Sunmaster

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Read the article, and agree with every word.

I wonder if he's reading R.Steiner, because these visions ( in Steiner's lectures) have been proposed some 100 years ago.

Btw, he made very clear that a "revolution " must be peaceful and bloodless, otherwise it will fail.

In other words, only love can save us. ( he often mentions the love of Christ, but the word "Christ" is not very popular these days.

..oh, and it may take a few centuries, so no need to hurry too much ????

The sooner the better. I think there is a great urgency for change actually, especially with the upcoming technological tsunami that is AI. 
AI is probably the biggest innovation since the internet was invented and will probably surpass it and will be adopted by the masses at a much faster rate than any technology so far.

Will a man made AI include all the blind spots and moral shortcomings we have? Will it be able to rise above them on its own? Will it become, by virtue of its own development, a new lighthouse that guides us toward the next step in mankind's evolution? What place will religion have in this new landscape? What about spirituality?
I think these and many more questions are worth exploring.

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Imo knowledge/consciousness grows through experience in the material world.

So you are correct that it are not the people that put the information in the morphic field, but the morphic field represents the collective experience of every living being.  

Does the morphic field already contain the experience of what is still to come?  That's an interesting question, but I tend to think that it does not and that that is the 'meaning of life' providing experience that expands the universal consciousness.

This is a very interesting point and something I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

Is there a non-dual force or consciousness that is perfection of infinite Being-ness, that is the source of everything else, where nothing can be added or subtracted? Does the material world, along with individual consciousness and self-awareness emerge from this cosmic consciousness as imperfect (dualistic) agents? I tend to believe so.

The question then is, what can we possibly add to this already perfect cosmic consciousness? And, is there a meaning to our efforts? 

My intuition tells me that IF there is a lack of some kind, then it's a condition of the manifest, material world only. 
But more and more I feel that the idea of something missing, something that will be reached sometime in the future, is simply an illusion. This imperfection is an illusion strictly bound to the material world, which is illusion itself. The perfection of the cosmic consciousness is the only intrinsic truth, ...a true universal  constant. 

Or not...
 

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

Rupert Sheldrake - one of my heroes - was also intrigued by that often reported phenomenon of inventions/breakthroughs being done simultaneously by persons not in contact with each other.  And it led him to formulate his theory of 'morphic resonance' in the 1980s. 

In his own words:

Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems. In its most general formulation, morphic resonance means that the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. The hypothesis of morphic resonance also leads to a radically new interpretation of memory storage in the brain and of biological inheritance. Memory need not be stored in material traces inside brains, which are more like TV receivers than video recorders, tuning into influences from the past. And biological inheritance need not all be coded in the genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes; much of it depends on morphic resonance from previous members of the species. Thus each individual inherits a collective memory from past members of the species, and also contributes to the collective memory, affecting other members of the species in the future.

That may sound very hypothetical and somewhat farfetched, but Sheldrake has done many experiments to test his hypothesis.

One of the nicest ones based on his musing that if his theory was correct that it implied that whenever a person did find a solution to a problem that hadn't been solved before that it would be easier for other persons to also solve that problem. This because the solution would now be available in the morphic fields and could be tapped into. 

And so one of his experiments was by making use of the Times crosswords-puzzle, and he tested the hypothesis that it would be easier to solve that puzzle not on the day that it was published, but one or two days later when millions of people would have solved the puzzle already.  Using statistical analysis on the results of his experiment it turned out that indeed it was significantly easier to solve the puzzle when other people had solved it earlier.

If the universe is first and foremost consciousness and if form is just an attribute of consciousness, wouldn't it mean that solutions are present at any time?

They wouldn't have to be discovered from nothing, but somehow simply be accessed. 

What I'm trying to say is, if morphic fields exist, they exist as always complete, irrespective of time and space. That means that the idea of "before a certain event" and "after a certain event " are meaningless and have no influence on the integrity of the morphic field. In your example, the answers of the crossword puzzle are already present in the field and simply have to be accessed. The more people access this info, the easier it becomes for others to do so as well. It is not the people who put that information in the morphic field.

Am I missing something? 

6 hours ago, Nemises said:

Do you believe in God?

 

Yes, I believe in God. I also believe in the Easter Bunny.

You probably also believe your comment was very clever....

Thanks a lot for the ideas!

In the end I opted for "Perspectives". 

For one the perspective of the viewer (you) who will interpret it according to his own unique point of view.

On the other hand the individual perspectives of the people in the drawing, who create their own universe according to their own beliefs. 

Finally, the perspective of the observer (soul), who is the creator of the individual sub-perspectives. If you look at the guy in the center, he has learned to pierce through the veil, revealing the underlying order of the system and is looking back at the originator (Soul).

In that sense we can either imagine the sub-personalities to be other people connected to each other by the web of life....or be manifestations of a single higher consciousness. This timeless consciousness splits and creates fragments just like a prism splits light, creating seemingly separate personalities in the process, without time or place restrictions. A sort of simultaneous "past lives". 

Just finished this drawing. 

Rather than explaining my ideas behind it, I would be interested to know how you would interpret it...

9 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Your post reminded me of an interesting Substack article I recently came across, titled

Breaking the Habits of Western Thinking: Cause and Effect Is Not a Thing

The author makes the correct observation that the pre-dominant view in our Western materialistic culture is that 'cause leads to effect'.  And while this is true on the pure physical plane, the opposite is also true in the spiritual realm where - strange as it may sound - the effect will determine the cause.

Although the author is a Christian and uses biblical quotations to make his point, it is by no means a purely christian thesis, and is more a 'universal law' that has become almost alien to our Western 'scientific' logical way of thinking. 

Attached below an excerpt of the article:

~

Much of the power of science and scientific thinking is based upon this idea of cause and effect.  It is simple really.  If all there is in the world is matter, then everything we see today can be explained as an unbroken chain of cause and effect back to the very beginning of all things. Every action has a reaction.  You do something and it has an effect.  If I drop something, it falls to the ground.  If I punch you in the nose, your nose will get broken and start to bleed.  It is this idea of cause and effect that is foundational to the idea of human progress.  By making small incremental changes to ourselves and the world around us, we can have progressively greater positive effects on the world, step by step.  It’s foundational to the idea of evolution. But it is a profoundly western idea.  It is an idea that runs counter to and undermines Biblical ways of thinking.  Understanding this also, in my mind, helps us as Christians to draw ourselves apart from the broader culture, to understand the ways in which we are, or should be, thinking among our own ghetto nation. This, then, has real political implications, as I discussed in my most recent piece before this one.

Because of this idea of cause and effect, we tend to look at our moral and spiritual life this way as well, through this lens of progressive improvement.  In life we face countless choices every day.  All we need to do to become better people and more Christ like is to make those choices in a way that is God honoring and in harmony with his commands.  Each choice we face gives us an opportunity to put in motion a good action, “a cause,” that will lead to a positive “effect” in our lives.  As the positive effects accumulate in our lives, we will become ever more Christ like.  This is a deeply western and materialist way to think about “spiritual” growth.  In fact, it isn’t really spiritual growth at all.  It is materialist self-improvement jargon smuggled into the church. It is a form of self-salvation.

Why is this idea of cause and effect so problematic?  Because it places a burden upon us to always be making the right choices.  But we tell ourselves that this is what the spiritual journey is.  It is about making good life choices that have positive upbuilding effect in our lives. It sounds great.  And this is familiar territory for all of us.  There is a whole industry of Christian self-help advice offering their two-cents worth, helping us make good choices.  But, unfortunately, its pretty much all wrong.  We do make choices and we should make good choices, but the direction is all wrong.  Because of this, we end up with a doctrine of self-salvation prettied up in fine sounding Christian God language. God helps me make good choices and because of the choices I make I become a better person.  

But in biblical ways of thinking, the effect determines the cause.  The end of the journey you are on determines the choices you make today.

For most of us, that just sounds bizarre.  Effect determines cause.  That is totally backwards and counter intuitive.  And that is because spiritual realities are not the same as scientific realities.  This is the danger of rationalism that ends in practical materialism.  We have become so dominated by scientific materialism that it is almost impossible for us to actually read many biblical passages and really hear what they are saying to us and the implications for our lives.

At the same time, many of us carry around a tremendous burden that we never measure up, we are never good enough.  We carry this burden around with us in large part because we are trapped in a modern scientific worldview.  We always feel like we never measure up, that we cannot make enough good choices.  We beat up on ourselves for making bad choices. 

 

The full article can be accessed here:

https://apokekrummenain.substack.com/p/breaking-the-habits-of-western-thinking?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email&nthPub=73

A very interesting and thought provoking post. 

It somehow relates to my posts about time, where I tried to visualize the timelessness of the inner (spiritual) world compared to the material world.

If there is a timeless state, the linear unfolding of cause and effect become meaningless. 

1 minute ago, JensenZ said:

I'm not personally discontented with any churches as I don't go to any, but I did in my younger years. There's a freedom about not being affiliated to a church.

I meant "you" as a general term, but I agree with you. I view all human institutions with a good dose of distrust. 

1 minute ago, JensenZ said:

When discussing religion, church has little meaning for Eastern Religions and even for Christian religions as there are hundreds of churches within the Christian religion... all studying the same book, but deriving different interpretations thereof. Everyday there's probably someone opening a new church.

Nevertheless, its important to keep the distinctions in mind when voicing your discontent with one or the other.

35 minutes ago, d4dang said:

so far I can not prove it. And you?

Never mind proving it. Just tell us how you know.

Or maybe you wanted to write "I don't believe in God", but somehow got a bit carried away by enthusiasm? ????

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not really a problem now as I basically a recluse,but I do have a friend that likes to bitch about life as much as I, so we get on well when I visit.

I can just imagine the scene... ????

How I imagine it...

The big stream of divine will splits into smaller branches (souls), who create even smaller streams (personalities). As long as the small streams think they are separate from the whole stream, they will have the illusion of free will. To them however, it will appear completely real and they act according to this believe. 

From the view of the whole stream though, everything within it happens in accordance to its flow (divine will). This flow is All There Is....there is nothing that is outside this flow, thus there can't be anything that is not divine will. 

The illusion of free will only persists as long as there is a personality who believes it is separate from the Whole.

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

i believe that very evolved spirits can retain their free will in the spiritual realms, provided their free will resonate in harmony with the absolute, even beyond the physical world.

That's exactly it. Can you still call it "free will" if it then resonates in harmony with the absolute? Who is there to exert this free will? 

This makes my mind wander....
I picture it this way. An entity (or soul) is not a perfect being or consciousness. It is a fragment of the Whole with a job to do. The job is to become whole again by going through specific interactions and experiences. The entity decides that the best way to do this, is to create an even smaller fragment of consciousness to enter the material world. And in doing so, it willingly chooses to forget its true identity. The soul designs the screenplay and then creates a fragment to play in it.

In this material world this fragment of consciousness is given a name, is taught how its senses work and how to use them to manipulate the outside world. A distinct ego emerges or is built on top of the fragment. This fragment of consciousness, having forgotten its true identity, is now equipped with an ego and identifies with this construct. The ego can be a useful tool to interact with the outside world, but it can also be a great obstacle on the way to remember. 

So....the Whole splits and fragments (souls) generate new fragments (personalities) in order to return to the Source. The soul decides where and when the new fragment will incarnate. Since the soul exists in a timeless now, there are no limitations to time or place for the incarnation. And it's not just 1 soul for 1 personality. What if a soul were capable of creating multiple personalities, incarnating "at the same time" to learn different things? One in Roman times as a man, another as a farmer in the Dark Ages, another one as an expat in Thailand in 2023 and one as a woman in the year 3543? Wouldn't that blow your mind? ???? The implications would be amazing, but too long to get into now. "Past lives" would take on a completely new meaning, for example.

Why this immense cosmic dance? What is the purpose?
Some say it's a way for the Whole to experience itself, because if there is no fragmentation (duality), there is no experience, there is only being. Others say there is no purpose, and that's OK too. 
Like you say MauGR, we can only speculate about these questions. What ultimately matters most I think, is to listen within and ask ourselves: Who am I? 
The rest comes by itself.

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I don't really agree, for example when I'm dead physically, space-time may become non-existent, but the meaning of life , and possibly the free will, may be still there.

In other words, i see space/ time as related just to the physical existence, while meaning and free will are related to the soul existence. 

I may be wrong though ????

I'm not completely sure on meaning (although I tend to associate it with the rest), but I'm pretty sure free will is linked to the material life and the ego, and has as much reality as the dream world (Maya) we live in. I believe that once we move on and consciousness is no longer restricted by a body, we will realize that there is only divine will and what we thought of free will was just an illusion. Some people realize that while still in the body, but for most of us, it will take something big (like death) to understand that.
In a nutshell, if the world (Maya) and the ego (a construct to interact with Maya) are illusions, then it can be deduced that free will is also part of that illusion.
I fought against this idea for a long time, because it's a hard pill to swallow and pretty scary to think we don't have free will, but ultimately I think there is no way around it.

6 hours ago, JensenZ said:

A good way to discover how much meaning your life has is how many people are there that will miss you when you're gone. If you people miss you, then you had meaning to those people which in turn gives your life meaning.

 

How many people would attend your funeral?

 

I'll start the ball rolling with a resounding zero. It's not a bad thing if you cause no sadness to any people when you pass.

Not many I think, simply because I'm an introvert and value quality over quantity. 

What gives meaning to my life is how well of a channel I can be, connecting to the inner dimensions and expressing them in the outside world. For example through art, but also through the way I interact with people. 

I don't have children, so no solace of immortality for me there.

I think the issue with the meaning of life is similar to the issue with free will. 
In the realm of manifest world both of them seem to exist, just like time and space seem to be real.

But I also think that there are conditions where they all just fall away. Meaning, free will, time, space become just concepts without any reality. Both conditions can be valid at the same time and are not mutually exclusive.

Personally, I still gravitate around the first, but I can also glimpse the truth in the second. It's a fascinating proposition.

4 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

I  thought I made it quite clear I'm not suffering from depression. I function well with no medication whatsoever... so "one of surrender and acceptance" is my category. 

 

What's your category? Where are you at?

Yes, I understand. I just mean that percentage wise, there are more people in the second category, simply because it takes a lot of introspection and awareness to reach the first category. 

Where am I at? Good question. 

Right now I'm working on old, deep seated beliefs that I think need to be cleared to better understand who I really am. It's a work in progress. 

I don't think that it's wrong or negative to speak of a meaningless existence. There are plenty of "spiritual" people (I know at least one) that came to the same conclusion and came to terms with that. Personally, I'm not quite there yet...not even sure I want to go there.

However, I can see that there can be more than one interpretation of this idea. One of surrender and acceptance (like my friend) and one of hostility towards life which can lead to chronic depression.
I'm not trying to put you in one or the other category. Just trying to understand.

 

21 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

My true self is content. I'm not depressed about life even though I accept my life as a meaningless existence that will soon end. I wouldn't be showing my true self to other humans as they wouldn't understand me. My mother passed away a few months ago, totally oblivious to how I tick. I didn't want her to stress out, so our conversation was always very superficial. One time I told her how I really feel about something and she ghosted me for 2 years LOL. My other family members wouldn't have a clue. I keep my distance. I'm comfortable being alone. I like to be alone.

 

As for "quality of life"? That's an interesting concept. What does it mean?

 

I exercise 6 days a week, eat healthy, don't drink, don't smoke or take any drugs (no medicine either) so I suppose the quality of my human body is reasonable for my age. I have no health insurance. I'm not afraid of death. I've studied the best ways to end my life when it becomes necessary - to the point of planning it. I'm not at all interested in fading away from cancer or some other disease.

 

Believe it or not, when you conquer the fear of death, life becomes a lot more relaxing.

With quality of life, I don't necessarily mean the physical aspect, although that is closely connected to it.
I mean, does your way of thinking paint the world in a matte grey color, thus taking away the more vibrant aspects of life? Does it give you discomfort when you're alone with your thoughts? When did you start thinking this way? 

What interests me is the concept of "meaningless existence". Can you elaborate?

I like solitude a lot as well, but I also value being understood by others when I feel the need to share my experiences. Maybe you haven't found someone in the "real world" to share yours, but you're welcome to do so here if you're so inclined.

21 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

Believe it or not, when you conquer the fear of death, life becomes a lot more relaxing.

I certainly believe it. In fact, I think about death all the time. Not in a morbid way, but more with an excited anticipation....a bit like when you're a kid and your birthday is coming up soon.

2 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

I forgot to mention in my last message

 

No, it's not a mask of congeniality. I sincerely wish people around me to be happy and content. If I see a person in need - I help if I can. If they need food, I will try to feed them.

 

I really don't want to make other people miserable.

 

I don't want other people to suffer through life like I do.

I understand and believe in your good intentions. Nevertheless, it appears there are 2 sides of you at work. Do you feel that the intimate part (the way you think in private) reduces the quality of your life or are you content with the way things are right now?
What would happen if you were to show your true self to others?

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Lol, i do exactly the opposite, and i can manage to upset almost everyone which i happen to talk to.

Like.. "nice weather today, and what do you think about Jesus Christ?"... i can assure it's a great way to deter any chance of making new friends ????

I'm almost as bad as you. LOL
Incidentally, I just had another such experience. Farang husband of my wife's friend....we meet for the first time. I drive on the conversation, asking questions about all sorts of things, trying to find common ground, picking up on answers and trying to dig deeper from there. I'm genuinely interested in other people's experiences. But nothing much coming from the other side, not even one question asked. The final straw was when he took out his phone mid conversation and started answering a business email. 
That's when my eyes gloss over and I go into a stupor. Needless to say, we won't become friends anytime soon. 55

 

14 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

Not at all. I appreciate the communication of thoughts about life and reality in a respectful way. 

 

I didn't appreciate the last member's susgestion that because I might not be a happy camper, that I would be making other people around me miserable. In actual fact, when I do come into contact with other humans, I'm a very friendly person who goes out of his way to help others. I don't want to upset other people with my nihilistic, existential philosophies on life... so when I do meet other humans, I keep any conversation superficial.

 

 

Do you think it would be possible to find a way, a state of being, where these 2 extremes can be integrated in one authentic personality? From what you describe, it seems as you are putting on a mask of congeniality for the outside world, while there is a deep discrepancy to how you really feel.