Esteemed Poster 100+ posts

Profile for NaturalScience

(3 stories) (110 posts) (karma: 12 points)

2010-09-05
 
Spiritual Experiences from NaturalScience

Past Life Scenes And Their Meaning To Me on 2010-11-21

I had glimpses of past lives in dream and also in waking-dream. I tell the world about them to show how such hints look in people who do not astral-travel and are not "psychic". None of the scenes below contains PROOF of past lives but all of them are best explainable by the Reincarnation concept. D...

A Little Money Miracle on 2010-10-24

Last Friday I was with my guy for a coffee, in his place where has a second-hand store since some months with does not run too well yet. I had done some little re-arranging before we had our coffee and after it he started making some order too as a cousin of his had announced he would visit him. He ...

Liberty Dignity Infinity on 2010-09-24

This title means the properties of God I realized directly, not by reading but by knowing, in April 1998. I, beforehand, ask all readers NOT to imitate me in regard to the substance mentioned below. They only would give unnecessary risks to themselves. This is an absolutely exceptional case. "Drug...

Last 20 posts from NaturalScience
Date: 2012-04-01
Every day belongs to the Lord. Your frustration when attending Sunday mass did NOT come from worshipping the wrong way, or on a wrong day. God is not narrow-minded, nor will He refuse to understand one language and prefer another; for He made all the human tribes and languages on Earth.
God bless you with the gift of feeling His presence everywhere - even in a honky-tonk, or on the loo!
Date: 2012-04-01
Seems that you made unconsciously a wish for wealth, for money, after seeing that face calling you for a wish, and thus you were showered with gold coins.

Christians often see wealth as a temptation to become evil, because Jesus warned us from not "serving" money. But it is one-sided and short-sighted to AVOID wealth because of this warning of Jesus.
Wealth is not good or bad in itself; just as all other boons of life (health, intelligence, beauty, strong muscles, a good reputation etc), it is a means to do good things, but can be misused for bad things if you are on the wrong side.

If I were you I'd dare to meditate again by the same way used when having the vision, with the goal to understand better what that gold-coin shower means.

There is nothing to fear in your inner images - but a lot to study. Have a good time studying!
Spiritual experiences often are vague and transient, that is why it is possible to negate their existence by intellectual tricks although almost everyone has had some of them;
And most of them are NOT reproducible by one's effort or will but remain unique, that is why it is said God gives them by mercy, as a gift.

If it be necessary for you it could even happen that you see your angel clearly, as some report in WWW or in books. But "it" will never make itself visible just for giving "proof", or for feeding curiosity.

Keep believing in your guardian angel although you got no proof of "its" existence beyond that transient feeling of presence and warmth you had only once. It is said in New Testament that "blessed are those who can believe without a Vision". Furthermore, how could it benefit you to doubt your angel's existence?
Well, it is still "modern" to kick out verbally at persons who "think too romantic", to negate God, the Soul, and the existence of spirits,
And if you choose the path of Superficiality i.e. If you want to be "cool" and thus believe and do what is called "cool" you will learn to kick out at all good dreams, even your own, belying yourself in the usual "modern" way, which means to think "Dreams are unreal, Dollars are real."
But this path of "Coolness" leads into Darkness. And I suppose that it won't remain "modern" for much more time. Thus better stand by your "romantic dreams" about having a guardian angel, and rely on this angel. Ask "it" (angels are not male nor female) for counsel if you are in doubt whether some plan of yours, or some person round you, is good or bad. And if you get some answer (which will most of the time be only an ordinary good idea, not a voice from heaven or a vision) do respect it and do try to follow it. Then your angel will keep helping - more and more.
Date: 2012-04-01
Stop speculating anxiously about the color Black in the report above, readers. Good spirits may appear not only in White but also in black color or black clothes - as well as demons may disguise as "angels of light" according to the Bible. Non-Christian traditions too tell much about black entities, and fierce-looking ones, that decidedly work for the Good Side. Mooowww, I think your "black angel" is a good entity. Dont worry!
hope it was not me, trying to come to a valid "Ego definition" (which is still missing) by discussion on this page, who made it "inactive"...
God bless all people who read and write here.
It is a Catholic legend which is very old. Catholics have a prayer ceremony, done mostly during the Fasting Time before Easter, in which the way of Christ from Court to Crucifixion and His dying on the Cross are remembered. This "Cross Path" ("Kreuzweg" in German) has fourteen "stations", and one of it is the scene of Veronica wiping off dirt of the face of Jesus carrying the Cross.
They call the cloth with which she does it a "sweat-cloth" - something like a handkerchief is imagined by ordinary European people.
But no one ever told or wrote that handkerchiefs were already in use in Antique Oriental regions!
Thus I when once meditating on Veronica's little help for the Saviour it came to my mind that, firstly, she must have resisted the guards for doing it, and secondly, where did she take the cloth from? It could not be a flap torn off of her clothing, this would have been too complicated. Too slow. Things must have been going on real fast then. A matter of seconds, as in Rescue Medicine.
Thus it must have been - her woman's headcloth, or veil! And at once the whole scene played off before my inner eye the way I described it, and I recognized her as an utterly courageous woman throwing off conventional prejudices for the sake of Charity. A Punk of God. This she was in that moment.
To you Kathleen the story of true love is that about Maria Magdalena. I got a very similar favourite story which is about Christ and Saint Veronica (this is my first name in real life). It is not in the Bible but all Catholics know it. I imagine it to have happened as follows:
Veronica was some ordinary Jewish Mom in Jerusalem who probably was shopping for Passah when she saw the rows of guards at the edges of the street which always were there when a criminal was led out for execution and curious as she was - as all women are - she looked out who was the criminal today, and then with some shock she saw it was that same good Rabbi whom she had heard preach some days ago... Why was he led through the streets as a criminal? And how badly ws he treated! Gosh, he even had a crown of thorns upon head and dirt and blood run into his eyes so he could hardly find his way and walk, under that heavy cross he was carrying... She saw all this peering through between the guards and then - she perhaps said later she must have lost her reason for a moment and she did not know why she was still alive after this rash action... - then she PUSHED AWAY TWO GUARDS WITH HER ELBOWS and THREW HERSELF BEFORE THE RABBI AND TORE OFF HER HEADCLOTH to wipe off the blood and dirt so he could see again. See what she did? It was much the same as it would have been in Islamist Afghanistan. To tear off one's headcloth in the public, as an adult woman, was like stripping oneself naked... It was scandalous. Moreover, she had shown resistance to the Police!
But that Roman Military Police, as it seems, did not take her for serious enough to arrest or batter her, and so she suffered no harm.
And Our SAviour, whom she had tried to help a little by throwing off her cultural embarrassment schemes, so the story ends, made an image of His Holy Face remain in the headcloth she had stripped off; and this cloth, it is said, still exists to-day as a Holy Relic in an European Cathedral.
God give all of us St Veronica's Civilian Courage!
Why a Kingdom of God on Earth? Because it is urgently needed. Hear the cry of kids unhappy, hungry, beaten. See the abused and exploited women all over world. BEhold the forests chopped off, the seas overfished, the overkill weaponry, and Fukushima exhaling death.
"If I did not speak, the stones would cry out" said Our Master Jesus. How could He be bound to leave this Earth in its miserable scrapyard state and build His kingdom only elsewhere? Remember we do not have the total of His teachings anymore, there has been much rewriting, deleting and faking during Church History. Of course it was comfortable for the Churches to make people think the Kingdom to be a mere Beyond affair. But all Christians who really made things better down here also believed in a future Kingdom down here - secretly at least!
Be astounded which Random Quote showed up (I mean, at the right side of this web page) immediately after my posting the former!
It was this Holy Word of Jesus:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
See how "coincidence" supported my last post?

And this little game even went on! The next quote that emerged at the same place was of Mahatma Gandhi whom I deeply revere and it read:
"A religion that does not care for practical things in daily life is no religion."

So let us go of Ego definitions, which seemingly are theoretical, or at least deal with states of mind which are not within our personal reach - they can be bestowed to us but not induced with any degree of certainty - and better meditate on the Commandments.
Some ego definition from a Buddhist that showed up one minute ago as a Random Spiritual Quote is this:
"Ego could be defined as whatever covers up basic goodness. From an experiential point of view, what is ego covering up? It's covering up our experience of just being here, just fully being where we are, so that we can relate with the immediacy of our experience. Egolessness is a state of mind that has complete confidence in the sacredness of the world. It is unconditional well being, unconditional joy that includes all the different qualities of our experience."
Well, it is very desirable to have the state of mind described by the Buddhist teacher. But is it possible to keep within it over more than some minutes? Can anyone remain in "unconditional joy" who has just made a coffee for her guy, with love, and hears from him as the only reaction "you made it too strong, don't you know I got that stomach ache?" If someone can do so he or she is no longer a normal human but a Buddha - which is a kind of miracle.

Thus, can the State of Mind really be the central question in Spirituality? From my view, no. The central point is how to behave, how to do, in daily life, no matter if you feel sad or joyful, no matter if you are a knowing or an ignorant person. It is by the Law of Karma that we get into confusion about the truth, and it is by the Law of Karma that we gain a glimpse of the truth and that our knowledge grows. The miracle of egolessness was given to me for short periods of time. Afterwards I became an ordinary person again. This is only natural.
Gifts from the Spirit come and go. But Laws and Commandments remain.
Onawingandaprayer, there is nothing to grapple with for me (or "my ego" whatever this part of my person may exactly be) in your answer about what God Is.
I know that HE/She/It is more real than me, for I am mortal which God is not. And I know God is Real - not some brain game made up by humans.
Formerly I had to believe that God exists... This blind believing phase was just a forerunner, thank God. If I still were in this stage I'd have no say ("When I was a kid, I thought the way kids do" says St Paul), and thus would not dare to write one single word on a spiritual WWW site.
It is not for my own path that I started the subject of Ego definition - my former comments in this thread clear up why.
Kiani surely understands that the Ego definition matter really has something to do with her report.
You too I think. It was no digression.
But now it is over for the moment and for this thread.

One guest here wrote "When I feel the truth I nearly think myself to be a fool for not feeling it always."
Welcome to the Club, sister! This is why we pray "Father Thy Kingdom come - Thy will be Done as in Heaven so on Earth."
Only when the Kingdom promised has come we will be free from that foolishness which is the everyday reality of almost all of us, even of Saints. Then the truth will be part of our normal feelings, without effort.
How often I wept bitter tears about this state myself I have forgotten. I can well imagine how ardently also my grand-aunt, that heroic little Franciscan nun, desired to feel the truth always. I once found her diary. It was full of quotations taken from Catholic Mystics who had fully realized God.
She did not feel the truth always, and I do not, and even James - I suppose - did not; for the Kingdom still has not realised itself on Earth. This is a fact but NOT our fault!
But she did all she could do to make it come nearer - within that blockhead frame to which we still are confined. And she taught me to do the same. If we fail to do the good that is within our hand's grasp it IS our fault.
Dear friends, the definition I seek is really needed. It is not enough to find a definition for one's own - because most of us are not far advanced enough, well oriented enough to do so. Those who need a navigator in distinguishing right from wrong, as one uses in driving, could profit very much of an Ego definition usable for everybody. Even more because the word "Ego" is much used in so-called spiritual subculture TO DEMEAN oneself or others. A definition which prevents this would save many good-hearted persons of suffering and confusion.
But OK let us delay this question for the moment. Not because those are right who think "why strain my own brains for theological definitions, God will provide for that"... Such a train of thought does not show Trust in Providence but Yielding to Indolence;-)
And not because I believe to any extent in "spiritual authorities" to provide us with it -
Only for the fact that by now no answer came which could give some approach to the global definition sought. It all remained on the all-too-local level of personal feelings -
With the exception of Foundations who, being open for global responsibility, provided us at least a personal definition which leads to new ways on a more global level.
For if the future Ego definition would contain the clear condemnation of "submission and self-denial" which she gave in her personal statement,
It would take off some part of the ground on which the word "Ego" has been abused almost world-wide for demeaning one's own spontaneous impulses and desires, and for controlling / suppressing / misusing others.

We now have at least made up a platform to start.

Perhaps others who read this later will provide more mental "bricks" for this new building. Or, even better, someone who has been working earnestly but in isolation about the same subject, perhaps as a theological author, could read our discussion "by chance" and find some precious missing link in it.

God bless our Reason! Reason, logical Thought, is in no way inferior to other qualities of our minds. It has only been misused too much in the past. This is why some, quite wrongly, identify Reason with Ego...
Call me Kamini. This is the name which Sri Muni Raji, Chief of Haidakhan Babaji Devotees, gave me in 1992.
Hello Mano,
Do you remember me?
I in turn will remember your childhood method of sending good vibes from the TUMMY instead of from the heart region. It feels as if the former is easier to imagine, and thus to USE for fulfilling wishes, than the latter. I'm going to try.
Believing that God is real always remains an insecure thing. A forerunner. What we are meant to achieve is a glimpse of KNOWING that God is real. Perhaps even to know that that He/She/It is MORE REAL THAN ME... The true Faith usually follows such a glimpse. It is a rare and difficult thing to believe in God while living in a state of absolute spiritual blindness.

The fact that lots of humans do believe without a vision of their own is due to our human ability to make another one's vision our own by imagination, by feeling what the prophet we study may have felt, and see what he may have seen, thus building up some true Faith while we still are without a visionary base of Faith in our own lives.

While we are kids we take our image of daily life from parental teachings, stories and movies. Later on we (may) build it more and more upon own experience. The same it is with our relationship to God.

I thank the Lord for making you a grown-up believer.
Dear Kathleen, I feel elated at your taking my results of rational thinking for something serious.

For there is also a third wrong definition of Ego:

Some say that only if one can go without thoughts, without using one's reason, one is without Ego.

WOW, it would be Paradise on Earth if we did not have to use Reason but only Instinct, and if we could switch Thought off whenever we want it!

But the daily experiences that
- not all things can be solved or decided from pure belly-feeling (I did exercise in this and it does function in many respects but not always!)
And
That we all think all day long and only very seldom, as a mercy of Nature, have seconds of no-thought (even the most trained Zen people don't have much more no-thought time to boast of;-)) )
Give proof that this too is not the true definition.

See, if you exercise in hearing the inner voice and write this down it will yield a good answer for YOUR individual life. This is good and righteous.

But my aim is bigger.

I want a definition of Ego to be found
Which is usable for what Catholics call "Check of Conscience" by every normal person in every daily situation,
A definition that covers all aspects of life
And which is so useful that it will never and in no aspect of life lead to irrationality, absurdity, or madness.

This definition to my account is still missing - no matter in which book or in which Guru speech you seek it... WORLD WIDE. It is all just partial aspects, or - more often - misunderstandings leading to mad and wrong actions, what you will find.

But such a "world formula about what is Ego and what is Real Self" will be an absolute necessity for the Religion of the Future to come.
This is why I question the WWW world about it here.

For, it is in Spirituality the same as in mundane life: Clear directions will normally lead you to a good result. Unclear ones normally make you end up in a mess. But if the mess is a spiritual one, who will rearrange it?
Qoutation:
"The ego judges.
The ego demeans.
The ego takes over thoughts of neutrality
Making one's thoughts turn into those of judgement.
The ego cannot see the light,
It searches for dark,
Keeping a veil between truth and forgiveness.
The ego stems from thoughts of negativity and branches outwards from that point
Into a spiral of self denial and submission."

Hi Kathleen,

Let us analyze the definition above as to its usability.

"The ego judges."
If judgment is here meant as the thought that a person is worth nothing, this sentence is true.
But there is another meaning of the word "judging" which is much more important in daily life than the first named. I mean, to discriminate whether an attitude uttered by another or shown by oneself is OK or not, or if something said by another person is believable or not.
This judging, better call it "Discrimination of Spirits", must NOT be abolished by any true spiritual way, but should rather get sharpened.

Thus: don't call persons evil, but do not shrink from calling attitudes or deeds evil if they are!

"The ego demeans." I don't know the meaning of "to demean". So I got to leave a gap here.

"The ego takes over thoughts of neutrality
Making one's thoughts turn into those of judgement."

I now describe a common situation. You get up in the morning and make coffee for you and your guy, being careful to make it well. He takes a sip and the first thing he says is "it is too strong, don't you know I got that stomach ache?" thus reproaching you of making his ailment worse.
I would answer then "If I had made it too thin this would surely be no better. It's rather difficult to do things in a way that satisfies you, man."
Would this be "an Ego answer" or not?
From your sentence I can't say if yes or no.

"Thoughts of neutrality" could be, in this situation. Only things like "why is he in that bad temper again?"
But I - and I am not a very unusual person - rather think, if reproached in such a way, "why can't I even manage to do such a simple thing as coffee making well enough?"
Is this also a thought of neutrality - or not?

(this 2nd sentence already is hard to use in daily life. How difficult it is to usably define Ego!)

NB I don't automatically stamp others with words as "you got a bad temper" -
I learnt this "method of self defense" during last years, in situations as this one above,
Because whenever I told my guy in these situations what I really thought, like
"how come that you think me unable to even make a good coffee - every Illiterate can do this, so do you really think me who has done University so inept that I cannot?"
He scolded or taunted at me instead of giving a reasonable answer.

"the ego cannot see the light but searches for dark."

We very often can't see light, this is not our fault. Let us leave this out of analysis.
(well, there is many people who scold others because they are sad at the moment and thus can 't see the light... They tell 'em "gotta think more positive" - as if those people COULD think more positive, which most of the time is not the case. Such reactions of surroundings to sadness lead only to hypocrisy, and they make the sadness worse... Criticizing people for being sad is never spiritual!)

There also is a kind of "searching for dark" which stems from cautiousness, one tries to find out about the possible risks of an action, or in a situation.

If every kind of "searching for dark", also the cautious kind, were "ego", cautiousness would be forbidden for spiritual persons. This can't be true. It would mean "spirituality leads to stupidity".

Let us use the coffee example again.
When you made the coffee you have been cautious not to take too LITTLE coffee-powder,
For if you make too thin a coffee for the guy you love he could think and say "ain't I worth you a proper coffee, why do you serve me this brown water?" and he would be right with it!
And now he says it was too MUCH coffee-powder!
Thus the very fact that you were cautious not to make the coffee too thin led you into a trap of reproach, see above -
Although you did the coffee exatly this way for love of your man, or at least for the obvious duty of not giving "colored water" to your man...
Now, was it Ego that you were cautious not to make the coffee too thin? Was your man's reproach, thus, a punishment for having Ego?
Or is it Ego that the reproach of harming your man 's stomach gives a pain to your heart?
Or would it in such a situation be egoless and the optimum way of acting to - make just a colored water for such a miserably ill-humoured Kerl (loool) ?
I think all this is not the case.

Thus, cautiousness can't be meant with "Searching the Dark"... What then is meant with it?

Last sentence contains something absolutely new to me and if it is true it would turn my image of what is Ego upside down.

You put
"self denial and submission"
Into the Ego frame.
The established religions, however, USE and ADVOCATE self denial and submission to ABOLISH Ego
- or at least they affirm that their strange love of self-denial and submission has this reason and not the opposite (loool).
This is something YOU gotta explain.
Let's go on again when you did.
Thank you Onawingandaprayer. You helped me much. See, your definition is very different from what I heard or read from others, and yours is usable while the other ones definitely were not.
I now tell you and the public what I mean, to help others eliminate similar errors.
For a long time I have been living according to rules like "you must not say or think anything good of yourself for this could be seen by God as haughtiness and this is a sin" and "the Saints all thought of themselves that they were sinners of worst category, thus a Christian should think as badly of him/herself too." Those wrong ideas ware part of the Catholic thought pattern of last centuries, that's how I adopted them. I followed them for love of God and faith in that Church to know right from wrong.

But I had to experience that those ideas lead to a grossly wrong self-image which takes away not only the adequate courage for daily life but even the adequate orientation about what is right and what is wrong. With such a self-image one cannot act rightly!

To say it clearly, the Saints must have had a better and more adequate image of themselves than what is told about it by the Church; if they really had had such wrong ideas as told before, they would have gone mad or committed suicide. Probably they said such I-am-a-sinner things only to show to the official Church that they were no "heretics"...

See, and this bad self-image is what I thought to be the opposite of "ego".

Others say that all things of wich we think "I am that" and all things of which we think "I need that" or "I cannot live with that" are Ego and are to be eliminated to see the Truth. But this would mean exactly what I said about egolessness before: that it would be possible as a constant state in Heaven only, and that it could be experienced before death in absolutely exceptional states of mind (deep trance states) only. This ego definition leads to a morbid inner self-annihilation, not to a good life.

Back to your definition. You call the impulses of self-protection, fear and anger, "ego" and thus you probably think one should neglect them. I rather think one should defend oneself, but not in the way of hating and pursuing persons but by reasonably trying to eliminate error i.e. By discussion. If God made me, He made also the "buttons of alarm" which we know as fear and anger. Jesus knew fear, even to the point of sweating blood, as you know. He also knew anger, even to the point of rage; when He saw the traders in the Temple He took a rope, made it into a whip and chased them out, shouting "You are making a robber's hole out of the House of Prayer!"

Thus even your definition may not hit the exact mark. Perhaps the difference between someone having "too much Ego" and someone whose Ego has submitted itself to the leadership of God is whether he or she wishes for everybody the same happiness which he or she wishes for him/herself. I.e. Those who show Envy, still are misled by Ego. Someone who hates another one just because this other person has won in lottery surely is on the wrong path.
But it is not Ego of you to think "I could use more money too" at hearing "this other one has won in lottery" if your money is tight - it is just common sense.
The same it is with reproaches. I was taught to believe the reproaches against me, at first hand, and to show by good actions that they are wrong, afterwards. This was called self-betterment. If I defended meself against reproaches I was called "obstinate".
But if one is taught good from bad this way, one comes to believe a whole bunch of wrong reproaches,
and - even worse -
One comes to expect that the world is there to see that one is bettering oneself and to confirm it.
And this is is an absolutely wrong expectation; the others got their own cares and issues, and most of the time don't even see one is striving to become abetter person, and thus of course they won't confirm any success in this respect.
But people will keep saying reproachful things to you, most of the time without real meaning, only to let out a negative mood or for other low reasons - many people, as you know, hardly ever talk reasonably, the guy who called you a Christian pig surely was of this kind.
Consequently if one keeps with this belief, one ends up in thinking that the strive for self-betterment has not succeeded and that everything is lost!

This is why I insisted on a correct Ego definition.

For if one uses a wrong definition of this part of human nature, or a wrong way of avoiding "egoful" actions, the whole right-from-wrong pattern gets distorted.
Perhaps, Onawingandaprayer, it is just a problem of definition of "ego".

If one defines ego as all kinds of feelings of "I am right" or "I am good" or puts even the feeling of a personal identity into the frame of Ego, i.e. If the definition reads "either you are in the Ego realm or you are like a nothing-and-nobody existence" -then my warning against the strive for Egolessness is correct, see?

I've been seeking a CORRECT i.e. USABLE definition of Ego for more than twenty years, unsuccessfully. That's why I came to reject the "Ego issue" as a sham issue, product of ideological misconstructions.

All definitions of Ego I found by now make one doubt one's own purity whenever one dares think something good of oneself.

But how can one distinguish good from bad if one is not allowed to see and admit "I am good now" or "I have done something good now",
And what will motivate you to do good if it is forbidden to you to be to any extent proud of the good you have done, forbidden to be happy about yourself having been good?

Some even define Ego as "all that you are" and this would mean you can be spiritually pure and OK, i.e. Egoless, only when dead.

This surely is not the right definition of Ego. But the more moderate definitions too lack usability, and easily become a tool of self-sabotage, of self-deprecation. And this shows they too must be somewhat incorrect. Spirituality must help one in real life, and where it does the opposite, something's wrong.

So tell me, and us all, what is the delusional Ego, and what is the Real Self which we must cherish and about which we are allowed to be happy?
JAndrew you are absolutely correct as to the categories of spiritual learnedness (non-believers i.e. Spiritually blind or "illiterate" humans at the lower end and "knowers" at the upper end of the scale) - and I can tell you the number of Knowers is rapidly increasing. There never have been so many Initiates, this is an older word for them, as today. Most of them, I suppose, won't be found to be member of churches... These institutions are schools for lower stages of development... But you will find many among Buddhist Westerners, the Buddhist system of meditation and discipline being rather effective. On the other hand you will find more of them than expected among "punks", "drunks", "drug addicts", for God loves to "write straight upon crooked lines", and why else could Man have discovered all those mind-altering substances ("drugs") than for getting some glimpses of the Beyond as a fuel for Life down here?

Good luck!
end of spiritual article