Inert / Private / Neutral / thoughts or actions, do they exist?

[@ndy]

Thanks

I remember someone on here saying the mind is like a monkey.
Often seems to me it’s more like a cage full of monkeys, all with there own agenda

[Aaron]

Ali, you possess a very interesting viewpoint in regards to this subject. Could we also look at the preconceptual self as kind of an inner core part of your being that, due to experience, has become predisposed to some things? I imagine a large portion of humanity has a similar preconceptual self (i.e. the predisposition to call a cow a cow) due to our many years of shared experience.

I agree that "modern" medicine is a surrender to the belief that healing has to come from outside the self. It, like a lot of the things we develop for convenience, happens because of the veil.

I see that you differentiate an animal's thought from a human's "symbolic" thought, and I like that term. The point I was getting at there was that you can't have a brain without thought. It's like blood flowing through the veins, there's always thought present. I also think you've shed a little more light on the topic of conscious vs subconscious manifestation, and understanding your concepts more clearly now, I think I can agree with you. But I would add, as a compliment to what you say, my understanding that the purpose of conscious thought is to guide or act as a frame or focuser of the more subconscious powers of manifestation. I also like your differentiation between faith and belief.

[Ali Quadir]

Ali, you possess a very interesting viewpoint in regards to this subject. Could we also look at the preconceptual self as kind of an inner core part of your being that, due to experience, has become predisposed to some things? I imagine a large portion of humanity has a similar preconceptual self (i.e. the predisposition to call a cow a cow) due to our many years of shared experience.

That we represent the animal we call cow with the symbol cow isn't so much the preconceptual action. The experience of the cow is preconceptual, the name is symbolic thought.. They do lie very close together though. One is the experience of the world the other is the description of the world. So the predisposition to call a cow a cow isn't a preconceptual thing.

But what you say that the preconceptual self is a kind of inner core part that is predisposed to things due to experience is absolutely right on the money. It's also the important thing to remember. Not just events from this life. But from past lives as well, what we call karma is a result of it. In effect Lavazza when he watches men fighting is dabbling with karma. More likely his karma makes him enjoy watching the fights than that he builds karma by watching the fights. This could be due to a lot of reasons.

My Sufi friend did psychic healing. He worked with this preconceptual self, which he calls a lightbody. And the predispositions he calls archetypes. If you've been a farmer in a past life. As lets be honest we've all been farmers in past lives Then in this life you're predisposed to certain farmer traits. Which is good because it gives us the instincts we need to sow things that we harvest later. In an abstract way. Working dilligently to gain a bonus later on in any form is a kind of farming. Similarly there are patterns of the aristocrat, someone who demands more of himself than he demands of others, the father or mother patterns, and a lot of other patterns. These are just examples, these names are just symbols for patterns in the preconceptual self that we may manifest in our lives. They are just descriptions for the benefit of those who try to speak about the topic, so don't think there's an actual farmer in your preconceptual self. When we say there's a farmer there we mean that there's farmer-ish movements in the preconceptual.

So if the preconceptual self has the archetype of a warrior in it. Then the thoughts of the individual will be like those of a warrior, his environment will respond to him like a warrior, and his world will sometimes demand him to take the warrior role. So being a warrior in the preconceptual isn't necesarily a good thing because it may actually cause violence. Fortunately in this case it also gives you the mindset to deal with that. Victim patterns are much nastier to have and yet we all have at least a slight bit of that. We've all been victimized if only slightly.

Misunderstood is a funny one, for some reason 99.9% of humanity is convinced that it's misunderstood. Almost every person has that. My sufi friend met one person without that pattern, and people always understood what she meant. Al least she was utterly convinced of that, so in her world that was the truth.

The preconceptual understanding of being rich doesn't mean you have a lot of money, it means you never encounter the experience of not being able to do something for lack of money. People who have this karma may never have lots of money in the bank, but they never run out. People who are preconceptually poor just keep running out of money, give them a million and they'll lose it. Even if they manage it really well they just seem to have bad luck after bad luck forcing them to give it up.

There's all sort of preconceptual mechanisms. Like for so many the understanding that closeness converts to violation. Or compartmentalisations where for example we're brilliant at speaking in front of groups of strangers but for the life of us can't speak to our family. Weird stuff like that happens all the time.

This is literally the stuff that builds our fates. And the good thing is it's our own body we have theoretical full control over it. Right now it takes some convincing and clear choices, work. But it will be much more under our control as we hit 4th.

I see that you differentiate an animal's thought from a human's "symbolic" thought, and I like that term. The point I was getting at there was that you can't have a brain without thought.

It's a good analogy, though animals especially mammals still have a great capacity for symbolic thought. We're just better at it. But a dog, a chimp, a cat, even birds have the capacity for symbolic thoughts. Insects do not. You can as far as I know never teach an insect to push a button to get a snack.

The difference is that mammals have inside of them the symbolic internal representation of the world. Insects do to a much much lesser degree. Insects directly respond to the world. They don't reason about it to the degree that mammals do. They have not seen the evolutionary need to create that faculty. If nature would demand it of them they probably would. (And yet apparently fruit flies can be trained to fly towards specific scents) I think it's probably more a primitive adaptation of hard wiring rather than an internal model though.

Chimps were unable to learn altruistic sharing even when it means they end up with more. Unless!!! They were given the altruistic sharing as a model to think about. As soon as they were inside the situation and not thinking about it they would no longer share.

So chimps while they have the ability are still ruled more directly by their preconceptual selves because in nature that just works for them.

It's like blood flowing through the veins, there's always thought present. I also think you've shed a little more light on the topic of conscious vs subconscious manifestation, and understanding your concepts more clearly now, I think I can agree with you. But I would add, as a compliment to what you say, my understanding that the purpose of conscious thought is to guide or act as a frame or focuser of the more subconscious powers of manifestation. I also like your differentiation between faith and belief.

Yes exactly, thoughts are literally the flashlight that we use to draw attention to experience. In a way in order to think about something we have to give it a name first.

In mexico there were deaf people who had never learned sign language. These people were essentially devoid of language, their thinking process was totally different. They did not have symbolic thoughts or really only rudimentory ones. As was discovered when they were taught sign language so we could ask them, signing even improved their memory immensely because now they have something low bandwidth to encode experiences in. There was nothing wrong with the hardware before, they just did not have the encoding symbols to use it efficiently.

You could say a belief is a symbolic representation of an inner faith. This means much of what we believe doesn't literally come about we may believe one thing because we have faith in the other. Weird conversions that cause us to give our power away.

[Etude in B Minor]

It's not the IAM presence, the IAM presence is having those preconceptual experiences, the preconceptual is already severely distorted, preconceptual awareness still centers around you.

I'm pretty sure the buddhists have a name for this thing. I wish I had payed better attention

Rigpa.

From wikipedia is this somewhat enlightening description:

"In the Dzogchen teachings it [rigpa] refers to the dissolution of the dualistic consciousness in nondual awareness, so that this nondual awareness, rather than manifesting as nondual awareness (of) dualistic consciousness of object, reveals its true condition in a nondual, nonconceptual way (and therefore in this case it is not permissible to speak either of reflexivity or of apperception, for there is no dualistic, conceptual perception [of] which nondual awareness may be aware)."

[Ali Quadir]

That sounds about right Etude..

Thanks for finding that The term lightbody I uses is slightly ambivalent. Some people even take it to refer to the aura. That's not what I mean. The definition of Rigpa is probably better to use.

[Etude in B Minor]

Rigpa is not the "lightbody" (the buddhists call that by another name - the dharmakaya or rainbow body).

Another concept related to rigpa (some may equate them) is "clear light". The metaphor (although it is really quite literal) often used is that of gazing into a clear blue sky. You don't see anything but you are aware of seeing. This is actually a useful meditation practice, something to do on a nice summer day in the park lying on ones back.

In my experience I didn't understand buddhism (especially zen), and I probably still don't, until I realized that there really is something, which is nothing at all but it really is there. It is so obvious, yet so marvelous and you wonder why you hadn't realized it before. This is the result of meditation, but after that all that is left is "contemplation" (of rigpa). Dzogchen teaches this approach (as does zen, but from a different direction).

The Dalai Lama wrote an excellent book on dzogchen, which I wholly recommend. He combines the wisdom of dzogchen with the Tibetan buddhist emphasis on compassion, which seems to me to be a pure 6-D approach.

[Aaron]

Very enlightening response, Ali. Thank you. :p

"The difference is that mammals have inside of them the symbolic internal representation of the world."

I wonder if this is the culprit responsible for all of our TV, games, and movies... :p

[Ali Quadir]

"The difference is that mammals have inside of them the symbolic internal representation of the world."

I wonder if this is the culprit responsible for all of our TV, games, and movies... :p

Absolutely, you're getting the pattern Look at which animals engage in play.

Rigpa is not the "lightbody" (the buddhists call that by another name - the dharmakaya or rainbow body).

Like I said, the term lightbody as I use it is a bit ambiguous... I know some very expert people who do use the term in that way.

[Lavazza]

Hey guys, I'm back- not dead, just busy.

Well since thoughts, like words are symbols, only on a deeper level. All non symbolic life forms have no thoughts.

I've read through this sentence about a dozen times but am still a bit confused, can you break it down for me?

1. Thoughts are symbols (so thoughts are a translation of something more fundamental- what?)
2. What are non-symbolic life forms? Are you meaning 2nd & 1st densities- and why are they non-symbolic? Which begs my next question, what is symbolic about symbolic life forms?

What manifests reality is what you might call the preconceptual self, or light body. It is made up of a series of primordial shapes or archetypes that are expressed into manifestation in your thoughts feelings and reality. This is a very primal version of self. It is recognized by most mystical traditions. And it is not to be mistaken by the auric body which is quite a different thing.

Would you please speak more about what the light body is, what an auric body is, and what differentiates them?

My feel is that this preconceptual self influences our thought process. So if it is your nature to think that you will be fine money wise and it is no constriction then reality will mirror that, because its congruent with the preconceptual self. If however you read it in a book and continuously forcefeed yourself those thoughts it's not going to make a difference. Because in spite of the conditioning the preconceptual self doesn't identify with it..

This may also be what Ra called 'pre-incarnational programming', or what Michael Newton calls your pre-selected life plan, or Carla's metaphore about packing a suitcase with the abilities and limitations you want to take with you in to a specific life, for your own learnings.

Any magick school will tell you that in order to do magick there is a phase of doing the work or making the push. And then there is the phase of passively allowing the universe to respond with the requested result. You don't will a thing into being. You create the vacuum in which it naturally manifests, you create a space for it to occupy.

So are you saying that if I want to make a ton of cash I should first empty all my bank accounts? Only a half serious comment- but what say you?

Changing the patterns in the lightbody is long term work. It may take months for a change to manifest. But it will from then on have massive effects on our lives. That is what is generally recognized to be our reality generating ability.

So where does this leave us with regards to the much revered 'law of attraction' idea? Or those people who highly endorse the film 'The Secret'?

So I'm wondering, since most traditions would put it there, if we should take the idea of the creative principle in our thoughts one step further to that preconceptual self that generates our stream of thoughts.

So changing your life is not as easy as just repeating thoughts and beliefs. You need to engage your core self, in esoteric terms: reprogram the light body. Before any real change occurs.

Is the pre-conceptual self model one that you yourself have concluded must exist, or are there other resources / references out there I could utilize for this? I must say I find it intriguing, because it seems to explain quite well what we observe in our world today, and in our fellow beings. Some people have a really hard time doing certain things, while other people find it effortless. Finding a loving mate for example. This is a big head scratcher for a lot of people... some times there are more mundane reasons why someone can't find the right match, other times it seems there is no reason at all, and people just say it's luck. Or the wealth concept that you spoke of earlier and how despite themselves some people are always broke. This also lines up well, as I mentioned earlier, with pre-incarnative programming. What I would call the higher self makes sure (or tries to make sure) you are following the life lessons that you said you wanted to learn. Having a stable income or meeting your soul mate might impede those goals. That also touches on what you called Karmic reasons.

It also explains why a lot of people who are in to the law of attraction or 'Secret' movies in new age circles seem to be unable to manifest what they intend to. Maybe some do, but I'm basically saying that people aren't quitting their day jobs to manifest their incomes full time. Sure it doesn't work that way but if you watch that movie they certainly seem to present it like it should, ha! Interesting stuff.

Thanks for sharing, all,
~L

[Ali Quadir]

Hey guys, I'm back- not dead, just busy.

Well since thoughts, like words are symbols, only on a deeper level. All non symbolic life forms have no thoughts.

I've read through this sentence about a dozen times but am still a bit confused, can you break it down for me?

1. Thoughts are symbols (so thoughts are a translation of something more fundamental- what?)
2. What are non-symbolic life forms? Are you meaning 2nd & 1st densities- and why are they non-symbolic? Which begs my next question, what is symbolic about symbolic life forms?

Sorry for the confusion... Thoughts are a symbol for something more fundamental.. Translation implies a one to one retention of information, which isn't the case a lot of information is lost, it's like going from png to a very low quality jpeg. It kinda retains the information but you can't get the original back from it. The symbol is not the original. And neither is the original the symbol, but there is an assumed equality relation between the two.

There is the term qualia. Which is an important concept in the philosophy of mind. Basically it means what you experience when you experience what we call a thing... You certainly know the question if when we both see red, and call it red, do we see the exact same thing? The answer is of course no.. (I'm weak at color perception and I'm assuming you're among the 90% who are not...)

So theres the red out there, the red in here, and the red that we call it. These are three totally different things. Thoughts are closely related to the red that we call it. it is symbols like words. You could call it the red that we think it is but that's practically synonymous.

Non symbolic life forms then are lifeforms who only experience the red out there and the red in here, not the red that we call it. Most animals and certainly all mammals have a version of the red that we call it. Just in varying degrees. Humans are so entrenched in the red that we call it that we often mistake it for the real thing, the red out there...

What manifests reality is what you might call the preconceptual self, or light body. It is made up of a series of primordial shapes or archetypes that are expressed into manifestation in your thoughts feelings and reality. This is a very primal version of self. It is recognized by most mystical traditions. And it is not to be mistaken by the auric body which is quite a different thing.

Would you please speak more about what the light body is, what an auric body is, and what differentiates them?

The body produces and uses energy on the physical plane right? We can see this with infra red cameras. Basically excess heat is radiated away from the body. This even allows us to detect some diseases and conditions. This is physical energy that the body radiates.

The same is with smells. Where the body radiates chemical compounds.

The aura is similar, our different bodies (energetic and otherwise) have processes that radiate energy.. The aura is this energy. And in it aura readers can clearly see issues in the system. Much like a dog can smell what you've been eating. You could call the aura your energetic scent. In that way people can "smell" happy or sad or nervous.

The light body is a much more abstract thing, it doesn't have a physical location in spacetime. It is a matrix or blueprint that the system uses to generate the experience of it's universe from. Not every detail, just the things relevant to that individual. And in accordance with the blueprints of it's co-creators. If two co-creators have misaligned blueprints their realities in that area simply won't overlap.

So the difference is in their purposes, the aura radiates spent energy protects the subtle and physical bodies from external influences and helps in sensing and working with those energies. The light body is a karmic blueprint that actually has the aura as part of it, you could call it cosmic dna, the analogy certainly works on more levels, the lightbody defines what it is to be human.

My feel is that this preconceptual self influences our thought process. So if it is your nature to think that you will be fine money wise and it is no constriction then reality will mirror that, because its congruent with the preconceptual self. If however you read it in a book and continuously forcefeed yourself those thoughts it's not going to make a difference. Because in spite of the conditioning the preconceptual self doesn't identify with it..

This may also be what Ra called 'pre-incarnational programming', or what Michael Newton calls your pre-selected life plan, or Carla's metaphore about packing a suitcase with the abilities and limitations you want to take with you in to a specific life, for your own learnings.

Exactly... Especially the pre-incarnational programming is a good analogy. Whatever the method of programming, the result is that a human is born, inclined to have certain experiences more or less than another person.

We can reprogram during life though. This isn't a fixed thing.

Any magick school will tell you that in order to do magick there is a phase of doing the work or making the push. And then there is the phase of passively allowing the universe to respond with the requested result. You don't will a thing into being. You create the vacuum in which it naturally manifests, you create a space for it to occupy.

So are you saying that if I want to make a ton of cash I should first empty all my bank accounts? Only a half serious comment- but what say you?

Not exactly, if you empty all your bank accounts in a few years time they will resemble your current accounts. That's what I'm saying. If you want to make a ton of cash you should reprogram your lightbody to consider it absolutely normal to have a ton of cash.. You couldn't spend it at the rate it'll come in.

However, it's not as simple as that.. This body is slow to change and it is a very complicated tangle of conscious and subconscious attitudes. It takes a lot of effort to understand the reasons for some things in our life and changing it takes even more effort. You can see this as a trade off between the pre-life programming and the living person. This way both have a say.

The guy that taught me about the lightbody gave an example. He knew a musician. Poor as a church rat, (but with a great guitar). His lightbody had this quality of poverty and a weak root chakra, so basically his ability to live in luxury was non existent... After working with him for a few months he got a record deal and went from non existent luxury to reasonably luxurious.

It's objectively a small step but life changing.

Changing the patterns in the lightbody is long term work. It may take months for a change to manifest. But it will from then on have massive effects on our lives. That is what is generally recognized to be our reality generating ability.

So where does this leave us with regards to the much revered 'law of attraction' idea? Or those people who highly endorse the film 'The Secret'?

It's an addition to those ideas... People instinctively respond to those ideas because they resonate, they feel that's how it is.. I'm not that informed on the two. But I think a component that is missing that might sometimes complicate things is that you NEED to be congruent with the process. If you say ten thousand times that you want money, that it comes to you, and that it's a good thing. That's not going to change things. You need to be congruent and fully consciously and subconsciously see this as truth. Mostly you end up seeing yourself as congruent with being someone who wants to be something but isn't... That's basically what we see ourselves doing, and until we see ourselves differently that will remain what we are.

So I'm wondering, since most traditions would put it there, if we should take the idea of the creative principle in our thoughts one step further to that preconceptual self that generates our stream of thoughts.

So changing your life is not as easy as just repeating thoughts and beliefs. You need to engage your core self, in esoteric terms: reprogram the light body. Before any real change occurs.

Is the pre-conceptual self model one that you yourself have concluded must exist, or are there other resources / references out there I could utilize for this? I must say I find it intriguing, because it seems to explain quite well what we observe in our world today, and in our fellow beings. Some people have a really hard time doing certain things, while other people find it effortless. Finding a loving mate for example. This is a big head scratcher for a lot of people... some times there are more mundane reasons why someone can't find the right match, other times it seems there is no reason at all, and people just say it's luck. Or the wealth concept that you spoke of earlier and how despite themselves some people are always broke. This also lines up well, as I mentioned earlier, with pre-incarnative programming. What I would call the higher self makes sure (or tries to make sure) you are following the life lessons that you said you wanted to learn. Having a stable income or meeting your soul mate might impede those goals. That also touches on what you called Karmic reasons.

No I don't believe that. I don't think we plan the lessons to learn. It'd be stupid, if we knew them before life and want to learn them why not just remember them?

I know this isn't the popular thought, but I can find no sense in the notion of the earth as a school... Maybe I'm wrong... it just doesn't make sense to me.

I do believe we have full choice in life and no obligations to particular lessons.

It also explains why a lot of people who are in to the law of attraction or 'Secret' movies in new age circles seem to be unable to manifest what they intend to. Maybe some do, but I'm basically saying that people aren't quitting their day jobs to manifest their incomes full time. Sure it doesn't work that way but if you watch that movie they certainly seem to present it like it should, ha! Interesting stuff.

Precisely That was my initial suggestion. Wanting something hard enough just isn't going to cut it.


The obvious question now is why didn't the secret work, and what would?

My answer is congruity. The secret is a metaphysical work. It teaches us intellectually how to metaphysically change ourselves.. Does this actually change us? Considering the numbers, not likely, right?... Just like knowing how to run doesn't make a man a runner. We can think about it as long as we like, but unless we go out there and run we'll never be runners. If your lightbody is structured with beliefs that physical exercise is tiring there will be all kind of subconscious systems sabotaging that effort. And you just wont root those out by reading a book about running. If by some freak accident your runner status is held back by one intellectual belief that book could change your life. But for the vast majority of us, this isn't the case..

What needs to be done is we have to change ourselves, envision ourselves as runners, and imagine what we would be like if we were ourselves but with runner imposed upon this. Find the usable components and incorporate them in life. A good way of doing this is by finding a hero, identifying with him and copying subconsciously his attitudes and behaviors by identification. And then we'll actually find that those subconscious attitudes will start to reshape our conscious beliefs. We will find ourselves with the urge to run. And then when we do it and consciously engage in the process we become runners. No blocks no sabotage, just congruency.

I don't believe in specific soul mates, I think we're all soul mates. Us humans for some reason belong together, as part of belonging to the greater whole. So for finding love it's the same thing as anything else. Those of us having the problem of not having that special someone at our side usually have subconscious attitudes that make it less likely for someone to find that place. Changing the subconscious attitudes equals changing the light body patterning. And thus we change the personality and life it emanates. As said before this takes a while it can be months, even when attacked with the most efficient heroes and beliefs. It takes effort and changes throughout life, even in the physical and mundane. It certainly requires more than a semi intellectual effort compartmentalized to specific places and specific times, and in practice too often gets used primarily to combat a sense of dissatisfaction.

Note that when something unique happens, like nasa putting people on the moon, or a dutch guy winning the darting championship. At these times some people identify with new heroes. It's usually called inspiration. People are inspired by heroes to follow the hero in his footsteps. (And buy loads of dart games.)

The secret just provides part of the answer. But the true work lies much deeper and it takes months if not years to create big changes and is usually a life long effort, not to push yourself into doing it, but finding insight into and then luring seducing and cajoling your subconscious into making the changes for you.

[Lavazza]

Sorry for the confusion... Thoughts are a symbol for something more fundamental.. Translation implies a one to one retention of information, which isn't the case a lot of information is lost, it's like going from png to a very low quality jpeg. It kinda retains the information but you can't get the original back from it. The symbol is not the original. And neither is the original the symbol, but there is an assumed equality relation between the two.

Great response. I think this is a really important thing to be mindful of, especially when reading channeled text. If you'll allow me to go off topic for just a minute, I'd like to remind us of all the infinity debates we've seen on this forum in the last few months, especially where Ra is quoted talking about the 1st, 2nd and et cetera things that were known in creation. Infinity, Intelligent Infinity, etc. etc. In the context of our discussion now, how futile it seems to try and read that as a literal word-for-word truth? That information is blurry at best! Not only is our language ill equipped for such topics, but our brains as well. Then add the distortion that naturally happens as one being tries to communicate to another, and we find ourselves hopelessly lost I think we all need to step back and be more humble. Ok, now back to our chat... (thank you for entertaining that)

So theres the red out there, the red in here, and the red that we call it. These are three totally different things. Thoughts are closely related to the red that we call it. it is symbols like words. You could call it the red that we think it is but that's practically synonymous.

I like the example of something so seemingly simple as the color red. So long as the Creator is experiencing itself as separate selves I can't see much hope for any unified / undistorted concept. When all has coalesced back in to the mystery I think It (God) will finally fully understand the color Red again (as well as all other things).

The light body is a karmic blueprint that actually has the aura as part of it, you could call it cosmic dna, the analogy certainly works on more levels, the lightbody defines what it is to be human.

Thanks for explaining those.

(paragraphs condensed ~L) Not exactly, if you empty all your bank accounts in a few years time they will resemble your current accounts. That's what I'm saying. If you want to make a ton of cash you should reprogram your lightbody to consider it absolutely normal to have a ton of cash.. You couldn't spend it at the rate it'll come in. However, it's not as simple as that.. This body is slow to change and it is a very complicated tangle of conscious and subconscious attitudes. It takes a lot of effort to understand the reasons for some things in our life and changing it takes even more effort. You can see this as a trade off between the pre-life programming and the living person. This way both have a say. The guy that taught me about the lightbody gave an example. He knew a musician. Poor as a church rat, (but with a great guitar). His lightbody had this quality of poverty and a weak root chakra, so basically his ability to live in luxury was non existent... After working with him for a few months he got a record deal and went from non existent luxury to reasonably luxurious. It's objectively a small step but life changing.

It sounds to me that working with the light body is analogous to working on your own conscious personality, forming new habits or thinking patterns and actively taking new actions to change your experience of the world. So people who get in to self help books or see gurus, et cetera are basically using those books or gurus as a tool to manipulate their pre-conceptual selves?

Or another way we could say it is your unconscious mind is your pre-conceptual mind. The mind that takes your hand off the hot stove before your conceptual (conscious) mind even has a chance to think about it.

No I don't believe that. I don't think we plan the lessons to learn. It'd be stupid, if we knew them before life and want to learn them why not just remember them? I know this isn't the popular thought, but I can find no sense in the notion of the earth as a school... Maybe I'm wrong... it just doesn't make sense to me. I do believe we have full choice in life and no obligations to particular lessons.

Well, I think you summed it up pretty well earlier when you said:

Exactly... Smile Especially the pre-incarnational programming is a good analogy. Whatever the method of programming, the result is that a human is born, inclined to have certain experiences more or less than another person. We can reprogram during life though. This isn't a fixed thing.

You don't have to call it a school, or your experiences lessons, but I do think we're here to experience certain things, regardless of what we name those things. I've always used the school and lessons metaphores in my own thinking as that gives me the best perspective on what I'm doing here, but that's me. As for the reason to learn something we already knew, I think it gets us out in to a grander scale discussion, but your statement begs the larger question about why physical existence is a reality at all, or why the Creator, being a unitary entity comprising all would decide to fragment in any way at any time. The short answer can be summed up in one word, I think, and that is "fun". That's the reason for it all ultimately I feel. Everything we do in the meantime is a part of that or leading up to that in some way. Maybe that's more response then you wanted or expected

To your last point I definitely agree. We are under no rule or obligation to do anything, which is a wonderful part of Creation. But we do anyway, because we want to. I'm learning to play the acoustic guitar. It's a lot of work and my finger tips really hurt when I'm done practicing. They're also getting callused and the increased de-sensitivity seems like a loss on some level, but the result of learning a scale or strumming a chord in tune is very satisfying and... fun! Nobody told me to play, and nobody is making me continue. It would be way easier for me to stop. But I won't On a grander scale I'm learning self confidence among other things by doing something I never thought I could do. The analogy is loose but I think that's what's going on with our larger selves and our overall plans for ourselves. We want to grow and have fun along the way. Maybe I wanted to learn how to be a good father in this life time. Wow, what a TON of work that is. But the fruit harvested (my experience and gained wisdom) from the labor (waking up at 5:30Am almost every day for the past three years now, changing poopy nappies, etc. etc.) is well worth it. I am in no way implying that you think otherwise about these things, I'm just illustrating that somewhere in the depths of my soul stream is probably the perfect blueprint for the perfect father, but having that blue print is not the same as experiencing and becoming the father in physical space/time. Or becoming the guitarist. this (physical reality space/time) is the arena, school, or whathaveyou. Where the rubber hits the road. I'm having some trouble articulating myself here, but I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that the fact that we exist implies that there is something we can do here that we can't do any other way. Or at least do as well. Ok I'll step off my soap box now.

As for your last comments about 'the Secret' and the runner analogy... Well said my friend!

L&L, ~L

[Ali Quadir]

Hey Lavazza,

You're correct, working on the lightbody comes with a great deal of work on the conscious level. So guru's classes, and workshops do actually help change the lightbody. They're part of the luring and seducing of the lightbody, and giving it heroes to emulate. However, just like the secret, that's not the whole story, if you follow a course but don't believe subconsciously you can do it you won't excell at it.

I had a talk the other day with a friend of mine who is a racing driver. He does those crazy things and he's fearless when it comes to driving. He explained he just has no doubt or experience ever that his body is able to do something he envisions doing. And when he does it it just works. I don't know what archetype to call that, I never encountered it before, but it's at that same level.

I love your references to your experience as a father. This is a good example. You say you want to learn to be a great father... Let me be rude (for the reason to make a point) and suggest that you don't have any inclination to learn to do this. I think you want to BE a great father much more than learn to be one. I further think you don't need to learn this. Of course there are minor skills to acquire but fatherhood is in your blueprint. Very very few people do not have father in their blueprint. Heck most women have father in their blueprint, just like most men have mother in theirs. This doesn't automatically mean they are fathers. It means they have the instinctual ability to be fathers.

And for what it's worth. The father archetype is the first one I would suggest if someone were to ask me "what archetypes you think this Lavazza guy has?"

So maybe when you came down to earth you didn't come to learn to be a father... Instead you came to be one. Among other things of course.


One final note, the subconscious is not fully preconceptual.. And not all that is preconceptual is in the subconscious... The act of perception is a conscious act but it's still partly preconceptual. Also subconscious thoughts exist.

Subconscious simply means we're not aware of doing it. The subconscious can become more conscious with training. (Energy work) Also the conscious can become subconscious with training. (Riding a bike) I realize I'm being a bit fuzzy on the concepts I use, preconceptual, subconscious, lightbody. Forgive me for that, it's about the motion more than the words to describe the motion.

[Experience You]

Reality is. The One is. From that everything goes and comes, but it does not change ONE.
Whatever this is, whoever and whichever form it is expressing.
Thoughts "Creating reality" is pretty much the concept law of "what you put out is what you get back" Or "you reap what you sow" "If you smile your reflection has to smile back, if you cry your reflection does the same"

ALL from ONE, infinite reflections(not objective) of that One that can't be known other then as true being.( no experience)

There is the void(One) and then there is the light that knows itself as light(awareness of ONE) and the I AM then there are the infinite distortions(reflections) of that light.
Our reality is pretty much thoughts, everything we know is subjective and is an interpretation.

Hence why our physical objective reality is made of "air" not hard rock reality at all.

Unconditional love is the ability to truly accept all views as part of that ONE unknown that has no memory or identity. Even before the void awareness itself is just awareness as itself or light the least distorted state before The ONE(Void) and there is not even "ï am" there.

The eye of reality is just being which means no observers, you can't look yourself as yourself only trough a reflection.
A black hole, a void. That is the true objective reality. And is what we call ONE, Everything is related to that and comes and is that.

Surrender yourself ( or what you think as you to that truth that is all truth) and you will find unconditional joy of All that is.