Ulduz
Patron with Honors
Buddha was tempted by what the texts call " three daughters of Mara (the Devil)". But this is just an idiom, it means that he was tempted by evil-minded women.
Let's talk about Freezone.
- Thread starter Ulduz
- Start date
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Sounds like superstition (the siddhis) to me. I'm familiar with the concept. There are yogis and yoginis in Tibet and in Bhutan, for instance, who claimed to be capable of all variety of feats, from being unfazed by fire to holding their breath for hours at a time, to levitation or having a clear body of light. These were considered worthy of effort, but not leading to enlightenment (though the enlightened were considered to be capable of such things). While legends abound, their ain't much to back it up. Similar powers were ascribed to Jesus, and were ascribed because people held to the logic that very enlightened beings couldn't help but drip with siddhis or OT Powers of some kind. I think this is magical thinking.
I think enlightenment is not a permanent state, but a process. You can enlighten yourself at any time, through learning, through recognition of your blind-spots, trying constantly to rectify. It is also possible at any time to develop blind-spots, disabilities, lose ground mentally, suffer memory loss, etc. There is never a time when you are "enlightened", but you can always become more enlightened than you were the day before. Having the idea that you are enlightened, IMO, is an ego adornment, and nothing more.
Last edited:
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
No biggie. WHERE do demons come from?
HELL!!!!!!!
Nah, it's much easier. Merely hook up with a fallen angel. Craigslist personals maybe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon
In contemporary Christianity, demons are generally considered to be angels who fell from grace by rebelling against God. However, other schools of thought in Christianity or Judaism teach that demons, or evil spirits, are a result of the sexual relationships between fallen angels and human women. When these hybrids (Nephilim) died they left behind disembodied spirits that "roam the earth in search of rest" (Luke 11:24). Many non-canonical historical texts describe in detail these unions and the consequences thereof. This belief is repeated in other major ancient religions and mythologies.
Paul
Gadfly
Crusader
Hey, I currently have a wonderful long-term relationship with a gorgeous cute little blonde succubus. Is that the same thing?
:confused2:What is great about such "imaginary friends" is that they do exactly what they are told (trained, taught, instructed). She never "has a headache", she is a veritable always-smiling, eager workaholic in the bedroom, and fully experienced in all things Tantric. And, I always wake up refreshed, really eager to start the new day.
So far, no downside, though I may have forgotten about signing my soul over to the Devil as payment for 20 or 30 years of total, unrestricted, no-safe-words-allowed, no-holds-barred sexual ecstasy and bliss!
Last edited:
guanoloco
As-Wased
Great post!
In terms of non-dualism the elimination of the ego is considered enlightenment. I've always considered that to be an event...with a process leading up to it. It is described as a death and therefore I've understood this to be permanent.
Hatshepsut
Crusader
I heard that said by Chuck Missler on his radio show on the Koinonia House website. He said these spirits had no place to return to. They had not come from God. They did not align with the genus that spawned them, or to that source which sparked the spirit of mankind.
It seems they were disdained. This brings up a question in my mind. If a divergent genetic line is created on the Earth is it left to 'grow' a soul of its own? We have hybrid dogs and sheep etc. Do they have a natural theta body line any more which they devolved from? In evolution there can be no fixed pattern to the soul. It is maleable to its guises. The mind and its functions change with the changing anatomy. So why were these hybrids ostracized?
Maybe everything in this area of the universe is 'OF' one God energy or uses one source energy. Perhaps these beings coming in did not belong here and had no right to change the design which was fostered in the Divine mind..which had its own charted timeline to follow. When the invading creator Gods packed it in and tried to leave, these hybrids could not make it out of the 'ring' that surrounds the earth. Their qualities and capabilities were less than those that spawned them.
Ulduz
Patron with Honors
Mine blond cutie is better than yours -- yours is imaginary, but mine is real, she is an inflatable doll.Hey, I currently have a wonderful long-term relationship with a gorgeous cute little blonde succubus. Is that the same thing?
What is great about such "imaginary friends" is that they do exactly what they are told (trained, taught, instructed). She never "has a headache", she is a veritable always-smiling, eager workaholic in the bedroom, and fully experienced in all things Tantric. And, I always wake up refreshed, really eager to start the new day.
So far, no downside, though I may have forgotten about signing my soul over to the Devil as payment for 20 or 30 years of total, unrestricted, no-safe-words-allowed, no-holds-barred sexual ecstasy and bliss!
Helena Handbasket
Gold Meritorious Patron
That reminds me of a nonexistant conversation between Scotty and Q (from Star Trek):
Scotty: "I canna change the laws of physics."
Q: "I can."
Helena
Ulduz
Patron with Honors
Before you pass your judgment you should review the pertinent videotapes.That reminds me of a nonexistant conversation between Scotty and Q (from Star Trek):
Scotty: "I canna change the laws of physics."
Q: "I can."
Helena
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with souls. It has to do with DNA (and possibly other information processes), natural selection, and environments. If you are suggesting that the soul is an information process, that might be an interesting conversation. Otherwise, it's not pertinent. Discussing evolution of "theta body lines" as though they were real things, and not wholly imagined entities, grants them validity that they don't deserve. The only ring that surrounds the earth is made of electromagnetism, and is not actually ringshaped. It protects us from solar radiation, not from invader gods.
Gadfly
Crusader
That is YOUR set of fixed ideas and assumptions based on "modern theories" and notions of "the physical being the basis of all that is".
As I understand it, a "spirit" can and probably does "evolve" over a near eternity. It has NOTHING to do with "DNA" or "natural selection". Those things ONLY pertain to living things (biological life forms). Yes, as far as the evolution of life forms goes, "DNA" and "natural selection" are extremely relevant. That is my OPINION, and involves my own current arbitrary assumptions.
You can choose to disagree, but just as you might be right, well, you might be wrong. Just because you are unaware of something does NOT mean that it does not exist (paraphrase of your own earlier words). It just means that your are unaware of it, having not experienced such yourself. But, "not having personally experienced something" is a VERY POOR gauge of "truth" or "existence of things". There are many things that I have never experienced, that most surely DO exist. How do I know? Because, I read or hear, and then choose to trust the seemingly honest and careful reports of others. Of course, THAT can be tricky, and is not without its dangers. That is how I "know that Pluto exists as a planet". And, that is how we each "know" a great many other things that we NEVER actually experience.
Your statement that "evolution has nothing to do with souls" displays immense arrogance, and possibly immense ignorance. You accept and believe that. But, in truth, you don't have a clue of what you stated. Sure, you imagine that you do . . . . :confused2:
Your statement is wholly of the nature of an opinion and an assumption - please, don't present it as a "fact". I had enough of that with Hubbard!
There may be "souls" and they may very well "evolve" over very long periods of time, in a way that you obviously cannot even possibly imagine, and if so, this "reality" will NEVER be observable, detectable or measurable with physical universe gadgets. Just because it can't be detected or measured does NOT mean that it does not exist. That is a very dumb assumption for anyone to make.
Examples:
I have "love" for my children. It can't be seen. It can't be detected. So, this "love" does not exist?
I just did an intricate math problem "in my head". You can't "see this happening", this cannot be detected by ANY physical gadgetry, it cannot be "measured" or recorded, yet it EXISTS!
I worked out a musical melody in my head last night, introduced a few key changes, added some harmonies, and then got up this morning, played it on guitar, and recorded it. I imagined and created in a place that is entirely invisible to all physical senses. Was I delusional? Cripes, do you actually seriously believe that it didn't exist? Because, YOU can't perceive it?
Yesterday I imagined, while in meditation, visiting a place, a lush garden, with detailed foliage, a bridge and other artifacts, along with having interesting conversations with a few "beings". Did this not happen, just because YOU can't see it or detect it?
And so, for a GREAT MANY similar "invisible" thingies, that while not being able to be measured by ANY physical apparatus , most certainly DO exist.
Just because YOU can't "see it" does NOT mean that "it is not there", nor that such "invisible events and situations" don't function and operate along lines that you have absolutely NO CLUE about. Cripes!
And, the physical aspect of all-that-is might just be "the tip of the iceberg" when compared to the intricacies, volume, complexity and sheer magnitude of the "invisible thingies". Things that to YOU, from YOUR limited perspective and bundle of finite sense perceptions, "do NOT exist". Yawn. So boring.
It is very lame indeed for any person to use "physical evidence" or "personal experience" solely as the key determinent for "truth" or "existence". Though, yes, many surely do that. Here is an idea. Widen your horizons! Stretch the limits a bit! Push against the boundaries of the little box known as "my reality". Imagine for just a fleeting moment that your own extremely finite set of experiences and grossly limited ability at detection and measurement may actually not be the absolute pinnacle of all possibilities! Try it, really, it won't hurt - it won't hurt anything except maybe your ego. This isn't directed "at you" uniquemand, it is an open statement to any who might need to hear it.
Last edited:
Ulduz
Patron with Honors
This though just came to my mind, it is about the Jesus implant. People who have definite opinions about Jesus could be divided into 3 categories: 1. Those who believe that Jesus performed miracles attributed to him; 2. Those who believe that Jesus was a real person who could not produce miracles; 3. Those who believe that Jesus is a mythological figure.
Where does that difference of opinion come from? Something must be wrong with the implant stations. Wouldn’t be simpler to program everyone in such way that we all would believe that Jesus was the creator of miracles?
Where does that difference of opinion come from? Something must be wrong with the implant stations. Wouldn’t be simpler to program everyone in such way that we all would believe that Jesus was the creator of miracles?
uniquemand
Unbeliever
How about those of us that believe both Implants and Jesus are mythological?
uniquemand
Unbeliever
SNIPPED FOR BREVITY
Hi, Gadfly. Your point is taken. Please accept mine. You say that there might be a bunch of entities in existence. I say there might not be.
My point is not that such things don't exist, it's that we can't prove it. So, let's stick with what we can demonstrate. If the things that might exist made the whole equation simpler, generate better predictions and explanations, then I'd be happy to entertain them. I don't think things that might exist are necessary to understand the human condition, or to improve it significantly.
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Go into a redwood forest or an orchard and see if these living organsims are not connected to one morphic field of energy. (I do not use the word 'soul' to be the entirety of the spiritual being using it either) But you may take the position that no spiritual beings exist, only those electromagnetic fields that are projected by the phycical brain. From a ''standpoint' you could say that all that is real is what you can see or measure and there is nothing else. But you are only looking into a mirror and claiming that which is reflected has no depth or reality and this can be proved by striking at it.
"Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you." Gospel of Thomas
'
As far as there not being any kind of web around the earth invested with the Intention to keep things in or out... you may be right....as of recent times. There are enough of us now to run the process on each other that we are dust and unto dust we shall return. Why waste any effort on maintaining such a vast illusory enterprise.
And I do use the word 'soul' interchangeably with the concept of mind more than with the idea of a being as static. The identity called 'human' might just be a valence in the back of a sock drawer to that which we 'truly' are. Just kidding. That would be like saying Bernini was just a sculptor. There is art and then there is ART!!
Last edited:
Gadfly
Crusader
I understand what you are saying.
I choose a different set of ASSUMPTIONS.
I don't care if it can't be proven. You consider THAT important, and I don't. My arbitrary choice, and yours too.
I have a strong affinity for things of the "invisible realms". Maybe I simply prefer the qualities and content of the imagination as opposed to the qualities and content of a "rational reasoning mind". I can do "rational and reasoning", though I find settling ONLY in that a bit droll, unexciting and lacking in variety.
I find that "sticking with what we can demonstrate" leaves out FAR TOO MUCH of a picture that I much better enjoy. Again, I am choosing a different VALUE here. You consider and assume that we should "stick with what we can demonstrate", and I don't. There is no way to "prove" your approach is fundamentally "superior" or "more correct".
I don't have the consideration that "simpler" equals better. I don't find or need it to be true that a "lack of complexity" somehow implies "more truth" or anything. I am not a card-carrying, flag-waving frenzied follower of Occam's Razor. I don't agree that these are "higher" or more "legitimate values" - "generating better predictions and explanations". Maybe you know that you take those for granted and maybe you don't. You can apply those notions within a certain framework, and I also very much do, for instance when choosing what sort of people to interact with.
My own model of explanation of certain human behaviors works for me to stay far away from people with obvious tendecies to cause me any difficulty, harm or trouble based on my own observations that enable me to predict. I use the "scientific method" in many areas where it applies (the notion of learning how to predict some activity based on observations of consistent behavior and through resultant models and theories of explanation). I am VERY familiar with all of that. But for me, it is only one side, or even only a SMALL, though valid, part of the whole picture.
You again state where you are coming from (by your goal), "to understand the human condition, and to improve it significantly". It might be entirely true that these things are not necessary to understand the human condition, but again, that is NOT where I am coming from. THAT is not my main or primary concern.
I don't know what is really going on, and you also don't know. Past that we can both choose to IMAGINE whatever we like about such things. And, you IMAGINE that your approach is somehow "more rational" or "valid". So I also imagine my little package of arbitraries. I don't feel the need to limit my imaginings to "proof" or "evidence". It isn't right or wrong, or better or worse, it is just another way to look at all-that-is, and we each do that DIFFERENTLY. :confused2:
State your GOAL, and then we might have a conversation. Without stating that, I feel too much gets assumed.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Go into a redwood forest or an orchard and see if these living organsims are not connected to one morphic field of energy. (I do not use the word 'soul' to be the entirety of the spiritual being using it either) But you may take the position that no spiritual beings exist, only those electromagnetic fields that are projected by the phycical brain. From a ''standpoint' you could say that all that is real is what you can see or measure and there is noting else. But you are only looking into a mirror and claiming that which is reflected has no depth or reality and this can be proved by striking at it.
"Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you." Gospel of Thomas
'
As far as there not being any kind of web around the earth invested with the Intention to keep things in or out... you may be right....as of recent times. There are enough of us now to run the process on each other that we are dust and to dust we shall return. Why waste any effort on maintaining such a vast illusory enterprise.
They are not connected by a morphic field of energy. They are connected by habitat, root-systems, symbiotic life forms, and lots of already understood systems. I wouldn't say that everything is understood about each system, but I defy you to demonstrate the existence of a morphic field of energy connecting them. I appreciate the sentiment, it sounds nice, but it simply ain't the facts.
Interpreting what I say as that we are dust and that to dust we shall return is what YOU are making of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we exist, trees exist, and each of us is a magnificent life form, and the complex habitat we enjoy together is wondrous, awesome, etc. We have capacities we don't yet understand, and so does every complex organism in our ecosystem. I can speak in a voice of wonder about it. It is not necessary to "invalidate" living systems as merely being dust. That would be very far from the truth. However, their not just being dust doesn't mean they are inhabited with immortal spiritual beings who have a hard time tying their shoelaces.
Beautiful pic, by the way. I'll bet it was not shot using OT Powerz, but instead a pretty good camera, invented by people using scientific concepts, engineering, and probably batteries.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
My goal? With regard to what?
When it comes to working with people in a session environment, my goal is to help them face whatever they were coming to me for help with, and then send them on their way. I make them aware of what else I offer, but I don't have a big sales pitch, and there is no effort to CLOSE them. I depend on my ability to create a worthwhile rapport to bring them back, should they wish to address something else. Otherwise, my goal is not to have them be perpetual customers, it is to get them moving on whatever they want to do with their lives, feeling good, and no longer bothered with what they came to me to address.
Outside of that, I have dozens of goals. My goal on this message board is to have interesting discussions with educated people about a very specific topic, which we are currently talking about.
With regard to the FreeZone, I have no particular goal, except to make it known to FreeZoners that Scientology had antecedents, and that it did not appear as a bolt from the blue, and that the scientology model had lots of flaws, and better models exist. If they want to rock on with their bad selves, that's their business. Can't say they weren't informed.
BTW, with regard to your point about imagination, I agree. I hold imagined possibilities in very high regard, as well. Without them, we wouldn't be able to see better futures, because we couldn't imagine them. I have lots of suppositions and (don't tell anyone, it'll be our secret) I even think I have some intuition and other capacities that are hard for me to explain. My point is not to say such things are impossible, but to focus on what can be demonstrated easily, at will, without special considerations. Even those things, btw, are simply miraculous, when examined.
How is it that entities having entirely different subjective experiences can communicate at all? It's miraculous. There are rules that make it possible and we can easily come to understand them, but even so, it's miraculous.
Ulduz
Patron with Honors
That needs further analysis. However, I am expecting explanation from the Freezoners about the Jesus implant. Anyone?
