IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Grab-bag | Main | "It's a belief system" »

Comments

Congratulations on this milestone, Michael! IMHO, your 1000th post may be your best yet.

Here's how I would put it: We are pieces of God who have come to this material realm for adventures that can only be had here. The immanent/transcendant dichotomy is carried out through the crucial mechanism of forgetting. Each little piece of God—you and I—temporarily forget our divine essence so that we can experience the sheer joy of remembering it all over again.

That's why stories about amnesia "victims" are so popular and so haunting. They echo the true story each of us is living here.

"How do we square this circle? It seems to me that if are going to assume that God -- whatever exactly we mean by that term -- lies behind the universe, we also have to assume that God does not directly control every outcome." - Michael Prescott
--------------------------------------------

Or bad stuff happens for a reason? The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates and it takes extremely powerful and long lasting memories to overcome the infinite feelings of oneness and connectedness and lack of time and space in the Spiritual Universe. We are only here for the blink of an eye compared to eternity and have a very short time to learn a few simple lessons. Perhaps the Creator of the Universe was so smart that He/She was able to create a Universe where we learn what we are supposed to learn whether we want to or not? Imprinting holistically on the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate, what time and space look and feel like, and what it feels like to be inside a body and the paramters of that body. The duality and separation that we experience teaches the soul what it means to be separate and all the physical sensations we experience, touch, sight, sound, taste, and smell imprint on the soul what it feels like to be limited by a physical body and make memories of what it felt like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time Universe. All things that can't be learned in the Spiritual Universe because the physical laws governing the Spiritual Universe are very different from those that govern the Physical Universe. Heaven seems to be a place where thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality, where time and space don't exist, and where the feelings of oneness and connectedness are so overwhelming that we will literally feel like we are everywhere in the Universe at once. Perhaps everything happens for a reason, and there are no coincidences. We come here simply to learn enough to create our own reality after we cross back over into the Spiritual Universe and without the knowledge and information that we learn in this life it may be very difficult or impossible to become a separate, unique, individual in Heaven.

Congratulations for your 1000th post, Michael.

There are obvious imperfections in earthly life. There are congenital diseases, birth defects, flesh-eating bacteria, the Ebola virus, and plenty of other nasty things that we would not expect to find in a world that was meticulously designed in every detail by a benevolent creator.

That point is essential in the ID debate, and something that serious supporters of ID have to cope with.

I'd suggest to examine some of the implicit assumptions behind that problem:

a-The argument that the physical world manifests imperfect or flawed design (e.g. diseases, incomplete organs, etc.) is commonly mentioned by atheists as evidence against ID and "creationism" (vocal atheists like to intentionally confound both concepts).

But a careful examination of that argument will reveal that this argument is actually an argument against the existence of a perfect designer who designed a perfect world according to the human expectations and standards of perfection.

AS I said, for many atheists, this argument is compelling as a refutation of ID and "creationism". But it doesn't, because the existence of imperfect design doesn't refute the existence of design per se nor the existence of a designer. It only refutes the existence of a perfect design. (Logic tends to be absent in many vocal atheists)

And the existence of a cosmic and biological design, even if flawed or imperfect, suffices to refute the objections of Darwinian materialists.

b- The argument assumes that the human standards of perfection are the same than the standards conceived by a perfect mind.

Take for example birth defects. From the perspective of our finite minds, it's an obvious example of imperfect design.

But if birth defects are caused by experiences in a previous life (as Stevenson's research suggests) and ultimately are part of the spiritual lessons that the soul has to learn, then maybe the "defect" is not a defect at all, because has a ultimate meaning from the perspective of a perfect or divine mind.

The defect only exist from our imperfect and finite perspective, not from the perspective of a divine and perfect mind.

An analogy will be useful here. Suppose a child with diabetes. The parents of that child will prevent that the child eats candies and chocolates.

From the perspective of the child, the parents might be "bad", because he wants the candy and they don't allow it.

But from the perspective of the parents, their decision is correct. The unpleasure felt by the child is compensed by higher "goods" that only can be seen from the parent's perspective (not from the child's)

I'm not suggesting that "everything is perfect" or that the God's hand is present in each detail. Rather my opinion is that we're not entitled to think that the "imperfections" that we see in this world are imperfections also in the mind of a perfect mind.

Something similar applies to the idea that suffering or pain (or disasters like the recent in Haiti) disproves the existence of a perfect designer or benevolent God.

The argument assumes that happiness or pleasure is the ultimate end of life or existence (so it assumes a materialist hedonism); and a God or designer that fails to satisfy that end is hence "imperfect" (and hence, a perfect and benevolent God doesn't exist)

But who says that, for God (if He exists), the purpose of our existence is pleasure or happiness in this life? Even the most brutal suffering in this life could be compensed by God in the afterlife, or in new earthly existence when we'll reincarnate again.

When you examine the assumptions of the argument, you realize it assumes many ideas that are questionable and even false if God or a perfect designer exist.

The basic mistanken assumption is to think the human criteria of perfection apply to a perfect, infinite and divine mind (if it exists)

Just some ideas to think before the breakfast... :)

The idea of a God that wants to have fun reminds me a lot of the ideas of Alan Watts.

“The book got me thinking about the nature of God and his -- or its -- relationship with the cosmos.”

Now the nature of God is a very profound question and one that we with our limited awareness can speculate about. As to a relationship God does not have relationships as relationship suggests separation and there is only infinite Oneness. Souls have relationships as they feel as separate entities.

We as souls are expressions of this Oneness. We cannot have a relationship with God, as that would make us separate from Infinite our creator. Separation is impossible expression is possible.

“Spontaneous creative exploration of every possibility implicit in the cosmos is God's way of having fun.”

With all the suffering in the world if this is a deity’s idea of fun that deity has more to do with a mind of ignorance then a Mind of absolute love and infinite intelligence. Ask yourself if you were God what or who would you create? A perfect world? A world with no suffering? Souls that are perfect in every way?

I think if we seek deeply into the underlying reality of these imperfections and suffering we will find that evolving consciousnesses have not yet evolved to a level that they could even stand for a moment the brightness of the light that would exist in such a perfect or even near perfect world. Is there one mystic or advanced spirit that does not believe that their suffering had a purpose?

I suspect that what we see as imperfections is a perfection we cannot even imagine. Our consciousness is evolving and all of creation I suspect is consciousness. An evolving consciousness from a spark of awareness is going to suffer and have imperfections as they expand and evolve with their created limited awareness.

“There are obvious imperfections in earthly life”

As one of my favorite authors stated life is perfectly imperfect. We also could state that creation is perfectly imperfect. Look at the perfection of karma. We with our limited awareness see the effect not the underlying reality of that effect. I think as our awareness “expands” such as an advanced spirit in these higher realms they do not see the imperfection we do but the underlying perfection of the process, and life is process first and foremost.

“The basic mistaken assumption is to think the human criteria of perfection apply to a perfect, infinite and divine mind”

Amen to this statement.

Congratulations on the 1000th.
And a wonderful post it is.

"What is God like?" has always been a more interesting question than "Is there a God?" to me.
(I admit that I don't know the answer to either, but the first question gets me thinking of wonderful things, the second is pretty much a dead end for me)

Here's to the next 1000!! Cheers

“Taoists believe that the Tao [is] a formless, unchanging and self-sufficient form of energy, which was present before the universe existed, and continues to be present in all things.”

This is only half the story the other “side” to this formless unchanging self sufficient form of energy is the dynamic side. We are living expressions of this dynamic side. Now the “imperfect” part we view as ignorance and imperfections. If we look deeply into that ignorance and imperfections we see a necessity for these two aspects of creation and the manifestation of the creation of unique souls.

Without these imperfections and ignorance creation could not exist. Stated another way the process of creating unique souls is an involution process. Now the spiritualist term the law of progress or progression is the evolution of the soul process. How could an infinite Oneness express its infinite potential in an infinite variation of unique expressions without an involution and evolutionary process?

“Another way of looking at it is to see the universe as a thought in the mind of God. From this perspective also, God can be seen as either transcendent or immanent. He is transcendent, i.e. outside the universe, in the sense that the thinker is not the thought. Alternatively, he is immanent, i.e. part of the universe, in the sense that the universe is his thought, his subjective reality.”

Very well stated and this makes sense to me. How could infinite not be part of the universe? As far as God and creation I suspect that much of the creation we see in the universe created as a indwelling thought; then much or all is done by lesser gods as co creators as they get closer and closer in their abilities as their creator.

Infinite Mind must create and express within its infinite Mind.

"What is God like?" has always been a more interesting question than "Is there a God?" to me.”
”(I admit that I don't know the answer to either, but the first question gets me thinking of wonderful things, the second is pretty much a dead end for me)”

It appears to me that your answer to the first question also answers to the affirmative your second question. Did that make sense?

Thanks for these excellent posts. Here's to the next 1000......

Wow, Michael! 1000 posts! Congratulations!

I don’t really understand much about god. I don’t even like the word very much. When I had my NDE, I experienced something… but I don’t know if I would call it god. Giving whatever-it-was a name just doesn’t work very well.

If what I found in the NDE place corresponds to what so many people refer to as god, I can only say this… What I experienced was totally awesome.

Congrats on the milestone, MP. You aren’t appalled, are you?

Another way of looking at it is to see the universe as a thought in the mind of God.

That's a pretty accurate description of what is understood at the highest levels of consciousness: All existence is a divine thought. It may be a little more accurate to use the term "dream" rather than "thought", though. I say this only because the experience of arriving at a direct awareness of the divine has a quality that is quite similar to the experience of awakening from a dream.

I’ve wondered for some time if this isn’t what is meant by the concept that “man was created in the image of God”. It’s all consciousness, manifesting all the way up, down and through. The whole of existence is a “thought in the mind of God”, while individual existence is experienced through the thoughts of the individual. Individuals do have the freedom to choose which thoughts they wish to “give life” to though, and those decisions determine individual experience, regardless of the outer circumstances the individual happens to be faced with. The reason I think the term “dream” is a little more accurate than “thought”, is that it seems that most people are not even aware that they are making decisions, let alone how those decisions are affecting the level of consciousness they are currently experiencing. At the same time, it’s all self-reinforcing: whatever level of consciousness we happen to be at will influence the thoughts that come to mind: The lower the level, the more distressing the thoughts; the higher the level, the more beautiful the thoughts.

It’s sort of like Erich’s prism analogy in the previous thread. Individuals at “higher” levels tend to focus on the peaceful, quiet tones of the violets, blues and greens and experience deep, quiet and peaceful feelings, while the individuals at the “lower” levels focus on the more active, and often troubling, yellows, oranges or reds, and experience more active, often upsetting feelings. Those who get outside of the prism entirely directly experience the source: pure white light. But no matter where any individual happens to find themselves, all are experiencing the same reality – it’s just that reality is “colored” by the thoughts each individual is giving life to at any given moment.

“Waking up” simply involves recognizing the role the individual is playing in creation. Understanding this doesn’t involve an active effort to “think positively” or to “push negative thoughts away”, it involves a passive process of simply noticing (not analyzing) what thoughts are coming to mind, then choosing which thoughts to “give life” to. In my experience, recognizing this hasn’t meant that I get to choose what thoughts come to mind, nor that I no longer experience negative or distressing thoughts, nor that I am always successful in choosing properly. What understanding this has meant, though, is that regardless of where I find myself at any given moment, I have absolute faith that there is always a higher perspective that exists, whether or not I can see that level from my current perspective.

By the way, ZC – excellent observations. The collective reality will be dramatically different once individuals stop projecting their own ideas on the divine. It defies all attempts at categorization or conceptualization, and any attempt to define it, no matter how well intentioned or articulated, necessarily falls woefully short – “the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao”.

I don’t even like the word very much . . . I can only say this… What I experienced was totally awesome.

I hear you, Sandy. I agree with the Christian writer David James Duncan, who calls it the “worst nickname ever”. Experiencing it is awesome, though, isn’t it?

Congratulations on running such a successful blog for so long, Michael. You and your commenters have certainly helped me a lot.

Where you say...
"God wants to have fun too. Spontaneous creative exploration of every possibility implicit in the cosmos is God's way of having fun."
...I think there is a lot of truth in this. For instance, just when you think you've got something worked out, you can be sure something will come along to challenge your new insight. It's the trickster element, which particularly enjoys shooting down the ego. And it's particularly prominent in paranormal phenomena, as by now you must be aware!

“It's the trickster element, which particularly enjoys shooting down the ego.”

It does often feel like a trick but I trust there is profound even infinite intelligence as the underlying reality of what we sow we reap.

"God wants to have fun too. Spontaneous creative exploration of every possibility implicit in the cosmos is God's way of having fun."

Do most that read this blog really think that life is about God having fun? Of course it depends on one’s operational definition of fun I suppose. I just looked at some synonyms for fun and from my point of view none of them qualify as to the meaning and purpose of life.

The desire for excitement leads to boredom. Does God seek pleasure? Does God want entertained? Does God find us amusing? Does God want to be cool? Does God find our suffering enjoyable?

I do agree with most of this quote as God creates and manifests as a spontaneous exploration of every possibility even infinite possibilities implicit in the cosmos. I think it is the necessity of God to create and not a choice. Isness expresses its infinite potential in an on going and endless expressions.

We are “individualized” aspects of those expressions. Without our perception of being individualized entities there would be no expressions of Beings created in the image of God.

It is of interest to me that our believing we have free will is directly correlated to our level of belief that we are an individualized Being. As one catholic saint remarked once we see the face of God we no longer have free will. I guess he meant we then only reflect God’s will.

Zetetic Chick said: "But a careful examination of that argument will reveal that this argument is actually an argument against the existence of a perfect designer who designed a perfect world according to the human expectations and standards of perfection."

I think it was in a Seth Book by Jane Roberts that I read something to the effect that God is not and cannot be perfect because perfection would be the end of everything. Perfection can never be attained.

Well, it made sense to me and still does.

Dave.

William wrote: We are “individualized” aspects of those expressions. Without our perception of being individualized entities there would be no expressions of Beings created in the image of God.

'Individual' means 'undivided' not separate.

Because he couldn't post this comment himself, E. Strife asked me to post it for him:

----

Congratulations on your thousandth post! I don't comment often but I am a regular reader. I appreciate the civility and tireless drive toward the truth with which you conduct this site Michael.

When I wrote my first novel (I am currently engaged in the long process of typing the hieroglyphics scawled on several hundred sheets of loose leaf paper) I can say that I was surprised and surpremely happy that the story veered off in wild undreamt directions. The finished product is orders of magnitude better than I ever could have imagined it to be when planning it out. This is a beautiful analogy for the creation of the universe.

I also have to give props to Bruce, Art, and Zetetic for their contributions: we are pieces of God coming here for grand adventure, remembering our true identity, learning things we could not learn any other way, and that human standards of perfection are different from those standards set by God, respectively.

From my own experiences (Kensho, cosmic consciousness, what have you, I call it radical freedom) I came away with the deep, intuitive knowing that everything is radically perfect, just the way it is, and it is because everything is perfect and that nothing needs to be done to fix it that we have to work extra hard to solve all the problems of the world and struggle to eliminate suffering. Of course, a statement like that doesn't make sense from our perspective in the relative world. We could not possibly say anything about the Absolute or Godhead that is not a contradiction, including this statement. What God is can only be experienced directly, everything else is just so much straw.

Thank you, Michael, for this wonderful little corner of the Internet, a bright ray of sunshine in a world mired by extremes of narcissism, relativism and apathy. May the joys continue for a thousand posts to come (if you should choose to)!

- E. Strife

"This is a beautiful analogy for the creation of the universe."

I should point out that the God-as-author analogy isn't original with me. I'm sure it dates back a long way, but I think it was Matthew Cromer who suggested it to me.

Matthew has a Web site devoted to his nature photography:

http://lightskyland.com/index.jsp

And he used to blog about psi, etc:

http://amnap.blogspot.com/

“'Individual' means 'undivided' not separate.”

By individualized I was referring to the common synonyms in use of the word individual.

“As commonly used, an individual is a person or any specific object in a collection. In the 15th century and earlier, and also today within the fields of statistics and metaphysics, individual means "indivisible", typically describing any numerically singular thing, but sometimes meaning "a person." (q.v. "The problem of proper names"). From the seventeenth century on, individual indicates separateness, as in individualism.[1] Individuality is the state or quality of being an individual; a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs, goals, and desires.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual)

Again I failed to communicate my thoughts clearly. I thought by putting “individualized” in quotations and using the word perception that would explain the idea that separateness is impossbile.

“For Spinoza "omnis determinatio est negatio" — every individual determination is merely a negation, a limitation of the universal, and nothing has positive existence except the one infinite substance, of which the seemingly distinct, individual, finite beings are merely parts or modes.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm)

Spinoza I think does a good job of defining what I intended to communicate with the word individual in quotations. Although I disagree with the word negation to describe souls that have limited awareness and with the word positive for indeed souls have positive existence, as they are an aspect of that which is infinite awareness.

With my awareness at this time I would rewrite Spinoza’s words with the following: every individual manifestation is merely a soul with limited but progressing awareness, which is a limitation of the universal vitality and nothing has absolute perfect awareness except one of infinite vitality and substance of which the seemingly distinct, individual, finite beings are merely aspects of the Infinite.

Now the words “ a limitation of the universal” are a profound statement and define our original innocence as souls.

Thank you for your comments on my use of the word individualized as it allowed me to find this quote by Spinoza, which will be helpful in my future communications on this blog and other endeavors. Spinoza was truly one of the great mystics that I studied back in the nineties but don’t remember that quote.

@william: I was referring to the root meaning of 'individual@ as 'undivided'.

All the rest is simply semantics.

“All the rest is simply semantics.”

Zerdini the root meaning of semantics is significant. Also one synonym for semantics is seminal which means “highly original and influencing the development of future events: a seminal artist; seminal ideas”.

The only credit I might take and then not so sure I can take that credit is my seeking and then the knowledge that indeed the Buddha and the enlightened Hindus were correct with their realizations that the origin of suffering is ignorance. Then after several years of seeking into the origin of our ignorance that causes such suffering in the world, a discovery that the origin of ignorance is our original and continual, on going innocence.

The word responsibility with a root meaning of ability to respond takes on a whole new meaning after that discovery into the origin of our ignorance.

It appears I have had lots of help from the other side, which in the past I have refused to discuss on this blog for personal reasons but thanks for the compliment about being a seminal thinker or having seminal ideas.

And yes I expect and have experienced almost complete rejection of this seminal idea that the origin of our ignorance is innocence. But that is the history of any seminal idea.

William, I was referring to semantics as defined in Logic i.e. "the study of the relationship between the structure of a theory and its subject matter; the principles that determine the truth or falsehood of sentences within the theory and the references to its terms.

I don't agree that 'seminal' is an appropriate synonym for semantics in the sense described above so the rest of your argument is invalid as far as I am concerned.

I have noticed in your posts that you keep making the same statements over and over again but that doesn't automatically give them the ring of truth.

It appears I have had lots of help from the other side, which in the past I have refused to discuss on this blog for personal reasons

Interesting statement - why 'appears'? Have you had help or not?

I like short and simple answers rather than a wordy article which says very little.

This is not a criticism simply a statement of fact.

From my own experiences (Kensho, cosmic consciousness, what have you, I call it radical freedom) I came away with the deep, intuitive knowing that everything is radically perfect, just the way it is, and it is because everything is perfect and that nothing needs to be done to fix it that we have to work extra hard to solve all the problems of the world and struggle to eliminate suffering. Of course, a statement like that doesn't make sense from our perspective in the relative world. We could not possibly say anything about the Absolute or Godhead that is not a contradiction, including this statement. What God is can only be experienced directly, everything else is just so much straw.

Thank you, E. Strife, for a wonderful comment. The bit about understanding the perfection meaning “we have to work extra hard” especially resonated. It reminded me of a discussion I had with a friend a few months ago. We were discussing our respective experiences of cosmic consciousness and the associated understanding, and wondering aloud about the “how’s” of “getting there”. She summed it up beautifully when she said, “Who knew how hard it was to do nothing?”

Nothing about it can be expressed, except as endless paradox. It’s perfect, but manifests as apparent imperfection. It’s infinite, but occupies no space. It’s eternal, but experiences no time. It’s pure, unconditional love, yet entirely indifferent. It can only be described as nothing; an endless void, yet it is from this nothingness that everything arises – it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. If we search for it we can never find it, yet if we stop searching, it just appears.

It is the Taoist’s Tao, The Buddhist Mind, Meister Eckhart’s “Godhead”, Jacob Boehme’s “Abyss”, the Kaballah’s Ein Soph, the Hindu Brahman, Rumi’s Love, Thomas Merton’s “Being”, Seth’s “All That Is”.

All of these are expressions of the truth, but none of them are the truth. As Emerson said of Swedenborg, words which are “true in transition, they become false if fixed.”

If you do understand it, that’s perfect. If you don’t understand it, that’s perfect, too. If you want to understand it, but don’t, then keep looking until you’re willing to stop looking and forget everything that anyone has ever said about it - and then simply be content to be yourself and find happiness now.

At that very moment, it will be perfectly obvious, and you won’t be able to explain it to anyone either. And that too, is perfect.

“This is not a criticism simply a statement of fact.”

First thank you for the dialog. As one of my favorite authors states “nothing comes into experience uninvited”. Karma is like a cosmic mirror reflecting back to us what we reflect to it.

Second when someone states “simply a statement of fact” all kinds of red flags come into my mind. When I look at the history of those that state their statements of facts I find their wisdom often sorely lacking. I personally believe that one needs to be very cautious about stating facts. My experience has been that a statement of fact usually comes from the ego not divine intelligence.

Religion and politics are classic examples of those that state facts. I find that most facts are stated in ignorance and of the intellect not intelligence at least divine intelligence. But of course that ignorance has its home in innocence. This statement will be rejected by most as your comment below clearly indicates.

“I have noticed in your posts that you keep making the same statements over and over again but that doesn't automatically give them the ring of truth.”

“I don't agree that 'seminal' is an appropriate synonym for semantics in the sense described above so the rest of your argument is invalid as far as I am concerned.”

I really prefer the concept of dialog to argument. But what is valid and invalid in the world of reality? The way the ego reveals its fragile and fearful existence is that its statements are valid and others are often invalid. Again religious, political, and economic ideologies are classic examples of this phenomenon.

I find it ironic that what appeared to me at least as a form of “attack” (CIM term) in retrospect turned out to be what might be considered a profound compliment seeing how root meanings of a word was the topic under discussion. Can you not see that attacks in the form of unsolicited corrections, which I with my imperfections give often, have karma built right into them?

“I like short and simple answers rather than a wordy article which says very little.”

Can you not see that how you responded proved my point about what might be a seminal idea by this statement? Seminal ideas are rejected my most. Does a sincere seeker reject other’s statements and make such comments about another’s words such as “says very little”. My experience in life has been one must be very careful about what they state as invalid, or belittle, or stated as a fact.

But good luck with your short and simple answers. Again thanks for the dialog just having someone respond helps me to clarify my thoughts on how to communicate this discovery into the origin of ignorance

“Nothing about it can be expressed, except as endless paradox. It’s perfect, but manifests as apparent imperfection. It’s infinite, but occupies no space. It’s eternal, but experiences no time. It’s pure, unconditional love, yet entirely indifferent.”

This is in my opinion a very well and articulated statement. I especially resonated with the statement “its perfect but manifests as an apparent imperfection”. I might add without those apparent imperfections there is no manifestation of unique souls that have a perception of other.


“It can only be described as nothing; an endless void, yet it is from this nothingness that everything arises”

Can something arise from nothing? Now the Buddhists have this term emptiness, which from my point of view this emptiness is pure and perfect infinite awareness.

“Emptiness is a key concept in Buddhist philosophy, or more precisely, in the ontology of Mahayana Buddhism. The phrase "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" is perhaps the most celebrated paradox associated with Buddhist philosophy. It is the supreme mantra”

The quote above is from wikipedia.

Emptiness is a better concept than nothingness but the western culture often translates emptiness to mean nothingness. They have two entirely different meanings. Even one of the on line dictionaries defined nothingness as emptiness. And one dictionary has emptiness as a synonym for nothingness.

Dictionaries can be very misleading.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

This website above gives a good overview of the buddha’s teachings on emptiness.

@William: Cherrypicking statements out of context is not helpful to your case.

For example I stated: "I like short and simple answers rather than a wordy article which says very little.

This is not a criticism simply a statement of fact."

I repeat I like short and simple answers - that is a fact as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to wade through a sea of psychobabble to get a semblance of an answer.

My experience has been that a statement of fact usually comes from the ego not divine intelligence.

What experience is that? Have you a direct line to 'divine intelligence'?

It's bald statements like that which negate what you may be trying to put across.

Can you not see that attacks in the form of unsolicited corrections, which I with my imperfections give often, have karma built right into them?

Depends what you mean by 'karma' - without your definition it's hard to tell what you are implying.

In conclusion may I also say that you are always quoting your research over the last twenty years as though you have discovered some great truth. Fortunately many of us have also conducted research for far longer periods and have reached entirely different conclusions which you seem unable to recognise.

Thank you for the dialogue, too.

This website above gives a good overview of the buddha’s teachings on emptiness.

William, it is now very clear where your ideas originate.

Buddhism is an interesting religion but, like all religions, has only an element of truth.

It reminds me of the story about a group of wise beings who dropped the 'diamond of truth' upon the earth where it broke into a thousand parts. Men hurried from the four corners of the earth rejoicing that the fragment of truth they'd picked up was the whole truth.

zerdini you may want to check out my latest comment on Buddhism on a system of beliefs.

It appears to me that somehow I have stepped on your ego.

For this I apologize.

It is not fruitful to be defensive or attack.

My experience has been when someone gets upset or defensive with another’s words then those words have somehow challenged their existing paradigm or cherished belief but those beliefs have doubts. Hence the emotions. Usually when we get upset with another that is an indication of a possible breakthrough in our existing beliefs.

Often our upsets are opportunities not something we need hide from. When I get upset with someone I know full well there is something about myself I need to change. It is not too difficult to see what we perceive as ignorance in others but seeing the innocence as the underlying realty of that ignorance is substantially more difficult.

I for one cherish our dialog you are one of the few on here that does respond to my comments.

The length of one's research says nothing about their findings or their state of consciousness.

You have much to offer this blog with your experiences and I for one am very grateful for that. You experiences with such great mediums can and will and I suspect has brought much comfort to many that read this blog.

But from my point of view your attitude and remarks do not do you or anyone justice. Surely these experiences with mediums have taught that love and compassion are the greatest of truths not attacks or put-downs.

Now compassion is the understanding of the ignorance that you accuse me of often. The greatest of compassion is the ultimate grace, which sees the innocence as the underlying reality or origin of that ignorance.

Who among us can claim to have the whole truth or truths? Truths come to us in degrees or levels.

For such a person to make such a claim is only revealing their ignorance.

But the good news is that ignorance has its origin in our original innocence, as we are not responsible for the process that created us.

zerdini you may want to check out my latest comment on Buddhism on a system of beliefs.

William, I did check it out but, quite frankly, I think that Winston Wu’s critique of Buddhism summed it up very well.

It appears to me that somehow I have stepped on your ego.

Appearances can be deceptive, William – you seem to infer that you know more about my ego than I do. There is no need to apologise. What you give out you get back!

It is not fruitful to be defensive or attack.

I was neither attacking nor being defensive. Neither was I upset in any way. I merely asked questions which you seem reluctant to answer.

I for one cherish our dialog you are one of the few on here that does respond to my comments.

Thank you for that but I happen to know that the reason many people do not respond to your posts is because you keep quoting the same old things over and over again as though no-one else has done any research. It becomes wearisome after a while.

You have much to offer this blog with your experiences and I for one am very grateful for that. You experiences with such great mediums can and will and I suspect has brought much comfort to many that read this blog.
But from my point of view your attitude and remarks do not do you or anyone justice. Surely these experiences with mediums have taught that love and compassion are the greatest of truths not attacks or put-downs.

It is not my experiences with mediums that I regard as important but my experiences with very wise spirit communicators over the last fifty years. It is quite true that (unconditional) love and compassion are worthwhile attributes and I am sorry that you have chosen to take my remarks and/or questions as attacks or put-downs. They were never intended to be so. Perhaps your ego is a little bit fragile?

Who among us can claim to have the whole truth or truths? Truths come to us in degrees or levels.
For such a person to make such a claim is only revealing their ignorance.

I wasn’t aware that anyone had made such a claim.
Thank you for your reply.

P.S. What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? No need to answer – it’s a rhetorical question!

“Thank you for that but I happen to know that the reason many people do not respond to your posts is because you keep quoting the same old things over and over again as though no-one else has done any research. It becomes wearisome after a while”

Not to wearisome for everyone I have noticed you read my posts quite thoroughly. These are egos in action on both sides. Anyone that is an objective observer could discern this very easily.

Rejection of any new discovery is to be expected that is the theme of life at this stage our human evolutionary process. History proves this over and over and over, one only has to study history.

“I am sorry that you have chosen to take my remarks and/or questions as attacks or put-downs.”

They appeared to be attacks to me but nothing comes into experience uninvited so I will do my best to learn from them. And if my memory serves me right several on this blog commented about a month ago on your responses to my comments as being snark remarks.

One interesting observation I have made in life is that with any subject once a person comes to believe that they know or that they are an expert in that subject there is little room for any new knowledge to come into their consciousness. I find almost any stranger that I start up a conversation with is almost always more open to new information than someone that considers themselves an expert and of course communicates with wise spirits.

But I am interested in what your wise spirits have told you about if the infinite is perfect love why so much suffering in the world.

Spirit communications come in all levels of intelligence; discerning what is advanced teachings and not so advanced is an interesting research project. It appears at this time that the level of intelligence and selfless motivation of the medium is the main factor in the level of spirit communication that is attained.

I have frustration... Why psychics of the people, which are born in different times of the year, differ by inner energy of their zodiacal symbols? Please see free psychic predictions about my fatal zodiac symbol and help me please!

Your Elisa, (23y age).

William said: Not to wearisome for everyone I have noticed you read my posts quite thoroughly. These are egos in action on both sides. Anyone that is an objective observer could discern this very easily.

I always read posts thoroughly before I comment. You seem obsessed with the ego as though it is something distasteful.

Rejection of any new discovery is to be expected that is the theme of life at this stage our human evolutionary process. History proves this over and over and over, one only has to study history.

Are you saying that you have made a new discovery? I don’t think so. As I said before, many readers of this blog, and others, have done similar research (as you put it) and have reached similar and/or different conclusions. There is nothing unique in anything you have written.

They appeared to be attacks to me but nothing comes into experience uninvited so I will do my best to learn from them. And if my memory serves me right several on this blog commented about a month ago on your responses to my comments as being snark remarks.

I don’t recall anyone suggesting that my comments were snark remarks. I had no idea what ‘snark’ meant as it wasn’t in any English dictionary I possess but I eventually found it online in an Urban Dictionary as a combination of ‘snide’ and ‘remark’. Why not just say ‘snide’ if that is what you meant.

One interesting observation I have made in life is that with any subject once a person comes to believe that they know or that they are an expert in that subject there is little room for any new knowledge to come into their consciousness. I find almost any stranger that I start up a conversation with is almost always more open to new information than someone that considers themselves an expert and of course communicates with wise spirits.

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything. I have had some experiences which I am happy to share but nothing is set in stone. I am always willing to change my views if or when new knowledge comes along. Your closing words above seem to be a bit ‘snarky’!

But I am interested in what your wise spirits have told you about if the infinite is perfect love why so much suffering in the world.

At last! We cut to the chase lol. It seems that you have a lot more research to do. May I suggest you read the ‘Silver Birch’ books (Google for more information) for a start. There are nine original books covering nearly fifty years of spirit teachings on a tremendous variety of subjects.

Spirit communications come in all levels of intelligence; discerning what is advanced teachings and not so advanced is an interesting research project. It appears at this time that the level of intelligence and selfless motivation of the medium is the main factor in the level of spirit communication that is attained.

We are in agreement here – it is an interesting research project. Silver Birch is not an extension of the medium’s mind. He is a separate entity and gave evidence of his identity by speaking (in the independent voice) through another medium.
I wish you well in your research.

William said: Not to wearisome for everyone I have noticed you read my posts quite thoroughly. These are egos in action on both sides. Anyone that is an objective observer could discern this very easily.

I always read posts thoroughly before I comment. You seem obsessed with the ego as though it is something distasteful.

Rejection of any new discovery is to be expected that is the theme of life at this stage our human evolutionary process. History proves this over and over and over, one only has to study history.

Are you saying that you have made a new discovery? I don’t think so. As I said before, many readers of this blog, and others, have done similar research (as you put it) and have reached similar and/or different conclusions. There is nothing unique in anything you have written.

They appeared to be attacks to me but nothing comes into experience uninvited so I will do my best to learn from them. And if my memory serves me right several on this blog commented about a month ago on your responses to my comments as being snark remarks.

I don’t recall anyone suggesting that my comments were snark remarks. I had no idea what ‘snark’ meant as it wasn’t in any English dictionary I possess but I eventually found it online in an Urban Dictionary as a combination of ‘snide’ and ‘remark’. Why not just say ‘snide’ if that is what you meant.

One interesting observation I have made in life is that with any subject once a person comes to believe that they know or that they are an expert in that subject there is little room for any new knowledge to come into their consciousness. I find almost any stranger that I start up a conversation with is almost always more open to new information than someone that considers themselves an expert and of course communicates with wise spirits.

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything. I have had some experiences which I am happy to share but nothing is set in stone. I am always willing to change my views if or when new knowledge comes along. Your closing words above seem to be a bit ‘snarky’!

But I am interested in what your wise spirits have told you about if the infinite is perfect love why so much suffering in the world.

At last! We cut to the chase lol.
It seems that you have a lot more research to do. May I suggest you read the ‘Silver Birch’ books (Google for more information) for a start. There are nine original books covering nearly fifty years of spirit teachings on a tremendous variety of subjects.

Spirit communications come in all levels of intelligence; discerning what is advanced teachings and not so advanced is an interesting research project. It appears at this time that the level of intelligence and selfless motivation of the medium is the main factor in the level of spirit communication that is attained.

We are in agreement here – it is an interesting research project. Silver Birch is not an extension of the medium’s mind. He is a separate entity and gave evidence of his identity by speaking (in the independent voice) through another medium.
I wish you well in your research.

Sorry the first post was sent in error - Z

Bravo, Michael, bravo!

The comments to this entry are closed.