How to become a believer?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

David Hawkins' "God" is synonymous with Reality, to me, though a bit more, as he somewhat combines Reality and Love.

That's my take, anyway.

Yeah, sumthin like that.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Yes. He also mentions non-material entities such as angels and archangels. He just doesn't spend a whole lot of time discussing them, I think because such discussion inevitably ends up diluting the message.

But God Himself figures very prominently into his teachings. He's a huge proponent of faith-based healing groups like AA, which he calibrates at 550.

I think faith based healing groups are helpful too, but I don't believe in 'a God' and more than Hawkins does. Hawky is a context hopper extraordiaire, and it sometimes confuses peeps.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by lost

I'm border line atheist\agnostic\believe in God but not attached to a religion. I definitely have some soul searching to do. It indeed does take work to 'believe' and to really 'find yourself'. It doesn't just jump out at you like I used to think it would.

If it takes work to believe, it's really much more about losing yourself in delusion than it is about finding yourself.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Hawky is a context hopper extraordiaire, and it sometimes confuses peeps.

(though true on confusing peeps).

I'm more inclined to call it "context surfing", and, for some reason, I can resonate well with it.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If it takes work to believe, it's really much more about losing yourself in delusion than it is about finding yourself.

Which is really what 99% of spirituality is really about. Feeling better at all costs.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by gene2009

ChristsLight, i'm not warrying about terms of belief systems. I just want to do something that will sounds for like the true. For now, the words of those programs sounds like the true. However, that true is killing me.

Deciding whether or not to believe in God sounds like worrying about beliefs to me.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I think faith based healing groups are helpful too, but I don't believe in 'a God'

I'm with you here, Arc, but right now, I'm struggling with being defined an atheist because of it.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by larkok

I think what the OP is really after (and to some extent, myself) -- is that he wants PROOF. Some kind of evidence that will slant his belief system into the most beneficial way possible.

If there is no God, then where is the proof?

If there is, where is proof?

And so forth. Unfortunately, most people are heavily invested into their own personal experiences and convictions. To be able to form an effective belief system is to become inspired or contemplative of a "truth" or "proof" that manifests itself somehow in life.

This is a difficult thing to do. Atheists can say, "well, there is no proof of God because I have not witnessed a miracle". Yet a Catholic can say, "there IS proof of God, because my wife's cancer disappeared after I prayed to her."

So.. The issue here is, what proof do you need? I know for myself, I would want to witness a miracle. Or to be visited by some divine, ethereal being who would engage me in a conversation before I can FULLy believe in a God.

But since neither of the above has happened, I'm stuck with being an Agnostic. Sort of believing, but hardly convinced of it.

I'm waiting for proof.

As long as the only question is, 'is there or is there not a God', no answers will be forthcoming because the question is misconceived. Better to ask what in blazes is actually going on here and now in the mind that perceives. Lots of folks have come up with answers by asking that question, whether it's been through philosophy, psychology, science, or simply the search for truth at the core of anything.

Tying to find evidence for what you want to believe is the active denial of the actual truth, which actually has nothing to do with what you want to believe.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

(though true on confusing peeps).

I'm more inclined to call it "context surfing", and, for some reason, I can resonate well with it.

I like context-surfing. Sounds something like what I do.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If it takes work to believe, it's really much more about losing yourself in delusion than it is about finding yourself.

Delusion's an interesting thing. I think there's healthy self-delusion and there's unhealthy self-delusion. The healthy kind you find in politicians, sprinters, entrepreneurs and anyone who's involved in activities where much of the outcome is outside of a person's direct control. Sprinters can't control the other racers, politicians can't really control anything. Self-delusion allows them the mental freedom they need to operate effectively in their space.

The unhealthy kind is actually pretty rare, in my opinion, regardless of egoic observations of "all the dumb people in the world." People all do the best with what they have, and self-delusion is a critical tool for that.

Religion and faith are variations on the idea. There's a reason religious people tend to be happier on average than non-religious people.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I think faith based healing groups are helpful too, but I don't believe in 'a God' and more than Hawkins does. Hawky is a context hopper extraordiaire, and it sometimes confuses peeps.

Have you ever actually read Hawkins?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by gene2009

ChristsLight, i'm not warrying about terms of belief systems. I just want to do something that will sounds for like the true. For now, the words of those programs sounds like the true. However, that true is killing me.
----------


CroMagna, again, i did well before those tv programs. I was believed in what i did and felt. Now, i lost something inside myself.
----------

My experience is that truth is all about losing illusion, including the illusion of self identification, so if you've lost something and it's killing you, I'd say you're on the right track.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

(though true on confusing peeps).

I'm more inclined to call it "context surfing", and, for some reason, I can resonate well with it.

Hopping, surfing, skipping, it all works for me. Maybe the underlying message is, nothing you can think is ultimately true.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Hopping, surfing, skipping, it all works for me. Maybe the underlying message is, nothing you can think is ultimately true.

Sad, but true (I think).

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Which is really what 99% of spirituality is really about. Feeling better at all costs.

Exactamente. That's why it's called the spiritual circus.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I'm with you here, Arc, but right now, I'm struggling with being defined an atheist because of it.

Yeah, like I say, the whole question of God or no God is misconceived. Both camps will see you as wrong.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Delusion's an interesting thing. I think there's healthy self-delusion and there's unhealthy self-delusion. The healthy kind you find in politicians, sprinters, entrepreneurs and anyone who's involved in activities where much of the outcome is outside of a person's direct control. Sprinters can't control the other racers, politicians can't really control anything. Self-delusion allows them the mental freedom they need to operate effectively in their space.

The unhealthy kind is actually pretty rare, in my opinion, regardless of egoic observations of "all the dumb people in the world." People all do the best with what they have, and self-delusion is a critical tool for that.

Religion and faith are variations on the idea. There's a reason religious people tend to be happier on average than non-religious people.

I agree with that. The function of self delusion is to find ways to be happier. Since it IS delusion, it doesn't ultimately work. Then the problem is that what DOES work (the truth) demands that the delusions be let go of, and by then it feels like letting go of everything that made us happy. That seems to be the problem the OP is facing now.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Have you ever actually read Hawkins?

I think I've read everything he's written, and agree with it. Hawkins is Self realized, or Enlightened as folks like to say around here, which is the realization of oneness, which doesn't leave room for a personal God, nor any beliefs of any kind. He recommends various teachings such as ACIM that do present God as something of a personal God, and he does suggest surrendering to God, and he does see some things as more conducive to truth realization than others (calibrations) but these are contextually limited practices designed to help the student, as are all practices.

To be clear, Hawkins knows himself to be that God to which the word refers, as the singular source and substance of all. Obviously, everyone and everything IS this God. This is what Jesus meant by 'I and the Father are one'.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Sad, but true (I think).

Yeah, the sad thought really has no truth to it either.

[larkok]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

As long as the only question is, 'is there or is there not a God', no answers will be forthcoming because the question is misconceived. Better to ask what in blazes is actually going on here and now in the mind that perceives. Lots of folks have come up with answers by asking that question, whether it's been through philosophy, psychology, science, or simply the search for truth at the core of anything.

Tying to find evidence for what you want to believe is the active denial of the actual truth, which actually has nothing to do with what you want to believe.

Searching for truth is the active denial of it?

I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you suggesting we should rely on intuition in order to discern what the truth really is? And how will we know once we find it?

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I agree with that. The function of self delusion is to find ways to be happier. Since it IS delusion, it doesn't ultimately work. Then the problem is that what DOES work (the truth) demands that the delusions be let go of, and by then it feels like letting go of everything that made us happy. That seems to be the problem the OP is facing now.

I don't understand quite what you mean by "work" in this context. You seem to be indicating that there's some destination that people should be "working" towards that isn't their stated one. Sprinters' self-delusions are an integral part of their preparation, they wouldn't be able to run without it. So obviously it "works" in that sense.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I think I've read everything he's written, and agree with it. Hawkins is Self realized, or Enlightened as folks like to say around here, which is the realization of oneness, which doesn't leave room for a personal God, nor any beliefs of any kind. He recommends various teachings such as ACIM that do present God as something of a personal God, and he does suggest surrendering to God, and he does see some things as more conducive to truth realization than others (calibrations) but these are contextually limited practices designed to help the student, as are all practices.

To be clear, Hawkins knows himself to be that God to which the word refers, as the singular source and substance of all. Obviously, everyone and everything IS this God. This is what Jesus meant by 'I and the Father are one'.

May I suggest that you're conflating your own views with Hawkins's?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by larkok

Searching for truth is the active denial of it?

No, what I said is:

Tying to find evidence for what you want to believe is the active denial of the actual truth, which actually has nothing to do with what you want to believe.

Trying to find evidence for what you want to believe is not a search for what's actually true, just a search for evidence to support what you want to be true.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you suggesting we should rely on intuition in order to discern what the truth really is? And how will we know once we find it?

Intuition, direct perception, Gnosis, realization, seeing beyond mind, yes.

Truth is self evident.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

I don't understand quite what you mean by "work" in this context. You seem to be indicating that there's some destination that people should be "working" towards that isn't their stated one. Sprinters' self-delusions are an integral part of their preparation, they wouldn't be able to run without it. So obviously it "works" in that sense.

Nobody SHOULD be doing something other than what they're doing. I'm saying that delusions/illusions have inherent boundaries and eventually those boundaries prevent forward movement and this is no longer satisfying. That doesn't mean the sprinter or politician or fundamentalist may not be satisfied with their delusion their whole lives, and it certainly doesn't mean they SHOULD be doing something else, but in the larger context of humanity in general, those boundaries will be faced and transcended because they don't ultimately work.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

May I suggest that you're conflating your own views with Hawkins's?

May I suggest that you are?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by larkok

And how will we know once we find it?

That's one question you won't have to worry about. It's about the equivalent of wondering how you will know when you've fallen down the stairs. You won't be wondering if you just enjoyed a cappuccino or if you just imagined falling down the stairs. It literally just couldn't be any more obvious. What you are fully recognizes the truth without any hesitation, any doubt or any need to refer to mind about it.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

May I suggest that you are?

I knew you would say that!

My viewpoints and beliefs have been significantly changed by reading Hawkins. Can you say that yours has? Or have they simply been validated?

I say this because there's this dangerous tendency we have to not read for edification, rather for validation. So when I read, I have this "procedure" where I look at where my current beliefs lie and where the author's beliefs are, what his experience was in creating those beliefs, how that experience differs from mine.

This makes the other person real to me. I'm not just reading a stack of ideas, accepting or rejecting based on how those ideas "feel" to me. I think it is very important to avoid this tendency.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

That's one question you won't have to worry about. It's about the equivalent of wondering how you will know when you've fallen down the stairs.

... after finding the bottle of ketchup in the refrigerator.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

... after finding the bottle of ketchup in the refrigerator.

Hehe.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

I knew you would say that!

My viewpoints and beliefs have been significantly changed by reading Hawkins. Can you say that yours has? Or have they simply been validated?

They have been 'validated' because they weren't in error to begin with. Hehe. Hawky teaches from the same 'viewpoint' as Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Ramana, Nisargadatta, Mooji, Tony Parsons, etc, etc. If these teachings seem different to you, then you're not hearing what is being said. You're hearing what you want to hear.