Riz Virk, The Simulation Hypothesis Beyond Materialism |442|

Im listening to “The Law of One” currently on Audio. “Channeling Ra.” Have you ever read it? It’s strikingly brilliant, like the Seth material. Supposedly, Ra is a “social memory complex” of a far off advanced alien species. A collective thoughtform if you will. Whatever it is, it’s very smart. I actually recently had a friend recommend the Frank Demarco book to me. I’m planning on getting to it sooner than later. I’ve also just discovered Swedenborg, which I’m really liking. It’s interesting how he (like most men of the time) where Christian, but he also (generally) describes the afterlife as a physical place/experience.
Seth was interesting except that he disappointed me with his descriptions of scientific phenomena that seemed to only relate to science as we know it if you performed a rather generous re-interpretation of what he communicated. I mean, were his 'ee units' meant to be photons or not? I never decided. Also from his lofty position, shouldn't he have known our terminology? If he had started there, it would have been amazing!

I feel that scientific explanations are an interesting test case, because Jane Roberts knew no science (I think) so none of her ideas could become injected into Seth's account.

David
 
Seth was interesting except that he disappointed me with his descriptions of scientific phenomena that seemed to only relate to science as we know it if you performed a rather generous re-interpretation of what he communicated. I mean, were his 'ee units' meant to be photons or not? I never decided. Also from his lofty position, shouldn't he have known our terminology? If he had started there, it would have been amazing!

I feel that scientific explanations are an interesting test case, because Jane Roberts knew no science (I think) so none of her ideas could become injected into Seth's account.

David
Seth also threw me for a loop with his version of version of the historic Jesus. Seems really unlikely to me. I’ll see if I can dig it up. But this just sort of adds to my caution with these things. We know from the abduction and close encounter data how malleable our minds are by other forms of “higher” consciousness. ET is often very deceiving. In this sense, we don’t know if Jane was chaneling one entity or 30 entities. Or how much came through as the entity intended. Maybe some of the message got muddled in Janes mind. Maybe Janes subconscious made some of it up. It’s really impossible to know. At any rate, there’s no denying it’s striking brilliance.
 
Last edited:
Im listening to “The Law of One” currently on Audio. “Channeling Ra.” Have you ever read it? It’s strikingly brilliant, like the Seth material. Supposedly, Ra is a “social memory complex” of a far off advanced alien species. A collective thoughtform if you will. Whatever it is, it’s very smart. I actually recently had a friend recommend the Frank Demarco book to me. I’m planning on getting to it sooner than later. I’ve also just discovered Swedenborg, which I’m really liking. It’s interesting how he (like most men of the time) where Christian, but he also (generally) describes the afterlife as a physical place/experience.
I am usually suspicious of stuff like the Law of One, but I downloaded it and will listen. DeMarco has a number of books, all of which are very interesting, but Awakening from the 3D World especially so.

I think Swedenborg and the like were Christian at a time when the faith was more a foundation - and not the morden silliness. Quite a few of our major scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries were also Christian. Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason [also on audio] is something you might appreciate - as too Karen Armstrong's The Lost Art of Scripture.

Christianity is not the limiting faith we have come to see it - but ti do think its is now past its use by date.
 
Seth also threw me for a loop with his version of version of the historic Jesus. Seems really unlikely to me. I’ll see if I can dig it up. But this just sort of adds to my caution with these things. We know from the abduction and close encounter data how malleable our minds are by other forms of “higher” consciousness. ET is often very deceiving. In this sense, we don’t know if Jane was chaneling one entity or 30 entities. Or how much came through as the entity intended. Maybe some of the message got muddled in Janes mind. Maybe Janes subconscious made some of it up. It’s really impossible to know. At any rate, there’s no denying it’s striking brilliance.
The trouble with these kinds of contacts is that they are not always pure rendering of a direct speech of an independent entity. Its been decades since I read the Seth books, so I can't confidently recall any content.

There are different methods of collaboration between 'vessel' and source. Besides we have an unfair habit of expecting every contact, because it 'comes from spirit' to be flawless. We expect Seth to be right about everything and to be free of ego. That's not reasonable. Besides why do we assume Seth knows anything about science- as we know it? He might be from a 'different time'.

It is more like travellers' tales from centuries ago - we get a great tale based on experience, but maybe with misconstruances and a few fabrications that keep the narrative flowing and do no real harm to the overall story.

White's The Betty Book is a really good exploration of the difficulty of communicating ideas from one dimension to another. It was published back in 1937, and you can detect the struggle to describe deep ideas in the context of scientific notions of the day and emergent tech.
 
The trouble with these kinds of contacts is that they are not always pure rendering of a direct speech of an independent entity. Its been decades since I read the Seth books, so I can't confidently recall any content.

There are different methods of collaboration between 'vessel' and source. Besides we have an unfair habit of expecting every contact, because it 'comes from spirit' to be flawless. We expect Seth to be right about everything and to be free of ego. That's not reasonable. Besides why do we assume Seth knows anything about science- as we know it? He might be from a 'different time'.

It is more like travellers' tales from centuries ago - we get a great tale based on experience, but maybe with misconstruances and a few fabrications that keep the narrative flowing and do no real harm to the overall story.
.
However isn't that the same as saying that these people are deceitful?

I think the concept of automatic writing - by which some of these entities communicate is interesting. This style of writing would be very hard to fake, I'd imagine, so maybe classifying these channelers by the means of communication would be useful.

David
 
I think the issue is... "is the information reliable." And my opinion about that is that it is up to each of us as to what we decide to adopt as "metaphysical truths" and what we are honest with ourselves is, at best, "metaphysical assumptions (ie. beliefs).

It is my further opinion that one of the biggest traps most humans fall into is the lack of recognition that assumptions they hold are simply that... assumptions. Too often, so many of us seem to conclude an assumption is actually "truth" and then (even worse), project that truth on others.
 
However isn't that the same as saying that these people are deceitful?

I think the concept of automatic writing - by which some of these entities communicate is interesting. This style of writing would be very hard to fake, I'd imagine, so maybe classifying these channelers by the means of communication would be useful.

David
Automatic writing can be 'faked' in the sense that some folk put themselves into a frame of mind that induced 'flow' writing and mistake that for the same thing. This 'inspired' writing carries distortions of the personality, sometimes to a severe degree such that what is written is worthless.

Along time ago I wrote in a script through no volition of my own. My hand wrote with no evident involvement from me. It wasn't a script that was known and, thus, what was written was not knowable directly. I am still not entirely aware of the purpose of the exercise. The experience stopped after about 9 months.

Classifying channellers by means of communication would indeed be useful - if we had an agreed system. Some methods allow lower level entities in, and the more sophisticated methods seem to be reserved for higher level agents. I am listening to the audiobook Wormwood suggested and I immediately was aware of characteristics that are familiar to me - suggestive of higher level sources. But even so one must continue to mindful of the content - and there are issues I haven't yet worked out. But I am in only 4 hours with 11 to go.

We must always be mindful that methods and content are distinct areas for consideration. Some methods indicate just where the channellers self in in relation to the communicating source - off to one side, left body completely, the vehicle of communication in a trance, the vehicle of communication in an altered state of consciousness. In each instance we need to consider the integrity of the source and the channel.

Automatic writing is not something I know much about, despite several instances of doing it. I can say, from my experiences, my hand operated independently of me - and I was not in any trance or altered state of consciousness. In fact the first time it happened I wasn't even aware until I was asked what I was doing. I was too into a discussion going on.

It would be good if we could agree on method and status, if for no other reason than to help others to be aware that there are perils and delusions to be negotiated - if one has a sincere desire for quality information.
 
Along time ago I wrote in a script through no volition of my own. My hand wrote with no evident involvement from me. It wasn't a script that was known and, thus, what was written was not knowable directly. I am still not entirely aware of the purpose of the exercise. The experience stopped after about 9 months.
Curious! If it looks distinctive and clear enough, i guess you could try to compare it with a list of known scripts, to see if you can identify the language at the character level.

I suppose it might be like speaking in tongues, where no language is obvious.

David
 
This happened last night while sleeping - (I wrote this about 9:00 AM my time (CDT))

I know I better write this down now… (about an hour after I awoke this morning, March 15, 2020).

First… I awoke this morning feeling like I didn’t really get good sleep. I know I awoke a few more times than usual…

OK, so what I need to write is one time when I was coming to consciousness (ordinary, waking state consciousness), I was in that lucid dreaming state where I observed the following –

I observed that an image, like a square (maybe a slight rectangle) piece of paper or flat white surface, though I had a “feeling” I was seeing one side of a box… and what was freaky to me was that I was seeing this with my left eye. Understand, my left eye is blind. I recall that my right eye was closed (understand, this is “me, my perspective” in the dream). And then I recalled thinking, “wow, I am seeing out of my blind left eye!” I even recalled “closing” my left eye and indeed, the image was not visible and so I “opened” my left eye again…

And here is what was on the white, squarish image… symbols. Symbols organized like some sort of grid where I could see the lines two, maybe three horizontal lines separating sections. There were (maybe) a few vertical lines that went between one horizontal line and the one next to it… almost like a tick tack toe board but yet I do not recall the vertical lines connecting top to bottom like the horizontal lines that went all the way across, border to border.

The symbols were very clear… the lines and symbols were black on the white surface. Each section (and there were maybe 10 or so… no more) contained a unique arrangement of the symbols. I recall my mind acting as if it was saying to itself at the moment that I started grasping what I might have been seeing, “am I seeing this? What am I seeing? Are those symbols? Is this “something” communicating with me? Communicating with me in “machine language? As those thoughts flowed through me the symbols came into greater focus and I recall thinking, “Yes… this is indeed symbols being presented to me (for what I did not know).” That is when I closed my left eye and realized, “wow… I am seeing out of my blind eye!” and also, I recall thinking that by squinting, I could increase the focus… and it was at this moment I recall homing in on one particular section of symbols. There were maybe six or so drawn “sub-symbols” arranged to create what I concluded was an overall symbol…

I recall a dot, I recall a curved line almost like one border of a quarter moon and I recall a few straight lines (diagonal and parallel) and then some more sub-symbols which I cannot specifically recall or describe. Each section was a set of these sub-symbols that (as I mentioned) seemed to be forming an overall single symbol. I recall staring at the whole image for several seconds almost as if I was trying to “absorb” the message… but understand, the “me” in the dream was concluding that it was some message being presented to me. What I am saying by that is that what I was doing in the dream is the very thing I strive to emphasize to folks can be risky… that being, concluding something… that being, doing the second level interpretation that becomes conclusion and that then can be used to support an existing paradigm or create a new paradigm.

Anyways, it was just after I homed in on that certain section… done more as an attempt to believe that indeed what I was seeing was appearing as if “made” by some intelligence and not something that may have arisen because of some random, natural cause. And the last thing I remember was that when I had that comfortable feeling of, “Yes… this is ‘real” as I am concluding (and all the implications of this are likely ‘true’), I faded back out into a sleep below my ordinary conscious state that is typing this up now, that recalls the dream event.
 
Curious! If it looks distinctive and clear enough, i guess you could try to compare it with a list of known scripts, to see if you can identify the language at the character level.

I suppose it might be like speaking in tongues, where no language is obvious.

David
The best anybody could come up with was ancient Korean - as not a very close fit.
 
I want to add that the experience of automatic writing resolved in telling me there was a deeper dimension to what inputs I accepted, or was aware of. I was subsequently told that my 'inspired' writing was so infected by ego as to be of minimal value. But that was 20 years ago, and I hope I have grown a bit since then.

These days I have a more distinct sense of what is ego and what is bona fide inspiration. Whether others agree is another matter. I haven't tried to induce 'automatic writing' for a long time. This is for no other reason than an absence of motive. I have long learned that self-induced motive is almost an assured path to fakery.

These days I seem to be more 'inspired' to write on a theme - but to what level of distortion I cannot say.
 
I had the thought the other day that maybe 'entities' only exist when we are looking at them, kind of like particles. If the universe is more like a mind or simulation, maybe any kind of thing can exist. I've always wondered what god(s) and/or spirits do when we're not looking....do they exist independently of us? Any thoughts?
 
Top