Messages

I'm open to the idea that the universe has the potential for consciousness, but that potential is only met in complex structures such as the brain - and so while death might bring oblivion to the individual, the next brain generated will meet the same potential, and so in the cries of another newborn, consciousness will look out over the universe once more.
I've seen too many journals and reports about area specific brain injury causing dramatic changes to a person's personality, sometimes to the extent that such people commit pretty horrendous crimes, or cannot control themselves in socially acceptable ways any longer.
For all we know, people we meet whilst OBE, including those who have passed on, are simply the remnants of people's memories of such people echoing in the mental spaces created by the billions of living minds.

Definately a nice thing, as it says the cat usually isn't too sociable otherwise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6917113.stm


I bet the patients of that home are definately not happy if the Cat decides to come sit by them 

Are you talking about scrying? If so:

scrying mirror

I would like to get free range eggs but now here in EU we have a law that poultry must be closed inside because of "bird flu" danger.

This is sadly true at the moment, although I do have friends who keep their own hens and they are free to be outside (and their eggs taste much better than those from shops or supermarkets).

I dont think meat is unhealthy for human but if you eat meat from sick animals it's not healthy. I still eat it because organic market isn't developed here eventhough there are quite a lot of organic farmers so you it's still hard to buy it. They just dont know how to sell the product.

If you are interested, I could post links to articles which show meat actually isn't good for people if they eat it more than once or twice a week – especially red meat which causes changes in cells which could cause cancers in certain parts of the body.

I was vegetarian for a year but i lost so much weight i had to stop. Now after two years i'm at the same weight i was 4 years ago. I was doing something wrong or it's not an appropiate diet for me.

When I became vegetarian, I actually gained weight, I used to be a very thin person (6'3" and around 10 stone), so you losing weight suggests you didn't have a balanced diet at the time.

I try to eat as unprocessed food as possible, though. And i dont have any moral issues about eating meat anymore. I had them during the time i was vegeterian and some time after but i got over it. Here is the answer i got from the eloheim when i asked him about the food.

what is interesting that i heard the same thing from dr. Len who's teaching Ho'oponopono. He also said that guilt is what makes you sick not the food you eat.

I think everyone should eat what's good for their body.

Guilt can make anyone sick, but simply removing guilt doesn't mean the situation it used to be attached to is moral now. It simply means the guilt free person doesn't feel guilt.
My moral issues in regards to meat are to do with taking a sentient beings life just to fill a rumbling stomach. As supposedly intellectual (and perhaps enlightened) beings, killing other conscious animals (which each and every one of them are unique in their own right), in full knowledge that they will be terrified as we march them up to the abattoir, seems slightly wrong, especially when we can get better food from less terrible methods.
If people wish to hunt, take their own food, and eat it with respect to the animal's life – then great, that is following a natural cycle. But to eat slabs of flesh, wrapped in plastic and refrigerated in a shop, it seems quite wrong.
Please note, I respect anyone's choice to eat meat (my wife eats meat), but this is a debate :p
I also think there is another argument there in regards to humans treating creatures they perceive lesser to themselves as a commodity, to do with as they will. This is very dangerous ground. What would be terrible, and amazing, is if we ever did contact some form of alien life (or perhaps even the rising of a powerful nation on earth), and they decide we are going to become their food source, because we are lesser to them. We would have absolutely no grounds to argue against this because we have the exact same stance on 'lesser' animals.

If that's vegeterian or meat it doesnt matter. Plants have feelings too.

If they do have feelings, the fact they have no brain or central nervous system dictates they will feel no pain, terror, or any kind of 'emotion' known to humans. Also, plants generally grow to be harvested, it's their natural cycle, and it's what they evolved to do.

What we ask is that when you eat something that you pay attention to how your body reacts to it... that you embrace those things, and often times those things will change, that feel good to you in the moment... that you realize that God gave you food to eat... and that you are not a sinner for eating.  But if meat does not make you feel good... don't eat it.  And if meat makes you feel good... don't have guilt when you do eat it.  Choose the diet that makes you feel good and eat it without guilt and you will be healthy.  Yes this means you could survive on ding-dongs and twinkies, but very, very few people could eat ding-dongs and twinkies without feeling guilty... and it's the guilt that makes you sick, or not function at your highest... not the food.

This is actually quite worrying advice from a supposedly advanced being. It negates the whole area of what meat actually is. You could simply change the wording and it's exact central message would remain intact. Such as:
"But if your neighbours flesh does not make you feel good... don't eat it.  And if neighbours flesh makes you feel good... don't have guilt when you do eat it.  Choose the diet that makes you feel good and eat it without guilt and you will be healthy. "
And such as this:

few people could eat ding-dongs and twinkies without feeling guilty... and it's the guilt that makes you sick, or not function at your highest... not the food.

This is only true if the person has awareness that twikies are bad for oneself, and many do not, so they would not feel guilt at eating them.

The channelled quote simply talks about self importance, EGO, with no regards to anything outside of one's self (i.e. that fact sentient beings are killed to provide a meal which is very expensive resource wise, on the land, and on peoples bodies). If I was a solipsist perhaps it would be sound advice, but i'm not, and I do believe other sentient beings even those deemed 'lesser' (whatever that means) should have the right to live and not be imposed upon by other people's desire or will if it affects them negatively.

Hi MisterJingo,

I know that there are other ways of producing milk, that are more humane.  But I live in the US, and sadly animals welfare is a lot worse here than Europe.  I am glad to hear that bovine injection (and all animal) are illegal in the EU.  About free range eggs; there is no regulations in the US for this term.  Even worse, a lot of organic eggs and dairy are factory farms.  Yes, this is illegal but the USDA apparently likes to takes bribes.  If you can't even trust organic farms, than I find it hard to believe the term "free range," which means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  Well at least in the United States of America, "the land of the free."  Its really just a marketing term that anyone can use, and it works.

Cavernstoy

I agree it's really hard to know what you are buying, as even in the UK even things labelled as 'organic' might not be what people think they are.
A few things I meant to add previously to this topic regarded the difference in physiology between herbivores and carnivores. Carnivores usually have teeth for cutting and ripping, sharp fangs, and their digestive systems are quite short and smooth as energy can be removed from meat very easily. A carnivore will actually starve if fed only on plant matters, as they can't digest such food.
An herbivore has flat grinding teeth (like humans), and will start to break down their food in their mouth (like humans). They also have a very long ridged digestive tract (like humans); such a tract allows herbivores to remove as much nutrients from their food as is possible.

Fortunately, the last generations of human that are coming to this world are becoming more and more allergic to dairy and wheat (which it's genetically modified). That's forcing parents to look for other alternatives: veg diets, ecologic products...

The reverse is happening in regards to milk. Humans used to be unable to stomach milk, but around 10 thousand years ago, a gene mutation occured allowing adults to drink milk. This gene has spread to the majority of the population between then and now. People who suffer from lactose intolerance are in a dwidnling minority as they simply don't have this gene mutation.

[can]

Now, what about dairy and eggs?  Dairy cows, and egg laying hens live in worse conditions than any other animal.  Dairy cows are confined, inside, in veal crates.  No room to move or do anything at all.  They are hooked up to machines that suck the milk from their utter, very aggressively.  They are giving artificial hormones to produce about an extra gallon a day of milk, which is part puss by the way (because of the bruising.)  These hormones, which are fed to almost all factory farmed animals, is present in the animal produce.  Also, antibiotics are fed to almost all factory farmed animals to prevent disease and infection from the severely unhygienic conditions.  About half of antibiotics produced are fed to livestock.  Antibiotics destroy your natural immune system, leaving room for cancer cells to develop, which are a result of the synthetic hormones.

Egg laying hens are confined, inside, in battery cages, without any room to move, and no sunlight to feel, and no fresh are to breath.  At a young age they are debeaked.  The lives of these animals are so stressful, they would peck each other to death if this was not done.  By the way, chicken beaks are made out of hard and soft tissue, with nerve endings.  They are also fed antibiotics, and hormones.  Sometimes to produce more eggs, they are temporarily starved.  Most farmed animals only live six weeks in factory farms.  Egg laying hens and dairy cows live years in factory farms!   

Hey Cavernstoy,
I agree with everything you wrote, but take slight issue with the above two paragraphs. Firstly, I'd like to say that I haven't eaten meat or consumed animal products for 10 years now – my reasons for doing so are moral.
While I agree that a lot of dairy farms do treat animals badly and keep their cows pregnant to have a constant supply of milk, this is not the only way of producing milk, and many farms choose more conscientious methods.  For example, there are many farms in the UK which have automated milking machines which the cows go to of their own free will. Bearing milk is painful for them, and so they do like to release the excess milk. On such farms, the cows walk themselves to the machines, which then guides probes to the teats, and the cow happily stands there until the milking is over. No bruising, or harmful effect to the cow.
Likewise with eggs; yes there are battery farms, and I agree battery farming is a terrible practice, but there are also many free range farms. Hens will lay eggs even without fertilisation (like human females release eggs) and free range farms allow the hens to come and go at will, and the excess eggs (which would rot) are taken and sold.
In the EU it is illegal to give antibiotics or hormones to farm animals (I don't think this is the case in the US), so this isn't an issue either.
This shows it is possible to maintain these practices without harm (physical or emotional) to the animals, and if we look at nature, most species live in a symbiotic  relationship with others – and that's exactly what egg and milk farming can be (if done in a humane way).
I'm just posting this to show that such matters are not black and white, such as one could argue that modern mechanised farming methods destroy an unimaginable amount of biodiversity and creatures with each harvest.  So even a vegan and vegetarian diet could be tainted with blood too (metaphorically speaking), unless we farm our own produce by hand using natural tools that is.
I do think eating meat is a senseless waste of life, but I don't preach this, and believe others should make up their own minds.

The thing with rage and anger is, if left unchecked, it feeds off itself. We can be angry or hate others (for whatever reason) but to do such a thing, we need to carry the anger and hate inside ourselves. When I was younger I used to carry such anger and rage that I could feel it physically in my body, even to the extent that my gums seemed to itch and writhe with it.
I reached a point where I could either do something very stupid, or I could attempt to release such negativity. I decided to release it.
It wasn't an overnight thing, it was a continuous awarness of my emotions, and trying to keep a check on them. Deep breaths are all well and good, but unless awarness is kept on the reason 'why', then it's a short term fix. Over time, whatever habits, learnt responses etc which had generated such anger started to dissipate.
I sometimes now get irritible and can be a bit sh*tty for little reason, but in such times I try and look at why. So it's still a work in progress.
As said above, this is something your friends needs to want to happen. Without intent to reduce the anger and rage, it will not be reduced.

If the question is : Anybody thinking Organized Religion is a fake ?   Then YES i am an Athiest

I strongly belief in a Higher Force - Creator

If you look at the various different religions then you will conclude that they all focus on the same subject. Their prophets/disciples are the same etc. So what is the point of different religions in any way ?

Religion = Dogma

Anyway, my 2c worth


With Love

I personally don't follow any religions, as I don't see there is a need for 'me' to do so. But I have no problem with people who follow or need to follow such a belief system (my wife is a practising Catholic for example).
I also don't necessarily believe in a creator, it seems to me that most people's perception of such a being is born from aspects of themselves projected onto whatever generates such evidence of 'creator' in their perception. I can happily conceive of a universe where physical death might not be absolute, but where there is also no creator or overriding coherent pattern or path. 'Life' could just 'be'. People might argue against this, but the source of such arguments would be rooted in their own personal experience and as such would not be indicative of a greater truth outside of their own sphere of experience. I think we all have a lot to learn, and perhaps have a need to look beyond the structures created by societal preconception generated over the course of humanities history.

It's safest to set email to text display only rather than html.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

As with all things like this, I always wonder the following:

1. Does it have three different minds that all want to do different things?
2. If not, which head does it use, or can it transfer its mind between the three heads?
3. Three souls? 

EDIT:
Well, I found this, proving the story false.
http://www.raygirvan.co.uk/apoth/crapos.jpg

Nonetheless, those 3 things I wonder about are applicable for siamese twins, and other animals that have actually been proven to have multiple heads.
The one that baffles me the most is siamese twins, because humans must have a soul, right?
So do they have two, or one?
If they have one, how do the two different.. members of the body.. each have a different personality?

Good find : http://www.raygirvan.co.uk/apoth/trifrog.htm

I saw it on the bbc.co.uk news most read things and didn't google it before posting *doh*.

I've only just seen this, thanks for sharing .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3534361.stm 

Hey Woah,

I remember you too .
Welcome Back.

Hey tvos,

I haven't come across any study which looked at projectors who later experienced NDEs - although I think the results of such a study might be interesting. I'm guessing possible sample groups might be quite small though! .

It sounds quite like a false awakening mixed with sleep paralysis. Or you were in a SP state but wavering in and out of sleep, leading to the voice experience. I've had a lot of weird experiences around that kind of state too .

Google "Martin Gradwell", especially in the sci.physics groups of usenet (google groups), as there is a tremendous amount of data debunking his ideas and calculations from regular posters to those groups.

Thank you for the kind comments . I haven't had much time for writing lately - well apart from lots of snippets of ideas, lines etc.
Good luck with your writing, I hope to read some of it if you post it here .

I'd be curious to hear what the dream was about - that's if it's not too personal .

Is there a lot of math in it?

It's more an idea book with very little in the way of math, but it is an enjoyable read and makes you think.

I do agree that it depends on the meaning, and in part that is problematic because such experiences are so personal that one persons meaning is different to another's. That's why we need to define these terms in language. We might not capture the depth of experience in words, but we can at least identify which experience/meaning we are referring to. Ego is 'I', 'the self',' 'the individual' - if each has a different interpretation of that word, then we talk in circles, and that is the crux of it: the words identify meaning, but if we attach words to different meanings, then we simply confuse ourselves and perhaps assimilate wrong concepts. Earlier in this thread there was talk of ego being negative to spiritual development – or at least the enhancement of it, this is what I believe is misguided.
I used to think words were limiting and experiences themselves could transcend base language. But now I feel one can get too caught up in experiences on a sub-conscious level believing such experiences to be enlightenments, transcendental etc and simply bathe in them rather than learning and growing from them. Sort of like people who meditate but actually just sit and simply day dream rather than maintaining a level of focused awareness. Perhaps the answer is to expand language consciously, perhaps even invent new language or forms of communication to better communicate these things.

Our true self is the pure universal mind, not our everyday mind which is rambling and moving here and there, which we listen to and follow endlessly. The Universal mind is that part of your mind that is not tainted by delusion.
Takes a while of watching the mind and you will notice that part of it that has always been there, watching, not the restless part that is always moving.

Without EGO there would be no 'I' or watching, or awareness of everything. I've often wondered if this desire to return to some base state of unconsciousness (which returning to the source would be*) is misguided. To quote an idea I find interesting:

I read an interesting book by Ken Wilber called 'Up From Eden' where he uses the Jewish creation myth to describe a particular stage of the evolution of human consciousness. As the title of his book suggests, Wilber does not see a "fall" from this perfected Edenic state after eating from the Tree of Knowledge  of Good and Evil but rather the reverse. To him, Adam and Eve in Eden represent mankind in the unconcious pre-personal/pre-egoic state...basically the state of mind of most animals. However, he makes an important distinction and says this state is not the ideal state. Seeing it as an ideal state is a view which he calls "the pre-trans fallacy", that being: confusing an unconscious pre-personal state with the superconscious trans-personal state (ie.enlightenment), a fallacy he attributes to what he calls 'Romanticism' (in  other words, romanticizing some distant time when humans existed in complete harmony with Nature, God, et al. - a time which he thinks didn't exist in our  past, but could exist in the future of our species when the consciousness of our species as a whole evolves further.) He describes it much better than I could. It's a pretty interesting book and one worth checking out if any of this makes sense to you.

This seems to resonant. The idea is not to remove the ego, reduce it or kill it, the idea is to refine it, improve it, build it. As we look into our past, we see a refinement of EGO to the state we currently perceive. All experiences of advanced entity contact in the astral show such beings displaying EGO (sense of identity, self, personality), some to the extent that people feel over powered by it.

The reason I quoted you is not that I disagree with you, just the thought behind the idea. Many spiritual paths see the reduction of EGO as a goal, as above, I think possibly the opposite should be the goal.

EGO does not have to mean selfishness, infact, sharing is an EGO action born out of Love. All the good and altruistic actions must have awareness and intention behind them (EGO). This to me is a refinement and a beneficial thing.
Meditation does not reduce the EGO, it simply reduces the monkey chatter and constant conceptualisation of past, present and future, it lets one be.


* The reason I say it would be unconscious and unknowing is that EGO is the tool which gives us a sense of individuality, identity, even separation. Without some form of self identity there would be nothing (EGO death).


Interesting link to read:

http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html

A lot of what you wrote is still caught within a very human-centric view of reality. Yes we are human and so that is to be expected, but we must consider our interpretation of even basic things is enforced by our meat brain - rather than a representation of a more 'base' reality.
Even givens like shape and form are but a learnt concept. They might have no meaning outside of the narrow perception our brain/mind have learned to give them. The same could be said of time.
Humans are animals. Humans seemingly have consciousness. Animals seemingly have consciousness. Regardless of form, there is consciousness in both. We can talk about intelligence being some form of differentiating factor, but even intelligence as we measure it is simply interaction in a very narrow range of human defined parameters within the physical.
So we have consciousness, and everything we ever experience is our consciousness interpreting 'external' stimuli i.e. everything we ever interact with is formed of self (not to mistaken with 'we are all one' concepts).
I'd say splitting things into 'dimensions' is also limiting our perceptions. I, and many others, see everything as consciousness. The astral is not simply another dimension it's just a different locale within consciousness' sphere. The same as the physical – it's but another locale within consciousness sphere. A loose analogy could be local areas of turbulence in a transitory medium (such as water or gas).
If you really want to think radically, push the boundaries, then you need to look at everything you take for granted, every given, every 'known' and interpret it in terms of experience to date. Whilst doing this, also be aware of the human taught processes which decipher reality and categorise things into the reality we see around ourselves now – and don't take such categorisation for granted.
Animas, humans, astral, physical. All concepts which might have no greater meaning outside of a ephemeral glance from an evolving 'consciousness'.

I'd also recommend The Holographic Universe, as it is a good book. But, i'd add one caveat: Research what it presents because much of it's interpretation of quantum mechanics has been shown to be wrong, and a lot of the 'facts' it details are more personal interpretation of certain sciences.
It does give a lot to think about though.

A similar book i'd recommend is: 'Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness ' by Itzhak Bentov (but once again, look into what it presents).