Extraterrestrials, gods and daemons - A clairvoyant investigation.

a reply to: pigsy2400

In many ways that seems to be true.

Congratulations, you are now a Buddhist.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Actually lol...

Do I get a badge, t-shirt and a welcome pack or anything

a reply to: pigsy2400

You get a hug, and then you are encourage to eat only rice, so that you don't injure living beings that you don't actually believe in.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Joking aside as I don't want to bag on Buddhism, but I love exploring these kind of ideas/thoughts and hypothesis. Gets my juices flowing....

In terms of both you and Whatsthisthen changing your perspectives, what was it specifically that made you alter your course of thought?

a reply to: pigsy2400

I wasn't joking about Buddhism.. I was being flat-out serious. And not just Buddhism. Various yoga schools too... Vedanta in general..and in specific Advaita ("not two but one"). These forms of philosophy lead one to various screwy internal conflicts.. which when 'solved' leads one to the incorrect assumption that they are now 'enlightened'. It gets very messy.

But to answer your question. It's very simple really.

Any model that one can create to explain something, can either be anthropomorphized, or not anthropomorphized. For example, there's the very famous case, where these researchers created 'tulpa' from scratch. The more they acted like their experiment was a real being, the more real it became, until it started doing poltergeist effects, etc. (I need to find that reference). I't been done many times.

Multiply that by 7 billion, and almost anything should be doable.. certainly UFOs.. it's really a perfect explanation for "UFOs"... as there are SO MANY reports of "UFOs" but no "UFOs". Oh sure deception and self-delusion are a large part.. but the rest get answered beautifully with this theory.

When I did the whole 'plasma lifeforms' in my body thing.. in the very beginning there wasn't much substance to 'the cosmic child'. But the more of 'myself' that I put into it (the more I 'loved it') the more real and solid it became.. Oh sure you could go with the 'hatchling doesn't know what it's doing at first, as it's so young'.. but the Tulpa explanation works just as well.

When you come to realize that 'we' aren't all that real either.. that in many ways we are 'tulpas' too.. the whole 'beings' vs. not-beings thing gets much less confusing.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

You guys aren't crashing, can talk as we like here. : )

I suppose this would also be good point to humbly note, that I too have had some mild position changes over the past 5 years on ATS. The line between what is a 'being' and what is a phenomenon created by a being, is a very tough nut to crack.. and in fact may be the 'smoking gun' of 'spirituality' as a whole. When i first came to ATS, I was big on parasites/symbiotes.. and I certainly still see why I was.. but I find the 'answer' is probably far more nuanced than that, as humans too are just temporary beings.... not really any different than other temporary beings who aren't fully real. Humans are not fully real, at least compared to more enduring forms of life.

Yeah, I often just think we are watching ripples on the surface of a pond and not seeing who or what is making the ripples.

Some people look at the ripples, and some look for the cause.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Particle or wave!

Sound or ear drum!

Expeiencer or experienced!

The trick it so make the apparently conflicting stuff work for you.. and not
to just walk around with your head being religious/spiritual/crazy mush.

It can be done..

i'm a demon

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

it's hard as #.

a reply to: i77oomiknotti

Not if you don't fall prey to the usual assumptions built into human culture and these cultural/philosophical/religious/systems.. but yes, you are correct---everything is 'easy' when you have the answer and have done it. On top of that, the tendency is to demand more of the process than it is capable of delivering. I.E insisting on 'enlightenment, ascension, etc---when those were never on the table to begin with, not in any real sense.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

your cool.

imma go do voodoo on the beach to snatch the sun out of the sky.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I think so too KPB.

a reply to: pigsy2400

Geez like an interview : )

From your first post in this thread, do you believe that this sentient intelligence would be misconstrued as demonic?

Mmmm, "demon" is a label. Like "American"or "Aussie", go and meet the demon and get to know it.

Last question; Has your original stance / hypothesis changed since the first post on this thread in 2016?

I've learned a lot more since then, so there are more cogs in the machine which means greater complexity to understand the big picture. Becoming . . . .

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Did you ever read the post where I described how I accidentally got caught in a djinn bottle supposedly? I won't bore you with the supposed details. Just saying that 'we' are probably 'demons' too, to someone, somewhere.. if they call a wrong number and get us.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Haha, not at all...didn't want to pollute your answer is all

I'm very much down with that people see what they believe in, confirmation bias -KPB et al...all about your perception and what you are seeing and how you decide what labels you give.

I suppose there is much unlearning to be done..

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

your response put a big smile on my face... LOL.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Going to challenge you here kev, why is it just the a-typical UFOS that are mostly reported.

You theory fits "too well".. Enough people believe in dragons, but we don't see them on video or hear witness testimony about it...?

Or is it a case of the dragon meme has been used and the card on top of the deck is currently the UFO one?

( PS.i don't pretend that you know everything btw)

a reply to: pigsy2400

I don't know everything.

And in fact..

I asked your very question, to debunk my own theory a few times.. I.E why are naked phantasms of porn stars, etc, not materializing, but 'UFOs' are?

Well.. that's one of best questions... and we need to come to the bottom of it.

Now.. in 'defense' of 'my theory'... there formerly WERE such materializations... they were called succubus and incubus.

So I think there are personal materializations to this day, that people in general don't see, other than the 'experiencer'.. or admit to, other than the 'experiencer'.

But that said.. I don't think that dragons are very high on anyone's fantasy list to believe in... but they used to be! (there are myths about dragons after all).

I think that our imaginations are bieng 'straight jacketed', where only something like 'seeing a UFO' is even REMOTELY socially acceptable.. so people see UFOs.

Also, since so many people are SO DESPERATE to see 'ufos' maybe our 'collective unconscious' tends to capture individual manifestations and direct them into the 'angst of our time'.

But really? good question, and I don't know.

The other obvious explanation is that my theory is completely wrong.. it would be wonderful if that could be proven.. then I could start on some other theory.

Kev

PS:

Of course it's utterly fascinating that 'my btufo encounter' had these elements:

1) a 'ufo'
2) a hostile machine intelligence
3) a fairie (held prisoner by the machine intelligence).

Now... I had NOT assumed that mixture before doing the summoning.. NOT AT ALL.

There are any number of explanations for why all these elements may have appeared.. including the possibility of a 'digital / analog war' if taken literally... to a mythological explanation or archetypal explanation.. or all of the above.

But that it's still possible to have non-standard materializations is an interesting factoid.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

(smile) I didn't see that post. Like my getting eaten by a worm I would think.

Getting out is the hard part.

I think "someone" sometimes ikes to throw people in the deep end of the pool in order to teach them to swim.

As a tactic of dealing with people it is a good one, effective.