The Battle of the Intentions broken???

[songwriter]

Hello.
Yes, I'm the same guy of the Battle of the Intentions thread.
There I explained why I don't believe in SR and that I believe that some intentions you have may have some intentions of other people against of them, so they don't manifest. I deny self-sabotaging caused by fear, etc.
And I even wrote down a formula about it.

OK.

I think I've realized of one thing.
It's not fears but beliefs what really made SR not true to me...

Let me tell you. I'm never "lucky" with woman... I tried to guess why. I jumped to a conclusion, I tested it and I proved it was right.

Then some information changed one belief I had... then I tested the theory again and it seems to be "wrong".

The change of my beliefs seems to have changed my... subjective reality.

What my mind proved to be right now is wrong.

So maybe all that thing of intentions opposing one another is false.

Steve pointed to fears as the cause of resistance to manifestation.
In me is more about beliefs.

And how do you change your beliefs...? Maybe someone explains to you something and you realize of the picture and see you were wrong in something.

Then, you know, the red or the blue pill, you can resist change or give a try to this new ideas. And maybe if you open your mind your beliefs will be more accurate for your intentions to manifest or so.

The big problem is if you ever close your mind. Then you won't change your beliefs no matter what.
For instance if I blindly believed in my "Battle of Intentions" I would never have written this...

Some may be interested in the exact belief I changed. It's not an "important" thing, but it disturbed one of my manifestations. And maybe some of you have similar experiences with other beliefs and IM.

If you want to know about it you may go to the "How to find a love partner?" thread.

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by songwriter

Steve pointed to fears as the cause of resistance to manifestation. In me is more about beliefs.

To me it's all the same. You can't just eliminate a fear because you want to. A fear stems from a belief about something. To eliminate a fear, you have to change the underlying beliefs, or change your circumstances so that your existing beliefs no longer generate the fear.

EDIT: I should add that I think it's wonderful that you are so open-minded about this stuff.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Richard_Todd

To me it's all the same. You can't just eliminate a fear because you want to. A fear stems from a belief about something. To eliminate a fear, you have to change the underlying beliefs, or change your circumstances so that your existing beliefs no longer generate the fear.

EDIT: I should add that I think it's wonderful that you are so open-minded about this stuff.

Yeah, it might be the same, fears or beliefs, only that I understand it better talking about beliefs... more intelectual and less "emotional" or so...

The important thing would be to have accurate beliefs, right ones. Or Steve would say "empowering beliefs".

Imagine you have the belief that Wealth=Happiness. That's not "accurate"... I think... it may lead you to wrong ways... your subjective reality may look as if someone is fighting with you and taking away your happiness or so.
So, if you intend to be happy... you may change your belief... but you need to be open-minded about it, because if you're stuck in Wealth=Happiness you're not gonna manifest happiness.

Now I think about "wrong and right beliefs". Yes, reality is subjective but there are "universal truths" or "enpowering truths" that are the things you "oughta now", I think.

Like most of the blogs of Steve... etc.
Wisdom may be to know right beliefs. These beliefs will make your Subjective Reality more a Enpowering Reality or so. Or less disempowering...

These reminds me of art. Artists tell you how we are, how we feel... they may reflect beliefs... Things that touch you deep down inside.
Artist are not PD people, they don't guide... they just try to say what's really important in life. Or what's life really.

I might have reminded Billy Joel "Tell Her About It" because of my love interest...

"Give her every reason to accept
That you're for real"

It had to be written somewhere...
yeah Billy, that's it.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by songwriter

Now I think about "wrong and right beliefs". Yes, reality is subjective but there are "universal truths" or "enpowering truths" that are the things you "oughta now", I think.

Exactly! Reality is subjective to the extent of your perceptions, but "universal truths" do exist.

The truth is out there, not in our minds, but in an objective reality.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by Radical

Exactly! Reality is subjective to the extent of your perceptions, but "universal truths" do exist.

The truth is out there, not in our minds, but in an objective reality.

Yeah, I think that our point here on earth (in part) is to discover the objective reality, or natural laws and truths which govern the universe.

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by Radical

Exactly! Reality is subjective to the extent of your perceptions, but "universal truths" do exist.

I guess the question is, how do you know when you've found one of the universal truths? How do you distinguish those from anything else you perceive?

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Yeah, I think that our point here on earth (in part) is to discover the objective reality, or natural laws and truths which govern the universe.

But well... if there's really some "universal truths" that lead you to a subjective-enpowering reality....
Ain't that the same that the Battle of the Intentions... I mean... thinking that you're not setting the rules of the universe... just trying to discovering them... you're not gonna change the people intentions... you just going to find the correct way of doing it to connect with their intentions or so.

If there were not everyone intentions those beliefs would be superfluous....

For instance, Wealth=Happiness. Ok, we think more of Fulfilling your purpose of life=Happiness or so... because you make others happy, so... you help others to fulfill their intentions.
If life is more what you should do... then is connecting with other intentions.

The famous example of the job position. Let's say you intend to have a job position. If you're not aware of the beliefs of being what the boss needs... I don't think you're gonna have the job. You'll have "another person instentions against..." or so.

Similar that if you want to go out with a girl and if you're beliefs are kind of wrong... you won't know the way of going out with that girl... so... well... I'm kind of coming back to the Battle of the Intentions...


Lucky that I'm not a blogger or so because the readers would go mad to see me exchange my beliefs from day to day... lol... but it may be funny to see someone seeing things from the two sides of it.


Coming back to BOI... at the moment.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Richard_Todd

I guess the question is, how do you know when you've found one of the universal truths? How do you distinguish those from anything else you perceive?

Because things work out...

[eternomi]

I guess the question is, how do you know when you've found one of the universal truths? How do you distinguish those from anything else you perceive?

Funny you should ask.

This is the reason why we have prophets actually. Their job is to teach you the universal truths. Each prophet talks about the "same" set of universal truths, but each new one had more information than the previous. Not different, but more in depth information. Mohammed is considered better than the previous ones not because he delivered a different message, but the same message in more depth.

So, you read the Quran, the bible etc and instead of reading them like a history book or a book of facts, you try to get into the mindset of the people and events mentioned and extract the mindset you should have in your own mind.

Contrary to the common understanding, these books are filled with symbolism. Things are rarely literally the way they are written.. For example, when the Quran says "Heaven has rivers of milk and wine and honey", this is pure symbolism... Also keep in mind that some words have multiple meanings. When Quran talks about heaven and earth, these not only literally mean the sky and the land, but they also mean the body and the mind. Furthermore, some conversations -for example between God and the angels- are there so that you can grasp it. Not because God literally talked to the angels.

If you read carefully, these books depict all the situations you'll ever encounter in your lifetime and they tell you what your mindset should be towards each circumstance. Of course if you read them literally, then you'll dress up the way people did two thousand years ago and act like them, but that won't get you anywhere.

As for the people who supposedly read these books and do horrible things (ex: kill in the name of God) based on the information in them, they clearly missed the meaning of the message! Every person can really only save himself. For the others, all you can do is point them in the right direction. Whether they follow it or not, is really up to themselves. But of course, people will use anything to control others and religion is a great leverage.

[Acting Like Godot]

A fear is simply a belief that under certain circumstances, a negative event will or could occur.

A hope is simply a belief that under certain circumstances, a positive event will or could occur.

Yes, there are universal truths. You will experience some of them if you have a peak experience - click here. Of course, it will pass (unless your name is Jesus or Buddha). And the memory of a peak experience is very different from the peak experience itself.

We are doing very well if we work constantly towards perceiving deeper truths. As opposed to the deepest truths (the universal ones).

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by outback

Funny you should ask.

This is the reason why we have prophets actually. Their job is to teach you the universal truths. Each prophet talks about the "same" set of universal truths, but each new one had more information than the previous. Not different, but more in depth information. Mohammed is considered better than the previous ones not because he delivered a different message, but the same message in more depth.

So, you've basically reduced the problem of finding universal truths to finding prophets. But, unfortunately, that leads to the same question: How do you know when you are listening to a prophet, as opposed to a total nutjob claiming to be the son of a deity...

in other words, I guess I don't buy this argument, at least not without a better definition of "prophet." So far, the definition is circular: You'll know a universal truth because it comes from a prophet, and you know who the prophets are because they teach the universal truths.

[eternomi]

So, you've basically reduced the problem of finding universal truths to finding prophets.

You don't have to find them. They already came, delivered their message, left some books (with lots of symbolism) and they are done.

The problem is, your mind can only go so far. You cannot understand what you can't experience. You cannot experience what you don't know. It is inherently a "chicken & egg" problem.

Prophets somehow had the vision necessary to tell you what you need to do. They bypassed the mind and saw things directly and delivered the information to the rest of humanity. I cannot make you believe this is how it really is, but it does make sense that it has to work this way.

The mistake most people make is that living like them is not enough to be "saved". What matter is to be able to "think" like them. Most gurus these days have this same message. For example, if you want get rich, you gotta think like the rich.

In other words, I guess I don't buy this argument

I understand. Noone wants to hand over the controls to someone else, but reading the scripture and trying to understand what it is saying would be a good start. Like I said, you'll have to decypher the symbolism. And in some cases, it might require you to learn the language in which the book was written to really appreciate the message (arabic for Quran for example). Otherwise, when you read these books, you are at the mercy of the translators. I personally had many experiences where the translator did his best, but couldn't help limit the meaning of words/phrases/etc. A lot does get lost in translation.

I know the term "religious scripture" turns people's stomachs at this point, but you really owe it to yourself to take a look at this material personally, and see what is going on. Read it like it is a bestseller and not a religious thing. I know Quran's consistency goes back a long time and there is only a single version (whereas the bible has quite a few).

Obviously, it is all upto you.

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by outback

You don't have to find them. They already came, delivered their message, left some books (with lots of symbolism) and they are done.

Ok, but many others came with messages, too. How did you know which ones were prophetic, and which ones weren't? That's what I'm trying to ask. I mean, I can drop some symbolism about loving your neighbor and tell you it came straight from "the source." Does that make me a prophet? (also when you say "already came" does that imply that we've seen the last of them, already? If not, don't we still have the issue of identifying new ones?)

It seems like group consensus is all we've got... lots of people said X was a prophet, so X must have been speaking universal truths. It just has to resonate with enough people to qualify? John Lennon the prophet?

All I've personally got to go on, is that something resonates with me as "deep thought." That's not enough to call something a Universal Truth. Seeing that lots of other people agree with me that it's a "deep thought" isn't enough to be sure of universality, either... that's just induction, on top of an assumption that we all understood the symbolic statements the same way.

But what are the chances of that we all see it the same way? Consider how many people misinterpret the "prophetic" texts and mis-use them (at least from my perspective that's what they are doing... from their perspective I am the one that's wrong about the "universal" truths.) That doesn't feel very universal.

I'm amused that objective realists complain of pseudoscience in SR discussions. But, when I ask how they identify the universal truths they believe in, the first response I got was: "because things work out..." Now I hear that they come in the form of symbolism from prophets, the identities of which I must take as axioms, I guess. I'm not saying that those are bad or wrong perspectives. I just expected something more exact, after all the SR criticisms... :-)

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by outback

I know the term "religious scripture" turns people's stomachs at this point, but you really owe it to yourself to take a look at this material personally, and see what is going on. Read it like it is a bestseller and not a religious thing. I know Quran's consistency goes back a long time and there is only a single version (whereas the bible has quite a few).

I'm not sure why you would assume I have not read at least some scripture, or wouldn't want to. I have, and I appreciate what it has to say. I'm only asking by what criteria people are calling something a "universal truth" as opposed to something you personally perceive as true.

[mej023]

Fear is not a belief. Fear is a negative emotion. It is a negative emotion like anger or blame or disgust.

The fear is pointing out to you that you are holding a belief that is preventing you from realizing your full connection to source.

A belief is just a thought that you think over and over.

You look at everything around you as evidence that what you have been told is true.

Your truth and the evidence that you are producing is only the truth that manifests in response to your vibration.

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by Richard_Todd

I'm not sure why you would assume I have not read at least some scripture, or wouldn't want to. I have, and I appreciate what it has to say. I'm only asking by what criteria people are calling something a "universal truth" as opposed to something you personally perceive as true.

I apologize. I didn't mean to make any assumptions.

My personal answer to your question is "cohesiveness". Whoever is telling me they have figured out the "ultimate truth/reality", I listen to how they explain the entire system, how everything jives together from the smallest of scales to the largest. If it is all cohesive, and if I am not asked to harm any other creature in following this system, I take it as true.

SR/LoA/I-M simply does not jive for all scales. I never said they are completely wrong. I said they are incomplete... And as such they will mislead sooner or later.

You have to realize each of us has a piece of the puzzle and it is the same puzzle. Unless we can look at the entire picture, it is hard to tell which piece goes where. Lots of people claim they are prophets, messangers, gurus, etc. You take their pieces of the puzzle and see if they fit together with yours, others, etc. I do believe in the one-ness of it all. Thus, it has to all fit. No leftover pieces. If it doesn't, someone simply does not have the complete picture.

Ultimately, your conscience is the judge and you are responsible only for yourself. If you think you figured out the ultimate truth, then that's all that matters.

[wolfgang]

Aren't all beliefs some form of attachement? Isn't the LoA an expansion of how things will resonate, like piano strings that will vibrate to sound waves from another string that are harmonically realted? So then we are string pluckers and the universe is an grand piano with the dampers up. But then also we are the piano too? So at some level we can pluck a string as an intention or as our vibe and the other strings that are in harmony vibrate too, which is the universe's response. So then we have to stretch our minds to grasp how that is for ourselves having intentions/vibes.

One thing I often think is how we talk and write from the world of the ego/separate selves/objective reality when we say we intend so and so. How is that intention being seen in the "we are all one" frame? I also think when we effectively intend we are tunning into the universe and "all that is" such that what we are asking for is in harmony with the grand piano of the universe.

But then also we can intend or vibrate in such a way that it's hard for the other strings to vibrate with us and nothing manifests. Or we get dissounance and friction instead of harmony and ease. That can be that we are intending things out of alignment either with fears or infringing on others. I'd say, from my limited reading about LoA/IM that it works when our intentions are in alignment with "all that is" and actually you, me and everyone is one with "all that is". Thing is there are tons of intentions we can have that are in alignment and we get to feel like we are making choices in our illusion with an ego separate self running around. Now, if we aren't getting what we want, the LoA/IM stuff says that's becuase of fear or not knowing your unconscious vibe - no being coherent. But the fear and not knowing your conconscious is a form of not being in aligment.


I'm not an expert at LoA and don't want to "believe" much of anything. However I've had experience feeling the "all that is", being one with everything and that state has no thought and no fear and is difficult to stay in since as soon as I notice I'm in there I have a thought about that state and pop out of it.

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by outback

My personal answer to your question is "cohesiveness". Whoever is telling me they have figured out the "ultimate truth/reality", I listen to how they explain the entire system, how everything jives together from the smallest of scales to the largest. If it is all cohesive, and if I am not asked to harm any other creature in following this system, I take it as true.

But you have to admit, all we are going on is our perspective, and our ability to comprehend what they are saying, right?

Maybe they are a prophet, and I understood them as they intended. Or maybe I completely misunderstood the prophet, but still arrived at something that I felt was deeply true? Or maybe the person is not a prophet at all, but due to my misunderstanding, I still arrived at a truth that a real prophet might have said? I have no way of differentiating these cases, do I?

Ultimately, your conscience is the judge and you are responsible only for yourself. If you think you figured out the ultimate truth, then that's all that matters.

I agree with you on that, and in a way that's my whole point... I just don't see how we can claim something is "universal" when all we have to go by is our own experience.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Richard_Todd

I just don't see how we can claim something is "universal" when all we have to go by is our own experience.

Maybe that's the only "universal" - that we only have our own experience to go by, which is the subjective mind set - which tends to expand into "we are all one". Can you have a subjective mind set and no subjective reality? No "we are all one" and this ego stuff is really an illusion?

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Maybe that's the only "universal" - that we only have our own experience to go by, which is the subjective mind set - which tends to expand into "we are all one". Can you have a subjective mind set and no subjective reality? No "we are all one" and this ego stuff is really an illusion?

That's kind-of the inherent paradox in relativism... you can't say: "it's universally true that nothing is universally true." All I know for sure is that I personally cannot perceive anyone's perceptions but my own. So, I can't be sure that I know what is true for anyone else, or even that they really exist.

The reduction to "we are all one" sidesteps that problem by making the grand union "consciousness" the one and only true source of perception. Is it true? It might as well be, since it's the only consciousness I'm sure is there. I can't say I fully get it, though, because the idea is fairly new to me. I'm trying to get behind the idea, because it seems to take care of a lot of nagging issues with objective reality.

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by Richard_Todd

But you have to admit, all we are going on is our perspective, and our ability to comprehend what they are saying, right?

Absolutely! I do admit that for sure.

But the problem is, whenever something lies outside of your personal experience, you have to rely on faith. There is no other way. At that point, you are relying on the vision of someone else to take you to a place where you've never been before.

For example, when you read a book which talks about new things that you never experienced personally, you take it on faith. You either believe that you'll get the advertised results and follow its teaching/instructions, or you dismiss it.

The prophets claim they've seen what happens after death. Their entire lives are devoted to helping people understand that there is life after physical death and what they need to do to prepare for that life which apparently is quite different than life on Earth. They've mostly been ignored and ridiculed for their efforts. And I can hardly blame those people... Especially thousands of years ago. Since their claim is so bold, I can imagine you have to take some of it on faith... unless you've seen personally what happens after death.

Part of the complication is that, some people use this faith requirement to lead/control people to do things on their own agenda. Faith is necessary but you gotta be careful. You need to be able to sniff out who is trying to help you, and who is trying to use you.

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by Richard_Todd

All I know for sure is that I personally cannot perceive anyone's perceptions but my own.

Let's say you are overweight, and have always been more or less overweight, and I tell you if you exercise, lose some weight and eat healthy, you will feel more energetic and have a clearer mind... You can either have faith in me, take my word for it and give it a shot, or ignore what I say because you've never experienced such things, or don't believe it is possible to be any more energetic and have a clearer mind.

So, the "ultimate truth" is like that too. It does exist, but you getting there might require you to try new things which might also require you to put your thinking process on hold for a while until you see the results of the new things you are doing. In the mean time, don't harm anyone.

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by outback

Let's say you are overweight, and have always been more or less overweight, and I tell you if you exercise, lose some weight and eat healthy, you will feel more energetic and have a clearer mind... You can either have faith in me, take my word for it and give it a shot, or ignore what I say because you've never experienced such things, or don't believe it is possible to be any more energetic and have a clearer mind.

I think we are talking past each other. I'm not trying to say that people should be closed to new experiences, or only extrapolate from what they have already learned. That would make no sense... one might ask when the "right" time to stop learning is, which is just silly.

I'm only talking about a very narrow slice of the example you've outlined above. And that is, even after trying something new, and expanding my personal realm of experience, I am no closer to knowing whether what I have learned is true for anyone but myself. I can never be any closer, really, because no matter how many new experiences I have, they are still only my perceptions filtered through my beliefs. Polling 2 people, 100 people, whatever the number, is not proof of universality, even if I assume that they understood what I was asking correctly and that I understood their responses correctly.

I think in the end you just have to apply induction, and assume that something probably is true universally if it's true in all the cases you can find. To me, this says that SR and other "pseudoscientific" points of view could now all be on equally firm ground with objective reality. They all require a bit of faith to accept.

before we're done I will be a full-on nihilist