Daniel

I suppose the last piece of the puzzle involves self-induced hallucinations which is self mind manipulations, or perhaps manipulating the mind of an "initiate" through a form of hypnosis or sensory deprivation. In a group setting there is a increased likelihood for the phenomena if all parties are ... drumroll... open to suggestion. This is the illusion of summoning an angel or a demon. An angel or demon is just an archetype that lives in the psyche, in the mind. The angel/demon is invoked into a human body or evoked into a sigil drawn on the floor or on some other surface or on a vessel. Then the individual or group convinces themself, manipulates their mind that this archetype is among them or possessing them. But again, it's all mind-games. It's neither miracle nor magic. It's a psycho-drama being "worked" or "crafted" on those who are highly suggestable and open to the concepts. So, when someone gets involved in these things and is having trouble, the best non-medical intervention / remedy is non-belief. It's like a light switch. None of those angels / demons / magic tricks are real. They're all in mind. And it's literally true. All of them are just mind-games. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_effect https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-71631-001 https://dictionary.apa.org/collective-hysteria

This is another common bit of spicy psychology, and it fits very nicely into what I was writing about, the mind-games that can be played to produce what appears to be ESP or fortune telling. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying Scrying is looking into a "black mirror" in order to probe the sub-conscious mind. This is where Tarot Cards, looking into a Crystal Ball, reading runes, tea-leaves, incense smoke, and all sorts of meditative, divination ( fortune telling ) practices come from. But the images are usually so vague that they can be easily believed if the recipient is simply open to suggestion. Then the fortune teller gets a psychological boost when the recipient feeds their faith to the fortune teller. The spicy psychology part comes in when the fortune teller is reading the recipient's reaction to the fortune as it is being told bit by bit. Then the fortune narrows in bit by bit. The fortune teller is actually not reading the medium, the tea-leaves, they are instead reading the reactions on the recipient. That's the secret which shatters the illusion. The fortune teller begins by casting the net far and wide... then they read the reaction on the recipient.

No, that's precisely what I meant. The thing is, through psycho-drama a person is manipulating themself, basically. And that's what these rituals are. Stabbing a special knife in the air in a specific way and shape.... wearing specific clothes and using different names... it's psycho-drama, role-play. And that's the underpining of western occult "magic". Another term that is often used is "spicy-psychology"

@stellarwindbubble, I see your confused reaction to my post. Send me a private message if you would like me to explain in more detail.

"Magic" as it is "conceived" in western occultism is precisely that "mind-games". And it's amazing how much can be accomplished through these sorts of mind-games. Amazing. But, when good people dabble in them deeply bad things can happen.

@ChiDragon, @Cobie, I see the confused reaction. Let me put it this way. Casting a net far and wide is almost gauranteed to catch a fish... unless one is waving it in the air. "I hope your trip to Asia was worth it, Now leave these people alone" is an awfully big net. No details are given. It's supposed to be a demonstration of ESP. Extra-sensory-perception. But it's just casting a wide net and waving it in the air.

There's a lot going on in the gospels. And their method for compilation is somewhat unique as well. are we still talking about John 6? Do you think that Jesus the Jewish Rabbi would be referring to himself and his blood in pagan language and imagery? Do you think the authors of the gospels would be intentionally using pagan language and symbolism? The gnostics will say there is a great secret here, and the "normies" the "muggles" are hiding it from you. Or perhaps they're not "normies" and "muggles" they're power hungry people who want all of these secrets for themself... blah-blah-blah. And that's one of the ways that good is flipped into evil. Once it's known that a person desires to know "secrets" then thay can be exploited using this as currency, bait. Did you know that driking blood is prohiibited 5 times explicitly in Leviticus and 1 time explicitly in Acts? I'm guessing the gnostics are in favor of drinking blood, right? Everytime that happens, something is grinning in the darkness.

That's a fair statement, because it is prefaced with "I would say..." I'll explain just a little more below. Agreed. Neither am I. Hopefully that was crystal clear with my post about harmonizing trinitarian and unitarian perspectives. However, I place a high premium on duty ( which is a form of "will" ). My duty is a personal code, and I take it very seriously. Included in that code is to honor, repsect, and protect ( when I can ) the intentions of ancient sources of written scripture. If the scripture is changed, you would not have these sayings for inspiration. For me, it's like protecting the grand canyon or the pyramids at giza. When someone asks for feedback regarding an interpretation they have, or a conclusion they have reached about scripture, if it is not, in my judgment, in harmony with the intentions of the author, then, I feel it is my duty to speak out against it. Not to argue endlessly, but, at least to speak out. Some choose to argue endlessly with me, and since I do not quit, and do not defer, it appears that I desire endless arguing. But that's not what's happening internally for me. What it sounds like you are describing are "sparks" of monism contained in the gospels. I agree those sparks are highly significant, but I do not think the author/source intended for it to be interpretted in that way. And from that I wonder, "why are those sparks there in the first place?" And "why are they reflected in so many scriptures"? I think that verse would need to be probed deeper since I brought verses which negate it. On the other hand, if you don't care about those other verses, then, I suppose it's you who have decided what the flesh is, and it isn't really coming from scripture at all. In context of your conversation, I was not actually asking what you thought. I was asking about Christianity and what is written in scripture. Many people idolize flesh. That is not uncommon and is understandable. Although, it seems what you posted earlier conflicts with this since the body is just an old garment. "The soul goes through a cycle of bodies, just as a person changes worn-out clothes for new ones." If you think Christ is flesh, I strongly disagree with you, and what is quoted above strongly disagress with you. You are saying Christ is flesh, and flesh is like old-worn out clothes. I don't think you need to feel that way. At least not if I am the audience. My only caution when reading these words would be: "Beware of a false summit. Keep going." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_peak Insight is not gnosis. Insight is understanding. Gnosis is knowledge. There's a huge rabbit hole there. Huge. The Gnostics idolize knowledge. And I mean that literally, she is a god for them. Sophia. Everything is flipped for the gnostics, if you delve deeply into it. But what they teach is not false, it's incomplete. This is evident by our current conversation. What the gnostics teach ignores large portions of the written word. That is, by defintion, incomplete. Anyway, what you seem to be describing is not an attainment of "knowledge" (gnosis) because knowledge is essentially closed. But you seem to be open. Some of the language you're using is "closed" language. But you still sound like you are open. For example: "realising that what you are, is fundementaly awarness." is closed language. It's kind of like saying "What I am is ONLY awareness". That is closed. But by using the word "fundementally" that means there's more to it, and you are still open. From my perspective it is much more than awareness. And I ask myself, "why stop at awareness"? Basically what I'm saying is, "understanding" is moving beyond knowledge. It is skipping-over it. And this is good. Understanding always and forever supercedes knowledge because, understanding produces knowledge as needed on demand. That's "insight". The word "insight" can be both noun and verb. Insight, the noun, is a piece of knowledge, a small thing. Insight, the verb, is understanding, a huge accomplishment. All peace treaties are accomplished via mutual understanding not knowledge. This is one of many examples. If you keep going, I think you'll find that "awareness" is just one layer, one level, one dimension of "self". At the top of the tree, as high as one can go is "being". Being in love, Being in hate, Being merciful, Being strict, Being knowledgable, Being understanding, Being wise, .... Being aware, etc... this is what the self "is doing". And this active, verb-form, language is a better descriptor than stopping at "awareness". My approach would be to look at each of these in context and try to understand the intentions of the author/source in each case, then, draw a conclusion from there. As I said, I am quite confident that, at best, there is something unique about Jesus' flesh. And this would mean that it is not teaching monism. The famous verse about eating flesh and drinking blood is certainly not literal. In context Jesus is pushing away those who had come to challenge him. Then his disciples ask how it could be true "It's a difficult teaching, master", and the explanation is non-literal. He's not talking about flesh. And if there is a dark force which desires to wiggle-and-giggle its way into corrupting the hearts and minds of humans, a dark force contained in the flesh, then... my friend, each and every written scripture will have bits and pieces of this dark force making brief appearances subliminally. So, a person should, imo, be cautious. If it is intended, then a person can read more and more and more of the scripture and all of it will agree with the intention. If it is unintended, then reading more and more and more of the scripture will defeat it. From this a choice can be made, "Do I want to follow what is written, or do I want to explore the unknown?" And, imo, they both can lead to the same place. One is a lot more effort and takes a lot more time, and is perhaps dangerous, but, maybe more rewarding, who knows? My intention, my duty, is only to show the difference between what is "written" and what is "not". Then each person can make an informed choice. I don't think it's proper for a group of any sort to fool people by pointing to this little bit and distract or delude from the rest because it syncs up with their desires. That is how people are manipulated and exploited. It's by compromsing their desires and using it against them. Again, Gen 3, the garden. Beautiful. Does it matter to you what the author/source intended for these sayings to mean? Or is it only your own desired meaning that matters?

What is the problem? You brought an analogy, I disagreed for very good reason. You've tried to prove me wrong, couldn't do it, and now you want me to defer to you? Why? Why should I defer? You started this exchange with me, not vice versa.

No victim whining. Why are you so frustrated about this? Here is the picture again. They do not make contact. None of the electronics in your home or anyone's home is designed to be connected directly to the main. I'm not sure why you are fighting this. There are two circuits. No contact between them. The magnetic field is not current flowing. They require seperation. They can never ever touch. That produces a surge condition. It will "smoke" the components. https://www.livewireelectricalcharlotte.com/2022/07/how-to-test-your-wiring-after-an-electric-strike/ Lightning will often cause damage to multiple appliances. This is due to the surge in voltage that occurs after a lighting strike. Though appliances can handle some fluctuation in voltage, the super high voltage that occurs after a hit of lightning is too much, resulting in circuit board damage. If a visible inspection reveals smoke marks by the electrical service panel, there’s a very good chance there’s damaged wiring. A visual inspection of the circuit breakers by a qualified electrician is essential of lightning damage is suspected at the electrical panel. That ^^ is what happens when there is a surge.

Friedrich Nietzsche i often find that twice as much can be said with half the Words. Its more about dropping the bs and getting to the core. I'll simply refer you to my first reply to the thread: It's typical Mat. In order to change the scripture, people ignore it. And they only focus on the few things that are desirable to them. If it's really really desirable, an illusion is produced and all the other words in the book disappear. In this case, the idea of connecting to God is so very-very desireable that the truth about what a trasformer does and how it works is ignored. Even if pictures are posted. I didn't go on and on about it, at first. It should have been clear from the picture I posted. It's the same with the monist interpretation of Christianity. There's plenty of evidence against that idea. Maybe one could consider Jesus' flesh different than all other flesh. But that, in itself shows that Chrisitanity is not monist. But, if the idea of monism is very-very desirable, then, naturally all of that goes ~poof~ into nothingness. It's the same illusion that is happening in the garden of eden story. Eve was standing directly in front of the tree of life. But instead she chooses the tree of knowledge. Why? And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit, and ate, and gave also to her husband with her; and he ate. It's a tree to be desired, and the tree of life is ignored. That's all I have to say unless you have further comments or questions directed to what I wrote.

I already showed you that the two circuits never come into contact. You have become frustrated, but won't share why. It's fine. It's typical for internet discussions to go like this. Show someone, literally put it in the their face, then the name calling begins. I didn't call you names. I didn't make it person. It's just the simple truth about these electonic metaphors. I'm sorry that you're so senitive about it. But, that's also not my problem, if you won't tell me why.

Chist is salvation, the flesh is weak. Do you really want to debate me on this? Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. Here's a good one: John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. That, right there should tell you all you need to know. Christianity is not monist. There's nothing wrong with monism, there's nothing wrong with Christianity. But they are different if one is going by scripture. If scripture is ignored, and only parts are considered, sure! It's monist. But if one is starting with John 1, sorry. It doesn't work. The "flesh" did not come from Spirit. Case closed. And I didn't get to the epistles yet. Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Well, you got my feedback. If you're not interested in it, or you think it's bogus, just forget about it. If you want John to be monist, please, enjoy it. A lot of people agree with you. I think they're wrong. It happens all the time. But scripture is on my side. That makes me happy.

Yes, I am very comfy with the trinity concept. But "flesh" is not included in that trinity. Matthew 26:41. It is! Here's my diagram I made for a friend. Actually two diagrams. The idea with these is to link-up trintiarian and unitaritarian **perspectives**. The trinitarian has Jesus on the **face** ( ref to Exo 33 ) not at the corner. This is important if it is not a "triangle" but instead a "prism". There's a lot of fun to be had with this prism analogy. When looking into any of the "faces" of a triangular prism ( no other has this property ) both of the other two faces are seen within it. Can you imagine it? One face on the prisim is Jesus, and when looking into it, one sees, Father and Spirit. And because of this, one is looking through Jesus and seeing the Father in that "face". Kinda cool, right? "None get to the Father except through me." Conversely, for the unitarian perspective, when the trinity is arranged with Jesus at the corner, then when the person on earth is gazing at Jesus, the other 2 corners appear to be outside and far beyond Jesus. Still connected, but transcendant. In order to imagine this, on my diagrams, I include the material realm. You'll see. By doing, this the trinitarian and the unitarian both basically share the same theology, but have 2 vastly ( arguably opposing ) perspectives. The trinitarian brings it close. It's an intimate relationship with the divine **through** Jesus. The Father and Spirit are percieved IN Jesus and Jesus is on earth. That's close, that's intimate. However, when it's considered as the unitarian, the Father is distant, the Spirit is distant. Then... after the earthly ministry, the prism ( not a triangle ) spins, or pivots. Now the Spirit is in the material realm. And Jesus and the Father are together, side by side. Notice, when it pivots, Jesus is on the right side of the father as expected. When the prism pivots, from the trinitarian perspective, The Spirit is on the "face" of the prism, and the Father and Jesus are perceived **through** it. It's still a close and intimate relationship. The unitarian perspective, is more transcendant. Some prefer the transcendant, some prefer the immanent perspective. I vote it's both, simultaneously. But, hee-hee... I'm not a Christian. I'm just out here in the fields, fight'n for my meals, in a wasteland... haha. ~pointing to my avatar~ sing'n a song by the Who next to my little camp-fire. But, what do I know? I'll put the images in a spoiler to save people from scrolling. YouTube "Baba O'Riely" - LINK | Wikipedia "Baba O'Reily" - LINK ( derived from the Lifehouse concept, to input the vital signs and personality of Meher Baba into a synthesiser ) ( two major inspirations of Townshend: Meher Baba, an Iranian spiritual master, and Terry Riley, an American composer)

if you tap on the "quote" link towards the bottom, then I''ll get a notification that you are wanting me to see something, and maybe reply. You can also "at" someone, aka "tag" them with the @ sign. When you do that a drop down list is usually produced, not always. Typing the "at" sign then a space after it seems to work. From there start typing the individual's screen name to narrow the list. " @ dani " got to my name in the list. See below. Then tap on the person's screen name. The name will be "highlighted", that's how you know it worked and that individual will get an alert, and it's clear to whom you were addressing in your post.

No worries, although I wouldn't have noticed it without the clarification. Yup... inner and outer both... but what about that fleshy stuff inbetween? I'm asking about "the word" which became "flesh". { kingdom { flesh { kingdom } flesh } kingdom } ? { flesh { word } flesh } ?

There's no need to get frustrated. Why is this such an important concept for you? If you share that, it will help me be more sensitive to your feelings regarding it. The pictures do a great job of showing that these are 2 disconnected circuits. I have an excellent understanding of these concepts. I AM an electronics whiz. You're speaking with one. The magnetic field is not the electron "flowing" through the circuit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force Great! The magnetic field is not the same as the current on either side. There's two seperate circuits. Why are we arguing again? So, in your model analogy of a human connecting to God, there's a disconnect, correct? One side is the source? The other side is the human? They are always and forever seperate? If they were to connect, then that would be a "surge" condition. Well, this is different and more complicated. Now DC is being included. So, it's not me making things complicated. I brought the simplest transformer, with the most common real-world application. Maybe share a link .... never mind, I found it. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Transformer Did you see the picture they used? It's the same picture I used. Now, what are they saying? "When an AC signal is applied to the primary coil, the changing current causes a magnetic field to change (get bigger or smaller). This changing magnetic field (and associated magnetic flux) will pass through to the secondary coil inducing a voltage across the secondary coil, thereby effectively coupling the AC input from the primary to secondary component of the transformer. The voltage applied to the primary component will also be present in the secondary component." The magnetic field is in contact with both circuits. The circuits are never in contact with each other. Then they start talking about DC: "As mentioned before, transformers do not allow DC input to flow through. This is known as DC isolation." That's it. It's not saying that the primary and the secondary are connected. They're not.

There is a word for it, 道, at least in english: I'm still going with verb-forms on these. Becoming ( forming ) Manifesting / Unmanifesting Unbecoming (unforming). They (有, 無 ) are "forms" verb-forms. Unmanifesting, " 無 ", is invisible. Edit: changed word choices to avoid confusion.

it's a "dance" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataraja Notice above: the leg is lifted, effortless, empty, while the other is full, stoic, and firmly planted. Notice below: the open palm combined with the grasping of a vessel... The Self and the self are well represented here.

I think calling it "false" is a misnomer that produces misunderstanding. It is "incomplete" not "false". Ignoring the "false" misnomer, this is much better. Contrast requires the lower self. Self requries self. They're partners. And joy, and pleasure, and everything that is wonderful about being alive... Which is only a half-truth if it is in denial. But being in denial literally means that it will perceive it-Self as all that there is, a purely and literrally Self-centered point of view.

Induction = "no contact". There is a 1 to 1 ration in the diagram because the windings are identical. If one traces the current it is clearly 2 seperate circuits. The magnetic field is not contact nor does it have electrons "flowing" in it. It is the opposite of flowing electrons. The electrons in the magnet are fixed in a stable, yet highly polar arrangement / configuration. That's what a magnet is and does. metal / conductive matter has a "sea of electrons" in its atomic structure. That's what makes it conductive, both with heat and with electricity. The current on one side ( in yellow/orange ) causes a "domino effect" in the "sea of electrons" contained in the metal wires. This "domino effect" causes "ripples" in the coil. The coils windings produce an electromagnetic field around the coils. These coils are near another set of coils but are NOT in contact with them. The magnetic field from the the source ( on the left side ) creates a magnetic field on the target circuit ( on the right side ). The magnetic fields are in-sync with each other, and this produces "ripples" in the "sea of electrons" in the metal contained in the wire of the other circuit. This causes the "domino effect" of electrons "flowing". This is the green arrows. But. The circuits are not in contact with each other. The electron "flow" ( not actually flowing ) is completely isolated, always and forever between the two sides of the "transformer". If not, then, there's no need for the transformer. Both sides of the circuit would be engineered / designed with components that can tolerate the "watts", I*V ( current and voltage ) of the source. But, they aren't, they never are. Right! But the primary side is never in contact with the secondary side. If it was, then the primary side would need all the same components that are in the "main", the main-distribution network. Question: are you sure that you're not thinking of a "relay", or a "transitior", or a "gate"?

The picture is an inductive transformer. No, the current does not transfer through induction. That's not induction. The current on the one side never comes into contact with the other side. It's the same for AC-to-AC, DC-to-DC, AC-to-DC, DC-to-AC. There are at least 2 circuits which never make contact with each other. That is precisely what it means when you wrote: "the primary circuit of the coil was opened and closed which caused pulses in the secondary winding". There is no contact between the "coil" and the "secondary winding" If there was then there is no "induction". However, if you would like to bring a layout of a circuit which is deisnged differently, I will happily thank you for the correction. https://iastate.pressbooks.pub/electriccircuits/chapter/transformers/

In a transformer, the current on one side never makes contact with the other side. Edit: to finish the analogy. If the stepped-down side of the circuit makes direct contact with the other side a "surge" would occur. A well designed circuit would protect itself with either a "fuse" which would "pop" preventing any internal structual damage, or, it would have a surge-suppressor, which would automatically send the "surge" to "ground". Lacking this, internal damage to the circuit would happen rapidly.

transformed into tiny little infinitesimal bits, which melt immediately on the other side losing all sense of identity, will, intellect, emotion... etc.

Agreed, I love this stuff. Just FYI: I'm not a user, but virtually all my friends are ( maybe not ketamine, tho ), so, please, by all means, enjoy your"self". Your wish is my command. See below: The flaming sword which is turrning every way is like a disposal, a disposer that prohibits entry into the realm of the absolutely literally infinite, aka, the tree of life, it's the "tree which no man knows". Technically though, it's not that one cannot enter its realm, it's that doing so would be like sending a spark into a bonfire. The spark immendiately is eclipsed, subsumed, and assimilated with the bonfire. It stops being the spark, anything that was "sparky" about it is gone, annihilated on entry in the inferno.