From: Lucid Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: 06 Mar 1999 06:22:45 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 21 Message-ID: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts015d24.oak-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master Hi all, Talk about AMAZING! I somehow managed to get a sit six rows away from where Dr. Chopra was given his talk yesterday night (6Mar) at the Whole Life Expo in San Francisco. And one interesting thing that he brought up was that all evidences pointed to that we were never in the body in the first place?! To him, this is one of the worst misconception to think that we are actually are our "physical body"..or are in it!....and he went on in great lucid details to explain why. I have not read any of his book yet, so I can't recommend any. But would I definitely recommend that you get his videos on his talks if you can. I can't wait for Sunday (8Mar) when James Van Praagh, author of "Talking to Heaven" will give a 2.5 hrs talk and demonstration at the Whole Life Expo in SF. For those ppl in this ng who lived in or near the bay area, it's still not too late to get tickets :-) Check out www.wholelife.com or call 800-551-EXPO for more info. love and light, lucid ###### Message-ID: <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken Organization: fractal in nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 86 Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 09:52:28 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.203.136.184 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 920739195 208.203.136.184 (Sat, 06 Mar 1999 09:53:15 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 09:53:15 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Heck Lucid, I've been expressing this idea in this NG for years. But I must admit it's a difficult concept to put into words and so when I post something along those lines it's more just to experiment with methods of expression more than actually trying to get someone to think about it which is fine with me. But in case anyone is interested in pondering this wonderful concept but can't quite grasp it, here is a very very interesting thought experiment to get the gears rolling. To orient yourself to the experiment, first you must give yourself a moment to think about why the idea of a soul works for so many people. To put it in a nutshell it's because it's the best darn way to explain what it is that is looking into this world. I'm talking about those times where you say "Yes I know it's my brain processing all this input and all that, but there is something *inside* me that is conscious of all of it. When my eyes look at the color red, it is *me* that sees red, not my brain!" Because of this awareness that we are not just processing information but actually being aware of the information being processed is the basis for the concept of "the soul". OK. Now the thought experiment. Let's say your physical body dies and what you are left with is this soul. So the soul goes off to soul land and starts a new life and raises a family and gets a job and so on. Then one day the soul is sitting on a rock looking out over the lake with the sun setting in the background and it says to itself. "My soul is amazing, it can look over this lake and look at this sun falling over the horizon, but there seems to be something *inside of me* that can take this light coming into my soul eyes and turns it into *sight*. I must have a *soul* inside of this soul!". And there you have it. It's an infinite regression. If there is a soul inside the body, then there must be a soul inside the soul inside the body and on and on ad infinitum... The only resolution to this problem is to abandon the idea of the soul and to realize that there is only one single consciousness in this universe. This could be called God or can be called whatever you feel comfortable calling it, but it is the only thing that exists. Our physical bodies are an extension of this consciousness and when the connection between the universal consciousness and a body is made, then you have a mind. This mind is what we all refer to as *me*. It is the *me* that is created by the connection that allows us to *see* when looking out the eyes we are connected to and to *remember* when using the processes of the brain to recall. If the link is broken (when we die), then the consciousness still remains of course but the *me* will need to be reestablished somehow. This can be done by relinking to a new body (reincarnation) by creating a new reality in an alternate dimension (traditional religion). It is also possible and even likely that the *me* can disappear, but only in the most abstract sense since *me* was only a result of the connection between the consciousness and the body (real or astral) and so really isn't here or not here. It's like mixing blue and yellow paint and ending up with green. The green paint is real enough, but it's only there because of the red and blue paint. It does not really exist by itself. And the most important thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an expression of what we really are, a single unified consciousness. We are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in the same, just trying to get different points of view. Ken Lucid wrote: > > Hi all, > > Talk about AMAZING! I somehow managed to get a sit six rows away from > where Dr. Chopra was given his talk yesterday night (6Mar) at the Whole > Life Expo in San Francisco. And one interesting thing that he brought > up was that all evidences pointed to that we were never in the body in > the first place?! To him, this is one of the worst misconception to > think that we are actually are our "physical body"..or are in it!....and > he went on in great lucid details to explain why. I have not read any > of his book yet, so I can't recommend any. But would I definitely > recommend that you get his videos on his talks if you can. > I can't wait for Sunday (8Mar) when James Van Praagh, author of "Talking > to Heaven" will give a 2.5 hrs talk and demonstration at the Whole Life > Expo in SF. > For those ppl in this ng who lived in or near the bay area, it's still > not too late to get tickets :-) > Check out www.wholelife.com or call 800-551-EXPO for more info. > > love and light, > lucid ###### From: smackudown@nac.net Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Message-ID: <36e15e08.6079810@news.nac.net> References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 19 Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 17:02:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.99.2.78 X-Complaints-To: news@nac.net X-Trace: nntp1.nac.net 920739985 207.99.2.78 (Sat, 06 Mar 1999 12:06:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 12:06:25 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!nntp1.nac.net!not-for-mail I was introduced to a similar concept in Conversations With God by Neale Donald Walsh. This series of books (personally I preffer the audio books in this case.. they're VERY well done) was the most important thing I've ever read. It explains in laymans terms exactly why we're here and why we need to have the illusion of separation. I personally think that this is really required reading for EVERYONE who is even the least bit curious why we're here in the first place. As I've stated before in this newsgroup, one of my main objectives for learning astral projection is to be able to go into the past and view significant events such as the parting of the red sea, and crucifixion of of Jesus. I'm surprised that with all the experienced projectors in here, nobody has really given me a straight answer as to whether or not they've tried to do the same. Can you imagine going back and seeing things like dinosaurs and maybe even Atlantis (if it actually did exist that is). Jason http://www.sevenmagicwords.com ###### From: glyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 18:40:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: flyers.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: flyers.demon.co.uk:158.152.37.166 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 920745693 nnrp-09:8605 NO-IDENT flyers.demon.co.uk:158.152.37.166 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Lines: 55 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!flyers.demon.co.uk!glyn Hello Ken, > >The only resolution to this problem is to abandon the idea of the soul >and to realize that there is only one single consciousness in this >universe. This could be called God or can be called whatever you feel >comfortable calling it, but it is the only thing that exists. Our >physical bodies are an extension of this consciousness and when the >connection between the universal consciousness and a body is made, then >you have a mind. This mind is what we all refer to as *me*. It is the >*me* that is created by the connection that allows us to *see* when >looking out the eyes we are connected to and to *remember* when using >the processes of the brain to recall. If the link is broken (when we >die), then the consciousness still remains of course but the *me* will >need to be reestablished somehow. This can be done by relinking to a >new body (reincarnation) by creating a new reality in an alternate >dimension (traditional religion). It is also possible and even likely >that the *me* can disappear, but only in the most abstract sense since >*me* was only a result of the connection between the consciousness and >the body (real or astral) and so really isn't here or not here. It's >like mixing blue and yellow paint and ending up with green. The green >paint is real enough, but it's only there because of the red and blue >paint. It does not really exist by itself. And the most important >thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an >expression of what we really are, a single unified consciousness. We >are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in >the same, just trying to get different points of view. > >Ken > It's great to see that put into words so well. I've always thought along those lines, but can never really explain what I mean. Mention 'cosmic/univeral consciousnesses', or anything along those lines, and whoever I'm speaking to seems to switch off. So difficult trying to explain what I mean by the 'me' looking out from behind these eyes.......and the idea that when my body dies it could be that I'm a totally different being calling itself 'me' looking out through the eyes of *another* body, with its own memories etc.........and that these two bodies may even have existed at the same time! Also, if time does not exist the way we have to recognise it to make sense of our world, then this could give the appearance of reincarnation if we then somehow are able to get some access to the 'whole', by whatever means, and remember details of some person who had died before the second body was born. Oh well, still can't put it into words, but it's nice to know that there are people who think along the same lines :-) -- glyn ###### From: happy2ceu@aol.com (Happy2ceu) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Lines: 12 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 6 Mar 1999 20:25:14 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: Message-ID: <19990306152514.08724.00004255@ng121.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail I am going to go see Deepak Chopra March 14, here in my hometown of Naples Florida. I have read several of his books and highly reccomend them. A few are: Seven Spiritual Laws of Success Ageless Mind, Timeless Body The Path to Love Creating Affluence enjoy!! Sincerely, Laura :) ###### From: Steve and Elaine Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 22:56:26 -0500 Organization: Info Avenue Internet Services Lines: 38 Message-ID: <36E1F8EA.7BA4@sccoast.net> References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> Reply-To: beached@sccoast.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.144.89.133 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news3.infoave.net 920779059 25883 207.144.89.133 (7 Mar 1999 03:57:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news3.infoave.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Mar 1999 03:57:39 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news3.infoave.net!news.infoave.net!not-for-mail Lucid wrote: > > Hi all, > > Talk about AMAZING! I somehow managed to get a sit six rows away from > where Dr. Chopra was given his talk yesterday night (6Mar) at the Whole > Life Expo in San Francisco. And one interesting thing that he brought > up was that all evidences pointed to that we were never in the body in > the first place?! To him, this is one of the worst misconception to > think that we are actually are our "physical body"..or are in it!....and > he went on in great lucid details to explain why. I have not read any > of his book yet, so I can't recommend any. But would I definitely > recommend that you get his videos on his talks if you can. > I can't wait for Sunday (8Mar) when James Van Praagh, author of "Talking > to Heaven" will give a 2.5 hrs talk and demonstration at the Whole Life > Expo in SF. > For those ppl in this ng who lived in or near the bay area, it's still > not too late to get tickets :-) > Check out www.wholelife.com or call 800-551-EXPO for more info. > > love and light, > lucid I am not familiar with the work of Dr. Chopra but the statement made that we were never in the body in the first place ,IMO ,is true. True life is spiritual not material. If we were made in the image of God, then our life does not reside in a material body. Our true life only exists in the one Mind (God). The concept that we are all one is understood more clearly when you when you know that all true knowledge flows from this one Mind and as his creation we all share in that knowledge. The truth shall set us free...not an OBE . I don't mean to make light of the experiences of some of the people in this group. I too had a similar experience some 20 years ago. It was just a sign that there was more to life then I once thought . Only a sign along the way. Nothing to get hung up in. Love God ,follow his commandments and pray for the knowledge and it will come. Be still and wait apon the Lord Love to all, Elaine ###### From: chester b Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 23:16:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 7 Mar 1999 07:11:35 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Sat Mar 6 23:15:24 1999 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 78 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: pool017-cvx.ds45-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net Message-ID: <36E227C8.80705984@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail The Original Ken wrote: > Heck Lucid, > > I've been expressing this idea in this NG for years. But I must admit > it's a difficult concept to put into words and so when I post something > along those lines it's more just to experiment with methods of > expression more than actually trying to get someone to think about it > which is fine with me. But in case anyone is interested in pondering > this wonderful concept but can't quite grasp it, here is a very very > interesting thought experiment to get the gears rolling. > > To orient yourself to the experiment, first you must give yourself a > moment to think about why the idea of a soul works for so many people. > To put it in a nutshell it's because it's the best darn way to explain > what it is that is looking into this world. I'm talking about those > times where you say "Yes I know it's my brain processing all this input > and all that, but there is something *inside* me that is conscious of > all of it. When my eyes look at the color red, it is *me* that sees > red, not my brain!" Because of this awareness that we are not just > processing information but actually being aware of the information being > processed is the basis for the concept of "the soul". > > OK. Now the thought experiment. Let's say your physical body dies and > what you are left with is this soul. So the soul goes off to soul land > and starts a new life and raises a family and gets a job and so on. > Then one day the soul is sitting on a rock looking out over the lake > with the sun setting in the background and it says to itself. "My soul > is amazing, it can look over this lake and look at this sun falling over > the horizon, but there seems to be something *inside of me* that can > take this light coming into my soul eyes and turns it into *sight*. I > must have a *soul* inside of this soul!". > > And there you have it. It's an infinite regression. If there is a soul > inside the body, then there must be a soul inside the soul inside the > body and on and on ad infinitum... > > The only resolution to this problem is to abandon the idea of the soul > and to realize that there is only one single consciousness in this > universe. This could be called God or can be called whatever you feel > comfortable calling it, but it is the only thing that exists. Our > physical bodies are an extension of this consciousness and when the > connection between the universal consciousness and a body is made, then > you have a mind. This mind is what we all refer to as *me*. It is the > *me* that is created by the connection that allows us to *see* when > looking out the eyes we are connected to and to *remember* when using > the processes of the brain to recall. If the link is broken (when we > die), then the consciousness still remains of course but the *me* will > need to be reestablished somehow. This can be done by relinking to a > new body (reincarnation) by creating a new reality in an alternate > dimension (traditional religion). It is also possible and even likely > that the *me* can disappear, but only in the most abstract sense since > *me* was only a result of the connection between the consciousness and > the body (real or astral) and so really isn't here or not here. It's > like mixing blue and yellow paint and ending up with green. The green > paint is real enough, but it's only there because of the red and blue > paint. It does not really exist by itself. And the most important > thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an > expression of what we really are, a single unified consciousness. We > are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in > the same, just trying to get different points of view. > > Ken Thanks for the cool post, Ken. It was an enjoyable read. I have similar beliefs, and feel that OOBE are actually a voyage inward to the interconnected source... the cosmic web, from which all of THIS coaleces into form, whether it's our wakful 'physical reality' or the imagery which materializes within an OOBE. It's our perception if individual identity that can be very perplexing to me.. Peace brian ###### From: chester b Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 23:40:20 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <7bsvkp$82c$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 7 Mar 1999 07:35:36 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Sat Mar 6 23:45:01 1999 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 34 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: pool017-cvx.ds45-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net Message-ID: <36E22D64.5F5C4903@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!news-in-west1.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Hi Wolfy. Lone Wolf wrote: > But if we are all just another part of the same thing, then what I learn in > life now does not matter, because it would have already been learnt by > someone else before me. And therefore the overall consciousness (God) has no > need for my trivial amount of knowledge. So what is the point of me being > here? > > Ken, Lucid and myself all die tomorrow. We all merge with the total > consciousness. Part of that total consciousness is then taken out again to > make a new life. That new consciousness might be made up of 1 third Ken 1 > third Lucid and 1 third me. Like pouring three glasses of water into a > container, if you then poured that water back into three separate glasses > again you would not have the same three glasses of water that you started > with. Some prefer to look at the universal consciousness as more of the foundation of our own individual identity and energy of Being.. like the outlet which we are plugged in to. I have read some wonderful books on such incomprehensible subjects and I like to view all of this as simply a theater from which we learn and grow and gain experience. I see the experience and memories and emotions as a very real form of evolving energy which grows throughout our life and then melts into the universal consciousness upon our passing, and adds to it in some way. Perhaps we are simply like tentacles or nerve cells of the god consciousness and this is how we/it/everything evolves and grows.. I guess there are many ways to view this craziness, and seeing it as a precious gift has become my favorite! :) peace brian ###### From: "Lone Wolf" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 14:48:08 +1000 Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 53 Message-ID: <7bsvkp$82c$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d223-1.cpe.townsville.aone.net.au X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 920781273 8268 203.61.32.223 (7 Mar 1999 04:34:33 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Mar 1999 04:34:33 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!not-for-mail The Original Ken wrote in message <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com>... >The only resolution to this problem is to abandon the idea of the soul >and to realize that there is only one single consciousness in this >universe. This could be called God or can be called whatever you feel >comfortable calling it, but it is the only thing that exists. Gee, I feel very insignificant all of a sudden. I would like to think that we are all individuals, each of us can grow and learn, gaining wisdom and knowledge. But if we are all just another part of the same thing, then what I learn in life now does not matter, because it would have already been learnt by someone else before me. And therefore the overall consciousness (God) has no need for my trivial amount of knowledge. So what is the point of me being here? I know me as me. I know how I think, act and react to certain situations. When I die, am I still the same me or do I become one with "God"? If I were to be reincarnated would I still be the same me that I know now, or would I be mixed up with a different part of the total consciousness, thus making me think and act differently? Is anyone actually reincarnated, or is reincarnation simply the birth of a different point of view? I'll try to clarify what I am getting at here, I am not that good with words. Ken, Lucid and myself all die tomorrow. We all merge with the total consciousness. Part of that total consciousness is then taken out again to make a new life. That new consciousness might be made up of 1 third Ken 1 third Lucid and 1 third me. Like pouring three glasses of water into a container, if you then poured that water back into three separate glasses again you would not have the same three glasses of water that you started with. In that case, technically we would have been reincarnated, but we would not be the same person who we are now. >And the most important >thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an >expression of what we really are, a single unified consciousness. We >are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in >the same, just trying to get different points of view. But like I tried to say above, do we keep our own individual point of view? From Wolfy ###### Message-ID: <36E3688A.C588E7A2@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken Reply-To: sculpt@privatei.com Organization: fractal in nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <7bsvkp$82c$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 169 Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:04:58 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.203.136.184 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 920873143 208.203.136.184 (Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:05:43 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:05:43 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.he.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Hi Wolfy, Lone Wolf wrote: > The Original Ken wrote in message <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com>... > > >The only resolution to this problem is to abandon the idea of the soul > >and to realize that there is only one single consciousness in this > >universe. This could be called God or can be called whatever you feel > >comfortable calling it, but it is the only thing that exists. > > Gee, I feel very insignificant all of a sudden. Oh, no need to feel that way. In fact you should be feeling quite grand seeings how you are the only thing that exists. :) > I would like to think that we are all individuals, each of us can grow and > learn, gaining wisdom and knowledge. We do all of that. Think of it as a co-op. > But if we are all just another part of the same thing, then what I learn in > life now does not matter, because it would have already been learnt by > someone else before me. But that someone else before you was you. You have learned a lot more than you are led to believe. > And therefore the overall consciousness (God) has no > need for my trivial amount of knowledge. So what is the point of me being > here? The UC (God) is made up entirely of you and me and all of us and not anything more. Therefore what God learns we learn, what we learn God learns. Your point of being here is to give substance and meaning to the universal consiousness. > I know me as me. I know how I think, act and react to certain situations. Yes, I'm not taking this away from you. I'm simply suggesting that the *me* you feel does not have to be independent from the *me* that I feel to maintain the *meness* than we both feel. This is the part that I think is the stickiest (for me too). But I think the best way to suggest what I'm talking about is maybe to imagine what may or may not be a real situation, but is an interesting thought nevertheless. Imagine that there is only one *meness* and that is God. God doesn't like being without substance so he decides to make himself a body. His own body, and his awareness will be housed in that body giving God the ability to walk the earth and experience things as a human being. But soon he finds out he doesn't like to to be alone and so he creates a second body. But he knows that this second body wont be much fun unless it too was aware just like he is, but he also knows that he is the only thing that can be aware since there is only one God. So he takes himself and inhabits this second body as well as the original body. Now God is in both bodies, but he is having a little bit of a problem seeing because he not only sees out of his own eyes but he also sees um... out of his own eyes in the second body too. So he has double vision, and whatever the first body hears the second body hears for the same reason. This is way too confusing for him and not much fun either since what the first body thinks is the same thing that the second body thinks. So to make things more interesting he decides to isolate himself from himself. He is still in both bodies and there is only one consiousness, but the thoughts of one body are now independant of the thoughts of the second. Now God number one sees God number two and thinks that God number two is a separate different God. But this is not the case, there is still only one, the separation is only an illusion. There are no souls here, only one God residing in two bodies. > When I die, am I still the same me or do I become one with "God"? Good question. You were never apart from God otherwise you would not exist. Just as in the example above. If one of the bodys dies, then there is nothing lost because the ego in the second body, as well as the ego in the first are just illusions created by the separation of God. So to answer your question, *me* as you know it, only exists while you are alive. But you will not disappear, because you were always there even before you were born. > If I were > to be reincarnated would I still be the same me that I know now, or would I > be mixed up with a different part of the total consciousness, thus making me > think and act differently? Is anyone actually reincarnated, or is > reincarnation simply the birth of a different point of view? Another excellent question. I think it's pretty much a given that you would not be the same me that you know now. You may dislike redheads in this life, but in another you may find redheads to be the very thing that drives you crazy. So in this sense you will be a different person. But I think you may be asking the deeper question of whether or not the *me* that you are now experiencing will vanish forever and be replaced by another *me* that is not you. Here is the part once again that is very nearly (if not totally) incomprehensible. But what I believe to be true is that there is no difference between the two in every imaginable sense. If the *me* you know vanishes and is replaced by a *me* that never existed, I propose that this is exactly the same thing as if the *me* you know suddenly finds himself in a new existance as a new person but the same *me*. The reason I say this is for the reason I described in the paragraph above, because there is only one consiousness (all you and all me and all everybody else rolled up) and there will be as many *mes* as there are people or as few without loss of anything but ego which is nothing. It's just the green paint made from the blue(body) and yellow(consiousness). There is only one yellow but as many greens as there are blues. > I'll try to clarify what I am getting at here, I am not that good with > words. I think you are doing just fine. > Ken, Lucid and myself all die tomorrow. We all merge with the total > consciousness. On the surface this seems to be what happens, but it's not quite that way. We are always merged and one, but we see things from many different angles. As our bodies die, then the angles become limited as do the experiences. Bart once came up with an analogy which I think was absolutely BRILLIANT. He suggested that you imagine God as a golf ball. Each pock mark on the surface of the ball is a person, perhaps the eyes of the person. Each pock mark looks outward, away from the center of the ball. Each person sees something different because it is facing a different direction. But there is still only one golf ball and only one God and only one of us. > Part of that total consciousness is then taken out again to > make a new life. That new consciousness might be made up of 1 third Ken 1 > third Lucid and 1 third me. Like pouring three glasses of water into a > container, if you then poured that water back into three separate glasses > again you would not have the same three glasses of water that you started > with. The *parts* that you refer to are not defined by the universal consiousness. They are defined by the chemestry of the body that you are living in. If just you (out of the 3 of us) died and then came back in a new body, you are suggesting that that is different than if all 3 of us die and then come back as a mixture of 3 people. I am suggesting that this is not the case. In both cases the new person will be the same and will just be a new *me*, but it will still be you (and me and Lucid). And if someone else is born 4 years later it will still be you and me and Lucid, but with a different outlook on life (obviously) and with a sense of self (*me*) that will appear in it's own right but at the same time will still be you. You are in everyone and everyone is in you. But you are just an *angle* of Gods awareness, not separate from me and Lucid, just a different eyeball on the golf ball looking outward. > In that case, technically we would have been reincarnated, but we would not > be the same person who we are now. > >And the most important > >thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an > >expression of what we really are, a single unified consciousness. We > >are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in > >the same, just trying to get different points of view. > > But like I tried to say above, do we keep our own individual point of view? Yes, we must, because God inside of a body is a means of becoming a *me*. And whatever *me* is created is the *you* that you are referring too. Remember, it's the connection that creates this so called individual point of view you are referring to. But there is no isolated soul floating around that has this point of view. This point of view simply is a non-existant thing. It is something that is created as a result of God being in a body. And for as many bodies as there are, there are that many *mes*. All of them are you and all of them are me, but they are isolated from one another giving the illusion that you are only seeing the world through your current eyes. Eventually, there will no longer be any bodies and there will once again be no *mes*, but there will be the only thing that ever was and that's the universal consiousness. But you will still have a sense of *me* and all the knowledge that was gained from your lives and the lives of others. It was fun. Cheers, Ken > From > Wolfy ###### From: "Elaine G." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:14:15 -0500 Organization: Info Avenue Internet Services Lines: 16 Message-ID: <7c1p7p$15d$1@news3.infoave.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-17.r3.sclors.infoave.net X-Trace: news3.infoave.net 920938553 1197 207.144.176.147 (9 Mar 1999 00:15:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news3.infoave.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Mar 1999 00:15:53 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!news-in-east1.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news3.infoave.net!news.infoave.net!not-for-mail That is the single and only part of this theory that I need to get past. Like I said above, I know a person who cares about no one but himself. I don't like the idea that I am him. Or that I might come back as a person like him. The fact that a murderer is the same consciousness as me, did the murderer choose to look at the wrong side of our consciousness? If I die and start a new existence as someone else, I could very well end up being a peice of scum. How do you grow if you always have to start at the bottom? All that God made is good .This is what we retain always ,even if we do not always perceive it . Being created in his image, it can be no other way. The evil you speak of, the murderer or any other form of evil doing is of human thought that will pass away. It is the love and goodness with which God created us that is our only true life and it is eternal. Hope this helps, Elaine G. ###### From: "Lone Wolf" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:35:28 +1000 Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 116 Message-ID: <7c0boi$lsa$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <7bsvkp$82c$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> <36E3688A.C588E7A2@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d193-1.cpe.townsville.aone.net.au X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 920891986 22410 203.61.32.193 (8 Mar 1999 11:19:46 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Mar 1999 11:19:46 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!korova.insync.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!in3.uu.net!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!not-for-mail The Original Ken wrote in message <36E3688A.C588E7A2@privatei.com>... >Oh, no need to feel that way. In fact you should be feeling quite grand seeings >how you are the only thing that exists. :) Yes, but I feel insignificant because the me that I know is only a temporary viewpoint, and oneday the me that I know will end. >But that someone else before you was you. You have learned a lot more than >you are led to believe. Why do we have to learn the same lessons every time we come back here? We could progress much faster if we were born with the knowledge that we already learnt. Which leads me to another point, I know someone who believes that there is nothing after death. Therefore he lives his life as though everything revolves around him. He will do anything to anyone as long as it is within his best interests. Now, if we are all from the one UC, then why do some people seem to have never learnt anything before? This same question can be thought of in a different way. Below you say that God created a body for himself, so I am assuming you believe that God created this world (tell me if I'm wrong). If God created this world, and I (and everyone else) am God, then why have I/we lost the ability to create and/or manipulate this world? And why have we forgotten all that hapened in the begining? >This >is way too confusing for him and not much fun either since what the first body >thinks is the same thing that the second body thinks. So to make things more >interesting he decides to isolate himself from himself. He is still in both >bodies and there is only one consiousness, but the thoughts of one body are now >independant of the thoughts of the second. Now God number one sees God >number two and thinks that God number two is a separate different God. But this >is not the case, there is still only one, the separation is only an illusion. There >are no souls here, only one God residing in two bodies. But once God#1 broke that link between him and God#2. He became seperate from God#2. God#1 and God#2 are now two different Gods. They might have originaly been the same God, but now they are seperate. It is like making a clone of yourself, you and your clone are both based on the same person, but you are not your clone. And if God#1 and God#2 are the same God, then they would still be able to create things as well as have all the knowedge of how the universe works. And each seperate God after that would have the knowledge of the original God passed down to them. But somewhere along the line, we stoped being Gods. The knowledge and power stoped being passed along. We forgot who we trully are, and became simple minded humans. Why? >Good question. You were never apart from God otherwise you would not exist. >Just as in the example above. If one of the bodys dies, then there is nothing >lost because the ego in the second body, as well as the ego in the first are >just illusions created by the separation of God. How do you know that individuality is just an illusion created by the seperation of God? How do you know that we are not all individuals who once upon a time were in fact the same god, but are now seperate? >But I think you may be asking the >deeper question of whether or not the *me* that you are now experiencing will >vanish forever and be replaced by another *me* that is not you. Here is the >part once again that is very nearly (if not totally) incomprehensible. But what >I believe to be true is that there is no difference between the two in every >imaginable sense That is the single and only part of this theory that I need to get past. Like I said above, I know a person who cares about no one but himself. I don't like the idea that I am him. Or that I might come back as a person like him. The fact that a murderer is the same consciousness as me, did the murderer choose to look at the wrong side of our consciousness? If I die and start a new existance as someone else, I could very well end up being a peice of scum. How do you grow if you always have to start at the bottom? I am not trying to knock your beliefs, just test them out for myself. Besides, If the belief is correct it can take any knocking. I believe that there is some truth in all religions, but in many religions it seems that key ideas have been lost along the line. So you must look at all of them and find the similar aspects that fit together. MOST religions (I believe) are just different perspectives of the same thing. I do believe that we are all the same person at some level, I have just never really thought about how that can be. I could find most if not all the answers to the questions which I have saked you by myself. But hearing your thoughts on these things helps me see a different side of things more quickly. I agree with what you have said so far, there are just many small details that need to be ironed out. Your insight is helping me do that. Thanks Ken, I enjoy the thought that is required to understand this topic. God created man in his own image. Or, God created his own image, which is now called man. From Wolfy P.S. I am getting tired and should probably write this tomorrow. But I Just can't wait. :-) ###### Message-ID: <36E4B7D5.1BAE7EDC@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken Reply-To: sculpt@privatei.com Organization: fractal in nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <36e15e08.6079810@news.nac.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 38 Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 22:55:33 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.203.136.189 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 920958977 208.203.136.189 (Mon, 08 Mar 1999 22:56:17 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 22:56:17 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Hi Jason, I've been interested in this series of books for some time now. I guess CWG #3 just came out recently and I read a few lines from it in the bookstore. Very interesting stuff. So now I need to add this to the list along with Castenada, Cozzolino, and what the heck, maybe even an Monroe or two. :) As far as the red sea goes. I haven't really looked into that. I don't really think the whole red sea event took place like in the movies anyway, so I don't think there is much to see. Ken smackudown@nac.net wrote: > I was introduced to a similar concept in Conversations With God > by Neale Donald Walsh. This series of books (personally I preffer the > audio books in this case.. they're VERY well done) was the most > important thing I've ever read. It explains in laymans terms exactly > why we're here and why we need to have the illusion of separation. I > personally think that this is really required reading for EVERYONE who > is even the least bit curious why we're here in the first place. > > As I've stated before in this newsgroup, one of my main > objectives for learning astral projection is to be able to go into the > past and view significant events such as the parting of the red sea, > and crucifixion of of Jesus. I'm surprised that with all the > experienced projectors in here, nobody has really given me a straight > answer as to whether or not they've tried to do the same. Can you > imagine going back and seeing things like dinosaurs and maybe even > Atlantis (if it actually did exist that is). > > Jason > http://www.sevenmagicwords.com ###### Message-ID: <36E4B9DB.266478E2@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken Reply-To: sculpt@privatei.com Organization: fractal in nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 72 Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 23:04:11 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.203.136.189 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 920959495 208.203.136.189 (Mon, 08 Mar 1999 23:04:55 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 23:04:55 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Hi glyn, I know what you mean about the glassy eye effect when making conversation with the party gang about such a topic. But I suppose it goes both ways. I pretty much tend to yawn when someone tells me I need to have faith in order to find the truth and yadda yadda. We are all in tune with whatever it is we are in tune with. That's how the world works, but it is nice to know there are quite a few folks here (and out there) that don't have a problem with using intuition, common sense, knowledge, and introspection to get at the truth. Thanks for posting. Ken glyn wrote: > Hello Ken, > > > > > > >The only resolution to this problem is to abandon the idea of the soul > >and to realize that there is only one single consciousness in this > >universe. This could be called God or can be called whatever you feel > >comfortable calling it, but it is the only thing that exists. Our > >physical bodies are an extension of this consciousness and when the > >connection between the universal consciousness and a body is made, then > >you have a mind. This mind is what we all refer to as *me*. It is the > >*me* that is created by the connection that allows us to *see* when > >looking out the eyes we are connected to and to *remember* when using > >the processes of the brain to recall. If the link is broken (when we > >die), then the consciousness still remains of course but the *me* will > >need to be reestablished somehow. This can be done by relinking to a > >new body (reincarnation) by creating a new reality in an alternate > >dimension (traditional religion). It is also possible and even likely > >that the *me* can disappear, but only in the most abstract sense since > >*me* was only a result of the connection between the consciousness and > >the body (real or astral) and so really isn't here or not here. It's > >like mixing blue and yellow paint and ending up with green. The green > >paint is real enough, but it's only there because of the red and blue > >paint. It does not really exist by itself. And the most important > >thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an > >expression of what we really are, a single unified consciousness. We > >are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in > >the same, just trying to get different points of view. > > > >Ken > > > > It's great to see that put into words so well. I've always thought along > those lines, but can never really explain what I mean. Mention > 'cosmic/univeral consciousnesses', or anything along those lines, and > whoever I'm speaking to seems to switch off. So difficult trying to > explain what I mean by the 'me' looking out from behind these > eyes.......and the idea that when my body dies it could be that I'm a > totally different being calling itself 'me' looking out through the eyes > of *another* body, with its own memories etc.........and that these two > bodies may even have existed at the same time! > > Also, if time does not exist the way we have to recognise it to make > sense of our world, then this could give the appearance of reincarnation > if we then somehow are able to get some access to the 'whole', by > whatever means, and remember details of some person who had died before > the second body was born. > > Oh well, still can't put it into words, but it's nice to know that there > are people who think along the same lines :-) > > -- > glyn ###### Message-ID: <36E4BAB0.60176BEB@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken Reply-To: sculpt@privatei.com Organization: fractal in nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <36E227C8.80705984@earthlink.nXXXet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 89 Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 23:07:44 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.203.136.189 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 920959708 208.203.136.189 (Mon, 08 Mar 1999 23:08:28 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 23:08:28 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Hi Brian, Glad you enjoyed it. I've really been enjoying the thread with Wolfy. It's really helpful to talk about these things because it's really the only time you have to really get into the nitty gritty and discover things you haven't talked about or thought about before. And yes, I agree, the perception of individual identity is *very* perplexing. Ken chester b wrote: > The Original Ken wrote: > > > Heck Lucid, > > > > I've been expressing this idea in this NG for years. But I must admit > > it's a difficult concept to put into words and so when I post something > > along those lines it's more just to experiment with methods of > > expression more than actually trying to get someone to think about it > > which is fine with me. But in case anyone is interested in pondering > > this wonderful concept but can't quite grasp it, here is a very very > > interesting thought experiment to get the gears rolling. > > > > To orient yourself to the experiment, first you must give yourself a > > moment to think about why the idea of a soul works for so many people. > > To put it in a nutshell it's because it's the best darn way to explain > > what it is that is looking into this world. I'm talking about those > > times where you say "Yes I know it's my brain processing all this input > > and all that, but there is something *inside* me that is conscious of > > all of it. When my eyes look at the color red, it is *me* that sees > > red, not my brain!" Because of this awareness that we are not just > > processing information but actually being aware of the information being > > processed is the basis for the concept of "the soul". > > > > OK. Now the thought experiment. Let's say your physical body dies and > > what you are left with is this soul. So the soul goes off to soul land > > and starts a new life and raises a family and gets a job and so on. > > Then one day the soul is sitting on a rock looking out over the lake > > with the sun setting in the background and it says to itself. "My soul > > is amazing, it can look over this lake and look at this sun falling over > > the horizon, but there seems to be something *inside of me* that can > > take this light coming into my soul eyes and turns it into *sight*. I > > must have a *soul* inside of this soul!". > > > > And there you have it. It's an infinite regression. If there is a soul > > inside the body, then there must be a soul inside the soul inside the > > body and on and on ad infinitum... > > > > The only resolution to this problem is to abandon the idea of the soul > > and to realize that there is only one single consciousness in this > > universe. This could be called God or can be called whatever you feel > > comfortable calling it, but it is the only thing that exists. Our > > physical bodies are an extension of this consciousness and when the > > connection between the universal consciousness and a body is made, then > > you have a mind. This mind is what we all refer to as *me*. It is the > > *me* that is created by the connection that allows us to *see* when > > looking out the eyes we are connected to and to *remember* when using > > the processes of the brain to recall. If the link is broken (when we > > die), then the consciousness still remains of course but the *me* will > > need to be reestablished somehow. This can be done by relinking to a > > new body (reincarnation) by creating a new reality in an alternate > > dimension (traditional religion). It is also possible and even likely > > that the *me* can disappear, but only in the most abstract sense since > > *me* was only a result of the connection between the consciousness and > > the body (real or astral) and so really isn't here or not here. It's > > like mixing blue and yellow paint and ending up with green. The green > > paint is real enough, but it's only there because of the red and blue > > paint. It does not really exist by itself. And the most important > > thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an > > expression of what we really are, a single unified consciousness. We > > are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in > > the same, just trying to get different points of view. > > > > Ken > > Thanks for the cool post, Ken. It was an enjoyable read. I have similar > beliefs, and feel that OOBE are actually a voyage inward to the interconnected > source... the cosmic web, from which all of THIS coaleces into form, whether > it's our wakful 'physical reality' or the imagery which materializes within an > OOBE. It's our perception if individual identity that can be very perplexing > to me.. > > Peace > > brian ###### From: Lucid Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: 09 Mar 1999 00:12:09 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 96 Message-ID: <36E4D31F.E2E0C095@hotmail.com> References: <7c1p7p$15d$1@news3.infoave.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts012d19.oak-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master Elaine G. wrote: Hi Elaine :-) > That is the single and only part of this theory that I need to get past. What is holding you back from it...from embracing it?? > Like I said above, I know a person who cares about no one but himself. How interesting. Let me ask you...have there been ANY time in you life that you only care about yourself and not anybody else? No? Try again :-)...how can you recognize this quality in others if it was not in you in the first place? > I > don't like the idea that I am him. You are not him (this is a misconception), but you do have his quality of selfishness in one degree or another. And this quality is also in all of us. This is our humanity. Think of it this way, we are not each other, but the stuff that we are made up of are of the same stuff, the same consciousness. And this ONE consciousness is inclusive of all qualities, that's why some have termed it "ALL THAT IS"...thus it includes the good and the bad...the saint and sinner....the genius and idiots...etc, etc. > Or that I might come back as a person > like him. You already have his quality in you...look deep inside and you will see this. Therefore at some level, you have part of him...the questions would be, why are you denying that you don't have any part like him? What is so painful about this quality to face about yourself? Is this a big issue when you grow up in your family? > The fact that a murderer is the same consciousness as me, did the > murderer choose to look at the wrong side of our consciousness? We all have the potential to be a murderer. That quality is inside all of us, that is our darkside...like in Star War :-). If you have been beaten everyday of your life and locked in a dark closet most of your life, would you have acted a little different? And believed differently about the value of human life?? I am not in anyway condoning the action of a murder here....I am just saying that you don't really know until you have walk in that other person's shoes...in his realities. > If I die and > start a new existence as someone else, I could very well end up being a > peice of scum. Ah...Scum...this quality kept coming up. Why do you have an issue with scum? What bother you about scum? Have you ever in your life that you acted like a scum? Did someone ever punished you for being a scum? Did someone you respected acted like and scum? > How do you grow if you always have to start at the bottom? You grow when you embrace ALL the qualities of your consciousness, that include the beauty and the ugly, the dirt and the gold. When we become holy...or Whole-ly...when we are WHOLE. And to be whole is to heal, and to heal is to grow :-) > All that God made is good . So God did not make cow dung??? or Scum? > This is what we retain always ,even if we do > not always perceive it . We retained more than we want to admit to one another :-) > Being created in his image, it can be no other way. > The evil you speak of, the murderer or any other form of evil doing is of > human thought that will pass away. It is the love and goodness with which > God created us that is our only true life and it is eternal. The way is to embrace the ALL. Because the ONE consciousness include everything. That include the "evil" that you speak of. Can you find any way to be at peace with this "evil"? Let me give you an example, do you think there would be an America without this "evil"? Think about mass murdered...what is the biggest one of all...it's wars...we may said that we KILL in order to defend our country...but when you got down to it...it's still killing...in mass scale. Who drop the atomic bombs? :-). What about the KKK, without them, would you think that we would arrived at an equal society that we have now? Can you think of any other ways the this "evil" had helped in the overall plan? > Hope this helps, Elaine G. It definitely had. Love and Light, Hate and Darkness, lucid ###### From: Lucid Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: 09 Mar 1999 00:15:40 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 123 Message-ID: <36E4D3F8.6AA43E8D@hotmail.com> References: <7c1p7p$15d$1@news3.infoave.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts012d19.oak-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!nntp.abs.net!newshub2.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master Elaine G. wrote: Hi Elaine :-) > That is the single and only part of this theory that I need to get past. What is holding you back from it...from embracing it?? > Like I said above, I know a person who cares about no one but himself. How interesting. Let me ask you...have there been ANY time in you life that you only care about yourself and not anybody else? No? Try again :-)...how can you recognize this quality in others if it was not in you in the first place? > I > don't like the idea that I am him. You are not him (this is a misconception), but you do have his quality of selfishness in one degree or another. And this quality is also in all of us. This is our humanity. Think of it this way, we are not each other, but the stuff that we are made up of are of the same stuff, the same consciousness. And this ONE consciousness is inclusive of all qualities, that's why some have termed it "ALL THAT IS"...thus it includes the good and the bad...the saint and sinner....the genius and idiots...etc, etc. > Or that I might come back as a person > like him. You already have his quality in you...look deep inside and you will see this. Therefore at some level, you have part of him...the questions would be, why are you denying that you don't have any part like him? What is so painful about this quality to face about yourself? Is this a big issue when you grow up in your family? > The fact that a murderer is the same consciousness as me, did the > murderer choose to look at the wrong side of our consciousness? We all have the potential to be a murderer. That quality is inside all of us, that is our darkside...like in Star War :-). If you have been beaten everyday of your life and locked in a dark closet most of your life, would you have acted a little different? And believed differently about the value of human life?? I am not in anyway condoning the action of a murder here....I am just saying that you don't really know until you have walk in that other person's shoes...in his realities. > If I die and > start a new existence as someone else, I could very well end up being a > peice of scum. Ah...Scum...this quality kept coming up. Why do you have an issue with scum? What bother you about scum? Have you ever in your life that you acted like a scum? Did someone ever punished you for being a scum? Did someone you respected acted like and scum? > How do you grow if you always have to start at the bottom? You grow when you embrace ALL the qualities of your consciousness, that include the beauty and the ugly, the dirt and the gold. When we become holy...or Whole-ly...when we are WHOLE. And to be whole is to heal, and to heal is to grow :-) > All that God made is good . So God did not make cow dung??? or Scum? > This is what we retain always ,even if we do > not always perceive it . We retained more than we want to admit to one another :-) > Being created in his image, it can be no other way. > The evil you speak of, the murderer or any other form of evil doing is of > human thought that will pass away. It is the love and goodness with which > God created us that is our only true life and it is eternal. The way is to embrace the ALL. Because the ONE consciousness include everything. That include the "evil" that you speak of. Can you find any way to be at peace with this "evil"? Let me give you an example, do you think there would be an America without this "evil"? Think about mass murdered...what is the biggest one of all...it's wars...we may said that we KILL in order to defend our country...but when you got down to it...it's still killing...in mass scale. Who drop the atomic bombs? :-). What about the KKK, without them, would you think that we would arrived at an equal society that we have now? Can you think of any other ways the this "evil" had helped in the overall plan? > Hope this helps, Elaine G. It definitely had. Love and Light, Hate and Darkness, lucid ###### Message-ID: <36E4D0C3.2D45F7E7@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken Reply-To: sculpt@privatei.com Organization: fractal in nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <7bsvkp$82c$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> <36E3688A.C588E7A2@privatei.com> <7c0boi$lsa$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 141 Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:41:55 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.203.136.189 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 920965361 208.203.136.189 (Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:42:41 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:42:41 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Hey Wolfy, > Why do we have to learn the same lessons every time we come back here? We > could progress much faster if we were born with the knowledge that we > already learnt. We don't learn the same lesson. Look at what were considered the important issues in your parents life, in your grandparents life, and in generations before. I think as a whole, the current generation of people have a keener sense of the nature of reality and of ourselves then ever before. We are certainly pushing the envelope in our quest for truth. But this envelope would not be out this far if it wasn't for the experiences and the questioning of our forefathers. > Which leads me to another point, I know someone who believes > that there is nothing after death. Therefore he lives his life as though > everything revolves around him. He will do anything to anyone as long as it > is within his best interests. Now, if we are all from the one UC, then why > do some people seem to have never learnt anything before? Try and get away from thinking of knowledge as an individual thing. What he learns you learn, and vice-versa. Also don't confuse local actions with knowledge. This person you refer to is approaching life from a different perspective, working with the memories and thought processes that are part of his brain and molded by his parents and environment. What he learns in this life benefits us all in the long run. If this were not true, then you never would have wondered about his lifestyle in the first place. It is because you question his principles that you are able to reflect on your own priciples. > This same question can be thought of in a different way. Below you say that > God created a body for himself, so I am assuming you believe that God > created this world (tell me if I'm wrong). I don't think that God was consious about creating the world. The world came about because of God, but I don't think he knows that. Just ask us. :) > If God created this world, and I > (and everyone else) am God, then why have I/we lost the ability to create > and/or manipulate this world? And why have we forgotten all that hapened in > the begining? Like I said. God possibly (probably) created the world, but he did not know it. He also created humans as a vehicle for his consiousness, but he was not aware of that either. If this doesn't seem to make sense to you, then you also have to consider that what God thinks and what you and I think are two *very* different things. When we think, we think about our families, (or lack of), about our jobs, about where we come from, and we do it all using our native tongue (have you ever tried to have a thought without using words?). God on the other hand does not think like this at all. God does not have a knowledge of self like we do. He also does not think linearly in time as we do. He does not have memories, nor does he plan for the future. These are human attributes, not godly ones. What he does do is exist in pure emotion and all that entails, and he exists without ego (sense of self), which is something that you and I can't even begin to imagine. He also exists as (what I refer to as) the dance of reality. He is a pattern of energy and it is this pattern that brings forward our reality and simultaneously his ability to experience what we know of as our reality, making his own existance more meaningful and in the end, necessary. > But once God#1 broke that link between him and God#2. He became seperate > from God#2. God#1 and God#2 are now two different Gods. They might have > originaly been the same God, but now they are seperate. It is like making a > clone of yourself, you and your clone are both based on the same person, but > you are not your clone. No, not the same. When God merged with the body of a man, a transformation took place, namely the birth of the ego. Before this, the ego did not exist. Remember, the ego is the product of the merging of God and the human body. This ego is an illusion and does not define God. It also does not define the body of course since the body by itself is nothing but a mindless machine. Since the ego does not define God, then having two egos does not define God either. So by God entering two bodies, he did not create two gods, only two egos. Still only one god, and still only one consiousness. > And if God#1 and God#2 are the same God, then they would still be able to > create things as well as have all the knowedge of how the universe works. No, God does not have conscious knowledge of how the universe works nor does he have the ability to create the universe under his own free will. Free will is an ego thing and is not part of God. God is knowledge and power, but it is not ego. The ego has a better chance of understanding the universe than does God and multiple egos have even a better chance. Ego's have the ability to assess, to think ahead, to introspect, and to use intuition toward understanding. God cannot do any of these things. So it was to Gods advantage to become human, and more practically, to become a lot of humans (and something I've been leaving out is animals and plants and very possibly the rest of the earth). Now God, as living breathing humans, can indeed create. Look around you. Do you think L.A. grew from a seed? It sure as heck didn't grow from a brain or from a soul. > And each seperate God after that would have the knowledge of the original > God passed down to them. But somewhere along the line, we stoped being Gods. > The knowledge and power stoped being passed along. We forgot who we trully > are, and became simple minded humans. Why? There is only one God, multiple egos. Once God entered the human body, he did not stop being God, he only gave himself the ability to experience what it is like to live as an ego. God of course can never stop being God, and we are an extension of that. The knowledge of God is not something that can be passed along as you suggest. The ego has ego style knowledge (past, present, future) and God has god style knowledge (potential creativity, emotion). > How do you know that individuality is just an illusion created by the > seperation of God? How do you know that we are not all individuals who once > upon a time were in fact the same god, but are now seperate? Common sense. If we were all separate, then we would have to be *inside* of something. A soul, and then a soul in a soul. And then a soul in a soul in a soul. Obviously this has to stop somewhere or it's just a non-sensical infinity. At some point you have to stop looking for that soul inside the soul and realize that there is nothing there. In order for there to be this sense of self, there must only be one thing with the ability to experience such a sense. This situation is impossible with more than one thing causing this type of phenomenon. I suppose if I wanted to be really cocky here I could say something like *by definition* multiple and individual self awareness can only exist when the source of this phenomenon is in itself singular and central in nature. Now don't take my word for this, try this nifty little thought experiment. (I love these things). Imagine that you have just volunteered for a cryogenics project. You get put under a deep freeze for a thousand years. Nothing in your body works, you are dead. A thousand years later they revive you. Who are you. Are you the same *me* that went under a thousand years earlier? Obviously if you were a soul, that soul would have long left you and all that would be left is an empty shell. If you are an ego generated by the interaction between the universal consiousness and the body, then once again that ego would be generated and the result would be *me*. Is it the same *me* as before? Well, you remember your dog Cassius Clay and you remember how you wanted to get that degree in Anthropology. Your friends all recognize you because you laugh at their corney jokes and you were the only one that did that cause the jokes were really bad. Who else could it be? And why not? Nothing has changed. God is still the same, and your body is still the same, so put the two of them together and what do you get? *me*! Works out nicely don't you think? > I am not trying to knock your beliefs, just test them out for myself. > Besides, If the belief is correct it can take any knocking. It's the only way to fly!Gotta go for now. I'm going to be very busy for the next few days so I won't be able to continue this, but it was fun and I hope I turned you onto some useful ideas. Ken ###### From: "Lone Wolf" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:37:27 +1000 Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 110 Message-ID: <7c32di$msu$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <7bsvkp$82c$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> <36E3688A.C588E7A2@privatei.com> <7c0boi$lsa$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> <36E4D0C3.2D45F7E7@privatei.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d231-1.cpe.townsville.aone.net.au X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 920980722 23454 203.61.32.231 (9 Mar 1999 11:58:42 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Mar 1999 11:58:42 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!not-for-mail The Original Ken wrote in message <36E4D0C3.2D45F7E7@privatei.com>... >This person you refer to is approaching life from a different >perspective, working with the memories and thought processes that are part of >his brain and molded by his parents and environment. What he learns in this >life benefits us all in the long run. If this were not true, then you never >would have wondered about his lifestyle in the first place. It is because you >question his principles that you are able to reflect on your own priciples. Yes, I thought about this the other day. But I seem to have forgotten about it at the time of writing my reply to you. That's what I get for writing replies when I'm tired. :-) >When we think, we think about our families, (or lack of), >about our jobs, about where we come from, and we do it all using our native >tongue (have you ever tried to have a thought without using words?). Yes I have actually, I call it pure thought. When you know and understand something without thinking about it. We all do this sometimes, just not many try to do it. I guess intuition is the same thing. But I understand what your getting at. >Since the >ego does not define God, then having two egos does not define God either. So by >God entering two bodies, he did not create two gods, only two egos. Still only >one god, and still only one consiousness. Hmmm... >Common sense. If we were all separate, then we would have to be *inside* of >something. A soul, and then a soul in a soul. And then a soul in a soul in a >soul. Obviously this has to stop somewhere or it's just a non-sensical >infinity. At some point you have to stop looking for that soul inside the soul >and realize that there is nothing there. It all depends on how you look at things. I believe that I am an individual consciousness in a temporary body. That body will die, but my consciousness will go on. When I am just a consciousness (soul), that is what I am, I am no more. There is no soul inside a soul, we do not have to be inside of something, that is an illusion. The only reason we feel that there is a soul inside of us is because there is. When I die and become a single awareness, I will be aware that that is what I am, there is nothing else inside of me, I am what I am and I am no more. In my physical body I have an idea of "self", that this body is me. When I become just an awareness, i will still be "self" but since my awareness is not contained in anything, I will have no need for a "self". Thus I will not think as myself as "self". And in that respect we are all one consciousness because we are all awareness without a need of "self". But we are still a "self" even if we are not aware of it. (I get the feeling that this makes much more sense in my mind then it does on paper) >Imagine that you have just volunteered for a cryogenics project. You get put >under a deep freeze for a thousand years. Nothing in your body works, you are >dead. A thousand years later they revive you. Who are you. Are you the same >*me* that went under a thousand years earlier? Obviously if you were a soul, >that soul would have long left you and all that would be left is an empty >shell. If the body dies the awarness contained in that body leaves. Once it has left, the body can't be revived. The awarness that makes that body who it is is gone. You might revive the flesh, but it will not have an awareness. But then again I have never been frozen for a thousand years. :-) >If you are an ego generated by the interaction between the universal >consiousness and the body, then once again that ego would be generated and the >result would be *me*. I am not sure that the awareness would come back to the body if it has been dead for a thousand years. We might get to find out oneday. >It's the only way to fly!Gotta go for now. I'm going to be very busy for the >next few days so I won't be able to continue this, I tried not to say anything that you would have to reply to. So you can do what you have to do. :-) >but it was fun and I hope I >turned you onto some useful ideas. Yes, indeed you did. A very interesting, thought inspiring topic. Although I may still sound confused, you have helped me sort a few things out. Thanks Ken. From Wolfy ###### From: Lucid Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: 09 Mar 1999 22:05:37 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 158 Message-ID: <36E606C2.D951821D@hotmail.com> References: <7c1p7p$15d$1@news3.infoave.net> <36E4D31F.E2E0C095@hotmail.com> <7c32dm$msu$2@news.mel.aone.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts001d28.oak-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news-xfer.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master Lone Wolf wrote: > Lucid wrote in message <36E4D31F.E2E0C095@hotmail.com>... > > >Hi Elaine :-) > > Actually for most of this post you were refering to what I wrote. Elaine > replied to me but my words did not have the > things in front of them. Sorry Elaine and LW, that was my fault. that just showed how stupid I am :-), a part of me that I have tried for years to hide, now I was able to embrace it. It was very liberating...for the first time, I am free. I have release my facade and gain back my freedom. > >What is holding you back from it...from embracing it?? > > It was, the fact that the person I hate, the person I love and me are all > the same consciousness. Can you see that the person you hate also possess traits of the person you love? And vice versa? > >How interesting. Let me ask you...have there been ANY time in you life > that you > >only care about yourself and not anybody else? > > I did not mean that I am not like that person at all. I was just wondering > why, if we are all the same consciousness, are people so different from > others. It's just like different colors of the rainbow. When you combine the colors of the rainbow through a prism, you get the white light. All our traits are just different colors...different aspect of LOVE...the white light.How can we know love without hate? Good without bad? Saint without Scum? This is the reason why we incarnate to this world, where different aspects of the ALL are split so that we can gain a greater experience of these aspects for ourselves. > >You already have his quality in you...look deep inside and you will see > this. > >Therefore at some level, you have part of him...the questions would be, why > are > >you denying that you don't have any part like him? > > I am not denying that I have bad in me. Actually I have a strong bad streak > in me, if I did not make a conscious effort to do good, I would be the most > selfish, voilent, hateful, cruel person you have ever met. But I contain > this and made an effort to change because I know it is not the way I should > be. At what period in your life that you arrived at this conclusion that you "know it is not the way that you should not be"?So at that point on you decided to disown that aspect of yourself and made "every conscious effort to do good", all of your action from that day forward was to prove that you are not that traits. Yet you know what LW? you still are THAT... The universe (uni-verse...ONE consciousness) will manifest this traits (that you are desperately try to hide from yourself) externally,in everyone that you meet. You will continue to meet all these ppl who contained the exact mirror of your disown self...you will continue to meet selfish, violent, hateful and cruel persons for as long as you continue disown this part of yourself. > >What is so painful about > >this quality to face about yourself? Is this a big issue when you grow up > in > >your family? > > It's not painful to face, I face it every day since it is part of me. You can waste the rest of your life by trying to get rid of the bad part of yourself...but you will fail. You will use all of your energy to put up a facade of goodness. And You are no longer be whole and authentic. > >If you have been beaten everyday > >of your life and locked in a dark closet most of your life, would you have > acted > >a little different? And believed differently about the value of human > life?? I > >am not in anyway condoning the action of a murder here....I am just saying > that > >you don't really know until you have walk in that other person's shoes...in > his > >realities. > > Not in the case I ws refering to, I also know this guys sister and parents. > Him and his sister were raised the same. But they are exact opposites. He is here for you to project that part of yourself that you dislike. You cannot see that part of yourself so the universe sent him to you so you can recognize that valid aspect of yourself.. > >> If I die and > >> start a new existence as someone else, I could very well end up being a > >> peice of scum. > > > >Ah...Scum...this quality kept coming up. Why do you have an issue with > scum? > > The point I was trying to make here is that I have learnt not to act like > scum in this life. Next life, will I carry on these values I have now, or > will I start over again? If you cannot embrace this trait of scum. Not recognize it as part of the ALL in this lifetime. Then probably you will choose to come back in your next life and set up similar circumstances and ppl so that you will have a better chance to recognize it sooner or later. > >What bother you about scum? > > They piss me off. Why do they piss you off??? > >Have you ever in your life that you acted like a > >scum? > > Many times. But I don't like myself either. As long as you cannot embraced this part of yourself LW, you will never have any peace of mind...and no amount of oobes or spiritual practices can change it. Take it from someone who have tried for 10 long years :-) > >Did someone ever punished you for being a scum? > > Nope, I always got away with it, or set up someone else to take the blame. > That is what made me scum. Self punishment is not any fun is it? You have managed to hide the violent, hatred, selfishness, cruel part of yourself from others, Yet now you have turned them on yourself. If you continue like this, then you will likely come down with a bad case of ulcer or cancer. Please recognize this before it is too late.Look at this another way...it's not ok to be violent to others yet it is ok to be violent to yourself??? either way, you still a violent person! > >Did someone you > >respected acted like and scum? > > Nope. The opposite actually, that is why I changed. You have not change, you only suppress it. You can never destroy any aspect of yourself, because they are part of the ALL. You can only embrace it.Did you remember the "Shadow" that I talked about in my oobe. Some ppl like to link the Astral world to the emotional world. When you suppress your emotions, it turned into this "shadow", and it will manifest itself in this world to greet you when you travel to this emotional world. Fighting it doesn't work...denying it doesn't work...the best way is to face it and embrace it as PART OF YOURSELF...it is as VALID as any other part of yourself. Remember the Stephen King movie "The Storm of the Century"...Give it what it wants and it will go away???....well, give validation to this disown aspect (your shadow) of yourself and it will go away. Your reward will be your peace of mind. Love/Light....Hate/Darkness,lucid > From > Wolfy ###### From: "Lone Wolf" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 22:13:14 +1000 Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 93 Message-ID: <7c32dm$msu$2@news.mel.aone.net.au> References: <7c1p7p$15d$1@news3.infoave.net> <36E4D31F.E2E0C095@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d231-1.cpe.townsville.aone.net.au X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 920980726 23454 203.61.32.231 (9 Mar 1999 11:58:46 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Mar 1999 11:58:46 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!not-for-mail Lucid wrote in message <36E4D31F.E2E0C095@hotmail.com>... >Hi Elaine :-) Actually for most of this post you were refering to what I wrote. Elaine replied to me but my words did not have the > things in front of them. >What is holding you back from it...from embracing it?? It was, the fact that the person I hate, the person I love and me are all the same consciousness. >How interesting. Let me ask you...have there been ANY time in you life that you >only care about yourself and not anybody else? I did not mean that I am not like that person at all. I was just wondering why, if we are all the same consciousness, are people so different from others. >You already have his quality in you...look deep inside and you will see this. >Therefore at some level, you have part of him...the questions would be, why are >you denying that you don't have any part like him? I am not denying that I have bad in me. Actually I have a strong bad streak in me, if I did not make a conscious effort to do good, I would be the most selfish, voilent, hateful, cruel person you have ever met. But I contain this and made an effort to change because I know it is not the way I should be. >What is so painful about >this quality to face about yourself? Is this a big issue when you grow up in >your family? It's not painful to face, I face it every day since it is part of me. >If you have been beaten everyday >of your life and locked in a dark closet most of your life, would you have acted >a little different? And believed differently about the value of human life?? I >am not in anyway condoning the action of a murder here....I am just saying that >you don't really know until you have walk in that other person's shoes...in his >realities. Not in the case I ws refering to, I also know this guys sister and parents. Him and his sister were raised the same. But they are exact opposites. >> If I die and >> start a new existence as someone else, I could very well end up being a >> peice of scum. > >Ah...Scum...this quality kept coming up. Why do you have an issue with scum? The point I was trying to make here is that I have learnt not to act like scum in this life. Next life, will I carry on these values I have now, or will I start over again? >What bother you about scum? They piss me off. >Have you ever in your life that you acted like a >scum? Many times. But I don't like myself either. >Did someone ever punished you for being a scum? Nope, I always got away with it, or set up someone else to take the blame. That is what made me scum. >Did someone you >respected acted like and scum? Nope. The opposite actually, that is why I changed. From Wolfy ###### From: "Lone Wolf" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:14:33 +1000 Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 123 Message-ID: <7c5j47$o5h$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> References: <7c1p7p$15d$1@news3.infoave.net> <36E4D31F.E2E0C095@hotmail.com> <7c32dm$msu$2@news.mel.aone.net.au> <36E606C2.D951821D@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d233-1.cpe.townsville.aone.net.au X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 921063367 24753 203.61.32.233 (10 Mar 1999 10:56:07 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Mar 1999 10:56:07 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!btnet-peer!btnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!not-for-mail Lucid wrote in message <36E606C2.D951821D@hotmail.com>... >Can you see that the person you hate also possess traits of the person you >love? And vice versa? Yep. >At what period in your life that you arrived at this conclusion that you "know >it is not the way that you should not be"?So at that point on you decided to >disown that aspect of yourself and made "every conscious effort to do good", all >of your action from that day forward was to prove that you are not that traits. No. You seem to have the wrong impression. I did not dissown that part of me. In fact I still draw upon that part of me in some situations, In a controled way. I am in no way trying to prove that I don't have these traits. I just prefer to control this part of me, rather than let it control me. >Yet you know what LW? you still are THAT... Yes Lucid... I know that. >The universe (uni-verse...ONE consciousness) will manifest this traits (that you >are desperately try to hide from yourself) I am not trying to hide from anything. I am who I am. I would not want to have any part of me taken away. >externally,in everyone that you >meet. You will continue to meet all these ppl who contained the exact mirror of >your disown self...you will continue to meet selfish, violent, hateful and cruel >persons for as long as you continue disown this part of yourself. I am not disowning anything. >You can waste the rest of your life by trying to get rid of the bad part of >yourself...but you will fail. You will use all of your energy to put up a >facade of goodness. And You are no longer be whole and authentic. Who is trying to get rid of thier bad side? I need my bad side, I use it to my advantage. >He is here for you to project that part of yourself that you dislike. You >cannot see that part of yourself so the universe sent him to you so you can >recognize that valid aspect of yourself.. Close, but not quite. I recognized this side of me before I saw it in him. But I did learn things from him. >If you cannot embrace this trait of scum. I'm embracing! I'm embracing! Gee. >Why do they piss you off??? Why does scum piss me off? For you to ask that, you must not know what I mean by scum. I mean the theives, murderers, vandles... When I reach for my wallet, only to find that it has been stolen, I get pissed off. When someone spits on me for fun, I get pissed off. When I am driving and someone cuts me off because they are impatient, I get pissed off. When I see someone beat up someone I care about, I get pissed off. They piss me off because they have no respect for other peoples rights. >As long as you cannot embraced this part of yourself LW, you will never have any >peace of mind... I have no problem living with this part of me. >Self punishment is not any fun is it? Would kind of defeat the purpose if it was. >You have managed to hide the violent, >hatred, selfishness, cruel part of yourself from others, Yet now you have turned >them on yourself. I do not hide it from others. Those who are good to me never get to see my bad side. Those who treat me wrong however, are not so lucky. I am definetly no saint, I treat people how they treat me. Be good to me and I will be good to you. But If someone gives me trouble, I give them twice as much back. It is probably one of my faults, but I have little tolerance for scum, and I make sure they know that. >If you continue like this, then you will likely come down >with a bad case of ulcer or cancer. Please recognize this before it is too >late. I have a feeling it is too late already. Only time will tell. >Look at this another way...it's not ok to be violent to others yet it is ok >to be violent to yourself??? either way, you still a violent person! I am a violent person, towards myself. In my opinion, I am a lazy, useless, stupid, good-for-nothing asshole. I deserve what I get. >You have not change, you only suppress it. You are correct. I agree with you on this one. I suppress my bad side because others don't deserve to be affected by it. Also because if I show even the slightest bit of anoyance towards my parents I get in BIG trouble. It is within my best interests to remain unemotional. From Wolfy ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: 11 Mar 1999 00:14:13 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 234 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uhfrtq6nu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <7bsvkp$82c$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> <36E3688A.C588E7A2@privatei.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 3 good threads this week (this one, Julia/Laura, Clairity/Jeff) and my damn newsfeed goes dead for 10 days, then 170 posts arrive today. The Original Ken writes: > Hi Wolfy, > Lone Wolf wrote: > > The Original Ken wrote in message <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com>... > > > > But if we are all just another part of the same thing, then what I learn in > > life now does not matter, because it would have already been learnt by > > someone else before me. > > But that someone else before you was you. Here I disagree. That someone else stems from the same source as you is OK, but they are not you. You and they both have your own separate histories of experiences. That is what makes you individuals. > You have learned a lot more than you > are led to believe. In your previous lives you sure have. But not in the lives of someone else (of an other person spawned by the UC). > > And therefore the overall consciousness (God) has no > > need for my trivial amount of knowledge. So what is the point of me being > > here? > > The UC (God) is made up entirely of you and me and all of us and not anything > more. Therefore what God learns we learn, what we learn God learns. What we learn adds up in the UC. But I doubt information flows the other way round. After all it is the lack of flow from the UC that denies us the experience of being part of it and so allows us to feel as individuals. > Your point > of being here is to give substance and meaning to the universal consiousness. I often read that claim, but I dislike it. Why? Because it implies that the UC deliverately created us to learn. This implies it knew what it was doing. But from where would it have sich knowledge before doing it? I prefer to think of the UC as pure emotional willpower, without any initial knowledge, intelligence or ability to analyse/think/plan. It simply produced this world and now is learning from being in it. This is also why I prefer the UC name to the God name, as the later carries with it tons of judeo-christian mythology of the old wise deliberate artisan/judge person. > > I know me as me. I know how I think, act and react to certain situations. > > Yes, I'm not taking this away from you. I'm simply suggesting that the *me* y ou > feel does not have to be independent from the *me* that I feel to maintain the > *meness* than we both feel. It has to be separated, though only by having no UC->me connection, while both can still have an me->UC connection. As soon as you make the connection bidirectional, you cease to be an traditional human "me" and will become some Buddha/nirvana style being. which identifies itsself with the UC emotionally, not just logically. > God > doesn't like being without substance so he decides to make himself a > body. I do not like the implication of the word "decides" there. Sounds too much like deliberate planning. I prefer than UC created matter to play with and then the matter combinated in the way described by evolution to give humans bodies. OTOH UC created buds of itsself (souls) that attached to the bodies. /-matter-bodies-\ UC humans \-astral?-souls-/ > He is still in both > bodies and there is only one consiousness, but the thoughts of one body are no w > independant of the thoughts of the second. Which requires an stop of information flow, as detailed above. But I still do not like the deliberacy. What about the simple act of an soul (an UC splinter) getting involved in its first body (and so getting its first private experiences) resulting in an type of "focusing to the extent of forgetting everything else" type of effect. In such an context the Buddhic path back to nirvana would be an type of freeing oneself from an hole one has fallen into. > Now God number one sees God number > two and thinks that God number two is a separate different God. Giving Lucid his "me"ness he experiences every day. > There > are no souls here, only one God residing in two bodies. Actually 2 UC splinters caught in 2 positions dictated by their experiences. > > When I die, am I still the same me or do I become one with "God"? > > So to answer your question, > *me* as you know it, only exists while you are alive. But you will not > disappear, because you were always there even before you were born. I disagree again. "me" exists so long until the illusion is broken and one emotionally feels to be identical with the UC. The "me" keeps its separate identity between bodies, from force of habit. Only after breaking this habit does one go into nirvana/UC. > > If I were > > to be reincarnated would I still be the same me that I know now, or would I > > be mixed up with a different part of the total consciousness, thus making me > > think and act differently? > > Another excellent question. I think it's pretty much a given that you would n ot > be the same me that you know now. You would be different, but not from mixing of souls but rather from your new experiences from your next life (which are simply more immediata and so more dominant than your past live ones). The Lucid you are today is actually not the same one you were yesterday, 24h of experience have left their changes on you. After reading this post you will be yet again slightly changed. And I love feeding in information that causes such changes? Why? > If the *me* you know vanishes and is replaced by a *me* that > never existed, I propose that this is exactly the same thing as if the *me* yo u > know suddenly finds himself in a new existance as a new person but the same > *me*. The reason I say this is for the reason I described in the paragraph > above, because there is only one consiousness (all you and all me and all > everybody else rolled up) and there will be as many *mes* as there are people Hmmmm. I would say there is direct continuity between the "me" in this life and the "me" in my (note the word ) next life. There is no such direct continuity between any two random "me"s. > > I'll try to clarify what I am getting at here, I am not that good with > > words. > > I think you are doing just fine. Something I agree with! > > Ken, Lucid and myself all die tomorrow. We all merge with the total > > consciousness. > > As our > bodies die, then the angles become limited as do the experiences. But I doubt that simple going final OBE erases the individualness. Going to nirvana is a far larger thing, that is why it takes many lives. > > That new consciousness might be made up of 1 third Ken 1 > > third Lucid and 1 third me. Like pouring three glasses of water > > The *parts* that you refer to are not defined by the universal consiousness. > They are defined by the chemestry of the body that you are living in. If souls lose identity completely when they lose their body, why then do people identify with particular previous lives. Seems that something does stay united between lives. > > >And the most important > > >thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an > > >expression of what we really are, Actually the ego is an filtered version of the "me". With everything blocked that would create an destroying crises in our present life. Quasy everything "that is not allowed to be". > > >are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in > > >the same, just trying to get different points of view. > > > > But like I tried to say above, do we keep our own individual point of view? > > But there is no isolated soul floating around that has this point of view. Hmm. And what about the disembodied or even never-bodied spirits (such as guides, tunneled ones) that people report. Surely they have an "me", at least they all report having an personal identity, not just being UC. Actually there seems th be an multi-level system between physical humans and UC. > but they are isolated from one another giving the illusion that you are only > seeing the world through your current eyes. Yes, so long you are IBE. But even after final OBE you are "seeing" the world from an individual point of view. > Eventually, there will no longer be > any bodies and there will once again be no *mes*, but there will be the only > thing that ever was and that's the universal consiousness. But you will still > have a sense of *me* and all the knowledge that was gained from your lives and > the lives of others. But to still have an "me" you will still need to be able to distinguish "your" vs "their" lives. So you will still have an own identity. So you will not be pure UC. -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ uNsTable - usable = NT ###### From: "Lone Wolf" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:40:30 +1000 Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 27 Message-ID: <7c7qu3$329$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <7bsvkp$82c$1@news.mel.aone.net.au> <36E3688A.C588E7A2@privatei.com> <6uhfrtq6nu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: d214-1.cpe.townsville.aone.net.au X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 921136899 3145 203.61.32.214 (11 Mar 1999 07:21:39 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Mar 1999 07:21:39 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote in message <6uhfrtq6nu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>... >And I love feeding in information that causes such changes? Why? Maybe there is something inside of us that enjoys providing people with the ability to grow. Or maybe it is just the feeling of power you get from knowing that you changed someone in some way. But whatever the reason is, I like doing it too. Unfortunetly I have a limited supply of useful knowledge. :-) >Yes, so long you are IBE. But even after final OBE you are "seeing" >the world from an individual point of view. This is the way I believe (or want to believe) it is. I would like to think that we are all individuals with our own point of view (which we keep after death). But in some way I feel that we are all part of (or connected to) the same thing. Hmmm... more thought needs to be put into this. I'll keep it short, your eyes must be tired after reading 170 posts. :-) From Wolfy ###### From: chester b Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Deepak Chopra on oobe Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:53:30 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <36E1358B.83AEA4A5@hotmail.com> <36E15D4C.8657A445@privatei.com> <36E227C8.80705984@earthlink.nXXXet> <36E4BAB0.60176BEB@privatei.com> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 12 Mar 1999 03:48:18 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Thu Mar 11 19:55:10 1999 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 119 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: pool036-max1.mpop2-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net Message-ID: <36E88FBA.785D508A@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.251.127.50!worldfeed.news.gte.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Hi Ken. I've been enjoying the posts as well! In fact, I have enjoyed all of your posts. I love reading the words of those with many experiences! Mine only amount to a handful and I have yet to have much control when I float inward into the cosmic web. That magnetic wind sucks me all over the place! :D I feel that one of the most beautiful aspects of our existence is how we individually perceive the creative glow, which in my opinion, is incomprehensible. There seem to have been so many religions and philosophies created atop the foundation if this vibrating mass and they all have something wonderful to offer! Certain explanations seem to work well for certain cultures but they are all just 'poetic guesses' in my eyes. Even when we are OOB, I view us as under the same subjective analytical functions that dominate our 'in body' experiences.. (the 'saf' being a beautiful aspect of being human) so.. I may float into a magnificant source of light and meet Jesus during an OBE, but perhaps my friend at Naropa in Co. would meet the Buddha, ya know? Although I always feel as if a larger more 'whole' part of my self is exposed and at the driving seat when I OBE, I still feel that my normal reality creating ego is intact, and is viewing and analyzing everything the same way as when I'm 'in body', or as I see it.. 'at the surface' ;) Do you agree? Thanks again for all the cool words. I have enjoyed this NG a lot. I wish the 12 hour days would subside so I could spend more time here! When I close my eyes at night all I see is contaminated dirt and rock.. heh. My hypnogogic imagery is all geological, man... :-0 ahhhhhhhh! hee hee. Peace from within, Brian The Original Ken wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Glad you enjoyed it. I've really been enjoying the thread with Wolfy. It's > really helpful to talk about these things because it's really the only time you > have to really get into the nitty gritty and discover things you haven't talked > about or thought about before. And yes, I agree, the perception of individual > identity is *very* perplexing. > > Ken > > chester b wrote: > > > The Original Ken wrote: > > > > > Heck Lucid, > > > > > > I've been expressing this idea in this NG for years. But I must admit > > > it's a difficult concept to put into words and so when I post something > > > along those lines it's more just to experiment with methods of > > > expression more than actually trying to get someone to think about it > > > which is fine with me. But in case anyone is interested in pondering > > > this wonderful concept but can't quite grasp it, here is a very very > > > interesting thought experiment to get the gears rolling. > > > > > > To orient yourself to the experiment, first you must give yourself a > > > moment to think about why the idea of a soul works for so many people. > > > To put it in a nutshell it's because it's the best darn way to explain > > > what it is that is looking into this world. I'm talking about those > > > times where you say "Yes I know it's my brain processing all this input > > > and all that, but there is something *inside* me that is conscious of > > > all of it. When my eyes look at the color red, it is *me* that sees > > > red, not my brain!" Because of this awareness that we are not just > > > processing information but actually being aware of the information being > > > processed is the basis for the concept of "the soul". > > > > > > OK. Now the thought experiment. Let's say your physical body dies and > > > what you are left with is this soul. So the soul goes off to soul land > > > and starts a new life and raises a family and gets a job and so on. > > > Then one day the soul is sitting on a rock looking out over the lake > > > with the sun setting in the background and it says to itself. "My soul > > > is amazing, it can look over this lake and look at this sun falling over > > > the horizon, but there seems to be something *inside of me* that can > > > take this light coming into my soul eyes and turns it into *sight*. I > > > must have a *soul* inside of this soul!". > > > > > > And there you have it. It's an infinite regression. If there is a soul > > > inside the body, then there must be a soul inside the soul inside the > > > body and on and on ad infinitum... > > > > > > The only resolution to this problem is to abandon the idea of the soul > > > and to realize that there is only one single consciousness in this > > > universe. This could be called God or can be called whatever you feel > > > comfortable calling it, but it is the only thing that exists. Our > > > physical bodies are an extension of this consciousness and when the > > > connection between the universal consciousness and a body is made, then > > > you have a mind. This mind is what we all refer to as *me*. It is the > > > *me* that is created by the connection that allows us to *see* when > > > looking out the eyes we are connected to and to *remember* when using > > > the processes of the brain to recall. If the link is broken (when we > > > die), then the consciousness still remains of course but the *me* will > > > need to be reestablished somehow. This can be done by relinking to a > > > new body (reincarnation) by creating a new reality in an alternate > > > dimension (traditional religion). It is also possible and even likely > > > that the *me* can disappear, but only in the most abstract sense since > > > *me* was only a result of the connection between the consciousness and > > > the body (real or astral) and so really isn't here or not here. It's > > > like mixing blue and yellow paint and ending up with green. The green > > > paint is real enough, but it's only there because of the red and blue > > > paint. It does not really exist by itself. And the most important > > > thing to remember is that *me* (ego) is not what we are, it is only an > > > expression of what we really are, a single unified consciousness. We > > > are not isolated from each other, but instead we are really all one in > > > the same, just trying to get different points of view. > > > > > > Ken > > > > Thanks for the cool post, Ken. It was an enjoyable read. I have similar > > beliefs, and feel that OOBE are actually a voyage inward to the interconnected > > source... the cosmic web, from which all of THIS coaleces into form, whether > > it's our wakful 'physical reality' or the imagery which materializes within an > > OOBE. It's our perception if individual identity that can be very perplexing > > to me.. > > > > Peace > > > > brian