Tippaporn

It's not a point to reach, though. The separation is artificial. We could talk about the origins but that would not be important. To say we 'have' a soul would be inaccurate. To say we are a soul would be true. Use any other synonym for soul, and there are many. I guess a lot of people grew up with the religious belief that we 'possess' a soul which we then reclaim (perhaps, perhaps not) upon death. Or that we have a spirit (another word that can be used interchangeably with soul) that we must unite with. Or that we must unite with our source and once again become One. The idea that separation exists then ties in with ideas that this world is only something we must, unfortunately, pass through to reach some exalted plane where, perhaps, we're finally free from pain. Or that this world is a testing ground to prove our worth, or loyalty to a higher being. A world existing only for the purpose of having us jump through hoops to get to where we really want to go (wherever that might be since there are multiple definitions of what that place is). The fables created around this idea of separation are endless. Now is you want to explore your consciousness then what you would find is simply this: there is more to 'you' than you've realised. Much more. The effort of any discovery of your more expansive self would not be done with an eye to move past this world to some 'there' but rather the knowledge of other portions would enhance your experience in this reality. Hopefully you don't take this as me beating a dead horse, mauGR1, and see my continuing posts as simply trying to add more clarification as I'm dispelling certain long held notions by many.

There is no separation between the spirit and who you see in the mirror. They are one and the same.

Mass reality from my perspective is nothing more than the co-creation of individuals each creating their own individual realities. In other words, the interactions between individuals creating together. The true fulfillment of the individual would automatically assist in the fulfillment of all other individuals. Of course looking out into the world that seems highly contradictory. Now if it's true that everyone is the creator of their own reality then it would follow that no one has the ability to create within anyone else's reality. Certainly if even God cannot create in ones reality then surely no one else can. As long as people believe that they don't create their own reality then they will assume that others must be creating at least a portion of their realities for them. Whether God, chance or any other individual. And hence the false idea, in my opinion, that someone can prevent the well being of another. Granted, there's much more to the story of how that all works in all of it's practical detail. Any full explanation requires much more information. This is just a start for a fuller, more comprehensive understanding. Hopefully it's understood that how reality works cannot be fully explained in a few sentences, or a few paragraphs, or a few posts. And that information can initially appear to be contradictory to ones current view of reality. Which is why it's important that anyone who does want to understand how it all works must be willing and able to suspend, not relinquish, their current beliefs while considering other information.

No, not building a bridge between the physical and the spiritual. Rather as humans we are the spirit clothed in flesh. Or the spirit clothed in the hair and skin of a dog. The idea that we have a soul is incorrect to my way of thinking. We are a soul, or whatever term for it that one wishes to use, cloaked in flesh and bones.

Well, I didn't intend my post intro to lead astray to politics but rather to point out the condition of ultimate individual sovereignty and freedom. And to show how those ideas are currently operative in the world. Since I subscribe to the the theory of the universe as idea construction then every idea shows it's effects in one form or another. One can easily then recognise the effects in the world from not granting individual freedom and sovereignty and to then imagine the effects of granting full freedoms and sovereignty in contrast. The world would be markedly different. In a much better way, in my opinion. But really the point of the post was to argue for the idea that each and every one of us creates our own reality in every aspect . . . from great to insignificant. And that is the point for which I'm asking for thoughts and debate. As far as politicians go, though, in my opinion any leaders are merely a reflection of society.

Agree with the fact that consciousness is mobile, and surely everyone has a different level of understanding. What i don't agree with, but it may depend on semantics, is the last paragraph of your post. Although we can imagine that on other planes of consciousness there is no dual judgement as in the physical reality , there is indeed a hierarchy of different levels of consciousness from a human's point of view. As peaceful and carefree a dog may look, i never met anyone who would like to be a dog. Although understanding is not the same as consciousness, it seems that the former stimulates the latter. Good/bad Hot/cold Beautiful/ugly etc Okay. The seeming duality of the world. Seeming in the sense that good/bad, for example, are the flipsides of the same coin. I disagree with the idea that creation is hierarchically structured. It suggests that we're merely climbing the rungs of some cosmic ladder. And to where then? It's also suggestive of the existence of some pinnacle beyond which one can go no further. Heaven? Rather I subscribe to the concept that creation is unending. There's no beginning or end to it. Creation never ceases. That there is no place we're trying to get to for that would imply the end of a journey. The journey never ends. Creativity has no bounds. We create ourselves in as many ways as possible and each new creation adds to what is. In other words, existence is about endless creativity and not the road to some 'place.' In that sense everything which adds to what is is equally important. Equally precious. Equally eternal. The concept of a hierarchy implies, at least to me, that higher forms are more worthy than lesser forms. Which concept makes no sense when considering that the experience of the 'lesser' form adds to the experience of the 'higher' form. And vice versa. They're simply individual parts of a greater entity. A dog or any other animal's existence is no less than a human's in terms of quality. It's simply a different form which consciousness takes to express itself. And who is to say that a dog's experience is any less pleasurable than a human's? Why if it were known that a dog's existence was more pleasurable than a human's might not everyone want to be a dog?

Agree with the fact that consciousness is mobile, and surely everyone has a different level of understanding. What i don't agree with, but it may depend on semantics, is the last paragraph of your post. Although we can imagine that on other planes of consciousness there is no dual judgement as in the physical reality , there is indeed a hierarchy of different levels of consciousness from a human's point of view. As peaceful and carefree a dog may look, i never met anyone who would like to be a dog. Although understanding is not the same as consciousness, it seems that the former stimulates the latter. In order to give my response what is your definition of dual judgment? I'm not familiar with that.

Not long ago I listened to a Brit reporter making an astute observation, at least in my opinion, on the major difference between the structure of government in Europe vs. that of the U.S. "Culture is upstream of politics. There is a fundamental difference between the outlook of Europeans and Americans. And it is simply . . . I would go back to the words Lincoln himself used at Gettysburg . . . America is a nation conceived in liberty. Europe are various nations conceived in feudalism and serfdom. And we've had here in continental Europe a march that's lasted a millennia to arrive at the liberties that we have at the moment. "Fundamentally, however, in Europe we have liberties because the state gives them to us. And we recognise that . . . that is what we recognise, that the constitutions in Europe give us our liberties. America is the only nation I'm aware of on the face of the planet, in the whole of human history, that basically starts from the direct opposite presupposition. You start with the individual, which is God given natural rights and that individual then enters society and gives to the governments it's rights and it's limitations and says to the government what it should do. And here we see a fundamental difference start to emerge between the Europeans and the Americans and that is to say that the Americans, being the people conceived in liberty, simply will not put up with this any longer." In America the individual is recognised as possessing sovereignty granted by God. In Europe, especially in the days of kings and queens, it is the ruling royalty which has been gifted sovereignty by God (at least that's what the ruling authority would like everyone to believe ). That royal sovereign in turn awards rights to, or takes rights away from the rest of society as per his or her pleasures deem. The common individual is not afforded natural rights. The point I want to make with the above is to emphasise that all individuals are imbued with sovereignty. But also that that sovereignty is not limited in any way whatsoever. It is supreme sovereignty which allows the individual to create every last stitch of his or her own reality. That type of supreme sovereignty has yet to be recognised by the masses in today's world. The question of sovereignty is one of the main departures I take from religion. At no point does God, or any other power, intercede in the affairs of the individual to the point of overriding an individual's choices. For once that occurs, even in a single instance, individual freedom is lost. All of this leads to the idea that we create our own reality. Every last bit of it. Any system of thought that fails to recognise that individual freedom is one of the unalterable laws of creation is doomed to attempt to artificially limit experience. And to create the myriad problems which would naturally arise from the impositions of any such limits on the individual. Of course with ultimate freedom comes ultimate responsibility. The truth is that many do not want to accept the responsibility which comes with freedom. Thoughts? Debate?

Well then, I'll let it rest. Cheers and peace.

I don't use any methodologies. Life or existence isn't based on methodologies as far as I know and for reasons I'm aware of. Drugs can certainly force an alteration of consciousness but alterations of consciousness can be induced easily enough without drugs. Here again I believe the quandary results from a lack or misunderstanding of who and what we are. For even a partial understanding would bring the realisation that consciousness is mobile. Super powers? I gain what understanding I can. Same as everyone here. Everyone has a different level of understanding. There's no right or wrong, better or worse to any of it.

LOL. You post your beliefs here and when others post information that doesn't agree with you then you simply say: "Hey. I'm happy that you believe whatever you believe." Can't you at least try to argue for the positions you take? It does appear to be the case that you can't thus far. I don't mean to criticise you for no reason, Hummin. I like reading your posts. But please don't simply wave others off without at least attempting to show where one's thinking is amiss, or why your thinking is accurate.

Then please explain the holes in the logic, which is what I asked you to do previously. Why laugh at a post but then refuse to provide a rebuttal? I could give two sh!ts what anyone else believes and I have no desire to lead anyone to believing anything. I believe you're superimposing your own personal beliefs onto my intentions for posting what I post. There is no cult, club or belief system I subscribe to.

It's said that until one understands who and what they are the rest of experience can never truly be understood. I'll soon be posting what I consider to be the best explanation . . . at least partial explanation . . . of who and what we are. I'll offer it as food for thought and let everyone else do with the information what they may.

I beg to differ. All of creation is important. Nothing is ever lost. Individuality especially is never lost. You will always be you. That's not to imply that 'you' are ever a finished product. Consciousness is ever evolving.

Hummin What I wrote is not logical? Rather than a belly laugh show how the logic fails.

I think one needs to be aware and take into account that personal symbolism is involved in many accounts describing what is found in altered states of consciousness before accepting any of these accounts literally.

Existence involves never ending growth. By it's very definition heaven, which is generally thought of as a state of perfection, would be as close as one could get to true death. A state of perfection implies that one can no longer go beyond. Growth would be dead then. I don't argue that people can't create their version of heaven but I would argue that it's not an actual permanent existence. Imagine winning all of the time. For all eternity. Would that not ultimately be boring?

“To ask me to verify my life by giving you my statistics is like using science to validate sorcery. It robs the world of its magic and makes milestones out of us all.” ― Carlos Castaneda

If I had to identify one of the major hangups which prevent those who require proof of everything it is this. They are stuck on the false idea that all of creation is physical. Not only that but that this universe, this physical reality, is the only reality which exists. An even greater barrier which prevents them from moving beyond the limited world that science thus far offers is a complete lack of understanding of who and what we are.

I would say you are correct in your theory of what you can learn from examining your own consciousness. Your own consciousness really is the final frontier. In certain terms it's also the only frontier.

Continuing on with the general point I made above, how often have science minded folk here made adamant and impassioned claims that there is no afterlife even though there is no evidence for such a claim? They believe what they believe about death and perhaps it's because they subscribe to the false assumption that the lack of evidence that something exists is the proof that it indeed does not exist. Though they may use that psychological device to support their conviction still they ultimately only hold a personal belief.

Materialism and money are believed to be a panacea for peoples miseries. If only they had money and trinkets they would be happy.

I'd like to point out in general that those who insist on not believing anything unless it has been scientifically proven are being extremely disingenuous by making such a claim. Since all is not known, and certainly all has not been scientifically proven, there remains much that is left up to personal belief. Therefore every scientist and every science disciple hold unproven beliefs. About a lot of things. The irony! Of course you can play a game with yourself and hide the sausage.

I guess you had your last chance to admit to error in claiming that people who know and see what others don't are therefore delusional. Self integrity lost out. So run and hide. "Really? I am one of those highly intelligent people and I know other highly intelligent people. They all don't believe in god." More fallacious logic. "I'm highly intelligent and don't believe in God. I know other highly intelligent people and they, too, don't believe in God. Therefore all highly intelligent people do not believe in God." You also imply false logic with your next statement. "On the other hand I also know a couple of stupid people who think they are smart. There is a name for that. It's called the Dunning–Kruger effect." It suggests that "All stupid people are stupid about everything. All smart people are smart about everything." The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply to your implication. Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general. At least those psychologists recognised a basic truth. No one is smart all of the time and no one is stupid all of the time. It's always a mix. It's never 100% of one and 0% of the other. If you're as smart as you like to think you are, and I'm sure you like to think yourself smart about everything, OMF, then why do you need to resort to false logic and offer up inapplicable citations to try and win an argument?

This isn't even a weak rebuttal. What you wrote has nada to do with what you claimed in your post. This answer is just misdirection to deflect from the foot that's in your mouth for making a ridiculous and ludicrous claim. Here, too, you completely skirt explaining your statement that claims people who know and see things that you don't know or see are delusional. Following your logic through then you yourself are delusional since you know and see things others don't. If you at least walked this ludicrous conclusion back and admitted you didn't make yourself clear then that would be readily accepted by all. Self integrity would demand it. But rather than take the moral route you seem to prefer spin. Win at all costs, right? Just as Sunmaster said. "To hell with credibility, dignity and objectivity....who needs those?" I'd add self-integrity to the list. People who can not allow themselves to admit when they're wrong debauch their self integrity in every instance they fail to do so. If there's one thing you should understand it's that folks here aren't fooled. They're not nearly as stupid as you would like to believe they are. People here are highly intelligent and your poor opinion has no power to take that away from them. Frankly, no one cares at all about the poor opinions prejudicially leveled against us; or the schoolyard slurs; or the adolescent ridicule. For myself I see only embarrassment for the willingness of so many quite intelligent people to stoop to base vileness. If you're proud of that type of behavior then more power to you, live in the world of your creation as it's the bed you make, and go in peace.