Talk to yourself, write to yourself: Instant channeling

[Aion]

Why not add a grounding part to your meditations then?

[Minyatur]

Why not add a grounding part to your meditations then?

You seem like a cool other-self, makes me wonder what'll happen when you're uncompressed.

[Matt1]

If everything is one, then you can only ever channel yourself.

If everything is empty there is nothing to channel.

Attachment to the the idea of a self is the issue.

[Minyatur]

If everything is one, then you can only ever channel yourself.

If everything is empty there is nothing to channel.

Attachment to the the idea of a self is the issue.

When you try to channel something beyond yourself you get free will infridgement and yet that is also part of yourself.

[APeacefulWarrior]

That's good, I didn't mean to imply that it was good or bad. I was just curious to know why so many people who say they want to polarize positively give in to negativity so easily. 3D being 3D I guess.

Well, I think one thing to keep in mind is that polarizing positively doesn't require being 100% positive. I'm not even sure 100% positivity is even possible on the 3D plane. To my mind, a certain level of negativity and/or willingness to deal with negative energies is basically necessary to be able to do effective work on Earth. If someone wants to bring about change here, it requires getting one's hands at least a bit karmically dirty.

Sure, someone COULD shoot for 100 if they felt called to do so, but past a point it just means meditating endlessly in the Buddhist fashion and/or falling into the cliche of the hippie who just wants to sit around singing KumBahYah all day.

So I don't shy away from negativity entirely, but rather look for ways to -hopefully- harness/redirect/recatalyze it towards positive ends when I see opportunity.

(Perhaps by analogy: The purpose of a water treatment plant is to take sewage and convert it into clean water, but those who work the water treatment plant still have to go digging around in the sludge from time to time. That dirty work is a necessary part of creating the clean end result.)

[Spaced]

Why not add a grounding part to your meditations then?

You seem like a cool other-self, makes me wonder what'll happen when you're uncompressed.

When he's decompressed he becomes Unbound

[Aion]

If everything is one, then you can only ever channel yourself.

If everything is empty there is nothing to channel.

Attachment to the the idea of a self is the issue.

Attachment to the idea of no-self can be equally detrimental, imo.

[Aion]

Why not add a grounding part to your meditations then?

You seem like a cool other-self, makes me wonder what'll happen when you're uncompressed.

You and me both.

[AnthroHeart]

Why not add a grounding part to your meditations then?

You seem like a cool other-self, makes me wonder what'll happen when you're uncompressed.

You and me both.

What does uncompressed mean in this case?

[Minyatur]

Why not add a grounding part to your meditations then?

You seem like a cool other-self, makes me wonder what'll happen when you're uncompressed.

You and me both.

What does uncompressed mean in this case?

I said that because of his name .rar  . Thought of a relation with the veil too.

[Aion]

Slowly it is dissolving away, just a matter of time.

[AnthroHeart]

Slowly it is dissolving away, just a matter of time.

For you, or for anyone who is spiritually inclined?

[Aion]

Well I was referring to myself, but I guess in general actually if we are to consider that this planet is shifting in to a higher density where the veil doesn't function.

[Cyanatta]

If everything is one, then you can only ever channel yourself.

If everything is empty there is nothing to channel.

Attachment to the the idea of a self is the issue.

Attachment to the idea of no-self can be equally detrimental, imo.

How so?

[Aion]

If everything is one, then you can only ever channel yourself.

If everything is empty there is nothing to channel.

Attachment to the the idea of a self is the issue.

Attachment to the idea of no-self can be equally detrimental, imo.

How so?

Both are true, so why cling to one or the other? I view self and no-self as a duality and thus accepting both I find them balanced. What is more curious to me is to consider what it is that is the actual substance of what we call 'self', of which no-self is an apparent lack thereof. Does a complete lack of self get one something a complete fullness of self doesn't, or vice versa? It appears to me rather, like walking a tight-rope, you must balance yourself between them, carefully and delicately.

[Cyanatta]

If everything is one, then you can only ever channel yourself.

If everything is empty there is nothing to channel.

Attachment to the the idea of a self is the issue.

Attachment to the idea of no-self can be equally detrimental, imo.

How so?

Both are true, so why cling to one or the other? I view self and no-self as a duality and thus accepting both I find them balanced. What is more curious to me is to consider what it is that is the actual substance of what we call 'self', of which no-self is an apparent lack thereof. Does a complete lack of self get one something a complete fullness of self doesn't, or vice versa? It appears to me rather, like walking a tight-rope, you must balance yourself between them, carefully and delicately.

You're basically just repeating what you said, which makes sense as far as balancing is concerned, but I'm still confused. I was asking more along the lines of if you see being selfless versus selfish as being equally detrimental, as in causing harm or damage. By the same token, do you believe it is equally detrimental to give in fully to the ego as opposed to completely letting go of the ego? I think I was just confused by the language and how you defined "self" and "no-self."

Could you clarify what you mean by "self" and if there's any distinction between "no-self", "selfless", or even "ego-loss" ? What makes them harmful or damaging?

As far as relationships go, are you possibly referring to being by yourself versus being with others? In the sense that one would cling to oneself or others for reasons of insecurity? Then I completely agree.


Otherwise I'm still confused.

[Minyatur]

I think the no-self holds truths but is only good as a meditation technique not as a life path. As a life path it denies any meaning to the illusion into which we are despite the fact that one practicing no-self always do come back in consciousness here.

It teaches to use the mind the least possible yet why would we have mind to work with if not to use it? From what I've seen, people who go into the no-self way are people who usually were heavily hurt and this was the only escape they found that could work to get a grip out of their sorrow.

No-self is ultimately true but to focus solely on it, is to deny self which is also something. Between nothing and everything, there is something. IMO no-self actually takes eternity to reach, the more infinite we become, the more we are in tune with Intelligent Infinity which is our no-self, the unconditional source of All. We are the building in process of that Infinity, the road is infinite.

[Aion]

If everything is one, then you can only ever channel yourself.

If everything is empty there is nothing to channel.

Attachment to the the idea of a self is the issue.

Attachment to the idea of no-self can be equally detrimental, imo.

How so?

Both are true, so why cling to one or the other? I view self and no-self as a duality and thus accepting both I find them balanced. What is more curious to me is to consider what it is that is the actual substance of what we call 'self', of which no-self is an apparent lack thereof. Does a complete lack of self get one something a complete fullness of self doesn't, or vice versa? It appears to me rather, like walking a tight-rope, you must balance yourself between them, carefully and delicately.

You're basically just repeating what you said, which makes sense as far as balancing is concerned, but I'm still confused. I was asking more along the lines of if you see being selfless versus selfish as being equally detrimental, as in causing harm or damage. By the same token, do you believe it is equally detrimental to give in fully to the ego as opposed to completely letting go of the ego? I think I was just confused by the language and how you defined "self" and "no-self."

Could you clarify what you mean by "self" and if there's any distinction between "no-self", "selfless", or even "ego-loss" ? What makes them harmful or damaging?

As far as relationships go, are you possibly referring to being by yourself versus being with others? In the sense that one would cling to oneself or others for reasons of insecurity? Then I completely agree.


Otherwise I'm still confused.

Well, I think the language is part of the confusion surrounding these concepts in general. I was not referring to behaviours in regards to altruism but rather was talking about the conceptualization of the contents of one's being. I am not sure what exactly you mean by 'ego' as that is a term which is thrown around in all sorts of manner so you'd have to clarify before I could comment to that.

Let me perhaps clarify that it is not self or no-self which can be detrimental, it was the attachment of identity to them. I say detrimental in terms of working towards balance within the self, and indeed I think either taken to an extreme could potentially be harmful due to a dissociation with experiences of the opposite kind. This can perhaps lead to ignorant actions.

I hadn't been thinking necessarily in terms of relationships, but that is a good point that I would also express. I supposed it is more the complexes that can come with attachment rather than that which is attached to that can cause imbalance or confusion. Perhaps more what I am trying to express is attachment to any particular idea of the way one is. By attachment I mean in the sense of being unable to look beyond or around something, being consumed by it in your viewpoint.

[VanAlioSaldo]

My pain is not my fault and is the result of random catalyst and I take responsibility and honor for it nonetheless.

Screw you guys, you would be terrible friends. This whole thread tore me down mentally last night. I have less incentive to share myself with this forum.

I read up to here, because I agree at this point.  You said some very powerful things and despite contradicting yourself it seemed like you needed to talk and express difficulties.  I find when people contradict themselves they already know and just dont seem to pick up on it.  You picked up on it but most every one focused on you originally nullifying for yourself your own beliefs.

At one point I got to an understanding of nothingness as the state also being of Somethingness.  Simultaneity makes all opposites whole.  What is existence if it is One, not time, not space?  If One came from anywhere, it came from Zero.  If emptiness is what you've found, you either went deep, or lost all meaning.

Which, is another point of existence for me.  What's the Point, could very well Be the point.

Youve stumbled into nihilism by the Infinite capabilities of your mind.  You however are not empty by dissoution of Existence being illusion.  No-thing is still Some-thing.  Emptiness is in itself, a plenum.

Look at the space all around.  If All is One, then Emptiness/Wholeness is all part of the same scale.

You speak science and metaphysics, I love that area!  You speak ofexhaustion -looks at title-

PM if you ever need to vent.  I'll try to be compassionate and less critical with you.

People who deny themselves...Is no different from denying myself to others and myself.  I want to make a better world but we can only do it one person at a time.  No rush.  No hurry.  It will all either workout or  it'll still work out.

Find the Love in the Moment, itll tell you everything you seek for if you seek Love itself.

And for the sake of finality regarding whatever is the proper belief or not.  The only thing that is truly wrong, is wrong it-self.

Love and Light, I'm sorry youre going through such a rough time!

[Adonai One]

Nobody here is capable of offering me any significant teaching, guidance or support. I have a wife for that.

If you wish to teach me, you can apply by resume.

[Cyanatta]

Nobody here is capable of offering me any significant teaching, guidance or support. I have a wife for that.

If you wish to teach me, you can apply by resume.

[Aion]

Nobody here is capable of offering me any significant teaching, guidance or support. I have a wife for that.

If you wish to teach me, you can apply by resume.

Have you ever thought about, you know, just talking with people for the sake of talking? Or is friendship too troublesome for you?

[Plenum]

Nobody here is capable of offering me any significant teaching, guidance or support. I have a wife for that.

who played this role before you met your wife?

[Raz]

Nobody here is capable of offering me any significant teaching, guidance or support. I have a wife for that.

If you wish to teach me, you can apply by resume.

"Nobody/universal spirit" is capable of offering me significant teaching, guidance and support.

I don't believe in the term "teaching". I do however feel universal inspiration from the totality of experience and from time to time it gives me a sense of growth spurts within the flow of patterns in this life.

[Cyanatta]

Perhaps:



  ~  Introspection  ~  Silence  ~  Guidance  ~  Reflection

  ~  Solitude  ~  Looking Inward  ~  Reclusion  ~  Being Quiet

  ~  Inner Search  ~  Deep Understanding  ~  Isolation

  ~  Distance  ~  Retreat  ~  Philosophical Attitude