posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:01 AM
I will be posting some cross subject philosophy/theosophy/alt-science threads which have implications that cross into other sub factors of each. I
figured it be best to post the general philosophy body in the philosophy fora. However as each subject co-linearly utilises each in describing and
laying forth scaffolding for furthering the articulation of epiphanies that will further discussion on the main body, I think some topics that are
very science oriented would be best posted in the science forum and then linked back to the main philosophy thread. Also I will copy and past some
info I myself have posted on other sites (they all have citation to sources both books/documents and websites but they are all reworded by me.) Am I
correct in believing this is acceptable in relation to the below rule.
No Big-Quotes: Please edit-down posts you quote to just the important parts as it greatly improves the readability of your response. [all
parts of the posts are Important] do you wish for me to still quote the website I originally post on?
These epiphanies are principles that I have come to understand through direct cognition; visual impressions and intuitive knowingness of what they
mean during spiritual experiences. I have had many people who know me personally, suggest that I hold workshop's.
1. I cant charge. (I will explain later why this is)
2. In a workshop setting some people are not always ready to delve into the facets of these bodies at the same pace even though they may all be
interested, each individual must take the information in at a frequency that is manageable for them.
3. If an individual finds that a certain notion is to wacky then they will likely (and it is advised to) cease entertaining the further articulation
of the epiphanies that centre on the notion. Once you understand a concept completely you cannot remove it from your mind, you can only unlearn the
notion that it is the truth, one achieves this by learning something that is closer to truth which nullifies the principles previously learnt.
When potent content is written and presented the author has the responsibility to not entice the reader to wade through concepts that are not of their
current level of understanding or relevant, in order to get to something of interest that they can fathom. As such the author who writes responsibly
indicate the notions of which will be presented in a given topic so the reader may discern carefully as to whether they are up for the dive.
Thanks for hosting a great site.
Having said the above I may now lay forth a couple of pertinent notions:
First why Iwill\ not charge for my epiphenomia. I feel unable to concede to sophism with these epiphanies i.e. sophists are people who place a
condition of pay before you receive spiritual/consciousness enhancing related services. Rather than trust that their services will be rewarded by the
gratitude and supportive service of people who benefit from them. This is the law of unconditional love. Service unto others without
expectations, the effect of such attitude if not immediately, will eventually be met with the inverse of the connotation of selfless service that
is usually interpreted by the statement. However its a double negative; if one has no expectations it also means they have no expectation of not
receiving reward, thus rendering themselves as a receptacle for reward. It is true that it is a stance that must be ardently maintained, and one who
is used to the proxy method of the monetary system will have to de-program themselves if they have been charging for spiritual services. This is not
judging others, but simply sharing what I intuitively perceive as fact. Which is, the highest potential that one can attain of which contributes to
the whole/highest intent, is compromised to an extent when ones motives are centred on the survival sacral chakra. The healing as in reki will simply
not be as effective. One must come from the heart unconditionally; this is not to say that one who comes from the heart and knows this cannot be to
some extent centred on this high intent whilst also having a non-conditional bracket of expectational re, if they know they can remain open to heal
one whilst being certain that it is worth what ever the client can offer in monetary or supportive means i.e. repayment by sharing something of value
(even at a later time), ex. Taking their healer out for lunch/dinner. It costs nothing to love another that is broken and in need of healing, so that
they may in time learn to do the same for others.
Where my own position is concerned, is that the epiphanies I offer for enhancement of awareness, may help others shed old perceptions which have kept
them in mind frames that squander contentedness. However the intent behind the purpose of sharing these understanding is compromised when one demands
continued next post