Topic: *Egypt

[Michael]

An earth AP shift. Nemo is correct that our individual and our collective AP is intrinsically linked to the AP of the earth. But when you speak of the earth, you are talking about something that is far beyond our comprehension, and yet more intimate to us than our closest human companion.

It is not too extreme to say that our relationship with the earth is the most important thing in our life. It is the ultimate salve for our heart. The only real answer to depression and loneliness. But that's another story.

If you want to get some idea of the earth's own AP journey, I recommend you to read two books, if you can find them. First is Man Whence How And Whither, by Annie Besant. The second is Occult Science by Rudolf Steiner. These books should not be viewed as material facts, but as insights to stimulate your own investigations. Any research into AP positions has to approach from an astral perspective. As Nemo said above, shifts seen solely within the Tonal, or mundane/social world perspective, is unsatisfactorily limited - it only shows modifications within the allowable range of the AP (which is not insignificant in it's own way). We have to see the AP from the intuitive sense.

[Kal]

Nemo, did you have something to tell (especially/especial) with your question about the three people ?

(perhaps something in accordance with the assemblage point and the Earth- movement?)

[nemo]

Yes,

How many earths are there that, that shed/house is on?

[Kal]

I know about one eagle...   which is not very benevolent.

Will try to reply tho, unless you provide some answer first since I don't really know (taken that you speak more or less literally).

[nemo]

I could give the answer, and then you would have my answer, but it is better to contemplate the questions, for a while longer. Or pm me if your in a hurry.

[Michael]

Please don't let me restrain you from prosecuting your case here, but seeing as you are asking for dialogue, here is my view:

Is it the flag moving, or the wind?

I presume you know the answer to this old Zen story. The master's response : it is mind moving.

There is only one room. There are three minds, and in each of those minds is a separate 'room'. But then there is also a separate mind-room in the rat that lives under the floor, in flea in the wall, in the people who built the room. All these mind-rooms are only partial reflections of the actual room which exists outside the minds of all who have any contact with the real room.

Now the question is asked: can the room exist outside the mind? No - the very concept of 'room' is a mind concept. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing outside the mind, only that the mind has no capacity of comprehending what it doesn't know. There is definitely something there, but what it is we can't say. What we can say is that it exists while it exists, and it can shelter us from the weather and temperature. No doubt it is much more than that, but we living organisms are trapped in functionality.

Thus there is an earth, outside the minds of all it's denizens. But we can't call it 'earth' except that we need some verbal reference if we wish to discuss it. The same problem exists with 'god'. As soon as you say 'god' to anyone, you are talking about completely different mind-gods.

But the whole Buddhist mind-is-everything approach can be abused. It is designed to lead one to reality, not to protect you against the murdering hoards who came over the hill and killed the Toltecs and many Buddhists, before they developed the concept of relative-reality. The same applies to Global Warming. Removing the idea of Global Warming from your mind may assist you in reaching moksha, but it won't stop the environment you live in killing you. This is why DJ spoke of co-existing in two worlds at the same time - running above the cactus with one AP and dodging them with the other.

[nemo]

By all means, offer away. You used one word that I had already put in a reply, but did not post yet, functional. I am only speaking from a view, among possible views zeroing in on mine in a way that can be seen by others, the progressions of which are reflected in depth of field or "seeing".

So yes the first answer would be functional and what I call first attention surface skimming, and the answer is one room, regardless how many are in it.

Then Michael you say that room does not exist separate from the mind, which was not the question i asked, but I can work with it. In my view the existence of the mind and the room are independent from one another, and remember this is just my view, I am not saying you are not correct, just different from my view.

Let me try to explain, when you watch a movie and there is that same shed/house in the movie. As you watch the movie the the shed and room are used and the the movie carries on past the shed. (i'm visualizing a western  and the cowboys ride off. The shed was always there in static form (movie frames) and the mind experienced the room and shed only as the frames it was in were fired up by the energy of the projector.

So an assemblage point position, could be viewed as one of the cowboys, let's say Michael Nick and ric ride away. So when we were in the shed,  one room was lite up, for functional use, energetically though (no bugs) three rooms existed. as per three personal AP's energizing the room.

So in this world then although holographic, let's say the shed was available on earth similar to the movie scenario, held in position by the current AP of earth. So functionally there is one earth, energetically there is as many earths as there are awareness perceiving on it (including bugs)at any moment in time.

One of CC's teachers said that the eagles emanations or made up of time, and when one is becoming acquainted with the other self one was becoming acquainted with time, or something like that.

So the complete answer to the question in my view, Is one functional shed and earth, three energetic sheds and earths experiential to those three cowboys. and thirdly an infinite number of sheds on an infinite number of earths.

We then can conjure up a view, that has depth, the earths assemblage point position is like the movie holding all potentials, in static positions and our intent can move around in those potentialities, unique to our personal energetic potentials.

This then is the answer to the questions Nick, Michaels post brought in out of me. This view if you understand/see it, no need to agree with it. Will help as I offer more, about my view.

[Kal]

Then Michael you say that room does not exist separate from the mind, which was not the question i asked, but I can work with it. In my view the existence of the mind and the room are independent from one another, and remember this is just my view, I am not saying you are not correct, just different from my view.

nemo, I think what's in stake is how you define the word mind.

Certainly humanity currently is strongly attached to what is refered, lets say, as mind.

...This can be a point or no point at all.

~ Nick. ~~

[Kal]

But there is explanation needed.

so, there is the path we follow we follow ..

Is it a path with heart??-

[Michael]

Oh dear, you are getting tricky now Nemo. That's fine with me if this is germane to your intent.

I agree with Nik, some clarity about terms may be required.
Let me sketch a few issues arising:

1.

Then Michael you say that room does not exist separate from the mind, which was not the question i asked

Well it was the question you asked, although you may not have thought so. You asked: how many rooms there were? I am saying the 'mind' is essential to the existence of any such thing we know of as a 'room'. Thus in actual final and ultimate reality, due to the impermanence of the mind, no rooms exist. This is why the Chinese used to say, "First, there is two."

2.

So functionally there is one earth, energetically there is as many earths as there are awareness perceiving on it (including bugs)at any moment in time.

'Functionally' means, relating to the way a living being uses something. Meaning that we see the world according to the way we utilise the world, not according to the way the world is: our desire for utility 'skims' our perceptions and organises a subset into a pragmatic arrangement designed to give us a 'reality' aligned with our 'doing'. The day a chair becomes a 'chair', is the day we became trapped in a functional world.

Thus, it is incorrect to say, "Functionally there is one earth". Because functionality belongs to the "awareness perceiving". It is an 'energetic' AP (as you use the word 'energetic') of a being on earth. I don't think you could assume the earth itself has a functional purpose in the same way we use this term for beings who fight for survival in a savage world.

Outside the mind of a perceiver of the 'shed', which knows the functional word 'room', no such thing exists. The perceiver arranges the energetic substances before it into what we know of as a 'room': the day a room became a 'room'. I say this for a very important reason.

You speak of changing the AP of the earth, I presume for beneficial reasons and purposes. I say one should not tamper with the spiritual direction of another until one has emancipated oneself from left-brain constructs that were inculcated into us by our parents and culture. One of those is the 'room', and another is the belief that a 'room' exists outside of our left-brain perception, which has been tamed to believe that the room exists in reality.

Let me be clear about this: when you die, the earth dies, the world dies, everything you know about the universe and god dies. 'No-thing' is left in existence.

Until you have reactivated the right-hemisphere brain, you cannot know reality, and thus you are only pushing onto others your own inculcated beliefs - beliefs that were constructed by the ulterior motives of others (or hidden agendas, when it comes from women).

In DJ's terms, unless you have seen the world stop, you are a tool of the world.

3.

the earths assemblage point position is like the movie holding all potentials, in static positions and our intent can move around in those potentialities, unique to our personal energetic potentials.

OK, this is the nub of your argument. Firstly, I would disagree with the word 'static' - I see no reason to add this into your argument, as it only evokes another sidetrack from your main proposition.

Otherwise, if I interpret your statement that:
a. the earth holds "all potentials", and
b. "our intent can move around in those potentials", and that this is
c. "unique" to each of us,

then yes, I concur with that. 

[Kal]

Hello

I think this is the crux>> Let me be clear about this, when you die, the earth dies, the world dies, everything you know about the universe and god dies. 'No-thing' is left in existence.

<< but can't say I 'm totaly in agreement

just me though.

[Michael]

Did you know Nik, that the peoples of this world could not see the colour blue, until they had a name for it. (There is no mention of blue in the old Greek classics.) And that they didn't have a name for it until they were able to make it themselves - the Egyptians being one of the first civilisations to be able to make blue, and thus one of the first to have a name for blue.

It might also be of interest to know that a scientist who was fascinated by the history of blue, or rather its lack of history, did an experiment on his child daughter. She was incapable of calling the sky blue for some time, after having been introduced purposely late to the colour blue, although she could call many objects as blue. He speculated it was because the sky is not an object.

You also might find it interesting to know that research on those who had their sight restored after having been blind since birth, could only see a mass of colours first. Shapes came later, and distance last.

I offer this as a little example of how we construct our entire reality through a learned process. It is what we call an 'agreement'. Once your arranging capacity dies, the whole string of pearls breaks and each pearl spins off into infinity.

Dying doesn't mean everything vanishes, just everything we know and can conceive of - ie, every 'thing'. This is Brahman: that which has no attributes.

Can you name something which you cannot conceive exists?

[Kal]

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" loading="lazy" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Naw4TQgl_Zs/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Naw4TQgl_Zs"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Naw4TQgl_Zs?rel=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Naw4TQgl_Zs?rel=0</a>

[nemo]

nemo, I think what's in stake is how you define the word mind.

Certainly humanity currently is strongly attached to what is refered, lets say, as mind.

...This can be a point or no point at all.

~ Nick. ~~

Guys, I am offering my view, and I stated that it is not the same as your view. I differentiate between mind and observer. In my view the mind is part of the first attention and in a manner is responsible for the dominance of reason, over the heart. Now the heart also has a mind in my view, but is relegated to secondary position, because of the dominance of reason, in the field of action of the first attention, which is precisely where acts of aggression can be reasoned out to be the best option by some minds.

I have also stated that your beliefs are just as valid in my view, so you are not going to get and argument from me that you are wrong and I am right. That is why I a emphasizing, it is my view.

Michael I know the intent behind my question, and although it may not have been stated in a way that was clear to you as to how i meant it, anything you read by me has my view as it's primary thrust, though i do my best to see how another will take what i am saying, to avoid things being misconstrued.

[nemo]

Again emphasis, I am offering my view for your perusal.

What I am trying to get at is in my view every personal assemblage point position, has a corresponding earth AP. If a being is operating in the first attention, there is a corresponding earth AP that matches it. If someone is moving away from the dominance of the first attention, the earths AP position will accommodate that intent.

If one has a belief that others have power over them this, would be part of the minds victim perpetrator energy makeup of the first attention. So when one trusts in the mind in my view, then the door is open to be manipulated, by what is presented by our fellow man, this then would be an assemblage point position supported by both the personal, and earth AP.

Michael said:

Otherwise, if I interpret your statement that:
a. the earth holds "all potentials", and
b. "our intent can move around in those potentials", and that this is
c. "unique" to each of us,

then yes, I concur with that.

Yes, a b and c, are correct, to my view, when I use the term static it is of critical importance to my view, all potentials already exist, which agrees with "b". Another way to say this is that there is only the now, all potentials exist in the now, so we can see us as either stationary observers, and time flows past us, or time is static and we move around in those static holographic frames.

Although all potentials exist, not every potential is energized/lite up by assemblage points moving around in those potentials. Time is not necessarily linear, but to the first attention time is linear, and creates a bias with it's reason to back that view.