Need Help Finding Heaven - Seriously

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Yes, I agree with you. There is a strong possibility this is all on purpose. There's also the issue of what is the "greater" reality. I heard one fellow say, "If you awoke from a dream to find Reality was far different from the dream experience, would you be compelled to tell the dream?" It may be that once we get there, THIS place becomes unimportant and irrelevant.




posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by adjensen
 

Yes, I agree with you. There is a strong possibility this is all on purpose.

The question is, what is that purpose? I don't like the "for our own good" line of thinking. Sounds too much like "we're from the government, we're here to help".

Monroe's second book, Far Journeys, talks about earth being a garden for distilling energy.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by adjensen
 

Yes, I agree with you. There is a strong possibility this is all on purpose.

The question is, what is that purpose? I don't like the "for our own good" line of thinking. Sounds too much like "we're from the government, we're here to help".

Monroe's second book, Far Journeys, talks about earth being a garden for distilling energy.


No kidding! The idea is frightening. If we are, indeed, avatars controlled by a higher self, then this bears on the whole idea of free will. This is the basic concept of the "Oversoul" where our personalities are "aspects" of said Oversoul. Kind of like your avatar in World of Warcraft becoming sentinent. The antidote seems to be that next time you get to be an Oversoul and send your own avatars out to play WoW. Of course souls who claim to be more enlightened tell us we just don't get it and that our personalities are really not all that important.

Yeah, I know I'm deviating a bit from the topic, but in a more general treatment this would need to be addressed. I'm just trying to pinpoint the place on my GPS for now. I bought the foreign maps version, too. It doesn't seem quite fair......
edit on 11/1/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I am glad you liked it


I can tell you about Vision Quests and a common theme I have observed, that in my effort to understand systems of beliefs does seem to transcend cultural barriers. For the most part and in that context, I am referring to indigenous systems. Implied is that while one is alive, ones soul is represented in heaven, our behavior can change that representation. the way it looks.

A well known example of this is in relation to Greek Mythos, that described small wooden statues. If Zeus decided to crush one of those statues the person would die.

To be clear my take on heaven is that it is a realm where emotions take up space. And it is what we today consider concrete or objective, that is relatable as subjective their.

After all given that God is Love, love in some aspect of reality should take up space/time.

Any thoughts?
edit on 1-11-2012 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Amarri
 


That is a good example of how reality can be described beyond the common senses.


You may find this interesting...

edit on 1-11-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



The question is, what is that purpose? I don't like the "for our own good" line of thinking. Sounds too much like "we're from the government, we're here to help".


As I said, I've been thinking about this lately, and I've developed what I think is a reasonable working hypothesis. It's, perhaps, a bit outlandish, so give it some thought before writing me off as a crackpot, lol.

There are two assumptions involved, the first being the fairly pedestrian "the afterlife, whatever it is, exists outside of time." As a Christian, I believe that God exists outside of time (being eternal,) and that the dead are with him, ergo, they are outside of time.

Part and parcel with that, those who are departed have knowledge of the future. In 2010, I wrote a thread about one incident that happened to me, which seemed proof of it. Yesterday morning: After Death Communication, telepathy, or just a life saving coincidence In that incident, I believe that I may well have died if my daughter had not called, but the seeds of her calling were set days before I had my respiratory attack.

The second assumption comes out of that, and is rather unorthodox -- if the afterlife is outside of time, I think that it can be argued that we are already there, or, put another way, the "me" that is/will be in the afterlife can interact with the "me" that is here, now. I have two pieces of evidence for that, one is a personal experience that I can't really share, the other is an NDE report cited in one of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' books. In that report, a woman who are very fearful of dying, because she didn't want to be separated from her husband, became calm and happy just prior to crossing over, telling her husband (still alive and would remain so for years) "It's okay, you're already here."

Now, if those two assumptions are correct, the reason that I think most likely that communication is largely blocked is to prevent what would be, in essence, a time traveller paradox -- my future self coming to my present self and providing information that would alter what my future self would be.

Like I said, a bit "out there", but it explains the problem without resorting to the "for our own good" solution.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Now, if those two assumptions are correct, the reason that I think most likely that communication is largely blocked is to prevent what would be, in essence, a time traveller paradox -- my future self coming to my present self and providing information that would alter what my future self would be.

I must assume that you have not read Monroe's books. The reason that I say this is because, if we are to take his stories as true, he relates certain parts of his adventures in the out of body experiences as frightening and he is left calling for help. Someone shows up, not god, and helps him out. He later finds out that his "guardian angel" is his higher self. In other words his "future self" shows up and keeps things flowing as they should. Keeping at bay those that try to steer him from the correct path.

I have to admit that I'm not really convinced that that is how it works but it seems to be in opposition to your theory. Not trying to be contrary just putting another idea out there.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   


Need Help Finding Heaven


No you don't Shuyler.

You can find it any direction. But you will need a moral compass.



The journey is the destination.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by adjensen
Now, if those two assumptions are correct, the reason that I think most likely that communication is largely blocked is to prevent what would be, in essence, a time traveller paradox -- my future self coming to my present self and providing information that would alter what my future self would be.

I must assume that you have not read Monroe's books. The reason that I say this is because, if we are to take his stories as true, he relates certain parts of his adventures in the out of body experiences as frightening and he is left calling for help. Someone shows up, not god, and helps him out. He later finds out that his "guardian angel" is his higher self. In other words his "future self" shows up and keeps things flowing as they should. Keeping at bay those that try to steer him from the correct path.

I have to admit that I'm not really convinced that that is how it works but it seems to be in opposition to your theory. Not trying to be contrary just putting another idea out there.


No, I haven't read them, sorry.

I'm not sure that what you describe is a time traveling paradox, though, more a matter of a "chicken or egg" problem. If I might use my personal example, it points to someone altering reality about five years ago, in response to the death of my wife and my grieving, which happened about three years ago.

All signs point to me being the one who altered reality, so I am left assuming that I will do so, once I am freed of the constraints of time. The "chicken and egg" problem is whether the decision, in the afterlife, to alter reality is based on the knowledge that I did have that experience, or whether it is independent. If it's based on having benefited from that experience, then we're left with a circular rationale, and I don't know how to work out of it.

But that would not be a paradox, and I'm not sure about Monroe's example, either. A paradox, in my case, would be to get to the afterlife and consciously not take that action, resulting in a breaking of the circle. The "out" of that is that, because I would be outside of time, I could not "not" take that action -- even if I didn't do it for a billion years, I could still do it at any time.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

I'm not sure I follow but the central idea is that it is the same person coming from the future to help himself in the past. The paradox is that if the present self couldn't get past a certain event how does the future self even exist? I guess that the answer is that the higher self is always there. The idea of a barrier or veil would be so that you are fully immersed in the life experience. So, in regards to the OP, is the other side really another side or is this part of that side but with artificial rules, like an all too real video game?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


It only becomes a paradox if the action taken by the future self in the past alters what the future self becomes. The classic is the "Grandfather Paradox" -- I use a time machine to go into the past and kill my Grandfather before he meets my Grandmother, thus preventing my own existence... which means I can't go into the past to kill my Grandfather... which means I exist... etc.

So, if Monroe's future self is not impacted by his interactions with his past self, and it doesn't sound like he is, then there is no paradox, and the question becomes one of circuity -- does he go back to help himself because he knows that he did, or for some other reason? If the former, it becomes philosophically difficult, which is why I think it to be the latter, or Monroe got it wrong, and it wasn't his future self, but something that he confused for it.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Interesting concept. It would suggest that we are multi-dimensional beings "as we sit" and do not travel discretely from one realm to the next. It also suggests the part of the realm we don't see is very close, indeed. On the whole this would seem a positive idea. It's not as if our "other half" is in another galaxy far, far away, but right here, and that goes along with some of the other stuff we have been hearing.

It also makes sense that in a place made of finer stuff emotions would be given a bigger role because they could not be as easily suppressed. The whole emotion thing, including "love" is kind of elusive to me and I admot to not getting it.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by daskakik
 

So, if Monroe's future self is not impacted by his interactions with his past self, and it doesn't sound like he is, then there is no paradox, and the question becomes one of circuity -- does he go back to help himself because he knows that he did, or for some other reason?

Well he wouldn't become what he is in the future if he didn't get over those hurdles, so there is an impact on his "future self". Now I place that in quotes because it really isn't his future self but, as you said in an earlier post, a self outside of time.


If the former, it becomes philosophically difficult, which is why I think it to be the latter, or Monroe got it wrong, and it wasn't his future self, but something that he confused for it.

No, he says that he was informed flat out about it. No loss in translation or interpretation.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
Well he wouldn't become what he is in the future if he didn't get over those hurdles, so there is an impact on his "future self".


But he would still exist, and would not be prevented from coming back to have those encounters, that's what I mean about it not being a paradox.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Boy, you guys have been busy. I should've gotten up earlier. Thanks for the movie up there. I think the kid is good, though he got a bit off track there with his evolution riff. I think he was about to say--but didn't quite get there--that we create our own reality. This was a very common percept in the last half of the last century and into the New Age movement. Indeed, it's absolutely central to the Seth Books by Jane Roberts. I believe it comes out of a popular interpretation of Quantum Theory, which has come to the same conclusion, that we at least participate in creating our own reality. Naturally we are limited by what we can perceive and see, which was his major point.

The second issue is that of time and whether it "really" exists or is just a convenience on this plane. Once again we see notions that time is not a now to the future and back into the past issue, but that things happen all at once, giving rise to all sorts of possible paradoxes. But overall what I get from you guys' last few posts is that our multi-dimensionality is part of the answer here, i.e. We don't have to look far afield.
edit on 11/2/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

It would seem that the intervening self isn't rally a future self but a self outside of time, so he is there past, present and future and the whole reason for playing the game of life is to cause a change in that self. If that is the case then there really is no paradox. Now how do we measure that?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
What is happening is happening.
But a believed in separate entity believes it is happening to them. This believed in separate entity suffers in life because it is not in alignment with the fact that life is just happening - it cannot accept life so contracts and it is this energetic contraction that feels like hell.
This feeling produces a person who seeks for the end of this feeling, the end of this suffering.

When it is seen that there is no me separate from this happening, that it is just happening, there is a release, there is freedom. No one is doing life. Life is just happening.
This is when the kingdom is revealed because when there is no one all there is is this.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 

What if you are wrong? What if life isn't just happening and there is intent and purpose behind it?

I mean something compels you to post the things you do. You might even feel/think/know that this is also just happening but that isn't true. You want to say something. Something that you think we need. It isn't just by chance, otherwise you would post different ideas instead of the same thing over and over. There is a motive and a drive behind it.

edit on 2-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 

What if you are wrong? What if life isn't just happening and there is intent and purpose behind it?

I mean something compels you to post the things you do. You might even feel/think/know that even that is just happening but that isn't true. You want to say something. Something that you think we need. It isn't just by chance, otherwise you would post different ideas instead of the same thing over and over. There is a motive and a drive behind it.
edit on 2-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


I post here because it is a way to express what is known here. And what i post is not an idea.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


These are tautologies. "What is happening is happening" is not a meaningful statement. If it is meaningful to YOU, I can acknowledge and accept that, but you are not communicating whatever it is you are trying to communicate to others. I cannot know if you are attempting to be metaphorical, trying to practical, or voicing some great piece of wisdom. Whatever it is, it isn't working. "Pigs eat stool" is a more meaningful statement.
edit on 11/2/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join