The "others"

everytime i see the name of this thread, i keep thinking you're talking about the Nicole Kidman film!

So it seems that our ideas about others is really connected to our ideas about a creator/higher power or whatever it is you prefer call it.

Ha, NE, I think the same thing! It was a cool movie and when I was creating the thread I was thinking it has been a while since I've seen it and I need to watch it again, but I never got around to it. Thanks for the reminder!

Lotus, that actually isn't the video I was looking for, but it's a good one! I definitely remember a specific video of Bashar getting into a lot of detail about co-creating our realities with others but for some reason I can't find that video.

Oh well, no worries. The videos in this thread are more than enough to get the point across.

Lotus, thank you for your answer and for taking time to write it
I don't have much time today, but I just wanted to say that if me and Armine should ever go and see Bashar live, then you should definitely come with us.
I would pay triple to see the debate between Bashar and Lotus, live

Lotus ♥ wrote:
The illusion, and the real surprise, is not the change or transformation that happens to them. Rather, the illusion is that they (or we) are the same person they were yesterday, or even only a minute ago. They are not. We only "perpetuate" them through our memories of them, and we do exactly the same with ourselves. It's only your memory that makes you believe you're the same Lunar you were yesterday. And because this is what you believe, this is what you manifest, and you end up the same Lunar. This is precisely how the mind maintains and perpetuates your illusory "persona."

So important and in the same line as self concept (I AM). Our remembering of who we think we are is what keeps us experiencing who we think we are. That can be shifted any day or any moment, by deciding- simply making the choice to 'remember' we are something else and to consistently choose it until that is the dominant memory of who we think we are: on time, happy, wealthy, helpful, loved, productive, successful, influential, etc....

Thank you, ladies, and my apology for this late answer. I just had to come back to Posay and the players as soon as possible so my free time lately was fully dedicated to this game, trying to understand it first myself so that I can explain it to others. Although the web is full of materials "on" this game, nowhere could I find exactly what the rules are and how to actually play it. So I had to go to the next level: read "books" and lengthy PDFs to get a handle on it, finally.* I hope you'll kindly excuse my lateness.


Selina:
Yes, I'm that late. I commented neither on your post here nor on Piaf's Padam Padam, the gift you graciously sent to me on your Shiny Pretty, Happy thread. Thank you my dear princess for all this beauty you keep sending and all this fragrance you keep breathing onto our boards. My appreciation is beyond words, although my expression might be late or inadequate.

So, my dear sir, this is never, not even on my most active days, a Selina Concerto. It is, and always will be, the Le Cafe Concerto.

Yes, definitely. I only meant the "solo" we each may play at one point or another. Besides, we're on "The Others" thread, so there was a pun here implied. At least according to Bashar, Le Cafe Concerto is indeed your own Selina Concerto. You're the only musician playing here; everyone and everything else is only a projection from your own mind, and every scene in the external world is but a snapshot of your inner scene.

Sweet signature by the way. I love it. In fact, Wuthering Heights and Anna Karenina, along with a short and less known piece from Márquez (No One Writes to the Colonel) were the earliest novels ever in my life and I therefore very, very dearly cherish particularly these three masterpieces.


Night:
Selinas not alone... i'm always here i just dont have the intelligence to respond to half her posts... or yours Lotus... its going to take me at least 3 reads... then you'll probably get a 3 line response..... if we were talking about it, i could have a lovely face to face conversation on these subjects... but writing my thoughts down has always been another story for poor Night Eyes...

Poor Night Eyes. . .? Who doesn't have the inelegance to respond. . .? Why do you say so about yourself? I was just talking about the power of words; the true and literal magic of language and its symbolism. Writing these words, you just "hexed" yourself, ma'am. From the moment you wrote this post on, your intelligence has certainly dropped even if slightly. So no, my dear; never think so about yourself, even if it seems to be true. More importantly, never "articulate" such thoughts and put them in "words" and then say them out loud. Most importantly, never, ever, ever "write" it down. Magic is all about writing. Writing gives your thought a "physical base" that perpetuates its effect on you. Think of your thoughts and words as wandering "souls" that have no "body." Writing—and I mean these very letters you write down—gives them a body and thus helps them endure and live on. Yes, my friend; we are that powerful. We do create literally with our words.

What if you instead wrote you were so intelligent and bright? Do this everyday for only one week, please, and then come back to Selina's posts and mine, half of which you think you can't easily respond to right away. No, ma'am, you can; you're just under a spell from a very powerful witch here called Night Eyes.

(Also thanks for your Amazing Grace, Night. I was actually surprised by your choice; I'm endlessly fond of both this song and this group. Thank you).


Posay:
I never thought about it like this before and wow, talk about MIND BLOWING.
Nope. "Seven billion worlds in one mind instead of seven billion minds in one world" is first mind-bending, then mind-humiliating, then finally mind-blowing and exploding. lol. Not my own thought or "genius" though. The weirdest I could ever figure out on my own was that we might be living in a "dream" here (and I was very proud of it in my early teen years until I found out that half of the world's population had had the same thought at one time or another in their lives.) lol

Thanks for the hilarious photo, Posay and sorry I truly didn't have a chance to comment last time, neither on your post nor on the two ladies' above.


Kazoo:
Lotus, that actually isn't the video I was looking for, but it's a good one! I definitely remember a specific video of Bashar getting into a lot of detail about co-creating our realities with others but for some reason I can't find that video.

Perhaps you mean his so called "Soul Agreements." Before we were born, he claims, our High Self(s) or souls agreed that we'd interact a certain way when we get here into this physical reality. This is how he occasionally explained away a lot of misery and injustice in the world. Needless to say, I'm totally against this "soul agreement" notion. This is actually my main disagreement with Bashar, and while I can justify and even easily resolve what might seem to be "contradictory" in his teachings, particularly this one has no justification in my humble opinion. He, it seems, just took the "computer game" analogy too far, assuming we are here only "avatars," inside the computer, but there are still "actual players"—High Self(s)—playing the game.

One measure of truth, my friends, is its "simplicity." Truth is always simple. It might be paradoxical, but simple. So if ever hesitant between two models, maps or views, always go with the simpler. Thanks Kazoo.


Lunar:
I don't have much time today, but I just wanted to say that if me and Armine should ever go and see Bashar live, then you should definitely come with us. I would pay triple to see the debate between Bashar and Lotus, lives

I'd love to come with you, of course, but only to see him (and you).   I guess I'd never have a debate with Bashar. I rather love this guy and always think of him as a beautiful good old man. Why argue with him or ever raise any doubt about the validity or authenticity of his teachings? Actually he's doing a great job, bridging the gap between, say, Stephen Covey, Brian Tracy or even Napoleon Hill and the Buddha—or between self-development and enlightenment. People, who get to listen to Bashar, probably coming from the LOA route, might be intrigued to go even one more step further in order to fully understand how the show is running. In fact, the mere fact that you listen to Bashar and believe him and are still unable to manifest your desires or design your reality as you really want could itself be the drive that pushes you forward—particularly in this direction; to explore those spaces your mind always labeled as "Spiritual" and put aside for "some time later."

Finally with Buddha, or Sankara or any of those greatest teachers, you'd learn, for example, about the principle of "Dependent Origination"—just for example:


In order for you to exist here and now, Buddha said, there had to be a father and a mother. Yes? But there had to be the Earth and the Sun as well. Right? Now ask the same question again; where did the earth and sun, let alone your parents, come from? If you followed this simple logic to the end, you'd find out that everything in the universe, right from the Big Bang, had orchestrated in endless chains of cause-and-effect in order for you to exist, here and now. You are the result or end-product of almost infinite number of events and actions over the course of billions and billions of years.

So is everything else, in every single moment. Everything is constantly "arising" together, "emerging" together, depending on each other, in one cosmic dance.

Now with this in mind, following a very simple logic, what the heck is a "Soul Agreement" between our High Self(s)? No, we're just transmitting and vibrating at certain frequencies, and our vibration is both an effect of all that happened and a cause of all that will happen, the world over. So at some point in space-time, 30+ years ago, the total vibration of the universe, on all levels, particularly at this point "resulted" in the emergence of what we now call "Lunar." It is that simple!

Thus fortunately or unfortunately there is no such thing as divine plans, prior agreements, metaphysical contracts, or any of such mythology-like events. You're here between only two choices: either your Mind and the endless, captivating illusions of the world, or your Truth—your staggering truth, totally beyond your mind to ever comprehend. Sankara once wrote: That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman—that you are.



Armine:
So important and in the same line as self concept (I AM). Our remembering of who we think we are is what keeps us experiencing who we think we are. That can be shifted any day or any moment, by deciding- simply making the choice to 'remember' we are something else and to consistently choose it until that is the dominant memory of who we think we are: on time, happy, wealthy, helpful, loved, productive, successful, influential, etc….

A post worth copying here in full, my friend; thank you. I might only add, if you don't mind, that "understanding," prior to the "choice" or "decision," is essential. It's hard to "decide" to be happy for example if I'm "actually" feeling sad, or worried, or afraid. In fact, this may rather reinforce our sadness or worry or fear. So we should first ask one simple question: who's sad? Who's troubled? Who's afraid? That sad or troubled or afraid is not us. It's an utter illusion, only in our mind, that we're identifying with; mistaking for who we really are. Truth is, we cannot be sad, or worried or afraid. Thus from this moment on, from this WHO question or reminder on, it's up to you—to either willingly choose to live in this illusion and perpetuate this drama (the choice most people make ironically) or rather re-identify yourself as "an eternal, infinite, indestructible being," as our beloved Bashar usually puts it. (Yet another important video of his). Thanks Armine.


_____________________________

* This shouldn't cause any embarrassment or put Posay or anyone under any obligation though. You feel like playing, go ahead; you don't, don’t. I'm cool either way, perfectly fine with the "outcome" of this extra effort whatever it might be (no "attachment" to my "actions," in other words). Besides, my main motive was never the game, or even this whole forum, but "you" to have a joyful and beautiful experience—playing a game, or just watching how I, for some unfathomable reason, put myself every now and then in such ordeals; taking on tasks I'd have never started had I known in advance the effort and troubles involved. loool

Thanks so much everyone for the wonderful disucssion.

I was thinking about this thread: https://lecafe.forumotion.com/t42-the-only-book-einstein-wrote-an-introduction-for and how it relates to this discussion.

Lotus, even after your persuasive contributions and explanations in this thread I still have to say that for some reason Bashar's explanation just resonates with me more strongly for some reason. That could be because it aligns moreso with my idea of a "higher power". But in thinking of the issues discussed on the other thread about telepathy it would actually lend some credence to your explanation. Or maybe not, I have to consider it. I definitely believe in an "interconnectedness" but perhaps I don't want the "responsibility" that your explanation implies!

This is all definitely thought provoking but I'm still not sure if it's made me solidify my beliefs. I suppose I'm still open to all possibilities and OK with not being 100% sure about it.

Hi Kazoo. No, I didn't mean to be "persuasive" at all, or for my views to "replace" Bashar's. In my first post here I said I wouldn't add any more to the mental confusion this paradox inevitably imposes on our mind. This topic, like the "Letting Go" topic, reminds me of Vivekananda's favorite example of the pearl and oyster: "You know how pearls are made. A grain of sand or something gets inside and begins to irritate it, and the oyster throws a sort of enameling around the sand, and this makes the pearl. This whole universe is our own enamel, so to say, and the real universe is the grain of sand. The ordinary man will never understand it, because, when he tries to, he throws out more enamel, and sees only his own enamel."

In other words, the more we try to explain, the thicker the veil becomes and the further we rather move from the truth. Truth is to be "realized" experientially, as Buddha taught, not "understood" intellectually. Thus from the beginning I decided not to just throw out more enamel. I only explained "why" I disagree with Bashar, and I only meant to present another "perspective" in parallel, not in comparison or in competition. If I really wanted to persuade  you, or anyone, so that you may choose my view or model over his, I'd have rather taken a step back and started from the real beginning—with the concept of "self" not "the others." I'd have asked, first of all, who are you? You're not your body. You're not your mind. You're not your beliefs or thoughts or feelings. Then who are you? The "self" is the foundation of my arguments and the primary understanding my view is wholly based upon. If we could first establish or agree about what we really mean by the "self," we'd then more clearly understand this "others" paradox—and more easily detect the flaws in Bashar's model or at least presentation.

So it's OK, I'm fine either way. I even said his model is better or at least easier than mine if you just want to "manifest." Only if you want to "understand," it'll be misleading.

But in thinking of the issues discussed on the other thread about telepathy it would actually lend some credence to your explanation. Or maybe not, I have to consider it. I definitely believe in an "interconnectedness"

Exactly, my lady. "Interconnectedness" is key. We're all interconnected. How could this be possible? How is it possible that I can communicate mentally with you? More interestingly, why is it so that if you truly believed someone was say nice, they'd most probably act nicely with you? Why is it so that if you truly believed that someone was sick or bad or evil, they'd reflect your beliefs and show you just that? The answer to all such questions: Because it's all One Mind. This is exactly what I'm saying. Although I don't know what you had for dinner last night, nor do you know what I had—thus apparently we are two separate entities with two separate minds—we still share a deeper level of the mind, on which what I think and know and believe is what you also think and know and believe. In fact, this separate, individual or personal mind is but a very thin layer of THE mind. Right below this "conscious" surface of the mind, starting even with your own subconscious mind, everything is different and the mind has a "holistic" nature. This is actually how the Law works. When you consistently and firmly believe you are, say, wealthy, everyone in the world will know it, through this common mind, and the entire energy of the universe will start moving this way, according to this new "setting" of vibration, dealing with you as a "center" of wealth or abundance not lack and poverty—thus more contacts, more deals, more offers, more opportunities, etc. That's because now you ARE wealthy. Because now this is your "definition" on the deeper level of the mind—the level that actually functions as the "template" of creation.

This doesn't mean that every belief will necessarily manifest. . . I just noticed you started another discussion on belief so let me expand a little on this subject.


This doesn't mean that every belief will necessarily manifest. Many of what we call "beliefs" may never reach beyond the individual mind to access that deeper mind of all. The mentally disordered for example have their own beliefs, very firm and solid, yet they never manifest, rather remain as individual hallucinations and delusions. Jesus, on the other hand, could manifest Lazarus out of even death. How could he do it? Because Jesus, through his "oneness" with the Father, had direct access to that deeper, level of the mind, the very template of creation, on which Lazarus, indeed, was neither dead nor alive. Jesus' first word was, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep," (exactly the same he said about Jairus' daughter: "The girl is not dead but asleep.")

On the individual level of the mind, this doesn't really mean a lot, does it? Believe "Lazarus is asleep" for as long, as much and as deep as you please, Lazarus will never arise from the dead. However, on the deeper level of the one mind of all, "Lazarus is asleep" becomes the main signal of "reality" itself. A new "transmission" or "projection" of the whole "show." It literally re-shapes the world—or to be accurate, everyone's "perception" of the world, because after all there is no such thing as "the world" really out there. It's just a "projection" all along, only in our minds like a dream, and particularly from this template-level of the one mind of all.

In other words, "Lazarus is asleep" was not what Jesus "personally" believed, in his own "individual mind." Rather, it was a "re-definition" of Lazarus on the template level of the mind, thus a re-definition to be "perceived" by EVERY individual mind, because this template level is the "mother" mind that feeds all individual minds and constantly provides them with what we call "reality."

Back to "the others" in brief: Just remembered this picture. My whole model is in this one picture and, truly, a picture is worth a thousand words:

You look at the wall and say there are seven billion flowers (people); I look at the Source and say they are all light, and all ONE light. They only look "separate" and "different" because of the box and how their shapes were cut out. The box here is the "mind." So it's the mind that makes the ONE appear to be MANY. Yet the truth is, they're all one—and YOU are this one. You are not a separate flower on the wall, but the Light in every flower over there. (What else could you be? Remember, there is no flower really; it's just an "appearance" or a "projection" from the mind. So either you don't exist at all, as the Buddhist say, or you are the Light, the Source itself, as we the Advaitin say).


There's still much more that we can read in this one single picture. But let me at least emphasize again that the world on the wall appears so because this is how those different shapes were cut out from the box. Therefore, if we could reach this box, this level of mind I call the template of creation, we'd then be able to "re-cut" or modify reality itself—for example re-cut a cell healthy instead of cancerous, a bone intact not broken, a chemical structure of wine not water, or a Lazarus asleep not dead. We can even cut out new shapes altogether, which will then appear on the wall or the screen as "materialization" out of thin air (a feat that many are known to have accomplished, not just Jesus, the last of whom was Sai Baba in India). It's not really materialization; it's just "projection" of "consciousness," and our physical reality even scientifically speaking is much more malleable and pliable than most of us are ready to believe.♥

Yes, the theme of "interconnectedness" contains the elements of self, a "higher power" and others. Like I said in another thread, I'm ok with some mystery surrounding these things. It keeps things interesting. And I'm fine with there being multiple explanations that all make sense.

That picture you posted really does help to illustrate nicely what you are saying.

I do think that while there is curiosity about the "bigger picture" just for a better understanding overall, I do think tho that of course the primary motivation most have is to make the most of our lives by manifesting a pleasant and happy existence. So I'm also fine with two separate lines of discussion as well, a simple model to be applied for manifesting and another deeper explanation that gives a better understanding of the universe.

In your example of the person who wants to be wealthy, you say that their individual belief that they are wealthy can facilitate this "through this common mind, and the entire energy of the universe will start moving this way" but in other instances, the actor or the mentally ill person this doesn't happen?

Lotus posted: " Therefore, if we could reach this box, this level of mind I call the template of creation, we'd then be able to "re-cut" or modify reality itself—for example re-cut a cell healthy instead of cancerous, a bone intact not broken, a chemical structure of wine not water, or a Lazarus asleep not dead. We can even cut out new shapes altogether, which will then appear on the wall or the screen as "materialization" out of thin air (a feat that many are known to have accomplished, not just Jesus, the last of whom was Sai Baba in India). It's not really materialization; it's just "projection" of "consciousness," and our physical reality even scientifically speaking is much more malleable and pliable than most of us are ready to believe." end of quote.

This is exactly what, I think, most want from studying and practicing LOA.  They want to be able to get what it is they want, and, get it, now.

Like you say, Lotus, it's not really materialization, but, a projection, into our physical reality. If it can be projected, and, the mind holds the belief that it is real, wouldn't the projection hold?  That is, the results are permanent.  That which you wanted, believed, and, finally received ( manifested ).  It may start off as an illusion, a projection, but, when the mind accepts the projection as " physical reality ", does this not become physical reality?  Even to the point all around experience it, too?

Assuming the following are not stage magic,  those present, all experience the same manifestation. ( Both Yif and Cyril amaze me with what  they both do )

I think the first one can be subtitled in the youtube menu for english. At about 8:50, watch what happens to the " fork ". Truly amazing.

Thanks Kazoo. I apologize for expanding on the subject of "Belief" here not in the other thread. I just knew I wouldn't be able to share in two threads or discussions in parallel. Also that was only a quick contribution that "interconnectedness" here brought up, still in the broader context of "The Others" topic. But let's move today to the other thread since you graciously put my words there.

Rodan: You've been dearly missed; how are you, my friend? Thank you for your post and for those amazing videos. Truly amazing despite the possibility these might only be tricks and slight-of-hand, Houdini-style magic. I believe the fork-bending though thanks to Uri Geller. Spoon-bending was a fad in the 1970s because of him and I heard many could do it then. It's easy if you know how to do it, or on what to focus while doing it. Some for example say you have to be "one with the spoon" so it's actually you who bend not the spoon. Anyway this one might be for real. More soon, in the Limiting Beliefs thread. ♥

No need to apologize! I apologize for moving that part of your post! I'm just a little particular about orderliness and it's hard to know where to post what when all of these topics overlap!

@Lotus:

Good to see you, too, Lotus, my friend. ( have a lot going on, trying to keep up with the pace, you know how it is )

After doing a little of of checking, those magicians probably just used tricks/illusions, which, I kinda thought they did.

You mentioned Uri Geller, I was always a fan of him.  The media and James Randi put him through the mill back in his heyday.  It didn't help Geller, either, when he couldn't perform his telekinisis on NBC's Johnny Carson Tonight Show, a lot of years ago.  You can still find that segment on youtube.

My thoughts on it, he wasn't prepared for it, and didn't know Carson was going to ask him  to do some of his stuff.  And, there are reports of Geller using illusion during some of his shows.

Spoon/metal bending can be done through illusion. There is even a special metal now that magicians can use, where the fork or spoon is completely solid, hard, but, when it's heated, ( body heat from hands, fingers ) the metal softens and bends easily.  ( found a youtube on that one )

Magic.  When a magician comes up with a new trick, a new illusion, many who follow the performances " believe " the magic is real, until, one day, the illusion is revealed, and, those that had believed feel they had been tricked.  

" Real " life is like this.  Until we discover what makes something work, it's either magic or a miracle, until a science shows how it works.  

It is all a projection.  When our minds experience something new, we want to figure it out, find a rational explanation for it.

Today, if we could communicate with someone on the other side of the world, just through our thoughts, overcoming not only distance but language barriers, we would think it's magic. We are actually very close to being able to do it. 35 to 50 years from now, your " smart phone " will be a part of you. In your body. Your " screen " will be your mind. Telepathy will be common place.

rodan wrote:Today, if we could communicate with someone on the other side of the world, just through our thoughts, overcoming not only distance but language barriers, we would think it's magic.  We are actually very close to being able to do it.  35 to 50 years from now, your " smart phone " will be a part of you. In your body.  Your " screen " will be your mind. Telepathy will be common place.

Someone's talking about future technologies...mannnnnn I've been waiting to manifest this.  

Contact lenses will one day contain our computer screens, there will be no need to look at a computer because everything will be controlled by our minds:





we already have brain-powered gadgets, but these will get more fine-tuned and elegant in future

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/brain-controlled-gadgets/

Telepathy will be endemic yes. But I wouldn't say it isn't commonplace already. After all we've all of us here probably experienced telephone telepathy. Even my dad (probably the greatest skeptic alive) has to acknowledge telephone/email telepathy or at least the fact that it SEEMS to exist.

We're not as good as dogs who know their owners are coming home (for a famous example, Elizabeth II, her kennels would come alive long before her car was in sight or even canine hearing distance). But we have premonitions and we commuicate telepathically. Lol. The whole RS idea is based on it. Mental influence is real, people. There are tribes in the Amazon rainforest (if I'm remembering correctly) that communicate via telepathy on a regular basis. It's their electronic communication device, metaphorically, given that they have no electronic communication devices. Explorers brought home amazing tales about them.

Maybe in future we won't even need our smart phones to be part of us. Maybe our consciousness will be so developed that we will all be able to use telepathy at will and with the greatest accuracy.

More later.

rodan wrote:
Today, if we could communicate with someone on the other side of the world, just through our thoughts, overcoming not only distance but language barriers, we would think it's magic.  We are actually very close to being able to do it.  35 to 50 years from now, your " smart phone " will be a part of you. In your body.  Your " screen " will be your mind. Telepathy will be common place.

Phantasm wrote:
Maybe in future we won't even need our smart phones to be part of us. Maybe our consciousness will be so developed that we will all be able to use telepathy at will and with the greatest accuracy.

Initially I thought Rodan was gonna say in the future as soon as somebody dies we can call them on a smart phone and ask if they made it to the other side ok
I found it amusing because when my mom died I had a dream a couple days later in which she called me on my phone and the connection was really bad, I could barely hear her. She said she has been busy getting settled in and that she was very happy with my decision of having her cremated and told me where she wanted to have the ashes buried. It was extremely rare to cremate someone in my country and I made sort of a flash decision when she died, even though I had never asked her how she really wanted to be buried. Then at her funeral one of her friends came to me and said that she had happened to talk to my mom a couple weeks before her death and for some reason funerals came up and my mom had told her that she wanted to be cremated when she died.

Also get this- the first Christmas after my mom's death when I went to her grave, everything was covered with snow and there were no footprints whatsoever around her grave, but there was a freshly lit white candle (literally like JUST lit) on her grave. HOW did it get there? All my family was with me and the place is out in the country so we would have no idea either who it would have been, plus the fact there were no footprints and the snow was thick was just spooky.

Lunar i've had that experience with my mum too

it wasn't just after she died but it was a year or so after, i fell asleep on the sofa and i had this dream she rang me and was talking down the phone to me.... i cant remember what she was saying but it was one of the most realistic dreams i've ever had

freaked me out a bit though!

Phantasm posted: " Contact lenses will one day contain our computer screens, there will be no need to look at a computer because everything will be controlled by our minds:"

Never thought of that! That makes perfect sense! I've been trying to think of how they were going to provide a " screen " that would be capable of viewing on the " body smartphone ".

Lots in your thread, Phantasm. Like the pic of the eye. That's going to be my new Windows background. Thanks.

lunereclipse posted: " Initially I thought Rodan was gonna say in the future as soon as somebody dies we can call them on a smart phone and ask if they made it to the other side ok "

Now, that's another something I've never thought of! It wouldn't be too wild to think that once we are fluent in telepathy, we can easily communicate with those who have passed on.

rodan wrote:You mentioned Uri Geller, I was always a fan of him.  The media and James Randi put him through the mill back in his heyday.  It didn't help Geller, either, when he couldn't perform his telekinisis on NBC's Johnny Carson Tonight Show, a lot of years ago.  You can still find that segment on youtube.

My thoughts on it, he wasn't prepared for it, and didn't know Carson was going to ask him  to do some of his stuff.  And, there are reports of Geller using illusion during some of his shows.

Hi Rodan.

Uri Geller's psychokinetic powers in general, not only his spoon-bending skill, were examined, proved and documented in scientifically-controlled experiments in the lab—even in several labs and by several scientists. I'd especially mention here his experiments with famous physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ of Stanford Research Institute and their paper on him, which they presented then at a physics colloquium at Columbia University. We can find more on this and other experiments (and other Uri Geller's) in a very important book titled The Roots of Consciousness by Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove (available on the web). So no, Uri Geller was not a fake, that's for sure.

But apart from Geller and what he really did or could do, let's carefully read the following two paragraphs from the same book mentioned:

"Another study the Berkeley research group conducted was a follow-up survey of the reactions of individuals who had witnessed Geller's performances. Many people reported experiencing unusual visual or telepathic phenomena and several reported that, after watching Geller's demonstrations, they also were able to produce various psychokinetic effects.  On occasions when I have broadcast radio interviews with Uri, dozens of listeners have reported psychokinetic phenomena in their own homes.

Perhaps even more remarkable, thousands of individuals in England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Japan have reported that they can also use PK (psycho-kinesis) to bend spoons after having only seen Geller on television…."


How can you explain this?

Simply, when Geller did it, everyone or at least many thought it could be done. The scope of "The Possible" therefore expanded in the Collective Mind, and many therefore could do it. (This actually did happen several times before in our history, even with clearer and more credible examples of those who could re-define "The Possible" for humans when only one individual could do it.)*

The ruling elite of the world, therefore, had to work on the same collective level of the mind and to spread "doubt" through the media as well, in order to prevent the masses from tapping any further into that potential. Thus, ironically, while SRI scientists were still presenting the case of Geller at Colombia University, Time magazine quite daringly, and quite rudely I may add, just said he was a fake! Bending a spoon is not the issue, needless to say. The problem was the "implications" of this simple act, and the "consequences" that would've followed had everyone just known they could bend hard metals using only their mind.


___________________________

* For example the Four-Minute Mile barrier. Through the entire recorded history, it was well known that humans can't run a mile in less than 4 minutes. Every runner and every coach and trainer everywhere knew it. That was just impossible. And the best of the best runners worldwide, however hard they tried, could never break that barrier. (The record was precisely 4:01.4, set in 1915). In May 1954, however, the British Roger Bannister did it for the first time ever in history. He just broke the human barrier and set a new astonishing record of only 3:59.4. "The Limit" was thus broken and "The Possible" was redefined in the collective mind! Only 46 days later, ironically, the Australian John Landy did it again! Then came another, and then another, and within only one decade many did break the historical barrier, including amateurs and even two high-school teens.

@Lotus:

Quoted from Wikipedia:

" The parapsychologist Andrija Puharich met Geller in 1971 and endorsed him as a genuine psychic. Under hypnosis, Geller claimed he was sent to earth by extraterrestrials from a spaceship fifty-three thousand light years away.[43][44] Geller would later deny the space-fantasy claims, but affirmed there "is a slight possibility that some of my energies do have extraterrestrial connection."[45] Puharich also stated that Geller teleported a dog through the walls of his house. However, science writer Martin Gardner wrote as "no expert on fraud was there as an observer" then nobody should take the claim of Puharich seriously.[46]

In his biography of Geller, Uri: A Journal of the Mystery of Uri Geller (1974) Puharich claimed that with Geller he had communicated with super intelligent computers from outer space. According to Puharich the computers sent messages to warn humanity that a disaster is likely to occur if humans do not change their ways. " End of Quote

It's been a while, but, I've read Uri first book ,an autobiography, and, the first book Mr. Puharich wrote about him.

When Uri was a small boy, he had strange things occurring to him. Those experiments on him done at Stafford are credible, along with Mr. Puharich's detailed work with Uri.

I have a hard time believing Uri discounts his early life's description of where he got his abilities. ( Intelligent extraterrestrial computer, I think it was called Spectra )

I think he said so, because the world just wasn't ready for that kind of information yet. That's why the bad publicity from the TV shows, newspapers, magazines, magicians. etc.

Just like you mentioned, Lotus, there is documentation of those events where people who listened to his interviews on radio shows, where spoons would bend, broken watches worked again, etc. in various homes across Europe,

Just "confusion," Rodan.  A lot of confusion. The 1970s was a very confused and confusing decade especially in the United States, and the landing of man on the moon for the first time made that decade truly the "Age of Space." Everyone everywhere was simply talking about this new "dimension" that just opened up before humanity, and everyone everywhere was inspired by the endless possibilities. It's in this context that Bashar, Abraham and myriad of other extraterrestrial beings, spaceships, super-computers and other "mental constructs" found their way to our Collective Consciousness, and people back then were generally much more open to the idea.

Gellar simply appeared in that "context" and in that "culture." That was the language of the time back then. It's like replacing today the word "demons" with the word "viruses" as the cause of illness. Once upon a time humans ascribed every kind of madness to the devil(s); today, to neural/chemical disorders. Similarly, the "inspirations," the "psychic powers" and all other "phenomena" that Gellar and Bashar and others "experienced" had no "name" or "source" or even "explanation" in their time. They therefore ascribed these experiences to the most common and culturally-present source in their day: Extraterrestrials.

So the story of Gellar is full of confusion—now we see better in 2015. To find out the truth about him, therefore, we have to stick to the scientifically-controlled experiments and lab results—regardless of what he might have said himself or thought to be the source of his powers. ♥

When we experience phenomena that can't be rationally explained, we tend to label it with what definitions our limited minds have in store.

Go back even before the seventies, if someone performed telekinesis, they were thought to be using witchcraft, sorcery, or, they were " of the devil ".

It couldn't be scientifically explained, so, it must be illusion, trickery, magic.

It is 2015, and, with the world wide web and smart phones, many still can not accept telepathy, telekinesis, etc. It's still called illusion, magic, etc.

Back on Uri Gellar, now in his late sixties, has found a comfortable life, and tired of trying to explain to the world the reason for his powers. Let the world think it's all illusion, like David Blaine, Cris Angel, David Copperfield, etc.

Lotus wrote:Back to "the others" in brief: Just remembered this picture. My whole model is in this one picture and, truly, a picture is worth a thousand words:

I don't know anything about spoons but I'd like to get back to the one mind stuff and parallel realities.

There is a question that has to be asked and it relates to reincarnation as well.

WHOSE mind. WHO are we. So let's call ourselves strips of consciousness, whatever, flowers even, I don't care. We're little cut-outs of the whole. But WHAT separates us. Is there something to separate us. I need to know that.

Okay look.

You are a person, right?

Let's hope so. I hope you, reading this, are not a mushroom.

Okay, you're a person, with your own personality, worldview, beliefs, and stuff.

If you make decision A you end up in Reality A.
If you make decision B you end up in Reality B.

Obviously, both versions of you exist.

All this talk of quantum jumping and stuff though that we get. WHO makes the jump. Because both of you exist. The observer is there in both cases. Where do "you" end and where do "you" begin?

Quantum scientists are confused by this too (though I can't give you a citation right now). Where is the observer? The observer is everywhere, and yet every observer has the illusion that he is the only one.

If "you" are deciding which universe you want to enter... no, but that's the point, you can't ever decide because all universes exist.
You are everywhere.
You are everyone.

You are me and I am you.

Night Eyes is Rodan and Rodan is Lunar and Lunar is President Roosevelt.
We're all one consciousness but we have the image that we are not.

How do we become so divided?
And what divides the "me" in Universe A from the "me" in Universe B?