| Author | Message | ||
    Edward |
Hi Claes, Hampton and Linda... Yes...I would Agree with how Hampton has explained it all. We would surely...One way or another..have the possibilty to "Link-Up" to One and other's "Consciousness"...with the Surrounding Possibilities...to make encountering our Loved Ones(or others) manifest. As we must not foreget....We are a part of a "Total Consciousness"..which grants us this Possibility. It can almost be compared..like "Consciousness Shifting"(Movement). Which we than may call "Consciousness Linking"...I would say. Edward. | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 17 Registered: 05-2003 |
In addition to Eduard’s forthcoming answer to my question to him (please refer to Your Questions to Billy Meier) I thought of asking this: “If our spirits are restricted to culture, race and nation when reincarnating, then what determines the incarnation of a newly generated spirit that has had no earthly experience to be restricted to any culture, race or nation? My reasoning behind this question was that a newly generated spirit would have the choice of being incarnated anywhere in the world. And only then, when it has incarnated, would it become restricted to the culture, race and nation into which the human life it has incarnated in was born. But why would a newly generated spirit be incarnated in the life of a human being whose people suffer from poverty, famine and disease, and not in the life of a human being whose people are healthy, democratic and sophisticated? There seems to be no reason for this to happen, especially as a newly generated spirit would not be predisposed to any part of the world. This was my reasoning initially. But pondering on it a while I engaged in an imaginary dialogue between One Who Seeks To Know and One Who Knows, and I realized my reasoning was only partially correct. The dialogue was as follows: One Who Knows – Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that on a certain day in the history of humankind every spirit designated to the earth is incarnated in the world, whereby on this day no more and no less than four hundred million people are living, who are aged between one day old and one hundred and twenty years old. Now let us also imagine that on the following day, in a remote part of the world, an infant is born. For the sake of this life Creation generates a new spirit, and thus you have your answer as to why a newly generated spirit is incarnated in a certain part of the world. One Who Seeks To Know – But what if on this day more than one infant is born in more than one part of the world? Why should one newly generated spirit be incarnated in one part of the world while the other is incarnated in another part of the world, when neither has ever been incarnated in the world before to be predisposed to any part of it, whether remote or not? One Who Knows – Your thinking has caused you to regard each newly generated spirit in the same way as you regard yourself, which is as being separate and different from another. But this is not so, because each newly generated spirit is unknowing down to the smallest iota, and so they are created the same and makes no difference to either where they are incarnated in the world, since all newly generated spirits are like one spirit, and all conceived life is to the newly generated spirit like one life. Therefore, that one spirit is incarnated in one part of the world and another in another part of the world is inconsequential to the newly generated spirit. It is only at the end of its first incarnation that it becomes consequential. And that it may incarnate in the life of a human being whose people suffer from poverty, famine and disease is the misfortune of the world, not of the spirit. For were all the world populated by a healthy, democratic and sophisticated people you would not ask why should one spirit incarnate in one part of the world while another incarnates in another part of the world. Instead you would say how fortunate is the newly generated spirit. But all life is the same to the newly generated spirit, and where it (life) is conceived that is where it incarnates in the world. Having come to this understanding, which I find to be logical, I am no longer compelled to ask my question. | ||
Savio Member Post Number: 431 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hi Joseph Perhaps the answer to your question could be quite simple  We know that a spirit will have to reincarnate millions and billions times before arriving close to perfect, hence on average, it will have the chance to experience and learn from all sort of situations...like being black, white, red.. wealthy, poor.... etc. Regards Savio | ||
Howard Member Post Number: 48 Registered: 05-2003 |
Hi Joseph_Emmanuel, in a book I read about reincarnation, a lady in her earlier reincarnations had been reincarnated as an ape. Its not sure that everyone are reincarnated as humans in the first place, the apes were created by humans, you see? | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 20 Registered: 05-2003 |
Howard One of the most interesting books I have ever read is the Bhagavad-Gita, which as you may know belongs to the Hindu religion. What initially drew me to this book was that it was written in the form of a dialogue between a seeker of truth and a teacher of truth, although much of what is said between them is disputable, as with all religious scripture. But it was the relevance of their relationship that inspired me. All that I sought from their discourse was to be made to think. Their relationship, however, was for me symbolic of the human condition, which is to learn and when we learn, to teach. To quote Luke, Chapter 6, Verse 40: “The pupil is not above his teacher, but every pupil who comes to know what his teacher knows, shall become like his teacher.” I sought to know, and it was books like this one, among other things in my life, that was my teacher. But I draw your attention to this book in particular because somewhere among its verses it states that a human being who lives his life in ignorance will be reincarnated as an animal. This is not true, and neither is it true that the spirit of an animal is reincarnated as a human being, although both spirit forms, that of the human and that of the animal, come from the same source, which is Creation, and upon being generated are equal to each other. But the instant they are incarnated, the newly generated spirit that is incarnated in the life of an animal becomes predisposed to the existence of an animal, and the newly generated spirit that is incarnated in the life of a human becomes predisposed to human existence. I can see no reason as to why a newly generated spirit would be partial to one or the other prior to incarnation, as this would then suggest that Creation is partial. And if Creation were partial it would not be all-embracing but only partially-embracing, rather like the god of religions that is inclined towards good and averse to evil. In the case of humans creating life, as we are able to do these days, it must be remembered that although humans are able to manipulate genetics, they are not able to manipulate spirit, since all spirit lives according to the laws of Creation, and are not able to live by any other laws as humans are to their detriment. Thus, though humans may create life, if it is the life of an animal, the spirit within it will reincarnate in the life of an animal in its next incarnation, and if it is the life of a human being, the spirit within the human will reincarnate in the life of a human in its next incarnation. This is because an animal isn’t able to reason and seek the truth and become conscious of its life. It is in the world to be nothing more than itself, bound by the laws of Nature, upon which its survival and evolution depend. By contrast a human being is in the world to grow beyond his nature and behold his spirit that is within him, wherefore his evolution is dependent on the laws of Creation, since being human he is able to reason and seek the truth and become conscious of his life, which makes spiritual evolution possible. | ||
Howard Member Post Number: 51 Registered: 05-2003 |
Eventhough, newly created spirits are in such a low developed stage, that they may incarnate as an ape. The arliest humans I think I read was created from apes, so it isnt that impossible that a humans spirit could incarnate as an ape, which is very much alike us humans. Evolution has to come from somewhere doesnt it? Humans couldnt have come out of nowhere. Howard | ||
Scott Moderator Post Number: 395 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hello Howard, I really think you might find some of your answers if you explore some of the writings by Billy. There was a question in the book: Interviews-The Mission and Spiritual Teachings- “Billy” Eduard A. Meier How did human beings on earth originate? Did they really evolve from the Ape? Without reciting the whole passage, here is a portion of it. “The first humanoid life form split into several species from which developed the humanoid life form as well as other distinct classifications. However this base lineage was initially human. Through evolutionary processes it slowly transformed to the point where fundamental differences began appearing……one line continued its evolution as the human form in the natural, predominant form; the others split into various species from which the ape being came into existence with a multitude of variations” ….... In essence as far as I can understand apes did not precede man, but apes were an offshoot of the human form. It must also be understood that the purpose of the animal and plant world is to develop the physcial matter to the point that human life is capable of existence. This process as you know takes many millions of years to develop. There is no such thing as the "human" spirit but just the spirit or spirit form. If a spirit would incarnate into the body of an ape, it would no longer be an ape by definition. It would fall into a different category, possibly primitive humanoid, or something similar. The spirit does not incarnate into animals, because animals exist in an entirely different lineage, seperate from human evolution. If anyone has any comments or corrections I would like to hear them. Salome Scott This is getting off topic a bit, but I wanted to share this with you as I understand it. | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 24 Registered: 05-2003 |
Scott I would agree with you that apes were an offshoot of the human form. But you have stated something very interesting. You said that “the spirit does not incarnate into animals.” I really don’t see how this is so. A life is a life, whether it is human or animal, and I don’t see why Creation would discriminate and bestow a human with spirit but not an animal. This seems to me to be contradictory. Please can you put forward the reasoning behind this so that I can understand. But in support of my present understanding I would like to quote Eduard Meier from An Interview – Spiritual Teachings: “The fact is humans are always reborn as humans because of the Creational particle within each of them that is capable of evolving. Humans, therefore, can never reincarnate as animals or anything else except as human entities… By the same token, animals can never be reborn as humans because the animals’ spirit form is neither focused in this direction nor is it intended to evolve toward knowledge and wisdom as is the case with human spirit forms or the spirit, respectively.” Clearly from the above, according to Eduard, animals do have a spirit form. So surely therefore it is not correct to say that “if a spirit would incarnate into the body of an ape it would no longer be an ape by definition.” The spirit does not make an ape human, whether fully formed or primitive, it simply gives it life. Also you have stated that there is no such thing as the human spirit, but just the spirit or spirit form. Really I don’t think it is of any concern whether one refers to it as the human spirit or spirit form, or human spirit form as Eduard here refers to it, again from An Interview: “The purpose for having reincarnation and numerous lives is to allow both the human spirit form—which is part of Creation—and the comprehensive consciousness to evolve to the point where together they enter into and become one with Creation, which Itself evolves at the same time.” And this is from the TJ, stating simply human spirit: Chapter 6, Verse 38. "The human spirit, which is thirsting for truth and knowledge, is incapable of preserving its earthly life without the body, because both body and spirit together are one Chapter 18, Verse 41. "The human spirit is ignorant until it has gained knowledge through thinking and inquiry.” Chapter 18, Verse 44. "Creation is timeless, and so is the human spirit. Chapter 34, Verse 15. "Thus, the human spirit perfects itself so extensively that it unfolds in a Creational manner and ultimately becomes one with Creation, as it was destined from the earliest beginning. | ||
Scott Moderator Post Number: 396 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hi Joseph, Thanks for the quick response. After reading and thinking about these ideas, I will have to say yes there is a difference between the human and animal spirit form. Years ago in a study group this very discussion came up, and at that point I don’t think we ever came to a clear conclusion. After reading some of the passages you quoted in addition to reading some excerpts from “49 questions” there is a obliviously a distinction being made. Possibly the distinction might be made in accordance with the “intention” or the intent behind the creation of a spirit form which determines what its purpose will be? How these spirit forms differ in terms of their “energy” or whatever it is, is beyond me at this point. It was stated in the booklet "49 Questions": ……..Semjase: That is correct, for their (animal) spiritual evolution does not serve to perfect the spirit; it simply assists the evolution of nature, which has its own assigned order”.. If this is indeed correct, then it might follow that there is a conscious intent behind the processes which create animal/human spirit forms, this to me would signify that Creation is conscious of what it is creating and the purposes behind these creations has meaning, which would mean our lives while they may seem insignificant, were created with a purpose which needs to be fulfilled. Thank you for the stimulating conversation. Salome Scott | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 26 Registered: 05-2003 |
Scott I don’t mean to appear at variance, but I think to suggest there is an intention behind the generation of a spirit form, which determines what its purpose will be, inadvertently allows for misrepresentation of Creation to occur, seeing as it can be argued that if there is an intention, it follows that there must also be an intelligence, and if there is an intelligence, it will be difficult to dispute the existence of a Creator-God as understood by religions, that also claim there is an intention behind the creation of a spirit, life, existence and all created things; hence the belief in a Creator-God, although the title God was also originally misrepresented. I think it is important that we try to understand Creation in the same way as we understand Nature, which is from an evolutionary perspective. Intention is deliberate. It is not free flowing and natural. It is thought out, planned. What is more, a spirit form is not created, since it comes from Creation, which is already created, but rather it is generated, like the sea that rushes in to fill an opening in the earth. In the Spiritual Teachings, verse 11, it states: “The human may create wondrous worlds in a dream, just as Creation consciously creates the worlds.” When we dream, though we are conscious of our dreams, we cannot be said to have intention. Yet we create wondrous worlds. I would dare conclude, therefore, that even though Creation consciously creates the worlds, it does so as in a dream, and cannot be said to have intention. We dream due to the knowledge we absorb in life. Creation “dreams” due to the knowledge it absorbs through its creations. And this is achieved through an evolutionary process. Again I don’t mean to appear at variance. I too enjoy the stimulating exchange of ideas, especially those that contradict my understanding, as they get me thinking. And this way I learn. Your friend JE | ||
Scott Moderator Post Number: 400 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hello Joseph, I agree when something is done with intent this presupposes a purpose or determination that what is done will follow a certain course or direction. My statement was meant to imply that intent was only involved in the determination of whether a spirit form would either fulfill its destiny as a human, animal etc. I was not attempting to imply that if there was intent that this would also determine the course of that spirit form in subsequent physical existences. As you know, humans have free will to determine their own existences, but at the same time its seems through practical experience we each have a part to play, or a unique purpose that while not always obvious does seem to a degree, to be inherent in our lives. Whether this could be classified as intent, or whether it is a self-generated characteristic I’m not sure at this point. I like your expression that Creation generates new spirit forms rather than creates them. I guess the same could be considered true in our own lives. If someone creates something, this would imply that whatever was created, did not exist in its current state of expression until certain elements, whatever they maybe, were combined in such a fashion to produce a unique result, but does this fall under the definition of something being generated or created? What I think we maybe looking for which I alluded to earlier, when something is “generated” does that presuppose some form of intent, and if so, then that may signify some form of intelligence. If someone has the intent to achieve a certain result, don’t they create the means to achieve that result? If Creation knows itself by the accumulated wisdom of the spirit forms it originally created does this not imply an intent by Creation to know itself further through the continued creation of new spirit forms? Salome Scott | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 32 Registered: 05-2003 |
Scott What wonderful questions you have asked! If I may be so bold I should like to attempt to put forward my answers to them. Though firstly I would like to clear a misunderstanding that somewhat bothers my critical nature. I’ve reread my last post to you, and also reread your post to which my last post was in reply, and I just don’t see how I might have given you the impression that I understood your post to mean “that if there was intent this would also determine the course of that spirit form in subsequent physical existences.” I thought at first it might have been the mentioning of the word ‘purpose’ in the statement, “to suggest there is an intention behind the generation of a spirit form, which determines what its purpose will be, inadvertently allows for misrepresentation of Creation to occur…” But now I’m not so sure. Perhaps it was the connection I made between ‘intention’ and ‘Creator-God’. If this is so, please understand that all I meant by this paragraph was simply to point out the possibility of misrepresentation of Creation through the use of the word ‘intention’. And where it is stated, “it will be difficult to dispute the existence of a Creator-God as understood by religions…” this was merely a forewarning of the opportunity that religions could be presented with in order to defend themselves. I was not in anyway suggesting, nor did I understand your earlier post to mean, that by intention Creation was, therefore, comparable or not dissimilar to a Creator-God, if that is how you thought I understood it. I did not understand it to mean this. But rather I understood it to be from the perspective of a newly generated spirit form. And still I say that there is no intention behind the generation of a spirit form or in its choice of incarnation. Does an infant choose the parents to which it is born, or are the parents to which it is born chosen for it? An infant is simply born to parents through physical means, and by virtue of its conception it inherits their genetics. Likewise, a spirit form is simply ‘born’ (incarnated) to life through physical means, and by virtue of its ‘conception’ (incarnation) it inherits its ‘genetics’, which in this case is a predisposition to human or animal life. There is no intention that determines a spirit form’s choice of incarnation. It merely follows a path of cause and effect. The circumstances are created for life, whether animal or human, thus life fulfils itself according to its potential. I think in the case of Creation knowing itself we need to have a clear concept of consciousness in order to understand what is meant by ‘knowing’ before we can arrive at the conclusion that it must therefore have intention. The general view of consciousness is that it enables us to be self-aware. Not many people would disagree with the statement: ‘I am conscious of myself, therefore, I am conscious.’ But I believe the conclusion drawn from this statement to be a false conclusion. My reasons for believing this is because being ‘conscious of myself’ and being ‘conscious’ seem to refer to two different states of consciousness: the first being self-consciousness and the second consciousness. Now my own experiences have taught me that self-consciousness is a condition that can be unconditioned, and that consciousness must, therefore, be something purer, which can only be experienced when we have stripped ourselves of all self-consciousness. By self I mean the connection we are all at fault in making between an object perceived and the perceptions received as a result it. In themselves these perceptions are pure and genuine experiences of the body. But immediately upon experiencing an object, such as the sun, a table, a trumpet or a skunk, the data received from them becomes adulterated as we conclude that we see, we touch, we hear and we smell. This, in brief, is the condition of being in a state of self-consciousness, where our lack of consciousness causes us to relate to our experiences personally, and where our personal involvement causes the psychological conditioning of our identity to take effect. In actual fact, being self-conscious means living through experience rather than living through knowledge of experience. To quote Bertrand Russell: ‘when we try to look into ourselves we always come upon some particular thought or feeling’ and not upon ‘that thing, whatever its nature… which has the thought or feeling’. Neither of these occurrences (thought or feeling) is a witness to our experiences. They are our experiences. We experience our thoughts and feelings, and through these we experience and identify ourselves, saying I think, I feel. Consciousness, then, although it is that part of us that knows we think and feel, it is not that part of us that identifies with our thoughts and feelings, as this would imply it has a state of self, which is something experienced, not something that is aware of what is experienced, which is the condition of a state of consciousness. Thus, when we say that Creation knows itself, it does not know itself in the way that we know ourselves, which is through experience. It merely has knowledge of itself, in that it is a witness to itself. And by virtue of its knowledge it creates consciously, but not with intention, as it would then need to acknowledge itself, which would make it self-conscious. I don’t agree that Creation ‘intends’ to know itself further. Rather I would say that Creation proceeds to know itself further. Concerning whether or not we have a unique purpose, ‘a part to play’, which is inherent in our lives, I have to say my own experiences and observations have not taught me this, although I understand to what you refer. But the very meaning of the word ‘inherent’ suggests something that is inescapable. It suggests a predisposition. And yet you were careful to mention practical experience in relation to it, as if to suggest that without practical experience we could not discover our unique purpose. This to me sounds like a contradiction, and yet I’m not sure that it is, for when we occupy ourselves in practical experience we seem to rely on inherent qualities. This then seems to suggest that an inherent purpose is something that we must work towards. I think the only plausible factors that support this theory, however, are our spirit forms and our consciousness, since the level of evolution of the one and the level of development of the other must have some influence in the decisions we make and on the strength of our will to carry them through. | ||
Howard Member Post Number: 76 Registered: 05-2003 |
Some parts of the spiritual teachings can be very hard to understand, at least for the common man, and ofcourse for everyone else including intellectuals who dont have to be more spiritually advanced than others, eventhough intelligence and spiritual intelligence is connected. Is Billy trying to rewrite the material he is receiving from the extra-terrestrials to adapt it an make it fit for us to better understand it? I think the term spirit is kind of badly explained in the teachings, they could have teached more of its nature. About the centre of the spirit I mean, not only the possible evolution of it. Religion may be a hinder for spiritual evolution, and will keep the spirit of a more intact nature ( that it is possible they are receiving some kind of "blessings" or Gods spirit to take care of theire spirit, and no truthseeker, this does not involve "Emotional Highs".) What about some images to explain different things? | ||
Howard Member Post Number: 89 Registered: 05-2003 |
When christians talk about how God created earth, there are ofcourse the biblical historical setting to put it in, but Ive found another way that might be the answer. When the christian talks about how God created earth they talk about the spirit inside them! If this is 1) the Holy Spirit from God or 2) a tiny-piece of creation that is creating new worlds by the minute is another case, but I just found it interesting, since they FEEL its that way. | ||
Phaethonsfire Member Post Number: 13 Registered: 01-2004 |
A Word about Truth and Truthfinding. The Truth was, is and never gone for the Earth human, it was always there, totally and absolute, it is the human capability to recognize the Truth that has been crippled and blurred by Cult-religious thoughts, assumptions and believes. We are blind to the Truth. Creation reveales the Truth in the smallest critter, in the biggest star, or brightest sun, everything in the whole Universe, from the drop of rain that ripples the water, up to rainbow in the sky, that everything and anything is exactly according to the Natural Laws, and there was, is and never will be an exception about it. Always Creation will be the perfect truth, and never any different. Nature as is created by Creation is always at its highest possible level of evolution, its not perfect in the sense of absolutely perfect, but its perfect in its current evolutionary level, and nothing less then that. People need to redefine the phrase "finding the Truth" The truth isnt only at one certain place in space or time, people dont need to travel in order to find the truth, since truth is everywhere, its in them, and everywhere in the whole universe. The Truth is found by two means: 1. By using logic to filter out unlogical elements and to get to the truth. 2. By making mistakes and learning from those mistakes to recognize the truth. So what is a charakteristic of the Truth and what is charakteristic about the un-Truth. 1. Truth is absolute and never changes, it is valid everywhere, anyplace and anytime, and can be discovered by anyone, its impossible to destroy it or to change it. 2. Untruth is subject to the material laws of space and time, its subject to change and alteration in its core, it will never last and its absolute certain that it will find its end. People are afraid of making mistakes, because they have the illogical feeling that they would look stupid or idiotic or ignorant, this is a mental barrier that hinders people in finding the truth. Making mistakes is inevidable, its a requirement of a Natural Law that has to be fulfilled. People make decisions based on parts of reality they understand or think they understand, thought processes based on this incomplete picture of reality are certain to be flawed at least partially, more or less depedening on the capabilities of the human consicous, intellect and Spiritual evolutionary level. Reality is so very vast and big that at current the human never can be aware about every single factor that makes reality and be able at the same time to process this logically in order to make a decision that would be flawless and perfect. So people need to accept that making mistakes are natural and belong to evolution and the path of finding the Truth. In the end, the Truth is always in yourself, you need to recognize it. Jacob Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona! | ||
Anonymous Member Post Number: 52 Registered: 09-2003 |
This is something I had written before I came upon FIGU and the spiritual teachings. It is one of the reason why I am here today. I imagine eventually even the world becomes too constrictive as one becomes freer spiritually. For now though the world is enough room for my spirit and consciousness to stretch themselves. I don't want to rush ahead of myself. But I do want to keep on moving so as to avoid becoming stagnant in a life of routines and obligations. As I have come to see it, convention and conformity are impediments, for as soon as you get used to a particular way of life change becomes difficult, and then you're in danger of holding on to something that is subject to change anyway. It is no different to having many material possessions. The instant circumstances change either you will take them with you, remain behind with them, or leave them behind and move with the flow of the change. The one who is unconventional will not let convention hold him back, and neither will he take it with him because he doesn't hold on to it. Instead he will move with the flow of the change. But the one who is conventional will either take convention with him, no matter how far he travels, or he will remain behind with it if it is impossible to take with him. Unless one is able to adapt to change, one is more or less living an abortive life, and evolving only partially, never freely, never completely. | ||
Phaethonsfire Member Post Number: 82 Registered: 01-2004 |
Some things I want to share about the famous philosopher Plato, followed by my own thoughts. "All men are by nature equal, made, all, of the same earth by the same Creator...Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils,--no, nor the human race, as I believe,--and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day."--Plato (427-347 B.C.) Modified by Phaethonsfire: "All people are by nature equal, made, all, of the same thought by Creation...Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the knowledge of Creation and it's Laws and power of Spiritual Knowledge, and political greatness and Spiritual Wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils,--no, nor the human race, as I know,--and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day." Plato fundamentally stated that an civilisation that does not have its foundations in the Natural Creative Laws of Creation, will never be free from wrongdoing and evil. Of course did he live in a time where it would be extremely dangerous to say anything against the Gods, because that could have cost him his life. That he knew, what would happen, because his teacher, Socrates, was executed by means of emptying a cup with poison which killed him slowely. Socrates stood for his knowledge even when it cost him his life. Now that's the ultimate strength of a person who really knows what he knows. This doesn't mean however that people should risk their lives, it should be an indication how strong a person in true knowledge can be. Jakobjn Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona! | ||
Thomas Member Post Number: 9 Registered: 03-2004 |
Regarding the finding of truth for one's self, I "believe" that there is a spirit within me. I see the logic in it. I feel that there can be no doubt that there is an intelligence upon which the universe is based, whether or not you call it Creation. I do not feel the necessity to be able to prove to myself that these things are true to me because I see that they are through observation and what I understand to be logical thinking. However, I want to insure that the wisdom becomes part of my comprehensive consciousness and spirit permanently before I die in this incarnation. I know this is automatic when wisdom is truely gained within one's self, but how can I be certain of what I possess in wisdom versus just "belief"? I truly want to be both wise (in a non-egotistical way) and at the same time free of influences from beliefs. Can anyone comment on this? Thomas | ||
Phaethonsfire Member Post Number: 115 Registered: 01-2004 |
Thomas, I already answered these questions for a great part in another topic list. I want to add however that only the totally elimination of believe and assumption is the key to knowledge. You will have to search, find and think about every thing in your life, in yourself and in Creation, DONT BELIEVE ONE IOTA, KNOW EVERY HUMANLY POSSIBLE IOTA, what is to known about any given thing in your life. Although your material subconsciousness registrers everything your 7 senses grasp, dont think you will evolve rapidly by this process since logical thinking in the material consciousness will send the logical knowledge gained from that process via the material subconsciousness into the spiritform itself and everything that isnt processed that way in the material consciousness and subconsciousness will be processed later on after death in the other side. So direct logical thinking, learning and evolving will enable you to develop consciously and in this lifetime (when comitted!) certain conscious-related and spiritual abilities. Jakobjn Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona! | ||
Torrent Member Post Number: 5 Registered: 03-2003 |
What is the most correct definition of neutral-balanced thinking? And most importantly, how can we practice it in our everyday life? As the word of “neutral” implies, its position is assumed to be somewhere between negative (thinking) and positive (thinking), which we are very well aware of. My first reaction when I first heard Billy mentioning the importance of neutral-balanced thinking was “Whao! He is the first one I’ve ever seen who doesn’t say positive thinking or attitude is the best value we can have.. but how can we remain neutral-balanced while our life has so many up-and-downs?” After reading so many books and materials emphasizing how much we can achieve in our life with a strong power of positive thinking, also known as optimistic view or pro-active attitude, Billy’s new conception didn’t make any sense to me. It is not just because many (whether successful motivators, spiritual leaders or new-age writers) say our positive thinking makes everything (or almost everything, if not) possible, our life richer in success and blessings… some even claim that our positive thinking energy forms a strong creative power in our reality, which consequentially brings our positive images into tangible results. I have also long believed our positive attitude can help us overcome difficulties, hardship and move on, and thus ultimately reach our goals. In that case, that positive attitude is synonymous with hopes or wishes like “everything is going to be OK” or “I can make it work. I can do it”. But how can we benefit from neutral-balanced thinking when we are in tremendous sorrow, persistent difficulties, and bad luck? Isn’t it supposed to be, instead, positive thinking, not neutral-balanced thinking? (I admit neutral-balanced thinking helps build a ground for looking at situations and problems in a logical way, but it isn’t helpful that much for making us cheered up and eventually happy) I would like to hear about many others’ opinion about what neutral-balanced thinking means (in theory as well as in a personal level) and why it is superior to positive thinking, and if it is really so, how we can apply it to our everyday life and our thoughts every moment. Thank you. (Jacob, I would like to tell you here that how much I've enjoyed and learned from your writings. While non-German-speakers have no other possible access to teaching materials in German, your writings bring us clear, precise and easy-to-understand learning opportunities. Your job of helping us understand the truth based on lots of wonderful learning materials, which we, non-German-speakers, can’t do on our own, has been tremendously magnificent, not to mention it has also added a new depth to this forum. I really appreciate your tireless efforts to continue that) | ||
Scott Moderator Post Number: 490 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hello Torrent, I have asked Christian (core group member) about this and he responded it is something each person must work out in his own way, because each person is different. As I understand it, the subconscious registers negative thoughts with a negative reaction, and also registers positive thoughts with a negative reaction. Whereas if you think neutral thoughts such as "The sun is warm on my skin" or "The honey tastes sweet" the subconscious will react "The sun is warm on my skin" etc. If you are making statements, which correspond with logic, the subconscious understands and will react neutrally. If you make a negative statement such as I feel bad, the subconscious will respond with "I feel bad" and over time if you reinforce these thoughts you can make yourself ill. If you make what is considered a positive thought such as "I'm feeling better each day", the subconscious cannot interpret this as statement of fact, because the statement does not deal with the present, so it reacts "I feel bad". If you make statements such as "I am successful" this then is registered as "it is so" which will then bring about the corresponding response from the subconscious "I am successful". Much of this information can be found in "The Psyche", and my understanding is quite limited, but this is how I have come to understand some of it. If anyone has a better understanding of this please share it. Salome Scott | ||
Pureharmony Member Post Number: 115 Registered: 08-2002 |
Hi Torrent, I see it like this; Every action has an equal and opposite reaction (a Sir Isaac Newton theory) Therefore, if we become too positive in thinking, with too high expectations of others or of life, one is more prone to dissapointment and negative extremes, when things dont go as planned. *pureharmony* | ||
Michael_d Member Post Number: 58 Registered: 03-2003 |
Hello Torrent, It may be a matter of semantics or a problem of translation, but I seem to recall the more common terminology for "correct thinking" is "neutral positive" not "neutral balanced". Here is a quote from Michael Uyttebroek I found on this site in response to a search under "neutral positive": "In 'The Psyche' by Billy there's a section entitled 'The Three Golden Rules of Positive Thinking'. Briefly they are as follows: 1. In order to learn neutral positive thinking it is simply necessary to turn to a daydream (of anything one finds good, beautiful, sweet and nice), and get lost in it with great fantasy, mainly, each time negative thoughts start to influence the thinking...and to reach for the daydream immediately when even the smallest negative thought tries to break out of the subconscious. In the beginning this is very difficult and will take extreme effort to concentrate on the daydream because the subconscious will continually try to push the negative thoughts into the foreground. However with persistent effort of directing the thinking towards the daydream, the negative forward movement of the subconscious will ease up. 2. Always wear a sure smile...even if the atmosphere is sad and depressing. At first it is only on the outside, but through the course of time, develops into a habit while, sooner or later promotes a positive way of thinking. The external settles on the internal whereby a smiling and happy face promotes smiling and happy thoughts. 3. Avoid casting one's eyes down. While speaking to another one should look directly into the other person's eyes. Accurately observe your surroundings in detail. This way impressions are collected and positive thought processes are amassed and stimulated. Salome, Michael Uyttebroek" |
