Greetings,

Towards the end of 'Otherwhere,' author Leland (also a TMI grad) says--

'Any symbol encountered in the Afterdeath Zone is sustained
by people's belief in it....After millenia of being fed by a people's
beliefs, the symbols are so powerful that no one alive could
dissipate the energy contained in them.'

Does this account for the variety of forms or entities we might see while we're out exploring?
If so, if we set up a meditation session where we on purpose thought of a negative symbol or form and repeated that we did not believe in it, could we weaken it?  Would our focussed intent give strength to our attack on it?

Just wonderring,
Bets

Not too sure but I think the problem may be that the mind cannot process negatives. The task is essentially a 'not doing' one  - anything you can imagine is by definition a 'something' and not a 'not something' if you know what I mean.

There's a view that the entire reality that supports the life/death/afterlife/rebirth cycle of existence is anyway a collective delusion brought about by the dream of separation from God. (or from absolute reality) Described very nicely in the opening chapter of Gary Renard's  'The Disappearance of the Universe' which is a more accessible introduction to the ideas contained in A Course in Miracles. Which essentially has it that this whole reality will 'blink out' when we collectively  finish learning and 'forgive' or  transcend it.

This 'forgiveness' may be as close as you can come to eliminating such apparent realities via an act of mind. But it's essentially a dropping/non adopting of an erroneous belief rather than the creation of any new mind object.

'Not doing' ( as in meditation) is from my own experience quite magical. It clearly changes things to produce a noticeable change in our view, but we can't seem to process what's actually going on.

Buddhism  (forgive me if I'm not 100 accurate in what I say) has subject to variations in terminology a more or less similar view - it teaches that all of this interdependent cause ad consequence generated form is a creation of mind, but that it is essentially impermanent and empty dreamlike illusion created by delusional belief.

That all of the apparent entities and constructs contained in it (including the delusion of self existence) are essentially the creation of the collective or primordial mind. Realisation much as in ACIM provides the means to transcend it. The path back to the dharmakaya or true/absolute reality being a progressive dropping of the delusional belief.

There's even views out there from the like of David Icke that this whole reality is a delusion created by nasties as a form of Matrix like prison to milk us of one or another form of energy.

The one thing that's very clear is that there's something inbuilt in mind that very strongly pre-disposes us towards the creation of more and more layers of mind made reality. Which initially are mind existing only, but we still seem to be able to inhabit them. (obsessive mind states for example) The only thing that seems to slow us down (give us an incentive to get on the spiritual path) is the pain and suffering that results as we move further away from God or the true nature of primordial mind....

betson wrote on Jul 6^th, 2007 at 11:10am:

Does this account for the variety of forms or entities we might see while we're out exploring? If so, if we set up a meditation session where we on purpose thought of a negative symbol or form and repeated that we did not believe in it, could we weaken it?  Would our focussed intent give strength to our attack on it? Just wonderring, Bets

I think it would be effective temporarily as a distraction, but it would begin with a focused intention of resistance. In my opinion, anything resisted in an attitude of attack brings unintended repercussions along with an outcome. These repercussions are not necessarily negative, but can complicate the situation.

Therefore, at this time, I would replace the thought of "evil" with that of "good" and see evil as simply an obstacle that can "never touch me" as Kelly Howell says. It is already removed from my sight.

See, I think that is the difference. See it as done, as so many others say. Then there is no need to attack, no need to defend, no need to focus intensely on any aspect which is troublesome.

This too shall pass. You are automatically free to live in the present moment, without fear. You are automatically connected with Divine Source as soon as you let go of whatever is restricting you from All That Is.

I guess this is all another way of saying that if you want to see your enemy less, let go of your enemy.

love, blink :)

Betson, what do you meen by Grad?

Greetings Hawkeye,

Uh-oh, Did I mis-speak?  Leland refers to his 6 lab sessions on most of the 9 pages where he brings up the Monroe Institute name.  So I just thought that anyone who had been there that often must have gotten through a course or two. Did I use the wrong word?

Bets

I've heard this theory about persisting symbology, or simply put, thoughts, imaginations etc... in the astral or "otherwhere" before I've read it from Leland, it seems a common idea of occultists and theosophical societies, and astral travelers seem to confirm it. Monroe's belief system territories and the human thought-noise he wrote about is something similar, or the same. This idea had become popular as well with Sheldrakes "Morphogenetic Field", which is the same idea in a more scientific context.

I think you're all right. To weaken those thought-things, if possible, is to not tune in them, to not think about them. Like Bruce's "seeing it not there". The only way to actively remove those thought things, I guess, could be that many people would re-build them rather than to imagine them to be not existing.

Spooky

I'm reminded of the folk belief that if one thinks of an elephant while taking medicine, at least in some parts of India, then the medicine will be counteracted. So the doctor begins the visit, "Don't think of an elephant." That way he has an excuse if the medicine fails, because it is certain that the patient immediately thought of an elephant.

In the same way, when a hypnotist tells someone, "Stop eating Twinkies," it leads to greater consumption, because the "doing it" part must preceed the "stopping doing".

However, if one works through a the logic, such as, "Darkness is only the absence of light. But everything is made of light. Therefor no darkness truly exists." Then darkness will not be perceived.

I can't think of any other way to sucessfully "weaken" a thought form.

dave

dave_a_mbs wrote on Jul 6^th, 2007 at 10:29pm:

I'm reminded of the folk belief that if one thinks of an elephant while taking medicine, at least in some parts of India, then the medicine will be counteracted. So the doctor begins the visit, "Don't think of an elephant." That way he has an excuse if the medicine fails, because it is certain that the patient immediately thought of an elephant. In the same way, when a hypnotist tells someone, "Stop eating Twinkies," it leads to greater consumption, because the "doing it" part must preceed the "stopping doing". However, if one works through a the logic, such as, "Darkness is only the absence of light. But everything is made of light. Therefor no darkness truly exists." Then darkness will not be perceived. I can't think of any other way to sucessfully "weaken" a thought form. dave

I don't have anything deep and relevant to contribute, I just wanted to say that I liked that darkness/light logic. :)

To that point and the above. There's lots of examples out there where when asking/praying for things that it's seen as important that the request is structured the right way. On the basis that while the words may say one thing, the act of bringing whatever it is into your consciousness and putting energy into it actually creates or gives it reality for you.

Another aspect of the same idea is the way that it's often said that we bring that which we most fear into our lives. The mechanism is presumably the same, albeit sometimes given a positive spin by the idea that it's the way we arrange experience to learn those lessons we most need. There's no hiding in the mind, or escaping the need to resolve our demons...

Another view is that as above this entire reality and system of so called learning/lessons/life/death/afterlife/rebirth is all a dream - is something we have imagined into reality. That the game is to (collectively) cease believing in its existence so we can get back to God who has no need of anything. That it has no meaning whatsoever other than that having (maybe even accidentally) separated from God we can't seem to stop creating - digging ourselves further into the mire.

It's interesting the way we have such a strong drive to create ever more complicated and ever deeper layers of mind objects which take us further from God/Spirit - especially in the Western world....

I sympathize with Vajra's view. Whenever I have a project running, at some point I become restless and have sleep problems. I then am immersed in the business of the world. To take a step back then, holding more distance of all the activities which our world provides, is giving relief then.

But there's a problem. When following Vajra's view consequently, I would step back from everything. I would be careless, because I wouldn't care of anything and anyone. It means nothing else than stopping being human, be it actually leaving physically, or become a sort of automatically acting guy in human shape, because every thing I'd do with will, awareness and thought would entangle me necessarily deeper in this physical area. The fear I have is when being careless this way, would I miss the point of my life?

Spooky

From my experience, any construct There, has to be actively maintained
by a conscious focus otherwise someone else can destroy it.

For example, I might encounter a retrievee in a particular scene where they are the
only one in that scene and then I somehow send him/her to a higher vibration.
At that point, if I still linger in that scene, I can begin to "crumble" it quite literally
by intending to do so.

The idea that some symbols are living, means they are currently being maintained by
conscious thoughts of people (alive or dead) who believe in them.
I'm not sure if they can be destroyed until the amount of destructive intent exceeds the amount of conscious intent keeping them active.

-mike

:) That sounds like my working life too Spooky....

I suppose however there are distinctions if I take the Buddhist view as best I understand it.

The higher view is that this time/space/afterlife reality is illusory, and that the game is to transcend it. And that having done so it ceases to be of relevance. (and that includes all religious teaching)

On the other hand those of us stuck in this lower reality, mostly believing it and the illusion of self to be real can only transcend it by through life experience and practice coming to know experientally (belief is irrelevant) that this is the case.

And that the path to this state of consciousness lies in working with our lives to genuinely transcend the lower reality.

So our issues with big projects probably flow from the way we relate to them and the surrounding situation and the inappropriate fear they induce in us - we've still got work  to do..

While the higher view might seem to suggest (and is often interpreted in that way) that life is a crock which we can walk away from that's not the case. To interpret it in this way would at best a mistaken view, and at worse an indulging in escapism.

Buddhism and other spiritual traditions (e.g. ACIM which is very clear on this) are I guess full of situation where teachings at differing levels appear to contradict each other.

Tibetan Buddhism splits its teachings to address differing levels or views - the hinayana/mahayana/vajrayana vehicles which build on each other.  

Probably just another example of the way that higher truths expressed at this level and via our cognition seem inevitably to entail paradox....

Vajra said: Buddhism and other spiritual traditions (e.g. ACIM which is very clear on this) are I guess full of situation where teachings at differing levels appear to contradict each other.\


Recoverer says: Sometimes teachings do more than contradict each other. For example, consider the following from page 263 of Gary Renard's Dissapearance of the Universe:

"But people can't tell you the whole experience (near death experience), and they'd be dead! Of course it's their body that would appear dead, and they'd be moving on to the next illusory lifetime.

What happens is that the awe eventually wears off because the unconscious guilt that is still within the mind starts to catch up with you. This causes you to reincarnate as a way of escaping your guilt and your fear of God. This "always" happens to you eventually, unless your mind has been completely healed by the Holy Spirit."

I've read numerous near death experiences that don't support the above. An NDE doesn't come to an end because a person "fears" God and has unconscious guilt. Many near death experiences make it very clear that THEY DID NOT FEAR GOD. Completely the opposite. They also make it clear that they deal with guilt issues by having a life review. Many have stated that their NDE came to an end, because either they were told it was time for them to return to physical life because they had more to accomplish, or they were given a choice and chose to return.

My experiences and the experiences of many others (including Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen),  clearly show that most Souls aren't compelled to reincarnate shortly after death because of "guilt" and "fear of God." Rather, they move onto the spirit  realm that matches their predominant state of being, and the issue of reincarnation, if it comes up, comes up in a much more selective manner than Gary Renard states.

To believe what Gary Renard has to say about the matter and to believe what somebody such as Bruce Moen has to say about the matter, is to believe in two completely different ways of viewing things.

There was a time when I would've believed a lot of what Gary Renard has to say because I used to be into Vedanta. I have since found that spiritual truth goes far beyond what Vedanta has to share.

One other point. Gary Renard writes that a Soul has to reincarnate thousands of times before it returns to God. Let's say he means just 5,000, rather than 999 thousand.  5,000 x 60 years = 300,000 years of physical life without ever getting a signifcant break. Considering how many tough lifetimes there are on this planet, this is a hard concept to fathom.

What Mendel says makes sense to me. Unless somebody is consciously choosing to keep a mind creation intact, it is liable to fall apart.

I believe it is important to consider that Kurt Leland is a huge Seth (Jane Roberts) fan. He tried to channel Seth but didn't succeed. He played around with ouija boards for a while. Eventually he started channeling (not with the assistance of an ouija board) what he refers to as a "Seth like entity." He has been doing so since 1981. If a person is like me and has found that Seth made some very misleading statements on some very key issues, such a person might want to use some discernment when it comes to what Kurt Leland has to say.



Mendel wrote on Jul 7^th, 2007 at 10:53pm:

From my experience, any construct There, has to be actively maintained by a conscious focus otherwise someone else can destroy it. For example, I might encounter a retrievee in a particular scene where they are the only one in that scene and then I somehow send him/her to a higher vibration. At that point, if I still linger in that scene, I can begin to "crumble" it quite literally by intending to do so. The idea that some symbols are living, means they are currently being maintained by conscious thoughts of people (alive or dead) who believe in them. I'm not sure if they can be destroyed until the amount of destructive intent exceeds the amount of conscious intent keeping them active. -mike

Recoverer,

and such a person might thank you very much for the information. ;)

Bets

I get what you're saying Bets, but I meant anybody who has come to the same conclusion about Seth. Several people who visit this board don't think of him as an advanced light being.


betson wrote on Jul 11^th, 2007 at 10:00pm:

Recoverer, and such a person might thank you very much for the information. ;) Bets

Seems to me that this applies to C1 as well, which I find more intriguing:

'Any symbol encountered in the Afterdeath Zone is sustained  
by people's belief in it....After millenia of being fed by a people's  
beliefs, the symbols are so powerful that no one alive could  
dissipate the energy contained in them.'

Same for this:

The idea that some symbols are living, means they are currently being maintained by
conscious thoughts of people (alive or dead) who believe in them.  
I'm not sure if they can be destroyed until the amount of destructive intent exceeds the amount of conscious intent keeping them active.  


That's true here too, though I would prefer to think of things being destroyed as more like sand castles being washed away by the tide (of positive energy) rather than thinking of trying to destroy things, though cute little boys tearing into my sandcastles might amuse rather than anger me....

And sand castles aren't trivial things either!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/gallery/071207_Revere_Sand?p1=email_to_a_friend