Do your thoughts create reality?

[smiileyjen101]

RT said: NDE experiences appear to suggest using this human life to evolve appropriately to the next 'level' of existence.

On the other hand, non-duality (Vedanta) suggests bypassing all of the levels of evolution/existence/experience by getting to the core 'I AM'.

I sort of vacillate between both points of view. Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion and would love your point of view on these thoughts.

It's a little difficult to describe the impact of seeing/knowing 'personal' experiences that were intimately known from a 'personal' perspective in which you 'thought' you knew the 'matter' and importance of it and then be thrown into the ability to view it all from the widest (into infinity) impersonal perspective of it.

In the oneness/light it you see / know the infiniteness of it and how much one was not aware of by the density of their attachment to their particular perspective. My 'fear' of my friend's murder/er as an example.

That this is layered by the all-embracing-all-knowing-okayness and eternalness of everything as seen/known in the light, it becomes very hard to only 'appreciate' one perspective of anything, even on return to a less awarely-dimensional 'existence'.

Non-dual for me is a double negative expression of the oneness.

It's not that there is no duality it's that the duality IS the oneness (two sides of a coin are one coin). There is no need to eliminate fear - (often just false emotions appearing real) within the oneness love moves energy towards embracing something outside of one (physical) self perspective, so does fear, so does empathy, compassion, respect, the 'reverse' of a thing is the same energy field as the 'thing'.

They are two sides of a coin that generates opportunities for experiences of growth beyond what many believe is their separate self that will have an impact on that separate self. Opportunities to be, with no 'choice' being wrong, just bringing a different experience.

On the love/fear 'coin', it's more 'noticing' that it is fear energy in motion, or love energy in motion. There is no thing 'wrong' with fear. There is no thing wrong with thoughts, there is no thing wrong with ego - they are all just different viewings of a thing.

For me, as a sailor it's like saying Easterly winds are better to get me from A to B, so lets eliminate any West wind... what the???

Since my nde I more 'notice' and accept that West winds blow, just as East and North and South winds do, and to 'notice' what is blowing and do whatever is best in the situation in the conditions. For me sometimes the non-dual 'no thingness' stuff of silence and stillness etc get overzealous like saying well if we get rid of all winds completely then we will be fine.

Good luck with that!

Energy is particles or whatever in motion eternally. That is what the 'all' is. Is-ness is accepting that. You will not know the fullness of love unless you also embrace the fear of/in it.

Duality and non-duality are equally 'one' as well, so maybe nde'ers seem to have a bob each way lol!!!

[smiileyjen101]

Randomguy said: Hi Smiiley. I read your enjoyably poetic post a few times with the intention of really hearing what you are saying. I found it clever and thoughtful and with and intention to share a lovely perspective. Nonetheless, I didn't hear a click and I don't know what the oposing ideas equalling eachother is all about. So I'll blah blah about opposing ideas below

If you take the idea of "real" from the word reality (from the question that titles this thread) and it's opposite "unreal" it just seems like nothing at all to equate them. I don't get what is there.

Newton's third law of motion:
When two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these forces (termed the action and the reaction) are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction.

Thoughts or intuitions (pre thoughts) are all just energy in motion and through their frequency and vacillation and density combining with 'elements' of perspective coming into 'form' (inform-ed by your choices/experiences).

In order for anything to be 'true' its equal opposite must be (is) also true.

Neither denotes nothing. Whereas that cannot be true without everything.
The sum of +a and -a = zero point
the opposite of zero point is infinity.

Thoughts, opinion, emotions, beliefs are (valid) perceptions within the whole.


Love - the eternal infinite expression of energy includes every thing. (and I guess by includes does mean excludes no thing)
See how it's all the same?

[Webwanderer]

WW--(nice post too), if one can find and reside in the core "I AMness" in this human life--then [what] would be the point of evolution of consciousness through this lifetime and perhaps others?

NDE experiences appear to suggest using this human life to evolve appropriately to the next 'level' of existence. On the other hand, non-duality (Vedanta) suggests bypassing all of the levels of evolution/existence/experience by getting to the core 'I AM'. I sort of vacillate between both points of view. Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion and would love your point of view on these thoughts.

My take is that the point of the evolution of consciousness is the expansion of consciousness into ever newer and unique possibilities. (Eternity is a long time to fill with interesting experiences. Fortunately experiential possibilities are as infinitely broad as eternity is long.) I suspect that the physical universe, and likely all other fields of experience, are the product of Source's creative flow via exploratory/evolutionary endeavors.

And what exactly does 'residing in the core I AMness' mean? I suppose it's theoretically possible to reside suchly, but I know of no one who has convinced me that such a residing is their steady state experience in this human expression. I see it as more likely that one may find alignment with Source, their True Nature, at most any point along the scale of human expression. Alignment is a different and more practical matter than what I sense as 'core I AMness'.

Alignment is a matter of rejoining the creative flow through feeling/being one with Source energy - love, joy, happiness, peace, etc, basically all uplifting emotional experiences. Even if one is perceiving through the enormous range of conditioned thought constructs that we humans imagine to be true reflections of the way life is, alignment, and relief, is always within our reach. All we need do is let go of our judgments and feel our way to it. No doubt there can be a bit of mental debris that blocks our vision, but never the less, alignment with Source energy is always near.

Maybe we're just playing with semantics and definitions here. Certainly one could mean by ' core I AM' as something less than Omniscience, but then core is not truly Core. So language is a bit limiting. Besides, if one were truly residing in 'Core I AMness' what use would there be of language? Would that Core One not communicate telepathically in order to transcend any language barriers?

On the other hand, non-duality (Vedanta) suggests bypassing all of the levels of evolution/existence/experience by getting to the core 'I AM'.

The problem I have with this take is that it seems to negate the creative potential of this human experience. If the only purpose is to bypass the muddy experience of being human, then why be human at all? If we as individualized perspectives of Source being existed prior to this human experience, where it seems likely that we were much closer consciously to our Source, then why get immersed in these temporary human shells and struggle through in the conditions we do?

However, if there is purpose in creative exploration under these challenging human conditions, then the pain and struggle may ultimately produce great dividends of consciousness expansion - both to our own unique perspectives, and to Source Itself - and this would hold true even if one does not wake up to the game while yet in the experience.

WW

[randomguy]

Randomguy, (nice post, btw)--when you say " This is it". Does that include the other realms and expanded awareness that Anita Moorjani and other NDE survivors tell us about? For example, she saw her past, present and future taking place simultaneously, had and out of body experience with expanded consciousness and similar things. Or would you say that these are simply more experiences and hence illusory or not real or maya (I think you know what I mean here)? Does abiding in/as 'I AM' effectively negate the need for experiences that allow your consciousness to evolve?

Just (This) as apposed to (This plus the believed assumptions of what I think I am plus the believed thoughts of what I think life is plus the believed thoughts of what life should or should not be.)

I don't know much about the experiences of NDE'ers. I don't think it makes sense to say that experiences are illusory, yet it seems that no experience is free of imagination. I think this existence is loaded with exceptional experience as this is recognized as an unknowable mystery. I realize it is tempting to tie a story of an exceptionally sounding experience and find evidence to believe subsequent interpretations, yet it seems silly to me to do so as one's only true authority is one's own heart-sense. Just my take, of course. But there is no reason that the best pointers can't come from NDEers either or anywhere else. The question is what is the observed relationship with resonating pointers? Specifically, "purpose" seems to come up a lot in the NDE snippets I have read. I might ask, for me what is at the root of want for "purpose"?

As for evolution I take that as a subjective and personal view. I have a story of the evolution of going from thought identified to less so, yet it is just a story experienced now. As for abiding in "I Am" I might suggest trying one's hardest to not be and see what happens (similar to Adya's suggetions of - go ahead and try to leave the present moment). But I recognize what you are saying perhaps as a representation of the common question of how to escape the gravity of thoughts. When the interest is there, just recognizing that "I Am" in a non-cognitive sense, in an openly attentive sense even when mind is racing away loaded with the experience of emotional reactions to the thought, even then, remembering this sense of "I Am", just noticing often seems to build a familiarity that allows for a lighter relationship with thought, or so the story goes.

It's not that there is no duality it's that the duality IS the oneness (two sides of a coin are one coin). There is no need to eliminate fear - (often just false emotions appearing real)

My sense of it too. Fear often spurs immediate reaction/thought contraction. One can explore an open relationship with fear that allows for familiarity with the experience of fear and allow for further self exploration. Kr's descriptions too are very close to my own experiences.

For me sometimes the non-dual 'no thingness' stuff of silence and stillness etc get overzealous like saying well if we get rid of all winds completely then we will be fine.

Agree, this seems to me to be a mistaken notion of non-duality.

In order for anything to be 'true' its equal opposite must be (is) also true.

(sense of) I exist: true, (sense of) I do not exist: ____ (true?)

Thoughts, opinion, emotions, beliefs are (valid) perceptions within the whole.

Similar here, all expressions of existence feel valid.

On the other hand, non-duality (Vedanta) suggests bypassing all of the levels of evolution/existence/experience by getting to the core 'I AM'.

The problem I have with this take is that it seems to negate the creative potential of this human experience. If the only purpose is to bypass the muddy experience of being human, then why be human at all? If we as individualized perspectives of Source being existed prior to this human experience, where it seems likely that we were much closer consciously to our Source, then why get immersed in these temporary human shells and struggle through in the conditions we do?

I'm no Vendata scholar but it seems to me that non-duality is just about observing what you are. Bypassing humanity to me is not anything to entertain seriously. What would be at the core of wanting such a thing but a disagreement with what is? It is the disagreement within one's self that is worth observing, and in observing as a side effect, allow a less storied perspective. Observing self seems to me a way to come to love one's own humanity not bypass it.

[karmarider]

I like what you are saying, randomguy.

The people reaching for the positive seem to feel that others are too nihilistic, that they are denying creative exploration. Perhaps that is a really a reflection of their own fear and anger. And maybe there is some truth to it.

Similarly, the people who are about eliminating delusions and staying true to only what is in their observation are sometimes not able to accept that there may be truth outside of their usual experience. Perhaps that too is reflection of fear, an attachment to their own delusions. And perhaps there is some truth to it.

I don't see it as a tug of war between NDE'ers and Vedantists. I don't know much about either one of those groups.

I see it all as attachment to beliefs. It's not that beliefs can be avoided or wrong. We can no more be without beliefs than we can be without thought or emotion.

When the basic fear is gone, beliefs and thought and emotion are not troublesome. They are just temporary tools.

Observing self seems to me a way to come to love one's own humanity not bypass it.

[smiileyjen101]

I just had an inspiration!

In the light (nde experience state) all things illumined - love is the energy frequency. It's so 'high' and fast and well, active love - this is what some people describe as Heaven - ever since I had the nde I do not call it Heaven, I do call it 'the light'.

From what others say about 'hell' it's all fear frequency and all those associated slower, reactive, hidden from the light energies.

Life on Earth (okay, my life on Earth, in a human body) is the 'middle' of these. It's not as fast as the light, it's not as 'clear' as the light, but there are both the energies of love and of fear that we can 'move' or create through. Be that thought, action, intention etc etc

If you think about it, in experiences here on Earth - which for me is more like 'this plane' of equal and opposite 'forces' in motion rather than all love or all fear - any experience we can have can be experienced in fear or in love. Again, again again, no choice is wrong, it just brings a different experience.

There are times when filled with the energies of love you might say something was like 'Heaven (on Earth)'.
There are times when filled with the energies of fear you might say something was like 'Hell (on Earth)'.

If you are only including one perspective, the personal perspective, you might think this perspective is the be all and end all, viewed in the frequency of love or fear at whatever vibration you are experiencing it from in this moment.

In the light that is appreciated as an individual perspective - one of many that 'widen' out in both instantaneous 'time' (past present and future all collapsing/collapsed) from 'your' particular perspective;

and every (multiple) perspective of those interacting simultaneously in the experiences across time.

So say if you have a perspective of an experience that is energised by fear and its between you and others, and then at some other time in a similar circumstance that is energised by love you experience it differently - you now have two perspectives of the same 'thing' and you cannot be ignorant or in the dark about it any more.

If I were to put it into a story - if 'someone' overtakes you and cuts you off in the traffic and you respond in the energies of fear through ignorance - rant, rave, make enemy, obstacle, means to an end of the situation and the 'other'. If in awareness you are rushing to the hospital because your mother is on her deathbed and 'someone' overtakes you and cuts you off in the traffic and you realise it's your father - and you employ love - compassion, understanding for 'his' perspective of the 'thing' there is no thing to forgive.

You still got overtaken and cut off in the traffic.

The next time you get overtaken and cut off in traffic you will likely realise unless you know the person, their intention and circumstances you have different 'options' on how you view it. Your dad from the above story if he did that to someone else and you saw it and they went off the brain, you would understand all of their experiences of the 'thing' from multiple perspectives.

The difference is your understanding of wider perspectives of the experience and being able to not take 'it' so personally as if it is only 'you' and your perspective in any experience. The energy of love through compassion, empathy etc is able to be applied in any situation - holding off judgement where you do not have all the information, even just by acknowledging that you likely do not have all the information.

At times now when things all go to 'hell' I still tend to 'try' (I am human after all ) to employ love and compassion in awareness that in this state, in this body I do not have all the information, although I might be more aware than many.

The notion let go and give it to 'God' has a resonance for me of kind of ... I'll look for that one when I'm back in the light - knowing that I will not know the 'all' of it from this perspective.

It doesn't make me 'weak' or indecisive, I do the best that I can from my particular perspective and knowledge. But by knowing I don't know the 'all' of it, my responses are less reactive and less likely to make enemy, obstacle or means to an end of thing, person or situation.

So do your thoughts create reality? - only within the perspective that you are choosing to view your experiences (of reality) from.

Does that make sense?

[randomguy]

"Does that make sense?" Yes.

[runstrails]

Great posts, everyone. Thanks. For me, right now, WW's post resonates the most. I'm in the Align, Allow, Appreciate mode .
In the end, though, all the fingers in this thread are pointing to the same place---just different ways of walking the path.

[smiileyjen101]

smiiley wrote: In order for anything to be 'true' its equal opposite must be (is) also true.

Randomguy said: (sense of) I exist: true, (sense of) I do not exist: ____ (true?)

Of course, all things in form are impermanent, so yes. Only the energy is eternal. When you 'collapse' all the possibilities that which takes form came out of no form (pure creation energy) and returns to no form (pure creation energy).

What is eternal is the energy (creation) that flows through everything. The 'forms' - combinations of elements and perspectives are impermanent.

Runstrails said: all the fingers in this thread are pointing to the same place---just different ways of walking the path.

Energy flows through many pathways on its return to source.

[randomguy]

In the end, though, all the fingers in this thread are pointing to the same place---just different ways of walking the path.

Yes and no. Yes in that you just can't point to something that is not you. But no in the respect that some things said here point only to what we dream ourselves to be.

For example, if I were to accept that I am that which "lives through beliefs" then I would be accepting an untruth that has been seen to be false.

I merely suggest to those interested in messages about awakening to investigate that your nature is not separate or smaller than that within which all experience appears and recedes including the experiences of thoughts and beliefs which are just themselves phenomenon observed. What observes the knowable and what observes time, does it occur in time and knowing? Recognizing your unbound nature is accesible.

Not that believing anything reduces this freedom, it just adds a view in the form of thinking so. Which isn't bad, it's just what it is and that to me feels something a bit like this (though not strictly in a literal way), God having a bit of fun. For example, if you want to think you are something within but not separate from an expansive something viewing through a platform of evolving conditioned beliefs going from point A to point infinity in time, that is fun, and it may offer an explanation in tune with some experiences but it's not really happening other than thinking and experiencing it so.

[Webwanderer]

I merely suggest to those interested in messages about awakening to investigate that your nature is not separate or smaller than that within which all experience appears and recedes including the experiences of thoughts and beliefs which are just themselves phenomenon observed. What observes the knowable and what observes time, does it occur in time and knowing? Recognizing your unbound nature is accesible.

Is this not a statement of belief? Your perspective on life? And, as you take this belief perspective to be true, do you not live according to this perspective, or said another way, 'through' this perspective? Isn't every definitive statement of life not a reflection of an underlying belief?

I'm not suggesting that what you aver is not based in truth. But can you say it's the whole truth, or can there yet be a greater, more encompassing and inclusive, understanding?

The title of this thread is "Do your thoughts create reality?" Is truth static? Is it in motion, fluid, energetic? Is it contextual? So what then of reality? Our thoughts on these questions will likely be reflected in our experience - of reality.

WW

[randomguy]

Is this not a statement of belief? Your perspective on life? And, as you take this belief perspective to be true, do you not live according to this perspective, or said another way, 'through' this perspective? Isn't every definitive statement of life not a reflection of an underlying belief?

Who's experience are you describing that it is definitive? Lets say that it is a description of what is found to be noticeable applied to the context of what appears to be this interaction. Would you have god evolve your beliefs without opposition? Where is the joy is that?

"Do your thoughts create reality?"
Thoughts believed are experienced as real. Real is a concept to describe a counter to an experience rich in imagination. Neither real nor unreal seem to capture existence with any real significance, nor does any explanation like the one I just provided.

[randomguy]

But can you say it's the whole truth, or can there yet be a greater, more encompassing and inclusive, understanding?

The whole game of claiming truth is ridiculous to me. It may seem so to you, but really, I'm not playing that way and claiming truths. What I say is not true. I realize without a doubt that I have never said a true word, and I don't believe anything I read or hear. Truth is that point on the horizon that attention falls on when one is done with suffering. I speak to that, I speak to an interest in seeing what you are. It is not about being right, nobody is right except in thinking so. I don't know what it is about but it feels like compassion to me to point out to that interest that you are not anything you think you are.

[runstrails]

I (and I expect many others) can see both random guy's and WW's points of view in this thread. And they are both completely understandable and plausible to me and they appear don't stand in opposition. Metaphorically speaking RG seems to be talking about the 'sun' and WW about 'us' as 'rays of the sun'. Where's the conflict? But then I'm not tied to any particular point of view .

[Webwanderer]

Who's experience are you describing that it is definitive?

No one's. Experiences may or may not be definitive. Expressive seems more likely. But that's not the point here. Experiences may be largely based on beliefs held simply because that is the filter they come into consciousness through. It's the statements that one makes that are defining an underlying belief. You've just made several. Look, it's no crime to have beliefs. Without an active infinite perspective, it's what we have in which to interact with life's unfolding conditions.

Everyone has beliefs. Yes, I understand that is a belief of mine. But being conscious of it gives me a degree of freedom to adjust it as information and experience offer greater clarity and understanding. Beliefs are avenues of exploration. But beliefs denied can also become anchors to a perspective that is limiting. Fortunately life has a way of nudging us out of those limiting perspectives. It's called pain and suffering. The tighter one holds on to a particular belief, the more pressure comes from the expansive energy of Source. Yeah, I know. Another belief.

The good news for me is that I can ride that, or any, belief so long as it is a pleasure to do so. When a belief takes me out of the flow, out of alignment, with that joyful uplifting energy, and into emotional pain, I'll take that as an indicator that it's time to look a little deeper - to refocus on that uplifting flow of energy that comes from clear and open alignment. So far insights continue to arise that tell me I'm moving along well.

I could easily point out numerous statements in your last post that are born of a belief. But just because they reflect a belief does not mean the belief is not essentially true in its own context. But read your own statements, that there are beliefs behind them is easy to see. I see living through beliefs, at least in the context of our human experience, as inescapable. Even when we preface our statements with, "It's my experience that...", it still reflects a belief. It just softens the the authoritative aura and allows for an easier transition to greater understanding.

Further, even if we could escape all beliefs, I doubt it would be a good choice. Many who have attempted to do so have found themselves somewhat isolated and alone. If such an experience is a joy to them, all the better. If however, they find only pain, it may be that life is telling them there is a better path to walk.

Would you have god evolve your beliefs without opposition? Where is the joy is that?

I have a choice? Cool. But hey, if you can't trust God to look out for your best interests, who can you trust?

WW