Right, so you look at the person's relationship with their experience to determine your classification. Does your classification change the person's experience? Whether a person's awareness of their whole experience is narrow, deep or wide it is their experience, and their relationship to it, along with how they relate to themselves, forms their experience. Paranoid personalities, borderline personalities, narcissistic personalities may claim their own truth, but they also experience the conflict it creates in their experience, which ultimately is the conflict between their own ego and higher nature. If they have not the means to move beyond the conflict, the experience will continue to invite them into greater awareness until they do, often by means of conflict.
On Jun 15, 8:51 am, [email protected] wrote: > Paranoid personalities, religious and other fanatics of varying types, as > well as pathologically naricissisitic personalities - to name a few such > catogories of people - are utterly convinced that they are connected to what > they calim to be the absolute truth - a truth claim that others - not > afflicted with such unbalanced perceptions - would and do righly classify as > distorted and delusional. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Molly <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Jun 15, 2010 8:08 am > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: THE MEANING > > I think that in the same way that we know what we believe to be true > s true, that is, by the way we relate to our experience and others. > he harmony or conflict of our experience allows us to distinguish > elusion and fantasy from what is real and awakened imagination. > On Jun 14, 7:01 pm, [email protected] wrote: > The potential flaw in the idea that we are all part of God therefore all is > otentially knowable is that without utilizing critical > thinking how does one know that what they are assuming is absolute perfect > nowledge is not in fact simple delusion and fantasy? > > -----Original Message----- > From: DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:57 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: THE MEANING > > Oh BTW, you can read his book for free on-line! Here's the link; > > http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTekSMTCAContents.html > > On Jun 11, 3:52 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Coue' Stated in his book "Self Mastery Through Conscious > > > Autosuggestion that it is; > > > "... an instrument that we possess at birth, and with which we play > > > unconsciously all our life, as a baby plays with its rattle. It is > > > however a dangerous instrument; it can wound or even kill you if you > > > handle it imprudently and unconsciously. It can on the contrary save > > > your life when you know how to employ it consciously." > > > On Jun 11, 1:43 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > When I was an adolescent there was a remarkable recurring event many > > > > mornings, I would wake up within the minute before my alarm went off, > > > > sometimes even within ten seconds. > > > > Interesting DB, I recently ran across mile Cou 's autosuggestion > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mile_Cou). Even more interesting is how > > > > belief can unlock astounding properties, as evidenced by amazing > > > > examples of people and personal experiences. The limit is our > imagination. > > > > On 6/11/2010 1:05 PM, DarkwaterBlight wrote: > > > > > The Doorway the 11:11 > > > > > This can presently be perceived > > > > > as a crack between two worlds. > > > > > It is like a bridge > > > > > which has the inherent potential > > > > > of linking together > > > > > two very different spirals of energy. > > > > > As we unite together as One, > > > > > bringing together our fragments of the key, > > > > > we not only create the key, > > > > > but we make visible the Doorway. > > > > > Thus this bridge functions > > > > > as an invisible door > > > > > or a doorway into the Invisible realm. > > > > > The 11:11 is the bridge > > > > > To an entirely different spiral of evolution > > > > >http://globalpsychics.com/enlightening-you/numerology/1111.shtml > > > > > On Jun 11, 12:54 pm, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> I will quote gabby in response to that; "Thanks for overstanding!" I > > > > >> will now direct you to the time stamp on my last post which I will > > > > >> copy and past for your convienience since your's will not reflect the > > > > >> same time; > > > > >> I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are already part of God and > > > > >> therefore eternal with God! It is beyond our comprehension for the > > > > >> most part but it is scriturally based that all things are possible > > > > >> through HIM! Molly has suggested and is correct in that it is also > > > > >> scriturally based) that these things shall be revealed to whom HE > > > > >> shall reveal it. > > > > >> On Jun 11, 11:11 am, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Please take note and google The 11:11 phenomenon! > > > > >> May love, light and laughter fill your day! > > > > >> D.B. > > > > >> On Jun 11, 12:20 pm, Pat<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> On 11 June, 16:17, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are already part of God > and > > > > >>>> therefore eternal with God! It is beyond our comprehension for the > > > > >>>> most part but it is scriturally based that all things are possible > > > > >>>> through HIM! Molly has suggested and is correct in that it is also > > > > >>>> scriturally based) that these things shall be revealed to whom HE > > > > >>>> shall reveal it. > > > > >>> It may be scripturally based that all things are possible with God, > > > > >>> however it is not commensurate with logic, so there's a big > > > > >>> discrepancy between logic and THAT particular scripture. I would opt > > > > >>> for the logic on this one. Revealing things, which are themselves, > > > > >>> already done is, of course, logically possible. And, of course, as > > > > >>> there is only One omnipotent being, only THAT power could reveal all > > > > >>> to anything. But the human brain could not retain it. Only after > our > > > > >>> consciousnesses are free from material limitations could this be > > > > >>> possible. What God can't do, for example, is to stop being God. He > > > > >>> may be omnipotent, but cannot stop being omnipotent and still be God. > > > > >>> So, ALL things are not possible; rather, all possible things are > > > > >>> possible. And no one really needs scripture to believe that. ;-) > > > > >>>> On Jun 11, 11:11 am, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>>> Surely you would agree that since God is everything and we are thus > > > > >>>>> linked to God that, we, therefore are linked to everything as well. > y > > > > >>>>> virtue of HIS omniscience we, also, can tune into everthing! Not > all > > > > >>>>> things at any given time by any means but through HIM we may know > ll > > > > >>>>> things as they are revealed to us. Certainly not godhood but God's > > > > >>>>> likeness DOES, in fact, include His power, even to create, as Ash > as > > > > >>>>> suggested in another post. > > > > >>>>> On Jun 11, 6:19 am, Pat<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> On 11 June, 06:43, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> Pat, couldn't Molly's view be reconcilable with a quantum > > connectedness? > > > > >>>>>>> Perhaps a matter of 'tuning' in? > > > > >>>>>> Well, it's difficult to tune into everything--even with the best > of > > > > >>>>>> variable resistors. And anything less than that would not > ncomapss > > > > >>>>>> Godhood, as I see it. You can tune into several different > aspects, > > > > >>>>>> but there is no way that we, as humans, could ever achieve > > omnipotence > > > > >>>>>> as our form (and the requirements of our form, like oxygen, food, > > > > >>>>>> water, etc.) has limitations that prevent us from existing in > ertain > > > > >>>>>> places where these requirements don't also exist. We could try to > > > > >>>>>> tune into the 'background radiation' in the hopes that it could > ink > > > > >>>>>> us to the Big Bang, but even that might only result in an > > > > >>>>>> understanding of that Bang rather than lend us any glimpses into > > > > >>>>>> heaven, for example. Our quantum connectedness keeps us connected > o > > > > >>>>>> every other thing always, and that I firmly maintain and I believe > > > > >>>>>> there is no way to loosen that grip, as it were. However, it's no > > > > >>>>>> more than grasping a rope that's tied to a tree; grasping the rope > > > > >>>>>> doesn't make you one with the tree, although it does maintain a > ink. > > > > >>>>>> In order to be the tree as well, you need to be God, as only He > has > > > > >>>>>> the link to everything. > > > > >>>>>>> On 6/10/2010 7:24 AM, Pat wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> On 4 June, 18:20, Molly<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> "and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." - is how we > ttain > > > > >>>>>>>>> that level, through our own Christing. > > > > >>>>>>>>> Perhaps it comes down to believing, as the mystics do, that > > attaining > > > > >>>>>>>>> the spiritual level of Christ is possible for man, and that was > > > > >>>>>>>>> exactly the message he intended to deliver. Whether we assign > he > > > > >>>>>>>>> term "Christ", or buddha or Bodhisattva, or Son of God, the > > esstential > > > > >>>>>>>>> idea is the same, as I see it. What we do ourselves, we do for > > > > >>>>>>>>> everyone because through the eyes of God, we are everyone. > > > > >>>>>>>> I do agree, but with the fact that 'spiritual attainment' is > > possible > > > > >>>>>>>> for us all, not 'Godhood'. None of us can be all that exists, > as > > the > > > > >>>>>>>> rest of the universe would disappear if all the universe was > > contained > > > > >>>>>>>> in a particular human. I.e., that human, if they existed, would > e > > > > >>>>>>>> surrounded by vacuum and explode. Thus, there's little point to > > 'God > > > > >>>>>>>> incarnate' unless that is, exactly, the process behind the Big > > Bang. > > > > >>>>>>>> And, yes, I DO say that with tongue in cheek. > > > > >>>>>>>>> You don't have to agree. This is my humble view. > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 11:22 am, Pat<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 4 June, 15:28, Molly<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "I cannot be you. Nor can I be > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anyone other than myself. These are not possible." > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this is where we part ways, my friend. I contend that we ARE > > all > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> others, and ourselves, the One and the Many. Within us, we > re > > the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Father, Son and Holy Ghost as realized in the moment through > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> awareness. "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: > nd > > no man > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> knoweth the Son, but the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
