Constructs, Thought Forms, Servitors and other artifical beings

[galeb]

I didn't look through all 27 pages, so this may already been addressed. If so sorry.

I saw a mention of someone creating a beast. This is probably a construct.
A construct is a thought form that had been created that has an intent, a purpose and energy. They are usually created for a single purpose. A beast could be created as a guardian or protector, or as an attack thought form sent to attack your enemy.

There are lots of information on constructs, Servitors and other artificial beings, just google it.

Most if not all the "Gods" and "Goddesses" that are part of all religions started out as nothing more that thought forms created and enforced by the millions of people that pray to them(believe in them). They have gained their power from the prayers and are now sentient beings, that have the powers that people have contributed to them.  So if they were not real to start with, they are now, because of the thoughts and energy given them by the people that believe in them. 

[Chaos Mage]

I once created a living being.  She has suffered disgrace, starvation, and agony.  I don't know where she is now.  It's a long story, something I can't even cry about or I'd have to explode.

I remember being able to 'banish' to the very depth of All.  It was from that state of banishing or 'being in banishing' that I conjured her up.  I've tried wishing her to die, to end her suffering, but it is to no avail.  Once they are created, they will persist until the day... until then, you have to protect your creations.

There is also the case of Saria.  Saria is a phantasm.  For me to see her, I have to use my effort to visualize her, I project her into my local space.  The thing is, other people can see her too!  But they don't say anything, they just keep walking all over her.  At least, that's what happened.

Anything you create becomes a burden, and the power to create it becomes the goal of your enemy.  Banishing is the essential element, if you can banish, then simplistic acts of refined will can stimulate reality on your return to a dimension. 

I agree that thought forms are some of the old gods.  However, it goes beyond that, into the range of activities and practices that honor the old gods.  Some of them might have been real people, while others are energy that has gained a higher harmony.  In truth, it's the potential from which the energy comes that gives anything it's basis, we might say Force-->Energy. 

Unless you have experienced banishing, the astral, or magick, then you will not be able to appreciate how godly and powerful every living soul has potential to be.  We can take a three second look at any given reality, and in that three seconds, we arrange our entire life.  Simplistic chemical math in equivalency.  Yet!  To the being that has achieved the simplicity of banishing, these will understand that reality is rushing, flowing, bursting with energy at every opportunity.

The only true God is the Spirit.  Anything that is manifest, is not God, but shares in the Creation.  It's as simple as opening and closing your aura to Heavens Light.

[dreamingod]

Materialist support the presumption that God is separate from creation/nature,
and that the universe/reality is made from solid stuff, particles, things.


Quantum physics and EMF Spectrum demonstrates that there are no solid stuff, no things.
Every perceivable thing in phy-sical reality is an expression of the phi-cycle,
an expression of electricity and magnetism carrying information.


Epigenetics demonstrates that DNA (including telomere) do not control cells and determine longevity.
We are limited by our beliefs and perceptions.
It is our beliefs that adjust our physiology.
It is our beliefs that adjust the selection of genes.
http://www.in5d.com/forum/index.php?topic=2581.msg4118;boardseen#new


Meditation, phasing, OOBEs, lucid dreams allow each of us to explore our consciousness,
our desires and definitions of self.
We experience our own mental space and experience a myriad of sensations,
sometimes in the context of story which we believe to be real at the time of the experience.

Subsequently some ask the question, is the dreamer and the dream separate or one?
Similarly is the observer and that which is observed separate or one?

Since there are no real solid stuff, then is every perceivable thing, no thing,
non-physical, incorporeal, thought-forms/images perceived by mind?

Then the only absolute is the observer, perceiver, consciousness, mind, I am (all metaphors).

The only true God is the Spirit.

So yes, all is God, all is Spirit, all is consciousness.

Even in the Bible, it states that God is the Word, God is Light, God is all that is.
http://thecrowhouse.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13696#p28820

Most if not all the "Gods" and "Goddesses" that are part of all religions started out as nothing more that thought forms created and enforced by the millions of people that pray to them(believe in them). They have gained their power from the prayers and are now sentient beings, that have the powers that people have contributed to them.  So if they were not real to start with, they are now, because of the thoughts and energy given them by the people that believe in them. 

I agree.
Most religions uses idols, symbols, thought-forms/images in the context of
stories, particularly astromythology to focus beliefs.
Eg. Bible & Astromythology. http://www.in5d.com/forum/index.php?topic=2896.0
These dominant beliefs form the basis of CULT-u-re.
Those who practise the corresponding rituals and customs perpetuate the meme.
Meme, a unit of an idea within culture.
Also me-me, a repeat unit of idea perceived by me.
Unless the idea is made real by me, by my continuous focused beliefs, then any meme that
falls out of flavour or popularity with me becomes a fad, a myth.
It has lacks the power to inspire and move people.

A computer analogy, the processor is the perceiver:
the [popular] meme which processed/accessed regularly and quickly occupies RAM (Random Access Memory)
becomes
the [unpopular] meme which processed/accessed less, occupies ROM (Read Only Memory).
Both memes reside in memory, and are experienced only while being processed.

Interestingly when one looks into the etymology of the word "matter" and "soul"
we find that the relationship between matter and soul is mind and the creative illusion.
The word "person" comes from the Latin word "persona", the mask, the fiction.
http://www.in5d.com/forum/index.php?topic=2565.msg6438#msg6438

[Selea]

Most religions uses idols, symbols, thought-forms/images in the context of
stories, particularly astromythology to focus beliefs.

I'ts not the belief the important thing. It is the framework inside it. A belief (of whatever nature) is practical only when the framework inside it works, elsewhere it doesn't, or it doesn't fully.

Those who practise the corresponding rituals and customs perpetuate the meme.
Meme, a unit of an idea within culture.
Also me-me, a repeat unit of idea perceived by me.
Unless the idea is made real by me, by my continuous focused beliefs, then any meme that
falls out of flavour or popularity with me becomes a fad, a myth.
It has lacks the power to inspire and move people.

The beliefs are just representations of the framework, but they are not the most important part. All practical traditions (as shamanism or true sorcery) have working frameworks at the base of the beliefs and the beliefs are the representations of that framework, a way to operate with it. However, as I said, a belief with no working framework inside doesn't work just because it is a belief.

A clear example of this are the books of Castaneda (as a simple example, but there are many others even more recent). While many of the beliefs and structures comes from real shamanism or sorcery, since they are mixed and extrapolated from their working frameworks they serve little in practical terms. You will never find anybody using the practices in the books of Castaneda being able to obtain something concrete out of them, no matter what he believes or the beliefs themselves.

I will make yet another example. If it was just a matter of beliefs and what the belief arise in the mind, then you could easily obtain practical results from the Lovecraftian mythology as you can obtain with something like the goetia or similar; yet experience has demonstrated that this is not possible, it doesn't work (or at last it works only in the same way you can obtain with simple placing of the will, outside of any framework). This is because there is no working framework inside that mythology and those beliefs.

Just for this a belief never really becomes a myth until the framework is present. It becomes such only when that framework is perverted or not present anymore.

[dreamingod]

I'ts not the belief the important thing. It is the framework inside it. A belief (of whatever nature) is practical only when the framework inside it works, elsewhere it doesn't, or it doesn't fully.

The beliefs are just representations of the framework, but they are not the most important part. All practical traditions (as shamanism or true sorcery) have working frameworks at the base of the beliefs and the beliefs are the representations of that framework, a way to operate with it. However, as I said, a belief with no working framework inside doesn't work just because it is a belief.

Agree.
For example Western CULTure embraces Newtonian and Darwinian Science.
Metaphysical phenomena and sharmanism are disregarded as superstition,
and not part of the so-called objective measureable world of Science.
However the power of prayer is accepted to work miracles.

These dominant beliefs form the basis of CULT-u-re.

The framework is CULTure.
Collective dominant beliefs, customs, rituals, language etc. within a group of people.
I agree with Terrence McKenna's perspective that "Culture is your operating system".

Terrence McKenna
* He was an American philosopher, psychonaut, researcher, teacher and more.
He describes how 'Culture is your operating system' - like boundary defining engines,
and plants/psychedelics eg DMT can transcend Cultural OS, enabling one to return to first premises.
Here he is suggesting that perceptions from cultural programming once removed & replaced can allow the individual
eg. shamans to experience a different reality.

Examples of DMT experiences: http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=86665 & http://miqel.com/entheogens/dmt_first_time_report.html
& http://www.in5d.com/the-dmt-experience.html

Terrence McKenna - Culture is your operating system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ctjNqQPnAk8

[Wi11iam]

Most if not all the "Gods" and "Goddesses" that are part of all religions started out as nothing more that thought forms created and enforced by the millions of people that pray to them(believe in them). They have gained their power from the prayers and are now sentient beings, that have the powers that people have contributed to them.  So if they were not real to start with, they are now, because of the thoughts and energy given them by the people that believe in them. 

Who Created Who?  The line is somewhat blurred but if one cares to see through that, it becomes an obsolete way to think.

Where does 'thought' actually derive?  Obviously the persistence of certain thought structure results in creative manifestation but does it really take the combined thought of many individuals in order to 'make it real'?

It is obvious that the power of one individual can create a universe, albeit a personal one, but nonetheless as real as the individual thinks it to be.

The mind is able to shift its focus to be all inclusive.  Understanding that not all Gods are figments of human imagination, and those that are have been forced together as surely as humans beings have evolved and multiplied to cover the whole face of the earth.

To what value does human spirituality have within the physical universe?  It is shifty by nature, undefinable in its wholeness, impractical as a measuring device and still too fragmented to offer service to the human condition  It barters miracles for minds/souls and is dependent upon belief in order to exist.

Outside that parameter of the ripple of fragmented spirituality may well reside something so real that it does not require belief to make it so.  It simply is.

It behoves the genuine individual seeker to find out if such a thing truly exists and upon uncovering, to align.

[dreamingod]

Who Created Who?  The line is somewhat blurred but if one cares to see through that, it becomes an obsolete way to think.

Where does 'thought' actually derive?  Obviously the persistence of certain thought structure results in creative manifestation but does it really take the combined thought of many individuals in order to 'make it real'?

If we presume that something or superior entity created a lesser God,
then how many layers of bigger Gods/Goddesses do we imagine created the one before that,
when we finally acknowledge that it is inevitable we will come full circle and accept that
God just is.
I think it is the limited human perception to think linearly.


Here's a thought, if we accept -
one of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.

Then energy just is. Light just is.

What is God? What is the Creator?
If this metaphor we call  "God" created no thing, then all things are thought-forms within God,
within the mind of God, light of God.
Then God being no thing, God is incorporeal.
God is spirit.
God is life.
God is light of mind.

Meditators and consciousness explorers will finally come to the self realisation,
that since there is no thing, but intelligence and energy creating our mindscape,
then all is a play or dream in mind, in consciousness, in spirit.
Another way of putting it, we all are experiencing different states of consciousness
and and assertion of mind.


The word "Buddha" means "I am awake".
Buddha puts this simply:

We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.

~

[Wi11iam]

We are what we think.

Buddha may have been incorrect, or at least speaking in terms of what we think we are determines how we behave.

Light is information (data) - we are not information we are that which interprets information within the scope of our abilities and experience.

The absence of data is not the absence of "God" -

GOD was not 'created' but has always ever existed...therefore there is no purpose to 'completing the circle' as to do so limits one within the parameters of the fore mentioned 'gods' of human imagination which are constructs given immense powers over their human creators.


http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/everything_which_has_a_beginning_is_by_that_very_fact_a_simulation_wi11iam-t39909.0.html

[dreamingod]

We are what we think.

Buddha may have been incorrect, or at least speaking in terms of what we think we are determines how we behave.

Light is information (data) - we are not information we are that which interprets information within the scope of our abilities and experience.

The absence of data is not the absence of "God" -

GOD was not 'created' but has always ever existed...therefore there is no purpose to 'completing the circle' as to do so limits one within the parameters of the fore mentioned 'gods' of human imagination which are constructs given immense powers over their human creators.

Please re-read my posts again within this thread, and you will find that
you have taken my words out of context.

God is just a metaphor that we use, so that we can talk about the idea,
but what is the relationship between this concept
and the "I am" that thinks, perceives, qualifies and feels?

In this primary focus reality I perceive I am the ego that comes with the body,
the life story, hiSTORY, the experiences,
however when I experience another physical and non-physical reality I am not the ego,
the life story within the context of community and time period.
The ego is transient, the self awareness is absolute.

When I have no body awareness and experience the void I have no definition for self.
I have no name, no care, no concerns, no body.
I am aware that I am.
I am self referencing, aware that I am aware of self.
There is no time, I am the only reference to self.
In this state I am incorporeal, life, consciousness.

Then when I desire, will, imagine, I then clothe myself with a mental body
and simulate a virtual U-ni-verse and experience body sensations in the context
of U-in-verse, that is my story, my script.

[Wi11iam]

Please re-read my posts again within this thread, and you will find that
you have taken my words out of context.

Which words did I take out of context?

In relation to the thread subject and opening post, it appears you are suggesting that "Constructs, Thought Forms, Servitors and other artificial beings" are 'clothes' you put on as GOD (the metaphor) but in the context of the OP it seems that what was being suggested is that we (in the clothing of human form) create these things, which would imply that GOD does this kind of thing in whatever form or non form IT inhabits, and since we all come from the same source, we do the same as that source...we are that source doing these things, but the confusion is that we are deceived by our own beliefs and creations to the point where we are lost to that realization and follow after  counterfeit, usurper god concepts which separate who we are from who we are through our beliefs.

Buddha, Jesus et al are unknown as they really are because humans tend to elaborate, and consign things to them which are fantasy...happens all the time with many things...my point was that this can be navigated around that the TRUE has the optimum chance of being realized.  Know Yourself.  There is no particular wrong about 'ego' if it is aligned with what is true.

[Selea]

we are that source doing these things, but the confusion is that we are deceived by our own beliefs and creations to the point where we are lost to that realization and follow after  counterfeit, usurper god concepts which separate who we are from who we are through our beliefs.

To "speak" with that source you need a special vocabulary, and that vocabulary is the framework. Nobody can access that directly, it's impossible factually and anyway you always filter that experience within your framework (so if you have a working framework the info you get can be used, elsewhere it is useless or partial). In psychology this is called the "subjective synthesis" which you can read about in Assagioli, Karen Horney, William James, or A.A. Brill and that was first introduced by people as Freud and Jung.

Buddha and Buddhism is usually considered as a way to access that source directly, but that's a total incorrect assumption. Buddha used a framework to access that source (he had a system of beliefs and a complete way or interaction), as everybody of those "sages" did.

[dreamingod]

Which words did I take out of context?

My reply to the question[rhetorical] "Who created Who?"
was to also point out this line of supposition is futile, going round and round in circles.
Linear thinking is limited and often presumes there is a beginning and an end;
God created man, Higher God created the God that created man, and so forth.

Although we express ourselves using different metaphors and arrangement of words,
we seem to be much in agreement that existence just is.
Yes, existence or life does not require beliefs in a superior, separate being to exist.

However since many do presume and define "God" to be the omnipresent
Creator or Source of all perceivable things, then I am sharing my experiences:
Look within to realise that beneath the body vehicle, personality, beliefs
that one dons, is the absolute self that thinks, desires, feels, perceives.
This is the source of life, the source of all perceivable things,
that which thoughts/perspectives/desires arise from.

While self is clothed in a body vehicle, in the context of life story, relative to a reality construct/paradigm,
the ego, the personality construct often convinces self that all this is real.
The ego-self experiences a kind of tunnel vision, akin to focused attention in order to
experience the human drama, in a linear story involving much limitation
mainly due to body vehicle expression.

So man-the ego complex experiences great drama in pursuing ambitions,
wealth, status, power, influence, happiness, relationships, love, peace etc.
The ego-self that is too attached to material things, and the reality construct
at the cost of life, ecosystem and cause much human suffering
can be said to be in great self delusion and "misaligned" with the inner-self, true self.

But what is truth?
While experiencing a body vehicle, I maintain that truth is relative and subjective to the perceiver.
Only self can know one's own mind, motives, desires and thoughts.

Can there be absolute truth?

I think the absolute truth is existence, life, self awareness, self,
all else are ideas, perspectives, different angles of view,
arising from the imaginings of Source.
Source or self, the creative mind that gives light forms to perceivable things.
Self that aligns with truth is the mind that facilitates life and
and freedom of expression.

Yes, know thyself, self, the "atman" the Source of all perceivable things.
Trust in self is to create you own lore, story, U-in-verse.

Know that the dreams that one dreams are temporary imaginings that seem real enough.
Once the dream ends, the eternal Self and Dreamer can dream another in whatever order,
context, thought-form, mental images, allowing the scope of imagination.

Becareful of being entrapped in one's dreams and corresponding belief territories.
Lack of imagination and ego attachment can yield the commensurate
repeat performances/pretend play often referred to "reincarnation" 


Note: Reply #8, I forgot to rename the post: With our thoughts we make the world. Dreamer and dream are one.

~

[Wi11iam]

To "speak" with that source you need a special vocabulary, and that vocabulary is the framework. Nobody can access that directly, it's impossible factually and anyway you always filter that experience within your framework (so if you have a working framework the info you get can be used, elsewhere it is useless or partial). In psychology this is called the "subjective synthesis" which you can read about in Assagioli, Karen Horney, William James, or A.A. Brill and that was first introduced by people as Freud and Jung.

Buddha and Buddhism is usually considered as a way to access that source directly, but that's a total incorrect assumption. Buddha used a framework to access that source (he had a system of beliefs and a complete way or interaction), as everybody of those "sages" did.

We are that source. 

Generally it seems to either be ignored or misrepresented.  There is no special vocabulary - it is just an activity of Love...which could be seen as 'special' in the sense that it is often ignored or misrepresented to the point where it is a rare thing for an individual to realize and align with.

...dreamingod...


Ah okay so we are on the same page to that degree.

GOD definitions are likely as not quite faulty due to the human element - the drama as you say.   There is no place GOD cannot be.  The term GOD has so many layers of historical dross that I personally find the term 'Consciousness' more applicable, but even that is subject to distortions based on individual interpretation of what consciousness is exactly - for sure the human drama is an aspect of consciousness reacting to an environment, but the consciousness has been distorted to think certain ways which prohibits full awareness...it is quite an understandable predicament...so deep into the rabbit hole that Consciousness fragments itself into particles of experience, through which it forgets itself, being occupied with the distraction of the said drama.

The Source is nonetheless occupied in this reality through the connections of those individual experiences and as The Whole, is more comfortable with this environment than are its parts...waking up is always a confusing 'time' regardless of the nature of the environment - such are the capable illusions of beginnings - designed for that purpose...rest assured Source is more awake than we are as individuals and perhaps at first trust or even faith are prerequisite...we simple cannot as individuals 'see' the whole picture but there is a whole picture to see, and Source sees it clearly.

All this is real.  Ego didn't persuade me - Source did.  Sure, the human drama is real too, but where it is not real is that it is a reaction to something thought of as real but is not.  Like conspiracies...belief has that power, but the power it does not have is to enforce its imaginings on you without your express permission.  The human drama is but a tiny thing which is hugely distracting for the majority of individuals but for what it is worth, it serves a purpose - something non definable...unnoticed...until one steps outside of it and aligns with that which operates outside of and regardless of said drama.

The drama itself is attractive for its stories, but its stories are inferior to the real story going on...inconsequential.  The attraction can be very compelling, seductive, addictive, but let us not confuse the drama with The Story.
 
That is Truth.

Absolutely.


Reincarnation?  Another belief which feeds the drama...it is about time we stopped getting involved with things which make us forget ourselves if indeed such things cannot help us to also remember.  There is much to be said for the joy of remembering...I had the thought recently that Source enjoys creating new aspects of itself in order to share that joy - perhaps even enjoys seeing itself as a brand new thing...from both the perspective of creator and created, like someone who has known for uncountable ages being realized by someone who is fairly new to the whole experience of existence...and eventually becoming friends...The One no more or less real than The Other...The One who knows and waits for the realization in The Other and the mutual joy of the occasion...one by one...and so did my recent thought create this 'One' or has it always ever been for me to discover?

Is such a question even necessary?

Or is the Mutual Joy the real purpose of the experience...   and from there into eternity...

[Selea]

We are that source.  

Ok. But if you are a bird and you cannot fly, are you still a bird in the practical sense?
What you "are" is not defined just by what you are composed of, but also by the fact of if you can put that "composition" in motion or not.
Even if you know a thing philosophically but then you cannot put it to work in your life, it is just like you didn't know it at all to begin with.

Generally it seems to either be ignored or misrepresented.

The misrepresentation comes exactly by what I was talking about. You can be whatever you want or know whatever you want, until you cannot work with what you know or what you are, you don't really know or are. For this many frameworks got perverted etc., because people instead of working with them started intellectualizing about them only. We as human will never know what's what or what's the real "truth". The only thing that matters is if you can work with that "truth" or not, whatever that is.

There is no special vocabulary - it is just an activity of Love...

Just "loving" or simply "living" will not make you access that source, even if you "are" it intrinsically. Returning to the metaphor of the bird and flying; it is not just because you are a bird that you automatically know how to fly, it has to be learned (in our culture nobody teaches you how to work with a framework to access what you call your "source" - at last in our western culture, but sadly nowadays it is rare even in those cultures that first did teach these things - so you have to learn to do it in other ways).

which could be seen as 'special' in the sense that it is often ignored or misrepresented to the point where it is a rare thing for an individual to realize and align with.

Again, "realizing" and "aligning" with it is not enough. Until you cannot practically work with it you are in the same position of a person not "realizing" or "aligning" with it to begin with.
You can think you are in a better position because you are aware of something others are ignorant of, but it is just an intellectual pretense. If you read 100 books on how to paint but you cannot anyway paint are you really in a better position than somebody that never read anything at all about it and cannot paint? Think about this.

[Wi11iam]

You appear to be teaching that no matter what you do, you cannot be what you are. 



There are many birds that do not fly, but they are birds no less right?

http://www.kiwisource.co.nz/images/ks_kiwi.jpg

Now with birds, a bird does not go around thinking 'I am a bird' - it just is, and does what it does.

Humans are different, and when ignorant or indifferent or misinformed as to their source they behave within the framework of such thinking/belief.

But still, they tend to say "I am a human" - even those who cannot walk, or speak, or hear or see...that is their main identity and there is no need or concern with identifying with being something other than 'human' and aligning with that belief.

The Source is not human, but it is that which is experiencing being human and knows this intimately.  The aligning comes when the individual begins and continues to align with that understanding..."I am Source having an individual experience as a human being" - where that unfolds in a linear manner within the framework of a life time on this planet for you it will break you free from the former identity and reveal to you your true self and in this sense you are both the ever always has existed and the new creation which ever always will exist and this due to the fact that part of the human experience involves amnesia and thus an opportunity of rediscovery as to your true self (The Source) which is veiled by such things as ignorance, misinformation, human god concepts, indifference etc.

Loving and Living that love and forgiving the misleading are prerequisite to accessing The Source and aligning through realization.  Whoever told you otherwise has an agenda to mislead, and whoever tells me otherwise is part of that agenda.

Belief that you cannot access and align, is the surest way not to.  Attempting to convince others is like spreading a virus.

   

[Selea]

You appear to be teaching that no matter what you do, you cannot be what you are.  

No, I'm just saying that what you really are doesn't necessarily translate in what you are. Or even better: what you think you are doesn't necessarily mean that you really are that (seldom it does, in fact).

There are many birds that do not fly, but they are birds no less right?

It was just an example to try to make you understand a point, you are taking it far too literally.

Now with birds, a bird does not go around thinking 'I am a bird' - it just is, and does what it does.

Because the mother introduces the bird on being a "bird". If you raise the bird from the egg it will not become a bird in the practical sense if you cannot teach it to do so. It will try to behave as you, an human, behave. Will it then be a bird or not? It will be, as a specie, but for all practical purposes it will not be a bird, because if you don't teach it how to enter in the framework that turns it into a bird practically, it will never be able to function as a member of that specie. Superficially it will be a bird, but practically it will not be.

Humans are different, and when ignorant or indifferent or misinformed as to their source they behave within the framework of such thinking/belief.

Again, knowing about your "source" doesn't mean that you can work with that source, and if you cannot work with it what difference does it really make if you know you are that source or not?
Can you, for example, link with it given that you know you are that source? If you cannot do that what do you think makes you in a better position, practically, than somebody not knowing this at all?

The Source is not human, but it is that which is experiencing being human and knows this intimately.

What you talk about, the feeling of a consciousness, is true for every human alike. You cannot be ignorant of it. What humans are mostly ignorant of is the nature of that consciousness, but that's a thing that must be experienced. Knowing that this nature exist or not knowing it does make no difference at all on you really knowing that nature and linking to it. It does only for what it concerns an intellectual and philosophical understanding, but the only way to have knowledge of that nature is through direct experience, so having an intellectual understanding of it has no impact whatsoever on your knowledge of it.

The aligning comes when the individual begins and continues to align with that understanding..."I am Source having an individual experience as a human being" - where that unfolds in a linear manner within the framework of a life time on this planet for you it will break you free from the former identity and reveal to you your true self

And you really think that just knowing that you are that source will make you able to "break free from the former identity and reveal to you your true self"? Do you really think so? My friend, if it was such everybody reading a book on this (there are thousands) would be able to do so, isn't it? As everybody reading a book on boxe would be a boxer, isn't it?

Loving and Living that love and forgiving the misleading are prerequisite to accessing The Source and aligning through realization.

No. The prerequisite to access that source is forming a link with it (and this usually happens through a working framework and a lot of work, but you can have glimpses of that link through many sources, some of which artificial).
As for love, while a very good thing in itself, it is not the only feeling and emotion in nature. No part is more important than any other and this is the same for emotions. You can access that source through love as you can through hate as you can access it through calm or through violence.
If you begin to differentiate things in the whole then it will be a whole anymore.

Whoever told you otherwise has an agenda to mislead, and whoever tells me otherwise is part of that agenda.

As you like.

Belief that you cannot access and align, is the surest way not to.  Attempting to convince others is like spreading a virus.
   

Belief that you can do a thing just because you know what that thing is it is the surest way to delude yourself you achieved a lot while you did nothing at all.
Look at all the systems that try to achieve the link with that source, and watch how many practical results that indicate that you are coming near there are. Do you think they are there just for show? No. They are there because, especially in these things, your mind can make you believe you are doing a lot of things when in fact you are doing anything. The practical results are there to let you have evidence if that's the case or not.

[Wi11iam]

The link is always present - realizing and alignment is the 'forming' - not of the link, but the relationship.


The relationship is not something measured for practicality from an observers perspective but from the participators perspective and the value is in that, not how you, a group or a world might decide as to 'what is practical'.

[Selea]

The link is always present - realizing and alignment is the 'forming' - not of the link, but the relationship.

Argue semantics as you like, there is still a difference between understanding that "you are that source" and being able to work with this understanding.

The relationship is not something measured for practicality from an observers perspective but from the participators perspective and the value is in that, not how you, a group or a world might decide as to 'what is practical'.

The practical measurement is standing on the fact that the "relationship" (as you call it) builds up certain results that are objectively there.

Let see if I can make you a methapor whereby you can understand the thing.
Consider a light-bulb. Now consider this light-bulb being covered so much in soot (or whatever you want) that the light passes no more. Naturally the light-bulb is still a light-bulb, yet for all practical and functional purposes it is not a light-bulb anymore on the fact that it is like it is broken (so in functional terms the light-bulb doesn't conform to a light-bulb anymore).

If you know that the problem of the light-bulb is just that it is covered on soot and not that it is effectively broken is this understanding making you, by itself, in a better position than a person thinking the light-bulb is broken? Naturally not; the only advantage it gives it is on the fact that this understanding can motivate yourself on removing the soot, if you are able to, but it is just an indirect advantage; this understanding by itself will not make the light-bulb function just because you know it.

The same is for you and your source. You are that source and yet at the same time you aren't, because for a normal individual that source is like covered by soot in the methaphor of the light-bulb; until you don't remove that soot the light-bulb (e.g. the source) will not have its practical function, no matter if it is there and you already are that. As for knowing you are that source vs. not knowing it, this understanding by itself is not enough to be able to remove the soot, it is just an understanding that there's a problem, nothing more. You are in no better position than one not knowing it at all until you cannot remove the soot.

[Wi11iam]

... there is still a difference between understanding that "you are that source" and being able to work with this understanding.

Okay well it is likely a topic on its own, but I am prepared to give examples of working with the understanding - if you are free to accompany me down that path, perhaps we can take a walk together?

Essentially though, there is no 'difference' (from my own perspective) and am I safe to assume that you are speaking from your own experience that your own understanding that 'you are the source' is different from you 'working with this understanding'?

The practical measurement is standing on the fact that the "relationship" (as you call it) builds up certain results that are objectively there.

Let see if I can make you a methapor whereby you can understand the thing.
Consider a light-bulb. Now consider this light-bulb being covered so much in soot (or whatever you want) that the light passes no more. Naturally the light-bulb is still a light-bulb, yet for all practical and functional purposes it is not a light-bulb anymore on the fact that it is like it is broken (so in functional terms the light-bulb doesn't conform to a light-bulb anymore).

If you know that the problem of the light-bulb is just that it is covered on soot and not that it is effectively broken is this understanding making you, by itself, in a better position than a person thinking the light-bulb is broken? Naturally not; the only advantage it gives it is on the fact that this understanding can motivate yourself on removing the soot, if you are able to, but it is just an indirect advantage; this understanding by itself will not make the light-bulb function just because you know it.

The same is for you and your source. You are that source and yet at the same time you aren't, because for a normal individual that source is like covered by soot in the methaphor of the light-bulb; until you don't remove that soot the light-bulb (e.g. the source) will not have its practical function, no matter if it is there and you already are that. As for knowing you are that source vs. not knowing it, this understanding by itself is not enough to be able to remove the soot, it is just an understanding that there's a problem, nothing more. You are in no better position than one not knowing it at all until you cannot remove the soot.

Ah - perhaps I have misinterpreted your approach here, and you mine?  Your analogy of the soot covered light bulb is what I was referring to in regard to indifference, self identification (I am human body - gender, race, religion, political alignment etc), ignorance, or belief in misrepresentation, or understanding 'love' as having an opposite, such as 'hate'.

It is not that 'I am that source yet at the same time I am not' so much as I am Source within the framework of an individual experience and that the individual experience can and does function interdependently from that awareness, realization and alignment.
There is that natural process of understanding which is part of the bridging which occurs as the realization increases in ones awareness and the focus shifts, but it is a tool which will eventually be discarded, having served its purpose.

It is not that the Source wishes for us all to 'become what it is' but to fully embrace what it is doing within the framework of our own individuality.  There is a belief that we are destined to 'return' to the source, as if somehow that source is elsewhere - in some state of pure unchanged 'light' or attitude...like nirvana and such.  

In the sense I am saying "We Are Source"  "You Are Source"  "I Am Source" it is to do with the realization that whatever environment we are within, We are The Source within that environment.

If we are unaware of this, it does not stop us being 'something' but like that sooty light-bulb, we are not functional within that environment to the degree we are able to be.

We are not the light-bulb, nor the light, nor the wiring, nor the power generator, nor the dam/nuclear reactor, nor the water/sun, nor the galaxy, nor the non physical reality etc etc....these are environments.  Source can experience being light, sound, star, planet,water, insect, tree, human, etc but it is none of these 'things' or even 'non things'.

[flavian]

Returning to the topic here... Constructs, Thought Forms and other artifical beings

It's interesting to observe that when we enter the astral realms, the LD or OBE worlds, we become gods of our own universes. In there we can create our own space, we can transform our bodies and we can create other beings. That should help us understand we might be it. We might be some of those "artificial beings" created by some god of this universe.

Also, the fact that the astral world has some interesting similarities with the "real" one, might make us think that it's only leveles. We can influence with our thoughts the "real" world as this has been alreasy proven in so many experiments, in quantum phisics and other areas. True, it a lot harder to do influence it that the astral one. That's where the "levels" model becomes interesting.

At one level we might have the "real" world, at another one the OBE world, at yet another the LD, then the dream world and so on. They differ one from another by the "stability", by the resistance to change, by our awareness of the environment and in many other ways. It's like diving in the ocean. It's one thing to swim, to dive at 1 meter, or 5 meters, or 500 meters below surface.

It's all water allright, but depends at what level you try to work and how much force u use to try and make something happen. Also, ripples from one level could influence the other levels, with some time lapse, of course, and with some differences in manifestation or power. Depending also on the skills of the "diver" that travels between them....

[flavian]

Browsing around, I have also encountered Frank's model: http://www.astralpulse.com/frankkepple.html

It' s something like that I wanted to express, but of course he does a much better job...

[raditus]

When I was a kid, around 12/13ish, I read from an astral travel book how to create Astral Watchers. I started off small, a simple form of energy that I programmed to look like a solid metal ball. I would always create it in school. (I always did magic right in school behind everyone backs.) I would always call it back after the job was completed because of the warning in the book said that if you left it out for too long, it would evolve as a existing being and might lash out at you if you tried any further to treat it as a servant.

I had a bad habit of wandering off in Grocery Stores (it was way before Walmart was in our area, let alone a superstore.) and getting lost so long that it took an hour for my parents to find me. Many a time it ended up me being yelled at and grounded as soon as we got home. I got real tired of this, so I started creating my Watcher to be a "Parent Locater" if I found myself lost. I also made her look Human for the first time.

"This way," or "Come on, this way." would be her voice in my head. I could see her walk off confidently in a direction of the store and I would follow her. My parents were found nearly soon after. Soon enough, after about 20 times of doing this, I ended up being able to shave at least a half an hour from the whole hour it used to take for them find find me.

I soon created her and made her go into an AU place and hang out there the whole time while I slept for the night. What ended up happening then was that I started dreaming about what she was going on with her over in the other place. Quiet like a computer monitor or TV set.

Since then, I have 'upgraded' my Astral Watchers that I create. Her looks and names I call her by have changed, as well as the complexity of her tasks. And I do not treat her as a object, more like I would treat one of my own sisters.   

[DarkHorizon]

Aren't they more of an equal to us? Even as a construct, if the being tried to rebel, its not so much of a simple, servant. Has anyone tried teaching these "constructs" that they are the Gods of their reality, and are free?