|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2024 2:48:52 GMT
While there's not many who choose to engage in discussion, (takes courage to engage on a forum where open, direct challenge is part and parcel of the dynamic, I get it), ST isn't all that much better for high traffic engaging in discussion. Here on Gab, there IS quite a large group who are interested enough in the postings to continue to regularly visit and read along (You are one of them!) and at times there are some decent behind the scenes convos as well. Speaking of your regular visits here...You ban someone from posting on your forum, but continue to avidly follow their every post on another forum.  You make it sound as though you have zero use for the point of view of the one you blocked/banned, but your behavior screams otherwise.  Inquiry point for Reefs: Why do you continue to religiously follow along with what Figgles posts on Gab, after banning/blocking her from ST? Particularly considering your beliefs re: LOA/deliberate creation. It's very odd you'd continue to engage with experiential content that you take such deep issue with that you felt the need to block/ban it from your forum. Aren't you afraid coming here is gonna drag your vibe into the gutters and result in all sorts of horrific manifestations for you? The standards were at one time high in that regard, but they are now not...at all....Most posts are about self-help, new age beliefs and theories, such as LOA. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 12, 2024 3:43:14 GMT
The law of attraction is in an entirely different category than law of gravity, as it supposes an answer to the existential question. You're failing to see that the question of "why does an apple fall from the tree"? and the answer of "gravity" is based upon a directly observable facet of experience. Whereas the idea of "state of being/feelings/thoughts" catalyzing/attracting/creating what appears in experience, invokes "existential" cause. Gravity is entirely "in the dream." It's science. Whereas this supposed "law" whereby you can look to another's apparent condition to decipher with Absolute certainty, his state of being, whereby state of being/focus stands as an inviolable, dictator of what will unfold re: experiential content, is not. The arrival at this supposed, existent, inviolable law that Absolutely dictates what will/what can appear, involves a looking beyond what is experientially/scientifically observed. It requires imagination, surmising, assumption beyond what's behind the idea of a "law" that speaks to the fact that experientially speaking, apples drop from trees...when I jump up, I come down. The law of gravity is not posited as an existential Truth. LOA, is. But for egoic mind that seeks for ways to control outcomes, there'd never be an arrival at the idea of LOA. You can say that the belief in such a law stands completely alone for the practice of deliberate creation, but that's hooey. Absent the promise of being able to control outcomes, mind would not "find/see/assume/imagine" the existence of said "law." You grasp to the idea of that law, because it serves you as an SVP. Wake up, and it becomes clear, there are no such inviolable, existent laws that "dictate" what can and what cannot appear. As much as you love that idea that life can be under your personal control, that is nothing but smoke and mirrors....the pipe dream of an SVP that cannot bear the idea that it's all unfolding spontaneously....that ultimately, there is no "causation/creative process" at all....even that is being imagined. Law of attraction is not an illusion. It works but the thing is, people think that if create the feelings, we could attract the experience. In truth, it appears that way because the movement of universe creates the feelings first and then the experience. But people mistake that they could consciously create the feeling and so the experience will be the result. So Law of attraction works all the time because experience follows the feelings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2024 3:57:30 GMT
The law of attraction is in an entirely different category than law of gravity, as it supposes an answer to the existential question. You're failing to see that the question of "why does an apple fall from the tree"? and the answer of "gravity" is based upon a directly observable facet of experience. Whereas the idea of "state of being/feelings/thoughts" catalyzing/attracting/creating what appears in experience, invokes "existential" cause. Gravity is entirely "in the dream." It's science. Whereas this supposed "law" whereby you can look to another's apparent condition to decipher with Absolute certainty, his state of being, whereby state of being/focus stands as an inviolable, dictator of what will unfold re: experiential content, is not. The arrival at this supposed, existent, inviolable law that Absolutely dictates what will/what can appear, involves a looking beyond what is experientially/scientifically observed. It requires imagination, surmising, assumption beyond what's behind the idea of a "law" that speaks to the fact that experientially speaking, apples drop from trees...when I jump up, I come down. The law of gravity is not posited as an existential Truth. LOA, is. But for egoic mind that seeks for ways to control outcomes, there'd never be an arrival at the idea of LOA. You can say that the belief in such a law stands completely alone for the practice of deliberate creation, but that's hooey. Absent the promise of being able to control outcomes, mind would not "find/see/assume/imagine" the existence of said "law." You grasp to the idea of that law, because it serves you as an SVP. Wake up, and it becomes clear, there are no such inviolable, existent laws that "dictate" what can and what cannot appear. As much as you love that idea that life can be under your personal control, that is nothing but smoke and mirrors....the pipe dream of an SVP that cannot bear the idea that it's all unfolding spontaneously....that ultimately, there is no "causation/creative process" at all....even that is being imagined. Law of attraction is not an illusion. It works but the thing is, people think that if create the feelings, we could attract the experience. In truth, it appears that way because the movement of universe creates the feelings first and then the experience. But people mistake that they could consciously create the feeling and so the experience will be the result. So Law of attraction works all the time because experience follows the feelings. Epistemological question… how do you know this? In what way do you know this? What level of certainty? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2024 4:51:55 GMT
The law of attraction is in an entirely different category than law of gravity, as it supposes an answer to the existential question. You're failing to see that the question of "why does an apple fall from the tree"? and the answer of "gravity" is based upon a directly observable facet of experience. Whereas the idea of "state of being/feelings/thoughts" catalyzing/attracting/creating what appears in experience, invokes "existential" cause. Gravity is entirely "in the dream." It's science. Whereas this supposed "law" whereby you can look to another's apparent condition to decipher with Absolute certainty, his state of being, whereby state of being/focus stands as an inviolable, dictator of what will unfold re: experiential content, is not. The arrival at this supposed, existent, inviolable law that Absolutely dictates what will/what can appear, involves a looking beyond what is experientially/scientifically observed. It requires imagination, surmising, assumption beyond what's behind the idea of a "law" that speaks to the fact that experientially speaking, apples drop from trees...when I jump up, I come down. The law of gravity is not posited as an existential Truth. LOA, is. But for egoic mind that seeks for ways to control outcomes, there'd never be an arrival at the idea of LOA. You can say that the belief in such a law stands completely alone for the practice of deliberate creation, but that's hooey. Absent the promise of being able to control outcomes, mind would not "find/see/assume/imagine" the existence of said "law." You grasp to the idea of that law, because it serves you as an SVP. Wake up, and it becomes clear, there are no such inviolable, existent laws that "dictate" what can and what cannot appear. As much as you love that idea that life can be under your personal control, that is nothing but smoke and mirrors....the pipe dream of an SVP that cannot bear the idea that it's all unfolding spontaneously....that ultimately, there is no "causation/creative process" at all....even that is being imagined. Law of attraction is not an illusion. It works but the thing is, people think that if create the feelings, we could attract the experience. In truth, it appears that way because the movement of universe creates the feelings first and then the experience. But people mistake that they could consciously create the feeling and so the experience will be the result. So Law of attraction works all the time because experience follows the feelings. Consider a newborn baby. Does the experience as it first emerges into the world from the mother's body, of bright lights, cold air, etc. follow a preceding feeling that "attracted" that experience? If we look at an entire life experience to see beyond/prior to, thus, to see it as one, seamless, singular, undivided expression/apparent movement, then feelings are not themselves causal/attractant/creative to anything else that appears in the story....rather, they are a facet of that singular movement. Where I do think we agree is on the point that feelings are not under the control of the person....nor is focus. It might at times 'seem' as though they are, but the person can never escape the fact that highest interest in any given moment, is always playing out. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 12, 2024 12:52:44 GMT
Law of attraction is not an illusion. It works but the thing is, people think that if create the feelings, we could attract the experience. In truth, it appears that way because the movement of universe creates the feelings first and then the experience. But people mistake that they could consciously create the feeling and so the experience will be the result. So Law of attraction works all the time because experience follows the feelings. Epistemological question… how do you know this? In what way do you know this? What level of certainty? I have directly witnessed it. At first I thought I am creating the feeling and manifestation follows but its false, feelings happen first and then manifestation follows it. Feeling is the indication of what's about to come. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 12, 2024 12:54:01 GMT
Law of attraction is not an illusion. It works but the thing is, people think that if create the feelings, we could attract the experience. In truth, it appears that way because the movement of universe creates the feelings first and then the experience. But people mistake that they could consciously create the feeling and so the experience will be the result. So Law of attraction works all the time because experience follows the feelings. Consider a newborn baby. Does the experience as it first emerges into the world from the mother's body, of bright lights, cold air, etc. follow a preceding feeling that "attracted" that experience? If we look at an entire life experience to see beyond/prior to, thus, to see it as one, seamless, singular, undivided expression/apparent movement, then feelings are not themselves causal/attractant/creative to anything else that appears in the story....rather, they are a facet of that singular movement. Where I do think we agree is on the point that feelings are not under the control of the person....nor is focus. It might at times 'seem' as though they are, but the person can never escape the fact that highest interest in any given moment, is always playing out. Universe moves in such a way that something is felt and then manifestation follows. But both of them are not in our control. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2024 17:39:21 GMT
Consider a newborn baby. Does the experience as it first emerges into the world from the mother's body, of bright lights, cold air, etc. follow a preceding feeling that "attracted" that experience? If we look at an entire life experience to see beyond/prior to, thus, to see it as one, seamless, singular, undivided expression/apparent movement, then feelings are not themselves causal/attractant/creative to anything else that appears in the story....rather, they are a facet of that singular movement. Where I do think we agree is on the point that feelings are not under the control of the person....nor is focus. It might at times 'seem' as though they are, but the person can never escape the fact that highest interest in any given moment, is always playing out. Universe moves in such a way that something is felt and then manifestation follows. But both of them are not in our control. Any reference for time/space as illusion? Talk of 'what comes first' always takes mind into looking to memory/past experience...what I 'recall' as appearing prior to this imminent moment of experience, and as such, involves a mental position, which is a departure from this imminent NOW of experiential content, and which serves to prise apart that which is otherwise, actually, a singular expression....feeling is itself an appearance, part and parcel of perceivable content... a facet of whatever the imminent experience IS...here...NOW. The moment you become aware of awakening from deep sleep...in that imminent, direct, NOW experience, can you really parse out the 'feeling' component to say it preceded all other perceivable content? ..feeling too is a manifestation...an appearing facet of whatever this moment holds in terms of experience. You cannot prise apart the feeling component of an imminent, present moment to declare feeling as "previous to" whatever else comprises the arising experience. We speak of the "One/singular/undivided expression" that is experience, as "a movement," but really, the Universe is not moving...nor is "Source/God" moving....The Universe, is just an idea that represents the totality of what mind imagines to be, in terms of the experiential "realm." It's true, relatively speaking, life is experienced as one happening unfolding into another, but again, that view requires mind to imagine a future moment and harken back in memory to a "past experience." WHAT IS, is always and only, that which is imminently, directly known to be appearing, here and now. All else involves imagination/memory...harkening back to "the past." |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2024 17:53:38 GMT
But, what do YOU say? There's this constant subjugating of your authority of seeing to others such as Seth, A-H. Have the confidence to go it alone.....to delve within vs. always harkening back to something you read from some channeler. That which is fundamentally so, is there for anyone to see if they are looking from the right place/position. (Hint; that 'positionless/position' is NOT via the eyes of a deliberate creator...a person who panders to her separation-based desires, and believes that the only 'good life,' is one that is deliberate controlled so that the story-line will conform with her ideas of how things should be). Here's a point of inquiry for you; Are YOU really "in a body"? (Hint: If we're talking Truth, the body appears within/to Awareness vs. the other way around). There's a difference between "going straight there" conceptually vs. realizationally. It is very much possible that in a moment of self-inquiry, the bottom might drop out and the SVP dissolves, all separation dissolves as the locus of seeing shifts to beyond. Remember, there IS not path/set of hoops that MUST be jumped through for Self to be realized. The seeing through of that which obscures the Truth from shining through, is not a step-by-step process. It is acauasal. Aces, as the Mutt would say.  You just asserted SR as caused. You just asserted the existence of a path to SR. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 12, 2024 23:04:52 GMT
Universe moves in such a way that something is felt and then manifestation follows. But both of them are not in our control. Any reference for time/space as illusion? Talk of 'what comes first' always takes mind into looking to memory/past experience...what I 'recall' as appearing prior to this imminent moment of experience, and as such, involves a mental position, which is a departure from this imminent NOW of experiential content, and which serves to prise apart that which is otherwise, actually, a singular expression....feeling is itself an appearance, part and parcel of perceivable content... a facet of whatever the imminent experience IS...here...NOW. The moment you become aware of awakening from deep sleep...in that imminent, direct, NOW experience, can you really parse out the 'feeling' component to say it preceded all other perceivable content? ..feeling too is a manifestation...an appearing facet of whatever this moment holds in terms of experience. You cannot prise apart the feeling component of an imminent, present moment to declare feeling as "previous to" whatever else comprises the arising experience. We speak of the "One/singular/undivided expression" that is experience, as "a movement," but really, the Universe is not moving...nor is "Source/God" moving....The Universe, is just an idea that represents the totality of what mind imagines to be, in terms of the experiential "realm." It's true, relatively speaking, life is experienced as one happening unfolding into another, but again, that view requires mind to imagine a future moment and harken back in memory to a "past experience." WHAT IS, is always and only, that which is imminently, directly known to be appearing, here and now. All else involves imagination/memory...harkening back to "the past." That's correct, feeling itself is happening now. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 13, 2024 4:05:14 GMT
Epistemological question… how do you know this? In what way do you know this? What level of certainty? I have directly witnessed it. At first I thought I am creating the feeling and manifestation follows but its false, feelings happen first and then manifestation follows it. Feeling is the indication of what's about to come. I can understand you saying that you've witnessed a feeling arising and then as the story unfolds, that is followed by a particular circumstance, but that does not equal "directly witnessing" law of attraction or even "creation" per se. A "process of creation" can only be inferred/assumed/concluded. Such a process never actually itself, appears. |
|
You make it sound as though you have zero use for the point of view of the one you blocked/banned, but your behavior screams otherwise. 
