Looking Beyond the Material

[tanguerra]

Beautifully put Nightrain1.

However, we are fortunate to have some spiritual guides, who, while in the flesh, inspire and attract like minds in order to provide us with real and identifiable examples of love, toleration and respect for the rest of the world to follow.

Indeed we have guides along the way. Some of them are in fleshly form, walking amongst us. The world, as wicked as it sometimes can seem, is full of fine examples of right ("beneficial") behaviour. If you think about it, there must be at least as many as (and hopefully more than) the seemingly abundant examples of misbehaviour of 'good' in the world. But for whatever reason it is the bad behaviour that seems to sell newspapers and dishwashing detergent best, so it is bad news we often hear the most of...


Without trying to steer the conversation off into morals or geopolitics too much, consider the 'examples' (heroes?) we have, in our current wonderous age of global society, to guide us in the direction of improving our lives by improving our behaviour. Consider how peaceful means can rally support to an issue and slowly but surely effect change - Al Gore (climate change), HH The Dalai Lama (freedom of religion and human rights in Tibet), Nelson Mandela (end of Apartheid), Aung San Suu kyi (struggling for democratic and human rights in Burma) ... Consider the extraordinary way that celebrities can draw attention to charitable concerns these days, and often do so... Global charitable organizations like Medecins Sans Frontierres, the Red Cross and Red Crescent... The list goes on. One only has to consult the Nobel Peace Prize winners list to realize that there is a great deal of good in the world and it does not go unnoticed or unsung. I'm sure everyone knows of some humbler or less celebrated person who has once set them a good example, whether through unexpected but much needed kindness, patience in times of trouble, care in times of sickness, generosity of spirit and of intellect.... the list could go on.


Yes, Charles, I believe there are 'spiritual guides' helping us as well, and yes, sellingmysoul, I think there does appear to be a pattern in the Universe. It appears to be a pattern of slow but certain evolution. Sometimes it happens so slowly we don't notice it. Sometimes it seems to be going in vast cycles and sometimes in tiny little circles. I don't think it moves in straight lines in any case. The patterns and the workings of it are surely a very large and complex pattern, probably too large and complex for our monkey brains to fathom entirely, clever as we are at figuring things out.

...But these are just small models of how our world could function when we (if we) continue to progress. I'm too much of a realist to hope that this will ever occur in our lifetimes...

But, perhaps, to get back to the point of Nightrain's post we are looking in the wrong places if we want this 'evolution' to occur more quickly - to 'fast track' it or at least make it as painless as possible? Perhaps we should be thinking about the refining, defining influence of love and compassion on the human experience? What would we be without it after all? Perhaps we should first look about us, look at each other and of course, always, look within? Perhaps we should not only look 'upward' - toward 'heaven' to guide us? As Jimi Hendrix once said 'When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.' People make war and poverty and hunger, and people not God (however you conceive Her) should figure out the solution for themselves and put it into action.


Just for fun, and by one of those quirky synchronicities, somebody sent me this link on Facebook and I have been thinking about it all night while I have been writing:


Speaking of

... "the duty of a Knight" to try when your arms are to weary, to love pure and chaste from afar, to bear with unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave do not go, to fight for the right without question or pause .... Enjoy.

 

[tanguerra]

Reincarnation proposes that this "real person" survives physical death to return to earth again and again as a human being. Instead of tracing all events to environment, to causes in our present life, or even to supernatural agencies, reincarnation shifts our attention to our inner self-heredity. We find that we are responsible [My emphasis. T.] for our present circumstances, for who we are now as well as who we will be in the future, because in former lives we have brought out of ourselves the character, abilities, and tendencies which are with us today. [My emphasis again. T.] These do not emerge as mere vague trends; we are drawn to a particular situation by causes we have set in motion which create an inner affinity. There are, for instance, specific reasons behind our being born into a particular family in a certain place and time...

It seems we are in general agreement on the important bits of this?

 

[usetawuz]

The problem I have with terms like "psychomagnetically" is that they are simply not defined. They are just tossed out there, without any real meaning being attached to them, and we are supposed to be impressed because they sound "scientific".
First, the psyche is made up entirely of non-material, and certainly non-magnetic substance, so to put "psycho" and "magnetic" in the same sentence, let alone the same word, is just utter nonsense. It's the kind of undefined, meaningless jargon that P.T. Barnum just loved (and that Madison Avenue still loves) because it "sounds" like it means something, even though it doesn't, and the unsophisticated are just wowed by it's authoritative sound. I'm reminded of the TV commercials of the 50's and 60's where every product had some "scientific secret ingredient" with a name reminiscent of algebra class or freshmen chem lab like Dial Soap's "AT-7" or Rinso Detergent's "solium".


Made-up words do not make something "scientific". Clear, unambiguous definitions, and well understood shared meaning for terms has to be the first step towards real understanding.


If someone can define "psychomagnetically", and if everyone can agree on exactly, and unambiguously what the word means, then we may have a starting point for deciding whether what it talks about is true or false. But as long as it is kept vague and undefined anybody can claim anything for this mumbo-jumbo "secret ingredient", and people will gobble it up, as if it means anything.

There are certainly "terms of art" which have definite and well understood meanings, but there are also ideas and concepts for which there are no set defining terms and existing terms must be made to suffice. I don't find a need to reject out of hand the terms chosen by the author to describe something which has yet to become well established, much less "true or false". On the contrary, in dealing with esoteric topics which cannot be proven and for which there are no established "terms of art", it seems to me the only choice is to use the words we have to create a basis for understanding on which others may find common ground.


In the present case, the author describes a thought of first impression, the term she used simply attempts to provide a brief allegory for that thought...in and of itself such a word does not reduce the "truth" of her concept. I read no attempt to "sell" or "convince" anyone of the truth of her posit, nor to base it on "scientific" tenets, but rather a desire to convey her thoughts and ideas in a brief manner. As for the term itself somehow providing a sense of authority and credibility to the gullible due to sounding psuedo-scientific, well I have no belief whatever in that.

 

[Eowyn]

Thank you, Deborah, for bumping this old thread, it's really what I've needed for a few days now, and it's filled with interesting thoughts. :thumbsup:


I often feel like a young soul here, but I'll add my own humble opinion on some of the things I've read.

Physical reality cannot be a subset of something so tiny and limited as a game of chess. The spiritual realm, with it's own independent laws and processes can't possibly be a subset of something as tiny and limited as physical reality. Heaven is not up in the clouds, it's not on one of the moons of Jupiter, it not in another galaxy far far away, it's not hidden in a black hole, or wrapped in dark matter. It's not physical. That's medieval thinking. Asking "where" is the spiritual realm is just a nonsense question. As long as you restrict your thinking to the physical realm, then the spiritual realm cannot be ANYWHERE. There is no place for it in the physical realm. It doesn't follow physical laws, and in fact, it is the ground, the foundation, the medium, the matrix in which the mere physical is manifest.


To put it in more extreme terms: If the physical realm ceased to exist, if ALL matter and ALL energy were to blink out of existence, if not one single atom of matter was left and not one single wavelength of energy could be found anywhere, the spiritual realm would still exist, because the spiritual realm is not physical, and does not depend on the physical for its existence. It is not matter. It is not energy. It is more basic, more fundamental, more foundational than either. It is that which makes matter and energy possible.

I have to agree completely with this. Words limit us. I don't doubt our science will explain some day the nature of our souls, the "essence" that lies beyond our cells and molecules and atoms, what makes us a whole conscious being and not only a body with a personality. But first science will have to break a lot of the conceptions it has created through the years, that can apply to matter, but not to something as complex as we are.


It somehow has reminded me of the way many people talk: "I am a body with a soul", or how they refer to their own spirit, as "my soul". It strikes me, as I've always said it the other way round: "I am a soul with a body". It seems I've always had this idea in my mind, it's my soul the one that prevails, and my body just the mortal coil I need to move and interact in the physical world.

Of course we all wish that this were true. But getting back to the science, Dr. Stevenson's works, and Carol's work too, show a consistent pattern: Those whose suffered trauma in a past life continue to suffer because of that in their next life. As much as we find the idea repulsive and repugnant, the reality is that it is the VICTIMS who carry the trauma from lifetime to lifetime, not the guilty. Putting aside wishful thinking, that's simply what the data says.

My own experience (though recent and short) tells me traumas are carried by both victims and guilty. I guess it's different for every person, but what I feel is that maybe traumas that are inflicted by others upon you have a more evident and strong effect on your soul, have a greater impact as they come with a lot of violence, and probably are unfair and harder to assimilate. Maybe that's the reason why they are more easily remembered. But when you are the perpetrator, the harm you're doing to yourself is less evident, you usually have a lot of excuses to justify yourself why you did it, you can live a lot of time thinking you were right, only to realize at the end that you should have make a better choice. Human justice may have played its role, but can't compare to the justice your own awareness will bring upon yourself as you walk the eternal path of life.


So, yes, I believe in karma, but in the way that Charles Stuart put it:

I view "karma" very much as the case of a zealous father or mother who will not hesistate to reprimand his/her child when the child behaves badly so that the child might LEARN, and in particular learn the notions that we ourselves try to implement into our kids. What zealous father or mother would not do so?


"What we do unto another comes back to us in double if not in triple" was something a Spiritual Guide once said to me. This doesn't just apply to "negative karma". It applies to "positive dharma" as well. As we are "All One", what we do unto another we are indeed doing unto ourselves as well. This is the perfection of the "Divine Justice"...


:thumbsup:

I believe we sometimes get lost in too profound spiritual questions, when it's as simple as that. We only have to choose between love or hate. Right or wrong. But not from the small, simple, "human" point of view, loving our relatives and close friends is the easy part. It's LOVE what we have to learn, at the grand scale, because as Charles said, we are ONE, we are the same, and wherever we do, we're doing it to ourselves.


My own words sound too simple for me, I'm far below the great reflections that have been made here. And however, it seems it takes ages for people to understand that (myself included).

Love is the synchronization of these qualities with the unified consciousness of the universe and Love is the synchronization of our energy to each other. I imagine it is like delicate wisps of ourselves reaching out to each other and our vibratory pulsing begins beating together or our color becomes the same shade. We are, at least for a moment, truly two hearts beating as one. We do this with everything and everyone to some greater or lesser extent.


Why do we seek this interaction? We crave the pleasurable experience we derive from this touching. Whether it is our love for a pet, compassionate love for a stranger, or flirtation with an acquaintance - it is the interaction of our spiritual energy on one level and our human physical reactions on another that make us seek out love and loving relationships. It is immensely thrilling, exciting, and satisfying to us on many levels and perhaps that is what brings us here to this Earth, again and again.

I can feel this. Or at least I want to. I often think it's not the higher purpose of our lives what really matters, but all these small interactions with people you don't even know, people you walk past in the street and smile at, what counts in the end. Maybe we're not conscious while we are incarnated how important these gestures are, but I'm sure they make a difference. We can feel infinite sadness for hunger and poverty in the world, but then we are unable to give a sandwich or some coins to the immigrant who waits at the supermarket's door. We feel guilty for the children dying of starvation in Africa, and then we don't care about gypsies living in infrahuman conditions in our same neighbourhood. That's heartbreaking for me. We blame the Goverments and we don't realize there are so many things we can do, if only we'd care about each other a bit more.


I also can feel the influence of spiritual guides, I even feel their frustration when they're trying we do things right and we keep making the same mistakes again and again, unable to intervene, as we'll always have our free will. It must be hard to be in their positions... no wonder they must be more evolved spiritual beings, only armed with love and compassion. : angel

 

[deborah]

You're welcome. Very nice reflections and thoughts regarding the topic. :thumbsup:

 

[deborah]

An older thread of interest.