Hello all!

I really enjoyed reading this conversation this time (because of myself : )), and special thanks to Joesus for his time and effort. Really got me thinking.

Now, I do still have one major axe to grind...

I can understand, intellectually, that in the Union state of mind there are no needs. And even though there can be pain, there is no pain (right?) because you are not concentrating on it, but the Source.

If I had been following my heart only, I would not be here engaging you in a conversation. I would be screaming in agony on a bed, struggling to find some peace of mind. I would have also been too crippled to be of service to anybody (this is theoretical).

Yet I listened to my mind and found a way to heal myself.

My room mate, who shared the same type of problems I have, killed himself because he did not believe there could be a way out, even after talking to him about it.

Now, maybe, if the karmic law is a reality, then maybe I'm just bypassing my lessons and they await me in the next life. I'm afraid of this.

But if the karmic law is not a reality and the only constant is the heart, it would seem "logical", heartwise, that I learned to heal myself.

I can also see no reason why this should not be extended to others - sharing healing through technology or other means - unless removal of suffering contradicts some higher purpose not understandable but only the few who reach that understanding.

Does Truth has to make sense? You said that the intellect and heart can be united.

Einstein:

Point of reference. There are 4 stages of Union. The first step is seeing and experiencing yourself as the absolute as it rises from a place inside of you to being you and then moving into an object of perception that was before outside of you and is now you. This stabilizes, expands into Brahman where it is described as the awareness being in a thousand places at the same time, also symbolised by the thousand petaled lotus in the crown chakra opening. Then there is the miracle power, immortality of the physical body and Krishna conscious, all stages of Union.
Did Jesus feel pain?
The answer is yes. Did he suffer?
The answer is no!
Suffering is a choice, a lack of intellectual knowing in the focus and experience of duality in conscious awareness. Unconscious creating.
Now, a master can shift the attention of the mind at will when he/she has moved the mind from conditioning in relative association to the body and the world. This takes practice when moving from the relative beliefs of the ego and into the Truth of Union of spirit and the manifest.
It takes time only because to understand it you have to experience it.
The knowledge is in the Self and readily available to anyone, but not many are able to instantaneously deprogram themselves in order to sever the bridges built to experience by Karmic desire.
It can be done, just aren't many tales of it being so.

So, as long as you carry a body and it vibrates at the level of the physical laws created around the physical senses you have working tools to experience feelings. How you focus your attention can have a direct effect on the feelings regardless of your stable experience of higher states of consciousness.
You can break up with your girl friend then cut your finger off and for a while you probably won't be too concerned with whats her name.
I'm sure most have experienced these simple experiences, especially around fear when the mind is distracted from something, it leaves the experience behind as the attention is given to something new.
By bringing the experience of the absolute into the physical senses the weaker illusory beliefs in fear begin to fade from the attention of the mind just as the boogyman fades from the childs awareness when it expands into adolescence and adulthood.


I'm not following you here. You seem to be pointing to the idea that the heart wishes you to feel pain...??

The mind is sufficiently flexible to hear the truth as it comes from the Self through the intellect.
Generally speaking the smaller voice less listened to, is usually the voice of the Self, and the louder voice is that of the ego. Kinda like the cartoon devil and angel sitting on the shoulder of the person about to make a decision. The heart leads to love and expansion, it does not judge experiences or scenarios as being good or bad. There is value in any experience but there is no rule that you must experience everything.
People that are dramatic have a tendency to drag things out according to their belief in suffering.

Setting aside your roommates karma what did you get out of the experience? Did you come to the realization that you have a choice? Did he have a choice?
Fear of karmic debt is the fear of suffering, it is the belief that something is going to happen that is not wanted. Elevating the mind and the awareness into union takes this fear and crushes it. Poof! Gone!

You have a choice..

Once the truth is understood then there is no reason to create the lessons to explain Truth.

There is a saying.. "Heal the self and you heal the world"
All lesser understandings of sufering and victimization dissappear in the light of greater truth.
The Soul simply changes clothes to greet another moment in experience. From greater awareness there is no thing that is out of line or un-necessary. The desireless state of Union is a state where the manifest is created consciously rather than ignorantly to fill perceived holes in the Self. Where need is relative to fear and misunderstanding.
You want to experience something you do.
When the mind distances itself from the manifest reality it begins to contradict itself in thought. The universe exists to fulfill desire like a wish fulfilling tree. You drop a single thought into the still pond of the absolute and ripples move outward and meet the shore with perfect coherence in experience and awareness of origin. You drop 100,000 thoughts into that same pond and you create chop, where some thoughts/desires cancel each other out.
100,000 thoughts per day.. That's about what each human thinks each day, day after day, wearing out the nervous system, creating stress, disease and premature aging. It just doesn't have to happen that way. The human race has been doing it that way for a long long time, and it doesn't have to continue.

The Truth makes perfect sense. It just doesn't to the ego in the waking state, when fear and separation seem so real, and you can change your experience by making different choices.

LOL--Yes indeed. LOTS to be learned, starting with the art of tricking yourself into believing that David Carradine is Chinese.

Ahem.. -.O master students? where do you come up with this crap? Master is defined only by which it is compared to, to an ant I am a giant, to the universe we are insignificant, master is only relative to that which it is compared to, God is only god because we compare it to ourselves, if we compare God to a more powerful being then it is also as insignificant as we are. To a child and drawings some hack artist is the most incredible artwork they have ever seen, but when you compare the hack artist to a real artist the hack seems like a shadowy reflection of the real artists skill. If you compare the real artist to the "master" artist, the real artists drawings look like cartoons. Master and even the value of things is based on what we compare them to, although Michaelangelo was a great artist, but he is only as good as the one whom he is compared to. If everyone could draw extremly well then the works of the "masters" would seem ordinary and they would no longer be masters but regular joes. The point is, if everyone was a terrible artist, then a less terrible one would have someone be considered a master artist, if everyone was a master, then the masterpieces would be ordinary. Change your perspective from linear to non-linear and you can begin to understand and trip, like trip does haha. Now im sure someone is going to point out "but everyone isnt a master artist" so I might as well address that now. The point is that master is only defined by ones perspective, the larger the perspective the less a person appears to be a master. To a child their father or mother may be the most important, powerful and wonderful person in the world. But as the child grows they begin to understand that the world has many ideas and people and so the childs perspective changes. This is what those who believe in masters need to do, open your minds!! enough of your thoughts that we need to bow to the all powerful, or that light is the fastest thing and there is no possiblity of anything faster or anyone more powerful. As Thomas Dewar once said; Minds are like parachuts - they only function when open.

Sooo.. what you are saying is you don't like the term "master."

I kinda like it myself. I think it serves a useful purpose. In fact I'd say you were a bit close minded about the term.

Time for a little levity here...

I am reminded of the job opportunity on a fishing boat baiting hooks. One starts out as an apprentice baiter, then becomes a journeyman baiter, and finally he is qualified as master baiter.

I once was talked into joining a co-ed softball team called the Master Batters. It was embarrassing. Not the team name, but that fact that I was completely and utterly inept at that game.

But didn't you at least have fun as a Master Batter? It's not whether you win or lose...

tell you what Joesus, im open minded enough to think about the notion that I am close minded about the term master. I dont claim to be perfect, im more trying to throw in multiple perspectives instead of getting the tunnel vision, we all seem to fall into at times.

Rick, although im sure that the master baiter is considered more talented then the apprentice baiter. We are more discussing the ideas behind the term, instead of the face value of it. Think of it this way, if you are a master baiter does this mean that you are better than a apprentice and before you answer id like to give a short history. Leonardo da Vinci apprenticed at 15 under italys finest painter, Verrichio, he quickly surpassed his master and became famous as a painter by 20 years old, Leonardo was however not considered a 'master' until about 29. So.. what have we learnt? The master is not nessecarily the best because he is called a master. And if their are two bait masters, which one is better? and if one is then does the lesser still remain a master? I think you get the point

The term "master" is somewhat controversial in my bonsai club, too. Some of the local bonsai masters come to demonstrate to the club, and there seems to be no agreement as to what the criteria for being called "bonsai master" are. Generally, I consider the masters to be all over 80 years old and to have been life long practitioners of the art.

Well theres a saying that goes, "if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything."
I think that the term fits the need. If you are seeking to know something and someone has had greater experience in whatever it is that you seek to learn then you may learn from that person and might even stretch yourself to allow the term Teacher to enter your thought streams.
Now if you aren't so anal as to avoid all terminology that may be stretched into multiple meanings you may just flow with whatever the river brings you rather than trying to steer the river in a particular direction based on what you don't agree with.
If you think that tunnel vision is a chronic disease and one that you are prone to then I could see where paranoia would strike deep into the mind and create a defensive position stripping apart every thought and expression anyone has so that you don't get too complacent in your thoughts.
But I'll tell you what.. what you focus on grows. Do you want to be part of the problem or expand beyond the fear and the illusions that create paranoid perspectives in your relationship of mind and the manifest?

You could just allow whatever comes to you to be what it is or challenge it to try and manipulate it into being what you think it should be. You don't really have to be responsible for anyone but yourself.
Also the relative terms stimulate each person according to what they desire to expand upon.
The word master serves as a term that leads the mind to the thought of mastery. Comparisons are not the criteria for the desire to manifest in the heart to expand, they are simply manifestations of reflections that point to the thoughts one has of not being good enough. When one can rise above all need to compare, so that one can determin their own worth then I would say that was a level of mastery. The word paints a picture, accuracy is self proclaimed, its not up to you to judge the direction of anyones choices but it is up to you to make your own regarding how you wish to see the world.
An open mind receives all and moves within the relative field of what is being created without being too cautious out of judgement that something is amiss.

Union does not prevail in the mind and in experience when judgment based on duality exists.

-.- Ahem.. before you go around acussing me of things, prehaps take a look at your own life? How exactly am I cautious? if I remember correctly someone whos name is unusually close to Jesus, happens to have this fear that if he doesnt follow God he will go to hell.. so prehaps he is the cautious one when it comes to life? By the way I will point this out for the third time now, we are talking about the notion behind the word!! the word is not being taken for face value, it could be anything, it is the idea that one is a master, I am relating to it through multiple perspectives. You however completly ignored this concept and started talking about me being all anal like, through talking about a word, when I was in fact relating to an IDEA!

Sorry, but I don't follow you on that one.


No you are implying the word means something according to what you think others are projecting. This is in fact the idea that you maintain about the word, you didn't ask anyone what they thought of it you just assumed everyone has tunnel vision and can't fit the word to a scenario giving it multidimensional purpose and the capability to evolve.

No im talking about the idea, last time I checked you werent a psychic so dont act like you know what im thinking. I did make some assumptions but it was more of a disscussion about the idea of what a master is. By the way why are you so pissed off about this? The tunnel vision by the way is my way of conveying that you were all in a disscussion with a black vs white argument, I tried to give an outside opinion and add some gray, and well.. ever hear of free speech?

That's funny, how'd you do that, You psychic?


Yeah I know, it was a discussion based on your assumptions. I was seeing how far you wanted to go with your assumptions
Now now, don't project your feelings on others, isn't it enough you make assumptions about others thoughts and definitions?

yes now were back to the assumption part again.....

Yah sure you betcha. Speech is free, just clarifying where you were going with this. Opinions are like... well their certainly entertaining.

Joesus, who was/is your spiritual teacher?

Was, in the form of a man who called himself MSI.

hmm? Are you supposed to be Joesus? if so then log on and post so we know your not just a guest causing mischief.. who's MSI??

MSI = Maharishi Sadasiva Isham

http://spiritinthesmokies.com/interviews/msimemorial.html

eh.. not a fan of TM but cool story

Joesus, you were taught by MSI personally? For how many years?

Yes, from the time that I met him in '95 till the year he died in '98 he was my physical Teacher.

thats cool. Still not a fan of TM but I can respect the other areas he studied in.

Do you teach now? What is required to learn Ascension?

Yes to the first question.
Desire and commitment is the answer to the second question.

how much committment? several months? a year? longer? We're talking about a retreat, right? Are working people expected to put their lives on hold while they learn Ascension?

How did you support yourself and where did you live while you were being taught by MSI?

I went through all this once before and some thought I was using this board to sell Ascension, sooo.. rather than do this again I suggest you p.m. me or look through the various websites that are available for Ascension. They are pretty detailed in their description of the various courses.

I learned from a teacher taught by MSI, met him, learned more, asked him to be my Teacher and went to Fiji for 6 months for my Training to become a Teacher.
I then moved to North Carolina with MSI to establish the center and lived there until 1999.

Hmm so do you do the long ass meditating like the buddhists and meditate for months or years without end?

No, the short ass meditation where you mix activity in with the process of meditation establishing a relationship with the absolute, sometimes called praying without ceasing which could be misinterpreted as long ass meditation.

Oh okay, I was just reading up on some meditation last night and just curious about how they do the meditation for years. eg, Buddah meditated for 6 years under a tree. To go six years without food, water or sleep must be a strange thing to undergo. Obviously the sleep can be regenerated in the relaxed state you are in, but still no food or water, it must require deep concentration?

haha have i misunderstood then, I assumed one goes into a form of stasis?.. or is it all BS?

It is possible to achieve such a state, however discipline is the repetative approach to that state, and is not always achieved in the approach.
Buddha spent many years contemplating in his self discipline or meditative approach but he still drank water and ate what he considered was given to him by God.
The idea that one should not struggle to live was taught to him by other adepts and he like the others took the meaning literally thinking that if it did not come effortlessly then it does not come from the effortless union that is the union of God and Man. So he ate leaves, bark, and if someone dropped bits of food in his bowl he would eat that.

joesus,

"The idea that one should not struggle to live was taught to him by other adepts and he like the others took the meaning literally thinking that if it did not come effortlessly then it does not come from the effortless union that is the union of God and Man. So he ate leaves, bark, and if someone dropped bits of food in his bowl he would eat that."


how do you know this?

Why do you ask?

Joesus, why don't you write a book about your insights? If you think you have something to teach, then what are you doing about it?

I teach, but am not inclined to write a book just yet.

After some research it appears even Buddha ate when meditating, so I guess that, thats that lol. Their was something about a Nepal boy who allegedly meditated for 6 months without food, but it seems like BS to me.

There were also some alleged photographs taken of his disciples taking food to him at night, but this still does not disprove the idea that one can attain a pure state of being where the body does not need food.

Joesus,

Have you ever read these books linked in commentary behind picture?

No I haven't, but I have heard nothing but good comments by those who have.

Please comment if you will on anything that you feel runs contrary to your views. It would be appreciated.

When you accumlate a lot of information one cannot help adapt some of these things to models on which we can create. Now I would rather understand the expeirence and what is under it. Try and get to the center. Is this not appropriate?

I understand that removing "these layers" might of been of interest to somebody who sits and watches, yet, it would not be without effort to undertsand that this same process can be used to follow back the day's experience in events and to see what reactions you had surfaced in your reaction. You can't help but learn of the emotions that manifest, and the deeper places these can reside?

Now the reason I brought it up is the way in which Don Juan would get Carlos to shift his attention. If you thought for a instant that the person was designed and colored a certain way, it was fruitful for Don Juan to shift his Tonal.
Change his way of seeing.

Now of course I am not suggesting you follow what I am saying, just that you experience life a new. Change the way you have always seen life, by adding some new thought(color), and see how it works in your life?

Re: Don Juan: shifting attention, like focusing on shadows? Doesn't that miss the point, the bigger picture?

I think amost every student has heard of Plato's Cave?

Some might heard of comparative uses of this analogy in a lot of different ways in science. Holographical in Hooft's case. Heisenberg had a opinion.

Isn't it about loosening the chains that bind? So what "is" the bigger picture in this case?

What do you mean by center? How would you get there?
I would say, based on ones own information of relative boundaries and experiences of reality one builds their point of reference.
There was a paper I read where it was explained how we in our universe would perceive reality according to the way we experience ourselves and assume the same for any other relative universe. Then the idea was introduced that time and space is not the same in all parts of the cosmic universe.
Curved space time dfferences, gravitational variances bending light and shaping experiences differently like putting someone in a cave for their entire life and another in an open desert. Each evolves differently according to their experiences. We have similar examples here on earth. If you were to put a desert nomad in the middle of Los Angeles he and his camel might possibly be run over not knowing how to survive in the city whereas a city dweller might not know how to find water in the desert and die of dehydration.
Our various cultures separate themselves by beliefs. We pray to our gods that have been described to us by our parents and those we believe to be the authority, and are quick to dismiss anything that does not agree with the foundations of our own beliefs and experiences.
Theres a story of three blind men who had never seen an elephant and are led by some mischevious boys to different parts of the elephant.
One touches the ear and says the elephant is like a giant living carpet.
Another is led to the trunk and he says its like a giant wild snake.
The third is led to a leg and he says it is like a large living tree.
The three argue with each other until a sage suggests they are all right but can know more if they combine their experiences to expand their own and so the for a moment set aside their personal experience to allow a bigger one by including the others rather than rejecting them and isolating the elephant to their own personal experience.

Sages have been leading humanity to expand their own experiences since the beginning of humanity to the source of all things so that they do not stand still in a cave or a desert or any relative point of reference blinding themselves to the greater picture.
It's normal to want to uderstand the universe so that one can measure themselves in it, against it and project the possible or probable futures but this is the ego and it moves from limited points of reference when it is shaped to do so in such a limited way.
When one fully understands the reality of creation and where it all comes from then one begins to witness from a place that is in the world but not of it.
You can understand how the man who touched the trunk believed the elephant to be a wild snake and understand how the man who touched the ear thought it to be a living carpet and begin to see how one experiences life and the universe according to the senses. When the senses become gross or blind then the universe is not seen for what it is. When one lets in more light then it becomes increasingly clear.

Emotions are relative to understanding. For thousands of years humanity has prayed to God to relieve them of suffering but suffering is only a misunderstanding of reality. If you believe you are a victim to a great God who insists you live life a certain way or be subject to punishment and eternal damnation then you will believe you have no choice. Any impulse to follow a desire my be squashed by fear.
When fear rules the way we live there is no life only suffering due to ignorance.

Once one begins to see how they limit themselves by feelings then one might wish to find where the feelings come from but eventually one rises above the need to follow the feeling and one begins to witness themselves having the feelings realizing they themselves are not the feelings. This then leads one to expand the point of reference beyond the relative.

This is exactly how one uses useful boundaries to break boundaries. You use a tool to lead the mind to where it naturally wants to be rather than continuing to restrict it according to beliefs.
It's like having a dog. If you chain it to the porch and beat it into behaving a certain way it will resent you and bite you if it gets the chance, but if you feed it it's favorite food and let it grow naturally it would stay and be your best friend without the need to chain it through lesser subjective beliefs in how it should be or behave. It will naturally behave and act in the best way it could to please you in every way.

The minds favorite food is the stillness of the absolute. Fom this point of reference there is no one way, and it cannot be bound by any one way.

The word 'Repent" actually means to change your mind, to see life differently.

I am responding to the first part of your post by presenting what was triggered in my mind.

In my mind the "big picture was the Sun," and as long as that is behind us, it projects forward the shadows. But to know it is behind us and reveals a purer source of information, what basis of reality can we draw to all the Sun's emanantions? A complete standard model and "new physics" beyond it?



All pictures are links.

Abbott and Flatland are much more spoken too, in regards to the picture linked throughout that site I developed. Why I refer to Banchoff. His thoughts on Abbott.

The center of the circle? Medicine Wheel? A circle in string theory? KK tower, and what is the relation to the energy?

Just some links to look at if your interested.

Quantum Geometry?
Laughlin, Reductionism, Emergenence

It is not so far disconnected, that Harvard could have it's branches very close together, in terms of it's research and developement? How is mathematcs borne, and from where? If it was in a cognitive realization, then you would have to trace it back to where it began? How did this foundation of mathematics begin?

Joesus:

While it would be difficult to see within this context as being separate from the feelings, to be separated from, is again one of those hard things to do in observation at the time. It is really hard to distance oneself emotionally in our reactions, but if the whole evolvement of consciousness was to see this within a wider perspective? Then, I would say one had progressed from a point of such involvement, to the observation as you suggest.

Foursquare, was relayed in a earlier post. As abstractual mind then becomes, the next phase, although we had been dealling with it emotively, has been raised in consciousness to a hierarchial triangulation. We had been dealing with foursquare but we had also been evolving in that pyramidial form to a apex in thinking/mind?

Joesus:

While the educated might have referred to Pavlov dogs and the conditioning factors we could take hold of, I am more inclined to see nature as it demonstrates itself in the animal world. I couldn't help but see the unique characterizations having raised dogs and horses for the last thirty years. While being older then that, such observations had revealled certain interetsing perspectives as well.

While some might have referred to the evolution of our brains, they would have seen correlative functions in these instinctual areas, emotive ones, as to fight or flight responses, as the evolution of the human being along side of that brain developement?

How did we become so perfect? These body parts are all still evidentry, are they not?

These are matter states, yet mind is something else, while we use this body?

Joesus:

Yes how did you get there. I gave a paradigmal phrasing of Greene's that was related in terms of liminocentric structures.

This is not ill concieved, to thwart the mind and it's develping ego, but to help one realize that this potential could be expressed as you say in many possibilites. How many times could one have connected with the source/center, to know, that we work the world, and return back to the source. That it is constructively a potential within the theoretical defintions of science now? How it all began?

Here there might have been a supersymmetrical realization, an entropic one, as to the source, and any universe created from it, how so? It would have to be a theory of everything not just of the universe in operation.

As you know, such subjectivity of opinion even rests with good developed scientists, yet, they do not like the psychology?

In the absolute there is no separation of any thought or idea, however expansion is shifting of awareness, Fear and stagnation is dropped for expansion. True Judgment then is the separation of illusion from reality. This is wisdom in action.

Lev 18:4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
This represents wisdom in action. Choice to separate illusion from Truth.

Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.
This represents ascending or rising above the illusions of beliefs so that one may see one for who he is, the manifestation of ones own beliefs to unite the self with the self in all of its manifestations.

Deut 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
To rise above the illusions of the ego and unite with the Self one begins to unite all aspects of reality with the Self rather than separate the individuals of perception in That Self and That Self. This represents surrender to Wisdom and Truth in the voice and communion of God through the Holy Spirit.


There is no separation in right judgement there is choice to unite rather than separate, to discard separation in the expanding awareness of Union, in the evolution of expanding awareness.
All action when understood from union in right judgment rather than judged from ego and separation unites rather than separates.


Using a set of tools, and guidance from someone who had got there the same way.

Dianah:


The standard model is a real. They are trying to define things beyond this. Experiments.

While I may look at your statement and say, "this schematic drawing is very real to me," how would it have been drawn for science? So in context of Einsteins view, things are always becoming?

Physical Reality as a Four Dimensional Existence



"Now," is reduced from other potentials and GR is a result of quantum realities? You see?



So by adding things the way they are, it takes on it's own connotations, as to what enlightenment might be? I raise that point. That's why I bring the idea of Liminocentric structure up, because while it is not I who formed this term, I rightly saw it's application. Seen it''s schematic drawing before I ever came across the term.

Do you understand the term Liminocentric, Joesus? Do you see how it is being used in my demonstration here, to that end, to explain the possibility of what enlightenment "might be" in relation to other potential realizations in the tools you use?

Mind you, I do not know what enlightenment is, and you are saying, that you do? Is that correct?

Resonances can change perspective as well, just by changing the spelling in a name?

The Structure of Consciousness - by John Fudjack



Imagine that Einsteinian is encased in another wider frame? How would you learn to see this?

If the probability of the quantum realities are reduced to GR, then what said Greene's statement might not of help me realize that such ordinary states, are quite capable in human beings presently? That the method taught might have been and had shown results usng the specific tools, but, that more work was still possible in understanding how the universe really began? How conscousness might have emerged? That it was cyclical.

Induction/deduction