Forestluv

@Alex I've found that if I try to enter their world and pull them up it doesn't work and can be counter-productive. The only time I've seen any progress is when they invite me into that world and show interest in evolving. Even then, I can only go into their stretch zone. If I go for too much, they enter the panic zone and shut down. Yet this is rare since my family is totally immersed in the Maze. Another way is to just be the higher conscious level without "trying" to do anything. No intention, no agenda. No judgement. No expectations. Just be at the highest conscious. When someone is genuinely being at a higher conscious level, it is often attractive to those below and can rub off on them.

@Shin The "paranormal" can appear to be insane as it first appears. Yet it's only paranormal until it's no longer paranormal. Then it is normal. The first time I dissolved into the collective conscious was in a cafe. It felt insane. I was like "just chill and go along for the ride". Now I kinda like it.

@triadne You might not gain access as conscious memories. You might not be able to re-create a story like you want to. I think there are some psychotherapy modalities that try to unlock emotional blocks and deep-seeded "memories". Sometimes I just get a sense that something happened. Almost like a previous life or a dream I can quite remember. Yet it hasn't risen to the level of my consciousness and I've accepted they may be a different type of "memory" that isn't like my other memories. It's more like a sense or intuition. I don't know how to describe it. It is definitely closer to a feeling than a thought. And I get the sense that feelings arise from it. I don't know how to raise it to traditional memories and I'm a bit skeptical about how true it would be if some hypnotist or psychologist tried to pull it out. I've also considered past life regression therapy, yet it can be expensive (about $300+ for a day). So I've accepted that I can only get to know them though these nontraditional channels. One thing that open up a channel was in a sensory deprivation tank. Another time during shamanic breathing. There were "body memories" released during Shamanic breathing.

I also see his pained ego. I also see her effort and compassion. In my experience with vulnerability dynamics, empathetic connection is critical as a foundation for working through egoic dynamics. Yet the egoic dynamics that appear are a manifestation of a deeper level. The energy of compassion, ime, is actually counter-productive in vulnerability dynamics. Within a dynamic in which a person is highly open and vulnerable, the empathetic *knowing* is crucial. Without that, the egoic dynamics you mentioned cannot be addressed. Yet those egoic dynamics are a secondary issue, covering up a deeper primary issue. In his case, a subconscious insecurity and vulnerability level much deeper than the egoic dynamics that were apparent. For me, reaching these levels within my own mind-body was by far the most terrifying experience of my life. I sensed the same dynamic in this man, yet it is covered up. I am fairly confident I could have connected empathically with him immediately. I think his deep subconscious being would sense that I've been there. Looking at him face to face and making an effort to reach out and speak compassionately is a completely different channel and the ego often defensive posture. Which is exactly what happened. There was a moment his guard was down and she may have picked up on a empathic frequency when she said "You feel deeper than other people". Yet she wasn't able to go in. I felt a moderately strong empathic connection with him (not compassion) and I intuitively knew her approach would not work. I felt him and knew I would react exactly like that he did. As soon as she started talking, I knew that if she said "Buuut" with a certain tone and pivoted it was game over and it was. Any hint of judgement and rejection is leveraged 100X in a strong vulnerability dynamic. I was experiencing him and shut down the exact same moment he did in the conversation. . . Good intentions and effort do not necessarily lead to human connection. There are certain people I can connect empathetically with in a matter of seconds. In particular, other empaths, reiki masters, alcoholics and some forms of psychiatric illness. I have a sense he may also be an empath and we would have immediately connected on this level - depending on frequency. I would immediately know in person. If so, the conversation would have gone much differently. These situations are rare, yet when I encounter another empath on the same frequency it can be extremely intense. One of us can energetically burn out or freak out - depending on the strength of connection and our levels of grounding at the time. I've been on both sides of it. If he put his guard down with me like he briefly did with Abraham, I would have gone straight below this whole "I feel bad for other peoples' suffering" distraction and defense and gone into his deeper levels. Few words. It's mostly done through eyes and body. After a 30-60 minute "conversation" with him I would have likely had my entire energetic system drained and would have needed to recharge alone for several hours. The exchanges are exhausting. There are also people I have very unhealthy empathetic dynamics with - in particular female narcissists and BPDs. They are energy vampires to me and it's hard for me to set up energetic boundaries to protect myself. There is often a very strong energetic attraction between us - so I avoid them as much as I can. If I let down my boundary or they penetrate it, I'm in serious trouble. They can put a gaslighting spell on me. I've found that every two people have different energetic dynamics and imo it can take skill to open energetic channels with immature empaths because they are so scattered, ungrounded. And secondary issues siphon off there empathic potential. Yet with those that have experience it's instant. This is just my experience watching the video. I understand other people have different experiences. I am not saying mine is right and that it applies to everyone. Some beings in Turquoise get to become wizards with wands. . .

I agree that it can be expressed/released in healthy ways and unhealthy ways. To be honest with you, I don't think I am the best qualified in this situation. My internal anger dynamic was very different than yours. What I can say is that I love you regardless of whether or not you are angry

Now we're talkin' . . .

@Juan First I'll tell you what is arising within me after reading your response: Ayahuasca is another psychedelic tool, yet ime I would not say it has anymore power than other psychedelics. It is it's own powerful "teacher". It may resonate for some, it might not resonate for others. You mentioned you have tried several different psychedelics and they did not resonate with you, it may that psychedelics in general are not resonating with you or that those particular three psychedelic teachers did not resonate with you. One other thing with Ayahuasca ceremonies are the communities. If you continue this route, I would strongly encourage you to do a lot of research to find one you personally resonate with. The community atmsosphere has a major impact on experience. It is not just you tripping at the ceremony, there is an energetic group tripping as well. I researched for two months before deciding on one. I contacted people who had done the retreat there and I contacted the leaders. The Aya ceremony was filled with highly conscious beings and there was a depth of love present I never knew existed. With that said, one message I got after my third Aya retreat was to never discourage or encourage another person to attend their first Aya ceremony. Mother Aya made it absolutely clear to me that the answer is within them. So I am not encouraging or discouraging you. This answer is within you. For me, there was an inner calling to do it. That inner calling kept coming back and I had to travel across the world to honor it. I later found that it was Mother Aya calling me. Perhaps others also have experienced that, perhaps not. It's just my experience. Whichever path you take, I love you just the way you are.

Oh not too personal at all. I love exploring this stuff. I have a habit of over-sharing. lol This is just my experience and sense of the video. For me, it was extremely strong in empathetic, emotional and intuitive modes. These modes dominated my experience and I was only functioning at about 20% intellectual. I had some difficulty following the intellectual line at times because my other systems were on full blast. These impressions aren't intellectual. As I watched the video, I wasn't analyzing the exchange. There was just a sense, a type of knowing, a connection. It wasn't until afterward that I tried to convert those other languages into verbal intellect. About 90% of language is nonverbal and energetic. Sometimes I pick up more of it, sometimes less. The below may seems analytical, yet I wasn't thinking this stuff at the time. Right out of the gate, my empathetic system got turned on big time. Insecurity, anxiety and vulnerability was intense. I connected with it and "felt" it. I know this dynamic well from my own direct experience and working with many students with this dynamic. Ime, there are special skills to work well with it. It is like threading a needle with little margin of error. . . I could just tell, yet in terms of it's expression . . it was his body language, his hat, his eyes, looking down, how he first started talking, his hesitation. He did not want to be on camera and be seen. I "knew" right away that the primary dynamic in this moment is insecurity and vulnerability. Whatever the other "issue" was was secondary. There is no way to channel to the secondary issue without first connecting to the primary issue. Even if the only output was loving him within his primary issue that would be a "success", imo. Trying to bypass the primary issue and hit the secondary issue isn't going to work, it will be counter-productive and can cause harm, such as a micro-trauma. Right away, there was an uneasiness with the interaction. I think she sensed his uneasiness, yet did not empathetically connect with him at all. Once the empathetic system is activated, it communicates with the intuitive. Ime, if the empathetic system becomes to strong it is overwhelming and interferes with communication. I literally start to lose consciousness of who I am and who he is and whose experience is whose. Yet at a moderate empathetic level, there can be powerful communication with intuition and just knowing and acting, without thinking. He was in an extremely vulnerable position. There is a delicateness about it. It is like revealing a glass sculpture of yourself. I have experienced this many times and I felt that guy big time. The other person needs to handle that glass sculpture with a delicate love and appreciation - without "trying". It has to be genuine and that comes from one's own direct experience with it. I know how it feels when someone handles that glass sculpture of me roughly and I know how it feels when someone drops that glass structure. As soon as there is a hint of that happening, that glass sculpture goes straight back into the safe and defense mechanisms arise - different emotions such anger, frustration, avoidance arise and the intellect fires up. That's exactly what happened in this scenario. Once that glass sculpture gets threatened and put back in the safe, it aint coming back out. She could sense his discomfort yet was not emphatically and intuitively connected. A lot of this was her mannerisms and vibe. She called him up and pretty much directed him to take a seat. He hesitated and wanted to back out. He mentioned the camera. She insisted he come forward and take a seat. The camera issue was a big deal in his vulnerable space and she nonchalantly motioned the camera crew to stay off his face, then again told him to sit down. This made me cringe. You just don't shut the door on someone in this vulnerable space. You can encourage them to enter, yet they need to enter own their own choice and you have to leave a door open. There is a manner of being in which you extend love and let them know you love them whether they can come forward or not and you let them know they are allowed to leave the space whenever they want and you will love them no matter what. She just didn't do this. It was business as usual as she gave him instructions and nonchalantly instructed the camera crew. It was her body language, the subtle sighs, her eyes. Yet I also could emphatically feel her. I also know that dynamic. Students come to my office all the time. I advise students all day. Sometimes I get behind on time. Empathetic communication is extremely energetic draining. I know how it feels when I have to "try" to connect. When I have to put effort into it and it just isn't flowing naturally. I also know the dynamic of doing it all day with an audience in the background. It's really hard to do, especially for extended periods. I sensed that in Abraham. Sometimes it's just not "there". There was a sense of "Ok, next person take a seat. Oh you are uncomfortable and don't like cameras? Camera crew stay off his face. C'mon up. C'mon sit right there in the chair." She just wasn't in touch with the primary issue of insecurity and vulnerablity. He was totally exposed and reaching out to be loved". She made an attempt to emotionally connect by talking about how the emotional response to seeing others in pain. Yet that is the secondary issue. She connected with the primary issue when she told him she can sense he is a "deep feeler, much deeper than most people". The energetic dynamic changed and a channel could have been established. His demeanor changed and said "Yes, yes that's it" a few times. But it was still a weak connection. . . I knew right there if she said "BUUUUT. . . " and pivots it's game over and the glass statue is back in the safe. That glass stature is deep I Amness. Deep personal existence and it is extremely vulnerable here. And this was attached to his secondary issue of the external suffering. Any hint that that experience is "wrong", "invalid", is "unworthy" etc. is an indirect threat to the vulnerable glass statue and one needs to secure that safety first. Not through strategy or techniques. Though communicating nonverbally that I love you for you. Whatever arises you are loved in this moment. Whether you feel or think doesn't matter. I will love you know matter what. This doesn't come through the intellect. It can flow through words. Yet it can also come through gentle loving eye contact, facial expression and a gentle smile. She established weak emotional connection with very little empathetic connection and as soon as she said BUUUUUT, and pivoted to a different viewpoint, I knew it was over. That glass statue went back in the safe, defense mechanism went up and she no longer had a chance to establish connection to the primary issue. Regardless of her intention, the impact was she essentially threatened his primary issue. And it went all down hill from there. She was overemphasizing the secondary issue and never formed any connection. She talked over him, corrected him and at one point looked over him and asked the audience if they are ok if they go on talking more. She had no human connection with him and even talked over him to ask everyone else if this taking too much and if they are still interested. This re-enforces the whole protective energy of the man. Again, it's easy for me to sit here and critique her. I know how hard it is to do in real-time especially when tired and in front of an audience. Sometimes it's just not there and I've been disconnected many times within a similar dynamic. Yet, these types of things prevent the empathetic channel. The last thing I want to mention was about her vibrational energies / frequencies message. Without an actual vibrational energetic connection with the man in that moment, this message comes across as abstract ideas "out there". She spoke of vibrational frequencies, yet was not in tune with the actual vibrational frequencies between her and the man in that precise moment. If there was an energetic connection they were both experiencing in that moment, the message would have been incredibly powerful. You can feel it through eyes and faces. Both people have to let their guard down and be open to it. It's extremely intimate and vulnerable. If one person tries to force it, it comes across as creepy and threatening to the guarded person. Yet she was not in tune with their energetic dynamics in the moment and he became closed down and could not receive. I think she became overly concerned about helping someone through a secondary dynamic to a place she thought would be beneficial to him. I find it much better to first connect and get in tune with what is happening between us in this moment right now. In a vulnerability dynamic, I also think its important express unconditional love in that moment regardless of whatever that person believes or feels. Then the secondary issue can be delicately addressed. I would have offered suggestions as other viewpoints and through my energetics made clear it was ok if the person wanted to hold onto their viewpoints. There would have been a safe togetherness feel. "How can we. . . ", "Let's explore together. . . ". Any hint that you have the wrong view and this is why you are upset is an indirect threat to that vulnerable glass statue. It is an indirect rejection of that person. That is not the intent, yet it is the impact. In other dynamics that do not have a strong vulnerablity component, this would not work. With someone who has a big personality and is looking for an intellectual debate, the dynamics are completely different. It's really hard to develop high intuition to just act through intuition in the flow.

@Nahm That is one interpretation of a dynamic. I sense a different dynamic. What I sense is that Abraham was unable to emphatically connect and understand the underlying emotional dynamic in the man. This was a main cause of the confusion, tension and separation that arose in the man. I think she overemphasized intellect and tried to use emotion, yet due to an inability to connect through empathetic channels she did not connect to the emotional frequency of the man. When I watch the video, I can feel both Abraham and the man and enter an empathetic channel with each. To me, they are on different channels. Talking about emotions is nowhere near empathetic channels of emotional connectivity.

It sounds like you realized that "you" are not the author of your thoughts. The old concept was that "you" controlled your thoughts, actions and emotions. There is now awareness that that "you" does not exist. The concept of "you" simply needs to be updated to reflect that realization. Simply update it based primarily on your direct experience.

I think you are touching upon intellectual and emotional beliefs. A mind may intellectually believe a person is evil and a body may emotionally believe a person is evil. This was one thing I realized a few years ago. For example, I worked through a lot of childhood issues intellectually and thought I was done. I didn’t have intellectual issues with it anymore. Yet I hadn’t realized how deep it goes. There were deeper emotional and body memory issues I hadn’t worked through. It seems when both mind/body and intellect/emotion “get it” there is embodiment.

@Nahm I think we may be using the terms “add” and “meaning” differently. Perhaps the terms “arises” and “impulse” would be better in this context. As well, the terms “absence” and “prior to” are not quite accurate, yet I don’t know better terms. By absence, the term “Mu” or “null void” may be better suited. And of course terms like “arises” and “prior to” use a framework of a timeline. Yet, a timeline can be useful to understand distinctions, ime. I like to be fluid with distinctions and flow back and forth between high distinction and low distinction as appropriate for context of discussion, yet at times it can be difficult to communicate that. It is a skill I’m still working on. The comment on distinctions wasn’t sarcastic. It would be the same as saying I’m happy looking at Chicago from a national map of the U.S. or a city map of Chicago. They both have value depending on context. I think at times one person may say “Let’s speak English” and then starts speaking in Spanish. I think Hicks did some of that and it caused confusion. She starts off agreeing with the man that “these are horrific, unspeakable acts”. She goes further and says “everyone agrees with that”. She is assigning universal objective morality. The acts are horrific and every agrees. She then pivots and goes off into a rift of relativism in which “each of us creates our own reality”. At the end she goes back to universal objectivism. Each time he said the acts were horrific, she firmly corrected him that they are actually “variety”. Yet now her universal objective position differs and contradicts her original one. I imagine a child that is upset because his friends told him there is no Santa Claus that brings toys. His Mom clearly tells him there is a real Santa Claus that brings toys and that everyone agrees with that. There is no question about that. She then goes on saying that we create our own versions of Santa Claus and toys - and depending on what we create we can be happy or sad. This would cause confusion. Then the Mother says there actually is a real Santa Claus that brings dental floss. The child is confused and says Santa Claus brings toys. The Mother corrects him and says, "no, Santa Claus brings dental floss". There would be a lot of confusion and upset in the child. I'm not surprised at all the guy became more confused and upset during the conversation. I think there are nuggets of value within what she said, yet overall it was delivered awkwardly with some internal contradictions. That’s just my take tho. I can see how it can be interpreted differently.

@mandyjw Nice contemplations. Thank you. In the past I was hyper intellectual and then I went to the other extreme that thinking is “bad” and I need to shut it off. I’m realizing more and more that they are a group of musicians playing together in the band. Intellect and emotion integrated together, cooperating. Sometimes they play together, sometimes intellect has a solo. Sometimes emotion has a solo. Emotion is like the drums in a jazz band. I used to think the drums were a secondary instrument in the background that made a bunch of noise. Yet I’ve cone to appreciate the drums and their contribution. They are beautiful. Regarding darkness, I notice I have a tendency to group stuff as “negative” emotion or datkness. Yet when I look closer, some of that darkness isn’t so dark. For example, sometimes I feel a deep sadness. I may listen to sad songs and become really sad for an afternoon. I would generally think that sadness is dark and something I should move away from. Yet that one afternoon I just allowed the sadness to enter and I went with it. It had a beautiful quality to it. There was a love and connection present. An essence in the present moment. I shared this with a couple friends and their response was the same “Oh no, what’s wrong? What can I do to help?”. Yet it wasn’t like that.

@Nahm I would say absence is prior to relative. But yea, we could remove that distinction if we wanted to. I find it helpful in distingishing relative/absolute, dual/nondual. Yet those can be integrated. In the video, there is absence if meaning. The man added in relative meaning “horrific”. Hicks added in relative meaning “variety”. And in this post I am adding in relative meaning. The dog across the street looking at me type this adds in different relative meaning. My main issue with Hicks is the addition of a “chooser” that is choosing the meaning. Yet of course this is more meaning my mind-body is adding. . .

The term traglotive was absent a minute ago before I made it up. Relative meaning can now be assigned to it. It will have various meanings relative to different people, frogs, birds etc. . .

I would say relativity is absent in absence. Relative meaning arises from absence.

@mandyjw That’s an interesting view regarding frequency holders and doers. I’ve never thought of it like that before. Along these lines, I think Abraham Hicks introduces a “chooser” into the mix. I think if she stayed within the frequency and doer framework it would have been clearer. To me, adding in a chooser muddied the waters. Also, I think there is value in honoring and experiencing emotion. The guy was experiencing deep pain for those that are suffering. I think there is a balance between experiencing that emotion as part of the human experience without labeling it as something “wrong” and also being open to becoming more aware what is occurring in one’s mind and growth that can arise from it. To me, Hicks was often balance and there was an underlying theme his emotions and perspective needed fixing. To me, Hicks had a well-intentioned subtle agenda to steer him toward a new perspective that she believes would be beneficial to him. I prefer an atmosphere that is based more on curiosity, exploration and discovery.

@Nahm To me, this seems like a lesson in relativity and absence of meaning. What I don’t understand is her insistence that there is a *you* that can create reality. She seems to be using “you” in the traditional illusory context. That there is some thing called “you” in the mind that is running the show and just needs to make better choices for the mind-body to feel better. In some contexts I think this can be helpful, like telling children there is a Santa Claus can make them feel better. Yet in the context of the video, I think a large part of his inner turmoil was attachment and identification to an illusory “you” and she fed that delusion by telling him things like “you” create reality. Even if we alow this assumption of a “you” that is in control, I think she gave a conflicting message. She would say things like “Yes, these are horrible, unspeaking acts - noone is arguing with you there”. Then she would say something to the effect of “Rather than believing that the child being beaten is suffering, just believe that the beaten child is experiencing variety and you will feel better”. To me, she is giving meaning by saying the acts are horrific and then pivots and says just think that the acts I just agreed are horrific are “variety”. I think this caused confusion within the exchange. Within her free choice message, I think it would have been better to say “you can see the acts as horrific or you can see them as variety. It’s your choice. You create your own reality”.

@Mikael89 We don’t know for sure what happened to him, yet mocking someone’s suicide is over the line. Please tone it down,

An experience of such profound intimate connection that tears arise.

I agree. I don't think she is oriented toward levels, realms etc. Yet she seemed very oriented toward will and choice imo. I can see her point that the man is suffering in his mind-body and I suppose there is value in using a theme that he is creating his own reality. Yet to me, this is misleading because it suggests there is a real "me" that is driving the car and can make choices. A few times she addressed vibrational energies that arise. So, my question would be. . . why not go straight to the vibrational energy and sensations? Why not draw awareness to energy dynamics and sensations that arise? And draw awareness to how those sensations are interconnected to thought impulses and energy dynamics in the environment? Why introduce the illusory self into the mix and suggest the illusory self has illusory power to make illusory choices? To me, it seems misleading. The guy totally anchored into the whole idea of the self and it seemed like a distraction. I'm not sure why she diidn't just stick with vibrational energy, sensations and thought impulses.

Thank you, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments and your perspective. I've been working to balance intellect / analysis / conceptualization with creativity / emotion / intimacy / intuition. Others may call in yin and yang or masculine and feminine etc. Your experience and perspective is really helpful. Hopefully not just for me, yet for others. A couple weeks ago i was immersed in nature and had deep connections with mother nature / earth. She is a wise teacher. I've become more and more aware about an overemphasis on thinking and analysis and neglecting/repressing feelings. I think many of us are conditioned to figure things out and make sense of things. Yet I'm learning more about how emotions are a language and how thoughts and emotions interact within my body. They are so closely related that sometimes the distinction between the two dissolves. I agree that many men are conditioned to think that "feeling make me weak" and that is a big problem in terms of learning the emotional language. Consider this: how many distinctions do we have within the intellect? We have thousands of words and millions of possible ways to describe something. How many distinctions do we have for emotions? How many words? A dozen or so? Sometimes I ask people how they are feeling and they paused stumped. Perhaps someone before going out on a second date. They are immersed in thought trying to figure stuff out. Trying to plan and give meaning to everything. I ask how they feel. "Huh? I don't know. I guess I feel a little nervous, kinda. Maybe it's excitement? Or sorta kinda hopeful? I'm not really sure". Then I ask "what have you been thinking". Without any hesitation they go off on a long-winded detailed explanation of the story going on in there head. Imagine if emotions were top dog and we put 95% of our time and attention into emotional awareness instead of being in our head 95% of the time. We would now have thousands of words and descriptions for emotions. Someone would immediately know they are feeling a mixture of insecurity, attraction, excitement, hope and intrigue. There would be a word for this combination - actually dozens of words for this combination because each component can be mixed with different weights. Just like making a smoothie. Yes, it seems like people can get trapped into emotional traps, similar to getting caught into intellectual traps. Regarding this work as being emotionally amazing. . . do you think that this analogy is fair?. . . Imagine someone that is feeling unsatisfied in life and immerse in life's problems. They want to make some positive changes and decide to start a Yoga program. This could be a great way to meet new healthy people and improve their physical, emotional and spiritual health. Yet after a few weeks the person is full of negativity about how they aren't doing it right, their progress is too slow, everyone else is better, their life still sucks, it's so hard to stay discipline, it's so much work and on and on. . . the join an online message board to complain and then start getting into debates about which Yoga tradition is the best, who were the best Yogis, the proper way to do Yoga etc. Is this a similar case in which you might say "Wait a minute. . . engaging in Yoga as a lifestyle is supposed to feel AMAZING. You are essentially cultivating human connection with others, self love for yourself, improved balance, strength, attention and awareness that increases quality of life. If so, do you think that there are also growing pains during learning Yoga? It's not always easy. It can be challenging and uncomfortable. Yet we can see these times of challenges and discomforts as wonderful progression stages as we become healthier. Working through each hurdle allows for deeper human connection, love and harmony. In this case, we are acknowledging that there are some brief periods of discomfort within an overall path of greater love, compassion, warmth, creativity, harmony, greater possibilities etc. My question here is whether you see value in both dark and light themes, which ideally would be balanced. Or if you see dark themes as more of a stepping stone toward light themes. I notice many people get immersed into dark theme vortexes in which they just swirl around in. Themes like "my life sucks and women hate me". They seem to want to move past that yet are stuck. When given suggestions about how to grow they seem to want to stay in the "life sucks" mode. I can value in acknowledging the emotion. Yet isn't this an emotional loop of negativity that ideally is moved through? As well there are loops like "the world is filled with evil and misery, how can love exist?". There is also this dynamic in which people seem to get stuck it. Yet I also think "dark" themes can have deep emotional and human value. Consider a relationship in which someone deeply loved their partner. The break up and feel deep sadness. To me, this type of sadness arose from the deep love and I think there is value in deeply experiencing that sadness. It can be a profound human experience and allow many insights to arise. For me, the sorrow that results from love carves deeply into my being. Like a knife that carves a cavern into my being. And this more expansive cavern increases the space to love even deeper in the future. It's beautiful and a very different dynamic than the "people are low conscious and suck" type of negativity. I've noticed that same dynamic. It is a mentality that I will overcome all and claim enlightenment. As if this is some mountain to be conquered. And once I conquer the mountain I will stand on the top in victory and slam my personal flag into the ground and claim this mountain as mine. I see that type of mentality here. I also see it in real life. A couple weeks ago, I was in Sedona hiking around a mountain. Most people there were hyper focused on getting to the top. To reach the goal. To overcome the mountain. My girlfriend and I hiked halfway up and stopped. We looked around and starting feeling mother nature. We just felt like we were not supposed to climb higher. It was like mother nature told us to go down into the trees and streams so she can teach us. We went down and explored and it was absolutely amazing. The integration of nature. Everything in harmony. There was this beautiful connection, essence, love. At one point we cried. It was so beautiful. I think this applies to the spiritual path as well. I often feel connected to "spirit guides". I feel so humble and it's so intimate. Like a loving teacher guiding me along. I think this type of connection is really important for spiritual growth. A lot of people use the term "God" in a different context - that God is infinity, absolute, everything. I like the view you raise masculine / feminine balance. Yin - Yang balance. There are so many features that can be in balance. Firm and delicate in balance. I also agree that many people are constricted within their own gender construct and don't even realize it. This limits one's potential so much. I've been doing a lot of yin yoga with teachers that really balance what would seem to be opposites,. Grounding and groundlessness. Contraction and expansion. Firm and gentle. It has really opened me up to new possibilities. I totally agree and also feel that the dynamics and feel are way off balance. When I go to yoga forums with 90% women, the vibe is so different. Here I do sense off balance toward intellect, debate, figuring shit out, assertiveness, aggression, defensiveness etc. Threads about improving our emotional intelligence, our capacity to love, creativity, right brain development, intimacy etc. Get drowned out with intellectual threads involving debate or trying to figure stuff out intellectually. Imo, one of the most beautiful threads on the forum is "show us your creativity". It is absolutely beautiful. I wish we could have more of that on the forum to balance things out. As well, I've seen a lot of yin get shouted down and dominated by yang. I've seen yin appear get shouted down and then leave. I too would love to see more of a balance. I really appreciate your views and comments

I found that to be a very interesting interaction between personality dynamics. During the first part of the conversation, I think Abraham-Hicks did a good job at trying to acknowledge the man's perceptive and to try and show she understands it. It looked like she connected for a bit. She touched upon free will and "vibrational energies" which pointed to trans-personal and trans-human levels. I also thought she did a good job at diagnosing what is occurring in his personality dynamic. Yet, I think she made a mistake in allowing the discussion to stay in the relative personal level and play by personal level rules. He was clearly immersed within a personality dynamic and through most of the conversation she played on that level. I think she should have stayed firm in the trans-personal realm and only dip into the personal realm to pull him up. My hunch is she has not fully transcended the personal level. She spoke as if she believed there is a person with free will making choices. Several times she said things to the effect of "just change the meaning of something". Instead of pain and suffering, let's just call it "variety" and we are good to go. She also said something like "ignorance is bliss if giving it a negative meaning causes discomfort". To me, trying to play the "good" vs "evil" game on the relative personal level comes across as bizarre and distorted. Once you allow the assumption that there is a real person with free will that makes choices, it's game over on the relative personal playing field. That means murderers and rapists have free will and are choosing to do what they do freely. And the rest of us can just choose to call things like torture and rape as simply experiences of "variety" rather than pain and misery. In doing so, won't get upset about it anymore and can be happy. . . To me, this is really lame. A few times she touched upon the trans-personal level yet kept diving back down to the personal. To me, I think it would have been much better to stay firmly grounded on the trans-personal level and address the illusory construct of the persona, lack of free will, the relativity of personal views (from a trans-personal meta view) and the absolute. I'm not sure why Abraham-Hicks didn't do that. I understand he was immersed in the personality, yet the only way to get through his dilemma, imo, is to get up to the trans-personal level.

I fully support this type of exploration into the natural of consciousness. And I appreciate the author's attempt at integrating published work. However, it's just ill-defined. All it really says is that altered brain activity is correlated with perception. This is totally obvious. Sleep, drugs, strokes, hypoxia, NDE, TBIs - of course they will all affect perception. The only point he touched on that I found interesting was in regards to recontextualization. That is the transition from one pattern of brain activity to another pattern of brain activity and how perception is contextualized. However, he barely touched on this and I don't think he is aware how deep that question would go. Regarding his usage of "brain impairment". He doesn't define the term - yet he is calling deviations from "normal" brain activity to "altered brain activity" to be "brain impairment". I don't think "impairment" is the best term for all conditions because it has an underlying value assumption. Yet I understand how he is using the term in the context of his essay. What I found more disappointing was his usage of the term "self transcendence". I appreciate his effort to write an essay on this and help to raise societal awareness, yet his idea of self-transcendence is extremely limited and he has obviously not had direct experience with this. I think the vast majority of actualized members would give a better description of self transcendence. He defines it as: ‘self-transcendence’ is defined as the abrupt—thus not gradual— broadening of one’s sense of self through a step-function enrichment of one’s subjective inner life. This can happen, for instance, when one suddenly acquires (a) a feeling that one is no longer confined to the spatio-temporal locus of the physical body; (b) entirely new mental skills that one has never attempted to develop through learning or training; or (c) unfamiliar emotions, insights or inner imagery. Those are variations of sensation and perception, not self transcendence. . .

Beautiful. Sometimes I need to remind myself that we are all on the same team