Do thoughts affect reality?

[Age]

Inducing frustration is the intent that motivates Age transmissions, btw. Frustration is an aspect of dukkha, and the energy required to prune and maintain that can be redirected if need be.

It appears that there are many transmissions coming through many people, and there are many ways for it to be experienced and felt.

To me, this is NOT just an APPEARANCE but an ACTUAL OBVIOUS FACT.

Some, however, are just MORE CAPABLE of EXPLAINING what the 'It' is, which is experienced, felt, HEARD, and SEEN, than "others" are.

And, contrary to popular BELIEF, there can ONLY EVER be just One 'It'.

[Age]

One 'omniscient' Being, which could ONLY ever be made up of EVERY thing.

That's just Age the human's childish belief.

LOL But i do NOT have a belief.

SEE, HERE is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of WHEN and HOW 'you', adult human beings, will NOT, and can NOT, even, LISTEN.

The MORE EXAMPLES 'you' PROVIDE here, then the MORE PROOF is being SHOWN, and becoming REVEALED.

Just because "thee ONE" is made up of "EVERY thing", that doesn't mean that "thee One" is omniscient.

If some thing is made up of EVERY thing, then how could that Thing NOT be 'omniscient'?

What else could there to be KNOWN?

'you', appear to be NOT able to READ, nor LISTEN, and UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL WORDS that I use. Even when I capitalize some words so that those ones are CLEARER and STAND OUT, MORE.

If EVERY thing is included, then what ELSE there could there even be?

The SIMPLICITY of Life, and Truth, speaks for Itself.

It doesn't even mean that "thee One" is a being.

OF COURSE it does NOT.

OBVIOUSLY, ONLY UNTIL 'we' DISCUSS, AGREE UPON, and ACCEPT what a 'being' is, FIRST, are we then ABLE to LOOK AT and DISCUSS whether 'thee One' is a Being or NOT.

This process APPLIES to ALL 'things' as well, OBVIOUSLY.

[Age]

Inducing frustration is the intent that motivates Age transmissions, btw. Frustration is an aspect of dukkha, and the energy required to prune and maintain that can be redirected if need be.

It appears that there are many transmissions coming through many people, and there are many ways for it to be experienced and felt.

I once thought that the quotation, “The wind blows in many directions but only God can make a tree,” was rather odd, enigmatic.

Here you have two seemingly unrelated events, both as old as the ages, with an implied connection.

Then I learned as fact from Feynman that wind is vital in the making of a tree.

WHY did you 'need' "another human being" to learn from something as OBVIOUS as a fact that wind is vital in the making of a tree?

Or, were 'you' relatively young when you learned this fact from "another"?

Then again there’s other meanings, such as mis-associating any wind, such as blow hard, as the only cause with a specific effect such as frustration.

Honestly i do NOT YET UNDERSTAND what this about or refers to.

And, on second reading of your claim;
Inducing frustration is the intent that motivates Age transmissions, btw.

When you wrote, "inducing frustration", did you mean that 'inducing' in "others" or in "age"?

If it is the former, then this claim is completely and utterly INCORRECT.

[Walker]

Feynman notes that the substance of a tree, the heavy stuff, the bark and trunk and roots, this stuff does not not come from the ground. It comes from chemical reactions with the air, which is not heavy or even visible. The tree is actually pulled from the invisible one tiny bit at a time. Air is formless unless given form *. To the eye the heavy stuff sprouts and grows from the heavy and substantive ground, the ground of visible form, but the tree actually grows out of thin air, seemingly from nothing. How illogical and counter-intuitive to those who don't know. Practically a miracle! He briefly explains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifk6iuLQk28


On the rare occasion that everything can be answered all at once then the root of truth has been tapped rather than the leaves, which are like facets of the root truth, many leaves like many meanings to many people.


* What else is formless unless given form, and is the invisible source always recognized? No, there are blockages to recognition. Hmm, substantive humans borne of seemingly nothingness that is the void, one of the names for the nameless thing of a thousand names.

[Age]

Feynman notes that the substance of a tree, the heavy stuff, the bark and trunk and roots, this stuff does not not come from the ground. It comes from chemical reactions with the air, which is not heavy or even visible. The tree is actually pulled from the invisible one tiny bit at a time. Air is formless unless given form *. To the eye the heavy stuff sprouts and grows from the heavy and substantive ground, the ground of visible form, but the tree actually grows out of thin air, seemingly from nothing. How illogical and counter-intuitive to those who don't know. Practically a miracle!

WHAT?

Seeds, from trees, fall to the ground, and/or are blown by the wind, to where they land, and then some of those seeds grow to be trees.

Once again, just plain and simple, and very easy to understand, just like EVERY thing in and about Life IS.

He briefly explains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifk6iuLQk28


On the rare occasion that everything can be answered all at once then the root of truth has been tapped rather than the leaves, which are like facets of the root truth, many leaves like many meanings to many people.


* What else is formless unless given form, and is the invisible source always recognized? No, there are blockages to recognition. Hmm, substantive humans borne of seemingly nothingness that is the void, one of the names for the nameless thing of a thousand names.

Wind is NOT formless as it is felt. Just because wind can NOT be seen with the visible eyes does NOT mean that it is formless.

What else APPEARS to be formless, (unless given form, through labels, and is the invisible source always recognized) are just 'thoughts' and 'emotions', as well as other things.

[Lacewing]

Sometimes 'you' can SEE more with the ears, and, HEAR more with the eyes. (But you are still a long way off yet from FULLY UNDERSTANDING this.)

You have no idea what I understand.

And once again, I feel totally disinterested in dealing with all of your noisy distortions.

[Dimebag]

This may have already been brought up in the prior 18 pages, but, what if we reverse the topic question.

Does reality affect thoughts?

Undoubtedly yes.

If they didn’t, we would have no thoughts, or their contents would in no way reflect reality.

So then, yes, thoughts must then be able to affect reality, otherwise, they would not occur, they would be useless. Thoughts allow us to envision possible outcomes of actions. They allow us to imagine different realities, etc. They do indeed affect reality.

To that point, we must then ask, how do thoughts interact with reality? Are they separate from reality or are they part of reality?

[Age]

Sometimes 'you' can SEE more with the ears, and, HEAR more with the eyes. (But you are still a long way off yet from FULLY UNDERSTANDING this.)

You have no idea what I understand.

LOL What 'you' understand, and MISUNDERSTAND, is CRYSTAL CLEAR, to Me.

'you' are just NOT YET AWARE of this FACT.

And once again, I feel totally disinterested in dealing with all of your noisy distortions.

I KNOW 'you' do.

You repeatedly tell 'us' this, when you "feel" like this, after I CHALLENGE you about your views and you can NOT back up and support ANY of those views.

[Age]

This may have already been brought up in the prior 18 pages, but, what if we reverse the topic question.

Does reality affect thoughts?

Undoubtedly yes.

If they didn’t, we would have no thoughts, or their contents would in no way reflect reality.

So then, yes, thoughts must then be able to affect reality, otherwise, they would not occur, they would be useless. Thoughts allow us to envision possible outcomes of actions. They allow us to imagine different realities, etc. They do indeed affect reality.

To that point, we must then ask, how do thoughts interact with reality?

WHY MUST WE then ask this question.

How thought interact with reality is ALREADY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

'you' just have to work out what 'thoughts' ARE, and what 'reality' IS, FIRST.

Are they separate from reality or are they part of reality?

Well that OBVIOUSLY all depends on how the word 'reality' is being defined here, which is actually done by the 'thoughts', within different heads, by the way.

[AlexW]

So... then why say it?

Now this here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what happens when has NOT YET become Truly OPEN.

I have REPEATEDLY been INFORMING you that I NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing. Therefore, I OBVIOUSLY would NOT believe the thing in your question to be true. BUT, this ALSO OBVIOUSLY does NOT mean I disbelieve it is true EITHER, NOR believe that it is false. See, I NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve.

Now, WHY I said that is because of the evidence and proof for the FACT that that is true.

You are contradicting yourself - either you neither believe nor disbelieve anything, which would mean that there are no FACTs at all (as no so called FACT could be true) or you actually do believe something, which again would mean that there could be such a FACT, which again you believe to be true.

My point still remains IRREFUTABLY True. As ALREADY PROVEN.

While BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, in those moments 'you' are NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing nor contrary to that BELIEF.

I am perfectly fine with you believing that - I am even perfectly fine with you believing that you are not believing this to be true - and I am even perfectly fine with you believing you neither believe nor disbelieve that.

Words have FAR MORE POWER over 'you' than 'you' YET FULLY REALIZE. And, until 'you' DO FULLY REALIZE this FACT 'you' will continue saying things that are, OBVIOUSLY, COMPLETELY UNTRUE, and 'you' will KEEP BELIEVING that 'you' do KNOW what is true.

I am well aware of the power of words and concepts - but it seems you are not.
You are trying to award them a power they actually don't have - specifically: stating absolute truth.

Here is a brief analogy:
If some tool is meant to be used to perform a certain task - e.g. a hammer is used to hammer in nails - then using this tool for tasks that it wasn't designed for can lead to unexpected results.
If you, for example, attempted to change a lightbulb using this hammer, then you won't be able to achieve the task, all you might achieve is breaking the lightbulb...
Conceptual thought, and as such language, is such a tool, it is meant to form and express concepts, it is meant to interpret and describe what is directly experienced - but it will never be the actual truth of this very experience.
Language is a tool meant for the dualistic realm, the world of things, it is not meant to - nor can it - be on the same level with the reality of direct experience.
Now, if you still insist and attempt to change this light bulb with the hammer - meaning: insisting on stating an absolute truth which is reserved for reality only - then you can only do so by "breaking reality" into little pieces... but of course you are not actually breaking it, you only seem to be breaking it into what we call "separate things".
These separate objects and things are the result of the power of language - its the concepts that give birth to separation (and with it the world of things, you, me and others) - its language that shatters the (imaginary) light bulb.

[Atla]

Just because "thee ONE" is made up of "EVERY thing", that doesn't mean that "thee One" is omniscient.

If some thing is made up of EVERY thing, then how could that Thing NOT be 'omniscient'?

What else could there to be KNOWN?

'you', appear to be NOT able to READ, nor LISTEN, and UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL WORDS that I use. Even when I capitalize some words so that those ones are CLEARER and STAND OUT, MORE.

If EVERY thing is included, then what ELSE there could there even be?

The SIMPLICITY of Life, and Truth, speaks for Itself.

That's just Age the human's childish belief. EVERY thing included has nothing to do with omniscience, there is zero reason to think this. That's why there is no "I" that can tell the "TRUTH".

we don't make the mistake of holding 100% certain beliefs, only you make this mistake here.

[Walker]

Feynman notes that the substance of a tree, the heavy stuff, the bark and trunk and roots, this stuff does not not come from the ground. It comes from chemical reactions with the air, which is not heavy or even visible. The tree is actually pulled from the invisible one tiny bit at a time. Air is formless unless given form *. To the eye the heavy stuff sprouts and grows from the heavy and substantive ground, the ground of visible form, but the tree actually grows out of thin air, seemingly from nothing. How illogical and counter-intuitive to those who don't know. Practically a miracle!

WHAT?

Seeds, from trees, fall to the ground, and/or are blown by the wind, to where they land, and then some of those seeds grow to be trees.

That's a big oak inside such a little seed.

Kinda like the big universe inside the little brain, relatively speaking.

Gases such as air are formless, however not undetectable, especially in elevators.

Hydroponics is not a dirty word, it's more of an anti-dirty word.

[Age]

So... then why say it?

Now this here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what happens when has NOT YET become Truly OPEN.

I have REPEATEDLY been INFORMING you that I NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing. Therefore, I OBVIOUSLY would NOT believe the thing in your question to be true. BUT, this ALSO OBVIOUSLY does NOT mean I disbelieve it is true EITHER, NOR believe that it is false. See, I NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve.

Now, WHY I said that is because of the evidence and proof for the FACT that that is true.

You are contradicting yourself

Contrary to what 'you' BELIEVE is true, I am NOT contradicting "myself"

- either you neither believe nor disbelieve anything, which would mean that there are no FACTs at all (as no so called FACT could be true) or you actually do believe something, which again would mean that there could be such a FACT, which again you believe to be true.

LOL You REALLY can NOT YET SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. ONCE AGAIN, this is BECAUSE of your BELIEFS.

There is absolutely NOTHING, within the Universe, besides 'you', "alexw", which backs up and supports the idea that FACTS can ONLY exist when human beings are either BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING some 'thing' is true. This is JUST what 'you' BELIEVE is true. This, itself, is NOT a FACT.

You appear to be completely and utterly UNAWARE of what 'being Truly OPEN' ACTUALLY means and refers to.

FACTS are NOT depended upon what is BELIEVED nor DISBELIEVED. A 'FACT' is a 'thing', which is KNOWN, or has been PROVED, to be true.

SEE, FACTS can have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with BELIEFS. This is because of the OBVIOUS FACT that some of 'you', human beings, BELIEVE 'things', which are, and were, OBVIOUSLY NOT True, AT ALL.

So, your CLAIM here that; one MUST believe, or disbelieve, something, otherwise there could be NO facts is just OBVIOUSLY False, and thus NOT true AT ALL. Your CLAIM is also NOT a FACT just because you BELIEVE in your CLAIM.

My point still remains IRREFUTABLY True. As ALREADY PROVEN.

While BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, in those moments 'you' are NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing nor contrary to that BELIEF.

I am perfectly fine with you believing that

But I do NOT BELIEVE 'that'.

This is just irrefutably True. Unless, OF COURSE, 'you' can prove otherwise.

Can you prove otherwise?

If yes, then will you?

- I am even perfectly fine with you believing that you are not believing this to be true

But I do NOT BELIEVE what you said here.

- and I am even perfectly fine with you believing you neither believe nor disbelieve that.

But I do NOT BELIEVE 'that'.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN HERE is that 'you', OBVIOUSLY, can NOT YET shake nor rid "yourself" of your BELIEF here.

IF, and WHEN, you get rid of that BELIEF, then you will SEE WHY what you are CLAIMING here is so OBVIOUSLY Wrong and False.

Words have FAR MORE POWER over 'you' than 'you' YET FULLY REALIZE. And, until 'you' DO FULLY REALIZE this FACT 'you' will continue saying things that are, OBVIOUSLY, COMPLETELY UNTRUE, and 'you' will KEEP BELIEVING that 'you' do KNOW what is true.

I am well aware of the power of words and concepts - but it seems you are not.
You are trying to award them a power they actually don't have - specifically: stating absolute truth.

What do the words 'absolute truth' ACTUALLY mean, to 'you'?

And, what power to do these words ACTUALLY have, to 'you', WHILE 'you' BELIEVE that I am trying to award these words a power that they, supposedly, actually do not have?

Here is a brief analogy:
If some tool is meant to be used to perform a certain task - e.g. a hammer is used to hammer in nails - then using this tool for tasks that it wasn't designed for can lead to unexpected results.
If you, for example, attempted to change a lightbulb using this hammer, then you won't be able to achieve the task, all you might achieve is breaking the lightbulb...

When you CLAIM, " you will not be able to achieve "this task" ", what is 'this task', which you are referring to here?

If you mean, I will not be able to achieve changing the light bulb, then HOW do you know this?

ALSO, NONE of what you have just said here has absolutely ANY thing to do with BELIEFS, and how I do NOT have ANY, nor to do with the power of word, themselves.

What tools are created for, is a WHOLE COMPLETELY OTHER MATTER.

Conceptual thought, and as such language, is such a tool, it is meant to form and express concepts, it is meant to interpret and describe what is directly experienced - but it will never be the actual truth of this very experience.

Is this A Truth?

Or, is this just what you BELIEVE is true, and could IN FACT be False and/or Wrong?

Your Honest answer would be much appreciated.

Language is a tool meant for the dualistic realm, the world of things, it is not meant to - nor can it - be on the same level with the reality of direct experience.

And what are you using for PROOF for this CLAIM of yours, which you BELIEVE is the One and ONLY ULTIMATE Truth of things?

Now, if you still insist and attempt to change this light bulb with the hammer - meaning: insisting on stating an absolute truth which is reserved for reality only - then you can only do so by "breaking reality" into little pieces... but of course you are not actually breaking it, you only seem to be breaking it into what we call "separate things".

Your "brief analogy" is NOT working AT ALL.

In fact your "brief analogy" is so OFF TRACK you are MISSING THE MARK.

These separate objects and things are the result of the power of language - its the concepts that give birth to separation (and with it the world of things, you, me and others) - its language that shatters the (imaginary) light bulb.

What???

Reality, and Truth, can NOT be "shattered", NOR "separated", in ACTUALITY.

Only 'you', human beings, create an APPEARANCE of 'separation'. This is BECAUSE of the language, which 'you' use, and BECAUSE of the way the human brain works. SEE, 'you', human beings, in the past, HAD TO "separate" thee One into separate labelled 'things', in order to make sense of thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth and Reality, HERE.

There are NO ACTUAL separated objects and things. There are, however, OBVIOUSLY thee One Thing, which is made up of MANY different word/labels, and it is through the power of these DIFFERENT looking words, and the meanings 'you' behind them that are GIVEN by 'you', human beings, which is what makes 'you', human beings, ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there are ACTUAL separate objects and things.

[Age]

Just because "thee ONE" is made up of "EVERY thing", that doesn't mean that "thee One" is omniscient.

If some thing is made up of EVERY thing, then how could that Thing NOT be 'omniscient'?

What else could there to be KNOWN?

'you', appear to be NOT able to READ, nor LISTEN, and UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL WORDS that I use. Even when I capitalize some words so that those ones are CLEARER and STAND OUT, MORE.

If EVERY thing is included, then what ELSE there could there even be?

The SIMPLICITY of Life, and Truth, speaks for Itself.

That's just Age the human's childish belief.

What, EXACTLY, is SUPPOSEDLY "my belief"?

AND, if you DISAGREE with ANY thing I SAY, then produce those ACTUAL WORDS, and then SAY WHY 'you' DISAGREE.

EVERY thing included has nothing to do with omniscience, there is zero reason to think this. That's why there is no "I" that can tell the "TRUTH".

LOL IF 'you' think or believe that that "logically follows", then you are, SADLY, MISTAKEN.

Also, by the first part of your first sentence and CLAIM here PROVES that you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of UNDERSTANDING what I have ACTUALLY said and MEANT here.

Your INABILITY to ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, BEFORE you JUMP to making ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS further EXPLAINS WHY you completely and utterly MISUNDERSTAND 'me' here.

IF, SUPPOSEDLY, EVERY thing included has nothing to do with omniscience, then 'what', EXACTLY, has to do with 'omniscience'?

And, how LONG are 'we' expected to WAIT for 'you' to CLARIFY this here?

Also, HOW IS there, SUPPOSEDLY, being ZERO REASON to think that what has to do with 'omniscience' is NOT EVERY thing, then is, SUPPOSEDLY, logically followed with and by the "conclusion"; " That is why there is no 'I' that can tell the 'TRUTH' "?

LOL The MORE this is LOOK AT, the MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS it IS.

we don't make the mistake of holding 100% certain beliefs, only you make this mistake here.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is MORE ACTUAL PROOF of just HOW CLOSED human beings WERE, in the days when this was written.

And, what makes this Truly HILARIOUS is the FACT that they offer the PROOF up of how CLOSED they REALLY ARE, without even the slightest bit of consciousness that they are ACTUALLY doing it.

And, MORE PROOF of just how CLOSED, and Dishonest, they REALLY ARE will be PROVIDED, AGAIN by this one, when they do NOT CLARIFY and DISCUSS;

What, EXACTLY, is the, alleged, "100% certain belief", which 'I', supposedly, have here?

[Atla]

If some thing is made up of EVERY thing, then how could that Thing NOT be 'omniscient'?

What else could there to be KNOWN?

'you', appear to be NOT able to READ, nor LISTEN, and UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL WORDS that I use. Even when I capitalize some words so that those ones are CLEARER and STAND OUT, MORE.

If EVERY thing is included, then what ELSE there could there even be?

The SIMPLICITY of Life, and Truth, speaks for Itself.

That's just Age the human's childish belief.

What, EXACTLY, is SUPPOSEDLY "my belief"?

AND, if you DISAGREE with ANY thing I SAY, then produce those ACTUAL WORDS, and then SAY WHY 'you' DISAGREE.

EVERY thing included has nothing to do with omniscience, there is zero reason to think this. That's why there is no "I" that can tell the "TRUTH".

LOL IF 'you' think or believe that that "logically follows", then you are, SADLY, MISTAKEN.

Also, by the first part of your first sentence and CLAIM here PROVES that you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of UNDERSTANDING what I have ACTUALLY said and MEANT here.

Your INABILITY to ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, BEFORE you JUMP to making ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS further EXPLAINS WHY you completely and utterly MISUNDERSTAND 'me' here.

IF, SUPPOSEDLY, EVERY thing included has nothing to do with omniscience, then 'what', EXACTLY, has to do with 'omniscience'?

And, how LONG are 'we' expected to WAIT for 'you' to CLARIFY this here?

Also, HOW IS there, SUPPOSEDLY, being ZERO REASON to think that what has to do with 'omniscience' is NOT EVERY thing, then is, SUPPOSEDLY, logically followed with and by the "conclusion"; " That is why there is no 'I' that can tell the 'TRUTH' "?

LOL The MORE this is LOOK AT, the MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS it IS.

we don't make the mistake of holding 100% certain beliefs, only you make this mistake here.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is MORE ACTUAL PROOF of just HOW CLOSED human beings WERE, in the days when this was written.

And, what makes this Truly HILARIOUS is the FACT that they offer the PROOF up of how CLOSED they REALLY ARE, without even the slightest bit of consciousness that they are ACTUALLY doing it.

And, MORE PROOF of just how CLOSED, and Dishonest, they REALLY ARE will be PROVIDED, AGAIN by this one, when they do NOT CLARIFY and DISCUSS;

What, EXACTLY, is the, alleged, "100% certain belief", which 'I', supposedly, have here?

You can't possibly be so stupid as to constantly pretend to have access to omniscience, but not know what omniscience means?