Secrets of Our Existence and Universe Unraveled

reply to post by squandered


Thank you for taking your time to read all those pages! Many people added some very interesting ideas along the way. Their insight was very valuable to me. Since the experience, I find myself thinking about it more and more. I come up with new questions, and I wonder if I'll ever have enough time to ask them all. I'll try to keep in mind everything that's been asked so far, in case I find myself back in the same place.

I'm also now much more curious about science, biology, mathematics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, and all those subjects in search of discovering the truth about our world. I think it would be absolutely amazing if all these scientists could get together every month or every year, and discuss their finds with each other. I feel that it's very important for all these people to share the information, because sometimes a piece of the puzzle will be found within a different field of study. When they remain segregated from each other, their noses only to their own research in their own fields, they are less likely to discover the big picture. They all need to work together to discover the truth.

reply to post by 2manyquestions


I think it was Jesus that said something like, if you understand the question you already know the answer... the actual quote is much different though. It's in an answer on this thread.

I've become much more interested in science lately too and for the same reasons. It's like the way I intuitively understand things is being revealed by sub atomic wave / particle relations. I'm so glad I'm not so unusual after all

I meditated well last night, trying to bring my spirit in line with my soul. That is, I feel my spirit is naturally enlightened and I want to balance that with my waking life, if only to take my perspective away from the mundane hum of conformity and in my case a sort of 'cover all' logic derived from the nervous energy I produce to motivate myself. In other words, I just want to live in the hear and now - thusness, you know...

"What the bleep do we know" is an inspiring movie. The science is a bit fictional, but the inspiration behind the message is really empowering.

reply to post by 2manyquestions


Hello,

I just joined ATS today but I've followed the site for about a year now. After reading this post, it was knew I HAD to join to reply. I lot of what you siad has been EXACTLY what I had thought life was about but I had no one to share it with. People are so pre-occuppied with material possessions or has no patience to actually THINK about the purpose of life. The example about maybe breaking off billions of pieces of yourself and each piece is a sentient being itself, searching about what life is all about is exactly what I've thought! I know this was posted a while ago but it was sooooo on target in my book.

Peace!

reply to post by Podius1


Welcome -officially- to ATS. I'm glad that you felt a connection to the thread. I never could have guessed how many people would feel the same way about the Universe and hold such similar beliefs. I know that the experience changed me in many ways. I feel like I need to share it with as many people as possible, but at the same time I don't like shoving spiritual/religious beliefs down anyone's throat. It feels good to talk about it, especially with those who have had the same experience, or held these same beliefs for a long time. It makes me feel a little less crazy. Thanks for joining up and commenting!

reply to post by 2manyquestions


Nice story. Only problem is the issue of this infinite whatever-it-is and it's ignorance of its own physical nature. That one inconsistency suggests that while the story is pretty detailed, the most important part of the tale's backstory is information that the author simply can't provide. Of course, this one small lack of overall revelation is extremely troublesome when trying to accept this vision as being anything more than what anyone who's read the very common premise that suggests that we're all bits of God pieced out to allow IT the opportunity to experience contextual juxtaposition for ITself would be familiar with. I call this the "All exploding itself to experience its All-ness with itself" God explanation, and it's got a number of supporting narrative structures.

The way I see it, if a prophet can't get the All to explain how it came to be and how it is that it exists within a contextual environment that allows it to fragment in any way whatsoever without there being such a contextual environment at all, then that prophet never encountered any sort of All at all. At least not an All that is as All as it claims to be.

reply to post by NorEaster


Any all encompassing explanation is a limitation. If the ALL could show boundaries, it would not be ALL. If you ask for proof of origination you can't receive such information from "god", as the limitations that enable any explanation of origin forfeit the claim to be "god".

Bit of a catch 22 huh?

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Any all encompassing explanation is a limitation. If the ALL could show boundaries, it would not be ALL. If you ask for proof of origination you can't receive such information from "god", as the limitations that enable any explanation of origin forfeit the claim to be "god".

Bit of a catch 22 huh?

Not at all. You are imposing your "belief" on what and who god is and dismissing anything that does not fiat that belief.

reply to post by NorEaster

The way I see it, if a prophet can't get the All to explain how it came to be and how it is that it exists within a contextual environment that allows it to fragment in any way whatsoever without there being such a contextual environment at all, then that prophet never encountered any sort of All at all. At least not an All that is as All as it claims to be.

That makes no sense. You claim to be a human but can you explain how humans came to be? Yet you are still a human. And if it always existed and never not existed then of course it cannot say how it came to be for it has always been...

reply to post by hawkiye

Not at all. You are imposing your "belief" on what and who god is and dismissing anything that does not fiat that belief.

I was explaining what "ALL" entails, logically.
I was expressing the fact that I can't possibly understand god, stating that if you hope to understand god, you must fail as whatever you believe god to be, god is greater.

If you think that you can put a date to gods beginning and / or ending etc, this would fly in the face of logic.

You are sporting some kind of ownership of god. I am not.

Originally posted by hawkiye

reply to post by NorEaster

 

The way I see it, if a prophet can't get the All to explain how it came to be and how it is that it exists within a contextual environment that allows it to fragment in any way whatsoever without there being such a contextual environment at all, then that prophet never encountered any sort of All at all. At least not an All that is as All as it claims to be.

That makes no sense. You claim to be a human but can you explain how humans came to be? Yet you are still a human. And if it always existed and never not existed then of course it cannot say how it came to be for it has always been...

edit on 14-4-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

The issue isn't that it doesn't know its own origins, although in this business of explaining God and ultimate reality, that is a big red flag when someone claims that God has told him or her that it has no idea at all what it is or how it came to be. Most ascendent masters simply omit that part of their suite of inspired revelations, and I was pretty surprised when this one here (the OP) went right up and admitted that he has no idea what God is or how God came to be, and then blamed God itself for not knowing when he asked it.

The real issue involves the contextual environment that this God thingy exists within. Now, you can claim that it doesn't exist within any contextual environment at all, but if you thoroughly examine the nature of this individual's experience - and check out the cool artist's rendition - you'll see that there is a contextual environment that the OP shared with this God thingy as he asked it questions and got non-answers.

Now, what is a contextual environment, you might ask. I'll explain in the simplest terms possible, and use the OP and the God thingy that he visited as illustration aids.

The OP is not the God thingy, at least he's not the God thingy that he had an intellectual exchange with while he was meditating. If he were that God thingy, there could not have realistically (logically) been an exchange on any sort with it. Not a true exchange. It would have amounted to the OP taking both sides of a faux dialogue, which (of course) would only be an imitation of an exchange, and not a true exchange. Okay, so we have that point settled, the OP and the God thingy - according to the OP's own depiction - exist as two individual entities that met and had an intellectual exchange.

Now, with two holon entities (the OP and the God thingy) existing in contextual juxtaposition with one another, what is required is a contextual environment that such a juxtaposition can occur within. Its not necessarily what we corporeal beings would recognize as a place, or an enclosure, but it is a physical confine that is defined by a sub-structural commonality that both entities share. One example of such a sub-structural commonality is the Unit Rate of Change (URC) that unites us with all that shares our own contextual environment (both corporeal and non-corporeal). With change occurring at a common rate, we experience a common "now" with one another, and since the OP was able to converse with this God thingy, it's obvious that this God thingy also shares this URC with us. That means that whatever it is that the OP chatted with, it exists within the confines of our own shared contextual environment.

The inescapable conclusion is that this God thingy is not an "All" at all, but is just another entity that exists within our own contextual environment. Obviously, it doesn't know its own origin, even if it does have a clue concerning its own existential nature. I guess I'm not surprised that whatever it is, it knew to suggest that it is the Alpha and Omega and the center of physical reality. I'd probably do the same to some primitive guy happening upon me, and just so that I could chuckle a little as he went back and started a religion over it with his friends and family.

There's a time coming soon when this sort of thing will no longer be seen as significant. In fact, the time is coming really soon, when a lot of people are going to see right through this stuff, and the mystics are going to have to find a new line of work. Believe what you want, but just remember what I'm telling you. People are sensing a big change. Well, they're right, but it's going to be a lot bigger than they could've ever imagined.

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Not at all. You are imposing your "belief" on what and who god is and dismissing anything that does not fiat that belief.

I was explaining what "ALL" entails, logically.
I was expressing the fact that I can't possibly understand god, stating that if you hope to understand god, you must fail as whatever you believe god to be, god is greater.

If you think that you can put a date to gods beginning and / or ending etc, this would fly in the face of logic.

You are sporting some kind of ownership of god. I am not.

Your concept of God flies in the face of the same logic that such a god would have used to ensure the physical integrity of what it has created. Not everyone can really understand logic at its most primitive and most rigid, but that doesn't release reality from its stranglehold. Perception is not, and never has been, reality. And while imagination is wonderful, nothing has ever been brought into concrete existence as a result of free and unfettered whimsy. In short, not everyone is suited to the task of unraveling the mysteries of reality, so don't let it get you down. Maybe you're good with a PowerPoint presentation?

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by 2manyquestions

 

Nice story. Only problem is the issue of this infinite whatever-it-is and it's ignorance of its own physical nature. That one inconsistency suggests that while the story is pretty detailed, the most important part of the tale's backstory is information that the author simply can't provide.

I understand where you're coming from. If I hadn't seen it for myself, I would have the same questions and conclusions as you do. IT didn't have ignorance of it's own physical nature. It knew what it was, what it was doing and why it was doing it. It said that it just is/was. That's a VERY difficult concept for us to understand. If it is infinite, then it didn't have a beginning or end. It didn't have a father and mother, birth and death like we understand it here, it was the mother and father and child, and everything else out and in between. Maybe I just didn't ask the right questions.

It wasn't "physical", but it was able to create the illusion of what we would call a "physical" reality for itself (us). Explaining it is a bit difficult, because although I felt like I was there for a very long time, it was still not enough time to ask and remember all the information passed onto me. Where I found myself was completely unexpected. I wasn't prepared with a list of questions to ask IT. First I tried to process the visual aspect of it all, the shock of realizing where I was, and then on my way "out" I had just enough time to ask those one or two questions I really wanted an answer to. Although I'd love to give you an answer, I don't want to go over it too many times looking for the answer, because like with any memory, people start adding and/or subtracting detail to/from the memory. I don't want to distort the experience by looking back to the memory and try to pull out of it something that might not have been there. I plan on repeating it, so hopefully I'll be more prepared next time. I've already started compiling a list of questions for that purpose.

Of course, this one small lack of overall revelation is extremely troublesome when trying to accept this vision as being anything more than what anyone who's read the very common premise that suggests that we're all bits of God pieced out to allow IT the opportunity to experience contextual juxtaposition for ITself would be familiar with. I call this the "All exploding itself to experience its All-ness with itself" God explanation, and it's got a number of supporting narrative structures.

I've briefly glanced and heard about the "Oneness", but never -understood- it until now. It's one of those things where you see or hear people talk about some experience. You think you 'know' what they're going through because you've listened to them enough or you read a book or two on it, but when you finally experience it for yourself, you realize you NEVER truly -understood- until now.

I always believed that these people talking about Oneness or enlightenment were full of it. I always thought they were kooks. Some of them still may be kooks (just using someone else's experience, pretending and repeating what they heard someone else who actually went through it say), but I now understand where some of those 'stories' come from. As for infinity, I had absolutely no clue where that symbol came from. It never entered my mind as something mystical. I always had the opinion that the infinity symbol came from mathematics and I never associated it with "God". When I saw that spinning body of light particles in the shape of an eight on it's side, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I almost literally exclaimed a big "OOHHH! Now I get it!!!"

The way I see it, if a prophet can't get the All to explain how it came to be and how it is that it exists within a contextual environment that allows it to fragment in any way whatsoever without there being such a contextual environment at all, then that prophet never encountered any sort of All at all. At least not an All that is as All as it claims to be.

I don't feel that it didn't answer my question. I feel like it gave me an answer I have a hard time understanding. You're asking me to answer the kind of questions nobody has yet been able to answer. We're talking mathematics, physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics, biology, and a number of subjects I have very limited knowledge of. My basic knowledge of these things isn't nearly enough to give you an answer you'll find satisfactory. I wish mathematicians or quantum physicists could have been in my position, because surely they would have been able to make more sense out of it than I can. Post-experience I feel that these experts are slowly chipping away at this mystery. Some of them seem to be onto it more than others, but we are still VERY far away from being able to explain it with proof beyond a doubt. In fact I've become far more interested in these subjects post-experience, because of the fact that it seemed to me that this consciousness creates our reality and our Universe using incredibly complex equations (that's a very basic description). It's like a peasant living in 1045 A.D. and having a vision of E=MC squared. He might be able to draw and write the equation down, he may be able to describe it's dimensions, but he'll never understand what it means.

I don't claim to be a "prophet". All I did was share an experience I had, and I tried to give as much detail as I remembered. I don't feel "chosen", I don't feel "holy", and I don't intend to convert or cram this stuff down anyone's throat. I won't be starting my own church or recruiting anyone to my cult. It was a very personal experience, it changed me, and the best I hope out of it is to connect with other people who have also had a similar experience. I liken it to wanting to join a support group. Rape/abuse victims, cancer patients, addicts etc. sometimes join groups to discuss their problems or experiences, because they feel like people who have never experienced such things won't ever fully understand. I feel that way about my experience. I feel like although I know there's many people who have read about these things, they may never LIVE it, and therefore won't have that experience to fully understand it.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

I don't feel that it didn't answer my question. I feel like it gave me an answer I have a hard time understanding. You're asking me to answer the kind of questions nobody has yet been able to answer. We're talking mathematics, physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics, biology, and a number of subjects I have very limited knowledge of. My basic knowledge of these things isn't nearly enough to give you an answer you'll find satisfactory. I wish mathematicians or quantum physicists could have been in my position, because surely they would have been able to make more sense out of it than I can. Post-experience I feel that these experts are slowly chipping away at this mystery. Some of them seem to be onto it more than others, but we are still VERY far away from being able to explain it with proof beyond a doubt. In fact I've become far more interested in these subjects post-experience, because of the fact that it seemed to me that this consciousness creates our reality and our Universe using incredibly complex equations (that's a very basic description). It's like a peasant living in 1045 A.D. and having a vision of E=MC squared. He might be able to draw and write the equation down, he may be able to describe it's dimensions, but he'll never understand what it means.

Oddly enough, I can tell you exactly how the author of our own contextual environment - the very same one that you shared wth this whatever-it-is - came into existence. It doesn't take a transcendent experience to figure it out, and it doesn't take any faith whatsoever in an unknowable unknown. Nothing is unknowable. Ay least nothing that actually exists. If you're trying to defend an impossibility, then yes, you'll have to embrace an unknowable unknown, but that should be your clue that what you're trying to defend is simply not true.

I don't claim to be a "prophet". All I did was share an experience I had, and I tried to give as much detail as I remembered. I don't feel "chosen", I don't feel "holy", and I don't intend to convert or cram this stuff down anyone's throat. I won't be starting my own church or recruiting anyone to my cult. It was a very personal experience, it changed me, and the best I hope out of it is to connect with other people who have also had a similar experience. I liken it to wanting to join a support group. Rape/abuse victims, cancer patients, addicts etc. sometimes join groups to discuss their problems or experiences, because they feel like people who have never experienced such things won't ever fully understand. I feel that way about my experience. I feel like although I know there's many people who have read about these things, they may never LIVE it, and therefore won't have that experience to fully understand it.

edit on 15-4-2011 by 2manyquestions because: (no reason given)

An expereince is nothing more than an experience. Perception is not fact, and has never been fact. What is also true is that the way that one progresses into a deep meditative state is exactly the same way that one progresses into deep states of self hypnosis. I know this because I used to record self hypnosis cassette tapes for friends of mine back in the 1980s when there was interest in that sort of thing for use in quitting smoking and other things like that. The exact process is what I have since discovered is being used to achieve deep meditative levels. I guess I'm not surprised.

I believe that you had that experience, but I don't believe that that thing was "the All". Check out my overview of the concept of contextual juxtaposition and the need for a contextual environment for that sort of thing to be possible between two unique entities. That is the bottom line in this situation, and regardless of how profound it seemed, that whatever-it-is was not being honest with you. And it knows that it wasn't being honest with you. The informational realm is no less full of threats and scams than the corporeal realm. That said, the informational realm's got good and decent humans within it as well, and they've been working to clear some of this crap up. The hard part is that the truth isn't as exciting as the SciFi con jobs generally are.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

I don't feel that it didn't answer my question. I feel like it gave me an answer I have a hard time understanding. You're asking me to answer the kind of questions nobody has yet been able to answer. We're talking mathematics, physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics, biology, and a number of subjects I have very limited knowledge of. My basic knowledge of these things isn't nearly enough to give you an answer you'll find satisfactory. I wish mathematicians or quantum physicists could have been in my position, because surely they would have been able to make more sense out of it than I can. Post-experience I feel that these experts are slowly chipping away at this mystery. Some of them seem to be onto it more than others, but we are still VERY far away from being able to explain it with proof beyond a doubt. In fact I've become far more interested in these subjects post-experience, because of the fact that it seemed to me that this consciousness creates our reality and our Universe using incredibly complex equations (that's a very basic description). It's like a peasant living in 1045 A.D. and having a vision of E=MC squared. He might be able to draw and write the equation down, he may be able to describe it's dimensions, but he'll never understand what it means.

Oddly enough, I can tell you exactly how the author of our own contextual environment - the very same one that you shared wth this whatever-it-is - came into existence. It doesn't take a transcendent experience to figure it out, and it doesn't take any faith whatsoever in an unknowable unknown. Nothing is unknowable. Ay least nothing that actually exists. If you're trying to defend an impossibility, then yes, you'll have to embrace an unknowable unknown, but that should be your clue that what you're trying to defend is simply not true.

I don't claim that there are or aren't 'unknowable' things. I feel that there are things I don't understand, but this doesn't mean that those same things are 'unknowable'. I accept the fact that sometimes I will encounter situations or things which I will not be able to understand. It doesn't mean that I will never understand them, but for the time-being I probably won't be able to comprehend them. Someone else looking at those same things may come to understand them even if I could not.

An expereince is nothing more than an experience. Perception is not fact, and has never been fact. What is also true is that the way that one progresses into a deep meditative state is exactly the same way that one progresses into deep states of self hypnosis. I know this because I used to record self hypnosis cassette tapes for friends of mine back in the 1980s when there was interest in that sort of thing for use in quitting smoking and other things like that. The exact process is what I have since discovered is being used to achieve deep meditative levels. I guess I'm not surprised.

At the beginning of the original post I said I had an experience, and I asked people to take it anyway they want to take it. I perceived something, I shared my perception, but I do not expect anyone to take it as fact. It felt very real to me, but I understand that without proof I can't possibly ask anyone to believe me beyond any doubt. You may be right about self-hypnosis. Maybe my experience is nothing but an illusion I dreamed up on my own. I don't deny that this may be a possibility. I'd like to believe that it was more than an illusion, but if proof emerges someday to prove otherwise, I will accept it for what it really was. Whether or not it was "real", I do feel that I benefited from it.

I believe that you had that experience, but I don't believe that that thing was "the All". Check out my overview of the concept of contextual juxtaposition and the need for a contextual environment for that sort of thing to be possible between two unique entities. That is the bottom line in this situation, and regardless of how profound it seemed, that whatever-it-is was not being honest with you. And it knows that it wasn't being honest with you. The informational realm is no less full of threats and scams than the corporeal realm. That said, the informational realm's got good and decent humans within it as well, and they've been working to clear some of this crap up. The hard part is that the truth isn't as exciting as the SciFi con jobs generally are.

I'll check it out. If you could, please post a link. If I understand you correctly, you assume that the entity was separate from me. Let's pretend for a moment that my experience was a glimpse into a Universal truth. I did not feel separate from the consciousness. I felt extremely connected to it and I felt I was a small piece of it. I was it, fragmented from myself, just like you would be IT, fragmented from yourself. In that case I would have to lie to myself. I don't feel that I would purposely deceive myself, but then again anything is possible. Is it possible that all of this is a lie? Absolutely. Is it also possible that maybe this is part of the big truth? I don't see why not. Until we experience physical, permanent death, it's unlikely that we'll learn what the truth is.

The thing that partly puzzles me is that so many people claim to have experienced a very similar (alternate) reality. It's very possible that certain parts of the brain (when stimulated) produce the same effect in all human beings, which would account for the similarity between all these stories. It may also be possible that there may be some truth to that alternate reality. I wouldn't know where to begin to try to prove it, and that is why I'll simply share it for what it is, and act accordingly. Despite my inability to determine whether it was truth or lie, it created a positive effect in my life and helped me to better cope with our world. Does that mean I should continue to believe it despite all evidence to the contrary? Of course I shouldn't. On the other hand,... if it helps me treat people better and helps me get through difficult times, I don't see too much harm in it. I'm not out to convert anyone.

Could my sharing a potential lie cause more harm than good? I don't know. I haven't thought that far ahead. Maybe that's why we have the world's religions today, because someone somewhere shared their experience with others, and inspired them to create large groups of people who didn't fully understand. They perverted the experience, added onto it, and next thing you know you've got the Spanish Inquisition, the murder of thousands (or rather millions) in the name of God,..... something that goes completely against the original experiencer's beliefs. It MUST be felt to be understood. Reading and talking about it is like describing the sky to a person who spent their entire life being blind. I mean... it's just indescribable.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

I don't claim that there are or aren't 'unknowable' things. I feel that there are things I don't understand, but this doesn't mean that those same things are 'unknowable'. I accept the fact that sometimes I will encounter situations or things which I will not be able to understand. It doesn't mean that I will never understand them, but for the time-being I probably won't be able to comprehend them. Someone else looking at those same things may come to understand them even if I could not.

I'm trying to tell you that I do understand what you experienced. A lot of people have experienced what you experienced, and our cultural beliefs have been crafted as a result of people having experienced these events, and translating them in their own ways to the people they know and meet. I am not saying that you didn't experience what you experienced. I am just trying to help you understand what it is that you experienced. It's extremely difficult to release your own translation of an event long enough to examine an alternate perspective, and I understand just how difficult it is to do that. However, it's an extremely valuable capacity for one to possess, since there are experiencers and translators, and it's extremely rare for any one person to be both an experiencer and an accurate translator. The fact that a person's experience becomes integral to their own personal Identity is what causes the problem in most cases. Especially when the experiencer is just beginning their run, and the whole adventure is new.

Even long-time experiencers can be weak as translators, and many are. These are two very different capabilities, and the difference between the two is akin to the difference between an artist and that artist's agent. Both are dependent upon one another for a successful career, since the type of thought process that each employs is almost diametrically opposed to the other. In that case, the artist is pushing from the universe behind his eyes into the universe before his eyes, whereas the agent is taking from the universe before his eyes into the universe behind his eyes. Expecting one person to perform both feats is unrealistic, and we can see the impact of how our own arts and entertainment industry has been gravely limited by the DIY culture that has become the norm within the last decade or so. The really great stuff is hidden, while the really cheap crap is ubiquitous. Maybe not the best analogy, but I hope you can see the parallels. Translations demands a very detached point of perspective, and must be based on unaffected reality knowns. Human intellect is simply not a fact-centric form of information, and while it is invaluable as what it is, it's not useable as a reliable source of fact.

I believe that you had that experience, but I don't believe that that thing was "the All". Check out my overview of the concept of contextual juxtaposition and the need for a contextual environment for that sort of thing to be possible between two unique entities. That is the bottom line in this situation, and regardless of how profound it seemed, that whatever-it-is was not being honest with you. And it knows that it wasn't being honest with you. The informational realm is no less full of threats and scams than the corporeal realm. That said, the informational realm's got good and decent humans within it as well, and they've been working to clear some of this crap up. The hard part is that the truth isn't as exciting as the SciFi con jobs generally are.

I'll check it out. If you could, please post a link.

I have a book that I wrote on the larger question of what exists as real in the macro sense of humanity, God, humanity, physical reality, and the nature of both corporeal and eternal existence. It's being revised at the moment, and I'm waiting on the new proof, so the book is not available for the time being. There are no unassociated links, since this effort is just being launched, and I'm being extremely careful in how I roll this information out. I've discovered that there are too many ways that even the most plainly stated assertions can be misunderstood or misrepresented, and so I've been testing a few of the larger notions on boards like this one to see where the weaknesses are in my presentation. The new edition proof is on its way, and if you are interested, then check back with me (U2U) and I'll let you know when the new edition will be available. To say that this book is comprehensive is an understatement. Its like a Chilton's Manual in its specificity, and requires no faith-based acceptance of anything.

If I understand you correctly, you assume that the entity was separate from me. Let's pretend for a moment that my experience was a glimpse into a Universal truth. I did not feel separate from the consciousness. I felt extremely connected to it and I felt I was a small piece of it. I was it, fragmented from myself, just like you would be IT, fragmented from yourself. In that case I would have to lie to myself. I don't feel that I would purposely deceive myself, but then again anything is possible. Is it possible that all of this is a lie? Absolutely. Is it also possible that maybe this is part of the big truth? I don't see why not. Until we experience physical, permanent death, it's unlikely that we'll learn what the truth is.

I understand that this is how it felt, and I can explain why it felt like that. There is what I referred to earlier here as contextual commonality, and in the case of human beings (which is what that God thingy actually was) this commonality can exist in multiple layers. You can be "one with" your family members, your office pool, your softball team, your college fraternity, your spouse, your BFF, and even with some guy sitting on a bar stool next to you that agrees with you that the Yankees suck and should never win another World Series ever again. Within the informational realm (which is the only realm you could've actually run into this God thingy) contextual commonality takes on a much more profound level of significance, since the eternal nature of information requires that contextual relationships have definitive impact between associative and disparate unique wholes.

What you felt was the way such a profound level of contextual association feels (as compared to how the corporeal perspective experiences a similar association) Pretty intense, to say the least. Then again, perception within the informational realm is much more "real" than in the corporeal realm, since the experience of that perception is not being negatively affected by the sluggishness of information processing and storage by way of carbon data processors. When you die, you'll discover what I mean about the extremely elevated level of direct experience. That said, the translation of that experience will still be subject to what you expect of reality, and more importantly, what you refuse to allow as reality. There are a lot of very lost people within the informational realm. Even worse, there are a lot of people taking advantage of a lot of lost people in that realm where we're all inevitably headed. My concern is to mitigate this obvious problem with straight up information that folks can turn to if things start to spin out on them once they've left the corporeal realm.

The thing that partly puzzles me is that so many people claim to have experienced a very similar (alternate) reality. It's very possible that certain parts of the brain (when stimulated) produce the same effect in all human beings, which would account for the similarity between all these stories. It may also be possible that there may be some truth to that alternate reality. I wouldn't know where to begin to try to prove it, and that is why I'll simply share it for what it is, and act accordingly. Despite my inability to determine whether it was truth or lie, it created a positive effect in my life and helped me to better cope with our world. Does that mean I should continue to believe it despite all evidence to the contrary? Of course I shouldn't. On the other hand,... if it helps me treat people better and helps me get through difficult times, I don't see too much harm in it. I'm not out to convert anyone.

People have been experiencing miraculous things for thousands of years, and each of them is absolutely convinced that what they experienced has a much more expansive application within the corporeal world of human beings. Demon exorcists have been packing Catholic pews for centuries, and in fact have been the most effective marketing arm of the Vatican over the last 1,000 years. In the 3rd world, they still have a tremendous impact on parish numbers, and even that show Paranormal State (on A&E) has informal ties to the American Catholic community, promoting the Catholic Church as the go-to source for all your demon-possession related needs. Is this a harm that is being done? An Evangelical will certainly suggest that it is, but then, they perform their own magic shows and draw in the faithful through miracle healings and divine interventions, so who are they to squawk about the Catholics and their circus tent?

But is any of this harmful? Well, if a person passes to the informational realm, and is negatively affected by the rigid expectations that were drilled into their head while they were in corporeal development, then yeah, it did end up being harmful. Not intentionally harmful, but then we've all read the news stories of people who prayed over their child as the poor thing died of a twisted bowel or a burst appendix. Intent has nothing to do with what's harmful and what's beneficial. Net impact is what matters. In the case of a erroneous translation, the history books are packed with the devastation brought on by reckless translations. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a cliche because, like all cliches, it's true.

Could my sharing a potential lie cause more harm than good? I don't know. I haven't thought that far ahead. Maybe that's why we have the world's religions today, because someone somewhere shared their experience with others, and inspired them to create large groups of people who didn't fully understand. They perverted the experience, added onto it, and next thing you know you've got the Spanish Inquisition, the murder of thousands (or rather millions) in the name of God,..... something that goes completely against the original experiencer's beliefs. It MUST be felt to be understood. Reading and talking about it is like describing the sky to a person who spent their entire life being blind. I mean... it's just indescribable.

The thing is that translation is the most difficult part of the experience. It's also the most important part. Like you said, bad translations have caused good people to act the part of absolute demons in service of just how bad a translation can become. I do know that there are extremely specific aspects of reality that all dynamic and intelligent beings are inherently affected by and that they can't overcome. Even the creating author of the contextual realm that we inhabit is limited by these very clear and constant parameters - one of them being that the author itself cannot physically exist within the confines of the contextual realm that it created - so forget about meeting God within this realm, it simply cannot possibly happen. In my book, I do explain how some will eventually get to exist as a community within God's own contextual realm, but it's pretty dense stuff and you need some intellectual discipline to wade through the technicals involved in proving the logic structure. But it is there, and thoroughly vetted.

So, the next time you visit the informational realm (which, by the way, is doable, even if the specifics of the journey are not exactly what you might imagine them to be) be aware that it adheres to the same sub-structural parameters that you're already used to, and that the magic is only in your perception of what's being presented to you. Also, all that exists as intelligent has its own unique agenda, and while some agendas are wonderfully benevolent, and some are horribly malevolent, some are simply bored and in need of a momentary distraction. I'd take everything I see with a dash of salt, and simply make a note of it. Certainly share it with others, but be responsible in your role as an experiencer. Not everyone gets to be an experiencer. It's quite a privilege. Hell, I wish I could've been one.

reply to post by NorEaster

Your concept of God flies in the face of the same logic that such a god would have used to ensure the physical integrity of what it has created. Not everyone can really understand logic at its most primitive and most rigid, but that doesn't release reality from its stranglehold. Perception is not, and never has been, reality. And while imagination is wonderful, nothing has ever been brought into concrete existence as a result of free and unfettered whimsy. In short, not everyone is suited to the task of unraveling the mysteries of reality, so don't let it get you down. Maybe you're good with a PowerPoint presentation?

I don't understand why you decided to insult me? I'll defer to your previous comment that was well writ.

I don't have a concept of god except that the infinite is unreachable.

I would argue that 'absolute' "free and unfettered whimsy" is the language of god, but I don't claim to be capable to separating myself from my conceptions of reality, however, I believe true wisdom is the essence of our being, moreover the life force that is 'us' is inseparable from god and infinite.

Originally posted by NorEaster I'm trying to tell you that I do understand what you experienced. A lot of people have experienced what you experienced, and our cultural beliefs have been crafted as a result of people having experienced these events, and translating them in their own ways to the people they know and meet. I am not saying that you didn't experience what you experienced. I am just trying to help you understand what it is that you experienced. It's extremely difficult to release your own translation of an event long enough to examine an alternate perspective, and I understand just how difficult it is to do that. However, it's an extremely valuable capacity for one to possess, since there are experiencers and translators, and it's extremely rare for any one person to be both an experiencer and an accurate translator. The fact that a person's experience becomes integral to their own personal Identity is what causes the problem in most cases. Especially when the experiencer is just beginning their run, and the whole adventure is new.

I value another's opinion on whatever I have to offer. I realize that it's good to have someone who can look at a situation from the outside when I'm too close to it to see it for what else it may be, and that is why I appreciate you joining this discussion. That being said, I also have to be cautious about how much of that opinion I take in. Since it is absolutely impossible for me to describe the true form, information, feeling and vision of the experience, I take into account that the person on the outside is missing many of the pieces of the puzzle. It can never be described accurately in language alone, it can only be experienced. THAT is the most frustrating part of it all.

Even long-time experiencers can be weak as translators, and many are. These are two very different capabilities, and the difference between the two is akin to the difference between an artist and that artist's agent. Both are dependent upon one another for a successful career, since the type of thought process that each employs is almost diametrically opposed to the other. In that case, the artist is pushing from the universe behind his eyes into the universe before his eyes, whereas the agent is taking from the universe before his eyes into the universe behind his eyes. Expecting one person to perform both feats is unrealistic, and we can see the impact of how our own arts and entertainment industry has been gravely limited by the DIY culture that has become the norm within the last decade or so. The really great stuff is hidden, while the really cheap crap is ubiquitous. Maybe not the best analogy, but I hope you can see the parallels. Translations demands a very detached point of perspective, and must be based on unaffected reality knowns. Human intellect is simply not a fact-centric form of information, and while it is invaluable as what it is, it's not useable as a reliable source of fact.

I understand what you're saying. I agree with it. The problem is that the translator will not have all the information he needs in order to make a complete and accurate translation. Something will always be left out, and sometimes that can be the difference between what's true and what isn't. Too much is lost in translation,.....mainly the feeling (which is immensely important) that accompanies the experience. For example it's the difference between looking at someone of the opposite sex and feeling absolutely no attraction, vs. looking at someone of the opposite sex and feeling extreme attraction. Describing that feeling and thoughts which may go through your head is one thing, while having that feeling is completely different. Do you think that someone who's never been in love will fully understand that feeling from your verbal description? Probably not. He must feel it himself.

I have a book that I wrote on the larger question of what exists as real in the macro sense of humanity, God, humanity, physical reality, and the nature of both corporeal and eternal existence. It's being revised at the moment, and I'm waiting on the new proof, so the book is not available for the time being. There are no unassociated links, since this effort is just being launched, and I'm being extremely careful in how I roll this information out. I've discovered that there are too many ways that even the most plainly stated assertions can be misunderstood or misrepresented, and so I've been testing a few of the larger notions on boards like this one to see where the weaknesses are in my presentation. The new edition proof is on its way, and if you are interested, then check back with me (U2U) and I'll let you know when the new edition will be available. To say that this book is comprehensive is an understatement. Its like a Chilton's Manual in its specificity, and requires no faith-based acceptance of anything.

I'm interested in reading through it. I read and enjoyed a bit of what I was able to preview for the book you advertise in your signature, "Taking Down the Curtain". Very interesting subject, but I have to admit that I was a little disappointed to see that at the end the book didn't offer any credentials, which would make the reader believe the author studied or researched the subject long enough to offer an educated opinion. He very well may have and sounds like he's delved into it plenty, but it feels good to have the reassurance anyway. I like to be able to confirm that the author has mastered the subject through extensive research before I start fully trusting the content. For now, including that information in the book would be my only suggestion.

I understand that this is how it felt, and I can explain why it felt like that. There is what I referred to earlier here as contextual commonality, and in the case of human beings (which is what that God thingy actually was) this commonality can exist in multiple layers. You can be "one with" your family members, your office pool, your softball team, your college fraternity, your spouse, your BFF, and even with some guy sitting on a bar stool next to you that agrees with you that the Yankees suck and should never win another World Series ever again. Within the informational realm (which is the only realm you could've actually run into this God thingy) contextual commonality takes on a much more profound level of significance, since the eternal nature of information requires that contextual relationships have definitive impact between associative and disparate unique wholes.

What you felt was the way such a profound level of contextual association feels (as compared to how the corporeal perspective experiences a similar association) Pretty intense, to say the least. Then again, perception within the informational realm is much more "real" than in the corporeal realm, since the experience of that perception is not being negatively affected by the sluggishness of information processing and storage by way of carbon data processors. When you die, you'll discover what I mean about the extremely elevated level of direct experience. That said, the translation of that experience will still be subject to what you expect of reality, and more importantly, what you refuse to allow as reality. There are a lot of very lost people within the informational realm. Even worse, there are a lot of people taking advantage of a lot of lost people in that realm where we're all inevitably headed. My concern is to mitigate this obvious problem with straight up information that folks can turn to if things start to spin out on them once they've left the corporeal realm.

I like the way you put it as "commonality". Being part of a family in the reality we know and being part of IT are feelings very distant from each other. It's the difference between the sound of a feather falling to the ground, and the sound of a blow horn. Although they may somehow be related, they are on an extremely different level. As you say, the "contextual commonality" is far more profound, something I have personally never felt in our reality, even though I have great family and friends around me.

The individual ego is completely dissolved, as if instead of the single bee, I was now part of all the hives in the world combined. Actually, even that isn't accurate. Instead of a single bee, I was now part of the entire world/universe. It's not that "I" the human me specifically was the world, it's that the great consciousness was the building block to everything we've ever seen, experienced, dreamed, thought, heard, felt, smelled or touched. I was just as much the world as you, anyone or anything else is. As you mentioned somewhere in your earlier post... or maybe I read it in "Taking Down the Curtain",.....It both creates and experiences itself within itself, and according to what I experienced, that's what we are doing this very moment.

People have been experiencing miraculous things for thousands of years, and each of them is absolutely convinced that what they experienced has a much more expansive application within the corporeal world of human beings. Demon exorcists have been packing Catholic pews for centuries, and in fact have been the most effective marketing arm of the Vatican over the last 1,000 years. In the 3rd world, they still have a tremendous impact on parish numbers, and even that show Paranormal State (on A&E) has informal ties to the American Catholic community, promoting the Catholic Church as the go-to source for all your demon-possession related needs. Is this a harm that is being done? An Evangelical will certainly suggest that it is, but then, they perform their own magic shows and draw in the faithful through miracle healings and divine interventions, so who are they to squawk about the Catholics and their circus tent?

I agree with you on religions in general. Everybody believes they are the ones who preach the truth. We all form our own reality when we see no proof to dissuade us from those beliefs. Some people will believe just for the sake of believing, and others will believe because they've never known anything else outside of that belief. In the end what matters most? I guess that's different for everyone. You'll believe whatever works for you. Some beliefs are more beneficial to society than others. Some people will use religion to gain something either through persuasion or by force. A religion can be molded and used for the purpose of controlling large populations. It can be used to scare people into submission.

This may not be true for everyone, but I feel that the experience has set me free. It's very difficult to describe what I mean by that. I suppose that before my experience I always wondered whether it was the Buddhists, the Catholics, the Muslims, the Protestants, the Hindus, the Scientologists, the Atheists etc. who had it right. I wondered whether I'd really go to hell for this or that. I didn't really believe in anything concrete. Post-experience I feel like I don't need to worry about any of these. Many of them seem very silly (and at times harmful) to me now. I feel like the only thing I have to worry about is my own conscience, because in the sense of "contextual commonality" I am my own judge, jury and executioner. Am I hurting anyone? Am I leading a life that will bring me, and those around me, happiness? I don't need to follow silly rules or go to church every Sunday to save my soul. All I need to do is be the best human being that I can be. To be helpful, kind, considerate, understanding and loving is all I need. If indeed we are a gargantuan single organism/consciousness, then it would make perfect sense to treat each human being as I would have them treat me.

Would I want to convert anyone to my beliefs? Not really. On one hand it would be very nice if everyone felt the way I do, but on the other hand I understand that people who grew up as Catholics, Christians, Atheists or Hindus have their own beliefs, they are comfortable with them, and who am I to try to change their ways? As long as they don't harm me or harm others, they should be free to practice whatever they want. I'll share my opinion, but that's as far as I'll go.

But is any of this harmful? Well, if a person passes to the informational realm, and is negatively affected by the rigid expectations that were drilled into their head while they were in corporeal development, then yeah, it did end up being harmful. Not intentionally harmful, but then we've all read the news stories of people who prayed over their child as the poor thing died of a twisted bowel or a burst appendix. Intent has nothing to do with what's harmful and what's beneficial. Net impact is what matters. In the case of a erroneous translation, the history books are packed with the devastation brought on by reckless translations. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a cliche because, like all cliches, it's true.

Again we agree here. Translating an experience must be done responsibly, with great care. Then again, people without the experience will still be unable to fully imagine or feel the significance of the message. It will still be lost. Until the time comes when we're able to record our own experience including visual, emotional, informational and sensory data, and until we are able to upload it to those around us so that they have the FULL experience, the experiencer will continue to inspire people to do something completely unintended.

The thing is that translation is the most difficult part of the experience. It's also the most important part. Like you said, bad translations have caused good people to act the part of absolute demons in service of just how bad a translation can become. I do know that there are extremely specific aspects of reality that all dynamic and intelligent beings are inherently affected by and that they can't overcome. Even the creating author of the contextual realm that we inhabit is limited by these very clear and constant parameters - one of them being that the author itself cannot physically exist within the confines of the contextual realm that it created - so forget about meeting God within this realm, it simply cannot possibly happen. In my book, I do explain how some will eventually get to exist as a community within God's own contextual realm, but it's pretty dense stuff and you need some intellectual discipline to wade through the technicals involved in proving the logic structure. But it is there, and thoroughly vetted.

So, the next time you visit the informational realm (which, by the way, is doable, even if the specifics of the journey are not exactly what you might imagine them to be) be aware that it adheres to the same sub-structural parameters that you're already used to, and that the magic is only in your perception of what's being presented to you. Also, all that exists as intelligent has its own unique agenda, and while some agendas are wonderfully benevolent, and some are horribly malevolent, some are simply bored and in need of a momentary distraction. I'd take everything I see with a dash of salt, and simply make a note of it. Certainly share it with others, but be responsible in your role as an experiencer. Not everyone gets to be an experiencer. It's quite a privilege. Hell, I wish I could've been one.

You make some very good points, and I'll keep it all in mind. I hope that one day you'll be able to experience it for yourself. Only then is it possible to understand why it's so difficult to express in words or pictures. I know I've tried plenty of times, but it just isn't possible when being confined to human language. It's just....... ughhhh.....it's just,...ummmmm..... nevermind.

you must have been smoking some real good sh#t man..

reply to post by squandered


Wow....I guess I brought this thread back to life huh?

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Your concept of God flies in the face of the same logic that such a god would have used to ensure the physical integrity of what it has created. Not everyone can really understand logic at its most primitive and most rigid, but that doesn't release reality from its stranglehold. Perception is not, and never has been, reality. And while imagination is wonderful, nothing has ever been brought into concrete existence as a result of free and unfettered whimsy. In short, not everyone is suited to the task of unraveling the mysteries of reality, so don't let it get you down. Maybe you're good with a PowerPoint presentation?

I don't understand why you decided to insult me? I'll defer to your previous comment that was well writ.

I don't have a concept of god except that the infinite is unreachable.

I would argue that 'absolute' "free and unfettered whimsy" is the language of god, but I don't claim to be capable to separating myself from my conceptions of reality, however, I believe true wisdom is the essence of our being, moreover the life force that is 'us' is inseparable from god and infinite.

You're right. That last couple sentences of mine weren't necessary, and I apologize for them. This stuff isn't easy, and there's no denying it. It's going to take a lot of work to unravel the convolutions that have gathered over the last 6,000+ years. I appreciate your graciousness in not stooping to an even lower level that I did with your own response. I guess knowledge is one thing and wisdom is something completely different.

reply to post by 2manyquestions


So, I didn't want to load the entire board up with copy/paste monstrocities, but i did want to let you know that i appreciated your replies to my last post. I would like to send you a copy of that book when the revisions are finally proofed and approved. If you have a mailing address, or even just one of those pay-by-the-month mailboxes at the UPS store, U2U it to me, and when the thing's back and finalized, I'd like to send you one. I guess I'm just wanting to give you some good information that might give you an upper hand in another scenario like that last one. I'm never going to find myself in such a situation, and I'm okay with waiting until the passing event allows me access in the end.

As someone who seems very honest and committed to understanding what you experience, all I can really do is give you direct access to the information that I've received, and to allow you to employ it as part of your own over all data suite. Like you correctly stated, no translator can fully appreciate what you, as an experiencer, encounter, and with that being the case, the best option is to make the information available to you.

I appreciate your account and your willingness to really explore the possibilities inherent within since an experience. I wish more experiencers had your capacity for real discovery.