Nikolai1

Man, you're like some annoying yappy sixth former. Everything I argue of course I know to be complete nonsense, i don't need to be told it. If you tell me its nonsense, though, the nonsense is yours alone. But though I know the nonsense of my own words, I can tell a mile off a person who has found the truth and is trying to explain it. They speak nonsense, and it is confusing and paradoxical. Your words have a very vulgar consistency. You wrote a book with one half of the truth, and you have since repudiated it and write on these forums the other half of the truth. Big wide pendulum swings, so wide that you are forgetting you are swinging and you thnk you are headed in a straight like towards the truth. I want to see narrow little swings, within the space of a sentence I wish to see your confusion. Then you'll be conscious of it yourself and consciousness of your confusion is itself the truth.

Hi seeker, A good example, again, is the placebo effect in medicine. Patients are routinely given dummy pills, which is a form of lie (and some ethicists question if they should be used at all because of the deception involved), but which acts on the patients body and heals as if it were objective truth. I used to be a psychologist and I worked with cases where people were getting very upset about traumas that quite clearly didn't happen according to conventional understandings. Notice the operative term: 'convetional understanding'. There comes a point where it is literally impossible to determine objective truth except by appeal to convention. And groups of people, with group think mentalities, are no more reliable than individuals. What is humanity if not another group? All of this really hits home when we discern spiritual reality. This unspeakable truth is what both objective and subjective 'realities' attempt to simulate. But this truth can't be spoken of. In fact, the simulations aren't even simulations but are in fact it. When this is deeply understood, we start to notice that some stories bring expansion and peace whereas others bring contraction and despair. The wise person skillfully discerns which of these lesser truths liberates. To many people, to discover the illusion of objective reality is liberating...but if it means thinking everything is subjective then that liberation is short-lived and is just another prison.

My logic is the logic of non-logic. P is both P and not-P. It is both the highest logic and a travesty of logic.

But you are of course half right about the abuse of logic. There is a lot of flakiness out there. Just don't pendulum between the two.

Sorry Karl but you really have a lot to leanr in these matters. Perhaps it would help to reflect on the fact that logic requires predicates that are themselves not proven. Then it will be easy to see that any truth statement might be true or false depending on the predicate chosen. Next, apply this to what you call the objective world. All that is objective is also subjective. I wonder whether your fall out with the AYPers was in part due to your innocent belief in the truth of matters, and this led you into futile argumentation. This will ultimately hold you back in any yoga.

I am definitely going to do me one of these fasts!

Of course Karl that's not right - but disagreeing with you makes it right!

It is quite clear that the caretaker had already got inwardly annoyed by the not kneeling, otherwise he wouldn't have taken the OP to task. Who would get annoyed by such a thing? The exact same kind of person who would believe that Jesus was a Catholic. Narrowness of intellect and quickness to annoyance are the same thing. The caretaker was wrong, but at the same time, probably wasn't capable of any better so just ignored is probably the best course. Some people can't be spoken to, and in any given case this becomes obvious quite quickly.

It can be hard to argue with someone who thinks you should be kneeling. Not kneeling can always be called lack of humility, and so can arguing.

Very nice - but If that was true you wouldn't bother tub thumping for all your world of objective realities. You simply need to realise that in any given moment we can judge something as either real or ideal. In any given moment, one perspective is in the limelight, but in our heart we know and feel that the other perspective is also there, in the shadow. If something seems real, we still do not let it bother us...we cannot...because in a deep way we know it is a dream. If something seems unimportant and dreamlike, we still attend to it because deep down we know it is also real. This is wisdom. It is folly to set up this biocentrism as some great grand truth, but this guy is only led to do so because the grand truth of a big wide universe of matter is also a folly. It's a shame that you grasped what most find unbelievable, included the ideas in your book, and then scurried back to your original view. You still aren't synthesising. Synthesis IS a moment by moment endeavour, it is true, but the words of those who have achieved it have a characteristic ring.

If you're saying you were wrong then but right now, it seems to be like you are still penduluming,intellectually speaking. You are a curious one...you seem all out of balance. Like your brain hasn't caught up with the rest of you. You're a classic mystic, it seems to me. What do you think of that analysis. The philosophy was the weakness of the book, I agree, as spiritual biography it was wonderful, but it doesn't seem like you've got any better since.

There is no line that can be drawn between what a belief state can achieve and what it can't. A person who thinks they've been given a painkiller can have their leg sawn off without pain. That's big. But belief states can literally shape and form major events in our physical existence. As you talk about in your book, the world configures itself in line with our expectations. There is nothing outside our locus of control, unless we consent and believe in their being such things. The iron laws of nature, you could say are delegated by us. We allow them to take over when we wish to relinquish.

Howard Beecher who pioneered the need for placebo control in medical drug trials, was a WWII surgeon who ran out of morphine while on duty in Italy. He successfully performed pain free amputations after injecting salty water. The amputation was real, pain there was not, because of the state of mind of the a patient. The deeper point, and what you need to be careful of, is to not draw a distinction between real and imagined deafness. No difference can be justified. All we know is that there is deafness, which may be healed according to the beliefs of the patient. Some believe in doctors, others in shamans. Both are experts in their own approach.

Karl - the placebo effect is a good place to start when pondering the influence our state of mind has over our health. It is a major component of any healing, medical or crystal. Much of what you call scientific fact has come about by the power of placebo. This of course links back in with the OP.

Karl - you are in dire need of intellectual humility. You should read what is being offered more carefully.

The moment we say 'we once thought the world was that way but know we know it is this way' we are still basically indulging in materialism. This is still the case even if we start saying that 'living consciousness creates the reality as we know it.' We reify consciousness and turn it into a thing which can have causal influence in the world of time, space and matter. What biocentrism basically does is reintroduce conscious purpose. Before we had accidental physical laws and organisms evolve pd through random genetic mutation; now we have consciousness creating the laws and creating the appearance of the species. It makes no sense to turn this creative consciousness into a personal consciousness: no one is contented by solipsism. The consciousness must become cosmic...the consciousness must become God's. What Lanza is doing is reintroducing God, though he never really went away. God merely withdrew into the millions of individual creative consciousnesses. God became many egos, Lanza wishes him to become cosmic again. Every given pendulum swing towards or away from God is hailed as an exciting shift of paradigm. But to the wise it's simply boring. The truth we all seek is above all the talk, it is itself the talk.

You are so gifted at describing the energetics. Thanks spotless! I've tried fasting before but on day 3 or 4 I'm so weak that I can't contribute to family life. I think I don't feel able to say to my wife...'look can you cover for me as if im not here' Especially as I don't know if I would regain strength as you have.

Every then is also a now. Every object is also a subjective perception. If you can see this and never fall on one of the horns, then you have found somewhere else to go. You do not have to setttle on horn and insist it is the truth. The place you have found to go to, that is the truth. The place where everything material is also ideal, where all things in time are also eternal. Biocentrism is simply the other horn in the dilemma that most don't know exists. I encourage anyone to read the book, but make sure you hold something back. Don't fall for it!

Herbal tea fine, juice pushing it a little, potato, carrot and kale soup...well...i guess if you only drink the water there'll be very little energy in it so yes I suppose it is still fasting.

This biocentrism is just idealism with another name. All we need do is give it it's rightful place alongside the materialism of the scientists, accept the validity of them both, and find the truth beyond all the words. For 99% of the population, who are instinctive materialists, this biocentrism needs to be heard, accepted and then swiftly rejected before it sinks in and we get stuck there.

Soup is food. Fast over buddy!

...is a tribe in danger. Like the Jews of old, they have faiiled to adjust to the habits, mores and customs of the burgeoning majority. As time goes on their bizarre beliefs and their life suppressing moral codes grow increasingly out of step with those in our society that hold all the power. The Christian is a ridiculous, superstitious, morally reprehensible species. This is the growing viewpoint amongs that educated middle class Captains of the Western world. Chrisitans believe things that can't possiby be true because they were told to do so as children. Intellectual cowardice is another vice to add to their name. In the age of science, of fearless exploration - is there a greater crime? While the Christian mumbles those words about salvation that they have memorised but never understood, they do not realise that their lives and the lives of their children are in peril. It is the salavation of their mortal lives that is needed. Humanity has never tolerated such blatant non-conformity for long. Genocide will be the solution, as it always has been. What hope does the Christian have? The Christian must see the unimportance of their tribal customs. They must find the truth to which their customs, and the customs of the majority, are both but reprsentations. Through a process of fierce grace, the Christian is being called in a special way. It is now time to see the falseness in their customs, and the fasleness of the majority, and find the truth that unites them both. The Christian is a most fortunate creature. They have no choice but to transform!

It's the narrow-mindednessof the non-Christians that are the main problem.

I'm simply talking about an increasingly miltant attitude towards people who think a certain way. If you haven't noticed it then maybe you move in different circles to I.

There is a subtle but fundamental contempt for the religious mind amongst the conventional educated middle classes. Scientists are respected and listened to. It is everywhere. If you come from the conventional background like I do then it is a subtle embarrassment to espouse any views that are not materialistic. On Facebook, rleigious figures like the Pope are routinely held up for ridicule. These are my people, they are where I come from and they run society, they run the businesses, the schools and the government. And it can only get more pronounced. There is no prospect nor hope of a reprochement between this mindset and the Christina mindset of salvation from sin. The Christians must make the ultimate sacrifice. They must sacrifice their religion if they want to live.