|
|
Post by paul on Feb 8, 2011 9:51:57 GMT 9.5
The concept of immortality appears in alchemy and in Taoism and no doubt elsewhere. And there are various practices or products supposed to regenerate the physical body.
If all is energy, then regeneration of the physical body must be based on energy flows. I wonder then if there is a higher analogue dealing with relationships.
Is there an energy stream that tends to regenerate relationships?
Of course that question presupposes that relationships exist as an energy structure separate from the related beings.
Hence the Beatles' question: "Do you believe in love at first sight? Yes, I am certain that it happens all the time." If this is true then the relationship may exist prior to the parties meeting. It is this prior existence that may be subject to regeneration.
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Feb 8, 2011 11:13:45 GMT 9.5
Supposedly, if one touches another person a link is formed which may be energised at will. In Huna it is called the aka cord. Does touching help auras to communicate?
And if auric fields contain soul information then maybe like is attracted to like. If they dovetail, then that could account for love at first sight.
My absolute belief in reincarnation leads me to believe that an instant love or attraction for another (including the unromantic type) is a recognition of prior relationships. Parent for child, siblings, lovers.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 9, 2011 10:00:49 GMT 9.5
>if one touches another person a link is formed which may be energised at will. In Huna it is called the aka cord.
If repeated then the links may coalesce into an energy being - the relationship being.
It is that being that may get worn out by relationship stress and possibly be regenerated by metaphysical intervention.
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Feb 9, 2011 10:20:46 GMT 9.5
How does one go about regenerating by metaphysical intervention, expecially if some components are not entirely in tune with each other. ie sometimes in a lodge situation you will find one Bro may be happy to sit in lodge with another but still find them irritating. Talking generally here.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 9, 2011 10:39:51 GMT 9.5
The relationship entity is typically a complex of elemental and devic substance and intelligence, with a variety of dark and light interconnections and anchors.
From a Masonic perspective, the first requirement is good will as adverse attitudes reduce cooperation and activate the dark aspects present.
If one has some degree of inner sight, then it is useful to spend some time looking at the complex while projecting good will towards it. This may allow detection of the more obvious external interferences and identify the general attitude of the complex to the proposed intervention.
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Feb 9, 2011 12:44:09 GMT 9.5
If one has some degree of inner sight, then it is useful to spend some time looking at the complex while projecting good will towards it. This may allow detection of the more obvious external interferences and identify the general attitude of the complex to the proposed intervention.  |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 9, 2011 13:18:24 GMT 9.5
It is important that the relationship entity likes you before you start to intervene - else it will resist. And it is important to detect other intelligences present that will not like your intervention and therefore will resist. |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Feb 9, 2011 15:16:19 GMT 9.5
So how to deal with 'other intelligences'?
How can one deal with 'other' if the 'other' is attached to someone... free will and all that.
Think I left another forum because of this sort of thing ... definitely didn't like my intervening. 'It' left soon after I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 9, 2011 17:42:16 GMT 9.5
There are various ways to deal with other intelligences:
- block them
- banish them
- transmute them
- redirect them
- befriend them
- rise/fall out of their spectrum.
Of course the effectiveness of various actions depends somewhat upon the worthiness and skill of the operator and upon the rights of the target entity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Feb 9, 2011 23:41:44 GMT 9.5
There are various ways to deal with other intelligences: - block them - banish them - transmute them - redirect them - befriend them - rise/fall out of their spectrum. Of course the effectiveness of various actions depends somewhat upon the worthiness and skill of the operator and upon the rights of the target entity. Or, you could think they are bunkum and ignore them, like 99.99999999% of rational people do. |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Feb 10, 2011 7:31:23 GMT 9.5
Isn't group intelligence part of rationional thought? What about 'mob mentality' etc. People can and do get carried away at group gatherings.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 10, 2011 7:53:33 GMT 9.5
Or, you could think they are bunkum and ignore them, like 99.99999999% of rational people do. The problem is though: If such entities exist then they operate by manipulating human thoughts and feelings. In which case it is a simple process to program the human to believe that there is no other intelligence intruding into human thought. Thereby rational = programmed. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 10, 2011 7:56:33 GMT 9.5
What about 'mob mentality' etc. I am not sure it is a valid use of the term "mentality". Most humans emote first then compatible thoughts are attached to the emotion. Football crowds, having formed a large communal emotional field, may be particularly susceptible to manipulation by party-going astral entities. |
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Feb 10, 2011 10:52:15 GMT 9.5
Thereby rational = programmed. LOL! ;D A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest—but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Feb 10, 2011 10:57:08 GMT 9.5
What about 'mob mentality' etc. I am not sure it is a valid use of the term "mentality". Most humans emote first then compatible thoughts are attached to the emotion. Football crowds, having formed a large communal emotional field, may be particularly susceptible to manipulation by party-going astral entities. Emotions are not tools of cognition . . . one must differentiate between one’s thoughts and one’s emotions with full clarity and precision. One does not have to be omniscient in order to possess knowledge; one merely has to know that which one does know, and distinguish it from that which one feels. Nor does one need a full system of philosophical epistemology in order to distinguish one’s own considered judgment from one’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Feb 10, 2011 12:35:51 GMT 9.5
Have to say - I am finding this thread useful. I wonder what the Paul,Henka,Mgc,LorrB relationship looks like from other levels. Have I met you guys before?
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 10, 2011 13:45:39 GMT 9.5
If you project above the listed entities you may see the outline of an energy field that connects (or not) the various entities.
|
|
