One's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Food for thought . . .

Indeed it is a good read.

Many of the things he speaks of is very true in my experiences.

It is indeed about awareness & the mechanics of awareness.

Even in many very old books that dealt in Alchemy....Not literally the parable of

making gold from lead but true alchemy as in manifestation of focused awareness.

It starts with clearing your awareness to focus it.

While these things sound simple they are in fact very hard to practice given the world in which most of us were raised.

But the funny thing is even for those that have achieved a degree of success which once achieved is never again denied,,,,,It is very very hard to remember this irrefutable fact. Life gets in the way with all its shiny attention grabbing events & you do in fact forget. But the good news is once on this path you never again need to find it. You are still on it albeit paused in place.

It is like a gift with multiple wrappings. You are excited to open it but with each wrap removed you cannot help but marvel at the next even more beautiful entrancing wrap. You almost forget that you wanted to see what is in the gift but instead get so diverted by the wrap. Over & over again.

Sorry I just see I linked the brain machine twice. Actually this is the link I mean

It is about the tenth dimension and how to sort of visualize this. Another funny link I stumbled upon by accident (Or did I not?)

http://www.aiws.info

One's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Food for thought . . .

Indeed it is a good read.

Many of the things he speaks of is very true in my experiences.

It is indeed about awareness & the mechanics of awareness.

Even in many very old books that dealt in Alchemy....Not literally the parable of

making gold from lead but true alchemy as in manifestation of focused awareness.

It starts with clearing your awareness to focus it.

While these things sound simple they are in fact very hard to practice given the world in which most of us were raised.

But the funny thing is even for those that have achieved a degree of success which once achieved is never again denied,,,,,It is very very hard to remember this irrefutable fact. Life gets in the way with all its shiny attention grabbing events & you do in fact forget. But the good news is once on this path you never again need to find it. You are still on it albeit paused in place.

It is like a gift with multiple wrappings. You are excited to open it but with each wrap removed you cannot help but marvel at the next even more beautiful entrancing wrap. You almost forget that you wanted to see what is in the gift but instead get so diverted by the wrap. Over & over again.

Very nicely expressed reply, flying, and your observations are correct. At least I've come to the same conclusions. For one, it is difficult to practice with your attention being grabbed by everyday events.

What I will like to mention is that for all of the people I've come across who are questioning, especially those who question on a deeper level, I could count on my one hand those who had the patience to hear alternate knowledge fully explained. What I've found is that most people, while first intrigued by what you say, quickly reject the ideas if you cannot explain who we are, how the world is created, alternate realities, alternate consciousness, etc., etc. and how it all works together in five minutes or less.

Ooookkkkaaayyyy! It's not that people lack the mental capacity for understanding. Most importantly, I would say, they lack the patience. For as soon as you introduce an idea that conflicts directly with an idea or belief they hold you can literally see their mental wheels spinning as they absorb and process the information, their eyes kind of look away, and they ultimately come out with "but . . . blah, blah, blah, so what you're saying is bullshit." End of discussion, end of going any further with them. (And, you may have irreparably damaged your relationship with them as you are now and forever more a "nutter" in their eyes.)

Which is why I mentioned in an earlier post, never hit people square between the eyes with what you know. Guaranteed 100% immediate rejection. You can build bridges, though, by introducing concepts that they can relate to and then try to stretch them a bit more.

Since I've been studying this knowledge for 30+ years, and not just as someone mildly interested but with great intensity, I will say that no matter how far you get with certain people, as soon as you reach a level with them where you begin introducing the idea, ever so gently, that we create our own reality you've just hit a brick wall . . . hard. I can certainly understand peoples' resistance to the concept that we create our reality for the implications are massive (and that is an understatement).

Firstly, it is in direct contradiction to what is taught the world over in almost every culture . . . you are not in control and you are not responsible for the events of your life. Secondly, I believe they recognize in a flash the amount of reprocessing and rethinking they must go through in order to accept the concept. I can certainly appreciate what that single concept, perhaps more so than any other, does to a person's well-established world view. A world view which, mind you, is not simply static or mental, but exceedingly practical as a person's world view is the modus operandi by which they live their lives. To suggest that they would have to reconstruct their world view in a major way is to them intolerable. Thirdly, since you've just knocked off the supporting pillars off their entire world view they are not sure how to proceed, how to replace their modus operandi. They are dealing with the unknown now in a direct way, and that makes them feel extremely uncomfortable and unsure.

Yet I will point out, too, that depending on the particular nature of an event people do recognize that they've brought the event on themselves, and purposely in a conscious way, too. Successes and personal accomplishments are easily claimed and with these it is much easier to believe that you've created your own reality. In contrast, when confronted by events of a "negative" nature they'll be blindingly quick to lay blame everywhere and anywhere other than themselves. They will lastly look at themselves in the mirror in an attempt to discover how they may have even contributed. So, while people do not accept the idea that you create your own reality in full they are at the same time inconsistent about. They'll believe it when it suits them and reject it when it does not. (A side observation - Of course, people habitually and often display major inconsistencies in their beliefs all of the time. Anyone ever hear the old adage, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander?" Or, "Do as I say, not as I do?" People accept and live certain beliefs at certain instances, and then do an about face whenever it suits them rather seamlessly. They don't notice, but observers do. )

In any case, I will say to anyone who expects the wonder and miracle of life to be explained to them in five minutes or less, or perhaps a few paragraphs, good luck.

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest – whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer [the questions of suicide].”

The French have always been good value on these existentialist or absurd themes.

What I will like to mention is that for all of the people I've come across who are questioning, especially those who question on a deeper level, I could count on my one hand those who had the patience to hear alternate knowledge fully explained. What I've found is that most people, while first intrigued by what you say, quickly reject the ideas if you cannot explain who we are, how the world is created, alternate realities, alternate consciousness, etc., etc. and how it all works together in five minutes or less.

Ooookkkkaaayyyy! It's not that people lack the mental capacity for understanding. Most importantly, I would say, they lack the patience. For as soon as you introduce an idea that conflicts directly with an idea or belief they hold you can literally see their mental wheels spinning as they absorb and process the information, their eyes kind of look away, and they ultimately come out with "but . . . blah, blah, blah, so what you're saying is bullshit." End of discussion, end of going any further with them. (And, you may have irreparably damaged your relationship with them as you are now and forever more a "nutter" in their eyes.)

Boy that sure is true for me too Tip.

I had one teacher say it would be easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than try to use reason & logic to enlighten anyone.

Everything you mentioned is true too about folks concepts being challenged or at least that is how they see it. Not as a realization of something bigger but instead a breaking down of their old beliefs. Add to that the fact many of them have beliefs based in dogmatic religion & you see the problem.

The most funny ironic thing about that is....religions cornerstone is faith. Faith in the writings of men. Yet you do not see them using the same reason & logic arguments there. Odd

What happens when your reality crosses paths and conflicts with my reality?

If I have created my own reality, does this mean that I have created Tippaporn and Flying to teach me something?

Has Tippaporn created me in this instance because there is a purpose to him expounding on this idea?

Are my questions missing the point entirely?

Am I naive to take every word literally?

Does your avator looks like a dolphin?

Does your avator looks like a dolphin?

Yes. But that's MY reality, and your question is part of my reality too.

My reality used to depend very much on the time of day.

Just found this, couldn't resist adding it to this topic.

I think most people would say that the avator looks like a dolphin. But what if there are 100 people in this world and in 1 room and they start to discuss about this dolphin picture and more and more start to disagree that it looks like a dolphin. How many people would have to disagree before you would change your mind? Would you insist in your believe until you would be the only pariah left?

mistake.

I think most people would say that the avator looks like a dolphin. But what if there are 100 people in this world and in 1 room and they start to discuss about this dolphin picture and more and more start to disagree that it looks like a dolphin. How many people would have to disagree before you would change your mind? Would you insist in your believe until you would be the only pariah left?

Sometimes I happily remain the outsider: when I know I'm right, Im right.

Sometimes it depends on the calibre of the people opining, whether I am persuaded to change my mind.

Sometimes, "I see the light" and change my way of thinking.

But those 100 people are my reality too: Stupid ones, smart ones, ugly ones and beautiful ones all.

Just found this, couldn't resist adding it to this topic.

hehe.

Catchy. I feel I should have an enamel mug of bourbon and a plate of jumbalaya when I listen to that.

hel_l.

It does bring the topic back round to the OP.

And entwines it with the current flavour of the thread.....

The intelligent design/evolution debate vs something-else-altogether.

What if the religions have got it a little bit right in their idea of an intelligence personified as a god.....but are wrong in the depiction as a personification.

And the evolutionists have got it right to a point also....evolution does indeed occur but that does not rule out the existance of a "power".

And the "something-else-altogether" crowd have it a little bit right also in that the "power" is a sort of collective consciousness.

With a little tweaking to each, all the philosophies don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The "Intelligence" behind intelligent design could have "created" the primordial soup with the intention of evolution, and that "Intelligence" is the collective intelligence of infinite "souls" (for want of a better word).

Just found this, couldn't resist adding it to this topic.

hehe.

Catchy. I feel I should have an enamel mug of bourbon and a plate of jumbalaya when I listen to that.

You like Cajun? This has a lot of jambalaya in it.

hel_l.

It does bring the topic back round to the OP.

And entwines it with the current flavour of the thread.....

The intelligent design/evolution debate vs something-else-altogether.

What if the religions have got it a little bit right in their idea of an intelligence personified as a god.....but are wrong in the depiction as a personification.

And the evolutionists have got it right to a point also....evolution does indeed occur but that does not rule out the existance of a "power".

And the "something-else-altogether" crowd have it a little bit right also in that the "power" is a sort of collective consciousness.

With a little tweaking to each, all the philosophies don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The "Intelligence" behind intelligent design could have "created" the primordial soup with the intention of evolution, and that "Intelligence" is the collective intelligence of infinite "souls" (for want of a better word).

There is something right in front of our eyes that gives credence to what Tippaporn and Flying are positing:

All religions that I can think of, whether monotheistic, pantheonic, animist...whatever, do something in common: They all pray, or practice an equivalent to praying.

As some pray, others chant, yet others cast spells.....it's all the same: A focusing of the mind.

Focus the mind.

There is something right in front of our eyes that gives credence to what Tippaporn and Flying are positing:

All religions that I can think of, whether monotheistic, pantheonic, animist...whatever, do something in common: They all pray, or practice an equivalent to praying.

As some pray, others chant, yet others cast spells.....it's all the same: A focusing of the mind.

Focus the mind.

Yes that is key whether the practitioners know it or not.

Sadly when things get translated from old scripture the translators many times interpret what they *think* they meant originally.

So now in many religions folks pray to something outside themselves. Imagining an entity sitting somewhere with a switchboard for incoming calls.

But as you say it is a focusing. One pointedness

It is interesting to realize in the East what Aum Tat Sat Aum means. It is interesting to see that in the old testament when Moses received the tablets in the mountain what was he told? I am that I am.............same thing

You know one thing I have always thought was the biggest misconception in the modern bibles? In the sense that it helps folks make the mistake of a prayer/petition to something outside rather than inside themselves...

Jesus sermon on the mount

Folks take it as a literal when he said....I am the way...I am the truth etc., etc., etc. So today they pray to the man instead of grasping a age old concept. I am that I am...Aum Tat Sat Aum

If the translator had just put in one more little 2 letter word what would folks think if instead it read.......? I am *is* the way....I am *is* the truth...I am *is* the light....

Suddenly folks would not make the mistake of idolizing the man as he so often chastised them for doing even when he walked among them. Did he not try to tell them... If you have the simple faith of a mustard seed you would tell that mountain to move & it would. Why? because a mustard seed does not sit around wondering if it can in fact grow to a plant. It just does so without question...It Knows.

Or when a man touched his cloak & was healed & said ....See you healed me just by my touching your cloak.....Was he not basically told...No you healed yourself because you so believed ( focused your mind on it ) you would be healed if you could only touch me...

Disclaimer : This section of the forum seems quite open minded so I hope my statements above are not mistaken for religious argument it is not. Everyone is at their own point of understanding. I studied for many years as a member of the Theosophical society. The statements reflect where I am. That is all & not to say my way is the way.

All through history avatars have always taught focus. Sadly most religions have a esoteric & a exoteric section. It has always been so. Sadly it is a way for the high priests to hold their position & give out partial info. Or perhaps because they think that is all the kids can handle? So folks are taught to pray/chant/petition. But never taken to the next level or reason for that focusing.

But the original intent of all the avatars was for them to focus...become one pointed in practice to engage their higher self. Not to engage or petition something outside themselves. Even though most religions state clearly God is everywhere they are never told within themselves too. The praying etc was the elementary school meant to get their wandering minds under control. You know the wandering mind that is so fascinated with the beautiful wrapping paper/shiny life objects I spoke of

As a youngster, I was brought up as a Christian. I've been atheist for a long time...probably/possibly since my first high school science class. I think my conviction got stronger the more I grew up and was exposed to the ironies and contradictions and hipocrasies amongst the religious people I came across, or were exposed to via media.

I've looked into various religions, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Hindu, mainly....and they all have a couple of things in common: Praying (or the equivalent of), and a desire to maintain particular standards, ostensibly to ultimately please the deity, but in reality, really do assist in making successful communities.

Therefore I have never been "anti-religion", per se, although.......

There is a gene that scientists have identified as common to most religious people and rare amongst non-religious people. They have dubbed it "the God Gene". I would tend to call it the "gullibility gene"......no offense to the religious people here; IMHO it is fair enough to alledge gullibility when the beliefs are based on faith, not facts.

Lately though, since coming to OTB, I've had reason to pause for thought.

Still thinking.

Hmmmmmmm.

I'm a proponent of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I've rejected the idea of Creationism.

But to be fair, Darwin's does not answer everything. It's only a theory.

I look at a spring onion that I pulled from my garden. I cut the bottom off, and re-planted it. Basically just the roots and a small part of the "bulb". Two months later, I have another plant to harvest; it has bulb, stalk, leaves.

Chemistry can't explain that. (Well, not yet, anyway )

A sperm makes it's way to a single cell.....Nine months later, there is a crying, hungry, baby! 45 years later, I'm sitting here typing words to people all around the world.

Chemistry can't explain that. (Well, not yet, anyway )

Life-force.

I'm still a proponent of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and I still reject the idea of Creationism..... as it stands.

Theory vs faith....neither one has a proof.

There may be a logical conjunction of these two philosophies that we just have not considered.

I'm with you Harcourt.

Whilst keeping an open towards the possibilities of life after death (In a scientific sense), I find the various religions we have now too full of contradictions and hypocrisy to be anywhere near believable. I do try to keep an open mind in regards to some form of higher being, but if one does exist then it is certainly not in the form as believed by so many now.

For example: Christians reject the theory of evolution because it clashes with their belief in intelligent design. Well why could we not have been created through evolution, which in itself was a work of god.

Why can't god and science co-exist.

Why can't god be a scientific entity or why can't science be something created by god?

What is wrong with that?

OK.

So to tie the original question in with time, which I believe Harcourt bought up...

I have just been watching some of Prof. Brian Cox's stuff on youtube, if you don't know who I am talking about then look it up, he is good. This particular episode was called "What time is it"

So anyway, he wasn't trying to answer the question of life after death but he was trying to explain what time is but I was watching with the life after death question in mind. In one part he gives an anology of what Einstein thought time was. He was driving along and mentioned how he was driving ahead, leaving the past behind him, which was still there and driving forwards into time which is already there meaning that the past, the present and the future all co-exist at the same time. That was Einsteins theory and he knows (or knew ) his stuff a lot better than all of us put together.

Surely this must mean that we are all at the state from before we where born, still alive and dead at the same time. (My words, not his).

Brian Cox also mentioned that the accepted theory is that before the big bang there was no time....... HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?..... BEFORE the big bang, if it was BEFORE the big bang, then surely there must have been a TIME before the big bang.

I know that it has no relevance to the question of life after death (or maybe it does) but for me, if we can't even get our heads around the concept of time then it would be quite arrogant of us to think that we know what happens when our own time (whatever that is) is up.

Incidentally, he concluded his program by stating that he couldn't say what time it was because he couldn't even understand the question that was being asked.

Why can't the wretched Christians be satisfied with their own beliefs instead of making themselves look foolish trying to prove the planet is only thousands of years old rather than squillions?

Geology and biology based on a book of Jewish fairy tales and dietary laws.

I wouldn't have put it quite that way, and to be fair, any religion has it's fallacies.

What I DO respect of religions in general is that they try, in their own way, to make human society better......albeit from their own perspective.

This programme gives some food for thought:

^Thanks for that moonrakers, i enjoyed that. Where do you find these freaky things, I want to see more.

neverdie

Jumping into this discussion way late...

Many devout Christians believe the universe is at least a squillion years old. The extremists are a small minority. The only fair estimate about 'what Christians believe in' is JESUS.

Why can't the wretched Christians be satisfied with their own beliefs instead of making themselves look foolish trying to prove the planet is only thousands of years old rather than squillions?

Geology and biology based on a book of Jewish fairy tales and dietary laws.

When I come across this I ask them to show me where it says that the earth is only thousands of years old. Doesn't say it in the bible anywhere! In fact quite the opposite.

ps Moonrakers, excellent links above, thank you.