Channeling Again

[Bucky]

Re: the law of attraction. I remember listening to Bashar describing that yes, we are creators, and we can endeavour to create our own reality. However, with the caveat that we may run into walls when it's been a decision made by our Higher Self, or as part of a contract with other beings, that situation X be experienced. I really distinctly remember him talking along these lines. So this is where or how soul contracts and the law of attraction seem to co-exist in his system.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever heard about this caveat. If it is part of the teaching it is mentioned very rarely, if ever.

But doesn't it make this conception even more sadistic?
The poor starving baby in Africa has signed a contract to experience starvation. Then comes the spiritual teacher and tells him... "You have super-powers! You can change your reality in whatever way you please, if you change your core beliefs" (does the baby need to believe he's starving to actually starve?)
But there's a wicked catch. The higher self does not really allow you to use your super-powers, so you may spend an inordinate amount of time struggling to change your reality to no avail.

I find this conception to be the work of an evil mind, to be honest. :D
I can use reason, intuition, emotional intelligence... but put it like that it makes no sense and has none of the characteristics I would expect from an infinitely creative mind.

This seems more akin to the gnostic conception of the "prison planet" created by a wicked lower daemon.

Re: starving children. Again I'd have to reacquaint myself with the information he delivered through lectures. From what I can deduce from what I remember in general terms, he might say there are a variety of reasons for Higher Selves desiring to have that experience. But Bucky your question is about their being able to change their reality. Well on the question of changing reality, what I remember is that you change reality (again, to the extent that it is allowed by soul contracts, collective agreements above, etc. etc.) by changing your beliefs.

I think this concept is quite fuzzy without distinctions.
It seems very intuitive that the way one sees/reacts to experiences makes up one's reality, where "reality" is defined as "the picture of the world you make in your mind".

The problem is that the "create your own reality" philosophy asserts that you can literally manifest shit out of thin air if you (somehow) change your "beliefs". Where belief is a fuzzy mixture of the standard definition plus several new agey ideas such as "personal vibration", "core frequency" etc.

And he was quite clear that here is there no limit. You could literally change the external reality you face by changing your beliefs, but that takes an awful lot of ability. (Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting the teachings here; it's quite possible.)

No no, you're right.
Bashar goes full-on "The secret" asserting that you can literally have strangers send you money to your mailbox, out of the blue, if you are in the right state of mind.
http://www.inwardquest.com/question...sted-checks-in-the-mail-from-a-total-stranger

Besides the fact that it would definitely be uber cool :D I am sure I am not the only one seeing a couple of teeny tiny issues here.
Instead of going into the obvious objections I will say this:
suppose this is entirely true and correct, i.e. this is precisely how the universe works at his core.
At the same time no human is able to access this level of omnipotence and we're blind to what limitations our contract has put on our use of the super-powers.

So why teaching us hundreds of hours worth of this stuff and putting so much emphasis on it?
It would be like trying to explain quantum mechanics to kindergarteners: maybe some of them will even think they understand but they really don't nor they will be able to do anything with such knowledge.

I will close the post with this pearl:

The Law of Attraction is the description of the higher-dimensional dynamics of the non-causal mechanics of manifestation in the (multi-dimensional non-VR model of the) subjective reality metaparadigm. Non-causal is more accurate because everything exists simultaneously, but to bring the logical mind along it is useful to call it 5th-dimensional causality as a distinguishing stepping stone from 4th-dimensional causality.​

(source)

Cheers

 

[Bucky]

To lighten the discussion a bit, I have made an experiment with a very intuitive friend of mine.
Sometimes I send her pictures of people she doesn't know and she tells me her impressions. So I looked up a photo of Anka/Bashar and sent it to her:
(note: she has no idea who this guy is and has not even the slightest interest in new age material)

The photo I sent is this:



And this is what she wrote back after a while (translated in English):

What a lovely person.
He seems to know a lot of stuff.
He has a lot of knowledge, deep knowledge. Like how the world works, at his foundation.
Very insightful, someone who ponders on very important topics. A bit like a philosopher, maybe.

This photo reminds of the those pictures in the Harry Potter's movie? Remember? Those animated pictures? I kind of see the picture change. His face seems to change!
There's a passion for cinema. Maybe he works in the industry, but he's not an actor. Maybe someone that works with a director.
​

Fascinating, eh?
Indeed Anka works in the cinema industry, as a special effect designer.
I, of course, said nothing. I just sent the picture which I downloaded and renamed to avoid any suggestions via the url or picture name.

I did know a bit about Anka biography (what can be found on wiki) so she might have picked that up? I don't know. Still, if I was shown this picture all I could say is that he looks like the guy at the insurance company I usally go to, LOL :D

Cheers

 

[Obiwan]

To lighten the discussion a bit, I have made an experiment with a very intuitive friend of mine.
Sometimes I send her pictures of people she doesn't know and she tells me her impressions. So I looked up a photo of Anka/Bashar and sent it to her:
(note: she has no idea who this guy is and has not even the slightest interest in new age material)

The photo I sent is this:

View attachment 969

And this is what she wrote back after a while (translated in English):

What a lovely person.
He seems to know a lot of stuff.
He has a lot of knowledge, deep knowledge. Like how the world works, at his foundation.
Very insightful, someone who ponders on very important topics. A bit like a philosopher, maybe.

This photo reminds of the those pictures in the Harry Potter's movie? Remember? Those animated pictures? I kind of see the picture change. His face seems to change!
There's a passion for cinema. Maybe he works in the industry, but he's not an actor. Maybe someone that works with a director.
​

Fascinating, eh?
Indeed Anka works in the cinema industry, as a special effect designer.
I, of course, said nothing. I just sent the picture which I downloaded and renamed to avoid any suggestions via the url or picture name.

I did know a bit about Anka biography (what can be found on wiki) so she might have picked that up? I don't know. Still, if I was shown this picture all I could say is that he looks like the guy at the insurance company I usally go to, LOL :D

Cheers

Except of course he is allegedly channeling this Bashir character and tells us that he is the knowledgable one, no? Plus it's a posed photo lol

 

[Bucky]

Except of course he is allegedly channeling this Bashir character and tells us that he is the knowledgable one, no? Plus it's a posed photo lol

It's interesting that she mentioned the photo as being "animated" and his face as changing. Seems to allude to his "duality" of character (or even split personality), Anka and Bashar.

 

[Obiwan]

It's interesting that she mentioned the photo as being "animated" and his face as changing. Seems to allude to his "duality" of character (or even split personality), Anka and Bashar.

Hm. Perhaps. Curious.

 

[Typoz]

I just sent the picture which I downloaded and renamed to avoid any suggestions via the url or picture name.

Of course, Google image search can still identify the image and give both a name and websites where the image is found. As a test, I downloaded the image to my hard drive, saved as "test.jpg", then used the 'upload an image' option in google image search.

 

[Bucky]

Of course, Google image search can still identify the image and give both a name and websites where the image is found. As a test, I downloaded the image to my hard drive, saved as "test.jpg", then used the 'upload an image' option in google image search.

Yeah ... but no. My friend has no computer savviness. In fact she doesn't have a computer at home and there's no chance in hell she's able to reverse lookup pictures via google on her phone :D

Plus she doesn't really care if she's right or wrong and I guess this attitude is part of the "success". She takes it as a game with no expectations. We have played this game for quite some time with pretty interesting results, but it has happened that she "feels nothing" on some photos and she usually says it immediately. As if there's no "connection" available.

We have played this game both remotely (phone) and in person and there's no difference. Of course I always know who the subject in the picture is so I might be the the source of the info, though I clearly recall a couple of instances in which she said things I didn't know and I had to look them up and it was a good match.

I keep telling her that she should give me some numbers for the lottery :D :D

 

[Typoz]

Yeah ... but no. My friend has no computer savviness. In fact she doesn't have a computer at home and there's no chance in hell she's able to reverse lookup pictures via google on her phone :D

That's ok, I wasn't really trying to 'debunk' or explain away anything. It was more of a background information in case anyone else tries a similar experiment, that it may not be foolproof.

 

[Bucky]

That's ok, I wasn't really trying to 'debunk' or explain away anything. It was more of a background information in case anyone else tries a similar experiment, that it may not be foolproof.

Sure, no problem :) I would have raised the same point.