Messages

For anyone practicing phasing, remember a huge part of your success is engaging your physical senses. I tried this for the first time last night, I was walking around my apartment I created, trying to hear, smell, touch as much as possible and it gave me much better results. I think i actually made it to the edge of "the void" before zapping back to C1.

This still does not address the cause of a belief in god.

Sorry, I thought i had established that. When you learn about the whole concept of God, you either believe or you dont. As for how the concept came about, it ws merely man trying to interpret what he saw in terms he could understand.

Again, why do we choose to believe in god? What is the cause?

Some choose to believe because its all they know, some are forced. Some choose of there own accord because they want to believe in heaven. Why do you believe in God?

Why would mammals do that? Where does the spark of intelligence come from? Let's consider more complex behavior, such as empathy and altruism. Why do we do that?

The "spark of intelligence" could be a simple mutation of dna that found its way into the gene pool. as for the behavior you mentioned, we are able to think in abstract thoughts, meaning, we can think about what it would be like to be in a poor mans shoes, and we cn come to the conclusion that it would be a very bad time. So we put some money in his cup.

I guess the greatest proof of being born with innate knowledge is the demonstrable act of a new born animal/human knowing to suckle on their mothers nipple to drink milk. Consider, two twins  born from the same mother womb, yet are also very different from each other and have different interests. Why?

They have different experiances. Beliefs are shaped, LARGELY from your experiances. If one twin goes through a car crash and almost dies, sees God, or whatever, he is DEF. going to have a different set of belief constructs than his twin brother.

What this shows that imagination, knowledge and inspiration are independent of conditioning, physical limitations and environmental stimulus. It shows quite effectively that imagination/inspiration/creativity has a para-physical source. This would explain why there are beliefs, languages and feeling of empathy. It is not the physical that creates consciousness, it is consciousness that creates the physical. Consciousness is the source.

You are correct. The physical is nothing but an "end result". It is what you choose to "download" into the physical from Focus 2 (your imagination) that shapes what you do.

Well, I am saying pretty the same to you. However, I am not going to go into this Focus business(lol) for me that just clouds something very simple. As you said correctly, it is the brain that interprets the phenomena of the mind. However, your mind is not singular, there are many subtle energetic minds, before the physical mind. Again, absolute mind(highest mind) is the source of all thought.

Au contraire, imo the focus model makes everything SO SIMPLE.

I think you are missing the point. What I am saying, that the theory of evolution by random chance of chaos forming into a complex order, is a lot like a blind person with Amnesia making his way to his home. In other words it's a fallacy. The fact that it is already inherent within nature to create order, supposes an intelligence/awareness of nature. In other words the man isn't blind and is being lead to his home by unconscious direction. The man is simply the emergent property of aggregating constituent particles. It thus must be true that unconscious direction is also a part of particles.

There is random chance in everything we do. So why does it being in nature have to be any different? And i dont subscribe to the whole chaos/order construct. All that happens in evolution is 1 thing is born with a certain aspect that makes it better than others, and the trait is passed down. Our mind creates the order. Its a building block progress: our consciousness was not created in a day.

I would say who assembled us?

Assembled connotates time. Time is a physical construct. We were never assembled. Our human brains cant really comprehend this, but lets just say that time, like all physical constructs, doesnt really have any place in other Focuses of Consciousness. Everything is, and isnt at the same instant. We humans think much too linear. "Beginnings" and "Ends" are all physical veils we have created.

What is it, when it does not have a body? You body is impermanent.

Correct, we are only here for a short amount of time. Otherwise, you are but a point of consciousness. Like time, matter and space are physical constructs we choose to create for our own experiance. We lose all this when we go to F4oC.

No, it doesn't show that anything was built. All it shows is that we are here. This could be a dream for all we know

Even if it were a dream, whos dream would it be? The dream had to be constructed somehow. When you dream at night, all you are doing is tuning into your subconsious and letting it reign free.

Then, does it not follow, that love is higher than fear?  You have not answered my question. Do you want love or fear?

Want is again, a physical construct. Higher is a physical construct. Love is different from fear. But this does not mean "Good" or "Bad". These things are in the eye of the beholder.

You offered proof for the intertwined/entangled state as being able to imagine a location. However, this could easily just be your imagination. Suppose you were a skeptic, would you accept this proof?

Your imagination IS a different Focus of Consciousness. What do you think you do when you imagine? I think the reason you dont accept it as proof is you dont understand the terms. Frank:
So to begin, people who were attempting to align their thinking to the Phasing model of consciousness, if they would simply think of individual actions (for now) and think of the source as being Focus 2, and the actions of which are manifest within Focus 1.

The Void can be thought of as a blank sheet of paper. Instead of writing or drawing on it, you superimpose your thoughts on it. The Void has no prejudices at all, it has no real "life of its own" so to speak. So whatever thoughts you superimpose on it will become manifest in the moment. Thinking about it, a modern-day term is long overdue. We can't keep calling it the Void and 3D Blackness, as these terms fall way short, IMO. Plus, my pet term of "Wishing Well" is just way too girlie. So we need a nice macho name for it, LOL.


So all your imagination is, is your brain interpreting the thoughts that you imposed onto your personal section of F2oC.

What is your definition of 'US' ?

Every "Point of consciousness", some call them "Souls".

No, I am definitely not contradicting myself. What I am doing is giving you a reality check. You continue to say we exist as one and that all we are doing are simply shifting awareness. No you don't. That is not your reality. At this very moment in time you are the physical dualistic self. You exist as a separate part. You are subject to the laws of physics. If you want a dramatic demonstration of this, then jump of a cliff and see if you can fly.

If you did that is could have lead to the death of your physical self. Yet your astral self still exists. Your physical self doesn't. Now we have it demonstrated that Your astral self  IS separate from your physical self. As it does not need a physical to exist. Nor does your astral self exist in your physical self. Your physical cannot support your astral self. Simply because your astral self exists in a higher vibratory state.

I never said we exist as one. All iam saying is we are connected through group constructs that we all choose to subscribe to(On a physical level). Gravity, to use your example. Everyone on earth subscribes to the construct of "gravity". it is so embedded in our brains that it is almost impossible to really do away with it. But some very experianced monks have done this. Its levitation, homes.

When we die, we only lose one aspect of ourselves. But there is nothing seperate. In fact, seperate is another construct that you could choose to subscribe to. When we die, all that happens is we shed our physical bodies. "At this very moment in time you are the physical dualistic self. You exist as a separate part." Then how is it that I am able to imagine? How is it that people can have clairvoyence or telekinesis? ALl they are doing is focusing on another aspect of them self.

When, you the physical self become aware of your astral self or higher self, you are connecting to them, but simultaneously your physical self retains it's awareness. This is because your physical exists independent of the astral. This is why retaining memories of the astral is difficult(what Bruce calls shadow memories) as your physical did not experience them. This is also why you have no recollection of what your astral self was doing the moment before. Bruce likens this to taking over your astral body.

Retaining memories is hard because you are not using your own brain. It is only a copy of your physical brain that you created because you subscribed to the traditional OBE method. You should try phasing, its really simple and it involves no seperation. In fact, the mere fact that we can phase proves, for me, that there is no seperation. You see, OBEs have been around for what, 50, 60 years? Well, mystics and shamans have been doing phasing for THOUSANDS of years.

To further explain this. I refer you to a story in Hindu epic Ramayana. When Rama was a young adult in school, his teacher teaches him about the egos, the different kinds of minds and the chakras. To demonstrate this to Rama, both Rama and the teacher project outside of their body and their astrals bodies hover just above the class overseeing it. Now, here is what is interesting. The physical self of Rama and teacher were wide awake and interacting as normal. Then the astral self of the teacher turns to Rama's astral self and says(rather disdainfully) "Look at that man(his physical self) He thinks he is a teacher. He think he knows everything. He is an ego" clearly differentiating the physical self from the astral self.

The ego is merely a projection of yourself. It is not seperate at all. Also, I tend to not take any astral traveling done by people in the past too seriously. Most of them entered F2 and saw what they created, or what they wanted to see.

All your egos are separate from each other. Each has it's own personality. Each is unique.

They are seperate, but that doesnt mean that they are seperate from you. They are merely constructs we create to objectualize our emotions.

The same use that having an astral self and not being aware of it serves. That is to have experiences and to live our other possibilities. To be everywhere at once. Everytime you make a choice between two A and B, if you chose A, then in another universe you chose B. This the principles behind quantum theory, all events are  probabilities, and all probabilities exist super-positioned in the non manifest state. Now, suppose after choosing A, you imagined what it would have been like to choose B, the possibility you imagine, will simply be your consciousness splitting to the universe in which you chose B.

I cant say I  believe in the multiple universe theory, and the "If it can happen, it must." way of thinking. I do like to keep an open mind becuase  honestly, thats way too complex for me.  However, you say we are not aware of our astral self. I dont know about you, but I am aware of the astral 24 hours a day. Like i said, whenever you use your imagination you are aware of the "astral".

No, God has not already created these experiences. God is experiencing his infinite creation and the infinite possibilities through the infinite souls. In other words the entire universe is the imagination of god. And we are his imaginings. Just like we imagine and create from those imaginations. God imagines us and creates through his imagination. We are a microcosm of god. As you said, there is only one self. Well, there's your god.

The mere fact that we can experience something means that God must have planned it out.

Again, when did I say there was a creation?

So your saying you were born with the beliefs you subscribe to now and they havent changed?

This is an argument from ignorance and you are making an blind assumption that Indian philosophers had lesser understanding than meta-physicians or philosophers today. Have you actually read Indian philosophy? Finally, it really beats me, on how would you know what kind of astral experiences they were having.

I have read Indian philosophy. As I was telling Frank, I can personally vouch for how sophisticated and highly developed it is. It is easily the most advanced philosophical system in the world today.Hence, why it my favorite. You do know more than 95% of the new-age belief system and theosophy is based on Indian philosophy. Everything from auras, chakras, kundalini, yoga(hahta, kriya, raja) meditation, prana, tantra, psychic abilities, mantras, crystals, astrology, sacred geometry, yantras, alchemy, astral/mental/emotional planes, karamic law.

Meta-physicians? Philosophers? No, I am saying they didnt know what an atom was. They didnt know the speed of light. They couldnt even IMAGINE an atom bomb. All those things that you listed are merely constructs that you can choose to use yourself. We cannot change the system, all we can do is accept it. And I dont claim to know what kind of "astral experiences" they were having. Like i said earlier, they could have merely been Beliefs that manifested themselves in F2oC. So I dont take them too seriously.

That is not too say they were wrong. They could in fact be close to the truth. "You do know more than 95% of the new-age belief system and theosophy is based on Indian philosophy" But they are just that, belief systems. I choose not to subscribe to any of it, but merely accept them and move on.

In fact a lot of quantum physics and relativity is based on Indian philosophy.As I was saying Indian philosophical systems are based on very precise system of science and logic and highly developed and sophisticated, especially in the nature of space, time, mind and soul and ethics. A lot of intellectuals, especially scientists, gravitate towards Indian philosophy, such as Erwin Schrodinger, Nicole Tesla.

I recommend you read some of the philosophical texts from India. You will see what I am saying. If you are serious about meditation then do yoga. Patanjali's Yoga sutras(available free online) are the most complete system on meditation and the nature of mind, body and soul. The Upanishads are very rich philosophical texts. The Bhagvad Gita is a spiritual classic. These systems are unlike modern new-age spiritual systems. They are exact sciences and meant for serious intellectuals.  The Indian consciousness sciences are highly developed. In modern times we have not even begun to explore consciousness in as much depth as the Indians did.

"especially in the nature of space, time, mind and soul and ethics." saying this is just telling me that they are using physical concepts to explain physical phenomena. Once again the blind leading the blind. No offense, but if they are so "highly-developed" then they should be able to realize the very nature of there own belief constructs, which may or may not be the case.

Hah, you think your gonna get off easy? When blown away by that atomic blast and land in heaven, you bet your butt God is gonna hear about it.

unione, enough already, il just shoot you a pm when i feel my soul needs to be saved.

Data:

Not wanting to appear picky, but how can "god" be objectively verified via a collection of subjective experiences. This is a contradiction in terms, surely?

Yours,
Frank

Well, when we say something has been objectively verified, we usually mean it has been peer reviewed and ascertained to be true. As is the nature of scientific experiments, the experiments are not objectively verified, but subjectively experienced by the experimenter. When the experiment is repeated by peers, the weight of the subjective experiences, becomes an objective truth.

In the early Newtonian model of the universe, it was thought that all objects can be modeled as particles and it's motion and path predicted by the forces acting on it. However, in recent quantum universe, it has been shown that the path of a particle cannot be predicted and how the experimenter can affect results(this is going more into parapsychology)
So, none of these experiences, were truly objective. They were subjective.

Yet, a collection of these subjective experiences, forms an objective and shared truth. I guess we could define an objective truth as a truth can be observed by more than one person. The experience of god, experienced by so many, such as the Yogis, thus can in some way be shown as as an objective proof of god.

If all is indeed subjective, then an objective truth would be impossible. If 20,000 people rolled a dice 3 times and it landed on a flat surface every time, would it be considered objective truth that the dice could never land on one of its edges? Well guess what, it can

Total objective truth is impossible.

And Frank is right, what the yogis could have called "God" could merely have been there own creation of what they believe "God" to be. How would you answer say, a Catholic Saint who experianced a different God? Its so simple, i dont understand how most people dont look at the phasing model and say "duh!"

Ah, we are getting deeper! I love it

Again, necessity. For us to invent the concept of god to fill a vacuum(Again, once I was an advocate of this argument) However, the same logical errors are present as I illuminated above. If God is a necessity or a device of ignorance, then how can so many be immune to it?

Because the concept of "God" is learned, not there when you are born. Religion is passed down from generation from generation. So, when one learns about God, only he can know for sure wether or not he believes.

You say because people are more knowledgeable today. I beg to differ. The subject of god is a metaphysical and consciousness one and consciousness still eludes scientists, let alone the masses, who remain oblivious to the most simplest truth of self. What has changed is the social ethos. That is people have become more materialist and hedonistic. It is not an advancement in knowledge as such, rather a shift in our values, for the worse actually. Even still, the belief in god is still universal and transcends cast, creed, sect, gender, nationality,  intellectual denomination. As we have agreed the belief in god is innate.

I do not believe god is innate. I believe the choice to believe is innate. If we took 10 babys, and they grew up with no religous affiliation of any kind, they would naturally think about the possibility of God. It is a very easy concept, and If i had never known about religion or if i grew up in a forest, I could still believe in God. Its all what you choose to believe.

Again, however, there is something missing. That is the drive for man to attach meaning. Why does he attach meaning? This ability to communicate by sound, through modulation of vocal chords, is not unique to man. It is present within the 'lower' animals too. How is he inspired to do that? Again, this can be extended to everything to beliefs, to arts, to science and philosophy. What drive man to do any of this?

I think the fact that other mammels leans more towards the evolutionary theory, myself. If your out in a hunting party, you could attach certain sounds to direct your men. I really dont see how hard that is to grasp, Im sure you can google "evolution of language" or something into google, if you wanted.

Naturally, whenever we discuss the nature of consciousness, language and mental abstraction, imagination, we will always be lead to the same question. What is the source of this inspiration. Is man creating something from nothing, or is he simply connecting to something and recreating it?  As is always the nature of such discussion it will always cause one to explore the laws of causality. Exploring this subject leads to enlightenment. The Zen Buddhists knew this that is why they gave spiritual seekers koans(conundrums)

One could argue that all the blueprints of any concept that could ever exist are in what the phasing model calls "Focus 4". It is there where I believe the "communication between atoms" takes place, as its sort of a big consciousness-network. So we draw the concept in our minds within the astral, and our brain interprets this into our body, and we put down what we created on paper. I really dont feel like writing alot, so here is some Frank for you:

Code Select Expand

The simple fact is, that the physical is what is known as a source/manifest system. The source of all individual actions in consciousness, in terms of the Phasing model, is Focus 2. The manifest actions come about within Focus 1. It gets a little more complex with group actions as Focus 3 starts coming into play to an extent and the ultimate source, or the blueprints of all actions in consciousness within our system is Focus 4. But that is all quite complex, and people don't need to understand it all before they can make a start.

So to begin, people who were attempting to align their thinking to the Phasing model of consciousness, if they would simply think of individual actions (for now) and think of the source as being Focus 2, and the actions of which are manifest within Focus 1.

The Void can be thought of as a blank sheet of paper. Instead of writing or drawing on it, you superimpose your thoughts on it. The Void has no prejudices at all, it has no real "life of its own" so to speak. So whatever thoughts you superimpose on it will become manifest in the moment. Thinking about it, a modern-day term is long overdue. We can't keep calling it the Void and 3D Blackness, as these terms fall way short, IMO. Plus, my pet term of "Wishing Well" is just way too girlie. So we need a nice macho name for it, LOL.

Anyhow, the best way of perceiving the images presented is to create some kind of video screen. Doing this creates an overall element of being in control; as you can "stand back" from it all, and watch events being played on a screen rather than being immersed in them. If events come about that you don't like, then it becomes a simple matter of "switching channels" on your "remote".

Unfortunately, in the past, people did not have this kind of handy visualisation example, as there were no tellys, of course. So they ended up being immersed in all kinds of superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Once you get embroiled, it is extremely difficult to extricate yourself from the circumstances of it.

Note: a number of times I have experimented with allowing circumstances to get very out of control by generating lots of fear, for example. That was actually quite a difficult thing for me to do as I kept laughing. But once I got myself being chased by a few giant tigers that seemed to do the trick, lol. It is surprising, actually, how you can readily get yourself "caught" in circumstances where you appear "trapped" and you can't get out of it!

Give it a go yourself, just for the experience, and you'll see what I mean. But I would stress to anyone else reading this, you need to be fully comfortable in your own mind before playing around in this way, as it can be very unsettling *if* you are not entirely confident about what you are doing. But I do suggest people practice letting circumstances get "out of control" so it gives them an idea of where all the talk of devils and demons came from, lol.

But, as I say, the very best way of protecting yourself from becoming immersed in the circumstances is to bring them up "on screen" as it were.

All we are basically doing here is having a highly controlled "lucid dream" where absolutely every element of our dreamscape is under our control. The Void is part of F2oC, in a manner of speaking, and this is also the area of consciousness where most people do their dreaming. You can think of an ordinary dream as the action of entering the Void, if you like, but with no real degree of conscious control. This is where people are just wandering about and releasing a huge mix of thoughts and feelings and it's all becoming manifest all around them, moment by moment, as they do so.

Once you start getting an understanding of the Void, great chunks of knowledge starts falling into place and you begin realising how our system is constructed. Well, that is what happened with me.

The Void can be thought of as raw consciousness if you like. You will no-doubt have heard me talk about "actions in consciousness". Well, what we perceive as "Void" is, in fact, raw consciousness, for want of a better term. Or you might think of it as the ultimate Base Material from which everything is ultimately constructed.

Void has many uses. For example, it holds all manner of individual and group constructs. One of the most popular actions it performs is that of memory, particularly what we call our short-term memory. When we want to remember something we are merely impressing those thoughts within a personal section of Void. You can also "travel" within areas of the void you have set aside for individual use, for example. All your core belief constructs are held there. You can also manifest the objective actions of belief constructs such as "astral travel". Or whatever else takes your fancy: fighting with devils and demons, slaying dragons, and all manner of stuff. You can chat to "god" or to the "devil" or to any construct you happen to subscribe to. There are no limits. If you want to bring these constructs into objective reality you can. As I say, there are no ultimate limits. The only "limits" are the ones we place on ourselves for the purposes of our experience.

One handy metaphor I use for how Void is set up, is it's like a computer and computer memory. Some of the memory is taken up by the actual system, which goes to ultimately objectively displaying information on a screen (this is your physical life). Then you have a spare section of memory that can be used for ad-hoc tasks (this is what we perceive as Void). Then, say, you had a top-section of memory that was connected to everyone else's top-section of memory that formed a part of memory that was common to all. In this top section was held all manner of group constructs, or group actions in consciousness. The details of all these actions are available to you, and you can choose which of them to "bring into" your personal area for ultimate manifestation on the screen, i.e. into your physical reality.

The memory part taken up by the system, so to speak, are your personal areas where you hold all manner of information about actions in consciousness pertaining to your own self; the workings of your own physical body, your beliefs, your memory, your personality traits, habits, likes and dislikes, and so on. All these private actions-in-consciousness are held in a "used" or "reserved" section of Void that pertains to you as a physical individual, and this used area opens out into an unused area, or consciousness "workspace" if you like.

In its entirety, that is all Focus 2 of consciousness.

The personal, unused area opens out into a group area. When religious types, particularly new-age religious subscribers talk about all of us "being one". Essentially, they are talking about our group connection that "begins" at Focus 3 of consciousness. We are not "all one" as we retain our individuality throughout. But we are not as disconnected as it would appear in our physical lives either. Again, I think of it in computer terms. If I connect my computer to the Internet, I still retain the individuality of my machine! Even though I can now "dip into" the areas of group computer memory that have been made available for that purpose. In doing so, I may choose to download certain information and store it in an area of memory on my machine for private use.

We human beings are remarkably similar. Both you and I are individuals, but we are connected to a variety of group constructs that have been made available for our group use. Ultimately, we can choose to "download" this information and bring it into our physical manifestation or not. With most people, however, and that includes you and I, this process is largely automatic as it is highly influenced by peer-group behaviour, together with other social factors.

Changing your future reality, then, is all a question of generating new probable actions, rather than continuing with existing actions or subscribing to other group actions. In a sense, you begin to "pave your own way" by creating your own probable actions within your blank workspace. Which is the place mystics call the Void.

Note: any action generated within F2oC that has not been manifest into F1oC is known as a probable action.

Then you allow these probable actions to bleed into your physical life. Which sounds real easy in theory, but in practice you are battling against all the deeply held, long-standing belief constructs that you already hold in your individual "system" areas. These beliefs are highly influencing of your perception. The intransigent nature of these actions unfortunately tends to override anything you try and put in their place. But once you know about how the system works, together with what factors influence what, you can then form a kind of "action plan" that allows you to make gradual inroads into yourself.

The Void continues on and forms the Transition Area. This is where we "go to" when we die, or rather, permanently disengage physical focus. This is the area mystics generally call the Afterlife. All it is, is a section of Void we have reserved for our particular use of engaging transition back into subjective reality. This, in terms of the Phasing Model, is Focus 3. And the subjective reality we eventually "go back" to is Focus 4.

And that completes the model of our system.

As I have said before, these Focuses are NOT places! They are focuses of attention. We already "occupy" these areas. They are of our own mind, so to speak. They are not, in any way, separate from ourselves. They ARE ourselves, but in a wider sense. It's just that there are parts of ourselves that we "occupy" as a singular construct and there are parts of ourselves that we occupy as a group construct. So when you find yourself within the 3D Blackness, you are not at some separate place. You are still within your own mind. All that has changed is your focus of attention.

Okay, well, that's a summary as brief as I can make it. Problem is the subject of reality creation and the interaction between F2 and F1 of consciousness is a complex topic. In other words, it's not something you can readily explain within the boundaries of a post to a thread. But I hope I've given you a good overview of the process so you can have a "play".

Evolution is not an answer. It's as supernatural as the belief in god, and in my opinion, illogical. To really sum up evolution, it is like a blind person with amnesia, thrown in the middle of nowhere, thousands of miles from his home, and then somehow finding his way back to his home.

I would say its more like a blind person with amnesia, thrown in the middle of nowhere, thousands of miles from his home, and then having to develop new skills to survive.

Just like imagination is innate to the human being. Order and complexity is innate to the universe. Again, there is a causality(the relationship between cause and effect) that causes chaos to become order. For chaos to become order, there would need to be an intelligence to assemble the order, otherwise, we are left with an illogicality of something coming out of nothing.

We know intelligence is a phenomena of this universe, thus it is only logical, to say  that intelligence is a part of the universe and is an inherent property of nature.

This is the real reason why god is such a universal belief. It makes sense.

Im sorry, im not too versed in such a philosophical use of words, but il try to decipher it I guess what your trying to say is that God is the assembler of the chaos? What would you say if i told you that it is US who assembles the chaos?

If thought came from within ourselves, and I am not sure how you define "self" but presume you were defining self as the human brain. Then presume that consciousness/thought was a para-physical phenomena. Then, it begs to question, how can the physical and limited human brain, produce the unlimited. I think this is perhaps one of the strongest argument for the existence of consciousness as a disembodied phenomena.

If you define the self, as your 'soul' Then what exactly is the soul? Does the soul exist beyond your body or does your body create the soul?

I define self as consciousness. Your body is an aspect if yourself. The brain is just what I use to interpret my reality. The brain does not produce anything. It is your consciousness that produces thought, and sends it to your brain. It is not disembodied, it is as much a part of you as your body.

You're assuming that something was built.

Surely you dont believe in infinity? Something was built, the mere fact that we are here shows it.

No, I am not talking about morally correct. Rather I am drawing upon experience of others in the astrals with different astral planes and astral beings. And how love and compassion are possessed by the higher beings. However, this is based on here say, and is a fragile argument, unless you can relate to the experiences or exercise faith in others here who report this. I can say this however, what makes you feel good - love or fear?

It might be true that the higher beings of the astral consciousness possess these things, but it does not mean that they are necesserily "Good" or "Bad" Those things are a human created ideas.

There is a way to prove that the universe is everything. Perhaps, your definition of god is different from mine. As for your proof, I will play the devil's advocate here, how do you know your consciousness was there. You could have just as easily imagined it.

That is exactly what I am saying. You created that picture in a different focus of awareness. This is a huge section of the astral reserved just for you, and it is where we dream. All your brain did was interpret the image,  hence imagination.

A much better proof of the existence of the universe as an absolute, is a logical one, that is that is all things in the universe are effects, then there is a primordial cause. If there are parts of something, then there must be a whole too from where the parts came from. Another effective proof, is scientific theories of super strings and GUT(grand unified theory) these phenomena are very subtle. An extremely compelling proof is the existence of the phenomena of quantum entanglement.

Our physical universe is just 1 aspect of our reality. The primordial cause was US. WE created this physical universe, and we are all connected on a different focus of awereness. That is where you get the phenomenon that 2 atoms can react to each other instantly, no matter the distance.

We tend to think of things in time. But what is time? A measurement of change. It is a physical phenomena and is no part of any differnent level of awareness. We like to say "well who STARTED the big bang?" Il say "It was us!" Then youll say "Then who started US?" And il say "We never were started."

I do not share this belief, because it seems illogical to me. It calls on the same fallacy of nothing creating something. This is what I meant by lower energetic consciousness creating higher energetic consciousness. You are not creating an astral self, in my humble opinion. You are connecting to your astral self.

You are getting so close You dont "connect" to anything. You simply become more AWARE of other areas you arent normally aware of.

This is what Yoga is, yoga means to link or connect. You can only do that because your astral self exists in the astral plane and always has. You are simply shifting awareness to a higher level of consciousness and thus shifting your reality.

Again, there is no linking or connecting. The whole concept of "linking" or "connecting" connotates that there are 2 different aspects.("Link" from your physical body to your Astral) There is only 1, and ll you are doing is becoming more AWARE of other aspects. You are totally correct when you say your are simply shifting awareness. But you dont "link" anything. You are contradicting yourself

At the higher levels of reality you have a greater field of vision, the parts begin to form smaller wholes, and at the highest, you have highest field of vision, this is when all is whole. This is when you and I are no longer independent of each other. But one with each other. This is when you are absolute consciousness. That is the source. That is the god that I know.

You keep using words like "Higher" and "Link" which connotate direction. It is not "higher" at all, but intertwined. All you have to do, just like you said, is shift your awareness. See Franks Phasing - What is it and how can I do it thread. And we are NEVER independent of each other, we could talk telepathically right now if we both had developed the ability.

Similarly, it is my thought, that you exist multidimensionally and universally. There is no past, present or future. You are leading all your lives at once. You see the god I believe in, is a supreme soul(the whole) that has split into souls, and the souls have split into minds(egos)  Just like you can split into the astral. It's not you having an astral experience; it's your astral having a physical experience. And it is your higher self having an astral experience and god having all the experiences.

Haha, what would the use of living multiple lives at once be if you are not aware of them all? Why dont we simply do one after another so we can remember what we learned with ALL of them, lol. You are getting something with the existing multidimensionally part. I share that belief, but to live md.'ly, we need to be AWARE of these seperate dimensions, otherwise, whats the point? These dimensions are what the phasing model calls "Focus Levels"[/quote]

Such is the nature of consciousness. God experiences through us.

In order to have an experiance, it must be created. If god has already created these experiances why would he want to experiance them again? This is why i hate getting into these arguments, they are so circular, lol.

I too believe in non-dualism, except with a rationalist twist. I believe duality and non duality co-exist in the same universe and separated by levels of dualistic realities. I am separate from you in dualistic reality, but one with you in non dualistic reality. In non dualistic reality, you don't exist as entangled/intertwined either, you exist as one. The state of entanglement is also a dualistic reality.

Agreed, our beliefs are pretty similar. But i call your dualistic reality physical and your non dualistic reality focus 4. There is also 2, where we dream and for the most part OBE to, and 3, where "dead" people reside along with heaven, hell, allah, etc.. etc..

You should be very careful when you say we are all intertwined or one. Someone, could quite easily challenge you on that and falsify you. What you really should be saying we are all intertwined on a more profound level of reality. I see so many spiritual people make this mistake. It undermines their credibility.

We ARE all connected on a more profound level. But we are aware of this level as well, however small of an awareness this is. And for people "falsifying me" haha, im not too worried about that. People can believe whatever they want. Im not looking for credibility, we all arrive at the same place anyhow.

Yes, I agree, there is only one self. However, I am not sure your definition of self is the same as mine. I think your definition of self is an individual soul. This calls on the arguments of how parts can exist without a whole and how were the parts created. While my definition of self is as as unified whole. I have a very Buddhist interpretation of the an all pervading life force, that I call god. However, I differ from the Buddhist beliefs and gravitate towards Hindu beliefs, in saying that this life force is a personal force of supreme consciousness, with whom I can forge a personal relationship with. Just like I can forge a relationship with my inner child. I am a part of this whole and also one with this whole, but I have yet to realize the whole.

The "Force of supreme consciousness" is indeed an aspect of yourself, but you have to realize that your consciousness created him, he did not create you.

Now the Indian philosophical systems are highly developed, and these debate we are engaged in right now, have already occurred amongst the Indian philosophers thousands of years ago. They were no strangers to astral realms either. In the end they all agreed on an absolute reality and consciousness, called god. It was not because of a need to replace a vacuum, it was because after exhausting every other possibility, they were left with only one truth - god. Similarly the modern yogis like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who devised the famous TM technique, offer the same truth of an absolute consciousness, which when attained, the yogi becomes one with the source.

You have to realize that these indian philosophers were merely interpreting what they experienced into terms and ideas they could comprehend at the time. If they were alive today I have a feeling that they would have very different beliefs. You also have to realize that most of there "astral experiances" were within F2oC, where there thoughts guided what they saw, not the other way around. Any "teachers" and "guides" they could have learned from were possibly aspects of themselves telling there consciousness "what it wanted to hear" so to say. So it is perfectly logical to come to an agreement on what happened when it was YOU that created it.

Now, for me there was never a need to have god in my life. I was a hardcore atheist. It just so happened, after opening my mind and truly sitting down and thinking about this universe logically and coherently  and experiencing a sense of interconnectedness though higher thoughts and feelings of love and wisdom, I too like all of the yogi masters, was left with the same truth: God. In many ways god can also be objectively verified through a collection of subjective experiences.

was speaking of when you said "Your astral consciousness exist independently of your physical body" and then said "The source of consciousness is that interwined/entangled state

Yeah, there is no contradiction here. As I resolve the dualities with the non duality by introducing the concept of realities. In the reality that we share, I am independent of you, simply because I am not you. In the physical reality you are not interconnected. The physical reality is a lot like the Newtonian universe. Everything is separate and modeled as a particle. There is no action at a distance.

The universe is a very bizarre dichotomy of existence. Everything exists with nothing. Have you ever wondered, why there is an existence in the first place? What if there wasn't an existence? Why is it that everthing just is. This question has always perplexed me and given me a headache. But, the simple answer is, everythying and nothing exist at the same time. Everyone is right. You are right that there is no god. The Buddhists are right that there is a life force. The Hindu's are right that there is a supreme consciousness. Each of you are creating your own reality. Your reality is as real as any other reality. The whole universe is an imagination. There is nothing and there is everything all at the same time. As I said - bizarre. There is no right or wrong. There are just infinite realities.

I regret to say that I am not very skilled at getting my thoughts down on paper but I do think that you are on the right path. We are all creating our own reality, not some "God". The universe is but a part of a whole, an aspect that we chose to create for some reason or another. I would suggest you go read up on the Franks phasing model. I read Monroes books and thats what started my whole path down this road. The phasing model is one that answers so many questions, but creates many more. And i hope to investigate these once I can just get out of my body, hehe.

wow, thats a long reply

Cheers,

Ben

[self]

data, i think i got you and uniforce sort of mixed up. My bad. Anyway, il try to keep this going, im having a good time and realize that this is only the spirit of debate and i mean no offense to anyone

Necessity is the mother of all invention they say. I can surmise what you are saying here as one of the popular atheist arguments, that god is a mental safety mechanism. I once was an advocate of this philosophy. However, upon analysis of this philosophy, I found some logical errors. If this was true, then how can atheists exist at all? If this is such an important aspect of our mental mark-up as the first primal human, then why are millions apparently immune to this?

I never said he was a necessity.(At least i dont think so, if i did I must have been thinking off). God is simply a way man explained what he did not know. And now that we know more and more, less people believe in God. Its as simple as that.

I think it underlines a very important point. That is why a belief in god is not a necessity for survival.  Thus, the contention that god is a human construct to explain death or to give a purpose to life does not hold against reason.

Like I said, there is no necessity. Its what you choose to believe.

Again, it is more important to consider the source of all language, belief and thought, rather just a belief in god. How did any of this arise? What is the underlying phenomena behind consciousness and can it be explained in physical terms? As soon as we begin to consider metaphysical origins of consciousnes, the 'hypothesis' of god becomes even more favorable.

When man realized he could manipulate his vocal chords to the degree of attaching meaning to them, language was invented. I think i saw Frank say something like he was talking to a being from a different physical reality or maybe a different planet or something while he was in the astral. The being told him that us humans were unique in that most other "intelligent beings" use telapathy. Belief and thought IMO are effects of evolution.

In philosophy, there are two types of freedom outlined; Positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is absolute freedom. Negative freedom is freedom within certain parameters. In any of the dualistic realities there is only negative freedom. That is you have freedom of will to act, but you don't have freedom in choosing the course your action takes. The action you take is based on even more parameters; your ego, your conditioning, your environment. So, there really is no absolute free will in dualistic realities. You have as much free will as the course a river takes before meeting with it's source again.

So, what I am saying the source of your thought and consciousness is a part of the universe. Everything is the source of something. If god is understood to be everything, then he is the source of your thoughts and consciusness. Just like the source of a river is the ocean. There is a source to your consciousness, isn't there, if you cannot accept god, then surely you can accept it is the universe?

Ah, reminds me of an Aquinas argument

Why is it that thought must come from another being? Is it not possible that thought comes from within ourselves? That we have the power to think in abstract thoughts and decide the best possible outcome? That is an interesting argument however.

Does it necessarily negate the existence of something, if it is a part of everything?

The only part your missing is the part of everything. Like a builder that builds a house and then leaves it to another family to reside in, God could have merely built us without any of himself in us. Saying that he is in everything is a circular argument.

I am presupposing an understanding of the vibrational spectrum of consciousness. That is the physical self, subtle(astral) self, higher self etc. The astral self is a higher energetic consciousness than the physical self. The thoughts of love are higher than the thoughts of hate and fear.

How can thoughts be higher than another? How can thoughts have direction at all? If by higher you mean morally correct, then I would answer with what is morally correct? Is it morally correct to kill? Is it morally correct to kill in the name of God? In the name of anything?

Where was I 'wrong' last time? It is funny you say everything is interwined. Isn't that what I am saying about god?

You are, but the difference lies in the reality. There is no way to prove that God is in everything, but there is a way to prove that all reality is intertwined. Simply close your eyes and imagine your favorite place. Right then and there part of your consciousness was outside of your body, however small the percentage.

[quoteI could say we are interwined as well, but that does not mean I am not independent of you. You can only project to your astral self, if the astral self existed in the first place. You do not create an astral self everytime you project in the astral realm. Your astral self is always there. All you do is become conscious of it. Robert Bruce explained this quite well as the mind split effect in his book. Similarily, your higher self exists as a separate personality too. Nothing is being created.[/quote]

Actually, it is my belief that you DO create a copy of your astral self every time you project. The difference between my view and your view here is that i believe what you call your "astral self", I call consciousness. Therefore, all we do when we OBE is create a "copy" of your body and shift your consciousness, the only reason we create the copy in the first place is out of habit. You are used to having a body. You have had one your whole life.

In the dualistic worlds, everything exists independent of each other. There is one level of reality of non-dualism. That is at an absolute level of reality or consciousness. This is when you're truly interwined. This is God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you believe in astral realms?

Then I must believe in non-dualism. I belive in astral realms, I also believe that all astral realms are intertwined and that all we need to do when we project is shift our awareness. when you are focused on a task at hand, you are 100% aware of the physical. When you are daydreaming, you might have, oh, 80-85% awareness of physical, your awareness is spread into the astral. All we do when we project is focus 100% on whatever "level"(or Focus Level, in phasing model terms) you wish to focus on.

There is nothing to define.

Yes there is. If there a physical self, astral selfs, higher self, each higher in the vibrational spectrum of consciousness. Then there should be an end of this spectrum too? Just like at an absolute level of reality there is only one cause. You said everything existed interwined. The source of consciousness is that interwined/entangled state. It is only logical that everything has a primodial source. As soon as we understand consciousness to be subset from the physical, then we discover the source of the consciousness. The source must have consciousness, for consciousness to exist at all. Something does not come from nothing.

There is only 1 self. How you choose to experience yourself depends on your level of awareness. The source of consciousness is simply what could be called Focus Level 2, where we can think in abstract thoughts and choose what action to bring into place.

I probably did 'change my stance' although I am not aware of what I changed. Such as is the nature of philosophical discourse. Subconscious internal dialog can sometimes manifest in your writing. However, to the best of my knowledge, I was arguing for the 'hypothesis' of god from the beginning and the source of consciousness and thought. I don't see that I have deviated from that stance.

I was speaking of when you said "Your astral consciousness exist independently of your physical body" and then said "The source of consciousness is that interwined/entangled state"

But i suppose i can let it go. And I definitely would agree with this statement: "As both parties are debating not to uphold their positions, but to arrive at a common truth and/or understanding."

Cheers,

Ben

I cant argue with someone who switches there stance every post :X

Watch a comedy.

Listen to a great album.

Take your mother to lunch.

Go for a walk, and notice.

Smell a flower.

Have a hot bath.

Do these things, and tell me how you feel.

Ah yes, your 2 years of studying human behavior gave you so much wisdom as oppsoed to Franks decades of research in the astral. Right.

Anyone who comes here proclaiming they are gods gift to the world and the rest of us have been in darkness since the beginning of our species deserves it, IMO.

If you cannot understand a simple quote i laugh at your understanding of reality.

Good Luck With That.

You just basically restated my quote. Mr. Galelei was quite the rebel  

How could we create the concept of god, if the concept of god was not a part of everything? There were studies done on this and researchers found that god was a natural innate concept.

IMO(and imo is probably the single most important word of this reply) god would have to be an innate concept. Your reasoning is a bit off my friend. First, we can "create" concepts of anything. I can sit down and create a concept that could change someones life. But consider this:

Man is the first animal to have the level of self-awareness and consciousness that we have. And nothing is a greater example of this than the awareness that we will die someday. Now, if you knew you were going to die, what would YOU think would happen after you passed? I think this is a question that has been asked millenia after millenia. And it still is being asked. Well, one can reason that you just die, you cease to exist. But i dont think this sat well with early man. The concept that you can just cease to exist might not even enter your mind. Just like we cannot comprehend say, what lies outside our universe, man could not comprehend what happened after we died.

So now comes the concept of the "afterlife". But this too puzzled early man, what would you DO when you die? Just walk around earth as a ghost? No, you went to heaven and sat in eternity in glorious euphoria at the right hand of "GOD". But did everyone go to heaven? If so, why not just run around raping women and killing people at leisure? Hell, why not kill yourself?

Well, early man knew this had to stop. So next came the concept of GOOD AND BAD. HEAVEN AND HELL. Different religions obviously have different names, but for the most part, excluding eastern religions(eastern folk always HAVE been smarter) the concept of heaven and hell plays a part in all religions.

What is the source of all thought and all consciousness?

Are you telling me GOD is the source of my thought and consciousness? What about that whole free will thing?

So, you were not created and nor did you create anything. You just passed on from one form to the other. As you develop spiritually, your lower energetic thoughts are passing onto higher energetic thoughts. However, that is a paradox right? As it assumes you are creating higher thoughts from lower thoughts. So, where you are you getting the energy to create higher thoughts from?

Im sorry, I dont understand the whole concept of lower and higher energetic thoughts. Could you explain?

our astral consciousness exist independently of your physical body. It is only logical that there is an absolute consciousness. An absolute level of reality.

You are also wrong here. Your astral consciousness is not independent at all, everything is intertwined. Thats the whole concept of phasing, and is proof enough that this statement is true.

If you are a physical at a lower consciousness and an angel at a higher consciousness. What are you at absolute consciousness? How do you define yourself at absolute consciousness. These definitions by humans have been called god. Again, you can only define, if there is something to define

There is nothing to define.

This is however a great argument and for that i thank you

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

No, Pavlovs dog was a seperate expirement, that was the whole classic conditioning thing. This is a very different experiment

Anyways it sounds like your headed on the right path, good luck

Anyone else have any stories of cashing in on the astral? That sounds so wrong though haha

Theres always been child prodigies, they've been going on with this whole indigio thing since the 80s, if you were born with superior intellect, count yourself lucky, dont look for explanations

I also havnt phased yet, but I think im pretty close. I dont try to thin of it in focus levels, but what usually happens is il lay there for 30-45mins. After about 30 minutes, i start to do what i call "drift and tug" where I will start to go into a dream, but concsiously will myself out of it and back to F1. But every time i do this i go deeper and deeper into relaxation. After about 30-45 min. depending on how tired I am i will come back from one my my "mini-dreams" and will all of a sudden feel really awake. then, i sense a wave of energy coming over my body and i start to lose physical sensory input. It would probably be F10 in monroes levels.

Im now practicing holding F10, because I know once i can get into f10 relatively easy and stay there, i will be able to progress much easier.

Great intro, some good points

I get what your saying with the whole complexity issue. Scientists spend there whole lives studying WHY we are happy, only to realize, they didnt discover the answer, they discovered the equation

Just use earplugs

Did you happen to read about the theory of "learned helplessness" in your psych book? now what im about to say really, i dont mean any offense at all. I can actully relate, as I myself am a very independant person and enjoy my own company over that of others. We call these people "Introverts" and I don't believe that it is a social disorder or anything, I would just rather do stuff on my own.

Anyway, learned helplessness. I dont feel like writing alot right now, so I will quote noogenesis.com.

Learned Helplessness

Doggies
University of Pennsylvania: Learned Helplessness Homepage  Course
Bibliography
Optimism



In early 1965, Martin E. P. Seligman and his collegues, while studying the relationship between fear and learning, accidentally discovered an unexpected phenomenon while doing experiments on dogs using Pavlovian (classical conditioning). As you may observe in yourselves or a dog, when you are presented with food, you have a tendency to salivate. Pavlov discovered that if a ringing bell or tone is repeatedly paired with this presentation of food, the dog salivates. Later, all you have to do is ring the bell and the dog salivates. However, in Seligman's experiment, instead of pairing the tone with food, he paired it with a harmless shock, restraining the dog in a hammock during the learning phase. The idea, then, was that after the dog learned this, the dog would feel fear on the presentation of a tone, and would then run away or do some other behavior.

Next, they put the conditioned dog into a shuttlebox, which consists of a low fence dividing the box into two compartments. The dog can easily see over the fence, and jump over if it wishes. So they rang the bell. Surprisingly, nothing happened! (They were expecting the dog to jump over the fence.) Then, they decided to shock the conditioned dog, and again nothing happened! The dog just pathetically laid there! Hey, what's going! When they put a normal dog into the shuttlebox, who never experienced inescapable shock, the dog, as expected, immediately jumped over the fence to the other side. Apparently, what the conditioned dog learned in the hammock, was that trying to escape from the shocks is futile. This dog learned to be helpless! This result was opposite to that predicted by B.F. Skinner's behaviorism, which argued that the dog must have been given a positive reward (like a yummy dog biscuit) to just lie there. (In order to salvage their position, they even went so far as to suggest that the cessation of pain acted as the reward for the dog to sit, but this was not a very good argument. One could alternately argue that when the shock went on while the dog was sitting, it was being punished for sitting. Reminds me of that old joke, "Q: Why did the man pound his thumb with a hammer? A: Because it felt so good to stop.) These observations started a scientific revolution resulting in the displacement of behaviorism by cognitive psychology. What you are thinking, determines your behavior (not only the visible rewards or punishments).

The theory of learned helplessness was then extended to human behavior, providing a model for explaining depression, a state characterized by a lack of affect and feeling. Depressed people became that way because they learned to be helpless. Depressed people learned that whatever they did, is futile. During the course of their lives, depressed people apparently learned that they have no control.

Learned helplessness explained a lot of things, but then researchers began to find exceptions, of people who did not get depressed, even after many bad life experiences. Seligman discovered that a depressed person thought about the bad event in more pessimistic ways than a nondepressed person. He called this thinking, "explanatory style," borrowing ideas from attribution theory.

For example, lets say you fail a math exam. How do you explain why? You could think: 1) I am stupid. 2) I'm not good in math. 3) I was unlucky, it was Friday the 13th. 4) The math teacher is prejudiced. 5) The math teacher grades hard. 6) I was feeling ill that day. 7) The math teacher gave an expecially hard test this time. I didn't have time to study. 9) The teacher grades on a curve. Seligman found that these explanations could be rated along three dimensions: personalization: internal vs. external, pervasiveness: specific vs. universal, and permanence: temporary vs. permanent. He found that the most pessimistic explanatory style is correlated with the most depression: The statement "I am stupid" is classified as internal (use of I), universal, and permanent. This response conveys a sense of discouragement, hopelessness, and despair. On the other hand, a more optimistic person would blame someone or something else, such as "The math teacher gave an especially hard test this time." The most optimistic explanatory style is external, specific and temporary. Conversely, for a good event, the explanatory style reverses. For example, for a perfect score on the math exam, the depressive would say: "I was lucky that day," discounting his intelligence. The optimist would say something much more encouraging, such as "I am smart." We often learn explanatory styles from our parents.

There are advantages to both optimistic and pessimistic explanatory styles. Certain jobs call for an optimistic outlook, such as inventing or sales. Other jobs, such as accounting or quality control, call for a more pessimistic outlook.

Seligman suggests in his book "Learned Optimism" that one can overcome depression by learning new explanatory styles. This is the basis of cognitive therapy. In such therapies, the counselor challenges the client's beliefs and explanations of life's events. If you feel depressed because you failed that last exam, then dispute the explanation, and learn or search for a more optimistic one according to the above criteria. Or read a few jokes. The whole self-help movement is based on the optimistic belief that we can change ourselves for the better.

Think about if it applies to you in any way. I used to have this problem myself. I found myself on Prozac for a short while, sort of like a kick-start. And i found that it eventually worked, about 4 months later i was off the medicine and feeling great.

Just trying to help,

Ben

Happens to me too and its really annoying in the daytime when Im trying to focus and i keep seeing this light barge into my darkness at the bottom of my eyelids. Just shut them without thinking about it and continue on, or put some cloth over your eyes like a shirt or bandanna.

Afterlife is a funny word, It implies that there is "life" which in itself is funny. Concsiousness cant simply dissapear, you are as alive today as you will be the day after you "die".

In closing I just wanted to respond to the last post suggesting that God is a construct.  I believe many people have constructed many faces and many ideas to label the creative force of the universe/and all of it's dimensions (ones we are not aware of while in the physical plane), however, just because people have such a hard life filled with insecurity that the only stability they can find is to lean towards dichotomy of "right and wrong"  "black and white" thinking,  then so be it. If they need to perceive their inspiration as being "all things good" then let them. That's just their present state of awareness and it isn't the most effective way to live a life free of neurosis, however it IS simply the stage that they are at naturally and in time we all grow to be less neurotic.


God bless. For what it's worth to you.

I definitely agree with you. While some of us seem to have the ability to more or less fend for ourselves, some people have just seen to much and they need God in their lives. Im not suggesting that its wrong, Im simply stating the fact. When people ask me if I believe in God, I say yes. When people ask me if I believe in Allah, I say yes. This is not because Im an idiot its because these things DO exist in the form on constructs created by humans out of need. Like many an APer has confirmed, there are belief constructs for those that hold these beliefs. So God did not create us, we created HIM, and that does not make him "fake" in any sense of the word.