(04-23-2017, 01:28 AM)sjel Wrote: Are you saying 'demons' are second density?? But aren't there intelligent demons that can latch on to you in vulnerable mental states or in trips through astral spaces? And do you mean that demons simply spread their negativity as a natural result of their instinct?
Many are. The lower astral plane is an orange ray layer. Some are just like animals. There are more intelligent "demons", and those are consciously polarized ones (beings that have chosen service to self). But most of the poltergeist types people get in their homes, are like astral animals. Like a bear wandering into your house, and you don't know how to coax it out, and it starts attacking, eating your food, and tearing up the place.
(04-23-2017, 01:28 AM)sjel Wrote: How could one view a hell state as positive? I've been in extremely dissonant states and managed to interpret it positively but never a true 'hell' state that I can remember.
You are correct. But the thing is: it ceases to be hell. If you have spent some time lucid dreaming this will become apparent. You are having a bad experience (a nightmare). You gain some vibrational ground, optimistically speaking. You turn and face the monster chasing you, you realize it is just as scared as you are. You realize its not so bad. The dark overtones begin to turn positive. The sun comes out. All the side characters are now smiling. The feeling of dread and doom gradually fades into a feeling of peace and love.
The gradual tuning of interpretation, coalesces a new experience.
(04-23-2017, 01:28 AM)sjel Wrote: Okay. A few questions about this. What is the purpose of even mentioning this at all? Is Buddhism also tainted by the same fear that taints Christianity? (I feel like I sense some of this fear in Hinduism as well, perhaps all the religions have the fear in their structure, just as a byproduct of being introduced into the human world. Thus the importance of choosing love for oneself despite what great religions teach you.)
Second, why would the length of time spent in each of these Narakas be the same regardless of one's karma? Or am I misinterpreting what they said.
Ra: [...] We are aware that you find our incarnate, as you call it, state of interest. We waited for a second query so as to emphasize that the time/space of several thousand of your years creates a spurious type of interest. Thus in giving this information, we ask the proper lack of stress be placed upon our experiences in your local space/time. [...]
Early on in the Ra sessions, Ra pointed out how a time span of several thousand years creates a "spurious type of interest". But the point is this: just because something is old, doesn't make it any more valid.
Ra: I am Ra. We preface this example with the reminder that each system is quite distorted and its teachings always half-lost. However, one such system is that called the tantric yoga.
Every religion/philosophy/teaching on earth is full of dogma and as Ra said "half lost". Consider the wide variety of experience of NDE's today. Any one of these people could have started a whole religion around their specific experience. Imagine a person who goes scuba diving one day, and another person who goes peeking under the ocean on another day. The first person sees a shark during the night. The second sees a beautiful corral reef. The ocean is quite large. The variety of experience one will have is similarly massive.
It would be a mistake to draw broad sweeping conclusions by such small representative samples. Every culture is subject to fear, misinterpretation, and flat out out dogma. You see this over and over and over again, repeating ad nauseum in every culture on earth.
I think the Buddha said it best:
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who say it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense."
[as another object lesson: although this attributed quote to the Buddha is very good advice, it is actually a completely butchered watered down version of the original quote]
(04-23-2017, 01:28 AM)sjel Wrote: Third - I have a strange attraction to hell. Like the thought of enduring unfathomable suffering and maintaining steady awareness of the One is an almost erotic fantasy to me. Am I insane for thinking that after, maximum, a few years of such suffering, I would be able to easily accept it?
Here's my thinking: right now, on Earth, I have the potential, the capability, of doing much good, of doing much bad, of suffering much, of enjoying much. Therefore it is more difficult during the foggy dissonant states, because I think, "I could be doing something useful for humanity right now." But if I knew that the next thousand years were to be nothing but unending suffering, I could simply sigh with relief that no effort is necessary, no thinking, no decision-making - just endurance of pain.
Pure endurance of pain is easy. I've begun to relish periods in which I accidentally stub my toe so hard that it blots out all other thoughts - this period of time is like an orgasm. I think of nothing else but the pain, and it ceases to be something undesirable. It becomes a single-pointed experience of focused awareness, which is ultimately one of my goals. So being in severe pain provides the welcome surprise of being forced into a highly meditative state. Then I am sorry to see the pain go! because during the pain it was so easy to meditate.
(Of course this does not mean that I seek out pain or inflict it on myself - simply that I greatly enjoy it whenever it arises.)
Didn't really plan to write this much, but what I'm getting at is my theory that hell is actually, literally heaven if you want it to be. Like right now, I see no difference if I were to take my being to those hell realms versus take them to pleasure realms. In fact I prefer the hell realms to pleasure realms, for it allows me to expand myself. Discomfort is actually superior to comfort for spiritual growth.
That is actually the whole purpose of pain on any level: be it physical/mental/emotional/spiritual -- to let you know when something is taking you towards entropy or away from it. Your experiences with transcending the aversive nature of this stimulus is due to your essential deeper realization of the truth of this teaching tool: it is not the pain itself that is aversive (it is just another experience), rather, it is the mental interpretation of that pain that is the real source of the "suffering".
(04-23-2017, 01:28 AM)sjel Wrote: Hmmm, don't really have a point for this last part. It just spontaneously came out, my idea of hell. I kind of just realized I'm not afraid of hell at all.
What I am afraid of is unawareness. I am afraid of becoming unaware.
That is a far more salient and useful spiritual fear, than the fear of simple discomfort.