Always go by your own experience FIRST.

[Leo Gura]

On 9/20/2019 at 6:59 AM, ThermalTide said:

Is there an argument to be made about how everything you ingest or come into contact with will cause your body harm?

No, not everything. You must be discriminate. Some meat is toxic, some is perfectly fine.

1 hour ago, Commodent said:

@Leo Gura Sorry for reviving this old thread, but I read something in "Power vs. Force" by David R. Hawkins and came to think of this conversation. Thought you might be interested.

This was really what I was talking about, I simply wasn't aware at the time that the body's accuracy was that good. Of course, if you eat tasty food you will get that immediate gratification, but if you listen very deeply you will be able to intuit whether it is actually life-promoting. And that even when the mind is naïve of harmful substances in the food!

Don't take that muscle testing stuff too seriously. It's a big potential epistemic trap of self-delusion. Do not automatically assume your body can tell a poison for you.

[Lento]

@Commodent

I don't disagree with you, but I think there's a nuance that we could use here. For example, the half-life of what is being consumed. Maybe I've consumed uranium (perhaps not the best example but you get the point) or something like that. So, even if I could have the ability to detect its harmfulness, I still have consumed it. The point is, sometimes it could get too late before you could intuit what's good for you. How could anyone intuit poison?

Besides, I've heard of an enlightened master who died from cancer (probably Ramana). So, I don't think consciousness can protect from illness. Even though I'm a huge fan of the benefits of consciousness, and I think that it's very important and helpful, just not solely enough.

Also, is there proper scientific evidence, i.e. double-blinded studies to support the quotes?

(Pardon me if my post wasn't relevant to what you were trying to say. I'm not a native speaker).

[Commodent]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't take that muscle testing stuff too seriously. It's a big potential epistemic trap of self-delusion. Do not automatically assume your body can tell a poison for you.

I'm noticing that you wrote "potential", meaning it doesn't have to be. Do you mean that the test itself is bad, or are you referring to the fact that people will misinterpret and abuse the test results? I remember getting too attached to the scale a couple of years ago when I read "Letting Go", which put me in a pretty bad place. So I could definitely see that happening. 

And I see that doing a muscle test on kinesiologic muscle test itself only calibrates to 605, so the test itself seems to agree with you

@Lento From my understanding there seems to be pretty extensive scientific evidence. The most famous example is probably a lecture with about a thousand people where they handed out 500 sealed envelopes containing artificial sweeteners, and the remaining 500 containing organic vitamin C. So the audience did not know what was in them. They then had them do the muscle test on each other, and the people with artificial sweeteners in their envelope instantly went weak, while those with vitamin C went strong. This was consistent throughout the audience. There's a lot more research though (double-blinded studies etc.), which he writes about in the book.

It amazed me too when I first read it. How is it possible? I don't remember exactly how, but it was something to do with strange attractors and hierarchical energy patterns that makes our consciousness. If I had my computer available I'd share more direct quotes.