Conversation Board - Deepak Chopra

EternalEssence

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 127

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #30 - Nov 15^th, 2007 at 3:39pm

It isn't a matter of speaking about "my truth." To be frank, that is such a new agey thing to say. People tend to use such a way of thinking when they are more interested in having truth be what their ego wants it to be, rather than being interested in finding out what truth actually is.
Well, new agey or not, it is what it is. Your ego is yours, so go find your truth or whatever. There are some here who journey just fine, as I am sure you are finding out. Obviously, this is another attempt to -- to be frank -- to reduce anything that is said in contrast to you to something that you consider beneath you, which involves the ego, as you have said. At this point, any further discussion would silly. So, I can end it there, quite happily, still parked where I had been, but enjoying the scenery.

"If Christ is in fact a key part of divine reality, then it isn't a matter of opinion, no matter how hard some people insist that it is. People can try to deny Christ's relevance all they want, but his relevance doesn't go away simply because for whatever reason they find it inconvenient or threatening to acknowledge it." Well, this is the expression of your opinion. Also, whose threatened? I'm actually quite happy at this point and don't feel threatened by anything you have said at all. Maybe someone else on the board is, but that's them. I'm sure they will be okay. As to the possible validity of the idea you present: It's great to ponder its possible validity in the scheme of things.

When I've had experiences and received messages about Christ, they weren't presented to me in a manner of "if this is the truth you want, then here you go." They were presented to me in ways that showed that I was being shown "what truth is" not what is preferential. But that's your opinion of how you perceived it. I accept that has valid for you and glad you had such an exciting tale to tell afterward.

Regarding NDEs, I didn't state that NDEs without Christ are invalidated by NDEs with Christ. I believe it is very possible for a person to have a genuine NDE without the presence of Christ being involved. What I said is that NDEs with Christ can't be reduced to some sort of imaginary experience, simply because some people have NDEs without Christ. There are NDEs where people experienced Christ not because of their pre-existing belief system, but because this is what the divine powers that be wanted to reveal to them. Thanks for the clarification.

E.
Smiley

Back to top

The elegance of the final produce belies the chaos of its construction.

IP Logged

Berserk2

Super Member

Offline

Posts: 844
Gender: male

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #31 - Nov 15^th, 2007 at 3:51pm

recoverer (Albert? Bert? Al? What's your preference?):

Your comments are some of the most discerning on this site in quite a while. Early Christianity identified Jesus as the "Word" (Greek: Logos). "Logos" means the rational self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability. As the Logos, Christ conveys His presence primarily in terms of the "rich feel" of His PUL and graces, not in terms of His physical identity.

The earthly Jesus taught that true spirituality is better caught than taught. For this reason, Jesus teaches in archetypally profound parables which He does not explain to outsiders. He wants His hearers to project themselves into the dynamics of His stories and discern their meaning for themselves. In my view, the Being of Light in NDEs is always Christ when it radiates PUL to the patient. Christ's preferred procedure is the same as it was during His earthly ministry. He ideally wants patients to discern His identity rather than to be "sledge-hammered" with it. Once Jesus is discerned, He often explicitly confirms this identity even to atheists like Howard Storm and, rarely, to Muslims and Jews. But we know very little about His criteria for explicit self-identification.

Basic Christian doctrine is absolute truth, but what this means has not been rightly grasped. Doctrines are merely tools to facilitate a higher state of loving consciousness that God approves. The Bible implies that this state of consciousness can be achieved apart from formal profession of faith in Christ. This paradox helps explain Christ's two seemingly inconsistent statements to Howard Storm during His NDE:

(1) "Question: Which is the best religion?" Answer: "The religion that brings you closest to
God (73)."
(2) "No one will go to God except through the atonement of Christ, the love of Christ, and the
way of Christ...But...Christ reaches to all people everywhere in all time, space, heaven,
and hell (67)."

As the rational self-expression of God, Christ manifests under various images, identities, and myths to sentient beings in all cultures and planets with intelligent life comparable to our own, according to Storm's NDE Jesus. Anti-Christian astral projectors like Robert Monroe, Bruce Moen, and Robert Bruce freely admit that they have been unable to explore certain lofty astral realms. NDEs like psychiatrist George Ritchie's suggest that astral explorers are denied access to Christ if their core attitude is not receptive to His vibration. Like Storm, Swedenborg experiences Christ as THE dominant presence in the higher heavens. New Age astral explorers need to open their hearts to the glorious possibility of direct encounters with Christ's vibration. How sad it is that Monroe, Moen, and Robert Bruce don't even seem open and intellectually curious enough to make the effort.

Don

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 15^th, 2007 at 5:41pm by Berserk2 »

IP Logged

DocM

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2168

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #32 - Nov 15^th, 2007 at 4:30pm

Don said:
" New Age astral explorers need to open their hearts to the glorious possibilty of direct encounters with Christ's vibration. How sad it is that Monroe, Moen, and Robert Bruce don't even seem open and intellectually curious enough to make the effort."

What arrogance. How could you know how open or not these individuals were/are to Christ's vibration? How many astral or other experiences have each had, and how many of those results are you truly aware of? Ah, but it does concern you that some have explored the Heavens, found versions of them, like Focus 27, but that they were not sectioned off by a "I am the light and the way" gate - without which you could not gain entrance.

I am always curious, why it is better to develop a personal relationship with Christ, than with God and the universe. Everything I've read suggests that an earthly name could not have any major relevance compared with following the main precepts of love of God and love of one's fellow man. Most spiritual people understand that holding onto earthly things, ego-based things are a hindrance to spiritual progression. In the end this includes, bodies, possesions, and yes names.

How then would it be to identify Christ as PUL? Why is it important to use the name Christ, and know him that way, when he was simply "I am that I am" to the Hebrews (and to the earthly Jesus as a rabbi).

Why are spiritual seekers somehow "missing the point," if they revere God, love and PUL without personalizing God as Jesus of Nazareth? Even your mentor, Don, Swedenborg warns that Christians who believe in a true trinity but don't fuse father/son/holy spirit into one, never really attain true union with God.

For me, spirituality rises above "us vs. them," above culture and ritual. And I suppose, I would add that true spirituality rises above my placing one name of form of God (mine or my religion's) above others. I feel that the teachings of the New Testament are beautiful, and even as a Jew by birth, I resonate with the truths found therein about love.

Heaven is found in experience, not in study alone. I do not believe Monroe/Moen/Bruce were all "closed off" from Christ's vibration, and somehow missed everything. If they are true seekers, and good people, they will find their way to Heaven one way or another. But what if Heaven is not what you presume it to be? Will you still seek it?

Matthew

Back to top

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #33 - Nov 15^th, 2007 at 5:09pm

Don:

Thank you for your kind words and I prefer Albert.

Doc:

I believe that Robert Monroe was a loving person and that Bruce Moen is a loving person. I believe they've made some important contributions to metaphysical knowledge.

Nevertheless, I wonder why neither of them wrote of having experiences with Christ, while others have. It is possible that Bruce met with the presence of Christ when he met with what he referred to as the planning intelligence. His exploratory partner Denise saw visions of Jesus when she met the planning intelligence and thought the name "planning intelligence" was too sterile. Perhaps Bruce's dislike for fundamentalist Christianity prevented him from making a connection between the planning intelligence and Christ. It may be that the divine powers that be understood that Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen would be reaching out to audiences who start to feel uncomfortable when the issue of Christ comes up. I used to be the same, until I decided to find out if there is another way to look at things.

Don suggested a possibility about how Christ plays a major role when he wrote the following:

Early Christianity identified Jesus as the "Word" (Greek: Logos). "Logos" means the rational self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability. As the Logos, Christ conveys His presence primarily in terms of the "rich feel" of His PUL and graces, not in terms of His physical identity."

This reminds me of how the Gospel of John speaks. It also reminds me of what Howard Storm found out about Christ during his near death experience. That Christ is the part of God that created this and other universes. It also goes along with what Emanual Swedenborg stated, when he wrote that God, holy spirit and Christ are all one thing. Each of these views suggest that Christ might be the planning intelligence Bruce wrote of, and possibly even beyond.

One night before I went to bed I prayed and asked to have a dream which answered whether the above way of viewing Christ is true, and instead of having a dream I woke up in the middle of the night and was visited by the presence of Christ. This presence appeared as a flash of light that was much bigger and much more powerful than any of the spirit being flashes I've experienced before (they appear in such a way when one sees them through one's crown chakra). This presence felt more real than the physical World. It felt divine. It worked on my energetic system for about fifteen minutes in a manner that was beyond how my awakened kundalini has ever worked on me. Ever since the energetic pathway from my heart chakra to my crown chakra has been more clear, balanced and alive. It is almost as if an energetic pathway exists that serves the purpose of allowing Christ into our lives.

When my prayer was answered in such a way, I figured that regardless of how specifically Christ exists, he can be anywhere and in as many places as he wants to be.

If the above is considered, perhaps the meaning of the Howard Storm quote Don provided below is revealed:

2) "No one will go to God except through the atonement of Christ, the love of Christ, and the
way of Christ...But...Christ reaches to all people everywhere in all time, space, heaven,
and hell (67)."

I don't believe people have to be afraid that they are going to have to accept something they find repugnant when they move on to the World of spirit. The love they yearn for comes from the Christ principle spoken about above. I don't know how precisely, but the messages and experiences I've had have showed me that Jesus in some way represents the above principle. When I go to heaven I won't view him as an egotistical dictator. I'll view him as a great leader and example who led the way and helped me immensely.

Please consider the possibility that there are some people who speak of Christ in the way they do not because they have negative opinions about people who follow non-Christian religions. It could be that they think of Christ in the above manner. A principle that existed long before this World or any of its religions existed. Certainly there is no reason to have hard feelings about a a man/spirit such as Jesus, who in some way represented and still represents this principle.

Back to top

IP Logged

DocM

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2168

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #34 - Nov 15^th, 2007 at 5:45pm

Hi Albert,

I am open to the possibility of encounters with Christ, but am also trying to be open to love and the truth wherever I find it. In some ways, I do think that the insistence on saying that others who have found God are "missing something wonderful," if they don't identify the divine as Jesus are clinging to an earthly identity rather than a spiritual truth.

I respect your epiphany as being real and true to you. I became incensed at the comment I quoted from Don, and the smarmy certitude it radiated/implied, eventhough the astral adepts he mentioned may have had many experiences to which he was not privy.

If another gains insight into PUL and believe that God as a whole is love - if that love is manifest and present in a person as love of God and one's fellow man, does it matter if an individual calls God, "God" or "Christ?" I think, in a cosmic sense it is irrelevant.

Matthew

Back to top

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #35 - Nov 15^th, 2007 at 5:53pm

Doc:

To keep it simple, I believe God loves everybody, and if a person is a loving person, this is true regardless of what he or she believes.

I don't write what I write about Christ in order to put people down. I just like to suggest that if somebody wants to spiritually check out what Christ is about, the opportunity is there.

DocM wrote on Nov 15^th, 2007 at 5:45pm:

Hi Albert,

I am open to the possibility of encounters with Christ, but am also trying to be open to love and the truth wherever I find it. In some ways, I do think that the insistence on saying that others who have found God are "missing something wonderful," if they don't identify the divine as Jesus are clinging to an earthly identity rather than a spiritual truth.

I respect your epiphany as being real and true to you. I became incensed at the comment I quoted from Don, and the smarmy certitude it radiated/implied, eventhough the astral adepts he mentioned may have had many experiences to which he was not privy.

If another gains insight into PUL and believe that God as a whole is love - if that love is manifest and present in a person as love of God and one's fellow man, does it matter if an individual calls God, "God" or "Christ?" I think, in a cosmic sense it is irrelevant.

Matthew

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 15^th, 2007 at 9:14pm by recoverer »

IP Logged

AhSoLaoTsuAhhOmmra

Ex Member

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #36 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 1:15am

Berserk2 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2007 at 3:51pm:

Anti-Christian astral projectors like Robert Monroe, Bruce Moen, and Robert Bruce freely admit that they have been unable to explore certain lofty astral realms... How sad it is that Monroe, Moen, and Robert Bruce don't even seem open and intellectually curious enough to make the effort.

Don

Don, why do you say stuff like this, why the need to degrade? First off, its not even true to begin with. In Bob's first book, he talks about an experience with possibly "God's Son". In his 2nd book, he shares a channeling session of one of his explorers or someone who attended the Gateway program, which quite clearly was the Christ, who even talks about the 2nd coming, and what this consciousness's nature is.

In the 3rd book, he talks about meeting He/She the some 1800 year old person whom his Greater self directed him to after asking to meet the most spiritually mature person living in his time/space cycle.

True, in none of these experiences, does he outright label these "Jesus" or "Christ", but if he was really anti-Christian, he wouldn't have shared these because its pretty obvious that he eventually found out exactly who and what this person is and was about. Maybe he never fully knew or understood, from all perspectives, but he knew a chunk at least.

Now Bruce...ok Bruce is anti Christian? Come on, the guy was part of a Bible study group for awhile, one of the main tenets of his accounts is PUL which IS Christ, or an aspect of same. As Albert said, there are connections made to Christ in relation to the Planning Intelligence in his last book. He just doesn't outright call it that himself. While i've wondered about this myself, it doesn't necessarily mean he is anti-Christian, maybe its more he is anti-Fundamentalist and knows how many people are turned off by the term--Christianity. If one is trying to reach as many people as one can, one might decide to use general, non specific, and generic terms to describe such realities or beings.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that one of the reasons why a percentage of people don't like Christianity as a belief system, is partly because of the pushiness, fanaticism, and in some cases extreme negativity of those who have called themselves "Christian"? Jesus, one Christian girl whom was supposedly my friend, said that i was being influenced by Satan because i believed in things like astrology, other lives, etc. Yet, i had enough openness to attend a weekend retreat called TEC because while i didn't agree with many of THEIR beliefs or interpretations, i knew i could find real spirituality there in relating to others, opening up and learning not judge so much. Yet, i get labeled all kinds of negative things after, when i shared some of my beliefs with some of these who called themselves my 'friends'.

This is the kind of super common, super judgmental, super fear based crap that has turned so many off from Christianity. It's really a shame, because its the exact opposite of what Christ himself wanted and wants for the world and for people. He wants people to believe and practice above all--PUL. Sure, if someone actually opens up the personhood of Christ, and that particular "Disc" member who personified PUL, it can really facilitate positive changes, but all in all, its on us to grow and change.

I consider your words against Bruce, Monroe, as false and ignorant accusations. When YOU get to the level of Christ yourself, then, then my friend can you act as if you know the hearts and minds of others so well. Because he did and spoke from a deep knowingness. Do you?

Nor am i blindly defending Bruce or Monroe, in fact i'm one of the few here who have publicly disagreed with some of the things that Bruce talks about. I'm not a Moen/Monroe groupie like some i've observed here. And i've pointed out what i perceive as the belief system distortions of Monroe as well. But, i'm here because my guidance has repeatedly confirmed in various ways that Bruce is the real deal, and one of the better/more balanced sources of spiritual info out there today, and while he is not perfected like Christ, much of what he teaches is akin to what Christ taught. This counts for so much, if you would but open your eyes and ears a bit more. Would that you knew Christ/Yeshua is himself cheering Bruce and his good works on.

And as far as "lofty astral realms" what the hey would you call the Planning Intelligence consciousness that Bruce directly communed with? 2nd rate, lower astral planes?

Back to top

IP Logged

orlando123

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 258
France

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #37 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 2:47pm

Aren't we all "a key part of divine reality" in some way? I mean if we are all "one" at some level, as people often say...

So, why not "the Christ" as much as anyone else...

Recoverer - who/what is he in your view: a being like any of us, according to common thinking here, with an immortal soul and having had many incarnations etc? (but perhaps now having achieved a state similar to that supposed to have been achieved by/described by the Buddha); a certain kind of force or energy you can attune to; a particular level of awareness, as when people talk of "Christ consciousness"; a certain "facet" of God/the "all"?/ a being somewhat similar to an angel, who incarnated once bring a special message.....?

Another option would be just a culturally-determined name for the loving and personal aspect of God, that others call Krishna etc; but it doesn't sound like you would agree with that

Back to top

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #38 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 3:39pm

Orlando:

On the one hand I believe that Jesus is a role model so we can all reach the level of spiritual attainment he has reached. Whether all of us do so, I don't know. Bruce Moen wrote that some probes/selves never find their way back to their divine source, because they just won't open to PUL. When this happens such a self eventually degrades rather than existing eternally in a negative state of mind. I haven't found out through my own experiences if this is true.

Regarding Jesus playing a more key role than somebody such as Krishna, I say this because this is what my experiences have told me. These experiences have occurred in a manner that is hard to doubt.

I am not able to say why this is the case. I don't believe it is a matter of Jesus having a holier than thou attitude. One possibility is that as one of my earlier posts suggests, Jesus was the physical personification of the Christ principle, which is the principle through which God manifests himself/creates existence (not really "him"), and the principle through which all of us return to God.

It is also possible that Jesus is a man who obtained oneness with the Christ principle, during a time period in which it was significant for somebody to do so. Perhaps because he was the first man to do so, or a man who did so during a significant time period of time, God, the creator, what ever name one uses, decided to have Jesus play a key role that would benefit the human race.

I know some people have a hard time of thinking of God as somebody who makes decisions in such a way. However, even Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen who don't speak in Biblical terms, wrote about a creator. Robert wrote that this creator has a definite plan, and makes adjustments according to need.

I don't believe a person can judge if a person/spirit such as Jesus Christ can play a more key role than others, according to a perspective that has some negative feelings towards him because of how he has been associated with fundamentalism. When I had my night in heaven experience and found that he does play a key role, in a manner that was clear yet allowed me the freedom of mind to be surprised that this is so, it didn't feel as if his leadership role is a prohibitive thing.

A part of me has blunt feelings about this matter. What right do any of us have to tell God whether or not he has the right to decide if Jesus Christ will play a significant role in human spiritual history? Especially since God is the source of all wisdom, love and our ability to exist. I suppose if a person wants, he or she can be contemptuous about it and rebel against God's chosen way of doing things, even though God has provided each of us the with opportunity to live in perfection for all of eternity. But where will a person/spirit end up if it makes such a choice? Isolated from the love and light of God not because God forced them to make such a decision, but because they listened to the confusion of their ego and supposed that it knows better than God who sees the entire picture.

orlando123 wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 2:47pm:

Aren't we all "a key part of divine reality" in some way? I mean if we are all "one" at some level, as people often say...

So, why not "the Christ" as much as anyone else...

Recoverer - who/what is he in your view: a being like any of us, according to common thinking here, with an immortal soul and having had many incarnations etc? (but perhaps now having achieved a state similar to that supposed to have been achieved by/described by the Buddha); a certain kind of force or energy you can attune to; a particular level of awareness, as when people talk of "Christ consciousness"; a certain "facet" of God/the "all"?/ a being somewhat similar to an angel, who incarnated once bring a special message.....?

Another option would be just a culturally-determined name for the loving and personal aspect of God, that others call Krishna etc; but it doesn't sound like you would agree with that

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 16^th, 2007 at 8:38pm by recoverer »

IP Logged

AhSoLaoTsuAhhOmmra

Ex Member

Re: Deepak Chopra
Reply #39 - Nov 18^th, 2007 at 1:18am

orlando123 wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 2:47pm:

Another option would be just a culturally-determined name for the loving and personal aspect of God, that others call Krishna etc; but it doesn't sound like you would agree with that

Hi Orlando, i don't know how true it is in reality, but i've heard that some of the Hindu faith believe that Krishna was an earlier incarnation of Christ. If we put that in Monroe/Moen speak, then this might translate to Yeshua and Krishna are both selves directly connected to the same Greater self, or what Bruce calls a Disc, or Monroe called an I/There.

Again, i don't even know if this is true, if some Hindu's actually believe this or not, nor do i know if it is true beyond that. Cayce's guides listed a bunch of Yeshua's Greater self other life projections, such as Amelius, Adam, Melchizedek, Zend, Enoch (who may be the Hebrew equivalent of the Egyptians Thoth character), both Joseph and Joshua of the O.T., a scribe also named Yeshua, a musician named Aspha (i believe), and in one reading seemed to hint that this Greater self expressed some 30 lives in the physical Earth. It seems many of his lives were near enlightened or completely transcended space/time.

Cayce's source also stated that this Greater self, this "Disc" has influenced either directly or indirectly, every major belief system which espoused the Oneness of all force. They said that when the Buddha meditated, he communed with the Christ Spirit who was helping him out. Cayce source says he has come in almost every Age where a reorientation back to Source and Love was needed (seems to come a lot at the beginning of new ages).

The whole concept of "Christ" can be confusing, because there different levels or perspectives of it, which i've found to be all true at the same time. Perhaps one doesn't like the term "Christ", then maybe they could use the term Bruce coined, the Planning Intelligence Consciousness and Disc. Cayce's source outlined the various aspects of Christ, saying that Christ was a Universal pattern relating to Love, Light, and Oneness waiting to be awakened within all Souls, it was a Spirit/Soul entity who first returned to Source and became the Co Creator of this Universe (and of many Souls within it), and that Yeshua was a direct self projected out of this Greater self or Disc.

It is potentially kind of mind boggling to realize that all the above is true at the same time. It took me awhile to find this out, and even longer to fully accept it. Thankfully i was raised in an environment with very little pushing of organized beliefs, which was pretty laid back and open in that area. Otherwise, i probably would have rebelled against all of Christianity and Christian thought like so many who have been shoveled same have. It also helped that even when i was a young kid, i thought about and loved the Creator, and especially so after i hit puberty. My first introduction to more organized belief systems were to primarily Eastern ones, such as Three Pillars of Zen, Autobiography of an Yogi, etc. as well as studying astrology .

Since then, i've found many holes, imbalances, and incomplete knowledge within such beliefs, teachings, and i've learned that many guru's and teachers of Eastern thought weren't as near as enlightened as they wanted others to believe, and that some, quite a few of them were ego maniacs who ended up hurting a lot of people. This is true, of course, of most Western thought too, that its imbalanced, has holes, errors, false and destructive teachers, etc. within it. This is part of the reason why i liked the Cayce readings so much, because in them we find a melding, a marriage of the two more so than in many beliefs i've studied, and not taught by a Guru claiming he was enlightened, but channeled through a man who just said essentially "i do my best, and try to live by my spiritual principles, test the readings and the info out for yourselves and don't take my or their (the guides who communicated) words." And he charged so little for his service, and in many cases didn't charge at all. Nor did he claim that the readings where infallible.

It was a refreshing attitude at a time when Theosophists like Blavatsky had claimed so much, with so little holistic verification (holistic meaning physical proofs, as well as mental and spiritual "resonation" on a personal, individual level). It is still a refreshing attitude and approach...perhaps even more in today's New age, Guru, and so many trying to make quick and easy buck off others world we now live in. Monroe was similar, and Bruce is similar which is part of why i like them and their info so much as well. Neither Monroe, nor Bruce ever claimed that they were fully enlightened/God realized yet, nor that their info is infallible.

Anyways, i think i'm gonna shut up for awhile, and take a break from this site, because Bruce originally created this site with the intention that it would be a meeting place mostly for people to share their direct nonphysical experiences, explorations, and insights about their explorations--not to debate, talk about, or intellectually masturbate more organized belief systems. I'm one of those, who seems to kind of keep it off track since i don't do a lot of conscious exploration right now. At least not in the sense that Bruce seems to mostly stress, which is more sensory based/oriented nonphysical perception.

Thanks to all for listening. I'll be around here and there.

Back to top

IP Logged