Conscious Control over our Universe

[AnthroHeart]

How much conscious control do we really have over creating our reality? Is it a requirement to become an adept in order to influence our reality on a conscious manner. Does it require majick?

Is the Secret full of itself, or is it true? Is the Law of Attraction real?

These questions came to me as I'm drinking a Joose and have a good buzz going on.

Do we really create our own Universe? Can we do so while in this body? Does our heart Chakra really hold an entire Octave? Is there an Octave inside us (as above so below)?

If so, then that is wonderful, if I could be creating beings within an Octave that is inside of me.

Or am I wrong and the Octave below us is one that we all share (mover/moved). I once peeked into this Octave below us and it shook my world. I could not peek into the next Octave.

And is it wrong to want to create our Universe as we desire, or is that a violation of the free will of our Universe? Do we have to extend free will to our Universe, if there is such a thing.

[Unbound]

You are Creator, you decide.

I will offer this though, there is a difference between "designing" a Universe, and the actual playing out and experiencing of those Universes.

Right now, I feel that I am in design school.

[zenmaster]

How much conscious control do we really have over creating our reality?

It exists in potential depending on what we have made conscious already.

[michael430]

[deleted]

[zenmaster]

How much conscious control do we really have over creating our reality?

It exists in potential depending on what we have made conscious already.

I've got a question related to the topic question. Tanner and zenmaster please tell me what you think since you're here already - you guys are so smart with this stuff.

Everyone is always saying since we are all the Creator, my reality is only what I make it. If in my mind I've had a constant thought for years and I've firmly convinced myself it is the truth.....is it then the truth?

What is truth? A worldview which seems to make sense and provides a satisfactory degree of utility?

[michael430]

[deleted]

[zenmaster]

How much conscious control do we really have over creating our reality?

It exists in potential depending on what we have made conscious already.

I've got a question related to the topic question. Tanner and zenmaster please tell me what you think since you're here already - you guys are so smart with this stuff.

Everyone is always saying since we are all the Creator, my reality is only what I make it. If in my mind I've had a constant thought for years and I've firmly convinced myself it is the truth.....is it then the truth?

What is truth? A worldview which seems to make sense and provides a satisfactory degree of utility?

In my question I guess that's the definition I was going for. Although I don't comprehend fully "degree of utility"

By degree of utility, I meant since our experience is necessarily limited the usefulness it provides is similarly limited.
In answering your question, there are obviously relative truths with varying degrees of utility. However, if "truth" serves as our guide, then it must necessarily be "the truth" unless and until we outgrow it. A worldview constantly changes as new experience is integrated, and so do the ideas and conceptualizations which form a "truth'.

Experience is what connects us to our spiritual nature here and is indeed that which enables a transcendent viewpoint. If we identify particular ideas (of relatively less distortion) with that which had enabled that higher connection, we may also consider that foundation to be "the" truth. However, it's still just a worldview and that transcendence is still just another stage in evolution.

[michael430]

[deleted]

[zenmaster]

Thanks that's helpful, very much.

But - does a view about myself and my spirit still make your answer apply? Is that also a "worldview" ?

Yes, the worldview is your total experience which we draw upon when considering anything consciously, even spiritual matters. With spiritual ideals, where rationality is relatively non-existent, intuition still draws from experience.

It is often helpful to realize that we draw upon experience, as that keeps us grounded and enables us to know when we are at the limits of experience and thus in a position to learn or to teach( to "polarize").

[michael430]

[deleted]

[reeay]

When thoughts like beliefs are globalized, it's more a function of our mind making short-cuts (e.g., heuristics) to make things easier to interpret incoming stimuli (what we see, hear, smell, etc.,) and how we make decisions/choices in how to deal with catalyst. These thoughts are based on one's life experiences. There may be utility and wisdom in it, yet may not be applicable to every circumstances. Some thoughts may be totally outdated and not applicable. As we become complex thinkers we may be able to practice meta-cognition: the ability to think about what we are thinking, thus be able to reflect - what is this thought about? Where does this thought come from? Does it serve me in understanding/working with this situation? We increase the awareness of what we tend to do and why we do it, so we can change the way we do things and see things and understand things, if we want to.

This is why flexibility and contemplation is important... to observe one self and the worldviews, biases, assumptions, and values are important (I think these things are 'organized' in our personal unconscious and works behind the scene so we do things automatically). They will guide us in how we understand our 'reality' and how decisions/choices are made.

If your thought tendencies point towards a global view that the world is a dangerous place and that you are not competent enough to do 'the right thing' and therefore you are a helpless human being, then everything or most things that come your way will inform you that you are constantly in danger and that you can't do anything about it. You interpret everything based on this 'lens' you look thru. e.g., When you expore past experiences you may be able to see how you learned that this life is dangerous (e.g., being in abusive relationships or repeated experiences around rejection or abandonment). This past experience becomes a template of how you view all subsequent events. It's difficult to unhook from those 'lenses'. Buuut you may have an aspect of self that views things differently that is not yet conscious (the part of self that can see the 'exceptions to the rule' or experienced compassion or acceptance but since the wound is so painful, this side may not be so apparent). You try to convince someone that you won't reject them and that you love then, and they will not believe you bc this rejection/abandonment schema (pattern) is so strong... to them it's absolutely true in every case. Then ironically they push others away and therefore fulfill their expectations that indeed, they are going to be rejected, thus reinforcing their thoughts about others, themselves, and how relationships work.

[zenmaster]

You try to convince someone that you won't reject them and that you love then, and they will not believe you bc this rejection/abandonment schema (pattern) is so strong... to them it's absolutely true in every case. Then ironically they push others away and therefore fulfill their expectations that indeed, they are going to be rejected, thus reinforcing their thoughts about others, themselves, and how relationships work.

Well with such expectations you are limiting possibility. Such possibility is what allows a relationship to grow in the first place. In such a try-to-convince scenario, the other person's unconscious will additionally be seeing the necessary conditions imposed on how they may express themselves and how you are expressing yourself which may not find congruence in feeling consciousness. Also, if and when you become aware of the magical circumstance in a relationship, you can not control like that without being abusive because you are limiting free will.

[Unbound]

I would add to Zenmaster's explanation only the idea that there is the truth of a worldview, and then what I consider to be the "actual truth" as defined by "what has actually happened".

So, to use an analogy, if we have many people in a house, going about their business and each experiencing through their own worldview, each has a semblence of their own truth, some aspect of the truth, perhaps not complete, but no less truth.

The house itself has a different worldview, the truth of what has actually happened is larger than it is for each of the people living in the house who each see from their own viewpoint the truth. The house sees the activities of each, and would know that the truth is not actually according to each individual, but is actually a collective truth determined by the activities of ALL the people in the house collectively. Thus, the activities of each individual, according to the house, would all be part of just one interactive activity.

This is what I mean by the "actual truth" in that there is what we think happens, or is happening, there is what we feel about what is happening, there is our direct experience of what is happening, there are stories from others about what has happened, and then there is that which actually occurred on all sides and all perspectives simultaneously that is the truth of the actual occurrence.

This is, I believe, why it can be said that only the One knows the actual truth, because it is the only point of view that is absolutely all-inclusive.

[michael430]

[deleted]

[reeay]

You try to convince someone that you won't reject them and that you love then, and they will not believe you bc this rejection/abandonment schema (pattern) is so strong... to them it's absolutely true in every case. Then ironically they push others away and therefore fulfill their expectations that indeed, they are going to be rejected, thus reinforcing their thoughts about others, themselves, and how relationships work.

Well with such expectations you are limiting possibility. Such possibility is what allows a relationship to grow in the first place. In such a try-to-convince scenario, the other person's unconscious will additionally be seeing the necessary conditions imposed on how they may express themselves and how you are expressing yourself which may not find congruence in feeling consciousness. Also, if and when you become aware of the magical circumstance in a relationship, you can not control like that without being abusive because you are limiting free will.

Maybe convince was not the appropo word - reassure. The stuff of orange ray attachment/bonding. I would think it's an emotional need to feel a bond with the 'object' of our affection. The dynamic seems to typically go where a person tries to elicit or seek reassurance from other (e.g., 'do you love me', 'am I worthy of being loved by you', or put negatively, 'I don't think you love me'). So other person responds to this desire/need by trying to express their feelings for other ('yes I love you', 'look, I do so many things for you how can you think that I don't love you'). So they pursue affection with each other but person who has strong abandonment/rejection template would have tendency to withdrawl by rejecting the thing they want most (the other person's 'love' or affection) by convincing self that it's not possible. So by reassuring, the person reassuring is attempting to answer a call from the other. In such a case then, free will is respected. However, it's possible that person reassuring other is just fulfilling their own needs/desires of their own. So there could be misunderstandings and unintentional or intentional tendency to control other... so it goes back to knowing own mind more...

[zenmaster]

You try to convince someone that you won't reject them and that you love then, and they will not believe you bc this rejection/abandonment schema (pattern) is so strong... to them it's absolutely true in every case. Then ironically they push others away and therefore fulfill their expectations that indeed, they are going to be rejected, thus reinforcing their thoughts about others, themselves, and how relationships work.

Well with such expectations you are limiting possibility. Such possibility is what allows a relationship to grow in the first place. In such a try-to-convince scenario, the other person's unconscious will additionally be seeing the necessary conditions imposed on how they may express themselves and how you are expressing yourself which may not find congruence in feeling consciousness. Also, if and when you become aware of the magical circumstance in a relationship, you can not control like that without being abusive because you are limiting free will.

Maybe convince was not the appropo word - reassure. The stuff of orange ray attachment/bonding. I would think it's an emotional need to feel a bond with the 'object' of our affection. The dynamic seems to typically go where a person tries to elicit or seek reassurance from other (e.g., 'do you love me', 'am I worthy of being loved by you', or put negatively, 'I don't think you love me'). So other person responds to this desire/need by trying to express their feelings for other ('yes I love you', 'look, I do so many things for you how can you think that I don't love you'). So they pursue affection with each other but person who has strong abandonment/rejection template would have tendency to withdrawl by rejecting the thing they want most (the other person's 'love' or affection) by convincing self that it's not possible. So by reassuring, the person reassuring is attempting to answer a call from the other. In such a case then, free will is respected. However, it's possible that person reassuring other is just fulfilling their own needs/desires of their own. So there could be misunderstandings and unintentional or intentional tendency to control other... so it goes back to knowing own mind more...

I think one of the main utilities of an immature relationship like that is to reveal insecurities. This seems to be present if the idea of love as "eros" or that romantic aspect of love which is always strong (and feels great) but rather short lived. The longer term or more substantial love has less dependencies on that mutual lower-level bond (and complementary neurotic structure) and recognizes and enjoys more independence and freedom. That freedom is what provides the ability to experience a closer relationship with the person more as they actually are.

[anagogy]

How much conscious control do we really have over creating our reality?

Is it a requirement to become an adept in order to influence our reality on a conscious manner. Does it require majick?

If you had absolute control of your thoughts, you would have absolute control of the reality that coalesces about your consciousness. Everything you experience is a match to the vibration you are putting out at any given time. Most of this vibrational offering people are not aware of. We focus on things we don't even realize we are focusing on. Thought is subtle. Control requires careful discernment.

However, in general, this is not the property of a 3rd density being. Ra has said that most of those that are 4th density harvestable at this time have partial control over the outer illusion. Many on this forum fit into that category. We notice these synchronicities all the time in relationship to our thoughts.

An adept is just a person who is so enthralled by truth and/or power that they seek truths and/or power beyond the scope of 3rd density levels of distortion. Magic is simply the ability to control your vibrational offering, or thought in other words. Consciousness creates form, rather than the other way around. That is the basis. To the extent you accept that principle, you can begin to do conscious "magic".

But also remember, that wanderers are not allowed to remember their higher density abilities. As Ra said, living in a god like manner would not be appropriate for those who have chosen to serve. However, this does not exclude tapping into your higher bodies as a result of present experience. That's the loophole, as it were, that allows beings, even wanderers, to utilize the shaping powers of their indigo bodies. Thus, you have beings that serve in a variety of paranormal ways, though the genuine ones, are far rarer than the ones that have deluded themselves into thinking they have developed real abilities.

Even so, you won't see a positively polarized adept performing miracles in public in all likelihood. Even Jesus would tell those he healed, "tell no one" and that they had been healed by their own faith.

[reeay]

I think one of the main utilities of an immature relationship like that is to reveal insecurities. This seems to be present if the idea of love as "eros" or that romantic aspect of love which is always strong (and feels great) but rather short lived. The longer term or more substantial love has less dependencies on that mutual lower-level bond (and complementary neurotic structure) and recognizes and enjoys more independence and freedom. That freedom is what provides the ability to experience a closer relationship with the person more as they actually are.

Yeah it's a good and intense ways to work with catalyst, having someone to project onto etc. That sensation of being in love has a strong chemical component (e.g., oxytocin, which is higher in women - that need to bond) so it would be short-term. I wonder what a relationship between highly balanced people look like, who enjoys independence and freedom... By that point I think many choose life as a monk I would think lol. Like Krishnamurti explained when asked why he did not marry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFR6V3KvEw

I guess the societal ideal of romance and relationship peaks expectation of what relationships are supposed to be like. I mean, attachment/bonding is considered 'normal' and could be healthy in psychology (but modern psychology focuses exclusively on lower centers).

[zenmaster]

I wonder what a relationship between highly balanced people look like, who enjoys independence and freedom...

Well that independence and freedom is relative of course. The more you know yourself the more acceptance that is available. That acceptance is what potentially allows a great deal of space for people to grow as well as a natural recognition of what constitutes a healthy relationship.

By that point I think many choose life as a monk I would think lol.

I'm thinking the monastic life is not quite integral, but rather focused on spiritual or higher matters. In order to "bring heaven to earth" you really need to have a bridge constructed to "earth". And that bridge is forged from deep experience and appreciation for the aspects of the human condition which are of the personal and social nature. Once touched, it's quite easy to remain with your head in the clouds while not bothering to balance the lower centers. However, to me the purpose of this density is specifically to balance the lower centers - because that's where the specific focus is by design.

Like Krishnamurti explained when asked why he did not marry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFR6V3KvEw

I dunno, I'd have to agree about what Ra says about that efficient mirroring effect. Seems like a wise choice to make as part of recognition of one's needs. Plus sex, duh.

I guess the societal ideal of romance and relationship peaks expectation of what relationships are supposed to be like. I mean, attachment/bonding is considered 'normal' and could be healthy in psychology (but modern psychology focuses exclusively on lower centers).

As the average vibration is raised, conventional psychology will address pathologies present in the higher vibrations as well. We are currently attempting to create a "new-age" culture and there is tremendous confusion and distraction created by "frames" or memes made of what may be suggested by the newly apprehended transpersonal aspect of self. The ridiculous eschatological allegories from Wilcock, the banal quasi-mysticism of the higher-density channeler, the hi-jacked science memes such as "what the bleep", "the secret", etc. All of that is an exploitation of the inevitable pre-trans fallacy which is a shamefully growing industry. People who know better and try to point out the pathological meme are the targets of projection by those possessed by their fallacious ideologies.

[Turtle]

As the average vibration is raised, conventional psychology will address pathologies present in the higher vibrations as well. We are currently attempting to create a "new-age" culture and there is tremendous confusion and distraction created by "frames" or memes made of what may be suggested by the newly apprehended transpersonal aspect of self. The ridiculous eschatological allegories from Wilcock, the banal quasi-mysticism of the higher-density channeler, the hi-jacked science memes such as "what the bleep", "the secret", etc. All of that is an exploitation of the inevitable pre-trans fallacy which is a shamefully growing industry. People who know better and try to point out the pathological meme are the targets of projection by those possessed by their fallacious ideologies.

Indeed...I see it as a quirky, almost angst-like first step into a more evolved mankind.

[zenmaster]

As the average vibration is raised, conventional psychology will address pathologies present in the higher vibrations as well. We are currently attempting to create a "new-age" culture and there is tremendous confusion and distraction created by "frames" or memes made of what may be suggested by the newly apprehended transpersonal aspect of self. The ridiculous eschatological allegories from Wilcock, the banal quasi-mysticism of the higher-density channeler, the hi-jacked science memes such as "what the bleep", "the secret", etc. All of that is an exploitation of the inevitable pre-trans fallacy which is a shamefully growing industry. People who know better and try to point out the pathological meme are the targets of projection by those possessed by their fallacious ideologies.

Indeed...I see it as a quirky, almost angst-like first step into a more evolved mankind.

Each valuing meme is going to have a first step, but what people are able to make of it is wholly dependent on what has been constructed of that vibration in "mind". If the mind is confused and distracted, then that's what people have to worth with. Stages are always prolonged due to confusion and distraction.

[reeay]

Takes time to shift paradigms... I mean as a whole they are still in moderism mind-frame while minority progressed into postmoderism and post-postmoderist paradigms. We shall see.