The resistance to doctrine and religion are part of the great awakening of mankind. It is always religion which first sets you down a lost path.
Religion, like nationalism, like monetary establishment, like ruler privilege, are opportunities for linear obedient thoughts which can be puppeteered by those that understand this is not the way of the universe- even though it is THEIR way.
This appears contrary when we speak a doctrine which we insist.
Speaking as though doctrine, as though fact, is the way of manifesting creation. “Maybe” is ineffective, and without conviction. But competing facts (doctrines), or even harmoniously contradicting facts, are all part of knowledge.
Religions, Doctrines, Worship- are not evil. Monistic dependancy, however, is the slab of restraint which allows evil to prevail. So long as you name a religion that is not your own name, you have imprisoned yourself into linear, monsitic dependancy.
My universal doctrines-
(1) TAKE knowledge
(2) SHARE knowledge
(3) TAKE love
(4) SHARE love
The doctrine of NOW-
DEVELOP your chakras.
Should you agree with me? YES!
Should you disagree with me? YES!
Religions are just extensions of what we find in our brethren creatures on this earth. Herds, packs, pods, flocks, swarms, hives, etc. How far would anyone have us seperate from our earthly nature?
There’s no way of saying this without it sounding completely ludicrous to many.
Chakras are essentially what allow your body to warp travel through singularities, evolve, and to allow for extra terrestrial forces to enter our (currently closed off but awakening) world, as well as to gather the information of the greater reality. Developing them is a process of health, meditation, and joyous communion with nature. Researching their individual meaning will aid the process.
To my way of thinking, what you’re espousing sounds far more akin to religion than any of nationalism, monetary establishment, or ruler privilege and you have defined it in terms other than that of your own name. Is this a confession/self-condemnation of your own imprisonment in “linear, monsitic dependancy” (sic.) or mere meaningless drivel?
Simon- I’m confused by the critique. Loaded questions and other fallacy are not a good way to begin search for fallacious content. Still, I want to know your religious values- or your values in general. They certainly shouldn’t be couched in agreement nor disagreement with mine. (Mimicking the opposite would also submit to control).
“Religion” is a problem because it’s only ever what the other guy is doing, the wrong guy. Couldn’t possibly apply to my beliefs, which are a ‘relationship’ or a ‘school of thought’ or a ‘set of principals’ or whatever.
David Icke has done a lot of research to expose government cruelties and deception. He also believes many at the top of the government are bloodsucking reptilians. He tells people to believe only what they choose.
Even in this small community strife over a personal belief or thought or opinion is attacked rather than examined and thought of. Proof proof proof. How can one prove what is only within? It would require another to experiment within. And that is down right scary. Change is always scary to creatures of habit. To properly change there must be an authority that gives permission or says its OK. If you do not understand, ask questions, if you don’t believe, look away.
A religion is only as good or bad as the person that follows it or dictates it. A suggestion of an unheard of way of thinking tends to get the common herd nervous. It is generally seen as a predatory attack. We are mammals of this earth we are omnivores, hunter gatherers. We attack and are attacked. Instinctual wariness is an issue with change.
Even here where words are only seen and not heard there is that instinctual wariness that has nothing to do with logic, or science. you can see it in the attacking words.
perhaps an online sugar cube to calm frayed nerves is needed? :-"
To coin a phrase, “what is within stays within”. Open you mouth, bang on your keyboard, and you had best have a way to back it. Describing your “inner reality” may have some amusement value, but that is the extent of it. The problem begins when you claim attributes for anyone but yourself. We all have chakras? Other than opinion, or referencing someone else’s opinion, where does that come from? Don’t tell me I have chakras. I had a physical last week and the doctor didn’t say anything about me having chakras.
Maybe they got worn out by imbibing in premium animal drool
I don’t see that anyone is being told to believe anything. I see information being given. That is my perspective. If people were being told what is what there would be force behind it. I see no force. when information is given it can either be experimented and questioned by the recipient or dismissed. Being told is sort of like forcing premium beer down someones throat and then saying “See you do like it you have drunk it.”
Have you experimented with focal points yet? I don’t think a doctor looking for physical ailments would be looking for something that is not a solid object. I do believe they don’t even have the right equipment for such a search.
I do recall you put forth a religious meme somtime back… that is a new discovery one that has been tossed around for generations and has finally been proven. Sooo??? What is the difference here? Why is it impossible to have this within? Because its not proven? Because it comes from foreign studies that are largely unaccepted in western cultures?
We do not know our full potentials and we do not know our bodies to the fullest extent. Otherwise Doctors would not need to say they are practicing, they would say they are doing. They can only practice medicine because they do not have full knowledge of medicine.
I think new things can enhance old things and old things can enhance new things. Even if niether can be proven.
Sure, anyone can toss out every sort of possibility they wish. The last month or so has seen plenty of that… I don’t have any problem looking at perspectives other than my own. It’s healthy brain exercise. But there still needs to be some sort of connect with our physical reality. I enjoy daydreams, flights of fancy, Moose Drool, just as much as anyone else, but I certainly don’t expect to find anyone agreeing with me, or taking away anything “profound” from anything I say. There is a subtle difference between monolog and dialog. There is much confusion on the net as to which is which…
So I “enhanced” you? Damn! I didn’t feel a thing. Let’s do it again. Maybe this time…
I think you are taking the last two parts of the OP way too literally when its not meant to be.
I did not take it as you did, its obvious we both read the same thing but, read the intent differently.
Where the heck is Pleiades so he can clear that up.
If you didn’t feel a thing then that must mean that you just did the typical man amount of time(10 sec.) mentally while enhancing a woman.
I tell you that you have chakras because I believe it. If I told you otherwise I would be attempting to deceive you, speaking contrary to my belief. This deception could be for my own social benefit in a way, because now I can fall along the accepted norm. However, if I then go on to tell you that I am Dr. Pleiades PhD: I am for certain deceiving you, and well in due process for legal problems. If you have faith in the medical system, then this is where you can draw the facts from the “misled beliefs.” For me to tell you where to put your faith would be much worse than ever telling you what I believe.
Maybe this is the line I’m drawing in that oxymoron “You should believe / disbelieve me.” I speak as though you should. But telling you where you should put your faith, to me, is an act of evil.
Kriswest- I was actually being quite literal. And it’s really not the most far-fetched thing I’ve said either.
You aren’t justifying a doctrine, you are attempting to justify a construct with no method of inquiry that satisfies discussion. This isn’t an attempt on my part to say you are wrong, but that you have no way to substantiate your statements with anything more than opinion. You are trying to take what is inwardness and externalize it. We can discuss chakras as weak magnetic fields generated by the electro/chemical processes of the body, but to assign attributes to these fields is just supposition. That through your experiences these magnetic fields have attributes of a supernatural cause may be your belief, but it is of inwardness and not discussable with those of different experiencing.
I don’t have any problem looking at perspectives other than my own. It’s healthy brain exercise. But there still needs to be some sort of connect with our physical reality. I enjoy daydreams, flights of fancy, Moose Drool, just as much as anyone else, but I certainly don’t expect to find anyone agreeing with me, or taking away anything “profound” from anything I say. There is a subtle difference between monolog and dialog. There is much confusion on the net as to which is which…
