Causation As A Mental Overlay

I am! Haven't you been reading my posts?

I don't accept someone's word just because they're considered a guru by many. What they say must align with what I clearly see and know via direct, non-conceptual realization/seeing through.

Reefs posted the following AH quotes on ST. This whole idea that through observing the manifest appearing conditions relative to another's body or even your own, you can use that as a valid litmus test to determine that mind has been dwelling on discord/limitation/negativity etc. exemplifies what it means to erroneously attribute causation to thought/feeling.







And beyond that erroneous attribution of causality to thought/feeling, also, to erroneously equate (what is deemed via the judgmental/limited mind) to be physical, material perfection with 'spiritual purity, is to negate and deny the beauty and gifts inherent in the full gamut of experience.

The obstacle never was a body that has a particular, temporal condition, rather, it's the deep judgments about how the body "should" be. Absent those deep judgments as well as all deep judgments about manifest conditions, there is never a condition so "problematic" that one would need to apply a teaching like LOA to try to manipulate things.

What that quote exemplifies is that like most judgmental humans, Esther Hicks places very high value on a body that is in perfect health and she is using the appearance of a 'perfect body,' then, as her measuring stick as to how absent mind is of resistance/judgment.

It's backwards....after the fact. In doing so, she reveals that deep judgment and resistance to certain manifest conditions, is very much already in play.

There really is a way of being, whereby, whatever arises, whatever happens is ultimately okay...ultimately accepted and allowed. And when that way is abidingly so, the very idea of needing/wanting to try to control manifest conditions via control of mind/focus, just would not occur.

Absent the erroneous idea in play that says appearing/arising thoughts/feelings actually lie causal to other appearances within the dream, and absent deep, fundamental judgments regarding experiential conditions, the whole LOA narrative collapses like a castle made of sand when a big, cleansing wave moves in.

Plain and simply, all appearance is ultimately empty. You cannot look to an appearing condition to denote the content of another's mind. But, you can look within to observe where resistance is arising hand in hand with an appearing condition. Not in a way that lays "blame/causation," (such is done with the LOA ontology) but rather, in a way to decipher where/when the erroneous sense of separation/SVP is coloring things.

Absent the judgment that says a weak/absent leg (for example) is "fundamentally bad/wrong/intolerable," there would be no looking towards LOA practices to try to control focus/thought, thereby, controlling apparent bodily condition.

In fundamental acceptance/allowance, a bodily condition is not seen as an obstacle, but rather, just another opportunity to know and live, "unconditionality."

It is interesting that sometimes....even perhaps 'often,' in the absence of deep judgment about a bodily condition, it will disappear, or change in what will be judged in a surface way to be "positive," but not always...and to judge those cases, (Niz comes to mind) where one dies with a disease as evidence of some kind of 'failure to accept/allow,' is itself evidence of an erroneous judgment.

You've jumped context on Zaz. He's asking if there is actually such a thing as "time," and he's asking about that to point to the leaps and bounds in mind that must happen to arrive at "creation" is Truth.

He was asking about Actuality/Truth and you took it all down to the relative. Change, motion, action, something 'transforming' into something else as the story unfolds, all appearing facets within the so called, unfolding life story.

So sure...The "experience" of change, motion, action, relative to the "unfolding life story" could be said to pretty much be undeniable. But if we're talking Truth....what is/can be known directly, self evidently, imminently....seeing what is Absolutely so, undeniably so, then 'before/after,' as Zaz says, are but ideas/thoughts/memories/imaginings, arising NOW. No inherent existence, there.

& The point Zaz was making about "creation" per se, is important.

The very idea that whatever imminently appears has "been created," or that the content of this present moment experience is creating future experience, involves all sorts of surmisings and assumptions. "A process of creation" does not appear...it's inferred/imagined.