I have experienced life in the 4th Dimension

hehe damn right tikoo. but i also believe the language used is very important, and things must be explained differently to relate to different people. take, for instance, what christianity has become because of the way it has been interpreted. though the bright ones can pick up on the true underlying message, many souls are caught up in things that are, ultimately, unimportant, oftentimes the religion does not adapt to the people. is there a way, through language, to help even the dimwitted achieve a simpler state of higher consciousness? i think so....
perhaps i don't understand exactly what you mean by dimension 4, but from what i gather, it is the same thing achieved by yoga/meditation... a state of release from the ordinary confines of reality and existing while not existing, seeing the world around you but not seeing it... feeling time as a whole and existing in every moment yet proceeding through time as though through a one-way tunnel... realizing the paradox of one's separation from and unity with everything... if this isn't what you're talking about then by all means try to tell me what i'm missing....

 

What you're talking about not only encompasses the properties of the 4th dimension that Tikoo and the others are referring to, it acts as the source for those properties, as well as for all other dimensional existences. In other words, you've bypassed the middle-man.

Travis

 

ahhh now THAT makes sense... well damn, i need to hone in on some of this cool shit yall are talking about, then... eh?

 

Read The Doors of Perception, my lady.

 

"You can't be a prophet in your own town."

- Who said that anyway?

 

That's a good one, I became a prophet when I changed my group of friends.

 

i have
and heaven and hell, of course.

 

i can or cannot know all of existence ? i don't know . so i make this a primary morality : deny no part of existence . it's a moral relation to nature . denial goes deep in this industrializing mass society . parts of our own nature are sacrificed , and awareness retreats to the submind . parents do it to their children it's so bad . they don't know why , yet surely even they have a primary morality to live by - like democratic voting or patriotic consumerism . these people will eat their own children . it's how weird it can get when any part of existence is denied .

dim4 may well be taboo . i'd suspect the old , old ancestors did not have such a boundary as we seem to . this assumption has already been proposed several times in the discussion : that we are dealing with a cultural repression , an inherited denial of something natural .

so i've been wondering about that scenerio . why.... ? could it be that dim4 is the medium of shared conciousness ... repress it and you can defend separation . it's denial allowing for national borders . allowing genocide .

 

Why introduce morality into the scenario? Morality is ironically one of the factors that produces the impulse to repress the medium of shared consciousness, as you put it. If you're making it a moral priority to deny no part of existence, then you're denying the part of your existence that wants to deny parts of existence.

Morality is a structural framework that is adhered to by those who don't allow thought and behavior to arise from their natural state of being. If it takes precedence over alignment with this natural state, it becomes like a dam that is gradually building greater and greater amounts of water pressure behind it -- it cannot hold back the tide of ego-identification forever, and when it does inevitably break, it unleashes a torrent of corruption and depravity. We can see this manifest in many forms in today's society, but the classic example is the hypocrisy and corruption of religious fundamentalism.

Liberated beings have no need to adhere to moral or ethical codes. Righteous actions are an inherent aspect of their nature.

Travis

 

denial is the action i complain of . to not do that is more like naturally doing nothing when nothing should be done .. Tao-ist ?

 

But morality is a form of denial. It denies the natural expression of the impure aspects of one's being, and in the process reinforces their existence. This phenomenon is analagous to a classic mental puzzle: How can one not think about a purple elephant? The second one makes the attempt, the purple elephant inevitably appears in one's imagination.

That which we resist, we create -- and thus the fatal flaw of the moralistic approach.

Travis

 

have you been raised in a culture that represses the natural self ... is anyone really content with this less-than-whole beingness ? to be whole some sort of action is required - actually , you could call it revolution . yes , the first denial must be radically denied . it can be soft though , as a morality of natural self that deems wholeness to be good and necessary . this kind of morality imposes nothing and will disreguard the repressive boundaries that have been given . it's like going barefoot in america .

 

On the deeper levels of their being, no. But 99% of humanity aren't aware of these levels, and so we must address their experiences on the superficial levels that they operate on. Levels that, at least in the short-term, thrive on separatism and repression.

On the contrary -- wholeness requires the relinquishment of all action, and all impulses toward action. It is the fragmented aspects of our being that are compelled towards action. Ever seeking and never finding, perceiving only the distorted projections of the mind -- this is the nature of action that arises from a sense of separation. Untainted action can only be sourced from a state of absolute stillness.

Perhaps the apparent disagreement is based on semantics then. The word morality has developed a connotation quite antithetical to your application of it. It certainly isn't evocative of behavior representative of naturalness or wholeness. Therefore I prefer to avoid the word, and instead focus on the fact that none of the qualities that you value need to be cultivated -- only realized as a natural expression of our true natures.

Travis

 

nice , travis . the untainted action is trustworthy , exactly what needs to be done , and is the continuity of sensible relationships - as in creating a piece of music honestly moment to moment and that could never be repeated just so in any other moment to moment . somebody once cddly commented on me to someone who evidently being critical . i heard him say "he don't have to work . he's a musician ".
funny . anyway , today i'm making drums .

as for a state of absolute stillness ? it seems to happen sometimes , that i am quiet and just watching the world like a bird on it's branch . when i see dim4 there's the sense of that .

 

Great! I'll stay in bed then

 

Sounds good -- just make sure not to move, sleep, dream, or think.

Travis

 

go get what you want ... is contrary to nature as a philosophy . it's common enough and relational to the antiquity of taoism it's been around for ages . hippies like the tao ideas , looking like we is lazy but really there's nothing to do anyway - or looking like what we do is pointless but really just how do you create peace since there's no particular thing to do about it - so freely do anything heartfully peacefully . go get what you want ... this could get you war . it's desirous , manipulative action .

so the idea of utter no-action ? seems it has a context to that .

and stillness does it's own thing too . to let it be .

from all of that , with enough going for it , no-action somehow got
stated as a principle ? a deist might say ' god will find us a way ' .

mmm ... had another unusual dream last night . geometric again . in this one an energy circle was created .

 

so what is it called when i stare at something and see things moving and stuff. or when i close my eyes before bed when it is silent (quiet) and see things taking form. usually things/people that i cant quite make out fully, but they always seem to be screaming i can make out a mouth and they look angry. same goes for when i stare at something. is this what my mind wants to see? does this make sense at all? i have trouble explaining things. and i have no idea with what most of these threads are saying, as i am trying to understand and want to understand. maybe i just need to read more.

 

we're trying to understand a part of existence that we only get glimpses of . seems it's going to take awhile . no one yet has been able to explain much . so anything related to dim4 is valuable . 'seeing' is certainly important . what you describe as 'seeing faces' , DbD , is sometimes discussed in the Psychic forum . that kind of vision i'd say is not of a literal reality - more like a dream - a metaphoric image that's got some meaning .

now as to the 'things moving and stuff' you are seeing with eyes wide open .... i'd believe our most trustworthy , relatable experiences of will be with eyes wide and open . i am interested in your observations .