Conference hydra::dejavu

To take this a bit farther (maybe too far), if we do create our own reality,
then that must mean we create *all* of our realities (if we don't then who
does?).  The problem that I find with trying to figure this out is that we
are doing the analysis from this (earth) level.  The creating is taking place 
at a higher level and what we (here in earth) are experiencing is the past 
to the creating level.  I believe that at that level we work with others
there to 'map' out our experiences in line with what we need to learn in
our current embodiement.  For example:  Let's say I need to learn something
(to use your example) about accepting rejection.  Therefore, at the creating
level, I look for someone to help me.  I find someone who needs to learn to 
say no, so we 'create' the opportunity (me asking someone for a date who 
might say no).  

If this is how it happens it is probably much more complex than our finite 
minds can work with, but it explains (for me) how we can all be creating our
own overlaping realities.

Terry

P.N. (post note)

P.D. Ouspensky has a few books that talk about the idea of parallel realities
and time as a huge matrix of possiblities that we kind of traverse our way
through.  Try 'New Model of the Universe'.

    Re .0 (Geo):
    
    The CYOR philosophy isn't totally pervasive amongst all DEJAVUers.
      Some of us posit that there is an objective reality.
    
    Now let's take "reality" and separate it into its components:
    
    That which is, is.  The keyboard before me; the screen, as it is,
    where the words you are reading, is; the chair you're sitting on;
    the clothes you're wearing.
    
    Subjective "reality" is how you _perceive_ objective reality.  In
    a psychological space, you may use various minds to project certain
    concepts (too far away from the norm and collectively, you're
    considered crazy).
    
    The objective universe tends to be unforgiving: fall off the top
    of a 20-story building, and, barring shock absorbers, pasrachutes,
    and/or elastics, you'll probably die, or at least be seriously injured.
    That nis, the objective universe seems to be run by _natural laws_
    that are far more than concensus reality.  Of course, you can use
    one set of laws to counteract another (airplanes are an applied
    example of this).
    
    Others might disagree; the universe won't care.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

FROM TOPIC 671, this is Note 671.16, a conversation between Dave Kachelmeyer 
and myself;

re; .13;

>    Meredith, on the topic of CYOR, it seems to me to be a pretty powerful
>    concept.  On the surface, it says a lot about the cause(s) for a person
>    being the way they are ('cause they chose to be that way!). 

Yes.  It sounds so simple, doesn't it, but it is *so* complex.  Many folks 
don't realize that they are the way they are because they are choosing to be 
that way.

>    The concept also seems to have what might be considered to be an
>    'escape clause' in that if you create it, you can re-create it in some
>    other form. 

Yes.  But we seem to have a value placed on consistency.  Those who act on 
whatever value system is perceived by them to be the best one for the situation 
often find themselves being thought of as whacko by those around them.  
Changing one's mind from value system to value system in the course of a day 
can confuse one amidst the many things that are found to be true, or plausible.
I think there is actually a need for us to develop a value/belief system, even 
though the realm of possiblities is infinite.  It seems that, if we incorporate 
a consistent belief/value system into our lives, we develop confidence and have 
stronger ideas of who we are, as individuals, as well as to what groups of 
thinkers we belong.  The problem arises when individuals refuse to accept that 
anything other than their chosen system for dealing with reality can exist and 
work.  Opposite things can be true at the same time.  The original example of 
that is that there is Dark, and there is Light, and although only one can be 
true for you in a given moment, both exist simultaneously.  To summarize, there 
are two extremes that would be best, avoided; #1, no belief/value system of any 
consistency, so that the individual has mind-changes all the time; this is 
formlessness; #2, a very rigid belief/value system that allows for no other 
system to be correct; this is rigidity. 

>    Given this, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that I should
>    be able to make any number of rather significant changes in my reality
>    system by the simple expediency of consciously willing it.

That is right.  But, watch out for the ramifications.  I have found that 
behaviors are anything *but* isolated.  One behavior is connected to who-knows-
*how*-many other behaviors; it's like the layers of an onion, sometimes.  They 
seem to come in groups.  One change can lead to many.  And then, of course, 
there are the Consequences Of Your Behavior.  Sometimes, we wish for something 
to be true *so badly* that we do make it true for us...but the ramifications 
are so much more awesome than we ever could have expected.  We ignore the 
warning lights because of our need/desire/passion for having what we (think we) 
want.
    
    What do you (and others) see as the ground rules for CYOR?

Ground Rules?  Off the top of my head, I would say...

I.  	Observe.

	A.  What's going on in your reality (around you) right now?  How
	    are people acting?  Draw conclusions from your observations.
	    Regard your perceptions; consider other alternatives; look at
	    your first perceptions and see if you can gain some insight
	    as to why you think the way you do, and what are your values.

	B.  At the end of the day, "step outside of yourself" and think
	    about what you did all day (observe yourself).  If there were
	    any really important things that happened, review them in your
	    mind, and try to gain a deeper understanding in to your self;
	    like I said, behaviors tend to come in groups, and there is
	    usually more than one reason for anything you did with feeling.

II. 	Think before you act.

	A.  Consider the alternative schools of thought that may have made 
	    someone react to you in a way that you don't like.  Perhaps the 
	    other person isn't really doing a direct affront to you, in their 
	    perception.  Consider why you might be taking their comment/action 
	    as a direct affront, before you respond.

	B.  Consider the possible ramifications of a major action.  How will
	    it effect the rest of your life?  Try to consider things that you
	    may not want to consider.  Try to be objective.  If you don't think
	    you're considering everything, ask a trusted friend or therapist to
	    help; to lend their expertise in the area you want to explore.

III.	Ask questions.

	A.  If you're not sure why someone said something, and your warning
	    signals are going off, ask them why they said it.  Amazing how
	    the walls that block off true communication can come down, when
	    you take the time to ask questions.    

    
>    As corrilaries to this, I suspect that:
>    
>        o   Some parts of my reality system were just picked up or
>    	    developed along the way.  I should be able to change these
>	    things around as I desire.

Easier said than done.  Something that appears to be an easily changeable part 
of your life might have a lot of roots, might go really deep; changing it might 
mean changing some things with which you are downright comfortable.
    
>        o   Some parts of my reality were chosen for specific purposes
>	    by my higher self, and changes to these will either be
>	    difficult, or will have ramifications that I will need to
>    	    consider and perhaps later compensate for.

Every change has ramifications; some, not as earth-shattering as others; some 
that appear easy but later turn out to be hard; some that appear hard, but 
bring a great sense of relief when they are implemented.  Review your value 
system.  Remember what is of importance to you.  Keep the parts of yourself 
that are in accord with what is important to you.  If too many of the parts 
that you are keeping need changing, it is time to review what is important to 
you, and make those kinds of major, sweeping changes that take time and 
patience to effectively work into your life.
    
>    	o   Some parts of my reality are agreed upon as a condition of
>    	    being on earth (no Johnny, don't change that mountain into
>    	    a goldfish!) and are, more likely than not, not subject to
>    	    change. 

A mountain is a mountain...your perception of it is what you can change.  
Mountains change much more slowly than do humans.  The interesting part of CYOR 
is dealing with things that *appear* to change as fast, or faster, than do you.
In effect, you change as quickly as that which is around you...(And with that, 
I have probably opened up a new can of worms, eh??)

.0 (Geo)

I happen to agree w/SKJ (.2); reality is two components; objective and
subjective. When I speak of creating (or changing) my own reality, I'm
talking about how I perceive objective reality.

Reality (to me) is a set truths or beliefs. Some, such as in objective
reality, seem to be universal i.e. a set of _natural laws_, which as
Steve has pointed out, are generally fairly rigid. Others are beliefs or
truths which *I* hold, which govern how *I* see and react to things.

The way in which truths are formed within each of us dictactes to what
extent you can create your own reality. *If* all your truths are given to
you, you tend to perceive object reality by *someone else's* standards.
If you believe that you can change or alter any truth or belief that you
hold, you can create (or change) your reality.

I'm not suggesting that changing a belief is easy (some beliefs are
harder to change than others). But, the key is to understand what set of
truths you hold and how they affect your life and what it is about those
truths, that when changed would allow you to perceive objective reality
differently so as to bring about change in your life.

Sufficiently vague? Clear as mud?

We hold these truths to be self-evident..
That all (wo)men create their own reality
(or not as they choose ;')

Jay

    .3 and .4 very well put.
    
    	But a mountain is a mountain because our minds have been forced
    to categorize them as such.  What if we were able to perceive them
    without attaching labels to them?  Could we perceive them differently?
    Would those mountains be objectively different because we no longer
    identify them with subjective words like "mountains" or piles o
    rocks?  This is difficult to explain or comprehend because of the
    mind's tenacity for holding on to such words because of it's need
    to make "sense of the environment.   The mind is structured in such
    a way that it must go from A to B to get to C, or linear thinking.
     But I see that as a limitation of our mind.  Several books printed 
    a while back but probably out of print by now explained a concept
    called "lateral thinking."  A type of thinking that Carlos Casteneda 
    wrote about when he worked with the Indian Don Juan. The names of
    the books were "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg" and "Exploring the
    Crack in the Cosmic Egg."  I can't remember the author at this time.
    the concept is that one does not have to go from a through b to
    get to C.  If one can remove the constraints of the mind.
    	One must change their "subjective" reality before the "objective"
    reality can be changed. I use quotes because if either can be changed
    then which is the objective and which is the subjective reality?
     Isn't one just an extension of the other?  I have been almost
    consciously changing my situation in life for the last five years
    or so and it's much more than how I perceive the environment.
    Situations I thought I wanted three years ago are just now coming into 
    being and without actively pursuing them.   The key is "intent"
    and impeccable action.  It's more than wanting or desiring.  It's
    maintaining a high state of awareness so that one is paying attention
    when the "intended" situation arrives. I hope to some day develop
    my "intent" to such a high degree that there is a much shorter delay
    between the time that I begin intending a situation and  that intended
    situation becomes objective reality.  
    	I think that If there ever comes the need and I am capable of
    shaking the mind's instinctive impulse to categorize mountains as
    mountains, I might gain a different knowledge than what the previous
    "objective" construct of that mountain provided. 
    	I don't know if this is making sense to anybody as I am only
    beginning to understand it myself and hindsight that allows me to
    see that somehow I have been creating my own reality. Right now
    I am to a large part unconsciously or only momentarily conscious of
    making this happen.  Sort of like breathing:  one can speed it up
    or slow it down but even if we are not working on the breathing
    it is happening anyway.   Once a situation is intended, the intent
    continues on as long as our actions do not disrupt that intent.  

    re: .0
      
        Being married eliminates the *possibility* of asking a "star"
    for a date?  Gosh, if that's the case, then lots of possibility
    ends with marriage.   :-)
    
    
        I have talked a great deal about CYOR in this conference and
    I don't wish to repeat it here (especially since I'm keeping my
    eyes open with *figurative* toothpicks under my eyelids)  |-(
    but I was just thinking about a child who is subject to laws of
    gravity, falls off a building and dies.  Where is the objectivity?
    Not necessarily in the eyes of the child, for in my belief system
    it moved on to death to be born again, probably.  Is the objectivity
    in your eyes or the eyes of some technological device?  Wait a 
    second...if I'm suddenly insane or "cut-off" from "reality", how
    would anyone know where my mind is?  They wouldn't, would they.
    If I remain as I am, then absolutely nothing can be objective to
    me since I am constantly interpreting things through my mind and
    therefore am coloring everything with my subjectivity.  I do not
    see any way for me to "escape" my mind and render anything at all
    as objective.  It would then appear to me that it is literally
    impossible for me to know anything about an "objective" reality
    since, by definition, I am observing it it must be subjective. 
    If I am not observing it (brain-dead or crazy or whatever) then
    it won't matter to me.  
         What I *CAN* subjectively create, however, is an objective
    reality WITHIN my subjective reality.  In this reality I will create
    people, things, events, etc. which seem very objective.  At least,
    I can get lots of support for their "solidity" and verification
    by scores of outside validation.  As little or as much as I look
    for.  Anyway, for me the scenario gets quite ridiculous and too
    mind-warping for any serious consideration as proof for an objective
    reality.  I cannot understand how an objective reality could ever
    exist and how I could become aware of it since everything I experience
    is subjective.  If I don't, then *I* don't believe I care, for it
    couldn't possibly affect me (if I have NO awareness of it.)  
         It doesn't appear that I can complete this reply without a
    mention of Lazaris because I want to add that he has mentioned that
    when we exist in the same SPACE, but in different TIMES, we have
    what we call past or future lifetimes.  When we exist in the same
    TIME, but in different SPACE, we experience what are called PARALLEL
    lifetimes.  ALL lifetimes exist simultaneously...it is by our own
    device (i.e., physicality) that we put any semblance of *order*
    to them.  Time and space are two of the five tools of our physical
    world...all of which are illusions which we create in order to
    grow and expand as the consciousness which we are.  As a separate
    idea, he also has suggested to us that any thought ever "thunk"
    becomes manifested somewhere in our reality, whether it is in this
    lifetime or some other.  There is a massive impact from that idea.
    If I desire a date with a "star" then in some reality, I will have
    it.  Since there are infinite possible realities, then that seems
    entirely conceivable.  The "catch" is that that reality never needs
    become a probable one.  This leads to what Lazaris has called the
    CAUSAL plane, where ALL causes and effects exist.  By meditatively
    going to the causal plane, time and space can be brought together
    to produce or manifest whatever is desired into this plane of reality.
    (Incidentally, though I recognize most of you will scoff at this
    concept, no matter what I offer as proof, I will say that this 
    technique works and I have witnessed it not only first-hand but
    second-hand.  E.g., this is the technique Sharon Gless used two
    years in a row to win her Emmy.)  You see, if it is true that we
    create our entire reality, then we must have access to all of its
    components, somehow.  Everything that is a part of the collective
    unconscious or consciousness, must also be a *part* of us and
    just as available.  That it isn't (normally) is, I believe,
    only because that is part of the game we play.
    
    Frederick
    

    re .5:
    
    I believe the author of "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg" was Itzhak
    Bentov, and that the subsequent book was a reconstruction and completion
    of his notes by his wife since unfortunately he died when it was
    in progress.  I remember reading "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg' twice
    in a row since it seemed so insightful.  However, if you are wearing
    your 'prove it' thick-skullcap then you probably won't get far through
    either of these books (the first is the best).  I recommend that
    you leave your safe-skeptic mind-condoms in your other pants and get an
    introduction to this man's view of the cosmic order and the part we
    all play in the joy of reality creation on a mind-boggling number
    of different levels.

    					Todd

	RE: .7   oops, wrong author?

    The author of "Crack In the Cosmic Egg" is Joseph Chilton Pierce.
    Itzhak Bentov wrote "Stalking the Wild Pendulum", another good
    book.

    	Alan.

    re: .8 
      Thanks for the correction Alan.
      I'll have to read both of those books again to refresh my memory.

    
    I guess you thought you fooled me all this time, all of you (but, maybe
    ...yes, that's undoubtedly true) you can read my minds, too).  I am 
    certain now, all the puzzles have been solved.  
    
    I know that it's really the other way around, and that all what
    I call reality is just a product of one vast hoax perpetrated on me.  
    
    "I" am the center of my own universe - all I see, hear, taste, touch,
    experience is a product of this theater-like setting I call my life.
    
    And I just realized it.  So you can turn off the special effects
    - my house, my family, etc. and give me the score card you been
    keeping on me.  It's been a trip!	HOW DID I DO?    
    OK, GUYS YOU CAN STOP THIS LITTLE
                                         FARCE.....
    
    
    Mary B. (OR WHATEVER........)