Ronny wrote on Nov 6^th, 2008 at 12:40pm:


It is one thing to gain knowledge by intellectually understanding everything but another to actually experience it. The latter the more important I'm beginning to understand.

Greetings,

Previously Ronnie said
" In the dreamstate, the learning process has no schedule
(as defined by passing of time, which is one of the greatest
benefits of the physical state),
and hence can go off tangentially to a literal infinity.
How is this shown by Monroe's research?"

On another thread, Spooky said "the consequences are enormous."

Going off to a literal infinity or determining the entire enormity of consequences can be established by a type of sampling. Infinity and enormity may not be possible to experience within one human lifetime.

Monroe went so many 'places,' both to know an area in depth and also to broaden the range of his explorations. The correlations and the variations he found led him to the experienced conclusion that he was sampling a literal infinity.

On one hand we can measure infinity forever; on another hand we can experience the attitudes that have created infinity forever.
To truly know infinity we must use both means.

pedigree wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 2:59am:


An understanding of events is not as impactful as experiencing the event. I agree with you totally. Hence, my attempt in obtaining the actual experiences.

I'm revisiting Seth, as most of you can garner based on my comments in posts here.

Seth discusses the concept of "probable realities." The human mind creates thoughts. Even though each thought is not manifested in physical reality, ALL thoughts are created in the human mind (consciousness, I would guess) AND have probable reality lives. An example given by one of the Seth followers goes along these lines ...

Imagine a situation where you have to make a choice of either becoming a high falluting neurosurgeon or a lowly homeless person. If you chose to live out your physical life as a homeless person, your physical manifestation of that lifestyle is what you will experience in this world. On the other hand, the thought of becoming a neurosurgeon, at the time you were deciding what you wanted to be, was then created at that time, AND a "life" of a neurosurgeon was then created within one of your probable realities. Seth then said that the "life" of the neurosurgeon, as a thought form, would continue onwards by growing and developing within those parameters of a neurosurgeon.

Of course, this then led me to think about another choice: instead of a neurosurgeon that you and I have a vague understanding of, what if the other choice was to be an "Xyopphoneminc creature from ethereal planet JQY with 20 orbiting earthlike satellites?" First, is there such an existing planet? Or will my thought form, my probable reality, then create this Xyopphonmeminc creature, ad absurdum, to reside on this planet? Per Seth, yes, my thougts would have mainfested this Xyo... etc., and I would reside on it as it's ONE and only inhabitant, until I manifest other thought forms to populate it. Or will there have been other mass consciousnesses that would have aided me in manifesting this other thought?

The trickiness of the concepts disclosed by Seth can, and actually does, lead me to believe that I create my own realities, my own set of rules, my own existences. If this is true, then what is real? Or should I ask, what is unreal? Do we live in unreality (defined as not being of this physical earth world)?

betson wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 2:45pm:

I can't state that this multiple-me-theory of Seth/Roberts is impossible, but I see major flaws in it:
When I create different parallel realities, what sense does it make to call this here-me AND the other version of me BOTH "me" or "I"? They are just two persons! Even when there are so called "bleed throughs", which are mysterious anyway.
Then, at what points are these alternate lives of "me" created? Only when I consciously want it? Or in every moment, so that it would take just the slightest timespan to create an infinity of me-versions? Or is there a cosmic tic-tic, a digital concept of time (which would lead to further complications), which with every tic would let every entity in the universe split off into multiple versions?

I can't get it together.

Spooky

Greetings,

No one I've met that has gone through Bruce's books and methods came out psychotic.  That's my experience of three years here of listening to peoples' experiences and of having my own. Everyone who commits themselves to this process that I've been fortunate to meet here becomes more loving , kind, open to the goodness and potential goodness in our world.

Psychosis is fear-based. The afterlife is not fear-based. Your Guidance through the afterlife experiences is Love-based. You will find this trust in PUL igrows for you as you progress.    Please don't be afraid.

Betson

Hi Ronny,
so let's take the "choosing a path" model and have a look at it.

  It remains the problem that when there are entities moving on a path in time, they are different entities than those who, at a branching point, chose another direction, "split off", so to say. Thus it would not be appropriate to speak of "other versions" or "parallel versions" of a person, if we not make the additional assumption that we speak not of our here-now-in-the-physical self but instead of a higher self which is containing all the split-offs of us; between these parts of a higher self then may be a form of information exchange take place, the so-called bleed-throughs. Or we don't allow split-offs, but then, if we keep the already existing path model, we had two types of paths: Those on which an entity is moving, and those which are "empty", we might call them "realized/manifested" vs. "virtual/unmanifested". But there's a problem. It doesn't make much sense to me to speak of those empty paths, as the entity moving on a path seems to be an integral part of the path itself. Imagine a path of a person, but without that person. That doesn't make much sense. So then, we have infinite paths of persons.

The practical value of this model is another question to consider. It would only make a difference if we in any way had access to more than one path at the same time. That's, in my understanding, is what Seth/Roberts called "bleed throughs". Because if access to only one path is possible, it just won't make any difference, we had our one world, and the infinite number of other paths just wouldn't matter to every single I here, now. The very, very most of informations of our other versions on different paths would be totally confusing and meaningless to us, as most paths, would be so different that we wouldn't recognize anything there, the more the longer the branch-off lies back in time.

Also remaining is the question after the circumstances under which branch-off points are set.

There's another funny thing coming from the infinite number of paths. When there is actually an infinite number of paths, meaning an infinite number of possibilities/realities, then there might be an infinite number of paths which are the same, given the possibility that a branch-off can be created, and in the following the differences of the two (or more) paths can be leveled out again. Even when the chances are very little, but not zero, we'd have an infinity of those same-paths.

Btw, the concept of free will doesn't sound very convincing to me, at least when the term is used as it is commonly used. We had a discussion about it here:
http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1189351469/0

Well, sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better to spend more time in meditation than thinking about these intellectual concepts...

What the psychotic aspect of these "journeys" belongs, the main thing is the ability to sort experiences into categories. Let's say we have a person who is an extensive daydreamer, but is not called a psychotic, that's because this person is able to distinguish between the world(s) of daydreams and the world of the common, normal, physical matter. If this person hadn't this ability, this person would be called psychotic (or whatever). We actually can interprete some psychotic experiences as perceptions coming from other realities than what is commonly considered as the normal physical reality, when these perceptions cannot be separated from, and confused with this physical reality. I think Bruce wrote about this concept (or a similar one) at least in his 5th book.

Spooky