| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 952.1 | To begin... | SCOPE::PAINTER | Dark Ages, Middle Ages, New Age | Fri Jan 13 1989 17:49 | 75 |
|
{From: "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, p.15-17}
Self-Generated Illusion
The New Age is an Age of Humanity - an Age of Consciousness - in which
each individual personally and practically comprehends that their
world is a self-generated illusion that is limited only by their
unique choices and decisions, their private thoughts and feelings, and
the personal attitudes and beliefs.
That reality is a self-generated illusion is the greatest liberating
concept in your world today. As with any liberating concept, many
fear it and attack it with a vengeance. Reflect for a moment on your
political history where self liberating concepts have been born. From
the initial concepts of truths held self-evident in your Constitution
(USA) to the liberating ideas of feminism, each of these concepts, we
would suggest, was feared and attacked as dangerous and detrimental to
the moral fiber of life.
Critics of the conscious creation concept often attack with the
question, "How do you tell a starving person anywhere in the world, or
how do you tell a rape victim, that they create their own reality -
that they created starving or being raped?" The critics huff that
such behavior would be more than insensitive. It would be cruel.
The naive proponent, in their zeal to defend metaphysics and the New
Age, is drawn into this line of criticism by defending this
hypothetical behavior which, indeed, would be both insensitive and
cruel.
We would suggest that the true metaphysician would not tell a starving
person or a rape victim anything about reality creation - at first.
Initially they would work to heal the wound. Then, once whole again,
they would talk of things metaphysical.
A major criticism of American Foreign Policy in the late '50's and
early '60's was that the American policymaker did not understand that
you cannot talk to the politically oppressed and the physically
starving about the Bill of Rights and the genius of Jefferson. first
you must do something about their food situation, then talk of loftier
things. Fill their bellies and then their minds.
in the '50's and '60's, should the American political system have been
abandoned as cruel and insensitive, and therefore wrong, because of a
misapplication of principles? Certainly not. Then why should the
whole of metaphysics and the New Age be so abandoned because of a
hypothetical misapplication of principle?
The critic and the true proponent would heal the wound first. Then
they would deal with the emotion and the emotional scars. We would
suggest that once the victim was well, each would proceed differently.
The metaphysician would offer hope for a different future by talking
of conscious reality creation. The critic would offer hope by
encouraging political and economic reform that would hopefully come
sometime in the future when the proper political leadership can be
established etc., etc., etc. In fact, which approach is more
compassionate?
Admittedly, we do not have a body. However if we did and that body
were violated, in time we would want to know why we created that
reality, because then we would do something about it in the future.
Knowing that we either caused it or allowed it is a grand source of
power - liberating power. To convince ourselves that we are
hopelessly a victim and that there is nothing we can do to prevent the
nightmare from occurring again - to convince ourselves that we have to
wait and hope that others, i.e. political policymakers and
governmental bureaucrats, will do something to make us safe - is
frightening at best.
First you heal the wound, whether it is a physical, mental,
emotional, or psychic wound. You heal it first. Then you would
recognize, acknowledge, forgive yourself and others, if appropriate,
and then change the reality by comprehending that you indeed do create
it all.
|
| 952.2 | Lazaris, cont'd | SCOPE::PAINTER | Dark Ages, Middle Ages, New Age | Fri Jan 13 1989 18:15 | 93 |
|
Short note - I am quoting some of these paragraphs out of sequence,
only to make sure that the more important areas are addressed immediately.
I hope this does not add to the confusion in any way, and will try to clear
it up by entering in the surrounding text if necessary.
I have put *'s around what I believe to be the most important sentence
in the book, which appears in the text below.
Questions, comments or clarification inquiries are welcome.
Cindy
===========================================================================
{From: "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, p.9-10;13-14}
...What about the "serious student" who is criticized for apathy or
decadence? It is sadly true that there are some who consider
themselves "serious students" who have a shallow understanding of
creating their own reality. They are often apathetic. They adopt
reality creation as merely a convenient philosophy to avoid being
responsible for their world, rather than as a truth with which to
responsibly change their world.
Those who fit into this category should perhaps be called "shallow
students", not "serious students". There are also some who use
metaphysics and the panoply of the New Age as armor against
responsibility. We would suggest that these are the ones who find
responsibility frightening. Therefore, they twist the basic tenants
of reality creation to justify non-participation in and non-caring for
the world in which they - and you - live.
The indifference of the "shallow student" can be dangerous. They do
not participate in the world because their shallow understanding leads
them to say only that whoever is suffering is creating that suffering.
True, so far. Therefore, they say, it has nothing to do with them.
Untrue. These "shallow students" conveniently forget that they are
also creating the reality. Though they are not the ones suffering,
they are the ones aware of the suffering they cavalierly dismiss as
"not their problem".
***********************************************************************
* If you are aware of the problem, you are part of it. We will say *
* that again: If you are aware of the problem, you are part of it. *
***********************************************************************
The actual serious student who has an in-depth understanding of
reality creation knows this. The true student of metaphysics sees the
awareness of a problem as an opportunity to participate in the
solution, not just as another opportunity to blame and absolve
themselves of participation.
The socially conscious critics are correct when they see a danger in
the New Age when they are dealing with the shallow student. Those
same critics are incorrect when they lump the true serious students in
with the shallow ones. ...
{p.13-14}
The New Age, unlike the detractors accuse, does not really claim there
is no such thing as victimhood or victims. We would suggest, the New
Age is an Age of Humanity where people strive to replace the very real
feeling of self-pity with the much more exciting and reliable feelings
of enthusiasm and love.
We know that some in the field of metaphysics categorically state that
there is no such thing as a victim. This is crazy-making,
over-simplified metaphysics which both encourages and fuels the
critics, and discourages and distances the real seeker.
You hear that there is no such thing as a victim, and then you look
around you and your world, and, like it or not, we would suggest,
there are victims - those who have created their reality without full
conscious awareness, without conscious responsibility. Yes, they have
created their own reality, and therefore they must have wanted it that
way. However, until they know that and then consciously choose that,
they are victims - self-created victims, but victims nonetheless.
When a person realizes that they do indeed create their own reality
and that they do it consciously, then they have a choice. Then they
can stop being a victim, or they can continue. It is their choice.
Once it is their choice, then we would agree with the chorus: "There
are no victims."
We would suggest that if that person persists in being a victim once
they know they have a choice, they are doing so as a manipulative
ploy. They are no longer a victim, they are a manipulator.
There are victims in your world. In the New Age there is an
opportunity to end victimhood and martyrhood altogether. That ending,
however, is not going to happen by eliminating the word from your
vocabulary!
|
| 952.3 | Lazaris, cont'd | SCOPE::PAINTER | Dark Ages, Middle Ages, New Age | Fri Jan 13 1989 18:49 | 65 |
|
{From: "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, p.14-15}
Conscious Creation
The other significant key to understanding this concept of the New Age
is understanding "consciously creating your reality". Humanistic and
other leading-edge psychologies, as well as contemporary religions,
agree that each person creates their reality. That is, they will
agree that you create your own reality by your attitude. If you are
feeling paranoid, it will seem like everyone is out to get you, and
you may create a miserable reality as a result. Your attitude may
cause you to act hastily: it may cause you to do foolish things, and
thus you created your own reality. If, on the other hand, you are
expecting life to be great, the mishaps will be ignored. Notice, the
suggestion that the mishaps will still occur - it's just that you will
not notice or care.
Among the proponents of conscious reality creation, few will go so far
as to say you create your own reality literally. They may say your
attitude will affect they way you view "things" of your life, but they
will not say that your attitude will literally create those very
"things"!
We would suggest: Many who claim metaphysical expertise are capable
of pronouncing the words, but based on the disclaimers and limiters
that they place on this concept, it is obvious that they do not really
believe that they do create their own reality. Certainly they act as
though they do not want you to believe it!
You do create it all. There are no exceptions. There is no fine
print. There are no astericks. Not only do you create the way you
look at the things, you create the very things you look at!
That statement could be repeated unendingly. Not only do you create
the way you look at things, you create the very things you look at!
You create all of your reality, and you do so consciously.
The quantum physicists in your reality are demonstrating more than
ever the truth of this statement. The only theories and paradigms of
reality that consistently work are based on several common themes:
Reality is an illusion created by observation and/or by consciousness.
Reality, at best, is a probability created out of thought. Reality
is an illusion of light trapped by observation and thought.
It is always curious to us that a scientific-type person will often
scoff at the conscious creation concept, and, at the same time, they
will enthusiastically support the "double-blind" procedure in
scientific experimentation. We would suggest that the double-blind
procedure was developed as a response to the quantum understanding
that "there is no such thing as an observer". Everyone is a
participant in creating the results of an experiment. In other words,
the form of expectation has impact - is a determining factor - in the
reality created in the experimental laboratory. If the experimenter
expects a certain food to produce cancer in rats, it most likely will
- perhaps because of the food, but definitely because of the
experimenter's thought! The scientific type has difficulty accepting
this concept of conscious creation. Actually, it is more difficult to
accept that the idea that thought has so much impact inside the
scientific and so little impact outside the laboratory! How does
thought know where it is?
Whereas the Old Age has many interpretive meanings for the concept of
reality creation, the New Age is quite clear; You consciously create
your own reality either by causing it or by allowing it.
|
| 952.4 | Lazaris, end of excerpts for now. | SCOPE::PAINTER | Dark Ages, Middle Ages, New Age | Fri Jan 13 1989 18:50 | 61 |
|
{From: "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, p.17-18}
Boundaries of Creation
There are limits to what you can self-generate. The initial limits
are your unique choices and decisions. Each day you make choices and,
out of those choices, you make decisions as to how your life is going
to work. From the moment you wake up, you are silently choosing to be
happy or sad, pleased or disappointed, content or angry. We would
suggest: You are not often aware of such choices because you have
habituated them into automatic decisions. These are people (certainly
you've seen them) who have decided to be miserable. No matter what
happens or what is said, they are determined to be unhappy. They not
only generate and attitude, they put out a field of energy - an almost
magnetic field - that literally attracts miserable things happening in
their reality. From every traffic light being red to everyone giving
them more "bad news" about their reality, they create it all according
to the choices, and the decisions that grow out of those basic
choices. As you can see it in them, so you can discover it in
yourself. That it is automatic does not make it less powerful.
The next limits are the thoughts you think and the feelings you feel.
Finally, we would suggest that attitudes and beliefs conclude the
limits on the reality you create. The most powerful of the limiters?
Your beliefs.
As these components are limiters, we would also suggest that they are
the raw materials out of which the illusion is made. As they provide
the boundary of what is possible, they also stretch the very
boundaries they create. As these raw materials provide the limits,
they also provide the liberation!
As you make new choices and decisions, as you wake up and consciously
choose, and then from those new choices decide to be happy and to have
a successful day, so you will. As you slow down long enough to listen
to the thoughts and feelings you have, and more importantly, we would
suggest, as you change your thoughts and feelings, as you change them
consciously, so you more consciously create your own reality.
Similarly, as you monitor your attitudes and your beliefs, as you make
the choice to hold more positive attitudes and more inspirational
beliefs, so your reality becomes more positive and inspiring.
The Power Of Belief
One of the most difficult metaphysical concepts: BELIEF CREATES
EXPERIENCE. The consensus reality, we would suggest, teaches that
experience comes first, and out of those experiences, belief is
somehow born. The domination of Newtonian science - which says that
all proof is based on repeatable experience - has had a profound
influence on the way you see your world. The science of the quantum,
however, categorically prove that Newton, though well-intentioned, was
wrong!
The quantum suggests that reality is created not out of experience,
but one of expectation. Reality is a product of what you expect to
experience, which is another way of saying: Belief creates
experience.
Belief creates experience. Choice manifests it.
|
| 952.5 | Fill their stomachs, then tell them lies | DECWET::MITCHELL | The Cosmic Anchovy | Fri Jan 13 1989 19:19 | 9 |
| RE: .2 (Cindy)
Seems to me that "Lazaris" has not changed the rape victim scenario.
You heal the rape victim first, then later help her to understand
how or why she chose to be raped.
Hogwash!
John M.
|
| 952.6 | More on victims | SCOPE::PAINTER | Dark Ages, Middle Ages, New Age | Fri Jan 13 1989 20:01 | 58 |
|
Re.5 (JM)
OK, John, I'll tell a story of my own.
I was abused as a child. Not horribly, but I was abused nonetheless.
For the life of me I could not understand why. For most of my life,
I went around inside feeling like I was a victim. And indeed I
was. Yes, victimhood is real, as is the pain, the shame, the feeling
that you are in hell. This pattern continued after childhood, and
I kept drawing people into my reality to keep repeating the same
scenario over and over again.
Finally, like that man with the shivering young girl, someone came
along in my life back in May, 1987, someone I went out on a limb
and trusted, and instead of turning away as so many others had done,
he took the time listen to me - heard me, and for the first time
validated my anger - said it was "justified". He chose to get
involved in my life instead of turning away, and changed my reality
forever. My perception of myself, my life, and my situation changed,
and I realized at that point that I had the power and the strength,
and that I did not deserve what had happened to me.
But that wasn't enough. I was still left with the question of "Why?"
So I went back and delved through my life in search of reasons why the
abuse happened. Something strange happened. I began to see my
percecutors in a far different light, and came to understand that they
had been victims too. This understanding led to my being able to
forgive them, but even more importantly, I forgave myself. And I
learned some AMAZING things/lessons as a result of going through all
this.
I now believe that I did choose my childhood. Not only that, but
if only to have learned the lessons that I did and go through what
I did to get where I am today, I would go through it again. I am
now at peace with my past.
You see, the experience gave me the understanding of what it is
like to be a prisoner with no voice. This is part of the reason
behind my choice to get involved with Amnesty International, because
I know what it feels like. I could have chosen to spend the rest of
my life in self-pity about my abusive childhood, but due (mostly) to
the writings of Lazaris, I know now that out of my own experience
I can make a difference in the world because of the knowledge of
what it is like to be in their shoes. I hope at some point to get
involved with something to do with child abuse as well.
I do not know what it is like to be starving. There are people
who do though, and out of their experience, they can best use their
knowledge to help those who are still in that position. So are
rape victims - a lot of them become counsellors or staff rape hotlines.
I'm not a victim anymore, nor do I ever have to be one again. I'm not
in hell anymore. In addition, telling my own story of overcoming my
abusive past and finding peace has helped others on the road to
overcoming their own abusive pasts. We do have choices.
Cindy
|
| 952.7 | Final note for the evening | SCOPE::PAINTER | Dark Ages, Middle Ages, New Age | Fri Jan 13 1989 20:15 | 37 |
| John,
I now choose those people I wish to have around me. Even though
I forgave my abusers, I also know now that I did not deserve what
happened, nor do I have to have any contact with them ever again,
by my own choice. I'm consciously creating my own reality -
CHOOSING not to have them as part of it, rather than feeling I
must continue to see them out of a sense of familial duty.
It is the most wonderful, liberating feeling in the world to be
able to do this and not feel guilty.
Cindy
===================================================================
Relationships
I SURROUND MY SELF WITH PEOPLE WHO RESPECT ME AND TREAT ME WELL
I no longer need to maintain abusive relationships. As I continue
to grow and heal, I attract those people who love me for who I am.
I have no need to hide myself. I have no need to deny my feelings,
or to disguise my thoughts and beliefs. I will no longer tolerate
people who put me down, manipulate me or humiliate me. I am
surrounding myself with people who are consistently loving and
respectful.
Today I will pursue people with whom I can share myself in
totality, with the complete confidence that they are accepting me
for myself alone.
Today I have the courage to terminate relationships with people
who are overly critical and not accepting of me. My world is
populated with self-respecting people who radiate caring respect
and consideration back to me.
|
| 952.8 | | LEDS::BATES | You are where you should be | Fri Jan 13 1989 22:26 | 71 |
|
Another example, perhaps...
In 1971, I lived in Nicaragua, and in the autumn of that year there
was a polio epidemic. The Somoza government controlled the importation
of polio vaccine to the country, and distributed it to those who
could pay well for its benefits. Obviously, this approach did not
include the people living in what we would certainly define from
a material context as abject poverty.
There were other sources of immunization, however - the American embassy
had a supply of oral vaccine, which members of the Peace Corps
volunteered to administer to those in the provinces closest
to the capital. I was in the country as an archaeologist, but I
took time from my work and volunteered as well.
We travelled to remote villages where the standard of living was
far removed from anything I'd seen or experienced. We'd arrive,
set up a station, and work until everyone who needed it had received
a drink. There were many expressions of thanks - sometimes, to
express their gratitude, several families would combine their meager
resources of food and insist that we eat with them. There was no
way to say no, without assaulting their dignity, and so the well-fed
Americans consumed (modestly, but still - ) what would have sustained
more people half our size. And we ate snake, and iguana, for those
rare sources of protein were highly prized when they could be found.
Long preamble to get to the point - on more than one occasion, I
was struck with the sense of personal dignity and pride in what
we would have dismissed in a moment. A little old man showed me
the home he'd made out of an Amana refrigerator box - he'd added
a roof made of pounded down tin cans and a doorway curtain made
from hundreds of can top rings. He had no sense that he was in
misery or squalor - rather, he had chosen to see the possibilities
in his world, and far be it from me to have placed a value judgement
on how poor or wretched the man was, when his very actions made
it clear that on several levels he was easily the equal of
Anastasio Somoza. And he was one of the contributors to the banquet
his village set for us.
Yet in that same village, there were people who stared vacantly
at everything around them, seemed unaware of their surroundings,
and that lack of consciousness was reflected in their dress, their
choice of living space. Again, I was reluctant to judge, but as
an anthropologist I observed disconnectedness, alienation from
others, an inability to participate in the world they were in.
The same village, the same general circumstances, two different
responses. And this general scenario was repeated more than
once during the time I was in the countryside.
Was everyone in the village a victim, and was life for all there
unvaryingly dreadful? Or were some of those people far richer in
their limited diet, and in their poverty, than I was with my
'first world' life? I went to give, but I ended up receiving
something of great value.
I remember a quote from John Milton, in Paradise Lost:
"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, A Hell of Heaven".
and that in turn caused me to look up something that good old
Omar wrote:
"I sent my soul through the invisible
Some letter of that afterlife to spell:
And by and by my Soul returned to me,
And answered, 'I myself am Heav'n and Hell.'
Gloria
|
| 952.9 | ,:' | DNEAST::CHRISTENSENL | | Fri Jan 13 1989 22:41 | 1 |
| �
|
| 952.10 | Another YCYOR practitioner is heard from | HSSWS1::GREG | Malice Aforethought | Sat Jan 14 1989 09:54 | 58 |
|
I really grow weary of trying to enlightewn those who
refuse to accept that they created their realities. But,
in the interest of advancing the discussion in some useful
direction, allow me to give you some examples:
Scenario: A child is playing in the house and the parents
tell the child to play quietly and not to run
indoors. The child, in the heat of the moment,
forgets and starts screaming and running. The
parents reprimand the child, and eventually tell
the child to go to their room.
A child who does not understand that they create their own
reality blames the parents for their situation (i.e. being
sent to the room). They refuse to acknowledge that their
actions resulted in the punishment, and so do not learn to
avoid that behavior/consequences pattern in the future. They
continue to disobey the parents and get punished for doing so,
and continue to blame their heartless parents for their plight.
Scenario: A man walks into a bank armed with a gun and
attempts to steal the money. In the process,
the bank guard manages to disarm the would-be
thief, and places them under arrest.
The robber, being unfamiliar with the concept of YCYOR is
firmly convinced that the bank guard is responsible for his
misfortune. In fact, it should be obvious to anyone that
his misfortune was brought on by his own actions and attitudes.
Scenario: A man suspects his wife is fooling around on him.
He hires a detective to follow her around, asks
her lots of pointed questions, and generally acts
like a complete numbskull for several weeks.
Shortly thereafter, weary of the mistrust, his wife
leaves him, files for divorce, and takes half of
everything they shared as a couple.
The man, not being familiar with YCYOR, is unaware that his
actions (and ditrust) were what ended his marriage, not the
percieved infidelity of his wife. He has created the reality of
marital disharmony and has brought it into existence. If he
follows the path that most unenlightened people follow, he
probably also blamed his wife for the breakup of the marriage,
as well as for any financial problems he may have encountered
as a result of the breakup.
These examples are VERY basic, and can be expounded on much
more thoroughly, but the basic principles are clear enough.
All of our actions result in consequences of some sort. Knowing
what those consequences are allows us to pick and choose between
those that best suit our goals. Ignorance, on the other hand,
tends to lead one to the assumption that our actions have no
consequences, and that everything that happens to us is
pre-ordained, or otherwise out of our control.
- Greg
|
| 952.11 | ??? | ULTRA::G_REILLY | | Mon Jan 16 1989 19:16 | 13 |
|
re: .10 (Greg)
I confused (accent on the last syllable ;-)) It sounds like
YCYOR == experiencing the consequences of your (our) actions.
Is this right or have I missed the boat somewhere? And then,
does it go a step further and follow that the life situations
we find ourselves in are what they are because we have chosen
to make them that way in order to provide ourselves with the
appropriate environment to educate the soul in this incarnation?
alison
|
| 952.12 | Broad sketchs of YCYOR | HSSWS1::GREG | Malice Aforethought | Tue Jan 17 1989 01:09 | 55 |
|
I'm not really able to enter the long description of
YCYOR right now (check the time stamp), but I will sketch
it in broad outlines.
- To knowingly plot a course anywhere you must do two things;
acknowledge where you are, and determine where you are going.
In terms of your reality, acknowledgement means admitting
what is real. It means acknowledging the fact that you created
your reality (a complex acknowledgement, to be sure, particularly
in light of the many and varied rationalizations which put others
at fault for your reality).
- Once you know where you are, you must determine where you want
to be. Like plotting a course on a road map, if you have no
destination any road will seem as good as any other, but when
you know where you are going you can use only those roads that
take you where you want to be. Throughout life we make all
kinds of decisions, some of the conscious, others subconscious.
These decisions play an important part in the shaping of your
reality. Some have external consequences, others affect us
internally by altering our view of the world (however slightly).
- Having acknowledged that we create our realities, the next
logical step is to take complete responsibility for them.
Taking responsibility means owning the actions and the
consequences; accepting them for what they are.
- Once the responsibility for our reality belongs to us, it
makes no sense to apply value labels such as "good" and
"bad" to those things in our reality. Something either
"is" or it "is not", no further value judgement is required.
If it "is", then the responsibility for it rests on the one
who created it, the one who made it part of their reality.
If something "is" the you feel "should not be", then as
the author of your reality it is your responsibility to
change that reality.
That's the nutshell version of what I learned about 8 years
ago, and the version by which I drive my life. As I said, there
are many finer points which I will be all-too happy to discuss
at length if you like. I still remember many of the analogies
used during my brainwashing (mute testimony to the effectiveness
of the training).
As mentioned in the base note (or one of the first few, anyway),
YCYOR is a very liberating mindset. Having lived the principles
of YCYOR for the last eight years, I will say that it is also a
very effective mindset. I live in a reality of infinite
possibilities, and it is my task to pick and choose the ones I
want. If your reality is more limiting, it is only because you
have made it so (possibly by giving away the responsibility for
your reality).
- Greg
|
| 952.13 | You gotta be young and rich to think like that. | USWAV1::CHAPLAIN | | Tue Jan 17 1989 08:26 | 2 |
| I was going to write a little something about existential hogwash,
but on reflection...never mind.
|
| 952.14 | _my_ reality | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Tue Jan 17 1989 11:17 | 86 |
| First of all, I believe that our realities are different;
that there is no _one_ reality, no "objective" reality.
Our realities are contained within our minds. There may be
"stuff" "out there," but our senses and minds translate
stimuli from that stuff, and we interpret those translations
into our version of reality.
If you and I observe even a relatively simple event and discuss
it afterwards, our observations and interpretations of the
event will not be identical. Even our courts recognize the
impossibility of total agreement; "guilty _beyond a reasonable
doubt._"
Science has identified a class of stimuli from the "stuff out there"
that can be measured and identified with a high degree of
predictability. Using this data, science has created a
_model_ of the universe which seeks to incorporate _only_ this
class of data. Our agreement to recognize and reach
consensus about this model allows us to manipulate certain
portions of that "stuff" with a _high degree_ of control.
Anyone who knows anything about science knows, however, that
the data are scattered all over the graph, that there are always
"anomolies" which cannot be explained, and which are very
often ignored because they do not fit the model.
Many people in this file have experienced phenomena which cannot
be explained by the model. Many believers of the model do all
they can to shout down those who report having such experiences,
to invalidate the experiences and intimidate any who might wish
to report having them. The result is that many, if not _most_
experiences go unreported. The scientific believers (skeptics)
discredit these experiences as "subjective" and (scientifically)
unmeasurable with any degree of predictability.
Current science is predicated on the theory of a "clockwork
universe" that runs like a machine, and that can be totally
understood and _controlled._ I believe that our anomolous
experiences (and these experiences have been reported by millions
of observers over thousands of years) show that while the model
is extremely useful for a particular class of phenomena, it is
woefully incomplete and inadequate to explain the whole of human
experience.
One conclusion of data discovered in quantum physics research
is that there is _no meaningful separation between observer
and observed._ On a micro scale, this has been proven by
experiments with light. Sometimes light seems to behave as
if it is made up of particles, sometimes as if it were waves.
Experiments have been done in which it seems as if the type
of measurement being made (wave or particle) _determines_
whether the phenomenon behaves as a wave or particle.
I recently read (in Scientific American) of an experiment done
on a larger scale with magnetic currents which seems to confirm
that the behavior of a "probabalistic" phenomenon is not
determined until the phenomenon is measured, and that the
resulting phenomenon is contingent on _the way the measurement is
made._ The conclusion that I draw is that THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS OBJECTIVE REALITY, or at least that we cannot know what
"objective" reality is while in our current state of
(un)awareness.
YCYOR has been recognized and practiced respectably for years by
means of the "Power of Positive Thinking." People who take
responsibility for their lives _change their lives._ People who
refuse the role of victim _are no longer victims._ Why do some
people survive torture with their psyches intact, while others
are destroyed? As an aside, to use what seems to be our
favorite example, the Holocaust, I believe that there is general
agreement that many, many victims, accepting their reality,
walked peaceably to their deaths, while millions of others,
acquiesced and stood idly by.
I am a part of the universe, not separate from it. There is not
"me" over here, and the universe "out there." The universe and I
are one. When I change, the universe, and thereby "reality"
inevitably and inescapably changes, too.
Anyway, this is just the way I look at it. This is _my_ reality.
YCYOR is the way _I choose to live my life._ It gives me
meaning. I am empowered. I am an active partipant in the
unfolding and creation of the universe. I like it this way.
/bruce
|
| 952.15 | Do you only live once? If so, best say it now. | SCOPE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Tue Jan 17 1989 11:18 | 13 |
|
>You gotta be young and rich to think like that.
Well, I'm not young (this, of course, is all relative), and I'm not
rich (I do work for DEC...and I worked 3 part-time jobs to put myself
through college many years ago), but I think like that anyway.
>I was going to write something....hogwash
Oh, go ahead. It's a friendly lot here and I'm just as interested
in what you have to say as much as anyone else.
Cindy (in_search_of_the_perfect_truffle)
|
| 952.16 | -- digestion vs discussion -- | FHQ::OGILVIE | The EYES have it! | Tue Jan 17 1989 11:19 | 35 |
|
excuse me -
".....and then change the reality by comprehending that you indeed do create
it all"
At what "age" are we to understand this? The abused child or the
aforementioned "rape" victim......when would these spirits be ready to
understand the how's and why's of what had happened to them? What if they
didn't live thru their awful experience? I don't remember reading Lazaris'
views on reincarnation or karma in these replies....so in what time frame
did this child manifest their reality to be abused?
From reading what was quoted, there does not appear to be a formula to
justify his statements, but to accept that what is said - simply IS.
Sorry. I would need more information than to simply believe that 1 + 1 = 2
without questioning the fact that 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 also equals 2.
************
Cindy, I know where you are coming from.....however, I'm not so sure
where Lazaris is coming from, using the excerpts you used.
************
Yes, one does create their own reality, by properly using the Universal
Consciousness for positiveness (or negativeness, if that's your 'bag').....
not excluding that one's own existance began due to karmic justice.
Now what? - Where is one to draw the line?
Cheryl
|
| 952.17 | follow your bliss | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Tue Jan 17 1989 11:40 | 13 |
| re: < Note 952.16 by FHQ::OGILVIE "The EYES have it!" >
�Now what? - Where is one to draw the line?
I believe that there is no one correct answer... we each do
what is right for us. We can look to gurus, or holy books,
or how-to manuals, but they only describe what someone else
found useful for themselves... we each have to find our
own answers...
/bruce
|
| 952.18 | more justification please... | FHQ::OGILVIE | The EYES have it! | Tue Jan 17 1989 12:22 | 29 |
|
re: Cindy? - You say you have forgiven your offenders? - Now that
you realized that you were responsible for your reality, do you
believe that you created it while you were a child or before you
were born.
re: 17
Clarification - this was not a question per se~, but more of a
summation to my reply.
But, as you say, we do what is right for us? My question again,
referring back to .16 - is "At what AGE do we believe that we have
created our realities?" - Was it when we turned 21 - or when we
hit the DEJAVU file?
If this note was not created, we would obviously not know the
difference between cosmic reality and creative ignorance. This
also reminds me of the question I had when I had heard that the
Pope said you could eat meat on Friday.....I wondered if all of
the Souls condemned to Hell for eating meat in the past had somehow
risen and ascended into Heaven.
There is a fine line that I am trying to get across. I hope it
can be seen.
Cheryl
|
| 952.19 | the answers are all internal... | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Tue Jan 17 1989 12:45 | 28 |
| re: < Note 952.18 by FHQ::OGILVIE "The EYES have it!" >
-< more justification please... >-
� But, as you say, we do what is right for us? My question again,
� referring back to .16 - is "At what AGE do we believe that we have
� created our realities?" - Was it when we turned 21 - or when we
� hit the DEJAVU file?
I believe that there is no magic age... we believe when we believe...
I also believe that "responsibility" begins when we ask the
questions "Who am I," "Why am I (like I am)," etc... as soon
as we consciously begin the quest, we are in charge.
� also reminds me of the question I had when I had heard that the
� Pope said you could eat meat on Friday.....I wondered if all of
� the Souls condemned to Hell for eating meat in the past had somehow
� risen and ascended into Heaven.
Seems to me that the pope doesn't have a clue... "don't follow
leaders, watch your parking meters..."
/bruce
|
| 952.20 | Onanism in the NOTES file | USWAV1::CHAPLAIN | | Tue Jan 17 1989 13:17 | 15 |
| Okay. Jeez. I feel like I did in college sitting in that damned
Epistemology (say wha'?) class sitting around bored as a rock while
everyone else was trying to figure out what "truth" is. I always
just felt I'd rather be fishin'. But then, on occasion I'll still
indulge in a little mental masturbation...
Look. No one asked Cro-magnon whether or not he was creating
his own reality. Ya' got an empty belly, ya' hunt. But maybe he
"created" his empty belly and in order to satisfy that need he
"created" the animals to hunt and then "created" the diseases,
injuries and natural disasters that he was compelled to overcome
throughout his life for survival.
If by "creation of reality" you are referring to a method of
intellectually or emotionally ordering reality or coping with its
consequences, then this discussion might take on meaning.
|
| 952.21 | | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Tue Jan 17 1989 13:21 | 6 |
|
� consequences, then this discussion might take on meaning.
meaning is in the mind of the beholder. just use NEXT/UNSEEN
/bruce
|
| 952.22 | Limits to YCYOR | USIV02::CSR209 | | Tue Jan 17 1989 13:29 | 28 |
| I find myself responding far more favorably to the interpetations of
the various YCYOR practitioners in this file, than the actual
writings of Lazaris. I do believe that we can positively improve
our reality, and that the operative word is "our", by the way we
choose to view it, and that it is very important to take responsiblity
for our own lives and do it.
What I totally disagree with is the way that belief is extended
into such a truly bizarre concept as that all reality is self-
created, that there is no demonstrable reality external to our
perceptions. This is where the line has been crossed into hogwash.
Cindy, you were abused as a child, but do you believe that you
chose that abuse?
What we are getting into is the idea of unearned responsiblity;
I don't believe any child is responsible for being abused. I
also believe that there are many people in this world that are
truly victims, due to external circumstances beyond their
control, victims due to natural disaster, war, etc. Nothing
will make me believe that the Jews in Europe created the Nazi
death camps, for example.
I believe that Lazaris is taking a useful piece of the puzzle
and mistaking it for the puzzle itself.
-roger
|
| 952.23 | Only a couple of hundred out of 130,000. | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Tue Jan 17 1989 13:38 | 60 |
| re: Cheryl
If I may butt in for a minute...there are two realities
that we create, one by allowing, one by conscious creation.
I don't think any of us in this conference was born "enlightened."
It is something that we have looked for with much interest
as we have grown. That we haven't turned our backs to growth
is a wonderful testament to our desire to learn about ourselves,
the universe and the relationships between us.
As children, etc. most of us are "allowing" reality. Even
as adults, most people do. Are they victims? YES. Until they
discover that they could have produced a different outcome had
they had the knowledge of their own power prior to the reality
which they eventually allowed. Once past the stage of unconscious
or subconscious thought, victimhood becomes a matter of conscious
choice (by default, if for no other reason.) This is so difficult
to understand because we have so much compassion for the victims
that we observe. Because we have a sense of love and tenderness,
etc., it is seen as cruel that anyone could possibly choose
a reality of brutality. It helps in understanding that even we
have had those lifetimes, too. That we all do it for lessons, etc.
of which we cannot fully understand or grasp. That in the totality
of existence, a few such lifetimes are not a deterent to eventually
discovering self-love. That in the illusions of reality, at some
eventuality none of this matters anymore. As Larry has indirectly
hinted in another note, this is all some sort of "game." We create
our own karmas, we establish our own destinies. Eventually, we
return beyond anything we know about. As Bruce has said, you get
there when you decide to be there, and only for as long as it is
your decision to stay with that choice.
Talk about creating realities! This past weekend I attended
a "coincidental" one-day workshop with Lazaris entitled "Sharpening
the Tools of Manifestation". Within the first couple of sentences
he stated "you create your own reality" and proceeded to spend a
couple of hours repeating things he has so often before (for the
benefit of newcomers and as reminders for the "old.") I find it
rather interesting because I had just read Cindy's note (I stopped
by DEC on the way to S.F.) that morning and had been brought literally
to tears by Gloria's note. If I can find time (yes, John D., I
too have *some* time constaints! ;-) ) I will attempt to enter
some of his stuff into 358. Since I have 9 pages of hand-written
(small print) notes, I do not intend to enter it all...besides,
even so the humor he shows never reflects in my notes and many
thoughts are left unexpressed on paper. All I can do is do the
best I can, and leave you to make a choice to attend a similar
workshop on your own, so that you can see the "grander" picture.
Speaking of which, as has been written before, the only reason
Lazaris can see all of this is because he sits outside the set
of physicality, and can view it without attachments. Keep in
mind here that the set of physicality consists of four planes..
this one, (the physical), the astral, the causal and the mental
(the plane of our "Gods".) Manifestation on the physical plane
comes to us from the causal plane, which is the plane of all that
is possible. Getting to the mental plane ("heaven") is the plane
of IMpossibility...it is not the plane from which we manifest.
Anyway, I'm digressing a whole bunch.
Frederick
|
| 952.24 | Give me MORE!! | FHQ::OGILVIE | The EYES have it! | Tue Jan 17 1989 13:57 | 22 |
|
Well, if this isn't just like Ol'home week!
OK: Understood.
I was seeking an answer to such a fine-tuned question, which had
a couple of questions within itself.
(A) Creating your Reality
(B) Recognizing a Reality was Created
(C) When was your Reality Created
(D) When did you recognize a Reality was Created
and what happens to the poor slob who never knew the difference,
as their end came before their recognition. Was this then a wasted
incarnation????? Come on....keep the bloods flowing......I'm into
being even MORE enlightened!
Cheryl
|
| 952.25 | language affects our reality | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Tue Jan 17 1989 14:12 | 17 |
| re:< Note 952.24 by FHQ::OGILVIE "The EYES have it!" >
� and what happens to the poor slob who never knew the difference,
� as their end came before their recognition. Was this then a wasted
I don't like words like "fault," "blame," "wasted," etc.
They just make it easier to focus on the past, and distract
us from the NOW, which is where our task always lies. Who
can say that someone else's life is wasted? Did the person
ever experience joy? Create joy for others? Smell a flower?
See the blue of the sky? ................................
Maybe other people ask different questions or come up with
different answers.
/bruce
|
| 952.26 | i keep trying.. | FHQ::OGILVIE | The EYES have it! | Tue Jan 17 1989 14:40 | 17 |
|
Bruce, you're at IT again....
We're discussing "reality". What I am ..trying...(sigh) to get
at is: What happens to the entity when it realizes it hasn't
recognized it's creation....or has it?
ah forget it.....8*))
This gets TOOOOOOOO complicated to discuss - yet is SOOOOOO easy
to comprehend.
Cheryl - peace to you all......at least we're on the same path,
altho some of us have more stones to kick out of our way and only
the ones kicking them know they are there.....
|
| 952.27 | The Creation Story | DNEAST::CHRISTENSENL | | Tue Jan 17 1989 14:43 | 53 |
| There may not be any objective _physical_ reality. This premise
doesn't exclude alternative non-physical realities or even
objective realities. From the objective view of Being, physical reality
is an illusion. Yes, I know, go tell that to the hungry and dying.
At this particular locus of time/space in physical reality, I cannot
be objective about the suffering in the world and at the same
as opportunities arise and I can be effective, I will do what is
most appropriate from this position.
Who I am, my Self has no location. Who I am is everywhere
and nowhere and is doing nothing/everything in time/notime.
It is always going to be a paradox: If I created it, why did I create
things which are unpleasant? If I created it why can I not do anything
about it? If I created it, why did I forget?
Not to resolve the paradox, there is some information missing. I forgot
and to seal up the state, I forgot I forgot. Now it is as physically
real as I am identified with it.
Want to stop the hunger and starvation in the world? Simple, just
un-create my creation. Poof, the universe is all gone. So now what
am I going to do?
Well, I *could* create something. I did and this is it. Then I
forgot as the means to keep the creation alive and _real_. Now I don't
like it; which by the way just keeps it more real. I got a real mess
here an just what am I going to do about it?
By now I got it figured out that un-creating this whole mess
isn't going to change things for the better. I might make a whole
lot more sense to take responsibility for my creation a little
at a time and work to create it more pleasant. Might not
be such a bad idea to create a whole lot of creators just like
me and "we" could get to work in many places.
Like my creations, to make them real, I have to forget tht I created them
and from their point of view they have to forget that they created "them".
This makes them and their created reality _real_ and incremental
so we can get involved with creating a proper universe.
There needs to have an element of learning or remembering in this creation
otherwise we would not be motivated to get any work done. We have to suffer
the pain of this reality, be engaged with it, and find about the
truth of the matter as the means to become effective.
Effective means to take the local "poop" around one of "us" and clean it up.
It means looking with an eye towards responsibility (acknowledging "our"
creation) and un-creating it and in the space left over creating something
workable.
We call this "life".
|
| 952.28 | Addicted to reason | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | just a revolutionary with a pseudonym | Tue Jan 17 1989 14:58 | 41 |
|
re .18-
Perhaps your question is "At what age is it appropriate for a child to
begin creating his own beliefs?" I have...absolutely no idea!
We teach our children that they came into this world flawed and
in need of correction, perhaps as a motivation to learn: "look
at all you're not, and, how far you have to go; it will take your
whole life just to be worthy!" When they believe this, it's the
very first time They Create Their Own Reality.
We teach our children far worse things, like that they were bought
and paid for; they're *indebted* for their very existance and are
not even "of" their own being! When they believe this, the reality
they create for themselves follows in a manner which confirms this
teaching.
Your reality was created by your parents, or, whoever you spent
time with when you had certain developmental needs. Much of this
reality is in the form of internalized subconscious belief - the
absolute truth of which matters not. Those who say TCTOR are merely
unraveling a previous reality to the point where they realize a
choice is possible, and have the guts to consciously make it, against
the subconscious mind's reactionary influence. Perhaps one person
has actually changed their subconscious beliefs about themselves,
and *actually* created a new reality as percieved by themselves.
You know you've done this when your own perceptions change.
The human mind *never* ceases in it's rationalizing, which is a
obsession we can get into. Personally, I've got a mountain of beliefs
that were given to me in the present day to work through - I dont
need to suppose that my "miserable life" was the result of "cosmic
justice" and perhaps I'll have "paid off the karmic debt" by living
three good lives before I'm "entitled" to the soothing bliss of the
all_realization! I want the all_realization NOW! I can get it by
realizing that rationalization has a limit, after which it becomes
a lousy way to procede. I want _the truth_, not some made up concoction
that happens to satisfy for now.
Joe Jas
|
| 952.29 | | FHQ::OGILVIE | The EYES have it! | Tue Jan 17 1989 15:04 | 10 |
|
RE: .27
Yes - that's the ticket!! That's what I've been trying to say....
seriously.
It's so logical - it becomes illogical.
BRAVO!!
|
| 952.30 | more... | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Tue Jan 17 1989 15:18 | 131 |
| From another source:
Here are some excerpts from a book called "Jungian Symbols in
Astrology" by Alice O. Howell that I feel relate very well to
the YCYOR topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"A chart, to me, yields a description of how a person is likely
to process experience. As Carl Jung wrote, "In the end, all
reality is psychic reality". In view of this, astrology does
not describe the actuality of a situation but rather how each
person would tend to respond to it. This is the reason that an
astrologer can describe the father or mother of the client, for
instance, because the description will fit the client's per-
ception of that person. [Birth charts can help] us to realize
that we are all projecting a reality of our own onto the outer
world, in fact, co-creating a microcosmic universe of experience
or that "kingdom of heaven" within, which is unique despite the
fact that it is shared with others.
This is the paradox the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus
described when he wrote, "With our eyes open we share the same
world, but with our eyes closed each of us enters his[her] own
world". I always begin my classes by having everyone stand in
a circle holding hands while I quote this. From the astrological
point of view, this demonstrates most effectively, both physically
and geometrically, that though each of us shares the same circle,
no two occupy the same position on that circle; thus each
processes the experience from a different perspective. From
Jung's point of view of individuation, you can see that the
perspective of each in the circle adds to the collective
experience of the whole, and that our individual experience
and consciousness enrich the collective unconscious.
.....
What we see is who we are. Who we are determines what we see.
This also implies some significant limitations. There will
always be projection involved in our perceptions. We cannot
see things as they really are.....I remember a fascinating
conversation I had with an eight-year-old on the subject of
color. How could she be sure that the color blue was blue
and not red? Maybe what I called blue was really red to her.
(I used to ask myself very similar questions when I was about
the same age!, such as "Does vanilla ice cream taste the same
to you as it does to me?" or "We may have agreed to call things
certain names and describe them certain ways, but what if we
saw the very basics of them differently right from the start?"
x. =:})....Short of climbing into each others heads, we can never
really know......we can never really know this stone in front
of us; we can only know our version of the stone.
....
Philosophically, the chart tells us that all we can really
know is modified by ourselves.....What the chart does is
describe the ways in which we are likely to experience, and
because this can be quite accurate, it can help us become
more conscious of how we tend to see things. The next step,
obviously, once we are more conscious, is to realize that
we don't have to do it only this way, but have free will and
free choice. We can use our newly-won understanding to
guide us to new growth.....much of what the chart points to
is our habitual or unconscious way of reacting to things.
....the chart becomes a guide to self-acceptance and self-
realization. Not all pain can be avoided, but much can be
mitigated when we confront our problems within the psyche.
It is only when we remain unconscious of our problems or
stubbornly refuse to deal with them that we are forced to
confront them in our outer lives as events.
So often we sigh and wish that circumstances were different.
If only they were, then we could change! Jung reverses this
by stating that if we change our consciousness, the circum-
stances will take care of themselves. This means, of course,
taking responsibility for our consciousness and giving up the
constant projecting of blame onto others or upon the outer
environment. I know this to be true because I have experienced
it both ways. Just when you are convinced that nothing you do
within yourself can make a difference, but you do it anyway to
the best of your consciousness, then the miracles occur. They
do. They really do. One has to trust the process, which I
suppose is another way of defining faith.
You might want an example. Take someone with Saturn in the
Seventh House....Such a person, either man or woman, will
more than likely expect and introject negative criticism
from others. From childhood such a person would be likely
to build up a defense mechanism and an instinctie ability to
"psych out" other people - parents, siblings, other children,
relatives, or strangers - to anticipate criticism and protect
the ego. Later in life, the person may have difficulties in
relationships and feel lonely and suspicious. The skill of
psyching out others may go too far, even lead to perceiving
criticism when it isn't there.
....if the person is able to become conscious of this
attitude of introjecting criticism and become able to sacrifice
the use of the process of Saturn in ego-defense, a breakthrough
can occur. And the best surprise is that the skill of psyching
out others remains, but now it can be put to use in serving
others rather than shutting them out. A person with Saturn in
the Seventh House can develop extraordinary sensitivity in
perceiving other people's pain and needs. In responding to
these, he or she will begin to find a new self-worth and an
ability to love and reach out to others. (This is what I call
owning your Saturn! :-) x.)
....we are the sun of our reality at any given time. Whether
we believe in astrology or note, the chart still operates.
What a pity to ignore or reject such a gift from the universe.
It is, in potentia, a treasure map to the individuation process
or greater awareness of the Self....the center and totality of
the psyche. The chart will impel us unconsciously, as do our
complexes, until we become more conscious.
....To me a chart is a temenos, a sacred precinct, a holy
place, because it describes most certainly a place where
God dwells in us as a Divine Guest. "God lives in you as
You," as Swami Muktananda used to say. The Christ Within,
the Atman, the Self, these are all terms pointing to an
unfathomable mystery, which is what the psyche remains.
Be humble, then, and in awe when you look at a chart,
yours or anyone else's. It is a map to the kingdom of
heaven which is within and a symbolic depiction of
limitless potential."
|
| 952.31 | HRMPH | USWAV1::CHAPLAIN | | Tue Jan 17 1989 15:21 | 17 |
|
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....snurf, sniff, hhrrrummppphh, sniff...
ARE WE THERE YET!!!!!!!!!!
NO????????????
OKAY.
Sniff, snort, snurkle,
hhrruummmppphh....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| 952.32 | Next stop, YCYOA (You Create Your Own Argument) | BLIVIT::STANLEY | I need a miracle every day... | Tue Jan 17 1989 15:32 | 9 |
| < Note 952.31 by USWAV1::CHAPLAIN >
-< HRMPH >-
> ARE WE THERE YET!!!!!!!!!!
Are we there! Why we went right on by! You'll have to pull the cord sooner to
get the driver to stop. :-)
Dave
|
| 952.33 | From science to philosophy to metaphysics to reality | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Tue Jan 17 1989 16:20 | 36 |
| re: Bruce
Pretty good. That does relate (to the extent that any system
can be made to work until it doesn't.) ;-)
Where does this leave religion? Well, if one can no longer
blame, if one can no longer avoid responsibility, is there no longer
a need for "God"? No, not true. What there is is no longer a need
for worship. What exactly is being worshipped? The "lord" doesn't
need or want me to bow down before him/it. That's insulting, from
my perspective. The greatest thing we are revealing here is that
we would like ALL of our reality to realize it is creating itself.
For all of it to be responsible. For us to be responsible for it
in co-creative ways. Clearly, we don't want things worshipping
us for we are following our own path. I cannot imagine any enlightened
being wanting servitude from us. Ergo, no worship. What does that
do to religions? It ends them. It wipes out the manipulative inflences
of those who are in "charge" of them. It gives the power back to
the individual who needs to discover it again. You are your own
Buddha. But like any road which we don't recognize, we can ask
for help. Until we go on to a new road, in which case we don't
need help with the old, only the new. It doesn't hurt to ask, it
only hurts when we cannot trust our own choices enough to know that
we can ask for help. Reaching out (or *in*, as it were) to other
aspects of ourself, is no disgrace...in fact, it is highly recommended.
Among other things it allows for lessening whatever fears of loneliness
we all harbor. So is there a "God"? Clearly I believe there is.
Since I did not consciously do everything of which I am aware, then
I can accept that there is a part of me that is bigger or more aware
than I am. (But since I am so finite, I can only conclude that
it is me who is a part of it, and not vice versa.) So someday I
can expand into that knowingness. The game becomes rediscovering
that from which we have come, not by worshipping but by becoming.
Frederick
|
| 952.34 | Another source | ATSE::FLAHERTY | Nevermore! | Wed Jan 18 1989 09:28 | 6 |
| Both Larry's 'creation story' (.27) and the information Bruce
entered in .30 have very similar themes to the material available
in "A Course in Miracles". Just one of many ways on the path.
Ro
|
| 952.35 | Schopenhauer (say wha?) | USWAV1::CHAPLAIN | | Wed Jan 18 1989 14:38 | 14 |
|
What's the difference between a dead philosopher in the middle
of the road and a dead skunk in the middle of the road?
There's skid marks in front of the skunk.
|
| 952.36 | Response | SCOPE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Wed Jan 18 1989 20:21 | 33 |
|
Re.18 (Cheryl O.)
(Still have from .18 to .35 to read, but will answer this before
I go on...)
It's not quite as cut and dry as your question, since there were
my parent's agendas as well, however with that in mind, here is
what is coming to me at this moment...
I believe that I chose to experience _something_ before entering this
lifetime, and created the situation out of that desire to experience
it...and subsequently learn from it. I chose my parents. Perhaps
I even came here to show them or help them on their own ways - I
don't know that yet because the saga continues. I know I am more
advanced than my mother, and I knew this even when I was very young
(a major source of frustration for me because what she was trying
to _teach_ me made no sense most of the time). I'm eons ahead of
my father and I sincerely doubt that there is ever a possibility
of us connecting on any level ever. But then I could be wrong.
On the other end of the spectrum, the most advanced person I've ever
known (the person I consider my teacher) once wrote to me that he
was humbled by something _I_ wrote! Blew me away. (He, by the way,
is the same age as my mother). Interesting.
Also.......
When I finally was able to forgive, the words that Jesus spoke on
the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
suddenly became very real to me. This is one thing I learned.
Cindy
|
| 952.37 | This may be more confusing that clear... | SCOPE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Wed Jan 18 1989 20:45 | 61 |
|
Re.22 (Roger - CSR209)
>do you believe you were responsible for your abuse?
No, I do not. I do believe it was my choice to learn a lesson,
however, and that was the way chose to learn it. Kind of a painful
way, no? And that pattern of abuse continued _way_ past childhood
until I realized that I didn't have to be a victim anymore....till
I learned the lesson that I do have choices. I also learned about
projection (onto others), addiction, and on and on.....these
experiences lead (drove) me to read probably over 50 psych. books
over the past year and I've just scratched the surface.
As I type this, there is one other thing I learned. I learned finally
what LOVE is. I thought those people who has abused me and kept
saying they "loved" me, really meant what they were saying. So
when love finally did come into my life, I didn't recognize it at
first. I didn't even have words for the feelings. So the most
important lesson I learned from my abusive past was what love isn't.
Now that I know what it is, I'll never settle for less. I see the
lies now - the darkness - the shadows - the evil - much more clearly
under the bright shining light.
Going back a paragraph:
I guess the difference is that I could say here, "Oh, woe is me,
I was abused and I deserved it and you should all feel so sorry
for me.....etc.". I could do that. But I choose to finally see
it as it was - learn from it - put it in the past for good, and go
on...without that weight around my neck...and without any need of
having you feel pity for me.
When I finally read that the victim is the one with the power, and
the one who is the abuser is only the abuser as long as the victim
agrees (talking about longterm abuse here, not a single violent
incident...which I perceive as slightly different), then I withdrew
from the abusive relationships and decided not to play that (their)
game anymore. I then chose to populate my world with loving people,
and this is what I've done over the last couple of years (created
my own reality in which people are kind to me. My abusers are no
longer in my life. Of course the relatives say, "How could you not
talk to your _____? After all he/she _IS_ your _______!
I turn around and then tell them precisely what went on in our home,
and finally at the age of 31 they believe me and then go on to add
in stories of their own! (It's really bizarre after you tear down
the walls and expose it for what it really is - some people just
can't handle that much truth...and others see it as a way of venting
their own pentup frustrations.). Strange. You must also understand
that this is very recent for me (as in a couple of weeks ago during
the holidays).
Roger - as for Lazaris - I wish I had time to add in what they have
said about the Holocaust, however I will say that you are mistaken
about your assumptions in this area and that Lazaris says something
quite different. But I don't have the time to put that in right
now. (It's in Interviews - II).
Cindy
|
| 952.38 | Eureka! | SCOPE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Wed Jan 18 1989 21:12 | 37 |
|
Wow - just read Joe Jas's TCYOR, and realized something.
Roger - now I know the answer - the abusers convinced me that _I_
WAS responsible for my abuse! You know - the "If you wouldn't do
that, then I wouldn't have to......", etc. They convinced me that
I deserved it.
The turning point was when I realized that I WASN'T responsible
for it. And then my teacher came along and showed me that THEY
(my abusers) were not necessarily responsible for it consciously
either (sins of the father passing down the generations...).
Then I read Lazaris and finally reading that I was not responsible
for it, but that I created it (or allowed it) at some level for
a reason, then I was able to accept it for what it was, understand
it, learn from it, forgive myself (tell myself I wasn't deserving
of it), and then out of all this, forgive my abusers.
Then I consciously chose a different reality (or, rather, I chose
not to let them ever abuse me again by removing myself from those
relationships).
I'm now living my chosen reality, and I am one very happy person.
(;^) How does e.e.cummings put it:
"To be nobody but yourself, in a world which is night and say
trying to make you into everybody else, is the toughest battle
that any human can fight...and never stop fighting."
I'm winning! (;^)
I also realize now that with this knowledge, I have a job to do,
to help others climb out of their respective victimhoods. Time to
get to work.
Cindy
|
| 952.39 | How about this? | SCOPE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Wed Jan 18 1989 21:26 | 17 |
|
Interesting night...more thoughts...
About rapes - until very recently in our society, it has always
been the pattern or tendency to show that the woman was somehow
deserving to be raped (coming on, wearing provocative clothes, asking
for it, etc.). [Not to say that men are not raped, however I have
not yet heard of a man being blamed for being raped.]
Same with child abuse. I certainly wasn't believed when I tried
to tell others back in the earlier days...or if I did try, then
the people passed it off as my somehow doing something to deserve
it.
Anyone see a pattern here? Insight?
Cindy
|
| 952.40 | It's so nice to see intelligent writing | HSSWS1::GREG | Malice Aforethought | Thu Jan 19 1989 01:14 | 6 |
| re: Cindy
I like what you're doing for this discussion. Reading your
notes is like time-tripping back to my training.
- Greg
|
| 952.41 | I've got these cosmic pair of scissors... | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | just a revolutionary with a pseudonym | Thu Jan 19 1989 08:43 | 43 |
|
Re: Cindy
Until very recently, Women and children were considered a man's
"resources", so "of course" there will be shame driven accusations
in the effort to justify or rationalize whatever the man wished
to do with them.
There's some really heart breaking shows on Public television
lately. One I watched just the other night that described "life" in
the early 1800s. Apparently, it was common for families to barter
their *children* for, say, a horse or whatever else they needed, if
they were poor enough, which was usually the case. Talk about fear of
abandonment! The show also spoke of how "in the olden days" a man
used to *own* his wife, and that women were considered valuable
for the amount of work they could produce. Those who didnt marry
were considered "odd" and eventually outcast from the society, one
way or another. They spoke of being ex-communicated from the society
and how horrible that experience was. Of course, organized religion
was *the core* around which all this was allowed to happen. It was
the one common element for all the members of the community.
It was from this reality that our's was eventually wrought.
(No wonder things are so ...... ..!) Even today, there's the "marriage"
element of society, and the resulting opinions with respect to whether
you are or are'nt. I know for a fact that I'm regarded today as
"different" or "odd" because I'm 32 and not "married" to a "nice
girl". Whatever. I guess my point is, is that there are probably
hundreds of beliefs that have been carried forth into this generation,
from previous generations, that are pretty damn bad, possibly
completely wrong and an outright lie, yet, effect todays reality as we
currently know how to percieve it.
This is the "sins of the fathers" theory that you know well.
I honestly believe that we can learn the most about our perception
and our corresponding reality by examining the realities of our
past lineage. You just might find several unbroken threads that
have connected the generations together through time. In other words,
you *inately* see something in a particular way perhaps because your
great great great ... great grandmother also percieved it in a like manner.
Joe Jas
|
| 952.42 | Beautiful | FHQ::OGILVIE | The EYES have it! | Thu Jan 19 1989 09:34 | 19 |
|
RE: .36 (Cindy)
That was absolutely beautiful! Thank you for your reply.
The reason I was questioning, not you, but Lazaris' statements, was
that "he" was coming across as THIS IS IT, no explanation, no
justification. One knows just how much knowledge and digestion
is needed to even comprehend reality, let alone realize that you
are experiencing it 8*).
Forgiveness - I left the darn thing at home, but I have THE most
beautiful definition of forgiveness that I wanted to put into this
particular note. Shall do tomorrow...
Peace,
Cheryl
|
| 952.43 | I am a reality junkie. | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Thu Jan 19 1989 10:55 | 49 |
| re: .41 (Joe Jas)
Yes, and moreover, for the "record", it is possible that
we "were" our own great, great, great whatever in that long ago
lifetime. The important thing for me in what you wrote, however,
is that of the idea of the thread. It is that thread that we can
usually bring home to its source. It is that thread from which
can be seen patterns develop. It is that thread that leads not
only to focuses for the lifetime(s) but to the blockages to our
lifetimes as well. We are, even if only in physicality, complex
integrating of energies. We exist in a world that likewise has
various and intricately elaborate energies running through it.
If it is true that similar energies will attract, then it is
probably easier to see that we similarly attract similar energies
to our own. Whether from the "positive" side (focuses) or from
the "negative" side (blockages) this is how we have pieced together
our realities. That may have been done by our higher conscious
mind prior to physical incarnation or may be a function now of
the unconscious or sub-conscious inputs in this reality. The
choice then comes to us, do we wish to continue in the path that
these "pre-determinants" are "following" or do we wish to take
the steering wheel? And that's what this topic is all about for
me. Taking power back, taking control, taking conscious charge
of the reality we are making happen anyway.
re: .42
As a bit of an aside, I can only speak for myself in saying
that I, too, would often like more answers than what I am "given."
For me, in my process with Lazaris, that sometimes means waiting
until I get an opportunity to talk with him myself, at which time
I have to prioritize the things I want answers to, or just wait
until he eventually gets around to saying it wherever it is that
I can hear it. In some cases, this has been several years. But
as I indicated before, questions/answers beget more of the same,
and the process never stops. Additionally, he is constantly coming
up with new information. To the point that some people "drop out"
from his workshops because they feel overwhelmed by the amount of
information they already have on hand. Also, they get confused
in regards to which steps, which processing, etc. they "should"
be using. Most of these individuals pop back "in" from time to
time to get another hit of his energy. But to more specifically
respond to your query, if you search around in the volumes of
information he has already generated, you are very likely to find
an answer to many of your questions. Obviously not all, or else
you'd eliminate any need for life. ;-)
Frederick
|
| 952.44 | Different lessons, different drum | ATSE::FLAHERTY | Nevermore! | Thu Jan 19 1989 11:28 | 30 |
| I'm enjoying and getting much value out of this topic. However,
I have a problem with one area. A couple of the replies talk
about measuring someone else's advancement on the path (for
example, this person was more advanced than I or I was ions
ahead of that person).
I prefer not to think we can somehow calculate another's
personal growth. We have no way of knowing what Joe or Sally
came here to learn. Perhaps they've already taken 'calculus'
and already know all there is to know about that subject. They
don't need/want to deal with it in this lifetime, but that
doesn't mean they don't 'know it' or are less advanced in it
than we.
It seems judgemental to me. Superior/inferior ego garbage,
not spiritual evolvement stuff. To judge in that way appears
to me like landing on 'community chest' and picking the card
that tells me to take 3 steps back.
I recently read an article on Richard Bach where he talked
about his belief that he is not someone who believes that only
a select few are 'light beings' and all others are clods, but
one who believes and knows that:
"We are all shipmates on the common voyage of life and
you cannot sink your shipmates without sinking yourself."
Ro
|
| 952.45 | Response to .44 | CLUE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Thu Jan 19 1989 11:43 | 43 |
|
Hi Ro,
Since it was my note, I'll answer your comment about advancement,
etc.
I'm not saying that I am _better_ than they are, or that I know
all the answers and they don't know anything, or etc. No, not that
at all. I'm just saying that now from where I'm at - realizing
where I'm at - I see also where they are at (remembering that these
are 2 people I lived with on a daily basis for 21 years of my life),
and have the peace to leave them alone where they are at now instead
of believing that they are where I'm at and then trying to communicate
with them. My enormous sense of frustration as a child has finally
dissipated with this knowledge and peace, because now I know that
there is very little chance of them ever truly understanding me.
>...eons ahead of...
Yes, perhaps these words weren't the best. It is probably a direct
reaction (a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction) from
all those times my father tried to cram down my throat his version
of realilty without any respect for me and my own beliefs, and this
sentence is a reactive/angry one. I make no apologies for it though,
and it still stands as is. However, there isn't one other person
in the universe except him that I would say this about at this point.
It is probably also a good time for me to say that it is only because
I lived with these people for so long that I know them this well
and would even dare to say this about them. And along the same lines,
I would NOT look at you after only having known you for a few months
and say, "Oh, gee, I'm _way_ more advanced than she is...etc.". No,
I wouldn't do that, because that would be arrogant and assuming.
To close, I will say that while I currently perceive my parents
to be far, far behind me in terms of understanding, I still allow
them the room to grow and if they do, then I will recognize that.
But all indication over these last 10 years or so in their dealings
with other family members is that they haven't changed one iota.
Still though, if they do, then I will accept that change and go
forward.
Cindy
|
| 952.46 | 'course, proof is in the pudding | HYDRA::LARU | Surfin' the Zuvuya | Thu Jan 19 1989 12:05 | 6 |
| Something I need regularly to remind myself of:
Doing is honest philosphy.
/bruce
|
| 952.47 | So who's counting? | DNEAST::CHRISTENSENL | | Thu Jan 19 1989 13:00 | 44 |
| Advanced Beans?
Really, this issue about who is more spiritually advanced than
another has bugged my for over twenty years. Just these last few
years can I say from my own experience that some souls aren't
very nice while others are quite beautiful. Souls are just like
pesonalities of people in some ways. Some souls reincarnate
over and over again and don't even realize what is happening
*to* them. They are running on automatic rebirth mode.
Yes, I feel that there is an increment of reality from which
all souls are equivalent which I call God's love. Otherwise
there are all manner of kinds, types and shapes of soul-material.
Judgment, comparing and measuring are the habits of the mind. We need
minds to compare and discover. We don't have to be identified whith
the mind's judgements: just say "Thank you very much for your opinion".
There are advanced beings and notable by their compassion and willingness
to be of assistance. There are intermediate beings who work to add to
the stuff of their own being. There are low beings which act out
meaness and cruelty and try to take power for themselves. There are
unconsicious beings and elementals with no self awareness at all
that just bump around like ghosts. Then there is the whole array
of thought forms, elves, faries, devas ansd such which makes this a pretty
interesting place.
Again, it is necessary to have judgemental functions as a means of
survival. When those survival patterns become a reason for life
itself; that is when a being becomes identified whth his or her
survival package and needs to rank himself or herself among others
as the way to define self image, things begin to stink.
At the same time, we , most of us have issues with our childhood
which need clearing up. Part of the process is seeing our parents as
people. Clearly, I wouldn't have given my father the time of day
if I met him for the first time in the checkout line at Stop and Shop.
It just takes time and forgiveness to see parents for who they are.
"Greet the Saint and the Thief alike.
Don't ask the Thief to dinner."
L.
|
| 952.48 | remembering | ATSE::FLAHERTY | Nevermore! | Thu Jan 19 1989 13:02 | 27 |
| Hi Cindy,
It is was unusual for me to disagree with you because most often
it is your notes that I most identify with. I guess my modus
operandi has always been to learn through empathy. How would
I feel in that person's shoes. If the same events, situations,
or traumas happened to me, would I react/feel the same.
Looking at it though the eyes of this lifetime only, it does
look like a racetrack, where some people never seem to advance
or grow and some are already heading for the finish line.
If we could see the whole picture through the myriad
of lifetimes, we might better be able to see that we are them,
they are us and we are all equal.
I know first hand that when someone is horrible and abusive, it
isn't easy to find the good (or anything resembling good) in them.
Like you, I had to completely remove myself from the person to be able
to continue my own life. Yet, on another level I know that they are
spiritual beings too and have the same ability to recover/know/remember
who they are. Perhaps it is like Larry's note on the 'creation story',
they just 'forgot that they forgot'.
Ro
|
| 952.49 | From a MACRO point of view | REGENT::WAGNER | | Thu Jan 19 1989 13:05 | 176 |
| I am entering this, not from a point of view of belief, but from one of
experience.I make entries in NOTES when I know what I am talking about because
I have experienced them. and if you noticed, I don't know much because I
haven't added many entries in the note file :' ) .
I had been aware, but not fully realizing, that I was creating
my own reality back when I was hired by Digital Phoenix back in 1984. Now, as
I think back over the last 5 years or so, I can see down to the very last
detail how I created the reality I set up for myself. I began to realize
that for a large part of my life I was doing the creating on an 'unconcious'
level. over the last two years or so I have been doing a very conscious job of
creating my own reality, and so far It is progressing exactly as I am
expecting it to. It is not easy to do. One must be as aware as possible and
impeccable in his or her actions to begin to consciously create one's own
reality.
As for propounding the possibility of creating your own reality, in the
early 1900's- Edger Cayce, through his readings did exactly that in the
thirties and forties. And I'm sure that if one took up the research, that
they would find others making a similar claim, although they may not have been
notable channelers. Remember, that back then people were put in asylums for
hearing voices or speaking without control of their own vocal cords. I don't
think very many channelers would want to make a public announcement of the
information that they had channeled.
Back in early 1970, Don plym PhD and his wife Thea Ann Plym M. Ed,
did a joint thesis for Don's doctorate. Their work was published
with the title "A Macro Philosophy for the Aquarian Age. He finishes up
chapter 1 with:
" Yes, every family in every society provides its new members with a
philosophy of life-but, for thousands of years it has almost always been a
micro philosophy. This micro philosophy provides micro answers which are
fundamentally unsatisfactory in answering the three major questions of
metaphysics: who we are, where did we come from, and where are we going.
It is how we answer these three questions that determines the quality
of our lives. In other words, the central core of our philosophy of life
is our self concept or how we perceive and define ourselves. Whether it is
conscious or unconscious, our philosophy of life determines whether we are
rich or poor, healthy or sick, calm or fearful, loving or hateful, and
finally, happy or sad.
Is this too much to believe? Yes, from a micro view it is. But you
who are dissatisfied with the consequences of micro thinking in your lives,
open your minds to larger view of man-an alternative to micro thinking-macro
philosophy"
Don's reference to micro man and micro philosophy is that of an absolute
level-purely micro. It is understood that everyone has some degree of
understanding from a macro point of view.
" However, this micro viewpoint denies that there is a larger
perspective. the world is flat, as any fool can plainly see. The the world
IS flat from a one square mile perspective-or concave if in a valley, or
convex if on a hilltop. Thus the size of your perspective(or sample of the
universe) determines what truth is, within that frame of reference.
Some scientists deny the existence or practicality of larger
perspectives such as the sub-macro perspective(sub-conscious or soul level) or
macro perspective (super-conscious or God level). It is ironic that
psychology, as generally taught in the past 40 years, has completely denied
the existence of a psyche(mind or soul) and insisted that psychologist can
only 'know' physical or sensory data. The following descriptions of these
macro philosophic concepts will be quite unacceptable to scientists with a
micro orientation. It might be appropriate to quote Dr Selye as follows:
'Great progress can be made only by ideas which are very different from those
generally accepted at the time.'"
"another way of looking at these three levels of awareness could be as
follows:
1. The micro self is an individual's body, personality, and limited
consciousness which believes that this is all there is of an
individual.
2. The sub-macro self or sub-conscious mind knows that the micro self
is only a tiny part or projection of the sub-macro self(soul) and
realizes that the micro self is like a new born baby who has not
yet learned that it is human(tiny part of the soul) and has a
mother and father (symbol of the positive and negative polarity of
the human soul).
3. The macro self or super-conscious mind knows that all is one and,
therefore, is aware that the macro self contains within itself the
positive and negative polarity of all dimensions but is in perfect
balance. While there may be temporary imbalance in the individual
souls (which causes their lack of macro awareness) these
individual imbalances are cancelled out when put all together
within the perfect (balanced) macro self.
"Macro philosophy teaches that what is right or wrong for anyone depends on
one's frame of reference or perspective. For instance while it is right for
christians to eat pork, it is wrong for the Jew or moslem. Another example
is, that, while it is wrong to kill others during peace time, it is right
during wartime. This type of right or wrong belongs in the context of social
law or custom."
_______________________________________________________________________________
I entered the above not to support my beliefs in this but as a suppliment in
sharing my knowledge with others. Hopefully it was adequate in explaining
something I know, but cannot easily put into words.
Since this knowledge has been workable and useful to me, I think I can extend
this logic to think that I am totally accountable and responsible for my
creating total reality for my (macro) self. From a micro viewpoint this is
highly difficult to accomplish and probably not desired because
responsibility => blame from the micro viewpoint, whereas responsibility =>
acceptance from a macro viewpoint.
I hope that those of you who wish not to accept CYOR, might decide to explore
this option sometime in this life. The ideas that you are being made aware of
are like a third grader being taught arithmetic. The young student is not
aware of the full scope and power of what arithmetic is capable, so may become
hesitant about learning these basics. There is no need to "forgive" a third
grader because he or she doesn't understand the larger scope of algebra or
calculus; likewise, there is no need from a macro point of view, to
to forgive a person who is still living with a micro point of view. It is
accepting others who are on a different part of the learning curve-although
this learning has only little to do with intelligence. It has more to do with
trying on new ideas and gaining knowledge through experiencing these
different ideas.
As I become more and more proficient at creating my own reality I have
had increasing occurrances of "small miracles" in my life. Those of you who
are still somewhat bound to a micro viewpoint may rationalize the situations
in my life that occured over the last 5 or 6 years as just more "effective"
living; you are only partly correct. If you want to write off those 'small
miracles' as coincidences go right ahead, but how many coincidences have to
occur before they are indicative of something more substantial? I like to
think of these small miracles that happen from time to time as "Grace".
Life is not easy but living within a micro viewpoint seems much easier(from
a micro point of view)than accepting and taking on the full responsibility of
creating your own reality in tune with your sub-macro self.
To say that a person is born under certain conditions because he or she
doesn't "value their life" is to make a judgement call.
That is only one of the conditions a person may agree to be born in a depressed
environment. on a sub-macro level that person may be subjecting him or herself
to squalor and deplorable conditions so that others of us might learn to give
of ourself and get that much closer in touch with our macro self. At a karmic
level, which is still bound to micro-awareness, that person might be reaping
what he or she had sown in an earlier incarnation(which is a poor explanation
from a sub-macro viewpoint).
Just because Lazaris is not earth bound, doesn't mean that he is omniscient.
He is a rather highly aware entity, but he is limited. There are certain
things mentioned in this file that indicates that he has a way to go-
especially comparing his knowledge base with that of Jesus. Jesus, as one who
reached the macro level of awareness, attempted to reveal to the people of the
earth what he knew metaphysically, and because he spoke from a sub-macro point
of view, much was lost. Because he was limited to the language of the time and
the social customs, he had to speak symbolically and with not so apparent
meanings. Much of what he had to say and demonstrate was lost because of
these limitations. The information that Jesus wanted to bestow on us got lost
because of repetitious reduction adsurdium. I guess what I am trying to say
is that I don't take Jesus word as the last said on the topic of
metaphysics-at least yet. But as I am more and more able to understand what
Jesus was trying to say metaphysically, the more convinced I am that he does
have all the answers. The problem is that very much of what he had to say can
only be completely understood from a sub-macro point of view. I have taken what
other masters (including Don Juan of the Carlos casteneda books) and determined
what message they all had in common. And I find that the common string of
information among them all must be a truth. I guess, what I am trying to say is
that there comes a point in self discovery when we must stop and question those
that are giving us information that "they" say is good for us.
the only way to seperate the wheat from the chaff is to go out and experience
it.
Ernie
|
| 952.50 | If only one player shows up, there's no game. | BIGSUR::GRAFTON_JI | | Thu Jan 19 1989 13:14 | 16 |
| Cindy,
One of your replies struck a chord with me. It was when you mentioned
that you did not have to continue in the abusive relationships.
Isn't it funny that once you decide to stop playing the game with
someone, the game disappears? It was only after I stopped playing
the games with the "expected" responses that I felt free enough
to let go and to move on. And then the old games never interested
me again.
Thanks for sharing so much with us on something that could have
been a very painful subject for you, and, in fact, that has been
painful in the past. Your honesty and integrity are to be admired.
Jill
|
| 952.51 | Micro-waving self into Macro-morphosis. | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Thu Jan 19 1989 13:59 | 44 |
| re: .49
Ernie, this is difficult to respond to, which is why "it's
taken me so long" to do so. I agree with most of what you have
said, at least to the extent that I followed it. What throws me
off is the last 40 lines or so. For starters, no one says people
are born without valuing self. What I think most here are saying
is that we are all born for varying reasons, most if not all of
which are difficult to ascertain...that apparently we all have
focuses (issues to deal with) in this lifetime. At that point
(birth) we have more conscious control over our lifetime and
then hopefully spend the remainder of the incarnation resolving
the issues or doing them and then readying ourselves for either
other issues or other levels (macro-levels, to use your reply)
of reality. And each of us is totally unique in all of this.
That you feel Lazaris has a way to go is certainly your
option. Personally, I say "Way to Go!" to Lazaris. In any case,
interesting how you can say that Jesus' words have been misconstrued
but aren't willing to consider that perhaps those of us paraphrasing
him are similarly misconstruing him. Beyond that, my personal
opinion is that the Jesus held to by most Christians didn't exist.
Also, I question the enlightenment of a current being who would
choose to lead the way by martyring of the self. I wouldn't want
to use that as an example for myself to follow. Finally, if all
else that Lazaris says is true (describing states of consciousness,
levels of reality, components of emotions, steps to resolving
issues, understanding and knowing people individually, etc. etc.
etc.) why would he pick that *one* thing to lie to us about? The
one thing being that he has told us that he is a muliti-leveled
being (as we all are) who has awareness of himself in all that
mulitiplicity (which we don't), that he has never been physical
and never will (all four levels of the physical), that he can
understand the physical planes better than we can because he is
outside the set and that he is the only one from his levels who
will ever come to ours (due to the extreme elegance of the energies
on his levels--and there are many more beings on his levels by his
admission than there are on ours)? Anyone can argue any of these
points if they wish, but for me I just can't see other points to
be as valid. Choose Jesus as your way, if you wish (and I agree
that many things speak well of the character) but I prefer a
different teacher.
Frederick
|
| 952.52 | The warm fuzzies..... | FHQ::OGILVIE | The EYES have it! | Thu Jan 19 1989 15:44 | 18 |
|
To all:
The more I read, the warmer I feel. Do you realize just how much
we are sharing with each other. How far we have all progressed
since Cindy started this note...
Emotions hit me lately as I either start crying when someone asks
me what I bought at the store or I begin laughing when something
hits a chord with me and I feel spiritually awakened....strange
lady...what a personal joy.
I'd like to tell you all that you are "oh so perfect in every way,
and what you do may not seem perfect to someone else, but it IS
for you, and it will be recognized."
Cheryl_with_a_warm_fuzzy_feeling_for_a_Thursday
|
| 952.53 | Lazaris does have an advantage | REGENT::WAGNER | | Thu Jan 19 1989 16:12 | 34 |
| Frederick,
I had a glitch in my memory- I guess the word used was 'life'
instead of 'self', which to me seems nearly the same.
I Did not mean to imply that I am not misinterpreting what Lazarus
has to say. I am trying to say that because misinterpretation is
possible from both our points of view, we must be ready to question
the giver of the so called knowledge as I questioned what Jesus
had to say until I was able to experience it and know. and I am
not talking about religious content of his message but metaphysical
content. I am "a-religious" That is also what I am asking you and
others to do with the information you have received from lazaris
and other sources of information-experience it and know. Only then you
can discriminate between what is useful and works(and is correct) from
that which is not useful(but interesting information.) In fact it
has only been recently that I have been able to appreciate from a
higher level what Jesus had tried to tell us. And ironically, it was
Carlos Casteneda's works on Don Juan which was able to help me
understand more fully what Jesus had to say. I'm not even saying that
Jesus did have all the answers; I'm saying that as I study other
masters, I have found that Jesus said everything they said and more.
I indicated that he did not say it better than the other masters,
because he didn't-he actually did a poor job because of language
barriers and social customs of the time. In fact, Lazaris has an
advantage over Jesus in this area because Lazaris is able to
communicate higher level ideas easier to us because of our increased
language base and general acceptance of these ideas.
Please believe me that I was not trying to put you down in any
way. I was just trying to get you to keep at least one eye open
in your learning process. One can assimilate information only so
fast. one must pause once in awhile and rigerously test the new
information before proceeding on gathering new information. As
I have stated earlier you are receiving valuable information from
Lazaris and have been doing very well with it. And I do wish you
an easy journey on you path.
|
| 952.54 | Jesus was no martyr | REGENT::WAGNER | | Thu Jan 19 1989 16:35 | 18 |
| An addendum to my last reply:
Frederick,
You mentioned the word martyr with reference to the Christian
concept of Jesus. Perhaps from a micro and even sub-macro point
of view you are correct; what he tried to tell us was a message of a most
fantastic metaphysical nature. But the message contained in his death
cannot be separated from the other things he had tried to tell us while
he taught the people in the form of parables and other means.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
| 952.55 | SOURCE? | FHQ::OGILVIE | The EYES have it! | Thu Jan 19 1989 16:55 | 24 |
|
RE: 53, 54 ??
I may truly not have one leg to stand on. Admittedly, my readings have
been many, yet so few possibly, compared to a lot of you.
I ask: How do you know what Jesus said and how he said it? What source
of reference are you using? If you are referring to Lazaris as a "here and
now", and being more descriptive than Christ, it is because he IS more
descriptive - we now are able to understand more.
Thought: Relating to reality......due to early Christianity, is it not
possible that the entities existing at this time were not advanced enough
to comprehend fully what Jesus had to say at that time -- because the
"reality" today is possibly more "perfected" than it was then.
This of course, is only a question.
/Cheryl
|
| 952.56 | Probably not... | BLIVIT::STANLEY | It takes dynamite to get me up... | Thu Jan 19 1989 17:02 | 13 |
| < Note 952.55 by FHQ::OGILVIE "The EYES have it!" >
>Thought: Relating to reality......due to early Christianity, is it not
>possible that the entities existing at this time were not advanced enough
>to comprehend fully what Jesus had to say at that time -- because the
>"reality" today is possibly more "perfected" than it was then.
I think it is quite possible that people did not understand what he said. But
I also think that if he were to speak today, there would be quite a few people
that wouldn't understand what he says. I do not assume that *I* would
understand either. I'd like to though.
Dave
|
| 952.57 | Being advanced enough is a good answer | REGENT::WAGNER | | Thu Jan 19 1989 17:23 | 27 |
| Cheryl,
A very good question! How do I know- by experiencing it. Much of
the stuff I have read-works of Carlos casteneda, Baghavad(sp) Gita
Alan Watts(Zen), Sufism, the bible, etc I did not read purely for
literal meaning. I attempted to determine which was literal and which
was symbolic. Then I attempted to interpret the symbolic information
from the different sources (and contexts) in a way that the interpreted
information and literal information agreed. Believe me this hasn't
been as easy task and have spent close to twenty years in accomplishing
this. only relatively recently (5 or 6 years or so) have I been
effective in making this work for me.
As for the people of Jesus time not being able to understand
because of their level of advancement, that is probably correct
at the "bottom line" Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Because of the reality of today we have a larger world view- larger
part of the universe as a frame of reference, so there for we are
more "perfected" to hear what Lazaris and others have to say.
I don't say I have all the answers. but I do say what I know because
it has been working for me, and I may not be ale to convey the
"mechanics" of getting where I am. and the disclaimer is "Every thing
I know may be wrong."
Ernie
|
| 952.58 | Sure just change his act to suit the audience | REGENT::WAGNER | | Thu Jan 19 1989 17:38 | 9 |
| I think that today, relatively more people would be able to understand
what Jesus was trying to say because he should have access to more
people who have a larger universal view. Jesus would not have to be
as limited by the language as he was then. I think he would be
more able to talk pure "metaphysics" at our level of consciousness
as Cheryl stated it. I'm not sure a significantly larger number
of people would be able to understand because of their micro-viewpoint.
Ernie
|
| 952.59 | Semantics, all | USWAV1::CHAPLAIN | | Fri Jan 20 1989 13:05 | 23 |
| What do you call ten philosophers buried up to their noses in dirt?
Not enough dirt.
|
| 952.60 | This seems like a good time and place to enter this. | CLUE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Fri Jan 20 1989 14:15 | 263 |
| The following information can be found at the beginning of the
"Religions and World Peace" topic in this conference, however I've
condensed it somewhat for this particular topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
{From: The Different Drum, by M.Scott Peck, M.D.}
In any case, this book will start small. The first section will focus
entirely upon my personal experience of community. For there I
discovered its extreme importance in my own life and in the lives of
thousands of my fellow humans as we struggled together to communicate
without superficiality or distortion or animosity.
The key to community is the acceptance - in fact, the celebration - of
our individual and cultural differences. Such acceptance and
celebration - which resolves the problem of pluralism and which can
occur only after we learn to become empty (of intolerances) - is also
the key to world peace.
THE STAGES OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH
...Over the course of a decade of practicing psychotherapy a strange
pattern began to emerge. If people who were religious came to me in
pain and trouble, and if they became engaged in the therapeutic
process so as to go the whole route, they frequently left therapy as
atheists, agnostics, or at least skeptics. On the other hand, if
atheists, agnostics, or skeptics came to me in pain or difficulty and
became fully engaged, they frequently left therapy as deeply religious
people.
"Same therapy, same therapist, successful but utterly different
outcomes from a religious point of view. ...It didn't compute until I
realized that 'we are not all in the same place spiritually'.
With that realization came another: there is a pattern of progression
through identifiable stages in human spiritual life. .....But here I will
talk about those stages only in general, for individuals are unique and do
not always fit neatly into any psychological or spiritual pigeonhole.
With that caveat, let me list my own understanding of these stages and the
names I have chosen to give them:
STAGE I - Chaotic, antisocial (people who lie and live by their own rules)
STAGE II - Formal, institutional (rigid, fundamentalists)
STAGE III - Skeptic, individual (those questioning/rejecting past ideas)
STAGE IV - Mystic, communal
Most all young children and perhaps one in five adults fall into Stage
I. It is essentially a stage of undeveloped spirituality. I call it
antisocial because those adults who are in it (People Of The Lie -
book by same name) seem generally incapable of loving others.
Although they may pretend to be loving (and think of themselves that
way), their relationships with their fellow human beings are all
essentially manipulative and self-serving. ...Being unprincipled,
there is nothing that governs them except their own will. And since
that will from moment to moment can go this way or that, there is a
lack of integrity in their being.
From time to time people in Stage I get in touch with the chaos of
their own being, and when they do, I think it is the most painful
experience a human can have. A few, I suspect, may kill themselves,
unable to envision change. And some, occasionally, convert to Stage
II. Such conversions are usually sudden and dramatic and, I believe,
God-given. It is as if God had reached down and grabbed their soul
and yanked it up a quantum leap. The process also seems to be an
unconscious one It just seems to happen.
There are several things that characterize the behavior of men and
women in Stage II of their spiritual development, which is the stage
of the majority of churchgoers and believers (as well as that of most
emotionally healthy "latency"-period children). One is their
attachment to the forms (as opposed to the essence) of their religion,
which is why I call this stage "formal" as well as "institutional".
They are in fact sometimes so attached to the canons and the liturgy
that they become very upset if changes are made in the words or the
music or in the traditional order of things. ...Since it is precisely
these forms that are responsible for their liberation from chaos, it
is no wonder that people at this stage become so threatened when
someone seems to be playing footloose and fancy-free with the rules.
Another thing characterizing the religious behavior of Stage II people
is that their vision of God is almost entirely that of an external.,
transcendent Being. They have very little understanding of the
immanent, indwelling God - the God of the Holy Spirit, or what Quakers
call the Inner Light. and although they often consider Him loving,
they also generally feel He possesses - and will use - punitive power.
But once again, it is no accident that their vision of God is that of
a giant benevolent Cop in the Sky, because that is precisely the kind
of God they need - just as they need a legalistic religion for their
governance.
What happens to children when they are raised in a Stage II home
environment? They are treated with importance and dignity (and taken
to Sunday school as well) and that they absorb the principles of
Christianity as if with their mother's milk - or the principles of
Buddhism if raised in a Buddhist home, or of Islam if raised in a
Muslim home, and so on. The principles of their parents' religion are
literally engraved on their hearts, or come to be what
psychotherapists call "internalized".
But once these principles become internalized, such children, now
usually late-adolescents, have become self-governing human beings. As
such they are no longer dependent on an institution for their
governance. Consequently they begin to say to themselves, "Who needs
this fuddy-duddy old Church with its silly superstitions?" At this
point they begin to convert to Stage III - skeptic, individual. And
to their parents' great but unnecessary chagrin, they often become
atheists or agnostics.
Although frequently "nonbelievers," people in Stage III are generally
more spiritually developed than many content to remain in Stage II.
Although individualistic, they are not the least bit antisocial. To
the contrary, they are often deeply involved in and committed to
social causes. They make up their own minds and are no more likely to
believe everything they read in the papers than to believe it
necessary to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior (as opposed to
Buddha or Mao or Socrates) in order to be saved. They make loving,
intensely dedicated parents. As skeptics they are often scientists,
and as such they are again highly submitted to principle. Indeed,
what we call the scientific method is a collection of conventions and
procedures that have been designed to combat our extraordinary
capacity to deceive ourselves in the interest of submission to
something higher than our own immediate emotional or intellectual
comfort - namely, truth. Advanced Stage III men and women are active
truth seekers.
"Seek and you shall find," it has been said. If people in Stage III
seek the truth deeply and widely enough, they find what they are
looking for - enough pieces to begin to fit them together but never
enough to complete the whole puzzle. In fact, the more pieces they
find, the larger and more magnificent the puzzle becomes. Yet they
are able to get glimpses of the "big picture" and to see that it is
very beautiful indeed - and that it strangely resembles those
"primitive myths and superstitions" their Stage II parents and
grandparents believe in . At this point they begin conversion to
Stage IV, which is the mystic communal stage of spiritual development.
...Mysticism also obviously has to do with mystery. Mystics
acknowledge the enormity of the unknown, but rather than being
frightened by it, they seek to penetrate even deeper into it that they
may understand more - even with the realization that the more they
understand, the greater the mystery will become. They love mystery,
in dramatic contrast to those in Stage II, who need simple, clear-cut
dogmatic structures and have little taste for the unknown and the
unknowable. While Stage IV men and women will enter religion in order
to approach mystery, people in Stage II, to a considerable extent,
enter religion in order to escape from it.
"Finally, mystics throughout the ages have not only spoken of emptiness
but extolled its virtues. I have labeled STAGE IV communal as well as
mystical not because all mystic or even a majority of them live in communes
but because among human beings they are the ones most aware that the whole
world is a community and realize what divides us into warring camps is
precisely the 'lack' of this awareness. Having become practiced at
emptying themselves of preconceived notions and prejudices and able to
perceive the invisible underlying fabric that connects everything, they do
not think in terms of factions or blocs or even national boundaries; they
'know' this to be one world.
...Perhaps, predictably, there exists a sense of threat among people
in the different stages of religious development. Mostly we are
threatened by people in the stages above us.
...STAGE I people are threatened by just about everything and everybody.
STAGE II people are not threatened by STAGE I people, the "sinners". They
are commanded to love sinners. But they are very threatened by the
individuals and skeptics of STAGE III and even more by the mystics of STAGE
IV, who seem to believe in the same sorts of things they do but believe in
them with a freedom they find absolutely terrifying. STAGE III people, on
the other hand, are neither threatened by STAGE I people nor by STAGE II
people (whom they simply regard as superstitious) but are cowed by STAGE IV
people, who seem to be scientific-minded like themselves and know how to
write good footnotes, yet somehow believe in this crazy God business."
...Much of the art of being a good teacher, healer, or minister
consists largely in staying just one step ahead of your patients,
clients, or pupils. If you are not ahead, it is unlikely that you
will be able to lead them anywhere. But if you are two steps ahead, it
is likely that you will lose them. If people are one step ahead, we
usually admire them. If they are two steps ahead of us, we usually
think they are evil. That's why Socrates and Jesus were killed; they
were thought to be evil.
...An understanding of the stages of spiritual development is
important for community building. A group of only Stage IV people or
only Stage II people is, of course, not so much a community as a
clique. A true community will likely include people of all stages.
With this understanding, it is possible for people in different stages
to transcend the sense of threat that divides them and to become a
true community, still recognizing that everyone was in their own stage
of spiritual development and that it was ** literally all right **.
My experience suggests that this progression of spiritual development
holds true in all cultures and for all religions. Indeed, one of the
things that seems to characterize all the great religions -
Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism - is their
capacity to speak to people in both Stage II and Stage IV. In fact, I
suspect this is why they are great religions. It is as if the words
of each had two different translations. Let us take a Christian
example: "Jesus is my savior." At Stage II this is often translated
into a Jesus who is a kind of fairy godmother who will rescue me
whenever I get in trouble as long as I remember to call upon his name.
And that's true. He will do just that. At Stage IV "Jesus is my
savior" is translated as "Jesus, through his life and death, taught me
the way I must follow for my salvation." Which is also true. Two
totally different translations, two totally different meanings, but
both of them true.
"It is also important to remember that no matter how far we develop
spiritually, we retain in ourselves vestiges of the previous stages
through which we have come...
"...Conversions from STAGE I and STAGE II are usually sudden and
dramatic. Conversions from STAGE III to STAGE IV are generally
gradual."
....It is during the process of conversion from STAGE III to STAGE IV
that people generally first become conscious that there is such a
thing as spiritual growth. There is a potential pitfall in this
consciousness, however, and that is the notion some have at this point
that they can they themselves 'direct' the process. ...I believe that
we cannot get to God under our own steam. We must allow God to do the
directing.
In any case, whether sudden or gradual, no matter how different in
other respects, Stages I to II and Stages III to IV conversions do
have one thing in common: a sense on the part of the persons converted
that their own conversions were not something they themselves achieved
but rather gifts from God.
As a part of the process of spiritual growth, the transition from
Stage II to Stage III is also conversion. We can be converted to
atheism or agnosticism or, at least, skepticism! Indeed I have every
reason to believe that God has a hand in this part of the conversion
process as well. One of the greatest challenges, in fact, facing the
Church is how to facility the conversion of its members from Stage II
to Stage IV without them having to spend a whole adult lifetime in
Stage III. It is a challenge that the Church has historically avoided
rather than begun to face. As far as I'm concerned, one of the
greatest sins of our sinful Christian Church has been its
discouragement, through the ages, of doubt. In so doing, it has
consistently driven growing people out of its potential community,
often fixating them thereby in a perpetual resistance to spiritual
insights. Conversely, the Church is not going to meet this challenge
until doubt is properly considered a Christian virtue - indeed, a
Christian responsibility. We neither can nor should skip over
questioning in our development.
In fact, it is only through the process of questioning that we begin
to become even dimly aware that the whole point of life is the
development of souls. As I said, the notion that we can totally
direct this development is a pitfall of such awareness. But the
beauty of the consciousness that we are all on an ongoing spiritual
journey and that there is no end to our conversion far outshines that
one pitfall. For once we become aware that we are on a journey - that
we are all pilgrims - for the first time we can actually begin to
cooperate consciously with God in the process.
That is why Paul Vitz, at a symposium with me, correctly told the audience:
"I think Scott's stages have a good deal of validity, and I suspect
that I shall be using them in my practice, but I want you to remember
that what Scotty calls STAGE IV is the beginning."
|
| 952.61 | Are we there yet? Yes! | CLUE::PAINTER | To dream the impossible dream... | Fri Jan 20 1989 14:26 | 19 |
|
Nice sense of community here.
Thanks to all who participated - and especially for the kind words.
We've been at it for a few days now - going back and forth. I
sincerely doubt that Bruce (hi Bruce!) and John M. (hi John!) and
a few others who support ACYOR have changed their minds in the
least...despite the best efforts of some to do this...and vice versa.
(;^)
What is nice, though, is that we can remain in our respective belief
systems all coexist rather peacefully in the end anyway.
This, I believe, is what community is all about.
Peace.
Cindy
|
| 952.62 | | BLIVIT::STANLEY | Sometimes you get shown the light... | Fri Jan 20 1989 14:44 | 8 |
| < Note 952.59 by USWAV1::CHAPLAIN >
-< Semantics, all >-
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Where do you come up with these?
Not enough dirt! Hahahahahahahaha!!!
Dave
|
| 952.63 | Plagiarism | WAV14::CHAPLAIN | | Fri Jan 27 1989 06:27 | 3 |
| re .62
All stolen.
|
| 952.64 | another?? | AYOV18::BCOOK | Zaman, makan, ikhwan | Fri Jan 27 1989 11:59 | 22 |
| There's also the one about the philosopher who locked himself out
of his car...
It took him three hours with a coat hanger to break in and get his
family out...
sorry,
Brian
|
| 952.65 | Another one | CNTROL::HENRIKSON | | Sat Jan 28 1989 11:55 | 6 |
|
How about the philosopher who said "I think. Therefore, I am." One day
he was at a restaurant and the waitress asked, "Would you like a cup of coffee?"
He answered, "I think not." and <*poof*>, he disappeared.
Pete
|
| 952.66 | wings? must be a bird... | IJSAPL::ELSENAAR | Fractal of the universe | Sat Jan 28 1989 13:27 | 9 |
| RE -1 (Pete)
I hate to spoil jokes, Pete, but you switched the logic.
The rule is: (A => B) <=> (-B => -A), if-you-know-what-I-mean...
The best variant I can come up with, is that someone says to this man:
"You are a lousy philosopher!", and he answers: "I am not!"
Arie (;-)
|
| 952.67 | Do you have pointy ears? :^) | CNTROL::HENRIKSON | | Sat Jan 28 1989 15:18 | 8 |
|
>The rule is: (A => B) <=> (-B => -A), if-you-know-what-I-mean...
Arie,
Geeezzz!!! It's like telling a joke to Mr.Spock! :^)
Pete
|
| 952.68 | raising my right eyebrow... | IJSAPL::ELSENAAR | Fractal of the universe | Mon Jan 30 1989 05:24 | 15 |
| RE -1 (Pete)
> Geeezzz!!! It's like telling a joke to Mr.Spock! :^)
Sorry Pete. I didn't mean to disappoint you. I *did* smile for 1.2 seconds; your
joke scored 6.3 out of 10 on the Vulcan humor-scale, and I *did* make a mental
note regarding the quality of your replies in this notesfile.
Considering the circumstances it is not that bad....
^ -
< o o >
|
___
Arie
|
| 952.69 | Wittgenstein | IJSAPL::ELSENAAR | Fractal of the universe | Mon Jan 30 1989 11:26 | 29 |
|
Hm. Was it a slight diversion up there? ;-)
The whole discussion about YCYOR reminds me of some books I have read of a
philosopher called Wittgenstein. He had the opportunity (;-) to start his works
when every other philosopher felt obliged to give his views on whether there
exists an "objective reality". Wittgenstein's first book (Tractatus
philosophicus) dealt with a related topic, namely the role of language in
communications. His theory in that book still is a basis for many theorists in
information science. In short, he explains that language is a representation of
reality ("Wirklichkeit"). He uses sentences like: "we make ourselves images of
facts. the image is a model of a part of reality. the elements of the image
represent the objects in reality. language is used to express images."
This book was heavily attacked because of its basic premise that an "objective
reality" *seems* to exist. After many debates (and *much* later!), Wittgenstein
published a book called "Philosophical investigations", where he had changed his
views dramatically. Language may still be a representation of *a* reality, but
his primary focus is shifted towards the so-called "language game": language can
only be used as a means of communication when people are playing the same game.
The meaning of a word is not contained in the representation value, but in its
use. When asked about his changes, Wittgenstein always stressed the fact that to
him, the discussion whether there is an objective reality is *not relevant*.
Why did I enter this here? Well, it may be the bridge between AYOR and YCYOR.
What do you think?
Arie
|
| 952.70 | Time out for thought process | CLUE::PAINTER | Wage Peace | Mon Jan 30 1989 15:13 | 7 |
|
Re.69
Hm...going to have to think about that one. Interesting. Thanks,
Arie.
Cindy
|
| 952.71 | Sub-Titled: Strategic Living. | REGENT::WAGNER | | Mon Feb 20 1989 13:07 | 31 |
| Here is an interesting excerpt fro Carlos Castaneda's books (I
forget which one) concerning living strategically as an important
part of YCOR:
"It is impossible to live strategically all the time," I(Carlos)
said. "Imagine that someone is waiting for you with a powerful
rifle wihta telescopic sight; he could spot you accurately 500 yards
away. What would you do?"
Don Juan looked at me with an air of disbelief and then broke
into laughter.
What would you do?" I urged him.
"If someone is waiting for me with a rifle with a telescopic
sight?" he said, obviously mocking me.
"If someone is hiding out of sight, waiting for you. You won't
have a chance. You can't stop a bullet."
"No I can't, but I still don't understand your point."
My point is that all your strategy can not be of any help in
a situation like that."
"Oh, but it can. If someone is waiting for me with a powerful
rifle with a telescopic sight, I simply will not come around."
Creating your own reality does not necessarily have to mean moving mountains
by thinking about it or even feeding a multitude of people from
a few fish and a few loafs of bread. But if one is as totally aware
as he or she can be and lives as totally strategically as one is
able to, Then something as simple as staying out of the sights of
a telescoping rifle or avoiding that auto accident that almost happened
last week IS creating your own reality.
Ernie
|
| 952.72 | A quote I've always liked. | REDWOD::GRAFTON | | Tue Feb 21 1989 13:03 | 14 |
| One of my favorite quotes from Seth/Jane Roberts is:
Organize your reality according to your strength;
organize your reality according to your playfulness;
according to your dreams; according to your joy;
according to your hopes--and _then_ you can help
those who organize their reality according to their
fears.
It's one of those lines that reminds me time and again that I can
set up my reality the way I would like and that, by doing so, might
help all of us along the way.
Jill
|
| 952.73 | A Question | DNEAST::DUCHARME_GEO | | Thu Nov 01 1990 13:26 | 32 |
|
I am interested in learning some points of view on how interactions
between people, fit into the we create our own reality perspective.
I have read several of the ( SETH ) books by Jane Roberts and could
not seem to get a handle on how interactions fit into the picture.
An example that comes to mind ( this is from memory ) is you are on
a corner and can go in 4 different directions, 2 you dismiss quickly but
the other 2 you think about. You picture yourself going one way and
then the other. You decide on one and that becomes physical for you.
A probable you takes the direction that you did not.
What is unclear to me from this example is the relationship of these
2 selves to another person. For example if instead of me you are
the person at the corner which you would I experience? And what
would cause me to experience one or the other? Please do not feel
your answers need to be within the context of this question.
Thanks in advance
George Ducharme
|
| 952.74 | mho | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Thu Nov 01 1990 14:30 | 7 |
|
Hi George,
I believe we co-create our reality with G/G/ATI and with everybody
else...at some level.
Cindy
|
| 952.75 | Who's looking? | MISERY::WARD_FR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Thu Nov 01 1990 15:01 | 23 |
| re: .73 (George)
What it seems to me that you are getting into is the subjectivity
of self, versus the objectivity of self. Which you would see which
me? For me, it would be the one that responds to me. For you, it
would be the one you respond to. It is not objective from this
perspective. From the perspective of GGA, all is. But not from
here. We do not co-create...a *part* of us is co-creating. *This*
part of us has not yet learned how to create, though it does (there
are two ways, by consciously doing so, or by allowing.) This is
obviously wherein Seth and others have discussed parallel lifetimes,
or split-offs.
As an example, if at some point in your life you remember having
a definite shift in thinking, e.g. you suddenly didn't want to be
a brain surgeon anymore, there may have been a split there. That
part of you is still living as a brain surgeon.
Atlantis is still alive and well in another reality. It did
not disintegrate...the Atlantis of *our* reality obviously did,
however. Another example of split realities. Is a part of you
in that one? Possibly.
Frederick
|
| 952.76 | Question | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Fri Nov 02 1990 10:03 | 8 |
| Re.75
Frederick,
Do you know anyone personally who is consciously creating 100% of their
reality in this life in every moment? Are you?
Cindy
|
| 952.77 | It's awful hard to tell from outside... | MISERY::WARD_FR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Fri Nov 02 1990 11:22 | 8 |
| re: .76 (Condy-roo)
NO.
But I know a great many people getting close...(true statement.)
Frederick
|
| 952.78 | | CONES::glantz | Mike 227-4299 TAY Littleton MA | Fri Nov 02 1990 12:40 | 9 |
| My opinion is that we all create our reality close to 100% of the time,
but are generally in direct control or awareness of this process less
than .1% of the time. Furthermore, I've discovered that just because I
intellectually believe the foregoing doesn't make me any more likely to
be truly aware or in control. For me, the desire to be aware and in
control hasn't been sufficient to actually achieve awareness and
control of the creation process. I sense that more is necessary. A
teacher, the right circumstances, etc. Very little progress, here, I'm
forced to admit.
|
| 952.79 | Solitaire is boring | DWOVAX::STARK | monumentally naive | Fri Nov 02 1990 13:33 | 4 |
| I seem to *choose* the games I play in, but unless I can get someone else
to agree to my rules, it doesn't appear to do me much good to create my own
games.
>Todd>
|
| 952.80 | Where's a good chisel when we need one? | MISERY::WARD_FR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Fri Nov 02 1990 13:46 | 38 |
| re: .78 (Mike)
I somewhat agree with you, in regards to .1% awareness. That is,
most people have little awareness at all. Though my awareness is
far more than .1% (compared to what it was) it is still short of
complete. What I *have* succeeded in becoming is aware "after-the-
fact." That is, as I look at what I have already created, I can
see more and more where my thoughts and feelings have generated that.
AS I see more of this, it helps direct me in current/future thoughts.
What I'm saying is that as I have a thought/feeling and recognize it
as similar to a previous one, I can have a good idea of what the
outcome will be (based on what has been.) If I don't like the outcome
I have had, I look to see how I can change the thought/feeling.
This I'm consciously doing as much as I can, as well as attempting
to clear out what I have become aware of as being negative beliefs/
blockages/etc. AND while programming, deliberately, for positive
ones (in case I just so happen to create a void by deleting
negativity... ;-) )
re: .79 (Todd)
What you describe sounds like two different things to me. One,
like manipulation/control. Two, like a form of victimhood/martyrhood.
In other words, reality doesn't work very well when approaching life
from a sense of anger/control/deficiency. You see, people *are*
playing by your rules. Only the rules you are playing by aren't the
ones you say you want...rather they are the ones you've (perhaps
surreptiously, covertly) already implemented. As you change the
beliefs, as you let go of the need to control, etc., you will find
that the rules people in your reality are following are more closely
held by the rules you are expressing. I have already seen this
particular shift in my reality.
Keep on plugging away...you can chip this armor and you can
penetrate it.
Frederick
|
| 952.81 | Creating the context for semantic.responses | DWOVAX::STARK | monumentally naive | Mon Nov 05 1990 08:38 | 28 |
| re: .80, (Frederick),
>> I seem to *choose* the games I play in, but unless I can get someone
>> else to agree to my rules, it doesn't appear to do me much good to
>> create my own games.
> What you describe sounds like two different things to me. One,
> like manipulation/control. Two, like a form of victimhood/martyrhood.
> In other words, reality doesn't work very well when approaching life
> from a sense of anger/control/deficiency. You see, people *are*
> playing by your rules. Only the rules you are playing by aren't the
> ones you say you want...
Thanks for that perspective. I knew that somewhere in all that
information, you'd have something I could apply to myself, if I asked
the right question. I *feel* that you are right-on here, although I
have not yet quite made this shift cognitively. As I think Topher said
a few notes back in other words, all communication is to some extent
control and manipulation, insofar as we create (semantic.responses) in
other people, and they create them in us. I think we also have control
over the context of those responses, and thus the rules of the game, and
the structure of the interactional reality. That seems to be where
the nature of choice/reality creation comes in, for me, right now.
thanks,
Todd
|