Jeff

The three days relates to the time of his “death” on the cross, to when he rises from the “dead”. His higher heavenly body was “actualized” and so yes there, but he dropped his earthly body, leaving only the higher heavenly body. It is not possible to destroy the heavenly body (only the earthly).

In Christ’s teachings there are two bodies, the earthly (local body-mind) “house” and then the higher (heavenly body) “temple”. The house is death, the temple is resurrection. The following gospel verse explains it pretty well... 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lordfrom heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bearthe image of the heavenly Man.

Actually, I can be a very beautiful verse. Just need to realize that the “house” is the local body-mind. And no one rebuilding means that Jesus will not get caught up in the issues and fears that build it in the first place. The same point in the gospels... “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” ‭‭John‬ ‭2:19-21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Welcome. With those true masters, could you feel them? Feel their energy? Or how did you tell? Thanks.

As a reminder... I was not trying to promote anything in my earlier post. It was simply a joke related to many members saying there is a “light group” and associating it to me. I wish you and your group well, and always enjoy discussing spiritual traditions. I look forward to hearing more details.

Interesting concept. How did you decide on the 80’s? Also, to know a percentage like that it implies you know what 100% is as bar. What does 100% mean?

Not really in the way I meant it. In my experience it is more like an energy being that stays (or exists) in a specific location. The nature of the beings can very pretty greatly. I have found one that was like a giant puppy dog that always wants attention, to a bound/trapped being that raged for freedom. Some residing at various locations create the hallowed (or scary) feeling of the location. The way an energy being would be astrally “seen”, would be more about the person doing the looking (and how their mind translates it) then the energy itself. But, I have personally only interacted with 5 or 6 such beings, so ones like you describe could definitely be out there.

Because they both operate in the same sort of “astral” frequency range. The five levels I defined were about the spiritual practioner reaching out to various beings. You would also find contact with living astral masters in the same range.

To me, "grace" is when any higher being "helps". It can be some energy hitting obstructions, but you could argue that any energetic interaction could do that. I think to call it grace, one would have to say that with the energy, there is also the shared "space" to give the room to make that letting go much easier. That extra space allows for what some traditions call "spontaneous perfection". The issues and fears will just drop away without having to go through the conscious aspects of them. Such a clearing leaves one with just a sense of "peace" around the stuff that was cleared.

I will take a crack at answering this in a non-specific tradition form. First of all different beings exist at different levels/layers of consciousness. Once one has realized those differences, it is easy to tell the difference of those relative beings. I would break them into five basic categories... 1) Trouble making or negative entities (include demon types). 2) Elementals or advanced spiritual practitioners that are no longer physically manifest. 3) Multidimensional advanced spiritual practitioners (this is where you find astral school and beings that like to fight/compare skills). 4) Divine or light level beings (angels, immortals, god types). 5) Realized divine beings (ruler immortals, full buddhas, Christs, etc...) With all such beings there is sort of the concept of "going to them", or "they come to you". For sake of this post, I will only discuss the "going to them" aspects. Type 1 - connections happen most often when has not yet opened your heart and are in deep emotional distress. This is why so many traditions have major problem with things like trying to connect with the dead, ghosts, etc... The person you are trying to reach is most likely beyond your range, but various entities can attach and create the illusion of a real connection. They hide the energy leaching behind the attachment and pain towards the distress. Type 2 - This type of connection is possible for anyone who has opened the 5th and or 6th chakra. At what you could call "astral levels", beings that are at this level sort of blink or stand out. You can have elemental type beings or advanced spiritual types who are just interested in the contact. Possible to learn or be helped by them, but just need to remember that these beings have their own ego's adgendas. Most are friendly, but some are not. Type 3 - This type of connection is beyond "our world" or at higher astral levels. There are advanced schools, teacher types, other beings looking to prove who are stronger. To reach these types of beings on your own, you need to at least be able to find and connect to any person on the planet with no clues. Like be able to access your friends friend and they feel you stopping by. Think more universal consciousness (or universal mind). Type 4 - To access these beings on your own, you can do type 3, but now have shifted from astral "seeing" to shared presence or "being". Some traditions call this the eighth chakra (or inner heart). Type 5 - Access here is the same as Type 4, but knowing they are realized and not just type 4 is the hard part. This is why in buddhism they say that you need to have reached at least a 8th bhumi to be able to see/know a buddha directly. In all cases, all such beings can visit you whenever they want, but often unlikely you will have the clarity to notice in most cases.

More picked different songs for different levels. You music above hits the 3rd chakra area. Maybe see if feel anything there when you list to it.

Totally agree. You can feel the resonance with different music and aspects of the energy body. Spent a while do the mapping’s and tracking it.

You stated in the quote... Is it not an assumption that the seeing, the reflections seen in the mind space, and the mind space itself are all of a different nature/reality? i am not stating that they are all different, I am stating the opposite, that they are the same. But, that too is an assumption. If you changed the original quoted statement to... If the seer [drik, the ego] and the perceived to be seen by the seer [not necessarily the actual world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never possible. Then I would be in agreement. The issue for me is the big assumption with the “reflection in mind” necessarily being the actual reality, when it could simply be a mind stuff dream. As with my problem with Dwai’s three types of knowing, they are not necessarily really knowing. Really just some perception of (local) awareness.

The logic is circular because the quote (and concept) was assuming that everthing is inside of the same Awareness. It stated that... If the seer [drik, the ego] and the seen [drisya, the world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never possible. The actual object being “seen” does not necessarily need to really be in the same reality, as it is to the seer there is really only a reflection in the seer’s mind. A seer could simply be existing in a world of sonar pulses and not really be perceiving the “true” underlying reality of the objects that are supposedly being seen. Similarly, a tree can fall and there can be a sound, even if there is no “seer” to be aware of/perceive/hear the sound. Just as you stated with the dream example, a seer can make up his/her own world in their mind, no need (or proof) that it is really the world itself. Seeing is a product of the seer, not necessarily the underlying object supposedly being seen. If that was not true, then dreams would be very boring.

Honestly no, I have not had any such a dream that I can remember. At least not in the last 20 years or so. As, I stated above, all waking stuff (thinking, seeing, etc...) does happen in the mind. To me, both waking and dreaming activity is in the mind, the difference is more just if it is subconscious or conscious mind activity. More broadly, all that is “perceived” is really just a reflection in the mind of the underlying energy of it all.

Ok, I went back to mind any possible questions missed before your "troll" comment. The only possible question I could find without a direct response I could find was... What exactly determines the difference you perceive between "inside" and "outside"? What exactly is it which makes you so sure the dream exists only in the mind? To which I responded as part of the broader comments based upon your quoted text with... But, that still does not give you the object seen as being the same “stuff”. Your seeing the video game object in your “reality”, is just a bunch of software programming code in the outside/objective reality. The difference is sort of like the difference between a television transmission itself and what is “seen” on the television screen. Since that response did not seem to address your question, I will try again... What exactly determines the difference you perceive between "inside" and "outside"? What exactly is it which makes you so sure the dream exists only in the mind? While we were using a video game analogy, I assume by "inside" and "outside" you mean inside and outside of mind( or what I would call universal mind). By mind, I mean both active mind stream/activity and also the mind in a quiet/non-active state. In this case "inside" would be what you call Awareness, and this is the One that emerges from the Dao. The "outside" is the primordial Dao. A dream is mind based activity, so by definition it is happening in the mind. All thinking, seeing, percieving, etc... is mind based activity in my view. A dream is simply subconscious thinking/seeing stuff.

Yes, Dwai & I do just keep repeating the Dao = One or not point. But, on these unanswered question, I have now asked you to point them out a few times. I will go back on and see what I have missed and respond.

I honestly did not mean it to be trolling. Also, I was not attempting to take the counter point as this is the Hindu forum, just point out the logic issue back related to the original post I commented on. I am happy to either step away, or state my own personal premise and defend it in relation to the OP. Also, I am happy to directly answer any question specifically that you think that I have not responded to in the thread already.

And your body actually disappeared? Or, you just stopped noticing it for a few moments?

So you have directly experienced that your body is a product of awareness? Been consciously aware when you had no body?

I am saying something different with that post, and it goes to the perceptional nature of what you are calling "awareness" and the arguments you are supporting. While I am not personally stating this position, I believe it is the same logical flow as what you are stating and will meet all of the same awareness criteria stuff. The logic is as follows... There is no pure consciousness/awareness and you are just imagining that within your mind. You are simply a being with a body and mind/brain inside of your body. Awareness is a subset of Mind. This is easily proven given that you have no awareness without your mind, but the mind continues to do stuff and function when there is no awareness. Turn off the mind and all awareness stops, turn off the awareness and the mind can continue doing things. Hence, Awareness is a subset of Mind.

Awareness arises in mind. It is predicated on mind. When have you ever been aware of something outside of your mind? But, your mind continues to function when you are not aware. Take a coma (or deep sleep) as an example. You lose "awareness", but the body continues to function while you are not aware, hence the mind is still going and keeping things running. Try that one...

Now new definitions... I thought that objects were not separate, is not an object/thought also awareness?

No, that was your mind it was predicated on...

How do you know or aware of that? Did you directly experience it, read a book, or intuit it in some way? Also, how do you know that the mind was not simply empty or quiet?