Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality (Read 30401 times)
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #30 - Jun 3rd, 2009 at 1:20pm
 
An after thought to the post I wrote a few minutes ago.

One of the dangers in what people like Sylvester say, is that there is nothing we can do to become enlightened.

Without getting into whether there is such a thing as enlightenment in the way he speaks of it, I believe it is dangerous to believe that there is no form of seeking that helps us grow spiritually, because if there is one thing I found through my experience, it is possible to grow.  We don't do so by trying to negate our existence.  We do so by letting go of the limiting thought patterns that prevent us from living according to love, our higher self, our connection to the light.

I am certain that the light beings I communicate with aren't just some mere emptiness/illusion.  They are souls who have evolved so they can exist in a manner that is very significant and quite wonderful.  Not once have they tried to tell me that I don't exist.  They simply tried to show me how I can live more completely according to love.  They feel one with me without negating me.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 3rd, 2009 at 8:19pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
LaffingRain
Super Member
*****
Offline


Choose this Day

Posts: 5249
Arizona
Gender: female
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #31 - Jun 3rd, 2009 at 8:39pm
 
Hi Spooky, hi Bets, Hi Rec, Hi Justin
how the heck are you guys? ...

its a tough subject; like Spooky said back on page one, he sees more than one viewing point, he can merge two, three or more viewing points to gain that insight offered. I do that too, then I kind of end up being a nonspecified person, what with language being so limiting in itself to discuss spiritual pathways...it really is limiting you know.
would be much nicer and beneficial to get you guys in a physical room with your body language to view and the ringing tones of your voices would be most nice to hear!

we could discover we might be all on the same wave length and not even know it!

well the internet is how it has to be, to communicate with one another for awhile, but it won't always be so.

I think with any teacher, or your friends, or any individual appearing as separate, out there, even enemies, the password is Love.
this is so within doing retrievals. first the teachers told me, spirit guides, voices in my head, maybe my own deepest intuitions, I don't know for sure, they mentioned I must never be a nag while retrieving.
perhaps I was being a shrew?  Cheesy in any case the password for all communications is love and acceptance of each retrievee, to gently inform them that they are no longer in a physical body as it is appearing that they are. to them. to bring love into the arena, it seems normal to them what they are doing, howsoever you find them, you must work your way into their dream, as if it's completely normal to you, because it is normal for them. so you don't scare them that way by blurting out something like YOU don't have to take drugs anymore because you're dead! lol.

I mention retrievals here because life is like a continual retrieval to me, if it means loving others just as they are.
For this is like a prayer I heard once. I think it was me praying. I spoke aloud to an imaginary God, which I imagined was listening and wanting to help me feel better.
I love you the way you are. Just the way you are, so imperfect, so not wanting to live, so tearful. Just the way you are, I accept you. I gave you a life, please don't ask me to take it back.  Huh

I thought I had to save the world or something  Wink God said no you don't have to save the world. Just have a little faith in yourself and others.

The things we talk about here are so huge, if we all want to get together on the same page, so to speak, that's why groups gather, so they have a beginning premise to start from.
I think most of us are loners in that respect, and nothing wrong with that. So far I haven't found a better premise to start from than the concept Monroe introduced of limited C1 area and unlimited being, meaning altered states of awareness, whereby communication from another level is coming through.

cheers, love you guys I've been having fun making new friends.  Smiley
Back to top
 

... Who takes away death's sting deprives life of bitterness
WWW http://www.facebook.com/LaughingRain2  
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #32 - Jun 3rd, 2009 at 10:35pm
 
Hi Recoverer,
so far, to me (as for every "person") it is an intellectual concept as other concepts are as well. From most spiritual concepts one can extract ways of living to grow spiritually. Sylvester's concept is indeed different as he says you can do nothing to be liberated from the person. He actually says that spiritual search, as well as psychotherapy is very effective, but it will never lead to an end of feeling separated because there is no method a person could use to get the person out of the way from seeing oneness. It's just a good intellectual point I find. I don't know if he's a fraud or not, and I'm not defending him, I just wanted to clarify what he's actually saying.
   His concept certainly stirs up many questions of what the "I", or the person is at all. It's unclear, although it seems to be so natural for everybody. Until you think about it. It's unclear to me as well if it's really possible what he's telling about "his" state.
   I think nobody stops searching because someone says you'll never get what you are searching for through this search. In this regard I'm the same opinion as Sylvester:
The search goes on until it stops. But nobody can make it stop.

Hi Alysia,
I thought of you recently what you would think of Sylvester's "oneness" story, as I remembered you always said that we're all one! (And I even have a bit like a deja-vu now, as I think I dreamt that you would post here in this thread)
   You're right, this is a huge thing we talk about, even when it is probably one the shortest theories of everything there are. It is possible to take some elements from other theories and embed them into Sylvester's theory. I think that's what we're doing anyway, we pick up something here and there and these bits then melt together into our belief system.

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #33 - Jun 4th, 2009 at 12:41pm
 
Hello Alysia.  Long time no see.  You wrote:

"it seems normal to them what they are doing, howsoever you find them, you must work your way into their dream, as if it's completely normal to you, because it is normal for them."

That's a neat way to put it. Smiley

Regarding wanting to save the World, perhaps I should forget about running for president. Wink

Spooky:

I figure that if we open up to love we'll be able to experience oneness with each other without having to nullify ourselves. How can we share oneness, if there's nobody to share it with?

You can't be selfless, if you don't have a self.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 4th, 2009 at 7:39pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
StarryEyedNoOne
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 16
Gender: female
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #34 - Jun 16th, 2009 at 3:28pm
 
This is one of those mobius-strip topics that I always end up getting swept away in.  There are people who claim that there is nothing, but it seems that as far as the "nothingness" goes, no one can claim that because it CAN'T be experienced.  If you experience "nothing" YOU are still THERE experiencing it.  "nothingness" would be total unconsciousness, which means you can't experience it, and therefore can't say that it exists at all.  Game over! lol.

As far as there being "one" thing as the ultimate truth - even if, on some level, there is "one" as the ultimate truth, I am still here as me, and *gasp* is that you there being someone else?  That is ALSO an ultimate truth, because it is actually happening right now.  I think that ALL of these levels can possibly exist simultaneously, with none being more valid and true than another.

Those who have experienced oneness with all things in situations such as meditation, out of body, or near death, have still come back to being THEMSELVES, separate and real, to tell us about that state of oneness.  They have perhaps changed or evolved, but they are still here.  Are you an I projections of the same consciousness? Possibly, but I can't say that it's "truth".  Are you and I actually YOU and I? That, I can vouch for.

Peace, friends (and there can be no "friends" without separation - the simple fact that there ARE friends shows that on some level this is "truth".)  Wink
Back to top
 

"Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns and calls me on and on across the universe..." - Lennon&&
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #35 - Jun 16th, 2009 at 10:22pm
 
Hi Starry,
what I find especially interesting is that Sylvester (and others) don't present a nice theory, but claim to tell about own experiences. Sylvester tells in the event he calls "liberation" he found everything to be one, and had no sense of localisation; this sense returned, but the "me" never returned.
For everyone who thinks that Sylvester and Tony Parsons have a big hoax running (which I can't close out), I recommend reading
Suzanne Segal  Collision with the infinite .
The term "the emptyness which is full", I-lessness, experiences of oneness are too frequent in scripture to be without a basis. You find it in Taoism, Buddhism, Zen-Buddhism, maybe in the fragments of Parmenides, and in Christian Mystic, as Meister Eckhart and Marguerite Porete.

It is very difficult to imagine how it would be, and language (at least western with it's subject-object-structure) cannot really describe it, but it seems to be a real phaenomenon.

After all, to grasp what the "I" really is is equally hard as it is to imagine how it would be without "I".

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
StarryEyedNoOne
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 16
Gender: female
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #36 - Jun 17th, 2009 at 11:39am
 
Oh, I most definitely agree that these states are real phenomena.  It's just that I feel that if this IS a real and true state of being, it obviously doesn't have to mean that it is the ONLY real or important state of being.  I don't believe these people are trying to perpetuate a hoax - real or not, I believe they most certainly believe what they've experienced is real.  What I try to keep in mind is that there are hoards of schizophrenics and such who also believe the spiders they see on the wall are real, etc. lol  Just reading Terrence McKenna's experiences with psychedelics and such is really eye opening in terms of what our own brains are capable of producing - experiences we can't even really imagine if we try.  Keeping that in mind, there are phenomena that really can't be explained away so easily - remote viewing, telepathy, verifiable communications, etc.  Just more reasons why I think that being HERE in THIS state is terribly fascinating.  Smiley
Back to top
 

"Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns and calls me on and on across the universe..." - Lennon&&
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #37 - Jun 17th, 2009 at 9:43pm
 
Every hallucination is real.
Perhaps everything real is a hallucination?  Smiley

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #38 - Jun 18th, 2009 at 1:41pm
 
StarryEyedNoOne:

Excellent points.

Spooky:

Regarding Suzzane Segal, for a number of years she thought she was enlightened, had her supposed enlightenment confirmed by some gurus who are very clearly not what they claim/claimed to be, and eventually found that she had dissociative order due to repressed memories of when she was molested as a child. This is why she experienced a background of fear during the years of her so-called enlightened state.

One day while she was sitting in front of her followers, she moved down to the floor and sat with them, and stated that she was no longer capable of teaching them, because she found herself in a state of mind that was quite disturbing (I don't remember her exact words).

Regarding the gurus who authenticated her supposed enlightenment, one was Poonja (Papaji), a guru from India who claimed to be an enlightened disciple of Ramana Maharshi. Gangaji and Andrew Cohen, supposed enlightened disciples of Papaji, also endorsed Suzzane's supposed enlightened state.

Andrew Cohen's mother Luna Tarlo wrote a book called "Mother of God." She talks about how she was Andrew's disciple for a while.  She felt so graced to have an enlightened son. Eventually she found that her son wasn't the enlightened being he claimed to be. If anything, he was quite insidious.  He used to verbally and emotionally abuse her and his other followers.

Andrew Cohen was the first disciple Papaji declared to be enlightened. When Luna was in India she traveled around with Andrew and another lady.  Andrew told Luna and the other lady that they are enlightened. Neither of them could see that this was true. When Luna met Papaji, he also told her that she's enlightened. There was a European lady visiting Papaji at the time, and he claimed that she was enlightened. She was playing with her child who was an illegitimate child of Papaji. The reason Papaji had so many disciples that became gurus, is because all it took to become one, was to believe him when he told you that you're enlightened, even if your experience tells you a different story. I know a lady who was told by one of Papaji's supposed enlightened disciples that she's enlightened, she knew this wasn't the case, and she didn't take the bait. She has way too much integrity and honesty to do such a thing.

After returning to the United States Andrew Cohen got out of hand, and despite claiming that Andrew was enlightened in various ways, Papaji later claimed that Andrew "wasn't" enlightened. There are a number of other people who have become gurus after Papaji endorsed their so called enlightened state. Gangaji included. Eventually Papaji took back all of the endorsements. He said that he stated that they were enlightened because he wanted to get the leeches off his back.  He said they were supposed to point the way to Lucknow (this is where he lived), not themselves.

Such later statements are nonsense if you consider the letters Papaji exchanged with Andrew Cohen and what he told Luna Tarlo about Andrew and herself.  Papaji has contradicted himself several times when it comes to what enlightenen beings he has supposedly met during his life. None of the versions include Suzzane Segal's name despite what she claims.

Suzzane Segal also got her enlightenment supposedly confirmed by Da Free John (one of just many names he went by). Da Free John was one of the most scandulous gurus who occupied this planet. He claimed to be an Avatar, the World teacher. He claimed that there has never been a master of his level, and there will never be one again. In one of his books from the 80's he claimed that eventually all of the slugs of this World will follow him.  He died recently, and his proclamation was proven to be false. The same is true for his proclamation that he would be resurrected.  He lived on "his" Fiji island (guess where he got the money from) with some of his disciples including a number of his wives that included a former playboy bunny.  He became well know in the 1980's, because some of his disciples left him and let if be known that he forced his disciples to perform all kinds of sexual acts in front of him, regardless of their marital status.  Young attractive ladies had an easier time finding their way to his island than his other disciples.

Or in other words, I'm still waiting for Suzanne Segal's enlightenment to be confirmed.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 18th, 2009 at 4:01pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #39 - Jun 18th, 2009 at 2:06pm
 
A late P.S. to the post I wrote a few minutes ago.

When it comes to the people who take the bait when a false guru claims he or she is enlightened, what kind of people take the bait? I've found that people who become false gurus tend to have a personality disorder where they find it necessary to put themselves in a position where other people put them on a pedestal, and where they get to control other people.

Regarding Suzzane's dissociative disorder, it is possible that because she didn't want to become conscious of her repressed memories, a part of her mind separated her consciousness from her body and the rest of her mind. A backdrop of fear is not a good sign. When it comes to the feeling of expansiveness being too much, there are many people who have experienced expansiveness in a way where it wasn't threatening. Quite the contrary. Since Suzzane had repressed fear she hadn't dealt with, when her awareness expanded, she might've touched into an expanse of energy that had a similar energetic signature as her fear.  If person experienced the oneness, they would experience love.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 18th, 2009 at 8:00pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #40 - Jun 18th, 2009 at 11:10pm
 
I am familiar with the terms in the psychiatry manuals (ICD, DSM) called personality disorder, disscociative disorder and whatever. There is no category which fits to Richard Sylvester and Suzanne Segal. In her book, Segal describes her oddyssee from therapist to therapist, and what you say reminds me of those, to her, inacceptable diagnosis. She even said at the beginning of her book, that exactly this would happen: The pathologisation of "her" experience.

I really don't care for any guru's "verification" of enlightenment. I have read Suzanne Segal's book and it came over to me like a description of what she had experienced. Whether this "state" has to be called "enlightenment" or not I don't know. But what I do know is, we have to take it seriously. This book, to me, sounds as authentical as, for example, Monroe's books do. Despite the logical errors she made in the last part of her book. And as I wrote in respond to Starry, this kind of experience seems to be not a singular one, but perhaps inspired religions and spiritual movements. So we have to deal with this kind of experience.

If you have reliable infos about Suzanne Segal which go beyond her book you might post them here and name the sources, or PM me.

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
betson
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 3445
SE USA
Gender: female
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #41 - Jun 19th, 2009 at 9:21am
 
Hi YouAll,

Isn't it possible to accidentally be pushed into a state of
'enlightenment,'  perhaps even with the help of such a negative force as fear?  Isn't some 'disassociativeness' a sign of both 'enlightenment' and also of 'schizophrenia' ? ( The label depends upon who is doing the labeling, not entirely upon the inner state.
I cannot be threatened by labellers who have not experienced all I have experienced.)

I see labels such as I've used here as indicating just a point along a sliding scale of behaviors. Without a structure from beliefs/ religious paths to hold one at a particular point, it seems one can easily slide away frm the path one is seeking.

IMO the behaviors that mark these states have to do with where one's point of consciousness resides in the mind and therefore what informations one is dealing with. That point of consciousness can move. I'm speaking from experience Smiley and have invested much consideration and study to this topic. (Uh-oh, that sounds serious Roll Eyes but it's not--it's very freeing!  Smiley  )

Currently on another thread a similiar phenomena  is being discussed, i.e.,  the Afterlife/astral realm seems to have slipped away from many explorerers; or is it they have slipped in their   capabilities? I think people have to care enough to focus and reposition their point of consciousness as often as necessary.

Betson
Back to top
 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Shakespeare
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #42 - Jun 19th, 2009 at 11:57am
 
Spooky:

If one thing is clear, she experienced a backdrop of fear for years. What does fear have to do with love and oneness? I'm not able to find all of the articles that spoke of her condition, but below is one of them. The Adi Da referred to is another name for Da Free John. The writer seems to believe that non-integration and enlightenment go together. I've found that the more I've grown, the more integrated I've become, yet I don't claim to be enlightened. This business of somebody supposedly being enlightened even though she hasn't dealt with chilhood trauma doesn't add up. If a spirit wants to move onto a higher realm, it needs to be free of the issues that prevent it from living according to love. That's afterlife knowledge 101 Smiley. Yet, people who haven't dealt with their issues claim to be enlightened. If thoughts of the vastness, oneness and not being defined inspire you that's great, but integration of the creative aspect of our being is required.

Anyway, here's a part of an article and a link:

"Part 6

Suzanne Segal died of a brain tumor in 1997 at the age of 42. Many have stated explicitly or implicitly that her experiences were directly the result of cerebral trauma. In the spring of 1996, the present book had been completed and Suzanne was offering her teachings to the public through weekly dialogues and a training group for her fellow therapists.

Very soon thereafter, however, she began to experience bouts of 'vastness expansion' in which the vastness would expand greatly upon itself. These experiences sapped her life and energy and brought great fear upon her once again. It brought also doubt. She began to judge what she had been saying or claiming to know. She thought her talk about the vastness was perhaps a defence mechanism to protect her from feelings and childhood abuse memories.

She had lost her connection to the vastness, had become disoriented, experienced dizziness and a general decline in health In February of 1997 she was diagnosed with a massive brain tumor. She died on April 1."

http://www.nonduality.com/suzanne.htm
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 19th, 2009 at 7:27pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #43 - Jun 19th, 2009 at 10:45pm
 
Hi,

Betson:

Quote: "Isn't it possible to accidentally be pushed into a state of
'enlightenment,'  perhaps even with the help of such a negative force as fear?  Isn't some 'disassociativeness' a sign of both 'enlightenment' and also of 'schizophrenia' ? ( The label depends upon who is doing the labeling, not entirely upon the inner state.
I cannot be threatened by labellers who have not experienced all I have experienced.)"

I agree. How a person's state is labeled depends on the culture and the beliefs. A part of this labeling is to identify a cause/reason of this state. For example it could be said someone is in a particular state as a result of meditation, or as a result of a brain anomalia. In most cases, to identify something as a single cause cannot be called proper science. We could only make a statistic and search for correlations, rather than causes.

Quote: "I see labels such as I've used here as indicating just a point along a sliding scale of behaviors. Without a structure from beliefs/ religious paths to hold one at a particular point, it seems one can easily slide away frm the path one is seeking. IMO the behaviors that mark these states have to do with where one's point of consciousness resides in the mind and therefore what informations one is dealing with. That point of consciousness can move. I'm speaking from experience Smiley and have invested much consideration and study to this topic. (Uh-oh, that sounds serious Roll Eyes but it's not--it's very freeing!  Smiley  )"

Yes. For example, it has been frequently mentioned that the results of usage of so-called psychedelic drugs depend greatly on the beliefs and training, the setting/present situation, and if an experienced good teacher is present. When one takes peyote without any training in a big city this one most probably will have a very different experience than someone who lives at a site where the ancient rituals are still in practise. It's better to have a pathway established when one moves into regions never seen before.

Quote: "Currently on another thread a similiar phenomena  is being discussed, i.e.,  the Afterlife/astral realm seems to have slipped away from many explorerers; or is it they have slipped in their   capabilities? I think people have to care enough to focus and reposition their point of consciousness as often as necessary."

Yes, as long as we consider that there is someone who perceives something, we have to deal with the, in Bruce's terms, interpreter's bias. In the story Grandma and the skunk Bruce has illustrated how much the belief of someone can influence what someone experiences.

Recoverer:

Thanks for the infos. I of course agree that a fearful state cannot be seen as desirable nor called enlightened. So, in Segal's case, if the info is true, her oneness-state wasn't very stable, maybe even reversable. Interesting. I won't go so far, as I already said in response to Betson, to make specific causes responsible for her experiences, such as a (hypothetic) childhood trauma or a brain tumor. After all, when the body decays even the enlightened would fade physically (in case it's not one of the "ancient" style who could fly and decide freely when it's time to drop the body...  Wink ).

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.