings, they are a physiological response which require a physical body to generate them."

What these tell me, actually explain to me is that your process somehow seeks to disconnect one from two of the conceptual bodies, the emotional and the spiritual.

I did say that I had to go back to the drawing board and discard previously learnt information on healing etc to get where I am now, consequently there are no conceptual bodies in the Gaia-now healing model, only aspects of consciousness.

As emotions are not consciousness but a electro chemical reaction within the body which manifest as a symptom of consciousness, so treating an emotional body would only treat the symptoms, which we avoid.

As for the spirit, well on our healing model spirit refers to the matrix of consciousness or energy body, it lasts as long as our physicality requires it and it has then done its job and dissipates.

It would be wrong of you to assume that we disconnect anyone from any aspect of themselves, what we actually do is quite the reverse, our aim is to help someone to embrace the fullness of self in a way that they can understand.

In terms of the development of the spiritual body I could not disagree more, and I think that the statement for instance that without a body there can be no feelings is 100% wrong. A parson in spirit, with no corporeal body is just as able to fell emotional, mental and spiritual feelings, and this exclusion is dangerous and perhaps highlights why I think that living in the Now can be a trap, for if it excludes spiritual development it completely misses the point of our time on earth.

As I said earlier, emotions are generated by electro chemical changes within the body, they are a symptom of our thoughts not an underlying cause.

Unfortunately we will have to wait and see if we can create feelings after we have finished experiencing this physical reality and returned to a state of pure consciousness which will happen at some point within the future.

As this has no impact upon what is happening to someone right now, it can't come into the equation of a healing model which works to sort out what is happening to someone right now.

You still have not answered my earlier question?

I still do not think that you have explained anywhere what you do and what lies behind the methods that you employ, perhaps if you give us that understanding, then we could understand the problem you are having with people living responsible and happy lives within the now?

Thank you everyone for your replies to my post. I have read with great interest.

Paul, i see there is a level of thinking that is much different to what i have learned and for me this needs to be dicussed at a higher level. If i can understand your overall thinking and agree with it then i can more easily understand your methods and reasons for your living in the now and healing theory.

Maybe i should be starting a new thread for this but i'll give it a go!

With regards to your overall belief system am i right in saying that you believe that we are already one consciousness and that there is no spiritual development needed because we've nowhere to actually progress to? Do you also say the only reason we are on earth is to experience the physical form? Correct me if i'm wrong.

If this is right it differs a lot from my learning (rightly or wrongly) and is probably the reason why i do not understand many aspects of your methods!

Here are a few questions that may help me understand:

How did you come about your understanding of why we're here and the one consciouness theory?

What makes you sure it's right? (Not saying it's wrong just want to see why you think it's right?)

Are you saying that we are one consciousness or god or Nirvana or whatever people want to call it, before we come here and when we return?

Are you saying we only come here to experience or feel being consciouness or god or Nirvana in the physical form?

And is that why you say we have to live in the now trying not to feel the effects of emotions or suffering because we'll get the best opportunity to feel being consciousness in physical form if we do?

If we are already one consciousness then why do we even need or want to experience the physical form? What benefit to consciousness if we do feel?

And, if we come here anyway, why don't we want to experience all that comes with being in the physical form i.e. we experience physical pain in life in order to preserve us so why, at least some of the time anyways, don't we want to experience emotional pain as well? Surely that's also part of being in the physical?

I think you said that we are not just one spark of consciousness but are the whole and that we have no individual spirit. If so then how and why do we spilt and take on a spirit in order to come to earth? What makes us individual and why come as individuals and not just as one to experience the physical form as one?

You also said in consciousness there is no emotions or feelings. How do you know this? And does that mean there is no love other than on earth?

Sorry for all the questions but i want to understand.

I thought i had finally grasped a good understanding of the big picture of life after being let down by several teachings or understandings throughout my life so far. Now yours is different again. A few aspects of it has sounded credible so i am interested. As is, i guess, quite a few others who are following this thread from the sidelines. So, while i know it will take some of your time it would be good to get your thinking on the questions above.

Thanks.

Hi Malchy

With regards to your overall belief system am i right in saying that you believe that we are already one consciousness and that there is no spiritual development needed because we've nowhere to actually progress to? Do you also say the only reason we are on earth is to experience the physical form? Correct me if i'm wrong.

Yes the oneness is non physical and does not function within physical time, in our natural state we perceive everything as one, so if we had 1000 physical lifetimes, then they are all one, the experiences are all perceived as one, so we perceive the first visit right through to the last visit simultaneously, all is one.

Yes we come here to experience a physical existence, where we do things with a physical body instead of doing it purely through consciousness, here we can perceive a house and set about building it piece by piece instead of just creating it out of consciousness, we need a body to function that way and anything else that a physical body allows us to function, take away the physical and what is left is us.

If this is right it differs a lot from my learning (rightly or wrongly) and is probably the reason why i do not understand many aspects of your methods!

That is correct, it is often difficult to evaluate a different concept within existing predefined concepts, this one turns things on their head and requires a fresh approach to understand it and make it function. 🙂

How did you come about your understanding of why we're here and the one consciouness theory?

I let go of my existing understandings and was open to explore self in an open and nonjudgmental way, by looking inward instead of looking outward I encountered the oneness and this understanding just fell into place and answered so many previously unanswered questions that I had to take note and test it out on self and others, the results speak for themselves.

What makes you sure it's right? (Not saying it's wrong just want to see why you think it's right?)

It is more of a knowing, a knowing that sets us free from confusion and inner turmoil, a knowing that makes us complete and one.

Are you saying that we are one consciousness or god or Nirvana or whatever people want to call it, before we come here and when we return?

Yes all is one within the oneness of consciousness.

Are you saying we only come here to experience or feel being consciouness or god or Nirvana in the physical form?

Sort of, we already know what it is like to perceive consciousness within the fullness of self, but to perceive physical things and experience things from within a physical body requires us to become physical, it is simply an experience.

And is that why you say we have to live in the now trying not to feel the effects of emotions or suffering because we'll get the best opportunity to feel being consciousness in physical form if we do?

No that is a misunderstanding, living and experiencing things within the now, is not about just observing life in a detached way, it is quite the reverse, when we focus within the moment without distraction, everything become more real and vibrant, feelings are there to be embraced and experienced, they add to the physical experience within the moment, but to continue to experience everything that this life has to offer us, we need to keep our thoughts and our feelings firmly rooted within the now or the moment, otherwise we can't embrace what is now, for we start to function within the past or the future and the now passes us by.

If we are already one consciousness then why do we even need or want to experience the physical form? What benefit to consciousness if we do feel?

We want to experience something different, we want to know what it would be like to be separate from the one, to experience thoughts which we can perceive as our own, we want to be able to discover things afresh, to have to make choices without knowing the outcome.

Our everyday thinking mind which we mostly function with in this physical reality is not the same as our natural state of pure consciousness, it has no knowledge of the oneness until we embrace it, it has no knowledge of anything until we have encountered it, this is what we come here for, the experience.

And, if we come here anyway, why don't we want to experience all that comes with being in the physical form i.e. we experience physical pain in life in order to preserve us so why, at least some of the time anyways, don't we want to experience emotional pain as well? Surely that's also part of being in the physical?

Emotions colour our experiences and add a new dimension to the experiences, but when the experience is over, it is over, if we have survived whatever we have experience, which we must have done since we are still here, then we have let go of the feelings that were attached to what has been so that we are ready to fully embrace a new experience without interference or influences of what has been, otherwise we just end up experiencing the same thing in different ways all of the time.

I think you said that we are not just one spark of consciousness but are the whole and that we have no individual spirit. If so then how and why do we spilt and take on a spirit in order to come to earth? What makes us individual and why come as individuals and not just as one to experience the physical form as one?

No I said that we are one within the oneness, that is not the same as being one entity, the oneness is made up of incalculable beings of pure consciousness, consciousness is quite capable of splitting itself into as may parts as it is capable of perceiving, just the same as human beings are capable of splitting their own consciousness and forming multiple personalities etc.

Considering that we have to be born in a vulnerable state and rely upon others to give us nourishment etc until we can learn to function in this physical reality, then it would be a little difficult for us to just come here on mass as one being, we would have to come as a fully functional and capable being, but that would be a completely different experience to the ones we have.

You also said in consciousness there is no emotions or feelings. How do you know this? And does that mean there is no love other than on earth?

Because when you move beyond the physical within self and connect with the oneness you don't feel things, things are just known outside of emotions, love is a human concept and like our other emotional states it is fickle, the oneness understands the human concept of love, but within the oneness everything is based upon acceptance.

When you are embraced within complete non-judgemental acceptance, there is no need for anything else, all is one.

Sorry for all the questions but i want to understand.

Nothing to be sorry about, everyone is looking to understand, if we do not ask then we will not get any answers, the answerers that we get, might not always be what we are looking for, but they help us to expand out current understanding. 🙂

Ok so i understand a little more about your theory of big picture. Not saying i agree with it but i think i see what you're saying - which as a theory sounds possible.

One thing though. To be clear you say that when we die we immediately go back into being one - not a part of one but just one - is that right?

Then, why do many people that have near death experiences or people who say they can talk to their guides also say that their experience of the afterlife is that there are individual spirits. i.e. those that have loved ones who are already past meeting them in their near death experience. How would you explain this if we all go back into being one when we die?

Going back to living on the earth in the now.

What is the now measured in? How long does it last? You mentioned a 'moment'. So does the 'now' last one moment of time as in 60 seconds or is it one second or one hour or one day? Surely when the second we're now in has passed to next it's then in the past and the one ahead of us is the future. So given that theory we can only ever live in the now for one second at a time. Whatever we experienced in the last second is therefore only a memory. But how can we live life one second at a time?

The reason i ask is that if we're only supposed to 'feel' the now and everything else is the past or the future then how long do we feel the now for? If it's only a second then it's not possible to consciously feel it so why bothering to even think about it. If your methods teach us to consciously keep ourselves in the now then it's not actually possible to do physically. It's only possible over a timeframe that our minds can work at like a minute, hour day etc. If that is so then we're actually really living in the now at all.

If we are to release and let go of everything in the past i.e. our fears and emotions that happend in the past, so that we can live in the now we must also let go of our thoughts, worries or fears of the future. If this is so then how is this in a practical sense. Do you plan anything for your future like work, getting food, looking after your health etc. I'm struggling to see that, if you are always thinking and being in the now, then how do you plan for where you'll be when 'now' comes along tomorrow? Or so you just let it happen? So when tomorrow comes you deal with it then? But what if there's no food when you reach tomorrow? Do you only get food in the now or do you fill the fridge for a week or so? If you shop for a week or so why because that's not living in the now is it?

I really don't understand do I.
Thanks,

Hi Paul,
Yes - I understand that you did start from scratch, nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it does mean that to develop a fully integrated system that stands up to scrutiny there is more work to be done. So it is alright to say that there are no conceptual bodies in the Gaia system, but that still has to encompass and explain all the existing evidence in order for the new system to be entire and whole.
Now it seems ok to state that emotions are just electro-chemical and therefore physical, many scientists would agree I suppose, but there is plenty of evidence that those in spirit also experience emotions, especially love and sometimes sorrow. This is evidence presented in the spiritualist churches for instance and is tested by those to whom the evidence is meaningful. I've watch and observed, tried and channelled, and tested at every stage of this, and once the dubious stuff is set aside, once the meaningless is set aside, there is plenty of evidence that the remainder is valid. So it seems to me that this kind of statement is lacking in substance, it sounds good and supports the system proposed, but actually casts more doubt on the system rather than verity. If you can explain why there are no emotions beyond the physical body that would help.
Your system also suggests that our spirit dissipates once we leave our physical body, but again this is not supported by many of the groups who deal with spirit, the spiritualists again as well as those children who remember past lives, but throughout history there have been groups all round the world who see (believe or believe they have evidence of it) that we do not dissipate. Simply making a statement does not make it so, and I think that if you are correct than you should be able to refute these examples - the fact that you do not does not add credence to your system. If you could show the reasons behind the statement that would clear things up.

(lol just spotted that I wrote 'a parson in spirit' - lol again).

Me? Ahh - I'm just a simple reiki healer working with love and compassion and with all that follows in terms of experience.



Hi Malchy,
Interesting questions - many of which echo what I have been trying to ask.

love
chris

I suppose, but there is plenty of evidence that those in spirit also experience emotions, especially love and sometimes sorrow. This is evidence presented in the spiritualist churches for instance and is tested by those to whom the evidence is meaningful.

Hi Chris .

Absolutely chris .

There’s still plenty of work to do for Individuals that pass over to the spirit realms that are still trapped within emotion . I think there are many that believe all Is done and dusted when we leave this physical experience and perhaps life can start from scratch the moment we passover .. If an Individual leaves this world full of anger they remain to be full of anger In the afterlife . .

Of course one may find It easier to release the emotion In the spirit world when one has the means to look at the self In ways that they were not used to, but unresolved Issues remain unresolved until they are not .

Time and dimensional space, physical form or etheric form does not stand In the way of that .

daz .