Messages

"Be here now", by Ram Dass (http://it.scribd.com/doc/6531720/Ram-Dassbe-Here-Now) is a great book about living in the now. I recommend it to anyone who wishes to teach oneself on how to stop thinking about the past and the future. Simply start enjoying the only truthful moment we really have, which is right now. Float in the moment of now and you will float with the universe.

This seems to be a very easy way to get a projection, atleast for me. I've tried this method yesterday and projected successfully into my room as Lionheart stated above.

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of Richard Alpert "Ram Dass", an ex harvard psychology professor who became a spiritual teacher. This video is a really great lecture by him, he even mentions the astral somewhere in the end. The video is two hour long but it's really worth the watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMUUBepzHH0

In conclusion, I have three choices:
1. I can accept the equation to be true and not worry about karma since nothing I can do is truly kind.

Karma is change, if you are kind to others they might pass it on and again creating a new pattern of kindness. Even when kindness is selfishness,  wouldn't you want for yourself and future generations to live in a world of kindness rather than a miserable world? We are the world, become the change. I don't see why we have to view selfishness as something negative, aren't we here for our own reasons?

Letting go of everything will lead you to having no purpose. The emotions wull be shut down and compassion will not exist as a result. The watcher is all thats left.

To let go of everything, to live with absolutely no attachments to life is possibly the most blissful and ecstatic life you could ever hope to achieve, for the reason that you will remove all the suffering you have in your life and most of the reasons to suffer. The purpose will simply be to see everything as it is, with total compassion, no judgements, no labels, no this is that way and that is this way, but simply seeing and experiencing the true essence, the true meaning of life, behind the clouds of your mind, behind the trance state that people seem to keep residing in.
Your emotions won't shut down, but you will experience the true meaning behind your emotions, you won't become your emotion, you will simply watch it, feel it, understand it, letting it flow in and out without attaching yourself to it.  "Emotions are like waves, watch them dissapear in the distance."

If your purpose is to be unfettered then I'd suggest waiting for the physical experience to expire. There's no time once you pass this stage. Your purpose is to experience this physical world and learn its ways. I've been here for a long time and the Watcher state is a wasteful one. You can't undo that which is done, its true you can't do that which hasn't either.
Have a long hard think on this. Life is for living. It's so short too.
There's an age old saying that speaks volumes,
Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Deep thoughts required.

I really don't think you get the true meaning behind my message, but if you haven't had the chance to experience the state of an absolutely silent and blissful state of mind I can understand you in a sense.

I've been here for a long time and the Watcher state is a wasteful one.

To dwell in the holy moment of now, is to dwell in a holy life. A thoughtless mind is the all-knowing mind, a silent mind is the most powerful mind, to be totally in the moment of now is to have total awareness, total compassion, laughter and tears for no reason, you're simply flowing with the universe in its true harmony, in one of the greatest possible states you could achieve in this life. To say that the watcher state is a wasteful state must be one of the craziest things I've ever heard in my life. Try saying that to someone who is trying to achieve enlightenment and look at the answers that you will receive. To achieve a totally silent mind is one of the most important things to learn and develop on your way to enlightenment.  It's what Buddha and many great spiritual teachers was trying to teach. It's what meditation is all about, focusing on your breath and removing the clouds of your mind.

Have a long hard think on this. Life is for living. It's so short too.
There's an age old saying that speaks volumes,
Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Deep thoughts required.

You're really confusing the state of a silent mind with something else, you can still experience those things, but you will experience them with TOTAL AWARENESS, tasting every bite that you take, smelling the air, hearing all the sounds, seeing every colour, every shape, totally conscious of all the actions that you make and not to keep operating by habit, not to keep dwelling in a trance, not to keep walking around in zombie like state, but being TOTALLY AWAKE!

I really suggest that you read those two books,

1. "BUDDHA, THE WORD" (The Eightfold Path) http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/buddha2.htm

2. "Be here now" By Ram Dass, an ex harvard psychology professor who became an spiritual teacher. http://it.scribd.com/doc/6531720/Ram-Dassbe-Here-Now

Read those, learn and experience their true message, their true meaning and hopefully you will understand my message.

"One thing and only one, philosophy.
But this consists in keeping the daemon within a man free from
violence and unharmed, superior to pains and pleasures, doing
nothing without purpose, nor yet falsely and with hypocrisy, not
feeling the need of another man's doing or not doing anything; and
besides, accepting all that happens, and all that is allotted, as
coming from thence, wherever it is, from whence he himself came;
and, finally, waiting for death with a cheerful mind, as being nothing
else than a dissolution of the elements of which every living being is
compounded. But if there is no harm to the elements themselves in each
continually changing into another, why should a man have any
apprehension about the change and dissolution of all the elements? For
it is according to nature, and nothing is evil which is according to
nature. This in Carnuntum." -  THE MEDITATIONS OF MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS

Time is a weird thing. It arguably doesn't exist yet we can measure it and can't escape it's relevance on our lives. We measure the concept in two ways. One is through distance and space and the other is through the degradation of material.

So how does one hold on to time? The only way I can think of is to remember the experience and that is the purpose of existing in a physical reality.

So why would we let all things go if the experience is the purpose?

I wrote not to hold onto things that exist in time because attachments only creates suffering. Letting go of everything you think you are, letting go of your earthly body, letting go of you ego, letting go of your family, of your lover, of your friends, of your job, of your house, of everything you own and everything you think you are, letting go of the physical not the experience. Nothing that you think you own is really under your ownership, it's all under the ownership of earth, of time, we are not here to get attached to those things, we're only here to experience them. We have to accept each moment that passes, now we don't have to agree with every moment that passes, but we still always have to accept each moment, because time is a river and a violent stream, the flow of time can't be reversed. So we have to keep going with that flow, and not trying to reverse it nor trying to hold onto it, but accepting the idea that the flow is flowing towards a destination, which is death. Because death is just another destination of change, like life is, a beautiful stream of constant change. I let go of myself, I let go of the idea that I am 'Elias', I'm ready to accept death every moment of my waking life, because I am not attached to the idea of myself.



Never hold onto anything that exist in time, for the reason that all things in time will disappear. Time is not something that you should hold onto, time is simply something that you should observe = experience. Observe = experience the flow of time and you'll observe = experience the flow of the universe, remember to let go of all things that exist in time, for in time they will eventually disappear.

Don't hold onto earth, just watch it, observe it, experience it.

They are old SEO tactics used by webmasters in order for them to gain higher search rankings in Google/Bing etc. They are simply spamming forums with software to gain backlinks from various websites. If the owner of this forum made it impossible for new members to post links this problem would be solved.

Of course it only applies to the physical, you are reading this in the physical plane aren't you? The message is intent for the physical to get ready for the non physical. No attachments equals to no suffering

Never hold onto anything that exist in time, for the reason that all things in time will disappear. Time is not something that you should hold onto, time is simply something that you should observe. Observe the flow of time and you'll observe the flow of the universe, remember to let go of all things that exist in time, for in time they will eventually disappear.

I'm sorry, but this makes completely no sense at all. 

I have a feeling you are just disagreeing for the simple fact of disagreeing.

I'm sorry if I sound a bit confusing, english isn't my first language but I'll try to explain it another way.

Imagine a man who has a lovely child and value and loves his child more than anything in the world, wouldn't he do anything he can for that child, even if it meant giving up his own life for it? So let's say that he and his child got in a car accident and the father were given a choice of two possible scenarios where one of them dies.

He would rather choose the scenario where he is the one who dies and the child lives, wouldn't he? So, there must be a reason for that choice, for the sacrifice he makes for the child. And that reason is that the other scenario, where the parent lives and the child dies, is not even a life worth living, because it would be a life of torture.

So he sacrifice his own life and jump into death rather than the choice of living in a life full of misery and pain without the child. With that said, doesn't he choose the best possible outcome for himself which is in that case, death? Because we don't always value our own life as the most important thing we have, and if we were given a choice, to give up that life instead of living a life full of misery and pain, why woulnd't we give it up?

It's kind of similar to a suicidal man, he doesn't want to keep on living because his life is full of misery and pain which is too much for him to endure, or that he simply found no meaning in life and just wanted to end it all. So when he takes his own life people will say that he made a selfish act to the people he left behind.

And as you can see in the two stories they both choose death because the idea of living in misery and pain and or without meaning simply was not worth it so death seemed like the better option. I mean we're all facing death someday, so giving it up when life really is at its worst state isn't really the hardest thing to do for some people.

So, doesn't both these men now make a choice which they belive is the best possible outcome, which is death?

The only difference is that people is thinking of the suicidal man as selfish, and not the parent who gave up his life for his child, because we judge their actions based on our feelings and worldviews and not based on theirs. But he did it for himself, just like the suicidal man.
If the father were to lose all of his abilities of feelings and empathy for the child before he made the choice, he wouldn't have given his own life for the child, because then it would simply be a choice based on survival and not feelings.
It is the feeling of loss and regret that the he can't stand, the idea that he would keep on living a life where he had a choice to save his child but didn't, that's a life he could not live, the father gains more by giving up his life than he does by keeping it, so death is the ultimate answer which will bring him the most value in that case.

Extreme selfishness is where one wishes the best for themself, no matter how they gain it. The reference to birth is a long term inconvenience mixed with pain and bodily damage.
Without any care for others this would not take place. Being a mother would never occur.

There is different levels of selfishness depending on how big of an ego you have, but every act is still selfish. Yes, childbirth involves suffering but that's the sacrifice the mother has to make in order to gain a child that she desires. If she had no desire to reproduce, she would never even bother to get one in the first place right? So it is her own wishes to birth a child and the pain is a sacrifice many mothers gladly take in order to make their wishes come true.

Yes, definitely, many a brave Mother, has given her life during Childbirth.

Where's the selfishness in that act?

Yes, there is also selfishness in that act. When a mother birth a child the child pretty much becomes the meaning in her life, so she value her childs life much more then her own. So the pain she will feel when she loses something that has more value to her then her own life, knowing that she had the chance to save it, would be too big for her to endure, so she rather give up her life for the child to save herself of the pain that she would feel later on. Which is also a sacrifice many parents gladly take, but it is still in a way, selfish.

I was just joking  , but that was exactly my point because it is a win win situation it wouldn't be called selfishness on either party's end.

I guess, selflessness exists only in theory? What's your take on that?

I don't think that selflessness can be experienced by a human being, as long as you are attached to your body & ego you will always strive for your own survival and well-being, so I don't think it's possible to be absolutely selflessness as long as you attached to yourself and your body. When that attachment disappears, when there is no "self", then one might be able to experience absolute selflessness. So one might say that selflessness = no self.

The feel good aspect is naturally in all of us that care. If it didn't exist at all then things like procreation would be too much bother. The result is no more humans. There has to be some form of selfless act for humanity itself to survive. A balance must exist. Cqn you find it in your thinking on this topic?

Yes indeed it must exist or humanity would be in a much worse state than it is today, that is why I belive that there are different levels of selfishness, it depends on how trapped you are inside of your own ego. I belive that without doing good we would never be able to survive as a civilization. I also belive that there must be a balance between good and bad, as there is a balance in everything else. But is there really anything that's bad or good or is it just our way of labelling things? If you do something good for your own good, and I do something bad for my own good, why would that make you a better person? Yes, in the eyes of civilization it makes you a better person, but in the eye's of nature and survival does it really matter? I think it depends on how you look at life and the meaning of life, but as we can see most creatures on earth strive for their survival. So if a person survive best by doing bad is he really that much worse than a person that survive best by doing good, when both are just striving for their own survival?

Imagine extreme selfishness, no female would want to endure labour and birth.

I don't understand what you mean by this sentence, isn't labour and child birth both selfish acts? Labour is the way of surviving in this world, and child birth is the desire of women to reproduce.

So, Eliaz, if you happen to do something nice for me, would it be ok if instead of thanking you I say " You are so selfish, I know why you did it. I bet you feel real good, don't you" lol jk 

Yeah, but that's the thing, we don't see it. You also a part of the dance, so if I'm doing something nice for you are also gaining something by it, but it's me who is doing the dance for my reasons, for the thing which I want to achieve by doing something nice for you. ex If I were buy you a nice lovely present there must be a reason behind that action, right? If the present makes you happy it will make me happy too, we both gain something which makes it kind of a win-win situation. So you have no reason to be mad at me

I think you guys just over think this whole thing and just can't consider the possibility that we, who are all selfless, caring, loving etc. personalities, have this very "selfish" motivation deep down in our core to make ourselves feel good.
I mean, it is funny how people react when they are forced to think outside of their comfort zones and how their beliefs about themselves stops them to even theoretically admit the possibility of something that doesn't fit into the picture they have about themselves.
I don't always look for what's in it for me when I help someone, but I can't recall a single case when when helping someone out didn't make me feel good or leave me feel satisfied at least a bit. So, all I am saying that  for me there is always this feel good aspect to it, no matter what the price or the gain is.

Indeed, indeed. And this is what I mean, that "feel good aspect" if that didn't exist I guess people would not bother to do anything good at all. It is that feeling and desire that bring out the goodness of people, but they are really just gaining it.

Yes, of course. I'm not saying that this is the absolute truth as we can never know the absolute truth, we can only speculate as human beings. But as I look more and more to the origin of ones action, or to the origin of my actions, and if I am to analyze them, I see more clearly and clearly that everything I do, I do for my own sake. And yes, sometimes I make mistakes which brought me no good, but only bad and this is where regret comes in, where I learn from that action not to bring that upon me again. I'm not saying that this is how it is, period. My mind is always open for other options, I'm simply stating that this is how I am seeing it right now and if something else can convenience me that this is not how it is, I will change my views, but there is nothing yet that has.

"For your own sake", but not exclusively. If my act involves a concern of the well being of others as well, that does no longer fall under the core definition of selfishness. We probably have to invent a new term lol.

Hmm yeah, you are right. I think something like "Selfgenerous" could work out

selfishness is perceived as a negative human trait. Perhaps what are you describing should be called something else. Again, the definition of selfishness is just the opposite of the act of good deed.

about Love and desire, I think Love arrives first. I have desires because I love, not the other way around. You cant have a desire to love if you don't know what love is in the first place

Selfishness = For your own sake / well being, that's what I mean.

Yes, love and desire is indeed two different things. I think love grows inside of you and you act out your love with the help of your desires, your desire is simply acting out your love into the world.

[I think]

Because behind every element of your equation is LOVE. And love is the very base and reason of the existence itself. Without love and positive/constructive thinking there will be no progress. Absence of joy, good feeling, motivation of any sort = emptiness, stillness, nothingness.
It seems like your equation portrays the end result labeled as "selfishness" as something negative.

I'm sorry but what I think you are speaking about is desire, not love. Without a desire to progress there would be no progress. Remove desire from and the world and the world would stop, nothing would ever change, nothing would ever happend. Desire is the reason we are moving foward each day, you have a desire to eat, a desire to live, a desire to reproduce, a desire to grow better as a human being, a desire to make a change to the world, a desire to make a living, people are even desiring things for the after life, heaven is just another desire place. Love is an emotion that is controlled by your desires, just like everything else in your life is controlled by your desires. Even this post I'm writing right now is because of my desire. Most of your desires occur from an automatic process, you get hungry, your body feel a desire for food and you eat. I think of desire like a human compass moving the body and mind around all the time. I'm not labelling selfishness as negative, I do not label anything which exist in nature as negative, I love nature with all my heart for its beauty and balance.

There are many instances where people would sacrifice their lives to save others, and sometimes these people don't really believe in the afterlife. How would you label that good deed? I think that the feeling after a good deed only provokes a sense of connection and togetherness, rather than self righteousness and distinction of one's self.

Yes, and this is just another desire for his own self. If a man could not live with the idea of letting a child die before him and not having done anything to save his life of course he would risk his life for the child. But that action, and that desire was made inside of him, for his own sake, for his own good conscience.

also the definition of selfishness is "placing concern with oneself or one's own interests above the well-being or interests of others"; however, the first feeling when I see a person in need is a CONCERN about their well being. I act spontaneously. I don't stop and think "Hm, I am going to feel real good after that, I am going to help"
No, I do it because I feel empathy, I feel the other person's pain. I want to ease their pain. And yes, If I succeed I will feel good, but because I will be happy for THEM. So, there is a contradiction between the definition of selfishness and fact that the reason behind most good deeds is the CONCERN for others.

P.S I am excluding from the equation those sick bastards who donate to charities because they are going to write them off, or there will be a publicity about their "generosity" ; or religious people who help because God will see that and bless them and ensure a place in heaven, because that's just pure wrong. 

Yes, this selfishness that I'm writing about is not something that people notice or think about. I think people manipulate each other all the time without even knowing it or thinking about it, it's kind of like an automatic process for your own wellness and survival. Yes, you act spontaneously, but feelings also fire up spontaneously, don't they? Well, aren't you just acting out your feelings? If you feel the other persons pain, don't you also ease your pain in the process? And yes, you may feel happy for them, but that happiness is still made inside of you, and filling your body with happiness, even if it is feeling like you are feeling happy for the other person, that happiness is inside of you making you feeling good and happy.

Did you look up the price equation yet? It proves mathematically that every act of kindness is an act of selfishness. You can stop wondering. It has already been pondered and proven as much.

The real question is why is this true and not is it true.

I'm reading into it now. Why is it true? I think it is for us to evolve to a more and more perfect state of life.

Hi there, I don't even have an X-box  . 

"You're essentially saying that everything we do boils down to serving a selfish purpose"

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

If I feel good for helping out people who desperately need my help, where in that do you find fault. Are you suggesting that this would be a better world if we felt bad for helping others?

I see no fault in that, but what I'm trying to point out is, people tend to belive that when they are helping other people they are not doing this for themselves. But what if that is the case? That you are actually just helping yourself when you are helping other people. A desire to help others, is a desire you have, and in order for you to fulfill that desire, you have to help other people, so you are just helping other people in order to fulfill your desire.

When we do good, we feel good. And guess what? We want to do more good. Where is the motivation to do good if we don't feel good in return? Do you see what I'm doing? I'm in a circular argument just as you were.

That's what I mean, you do good to feel good, some feel good by doing bad, and do bad. Some feel good by pushing other people down, some feel good by bringing other people up.
What I'm trying to figure out is just this, is everything we do really just for our own sake? Every action, every decision, every path you took, everything you ever did in your life, did you do for your own good, for your own sake of happiness?

Yes, you help others for no gain, but, there must always be a reason why you are helping others, just like everything else you do in your life have a reason behind it. What if that reason you have for helping others, really is helping yourself, so in that case you help others to achieve that reason you have for helping others (Might sound a bit confusing) Let's look at a example: My father want's me to be happy and have a happy future, and there is a reason for that, he want's me to be happy and have a wonderful future because I am his child and he loves me and he gets happiness from me. But does he really want me to be happy? Or does he want me to be happy, so he can be happy when he sees that I am happy? He wants me to study hard so I can get a good future, but why? Does he really want it for me or himself? Is the source of that desire really just he's own desire and not my desire? He is happy when he sees me working hard towards my future, but is he really happy for me, or himself? He think's he is doing everything for his children, not himself, so that they can have the best possible future in this world. But is the source of that reason, and that desire in reality just for his own sake? So that he can feel happy and proud when he sees that his children are happy and proud of their lives. I guess I have a hard time expressing exactly what I mean. I mean, everything you do in life is controlled by your own desires. If you want to help someone you have to have the desire to help someone, and there is always reason for that desire to occur, and thats why helping other people simply just becomes a desire that you unlock in yourself.

Hello Szaxx, I'm way below 50, but I don't think you got my message right. What I'm trying to state is, if you can look at the source of every action in your life, is the source for that action just created in order for your own sake/ego? You said that "life is giving and helping others because you CAN" But why? Why do you want to help and give? I mean, you do it for a reason right? When you give and help others it gives you a happy feeling inside yourself, or am I wrong? That feeling you are reaching for, which you can only get by helping others, is there a reason why you are seeking that feeling? And by helping others it lets achieve that feeling for a moment, right? That feeling you get when you are helping others, what if you are helping others for the sake that you can feel that feeling, once again, kinda like a drug. It opens up something inside you. So in the end, are you really just helping yourself, or helping other people?

Is life just an ego trip that is controlled by your desires? I mean, everything in our life is made up by desire, desire is the thing which is ruling the universe. And the ego, every human being, which have an ego, does everything just for his/her own good, for his/her own ego. You are kind to others because YOU feel good when you are kind to other people. Parents want their children to be successful because THEY will feel good when they're successful.  You get into a relationship because YOU feel good when you're in a realtionship and when someone is giving YOU love. You donate money to charity because YOU feel good when you donate money to charity. You try to make other people happy because YOU feel good when you see that they are happy. You want justice in the world because YOU will feel good if there were justice in the world. See where I'm getting here? Everything you do in your own life, you do for your own good, always. Is this how it all is? Are we just running towards our own desires looking for our own ecstatic life trips, always running towards our next desires? I mean we're always desiring something, want to astral project? - a desire, want to go heaven after you die? - a desire, want to become enlightened being? - a desire, children? - desire, rich? - desire, not living for your own desires? another desire, you always running towards your desires, so when does it all end?

I'm just wondering if there are any Ancient or philosophical writings about the astral worlds and astral travel. There must be something, as I can tell the ancient people were more experimental and aware of their dreams much more than we are today. Would love to read something if it exists.