After-life - how is it?

[olyris]

Interesting dilemma... connect three or connect four... three is much more stable.

I would suggest that alchemy is the only connect four that can work, will only work when three are attained seamlessly. The spiritual practice being 1. recognising the philophers stone (connect 3), 2. turning lead into gold (inherit from connect four.

[Antares]

Interesting dilemma... connect three or connect four... three is much more stable.

I would suggest that alchemy is the only connect four that can work, will only work when three are attained seamlessly. The spiritual practice being 1. recognising the philophers stone (connect 3), 2. turning lead into gold (inherit from connect four.

You may start with the 2 vertical points: the highest (spirit), and the core, lowest (earth, grounding). It is the most natural way.

[olyris]

Indeed, I believe the vertical phase is known as "ascension," meanwhile the latera(l)-us stone [edit: lesser or heart-stone] abides in tryst, being more or less horizontal in functionality. Hence the confusion... and resulting clarity!

[edit: for intellectual property suit agenda unknown present, i should mention that Tool has an album called La-te-ra-l_us which knows about alchemy of the more scientific "laterus stone." It's a pretty good listen. 'l' in english to me is a key that means "love" in my own thesis.]

[Antares]

In my humble opinion, the ancient beliefs about life and after-life as we know them are basically flawed. So are modern beliefs as well.

The ancient beliefs, like those in ancient Egypt, state that (physical) life should not be a big concern as people should expect a much better life after life; the buddhist beliefs go even further than that and claim that living in the physicality is flawed, and the only goal should be to live physicality to attain certain non-physical states; similar beliefs we find in the Christian religion which makes a big distinction between a "soul" and "body". This may lead you to a conclusion that living in the physicality is actually sort of punishment, you just don't know for what reason...

Modern common beliefs (atheist), on the other hand, basically deny existence of anything else than the physical body, implicitly suggesting that you "should" take most of the physicality without any concern in terms of the potential consequences (future events, energetic impact, mental disfunctions, missing the wide picture of the whole society, and more) - other than punishing you by the law or military revenge (thus suggesting avoiding the law and building the military power to control your resources, people included). Committing a crime is good as long as you avoid its concequences; massive crime (like those seen in the 2nd world war) may be this way considered to be an asset if you benefit from it and take advantage of it, and was possibly the biggest result of such paradigms seen in action - people like those don't ask questions like:

"is making experiments on open human brains or trying out different chemical and biological weapons when the victim is still alive and aware of that morally justified?"

because in the context described the answer is always:

"who cares?"

The opposite way of thinking is that presented by some of the ancient and modern masters, encouraging to treat a physical body as a temple, and to listen to your own consciousness instead of external massive paradigms and leaders. Preservance, balance and harmony, then turns out to be a big asset.

[olyris]

The opposite way of thinking is that presented by some of the ancient and modern masters, encouraging to treat a physical body as a temple, and to listen to your own consciousness instead of external massive paradigms and leaders.

Preservance, balance and harmony, then turns out to be a big asset.

If acceptance and wrongness philosophy beget power, neutrality (harmony) philosophy begets compassion.

[Antares]

If acceptance and wrongness philosophy beget power, neutrality (harmony) philosophy begets compassion.

My view is that acceptance is in the end same with harmony (except the latter is the result of the former), but not rightous-ness. Neutrality could be actually a blindfold looking for acceptance. In reality, there is no neutrality as such - without real acceptance and understanding; neutrality is a side effect then, rather than an equiponderant philosophy in itself.

In other words, I'd suggest looking for a multidimensional solution (triangle with an upper vertex to be of special attention) instead of being satisfied with just a flat solution - a line with 3 dots inside (right - neutral - left). I.e. expansion of consciousness (and resulting understanding) vs. forcing neutrality.

[olyris]

Yes I think when acceptance/wrongness beget power, neutrality is UP.
When acceptance/wrongness beget disease, neutrality is DOWN.

And you have to choose your own adventure.

[olyris]

I have found that if you cannot journey, your oversoul (glory self) can cast lives into "other" realms and the soul (power self) learns alongside, in between having nothing to do and doing something for others. I see me everywhere, on the internet in particular. They talk, beings that I pay any attention to at all. Those that identify as "little me" I try to balance with. I think that there is alchemy here.

[Antares]

I have found that if you cannot journey, your oversoul (glory self) can cast lives into "other" realms and the soul (power self) learns alongside, in between having nothing to do and doing something for others. I see me everywhere, on the internet in particular. They talk, beings that I pay any attention to at all. Those that identify as "little me" I try to balance with. I think that there is alchemy here.

I like Deepak Chopra's definition of the soul:

The soul is the innermost being of a person

'Journey' is, therefore, an illusion, isn't it? You travel through your mind.

Not when taking a "journey" - but all the time. Like now, jumping from one word to another, reading this text. Aren't you?



Alchemy is power, just like the universe. But not through forcing, but through wu-wei.
Wu wei is the synonym to alchemy: you flow, and when the change (transmutation) happens, you go with the wind.
I.e. you perform an alchemical act - even if you are not aware of this.

Yes, taoism is all about alchemy and changes. On all levels of yourself (and yourself, your true self, is infinite).

And yes, I-Ching, the taoist ancient book, is about the changes and alchemy. Just like taoists claimed.

The difference between alchemist and a layman is presence or abasence of consciousness of being in the alchemical processes of life.

With consciousness you gain the power. Imagine being in a river, but being not aware of this fact. How you would sail, then? Lao Tzy would tell you, probably, because of you being conscious. How to gain consciousness? Through wisdom. How to gain wisdom? Through experience. How to gain experience? Through... being aware... Hey! Wait! Weren't we talking about the awareness being the goal at the beginning? Yes, I did. Which means it is the beginning and the end at the same time - no time for learning required, it happens instantly, like in the wu-wei state. Again, just like taoists claimed.

Makes sense to me.

[Antares]

I've read "Seth speaks", an interesting reading indeed it was for me, some years ago. I preferred that the author solely focused on the channeled material, rather than her private life, though.

Anyway, the idea that soul chooses whether to reincarnate or not is quite common today, but it was not in ancient times. This led me to the confusion. People who did OBE, like Robert Monroe or Bruce Moen, shed more light on this. For instance, check the 5th chapter in the "Voyages into the Afterlife" by the latter, where is a talk on humans who do not achieve a certain level of consciousness. Without consciousness developed, they remain unconscious after their physical life, which brings us to my theory as presented below.

Another confirmation for that comes from the "Arcturians: How to Heal, Ascend..." book by David Miller:

the attachments to the Earth are so strong that even in the face of the opportunity to ascend, many would not ascend - would instead to choose to stay back. ... The ascension is like a moment of enlightenment. It is an instantaneous process in which the doorways, or the corridors, between the third and fifth dimension are opened up.

Ascenscion is related to having a choice (according to the book) whether to reincarnate or not. In other words, if you won't ascend, it implies that you have no choice: no consciousness to decide (to free your will), and you would pass to another human shell.

How about that.