It is not enough simply to say that one will not worry, it is a healing process, and so one has to identify why one is worrying, face it without fear and understand it, and then deal with it so as to remove it completely. The question then is even after having found it and faced it how does one deal with it. Ignoring the issue, or 'letting go of it' will not work, it may appear to work for a while, but does not solve the problem. Even if one identifies the 'worry' as not self-serving there one still has to take some kind of action to effect removal rather than concealment, discharge rather than occultation.
The process I have used is not a healing process in the 'energy' or lightbody process, it is a practical, almost physical process, it is simply about making the issue so small that it disappears from the worry scale. I do not worry about breakdowns of these things because they are no longer of any consequence, there is nothing left to worry about, and so the issue is removed. I think this is similar for instance to eating a healthy diet, it is a preventive measure, is it healing? I'm not sure, but it has left nothing to 'heal' so it has worked on some level.
So I think your question was valid, but rather than the tourniquet I see amputation perhaps lol.

Hi Chris,

So, if have identified the cause of your worry, taken the appropriate action to "amputate" your worry so that it no longer appears on your worry scale - does this mean that you do not keep a watchful eye on your Pension Investements? ...see when they may need shuffling around so that they perform at their best?

... do you feel any trepidation or anxiety if you perceive a threat to your investments or White Goods fund?... do you send out a mental scouting party to fend off any potential threats to your investments, so you can take the appropriate action before the threats wreak any damage - beacuse if you do, and you do so with any level of anxiety, worry, fear (even if these emotions are under control and well managed)... then the underlying, deep-seated fear is still there, unhealed, don't you think?

In terms of the view I get of the 'now', I think it is the same view, I reject Paul's comments that I miss the point, I think it is because of perspective as much as anything. You see when you first get 'the now' it seems like it is everything, there seems nothing left to question and nothing left to find, it feels all encompassing - and as a consequence there is no reason to stand back and examine the now from a bit further, no reason to challenge or question at all - and so no one does it. Yet if you do, if instead of being amazed and 'spellbound', instead of simply accepting the calm and focus that it offers, you examine it, really question every corner, look at it from close up and far away, it changes, the structure that surrounds it becomes evident, and it is a constraining structure. It appears to offer freedom, but only within the concept, it seems expansive and as if it allows self-determination, but only within the boundaries that enclose it, it gives the impression of limitless horizons, but it is an perceptual illusion, for they are curved back on themselves.

To me it seems as though you are perceiving Paul and Giles description of the Now from a 'heady' place... you seem to be perceiving their version of the Now as: mentally focusing/concentrating every 'out' everything except what they are currently participating in, so that as long as they are focused (mentally focusing out) all other distractions from what is occuring Now... then they won't have to face their Fears, which you seem to see as waiting to 'get them' as soon as their concentration drifts... is that how you're seeing what they're saying?

Firstly love and fear are expressed In many, many ways and perhaps they are beyond sense like many things are . Love can appear to be unkind so In someways we need to ascertain the Intent behind any thought or action made to be clear on what’s It Is that Is In expression would you agree?

Do we need do ascertain the intent behind any thought or action to be clear what is in action, and do I agree? Agree or disagree - it all pretty pointless to me... it's a persons ego directing weather, giving a "yey" or "ney" to that great big storm cloud or the sun as it passes over head:

"um, Yes storm cloud I will let you past on this one occassion... just so long as you don't rain on my fresh laundry...oh you're raining on my fresh laundry...hmn, OK.. in which case I agree... yes, rained on laundry has it's place in the universe, I'm starting to see your point of view... shall we be friends after all - oooohhh here comes the sun, now go away storm cloud and don't darken my doorstep again, here's the Sun my new BFF" - it's pretty hilarious to me actually.

Any kind of challenge made to another be It physically, mentally, emotionally etc with a fear based Intent will reflect a lack of peace and contentment with the Individual on some level as you know .

I would say that if a person makes a fear based challenge to another person physically, mentally emotionally reflecting a lack of peace and contentment etc... then it serves the purpose of highlighting / rooting out any 'lack of contentement' - or 'unthruth' of the mind on *both* sides - within both people.... and if one of those people is saying something along the lines of "it takes two to tango, don't get involved" - then that highlights a 'lack of contentment' within that person ie, they've just scrapped their ego into a nice tidy pile and they don't want any challenges coming along messsing up their work...

... so if a person is standing at the front of the class (or at the head of the thread) and setting themselves up as a teacher, guru, politician, hotshot business person etc... then they need to have their authenticity put to the test / challenged:D. We can't all 'play nice' just for the sake of apppearances, can we Nice? Don't you agree?

Do we need do ascertain the intent behind any thought or action to be clear what is in action, and do I agree? Agree or disagree - it all pretty pointless to me... it's a persons ego directing weather, giving a "yey" or "ney" to that great big storm cloud or the sun as it passes over head:

Hi W.S.

You asked me for an opinion on chris as to whether she Is coming from a place of fear when asking paul to explain his perception on the now .

Firstly one needs to ascertain what Is “fear based” and how does a fear based thought or action express It’s self In reference to your question asked .

If you asked me If Paul or Giles came from a place of fear If they had walked over an ants nest I would say It would all depend as to whether Paul or Giles Intended to do that . To me It Is none of my business what they do but you asked me the question regarding chris .

In that respect I don’t see that ascertaining one’s motives (chris’s motives) Is pointless . Why ask me the question - If ascertaining what lies at the heart of your question asked Is pointless??

Perhaps you asking me to give an opinion as to If Chris Is coming from a place of fear Is pointless, but I respectfully gave you an answer to your question asked .

... so if a person is standing at the front of the class (or at the head of the thread) and setting themselves up as a teacher, guru, politician, hotshot business person etc... then they need to have their authenticity put to the test / challenged. We can't all 'play nice' just for the sake of apppearances, can we Nice? Don't you agree?

I don’t see It that way W.S. You see that ascertaining one’s Intention Is pointless but yet an Individual can still satisy their curiosity If they have doubts about another person whether It be In the form of a teacher or a politician without the Intention of challenging them . I can ask another person If they have realized God without challenging them as to if they have and are being honest or not for example .

The Intention behind one’s questions Is a reflection upon their own expression . Would they be asking questions In order to disprove what the politician Is all about or are they genuinely curious to know If what the politician Is all about makes sense to them and as to whether the words that are spoken via his/her lips comes from a place of honesty and Integrity .

There Is a difference . . A huge difference In one’s Intention / motive .

And In reference to your question We can’t all play nice can we? Er Yes we can would be my answer . You do not add petrol to a fire If you want to put the fire out . Turning the other cheek at times Is most difficult, but an Individual doesn’t have to play tit for tat . That doesn’t solve anything .

daz .

Hi WildStrawberry,
Nice closed questions to Daz, I think he responded appropriately.
From what you write I get the impression that you are desperate to somehow show that I live in fear and that this is the source of my questions and challenges - they must be unsettling for you.
In answer to your questions about pensions etc. no I do not follow them, I have made the best choice at the time, which of course may be to give someone the task of managing them, and I stop worrying about them after that.
I worked hard on worry and anger, respect and love and compassion many years ago, I have found the balance I seek in life and although of course I am close up to 'myself' I see no issues that still need healing.
I'm sure this will disappoint as you have seemed keen to use it as a means of showing that I am at fault, but that is the how it is.

Hi Giles,
I understand what you say about communicating things that are difficult to describe. Even so we often perceive the same things from different viewpoints, each sees the truth, but neither sees the same things. So what you have described I think I have seen, I think I have comprehended it, and experienced it. What I saw was different though, and I described it. In the same way that you say you have described it but it needs to be experienced I say the same. I saw a prison - you did not.
I see no fear in your answers and I see that you are truthful.

As for the past, well we replay the past thorough memories all the time, we have documented views of the past through video and pictures, and through all of these the past stays connected to us in the present - we talk of reliving the past for instance so we can in some form experience the past. We cannot go back and change the past (as far as we know) but these connections exist within the person and their energy fields. However, part of the point is that those who live in the now claim that there is only the now, while those that do not seem to exist outside of it, is it a paradox that it may have an inside and an outside? I'm not sure, but for one system to claim total exclusivity when there are these reservations is just too judgemental and excluding - it becomes lie a religion.
I see the now as a prison not a place of total freedom, some may see it differently, for some even a prison may feel like freedom.

Experiential practice is only a single view, it carries little or no factual validity. I see the now as a prison, that is not evidence that it is, it is a view. It is real only in that it exists within someone, but has no factual bearing - it is as corruptible as memories, perhaps more so. If a person on drugs sees a dragon it does not make dragons real. Knowledge too is a viewpoint at times, people knew the world was flat, but that did not make it so. What you have is a belief system based on experience, note that the experience is in the past, it does not exist in the now, it is personal experience and carries no evidential weight. By describing it in an attempt to get someone else to experience the same thing we simply pass on personal opinions and try to put them under pressure to conform - this has been shown in may experiments about witness statements for instance.

"So are you saying that the Now doesn't exist and it's just an idea?" - no - I think it is actual, but many of the ideas dished out have been simply made up, dressed in pseudo-scientific words in an attempt to bolster the idea of now - they are not helping to define what it is, they are designed to provide credibility but actually do the opposite when examined - they make it appear something it is not.

"You can ask any way you like and I shall still answer truthfully." - I see that - when we answer truthfully we always give the truth as we know it, but I see no duplicity or lies in your answers.

The reason I question whether living in the now is supportive of love and compassion is because of the comments (Paul's) about being self-serving in the Now - the two are pretty much mutually exclusive, self-serving is as it says about self - love is about more than self. Perhaps it is just this aspect that gives that impression. However there is still another aspect that presents a problem, and that is that love often encompasses the past, we can feel love even for those who have died, and this too seems to not sit well with the Now where the past plays no part. The now may well be supportive of love and compassion - but just for the moment it seems, and I see love not just as a 'thing of the moment'.

"I would say that you choose suffering as a means of learning" - this is not correct, I see suffering as a natural process that can provide learning, I do not choose suffering (and have not said I do), but I do accept that it is part of life, that it has a role to play, and that it is a natural phenomenon. If you see that suffering is not a natural part of life then the now is providing a very strange viewpoint of life, perhaps this is where the self-serving bit comes in again. Paul said that we choose what place we come into in this world, if that choice that people have made includes suffering how does this line up with deciding that a life void of suffering is what is right - how then can it be self-serving.
Would you choose a life free of pain? Would you choose a life without sorrow? Would you choose al life without love? By denying the part that suffering has to play you render your life less than it can be, you deny natural processes their place, but I suppose this is self-serving.

"In that respect, if you are healing others by telling them to embrace their suffering and learn from it, then you are encouraging suffering." - yes- if I was, but I do not tell them that. They will deal with the suffering and heal when they are ready - that is not my choice, I will provide whatever I can to get them through it and healed beit healing energy or 'a cup of tea', but it will be at the pace they decide. The client is the most important person in all of this healing - not the healer or the healer's opinions.

Hi Paul,
Your answer again evades how you do the healing and what process you use to alter people so that they are healed. You try to put the blame on me for not understanding something, you prevaricate and digress, you dress things up in words to hide that you cannot or will not say what you do - I wonder actually if you are doing anything. If you are a healer, 'the healer', and you are 'performing the healing', and the client is not doing the healing, then you should be able to describe what you do.
If you are manipulating someone's consciousness with yours than what you are actually doing is coercive, and you are imposing what you think they need upon them. Otherwise this is just sorcery. But just as importantly if you cannot explain it to me, then how do you explain it to the client, upon whom you are about to make changes at fundamental levels, how can they possible give informed agreement unless they know what is going to happen?

love
chris

From what you write I get the impression that you are desperate to somehow show that I live in fear and that this is the source of my questions and challenges - they must be unsettling for you.

Huh? Not in the slightest Chris... where did you get that from?

I worked hard on worry and anger, respect and love and compassion many years ago, I have found the balance I seek in life and although of course I am close up to 'myself' I see no issues that still need healing.
I'm sure this will disappoint as you have seemed keen to use it as a means of showing that I am at fault, but that is the how it is.

Good for you Chris... if you say that's how it is, then I'll take your word for it... tieing in with Daz's post prior to yours... out of curiousity... what is you intention/motive behind your investigation of Gaia Now, and with Paul and Giles and their version of the Now - you didn't really respond to that section of my previous post to you.

Hi WS,
It is an interesting concept, modality whatever...
I look at everything and try to find out the fact from the fake, the true from the untrue and to evaluate what works. This is how we learn.
The descriptions of the Now I understand, I have a different view but I think I see what is described, in fact I think I have been in the now for that is the only real place to get the understanding from.

In terms of Paul's modality the answer is the same, but the structure behnd the now is much more solid and developed, the answes generally stack up - with healing in the now this seems not to be the case. If Paul is doing this professionally in a responsible manner he should have the answers available in a manner that can be explained to prospective clients, but all I see is the description of the environment in which he operates.
Do you heal in the Now?

love
chris

Daz,

My choice of the word pointless was perhaps not the best choice of word - what I was getting at was : Life *is* happening / unfolding, right? I ask that out of interest, because I too am curious to see where people are coming from (as you said in your previous post)... and also I'm not out to prove anyone or anything right or wrong either, just for the record:D.

... back to my point- Life *is* happening and unfolding, and a peron's ego is continually passing commentary on what Is (note the uppercase I) happening - deciding what to agree with/ disagree with.. what to let past border patrol after passport inspection etc... and unless a person is Being, then they will be challenged / tested, and their integrity, honesty and authenticity will be put to the test / 'untruths' rooted out -wether intentionally or unintentionally by others... I don't see what wrong/harmful/difficult about that ? Kind of perplex...hmn

So... if you personally would have a preference for Peace... if another person you encounter does not share that preferance... what would you do - force them to be peaceful... because there's a conflict in itself.

Did you perhaps read my word Challenge as having a meaning closer to the word Confrontation?

Hi Chris

If you are manipulating someone's consciousness with yours than what you are actually doing is coercive, and you are imposing what you think they need upon them.

No. when I work to transform someone's aspects of consciousness nothing is spoken in the transformation process, so there is no coercion within their thinking mind, they define the problem and how they would like to change it, I then implement their choices on their behalf within the oneness of consciousness, working through self to create a shift within the aspects of consciousness, what I think does not matter it is what they think and the way that they think which is being addressed.

The thinking mind is addressed with the personal development aspect of the session and takes the longest time to do, the transformations within consciousness are instantaneous because it bypasses their everyday thinking consciousness and works directly within their other aspects of consciousness.

I also address their energy matrix and transform whatever they have created within their matrix of consciousness through their negative self perceptions, thought patterns and beliefs which do not serve them in a positive and meaningful way.

The reason I question whether living in the now is supportive of love and compassion is because of the comments (Paul's) about being self-serving in the Now - the two are pretty much mutually exclusive, self-serving is as it says about self - love is about more than self.

I do not understand why you would feel that living in the now would be detrimental to love and compassion, if we do not learn to have love and compassion for self, then there is little chance of learning how to share it with others, self serving is not about selfishness, it is about embracing all aspects of self in an open and non-judgemental way so that we are set free to express the fullness of self to others without fear.

Hi Giles,
I understand what you say about communicating things that are difficult to describe. Even so we often perceive the same things from different viewpoints, each sees the truth, but neither sees the same things. So what you have described I think I have seen, I think I have comprehended it, and experienced it. What I saw was different though, and I described it. In the same way that you say you have described it but it needs to be experienced I say the same. I saw a prison - you did not.

Ok, that's fine. So you see a prison... and I don't. But what are those barriers you are seeing around you? When I am in the Now, there are no barriers there. To me that would sugges that these barriers you are seeing are something unique to you, in fact created by you (your mind). I think I'm understanding what you are saying, but I also think you're perception of the Now is such that you've taken the Now as the whole of Oneness, picked out just a piece of it, labelled that as the Now and then everything else is "outside" of that, and that why the piece you are looking at seems like a prison. In literal terms, I would say that you're looking at the past and future as those things outside the Now, but as you say...

As for the past, well we replay the past thorough memories all the time, we have documented views of the past through video and pictures, and through all of these the past stays connected to us in the present - we talk of reliving the past for instance so we can in some form experience the past. We cannot go back and change the past (as far as we know) but these connections exist within the person and their energy fields. However, part of the point is that those who live in the now claim that there is only the now, while those that do not seem to exist outside of it, is it a paradox that it may have an inside and an outside? I'm not sure, but for one system to claim total exclusivity when there are these reservations is just too judgemental and excluding - it becomes like a religion.
I see the now as a prison not a place of total freedom, some may see it differently, for some even a prison may feel like freedom.

... the Now isn't excluding those memories, images, sounds whatever that we have stored from the event as it happened. It isn't putting the past or the future "outside" itself. Yes, those things exist conceptually, but even in your own words there, you say "the past stays connected to us in the present". It isn't that the past is here in the present, it's that we have pointers (memories etc.) to those past events that can allow our mind to re-create it in the present. But it can never be recreated exactly 100% so that the past is here now.... we can't put the clouds back where they were around the planet, we can't move the oceans and the sand they moved back how they were, we can't move the planets or the galaxies and their gravitational, heat and light effects back to how they were when that past event happened. So although we can re-create the past in our minds to an extent, it is only ever going to be an approximation of that past event, and it is only ever going to exist as a creation in the present Now. Thus, if we are re-creating an event through the mind, it also stands that the emotions and 'negative' (or 'positive') aspects we experience from recreating it, are themselves created in the present moment. Emotions aren't stored away and held onto, only the memories of them, and a memory can only arise as a thought and the mind then turn it into a present Now experience. Of course re-creating (re-living) an experience of the past in the present moment does distract us from what is going on right now, as we cannot put focus on this manufactured experience of the mind and the experience of the Now at the same time. Those of us choosing to practice living in the Now are simply recognising that this past re-creation of an event isn't the real past event, it's something the mind is creating, and examining that we can see that it is serving no valid purpose (and I think that's where you say that it would serve a purpose as we can learn from this suffering, but that's were we differ I feel)

Experiential practice is only a single view, it carries little or no factual validity. I see the now as a prison, that is not evidence that it is, it is a view. It is real only in that it exists within someone, but has no factual bearing - it is as corruptible as memories,

Only if you believe the now to be seperate from other things.

perhaps more so. If a person on drugs sees a dragon it does not make dragons real.

Absolutely true. But the person seeing drugs isn't in the Now, they're living in the creation of their mind which has been influenced by those drugs.

Knowledge too is a viewpoint at times, people knew the world was flat, but that did not make it so.

They didn't know it. They believed it because others told them it was so. They didn't have personal experience to prove to themselves it was flat. Knoweldge it to know something for oneself. Information and belief is not knowledge.

What you have is a belief system based on experience, note that the experience is in the past, it does not exist in the now, it is personal experience and carries no evidential weight. By describing it in an attempt to get someone else to experience the same thing we simply pass on personal opinions and try to put them under pressure to conform - this has been shown in may experiments about witness statements for instance.

I wouldn't attempt to get anyone else to experience it. If they are interested I will explain my knowledge, but that, to them, is just information. If they choose to put that into practice and experience it for themselves so that it becomes their own knowledge, then that is their choice. Obviously, some choose not to.

You are right that experience is in the past, but the experience gives us the knowledge, otherwise it's just information or misinformation.

"So are you saying that the Now doesn't exist and it's just an idea?" - no - I think it is actual, but many of the ideas dished out have been simply made up, dressed in pseudo-scientific words in an attempt to bolster the idea of now - they are not helping to define what it is, they are designed to provide credibility but actually do the opposite when examined - they make it appear something it is not.

Hopefully what I've written above has clarified some more. I'm not sure why you perceive the Now as being excluding the memories of past and future. As I said above, living in the Now doesn't exclude those memories or ideas of past/future, it's just a case of whether those memories or knowledge are of any 'need' in the present moment.

The reason I question whether living in the now is supportive of love and compassion is because of the comments (Paul's) about being self-serving in the Now - the two are pretty much mutually exclusive, self-serving is as it says about self - love is about more than self. Perhaps it is just this aspect that gives that impression.

I think that's just a misunderstanding of the term self-serving. Yes we can take a dictionary definition of it, but from a spiritual perspective we have to look at which "self" it is referring to... the little egotistical "self" which is selfish, or the One "Self" which is serving all.

However there is still another aspect that presents a problem, and that is that love often encompasses the past, we can feel love even for those who have died, and this too seems to not sit well with the Now where the past plays no part. The now may well be supportive of love and compassion - but just for the moment it seems, and I see love not just as a 'thing of the moment'.

The love you refer to is love of attachment... do you love someone you know who has died more than someone else? If you do then that love is conditional love. True Love is not conditions. Love exists in all things and is present in the Now. To consider anything but Love for things in the Now is to be captured by the mind.

"I would say that you choose suffering as a means of learning" - this is not correct, I see suffering as a natural process that can provide learning, I do not choose suffering (and have not said I do), but I do accept that it is part of life, that it has a role to play, and that it is a natural phenomenon. If you see that suffering is not a natural part of life then the now is providing a very strange viewpoint of life, perhaps this is where the self-serving bit comes in again. Paul said that we choose what place we come into in this world, if that choice that people have made includes suffering how does this line up with deciding that a life void of suffering is what is right - how then can it be self-serving.
Would you choose a life free of pain? Would you choose a life without sorrow? Would you choose al life without love? By denying the part that suffering has to play you render your life less than it can be, you deny natural processes their place, but I suppose this is self-serving.

Would you choose a life of pain and sorrow? You've already answered that you do not choose suffering. So you must be choosing to just let things happen? Does that really help to heal? Especially when suffering can be removed?

"In that respect, if you are healing others by telling them to embrace their suffering and learn from it, then you are encouraging suffering." - yes- if I was, but I do not tell them that. They will deal with the suffering and heal when they are ready - that is not my choice, I will provide whatever I can to get them through it and healed beit healing energy or 'a cup of tea', but it will be at the pace they decide. The client is the most important person in all of this healing - not the healer or the healer's opinions.

Surely if a client has come to you, they have already made the decision that they want to be free of their suffering and heal? How many clients turn up for healing with you where you could say to them "Do you choose to carry on suffering or do you wish to be free of suffering?" and they actually choose to carry on suffering? I'm not sure I know anyone would would truthfully make that choice to carry on suffering, especially when they've turned up on the doorstep to be healed.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

... back to my point- Life *is* happening and unfolding, and a peron's ego is continually passing commentary on what Is (note the uppercase I) happening - deciding what to agree with/ disagree with.. what to let past border patrol after passport inspection etc... and unless a person is Being, then they will be challenged / tested, and their integrity, honesty and authenticity will be rooted out -wether intentionally or unintentionally by others... I don't see what wrong/harmful/difficult about that ? Kind of perplex...hmn

Hi W.S.

I understand your thoughts here but to generalize that Individuals are coming from ego whilst ascertaining what Is or Isn’t Is (lol) One must ascertain and agree as to what Is ego . Some see the ego as a monster some see the ego as a guiding friend, some will say the ego doesn’t exist .

What we are eventually comes to the fore and dissolves the illusions, what we are within mind Integrates “what Is” within our Individual expression whilst experiencing life In our present environment . It could be debated as to what It Is that Is deciphering what Is real and what Isn’t - My understanding Is the ego doesn’t want what we are / the soul to escape the ordinary mind - So with that In mind it would not be the ego that tries to ascertain what Is . The ego wants feeding, so will only reside In a mind-set where food Is plentiful . Realize that you are nothing or equal to all of life be It ant or a monkey and within that mind-set there Is no food for the ego .

So It can depend on where the Individual Is coming from In regards to ascertaining what Is . An Individual that challenges a politician because deep down they want to prove them wrong Is coming from the ego mind In that they want to be right just as much as the politician wants to appear to be right .

An Individual that self enquires as to what Is real and what Is self - Isn’t coming from ego and yet someone who desires to be In the knowledge of such realizations will be coming from ego because of that Intention of desire . One must want to realize the self for that reason only and that Is to know thyself .

So... if you personally would have a preference for Peace... if another person you encounter does not... what would you do - force them to be peaceful... because there's a conflict in itself.

The thing Is W.S. War and peace - Love and Fear all have there purpose In each of our lives . If someone Is experiencing war then that Is what they are experiencing . That Is their journey . If someone lives In love and light that Is their journey . I am neutral In that peace could be a better state for one to experience than say war or fear . There will come a time when that Individual Is ready for peace and they may not know how to achieve that . An Individual that Isn’t ready to attain peace within themselves cannot be forced In to attaining It and I certainly wouldn’t enforce It on another but I would suggest how one could go about attaining It If asked .

Did you perhaps read my word Challenge as having a meaning closer to the word Confrontation?

Nope not really - A challenge Is a challenge . The same result / answers can be achieved / known by not challenging . I suppose many will have a different definition as to what a challenge Is lol .

daz .

Hello Giles, I googled the exact quote;

" I am and old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened."

Mark Twain

Love

Rebecca x

Do you heal in the Now?

Do I heal in the Now... I don't generally get involved in disscusion like this so it's tricky to put into words (I don't really see the need)... um, 'I' don't *actively* do anything... I can describe a little bit of what happens... people have little lines of light (like mini light sabres) in their aura /energy field (I never know the right words to use, you probably know what I'm on about) various colours, according to which chakras they're relating to (I'm idley guessing)... sometimes they're are 'broken' so I/consciousness/ something or other will smooth them out again, so that they are part of the circuit again... flowing freely.

um, sometimes these lines of light are within blackness (which I idley guess, might be something to do with either time/dimension/levels of consciousnes... ( I don't really know, but look forward to finding out as I go along), and they extend beyond the person, and they too need kind of 'smoothing out' , or tweeking in someway...

..I don't really know what to say, it's different, what happens happens... and I find it amazing fascinating, and a privilege to be a part of:)

Hi Paul,
Thanks for the reply, it actually clarifies things a little, however the fact that nothing is spoken in the transformation process does not mean there is no coercion. The statement is clear, the reasoning behind it is unfounded.
This: "I also address their energy matrix and transform whatever they have created within their matrix of consciousness through their negative self perceptions, thought patterns and beliefs which do not serve them in a positive and meaningful way." Actually clarifies it though, you decide what is negative, even though they have voiced their perceptions of the issues, and you decide which beliefs are not self-serving etc. This seems to describe the actions you do and call healing, this is what you clearly say is not self-healing, so this is done 'on' them, and given your words, and the actions described it is clear that you do decide what they need and what will 'serve' them.
In terms of love I agree we should always learn to love ourselves, but "embracing all aspects of self in an open and non-judgemental way so that we are set free to express the fullness of self to others without fear" this is not about what love is all about, it is about self only.

I have a question - if you heal someone in the now of the issues that arise from a past event, are they always going to be healed from any connection to those issues, if a year later someone brings them up will all of the emotions that used to be associated with the issue still be dismissed, no matter what has gone on in the meantime?


Hi Giles,
I understand that when you are in the Now that you see no barriers, and once again you decide that there is something wrong with me and my perception - the question is equally valid as to why you see no barriers. In terms of what is and is not within the now are you now saying that the past is within the now? I do not see it within the now, I do see connection to it but do not see it as within.
Yoe see this: "we cannot put focus on this manufactured experience of the mind and the experience of the Now at the same time" is why it is a prison, you place exclusivity around it all the time, if this alone is not a barrier than what is?
Yes - we disagree about the value of suffering, I see it as a natural part of the healing process, you see it as serving no valid purpose. Now when I look round I see nothing that has no purpose, everything that exists has a purpose, so when you use the word valid you apply judgemental values to it and decide (judge) what is of value.
In terms of what we see and its accuracy "But the person seeing drugs isn't in the Now" this simply states your belief that all in the now is true, this is based on personal experience - just like those who believed the earth was flat - they saw it by looking at the horizon of the sea, they experienced it by watching water settle in drainage systems, they had personal experience, not just that others told them so. This kind of statement (about the now) is just the same as Paul's continued list of statements that appear reasonable but are actually just based on wishes - they may be right they may not, but they are based on the need to support a theory rather than tested as part of a theory.
When you describe all these things about the now and then invite others to try it you colour their views, by claiming that it is my fault that I see barriers you do try to coerce others into seeing only what you see - you elevate it into a belief system, a religion by any other name - those that do not comply are in the wrong, those that do join the brotherhood.
The memories of the past are part of the now, we remember in the now so they must be, however each memory is still connected to the event, and it is those connections that are lost while in the now.
In terms of self-serving you and Paul have both said (I think) that you choose only what is self-serving in the Now, even with a big Self it still means that you choose what is best for you, and that alone means that even when you perceive that you put other's needs first in some way, that it is your Self that you are serving first.
"Would you choose a life of pain and sorrow? You've already answered that you do not choose suffering" - I choose to ensure that when I heal I heal fully, sometimes part of the process is suffering. Take pain as an equivalent physical example, would you choose a life that is pain free? For if you say yes that you need to look a what leprosy does with pain and the consequences, and I see suffering as part of that. As we heal physically the pain goes and we recover, as we heal on other levels the suffering goes and we recover, it is a natural part of healing, just like pain it is usually unpleasant, but when to person is ready the healing will take place and the suffering will go. The time that they choose is not when they realise they need to heal, or when they go to a healer, for even then they may still be not quite ready, only when they are ready within themselves will they take the healing step. It is a bit like smoking, many know they should give up, but until they are really ready no matter how many times they go to the doctor for patches, or how many times they say they want to only when they are ready within will it be successful and lasting. Of course we could coerce them, locking them up or depriving them of what they crave, but this is not permanent, it is not chosen by them no matter what they might verbalise.
I do not think we should put off healing, or helping others heal, we should do it when they are ready, but we cannot necessarily take what they say and implement it, only they should decide when the time is right.
love
chris

Hi Chris

Thanks for the reply, it actually clarifies things a little, however the fact that nothing is spoken in the transformation process does not mean there is no coercion. The statement is clear, the reasoning behind it is unfounded.

I agree that what I do is not founded within science, but it is founded within the understanding of consciousness and working as one within the oneness, spoken words are just the physical vocalisations of consciousness.

This:

I also address their energy matrix and transform whatever they have created within their matrix of consciousness through their negative self perceptions, thought patterns and beliefs which do not serve them in a positive and meaningful way.

Actually clarifies it though, you decide what is negative, even though they have voiced their perceptions of the issues, and you decide which beliefs are not self-serving etc. This seems to describe the actions you do and call healing, this is what you clearly say is not self-healing, so this is done 'on' them, and given your words, and the actions described it is clear that you do decide what they need and what will 'serve' them.

You might interpret my post in that way, but that does not make it so, we have to agree on what needs changing, so if they have a problem with perceiving themselves as not being good enough (there is no way that it can be interpreted as anything but a self limiting thought pattern and belief, which does not serve them), then I suggest that it is transformed into them perceiving themselves as being good enough, if they do not want that doing then I do not do it, it is as simple as that, no coercion on my part at all.

In terms of love I agree we should always learn to love ourselves, but "embracing all aspects of self in an open and non-judgemental way so that we are set free to express the fullness of self to others without fear" this is not about what love is all about, it is about self only.

I deal with healing people and helping them to personal develop themselves, that does not give me the right to dictate what people choose to do with their existence, now since experiencing love is a personal choice which only they can choose to embrace or not for themselves, then that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

I have a question - if you heal someone in the now of the issues that arise from a past event, are they always going to be healed from any connection to those issues, if a year later someone brings them up will all of the emotions that used to be associated with the issue still be dismissed, no matter what has gone on in the meantime?

Yes, the connections within consciousness are transformed, if someone talks about their own or a similar experience, then because it has been healed, then there are no emotions attached to the memories, they are just memories which can be discussed quite openly should they choose to do so, the same as any other memories of what has been, the conflict has been transformed and inner harmony is restored within the healing, that is the way we help them.

Ever get the feeling we're going round in circles.... :022:

I have a question - if you heal someone in the now of the issues that arise from a past event, are they always going to be healed from any connection to those issues, if a year later someone brings them up will all of the emotions that used to be associated with the issue still be dismissed, no matter what has gone on in the meantime?

"dismissed"? Odd word to use. Anyhow, I can't answer for Paul, but if I treat issues, then those issues are gone for good. The memory still exists, but there is no emotional attachment to it, it's just a memory, like watching a film... you know it's not really here in the present moment. (and that's an analogy Chris so please dont twist it around to something like "when I watch films I get quite emotional" ;))

I understand that when you are in the Now that you see no barriers, and once again you decide that there is something wrong with me and my perception - the question is equally valid as to why you see no barriers.

In the whole of inifinity, where does it stop? It doesn't because it's inifinite. Living in the present moment is to be at one with EVERYTHING. Everything includes the planet I live on and all the people who live on it, and all the solar system, stars, galaxies and the whole gawdam Universe and beyond into infinity. If you can find a barrier in that I'd like to know about it.

In terms of what is and is not within the now are you now saying that the past is within the now? I do not see it within the now, I do see connection to it but do not see it as within.

I thought I'd covered that above, but clearly not.
When an event happens in one Now moment, it is inclusive of the whole of everything in the universe. After that event has happened, we have a new Now moment. For that "past" event to exist in the current Now moment, the whole universe must be exactly as it was at that past event... which it can't be. The past as it was then, simply cannot exist now. However, traces of it, perceptions of it; ideas about it, or as you call them, connections to the memories of it, can exist in the present moment. Those traces, connections or whatever you want to call them cannot be completely the same as the universe as it was in the past, but only a representation of them as limited by the mind, and that representation is what the mind creates in the present moment. This is what I described before as the corruption of the event, as it can never be the complete event (unless you somehow magically find a way to rewind the whole universe back in time). So, yes, a conceptual understanding of the past exists in the now, but not the real past. The real past can never re-exist, it's gone... that's why it's called the past.

Yoe see this: "we cannot put focus on this manufactured experience of the mind and the experience of the Now at the same time" is why it is a prison, you place exclusivity around it all the time, if this alone is not a barrier than what is?

You either place your focus on what your mind is creating or what is right in front of you Now. You only have one focus and one focus can't be in two places at once. That's not a barrier, but simply a choice.

Yes - we disagree about the value of suffering, I see it as a natural part of the healing process, you see it as serving no valid purpose. Now when I look round I see nothing that has no purpose, everything that exists has a purpose, so when you use the word valid you apply judgemental values to it and decide (judge) what is of value.

And everything that exists is here in the present moment. The suffering you are talking about may be created in the present moment, but it's based on the the corrupted ideas of the mind from the percieved 'past' and not what is really in front of you here and Now. If you can find value from that suffering then all the best to you, but most people I know, given the choice between suffering and not suffering would choose the latter.

[INDENT]"Choose a card.... Suffering or not suffering... whichever you choose will happen to you now..."
"Are you mad? Why would I want to suffer when I have the choice of not suffering?"
[/INDENT]

In terms of what we see and its accuracy "But the person seeing drugs isn't in the Now" this simply states your belief that all in the now is true, this is based on personal experience - just like those who believed the earth was flat - they saw it by looking at the horizon of the sea, they experienced it by watching water settle in drainage systems, they had personal experience, not just that others told them so. This kind of statement (about the now) is just the same as Paul's continued list of statements that appear reasonable but are actually just based on wishes - they may be right they may not, but they are based on the need to support a theory rather than tested as part of a theory.

So are you saying the Now doesn't exist? Are you saying the Now isn't truthfully here? Where are you living Chris, in the past? in the future? How are you managing to live without being in the present moment?
Just because people saw what appeared to be a flat horizon, they never went and actually tested if the Earth was flat by going to the horizon. You say that all we talk about is theory and untested, but that's not so, I've personally tested the Now and I have practical knowledge of it's existence. Theory would be an idea, Knowledge is when it's been tested. If you believe it's just a theory then you haven't tested living in the Now as you previously claimed.

When you describe all these things about the now and then invite others to try it you colour their views, by claiming that it is my fault that I see barriers you do try to coerce others into seeing only what you see - you elevate it into a belief system, a religion by any other name - those that do not comply are in the wrong, those that do join the brotherhood.

What a strange perception you have of it. :confused:
I've never told anybody that living in the Now is what they must do or that they should believe what I say. It's nothing to do with belief. I can share knowledge of living in the Now, just as you can share your knowledge of the benefits of suffering, and it's up to the individuals to test for themselves to see which holds true. If they find that suffering benefits them then great. If they find that choosing to live in the now and be free of suffering benefits them then great. I have no followers and and follow nobody else, so it's certainly not a religion, it's just sharing of knowledge gained from experience as information to others to read. In my book, we call that "discussion".

The memories of the past are part of the now, we remember in the now so they must be, however each memory is still connected to the event, and it is those connections that are lost while in the now.

So if the connection isn't the memory itself, what is it exactly. You can't be saying that the whole energy of the universe as it was in the past event still exists, seperate from the energy of this present moment event. Are you talking about some sort of multiple universe theory, but one where all moments of the universe are help in a kind of stasis and some external connections link the energy of one universe to previous ones and previous ones and previous ones and so on? But then those things would be seperate and not the Universe (which is everything). That doesn't seem to stack up to me.
Yes, we have the memories... those small snapshot bits of an event that we took in through our senses, and we have all the bits through time that have attached themselves to those memories and corrupted them in some way, but there is no past event any more... it's gone. If you claim otherwise, you'd better provide the prove to the science community so they can go bulid a time machine.

In terms of self-serving you and Paul have both said (I think) that you choose only what is self-serving in the Now, even with a big Self it still means that you choose what is best for you, and that alone means that even when you perceive that you put other's needs first in some way, that it is your Self that you are serving first.

So you didn't get the concept of what the big Self is then. Perhaps if I'd referred to it as Oneness or One Consciousness or The Universe it may have made it clearer. You're still perceiving it as being limited to just my small self in some way. That's not the case. If I'm living in the now, I am living to act (not Re-Act) on what is in front of me at this moment, and meet the needs of the whole Universe, which includes you and everybody else; not some selfish limiting one person, or group of people that excludes others. I though I'd made that clear when I said it was all inclusive and not exclusive, but perhaps you missed that point.

"Would you choose a life of pain and sorrow? You've already answered that you do not choose suffering" - I choose to ensure that when I heal I heal fully, sometimes part of the process is suffering. Take pain as an equivalent physical example, would you choose a life that is pain free? For if you say yes that you need to look a what leprosy does with pain and the consequences, and I see suffering as part of that.

Not quite sure what your point is. You come to me with the choice...

[INDENT]"Would you like to suffer pain now, or be of free of pain?"

I choose...

"I'll be free of pain thanks, I have no need of pain in the present moment"
[/INDENT]... and I don't envisage that I would ever have a need of pain. That doesn't mean that I don't suffer or don't have pain from time to time as things happen, but I can still choose whether to live in the pain, ignoring everything else going on, or recognise the pain is an indicator that something needs to be acted upon and deal with what is needed. If I'm living in the pain, I cannot put my focus on what needs acting upon to resolve the pain.

As we heal physically the pain goes and we recover, as we heal on other levels the suffering goes and we recover, it is a natural part of healing, just like pain it is usually unpleasant, but when to person is ready the healing will take place and the suffering will go. The time that they choose is not when they realise they need to heal, or when they go to a healer

How can you make such a judgement of what they need? If they go to a healer, they've made a choice that they want to be healed, they're not going to turn up for the fun of it.

, for even then they may still be not quite ready, only when they are ready within themselves will they take the healing step. It is a bit like smoking, many know they should give up, but until they are really ready no matter how many times they go to the doctor for patches, or how many times they say they want to only when they are ready within will it be successful and lasting.

Yes, only when they're ready within... so when they let go of the ideas and creations of mind being put on them by advertising or other people, and look to the present moment to realise within themselves that they want to act. Living in the Now they'll recognise that need. Living in the past or the future they won't.

Of course we could coerce them, locking them up or depriving them of what they crave, but this is not permanent, it is not chosen by them no matter what they might verbalise.

Absolutely. I don't think any sane person would suggest that for a smoker.

I do not think we should put off healing, or helping others heal, we should do it when they are ready, but we cannot necessarily take what they say and implement it, only they should decide when the time is right.

Fine, so we can teach them about the benefits of living in the present moment. They may not want to do that right now, but they can take that information away with them and when they choose to, they can put it into practice and find out in that present moment that it free's them of their suffering.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi All .

I have mentioned and I have read of others speaking of sufferings on many levels as of late .

What are your thoughts as to "what Is at the root of all sufferings" .

daz .

Humanity. To be human is to suffer.

Hi Paul,
I have realised that there is pretty much no science behind your system - this makes it a faith rather than a provable system. It is based on elaborate words that need to sound convincing, on statements made as if they are correct and a degree of conversion of the client.
Spoken words are not the "physical vocalisations of consciousness" but the output of the mind, though it is the mind that translates information from all the other bodies. It is this kind of comment that underlines that you have no evidence for the things you propose, but simply claim those things you wish were true.
"so if they have a problem with perceiving themselves as not being good enough" is a problem that people have, but this is not a core issue, it is a symptom of a core issue from their past. By 'transforming them' to believe they are good enough only the symptom is healed - this is evident again and again in what you claim to heal. This is a continuing theme in what you claim to heal, and frequently there are issues about which they may remember nothing, they are still core issues but cannot be verbalised.
In terms of love it was not the client's love I referred to but your love for them and "that has absolutely nothing to do with me", I see that there is none, and that your process is only cold and driven by your internal logic - I suppose that this is not self-serving for you.

Now your comment that once healed "there are no emotions attached to the memories" is interesting. For a start it assumes that only emotions matter, and this is reflected in what you seem to think of as suffering, that it is some kind of emotional fault. If all you are healing is the emotional response to a core issue then a large amount of the healing is left undone - spiritual damage arises from core issues, mental and of course physical as well - these will be left isolated. Furthermore it is not only the direct response to a core issue, but it is often all of the events that have taken place as part of that original core issue. This is not so much harmony as unsympathetic numbness - for where there is nothing there is no disharmony. What drives it is fear.

Hi Giles,
Emotional detachment (as in no emotional attachment when there has been in the past) is anything but healing, it is as I have just described a form of numbness, this can be easily achieved by drugs (which actually is a bit like watching a film) but actually heals nothing. It is like living in a dream state and is simply a withdrawal from life, an avoidance of participation.

Ah - the barriers, well for instance there is the connections to past and the people, and anticipation of the future, a denial of past lives or spiritual persistence, of love and compassion felt, there are all the detachments that you have put in place to remove any suffering that you might experience, there is the love that it seems is only a physical emotion, there alone are some of the things that you do not see as having value or relevance in the now. There is an exclusion of anything that is deemed not having self-serving judgemental bearing. These make the Now a cold place, devoid of many of the things that make so rich and experientially valuable. A fear of attachment for attachment brings suffering. The barriers are raised by fear, for the now is seen as a safe place, and any threat to that must be repelled - that you cannot see them simply may mean that you have chosen to make them invisible as they are not self-serving.

"You either place your focus on what your mind is creating or what is right in front of you Now. You only have one focus" - another fine sounding argument that actually is not right. There are always a lot of processes going on within the brain alone not to mention our other bodies, these and many other comments simply try to bolster what you wish but are not founded on any actual evidence, quite the opposite in fact for the reverse is proven - if one lived like this one lives in a one dimensional environment, perhaps this is another of the barriers I perceive.

"If you can find value from that suffering then all the best to you" - you see in one breath you claim to be connected to EVERYTHING (I assumed that was not a shout by the way) and in the next you decide that perfectly natural processes are not a valid part of everything. We learn from suffering, we learn not to put our hand on the hot plate, and this, what you call a corrupt memory, we use to great effect whether we are in the now or not. This idea that pain and suffering must be excluded and expelled comes directly from the premise of self-servingness, but it is a short term, self-only, selfish viewpoint, it reduces growth to zero, denies natural processes, and places barriers up in order to protect this safe space called the now. Fear again lies at the heart of this - fear of experiencing all that life offers.
This action of detachment from those things that are only corrupt memories also devolves one from responsibilities for ones part in those events. Now sometimes one has been an innocent participant (very often), but there are times when one has been at fault, judgemental I know but I'm ok with that. The fear of facing our responsibilities in these cases, of seeing what we have brought about and facing up to it is also a driver that can send people skittering into the blameless, detached place of safety called now. This is an avoidance tactic, it offers peace and quiet, but no healing, no facing up to the issues, losing the fear of them and finally forgiving - only in this way can healing be brought about, not through hiding in the now.
Is there value in suffering, ask Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, and of course Jesus. Is there value in avoidance of suffering should be more the question but I suppose the answer will be that good old self-serving thing again, Buddha thought so - but as I've said I think that he read only the first and last pages of the book of life and missed out on all the beautiful prose in the middle.

"So are you saying the Now doesn't exist?" - not at all - what I am saying is that because you believe something, that you think you have knowledge of something does not make it fundamentally the truth - the old sailors sailed out to sea as far as they could and only saw flat, they had knowledge and tested it. You continually claim that because you have experienced something that gives knowledge, it is practical knowledge without any evidence apart from witness, and that this makes it fact - this is an incorrect premise. When someone sees something even slightly different it is so disturbing that you claim they are deluded or simply wrong - this too is driven by fear.

Now - actually mathematical theory does show we can venture to the past, we have no ability to do so at the moment but if you check out the maths (which is just a theory but at least has been tested as far as it can be so far, unlike much of the stuff that is claimed on here) it will tell you this.
That notwithstanding the more recent theories and experiments on entanglement of particles does show that we have perception not only of all of the universe, but that this is not limited directly by time restraints such as the speed of light. There is a lot more to find yet, but time should not be seen as any more of a barrier that any of the other 10 dimensions that we exist within.

Look - you said that you and Paul had the same ideas, now when you speak of self-serving (or perhaps Paul does) it means dealing with things that are not beneficial to self - a belief that one is not good enough, a suffering from a past event etc. These are not related to some kind of Big Self, they are personal and up front, they are about an individual, not about some great consciousness, they are selfish not selfless.
If we are here to experience on behalf of the Big Self, the One, then what is the value of suffering avoidance, of limiting ourselves to only the sugary experiences, of detachment for those experiences that affected us most?
This is evident in "I'll be free of pain thanks, I have no need of pain in the present moment", so this too shows that this is purely a selfish process, and that any processes, even natural ones, are wherever possible excluded as have a negative value. The idea of a life of insensate numbness is chosen, the idea of love is a problem because along with love may come hurt, or feelings of loss, a life spent in the now with no feelings is preferred because that causes or offers no suffering.
The process generates a king of 'suffering hypochondria', where one will do anything just to avoid suffering. The underlying judgement that suffering is bad, and a judgement it is, is simply one allowing fear to rule, it leaves one cowering in trepidation that suffering might be experienced.

" If they go to a healer, they've made a choice that they want to be healed, they're not going to turn up for the fun of it" - no - there is no fun, and they may have made a decision to at least consider that they want to be healed, but that does not mean that there are no further preparations needed, or doubts that may still be lingering. You see it as a clear cut decision, but it is anything but that, you see that there should be 'no procrastination', but that should not be your decision, you see your task as a hear as a doing thing, not an enabling thing, and so when they arrive they are pressured into accepting what healing you give at a rate (immediate) that you decide. I see it differently, they may need a bit of time to prepare, they may have doubts or worries, they may be off-balance, so when they come to a healer that should never be taken as a signal that they are ready, it is only an indication that they are becoming aware of the possibilities. Of course as soon as they are decided, then they will effect their healing, but it will be in their own time and at their own rate, even if the healer thinks they are procrastinating. The client comes first - if this goes against being self-serving for a healer then it is the healers problem.
love
chris

What amazes me Chris is how you can ask us to explain what we mean, so we explain without predjudice that (to use an earlier given analogy) 2+3 = 5, to try and give a clear example of our meaning, yet you response by implying that we are saying 2+3 = 6. No matter what analogies and explanations we give you, to try and help you understand what we are saying, you seem to want to put it into your own framework of understanding that clearly doesn't support it, and you then accuse us of somehow being selfish or uncaring. Yet, when we ask you to explain your points, you seem to ignore those and just post words which, from reading, would appear to be placed to try and upset us in some way. I'm certainly not upset by your words, but I'm curious why you choose to completely disregard anything we say in order to try and prove your own point. You misinterpret what we say and then say it's false. What is false is your interpretation, not what we are saying.

Hi Paul,
I have realised that there is pretty much no science behind your system - this makes it a faith rather than a provable system. It is based on elaborate words that need to sound convincing, on statements made as if they are correct and a degree of conversion of the client.

There's no science behind science. Scientists use elaborate words and even create new ones (and new mathematics too) in order to prove their theories. The scientists who make any progress are those who dare to theorise and try out new things. If they just went with what was already proven, there would be no progress. There is in fact plenty of evidence that living in the Now has consistent benefits for people. Just because science can't put mathematical formulae to it, doesn't make it untrue.

Now your comment that once healed "there are no emotions attached to the memories" is interesting. For a start it assumes that only emotions matter, and this is reflected in what you seem to think of as suffering, that it is some kind of emotional fault.

So, just what is "suffering" if it is not an emotional response? Someone can stick a pin in themselves and the nervous system will trigger a pain response, but the person will only suffer if they choose to continue feeling the pain as an emotion after the event. Children are often seen playing on this fact with their parents when they fall over or hurt themselves in some way. The pain may have gone, but they force themselves into suffering (manifesting as crying) as they know that suffering is self-serving and will give them attentions and reward.

If all you are healing is the emotional response to a core issue then a large amount of the healing is left undone - spiritual damage arises from core issues, mental and of course physical as well - these will be left isolated. Furthermore it is not only the direct response to a core issue, but it is often all of the events that have taken place as part of that original core issue. This is not so much harmony as unsympathetic numbness - for where there is nothing there is no disharmony. What drives it is fear.

That's a very scientific conclusion. 2+3 = fear.
What is fear? Fear is a belief of something yet to happen in the future that is created by the mind based on things from the past. Fear does not exist in the present moment. You can't touch it or feel it in the present moment without referring your mind to the past to be able to quantify it.

Hi Giles,
Emotional detachment (as in no emotional attachment when there has been in the past) is anything but healing, it is as I have just described a form of numbness, this can be easily achieved by drugs (which actually is a bit like watching a film) but actually heals nothing. It is like living in a dream state and is simply a withdrawal from life, an avoidance of participation.

Another one... 2+3 = avoidance from participation.
Living in the Now IS participating in life as it is now. How can it be avoiding it? Detachment isn't living without the senses or ignoring what is going on right here and now, but it is about letting go of the past through recognition that the past is in the past and doesn't exist any more. (Still waiting for you to tell me how the past can exist in the present!)

Ah - the barriers, well for instance there is the connections to past and the people

Attachment to the past that no longer exists

, and anticipation of the future,
Attachment to an idea of the future that doesn't exist

a denial of past lives or spiritual persistence

Living in the Now doesn't mean that we haven't lived past lives. It also doesn't mean that we don't go on to live future lives. Not sure where you got that idea from, it certainly wasn't me.

, of love and compassion felt,

Love doesn't need to be "felt", as that is an emotion that comes from selfish desires to judge one thing as more existing of love than another. True Love exists in all things and living in the Now gives awareness that Love is always there.

there are all the detachments that you have put in place to remove any suffering that you might experience,

Because there is no evidence that suffering serves a benefit (see below)

there is the love that it seems is only a physical emotion

Not sure where you get that idea from. Again, not from me.

, there alone are some of the things that you do not see as having value or relevance in the now.

Everything that exists here and now has value in the Now. If something doesn't exist then it can't have value, and common value is merely judgement, but like Love there is true value in everything, as everything has it's place in the Now.

There is an exclusion of anything that is deemed not having self-serving judgemental bearing.

:confused: So, which part of "all inclusive" did you miss? This is your own ideas I would say.

These make the Now a cold place, devoid of many of the things that make so rich and experientially valuable.

Well, we better go tell all those people in the world who choose to live in the Now. They're obviously so cold and devoid of life and that must be so unhappy for them.... Oh, hang on... I can't find those people, because they are not feeling cold, and they are not devoid of experiencing what is happening right now and the value and love that is in everything. You use words as if you know what it is like to live in the Now, yet the words you use clearly show you do not know it, you only have ideas about it.

A fear of attachment for attachment brings suffering.

Please explain to me why I would want to suffer. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... given the choice, right here, right now, of "suffering" or "not suffering", I know I'm always going to choose "not suffering". This isn't from fear, this is from knowledge that suffering serves no purpose, and that not suffering allows me to be present in everything I do and Act rather than re-Act.

The barriers are raised by fear, for the now is seen as a safe place, and any threat to that must be repelled - that you cannot see them simply may mean that you have chosen to make them invisible as they are not self-serving.

Those barrier are your own, as the Now has no barriers. It seems that you choose to see barriers and sit yourself on one side of those, refusing to go near what is on the other side of them. Are you not creating your own prison by doing that? Are you not living in fear of Acting in the present moment? This is just your mind telling you it and creating the fear (of course your mind will tell you that there is no fear there and you can choose to live in the Now if you wanted, but you choose not to. That's the way the mind likes to play with us)

"You either place your focus on what your mind is creating or what is right in front of you Now. You only have one focus" - another fine sounding argument that actually is not right. There are always a lot of processes going on within the brain alone not to mention our other bodies, these and many other comments simply try to bolster what you wish but are not founded on any actual evidence, quite the opposite in fact for the reverse is proven - if one lived like this one lives in a one dimensional environment, perhaps this is another of the barriers I perceive.

Again this is your perception of things. When I talk of focus, I'm talking about conscious focus, not all the unconscious goings on in the physical brain and the body. When I'm typing at the keyboard, my focus is on the words I am typing, not what ... let me pause... what I'm going to have for dinner tonight. For that I have to take my focus away from what I'm doing. I can't focus on both at the same time (unless the words I were writing were directly related to what I was going to have for dinner tonight, in which case they become a single focus). I cannot focus on something that happened in the past and act in the present moment. I can only re-act in the present moment based on ideas from the past, but those re-actions do not act truthfully on the needs of the present moment, as they are tainted by the ideas of the past. As for it being a one-dimensional environment, I applaud your mind for conceiving this idea. But a one-dimensional environment is something with limits, yet living in the now is limitless, so it cannot be true.

"If you can find value from that suffering then all the best to you" - you see in one breath you claim to be connected to EVERYTHING (I assumed that was not a shout by the way)

No, I was not shouting, merely emphasising the word to highlight it's importance and it being EVERYTHING. Shouting would involve UPPERCASE for the who sentance, but I have no need of that.

and in the next you decide that perfectly natural processes are not a valid part of everything. We learn from suffering, we learn not to put our hand on the hot plate, and this, what you call a corrupt memory, we use to great effect whether we are in the now or not. This idea that pain and suffering must be excluded and expelled comes directly from the premise of self-servingness, but it is a short term, self-only, selfish viewpoint, it reduces growth to zero, denies natural processes, and places barriers up in order to protect this safe space called the now. Fear again lies at the heart of this - fear of experiencing all that life offers.

Who is to decide what is natural and what is being manufactured by the mind. I have no evidence that suffering is natural or that we learn from it. In my words, we learn from experience. Suffering comes from recreating past experiences in the mind, even though those past experiences no longer exist themselves. The memory of the hot plate burning us, created at the time it happened, is enough to learn that it is not beneficial to do that again. The suffering, pain, emotions or whatever that were attached to that memory are not needed, and certainly don't need to exist in the present moment. Simply the memory of the experience is the lesson learnt. There's nothing selfish about choosing not to suffer pain/emotions in the present moment. This has nothing to do with fear. The examples you are providing simply do not stack up.

This action of detachment from those things that are only corrupt memories also devolves one from responsibilities for ones part in those events.

Curiouser and Curiouser. The responsibility for one's part in an event is to be present in whatever is happening at the time of the event. After the event, once cannot change what has already happened. That doesn't mean that incorrect actions are not taken, but by acting in the present moment, we act to the best of our ability with the knowledge we have, and we could do no better. That is as fully responsible as we can be. If we have done our best, we could do no better. Bringing a past event to the present to lament over what happened serves us no benefit and simply takes us away from the event that is happening now, meaning that we would not be acting responsibly Now. I've mentioned it before... choosing to live in the past or the future detracts from acting in the Now and meeding the needs of the event happening right now. Being responsible is to Act on the needs of the moment, not to live in the past or the future, which would be irresponsible.

Now sometimes one has been an innocent participant (very often), but there are times when one has been at fault, judgemental I know but I'm ok with that. The fear of facing our responsibilities in these cases, of seeing what we have brought about and facing up to it is also a driver that can send people skittering into the blameless, detached place of safety called now.

It's not about blame. If we have done everything we could do by living in the Now and meeting the needs of the moment to the best of our ability, we could do no more than that. Yes, occasionally mistakes will happen. Likewise, occasionally our mind will get in the way and we will re-act rather than act, and it is these times where, if you want to be judgemental and apportion blame, that we should blame ourselves for not being present. "I just took my eyes off him for a second"... "I wasn't thinking straight"... "I didn't see it coming" ... etc. all words of people not being present. (And yes, I speak from experience, as I'm sure everyone will recognise those types of things from their past)

This is an avoidance tactic, it offers peace and quiet, but no healing, no facing up to the issues, losing the fear of them and finally forgiving - only in this way can healing be brought about, not through hiding in the now.

What is it avoiding?
Why is it not healing?
The only issues are those in the present moment, so to Act in the Now is to face up to those issues.
Losing fear of something and forgiving is to live in the Now. You contradict yourself.

Is there value in suffering, ask Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, and of course Jesus.

If I could I would. I'm sure they would wish no suffering for all people.

Is there value in avoidance of suffering should be more the question but I suppose the answer will be that good old self-serving thing again, Buddha thought so - but as I've said I think that he read only the first and last pages of the book of life and missed out on all the beautiful prose in the middle.

Attacking religions and other philosophies that many have found truth in, isn't very becoming. What is the purpose of that?
Avoidance from suffering... not really avoiding... but being free of it. Avoiding implies that it exists, but in the Now, it doesn't. You still haven't explained how the past or future can actually exist. For suffering to exist, you have to avoid the Now, and as mentioned above, that would be irresponsible. How selfish is that.

"So are you saying the Now doesn't exist?" - not at all - what I am saying is that because you believe something, that you think you have knowledge of something does not make it fundamentally the truth - the old sailors sailed out to sea as far as they could and only saw flat, they had knowledge and tested it.

But they didn't really test it, they just believed it. To really test it, they would have to keep going until they found the edge, or found that there was no edge. You keep using this analogy, but it doesn't stack up.

You continually claim that because you have experienced something that gives knowledge, it is practical knowledge without any evidence apart from witness, and that this makes it fact - this is an incorrect premise. When someone sees something even slightly different it is so disturbing that you claim they are deluded or simply wrong - this too is driven by fear.

We live in a solipsitics world. I have no proof that you or anybody else exists. My only truth is what I experience for myself. I can gain information from "other" sources, but until I test it for myself, it is just information. When I've tested it, it is my knowledge. Knowledge cannot be known in any other way. I've not seen anything disturbing so I don't know what you are referring to. Certainly if there is information given to me I am happy to test it with reason and practical experience. For example, you say that we learn from suffering... I have already tested this and know it not to be so. I do know however from that testing, that we gain knowledge through that practical experience.

Now - actually mathematical theory does show we can venture to the past, we have no ability to do so at the moment but if you check out the maths (which is just a theory but at least has been tested as far as it can be so far, unlike much of the stuff that is claimed on here) it will tell you this.

Yes, I'm familiar with mathematical theories regarding travelling to the past and future, quantum electrodynamics, quantum principles and lots of other scientific information (I do a lot of reading! ) But, just because a wheel has been tested to roll around evenly, doesn't mean that attaching to a box creates a car, even if that "theory" seems mathematically correct. You are referring to unproven things. Mathematics was created to prove things, yet even mathematics has had to be changed over time to adapt to new things that need proving. Who's proven the mathematics is correct? There's no proof in any of it.

That notwithstanding the more recent theories and experiments on entanglement of particles does show that we have perception not only of all of the universe, but that this is not limited directly by time restraints such as the speed of light. There is a lot more to find yet, but time should not be seen as any more of a barrier that any of the other 10 dimensions that we exist within.

LOL! You mean like limiting yourself to 10 dimensions? Dimension are merely different models for different purposes. e.g. In spiritual circles, the 4th dimension is where the spirits live, yet in certain scientific models, the 4th dimension is that of time, or in some models the 4th dimension is that of a period of time, whilst the 5th dimension is that of a point in time. Yes, quantum theories and experiments seem to indicate we are not limited by the speed of light or time, but we also have to remember that time is a man made concept, so it only exists conceptually. For all we know, relatively speaking, time could be speeding up and slowing down in waves in our own 'locality' but because it effects us all here on Earth we can't perceive it. The only thing we can be sure of is that we exist right here and Now (or at least I do, not sure about you. )

Look - you said that you and Paul had the same ideas,

From observations of the conversations, it would seem we talk along similar lines of ideas. I couldn't concretely say they are completely the same.

now when you speak of self-serving (or perhaps Paul does) it means dealing with things that are not beneficial to self - a belief that one is not good enough, a suffering from a past event etc. These are not related to some kind of Big Self, they are personal and up front, they are about an individual, not about some great consciousness, they are selfish not selfless.

I don't adhere to the concept of individual. To me that is dualistic and not true. To serve the Self, is to serve all. This is to act in a selfless manner, not a selfish manner.

If we are here to experience on behalf of the Big Self, the One, then what is the value of suffering avoidance, of limiting ourselves to only the sugary experiences, of detachment for those experiences that affected us most?

On behalf of? If we are not seperate, how can we act on behalf of something else?

This is evident in "I'll be free of pain thanks, I have no need of pain in the present moment", so this too shows that this is purely a selfish process, and that any processes, even natural ones, are wherever possible excluded as have a negative value.

No, this is because I choose to Act in the present moment and serve all as much as I am able to. Suffering pain is to live in the mind and not in the present moment and, as previously mentioned, would be irresponsible. That's selfless, not selfish.

The idea of a life of insensate numbness is chosen, the idea of love is a problem because along with love may come hurt, or feelings of loss, a life spent in the now with no feelings is preferred because that causes or offers no suffering.
The process generates a king of 'suffering hypochondria', where one will do anything just to avoid suffering. The underlying judgement that suffering is bad, and a judgement it is, is simply one allowing fear to rule, it leaves one cowering in trepidation that suffering might be experienced.

Your words make it sounds like even contemplating living in the Now is causing you suffering. Your mind is telling you things about the Now which are not so. "insensate numbness" amazing!

"If they go to a healer, they've made a choice that they want to be healed, they're not going to turn up for the fun of it" - no - there is no fun, and they may have made a decision to at least consider that they want to be healed, but that does not mean that there are no further preparations needed, or doubts that may still be lingering. You see it as a clear cut decision, but it is anything but that, you see that there should be 'no procrastination'

No, I would let the person decide for themselves. They may come to heal one of their issues. They may choose not to heal the others yet. I don't make any decisions for them.

, but that should not be your decision, you see your task as a hear as a doing thing, not an enabling thing, and so when they arrive they are pressured into accepting what healing you give at a rate (immediate) that you decide.

I Act on what a person wants in that moment. You are the one concluding that somehow I make decisions for them.

I see it differently, they may need a bit of time to prepare, they may have doubts or worries, they may be off-balance, so when they come to a healer that should never be taken as a signal that they are ready, it is only an indication that they are becoming aware of the possibilities

Absolutely. I wouldn't just sit someone down and say, "right let's get rid of this issue". You are the one perceiving things as cold and calculated, when they are not.

Of course as soon as they are decided, then they will effect their healing, but it will be in their own time and at their own rate, even if the healer thinks they are procrastinating. The client comes first - if this goes against being self-serving for a healer then it is the healers problem.

And there's you accusing us of being self serving in a selfish manner again. You have got us all wrong!

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Chris

I have realised that there is pretty much no science behind your system - this makes it a faith rather than a provable system. It is based on elaborate words that need to sound convincing, on statements made as if they are correct and a degree of conversion of the client.

Yes I realised along time ago that science is only self serving and seeks only to prove itself but does not have the answers I was looking for, so I looked else where for the answers I needed and discovered consciousness, the understanding of consciousness is not a faith it is an understanding of self from within the fullness of self.

Spoken words are not the "physical vocalisations of consciousness" but the output of the mind, though it is the mind that translates information from all the other bodies. It is this kind of comment that underlines that you have no evidence for the things you propose, but simply claim those things you wish were true.

If the thinking mind is not consciousness, then what is it?

"so if they have a problem with perceiving themselves as not being good enough" is a problem that people have, but this is not a core issue, it is a symptom of a core issue from their past. By 'transforming them' to believe they are good enough only the symptom is healed - this is evident again and again in what you claim to heal. This is a continuing theme in what you claim to heal, and frequently there are issues about which they may remember nothing, they are still core issues but cannot be verbalised.

The problem of low self esteem might be the result of many past encounters, but as non of them actually exist right now and we can only deal with things things that do exist right now, we have to deal with the person who is creating and manifesting low self esteem out of their core way of being, so we transform and heal this aspect of their consciousness and it is no longer a problem for them.

Yes, as a healer I do not have any problems or inner conflicts concerning healing, I am a healer and since the function of a healer is to heal, then I am happy to heal people from with the fullness of self.

Sorry, you may choose to create additional problems for people that they are not aware of or ready to deal with, but as a responsible healers we are not, we only deal with what each person chooses to presents to us, the choices are always theirs as they do come first, if they choose not to address something right now, then that is their choice which we respect.

In terms of love it was not the client's love I referred to but your love for them and "that has absolutely nothing to do with me", I see that there is none, and that your process is only cold and driven by your internal logic - I suppose that this is not self-serving for you.

Love might be perceived as a nice attribute for a healer to posses, but love is not healing, a healer does not have to love someone in order to heal them, whilst someone might love someone completely with all of their being but not be able to heal them because they do not know how to.

You are making assumptions again, you do not have a clue if I feel compassion and love for the people that I help and heal, it would be very helpful if you could accept what people say in the way they say it, rather then changing other peoples thoughts to the way that you personally perceive things to be.

Now your comment that once healed "there are no emotions attached to the memories" is interesting. For a start it assumes that only emotions matter, and this is reflected in what you seem to think of as suffering, that it is some kind of emotional fault.

I don't know if it is because you only reply the day after I have posted that you forget what I have posted in previous posts on this and other threads, but I will reiterate once again, emotions are a physiological response to our consciousness and the environment around us, when we think of something which is creating an inner conflict within us, it will trigger an emotional response within our body, when the inner conflict is transformed and healed, then when they think about whatever it was, there is no emotional response whatsoever, the memory of the event has now become like the original event, neutral.

From what you write I get the impression that you are desperate to somehow show that I live in fear and that this is the source of my questions and challenges..

Hi Chris,

I realised afterwards that there was an element of despare in my attempts to 'pin down' the source of your questioning... I thought/perceived (whatever) that you might be turning over and over some past events and questioning the part you played and if you were to blame or where at fault in order to determine/learn something from revisiting the memories... of course, that is your choice & you're healing at your own pace, you don't want to desensitize yourself to any of the associated emotions ('good' or 'bad'), as in the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. You know what you're doing, right?

Setting aside what Giles & Paul are saying for a moment, yes, I was a little bit desperate to direct you towards where your questions were coming from... but it wasn't to 'find fault'... as far as I'm concerned 'ultimately' everyone is innocent, and no 1 individual is guilty/to blame/are at fault/is 'soley' responsible....

btw, I know....the 'despare' to make people see where they're coming from (presuming that I'm seeing things clearly) is 'an attachment' within me..... soooo,... there it is.

PS. I'm not saying that Paul & Giles work is in anyway similar to the memory wiping of Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind.:)

Hi Giles,
I investigate, there is no motive to upset, but when I see that things do not stack up I look more closely - simply being told something does not make it fact.
In terms of Paul's system being based on science it was Paul who stated "what I do is not founded within science" - all I did was agree with him. I use many of the models of science because they are the best we have, they are anything but complete or perfect, but they are the best we have. As for "there is no science behind science" - I'm not even sure what that could mean - it is said in a convincing manner - but it does not mean anything - scientists test things all the time and because they find some theories are not correct they accept that they will have to change or even ditch the current models, they know this and accept it is the way they work - but it is the best process we have, simply accepting what people say without testing is based on belief, faith and while this is ok it hardly provides evidence.
Now you state that there is plenty of evidence that living in the now provides consistent benefits for people, perhaps it does, but to blame science for not being able to put a mathematical formula to it is just divert the issue, if there is plenty of evidence then it should be testable, and if it is true then it is important that we exploit it. For instance Paul states that his system provides permanent healing for things in one session (well put together more or less). If this can be proved then there are thousands of people suffering from PTSD that could benefit. However if there is only anecdotal and witness commentary to support the claims then its use is not indicated. You said there is plenty of evidence - I'm interested in seeing it for the very reasons above. This is not me twisting your words - the statement is clear, where is the plentiful evidence?
You see I put the same measures on reiki and healing in general, I think it works from personal observation, I could muster plenty of people to testify that my healing sessions have provided benefits, but that does not constitute evidence of reiki healing, I believe in healing, that carries no provable weight.
To continue to make statements that appear fact without any real effort to provide the backing to support them is just smoke and mirrors, faith and possibly placebo. I have said that I think Paul's methods work, that does not mean that I believe they work for the reasons he gives, but just as I see mi methods work, I have no doubt that he too could muster many witnesses to testify to their effectiveness.
"Fear does not exist in the present moment" - this is another grand statement, it seems to carry weight, and sounds convincing, but it is wrong. It does exist within us in the present moment, I agree it is based on things from the past and looks to the future, but it does exist in this moment. It is a driver - I do not think it is a good driver, and I strive to resolve it and lose it wherever possible - but to say that it does not exist in the present moment is just erroneous.
Emotional detachment was Paul's description, it places weight only on emotions, if we lose the our emotions in order to not have to deal with issues then that is a way of avoidance. In terms of the past it is actually the connections to the past that exist, this I have said many times. What the healing in the now seems to do is to break those connections (detach from them) - and in doing so the core issues are never addressed, only the connections are dealt with, the core issues are left stranded.

When one becomes only self-serving, when one declines to have connections to anything that may cause suffering, when one loses all emotional attachments to those events and people in the past that have touched one, when one decides only to deal with those things that are evident in this moment, when it creates a mind-set that says that clients can procrastinate in their own time, when one detaches from anything that may stir emotions that are seen as not self-serving, that defines natural processes as expelled, than the outcome will always be a reduction in emotional response. When one excludes things then everything stops being everything. To keep applying a capital letter in the hope that this is not the case is unfounded.

Again - "the Now has no barriers" you say, but that is only your perception, that you see no barriers does not mean that they are not there, that I do see them does not mean they are, but this kind of grand statement just attempts to create a faith system, if there are no barriers then that should be evident in some way, if you have to convince me by continued repetition than it becomes a mantra, and eventually a faith. I think I have no fear of living in the now, I went and investigated and could see the things I described in earlier posts, but what I do see is that it is like an addiction, once you decide to stay you cannot leave, and while I see benefits I do not think that they are worth it. There is too much that is 'behind the walls' that I want to experience to become enclosed in the now and have to live without them. It is not based on fear, and this continued effort to place fault on others is also based on fear, it is based on reasoned evaluation.
If you can only focus on one thing at a time then this may be part of the restrictions that I choose to be part of. If living in the now only allows focus on a single issue then it is like a straight jacket.

Lol - I understood the use of capitals.

You ask who is to decide what is natural and what is being manufactured by the mind, and this question alone shows how much you choose to restrict your vision in order to support your Now. Suffering exists and that alone makes it natural, there obvious benefits - for instance in the example of the hot plate, it is not just the burning that gives the lesson, in fact in many cases the moment of burning is relatively painless, but it is the recovery, and the pain that follows that embeds the lesson about the hotplate. If one removes all the pain from the equation then probably no lesson would be learned.
This is another part of this now thing that is wrong, it is the self-serving bit again, unnecessary suffering is by the very definition, unnecessary, but that does not mean there is no place in our lives for suffering.

Lamenting over what has happened is part of the process of definement and realisation, of evaluation and gaining perspective, of seeing from others eyes and realising the balance and the part we played, this is part of learning. You choose to exclude it as worthless by instead defining the now as the only valid place to be - it is far from irresponsible, in fact the opposite, it encompasses responsibility. This is why we now try to get criminals to apologies and realise the cost that their actioned have had on others.

It is not whether we wish suffering for others that matters, it is the question about whether after a life of suffering whether there has been a benefit. Ask an athlete whether the suffering of practise is worth it, if all the time spent getting fit and taking part in competition is worth it, you can ask them - if it was not worth it would they not all give it up.

We cannot even prove that we exist so your statement is not even based on fact, but on a philosophical viewpoint, so as we move through life we do gather data, and in some cases it becomes information. Knowledge is only what we decide to believe, sometimes it is based on apparent evidence, sometimes not. That does nothing to support the now cause, it is as equally likely to be wrong. You claim there are no barriers in the now, I see some, you think you have tested and so do I.

Mathematics always seeks to prove what is correct and what is not, this is different to claiming belief makes 'knowledge' and that makes fact without any supporting evidence - that is faith and faith leads to religion.

The latest mathematical theories revolve around 11 dimensions to fit in with quantum theory and of course the 'god particle', there will be other theories, and in my opinion they do not take account of those aspects of spirituality and healing energy that one day they will have to, but who can say.

Ok - now you guys have me confused, 'you' said I think that we are here to experience life, not to evolve or whatever and that when we return to the 'All' or whatever that is it we can choose to be sent back here but only as a completely wiped person, fresh start. I see no reason for this - what is the overall benefit if all one does is benefit on behalf of the big All (which we are part of) a life that is all just sweetness and light?

You choose to exclude natural processes as part of your natural life, this results in a reduction of experiences and of the ability to utilise them. If you wish to be pain free does that mean that you constantly take pain killers? If not - why not?

Hi Paul,
What you mean is that science did not serve you, and in seeking what did elsewhere what you have found seems to. I have no problem with that at all, except that you now make claims for what you have found and decide to utilise as if they are provens and true - and they are neither proven or able to be shown true.
In terms of the thinking mind, it is a part of the human physical condition, it does not represent consciousness, that is a much bigger part of existing as a 'being'.
The issue of low esteem is only one very small part of what you claim to heal, it is hardly always the case. That this is something that can be healed in many ways and using many modalities - it is not restricted to the now.

This emotional only issue is what I pointed out, by wording what you do in the way you have you limit any healing only to emotional healing, though you say that the core issues are healed or whatever, it is only the emotional response that changes in the now - this change then to neutral becomes the detached, cold response that you describe (though those are my translations). We are so much more than a simple emotional response, and this seems very limiting to me - I see true healing in a lot more complexity than just neutralising an emotional response.

Hi WildStrawberry, (there are so many nice names on here!)
Oh - I have a bad habit of saying what I see. I am no different with myself, though one is always so close up to oneself that it is difficult to always see what is sometimes clear to others.
I have been through many past events, and of course there are always new ones that come up, these are not based on faults or even actions that I have taken (but may be - that's life eh), just stuff that affects one's life. I do not think that diminishing memories or even ones knowledge of how one responded to those past events is of value, as far as I am concerned they are part of who each of us are. There is a big difference however as to how we each allow them to affect our lives. So a bit unlike the now thing where one detaches from the events I see that it is possible to accept that the events happened, see them in the light of what they were and the changes they brought about, face them with no fear and then forgive. This brings a level of non-judgemental self-acceptance without being cold or detached about them, the forgiveness changes the suffering into acceptance and love, for we each are as we are, the healing is driven from within, from spirit all the way through to physical, the changes are evident in the lightbody (I liked you description of threads), a new balance is achieved where nothing is expelled or detached, for there is no need, we are who we are. The restoration of balance is the healing. As we move through time it is clear that we are part of time, there is no need to deny that part of us.
I have worked with the now, I've described as best I could my experiences, I had no fear of it, I had no fear within it or afterwards, but careful examination of the process showed that I found that it is, by the very nature of only dealing with the now) limiting, both in 'width and depth'. These limits are barriers, they are needed in order to preserve the now, while there the expansive feeling of being unlimited belies this, but I think one is too close up at that stage to really perceive it.
I understand that this makes people uncomfortable, the 'power of now' usually goes unchallenged, but what I see is that it is a process that confines, the confinement is calm and peaceful and for many may be enough, but it is still confinement - and freedom cannot exist within a place that is confined.
Thanks for the challenges, it is always useful as it allows one to examine oneself and ask questions that may have not been asked, and no matter what the outcome the result will always be a greater balance and self-acceptance that before - this is what allows us to evolve.
love
chris

As for "there is no science behind science" - I'm not even sure what that could mean - it is said in a convincing manner - but it does not mean anything

Yes it does or I wouldn't say it. :rolleyes:
Science may look at something and say "that's not scientifically proven", but if they are going to do that with completely unbiased mind, they must also say that the things that they consider "science" are also not scientifically proven. Science is like a cult... you either accept what they say, even if they do keep changing things to suit themselves, or you're doing something that's "unproven" and therefore can't be true. What utter rubbish is that though. There are many valid things in the field of science, just as there are many valid things "outside" the field of science. Just because those things "outside" haven't been verified through scientific methods and mathematics doesn't mean that they can't be true or exist. If that were the case then the universe wouldn't exist, as science can't mathematically prove it.

- scientists test things all the time and because they find some theories are not correct they accept that they will have to change or even ditch the current models, they know this and accept it is the way they work - but it is the best process we have, simply accepting what people say without testing is based on belief, faith and while this is ok it hardly provides evidence.

Best according to whom? Ah, yes, the scientists. You remember those people who were convinced the Earth was flat.... Well, there are these people who believe that science is the only truth... ... sound familiar?

Now you state that there is plenty of evidence that living in the now provides consistent benefits for people, perhaps it does, but to blame science for not being able to put a mathematical formula to it is just divert the issue, if there is plenty of evidence then it should be testable

There's plenty of evidence to show an electon exists. Science has yet to see one. There's plenty of evidence that black holes exist. Science is still searching for them.
There's plenty of evidence that the weather works according to particular "rules", but science still can't formulate it exactly... their weather forcasting only works in local instances and when it doesn't work... well, they create Chaos theory to deal with that. I'm not blaming science for anything, but to say that something can only be true if you can test it with science is to be blind to the truth that you can test for yourself.

, and if it is true then it is important that we exploit it. For instance Paul states that his system provides permanent healing for things in one session (well put together more or less). If this can be proved then there are thousands of people suffering from PTSD that could benefit.

Yep, they sure could, if they choose to go to someone to be healed. There's a good video from Gary Craig, using EFT where he deals with PTSD for war veterans, all in one session. But why pick PTSD... any issue can be dealt with if the person chooses to. It's about their choice, not about forcing healing on people. If they choose to come to be healed of their issues, it can be done. Alternatively we can let medications numb their pain and psychologists and councellors can listen to them talk through their experience and suffer the pain over and over until it becomes so numbing after re-suffering the experience.

However if there is only anecdotal and witness commentary to support the claims then its use is not indicated. You said there is plenty of evidence - I'm interested in seeing it for the very reasons above. This is not me twisting your words - the statement is clear, where is the plentiful evidence?

Isn't science about observation? Or do scientists just take other scientists words for it? If you want to know the truth you have to witness it yourself. The truth isn't written in words, it's not an object to be handed to you. Such things can only point towards the truth and you can only know it through your own experience, like any good scientist would do. If you choose not to witness/observe it for yourself, that's your choice, but don't suggest to others who have observed it that it can't possibly exist because you have no proof. You seem to want your proof given to you in a box. That cannot be done, and is surely why we are happy to answer your questions to give you the pointers to see it for yourself. If you can't see the Now in yourself, you're certainly not going to see it on others.

You see I put the same measures on reiki and healing in general, I think it works from personal observation, I could muster plenty of people to testify that my healing sessions have provided benefits, but that does not constitute evidence of reiki healing, I believe in healing, that carries no provable weight.

Absolutely. I used to think that Reiki, spiritual healing, crystal healing etc. was all a load of borrocks and people who did it were just deluded. I use the think that if it couldn't be proven through scienctific evidence then it couldn't be true. Then I experienced for myself rather than just looking at it from "outside", and when I experienced it myself, I knew it to be true. No person could tell me it was true, only my personal experience of it was able to prove it. Once I realised that, I recognised how closed and limiting I had been. Then I also noticed there are people who do Reiki etc. who are also closed to other things, including science. Just because I now have knowledge of things outside the field of science doesn't mean I discount science, but I can now recognise science for it's closed ideas... which makes it no better than any church, religion, belief etc. The "scientific matters" forum here on Healthypages would be better placed under the Relgions and Faiths section, though I know that would cause an uproar to the hardended scientists.

To continue to make statements that appear fact without any real effort to provide the backing to support them is just smoke and mirrors, faith and possibly placebo.

So you think I'm a liar. That's your choice. You keep telling me that we can learn from suffering, yet I still have no evidence of that. You also tell me that we bring our past lives into our current ones, and that you have evidence of it, yet I've not seen this evidence (as I mentioned before, I've seen the articles, stories or whatever, similar to what you refer to, but there is no factual evidence there, just clever wording and fancy journalism, to make it appear that it must be true).

"Fear does not exist in the present moment" - this is another grand statement, it seems to carry weight, and sounds convincing, but it is wrong. It does exist within us in the present moment, I agree it is based on things from the past and looks to the future, but it does exist in this moment. It is a driver - I do not think it is a good driver, and I strive to resolve it and lose it wherever possible - but to say that it does not exist in the present moment is just erroneous.

A matter of terminology. The past cannot exist in the present moment, because it's the past. Fear is created from ideas and memories of the past, but if the past is no longer real, then the fear is also not real. If you feel fear, you can recognise it's not real and let it go. Most people choose to believe the fear is real and believe it truly exists. Choices choices eh!

Emotional detachment was Paul's description, it places weight only on emotions, if we lose the our emotions in order to not have to deal with issues then that is a way of avoidance.

What is it avoiding? If the emotions of an issue are gone, they are gone. Avoiding would be if the issue still existed, but the issue is the manifestation of the emotions, which may also manifest physically as pain and suffering. Remove the emotions of an issue and it is no longer an issue. It's not avoiding anything.
Your argument is like saying that if we heal an issue then we are avoiding suffering, and we must suffer in order to learn. In that case you had better not do any healing. Most odd. :confused:

In terms of the past it is actually the connections to the past that exist, this I have said many times. What the healing in the now seems to do is to break those connections (detach from them) - and in doing so the core issues are never addressed, only the connections are dealt with, the core issues are left stranded.

So what is the core issue? We have the memories of the past (the past itself no longer exists). We have the mind which creates attachment to those memories (the connections) in the present moment, and it is then the mind that stimulates the emotions and sensations based on those connections.

Memory of Past - Connection - Emotions/Symptoms

All of these things exist in the present moment. To deal with the emotions on the surface (here's a tissue to cry into) or symptoms is to just to mask the issue, and the issue is the mind making connections to the memories of the past in the present moment. To deal with those connections removes the emotions and symptoms that manifest from it. The memory of the past will still exist... we cannot remove memories, but by removing the connections within the mind, we can stop them manifesting in the present moment as emotions and symptoms. So, where is this core issue that get's left stranded? Perhaps if you illustrate it to me, I may understand.

When one becomes only self-serving, when one declines to have connections to anything that may cause suffering, when one loses all emotional attachments to those events and people in the past that have touched one, when one decides only to deal with those things that are evident in this moment, when it creates a mind-set that says that clients can procrastinate in their own time, when one detaches from anything that may stir emotions that are seen as not self-serving, that defines natural processes as expelled, than the outcome will always be a reduction in emotional response. When one excludes things then everything stops being everything. To keep applying a capital letter in the hope that this is not the case is unfounded.

To keep labouring your idea of what the Now is when it's been clearly put to you what we mean with many examples, yet you choose to ignore those, serves no purpose. Your ideas of the Now are unfounded because you choose not to experience it. "You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink". :rolleyes:

Again - "the Now has no barriers" you say, but that is only your perception, that you see no barriers does not mean that they are not there, that I do see them does not mean they are, but this kind of grand statement just attempts to create a faith system, if there are no barriers then that should be evident in some way, if you have to convince me by continued repetition than it becomes a mantra, and eventually a faith.

You want it scientifically? Ok... what is the upper limit of infinity?
The Now is ALL inclusive, it is infinite. There are no limits, and thus no barriers. That you see barriers indicates you are now seeing the Now. Simple as that. This isn't only my perception, but what is known by all who have chosen to live in the present moment. It doesn't take a belief to know what is right there in front of us. If someone were to hit you and hurt you, you would know that they hit you and that it hurt, you wouldn't have to belief it or have faith in it. You perceive it as a faith or belief, simply because you have not experienced it. If you've never been hit, then you would only believe it hurts based on what others tell you, but those who have been hit, know it. It doesn't mean that what they are saying is untrue. You seem to be confusing belief and knowledge.

I think I have no fear of living in the now, I went and investigated and could see the things I described in earlier posts, but what I do see is that it is like an addiction, once you decide to stay you cannot leave, and while I see benefits I do not think that they are worth it. There is too much that is 'behind the walls' that I want to experience to become enclosed in the now and have to live without them. It is not based on fear, and this continued effort to place fault on others is also based on fear, it is based on reasoned evaluation.

Your description simply indicates you have not lived fully in the Now. You may have dipped your toe in and let the mind perceive things, but you don't really Know it. If you did, you would recognise it has no barriers. Just saying "once you decide to stay you cannot leave" indicates you don't know it. I can choose not to live in the present moment at any time if I wanted to (and sure, my mind drags me away from it from time to time, I'm no expert at staying in the Now), but I see the benefits of living in the Now, and I can see no benefits from not being in the Now.

If you can only focus on one thing at a time then this may be part of the restrictions that I choose to be part of. If living in the now only allows focus on a single issue then it is like a straight jacket.

So you have more than one awareness at any single point of time? Amazing. You are unique.

You ask who is to decide what is natural and what is being manufactured by the mind, and this question alone shows how much you choose to restrict your vision in order to support your Now. Suffering exists and that alone makes it natural, there obvious benefits - for instance in the example of the hot plate, it is not just the burning that gives the lesson, in fact in many cases the moment of burning is relatively painless, but it is the recovery, and the pain that follows that embeds the lesson about the hotplate. If one removes all the pain from the equation then probably no lesson would be learned.

By the same token, murder exists, so it is natural, so why do we treat it as a criminal offence?
The point of the hotplate is that we have a moment when we experience the pain. You choose to suffer the pain after the event though as if further pain gives more lessons, when in fact the lesson is already learnt. What more is there to be learnt from continued suffering after the event has happened?

This is another part of this now thing that is wrong, it is the self-serving bit again, unnecessary suffering is by the very definition, unnecessary, but that does not mean there is no place in our lives for suffering.

I've yet to see what place suffering serves in our lives. You tell me it has a place, but you've shown no evidence of it, you just keep avoiding that to tell us we're wrong.

Lamenting over what has happened is part of the process of definement and realisation, of evaluation and gaining perspective, of seeing from others eyes and realising the balance and the part we played, this is part of learning. You choose to exclude it as worthless

So, creating stories and ideas in the mind based on corrupted memories allows you to learn truth? Not from any experience I know of.

by instead defining the now as the only valid place to be - it is far from irresponsible, in fact the opposite, it encompasses responsibility. This is why we now try to get criminals to apologies and realise the cost that their actioned have had on others.

And more often than not, those criminals are not living in the present moment, and just going through the motions to please the authorities so that they can get away and carry on as they did before.

It is not whether we wish suffering for others that matters, it is the question about whether after a life of suffering whether there has been a benefit. Ask an athlete whether the suffering of practise is worth it, if all the time spent getting fit and taking part in competition is worth it, you can ask them - if it was not worth it would they not all give it up.

We're not on about the lessons learnt at the time an event happens. If an athlete learns whilst they are training that something they are doing is causing pain/suffering and they are therefore pushing themselves too hard, they learn from that at the time and adjust as necessary. We are on about, using the same analogy, an athlete who feels pain at one point and then gives up and continues to live that suffering even after it has past, blaming that pain for their present situation.

We cannot even prove that we exist

I know I do. Do you choose not to?

so your statement is not even based on fact, but on a philosophical viewpoint,

Well this is the philosophy forum.

Mathematics always seeks to prove what is correct and what is not, this is different to claiming belief makes 'knowledge' and that makes fact without any supporting evidence - that is faith and faith leads to religion.

Where did I say that belief makes knowledge? Tell me and I'll go edit and correct myself. I said that experience makes knowledge, not belief. Belief is just taking information as if it is correct, whereas knowledge is when information has been experienced and known to be true.

The latest mathematical theories revolve around 11 dimensions to fit in with quantum theory and of course the 'god particle', there will be other theories, and in my opinion they do not take account of those aspects of spirituality and healing energy that one day they will have to, but who can say.

Did you miss the point? Different models of dimensions are used for different purposes. In the teaching of Newtonian motion we can simply use a model of 2 or 3 dimensions, along with a time dimension. For other concepts we use different numbers of dimensions. There is no one fixed model of dimensions to suit all purposes. That's just a tool for maths and science (and spirituality if you like)

Ok - now you guys have me confused, 'you' said I think that we are here to experience life, not to evolve or whatever and that when we return to the 'All' or whatever that is it we can choose to be sent back here but only as a completely wiped person, fresh start. I see no reason for this - what is the overall benefit if all one does is benefit on behalf of the big All (which we are part of) a life that is all just sweetness and light

Paul said that I think. My own personal take is not that we are here to experience or learn things. I consider that this life is just a part of the cycles of energy of All. If you choose to give it purpose, that's up to you (or Paul or whoever).

You choose to exclude natural processes as part of your natural life, this results in a reduction of experiences and of the ability to utilise them. If you wish to be pain free does that mean that you constantly take pain killers? If not - why not?

If I experience pain, I experience it as it happens. Why would I constantly need pain killers if I'm not constantly in pain? If you're experiencing constant pain, I'd suggest you see a doctor. When pain happens it is there to indicate to us that something in the Now needs to be acted upon (assuming it's not our mind just playing games with us), so once we recognise this we can act a) to resolve the pain symptom by taking a pain killer, if we choose, and b) to resolve the cause of the pain. Is there a purpose holding on to the pain after the issue has been identified and action is being taken to resolve it? Does the pain sometimes not get in the way of trying to resolve the issue? Once the lesson of the pain is recognised (the issue identified) the pain serves no further purpose.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Chris

What you mean is that science did not serve you, and in seeking what did elsewhere what you have found seems to. I have no problem with that at all, except that you now make claims for what you have found and decide to utilise as if they are provens and true - and they are neither proven or able to be shown true.

As I said before, the proof of the pudding is always in the eating, not the presentation, things can and often are dressed up to make them look like facts, but unless something has been experienced, then the proofs are at best guestimations which can never be proved.

What I have works for me and the people who choose to embrace it, I need no further proof than that, if it did not work then I would not use it, something has to do what it says on the tin for me to use it.

In terms of the thinking mind, it is a part of the human physical condition, it does not represent consciousness, that is a much bigger part of existing as a 'being'.

I would be interested in the research behind that claim, as far as I understand the scientific research which has gone into finding which part of the brain contains consciousness, rather than finding consciousness within the brain, it was proved that it it does not lie within the brain, but yes the thinking consciousness has to interact with the body through the body's central processor which is the brain, which is the main part that science works through with it drugs etc.

That is why people can be in comas and showing no brain activity, then come out of the coma and repeat conversations which people were having in the room earlier which the brain did not respond to according to the chart of brain functionality.

You appear to readily accept the concept of spirit without question, though that has never been proved, but you dismiss consciousness as being something which does not exist because it does not fit in with your concepts of spirituality!

The issue of low esteem is only one very small part of what you claim to heal, it is hardly always the case. That this is something that can be healed in many ways and using many modalities - it is not restricted to the now.

But the modalities which have managed to resolve these issues, are doing it in the now or present moment, the Gaia-Now modality is a transformational healing and personal development modality which works within the now, the same as the other modalities do.

I know of no person upon this planet who can go backward or forward in real time and transform something that has ceased to exist or something which has not yet come into existence, if you know someone who can prove that they can time travel, then I and everyone else upon this planet would be very happy to have a chat with them.

This emotional only issue is what I pointed out, by wording what you do in the way you have you limit any healing only to emotional healing, though you say that the core issues are healed or whatever, it is only the emotional response that changes in the now - this change then to neutral becomes the detached, cold response that you describe (though those are my translations).

I feel like I am going round in circles with this one, we use the emotional response to measure the effectiveness of transforming the underlying core issue which is creating the emotional response, we can't stop the emotional responses until we deal with the underlying core issues which are creating them, the emotions do nothing on their own, they require a stimulus to make them come into existence, in order to keep an emotional state happening, it requires a constant trigger from our aspects of consciousness.

We do not have to do anything to the emotional responses which are happening within the body, we heal and transform the trigger within consciousness, which allows the emotional response that was happening because of the underlying problem to stop.

We are so much more than a simple emotional response, and this seems very limiting to me - I see true healing in a lot more complexity than just neutralising an emotional response.

We understand that, which is why we do not address the emotional responses which are being triggered within the now, we address the underlying problem which is being created within consciousness right now.

The problem is Chris, we keep on putting up the way we heal, which is to heal someone of what is bothering them right now, in an open and non-judgemental way, where the person who comes for healing decided for themselves what they want healing and we do what they ask us to do as long as it falls within the remit of healing.

Now when you read that, you interpret it to be the way that you would do it based upon your understanding of learning lessons for future lives and paying the price for past lives and failures within this life time, the two methods do not go together, they are like chalk and cheese.
[INDENT]We perceive and express healing as doing what people want us to do and ridding them of their inner turmoils, suffering and pain but you perceive that as wrong and that it is good for people to continue to suffer until you think that they have leaned their lessons from this and past lives.

We perceive healing as setting people free from their fears and self limiting thought patterns and beliefs, but you perceive that healing is helping people to become more fearful about the past and future lives which they have no control over right now.

We perceive healing as non-judgemental and you perceive healing is applying judgements.

We perceive healing is applied in the now to heal what is being currently created in the present moment, but you perceive they need to heal past lives and past problems which no longer exist and to to be mindful of future lives, which may or may not happen (if they do not happen then how have you helped them to live this life to the full).

We perceive personal development to help people live a full existence within this life time free from fears and self limiting thought patterns and beliefs, but you perceive that spiritual development teaches that their current problems are a direct result of past lives which they need to suffer and make amends for and this life as a prelude to a future ones, which will be based upon how we live this one.

We perceive that by healing people and teaching people not to worry and live in the moment that they can be free of the suffering and pain that they are creating for themselves, but you perceive that they are suffering because of what they have done in past lives and they must keep on suffering about things which they can't change in order to learn some form of lesson.

[/INDENT]As I have said before we are completely opposite in what we think and do and the ways in which we do them, I do not know about Giles, but I am completely at a loss to understand how you are supposed to heal someone with your current understanding of life and healing, perhaps you would like to outline your methods and how you perceive that they heal rather than harm people?

Hi Giles,
Great example of stating that it was the scientists that claimed the earth was flat, and it more or less was, but look what happened when a scientist realised this was in error and reworked the maths. I agree that many things are not being investigated but should be, I actually agree very strongly, that is why I ask for evidence, that is why I have probed into Paul's methods, where there is evidence it is important that we highlight it, where there is only what people think, or witness it is important we understand the degree of evidence that provides. So far all I have found from Paul's system is witness.
In terms of 'plenty of evidence that living in the now provides consistent benefits was your statement, you claimed that there is plenty of evidence, I simply asked to see it or where it can be found. If you claim that there is then it should be available - this was your claim, I am interested, but if you cannot provide any evidence other than witness then it does not provide the right support for your statement - please provide the evidence. Casting aspersions on others does not alter this (not to say they are whiter than white though).
I picked PTSD because it is something that many need, and if it can be shown to work then the forces will be interested. I am not talking about witness again, it should be demonstrated to work. This is not about EFT - it was directed at Paul's process. It is not based on a single event, or one witness, if it can be shown to work then many can get great benefit that is desperately needed. I like you do not like the medical alternatives, but all I get is witness or promise statements about the benefits of Paul's system and 'the now'. If it is so good then prove it - and make it available as a proven process. Many will not come until it is proven - they see it only as new-age claims of magic, but if it can be proven then they will change their views, until then it is just smoke and mirrors or faith healing to many. You say there is plenty of evidence - use it.

Yes- science is often about observation, or at least that is part of it, but the cleaver bit is that it is about repeatable observation, and that is where double blind experiments come in, it does not rely on single witness statements. You know this - you know how it works, the fact that it does not support your model simply drives you to attack others rather than defend your theories. You have plenty of evidence, where is it? Will it stand up to scrutiny? Is it repeatable and immune to double blind testing? Without this you are making claims that only about to personal belief. I am like this with healing and reiki, I believe it works, I have experience and witness outcomes that I believe support it, but so far there is little or no credible tested evidence that it does - I accept this and get on with what I can, but from what I've seen (before you told me I was being unkind) Paul's system is not based on any kind of provable foundation.
"If you can't see the Now in yourself, you're certainly not going to see it on others" - then no one will be able to see it and all it ends up with is you blaming me for some internal fault, and continuing to make un-provable claims in some outrageous manner. I have approached this with an open mind, I described what I saw but because it did not fit with what you want it to be it becomes my fault. If it cannot be seen by pretty much anybody, then it has no validity, if it depends upon only conforming with what you think then it is a faith based religion. If it cannot be proven then it just lacks conviction.
Personal experience is no verification of truth, it can for instance be put down to delusion, and this is why it is important to sort out that that is repeatably demonstratable from that which might be placebo or faith healing.
No - I do not think you are a liar, I've said that I think you speak what you believe is truth. I question statements and if they have no basis for their validity than they cannot be claimed to be evidence. I believe a lot of things, past lives for one, I've said that I personally cannot provide proof, I've said that the best proof is provided by children who remember things that they should not be able to from past lives, I agree that this is not repeatable, verifiable proof, it is the best I have and I have cited it.
In terms of suffering I have not changes what I say, suffering is a natural process, we do learn from it, and when we are ready we will heal and the suffering will go. I do not see it as un-natural and I believe it has a place in our lives - I say the same about pain.

Ok - let me try to give an example of a stranded issue - say a person suffered child abuse, that is the core issue, and they come to you for healing and you deal with the core issue. Great. However, there was a connection to an event that in itself is also a core issue, and that is a personal interaction that took place and was 'affected' by the child abuse issue, a relationship problem of some kind say, a marriage breakup or some such. Removing the core issue will not deal with that, and so it is stranded. Now I know that you will say that will be healed as well, and every other small facet, because that is how you have done this so far, but that is only a response to this example - you have not claimed this so far.

"Your ideas of the Now are unfounded because you choose not to experience it" - blame everyone else, if it is so evident then it should be the same for all, but because I will not fall in with your view I am at fault. This is how religion works - and this is how you sound when you continually blame me. I examined it and saw something different to you - that does not make me at fault.
Then same is true of "The Now is ALL inclusive, it is infinite" = that is what you see or what you choose to see - and anyone that sees differently is wrong, there is no way you can justify the statement other than by making it a matter of faith. Any who do not conform are mistaken, for only you have the clear vision that is the truth - the high-priest has spoken eh.

"So you have more than one awareness at any single point of time? Amazing. You are unique" - no this is a natural function of a multi-faceted mind, we multi-task all the time. We also have the ability to hold focus on more than one object at a time, in fact we have to learn to filter things out so that we are able to pay our attention onto things that we are needing to and this is because of our ability to focus on many aspects at the same time.

Yes- murder is a natural process, we deem it illegal but choose as to when it should be when we choose. Do you think then that murder or killing other humans is not natural? It has played a part in our survival for a long time - we do also have free will and an choose not to, this too is natural - we have the ability to choose.

I've given you prime examples of how suffering made people more than they might have been - Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Jesus - your only reply was that you could not question them personally.

"And more often than not, those criminals are not living in the present moment, and just going through the motions to please the authorities so that they can get away and carry on as they did before" - but sometimes it works - it is a chance that is deemed worth taking - nothing is perfect, but it has been decided that the benefits are worth the cost.

"knowledge is when information has been experienced and known to be true" - but only within the sphere of the individual - we are back to flat earth sailors finding that the earth really was flat because they sailed out and experienced it. Your truth is nothing more than that - yours - if you want it to be an absolute truth then it needs evidence.

Hi Paul,
"As I said before, the proof of the pudding is always in the eating" - yes and it sounds good, but this does not constitute proof, merely personal experience, it meant that it tasted good - a personal experience.

The thinking mind has been shown to be abut brain activity, it can be seen using monitors, and is now being used by the military. I think that consciousness is much bigger than that, it is about who we are not just what we think. I'm not sure what definition you use, but that is how I see the definition of it.

"You appear to readily accept the concept of spirit without question, though that has never been proved, but you dismiss consciousness as being something which does not exist because it does not fit in with your concepts of spirituality!" - actually I've tested the concept of spirit as much as I can - and as rigorously as I possibly could - this was not just an easy step. I perhaps see a different view of what you describe as consciousness for I believe in God, and that we are all individual parts of a bigger thing, but this is what I believe, I cannot provide proof. I'm not convinced that whet we see is so different, but our view pints of it differ and the words we use - it is the old problem of 12 blind men describing and elephant by what they can touch.

Part of the issue is that I do not think that emotional responses are the only part of this - but you seem to focus on them - this is because you are concerned about suffering, while I see it as a natural part of the healing process. So I have no fear of suffering - I do not necessarily like but I am not driven by fear of it. You see only the now as important, I think we have a balance to achieve (not making amends but achieving balance) that is wider than the now (I can hear Giles saying what can be wider than infinity lol).
I manage people perfectly well through their healing, it is just as effective I think as your methods, only I let then heal
themselves in their own time, I do not change who they are, they change themselves. I think it was Daz that said he allows them to use him to heal themselves (or something like). There is no judgemental process in anything I do - we are each unique and need to accept ourselves as we are - so I do not decide what is right and what is wrong for someone. You see I would never make up a ritual in order to fool someone into thinking that had been healed of something, this is just misdirection and is actually duplicitous and deception - now someone that can do that can also use that elsewhere - I would not treat a client, or especially a student like that, and find it very perturbing that someone claiming to be a healer would advocate it. Emotionally it may do the trick, healing apparently achieved, but it demonstrates a total lack of respect for others and for one's own integrity, and is anything but healing.
love
chris

Hi Giles,
Great example of stating that it was the scientists that claimed the earth was flat, and it more or less was, but look what happened when a scientist realised this was in error and reworked the maths. I agree that many things are not being investigated but should be, I actually agree very strongly, that is why I ask for evidence, that is why I have probed into Paul's methods, where there is evidence it is important that we highlight it, where there is only what people think, or witness it is important we understand the degree of evidence that provides. So far all I have found from Paul's system is witness.

What is evidence apart from witnessing results?
Let's face it, some medical or scientific studies are done on less numbers of test cases than people have been treated with particular complementary therapies, yet because the test was done by "scientists" that makes it evidence apparently, whereas non scientists couldn't possible produce evidence through witnessing consistent results could they.... That's just an example of how silly it is to expect scientific evidence of everything.

And anyhow, I wasn't stating it was the scientists claiming that the earth was flat, so you completely missed the point. The point was that scientists nowadays rely just as much on belief in what they "know to be true" as those who believed the earth was flat. There's every possibility that scientists now are just as wrong as those who believed the earth was flat. Who gave scientists the overriding credibility for knowing truth? Ah, yes... the scientists... and those with money and clout.

You seem to be insistent on having scientific based evidence that you choose to simply dismiss anything that has no scientific based evidence. That is a limitation that is best done without.

In terms of 'plenty of evidence that living in the now provides consistent benefits was your statement, you claimed that there is plenty of evidence, I simply asked to see it or where it can be found.

You still want it written down and in a box? The evidence is right there in front of you, but you choose not to look at it. There's no website address for it, there's no books for it. You can't put the infinite Now into something so limiting.

If you claim that there is then it should be available - this was your claim, I am interested, but if you cannot provide any evidence other than witness then it does not provide the right support for your statement - please provide the evidence. Casting aspersions on others does not alter this (not to say they are whiter than white though).

You miss the point of what evidence is. The only true evidence is that which you know for yourself. I can't "provide" you with evidence, I can only point at it (and I think we've given sufficient pointers throughout this thread), but nomatter where we point, you choose to look in the opposite direction and then say there is no evidence. That's your choice, and we cannot change what you choose.

I picked PTSD because it is something that many need, and if it can be shown to work then the forces will be interested. I am not talking about witness again, it should be demonstrated to work. This is not about EFT - it was directed at Paul's process. It is not based on a single event, or one witness, if it can be shown to work then many can get great benefit that is desperately needed. I like you do not like the medical alternatives, but all I get is witness or promise statements about the benefits of Paul's system and 'the now'. If it is so good then prove it - and make it available as a proven process. Many will not come until it is proven - they see it only as new-age claims of magic, but if it can be proven then they will change their views, until then it is just smoke and mirrors or faith healing to many. You say there is plenty of evidence - use it.

So, as Paul asked, how do you do your healing? Where's the evidence that you are healing people? I'd like to see it.

Yes- science is often about observation, or at least that is part of it, but the cleaver bit is that it is about repeatable observation, and that is where double blind experiments come in, it does not rely on single witness statements.

Ah, yes, the good old scientific double blind placebo controlled tests. Scientific rubbish I'm afraid.

Science can take a new drug, test it on 300 people, giving the real drug to 100 people, a placebo drug to 100 people and doing nothing to the other 100 people. 70% of the people taking the real drug respond well. 40% of people taking the placebo respond well and 20% of the control group respond well. Science then uses "statistics" to "prove" that because there's a 30% difference between real and placebo and a 50% difference between real and control group, then it must be true that it works.
Points of failure: a) what about the 30% who didn't respond well, and why did 60% of people not taking the real drug do better than those 30%? b) What is the placebo effect? Science cannot explain how placebo works, yet they use it in their "proof". You cannot prove that A+B=C when B is an unknown variable, so until B is known and proven, any tests using it are truly false. This is why science uses mathematical statistics to indicate their "proof". c) What about individual persons who underwent the test and their personal situations and other things effecting them? Science knows that true statistical analysis requires large quantities of repeated experiments, and the more tests done, the more statistically accurate the results. Yet science cannot afford to put the time and money into testing on thousands of people, let alone what it would cost them to pay off the people who suffer long term side effects or the mistakes that can happen. Yes, they can test on thousands of animals, but those aren't humans, and don't live the same lives, so it's another thing that discredits the results. d) What about the side effects of the drug? How are those compared to those who didn't take the drug who felt worse after? Often something missed out of the resulting evidence, because the focus is on the statistical positives, not the negatives.
It's fraudulent journalism at it's best. That's why things like Seroxat had to be withdrawn... a supposedly "safe" anti-depressant that apparently was found to be the likely cause of people becoming more depressed and some committing suicide. So much for the evidence that it was "safe".

Ok, so a lot of complemantary therapies haven't undergone controlled tests in the same manner (and that's probably a good thing), yet thousands, nay millions, more people have tested those therapies by having the treatment itself. Out of all those millions, how many have said "it doesn't work" and how many have found it helps? If it did help, was it placebo? Possibly, but if placebo has made them better then it still helped, so there's nothing wrong in that. Any therapies that are clearly nonesense are quickly highlighted as a load of rubbish and just don't last, as word gets around about them. So, the evidence may be circumstantial or just what we witness, but it certainly stacks up better than relying on the flaky pseudo factual stastistics of scientific testing.

You know this - you know how it works, the fact that it does not support your model simply drives you to attack others rather than defend your theories.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm stating my own observations... the truth as I have observed it. I don't have to defend anything, that's just your perception. I live in the Now and I know the Now works. If I get in a car and drive it, the car drives and I know it to be fact, it's not a theory. You are still confusing knowledge with theory, I guess because you haven't tested the information to see it as knowledge yourself.

You have plenty of evidence, where is it? Will it stand up to scrutiny?

Yes, the evidence is in my own experience and knowledge. I've tested it, I've scrutinized it, and it stands up. I don't need anyone else to test it for me, and even if someone else did test it, that would be their knowledge and not mine, I would still need to test it myself.

Is it repeatable and immune to double blind testing?

In my knowledge yes. I've repeated living in the Now many times and it's never failed to be the Now. You're living in the Now too Chris but you're choosing not to be aware of it, letting your mind believe you've time travelled to the past or the future.
You can band about the scientific "double blind testing" and other terminology all you like, but that is just the clever words of science to try and prove their own existence. Reminds me of a Thomas Dolby song from the 80's with Magnus Pyke called "She was blinded by science".

Without this you are making claims that only about to personal belief.

Science is personal belief too. Any scientist who doesn't test for themselves is not a true scientist, but one who puts their faith in others and the teachings of others. The church of science.

I am like this with healing and reiki, I believe it works, I have experience and witness outcomes that I believe support it, but so far there is little or no credible tested evidence that it does - I accept this and get on with what I can, but from what I've seen (before you told me I was being unkind) Paul's system is not based on any kind of provable foundation.

It's proven to Paul and all those who have used it. I'm sure Paul couldn't afford to pay for researchers to perform scientific double blind testing costing millions of pounds, but why should he, all that would come out of it would be something to say that it works or doesn't work based on "scientific" evidence, yet Paul already knows it works from his own. A lot of money to be told something he doesn't need to be told.

"If you can't see the Now in yourself, you're certainly not going to see it on others" - then no one will be able to see it and all it ends up with is you blaming me for some internal fault, and continuing to make un-provable claims in some outrageous manner. I have approached this with an open mind, I described what I saw but because it did not fit with what you want it to be it becomes my fault. If it cannot be seen by pretty much anybody, then it has no validity, if it depends upon only conforming with what you think then it is a faith based religion. If it cannot be proven then it just lacks conviction.

The opposite. Everyone can choose to live in the Now and can see the Now if they choose to (You STILL haven't explained how you're not in the present moment but living in the Past or Future... just how do you manage to live outside the present moment? You're watch must be showing a second hand that bounces either side of the present time? Very odd, or just a very outrageous claim). I'm not blaming you as you are faultless as are we all in truth. Your mind on the other hand is choosing to prevent you from living in the Now. You are saying you have an open mind, yet you are seeing barriers in everything we talk about, as you can't see the truth in everything... if it can't have scientific evidence you are placing on the side of the barrier that calls it unproven, wrong or a prison. That is judgement, not truth.

So, please tell me Chris where are you right now... are you in the present moment as you read this or are you in the past or the future? I'd really be interested to know.

Personal experience is no verification of truth, it can for instance be put down to delusion, and this is why it is important to sort out that that is repeatably demonstratable from that which might be placebo or faith healing.
No - I do not think you are a liar, I've said that I think you speak what you believe is truth. I question statements and if they have no basis for their validity than they cannot be claimed to be evidence. I believe a lot of things, past lives for one, I've said that I personally cannot provide proof, I've said that the best proof is provided by children who remember things that they should not be able to from past lives, I agree that this is not repeatable, verifiable proof, it is the best I have and I have cited it.

Then that "best proof" is no proof at all, it is just belief.

In terms of suffering I have not changes what I say, suffering is a natural process, we do learn from it, and when we are ready we will heal and the suffering will go. I do not see it as un-natural and I believe it has a place in our lives - I say the same about pain.

Ok - let me try to give an example of a stranded issue - say a person suffered child abuse, that is the core issue, and they come to you for healing and you deal with the core issue. Great. However, there was a connection to an event that in itself is also a core issue, and that is a personal interaction that took place and was 'affected' by the child abuse issue, a relationship problem of some kind say, a marriage breakup or some such. Removing the core issue will not deal with that, and so it is stranded. Now I know that you will say that will be healed as well, and every other small facet, because that is how you have done this so far, but that is only a response to this example - you have not claimed this so far.

You lost me on your last sentance there, but I will say that issues can be seperate or they can be related. When treating an issue, recognising how we feel now about a single issue and treating that will deal with that issue. Any associated issues will be identified and may or may not be dealt with at the time of dealing with the initial issue, depending on the individual and how they have created "connections" between issues. Using your example, they may see their marriage break up as only slightly connected to the child abuse and how the issue of the marriage break up effects them may only be slightly touched by treating the child abuse issue, but that doesn't mean the marriage break up issue is stranded and can't be dealt with. For others the marriage break up may be "all about" the child abuse issue and treating one will naturally treat the other too. We're getting back to what I mentioned waaaaay back earlier in the thread.... Living in the now and looking at how an issue effects us in the present moment and treating that issue doesn't leave some mythical "past" issues lying around, but eradicates all the connections that have grown into the issue as it is now. The issue only exists in the present moment, though it is based on the initial event and the connections of issues that have grown greater and greater over time until the issue exists now in it's present manifestation. Treat that issue as it is Now and removes all the issue as perceived to be in the past. Just as you cut down a tree, you chop it down at the roots and this removes all the growth from when it was a sapling in the past, but the sapling no longer exists, only the tree as it is now.

So, let me come back to your learning from suffering... let's say I was bullied at school as a child. Right now, I have memories of those days when it happened... so should I still feel the pain and suffering I experienced when I was bullied, right here and now? What would I learn from that? And if my mind is focused on that memory and it's creating emotions or whatever symptoms in me now, how is that not distracting me from the other needs of the present moment. i.e. is it ok for me to think about this past memory and get all emotional and angry whilst I'm driving my car down the road?

"Your ideas of the Now are unfounded because you choose not to experience it" - blame everyone else, if it is so evident then it should be the same for all, but because I will not fall in with your view I am at fault. This is how religion works - and this is how you sound when you continually blame me. I examined it and saw something different to you - that does not make me at fault.

It's not about blame, and I'm sorry if you feel that way.
Simply put, using analogy, we describe a Cow to you, and you say it looks like an Elephant. We say how everybody else is seeing a Cow who is looking at it, but you still say it's an Elephant. We point out that it doesn't have a trunk, but you still say it's an Elephant. We say it's black and white, but you say it's grey and it's an elephant.
We're not blaming you for not seeing the Cow, we're simply trying to describe it to you in every possible way we can, but for some reason unbeknownst to us, you still choose to see it as an Elephant, and then you say it's only a cow to us because we believe it's a Cow. All the evidence to me says it's a Cow (and it didn't have to be double blind tested! :D)

Then same is true of "The Now is ALL inclusive, it is infinite" = that is what you see or what you choose to see

That is the description of the Now. If it's anything else then it's not the Now even if someone is labelling that something else as Now.

- and anyone that sees differently is wrong, there is no way you can justify the statement other than by making it a matter of faith. Any who do not conform are mistaken, for only you have the clear vision that is the truth - the high-priest has spoken eh.

The Self knows it. As I said before we can't make you see it, you can only see it yourself.
No matter how much we insist or tell you it's there, we can only ever point it out to you, but it's your choice to see it or not. This isn't blaming you, it's merely pointing that out.

"So you have more than one awareness at any single point of time? Amazing. You are unique" - no this is a natural function of a multi-faceted mind, we multi-task all the time. We also have the ability to hold focus on more than one object at a time, in fact we have to learn to filter things out so that we are able to pay our attention onto things that we are needing to and this is because of our ability to focus on many aspects at the same time.

You are referring to the unconscious mind, not the One awareness. (I won't call it consciousness because that can certainly cause confusion between the One awareness and the conscious mind which are not the same)

Yes- murder is a natural process, we deem it illegal but choose as to when it should be when we choose. Do you think then that murder or killing other humans is not natural? It has played a part in our survival for a long time - we do also have free will and an choose not to, this too is natural - we have the ability to choose.

Yep, we have the ability to choose. So we wouldn't choose to murder someone because we know it's not "right", so why do we choose to suffer ourselves when we can just as easily choose not to suffer?

I've given you prime examples of how suffering made people more than they might have been - Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Jesus - your only reply was that you could not question them personally.

Experience made these people who they are. They may have suffered, but it was the individual events that created their knowledge who made them, not the suffering. Suffering detracts from knowledge.

"knowledge is when information has been experienced and known to be true" - but only within the sphere of the individual - we are back to flat earth sailors finding that the earth really was flat because they sailed out and experienced it. Your truth is nothing more than that - yours - if you want it to be an absolute truth then it needs evidence.

But they didn't experience it. They didn't keep going till they reached the edge, they stopped when they believed they were too close becuase they believed it was flat. It was a belief, not knowledge.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Chris

The thinking mind has been shown to be abut brain activity, it can be seen using monitors, and is now being used by the military. I think that consciousness is much bigger than that, it is about who we are not just what we think. I'm not sure what definition you use, but that is how I see the definition of it.

Actually it is our thoughts which define who we are, it is your misunderstanding of that which stops you from perceiving how we heal someone of what they are creating within themselves right now from their thoughts or consciousness, thoughts and consciousness are the same thing, we are what we think we are.

Part of the issue is that I do not think that emotional responses are the only part of this - but you seem to focus on them - this is because you are concerned about suffering, while I see it as a natural part of the healing process.

No, I have said before, I see suffering as a symptom of an inner conflict which people are creating within their consciousness that requires healing, the suffering is not the problem, but it gives us a good indication as to how the healing is going.

You see only the now as important

No, I see the person in front of me as being the most important thing in the room, the now gives us a way of working, but it is not as important as the person who requires healing.

You see I would never make up a ritual in order to fool someone into thinking that had been healed of something, this is just misdirection and is actually duplicitous and deception - now someone that can do that can also use that elsewhere - I would not treat a client, or especially a student like that, and find it very perturbing that someone claiming to be a healer would advocate it. Emotionally it may do the trick, healing apparently achieved, but it demonstrates a total lack of respect for others and for one's own integrity, and is anything but healing.

I should hope not, neither would I.

The root cause of all suffering? Attachment.

Attachment to material possessions, to ideas, to people, to our physical form.

The Self set up the show, and is the silent witness. The ego is the actor/director. The ego gets so immersed in the drama that the play seems to be reality. We forget what's real and become attached to the props, and suffer because of it.

By taking part in the drama we gradually learn to let go of the props, and suffering, and eventually remember that we ourselves are the silent witness. The Self, the silent witness, is Love, and is always accessible.

Succinctly put Barafundle, but spot on.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

The root cause of all suffering? Attachment.

Attachment to material possessions, to ideas, to people, to our physical form.

The Self set up the show, and is the silent witness. The ego is the actor/director. The ego gets so immersed in the drama that the play seems to be reality. We forget what's real and become attached to the props, and suffer because of it.

By taking part in the drama we gradually learn to let go of the props, and suffering, and eventually remember that we ourselves are the silent witness. The Self, the silent witness, is Love, and is always accessible.

Hi Barafundle . I agree with your thoughts . Thanks for your Input .

I like the analogy of the beggar that was given 50 cents . The beggar held on to the coin for dear life and wasn't going to let It go, not for anyone . The beggar was then offered a dollar for the coin and he dropped It In an Instance .

You only detach from something when something else Is there to become attached too . One attachment made for another .

An Individual will eventually detach from everything that Is a love / joy substitute and attach to what Is real - the love that Is the self .

The attachment made of the self will dissolve at some point when the Individual has given up the personality or the ego because attachment Is only possible where there Is “someone” to be attached to something .

In one sense the “detachment” of what we are from the oneness In the first Instance Is the root cause of all suffering and misery also . Of course we have never been detached from what we are and yet within mind It Is possible to feel detached / disconnected from that .

daz

Yes, embracing self acceptance leads to wholeness, separation and detachment leads to suffering, all is one.