Page 4 of 4

Re: Do your thoughts create reality?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:45 pm
by randomguy
WW, I think that's a great account of working from within one's own truth/experience and a solid process of inquiry. I know you don't need my comments on the matter, but I am happy this works for you.

Re: Do your thoughts create reality?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:24 pm
by beginnersmind
innerhike wrote:There are two different schools you seem to be referring to.

One we can name the nonduality school to which Gangaji, ET, Ramana Maharshi, Krishnamurti, Adya, etc. belong. "The path of no path", etc. Course in Miracles, Zen, Dzogchen Buddhism could also fall into this category.

The other school has people like Wayne Dyer, the people behind the movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep...", and Abraham-Hicks.

First school appears to say that nothing matters, all is nothing, you have to come to place of emptiness.

Second school says you cannot stop thinking, there is no such as no-mind, therefore you need to channel your "intentions" towards creating a more pleasant reality.

I believe there is a middle path in this.





Without getting into the whole LOA thing, I think the first school isn't about nothing matters. This is the thoughts of neo-advaita. Yet with Buddhism, there is the saying, "nothing matters and everything matters." A Course in Miracles echoes this somewhat by saying that delay does not matter in eternity (the True Self), but it is tragic in time.

Re: Do your thoughts create reality?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:26 pm
by bf2
My thoughts:

Yes, our thoughts create reality, and it does so all the time.

Knowing that however is not enough, because your destiny plays a huge part, and yes, we are bound by our destiny. What thoughts we are capable of thinking is determined by our destiny.

The fact that you are thinking about these things and typing away this stuff on your laptop instead of being born as a chicken and ending up as dinner is good enough indicator that there is such a thing called destiny over which we have no conscious control.

Even when you are born a human, you could have been born in a desert of Africa, and led largely a primitive nomadic existence. Your thoughts still would create reality but you would never know anything about that.

Even if you were born in a civilised country, you could have born as a person lacking all capability of finer and metaphysical thoughts. You wouldn’t want to know about LOA even if it danced around you and poked you in the eyes.

Even when we know about this sort of stuff, and think we are a bit of a spiritual type, our destiny is most likely to be simply to tinker around the edges rather than ever having full control of our thoughts and create 100% what we consciously want.

There is an order behind all this madness of nature. Just think what chaos it would be if everybody had the capability to create 100% consciously. For exactly that reason, such people are extremely rare. Remember: nature doesn’t give a sh1t about equality. Nature is racist, sexist and meritocratic. We should get used to it and know our place.

Re: Do your thoughts create reality?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:04 pm
by ashley72
Do our thoughts create our reality?

Image

This flow chart shows that at the base level, images are made up of raw vector inputs (pixels)... which progress through levels up to edges, local shapes, objects sub-objects (parts).... to the concept of categories...i.e man sitting.

Most people don't realise what the eyes see in the NOW has to be processed very much like a digitial TV processes pixels. We don't see with our eyes, we see,hear,smell,feel with our neural networks!!!

Image

It all gets built up in a multilayered way from the pixel level right up to high level concepts like "who am I?"

It's a bit of fuzzy logic in the end. Consciousness is kind of the contextual part of thinking... It needs a reference or anchor point to create a particular perspective. It's most likely the highest level of the layering... which is why it is so hard to work out where its origin comes from. It's seems like its top-down but it's an illusion because its contextual position is derived from the bottom up layering process that occurs.

Robots are already starting to be incorporated with simple levels of contextual awareness, it's very feesible that one day robots will have a very sophisticated level of contextual awareness.

If you take the time to learn more about neural networks you will find out there are two main types, feed-forward and feedback or back-propagation. Feed-forward networks are unlikely to have any conscious element to them, these are representative networks that already have the connection weights applied. They process too fast for any conscious "referencing/framing" to occur. Whereas the back-propagation are most likely to be related to conscious percept.