A Thought To Remember

I wish my body became what my self is, but the fact is that just isn't true. I think there is a mix up with dreams and reality here.

ANd, I don't want to think transcendent thoughts, I want to be human, to act on basis of right and wrong, not go beyond that.

Well in my experience it's true. Our bodies are a reflection of our minds, or our "general psychic constitution". Any illness can be healed instantly, by our minds or spirit. Russell proved that to be true himself:

"Just before my second major illumination at the age of fourteen, I was stricken with black diphtheria, which is identical with black plague. Cultures from my throat so blackened a case knife that the three doctors attending me said I could not possibly live, for the functions of my throat were destroyed.
Soon after, these doctors pronounced me dead. The undertakers had arrived. I had no awareness of my body, whatsoever, but while in that state a great ecstasy overwhelmed me with all-knowing Light of Love and, to the amazement of my weeping parents, I arose from my bed perfectly healed. An inspection of my throat showed a perfect normalcy of strong tissue and my weakened body was again strong and vital.
... The memory of ten times ten thousand lives mirrored themselves in Light from their records on my Soul to tell me that my body was still new - that my time of disappearance had not yet come.
It was then given me to know that the power of revitalization of my body was mine, and I, who had been pronounced dead by man, lived strongly in the body."
(Walter Russell, The Message of the Divine Iliad, Vol. II)

Here's another case that clearly demonstrates how powerful our thougts and beliefs are:

Tumors That Melt Like Snowballs on a Hot Stove

Understanding the role such factors play in a placebo's effectiveness is important, for it shows how our ability to control the body holographic is molded by our beliefs. Our minds have the power to get rid of warts, to clear our bronchial tubes, and to mimic the painkilling ability of morphine, but because we are unaware that we possess the power, we must be fooled into using it. This might almost be comic if it were not for the tragedies that often result from our ignorance of our own power.

No incident better illustrates this than a now famous case reported by psychologist Bruno Klopfer. Klopfer was treating a man named Wright who had advanced cancer of the lymph nodes. All standard treatments had been exhausted, and Wright appeared to have little time left. His neck, armpits, chest, abdomen, and groin were filled with tumors the size of oranges, and his spleen and liver were so enlarged that two quarts of milky fluid had to be drained out of his chest every day.

But Wright did not want to die. He had heard about an exciting new drug called Krebiozen, and he begged his doctor to let him try it. At first his doctor refused because the drug was only being tried on people with a life expectancy of at least three months. But Wright was so unrelenting in his entreaties, his doctor finally gave in. He gave Wright an injection of Krebiozen on Friday, but in his heart of hearts he did not expect Wright to last the weekend. Then the doctor went home.

To his surprise, on the following Monday he found Wright out of bed and walking around. Klopfer reported that his tumors had "melted like snowballs on a hot stove" and were half their original size. This was a far more rapid decrease in size than even the strongest X-ray treatments could have accomplished. Ten days after Wright's first Krebiozen treatment, he left the hospital and was, as far as his doctors could tell, cancer free. When he had entered the hospital he had needed an oxygen mask to breathe, but when he left he was well enough to fly his own plane at 12,000 feet with no discomfort.

Wright remained well for about two months, but then articles began to appear asserting that Krebiozen actually had no effect on cancer of the lymph nodes. Wright, who was rigidly logical and scientific in his thinking, became very depressed, suffered a relapse, and was readmitted to the hospital. This time his physician decided to try an experiment. He told Wright that Krebiozen was every bit as effective as it had seemed, but that some of the initial supplies of the drug had deteriorated during shipping. He explained, however, that he had a new highly concentrated version of the drug and could treat Wright with this. Of course the physician did not have a new version of the drug and intended to inject Wright with plain water. To create the proper atmosphere he even went through an elaborate procedure before injecting Wright with the placebo.

Again the results were dramatic. Tumor masses melted, chest fluid vanished, and Wright was quickly back on his feet and feeling great. He remained symptom-free for another two months, but then the American Medical Association announced that a nationwide study of Krebiozen had found the drug worthless in the treatment of cancer. This time Wright's faith was completely shattered. His cancer blossomed anew and he died two days later.

Wright's story is tragic, but it contains a powerful message: When we are fortunate enough to bypass our disbelief and tap the healing forces within us, we can cause tumors to melt away overnight.

In the case of Krebiozen only one person was involved, but there are similar cases involving many more people. Take a chemotherapeutic agent called cis-platinum. When cis-platinum first became available it, too, was touted as a wonder drug, and 75 percent of the people who received it benefited from the treatment. But after the initial wave of excitement and the use of cis-platinum became more routine, its rate of effectiveness dropped to about 25 to 30 percent. Apparently most of the benefit obtained from cis-platinum was due to the placebo effect.
(Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe)

--
rado

Individual anecdotes that are easy to negate with many other anecdotal counterexamples -- many among my own patients. I've seen people with great attitudes, outlooks, and beliefs who are ravaged by diseases, and people with those same attitudes that do extremely well, better than expected. I've seen depressed pessimists do extremely well with some diseases, and I've seen some do terribly. The mind certainly influences self-care behavior and indeed can affect outcomes. But this tight, causal connection you describe in your long story bears little resemblance to biology or medicine.

And anecdotes are pretty unenlightening in medical practice when both the conditions and observations are uncontrolled. You can put people on chemo regimens and do biopsies to measure percent necrosis within a tumor, as is done for some malignancies. You can do controlled studies with hundreds or thousands of patients to see whether the addition of a chemo drug like cisplatin or cyclophosphamide or adriamycin or methotrexate improves outcomes as compared with regimens that lack this drug. I'd like to see a controlled study that uses the same objective outcome measures and controls the experimenal conditions before I take anecdotes like this seriously.

Let me also add that Walter Russell strikes me as either patently insane or a habitual user of hallucinogens, and I find little that is philosophically insightful in his writings. Just because he proved to himself that he could cure his own illness does not mean that this is believable let alone generalizable -- unless you think his word is somehow divine.

^^^ Kudos!
Besides, I think that the assumed dichotomy of 'self' and the 'body' is both arbitrary and illusory. It all grows from the appearances of the inherent mechanichism of the mind. It 'appears' that there is an 'out there' and an 'in here'. The spook in the machine indeed! 'Machinespook' is One!

My opinion at the moment is that for action to occur there must be consciousness - aside from perception a notion of 'knowing' that an action is occurring or should/will occur. So because of this one could say that the molecules of a toenail have consciousness and knowledge and exist with some phenomena of 'mindfulness'. Then we can ask 'what is the difference between the knowledge of a toenail that it is growing (hence knowledge of all relevant necessities) and the knowledge that one's brain decides it must trim the toenail?' I'd say that the two are fundamentally identical, but practically different - our mind has the ability to draw reason from other categories whereas the toenail knows only itself and it's relation to reality; that the mind can draw a reason for acting upon one categorized x from another category of concepts, but a toenail does not have this luxury.

So a molecule could not decide that oxidation is unnattractive because rusting is some kind of death, it will only have knowledge of the process which it undertakes / is forced into.

And therein you've redefined consciousness in a way that is inconsistent with its use in our language. Considering that there are NO conditions in the universe that lack action at the energetic / subatomic level, barring absolute zero (which may not exist anywhere naturally), this means that everything has consciousness. And if everything has consciousness, the word loses its meaning.

So how do you account for a quark having consciousness in light of the way that word is understood?

Wherein lies the knowledge that allows Fe2+ to be oxidized but Fe3+ to be reduced? Why do things that have physical qualities also need to be assigned consciousness? It just seems like you're anthropomorphizing here.

Originally Posted by Doobah47
My opinion at the moment is that for action to occur there must be consciousness




But perhaps Doobah is refering to the need for a consciousness for perception of actions.

Beside the point, Conscience is a force of our intentions, and we act upon our will, right? (though we may not always intend upon our conscience, it is not the only force).
Therefore, our actions do not require a consciousness. We do not have to perceive our actions in order to act, though it would make sense for consciousness to be required for intentions.

I think the idea of unconsciousness versus consciousness stems from our inability to remember where our consciousness is when we're not "awake". Even when we sleep, we're conscious about many of our dreams. But we're usually not conscious about (or remember) where our consciousness is 24/7 (though some claim it's possible to become so).


Many of the greatest religions, philosophies and spiritual schools, even some scientists, seem to agree that all things are conscious or that mind or consiousness is the primary factor/cause in reality. Some examples:


The quantum physicist David Bohm:

"Mind and matter are inseparable, in the sense that everything is permeated with meaning. The whole idea of the somasignificant or signasomatic is that at no stage are mind and matter ever separated. There are differelt levels of mind. Even the electron is informed with a certain level of mind". - "Quantum Implications" p. 443


Hinduism:

...the entire universe is a manifestation of pure consciousness. In manifesting the universe, this pure consciousness seems to become divided into two poles or aspects, neither of which can exist without the other. One aspect retains a static quality and remains identified with unmanifest consciousness. In tantra this quality is called Shiva, and is conceptualized as masculine.... The other part of this polarity is a dynamic, energetic, or creative aspect that is called Shakti, the great mother of the universe, for it is from her that all is born (Rama 27).


Hermetic Philosophy:

I. THE PRINCIPLE OF MENTALISM.

Finally someone who understands that thoughts are just an "electric record of the thinking of Mind" Whenever I have to explain this to someone like my grandma who is religious they don't believe it.

It does not lose it's meaning if the presence of a dichotomy is useless; if one were to demand that for 'yes' there must be 'no' then one is contradicting the laws of physics, which would appear not to offer an alternative to a proton's orbit. Either the laws of physics are wrong or the dichotomy is flawed; which do you prefer?

Here below an interesting concept is is illustrated. I, too, am trained in a health care field, worked it for over 10 years and saw much of the same. But here's the thing:

What the doctor mentions (and what I also experienced) is what I see as each of us perceiving life from our 'own' individualized focusing of infinity (perspective). In other words, I might initially think I'm seeing what is reality for another person. But what 'I AM' (is), really seeing is my waking dream, so to say - with the others acting as characters. Other aspects of the Self that I believe we all are. Not solipsism or in a way that ignores the significance of other humans. Just in a way that points to a larger picture of Life. A woefully misunderstood and more malleable life, perhaps.

I still often catch myself 'thinking in reverse' aka ineffectively (if that is literally possible :perplexed: .....maybe it would be more accurate to say 'experiencing thoughts I do not prefer.')....On a good day I can find it hilarious that after all I believe I'm doing to try and 'evolve' a little, haha!, I still can slip right into seeing things in that other way.

Reminds me of someone I met once. He was very upset and complaining about how one of his favorite teachers of universal principles, law of attraction, etc., had become ill and been hospitalized. This young man, the student, was expressing a lot of anger and judgment.

I could see where I had done the same thing in situations myself. For me it really was about how he, in my life dream, representing my own not so stellar aspects - might better be served to ask: why is it that I am seeing/perceiving my teacher in this way? Why am I seeing this version of him?....Albeit this does speak to some of my other beliefs about how I experience reality. Which might not make sense to some (I consider things like reality shifting, many worlds theory and the like)....but anyway, the post got me thinking about this topic of viewpoint & how personal and impactful beliefs (thoughts) about how life is structured can be. And how no matter what we believe evidence of it is available for pointing out 'truth' as we see it. Our own anecdotal stories tend to be real for us, too. So being so personal not sure how they can be negated by someone who was not there having the experience :eek: -- Due to the subjective nature of it. But if the doctor did not believe a person had a personal experience - well that would be his right and his own business only.

Bob Proctor?

I've experienced this many times - things happening to famous teachers which seemed to contradict their teachings, or indicating that they might nor walk their own talk. But it has always lead me to a deeper understanding of things, one way or another.



You mean in another, parallel universe, Bob Proctor didn't get ill?

Rado

Thanks, Rado, for responding.

Haha! Not Bob Proctor - but close! I'll PM it to you!

Re: in another universe:

That's one way to put it, for sure.

Law of Attraction teachings, I was there for awhile and it's a part of my foundation of understanding for certain. But then it seemed only to be a fraction, a very slim angle on whatever else was going on. And what I was observing in myself and others on the L.O.A. was being accepted - but not wholesale......I don't use the word "attract" so much any more. But for the sake of this discussion:

In other words: Only some things are attracted? Or are all experiences? If all experiences are attracted then why would the experience of being witness to an ill teacher be any different? There is a wholeness about the notion of the concept of 'experiencing' that seemed to be ignored.

Next stage that showed up: The teacher, if I see him unwell, the meaning, from my own perspective, is up to me. If I mentally tear him down (or out loud to friends) what would that be about? I tend to think, in situations like that that it's - 1) a reminder that no one need be a guru in a way that is superior above anyone else. A reminder about the sovereignty of the soul within what may be a family of other souls, etc. While still fully acknowledging these teachers, they can help us a lot sometimes.....And - 2) the waking dream is then mine if further interpretation is needed or wanted......When that person became ill, in that particular case, I also felt compassion for him - that day seeing him as another aspect of the Self. I'd like to be more consistent in seeing things that way.

Another part: I sometimes experience life expressing as a Totality of Being. An 'is-ness' of activity details making up all that is the 'One Thing'.....Maybe "why?" these things happen isn't always the ideal question as much as the concept that whatever is witnessed, there need not be self-judgment or judgment of others, if it's unpleasant (but we can weigh things & make decisions). Easier said than done, so far. Meaning I haven't mastered this myself. But in moments when it has occurred I've never felt more free. It's like layers if falsehood get peeled away and seeing is more clear.

Have seen/experienced at times, deliberately sought out shifts happen when something really not preferred or wanted is being witnessed. I've also asked "how?" a lot. Re: looking for practical ways to make seemingly impossible changes. But what I've come to is that there is no one way - what works for someone is simply what works and methods can change. Also, basic principles can be applied and then stylized if someone wants to jazz things up :bigsmile:......This is also where already designed or established rituals or practices can come in.