OneOfFourth wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 3:49 pm
I guess spirit guides have a tendency to interact through dreams. I'm also under the firm impression that different people can end up in the same dream, even looking quite different than in real life. Have you asked your ex fiance if he saw the same dream of something similar?
Do you know where your mentor is from originally? Ask if she's from Abyss (the place which existed already before the time and universe). Would be interested to know if your abyss was more than just a metaphore
I've only a couple times had a shared dream with another person. At least that I know of anyway. It's probably happened a few other times without my being tipped off that it did. But that's just a guess.
One time she appeared in a dream my ex fiance had, which I was not involved in.
It was not a pleasant dream for him. He found it actually very traumatic.
I think the operative word is 'ex' fiance. Without my asking, I think she took it upon herself to express a little annoyance with him.
That's my only direct knowledge of her interacting with someone else.
I didn't ask him about the ocean dream, timing-wise, the dream he did bring up was not at that time.
Where is she originally from? I think... it's a slightly flawed question, framing-wise. Kinda like how a tree doesn't have a bottom-most point, but a multiplicity of roots, I don't think she has one single origin.
Hmmm, I think to discuss where she's from, it has to be in a context of what she is.
There's a concept in ancient khemetic beliefs called "Neter Neteru", Neter is basically 'divinity' (some other nuances of definition, but for our purposes i think 'divinity' is simplest). Neteru is a plural of the word. So a vague translation would be "god of gods", or sort of an overarching divinity. In this concept, their pantheon is populated be individual gods, but there is an overarching 'divine-ness' to the whole lot of them. Basically each individual divinity in the pantheon is like a leaf on a larger tree. Or a facet of a broader unifying 'all-encompassing divinity'.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of organized religion, even ancient ones
But I think they were onto something here. I think there are very strong parallels between neter neteru and a more sort of philosophical-psychological look at identity, individuality, and the concept of infinite nature. Do you like cabbage? You could say, I could say, we'd have individual viewpoints on that. But a truly infinite being, would encompass everything from love of cabbage, to hatred of cabbage, all the subtle possibilities in between, and an enormous swath of viewpoints which would simply be "what's cabbage?", not to mention "I am cabbage", and contain all of that at once. Like looking at an object from one side it looks a certain way, but looking at it from another side, it looks a bit different, looking at it from all sides, in all forms and manners, exceeding the limited bandwidth of human sensory organs... it looks like not quite any of those things that an individual sees. Is the object north of you? south of you? but if you encompass all things, you surround it totally, and even 'are' it as well. So you have no directionality in your perception of it.
I guess I'm beating around the bush and i'm not sure how to fill in all the stepping stones of concept. But in a nutshell, I think individuality (individual persona, perspective, awareness of self as an entity with self contained nature) is intrinsically "finite" in nature. While an "infinite" nature, is intrinsically infinitely de-personalizing. This kinda reflects the idea of ego dissolution in a couple eastern paths. If you're infinite, you no longer have an opinion on cabbage, you just 'exist' and are all things to cabbage, and all things not cabbage. To have a personality or identity, you need some degree of centralized finite aspect, with which to form a viewpoint or opinion, or preference, etc.
So in this sense, if god (or whatever you'd call such a consciousness) were 'everything', 'infinite', then god would have no mind. No "I", where "I" would carry any meaning. "I" compared to what? For such a consciousness there is no "Not I". It's a meaningless concept for such a consciousness. Similarly, no "when". No "why".
If meditation on nothing brings one closer to divinity (I'm just cruising with that term, I think it could be described in less religious terms just as well). I think it's because decentralization of self awareness into just awareness, and ultimately just existence... is basically several steps closer to the intrinsic nature of anything like a universal consciousness.
Is that a good thing? Well, it's "serene", which is to say that it lacks all the turmoil of individuality, that popularized sea of samsara. But... is turmoil "bad" exactly? Often perhaps it can be. But on the other hand, as Captain Kirk said "...pain and guilt can't be taken away with a wave of a magic wand. They're the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away!". Which is to say I'm not completely sold on the pros of ego dissolution, in the effort to be infinite and serene. Actually the same character in a different movie bemoans the lack of risk and excitement in a paradise. Personally I think it's a very valid counterpoint to much eastern religious doctrine.
Uh... so where was i... oh.
Ok, so, she is "her", right? She's infinite... BUT, also not infinite. A duality of sorts, finite and in-finite. In part, the personless all ...but in part, she is 'her'. So I think she slides right into that neter neteru kind of definition. Where all deities were viewed as sort of "faces or facets of an overarching universal divine". I think this is echoed in her having "a form", but generally it kinda feels like she's also "the setting" in which you see the form. A crystalized facet in an infinite solution. I keep using religious terms, might be better to just say she's simultaneously infinite and finite. Which SEEMS like a contradiction, but is it really? You can have one foot in a door and one foot out. I think it's kinda like that.
Anyway, her origin? A finite being, perhaps more accurately, multiple finite beings. Sort of a higher self, or HGA. Or, sort of a deity, as a finite, persona-bearing, face of the infinite. Kind of a buddha really, but not necessarily a buddhist one. What's the bottom most end of a tree, when "down" is an arbitrary idea, and there are many roots across time and space... I think the vein within her, which is most attracted to me, is a bit which was once human. But I feel that's a bit like describing the bit of rock I'm standing on, which is part of a mountain. In an HGA styled view, she's a middle-presence between myself and the infinite (ie the 'angel' in that metric). In a khemetic view she's one of the gods, a neter, and also a part of neter neteru. Could call her a dakini. Could just call her a wrecking ball for preconceptions.
I dunno, can I just answer with a question? What do you call the beginning of something which has become infinite across space & time, but does have a sort of seemingly paradoxical finite individuality as well, which technically i mean there's an entry point, but it enters into the infinite going both ways in time, making the whole idea of 'origin' a conceptual mess, and that's before we even get into the idea of possible multiple incarnations?
She shared a name once. Not a "true name", more just something kinda small and humble from a past, a part of her which was once more completely finite once had a phonetic name. It was Asian. I couldn't begin to spell it. And I've researched it some. the contraction of sounds could be from anywhere from India to Japan. But it's what people called her in that delineation of existence. But I'm not convinced that really represents her 'origin' exactly. It was certainly never treated as relevant. She only shared it because I was feeling down, and I always bugged her about her origin, so she thought it would cheer me up to hear it. I dunno if it was like a 'main thread' of her, or just one tiny bit of no particular import.
jen shi pahoa
gen chi bau hua
gin she paohwa
genshi tao hua
Any of these spellings would be very likely mostly wrong (not to mention, obviously spelled in the wrong language, with the wrong characters).
I've sometimes called her jen, or jenshi. But she says not to use labels with her. And has a firmly established disregard for the accuracy of human historical documentation, doubly so in theological matters. But I don't exactly follow instructions by the letter
it's an understood thing. I like to tease hehe.
Do you feel the "mass" even when not concentrating at all at her? I.e. when doing daily routines/work/etc.?
hmmm
I feel like any focus on her creates an immediate sense of contact. I'm not sure if that means that I'm not in contact with her when not focusing on her, or if she's more like an old watch which you only notice when you think about it. I'm not sure there's a difference. Technically, I wouldn't describe her as completely separate from myself as a consciousness, so... lets go with omnipresent, but highly variable level of uh... awareness.
Subject changing when dealing with spirits: definitely a reality.
How did she go about making you more familiar with your nature/repressed portions?
um, well, I don't want to be overly specific
Best to say she sort of elicited an urge of indulgence of long starved or repressed bits of self. So my initial impression of her was extraordinarily decadent or hedonistic, leaning towards demonic. Sort of evoking and calling to rather frightful bits of self like a seductress. To sort of 'act out' in realms made of imagination, dreamscapes.
Over time this matured though. But it was a sort of... "from the ground up" methodology. Starting from the most primitive, violent, sexual, etc. on up through all parts of consciousness. Not as something to combat... rather the opposite, de-programming that impulse to repress. Embracing all the bits of self, even the most seemingly incompatible bits. Not even as a hierarchy, but rather, all of this, of you, needs to be welcome and a part of the greater awareness of self. To build a more full self awareness, there can't be bits of self outcast from awareness. All of self, together, at one round table, where disagreement is not only allowed, but expected, and it doesn't interfere with an overarching sense of unity. I've sometimes likened it to the idea of MPD (multiple personality disorder) but in a state of hive-mind, not fractured. The horns really hold up the halo, as the joke goes.
There was one sacrifice though. In order for all the rest to work, fear had to be bled out on the altar. Not caution, or self preservation, not timidness, not memories of shyness in youth, not the fun of enjoying horror fiction, etc. all of that's just fine. But... the visceral sensation of fear and the loathing that it engenders, reproach. A thorny spike of wrongthink, festering, blocking wholeness. Like a quicksand sucking at one's feet as they try to go boldly into something difficult. Had to sort of amputate that. And I don't mean repressing it... that would defeat the whole purpose. More destroying it.
I guess this is because connections with a spirit are mental connections, which are always way more deep than social interaction with human beings. The spirits can see deep into your soul and interact with you in a very different way and level than any human could. Not sure if this applies to those who have developed telepathy to sense minds of others. I believe you're one of those people?
yeah
also, yeah.
although, with people, it's far less acute, and far more lopsided and non-reciprocal.
it's a bit depressing really. I haven't put much effort into honing the ability to sense other people in some time. In part, because it's just so one sided. It's only fascinating for so long
I've heard that personal crisis is usually the moment in life when spirit guides step into the picture. Probably since at that time human being is most open to new ideas and approaches. Just my guess, but would make sense, since your story also goes along the same lines.
Definitely was not my first personal crisis. But it was a very holistic confluence of... factors. A lot of different threads all coming to a head. Sometimes when you're making art, you like portions of what it is you're creating, but more and more you end up bumping against a simply un-fixable perspective issue. And as much as you like this bit and that bit, and you may have put a lot of time and effort into the bits, but the larger whole just isn't working. And a person can reach a point where it's just... throw white paint on the canvas, tear it all down, and start anew from the first stroke. Theologically, philosophically, emotionally, life goals, direction, meaning, paradigm... all of it. In art I know when to scrap a work in progress, and just start completely over. Once in a figure drawing session, with a particularly tricky bit of foreshortening in the perspective, in the span of 15 minutes I tore off the paper and started over 7 times. It was a little strange, because nobody else in the class did that. But I was more focused on getting it right than fitting in. In life, i'm not so perceptive hehe, but it was just, getting obvious, even for me, that I was just racking up an ever deeper sunk cost in the currency of time & energy, and it just wasn't turning out right.
I'd love to meet her one day, since I'm a seeker of truth trying to get rid of all lies/delusions/dogma/false beliefs/etc. Just the truth please, whatever that happens to be.
Sounds like she is a bit of a mystic after all: doesn't alwys explain things but keeps you mysteriously in the dark on some topics, without explaining directly why.
Sometimes, I think it would take a very long time to even explain why. She's just economical
Also, sometimes, there's a... fundamental difference between hearing something, and KNOWING something. Intimately, viscerally. Sometimes you have to arrive at knowledge first hand.
I don't personally feel that I've woken up fully yet. Only partly. That's what I'm actively working on, but I'm not sure how to go about it. All pointers are more than welcome.
hmmm, well, I don't want to say I'm "all done". That feeeeels like the voice of stagnation which gets along so well with pride
I'd rather say uh... the range of self which I am not aware of is "vastly smaller". And for all intents and purposes, it's not a significant focus anymore. I don't wonder where thoughts came from. I can trace all the little sparks of idea & concept through what's usually preconscious free-associative terrain. And I'm pretty comfortable looking at it all kinda 'from within' and 'from without' (even if the latter invokes a bit of an oxymoron hehe).
pointers? uhhh. years of personal work in a nutshell?
vivisect fear, under bright light, with a heavy heart. engage all parts of self as welcome virtues which make up a greater whole, a whole which is vast in 'scope' rather than in 'purity'. I find it helpful to imagine that there is no such thing as a wrong impulse, only rather wrong situations for an impulse. So you kinda find the situation wherein each bit of self is the right fit. I think there are positive expressions for even the most base elements. Put real effort into shifting awareness away from the internal dialogue, more towards what I call "raw thought", which is not parsed down into representational sounds or imagery, but is purely conceptual. Raw thought is also multi-threaded, so that can make it seem a bit complicated and unapproachable at first. Just remember that hand-eye coordination is based almost entirely in raw thought, just need to kinda grok how abstract thought comes from kinda the same origin point. A place partly instinct, partly free associative, and very multithreaded. Step outside the self (not OBE or astrally, but sort of expand awareness and look back on self from without, examine it. Then remember that you're looking through a warped lens, paradigm shift, get a feel for lens warpage in general. Intuit to some degree the actuality of what you're looking at through a warped lens. The self, the family, the home town, the religion, the culture, the nation, the species, the ego, feelings, pet theories, outside influences of all kinds, all are kinda warping influences. The self is sort of a gradient of animal extending into abstract consciousness. Don't try to delineate it, but just be cognizant of that structure and how it works. Don't sugar coat anything, delight in the rawness of everything. And as someone once said "doubt, doubt all, doubt even that thou doubtest" (see, i 'can' play nice with the western esoteric
). And meditate.
and probably some other stuff which isn't coming to mind at the moment
but I think it hit most of the highlights.
I think it also helps to just think of the self as a sort of conglomerate multiplicity. A lot of facets, with a lot of variation. Don't try to beat all the facets into a uniformity. Just link it all. More a garden than a pattern. There's pattern, but it's fractal, nuanced, organic.
Personally I find that the more I know myself, the more I see a reflection in the universe. Sort of "as within, so without". Except I think that's more intended to speak to things like the law of attraction, and I'm more talking about just that there's a subtle mirror-like sense of things. Also though, bearing in mind, that imagining the universe mirrors self (or vice versa) has a LOT of potential for projection and hubris. I more mean just a passive observation that less and less of things outside what you'd normally think of as self, feels 'foreign' to self, once you get to know the whole thing of self.
Also I kinda think there's no absolute concrete line between self and the external, but that's getting off topic even more than I already have, and I've been rambling all over the place already!
I occasionally seem to sense other peoples ideas and thoughts, but almost always confuse them being my own thoughts. I'm not sure how often this even happens, since the external thoughts feel exactly like my own. Only the few exceptions I can think of are:
1. When I purposefully meditate for a good while and try to sense someone's thoughts, and after a while I manage to do just that.
2. Same but a bit different meditation technique: a couple of days ago I managed to receive a thought which at one moment wasn't there and then like a tomato smashed to my mind fully formed in a nanosecond. BLAM! It was there in all it's "glory".
I generally perceive other peoples' thoughts (when i do perceive actual abstract thoughts) as near instantaneous flashes of concept. Easiest to perceive when I ask a clarifying question. Like if there's a story about characters A and B. And someone says "I'm surprised that he did that" and I'm not sure which character they meant, so i ask "which one?" there's a moment shortly after they read or hear this, where they think the clarification of which one they meant pretty clearly. There needs to be a mutual focus overlapping that moment of time though.
Much easier to perceive a feeling, which can significantly contextualize what's actually been said. (I mean above and beyond tone and body language, etc).
There's an element of making the self "still" in order to perceive others though. The old saying "when mouth is open, ears are closed" applies to silent internal mental processes too
even trying too hard to focus might be a detriment.
As I mention in another thread, I have a really good reason to believe this partial psychic blindness is due to something that was done to me earlier in life. At least I have evidence pointing in that direction. Could be a sham though, who knows.
I don't think people are particularly 20/20 at psychic perception. I'm not
I dunno if that means there's something 'broken'. I more think of it as 'improving what is' whether it's broken or just badly designed in the first place.
How did your awakening process happen, or were you always sensitive to sensing esoteric things?
lots of negative entity interaction and episodes of precognitive deja vu when i was young.
also some experience with what I think is like a super-egregore, through church. 'the holy spirit' namely. though i no longer believe the surrounding narrative, I did have experiences with the energetic force of it. For a long time, for me, that was "proof", but eventually I decided that it's proof of a metaphysical effect, but not necessarily the supplied narrative.
I found getting out of body to be super helpful with the sense of the nonphysical. much effort led to nothing at all. Finally in a fit of just instinctive 'ooomf' I tried just "lunging out" as I call it. Not overthinking it, not much in the way of method, a lot of "just do it" attitude. I found that just trying to focus on the 'focal nexus' so to speak of self... in terms of energy & mind... and just lunging forward, without the body... that I would momentarily seem to separate. But I'd snap back in. So i tried it, and then focused on trying to cling to the 'out' state, and avoid snapping back in. One way I found to help with that was... well when lunging out, you get a kinda split perspective, like you're partly still 'in', partly 'out'.
This split perspective, is kinda like... there's an old toy called a Viewmaster, which would let you look at 3D images in slides. The slides were on a paper disk, and you'd pull a lever to rotate the disk and see the next one. Really every image was 2 images, 2 slides, so you'd get a stereoscopic view. Pretty antiquated by modern toy standards. But... if you put the slide disk in wrong, you'd see 2 completely different images in each eye (instead of 2 images of the same thing at a slightly different angle). So instead of seeing 2 images of the empire state building, biased slightly to the left & right, to make it look 3D, you'd see an image of the empire state building in one eye piece, and an image of the Eiffel tower for example in the other. Because the paper disk was put in wrong.
Now the utility of this example in the viewmaster may depend a bit on being abidextrously eye'd (which i am, I don't have a left or right bias in eye favoritism). So I found there would be these 2 super-imposed images. each of them about equally between translparent and opaque. (actually, it's much the same as when you use a paper towel tube to try to see a hole in your hand). Anyway, I found I could focus 'mentally' on one image and it would become more opaque while the other became more transparent. And then shift my focus (mentally) onto the other image, and it would become the more opaque image, etc.
The sliding back into body issue, reminded me of how your focus would shift in the viewmaster. You didn't so much move laterally back into body. More like the out of body perspective would fade out while the in body perspective would become more concrete. So... hunch time. I tried to focus very hard, mentally, on the out of body perspective, immediately after "lunging forward" with my mind/energy. voila, the out of body perspective became more opaque, and the in body perspective became more transparent. A bit of practice required. feels like learning to write with the wrong hand (I'm not ambidextrous hand-wise hehe). In time, it gets far easier. You don't have to lunge anywhere even. You can sit in body, and just focus on the 'exo-body-perspective'.
What you see, i think, requires some interpretive guesswork though,
I wouldn't take everything at face value. Also, I find that when using it to try to 'remote view' physical things at a distance, there's a bit of a mental block. You know how in dreams, sometimes there are faceless people? I don't mean something terrifying, just like characters in the dream which just aren't flushed out. Same thing if you try to read text in a dream, often it's just filler 'junk', and if by chance you actually stop to try to read text in a dream it's illegible. You'd probably have to have some lucid dreaming experience to know what i mean, cuz the natural tendency is to just not pay attention to such things while dreaming. Anyway, I find that there's a similar sort of thing that goes on with remote viewing through OBE. Like the brain is on some level saying "no no, I don't know what that is, i can't see it!" and it's actually blocking what you might see with that sort of veil of vagueness.
However, you can kinda trick the brain, if you 'after the fact' try to examine details which you hadn't considered while you were OBE. For example, the color or layout of a room. If you tried to think of looking at those things while OBE, the brain would try to vague them up. BUT if you retroactively think "oh, what color was the room, what was it's shape?" then you can remember those details, from before your brain knew to muck it up. The brain can be an uncooperative thing
It feels like the same 'vibe' as second guessing your intuition when you're emotionally involved in something. Like on a first date, what is he/she thinking? yeah, I'm not "still" enough to tell, I'm on the edge of my seat! So I think the more relaxed and casual you are with viewing, the better OBE remote viewing will work.
Also, telling the brain "no, seriously, I CAN see, I've proven it before, with details I wasn't actively thinking about while OBE, brain, don't be a goober, chill out, and just lemme look, and don't fret about causality violations, we've already disproven causality violations anyway". But that's more remote viewing the physical. The nonphysical is more just prone to interpretive symbolism, which 'can' be misleading if you're generating symbolism emotionally and then interpretting it intellectually. pay close attention to the 'feel' attached to symbolism for context. If people are taught that certain colors or symbols or archetypes mean certain things, then it probably will 'for them'. But I think you're more open to 'perception' the less 'preconception' you bring to it.
Anyway, I approach perception of the nonphysical via a kinda OBE-centric slant, rather than a 3rd eye slant (including in-body OBE perspective). Though i'm not convinced there's a noteworthy difference, just different conceptual routes I think.
Yep, by shining the truth all around you when appropriate and hope for the best. Truth is rarely nice and comforting, which is not what most people are willing to listen. Unfortuantely regular Joe wants to listen sweet lies instead of truths that hurt. That's why the world is in such a state
Reminds me of the few times I've tried my hand at playing "psychic" in the traditional cultural sense. Everything people want to REALLY know about... are all things they already know deep down, but can't come to terms with. I get jack shit trying to 'sense' what's going to happen in a person's life. But I get plenty of what "they" THINK will happen, or fear will happen, or wish would happen, etc. Often extending into a kinda preconscious layer of thought, which they're not consciously aware of. So the question then becomes not so much figuring out the truth, but figuring out how to sugar coat the truth such that they feel like they can consciously engage with what it is they already know deep down. But if they wanna know their lucky lottery numbers, i got nothing
I doubt any skill/discipline in the world has a place which you can call "learned it all, finished and done".
There's always tons more to learn, regardless of the discipline of interest.
Yeah, but I also don't want to elaborate on how the world is flat, right before i figure out that it's a slightly eliptical ovoid
I'm being a little overly perfectionistic though, i know.
![[rofl]](./images/smilies/010-rofl.gif "ROFL"){kind=small}
![[eek]](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif "EEK"){kind=icon}
I never thought of it that way. All I saw was some mystical entity watching for my back occasionally, until I figure out how to take care of myself. Now that I look at the list I wrote, I have to admit Entity-A seems to have played a bit more in my learning than I had realized. I always thought that mentor is a human who you can call on a phone and ask stuff... Well, good thing I joined this forum. I'm learning faster than ever before. Good thing I was guided here ![[yay]](./images/smilies/024-yaaah.gif "YAY!!"){kind=small}