Hora: 14-Nov-2018, 12:37 AM ¡Hola, Invitado! (Iniciar sesiónRegístrate)

power
Autor Mensaje
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #1
power
You know, probably everyone gets into Castaneda, or something spiritual with the idea that they will acquire something that they don't have now.
(Thanks, Mr. Obvious!)

The root of this, IMO, is the search for power. We've felt lost, victimized, powerless... and at some point we get angry and want to have some control, and we start controlling people and things around us. Simply acquiring knowledge, as in Castaneda's system, a knowledge that most people won't be familiar with, makes us superior and more powerful and in control, in the know... we have the truth, or at least more truth than 'they' do.

This should all be observed. Watch your intent. And remember that power is one of the natural enemies of man. It, too, is just as illusory as fear and clarity.
All your ambition, all your goals, are related to power and acquiring something.

I'm not saying give it up and be an average human.
I've been saying there's nothing average about being human.

Anyway, I'm not prescribing behaviour for anyone either. I'm just reminding you what you have to look forward to. Search, find, acquire... go crazy. The result will be the same as when you thought you were powerless. Then what?

Don't just agree with me. Don't give up your search. Find out for yourself. I'm just saying this so maybe you'll find out quicker.
06-Dec-2007 04:36 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #2
power
In many respects, I was more provoked by wanting to remove things from my life. Bad habits, social controls, judgements, etc. These are things which discourage a natural flow of 'inherent' power, in the first place.

Beyond that, I certainly understand how the search for power could cause problems. That seems to be the problem in itself. Especially for those who enter with expectations of such gains. Unfurtunately, most of us do not have a Don Juan to meet with like monsieur Carlos.

The knowledge of applying knowledge is what's important, not knowledge itself.

[sub]

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
27-Dec-2007 07:16 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #3
power
Hi Silk.

But aren't you going to acquire something by removing these items from your life? Even if it's peace of mind or one's 'natural' state?

Why do we want these? Who wants them?
And how do we know we don't already have them?
Who said they're worth having?


This may be off the subject of power a bit, but these are the questions I've been asking lately, because I find that everything is a myth, a story, that I've been told. But we're told the story, the fairy tale, in such a way that it puts a longing in us, and we start searching before we really investigated what it is we're searching for. This idea of 'love', the idea of 'freedom', the idea of 'enlightenment'... How can anyone know what these things, (or no things), are except for the stories we've heard? Instead of anyone ever experiencing, 'love' for example, we experience our knowledge about 'love'. It's always second-hand. We drag these stories around about what love should be, or freedom, or truth or whatever, and we compare our world to the stories and inevitably must come up lacking. But if we drop the labels and the stories, life itself is very sufficient... well, there's no one to know "sufficient" or "insufficient". Which, to me, is the natural state. But again, we're caught in the circle: how do I know what is natural and unnatural? How do I know this natural state is something to be desired? Who is measuring "natural" and "unnatural"? The same problem...

This begins to look like a very effective structure for controlling people. And because everyone is in agreement, everyone is looking for 'happiness' or whatever, we don't even question if such a thing exists without the mind-seperation structure that perceives it, that IS it. I'm beginning to understand what the 'flyer's' mind is, as a structure anyway; although I have no first-hand encounters with anything like a flyer, and don't see why they would be necessary. The mind itself as a structure poses all the problems that a 'flyer's' mind could impose. The idea of seperation itself is enough to kill ourselves and eachother, and that is inherent in mind, let alone 'flyer's' mind.

We have the story of flyers from CC, but we also have the Sumerian version of the story of Genesis and the garden of Eden and alien genetic manipulation, which seems very probable to me. I've heard that our brains were not seperated into two hemispheres before that event. Maybe has something to do with the pendulum action observed by seers/ DJ in that center? Maybe these aliens are synonymous with flyers? Who can say? Regardless of flyers or aliens or whatever, we have the direct, immediate concern of mind f#*king things up and searching for who did this won't solve anything. But it's fun.
28-Dec-2007 10:23 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #4
power
Well stated True. I was going to replace your use of the word "acquire" with the the word "return,"... as if by removing these bad habits and such, I would be returning to some innocent state of naturality that I was born in. Honestly, I was discussing what 'first' brought me into the desire to study a spiritual world. But you bring up a valid and 'extremely' important point.

Have you read "Ishmael?" Essentially a concise discussion in the matter of humanity falling prey to their own modern mythology or story (as you began to state). Very appropriate to these questions.

Essentially, I feel the problem is that humans, beyond a shadow of a doubt, think that they are the most important "things" in the entire universe (obvious I suppose). So they have put it on themselves to control and manipulate everything within their capabilities... to be able to one day have that ultimate control.

We have crossed a certain threshold, and so it seems hopelessly manageable, and utterly desctructive from the perspective of you and I. But regardless of the questions that you and I pose and discuss here, I think we both carry a fire that serves as the subtle hand of intet. I don't have to ask questions about that. I need only obey.

*Universal intent is something I remain obedient to.

[silk]

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
02-Jan-2008 02:02 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #5
power
Hey Silk.

I have a copy of Ishmael somewhere, but I haven't read it. Thanks for the link-referral.

Yes (about important humans) it seems since we've acquired self-consciousness (which some religions have interpreted as God intending us to be masters of creation, above everything else.) we've seperated ourselves from the rest of creation, and this seperation is our own downfall. But maybe we're missing something, or mis-using something. I mean this self-consciousness has happened - it must have been spirit's will or whatever you call that (universal intent). So I wonder if we were to do that only to learn a lesson and return to the natural state, or (what seems more likely) that we return with this additional ability - to go back and forth for some reason. Is this about being co-creators with "God"/spirit or something? I guess we just need to use self-consciousness (thinking) strategically, purposefully, intelligently... and rest in the natural state while not using it. As it is, self-consciousness is using us (humanity).


Will you share your understanding of universal intent and obedience to it? How does that unfold for you, practically speaking? In what way can one be disobedient to universal intent, if you think that's possible? (I won't argue with your answers if they differ from mine, but I would point out the perpetuation of a seperative structure if we believe we can be disobedient to universal intent. That would necessitate us being outside of the universe, not to mention more powerful than the universal intent.)

ps. Is the silk underwear a Taoist sexual yoga reference? Wink I recall reading something from one of Mantak Chia's books about massaging the perineum with silk after orgasm without ejaculation.
03-Jan-2008 12:57 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #6
power
Haha... prior to registering for this forum, I was watching a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie called "double impact." One of the characters in the movie was dubbed "silk underwear boy." It was the first name that came to mind, so I decided to stick with it.

Universal intent. When we think about cave men or even the jungle, there is a sense (since we are on the subject of self-consciousness) that things prior to modern man were in some kind of chaos. I'm not saying this reflects the mentality of you or me, but the general consesus of mankind, indeed, perceives balance in a different light, because man has adopted the responsibility of attempting to "restore order" reflecting his own description of 'right' and 'wrong.' When confronted by truth, one will come to the realization this its actually the other way around. "Modern man" introduced chaos to a world that was already in harmony balance. I can't imagine a cave man committing suicide, or hanging out in the poppy fields becoming addicted to opiates. Modern man also has no real methods of population control because we have milked our emotional selves beyond the "instinct." This becomes a double edged sword, because any real method of population control will unfortunately be considered mass genocide, but if we keep increasing at this rate, the planet will continue to suffer.

So, I don't think man is "consciously" being disobedient to a universal intent. I understand what you mean by saying that man indeed has self-consciousness and perhaps this is the will of spirit - to use man as a tool in some way. To me that reflects the same religious zeal that is expressed in Christianity or any major religion. That is just another way of saying that God's favor man, no? I'm certainly not against any religion, and I will certainly admit that there is a possibility that you are correct about that. I think the only way someone can consciously disobey universal intent, is by abusing power.

But, Universal Intent, to me, is an expression of that original order, without the introduction of chaos. It is the expression of heart more so than the brain. What I mean by obeying intent is simply following the signs of spirit. Carlos spoke on various occasions of having "appointments" with knowledge. Don Juan would say "knowledge is prowling around out there right now and we are going to confront it." I'm really into the science of Symbiot Association (Les Symbiotes) - and ultimately I find expressions of the totality of assimilation in the world of sorcery. Universal intent operates, and the natural order of harmony, and essentially the descriptions of the Tao Te Ching, are the emanations that we perceive as the expression. Seers can see past that expression and view the patterns of intent (energy) directly and act according to those patterns. Patterns, order, harmony, balance, yin-yan, assimilation.

I think that is where one finds the totality of spirit.

[sub]

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
04-Jan-2008 11:55 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #7
power
In other words, man ate from the tree of knowledge and began to replace universal intent with self-importance.

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
04-Jan-2008 12:27 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
Crow Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 21
Registro en: Nov 2007
Mensaje: #8
power
How do I recognize universal intent? I am baffled by chaos.
05-Jan-2008 11:51 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #9
power
Thanks for the reply Silk.
That was very lucid. I'm with you.

The only part I didn't get was the symbiot association. I looked it up to see what it was about. There were two versions: in cartoons (like spider-man), a symbiot is a parasitic being that latches onto a host, giving it super powers and yet feeding off of it in some way. Then there's the symbiotic association between two living organisms in nature that seems a bit more harmonious, probably like Amanitas and Christmas trees.


I looked into myself about the "god's favoring man" and I have no present religious concept or belief about that. The way it is seen for me is that life (not god) probably wants to evolve or was set in motion to evolve and we just happen to be one of the organisms at the spearhead of that evolution on this planet (perhaps surpassed by dolphins and whales??). I caught some pieces of a nature show the other day and chimpanzees also go to war with eachother and get jealous and exhibit other human "faulty" characteristics. I'm not saying we're the most evolved as a species, but that we demonstrate the greatest potential for the most rapid evolution. So some could interpret that to mean something. I don't know what it would mean. I intend not to indulge in interpretations. But I do know that it doesn't mean that we're better than anything else. I don't think we're here to rule over anything. Maybe we're more able to appreciate the various manifestations of life. Maybe that appreciation serves an indispensable function in the universe. I'm not sure. Probably everything is indispensable if the universe is as efficient as it appears to be.
06-Jan-2008 04:03 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #10
power
Hello again. Apologize for the delay, I've been a little busy.

Thanks for the response True. Although, it seems that you are still saying the same thing, but substituting different words and species in the place of humans. Your ideas may not be wrong... but I am wondering what you mean by the word 'surpass,' when describing how maybe one day dolphins or whales might surpass humanity?

Surpass to what end? What would then be the strategic purpose of evolution?

But don't take my questions with any negative connotation because I certainly do not mean to pose them that way. I know you have thought about enlightenment, paradise, transcendence, etc. at some point in your life. You have imagined some kind of purpose, and developed faith in that purpose. My main area of study is the Ancient Egyptians, and there is so much discussion within the historical context that Egyptians were excessively concerned about an afterlife. I have found deeper truths in their philosophies, but I'm using all these things as en example of how the human mind-set is stuck in depicting and imaging things in a "linear" setting. Time for instance, is always "Point A to Point B," in modern civilization. So ultimately, I'm wondering if you really think creatures are evolving to "higher" levels of something, and if so, what higher level, and what is the purpose of higher levels?

I'll let you respond first, and then explain how Symbiotic Association fits into this. Very interesting stuff. Very Buddhist in its collective appeal.

Crow - as many channels as possible. I suggest starting a new thread wih your question as the topic line. Let us delve deep "and shatter the frozen sea within us." Wink

Peace 4 now.

Silk

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
15-Jan-2008 07:16 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #11
power
Hey Silk.

Surpass refers to evolution, which refers to awareness. Entities can be more or less aware. Dolphins, I feel, are more aware than "average" humans. I just meant that dolphins are further evolved or more aware as a species than humans, but we have the potential, and some utilise it, to be as aware and more aware.

The "strategic purpose"? I don't see one. I used the words "set in motion". I think it's like that. Once awareness/attention starts, it builds, it alters what it perceives. Life/awareness is like that. I used the word "evolution" to name that. Awareness is evolving. I don't see an end to it. Any goal would be subjective, relative and temporal. The goal is to be more aware. The "end" is infinity - the endless. Purpose? I've dropped purpose - I don't think there is a purpose to any of this. I leave that to the "philosophers" as they're called. For me, it's just happening and we can either make ourselves available to it (evolution of awareness) or be fixated in the known. The seer sees what is and acts accordingly. To me, purpose is not the seer's interest but the mind's... the mind thinks/asks about purpose so it can avoid acting.

You said:
"You have imagined some kind of purpose, and developed faith in that purpose."

I'm not imagining. I see no purpose. I have no faith.
How have I shown otherwise?

I said:
"Yes (about important humans) it seems since we've acquired self-consciousness (which some religions have interpreted as God intending us to be masters of creation, above everything else.) we've seperated ourselves from the rest of creation, and this seperation is our own downfall. But maybe we're missing something, or mis-using something. I mean this self-consciousness has happened - it must have been spirit's will or whatever you call that (universal intent). So I wonder if we were to do that only to learn a lesson and return to the natural state, or (what seems more likely) that we return with this additional ability - to go back and forth for some reason. Is this about being co-creators with "God"/spirit or something? I guess we just need to use self-consciousness (thinking) strategically, purposefully, intelligently... and rest in the natural state while not using it. As it is, self-consciousness is using us (humanity)."


I can see how this seems like I'm "wondering", "speculating", etc. I was practicing a bit of stalking, trying to write so that it leaves the conversation open instead of just stating my convictions and leading the conversation. I have no "maybes" myself. I wrote that for you, or anyone else, in case you wanted it. The same with the choice of the word "wonder"... I used that so to leave the topic "open" instead of knowing for us all. I'm not sure if you know what I mean. The same with "co-creators with God"... too spiritual for my taste. The same with "I guess"... I'm not a guesser.

I see that my "stalking" just complicated the situation. I didn't (and still don't) know where you're at and I was trying a different angle than my other posts where I just say what is.

No negative connotations taken. And I hope you don't see any "defending" on my part. I was choosing my words strategically to try to avoid my normal directness that makes me seem like "one who knows" which seems to invite people to attack me. Big Grin You turned the tables on me. You're "attacking" (not really - just "pointing to" I'd say) what I would have pointed to in others. I'll be myself with you from now on and see if we don't communicate better.

I really don't indulge in speculations, meanings and purposes, (but I could if you really want me to). If I do, I'll point it out that I'm doing so. Otherwise I talk about what I see, what I know directly. I do have a lot of unconfirmed knowledge which I have available, but, again, I make it a point to say if it's mine or someone else's. If I don't specify, you may assume I'm speaking from my place of witnessing.

Thanks Silk. Does this make sense to you? I mean, does it clarify what you were seeing earlier as my "imagination, purpose and faith"?
15-Jan-2008 09:17 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #12
power
Hi again True! Smile The statements about "imagining" in my previous post were not mentioned as a reflection of what you or I may think or perceive now, today. I was illustrating the point that we are all "at one point" or another in the past, subject to the collective thoughts of linearism that is evident within a common mind set of humankind. When we were young and first learned of the idea of "heaven," we thought about it in the linear sense, of life after death. But, I certainly appreciate the response... and yes, it certainly provided insightful points about communication. So, in the same regard, I will also try to be as direct and clear as possible henceforth. Let us continue :

I gather from your response about evolution, that "awareness" is important. In this case, I am supposing you mean that its important to be "aware" of universal intent. But, still I think this compares species on some kind of measurable scale of awareness. Whereas, in my own thoughts I see universal intent as the manifestations of Gods awareness. I don't associate a species, such as an amoeba, as being any less aware than a dolphin. They both serve to perpetuate creation. But I suppose, ultimately, the main topic of our discussion is - humans.

Humans are certainly aware of some things. But are they really aware of 'universal intent?' If we examine how things have progressed since the agricultural revolution, it seems (in my own opinion), that man has suffered a tremendous deal. They have also made countless animals suffer or become extinct, butchered animals on a large scale to satisfy their own appetites, completely altered environments, split atoms, expanded the global population beyond capacity, and dissected practically everything in the name of control. If we return for a moment to my early post on how modern man introduced chaos to a world of harmony, my question becomes - are humans really aware? Certainly they had the potential. But it almost seems to me that humans have crossed a line, where natural selection no longer applies. The collective species of humans today are amazingly nothing like rhythm and harmony, and thus I see them as being very out of touch with that awareness. I don't mean to bash on the human race... but they're killing themselves very slowly.

By saying that dolphins may be more aware of something else... someone might interpret that as you inferring that dolphins somehow offer something more to the world because of that awareness. Perhaps that's not what you mean, but either way, universal intent is "universal" and the awareness of that, in my own opinion, was profound and perfect before man began his quest to seek all the answers and enlightenment. I mean to say that the awareness of universal intent was the same for a snail, as it was for a rhinoceros, because things were in a pure state of harmony.

This brings me to the ideas of "Symbiotic Association." This idea, is very much like the teachings of "Emptiness," in Buddhism. The teachings of Emptiness imply that everything is Empty. Students are given this statement to meditate on, and eventually will begin to ask... "Well, empty of what? What does that mean?" It means that everything is 'empty' of a separate self. In other words, one thing cannot exist without other things. The easiest example to illustrate this, and one that is commonly used to convery this idea, is by examining a sheet of paper. A sheet of paper cannot exist without a cloud. The cloud must provide the rain that made the tree grow. There also must be sunlight to help the tree grow, and soil for it to grow in. There must be air to breathe. There also must have been someone who cut down the tree and made this paper. There must also be a mother and father who made the person that cut down the tree. Gradually we can continue to branch out with this idea and see that everything contributes to the creation of this sheet of paper, except for the paper itself (the separate self.) The paper itself is empty.

Symbiotic Association is very similar. It is all about relationships, and how these relationships sustain ecosystems and the world. Here is an example of the relationships I am talking about :

Imagine a crocodile in the Nile River. There are little leeches that get into his mouth and threaten his existence. A crocodile cannot move his tongue very well, and most of the time, these little leeches get stuck inside his mouth and he can't get them out. So, what happens, is that the crocodile develops a relationship with a little tiny bird. The crocodile goes onto the shore and stretches open his mouth. The little bird hops over and slowly tip-toes into his mouth... and eats all the leeches. The bird gets fed, and the crocodile gets cleaned and healthy.

There are millions of these little tiny relationships that have developed in nature and the universe and contribute to evolution on massive scales. Without preserving these relationships with everything else... man's potential is reduced to a helpless state.

So, I suppose my next question is, what should man really be aware of? I would also like to know your thoughts on the ideas presented here. Thanks!

Silk

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
16-Jan-2008 07:28 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #13
power
Hi Silk!
Very nice post. I could understand everything. You communicate very well.

I have linearism ingrained in me as my "first language" so to speak, but I've been methodically replacing it with spontaneous, immediate re-creation of each now from the void. I don't "believe in" cause and effect anymore, not that it doesn't exist as a description, but it's one way of perceiving or interpreting events. Not unlike how quantum physics "trumps" classical Newtonian/Cartesian physics. So as I stalk myself throughout the day, when I catch my mind thinking linearly, I remind myself that this moment has nothing whatsoever to do with any previous moment. I make efforts not to indulge in comparing and using memory so that this present may be uncontaminated and mysterious.
That said, I have no quarrels with the Buddha's word's "what we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind." (Dhammapada)
For me, this latter is a useful tool if we want to "create reality" consciously. The other view, spontaneous emanation from the void, is useful if we want to "see".
So I can speak about linear models and views, but it's not my only model/view. Agreed - when observing humanity, that view prevails.

For me, the "ideal" awareness is non-exclusive: to be aware of all/infinity. That would be, in my view, the closest to Source. Although admittedly, this may not always be the most practical viewpoint. Again, for me, this dualism comes up, so we may need to consider it before continuing: if we want to "see", then one mode is necessary; if we want to "do", then another mode is necessary. DJ made a distinction between seers and sorcerers, saying they were completely independant - a seer can easily be a sorcerer; a sorcerer may or may not learn to see. The sorcerer wants to manipulate or alter something; the seer just sees as it is (energy as it flows in the universe).

So from there, for me, I have to ask, is awareness of universal intent a specific or particular thing, or is it non-exclusive? The word "universal" would seem to imply non-exclusivity, but "intent" seems to imply intending some "thing", though this is not definitely so. So this is why I asked if one can be disobedient to universal intent. If they can, then universal intent is not non-exclusive (all-inclusive): universal intent includes some certain acts and excludes some others. My reason doesn't allow me to accept this. The universe, infinity, spirit... cannot exclude something because all things are it (it is all things). So what could possibly exist that is against universal intent? The universe is intending everything into existence. Even the most "idiotic" acts of man must fall into this all-inclusive beingness. But this view favors the seers perspective.
If we want to favor the sorcerers' perspective, we may now divide the universe into impeccable acts and non-impeccable acts, acts which polish our link with spirit/intent and acts which soil it, a path with heart and a path which lacks heart... but I could not, in accuracy, call this "universal".

This is what a "universal intent" would mean to me, but I'm still not sure what it means to you. Since it was you who used these words first, I must allow you to define them. You used the words "the manifestation of God's awareness". To me, God is aware of all, so are we on the same page that this universal intent is all-inclusive/non-exclusive? I still get the sense from your context that it is not.

Can you clarify this before we continue?

I'll address the rest of your post in a second post, but it'll have to wait - I gotta go to work.

Thanks Silk!
17-Jan-2008 10:53 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #14
power
"If we return for a moment to my early post on how modern man introduced chaos to a world of harmony, my question becomes - are humans really aware? Certainly they had the potential. But it almost seems to me that humans have crossed a line, where natural selection no longer applies. The collective species of humans today are amazingly nothing like rhythm and harmony, and thus I see them as being very out of touch with that awareness."

That's partially why I would say dolphins are more aware. The rest is a more scientific argument based on the brain size and function.

I do think, as far as the doers'/sorcerers' perspective goes, that there is a scale of awareness. The second attention is more aware than the first attention; a warrior-seer who truly aims at freedom is more aware than a sorcerer who wants to manipulate another person to some end; an organism that is not bent on self-destruction due to rampant self-importance is demonstrating greater awareness than a suicide bomber. But these comparisons are for any given moment, not comparisons of potential, but of available energy/awareness.

If we speak of potential, well, it gets tricky, but I'll attempt it. I get into evolution again, and here's why: First I'd say that all life potentially has the same potential. Who's to say that todays amoeba won't evolve into future homo sapiens given a trillion million years or something? Why do things need to evolve, and why towards being human? Not necessarilly (sp? don't feel like getting a dictionary) towards human - it's the brain that matters, that makes it evolved, not the form. So here's why brain has to do with awareness potential: If you look at the brains of living creatures or the nervous systems, or the lack of them, you see evolution. Using humans as an example, they actually possess three brains: the reptilian brain (corresponding to the brain stem and cerebellum), the mammalian brain (the limbic system - amygdala, hippocampus...

maybe better... check out this link of the triune brain. It's different than the last triune brain link, but basically the same. This will save me a lot of typing.

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/d_0..._05_cr_her.html

I happened across this article that I think is interesting if anyone has the time. It reveals a little more about the workings of the three brains from something of a NLP, psy-ops, political view:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-13.htm


So from that it should be apparent that a human has greater potential than a gecko which has only the reptilian brain. And a human who is aware of their three brains and learns to use them intentionally will be more aware than your average human who is "asleep" and being used by his/her brain and only parts at a time. If you've read any Gurdjieff you'll be familiar with this model.


I'm going over your last post again. It seems to me that universal intent, as you're using it, is "being" or "authentic self" or "natural mind"?
19-Jan-2008 08:04 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #15
power
Hello, hello. Again... I return. I've been running some errands for the past little while and really have not had a moment to sit down and respond.

But allow me a moment to soak in your response and see what I have to offer.

(Jeopardy music ..................................)

Hmmmm. Ok. I think you are using your brain too much! Smile Does a human have the sensory impulses of a bird migrating south? The radar of a bat? The instincts of a Siberian Bengal Tiger?

My point is that you are again measuring based on what you perceive as potential in a human world. Humans have a more evolved brain... but they are certainly not using it for purposes that seem to be helping..... well, ANYTHING AT ALL!!!

You are using your reason, and the terminologies of your reason to measure, and re-measure and analyze and interpret.

I'll be back. :ph34r:

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
31-Jan-2008 07:59 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #16
power
Hi Silk!

Hmmm. Are we not trapped by the rules of convention to speak of potential?
This entire conversation is centered around universal intent which seems to be a potential and not what is. That's what I'm trying to clarify - since for you one can go against universal intent, then it is potential. So WE are talking about potential, not just me. And thus WE are reasoning and measuring and analysing and interpreting, because this topic calls for it because we are talking about the potential of being aligned with universal intent.

Isn't it universal intent that we have these brains and that we are more than just instinct? Are you suggesting to skim the emanations and just use the instinct part and then we will be aligned with universal intent?

Sorry if I've misinterpreted. It's been a while and I may not be refreshed on our conversation.

true
04-Feb-2008 06:43 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #17
power
Bonjour Vrai :

Don Juan once discussed a comparison between the luminous bodies of the old sorcerers and the new sorcerers. He said, the old sorcerers had more oblong lumnious bodies, that were shaped like an egg. The new sorcerers, on the other hand, have luminous bodies that are more spherical, or ball-shaped. Its an interesting statement, and one that I have thought about a lot.

I like to study the ancient cultures of Mesoamerica, but I especially love Egypt. One thing I have always admired about these cultures is there appreciation and understanding of astronomy. It makes me sad today, that astronomy is not a required class in the schooling curriculum. It should be, for it allows one to appreciate and understand the laws and cycles of the universe, like the ancients did, and how those laws and cycles are reflected here on earth.

Gradually, I began to understand that the old sorcerers had a larger capacity for energy than the new sorcerers, and thus their comprehension of things was also on in larger capacity. The nature of their societies reflected their enviornment and the laws of their knowledge, which they witnessed every day.

In order to understand something, one needs sufficient energy to understand it. A person can read books, or be taught theories, or whatever, but without enough energy, that information is not going to mean much at all.

What do you think made your link with intent dirty in the first place?

My point here is that the crows and the dolphins don't need to polish their link with intent like we do. They are not subject to the same illusions of humanity's mythology.

That is why we trust them when they show us something.

[sub]

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
05-Feb-2008 07:30 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #18
power
Ahhh.
My answer may be a little more involved than expected, but our link got soiled because we've been seized upon by an alien intelligence and altered, and our ego is a protective mechanism to deal with that alteration, those traumatic events. Specifically, I am referring to alien enslavement and genetic manipulation as recorded in ancient Sumerian texts.
These alien "gods" of Genesis who came to this planet did not interbreed or genetically manipulate crows and the majority of other animal species, so they have evolved naturally, whereas we are trying to compensate for this huge cerebellum that we've been given by "the gods" without the natural evolutionary experience to know how to use it properly.

Are you familiar with this knowledge? Do you accept that as history, or shall we take another avenue? I suppose that regardless of how we acquired it, the ego is the difference between myself and a crow, the dust on my link. That leads us back to our previous posts. So if you want to emphasize the natural, our advanced brains do not help us to see; but then a crow can't devise a system of astronomy and mathematics - nor could we without the cerebrum/neocortex. We may have looked up at the night sky in wonder as homo erectus, but we didn't recognize astronomy until the alien "gods" manipulated our genes with their own into homo sapiens. Even then who knows how long it would have taken us to learn it on our own if they didn't teach it to us, along with agriculture, metallurgy, magic, mathematics, speaking, writing, music, etc. (Surely you're familiar with Tehuti-Thoth-Hermes as a teacher of mankind. Well, he was one of these alien "gods" - neteru.) Archeology recognizes that civilisation suddenly sprung up from nowhere. This is why - alien visitation and interference. So we can't wish for by-gone days when things were simpler... those days are gone. Now we have to find our way with this altered nature. I can't subscribe to the idea that we should become like cavemen again, or like crows. As I said before, we just need to use the mind when it's pertinent to the matter at hand rather than letting the mind use us all the time.

How's this sound to you? Are we still together?

I think I am familiar with astronomy, at least some of its laws and cycles, if you'd like to utilise that syntax or go into it's application, or discuss it in another topic.

Oh - I did promise to let you know when I'm speculating... well, I don't know about this alien hypothesis directly, but it makes much more sense than any other explanation of our origins and history that I've come across. There are so many ancient writings, from the meso-american to the indo-aryan, to the asian, to the greek, irish, african,... etc... that refer to these gods that came from the heavens and taught mankind. It just can't be ignored.

a bientot, soie!
07-Feb-2008 03:02 AM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
silk underwear boy Sin conexión
Junior Member
**

Mensajes: 24
Registro en: Dec 2007
Mensaje: #19
power
Hi True! Sorry I keep disappearing.

The reason I do not subscribe to the 'alien' hypothesis is because we are luminous beings of energy, and what we see is a physical manifestation of energy. Aside from that, we are capable of anything without interference.

Surely, I am more than versed in QuetzalCoatl, Kukulcan, Votan, Vircocha, Hermes Trismegistus, the Vedic Rainbow Tribes, Enoch, Kumara, the 'Nagual' Akhenaten, the great constant, the Zodiac, DNA, etc. But among all of the things I have buried myself in for many years, Ancient Egypt is that which I know most about, and 'neteru' is really just a term that exemplifies the Gods of the Egyptian pantheon.

Just like words in our English language sometimes carry 2 different meanings, like bear and bear, this also occurs in other languages, and 'neteru' has its roots in a word like this. The real translations of the inscriptions express the word as neter, the name for God, or Lord as used today, and is connected with another meaning of the word neter describing renewals or rebirth. If one wants to take that meaning of renewal or rebirth and ascribe to an extraterrestrial interference for the purposes of teaching humanity, that's fine with me, but I know it refers to "the active power which produces and creates things in perpetual recurrence." It describes the force of life.

But I do have some further questions for you, and I want you to be assured that I'll do my best to answer any of yours.

Why do you think humans need things like agriculture, language, writing, production? Things like math, magic, music, and speaking (communication) have always been here. Man did not create them. (Like Magical Passes, he discovered them).

Did we need them so we could just learn to transcend them in the end?


***The most important point I want to make is as follows***

You mentioned that you did not want to return to life as lived by cavemen. Understand that the life you are living now is directly related to your perception of the world. When man "ate from the tree of knowledge," he dirtied his link with intent.

I am not saying that we should live like cavemen. I am saying that Cavemen "perceived" the world differently because their link with intent was stronger, pure and natural. Nor should we try and live as a crow eating road kill. Rather we must understand that the crow also does not "perceive" the world as you do.

I am not saying live like anything else, I am saying perceive "see" like other things, without the human factor, and none of that other stuff will matter.

Silkiest Underweare on the Planet Boy.

~ Thou shalt not be a stair in hell
11-Feb-2008 06:50 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes
true Sin conexión
Member
***

Mensajes: 169
Registro en: Oct 2007
Mensaje: #20
power
O silky one, Big Grin

But being beings of energy/luminosity doesn't/hasn't helped us transcend manipulation. The whole of sorcery is based on the fact that energy CAN be manipulated, and so can we. To think or say that we're not goes against what can simply be observed. What we are capable of and what is are two different things. What is is that we are the product/result of interference, whether we see its origins as alien or terrestrial (govt, religion, corporate, social...).
No matter. We can still move forward here. I see the "what we are capable of" viewpoint as one of a dreaming frame of mind and the "start from where you are; linear" viewpoint as a stalker's. I tend towards stalking, but I'm flexible. Certainly we are free. Unconditionally so. But from my observations, we (humankind in general) exercise our freedom by dreaming we are enslaved/imprisoned and fully believing it. Is the link ACTUALLY dusty, or do we just believe/accept/dream/agree that it is? Saying/seeing that our link is dusty is the same believing that can say/see that we're manipulated. I'd ask if you agree, but to me this is just so.

I thought the scarab was rebirth, becoming. Are these synonymous- kheperi and neteru? I guess linguistics is too encompassing to really get into that here.

I'm not sure I agree that agriculture, etc were discovered instead of taught. I don't think we created them. As I said, these visitors taught them to us. That's why they appeared so suddenly. Civilisation suddenly sprouted from nothing, not because we discovered it, but because it was given to us by others.

Did we need them just to transcend them? I'm not sure yet. I used to think so, but I've been tending to think that the intent of creation is more than just to transcend it. I now see more from wholeness and oneness, so instead of transcending we would encompass or integrate all - we already are all - infinity. So transcending is seperative and exclusive, wheras I now see inclusivity and wholeness as more true, more what is. Fractionalising ourselves from something else, which is necessary for transcendence, is not a workable path as much as a belief system. We're always dividing things, self-other. That's our prison IMO. This creates a seperate self/ego. This ego cannot be transcended. It can only be seen for what it is, and we can be seen for what we are, and then the ego is one emanation, or group of emanations, in infinity.

That is also why I don't think there is some ideal state we once had in the past, some purity that we must return to. There may have been something like that, but we're not to go backwards; we're to incorporate that and this - not transcend the world but be the "purity" in the world, maybe even evolve the world by being such a being here. But not that we would be just here, but here and all/everywhere in the blink of an eye/AP. Maybe some feel a debt to the earth, as DJ spoke of. I'm not sure. I'm not there. But that may be what I become/I'm becoming.

So, as you said, not become something else, but perceive as they do. I agree. But not that only (which would be exclusive and fractioning). We can perceive that way AND this way. We can see and look. I don't think one is ideal. That would make the world and myself just as lop-sided as it is now with looking as the "ideal" or only way.

How are we, compadre? I think we still see enough in common. Where'd universal intent go? :blink:
That's where I was going - whatever the world is IS universal intent, or it wouldn't be there. So this "evolution" must be incorporated, not removed or transcended. If universal intent was to transcend, we'd already be that. Instead, that is just an ideal/idea of the fractioned mind that always wants something else or sees some other ideal or state as better. We're always struggling to be something else.

true
12-Feb-2008 09:37 PM
Encuentra todos sus mensajes


Posibles temas similares...
Tema: Autor Respuestas: Vistas: Último mensaje
  Power Plants quietxkiller 7 4,677 06-Nov-2007 10:42 AM
Último mensaje: ensonar
  Power foods ensonar 10 4,728 06-Dec-2006 01:58 AM
Último mensaje: Warbaryan

Salto de foro:


Usuario(s) navegando en este tema: 1 invitado(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group. | | Theme Created By effone of Equinox Design