It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Subconscious Is My Spirituality

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

It seems your only argument is I am wrong, you are right. If this is the extent of your mystical insight, I couldn't imagine what other wisdom you are capable of.

No one is denying your experiences, mule. No one could. But it is quite simple to deny your spiritual authority, of which there is no such thing, just another superstition in a long list of them. The insights a mystic offers is the insight into their own body, in which they have gone to great lengths to limit. If I wanted to know what it is like to castrate oneself, I'd ask.

I argue that the subconscious is not any sort of mystical enitity, but something real and tangible. I argue that the conscious is the exact same thing. This thing is the element that is both conscious and subconscious, and is the only element we are ever talking about in discussions like these: the body.




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

It seems your only argument is I am wrong, you are right. If this is the extent of your mystical insight, I couldn't imagine what other wisdom you are capable of.


Oh, I think you could, if you tried. It's just that, your imagination is unidirectional and self-serving.


No one is denying your experiences, mule. No one could. But it is quite simple to deny your spiritual authority, of which there is no such thing, just another superstition in a long list of them. The insights a mystic offers is the insight into their own body, in which they have gone to great lengths to limit. If I wanted to know what it is like to castrate oneself, I'd ask.


Again with the armchair criticism.

If you want to know what insights a mystic offers, you have to become a mystic yourself. You have to see for yourself. You have to build your own telescope.

"To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about." -Sam Harris

If one can't or won't build their own telescope, then one should STFU. The wise speak of only what they know.


I argue that the subconscious is not any sort of mystical enitity, but something real and tangible. I argue that the conscious is the exact same thing. This thing is the element that is both conscious and subconscious, and is the only element we are ever talking about in discussions like these: the body.


The arguments of an armchair critic, who has not built his own telescope, mean nothing to me.

Your problem is you have not connected the dots between the mystical literature of the world and the evidence of extraordinary human functioning that science has produced.


edit on 102ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I have yet to see any insight that doesn't involve them at the center of the entire universe. How should I expect someone who refuses to seek knowledge at full capacity to produce anything otherwise? The mystic is a human being that diminishes his capacities instead of strengthens them. One can only imagine what sorts if works are realized in such a weakened state.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

The insight of mystics does not involve them, that is to say the ego-self, at the center of the universe. The insight of mystics is transpersonal, not personal. And it includes you.

"If one can't see God in all, then one can't see God at all" -Siri Singh Sahib

I see God in you. I can see it. I don't need anyone to tell me that. I am no more the center of the universe than you are. The center is everywhere, because consciousness is non-local. It's not trapped in your skull.

"God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.”

-Voltaire


edit on 123Thursday000000America/ChicagoJul000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

There is no God in me. And such an insight has no use to someone who doesn't need it.

I am something you cannot see nor apprehend beyond your own imagination, by virtue of the fact that you have not met me nor know anything about me.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I think of my subconscious as another being that lives within me. It has some strange abilities that I am trying to understand. I feel it can communicate with other living entities, especially the ones living within me and on me. If it is the central processor of the body, I feel that it can convince the little microbes living symbiotically with me to live symbiotically. to work together to create a sustainable society. Now there may be some that come along and act like humans and destroy their environment, but I feel if there are enough of the other types to fight against them than everything will be all right.

I also think that the subconscious can link to other beings, even humans, that allow the connection. Even many bugs and plants. It steers the body to emit certain chemicals and also possibly a link of frequencies that is like a data transmission. I've been around long enough to see many things happen that I know are not by chance. Call it premonitions or whatever you want, I think there is something to it that we are led to believe does not exist.

I believe our subconscious can also read our dna and maybe the dna of others through touch. Maybe that is why they are telling us to wash our hands all the time and people are wearing gloves now. Some of us are readers if we are not doped up on the foods that block this ability.

I feel that when you talk to yourself inside your head to practice for something or to work things out, you are communicating with this being. I know this being is me, not another person or spirit, but the knowledge it can attain is great. Maybe consciously we do not remember things, but the subconscious remembers a lot, translating it into a language that we do not understand.

Can this Subconscious link with a supreme being? I think it can. But how would we know if we are linking with god or just our imagination. This is hard to comprehend.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

There is no God in me. And such an insight has no use to someone who doesn't need it.


Denial is a predictable response from someone at your stage of development.


I am something you cannot see nor apprehend beyond your own imagination, by virtue of the fact that you have not met me nor know anything about me.


I know that you are Clark Kent, and you have yet to reveal the Superman underneath. You are human.

Know Thyself.

"Absolutely. I mean, again the phrase, “the “human as two”” is meant as sort of the balancing point because of course the history of religion, the history of these experiences were usually understood to be some kind of God or deity or transcendent world intervening in the life of the person, wherewith these modern mystics, these authors and artists, they’re usually suspicious of those kinds of religious projections. They don’t see these experiences as proving the existence of God, per se, or some Heaven or some Hell.

They see these experiences establishing that the “human as two”, not that the human being is experiencing God but that the human experience of God is actually a human experience of some other aspect of the human being. God is, if you will, a name previous cultures and eras have given to this other part of who we actually are. So this ends up effectively divinizing human beings, but not the social self or the ego, not what I call the “Clark Kent” aspect of who we are but this sort of secret self, the other side of it that peeks through very rarely but fairly consistently throughout human history. So it’s really a way of trying to humanize and bring down the divinity into human experience."
-Jeffrey Kripal


edit on 145ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I am only denying your assertion. I don't follow nor recognize any intelligibility in the idea that we are two selves. If I were to ask a mystic to demonstrate this Clark Kent and superman, my gaze would never avert from the same thing. Clark Kent and superman is the same entity- kal-el, like the evening star and the morning star is both Venus.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Of course you don't recognize it. There was a point when Clark didn't either. That's the point you're at, metaphorically speaking.

I'm going to sleep now, to dream of those who came before.
They are calling, from across the distant shore.

You are welcome to join us, Clark.




edit on 206Thursday000000America/ChicagoJul000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Why is every spiritual thread that is attempting to establish beneficial knowledge getting turned into a crap-storm of ego vs. ego, my spirituality is better than your spirituality? Brothers and sisters must you be reminded that there is only ONE true reality? The paths that lead there are many but they all inevitably lead to the same source. Can we please try not to destroy spirituality like we have already destroyed religion? Please, find the compassion in your hearts, find that spirituality you cherish so much and use your understanding to help each other, to benefit each other, not to demean each other like undisciplined school children!

The absolute foundation to all spiritual teachings and practice is to establish that ones comprehension is veiled by ignorance, if you find yourself defending a means or arguing over knowledge that should be a sign that you are not practicing what you preach! Do not do this to yourselves! Be humble, be loving, be ONE.
edit on 3-7-2014 by EviLCHiMP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: EviLCHiMP

No thank you. We are not destroying anything or harming anything. We are simply passing the time.

My apology to the OP.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

You're making a mockery of the path and it's teachings by belittling it to mere argument and he said she said nonsense. How can you have such little respect for the path? The path is not to be used to serve your ego!



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: EviLCHiMP

I believe I walked into the twilight zone. What I thought was a discussion on the subconscious becomes discourse with a bunch of inquisitors screaming heresy.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

I am only denying your assertion.


It's almost as if the universe sent me a denial machine for early Christmas, programmed for knee-jerk denial, regardless of any evidence I have to back up my assertions. Won't I be surprised! You sure pass the Turing test, Clark-bot. I wonder what would happen if I told you the sky is blue.

I'm not accusing you of heresy, Clark-bot. I'm accusing you of knee-jerk denialism and armchair criticism. You can indulge in naïve realism and worship the "concrete" if you want. It's a free country.


edit on 637FridayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluFridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Where else would the Twilight Zone be, if not the unconscious? Where else would the "imaginary worlds" you loath be, if not the unconscious?


edit on 631Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I seem to recall you wanted me to leave these boards, mule. And here I am. Utilize your psychic abilities, maybe?

Yes I have denied everything you've said, but only because it is so simple to refute. To this day I am still waiting for a single counter-argument. I hear all this self-promotion about your super powers. I wonder when we'll start to see them?



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


a reply to: Aphorism

Where else would the Twilight Zone be, if not the unconscious? Where else would the "imaginary worlds" you loath be, if not


How can I loathe something that doesn't exist? Loathing what is in one's imagination is your game, mule.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

As for me, my pesky subconscious continually replays unresolved matters that I consciously may or may not choose to ignore and deny. Where is my freedom of choice to simply discard that particular layer and merrily venture around and around the circle for a while? Well, I seem to have no freedom in that respect, until I have dealt with decades-old recurring subconcious ramblings - which at first reckoning seem to have nothing at all to do with my present conscious/physical/spiritual path; but they always do.

Sometimes, when meditating into the darkness, it is as if I can skip all the layers and enter directly into the centre of the circle for a lesson in another spiritual (and physical?) reality.
edit on 4-7-2014 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2014 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule


a reply to: Aphorism

Where else would the Twilight Zone be, if not the unconscious? Where else would the "imaginary worlds" you loath be, if not


How can I loathe something that doesn't exist?


The imagination is the only thing we can really be certain isn't imaginary.

You seem to have a simplistic man-on-the-street concept of the imaginal realm, Clark-bot. It's much more than that. 'Active imagination' is a meditation technique wherein the contents of the unconscious are translated into images, narrative or personified as separate entities. It can serve as a bridge between the conscious mind and the unconscious mind, and it includes working with dreams and the creative self via imagination or fantasy.

The 'imaginary worlds' you despise so much in fact do exist, insofar as they are translations of unconscious contents. That is how you can loathe something that doesn't "exist".

I await your automatic rejection and armchair criticism of this meditation technique. Carry out your prime function.


edit on 934Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism

Yes I have denied everything you've said, but only because it is so simple to refute.


Denial isn't quite the same thing as refuting. You haven't actually refuted anything, you've simply stuck your fingers in your ears and trolled.


edit on 979Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join