How some Losers play the RWG - comment 67990 - comment 68201 - comment 68211

Mark de LA says ...
Just because you have a feeling about some thought does not make it true; nathan notwithstanding. Lots of people have feelings about thoughts – see my recent post Fake News or Advertisement - PC Meme Spreading & Political Correctness . Maybe even master the word demonstratable or describe how you have satisfied it with your opinion(s).
… gotta go 

Comments


Depends. If I have a feeling and I have authentic thoughts about that feeling, then what I think is true. There is no doubt about that. If my thoughts are habitual or simply born out of the momentum of prior thoughts, then they might not be true. Truth is not consensus … truth is that which is so.

#Truth is a kind of feeling about something.  It is the feeling itself. 

Truth is not a feeling, it is a knowing. It is a knowing that something is true. Do you feel the sky is blue? No, you know it is true … you have a solidity in your state of being about it.

There are several ways to accomplish a state of truth. One we have talked about before, and that is to repeat a thought until #LOA is bringing evidence to you consistently about it … then, you achieve the state of knowing that it is true.

Just because you have a feeling about your authenticity may not mean you are actually authentic – maybe you are just masturbating your Egoo for effect.

… and how do you “know something is true” ?   What happens in your being that tells you that it is true?   What do you experience?  You experience a feeling that it is true.  “Truth” is the name of that feeling.  … or here we have been calling it #RingsTrue.

Authenticity has a very distinctive signature. It is knowable. How do you think I know when you are not being authentic? It is distinct in your vibration, like a smell you are emmiting.

I disagree. I do not experience a feeling. I experience a knowing, very similar in character to the state of direct conscious knowing that mark often talks about, but without the conscious preparation on my part.

In fact, elsewhere it has been talked about how you seth may not be experiencing direct conscious knowing … you don’t seem to talk about it or acknowledge it in your experience. Well, here is a bridge … direct conscious knowing is like the way you know truth, but as a more direct experience. Since you don’t have experiences of direct conscious knowing, I can see how you would relegate truth to a feeling. A feeling is probably the next most similar human experience. If you do obtain direct conscious knowing at some point, then you will see how the experience of truth is much closer to direct conscious knowing than it is to a feeling. Feelings are a sensory experience, like the other 5 senses. Feeling is a sense telling one about vibration. Truth is not about vibration, it is about state of reality, and specially, the reality you have created, weather that reality and truth has aspect of commonality with others, or not. Sometimes, it is only your own truth … and that is still true. Truth is not about consensus, popular opinion notwithstanding.

Well “i experience a knowing” …just like you descibe.    i describe it as a feeling that something #RingsTrue.   

But, apparently unlike you and mark,  i am also aware that this experience is relative to my being and is not some absolute state in the multi verse outside of myself. 

Mostly comments like About: How some Losers play the RWG - comment 67990 - comment 68201 - comment 68211 (comment 68222) tell me you are masturbating your Ego for more #Egoo.  Try them out on your friends in the LOA groups on FB & see what they think about it. null PR also has some good courses you should take.

”Experiencing a knowing” is as much of a sleeve-job as the rest of your ethos claiming you know the truth & gossip you spread about others nathan – just more of the #juice

but, mark, do you not also “experience knowings” ?

I wouldn’t use those words together .

I am conscious.  I know what I am & what I am doing. I may not have the words for them nor how to communicate them.  PR gets close with what he calls “direct experience” which is neither direct nor an experience.  His final book on the consciousness trilogy is coming out next spring.
https://peterralstonblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/4-7-genius-of-being/ 

nullnull

That is nice.  To me it is a change of topic.   

How do you know “the sky sometimes looks blue”?   What happens which informs your honest assent to that proposition?

By in large, I don’t talk that way . smug

When you start doing, instead of talking, I will listen. That is the difference. I write about what I do. You are mirroring my stance in your last comment, but not about a thing that can be reproduced, just about a characterization of how I am doing things. Hence I call it non-content. Even your suggestion about taking #PR’s course is not to gain some specific knowledge that you are advocating for, like I do when I point you toward Abraham or Bashar or Tolle, etc., but just a general name dropping … I mean, good courses, yea sure. Everyone has those.

PR gets close with what he calls “direct experience”

I agree, but with #PR, not you mark. In general I agree with most things #PR says. He is authentic, and succinct, and what he actually says, his words, match well with what all the other “sages” of our times are saying. But how you apply what #PR says, and the subtle ways you reinterpret and #spin his teachings, get off track for the most part. The only thing I have heard you repeat of Peters that is on track is his teaching of direct experience.

Did you ever meet him in person or read all of one of his books? 

#IDC what you opine. #SSDD #LOA-shit

I have not met him in person. I did read the entire Cheng Hsin book that you sent me in the later 90’s, and have referred back to it on my own several times since. I have also watched a number of his video lectures including all the ones you have pointed to here in the last year or so.

Well, had you done so you might have tuned up your bullshit to make sense. I spent 2 weeks at his dojo for Pleiades, 2 contemplation intensives & read all his books. Your statements above are just basically your #Egoo stinking ← nathan ← zen ego stink null

I didn’t characterize anything or talk about #LOA. I am talking about that fact that you don’t ever put your cards on the table … you just talk about what is in everyone esle’s hand and that’s it. If this were a card came, you would be thrown out … and sometimes I do throw you out.

However much contact with #PR you have had, you are still rewriting his content to your own end, not authentically taking it in as it applies in this time. It is never about how much or how long you have done something, studied politics inclusive, it is about how authentically you do that which you actually do. And authenticity is generally not in your suit of applied experience.

By in large, I don’t play cards . Must be your thingy or metaphor.

metaphor – good one too.