Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The human experiences duality from birth, yes, though duality itself is not the problem, as we see in the awakened ones who remain in duality, but without suffering, because human consciousness has been transcended. The newborn is also not suffering in spite of the crying and discomfort, but it is for a different reason that the baby does not suffer.

The baby does not suffer for the same reason that most other animals don't suffer; they have not learned to conceptualize and project the separate 'me' into the future and struggle with their projections. But of course the mind of the baby learns to do this, and learns from others that it is separate and that it is not safe. This happens around age 2, and it is this that is the eviction from paradise; the bite of the apple of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Before this, there was not a garden of Eden. There was nothing.

What do you base your idea about age 2 on? I mean how do you know that it happens at this very age?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

As mentioned before, I see the eden story as a metaphor for what happens in every individual's life. If it referred to some distant past, it wouldn't actually be entirely metaphorical.

Arc, I've no problem with this whatsoever. As previously mentioned, there are many levels of understanding with regards the metaphorical account written in Genesis. For instance the account of the seven days of creation is a metaphor in itself, again on a number of levels, each relating to it's own illustration. Included in these are;

1. The stages of prerequisites that support life on earth.
2. The first 70 years of our lives, that is - each of the seven days representing ten years.
3. Creation week references the 7000 years of creation - of which, we are presently situated right at the end of day 6, about to enter day 7 - the day of rest.
4. The 7 days also represents the planet's population - all the way up to seven billion people, and then - the correction as assured.

All this is just one reason why I maintain that no average subjective Joe could possibly have written the account with such amazing vision and acumen. Indeed it was certainly man who put pen to paper, yet it was the objectivity of INTELLIGENCE alone - through the mind of the man responsible, who directed the pen.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Dualistic experience is what it is, which is to say dualistic. There can't be all the good stuff without the bad stuff. As such, the destiny of mankind is to transcend duality, which means transcending human consciousness. This is what 'enlightenment' refers to. While mankind's arrogance knows no bounds, there is never a point at which humankind becomes curator of the universe. Humans are a minuscule, and nonessential, part of the unfolding of Consciousness itself.

Well I have to disagree with you there. INTELLIGENCE (or God if you prefer), being The Creator of the universe has no physicality whatsoever, therefore needed to create man as His physicality - His arms and legs. But also, in order to relate to the physicality that is the universe, He also provided us with emotions in order that we have a subjective perspective of reality.

So we are in fact the physical representation, the body INTELLIGENCE. Yet by choice, for the past 6000 years, our emotions via our subjectivity, have overlayed the infinitely more authentic objective perspective, and become our greatest dilemma, therefore requiring correction, for they have ruled our lives in a manner approaching rampant. Consequently prior to our ascension to our allotted position, we must bring our emotions under control in order that Intelligence again reigns supreme in our mentality. As such, our submission will be to the authority of INTELLIGENCE rather than our vacillating, whimsical emotions.

It is only then, as one, the corrected few of earth's population, will indeed ascend to their appointed position as curator of HIS universe.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Irisha

What do you base your idea about age 2 on? I mean how do you know that it happens at this very age?

I'll let Arc respond to your question as he sees it, Irisha. Until then, this is how I see this dynamic unfolding....

At some point prior the age of 10, we knowingly, that is; by conscious choice, cross over the forbidden line into the zone marked 'death to all that enter'. This in fact eventuated for me around 6, when I lied to a teacher in class about what I'd done. I baulked, I hesitated, went red in the face, for I knew what the answer was that I needed to give, but I felt embarrassed, so decided to lie instead.

Immediately I did, it was as if my whole world crashed in on me. I felt devastated, ashamed, sick and filthy. The guilt that washed over me in those few seconds was debilitating to say the least. I wanted to run and hide, but there was nowhere to go. So I had to sit there in all my shame.

I think this is the moment and type of choice to action, to which Arc is eluding, for it changes us from inside, from an innocent to an offender, from having a primarily objective perception to subjective, which effectively sees us banished from the Garden of Eden.

That is - until and unless we work out our dilemma, and make the necessary corrections in order to again get back in.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Ok, how is this for starters; The Book of Genesis, predominantly explains the reasoning behind an assurance to us, that death (as we understand it) was never an intended consequence of being alive in the first instance.

When we were first created, we 'lived in the (metaphorical) Garden of Eden'; a scriptural definition of an objective mindset. In that original condition, we would never be required to suffer death, except by choice. Yet something eventuated that changed this dynamic. The Choice was made, and by that choice we lost, or rather rejected that default objective perspective, and subsequently became predominantly subjective. As such, we 'lost' access to the metaphorical Garden, and therefore also by default CHOSE our personal demise.

Now there actually IS a verifiable way back into that metaphorical Garden, an obvious restoration of that original default to the way we exist, that is; an objective perspective of reality.

The result of this will be an infinite perspective of the universe, infinite possibilities at our disposal, and an eternal lifespan to enjoy all this. For we would surely have ascended to our originally designated position as; curator of the universe.

I think our respective views on the universe aren't really compatible. I appreciate you taking some time to elaborate on yours however. Enjoy the rest of the discussion. I'm out

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Irisha

What do you base your idea about age 2 on? I mean how do you know that it happens at this very age?

Around the age of 2 to 3.

The 'terrible two's' is the result of the eviction from paradise; the entering of the gates of hell. We get used to it, sorta. Hehe.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well I have to disagree with you there. INTELLIGENCE (or God if you prefer), being The Creator of the universe has no physicality whatsoever, therefore needed to create man as His physicality - His arms and legs. But also, in order to relate to the physicality that is the universe, He also provided us with emotions in order that we have a subjective perspective of reality.

So we are in fact the physical representation, the body INTELLIGENCE. Yet by choice, for the past 6000 years, our emotions via our subjectivity, have overlayed the infinitely more authentic objective perspective, and become our greatest dilemma, therefore requiring correction, for they have ruled our lives in a manner approaching rampant. Consequently prior to our ascension to our allotted position, we must bring our emotions under control in order that Intelligence again reigns supreme in our mentality. As such, our submission will be to the authority of INTELLIGENCE rather than our vacillating, whimsical emotions.

It is only then, as one, the corrected few of earth's population, will indeed ascend to their appointed position as curator of HIS universe.

The idea of thought ruling over feeling as the preferred destiny of mankind may come from your intellectual inclinations. While it's certainly possible to live more from one aspect than the other, this would represent an imbalance. Thought and feeling are already fully integrated as different aspects of the same expression.

However, what I was saying about duality is more fundamental than one's mental or emotional predilections. I'm saying all of experience is made up of dualistic perception, which is fundamentally thought, and which consists of mutually defining pairs of ideas. Since they are mutually defining, both polarities are present always, and though one may be favored over the other, they remain inseparable, as two sides of the same coin. This means there cannot be good without bad, or love without hate or control without loss of control of peace without turmoil, etc.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I'll let Arc respond to your question as he sees it, Irisha. Until then, this is how I see this dynamic unfolding....

At some point prior the age of 10, we knowingly, that is; by conscious choice, cross over the forbidden line into the zone marked 'death to all that enter'. This in fact eventuated for me around 6, when I lied to a teacher in class about what I'd done. I baulked, I hesitated, went red in the face, for I knew what the answer was that I needed to give, but I felt embarrassed, so decided to lie instead.

Immediately I did, it was as if my whole world crashed in on me. I felt devastated, ashamed, sick and filthy. The guilt that washed over me in those few seconds was debilitating to say the least. I wanted to run and hide, but there was nowhere to go. So I had to sit there in all my shame.

I think this is the moment and type of choice to action, to which Arc is eluding, for it changes us from inside, from an innocent to an offender, from having a primarily objective perception to subjective, which effectively sees us banished from the Garden of Eden.

That is - until and unless we work out our dilemma, and make the necessary corrections in order to again get back in.

No, not what I was alluding to. I mean the point at which you were able to understand yourself as a separate 'me'. Chances are you don't have any personal memories prior to this time because the person hadn't been fully conceptualized.

As far as shame and guilt, this is learned. My wild guess is Catholic school?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The idea of thought ruling over feeling as the preferred destiny of mankind may come from your intellectual inclinations. While it's certainly possible to live more from one aspect than the other, this would represent an imbalance. Thought and feeling are already fully integrated as different aspects of the same expression.

However, what I was saying about duality is more fundamental than one's mental or emotional predilections. I'm saying all of experience is made up of dualistic perception, which is fundamentally thought, and which consists of mutually defining pairs of ideas. Since they are mutually defining, both polarities are present always, and though one may be favored over the other, they remain inseparable, as two sides of the same coin. This means there cannot be good without bad, or love without hate or control without loss of control of peace without turmoil, etc.

The word I've bolded above has long been operative, for me.

The earth has magnetic field around it, with a positive polarity at one end, and a negative polarity at the other. Though we may like to think that anything "positive" is naturally better than anything "negative", as you suggest, Arc, they're both "mutually defining" (a new term of yours I just learned. YAY! )

I also agree that favoring one polarity over the other, for whatever reason, is due to perception, behind which lies assumptions (or 'projections', as you often use), which are manufactured through thought (which also includes the emotions that thought generates).

I'm so glad, Arc, that I can now so much better understand you. Weird how all that worked out.

Edit: As I review this post, it seems I'm still in a somewhat linear mode.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

The word I've bolded above has long been operative, for me.

The earth has magnetic field around it, with a positive polarity at one end, and a negative polarity at the other. Though we may like to think that anything "positive" is naturally better than anything "negative", as you suggest, Arc, they're both "mutually defining" (a new term of yours I just learned. YAY! )

I also agree that favoring one polarity over the other, for whatever reason, is due to perception, behind which lies assumptions (or 'projections', as you often use), which are manufactured through thought (which also includes the emotions that thought generates).

I'm so glad, Arc, that I can now so much better understand you. Weird how all that worked out.

Edit: As I review this post, it seems I'm still in a somewhat linear mode.

Yeah, I resonate with all that there. The idea of better and worse is just one more dualistic pair that is experienced. It doesn't really mean that good is not better than bad or that a hug is not better than a sharp stick in the eye, it just means that all of it is relative and has no ultimate foundation. All dualistic pairs are imagined out of nothingness and then expressed in the world as our actual experience. In this way we can call life a dream of Consciousness, but the point is that there is no one-ended stick and so there cannot be happiness without unhappiness. Not as dualistic experience.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yeah, I resonate with all that there. The idea of better and worse is just one more dualistic pair that is experienced. It doesn't really mean that good is not better than bad or that a hug is not better than a sharp stick in the eye, it just means that all of it is relative and has no ultimate foundation. All dualistic pairs are imagined out of nothingness and then expressed in the world as our actual experience. In this way we can call life a dream of Consciousness, but the point is that there is no one-ended stick and so there cannot be happiness without unhappiness. Not as dualistic experience.

Indeed. Lends a whole new understanding to "gotta take the 'good' with the 'bad'."

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The idea of thought ruling over feeling as the preferred destiny of mankind may come from your intellectual inclinations.

You've misunderstood. It isn't about 'thought ruling over feelings' at all, for feelings (or rather emotions) are always going to be insclued as part of our thought process, which is defined as; a conjoining of emotions and Intelligence into our consciousness. Rather it is the balance between the two that is out-of-whack, and therefore generates all of the disease with which we live and die - where we favour, that is (by default) CHOOSE emotions over our (our portion of) Intelligence.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

While it's certainly possible to live more from one aspect than the other, this would represent an imbalance. Thought and feeling are already fully integrated as different aspects of the same expression.

Indeed, however by default we favour the aspect that provides nothing more than the catalyst to action (very often in detrimental ways) towards creation, and negligently deny the eternal power source underpinning all creation, the authentic and universal CREATOR - INTELLIGENCE. Not by any definition does this dynamic represent a balanced integration for us.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

However, what I was saying about duality is more fundamental than one's mental or emotional predilections. I'm saying all of experience is made up of dualistic perception, which is fundamentally thought, and which consists of mutually defining pairs of ideas. Since they are mutually defining, both polarities are present always, and though one may be favored over the other, they remain inseparable, as two sides of the same coin. This means there cannot be good without bad, or love without hate or control without loss of control of peace without turmoil, etc.

Not a bad summary my friend, for our default paradigm of existence, for the dynamics we've endured for 6000 years. Yet there is great paradox, disease, destruction, despair and death incorporated into this paradigm. Therefore a major correction is required, and is underway this very minute to remedy all this disease, to create, or rather re-create an infinitely greater paradigm for those who desire it, long for it, accept it.

This correction might appear basic enough - simply change the mix into the individual consciousness, less of this and more of that, yet this is NEVER going to eventuate until one makes an informed choice for it. And before he can do this, he needs to be informed, and previous to this someone needs to have acquired the Intelligent details to prompt him towards awareness. And prior to this, that someone needs to have been informed, educated on the details, at least, no ALWAYS directly through the very ONE who set up these paradigms in the first instance - indeed The Universal INTELLIGENCE (God if you prefer) Himself.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

No, not what I was alluding to. I mean the point at which you were able to understand yourself as a separate 'me'. Chances are you don't have any personal memories prior to this time because the person hadn't been fully conceptualized.

Ah, yes now I see. I do so appreciate definitions. Yes I accept, this must eventuate prior to such as my experience as expressed previously.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

As far as shame and guilt, this is learned. My wild guess is Catholic school?

Shame and guilt for me hit like a thunderbolt in an instance. After that, Catholic school would merely have reinforced it a million times over - if I'd gone to one, but at least I was spared such indignity, thankfully.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

This correction might appear basic enough - simply change the mix into the individual consciousness, less of this and more of that, yet this is NEVER going to eventuate until one makes an informed choice for it. And before he can do this, he needs to be informed, and previous to this someone needs to have acquired the Intelligent details to prompt him towards awareness. And prior to this, that someone needs to have been informed, educated on the details, at least, no ALWAYS directly through the very ONE who set up these paradigms in the first instance - indeed The Universal INTELLIGENCE (God if you prefer) Himself.

I understand what you're saying here about being informed, but what about individual interest or inquisition? As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I mean the point at which you were able to understand yourself as a separate 'me'. Chances are you don't have any personal memories prior to this time because the person hadn't been fully conceptualized.

There CAN be personal memories prior to this time. I have personal memories about the day I was born. And I remember that I saw this world as a dualistic world because I knew what was good and what was bad for me. I remember I was wrapped too tight, and I didn't like it. I tried to make my arms and legs free, but I couldn't. And I remember what I thought about that! That's why I think that this conceptualizing, and this dualistic world starts much earlier for us than at the age of two, - maybe in the womb, or even - who can know? - at the moment of being conceived. We just cannot have the access to this memory.
So, where is this Eden Garden? I think it's in the place which you call realization, Oneness. Though you say that Oneness can't be called like that. But in Oneness everything merges... That's why it doesn't matter how to call it.

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

If we cant then the image you put make no sense. So basically we can create universes but we cant do something as simple as affecting one?

Luciddd, the "image" you speak of...





...is meant to show the sovereignty, wholeness, and “sameness” of each individual mind, including the fact that our minds not only continue to exist after the death of the body, but have awakened into the same form and context as that of our Creator.

It is meant to “suggest” that our ultimate “Parent” is a Being of consciousness just like each of us (or as we will be “post partum” from said Parent), who has made it to the heights of control over its own mental essence.

I am talking about control to the point where it is able to fashion the “subjective” (dream-like) fabric of its own mind into such sublime perfection, that through the fabric itself, it is able to awaken its literal “offspring” (us – our minds) into individualizations of personal consciousness just like itself.

We are then “birthed out" of the “dream-like fabric” and into our “true” eternal form (and when we see God "...we shall be like him...”).

Originally Posted by Luciddd

So if I were capable of withdrawing myself 100% inwards into my mind and remain there forever you say I would be able to create universes as real as this one?

That is 100% correct.

Also, it is not a question of whether you are “capable” or not. It will be an inevitable occurrence when you exit your physical body.

And it isn't so much of a 100% "withdrawing" into your mind, but more of a 100% "awakening" into full-consciousness of your mind and the full realization and access to your vast potential.

Furthermore, you will not be creating “universes” (plural). It will be just one universe whose totality will be delineated and circumscribed by the sum-total of your own living being.

Luciddd, the universe that you will create will literally be made out of you. It will be sculpted from the essence of your own mind – created from the same “fabric” that forms your thoughts and dreams.

That’s why the suns and planets of this universe (“objective” reality) can be thought of as a “dream-like” illusion.

It is all created from the same holographic-like mental essence that dreams are created from, only it belongs exclusively to another living Being, not to you, and not to any other human (you have your own, so stop coveting God's essence ).

Think of how “real” the features of your dreams are right now in the semi-consciousness of sleep. Now imagine rising a step above that and acquiring full-consciousness and full creative control of your dream substances at the moment of “physical” death.

Now, just add eternal life to that scenario.

If we truly are created to live “forever,” then we simply must have something logical to do to fill the void of our eternal existence. And the creation and maintenance of our own personal universe seems to fit that bill quite nicely in many ways.

It will be the ultimate expression of our own inward creative potential that will eventually culminate in the ability to conceive our own offspring within ourselves (within our minds – our universes), just as God has done with us.

Think of the birth of the human soul and mind as being the “natural” propagation of new life at the highest level of existence.


(continued in next post)


seeds

[seeds]

____________

(continued from previous post #705)

Originally Posted by Luciddd

But universes must be placed somewhere, there is a good support of evidence that interaction between universes is possible, if what you say is true then a universe is 100% closed and nothing can go in or out of it.

If what I say is true, then each universe (of which there could be an infinite and exponentially growing number) is “literally alive” and is founded upon the existence of one sovereign individualization of self-aware consciousness like you, or me, or the Creator of this universe.

And just as it is right now, there will be an “inward” and “outward” aspect to our minds.

In our present state, we can either direct our awareness “inward” toward the “subjective” essence of our own inner being and shape it into absolutely anything imaginable (or) we can direct our awareness “outward” to experience the “objective” reality of the universe and the presence of each other’s living being.

What I am suggesting is that when we awaken into our ultimate form, the inward/outward aspect of our consciousness will still be in play. However, when we project our awareness outward, we will experience each other's "true" form, rather than these physical facades that temporarily mask the majesty of what we really are.

From our present perspective, it is impossible to imagine what we will look like to each other, or how we will interact (or a million other questions), but the bottom line is, we will look like whatever it is that God looks like, and we will interact with each other in a way that is even more natural than now, for, again, we will be in our "true" and eternal form.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Having said that I agree with you completely in some tenets, however I do not agree in the "100% closed space" thing, there has been extraordinary accounts through history, if we really cant do anything regarding the present universe then basically it means that everyone through history who has ever claimed to be able to do so some of them great sages is nothing but a liar.

Perhaps not lying, but maybe exaggerating a tad, or even experiencing a delusion.

Remember, I am claiming that humans possess the “potential” of creating a universe out of their own imagination substance, in which case, they could certainly create some convincing self-delusions while on earth.

Now, I am not denying the “possibility” of humans being able to do something extraordinary during their momentary existence within the universe of our Creator’s mind.

I am merely suggesting that any such occurrence would need to be accomplished via some “indirect” method sanctioned by God, or by direct assistance by God Himself (the owner of the universe).

As I keep asserting over and over again in this thread, the creation fabric of this universe is not ours to wield directly with our own personal wills.

To understand the reason for certain “restrictions,” think of the universe as being God’s mentally constructed cosmic “womb,” and our bodies as being the “placentas” that encase our ultimate and eternal form.

In which case (if it were up to you), how much latitude would you allow your “fetuses” to have in disrupting the order that facilitates the actual conception of your “fetuses”?


(For a quick peek at an illustration to help visualize this, click here: Bubbles of Consciousness then scroll-down when you land on the "bubbles of consciousness" picture page.)


seeds

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I understand what you're saying here about being informed, but what about individual interest or inquisition? As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Excellent question indeed. Now have you ever heard the parable expressed by Yashua (Jesus to some), about the sower and the seeds?

Matthew 3-9 “Behold, the sower went out to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear.”

In this parable, we learn many things, yet the few I'd like to draw your attention to are ... the soil represents one's mentality/interest, and as any farmer knows, soil needs to be well prepared prior to planting. Firstly it needs to be friable, then it needs to be broken up, loosened so the air and water can gain deeper access to it. Then it needs to sit for a while to sweeten, a little fertiliser added and watered in - all prior to the sower planting his seeds into it.

The above process represents the work that INTELLIGENCE (the farmer in this case) performs upon our consciousness prior to the seed being planted. He is required to break us up in order for fresh air and water to gain access to our hard, unforgiving, arrogant nature. Then sweeten, fertilise and allow it to rest.

After all this preparation work, the sower, which represents the person or persons being (whether knowingly, often not) directed by INTELLIGENCE, to prompt that consciousness towards the direction that all this preparation has been about.

The seed represents the realisation of reality, or rather the kernel of that realisation, which germinates and grows towards completion. This growth can only be thwarted through a choice of rejection of that fullness being reached. The end result then, will always be a combination of the input of INTELLIGENCE into that mentality/consciousness through the CHOICE of that consciousness to accept.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Matthew 3-9 “Behold, the sower went out to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear.”

[...]

The seed represents the realisation of reality, or rather the kernel of that realisation, which germinates and grows towards completion. This growth can only be thwarted through a choice of rejection of that fullness being reached. The end result then, will always be a combination of the input of INTELLIGENCE into that mentality/consciousness through the CHOICE of that consciousness to accept.

Interesting. I have, for some time, considered this very explanation of this very parable (with only some slightly different terminology)

Was just checking to make sure you didn't think that you were the seed.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Interesting. I have, for some time, considered this very explanation of this very parable (with only some slightly different terminology)

Was just checking to make sure you didn't think that you were the seed.

No I'm not the seed, unless you expect I can be somehow planted into someone's consciousness. LOL

The point of course is that whenever you have an interest towards a genuine investigating into anything according the OBJECTIVE reality of existence, you can be assured this interest is coming into your consciousness from your Intelligence.

On the other hand, you will often have an interest in (say) enjoying an ice-cream or watching a horror movie or punching someone in the face or burning down someone's house. such suggestions, rather than merging into your consciousness from your Intelligence, are emanating from the opposing side of your consciousness - indeed from your emotions.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by seeds

Because it would wreak havoc on the stability of your own inner being. That's why not.

It is the same reason why humans are not allowed to reach into the fabric of the universe with their wills and make direct changes to the suns and planets according to their personal whims.

It would wreak havoc on the stability of the universe (you yourself hinted at that earlier in post #199).

But it doesn't mean that it never happens! Yes, that's not what humans should do, but it doesn't mean some of them cannot do that. They are not allowed? They don't ask about the permission! They just have the abilities to reach into the fabric of the universe, and they do things, though not the ones which take too much energy, but the ones they feel comfortable with.

Originally Posted by seeds

I am guessing that you may think that only those who are at a suitable level of consciousness would be able to change things in the universe because they would understand when and when not to monkey with something.

However, that brings us back to an earlier "suggestion" I made of how the creation "substance" of each sovereign mind (and that includes the mind of God – the universe) is connected to, and controlled by, "one will" and one will only.

Your mind is a separate "universe" under the control of your will; my mind is a separate "universe" under the control of my will; and God's mind is a separate universe under the control of His* will. seeds

This will is from God only.
My and your will is not under our control. We actually don't have our own will. Those who have the abilities to change the fabric of the universe are also under God's Will only. And their abilities do not depend on the level of their consciousness. They just have their abilities because it's the God's Will.

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by seeds

____________

(continued from previous post #705)



If what I say is true, then each universe (of which there could be an infinite and exponentially growing number) is “literally alive” and is founded upon the existence of one sovereign individualization of self-aware consciousness like you, or me, or the Creator of this universe.

And just as it is right now, there will be an “inward” and “outward” aspect to our minds.

In our present state, we can either direct our awareness “inward” toward the “subjective” essence of our own inner being and shape it into absolutely anything imaginable (or) we can direct our awareness “outward” to experience the “objective” reality of the universe and the presence of each other’s living being.

What I am suggesting is that when we awaken into our ultimate form, the inward/outward aspect of our consciousness will still be in play. However, when we project our awareness outward, we will experience each other's "true" form, rather than these physical facades that temporarily mask the majesty of what we really are.

From our present perspective, it is impossible to imagine what we will look like to each other, or how we will interact (or a million other questions), but the bottom line is, we will look like whatever it is that God looks like, and we will interact with each other in a way that is even more natural than now, for, again, we will be in our "true" and eternal form.



Perhaps not lying, but maybe exaggerating a tad, or even experiencing a delusion.

Remember, I am claiming that humans possess the “potential” of creating a universe out of their own imagination substance, in which case, they could certainly create some convincing self-delusions while on earth.

Now, I am not denying the “possibility” of humans being able to do something extraordinary during their momentary existence within the universe of our Creator’s mind.

I am merely suggesting that any such occurrence would need to be accomplished via some “indirect” method sanctioned by God, or by direct assistance by God Himself (the owner of the universe).

As I keep asserting over and over again in this thread, the creation fabric of this universe is not ours to wield directly with our own personal wills.

To understand the reason for certain “restrictions,” think of the universe as being God’s mentally constructed cosmic “womb,” and our bodies as being the “placentas” that encase our ultimate and eternal form.

In which case (if it were up to you), how much latitude would you allow your “fetuses” to have in disrupting the order that facilitates the actual conception of your “fetuses”?


(For a quick peek at an illustration to help visualize this, click here: Bubbles of Consciousness then scroll-down when you land on the "bubbles of consciousness" picture page.)


seeds

I think you mistook, you said upon the death of my physical life, I think you mean we achieve this upon the death of MANY physical lifes, as some level must have been reached.

I mean if it were that easy, that would mean I can simply grab a shotgun and with one click I would be in "infinity land" with zero effort.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

The point of course is that whenever you have an interest towards a genuine investigating into anything according the OBJECTIVE reality of existence, you can be assured this interest is coming into your consciousness from your Intelligence.

On the other hand, you will often have an interest in (say) enjoying an ice-cream or watching a horror movie or punching someone in the face or burning down someone's house. such suggestions, rather than merging into your consciousness from your Intelligence, are emanating from the opposing side of your consciousness - indeed from your emotions.

So, how do you know if you're "genuine[ly] investigating into anything according to OBJECTIVE reality"? Are emotions the only indication that one is being subjective?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Ah, yes now I see. I do so appreciate definitions. Yes I accept, this must eventuate prior to such as my experience as expressed previously.

Shame and guilt for me hit like a thunderbolt in an instance. After that, Catholic school would merely have reinforced it a million times over - if I'd gone to one, but at least I was spared such indignity, thankfully.

The Catholic nuns probly would have done you in completely.

[cheesedip1]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The Catholic nuns probly would have done you in completely.

One time , a nun got mad at me for not holding the door open for her.

You can't make this stuff up.

Seriously, tho. I was like....7 years old, at the time..


---Also, lately, I've noticed that as I've changed some inner beliefs, people around me react to me differently.

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Irisha

But it doesn't mean that it never happens! Yes, that's not what humans should do, but it doesn't mean some of them cannot do that. They are not allowed? They don't ask about the permission! They just have the abilities to reach into the fabric of the universe, and they do things...

Hi Irisha,

Would you mind supplying us with some “irrefutable” examples of those who have reached into the fabric of the universe and have done things?

And please, try not to offer up something that David Blaine or Criss Angel could pull-off (they would be “gods” in certain regions of the earth ).


seeds

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by seeds

Hi Irisha,

Would you mind supplying us with some “irrefutable” examples of those who have reached into the fabric of the universe and have done things?

And please, try not to offer up something that David Blaine or Criss Angel could pull-off (they would be “gods” in certain regions of the earth ).


seeds

What kind of examples do you need? The ones that can be verified with some tools, some devices?
I am in contact with such a person right now.
If they wish they can show you the face of somebody you don't know, and make you recognize them as your grandmother, or do many other things of the kind with you. Can make hypnotic suggestions distantly. Several times they made healings of the people through me, also distantly. Isn't it doing things with the fabric of the Universe?
Are there tools to prove that? I think there aren't. Then how to prove? Only if they agree to show you what they can do, so that you could be sure about that. Will you believe if you feel it yourself? I think it's the only way to prove it.
If they don't agree, then what can I do? If you don't believe, don't believe. Just miss this opportunity without checking. Or find the way to check it out yourself. (If they don't agree to show you). I've written in some detail about the phenomenon in psychic and paranormal sub-forum.
No, this person has nothing to do with street magic and performances. He is hiding his abilities to be able to use them without problems.

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

I think you mistook, you said upon the death of my physical life, I think you mean we achieve this upon the death of MANY physical lifes, as some level must have been reached.

Hi Luciddd,

I infer two major assumptions in your statement above.

The first assumption is that “reincarnation” is true.

And the second assumption is that there is no mode or means through-which to advance ourselves once we awaken into our ultimate form.

Of course it is just my personal opinion, but I believe that both of those assumptions are false.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

I mean if it were that easy, that would mean I can simply grab a shotgun and with one click I would be in "infinity land" with zero effort.

Congratulations, you have just stated, in the most eloquent way possible, the precise reason why humans are not allowed to see and believe (beyond a shadow of a doubt) the truth of their ultimate destiny.

If God were to reveal to His “fetuses” the absolute truth of the wondrous destiny that awaits them (I mean reveal it to the point of it being 100% certain), then your “shotgun” scenario would make sense (though I can think of less messier and less dramatic ways of “inducing labor and delivery,” so to speak).

Some are not ready for this...

...but the truth of the matter is that it would be perfectly okay for you birth yourself out of your body by your own hand anytime you wish, and the outcome would still be the same as if you had died of natural causes.

However, consider the affect that such a "cavalier" outlook on death would have on God’s “reproductive system.”

If the ultimate truth was not hidden from us, then rest assured that humans long ago would have found a quick and easy way of exiting their physical bodies in order to awaken into their ultimate form.

In which case, you and I would not be having this conversation because all human procreation on this planet would have ceased from the start.

This may sound silly, but God granting us “absolute” knowledge of our ultimate destiny would be the equivalent of giving “Herself” a “hysterectomy.”


seeds

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by cheesedip1

One time , a nun got mad at me for not holding the door open for her.

You can't make this stuff up.

Seriously, tho. I was like....7 years old, at the time..


---Also, lately, I've noticed that as I've changed some inner beliefs, people around me react to me differently.

Let's hope you learned your lesson cheesy, and now hold doors open for all nuns.

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by seeds

Hi Luciddd,

I infer two major assumptions in your statement above.

The first assumption is that “reincarnation” is true.

And the second assumption is that there is no mode or means through-which to advance ourselves once we awaken into our ultimate form.

Of course it is just my personal opinion, but I believe that both of those assumptions are false.



Congratulations, you have just stated, in the most eloquent way possible, the precise reason why humans are not allowed to see and believe (beyond a shadow of a doubt) the truth of their ultimate destiny.

If God were to reveal to His “fetuses” the absolute truth of the wondrous destiny that awaits them (I mean reveal it to the point of it being 100% certain), then your “shotgun” scenario would make sense (though I can think of less messier and less dramatic ways of “inducing labor and delivery,” so to speak).

Some are not ready for this...

...but the truth of the matter is that it would be perfectly okay for you birth yourself out of your body by your own hand anytime you wish, and the outcome would still be the same as if you had died of natural causes.

However, consider the affect that such a "cavalier" outlook on death would have on God’s “reproductive system.”

If the ultimate truth was not hidden from us, then rest assured that humans long ago would have found a quick and easy way of exiting their physical bodies in order to awaken into their ultimate form.

In which case, you and I would not be having this conversation because all human procreation on this planet would have ceased from the start.

This may sound silly, but God granting us “absolute” knowledge of our ultimate destiny would be the equivalent of giving “Herself” a “hysterectomy.”


seeds

But then why doesnt people report that after having NDE? I mean sure some people may have reported what you say I dont know the 100% of NDE's but if so it wouldnt be everyone only certain number of people.

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

But then why doesnt people report that after having NDE? I mean sure some people may have reported what you say I dont know the 100% of NDE's but if so it wouldnt be everyone only certain number of people.

I think that part of the answer is in the acronym itself – NDE, “Near” Death Experience.

“Near" death means they have not yet experienced a complete and total awakening into the full consciousness of their mind and of their ultimate form, which, in turn, precludes a full awareness of the actual conditions on the “other side.”

From my perspective, they are still connected to the universe via a mental “umbilical cord” that not only keeps their spirit tethered to their physical body and to the inner dimension of the universe (God’s “spirit body”), but is also the reason for not being able to awaken “fully” into the context of the “outer” dimension.

Of course, like you, I am not familiar will the details of every NDE experience.

However, it seems that none of the returnees from the experience can give a precise and definitive answer regarding the truth of what “lies beyond.”

Nevertheless, they all appear to have a complete confidence in the fact that their life and their personal self-awareness will continue-on after death.

Remember what I suggested in a prior post, that “full disclosure” of our ultimate destiny could breach the order of God’s “reproductive system.”

Therefore, just as all humans on earth cannot be allowed to see what literally lies on the other side of the “veil”, likewise, the same goes for those who have momentarily “bungee-jumped” through the veil in a NDE.

I believe that for the sake of preserving order, their memories of what they allegedly witnessed are purposely made to be muted and hazy.


seeds