Ego/I/self/Ahamkara is the Self that thinks he/she is separate from oneness....

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I am quite aware about all the gods, the gnostic story about the the Demiurge/Yaldabaoth (The Demiurge/Yaldabaoth is the angry, vengeful and jealous god of the old testement bible), and the story about gaia/sophia that took place right before the adam and eve story in the garden of eden. The snake/serpent in the garden of eden was gaia/sophia and told Adam and Eve the truth about the tree of good and evil, the Demiurge/Yaldabaoth lied to Adam and Eve about the tree of good and evil and banished Adam and Eve from the garden of eden.The Demiurge/Yaldabaoth banishing Adam and Eve from the garden of eden, left Adam and eve which are all human beings, with the truth. All these stories, myths and gods are symbolic, metaphors, and analogies, they are not literal. There are some scholars that say christianity is based on sun worship and was created out of necessity when agriculture was invented/when people started to farm/plant crops.

I'm not sure what Christianity is based on, it's a mish-mash of beliefs and mythology. Genesis is a re-write of the Tales of Gilgamesh and the Garden of Eden was an actual garden that was tended by what is thought to be hominids - the Adamu. The demiurges are thought to be based on the Annunaki but in the Garden of Eden God is Enlil and Satan is Enki - Enki's title was 'Satam'. The post Abrahmic God was Marduk and the God of the apostles was the demiurge Saklas, according to Jesus in the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. 'Christ' is an ancient Egyptian Gnostic word and his birth is around the same time as eight major religions who celebrated the Solstice. The Muslins know more about Jesus than the Christians do.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Beliefs, and conclusions as a whole and in general are not the problem. How one comes to believe and conclude about something is what really matters! Beliefs, and conclusions becomes a problem when 1. people take the symbolic, metaphors, and analogies out of context, and at face value- to be literal aka people blindly and arragantly metaphrase/parrot what is read or heard word for word, instead of paraphrasing in his/her own words what is read or heard based on his/her own personal experience/observation. metaphrasing/parroting leads people to have subjective inner mental personal experiences about what is read/heard. When someone points to a guru, teacher, scientist, physcologist etc etc, as a point of reference, he/she is metaphrasing/parroting said guru, teacher, scientist, physcologist etc etc, and does not help him/her or anyone else. I am not saying this to step on your toes, I am saying it because it is the truth.

I don't feel my toes are stepped on. I agree with everything you've said here and when I try to bring psychology into the discussion of the ego, for instance, and while people don't realise they're talking about psychoanalysis I get disdain for talking about Jung.

Nobody wants to hear about psychology in Spirituality, because that would mean rocking the foundations of their Spirituality. Everybody knows more about psychology and psychoanalysis than the shrinks and few seem to understand the irony.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

2. This is a big one....People believe, make conclusions and assumptions and presumptions based on faith and hope that a person wants something to be true and correct, when it is or can not be true or correct. Faith and hope does not require any concrete physical evidence. Faith and hope is purely mental/in one's mind. Faith and hope plays on and works on people's personal subjective feelings and emotions. Faith and hope is a person "knowing" something exists (inside one's self) without actually seeing and observing that something existing outside of one's self. Knowing something exists outside and inside myself, like the eternal and infinite right here and right now, simply by being conscious, aware and observant of it outside of myself, as well as inside myself is not based on faith or hope, nor does it point to some guru or teacher or author of some book. Knowing facts and truth that something exists outside of one's self starts with a person seeing and observing, being conscious and aware of that something existing outside of one's self first, not by merely metaphrasing/parroting someone else's personal and individual beliefs, experiences and observations about that something.

I don't know what you're trying to tell me here, but I happen to agree with you. The bottom line for me is that people walk their own Paths and it's not for me to question, everybody does things for their own agenda.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

True knowing and understanding of truth requires one to have a balanced knowing and understanding of him/her self mentally/internally on a personal and individual level, which he/she can change and control, and a knowing and understanding of the universe and truth aka the eternal and infinite right here and right now, that is around him/her, which he/she can't change and control on a personal and individual level.

The truth s relative to one's own agenda and if you look closely enough you'll see that agenda under the thin veneer of what people say and how it's said.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The physical universe, and truth, which is the eternal and infinite right here and right now, which a person can't change and control on a personal and individual level is objective, while a person's personal and individual mental internal reality, thinking, feelings/emotions is only subjective when his/her personal and individual mental internal reality, thinking, feelings/emotions is not based on, or does not match the physical universe, and truth aka the eternal and infinite right here and right now, which he/she can't change and control on a personal and individual level. There is no separation and division at all between the seen physical material universe and the unseen non-material/non-physical eternal and infinite right here and right now.

Infinite only exists in relation to temporal, here only exists in relation to there and now only exists in relation to past/future. Spirituality is the "What?" and science is the "How?" On a personal level, Spirituality is the "What?" and psychology is the "How?" And according to Nassim Haramein, "We are are in a consciousness feed-back loop with the Universe."

Originally Posted by MikeS80

If you where to use your imagination to delete all matter in the universe, along with the light, and heat that the sun produces in the universe, in your mind, you will be left with the eternal and infinite right here and right now.

But how much of an understanding do you have of yourself, mentally/internally on a personal level? The ego is the centre of the field of consciousness and our perceptual reality is relative to that point - including the sense of 'I am' and what that sense consists of. What you think you are is not 'you' but the 'result' of the unconscious and its 'contents', and yes I do know that from experience because I've been down that particular rabbit hole. It's not much fun when you have the frameworks of your reality taken apart piece by piece and examined. The interesting part is now that I understand how it works I'm not so keen to put just any old nonsense in there, which is why I have the perspective I do.

So no, I don't parrot the gurus I try to understand how the words of the gurus apply out there in the real world. I don't just talk about cognitive behaviour I practice it.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you believe in the afterlife?

Yes I do. I was born psychic and went through a mediumship development course. I'm clairsentient, although I don't practice any more. This is one reason why I wont use the phrase "The eternal here and now," and how it can't be changed, because that is an understanding of the human mind. You see Mike, when you talk about separation and division you acknowledge that they exist and the 'eternal here and now' can become a 'thing'/artefact of the mind and not the eternal here and now at all.

"When you lose your mind you come to your senses."
Alan Watts

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The majority of the pantheistic gods are based on either mythical characters or archetypes, while some 495 other cultures' gods are based on variations of the Shining Ones. The Sanskrit root word div/dev means 'Shining One', and the Shining Ones were living beings.

Hi ,
Your knowledge about Sanskrit is very good . The word Dev is derived from the Sanskrit dhatu meaning verb ध्यु pronounced as dhyu .

And this 'dhyu' among many meanings means
1. of light concerned with light (shining one as you rightly) with progressive outlook of life
2. deft at routine mundane activities of life and expert in what they excel in
3. 'Ajar' - one who does not age - this is more metaphorical than real physical truth.
4. 'amar' - oen who does not die - this too again is metaphorical than real physical truth
5. playful - accepting challenges and living upto it.
6. hopeful
7. loving

There are few more meaning but I dont re-collect right now.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Hi ,
Your knowledge about Sanskrit is very good . The word Dev is derived from the Sanskrit dhatu meaning verb ध्यु pronounced as dhyu .

And this 'dhyu' among many meanings means
1. of light concerned with light (shining one as you rightly) with progressive outlook of life
2. deft at routine mundane activities of life and expert in what they excel in
3. 'Ajar' - one who does not age - this is more metaphorical than real physical truth.
4. 'amar' - oen who does not die - this too again is metaphorical than real physical truth
5. playful - accepting challenges and living upto it.
6. hopeful
7. loving

There are few more meaning but I dont re-collect right now.

Thank you, and thanks for the info. It's not actually that good, it's something I picked up along the way. My interest here was in the Shining Ones and how for many years there was a global consciousness that the Shining Ones seemed to be at the root of, and I was surprised at first that it showed up in Sanskrit but shouldn't have been. I find it interesting that our story is more than we're told, is more than we're telling ourselves.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'm not sure what Christianity is based on, it's a mish-mash of beliefs and mythology. Genesis is a re-write of the Tales of Gilgamesh and the Garden of Eden was an actual garden that was tended by what is thought to be hominids - the Adamu. The demiurges are thought to be based on the Annunaki but in the Garden of Eden God is Enlil and Satan is Enki - Enki's title was 'Satam'. The post Abrahmic God was Marduk and the God of the apostles was the demiurge Saklas, according to Jesus in the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. 'Christ' is an ancient Egyptian Gnostic word and his birth is around the same time as eight major religions who celebrated the Solstice. The Muslins know more about Jesus than the Christians do....

Just because something exists and someone experiencing something does not make or mean that, that something and the experienced is true and correct, this goes for the past and future, separation and division. We learn these things at an early age from our parents, school and society (which is full of conditioned minds, conditioned/programmed with fear and sensualized/romanticized love) etc etc, and are not our true nature.

I do not deny that separation and division exists, I would not be talking about them, if I did deny their existence. Separation and division is just not true and correct. What is not true and correct, simply lacks/is absent of truth, and thus honesty, nothing more and nothing less.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Many many years ago, I recall being in the steam room.....
When I opened my eyes some time afterwards (not sure how long afterwards), the steam had subsided and a number of people were in the room staring at me, including my friend Cliff. They said that I had been completely motionless. ....

Your story #106 excerpt here...I wanted to acknowledge...cuz I missed it before.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Just because something exists and someone experiencing something does not make or mean that, that something and the experienced is true and correct, this goes for the past and future, separation and division. We learn these things at an early age from our parents, school and society (which is full of conditioned minds, conditioned/programmed with fear and sensualized/romanticized love) etc etc, and are not our true nature.

And what is thought to be our true nature is as much programming as anything else you've mentioned here, Spirituality is often romanticised and when it come to our so-called True Self, more so.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I do not deny that separation and division exists, I would not be talking about them, if I did deny their existence. Separation and division is just not true and correct. What is not true and correct, simply lacks/is absent of truth, and thus honesty, nothing more and nothing less.

What is true and correct is not decided by you, me or anybody else. Agenda is though.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

And what is thought to be our true nature is as much programming as anything else you've mentioned here, Spirituality is often romanticised and when it come to our so-called True Self, more so.


What is true and correct is not decided by you, me or anybody else. Agenda is though.

Subjectivity or opinions and the choices we make are decided by everyone, with or without an agenda or goal.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Subjectivity or opinions and the choices we make are decided by everyone, with or without an agenda or goal.

According to a Spanish psychologist, decisions are made by a 'committee' of potentially 16 members, the members of which depends on what is being decided on at the time. This is how choices are made, not by the conscious but by the unconscious 90-95% aspect of our selves. We only become conscious after the opinion has been formed or the choice has been made, if at all.

You see Mike, 'I' doesn't exist, 'I' is the dream believing itself to be the dreamer that forms opinions and makes choices, and that's more literal than most who hold onto their Ahamkaras or egos would want to believe. If there is no duality or 'I' that thinks it is separate then there is neither objectivity or subjectivity, no 'everyone'. Your unconscious cognitive behaviour - constructive or destructive - or your cognitive dissonance has more sway than your conscious. The Limbic System is the so-called 'lizard brain' whose primary function is survival and sometimes beliefs are perceived as being necessary for survival. Perhaps one of the unconscious reasons people 'guard' their beliefs against all comers.

The next time you make a choice or have an opinion, ask yourself the reason it exists and how it came to be decided/created. Humans don't do anything for nothing.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

According to a Spanish psychologist, decisions are made by a 'committee' of potentially 16 members, the members of which depends on what is being decided on at the time. This is how choices are made, not by the conscious but by the unconscious 90-95% aspect of our selves. We only become conscious after the opinion has been formed or the choice has been made, if at all.

You see Mike, 'I' doesn't exist, 'I' is the dream believing itself to be the dreamer that forms opinions and makes choices, and that's more literal than most who hold onto their Ahamkaras or egos would want to believe. If there is no duality or 'I' that thinks it is separate then there is neither objectivity or subjectivity, no 'everyone'. Your unconscious cognitive behaviour - constructive or destructive - or your cognitive dissonance has more sway than your conscious. The Limbic System is the so-called 'lizard brain' whose primary function is survival and sometimes beliefs are perceived as being necessary for survival. Perhaps one of the unconscious reasons people 'guard' their beliefs against all comers.

The next time you make a choice or have an opinion, ask yourself the reason it exists and how it came to be decided/created. Humans don't do anything for nothing.

And that's what I've been saying all along and why I use the analogy of a lucid dream as a model for realizing a more fundamental reality than that which our senses perceive and feed to our brain. It's the dreamer awakening while still dreaming, realizing the non-duality of the dreamer is a truer reality more fundamental than the reality of duality within the dream.

Fundamentally I am not the dream body within dream reality and fundamentally I'm not the mind-body within waking reality.

[God-Like]

Of course I exist .

If one didn't believe that I exist, one wouldn't be arguing that I don't lol .

One uses the dream analogy to fit their agenda .

There is no realisation had that the I is dreamy or not real .

I am open to peoples accounts of their realisations to this effect but none ever come forward .

All that comes forward is more conclusions based upon what a peep believes of themselves .

If the I doesn't exist and is dreamy and illusory then everything that comes out of their dreamy and illusory mouths is equally dreamy and illusory .

Nothing said of the dream can be anything more than dream material and yet peeps still try and maintain that what they say is true lol .


x dazzle x