plato,



Any reality…is relative…what is standard today…was not the standard of yesterday, nor will it be the standard of tomorrow…understanding the essence and nature of reality…comes through experiment…which is nothing other then experience…which is just the projection of the perceiver…



I have to say that this is my understanding as well, that all is becoming, without truly becoming……nothing is as it appears to be…is this not that, which science seeks…that which lays hidden behind appearances…the becoming?



It’ all relative…reducing potential from other potential. The only thing that appears relative, yet produces an intangible knowing…is experience…once something has been experienced…then it is known, knowingly by the experiencer…which is in itself …relative…

The concept of now implies or hints at the source of becoming…time and space are concepts of the becoming, becoming relative. The concept of now is an abstraction, and ideation of potentiality, demonstrating its potentiality, through potential.

Dianah

....and all percievers?

Which what makes experimental validation important, as well as to the reason why theoreitcal models are introduced, to push perception beyond what it knew before.

Once a model is internalized, how is perception changed? The resulting reality comes when it can be verified. Can all our subjective states of experience? Enlightenment? This avenue is individual, and presents the opportunity, regardless? Is it the same for all?

A Conversation with Physicist Brian Greene, by John Fudjack



Some things to ponder.

If I understand what you are pointing to it is the re-cognizing of what is already there underlying the structure of the personal, the natural laws of the manifest which supports not only your personal experiences but all of them.

In regard to enlightenment itself. The reality of its being is present in the natural laws that support the evolution of expanding awareness. I have experienced expanding awareness and also have an experience of the absolute and I witness my self. There is no end to the experience of the Self and as such no definite end to enlightenment but the nature of it is relative to certain qualities of experience such as those that have been described by authors such as Govindra Yogindra (Patanjali) in the Yoga Sutras.


True judgment comes from the stability of being harmonized in Union. It requires action, choice to acrue wisdom.

You simply put what I said into different words, further demonstrating what is true for one is true for all within the natural laws that support the action of expanding awareness. Where a person may want to individualize experience it cannot remain individual but of the One Consciousness.


Again your ego is seeking to make your statement personal but you have simply rearranged the words to say the same thing.


To play in your sandbox: This is just the mind…chattering…and listening to its chatter.

But then the accruing of the accruable is the action of experience surrendered back to its source. This involves surrender, which is a choice.

Joesus:

Yes.

I relay some of my work and indications that I am discovering by understanding the schematic drawings underneath societies, cultures. You had refered to "historical signifiance once," which caught me off guard.

Model construction is used quite vigorously used by the ingenuity of mind there is no doubt, and similarily many philosophies have been presented for our observations and understanding.

I believe consciousness in individuality is seeking wholeness, all the time. Or is it just me?

So you learn to identify these structures not only within your own consicosuness, but what is out there in the history of societies. Easteern, western,etc. Coins, temples and many other things which represent things to people. Solomans temple? Walking a gaelic pathway meditation?

Jung's comments on mandalas are a very important feature of my thought process.

Like energy packets, they are really quite revealling, about when the soul might have understood something previously? Experienced a time, when such a journey was frutiful to such end of identifyng the source as well?

Psychologically, medicine wheels might represent a wholeness for a society to gather, individually, to unite. Melvin Konner might have called the resulting experience a seizure, when such ancient tribes danced around the fires? But if such a source is touched, how would it manifest in the language of the time, and be brought forward for our consideration today? A gentle reminder and energy released?

There is still science to consider here. What Lies Beneath, is a thought about Robert Laughlin and the condense matter theorist point of view. What are the building blocks of nature?

I think thought is a good answer.

Having read all of Jane Roberts books, she would have answer a little different, but in essence, thought. I'll try and find her definition of the building blocks.

Robert Laughlin, does not care if they are Lego bricks or Drunk Sargeant majors:)

Self Organization of Matter, by Robert Laughlin

What Lies Beneath, by Eugene Samuel

This is lame, Joesus. We all know you can create whatever delusions you want for your own personal enjoyment. What would be more impressive, though I doubt you can do it, is if you said that what you focus on (something other than certain of your body parts), others will perceive to grow. Otherwise, your statement of "what you focus on grows" is utterly vacuous!

You can put your attention on the Truth or illusion. Either will give you an experience but not necessarily expand conscious awareness.

I just don't get where you are going with the focusing on others so they will grow thing. Do you think you can do that with me? If you project your doubt in my abilities, do you believe you can change me by projecting something else?

Your post doesn't seem to come from a stable point of reference, it feels more like you need to vent some frustrations and you picked me to try and make yourself feel better.
Is it working?

Due to computer problems, I have been MIA for awhile. Good to see all of you have been having fun.

Joesus, the problem I have is that your advice is self-centered and does not take into account other people's experiences. Your statement that "What we focus on grows" is vacuous because it's a statement that we can imagine whatever we want, we can delude ourselves however we want, and I have a problem with it on ethical grounds because it discounts other people's experiences and comes across as narcissistic or overly self-centered. If your powers of mind enabled you to change what I experience, or what others experience, instead of what you experience, then that would be interesting. But to say that your powers of mind enable you to change just what you experience is trivial.

I would call into question your powers of mind, since true power to me means bringing changes to others and not just ones own personal experience. True powers of mind are world-changing and effect everyone, not just one person. Have your powers of mind changed the world for everyone, or just for you? If just for you, then that does not reflect the true power of mind.

The true power of the mind lies in the knowledge of who you are. This affects everything that you have a relationship with automatically.
The statement what you focus on grows is directed toward the relationship one has with the manifest based on the Truth of who you are. IF you can align yourself with the Truth and gain Unity with all things you will by the virtue of expanded awareness, surrender in service to the whole, to all of humanity.
This means that if you are to help a child learn to differentiate the choice between fear and love you will do everything necessary that will enhance the experience.

There's a great story about this called the Bagavadghita. It's a story where God incarnate appears before a waking disciple to explain that all things are not as they might appear. The struggle between light and dark, or evil and good are examples of the mind finding choices that lead to expanding consciousness and self awareness through expression of desires and thought.

Perhaps you are familiar with this prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will direct your paths.

Depending on your background of beliefs about God, your personal relationship with the manifest and the unmanifest, I'd be interested to know what you think about the above.

Christ was an example of surrender in action. Where the Pharisees sought to maintain their control over religion and to elimiate Jesus by killing him, he (Jesus) knew there were limits to what he could do to influence humans that chose to see it their own way, even if their way was to take away peoples freedom of choice by creating laws to manipulate the way they thought and lived.
The majority of Christs followers wanted Jesus with all his miracle power to kill the oppressors of the people, but Jesus knew they represented the fear in the people of ignorance who had no clue of their own ability to change themselves and their world. He showed them that the body is not without the influence of the mind and could overcome beliefs of sickness and even death, but he also knew that you can lead one to spirit but you cannot make one unite with it though the mind and in body and soul.

So now your anger towards God, for not changing the world according to everything that you believe is wrong, is being projected onto anyone who does not meet your expectations of how a righteous/right-minded person should live and act. Anyone who might rise above the need to avail themselves to the choices of others to persue a path of ignorance is narcissistic and uncaring.... Blah!

The Statement is hardly vacuous. It is symbolic of the Truth that is available to one and all. No one suffers by being a victim other than in the mind. Some do everything they can to avoid the truth through beleifs and ignorance and there isn't a damn thing you can do to change the path of one destined to walk that road. You can only make that choice for yourself, and if by your own example, you happen to be an influence to someone who is ready to do the same then by virtue of your own lack of compromise you have played a part in service to humanity.

I wouldn't suggest you measure your self worth by who you influence, unless you want to achieve a higher state of arrogance.

I do not believe these statements are inconsistant with each other.

While it might have appeared that Einstein had indeed given us a paradigm which was indeed world-changing and affected everyone, how well he might have known himself?

He was driven as to the" focus and outcome" of that growth? Yet being Jewish, and the meaning he might have had for God(Old ONe) had a perspective about nature, that was embued with a certain terminology?

Thomas_Torrance


You must understand there is a current struggle in topday's world with those who support the Templeton Foundation, it's scientists, and those who believe science should remain free of such influences, so they propagate any information forthcoming as tainted.

Einstein and God By Thomas Torrance

"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" was asked of Einstein.

But they were delivered from different points of reference in understanding of the meaning.
Lucid dream has created this thread with a desire to change the world or the people in it.
This desire is not a bad desire in fact the desire is in alignment with the process of change in experience and evolution.
The problem is in his judgment. You can try to idealize what a person should think and believe in a perfect world but then who creates the standard?
Who does not affect the people around them, and is the quality of ones own evolution comparable to another if individual expression and experience are to exist in manifestation of thought or desire?
No one said his desire cannot be fulfilled but there might be someone else with a desire to let the individual experience develop in perfect cooperation so that everyone can have their desires fulfilled without dividing desire into good, better, best, or bad.
I would say Lucid dreams of being right, so that his choices are not judged in the same way as he judges others. Generally speaking those with the biggest self worth issues are usually the first to condemn others for being off so that they can try to convince themselves that they are not totally worthless. Those people of low self esteem also feel threatened by others who would speak their own mind without bending to anothers will or belief systems.
Humility is not in lowering ones self to anothers level but to absorb all at the same level, to live free of judgment because all are seen and experienced as equal. That is true freedom, to live without fear of being absorbed by a lesser quality of life and experience, to live without a threat to ones own ability to make choices and to expand into creation gracefully and effortlessly.

When one begins to measure the worth of ones self, the scale changes according to ones beliefs and understanding.

How would you begin to set a standard when you know it will necessarily change?

I think everyone tries to do the best that they can. I don't think anyone says to themselves I am going to deliberately sabotage myself and my relationship with humanity unless they are so stressed out that they cannot face themselves.
Ignorance is not exactly bliss but if you don't have an experience of something does it mean you are stupid, or lazy, or gullible or a sheep that cannot think for yourself?

I think Not!

Plato, excellent material. We owe you much thanks for the following link:

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/refl..._1/torrance.htm

Yes, indeed, I agree: In my humble opinion, GØD--not to be confused with God, or god--is, as Einstein said, "cosmic intelligence".

However, the practical question is: What is the practical value of this concept? What difference does it make for each and everyone of us, today and tomorrow?

where does Einstein say God is cosmic consciousness? He referred to God as "cosmic intelligence" and "the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence" but this is not the same as "cosmic consciousness".

Joesus, you would make a terrible psychologist since you would undoubtedly interpret everyone in the worst possible way since this is precisely what you just did with me by implying I have self worth issues. But really, your response is a rather obvious ad hominem by you in order to side-step my point that your advice that "What you focus on grows" is vacuous and is a product of narcissism or self-centeredness because it does not take into account changing other people's experiences.

If you want to believe that a calm docile unquestioning thoughtlessly dull mind is the ideal state, then that's your prerogative. If you want to crawl up in your little shell and hide from the world, living the life of delusion, then that's also your prerogative; and if you want to preach to others to do likewise, then I guess that's your prerogative too, but don't think I won't be critical of you for it and try to point others towards a better path.

Maybe your real mantra is "Fake it til you make it"? Is it your dream to become a carbon copy of your teachers, as if that were some great feat in life?

Ok, enough with the ad hominems! I sincerely believe your POV is deficient and the proof is in the fruit (or lack thereof) of the tree.

About who sets the standards, this is a moot point. Nature is a wonderful play of power. Those standards with power will prevail, as can be seen today. I am just doing my part.

And btw, we would all do good to read more of Einstein's views, directly from his own words. I recommend his autobiography.

I don't take it seriously, (your point that is) because I don't share your limited experience of people.

Actually I think were back to exposing your thoughts about humanity based on your projections. If you actually want to help humanity you would have to give them more credibility for their potential than make blanket statements about them without actually getting to know them.
More to the point, What you focus on grows; the more you project judgments into humanity and are looking at the glass half empty, the more you project the problems you believe to be real into your own experience.
Your thoughts actually have an affect on reality.


You've made an open point of being critical without actually having all the facts.

I still don't know what it is you are comparing me to. My Teachers? The Tree?
What do you really know of me and what I do other than what you have interpreted through your beliefs of what I have written here? Are you satisfied with what you have experienced as being the totality of me and who I am? Are you satisfied with your present experience of life and the knowledge you have to make a judgment against humanity and to elevate yourself above all who you have judged as being lazy and unproductive?
Not as long as you want to pass judment on others Sorry you lost me there. If you are referring to the strong surpassing the weak, I'm afraid you haven't been comprehending the bigger picture.
And who isn't? You just want to justify yours.

I think you might benefit from your own advice....

The problem, Joesus, is that you preach a philosophy for the lazy who would rather not bother with the beautiful and mysterious complexities of life and who are content with experience of the "One". It is a lazy person's philosophy, and I'm sure you know this but won't ever publicly admit it.

But you will probably admit that behavior and outward actions are trivial for you since all you care about is your self-centered and narcissistic experience of the "One". Do you sympathize with your fellow beings or is sympathy a foreign concept to you? Don't you have a moral voice in your head that says outward actions and behavior are important, and the willpower to manifest your thoughts (if you have any)? Are you really content just sitting around all day meditating on the "One"?

Out of curiousity, were you ever a hippy? Are you autistic or ever diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome?

The powers of mind are great, Joesus, and what you preach is that it's a good thing to handicap the mind and debilitate it, and to put a leash on its powers. On the contrary, we should be unleashing the powers of mind, not trying to overemphasize some consciousness of One or other meditative state that is but a tiny fraction of the mind's powers. You may fear the powers of mind, which is why you preach hiding in one's shell and focusing on the One since, god forbid, we realize states of mind where the One is meaningless. You preach this backwater state of mind you call the One as the sole good in life, and I scoff at it. There is much more to life than what you preach, and to preach handicapping one's mind in order to reside in the state of mind of the One would be foolish indeed since this may be accomplished through lobotomy. But why destroy our brains and our minds according to your principles when we can realize the full complexity and power of what our brains were designed for.

You do not know the answer to the riddle of life, Joesus, and so to compensate, you settle on the philosophy of the lazy in order not to ask the question in the first place. This is why you're content. It is a pitiful state, to be content with a lie; it is better to be discontent and to continue questioning life while still living life as it was meant to be lived. Anything less is filth and lies.

Lindsay:

That the potential exists within each of us to understand we are partaking of a quest to percieve where this point in existance might be revealled. If not at the basis of reality, then what use the math? While I generalize becuase of my inefficieny of these interpretations, the vastness of the world of math, there was some undertanding geometrically inclined, that is revealled as we followed the logic leading to GR.

Did it mean we should be devoid of our belief in a God, if we held to science principles, while, we engaged in the subjectivity of our opinions?





So to me, it is still all out there for us to look? How we might entertain that awe and beauty in nature?


"God does not play dice" by Thomas Torrance

All mental masturbation lucid. If you really want to have an intelligent conversation it requires being real with yourself and your world. Once you rise above the fear of the boogeyman to see it for what it is and quit projecting from limited assumptions there is so much more to experience.

I can wait.

note that Übercausalität can also be translated "overcausality", in addition to "supercausality". Do you know anything more about this Übercausalität? I'm going to google around a bit for more info.

your assumptions are wrong and you haven't the faintest idea what I've experienced. Hence your inability to relate to my POV and your misplaced desire to paint me as something else.

Understand that your cherished beliefs I see as crutches for the mentally and spiritually handicapped. I say to you, throw down your crutches!


In rereading this thread just now, I noticed you made a few interesting speculations here and there, such as your analogy of humans as individual cells in a larger body. I would like to hear more of your imaginative speculations, and less of your dogmatism.

Ah, so you can actually go beyond the surface appearances and first impressions. I suggest you apply this new found talent to your view of the world. You might find something more interesting about your gullible christians, Islamic sheep, Buddhists and others who cannot think for themselves.
Like most cells in any organism they all work together towards the goal of the whole.

You might have high Ideals but there might also be a higher chain of command that you have yet to unite with.

Keep rereading and integrating. There is hope for you yet.

Wish I could say the same for you, Joesus.

lol this will be intresting

I wish you could say that of everyone

my thoughts exactly

Neural:

No I don't really, although, I have some thoughts about it. Whether they are right or not is another story.

I notice your other posts and wanted to have a look. Not much time today or tomorrow. But I want to follow up to understand. Historical perspectve, is always quite nice when it comes to Einstein's work.

That guest above would be me, Plato.

Why can't I what?

You said "I wish you could say that of everyone" and Dianah asked why don't you make it so? After all, you're aligned to the source.

It will be so, once your awareness returns to the source.
Depends on the moment, when I'm hungry I might wish for a particular type of food.

I see you have a way to go before the aformentioned wish comes into manifestion.

*yawn* @ Joesus

Intuitively Compelling, the information piece mealled is brought together for consideration?

Call it mental masturabation if you like, but the questions are built on a solid foundation.

Some comprehension of early understanding of the universal questions, which may have been given about the nature of reality, are important from cognitive realization stand point. Which can ensue, from any mind?

What construct or model is it that can help us to define reality in this way or that. Pick one?

Meditation? Okay. How will this lead to our understanding of what thought constructs will issue from that beginning? Whie I ask, Ihave already entetain this question and always refer tot he qquestion of the nature of the relaity as it may have issue from the deepr parts of our psyche. Liminocentric strutures and as mandalas are revealling.

What whole "thought package" is included in that emerging reality from the dream world?

Are you addressing this to anyone in particular or are you just starting out in a defensive mode?

The context and the origination of the wording was derived from someone else. So by using it, and by stating the obvious (Linked title in regards to Intuitive Compelling), it might have have appeared defensive, while it still relates to the source.

Conclusively, any derivation and concreteness in our thinking, has to be set up for the next to come. You see?

The real world, and what issues from such a source? Are you speaking for that person? And yet, to leave it open for others to interject. Multiple views of reality?

They are a lot of young inexperienced here. I have been listening to the information on meditation for years.

I would like to help progress it some, even though am not a consistant practionering, I can focus and grow just as easy. Where did it begin?

That's important feature of correlation cognition, as well as seeing models in their perspective design in expression. So what what about the Gap?

While some would see the quark to quark measure, the metric, there is a process in thinking that helps stretch the mind in terms of the energy and space created, between constituent realities? They are testing that. The dimensional relation.

How far do our constructs go in relation? We can spout a nice philosophy, while the feather holds enormous realization towards the truth and what is heart felt. Intuitive compelling about htose measures.

we should be talking more about ego constructs and if this is really what meditation is reinforcing (an example of 'what you focus on grows' applied to the ego). If meditation leads to self-aggrandizement (a la Joesus), then this is not the complete road to enlightenment but merely leads those practitioners to confuse self with Self and with selfless.

Let's apply "What you focus on grows" to meditation.

What is the application of meditation?

If we refer to the 8 limbs of Yoga

1.Yama The yamas refer to an individual’s ethical standards and way of behaving. The yamas have five areas of focus:
Ahimsa: nonviolence against oneself or others, in actions or thoughts.
Aparigraha: noncovetousness, non-grasping, taking only what is necessary.
Asteya: nonstealing, thoughtful in what is yours, not taking advantage of one’s trust.
Brahmacharya: continence, abstinence, self-restraint, conscious awareness.
Satya: truthfulness in all dealings with the self and others.

2. Niyama The niyamas refer to a more internal view of ourselves; to behaviors and observances. The niyamas have five areas of focus:
Isvara Pranidhana: surrender to God, realizing ego is not in control of one’s existence.
Samtosa: contentment and modesty, accepting what happens through expansion of consciousness.
Saucha: purity of the body and thoughts.
Svadhyaya: the study of sacred texts, to study oneself through reflection.
Tapas: literally translated as heat; the fire tha burns away all that is not real, spiritual austerities, which means useful boundaries or focus and discipline.

3.Asana The most common discipline taught in contemporary yoga classes are the postures and movement between postures. Practicing asana helps prepare us for deeper meditation. By maintaining a healthy and open physical body, we are able to come to deeper meditation, enabling us to experience samadhi. From a yoga perspective, this is the primary reason for practicing asana.

4.Pranayama Prana translates as breath or life force. Yama translates as control. Thus pranayama means control of the breath. Through pranayama practice, we learn to control the body and mind by controlling the breath. We can strengthen the energy within as well as making the energy more peaceful. Pranayama increases our lung capacity, decreases stress, helps us focus, and brings a sense of balance of the inner self with the world around us. If practiced correctly, the body and mind become healthier. Practicing the first four limbs of yoga, Yama, Niyama, Asana and Pranayama help us to more thoroughly experience the next four limbs, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi, which focus more on the spiritual self.

5.Pratyahara Pratyahara means withdrawing from the senses. More accurately, it means to transcend the senses so they don’t influence us in a way that prevents us from reaching Samadhi, or enlightenment. By transcending the senses, we move our awareness away from the outer world and toward the inner self. Here, without outside influence, we are able to view our selves in a deeper, more intimate way, ultimately finding the true self.

6.Dharana With the help of Pratyahara, Dharana enables us to concentrate more fully, bringing a richer awareness of the mind. This step is essential to meditation. Here, we use all the previously mentioned limbs to bring our selves to a place of such peacefulness and balance, every thought or influence is met with a totally open mind, body and spirit. There is no preconception, prejudgment, conditioning, fear, anxiety, joy or sorrow to influence our meeting with each event. We meet every moment with our true selves.

7.Dhyana Dhyana is meditation. In Dhyana, or meditation, we move beyond Dharana (concentration) into a state of total awareness. We are able to concentrate on a focus point, while still being aware of everything else around and within us. This is a much more difficult task than might be thought. All the previously mentioned limbs are engaged when we come to this state. The mind and body must be totally quiet and open.

8.Samadhi Samadhi is the state of transcendence of the self, a state of ecstasy. It is the joining or union (the meaning of yoga) with all living things, with the universe, with the Devine. Here, we are in a state of bliss, beyond the place of knowledge, beyond the place of worldly things, to a realization that everything is of the same substance and that all is connected – yoga!

(Here are 8 terms given to types of yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, Hatha Yoga, Dhyana Yoga, Ashtanga Yoga)


Then the application of meditation is directed toward something, meaning the desire to meditate follows a deeper desire to accomplish something from the action of meditation, with the assisting information of what meditation accompanies, which is the internal changing thoughts, and a stable point of reference that does not change, a constant.

Ultimately the heart desires to bring all stray thoughts and feelings of separation back to union, to expand all thought feeling and desire.
The mind often translates through platforms of belief what that should look like.
Which is why so many have their own opinions of what enlightenment is, or what people who meditate are like, or what people who live their life in Self reflection are.

The Ego seeks to define behavior so that it can protect itself against its own fear of failure or thoughts of measuring self worth. The ego lives by looking over its shoulder to make sure there is nothing that is going to sneak up on it and bust its bubble.
Mental masurbation is the constant mind chatter of establishing viewpoints in changing patterns of beliefs. There is no peace of mind only a constant need to re-establish ones point of reference and level of being according to the shifting sands of beliefs.

Finding peace in Union is hardly unproductive or slothlike. It re-establishes the mind in reality so that all thought feeling and action fits precisely within the creative reality of the manifest without doubt or fear of ones worth or action being out of alignment with all thought and action.

Because of the illusion of individuality the mind tries to align itself with others so that there is no conflict but then not everyone was meant to look the same, act the same or feel the same feelings in response to action. So rather than imagining that the ideal reality would be to get everyone to be the same to create the illusion of Union, Union has to be found in diversity.
Unfortunately this thought scares the hell out of the ego and leads it to believe that this requires that you do nothing in the face of self destruction, or action that is directed through thought and feeling of separation towards separation and manipulation of.

Meditation is a tool, and one can be educated to use a tool with greater efficiency than if one is or was to assume from lack of experience that they can apply something they know nothing about to their lives to solve issues that are self created.

Meditation is like any other tool. In the hands of a skilled surgeon a kife can cut away diseased tissue leaving only healthy tissue.
In the use of meditation that which is retained in beliefs of separation and illusion can be let go so that thought and awareness which is directed toward expansion of awareness and experience of oneness is expanded upon within the foundation of the constant absolute rather than the limitations and changing patterns of the ego and its beliefs of separation.

Someone once wrote fear is the absence of love, and separation is the absence of God in awareness. Love does not dissapear in the presence of fear but one has a choice to focus on what is real. Love is a constant, fear lives only through ignorance and belief. God is present always but dissappears from the awareness when the mind is focussed in duality and division through fear.

If you want to construct the perfect building then you must have the tools and the experience to do so.
Being effective in life requires the awareness to know the difference between illusion and reality.
Meditation requires a bit of knowledge to be able to recognise the difference between reality and illusion.

In the Upanishads it is written. "To Achieve harmony within and in the world surround yourself with enlightened company, meditate, read and study the words and writings (scripture) of the enlightened."

Many practitioners of Astanga Yoga believe one must master each limb individually to achieve enlightenment, but the limbs develop equally when the awareness of the absolute is experienced and then experienced as a constant. This perpetual awarenessof the absolute then, is the foundation for building perpetual awareness of Union.
All right thinking and right action as stated in the Vedic scripture is the same as True judgment that is mentioned in the Bible. Both of these terms refer to the thought feeling and action that is made and experienced through the stable platform of Perpetual Unity awareness.

What you focus on grows

Are we still fighting over "what you focus on grows"? geesh I thought that debate finally ended.. Anyways North American meditation == crap. Plain and simple, most North American meditation is a corperate money maker, one should study more real meditation along the lines of asian and hindu meditation. Traditional Meditational methods like Buddhism are much more reliable then the local gym which has some hack meditation teacher Their is a number of diffrent ways to meditate, id suggest going for the old rather that the new

obviously you have come to realize something and found an interest in what you experience. Why would you find any interest unless it resonated somewhere?

Who's understanding and how do you understand anything?
When the ego comes into awareness of itself in alignment with Its Self there is only the Self. You come to this realization by surrendering the ego back to its source rather than holding it from returning to source through belief and intention to separate and divide.
Also note that scripture expands on this by defining the difference between the ego of illusion and the cosmic Ego in many pages of intellectul example.
The inward outward movement of consciousness from the unmanifest to the manifest is symbolized by the infinity symbol, the junction between the manifest and unmanifest is called the bindu point. Consciousness by its nature is active and what is manifest in the experience of the ego is by design reflected in the action of choice to experience surrender of flow, and or the beliefs of separation and the experience of reduction of flow, in conflict. Expansion and contraction are experienced by alignment and separation of thought in flow.
Thought moves outward into manifestation and is absorbed back into the source. Intelligence and surrender is experienced and expressed through choice that follows recognition, to stop holding thought and projecting it into individuality and separation.


That'd be a choice


How did you come to this understanding? Is it complete? What is the extent of balance.
It is said Jesus could wake the dead, walk through walls and on water, bifurcate and move through time in any direction.
From your understanding is there room for more understanding or are you staying where you are?


Those texts which have influenced humanity and stood the tests of time. The Bible, the Quran, The Vedic Texts. Scripture which is written or dictated by the enlightened.

Study of the Self includes intelligent thinking. Returning reflection to the source or surrendering meanings and understandings to exchange them for greater understandings is the process of study of the Self. Experience always follows intellectual understanding. You yourself heard, read the word and experience thus follows.
The heart is translated into meanings and understanding begins with "Well I understand this to be...etc.etc.
Then the the heart begins to express itself through others and rather than divide ones self into my understanding and your understanding it accepts that any understanding is limited to a physical point of reference. Once one begins to let go of their grip on personal understanding to find union in all understandings at the level of the absolute then there is no need to attach ones self to their understanding.


A simple choice to direct thought through a discipline that expands awareness, to evolve into spirituality rather than through the limited beliefs of the physical.
As you have said over and over. It is your understanding.... This is what separates your thoughts of reality from anothers thought of reality. If you take a position that your understanding is the point of reference that is never changing then you will base your future experience on what you know in this moment and the next and the next. If there is more then there will be no room for more until you surrender your present experience and your present understanding. That is a choice you will make in every moment. Discpline is transferring laziness in acceptance of outside authority based on beleifs and preferences to discernment of focus.
The description of waking state mentality is repetative action based on programming that begins with what is passed from the parents and society to the child.
An example:
If you go outside in the cold you will catch a cold.
Fall and winter is Flu season; added to fall winter, spring and summer, the mind will easily accept its fate and get sick if it accepts this reality.
The world is flat: a known belief that had its time and died as the thought was let go in the light of a greater experience and Truth.

What do you think?

Justa quick summary of points in that Chapter 10 and jumping ahead to number four

How to Meditate, by Lawrence LeShan, Bantam book, 1974

Is a Teacher Necessary for Meditation?



Within one lifetime, maybe not?

Joesus, your belief system is incomplete. In antiquity, when primitive humans didn't know the answer for some natural phenomena, they would say it was 'God', thereby replacing every question mark they had with 'God' as an answer, which is nothing more than admitting ignorance. In a similar manner, you bandy the 'One' around endlessly, and so what other conclusion can any reasonable person reach except that you as ignorant as primitive humans? How is the 'One' anything more than a statement of ignorance?

Newsflash! In the last 350 years, primitive humans developed their intellectual capabilities which gave birth to this wonderful thing called 'Science' which explains most natural phenomena, thereby replacing 'God' and the 'One' with detailed and pragmatic explanations and descriptions which gave rise to the technologies we enjoy today.

Without Science, Joesus, you would not be able to hop on the internet to preach your antiquated beliefs. Some things are better left dead in the past. Why are you trying to revive a dead horse?

Truth is timeless. Granted there are ignorant people who make statements without experience such as yourself but nonetheless this does not make it any less real.

This is simply a ridiculous statement. God has not been replaced by Science, in fact the debate concering the existence of God within the scientific community is still ongoing. For all its attempts Science has not proven or disproven the existence of God

Without God there would be no science, nor inspiration to create. The horse is very much alive in the hearts of the world. In fact you are in the minority in your beliefs and assumptions

Joesus, you are not timeless, nor of this time, but rather are of 2000+ years ago. Your 'timeless' is a false assumption, or at any rate, unconvincing.

You believe in the timeless because you choose not to see the changes around you, like the turtle hiding in his shell.

Have you ever considered that your timeless is an illusion?

Since you do not comprehend the nature of time, you are not in a position to say that Truth is timeless.

And 'God', insofar as this concept serves as an admission of ignorance, has been largely replaced by Science. It's just a matter of time before it is completely replaced.

I see you clinging to your cherished belief in the One and the timeless, but ask yourself if you could survive without these beliefs? They are crutches; surely you know this.

Just a brief note on the matter of time:

We ordinarily perceive time in three ways: times past, present time, and future times. It is evident that these three ideas are mutually interdependent; we can only conceive of the past in relation to the present and the future, the present in relation the the past and the future, and the future in relation to the present and the past.

Now, what is the present? As soon as we say it is 'now', no sooner have we finished saying the word than the moment we are talking about is actually in the past. A millisecond before the present is the future, and a millisecond after it is the past; the present is somewhere between them. But we never experience the times past and future; the past exists only in our memory, and the future only in our imagination. Both are mere constructs of our imagination, and do not refer to anything real.

We have already seen that we can only understand the present in relation to the past and the future. The present is dependent, for whatever substance it may have, on the past and the future. But neither the past nor the future are real; they are false constructs of our imagination. It follows that the present, as we name it, is not real either.

None of the three aspects of time, therefore, are actually real. 'Time' itself is perhaps an illusion. Therefore, to say that something is timeless is perhaps not such a misstatement of the case.

There is only now.

Lucid, both you and Joesus are loud proponents of extreme views that are located different ends of a philosophical spectrum. You are both intolerant, refusing to surrender to the other any more than the most insignificant inch of whatever intellectual territory you claim to occupy. While you remain intransigent, you are unlikely ever to reach a useful conclusion; you will merely inflame one another. This will serve only to entrench both of you in the attitude of proud condescension with which you hold and expound your views. It will almost certainly not make either of you happier.

I don't sympathise with Joesus. I'm addressing this to you because Joesus seems less able than you to deal rationally with criticism (I think Joesus's reply would be something along the lines of: "the One the One the One... .... the One, so there."). But I think you should revise your habit of peremptorily dismissing 'spiritual' perspectives. I want to try and answer some of the questions that you have asked with a view to challenging (and, I think, burying) such perspectives.


Joesus has resorted to using the term of 'the One' as a kind of impenetrable conceptual stronghold, residing in which he can never be attacked or proven wrong, since he can integrate all views as well as all the opposites of those views into the One. This is not useful, but it does not mean that the One is not a valid concept, just that it's being used unskilfully.

Just as every whole is divisible into parts, so the idea of parts makes no sense if there is no whole. All the things that we view as being separate parts are in fact parts of a whole. Just as a whole implies parts (nothing is indivisible; the search for a genuinely fundamental constituent of matter has thusfar been fruitless) so the existence of parts implies a whole. This is why the "One" is not a statement of ignorance (unless, as it may have been, it is unskilfully used) but a philosophically logical proposition.

It has been suggested that the ways in which we conceptualise each part is somewhat arbitrary, and bears no necessary relation to the true state of things. Why do we distinguish between a mountain and a hill, for example? Height and mass, for example, are thoroughly anthropomorphic qualities, and the things we differentiate by such measures are anthropomorphically distinguished. By extension, any distinction is an athropomorphic one and has no roots in the ground of things. In a very accessible sense, the whole makes more philosophical sense than any part we could point to.

Spiritual perspectives, I think, are founded in the philosophical idea that each 'part' implies the whole. Since the separation of each part from all other parts, and thus from the whole, has no ground in the true state of things, each part carries within itself the essence of the whole. We conceive of ourselves as separate individuals, but the sharp distinction we habitually make between ourselves and others is perhaps not so justified. Realising the illusion of separation, and the truth of one's own unity with the whole - the source, the one, the ground of all being, Allah, the Tao, Buddha-nature, or God - is the spiritual quest, and one that has great philosophical integrity.

Of course, most of us are still questers. I wake up every morning and immediately I experience myself as a separate individual. There are techniques we can employ to reveal the illusion of separation, and these are arrived at through empirical investigation. This is only one of the ways in which science has an indispensible part to play in the spiritual quest.

To quote Albert Einstein: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science." (emphasis my own)

Einstein went on to say: "He to whom this emotion is a stranger ... is as good as dead."

Maybe it's a supercasualty thingy?

How can you say the future is not real when any next moment(implying separation?) is indeed new? Exists, simultaneously alongside(again, implying separation?) of(as part[bad distiction to be separate again] of is much better) the present and past. The past is very much *of* you in the moment. The Future is very much *of* you?

You had to know how this "Plectics" of Gellman is applied? How this technology is currently being exploited from what was once spooky.



"Becoming," we talked about this earlier. Einstein's view.



Folllowing that history, you will wonder about Penrose's statement, in terms of the need for a "new" quantum world view. You had to know how this question in mind exists, and how far current technology has gone, and with it, who has done what.

Neural did some quick research and asked the question around around the term above. I said I may not be right, but I have some ideas. They are backup by science. If one looks at what I just wrote now and finds Gellman's little expose' on what he was infuring then you will understand the complexity of the problem.

How far it is being taken today. As well, covers the internet remark.

I would like to make clear that I am not downplaying spiritual insights or perspectives. They are very important and meaningful and enrich the life experience. However, I am vehemently against dogma which is unnaturally attached or associated with spiritual experiences. Unless he is being dishonest about his experiences (which he is very vague about), I grant Joesus whatever experiences he claims to have, but I deny his simpleton interpretation as valid, or at least, as pragmatic. There is no reason to associate his dogmatism of the One with his experience or any experience for that matter. The fact that everything has both a Whole and Parts is a trivial observation, making the philosophy of the One vacuous and trivial, just like his egotistical and narcissistic statement about "what you focus on grows".

I am all for diversity of experience and adopting different perspectives, but do me a favor and drop the dogma. You can speculate all you want and use your imagination to the full extent, but do not try to pass over some rigid dogma as the Truth, since this is only what buffoons do.

We must become open-minded like children; spouting dogmas as Truth is a symptom of a closed-mind.

Re: Albert Einstein
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice."

The same can be said of religious zealots who rigidly maintain overly-simplistic worldviews and who try to dumb down life as much as possible!

So much to talk about within the subject and so little time. I am following this thread with interest and your post with curiosity. But time constrains limit my post lengths.
Lao, there is nothing wrong with basing your views on empirical evidence, is it? Suggesting spirituality as a means of a quest for understanding the nature of things and of reality is quite a tricky proposition in itself. And that's the whole basis for my disagreement (and that of Lucid, I presume) with Joesus' perspective. It is not that his views may not have validity within a specific context. But that his views and/or beliefs are subjective. He is trying to explain reality from a subjective perspective: untestable and unscientific, therefore. How do you suggest that his rethoric can be constructive toward the path of understanding? Especially when he quotes books and manuals based of ancient astrology and organized religion? It is true that there is two sides to the human brain and the mystical is very much part of the escence of being human. But reason dictates that objectivity rules over speculation. If you ever were to be in need of taking an antidote for a poison you've swallowed by mistake, and this antidote is only found at a certain location in downton Capetown, would you rather there via a detailed map on white paper (address and directions included), or would you be happy just with the notion that there is an antidote and it is somewher in downtown Capetown but good luck finding it? I would take the first choice, wouldn't you? I realize this is a poor analogy, but my time is up and, you get the idea, I think...