A trap for the intellect

a reply to: RAY1990

Yes, always questioning one's reality. Be it through faith, science, or something else.

a reply to: RAY1990

I will. I'd be interested in hearing it, I've been doing some thought experimenting tapping into my memories of being a kid, my hopes and dreams etc. I'm rare in that I have memories before 3-4 year old and I know we have an idea of self and the future pretty darn young.

I put a post together over the weekend. A simple thing, yet needs context to understand.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Out of interest. Can you step out of that reality?

Nothing can change what is actually appearing.

What is appearing as presence, already is the case.

If there's nothing other than here and now then what needs to change?
There's nothing separate that can change what is.

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Out of interest. Can you step out of that reality?

Nothing can change what is actually appearing.

What is appearing as presence, already is the case.

If there's nothing other than here and now then what needs to change?
There's nothing separate that can change what is.

There is only what is happening.....so how can what's happening step outside what's happening?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Nothing can change what is actually appearing.

In the exercise where one closes the eyes and watches the paterns, then the hearing, then the touch. Those three senses become the "screen" if I follow the context of the exercise and the explanation.

"Appearing" rather than "happening".

a reply to: NobodySpecial268
'Screen' can also be referred to as 'field'.

What you are actually is beyond words, but it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.

The immediate presentation of this unspeakable actuality is the field of your experience, which is an instantaneously appearing virtual field of Radiant Presence as apparent qualities. This is the actuality of which every/ and any/ thing that you think exists consists. This is inclusive and complete; nothing whatever other than this field exists. In short, the entirety of Reality is the "bubble" of YOUR experience, the field of Radiant Presence, which alone exists.

This is the totality of Reality. This is not theoretical, but is actually, immediately real; always the case right here right now.

Taken from Peter Brown's website....The Open Doorway.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

From Mr Brown's description of what he is experiencing, it seems he is focused upon something in particular which he refers to as "god". It does sound like he is looking into the 'eye of a "god"' one might say.

I wonder: Can Mr Brown look away?

Mr. Brown aside, let's go back to this statement:

Nothing can change what is actually appearing.

I'll suggest; yes it can.

With the eyes closed do the exercise. Whilst doing this, clasp another person's hands at the same time, like a man's double handshake. However cross the arms so left to left and right to right.

Watch the "screen" or "field" change. The appearence will change. So may some other sensations.

The original video exercise is valuable in that it helps with understanding the whole body is an organ of perception. One might say the whole body is a big eye. Not just the visuals, also the whole five senses including taste and smell. With practice ine can taste others. Interestingly, I have heard the occultists refer to taste as the most refined of the senses.

In this way, we can prove to ourselves that the appearence of the "field" or "screen" can be altered by externals.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268
If god is dreaming itself ......god is not something in particular..... God is the entirety, the complete works.

"God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever."

a reply to: Itisnowagain

If god is dreaming itself ......god is not something in particular..... God is the entirety, the complete works.

"God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever."

There lays a presumption of "god is everything" before which there is the presumption that there is something called god.

Now in the exercise in question we percieve a "field", a "screen". Personally I use neither term prefering "interface" or "boundary". I use these two terms for the simple reason bot are inherant qualities of the "field" or "screen".

Thought follows words spoken (or written) so if we consistantly use the word "screen" we have a passive quality to our "field". It follows that we watch the screen.

If we use the analogy of the television or cinema "screen" we are the audience. In a way we can use the example of Matryoska (Russian) dolls.



In the image above is an open Russian doll with one inside. Put the top on the outer doll and the inner doll sees only the interior of the outer doll. Put oneself in the position of the smaller doll and what does it see?

The basic principal is the container and the contained; a five dimensional view. The cantainer and the contained brings one to the art of relative positioning. This is where the other exercise becomes useful. The exercise where we see ourselves as stationary and the world moves around us.

We can move from inside to outside, or maybe we can say we shift the reality. It doesn't matter really. What matters is in the other exercise we have a sense of location 'here'. Call it a 'point in space' if one wishes. The point of the matter is we have a location and we exist as something in that location.

We can have different points of view, Mr Brown has his reality, Itisnowagain has his reality. The christian has another reality.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: NobodySpecial268

I'm reminded of the Buddha's story who to sum it up had the life of Riley and really struggled with the fact existence isn't the same for others.

RAY1990 made an important point here: Buddha really struggled with the fact that existence isn't the same for others.

Why is that?

Could it be the "field", the "screen" is actually a perceptual interface?

"The hereness of you" is perhaps what one may title this video.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: NobodySpecial268

In a way, we can hold two views:

* That we move within the world.
* That we are stationary and the world moves around us.

That is very close to the concept of the helio-centric world view and the geo-centric world view. In the video, the arguement is that we are the centre of the universe and the universe is played out on a screen around us. The universe then becomes "god".

It follows, once we become stationary, we become the observer.



In the image above, we have three Russian dolls within a larger russian doll. This illustrates the container and the contained. The geocentric world view. This also illustrates the religion.

So let's have a look at a prievious image in this thread where the fella has put his head through the firmament and beholds that there is more than what he thought there was.



One might say that the geo-centric world view is the static one where the heavens move above us.

However, we need to switch our perception to the helio-centric view if we wish to travel to Mars or the moon.

Once we get to the moon we can then sit down and watch the earth move in the heavens above and be in the moon-centric view.

So from the OP:

. . . a trap for the mind I shall suggest; "god is everything".

Can you escape from that thought?

To step outside so to speak?

To become the observer is a skill, yet what if we want to change what we are observing?

a reply to: NobodySpecial268
Ever heard the term:
Be still and know .....I am God.

In a way, we can hold two views:

* That we move within the world.
* That we are stationary and the world moves around us.

Peter Brown said in the video.....
In direct experience you never move...and explained it clearly.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Actually no, I haven't.

In direct experience you never move...and explained it clearly.

I won't disagree there except to say; one can stop direct experiencing.

In those three exercises, there is the buddhist(?)/Hindu(?) context. If that is what one wants to find then one has found it. One does not need to go further.

I never argue against the existance of, nor non-existance of anything.

What I am suggesting in the opremise of this thread is one can go far further than being a passive viewer experiencing what is presented in the context of the "television movie".

What I am saying is: one can change the channel . . . .

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Peter Brown said in the video.....
In direct experience you never move...and explained it clearly.

The results of the techniques are familiar to me, and I know what it is like to directly interface with another Being. Not shiftng one's relative position is how I would word it.

However, when one needs to or wants to disengage, one might say one looks away or shifts one's position and therefore moves. That is all. One might say "turn it off" for that matter.

Actually I am not saying anyone is wrong, mainly that the perceptual interface is very versatile, and not just a connection to one destination.

Then the screen is an interface proper, a boundary where Alice can step through the looking glass and into one's own awareness. One can see god or Wonderland if one wants to. The interface can also be very interactive, and not just when Alice steps through and into you, both ways.

I'll temper that by saying that a predisposed or prelearned philosophical infrastructure will take one in that philosophical direction.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Explains the occasional vertigo and spinny rooms when I'm drunk! I kid.

I did make me think of my first trip into the English countryside and seeing that sky, it being closer I felt so still and the world moving so fast... It was just low clouds rolling over the hills but the perspective made me feel a little sick at first.

I've never done mountains but watching stormy seas hits close to the same feeling of. Stillness. I'd say it brings a sense of foreboding, expecting or impending.

Can that be played with? I've got a lot more to chew on this but I want to see what bounces back. The "be still" part featured in my stories as a kid when I was taught btw.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

was it related to those later videos? I'm gonna give them a go today.

a reply to: RAY1990

Kinda, I didn't watch the later videos, the three exercises caught my interest.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

My nephews are running a rampage so I don't think I will be either today haha... Little monsters

The technique is deceptively simple, and requires no expert esoteric knowledge or abilities. All one really needs is empathy and a certain memory . . .

Have you ever held a baby in your arms? Have you watched a baby fall sleep in your arms?

Do you remember what that experience felt like?

Do you remember the wonder?

If you can remember what that experience felt like, that memory can be used to help heal troubled children, and adults too for that mater.

The technique is based on a simple observation: Happiness does not manefest within misery. Therefore; remove the misery and happines will begin to manefest.

Watch the human child and one will notice that happiness is the natural state of the human being. Children are naturally happy to be alive. When misery settles in, depression results, along with the behaviours and problems that follow with depression. No one wants to see a miserable child.

The basic technique is not difficult to learn, and many people can do this naturally.

Most people have held a small child, a son, a daughter, a niece or nephew. Family are easiest to begin with because we have a natural empathy and a sense of connection.

Remember what it felt like to have a small child fall asleep in your arms? To watch them sleep? There is a certain wonder of the new life and realisation of how utterly dependant the child is upon the adult for everything. This is what one wants to recall.

So let's say our small child has grown, perhaps nearing the teenage years. The child becomes reclusive and quiet for whatever reason. It is plain to see the child is miserable.

Perhaps we cannot interviene directly as in the case of family difficulties. Especially if the child is not ours.

Sit quietly and remember the memory of holding the child. Day-dreaming as the prefered state of mind is my best suggestion here, it is what I do. I just get lost in the daydream for a time, and forget about my conscious surroundings.

With that memory in mind, think of the child as it is now.

What happens is we take the child into our heart and envelope it in protective feelings.

In practice what will happen is the accumulated misery will begin to fall away from the child's subconscious. This is because we are washing away the accumulations of misery with strong feelings of love and protectiveness within a closed space. There are also ways of working very deeply with the natural processes of the body.

Just practice that and one will learn to do it with ease. My suggestion is to do this a few times a day and for short times until one can do it without concentrating.

Watch the behaviour of the child for subtle change over the next few days. What you are looking for is a smile where there was none before. For the light in the eyes to return and brighten. Perhaps the child will seek one out for attention. Subtle changes.

That is the basic technique.

What you are not doing is visualising, nor afirming, nor calling on higher powers for assistance or to do the healing. This is important; you are doing everything yourself with your own normal waking consciousness.

The very simple principal is this; happiness is the natural state of the human being, and happiness cannot manefest within misery. Remove the misery and happiness will be the result. This is so in the child.

There are more principals involved, though those principals are not neccessary to be known for success. The simple instruction above can effect a change.

However, as adults we like the explanations and the reasoning of how things work.

When the technique is achieved and definate change can be seen in the waking child, the return of the smile for instance and a general happier outlook, something more can happen while we hold the daydream of the child in our arms.

The child in our arms may change. I have watched one who is a young teen in life grow younger. When this happens one can see the troubles and pains of the past. With intuition and thoughtfullness these sources of misery can be addressed, one is being shown.

This brings us to the question; How can this be; that the daydream child in our arms can grow younger?

The answer to this question is this; What are we holding in our arms?

The answer here is; we are holding the target child's subconscious self.

So let's define exactly what I am referring to when I use the term "subconscious".

Subconscious: That which is below the conscious awake self. The subconscious, the body's conceiled consciousness of our organs and systems, the memories. One may include the dreaming self.

So let's create a custom definition of mind. Mind, for our purpose here, will include both our conscious awake self and our subconscious self plus our memories, and nothing more. In practice one finds that the individual human is also an individual mind.

In practice, one will find that it is easier to heal the sleeping child than it is to heal the awake child in this manner.

So, the question arises at this point; How does this fella know all this?

The answer here is I took on a patient who may be labled, in this day and age, early onset schizophrenia. What was learned in there paved the way with understanding for the technique described here.

The distant healing can be done in this way, and the herbs can be used as well.

Scribes read the Bible but did not know God.

a reply to: Untun

Scribes read the Bible but did not know God.

Hi Untun, well this particular scribe hasn't read the bible and isn't really interested in god. He just likes to potter about in other interesting places.

Like the afterlife, we all get to find out what the afterlife is like sooner or late. Why chase it now?