Physical vs. Non-Physical Reality (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Physical vs. Non-Physical Reality

[tomn8er]

That was a very interesting article Steve! Using a dog to represent physical reality was an absurd but incredibly effective analogy. My question is this: is meditation the best way to get in tune with your non-physical self? Are there any other ways that might be equally or more effective? (I know you mentioned intuition, telepathy and desire, but I got the impression that some form of meditation is a prerequisite to experiencing these "non-physical frequencies" as well.)

[shant121]

Steve is back ) thank you, this was awesome!!! just what I was thinkin about this morning.

[ricky]

Steve your articles seem to have much more depth these days. There are quite a number of new things in this article that I had either never heard of before or never had them explained like this before.
What you said about creating non-physical manifestations instead of manifesting physical projections. That would mean that we no longer should set goals/intentions such as "I earn $1,000,000 every year", or "I weigh such and such weight"? So you're saying that we should focus on what that goal means to us, the underlying non-physical desires?
In the case of $1,000,000 goal, we would focus on what it would feel like to have that much money, or what type of experiences we would have with that kind of money?
Telepathy: I don't know much about telepathy. I just assumed that it was about communicating with others using our minds, even over long distances. But how does one channel that communication? From what you said it seems like if I'm creating something non-physical, almost everyone who can tune in to that channel will be able to see my creation?
Meditation: I never thought of meditation as you have explained here. Never realized that the whole point of numbing your senses is to get in closer touch with our non-physical side.
Very interesting and informative. Can't wait to read your book. Just bought a copy of it last night by the way :-)

[backpocket]

I agree with Ricky, your articles lately really have that extra depth. I'm sure we're not the only ones that notice. It's like, if personal development was a video game, your previous articles were written by gamers who've tried the game out and understood it, then shared it with others. But recently, it's like the developer's themselves came out and said, "Hey, I got some official walkthrough's for life. Here you go!"

And everything is starting to boil down to key concepts instead of things to do. Simplicity is key now when you understand things better, I suppose.

[Fullcrum]

It didn't feel like Steve wrote that article by himself.

It feels like he channeled some entity that aided him in conceptualizing this process. Which is cool.

I don't know why I think this - it's similar to how his ideas in polarity were from channeling sessions in 2002-2003.

Awesome article - very in depth.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

It didn't feel like Steve wrote that article by himself.

It feels like he channeled some entity that aided him in conceptualizing this process. Which is cool.

I don't know why I think this - it's similar to how his ideas in polarity were from channeling sessions in 2002-2003.

Awesome article - very in depth.

Very good. The only parts I actually wrote solo were the intro, closing, and the section on Why.

[BillPerry]

Steve,
I've always enjoyed most of the articles here. This one really met your goal of getting me to think.

As a personal example, I want to take my online money-making to the next level. The current level is about $100 per month, using Text-Link-Ads.com on 2 blogs that I have not updated in MONTHS.

Part of what I want to do with my future as an internet marketer is to start attending conferences and workshops to network with the big-time players in the field.

Armand Morin, Joel Comm, etc.

So, if I focus solely on intending attending workshops as a speaker, would that be jumping from this reality to that one, and paying no regard to HOW I got there?

Or should I also focus on intending a specific avenue based on the projects I'm currently working on?

I guess it comes down to a question of intending the conferences, or intending success for my current projects. Which approach would be more useful?



Bill Perry
Financial Freedom and Practical Spirituality

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Physical vs. Non-Physical Reality

[JohnnyJimJams]

Interesting read as always.

What if Intuition, and Telepathy are your imagination working?

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

Very interesting and in depth article.
The whole time I was reading it, I was thinking : "How did he come up with this ?"

I found it eye opening, especially the part about desiring non-physical manifestations.

when you try to manifest physical forms directly, your intention will always be weak. It’s like trying to satisfy your appetite with a photo of a banana instead of a real banana

I liked that

However, is there any fundamental difference between desiring an apple and desiring material things such as money and sex ? They're all material things aimed at satisfying a part of our material life.
As far as we don't take them too seriously, isn't it normal to desire such things for the physical reality ?

[Warping]

Spot on Steve!

This take on reality has been shown to me by different people, coming from totally different perspectives and lifestyles. The medium has also been completely different. But the point is always the same. Weird!

It's also funny how I'm seemingly exposed to this way of thinking randomly, as opposed to seeking it out.

Now to get off my lazy butt & experience it first-hand.

Thanks.

[supertom]

why did he need to channel IF he was already looking at it this way?? (note; assumption)

I have done some channel work, and its sort of like you know the answer before you even can sub-vocalise, its like catching up.

[Fullcrum]

I feel stupidly validated that I figured that out. Or maybe I didn't figure that out - maybe it just came to me.

Either way, I've been putting out this intention to develop psychich abilities, lucid dreaming, intuition, and communication with psychic beings (among other things). That was two days ago. I then read your thing on alpha reflections and it seems to strongly correlate with what I just experienced.

Haha. I feel funny typing this - I was always a scientific kid at heart.

BTW - Obviously you don't care about getting so much credit for your work - you care more about the conscious growth of the people reading it. So I do not think you perceive it as an insult if you "admit" that most of what you wrote came from a "channeled" being. It doesn't matter to you - it's the growth in it all.

[AlwaysLearning]

I really like this latest post and it's making me think.

The one thing is, it seems like you're departing from previous articles where you make a point of manifesting specific things, like a million dollars. (Like Ricky said) Is that possible at the same time as turning the focus toward the non-physical things?

I've already experienced miracles in my life when I followed your writings in the past, thanks a lot

[pcglue]

In this article, Steve said "Focus on creating non-physical manifestations. Don’t try to manifest physical projections. [...] when you try to manifest physical forms directly, your intention will always be weak. [...] Instead of money, what you really want to experience is abundance, gratitude, and variety."

But in previous intention-manifest articles, he says to make an intention specific, for example, by specifying an exact dollar amount (a million dollars) to manifest. How is this suppose to work? Not nitpicking or criticizing... just wanting to understand.

[Dan.Linehan]

And here I thought your next channeled article would be about free will.

The dog analogy is great. Very apt. Very clear visually. Earth incarnation = Imagination boost?

[GreenTea]

Great article. The dog analogy is so clear and simple--really appreciate that.

Over the past few months I have been fascinated by Abraham, the non-physical entitity that Esther Hicks translates blocks of thought from (she has never described it as chanelling, perhaps because that is such a loaded word)
When I read the writings of Abraham or listen to them, I am astounded by the way the words so deeply resonate as truth to me. But Steve, in the telepathy section you say:

"For example, suppose you telepathically channel information from a non-physical entity, and then you put it in written form to share with other people. The information may have seemed crystal clear to you when you perceived it non-physically. But when you share that text in physical form, and other people read it through their physical senses, much of the meaning will be “lost in translation.” However, if the text serves as a “station identifier” that allows other people to telepathically connect with the same non-physical communication channel that you used, they’ll be able to pick up the information much more accurately through their non-physical senses than they will by trying to analyze the text itself."

But the Abraham material makes so much sense to me. It doesn't seem like anything is lost in translation--it is so clear. Am I unknowingly connecting with the energy frequency the thoughts are coming from?

[Harjafic]

I really like this article and it was a nice "coincidence" as I'm starting to learn about these subjects. I do have two questions though.

If you consider the brain and mind separate, would the analogy of brain being the hardware and mind being the software, apt?

I'm asking this question because if it is the case that the analogy works, it would seem then that the brain puts limitations on the mind (for example: if you damage certain parts of your brain you'll loose certain abilities in thinking). Thus leading to my question: will we suddenly get super-smart when we die and leave our bodies (assuming that we do) or will the limitations somehow be "glued" onto the mind/spirit? For example, we wouldn't have physical neurons anymore and it would therefore seem that the limitations on our memory would vanish etc.

Thank you.

[child]

"Focus on creating non-physical manifestations. Don’t try to manifest physical projections. This is a key distinction. What you truly want is never physical in nature.Your truest, deepest desires are always in the non-physical frequency range. For example, wanting money, sex, or a stronger physical body are false desires because they’re merely projections of the non-physical."

Wisdom!

It was like reading the lost page of... something?

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by pcglue

In this article, Steve said "Focus on creating non-physical manifestations. Don’t try to manifest physical projections. [...] when you try to manifest physical forms directly, your intention will always be weak. [...] Instead of money, what you really want to experience is abundance, gratitude, and variety."

But in previous intention-manifest articles, he says to make an intention specific, for example, by specifying an exact dollar amount (a million dollars) to manifest. How is this suppose to work? Not nitpicking or criticizing... just wanting to understand.

I like the question. Hope there will be a clear answer for it.

[Steve Pavlina]

Specificity brings greater clarity to your visualizations, which allows you to feel the non-physical aspects more consistently. How does it feel to be a millionaire vs. a billionaire, for instance? Which do you prefer to experience next?

Approach it like a game designer. The physical stuff (objects, locations, characters, etc) is there to help create a certain kind of experience. But you need to stay centered on the kind of experience you want to create. If you get lost in the details of the physical stuff, you'll lose sight of the big picture. You may create a nice-looking game, but the the gameplay will suck, and it will be no fun to play

Lots of people build lives that look nicely polished, but they're bored as hell because they didn't focus on creating interesting gameplay.

[krdrever]

I really enjoyed the analogy of physical reality being a pet dog and you can either call it to you or let the dog lead. It made me think of an amazing experience I had here in WA with a team-building off-site my company had. We went to a farm that had horses and we learned all about non-verbal communication through exercises with the horses (such beautiful, sensitive creatures they are!)

One exercise in particular is actually a perfect equivalent to the dog/map example. In a ring, we were to lead horses without a rope... at first we all thought, "yeah, right... like the horse will follow me"... and the amazing thing was discovering that they would... only if you had clear intentions of where you wanted to lead them. The moment that they sensed you didn't know where you wanted to go and lost confidence in leading them they would wander off. Almost to say "hey buddy, I know you don't know where you're going so I'm not gonna follow." But, if you led them confidently and with clear intentions displayed through your body language and words they would happily walk along right next to you without needing to rope them in to it.

Thank you Steve for a great post, yet again!

Kim

[GreenMist]

Speaking of Smart people,

Here is what two of them said, Albert Einstein and Karl Jung.

"I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure characters is the only thing that can produce fine ideas and noble deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and always tempts its owners irresistibly to abuse it." -Albert Einstein

"Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other."
Carl Jung, "On the Psychology of the Unconciousness", 1917