"Spirituality" - A Discussion

Gnosis5 · 12-27-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leunamros

By non-communicable i mean you cannot make other person experience exactly what you have experienced, deciding so by your own will. As far as i know, obviously.

Maybe in the future, with some technology capable of recording experiences, but not now.

I think that for other people to experience what you have experienced, they only have to be you completely; and this is not related to the "we are all one" meme, no, when i say to be you completely, is to be you completely: all your experiences, all your life, etc. So in the end i dont know if that´s possible really, for other consciousness to experience what other has, even if is through recording technologies, because everyone is conditioned to perceive a thing by the filter of their own circumstances and or awareness peculiarity, you dig me?.

Right, when you add the element of force ("make"). If they do not wish to experience it. I am aware of some disciplined clearing practitioners who can volitionally see the incident as the client is seeing it.

"We see through a glass darkly" because we are not yet clear enough within ourselves and, as you said, we "filter". That is one reason when I see something or experience through someone else, being that person, I feel validated when I find independent confirmation.

It's probably like a muscle -- has to be exercised, same for other native abilities.

Umm, when you said technologies that reminded me of the technology I saw some tall whites working with. I think they do have devices that can for all practical purposes do what you propose.

There seems a pearl here in what you are saying -- if one could exactly "be" another person, what do you think the applications could be?

One that comes to my mind, as a student of rehabilitative clearing, if I "AM" a certain person, receive therapeutic processing as that person, and then change my mind...we did that rather matter-of-factly during my PEAT course.

Perhaps that is another thread topic....

Gnosis

Gnosis5 · 12-27-2009, 10:38 PM

Besides the approach that they have to be you COMPLETELY, i.e., all your experiences, etc., could not they simply be YOU? The YOU before you had all that baggage? Sort of the essence or energy signature of you...

I think that is more or less what I do when I decide to be someone before I process them. It's all considerations anyways -- the real beings wants to go towards truth and wants to be processed, so I do get cooperation from the being on some level of his beingness.

Gnosis

Leunamros · 12-27-2009, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

Right, when you add the element of force ("make"). If they do not wish to experience it. I am aware of some disciplined clearing practitioners who can volitionally see the incident as the client is seeing it.

"We see through a glass darkly" because we are not yet clear enough within ourselves and, as you said, we "filter". That is one reason when I see something or experience through someone else, being that person, I feel validated when I find independent confirmation.

It's probably like a muscle -- has to be exercised, same for other native abilities.

Umm, when you said technologies that reminded me of the technology I saw some tall whites working with. I think they do have devices that can for all practical purposes do what you propose.

There seems a pearl here in what you are saying -- if one could exactly "be" another person, what do you think the applications could be?

One that comes to my mind, as a student of rehabilitative clearing, if I "AM" a certain person, receive therapeutic processing as that person, and then change my mind...we did that rather matter-of-factly during my PEAT course.

Perhaps that is another thread topic....

Gnosis

I dont know you and i dont know what it is that hability to "be others" you are talking about, but i suggest you to make a new thread explaining what it´s about in the most understandable way you can with your actual intelligence limitations. Because if it´s true, it´s quite interesting to know more.

From my own perspective, the only thing similar is a certain approach i did on the idea of what telepathy could be, just a "imagine you are the other being you wanna send a message, then, think the message in his mind because you are him". In conclusion, you have to actually, believe you are the other person for all it to work, in theory.

Gnosis5 · 12-28-2009, 12:30 AM

I concur, except I would change "believe" to "know" or be aware or intend.

"I don't know you"? What is that about?

Gnosis

Gnosis5 · 12-28-2009, 12:40 AM

Spiritually, who am I when I am "ME"?

What if we best know each other by our individual Prime Thought?

What is my Prime Thought?

These questions are too simple and too high for me to answer.

Gnosis

Leunamros · 12-28-2009, 12:50 AM

i meant, "i dont know enough about you".

Gnosis5 · 12-28-2009, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leunamros

i meant, "i dont know enough about you".

What is it you wish to now about me?

Gnosis

Leunamros · 12-28-2009, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

What is it you wish to now about me?

Gnosis

make a new thread about what i asked you to do one.

Gnosis5 · 12-28-2009, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leunamros

make a new thread about what i asked you to do one.

Why?

Gnosis5 · 12-28-2009, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leunamros

make a new thread about what i asked you to do one.

You said you don't know me. Why did you say that and what is it you need to know about me? Why are you not answering this question? Is this your thread? Did you start this thread?

ubiquitousquintessence · 12-28-2009, 03:01 AM

Can "prime thought" be individual?
To me, prime thought is "source". Source is the origin of all, and therefore IS all. As soon as I attempt to individuate prime thought, it ceases to be prime thought....

Can there be a definition of "me"?
Yes, but that definition would not be "me". A description of a thing is not the thing - as a painting of a mountain is not a mountain.

Gnosis5 · 12-28-2009, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubiquitousquintessence

Can "prime thought" be individual?
To me, prime thought is "source". Source is the origin of all, and therefore IS all. As soon as I attempt to individuate prime thought, it ceases to be prime thought....

Can there be a definition of "me"?
Yes, but that definition would not be "me". A description of a thing is not the thing - as a painting of a mountain is not a mountain.

Good correction re Prime Thought. I would have to revise that to say individuated Prime Thought and let my question stand.

Have you experienced the ultimate simplicity of "ME"?

ubiquitousquintessence · 12-28-2009, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

Have you experienced the ultimate simplicity of "ME"?

Certainly.
I am awareness.
I am consciousness.
I am the space for all.
Everything I experience is an experience of "me".
I choose to experience "me" as both simple and complex, good and bad, right and wrong.
There is no difference.
I am not simple OR complex, good OR bad, right OR wrong.
I am the awareness of them.
I am the consciousness in them.
I am the space for all of them.

Leunamros · 12-28-2009, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnosis5

Why?

because i ask you!.

Gnosis5 · 12-28-2009, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leunamros

because i ask you!.

because i dont want to!.

Gnosis5 · 12-28-2009, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubiquitousquintessence

Certainly.
I am awareness.
I am consciousness.
I am the space for all.
Everything I experience is an experience of "me".
I choose to experience "me" as both simple and complex, good and bad, right and wrong.
There is no difference.
I am not simple OR complex, good OR bad, right OR wrong.
I am the awareness of them.
I am the consciousness in them.
I am the space for all of them.

That's pretty good....did you make that up yourself? Thank you for creating the space for all with this thread. I shall honor that.

Gnosis

12-27-2009, 10:38 PM	#2
Gnosis5 Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 1,659	Re: "Spirituality" - A Discussion Besides the approach that they have to be you COMPLETELY, i.e., all your experiences, etc., could not they simply be YOU? The YOU before you had all that baggage? Sort of the essence or energy signature of you... I think that is more or less what I do when I decide to be someone before I process them. It's all considerations anyways -- the real beings wants to go towards truth and wants to be processed, so I do get cooperation from the being on some level of his beingness. Gnosis

12-28-2009, 12:30 AM	#4
Gnosis5 Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 1,659	Re: "Spirituality" - A Discussion I concur, except I would change "believe" to "know" or be aware or intend. "I don't know you"? What is that about? Gnosis

12-28-2009, 12:40 AM	#5
Gnosis5 Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 1,659	Re: "Spirituality" - A Discussion Spiritually, who am I when I am "ME"? What if we best know each other by our individual Prime Thought? What is my Prime Thought? These questions are too simple and too high for me to answer. Gnosis

12-28-2009, 12:50 AM	#6
Leunamros Project Avalon Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 145	Re: "Spirituality" - A Discussion i meant, "i dont know enough about you".

12-28-2009, 03:01 AM	#11
ubiquitousquintessence Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Here Posts: 36	Re: "Spirituality" - A Discussion Can "prime thought" be individual? To me, prime thought is "source". Source is the origin of all, and therefore IS all. As soon as I attempt to individuate prime thought, it ceases to be prime thought.... Can there be a definition of "me"? Yes, but that definition would not be "me". A description of a thing is not the thing - as a painting of a mountain is not a mountain.