Manifestations Throughout History

[Kanzeon]

I've been giving serious consideration to Steve's concept of "subjective reality" (really a shifting amalgram of objective idealism and solopsism), and I am quite moved by the historical evidence that supports his theory. He states, in short, that belief determines reality:

But mathematical laws such as the laws of probability are proven facts. How can I possibly violate them?

When you think of mathematical laws as facts, you are creating, not observing.

All facts are merely choices. Your decisions about the nature of reality manifest facts as well as their proof. You can “unfactify” any fact you wish, and then it will no longer hold power in your reality.

So why can’t I affect the laws of probability right now?

Because you believe you can’t. Whatever you know to be impossible for you is impossible for you.

Subjective Reality Q&A 3

Apparently, the reason I fall down, and not up is that I believe in the law of gravity. If I didn't believe in gravity, falling up could be my norm.

That is why Christopher Columbus landed in India and brought back cumin and fine sculpted gold to Spain. It never occured to him that an undiscovered continent could impede his progress, and so the existence of such a continent was impossible. That is why, later, when explorers had oddly decided that Columbus' India was a new continent, they found the easy passage to the Atlantic they assumed must be there. They weren't limited by the belief that the continent was 3000 miles across.

That is also why the alchemists of the middle ages were so successful in manufacturing gold from other substances. It wasn't until someone developed the sadly limiting belief that gold was an element, that this became impossible.

That is why applying leeches was so effective in curing illness. It is also why exorcisms were so effective at casting out demons and improving the behavior of the possessed.

So many famous manifestations throughout history, all proving the soundness of Steve's view. It's remarkable his ideas aren't universally accepted.

[Zas]

Given that most my ancestors actually lived on this continent long before his time, I'm less interested in the historical Western mythology of this Columbus character.

Seriously though. I get what you mean. Related to the subject, I really liked this video:

The Illusion of Reality

. . . Professor Jim Al-Khalili explores how studying the atom forced us to rethink the nature of reality itself. He discovers that there might be parallel universes in which different versions of us exist, finds out that empty space isn't empty at all, and investigates the differences in our perception of the world in the universe and the reality.

It's really funny how "theories" of matter work until they don't work . . . And they're just as involved with their creator's egos and emotions as they are with "objective truth." It's funny because I used to be a hard core skeptic person, but I guess that's because I never actually looked into all the issues that arise when science tries to examine actual matter. :P

[Arboretor]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

So many famous manifestations throughout history, all proving the soundness of Steve's view. It's remarkable his ideas aren't universally accepted.

You forgot the following excerpt form the Q&A:

The past is merely a projection of your consciousness as well. In truth there is no past. There is only the present moment, and in this present moment you create the concept of past, assign it memories, and grant it power. Because you believe the past controls the present, that manifests as part of your reality. But the past is only a manifestation — it has no power other than what you grant it by your thoughts.

So, in this view, there is no history. Only the NOW exists. In the NOW your mind is creating sensory inputs that give you the illusion of reading a 'book' that tells about someone called 'Christopher Columbus' and his deeds.

But neither Columbus nor the book have any existence of their own. All other people have no independent existence either. So it isn't important what they believe or not. Important is only what YOU currently believe in this very moment.

(I do not say that I necessarily subscribe to this concept, but I think I understand it.)

PS: I thought you said you didn't want to discuss solipsism?

[Zas]

Originally Posted by Arboretor

PS: I thought you said you didn't want to discuss solipsism?

I hate to quote wikipedia, but someone wrote this applicable thing there under the Eastern Philosophies heading of Solipsism:
"As such, to a Buddhist or Taoist, this would not necessarily imply that one's mind is all that exists, as with solipsism, but rather one's mind is the illusion. This view would identify the physical oneness of self and universe as the ultimate reality."

I think that's why "solipsism" doesn't always feel like the right term in these areas of discussion . . . (Well, it never does for me, but I think it works for other people sometimes, heh.)

[Arboretor]

Well, I mentioned solipsism only because the OP said that SR is "really a shifting amalgram of objective idealism and solopsism".

[Kanzeon]

All other people have no independent existence either. So it isn't important what they believe or not. Important is only what YOU currently believe in this very moment.

I wish I could break the habit of imagining people and then forgetting their names.

[Arboretor]

And I never cease to be amazed about the funny people I manifest on this forum

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Arboretor

And I never cease to be amazed about the funny people I manifest on this forum

When I see the phrase "shifting amalgam", I think of dental work and shudder

[Acting Like Godot]

I cannot resist.

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Apparently, the reason I fall down, and not up is that I believe in the law of gravity. If I didn't believe in gravity, falling up could be my norm.

More about Yogi Pullavar, here.

Another striking example is Daniel Dunglas Home, who levitated a few hundred times indoors, outdoors, in all sorts of different places, in front of thousands of people, including the most prominent, famous and well-known personalities in his lifetime. More here.

That is why applying leeches was so effective in curing illness.

".... leeches and maggots are now classified as FDA-approved medical devices — the first live animals to earn that distinction." Link.

It is also why exorcisms were so effective at casting out demons and improving the behavior of the possessed.

Glimpses of the Devil - A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession & Exorcism - by Scott M Peck. M.D. Dr. Peck received his B.A. degree magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1958, and his M.D. degree from the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in 1963. From 1963 until 1972, he served in the United States Army, resigning from the position of Assistant Chief Psychiatry and Neurology Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and the Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster.

That is also why the alchemists of the middle ages were so successful in manufacturing gold from other substances.

"Synthetic diamond (also known as HPHT diamond or CVD diamond depending on the production process used) is diamond produced in a technological process, as opposed to natural diamond, which is produced by geological processes.

Numerous individual attempts to grow synthetic diamond were documented between 1879 and 1928, but none of them have been confirmed to have produced diamonds. In the 1940–1950s, systematic research began in the United States, Sweden and the Soviet Union to grow diamond using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) processes. The first reproducible synthesis was reported around 1953. Those two processes still dominate production of synthetic diamond. A third method, known as detonation synthesis, has recently entered the diamond market." Link

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I cannot resist.





More about Yogi Pullavar, here.

ALG, you are so gullible sometimes! It's a well known trick:

YouTube - Indian Levitation Trick Revealed

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I cannot resist.

I don't think you've absorbed Steve's point. You're citing a Harvard education, and scientific methods.

Don't you realize that education and science should be completely banned in Steve's subjective reality?

What possible good can it be to go to a classroom with an imagined professor filling your head with a bunch of so-called facts that only trick yourself into limiting your reality?

The scientific method is completely corrupting - trying the same thing over and over, with slight variation, to come up with repeatable results, and then making up some ridiculous concept like falsifiability. Isn't falsifiabilty the most backwards, absurd, limiting phony-objective-reality notion that you could possibly dream up?

We need to protect the children! Work on manifesting a limitless world without universities or laboratories! Our happiness in the Abundant Universe is at stake!

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Arboretor

You forgot the following excerpt form the Q&A:



So, in this view, there is no history. Only the NOW exists. In the NOW your mind is creating sensory inputs that give you the illusion of reading a 'book' that tells about someone called 'Christopher Columbus' and his deeds.

But neither Columbus nor the book have any existence of their own. All other people have no independent existence either. So it isn't important what they believe or not. Important is only what YOU currently believe in this very moment.

(I do not say that I necessarily subscribe to this concept, but I think I understand it.)

PS: I thought you said you didn't want to discuss solipsism?

Arboretor, I understand what you are saying.

But, how about looking at this concept from a different angle?

Let's turn it on its head.

Instead of saying the Now exists and this physical world/past/future does not exist, let's say the Now does not exist (as it is beyond existence) and the 'I'/self/physical world does exist.

'Exist' for me is a material term - something that can be measured and proven in scientific terms. The existence of objects can only be proven by methods which utilize other objects which are assumed to already exist. So, 'existence' is a closed shop of self-validating objects.

The 'Now' cannot be bottled, quantified, measured or otherwise 'proven'.

When you are there (in the Now), you are beyond existence. In the Now, there is no mind, no creation - just being.

To say one should believe in the current moment is not very productive (imo), as it presupposes there is a self which needs to have something to believe in. The attempt to believe in the Now turns upon itself, recursively, without really getting anywhere. The Now becomes an existing object of desire which can be reached/acquired by practicising A, B and C.

Thus, one is attempting to bring the Now into the material realm of objects, which is futile.

Just my current thoughts on this subject.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Cantando

The 'Now' cannot be bottled, quantified, measured or otherwise 'proven'.

We don't experience any present moment. There is a delay for light to reach my eyes, for sound to reach my ears, for sensations in my fingers to reach my brain. I have no experience of a "now," just an uneven reception of stimulii that I turn into a sense of an ordered environment. Our "now" is pieces of past moments, at best.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

We don't experience any present moment. There is a delay for light to reach my eyes, for sound to reach my ears, for sensations in my fingers to reach my brain. I have no experience of a "now," just an uneven reception of stimulii that I turn into a sense of an ordered environment. Our "now" is pieces of past moments, at best.

I believe that is correct. The 'I', or the self, cannot fully experience the present moment. I use the term, the Now, in the 'new age' sense. An older term is 'eternity', which I prefer - that which is outside of time.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

I don't think you've absorbed Steve's point. You're citing a Harvard education, and scientific methods.

Don't you realize that education and science should be completely banned in Steve's subjective reality?

What possible good can it be to go to a classroom with an imagined professor filling your head with a bunch of so-called facts that only trick yourself into limiting your reality?

The scientific method is completely corrupting - trying the same thing over and over, with slight variation, to come up with repeatable results, and then making up some ridiculous concept like falsifiability. Isn't falsifiabilty the most backwards, absurd, limiting phony-objective-reality notion that you could possibly dream up?

We need to protect the children! Work on manifesting a limitless world without universities or laboratories! Our happiness in the Abundant Universe is at stake!

LOL, projecting again?

I was merely providing a few links to articles about leeches, a psychiatrist's view, alchemy, levitation etc.

Make of them whatever you will. Feel free to choose a subjective or objective viewpoint.

(Hey, waitaminit, if Kanzeon CHOOSES a viewpoint, doesn't it necessarily mean that it's subjective? )

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

ALG, you are so gullible sometimes! It's a well known trick:

YouTube - Indian Levitation Trick Revealed

Ah, perhaps you're right then, Cantando. But what about the examples from from your own favourite religion?

1. Saint Francis of Assisi

2. Simon Magus (until his flight was uncremoniously halted by the apostle Peter)

3. Saint Francis Xavier

4. Thomas Aquinas

And of course, Jesus Christ, walking on water.

And so many more examples here.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Ah, perhaps you're right then, Cantando. But what about the examples from from your own favourite religion?

1. Saint Francis of Assisi

2. Simon Magus (until his flight was uncremoniously halted by the apostle Peter)

3. Saint Francis Xavier

4. Thomas Aquinas

And of course, Jesus Christ, walking on water.

And so many more examples here.

Actually, ALG, you do remind me a bit of Simon Magus, the sorcerer.

When he met Peter, he wanted some of the 'action', some of his spiritual powers, and he offered him money (hence the term simony). Peter rebuked him, saying these things could not be bought.

If one approaches spirituality with the idea that if I practice A, B and C hard enough (e.g. by using LoA), I will learn how to levitate, walk on water, or whatever, then one is definitely barking up the wrong tree. Some of the saints you quoted may well have done marvellous deeds, yes, but as a side-effect of their complete and utter devotion to God, or as a special grace, not as a result of deliberately trying to acquire those gifts.

OK, let's take spirituality out of the equation. If someone wants a BMW, and practises LoA to get it, and then eventually gets one, great. I have no issue with that. I've never disputed that there may be some benefit in positive thinking and visualization, which, basically, what LoA is.

However, to constantly take this idea/belief and apply it to spirituality, quoting Christ and various saints, is stretching it. True Christian spirituality has nothing to do with trying to improve ones personal or financial status in this world. In fact, quite the opposite. The saints welcomed poverty, self-sacrifice, suffering and disgrace. They gave up everything to follow Christ, and if a miracle did manifest, it was by God's will, not theirs.

The last thing they would have wanted would have been a BMW!

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Cantando

The last thing they would have wanted would have been a BMW!

But that's the idea were trying to fix Cantando.. were just trying to share the idea that there is nothing wrong with a "selfish" life rather then a "selfless" either choice is fine from a higher perspective

[Mister Change]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

We don't experience any present moment. There is a delay for light to reach my eyes, for sound to reach my ears, for sensations in my fingers to reach my brain. I have no experience of a "now," just an uneven reception of stimulii that I turn into a sense of an ordered environment. Our "now" is pieces of past moments, at best.

Kanzeon, I read in the other thread that you've participated in several guided Buddhist meditations. If you had any success, you should certainly understand what it means to be in the present moment. I haven't been meditating for very long but I've definitely experienced the feeling of just being in the now - it happens when I temporarily detach from all the random thoughts running through my mind.

Have you not experienced something similar? Do you really see life as just "an uneven reception of stimuli"?

I think it's extremely uncommon for a person to truly understand the nature of his or her reality, if it's even possible at all. Maybe that's what enlightenment is. Instead of stubbornly refuting others' experiences, and insisting that they're wrong, it might help to be more open to discussion. That will help all of us learn and explore different ideas.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Actually, ALG, you do remind me a bit of Simon Magus, the sorcerer.

Why, thank you. I have no prejudices against sorcery, witchcraft, magick etc. But only to the harmful ends that some people might try to apply these methods towards.

When he met Peter, he wanted some of the 'action', some of his spiritual powers, and he offered him money (hence the term simony). Peter rebuked him, saying these things could not be bought.

Yes, I recall the story. Simon Magus wished to know how to heal people's illnesses. He got rebuked for that.

I wonder whether things would have turned out differently, if Simon had simply not offered to pay money for the knowledge. For example, if Simon had simply said, "Please show me how to heal people's illnesses. I really hope to have the ability to help sick people."

The story of Simon Magus, if accepted as true, shows that people can and do have paranormal abilities, without necessarily being worshippers of any particular version of God. In that sense, the story of Buddha is similar. And also the story of Egyptian sorcerers who performed magickal deeds but were bested by Moses who had God on his side.

If one approaches spirituality with the idea that if I practice A, B and C hard enough (e.g. by using LoA), I will learn how to levitate, walk on water, or whatever, then one is definitely barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, that is a view that the Indian spiritual guru J Krishnamurti has expressed as well. He has disdain for the siddhis, which are paranormal abilities that one is said to be able to acquire through meditation etc. Krishnamurti frowns on siddhis, saying that they are distractions from true spiritual growth.

Incidentally the Law of Attraction is one of the eight siddhis (in the Mahabharata classification of siddhis). The LOA would be known as the prakamya siddhi - the power to realise one's desires.

Not all Indian spiritual teachers share J Krishnamurti's views though. Some view the development of siddhi powers as a good sign of spiritual progress, and therefore as something to be celebrated.

OK, let's take spirituality out of the equation. If someone wants a BMW, and practises LoA to get it, and then eventually gets one, great. I have no issue with that. I've never disputed that there may be some benefit in positive thinking and visualization, which, basically, what LoA is.

However, to constantly take this idea/belief and apply it to spirituality, quoting Christ and various saints, is stretching it.

Well in the context of this discussion, I mentioned levitation only because Kanzeon did. I should mention that there are more reported instances of levitation that what I've mentioned. Eg if you are somehow uncomfortable with the reference of Christian saints levitating, then I'll mention that walking on water is also one of the reported miracles of Buddha.

True Christian spirituality has nothing to do with trying to improve ones personal or financial status in this world. In fact, quite the opposite. The saints welcomed poverty, self-sacrifice, suffering and disgrace. They gave up everything to follow Christ, and if a miracle did manifest, it was by God's will, not theirs.

I do understand your perspective, but I would say that even within Christianity itself, the point is not so clear-cut. Eg there is the prosperity bible movement. Solomon wasn't poor either. Job's story in the Bible has a lot to do with material well-being.

I think that poverty can have something to do with spiritual growth, but that we must strive to be clear about the why's and what's. Otherwise, there could be some strange consequences in the world. Eg why should we ever practise charity and help the poor? If poverty is a blessing, then to alleviate poverty would be to take away God's blessing from people.

The way I look at it, material things can be an obstacle to spiritual growth, if one is attached to them, to the extent that one neglects spiritual growth or forgets God. Seen in this context, we might validly say that it is better to be poor and remember God, than to be rich and forget God.

On the other hand, poverty in itself is no guarantee that one will focus on spiritual growth and remember God. A poor man can be as attached to his humble little hut, as a rich man is attached to his mansion.

The other way I look at it is that some very spiritual people are materially poor, because they have reached the point where their relationship with God is so strong that they know God will provide for them, no matter what. So they have no inclination to hoard, save or earn. What they need, God will provide automatically.

But to me, this does not mean that if you are materially poor, then you will have a strong relationship with God. It just doesn't follow.

The last thing they would have wanted would have been a BMW!

Well, it's nice to know that the saints and I have at least one thing in common. I too do not want a BMW.

It is a little embarrassing, but I must admit that at the grand old age of 36, I still do not have a driving licence. In younger days, I was against cars as I felt that they were environmentally unfriendly. So I decided never to own a car.

I have reversed somewhat from that position, in that I do own a car. I bought one this year. However, I do not drive it. My wife drives it. I still have no licence. I take the train to work. I still believe that this is a little bit that I can do, for the welfare of our planet.

You might recall that I am a highly successful lawyer working in an investment bank. Money is truly not the issue here. If I wanted a BMW, I could have a couple.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I wonder whether things would have turned out differently, if Simon had simply not offered to pay money for the knowledge. For example, if Simon had simply said, "Please show me how to heal people's illnesses. I really hope to have the ability to help sick people."

Hmm, I'm not so sure. There is usually a lesson behing the stories in the NT. My interpretation is that maybe Simon was not ready spiritually to have those gifts. Perhaps he was still into the glamour of performing magic tricks. If he had asked that question, I suspect Peter would have said something like, 'Take up your cross and follow Christ', and even that would have been no guarantee of being granted the charism of healing.

The story of Simon Magus, if accepted as true, shows that people can and do have paranormal abilities, without necessarily being worshippers of any particular version of God. In that sense, the story of Buddha is similar. And also the story of Egyptian sorcerers who performed magickal deeds but were bested by Moses who had God on his side.

Yes, I believe there have been (and still are) magicians/sorcerers who can defy the laws of nature. And, maybe science will be able to explain it one day.

I do understand your perspective, but I would say that even within Christianity itself, the point is not so clear-cut. Eg there is the prosperity bible movement.

I have a strong aversion to those money-grabbing televangelists. They are not true Christians in my view. They are mavericks using religion to con the gullible.

The way I look at it, material things can be an obstacle to spiritual growth, if one is attached to them, to the extent that one neglects spiritual growth or forgets God. Seen in this context, we might validly say that it is better to be poor and remember God, than to be rich and forget God.

On the other hand, poverty in itself is no guarantee that one will focus on spiritual growth and remember God. A poor man can be as attached to his humble little hut, as a rich man is attached to his mansion.

Agreed.

It is all too easy to get anything (material) we want these days, just by flashing the plastic. The challenge for many of us is to learn 'not to want'.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with having the nice things in life, so long as we don't get too possessive or obsessed with them.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I have a strong aversion to those money-grabbing televangelists. They are not true Christians in my view. They are mavericks using religion to con the gullible.

I have some aversion to them too. However, I can't quite pinpoint the exact source of my aversion.

I think it may be because as a lawyer and ex-banker, I am aware that these churches (at least in my country) are getting huge amounts of money from their congregations, and yet (until very recently) have not been subject to the same kind of accounting rules and disclosure requirements that apply to secular charitable organisations.

So the theoretical possibility of fraud and misuse of funds seems higher.

Also, I think that these churches get a lot of money as a result of their sleek marketing strategies and that somehow smells wrong to me.

But at the same time, a friend did point out to me that these rich churches do carry out a lot of good works in my country (eg they make donations to schools, hospitals etc) and the scale of work they do is way, way beyond what the more traditional and much poorer churches here are able to do.