So, what does penetrating the veil truly entail?

[zenmaster]

Are we going somewhere or do we just have a condition whereby we need to think we are going somewhere? ... All signs point to the latter lately.

What does going somewhere mean? What do you need to think?

[3DMonkey]

LOL. It's the whole purpose of this. of LOO. of religion. of UFOlogy. This. The search for the meaning of life. It is all under the same self inflicting rouge. ruse ( ). Desire for purpose. Desire to know what happens after death. That is what has motivated the very creation of the Mind and its archetypes.

[zenmaster]

LOL. It's the whole purpose of this. of LOO. of religion. of UFOlogy. This. The search for the meaning of life. It is all under the same self inflicting rouge. Desire for purpose. Desire to know what happens after death. That is what has motivated the very creation of the Mind and its archetypes.

Don't inflict rouge on myself personally, kind of an odd metaphor. The sufficiently considered questions always tend to answer themselves from somewhere, til then we remain in the dark.

---

3DM, I think that Freudian slip revealed your secret cosmetic cosmology.

[3DMonkey]

LOL. It's the whole purpose of this. of LOO. of religion. of UFOlogy. This. The search for the meaning of life. It is all under the same self inflicting rouge. Desire for purpose. Desire to know what happens after death. That is what has motivated the very creation of the Mind and its archetypes.

Don't inflict rouge on myself personally, kind of an odd metaphor. The sufficiently considered questions always tend to answer themselves from somewhere, til then we remain in the dark.

---

3DM, I think that Freudian slip revealed your secret cosmetic cosmology.

Ah! One minute too late!

"The sufficiently considered questions always tend to answer themselves from somewhere, til then we remain in the dark."

Do they? I think the entire globe is in the dark on this one... until they really are in the dark, so to speak.

---

I'll inflict the rouge if that's what it takes

[zenmaster]

"The sufficiently considered questions always tend to answer themselves from somewhere, til then we remain in the dark."

Do they? I think the entire globe is in the dark on this one... until they really are in the dark, so to speak.

These questions are answered (and consciousness expands) over time. That's how we progress from density to density. We do not ask, we do not progress and remain in the dark.

[3DMonkey]

The main question being "what happens after we die?"

We eat. We have sex. We die. Everything in between is mental hodgepodge.

[zenmaster]

The main question being "what happens after we die?"

We eat. We have sex. We die. Everything in between is mental hodgepodge.

Read the Bardo Thodol? You go into time/space, review the incarnation, heal, etc. How much detail do you need?

[3DMonkey]

No details. Proof.

---

else it's just mental make up

[zenmaster]

No details. Proof.

---

else it's just mental make up

Proof of what? And what would constitute 'proof' for you?

[Unbound]

Interesting how limited your scope of the human experience is, and completely devoid of sentimentality. You have never encountered much compassion in your life, have you, 3D?

By your technicality then eating, having sex and dying are also simply mental "hodgepodge", and you express a thoroughly solipsist view.

I have a question for you. Can you DISprove the realities that many, many others claim exist? It seems you are being rather selective about your "evidence".

---

Apologies if that seemed rather personal, but I feel that you have a deep skepticism that is rooted in things that in fact have nothing to do with this argument. Of course, just my own feeling and I could very well be wrong.

[Oceania]

Monkey has loads of sentimentality! don't u hunny?

[Ankh]

You have never encountered much compassion in your life, have you, 3D?

Have many of us have encountered much compassion in our lives? I sure know that I haven't. But is that not the reason for coming here? To offer whatever change we want to experience? If it is compassion you desire, then be that compassion.

[3DMonkey]

No details. Proof.

---

else it's just mental make up

Proof of what? And what would constitute 'proof' for you?

Seeing. Seeing something. Not just believing. Not just blind faith. Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe in the reality of the human spirit; that there is an actual existence of synchronicity and things that happen between persons that can't be put into words; these things I see every day.

No, I wanna see an actual spirit. An actual extraterrestrial. An actual angel. An actual out of body experience- nothing short of a meet and greet with someone while we directly discuss the fact that we left our bodies to have this meeting.

You see, these things aren't actual IMO. These things are concepts- like dreams that are so odd yet they point to the mental focus of the previous day. The human condition is real and can be greater understood by the ideas created by it- all the various forms of archetypes. What's not actual to me is the imagery used by the mind to create the very understanding by the mind. Like, trying to understand the Potentiator of the Spirit, we can't escape using the actual full archetypal structure of the m/b/s in our reasonings, and somewhere in there (if we could chart it) we would find why we needed to apply faith in imagery in order to "give it life" within our ability to comprehend it. ...This reality I understand. I've reached a point where That catalyst (faith in imagery) has been neutralized, and any actual presence of the imagery must either be seen or else it just falls away.

@Azrael- I understand your points/counter points. If anyone is new to this forum and reading my words, please understand I am not being completely fatalistic here. Azrael, I thought you and I had a better understanding of one another.

@The Lovely Lady Angels-

[zenmaster]

Seeing. Seeing something. Not just believing. Not just blind faith.

What would 'seeing something' mean though, and just why is that important? Up til now, your presumptions, expectations, and worldview have obviously not been conducive to welcoming or recognizing that which you want to see. Your self-imposed limitations are actively denying you that reality. So why do you need to hold onto those limitations? What purpose do they serve and when will they be outgrown?

[3DMonkey]

It's not important. That's my point. Oh, I've been down many of the roads of blind faith and believing in order to see. I've believed I've seen it. I've opened up completely to the possibilities. From what I've learned up to this point, I can reflect on all of it and recognize what it actually was. Don't get me wrong, I don't "need" to see it to continue on my journey, but I do need to see it to acknowledge it's authenticity. You see, I'm not in need of the blind faith of an actual manifestation of archetypal symbology- this catalyst is falling away and I am beginning to see it all for what it really is. If I'm wrong, if there are Actual light beings of another density standing in the same room with me, let them show themselves, otherwise they are unecessary and I will proceed with the idea they might represent- the Actual reality.

[Unbound]

Aha Well like I said I was only making an expression of my perception and was not pinning you down to my observation, it was merely an experiment of expression. I assure you no understanding has been lost! Just trying to connect to your heart, my friend.

I actually quite agree with you, since I myself am actually incredibly empirical. However, I will say that to refer to something as "actual" is somewhat diminishing of the nature of reality. You deduce something as being "actual" only when you can PHYSICALLY perceive it. Well, does that mean the wind is not real? Perhaps light is not real? Afterall, we only see the EFFECTS of these things. I, personally, cannot perceive light itself unless it is interacting with itself through the form of matter. Also, lets consider the frequency spectrum. We know that we have 7 colours, BUT this pattern is repeating. Which means above the Violet there is another Red, and below the Red another Violet, everything is an infinite gradient. We are well aware that we cannot perceive many types of light (UV, x-ray, gamma, etc) yet we can still observe the effects and thus in that manner "prove" their existence, yet this proof will never be truly empirical until we ourselves gain the individual abilities of perception to perceive such a thing. Does that mean they don't exist? Certainly not, it simply means that we are in a limited state of perception.

Now, as for a "light being", I once again refer to the fact of being able to see light itself. Simply duh, you can only see their effects. If you want to perceive them in a third density form, you must GIVE them a form because YOU are the perceiver, YOU construct the experience of your reality. They have no need to give themselves a third density form in order to do their work. As far as it goes, they are part of your perception of the room itself. To individuate them in to a "body" or "form" is your privilege as a co-creator. It is not just "believe and you shall see", you also have to know what you WANT to see! If you can't IMAGINE the light beings, then of course they will have no form before you.

You see, the difference here is that you are differentiating yourself from so-called "light beings". Are you not a light being? Can you not only perceive yourself through the mechanism of light? If you were to enter a sensory deprivation chamber would you cease to exist? Would you have any "proof" of your own physical existence besides a FEELING and MEMORY of your body?

There is no need for blind faith, because all of these things can be viewed and perceived as actual once you realize their nature. Certainly a light being /could/ appear to you, but as far as you are concerned they are unnecessary! Thus you get what you expect. You ask for nothing, you receive nothing.

Also, I think it is good to note that most "light beings" are in fact extensions of ourselves, and words such as "angel", "spirit", "ghost", etc are all just that, words. An angel could be anything, or anyone, it's all dependent on what YOU decide you need for yourself. If you believe an angel to be some being which exists on another dimension and needs to appear in the form of some winged human then only when you NEED to perceive that will you perceive it. It's not enough to want it, you must need it, ask it, desire it within your being.

For you, you have, as you say, seen this catalyst for what it is. Yet, does that mean it "doesn't exist"? Not in the least. It only means that you no longer DESIRE it to exist. Does that discount the reality of others who HAVE seen these things? Most certainly not, and to believe so is to put reality in a very small box.

Personally, maybe I haven't "seen" an angel, but I have seen their work, I have felt their connection and I have spoken with them. That is enough for me to deduce that regardless of what word I want to use there are forces other than I at work in the universe. All is energy, and personification is a privilege of the person. For myself, I choose to give the forces at work a personification because it helps me to CONNECT to them in a real manner. It helps me to perceive the reality of those forces in the same way I must believe that I myself exist in a real manner that others may perceive and thus gain details and validation within their realities.

Your beliefs construct your reality, and so your reality will always give you "evidence" of your beliefs. If you have "rationalized" your experiences then of course you will remove from yourself the potential for their reality. If you see a ghost and rationalize it as a reflection then indeed it becomes nothing but a reflection. The choice of what you include in your perception of reality is yours.

Also, it's amusing you differentiate between something being "actual" and an "actual" reality. Is this not a little conflicting? If you believe "actual" reality to be something that is unfeeling, unthinking and without individuation and perceive "actuality" to be confirmed by feeling, thinking and individuation then you can see how you might automatically cancel out those experiences. The choice, as always, is yours!

Either way, I do enjoy seeing your perception and you certainly express some very good points, but naturally I also desire to challenge these views in the same way I expect others to challenge mine! It is a fine game we are engaged in, all of us, I am very pleased with the way this incarnation is shaping up.

Blessings all, love and light from Creator to Creator, with Love as your Guardian, adonai.

[3DMonkey]

I chose the word 'actual' to differentiate my meaning. I think you got that.

I don't think it diminishes the nature of its reality, indeed. The nature of its reality is in fact that it is not actual. The wind is an actual thing. I can blow on my arm and feel it, or turn on a vacuum cleaner and suck objects into it. Light is an actual thing. I can light a match or turn on a flashlight. The spirit is real but it has no actualized form; its manifestation is not a separate being, indeed.

/
I can not give form to a being. This is what I mean, It isn't there. I just tried it... to amuse you. Nothing. It is this very idea of thinking that these things are actual that I am letting go of. I am not releasing their reality; I am realizing their reality. They are conceptual constructions of the existence that is actual.

/
Sensory deprivation? Wuh? .... Yes, I would cease to exist with respect to this body's complex that creates an understanding of a word known as "exist". Moreover, the archetypal structure would vanish and there would be no more me. I would be like the odd light spectrum of energy, but I would have no basis to see myself as a self or as anything really.

/
I have asked painstakingly. They are not actual. This is the very clear answer I have received from persistently asking. The good news is that I can now understand that they need not be actual to understand their real effects and find the actual application derived from this understanding.

[zenmaster]

I don't get your differentiation between 'actual' and 'real'. It seems you are trying to make a distinction, but you really aren't doing so.

[Unbound]

What is the difference between the actuality of their effects and the actuality of their existence? Also, you are somewhat missing my point. Your doubt has already prevented the effectiveness of the asking before you have even made the attempt. The fact that you did it "to amuse" me shows that you held no true formal intention.


Ah, your body is the actualized form of your spirit! The image of fire is the actualized form of the heat, the flashlight is the actualized form of the mechanism of light. Light and heat themselves are still beyond your perception in "actuality".

I would suggest you to examine the alchemical concept of Symbols and the way all we see is a symbol. Nothing we see is "whole", because we do not perceive the mechanism, we do not perceive all the parts of anything, only the final image perception.

---

Also, once again you are only referencing EFFECTS. You are feeling the effects of the wind or air, you are experiencing the effect of the light, but you are in no way "actually" perceiving these things themselves.

[3DMonkey]

I don't get your differentiation between 'actual' and 'real'. It seems you are trying to make a distinction, but you really aren't doing so.

There is not an actual crown chakra. Applying the concept has an actual effect thus making it real. You will never find the crown chakra. It doesn't exist outside the conceptual persona that makes up what you are now.

The Council of Saturn isn't actually there, on the planet Saturn, or the rings of Saturn. It is a concept pertaining to the reality that the what-you-are envisions for itself.

Wisdom is a concept a human applies to why the matter known as an apple is an apple rather than a gecko.


@Azrael. I can only tell you once more- I have believed until I was blue in the face. The symbols are not the actual reality, they are for learning purposes.

---

@zenmaster. Believing you talk to angels during meditation is the same as hoping for disclosure to knock at your front door. Which makes me surprised at your words. Everyone, of course, draws a line somewhere.

[Conifer16]

I don't get your differentiation between 'actual' and 'real'. It seems you are trying to make a distinction, but you really aren't doing so.

There is not an actual crown chakra. Applying the concept has an actual effect thus making it real. You will never find the crown chakra. It doesn't exist outside the conceptual persona that makes up what you are now.

The Council of Saturn isn't actually there, on the planet Saturn, or the rings of Saturn. It is a concept pertaining to the reality that the what-you-are envisions for itself.

Wisdom is a concept a human applies to why the matter known as an apple is an apple rather than a gecko.


@Azrael. I can only tell you once more- I have believed until I was blue in the face. The symbols are not the actual reality, they are for learning purposes.

---

@zenmaster. Believing you talk to angels during meditation is the same as hoping for disclosure to knock at your front door. Which makes me surprised at your words. Everyone, of course, draws a line somewhere.

I would just like to point out that your views might be more easily accepted by others if you prefaced your views with the explicit remark that they are your views. Because how I see it from my view is that you are saying that your view is reality and that your view is the correct view. Even if that is not what you are saying that is how it is coming across for me. Like you said "there is not an actual crown chakra" and " the council of Saturn isn't actually there on the planet Saturn" those are very definite statements and seem to point towards your view being the correct one. And In my opinion everyones view is valid and true. But see that is my opinion and all I am offering is my opinion I am not forcing it on you like some people do. But just stating it and letting you the reader decide how to respond. So I would really like it if people could try to state their views with the express understanding that they are their views and not necessarily the truth for others. I don't know if that was very coherent or not but I hope I got my view across. And unity I think that it would really help in interaction with others on this board if you expressed your views as your views rather then how things are. Because I have noticed that people seem to get up in arms about your posts because they sound like you are saying they are the only truth. I don't know if that is how you mean them but that is how I see others reacting towards them like. Basically I think that if everyone could try and accept everyone else's opinions and views things would be much more peaceful.

Thanks,
Conifer16
Adonai Vasu Borragus


I hope that this isn't seen as confrontational or anything.

[3DMonkey]

I'm sorry Conifer16. I want nothing more than for each and everyone to express exactly who they are. It's never been my desire to change someone's mind. I only express myself with honesty. If we don't express ourselves honestly, then, IMO, nobody benefits from this forum, or anything else for that matter. Most of my discourse in this thread has been with zenmaster. I truly respect zenmaster and have learned much from him. (Azrael as well). I only wish to be understood as a valid person with a valid perspective, and in doing so, allowing me to fully explain my perspective, we can both learn something new. I appreciate everyone's personal perspective, if.... IF you would only be willing to express it... and express it with honesty and openess.... and acceptance of both views. I try to follow this idea as much as I can.

---

I'm half trying to be heard and half trying to figure out what I actually think by bouncing it off you guys. ... I try so hard, because I'm still not being understood exactly as I mean to be. Part because I want to find someone to relate to and part because I would benefit from figuring out a way to say what I want to say coherently and concisely. Which is quite humorous sometimes because I have "suffered" my entire life as never being understood

[Ankh]

Conifer, the last sentence in your post, is very profound, my brother; and that is accepting the honest expression of all posters on this board, including those who you mentioned.

---

I'm half trying to be heard and half trying to figure out what I actually think by bouncing it off you guys. ... I try so hard, because I'm still not being understood exactly as I mean to be. Part because I want to find someone to relate to and part because I would benefit from figuring out a way to say what I want to say coherently and concisely. Which is quite humorous sometimes because I have "suffered" my entire life as never being understood

I believe that I understand what you have been saying here, 3, especially in the last posts. I find it very interesting, and I almost wrote an answer to you, but I can't seem to find all the words for what I mean. Nevertheless, your posts have been providing me great joy reading them, and very interesting thoughts. Keep doing what you are doing. You are doing great! =)

[zenmaster]

I don't get your differentiation between 'actual' and 'real'. It seems you are trying to make a distinction, but you really aren't doing so.

There is not an actual crown chakra. Applying the concept has an actual effect thus making it real. You will never find the crown chakra. It doesn't exist outside the conceptual persona that makes up what you are now.

The Council of Saturn isn't actually there, on the planet Saturn, or the rings of Saturn. It is a concept pertaining to the reality that the what-you-are envisions for itself.

Wisdom is a concept a human applies to why the matter known as an apple is an apple rather than a gecko.

@Azrael. I can only tell you once more- I have believed until I was blue in the face. The symbols are not the actual reality, they are for learning purposes.

---

@zenmaster. Believing you talk to angels during meditation is the same as hoping for disclosure to knock at your front door. Which makes me surprised at your words. Everyone, of course, draws a line somewhere.

Think you got the @'s switched. There are different aspects of one reality (e.g. physical, empirical, emotional, mental, historical, symbolic, mythical, ethical, spiritual, etc). Each aspect has its own limitations, context and practicality. Oftentimes (especially on these forums) we erroneously attempt to over extend one aspect at the expense of another or we may confuse one aspect with another, but each can have its own, very real, viability. Each aspect can bridge and support another - i.e. mental and philosophical, philosophical and physical or philosophical and ethical, or emotional and physical, or mythical and spiritual.

But it is important to understand the physical is by no means a primary reality (it may only seem so due to our constant dependency on that aspect due to survival concerns). So when we say that something doesn't exist 'there', what are we really saying? We are trying to distinguish between these aspects and within one aspect in order that their utility can be recognized.

[Unbound]

Aha Well of course the symbols are not the "actual" reality, but they are "real". Just as the form-concept of an angel of course is not the "actual" reality, but this makes them no less "real". I quite agree with you, and I merely would wish to remind you that it is not invalid to use these things as tools to connect to points of one's own reality. You should be proud of yourself for seemingly going so far as to no longer need to use these tools to do so, but that doesn't mean they are not still useful to many others.

[βαθμιαίος]

There is not an actual crown chakra. Applying the concept has an actual effect thus making it real. You will never find the crown chakra. It doesn't exist outside the conceptual persona that makes up what you are now.

The Council of Saturn isn't actually there, on the planet Saturn, or the rings of Saturn. It is a concept pertaining to the reality that the what-you-are envisions for itself.

What about Ra? Does Ra actually exist?

[3DMonkey]

Aha Well of course the symbols are not the "actual" reality, but they are "real". Just as the form-concept of an angel of course is not the "actual" reality, but this makes them no less "real". I quite agree with you, and I merely would wish to remind you that it is not invalid to use these things as tools to connect to points of one's own reality. You should be proud of yourself for seemingly going so far as to no longer need to use these tools to do so, but that doesn't mean they are not still useful to many others.

Thank you. I never meant to imply that others should not use them. In fact, I would say that, for many, it is necessary to use them. What I see is that it would be useful to remember that these things are real if, when, someone stumbles across a realization that what they placed so much faith in is not literal. It isn't, but it makes it no less applicable. (of course we have expressed our opinions on taking things to the literal extremes in other threads). It also helps when crossing borders of theological sects to realize one's concept will match another's under the surface of the symbols. .... It is very possible to pick any novel off the bookshelf and apply its contents to one's life as an entire archetypal structure, and it would correspond to a friend's understood structure derived from years of studying yoga. I believe my purpose is to champion the one who chose the novel as equally valid with no need to register the yogi study as an Actual existence for the benefit of the relationship with the yoga master.

[Unbound]

Excellent, I believe you and I have the same work then!

[3DMonkey]

And I believe this to be achievable by showing that none of it need be literal. The belief that they are actual becomes a barrier between cliques of seekers.

[Unbound]

This is true, without the agreed understanding of their archetypal nature there is a lot of confusion. This is the same issue that is abounds with the personification of God. It must be realized that all is energy and while I do still believe in the valid existence and potential visual potential of such "entities" this of course only pertains to a symbol which one must craft with their own abilities of visualization. Surely I see no invalidity to meeting an 'angel' within a dream or meditation since so long as you understand its principle there is nothing wrong with allowing a form which is comprehensible as a third dimensional communication. That is, not everyone has learned to communicate with light, feelings or simple sounds. Sometimes the identification of the symbol is a communication that is necessary for the learning at the time. I get images of angels in my mind, but of course I am aware that these symbols are my construction and I construct them in a manner that is suitable to my desires of perception.

I do believe it is possible to project these symbols in to your reality, but it would take either a lot of skill in visualization or a powerful emotional charge to power such a vibrant intention of perception.