What do New Thought followers do by way of practice?

DotNotInOz wrote:

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:Reincarnation makes the most mentally logical sense to me, as it explains most of the goings-on of the world; why children are born prodigies, why some are born crippled, why some are born in a first-world country and comforts and some are born as the lowest of low.

I think if there's something more to the afterlife other than reincarnation or nothing at all, it's probably too different from our experience in the here and now to really understand it.

Pretty much agreed here.

I get really incensed at the commonly used phrase, "It's all good," perhaps because I had another believer in reincarnation explain that to me as there's a reason for things like the Holocaust, the Asian tsunami of a few years ago, the Haitian earthquake, etc.

Probably just my overreaction, but that explanation smacks to me of "It's God's will."

I don't have as much problem with the idea that such catastrophes could be pre-birth agreements to die horrifically in such fashion to balance out excesses in past lives.

I don't think it terribly farfetched, for instance, as TED suggested above to think that a cousin of mine's daughter born with multiple severe defects chose those to restrict her ability in this lifetime to make spiritually unsound choices. Because her life is so restricted, maybe it's easier for her to focus upon spiritual values. I've often wondered if this is an explanation, since I simply can't accept the belief that God "has a reason" for inflicting such massive defects upon a child and parents otherwise.

Perhaps there's also something to the belief that her soul is a very advanced one who chose such a limited existence in order to provide her parents with an opportunity for intense spiritual growth in this lifetime. That's another theory that makes a certain amount of sense to me.

I dunno. Eventually, I hope I'll find out because theories of this type stimulate my curiosity.

Those theories make sense to me; then again, I also piss people off by saying the theories about the Tsunami, Holocaust, etc. are plausible as well; I say that because I don't believe in coincidence... either victims of such disasters choose it before they come in, for whatever reason, or it's the result of something karmically far larger. To me, "It's God's will" is different from karmic debt because karma is owed and paid, while "God's will" (in the term it's used) is very willy-nilly and wishy washy. If someone says "Well, it's God's will those people got smited and we got saved" it makes 'God' into that wishy-washy understanding of "Well, sometimes he cares and sometimes he doesn't". Karma, rather, is just the law that reciprocates equally.

Now wait, TED. You are a pantheist, right? You believe that God is everything? How does it help God to have people come back without their memories of the past life? and another question, if you don't mind, and I'm genuinely interested in the answers, how does picking the next body out (I'm getting a vision of a heavenly closet with ready made bodies here, and that's just quirky me) move God forward in evolution?

I just wanted to throw out that Dot's recommended book, Life Before Life. There is unbiased scientific research being done to observe as much as possible of the afterlife. There is scientific research that essentially guarantees reincarnation.

UPGs are great, and sometimes that's all we have, but I like facts. The facts prove that many people are reincarnated.

That doesn't mean everyone is. My personal theory, which is not substantiated with facts, is that the afterlife often depends on what we believe or expect. There are personal anecdotes and UPGs of people going to heavens, hell, and other places. The scientific evidence for reincarnation is more evident in nations that believe in reincarnation.

I think that there are some facts there, but that different conclusions can be drawn from those facts. It's interesting.

There is also evidence to show that white people have a huge amount more OBE than blacks (suggests that it is culturally connected) and that people who have vivid dreams that they can recall have more OBE. There are also books written about native cultures have a certain kind of OBEs without the Christian influence and then those members who become Christian report different OBEs.

gillyflower wrote:Now wait, TED. You are a pantheist, right? You believe that God is everything?

Yup!

How does it help God to have people come back without their memories of the past life?

Well, memories are generally stored in the brain, and the brain rots. I believe there may be some memories that transfer into the akashic records but for the most part, retaining our memories from life to life is virtually impossible. It would benefit us to be able to naturally fly too.

and another question, if you don't mind, and I'm genuinely interested in the answers, how does picking the next body out (I'm getting a vision of a heavenly closet with ready made bodies here, and that's just quirky me) move God forward in evolution?

I think we choose a lot of our next life; our parents, our abilities or disabilities, our situations. Different experiences are the only way to move forward. If we're born wealthy white American males to high-end parents on a repeated basis, we're going to run out of growth opportunity.

So you think God is centered around how humans evolve?

gillyflower wrote:Yes, I read it. It isn't proof.

Yes I know, I said as much -- why keep mentioning it? It isn't UPG though. It's circumstantial evidence. Now how familiar are you with the rest of the research? (You'll notice there's 90 podcasts on that site, a fair few of which have to do with this subject, and that's just one site.) If you know all the evidence you still won't regard it as proven just on that evidence, but there is definitely something there to talk about IMO. That's why the conversations are going on and why books like Life Before Life are being written, etc.

My goodness, PS! You are taking my personal beliefs and extrapolating to something I do not mean at all! I do lots of things that I believe help my well-being but then when I stop doing them I keep right on with my well-being so does that mean those things are helpful or not?

I didn't think I was extrapolating... you said you believed in magic, and I presumed (with your high evidential barrier) that you had good experiential reason to do so. Are you saying now that you only think magic probably or possibly works, but that you yourself have not proved to your own satisfaction that it does?

If so, I don't think you really believe in magic, you only kinda sorta believe in it, and that's a little different.

There is no proof, again, that magic (and how do you define that?) worked to change things, yes or no.

Why do you keep talking about proof? You believe in magic already without objective proof from anyone else, don't you?

My own definition of 'magic' doesn't matter -- I'll use whatever one you are comfortable with, including energetic change in accordance with the will, or 'making stuff happen', or anything else you prefer.

Similarly with this:

I would like for you to define what you mean by harmonizing "mind/body/spirit" because I have a feeling that we are not talking about the same thing.

... it doesn't really matter so much what I mean by it. I use it as an example of a spiritual growth idea that you gave. What you're saying is that if someone achieved a measure of what you call mind/body/spirit harmony, that would not necessary make them better at what you call magic. We already know that my definitions and experience would run contrary to that... all I'm saying is, it's interesting that this is what you believe.

I haven't been to the 'harmonizing' thread yet, but defining what I mean by this kind of 'harmonizing' would be gigantic. I'll just head over there before I post on that here... but it might have to be later.

So you think God is centered around how humans evolve?

Non sequitur!

If God is the ultimate consciousness, then yes, I would say it's my understanding the elevation of race consciousness is the ultimate goal.

I started to say "yes, the elevation of consciousness is..." but I have no way of knowing that in fact.

You wouldn't expect the elevation of all consciousness is looked after equally?

Naw, PS, don't happen to recall that bit from Monroe. (It's only been around 30 years ago that I read his stuff! Eeek!)

Too many books, too many years elapsed for me to remember THAT far back. Geez, I probably read and re-read somewhere around 70-80 books a year, more when I worked in bookstores (bet you can relate) and read a lot of them on break rather than buy the book. Borders and Waldenbooks had a cool deal for employees. You could check out any but mass market pbks for two weeks. That was a nice way to read books that you weren't sure you wanted to buy.

It's worth a re-read if only for the coolness factor. I also read a lot but for some reason (strange for an OBE nut) didn't read him until recently.

If Monroe's one of the ones you 'borrowed' at a store BTW... well... you can find it in pdf on this here internet. Just saying... whether it's stealing or not is up to the individual.

I think there is a big difference between personal beliefs and factual beliefs that have scientific evidence behind them. The latter can change as more evidence is discovered or better scientific tests evolve. I don't feel comfortable telling people that there is magic and it works when I don't have any factual evidence that it does.

I believe in magic because I believe (notice that word? It means I could be wrong about it entirely) I've seen results. Does that mean that I can prove that it does work to another person? No. They will draw their own conclusions about what happens and it may not match up with mine. We have a belief in the tradition that I belong to that the Gods do not ask you to believe in anything that they don't give you proof of (UPG), and they don't ask you to convince others to believe it without giving them the proof they need.

So the answer is, I believe in magic until I am given enough proof that I am wrong about it.

I think that it is possible someone could integrate mind/body/spirit and not believe in magic at all.

P_Synthesis wrote:You wouldn't expect the elevation of all consciousness is looked after equally?

Before we go into that, what other forms of consciousness are we talking about?

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:If God is the ultimate consciousness, then yes, I would say it's my understanding the elevation of race consciousness is the ultimate goal.

I started to say "yes, the elevation of consciousness is..." but I have no way of knowing that in fact.

I think we are like the flora in the Divine's intestinal track. As long as we do our job and serve the Divine's purposes we'll go on going on. If we stop serving the Divine's purposes, then we will be replaced.

gillyflower wrote:I think there is a big difference between personal beliefs and factual beliefs that have scientific evidence behind them.

The latter can change as more evidence is discovered or better scientific tests evolve.

I believe in magic because I believe (notice that word? It means I could be wrong about it entirely) I've seen results.

Does that mean that I can prove that it does work to another person? No. They will draw their own conclusions about what happens and it may not match up with mine.

So the answer is, I believe in magic until I am given enough proof that I am wrong about it.

I think that it is possible someone could integrate mind/body/spirit and not believe in magic at all.

I agree with these points.

gillyflower wrote:

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:If God is the ultimate consciousness, then yes, I would say it's my understanding the elevation of race consciousness is the ultimate goal.

I started to say "yes, the elevation of consciousness is..." but I have no way of knowing that in fact.

I think we are like the flora in the Divine's intestinal track. As long as we do our job and serve the Divine's purposes we'll go on going on. If we stop serving the Divine's purposes, then we will be replaced.

Since I believe we are the expression of the Divine, I see us at a more important level in the relationship.

I think I have the different views of it because I have a middle layer in my divine cake, TED. I see everything, even bedbugs, as an expression of the Divine and they all have there places in the organism, for lack of a better word. The gods factor into my world view. They are the ones who are interested (some of them) in the progress of humans, IMO. The Divine is so alien that I can't comprehend interest or what kind, again in my world view.

@gilly:

I think there is a big difference between personal beliefs and factual beliefs that have scientific evidence behind them.

I agree -- provided that we define precisely what this difference is.

For me, when there is evidential proof of a scientific theory or phenomenon, it means that anyone fully in possession of the facts would come to the conclusion that it exists. But even then, there is a range of possibilities. Scientific conclusions themselves, after all, are often reversed in the light of new facts and theories. Using the data and theory of science one increasingly hones in on fact, but there are often huge upsets, and those occur especially when data are not available and there is only theory.

The question then is whether the data mean anything at all in the absence of 'proof'. Earlier I used the example of a bend in the country lane where ghosts are seen. There is no 'proof' of this ghost and perhaps there never could be, but to my mind, it is very different if only one person has seen the ghost from if 18,000 people have seen it and recorded their experiences, which turn out to have significant elements in common. This still is not 'proof', but it isn't nothing either.

All I'm saying is: if every one of those 18,000 people believes s/he saw a ghost, they are entitled to be somewhat less worried about scientific proof than if they had no corroboration at all. In the same way, if science told you there was no advantage to be gained from honouring the gods in any way, would that cause you to stop? You can't necessarily prove it's a worthwhile thing to do, but there are other things for you to weigh in the balance. You just can't get them across by means of reason and data alone, because they are partially experiential, and because the data on the value of divine worship are inconclusive.

I believe in magic because I believe (notice that word? It means I could be wrong about it entirely) I've seen results.

Does that mean that I can prove that it does work to another person? No. They will draw their own conclusions about what happens and it may not match up with mine.

Of course. I'm really very puzzled why these points come up again and again when I have repeatedly said I don't believe that 'proof' of magic exists -- in other words, the exhaustive work of making theories and cataloguing data has never been done to the point that someone presented with the theories and evidence would tend to conclude reasonably that it exists.

An example: some believe that data of the kind one finds in Life Before Life empirically prove reincarnation. Personally I don't -- I have proven reincarnation to my own satisfaction, but only the bare fact of it, and not to the point where I believe I could demonstrate it conclusively to anyone else. I think the evidence is very interesting and getting more and more compelling as time goes on, but still for me it is not quite 'proof'.

But leave that aside -- let's say that (like TED I think?) I believe the case is pretty well proven by now. Well then, it is clear that reincarnation not only is true now, but is highly likely to have been true all along. Personally, on some (but definitely not all) of my experiences, the fact that others thought there was now 'proof' of them, or even against them, would not change my view of them. It would just change how I talked about them, because I now I would have evidence to point to. Without that evidence I don't ask anyone else to 'believe with me' -- and I don't say I can 'prove' it.

I think that it is possible someone could integrate mind/body/spirit and not believe in magic at all.

Oh definitely.

@TED:

Before we go into that, what other forms of consciousness are we talking about?

Anything you like -- start with animals and plants and then go towards the less likely if you prefer (eg. planets, rocks... dragons...) I'm just asking if you think humanity is privileged in respect of the divine attention given to it for the sake of its evolution, and what is the 'typical New Thought view' on that, if there is such a thing.

Personally I agree with gilly, I have several 'middle layers' and I think all consciousnesses are addressed equally by the divine.

We ought, before going any further, have a discussion about the differences between hypothesis and theory. They are not the same. Besides that, theories are accepted by majority not by "everyone." It does not mean that other people don't disagree with it. Hypothesis and theories go in and out of fashion, too, as scientific methods and the ability to test phenomena changes.

The ghost thing: People don't need to have other people believe them about what they think they see you know. I've seen what I think might have been a ghost and it kind of nice to find out that other people might have seen the same thing, but not necessary. It doesn't make what I saw any different from what I believe I saw and it doesn't mean that I saw a ghost. I could have seen mist reflected off light and that's what everyone else saw too.

You said "But leave that aside -- let's say that (like TED I think?) I believe the case is pretty well proven by now. Well then, it is clear that reincarnation not only is true now, but is highly likely to have been true all along."

But is hasn't been proven now! It is just you and TED believe it. That is the big difference. 4,000,000,000 people could believe it to be true and it still wouldn't make it true. Believing something to be true does not make it true or "true all along."

I bet the dinosaurs thought they were privileged too.

gillyflower wrote:I think I have the different views of it because I have a middle layer in my divine cake, TED. I see everything, even bedbugs, as an expression of the Divine and they all have there places in the organism, for lack of a better word. The gods factor into my world view. They are the ones who are interested (some of them) in the progress of humans, IMO. The Divine is so alien that I can't comprehend interest or what kind, again in my world view.

Right- it's my belief spirit guides (/gods, re: our guides/gods discussion) are first and foremost the do-ers of the guidance with humans. I can have that layer of cake too though I have more interaction with the Divine.

Hypothesis and theories go in and out of fashion, too, as scientific methods and the ability to test phenomena changes.

I not only agree -- you are reiterating what I myself said.

You said "But leave that aside -- let's say that (like TED I think?) I believe the case is pretty well proven by now. Well then, it is clear that reincarnation not only is true now, but is highly likely to have been true all along."

But is hasn't been proven now! It is just you and TED believe it.

I think you're missing the distinction that I'm making -- between believing because one has experienced and believing because one has had something proved. Although very little can be finally proven (as you seem to agree), anything might be proven tomorrow. So the point is that things don't suddenly become true upon being proven. Truth is different from proof.

The second point is that belief by experience is not the same as belief by hearsay, but that the two support each other and there is verification -- which means that 'UPG' is not correct, since the 'U' of UPG is means 'unverifiable'.

What we have here is a ladder of belief and proof, not binary proved/unproved.

Example:

1. Dot hears that someone can have their feet warmed by energy.
2. Dot has her own feet warmed by energy.

In this case the belief of 2 will be justifiably stronger than the belief at 1.

Example:

1. John T Mainer hears there are such things as Valkyries.
2. He meets them.

His belief at 2 is stronger than at 1.

Why? Because there is verification.

If I say there is such a thing as an OBE, that is 1. If you have one, that is 2. At that point, your belief is stronger than at 1.

Now add in other levels eg:

1. I am told there is something called energy, I either believe or don't.
2. I experience energy -- my belief is stronger.
3. I am able to show someone else they can experience energy such that we both experience the same thing at the same time -- belief is stronger yet.

If you have an OBE, doesn't your belief in OBE get stronger compared to the situation where you have not had one? Of course it does! And why? Verification. And you also know, not only that you in particular have had an OBE, but that OBE in general has something to it.

There is no proof, and if you come back to me saying there is no proof, I'll assume you're not paying attention! I'm not saying and have never said that this is proof.

I didn't get this part:

I bet the dinosaurs thought they were privileged too.

Unless it was addressed to TED.

"P_Synthesis"
@TED:

Before we go into that, what other forms of consciousness are we talking about?

Anything you like -- start with animals and plants and then go towards the less likely if you prefer (eg. planets, rocks... dragons...) I'm just asking if you think humanity is privileged in respect of the divine attention given to it for the sake of its evolution, and what is the 'typical New Thought view' on that, if there is such a thing.

Personally I agree with gilly, I have several 'middle layers' and I think all consciousnesses are addressed equally by the divine.

The New Thought view, and mine, is that all consciousness is one.

I do think that humans are privileged in most all ways, and I have yet to discern what exactly our sentience means in terms of spirituality. I would be interested to know. While I know they have an aura and consciousness, I don't know if plants or animals have spirit guides or souls; I don't know if they then have an 'afterlife' of some sort or where they go or how they do it. I don't figure there's a "fish heaven" and a "beaver heaven" and all 14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fish from all time are swarming around in an afterlife. I know that we can communicate with astral beings, gods, etc., and maybe other things can; However, through our lives we mentally/spiritually grow and change, and that makes us amazingly special embodiments of consciousness.

I don't figure there's a "fish heaven" and a "beaver heaven" and all 14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fish from all time are swarming around in an afterlife.

Personally I think, although it sounds silly, and is way more complicated etc., it's actually not so weird an idea as you'd think. But ok I know where I am now... I side more with gilly on the question of the universality of conscious 'evolution' (although I think that's a poor word). Interesting again.

It's all personal verification, PS and that's the point you seem to be missing. You are using the hypotheses going in and out of fashion as proof that your hypotheses may be correct. I am using the same example to show that none of them may be correct.

Experience may make one person believe. That doesn't mean that it is true. The next person may experience the same thing and understand it in a different way.

To use your examples:

1. Dot hears that energy warms.
2. Dot believes that energy has warmed her feet.

That doesn't make that what really happened. It is just now something she believes happened.

The same for John. It may be personal verification (ie. he had an experience that he interprets as meeting a Valkyrie), but it won't be verification for anyone else. Another person may interpret the exact same experience very differently.

I don't get what you don't get about this. My personal belief is based upon EXPERIENCE, my personal experiences (UPGs), which may or may not have happened as I think it did. You are using a personal experience as verification that it is true, I think.

My remark about the dinosaurs was addressed to the "privilege" comment. In our earth's history, many species have become extinct and I believe it is possible that could happen to us. Or we could evolve into something very different from what we are now.