Spirituality Guide

Once we step back from the emotions and engage reason, we can begin to see simple ways we can start making change. The ones I suggested above are practically risk-free, and there’s not a government in the world who would dare tackle you for buying from local producers instead of overseas corporations. Not yet anyway. And you will stimulate your local economy, circulating money out of reach of the grasping claws of the powergrubbers.

See if there’s a Barter system set up in your area. See if a group of you can start one. You can trade skills or personal work, or home-made products for things you need.

If you find someone who does things the old ways, support them. Stop going to McDonalds and Walmart and pay the little extra it takes to keep the little guys alive.

There are lots of things you can do if you put your mind to it, but first you have to take back your mind. Get the EFT manual - it’s a whopping 670KB in size. try it out and if you honestly do it and it doesn’t work, come back here and call me an idiot.

If you’d like a rationale as to why EFT works, get hold of Dawson Church’s The Genie in Your Genes and see where the Science is taking us. You certainly are NOT going to hear about it on the MSM - the big pharma’s have no interest in cures or non-drug treatments and the manipulators don’t want you so much better you might being to think clearly.

Stop using fluoride. Get a filter that will remove it from any water you consume. Some refuse to even use it for washing etc but at the least, stop ingesting the shit. You owe it to your body.

And here’s the BIGGIE! Stop watching TV. Seriously, it is damaging you on levels you will not believe until you give it up.

Take back your life, take back your mind and look around for things you can do to make both of them better.

Among the new things I have learned from The Genie in Your Genes, by Dawson Church, is that genes are not static things, but rather they live in the moment. They are triggered or quietened by us, the person who thinks, feels and believes. Church’s book outlines the research that shows us this.

Add to this the presence of a system of microfibers that run at electrical speed rather than chemical – thus neatly explaining how a batter can hit a ball coming in at around 100 miles an hour. This system rather interestingly seems to come to the body surface at the points the Chinese ancients knew about around 5000 years ago. The Acupuncture points are being shown to be not only real, they have properties way beyond that of the nervous system that make the reported results of such ancient healing a reality rather than myth.

And there’s yet another system that has been mapped – it is one we’ve known about for a long time, but nobody ever thought of it as a system. It is one that reaches so ubiquitously throughout the body that it replaces the skin as the largest organ of the body.

This newly recognized system is remarkable – it reaches into every cell and receives information back from every cell. When layered or grouped it behaves like a semiconductor – for those without a technical education, a computer chip, whether processor or memory, is a semiconductor – it will pass charge or current in one direction but not the reverse, and so can be used in a variety of ways, to process data.

This system truly blows the field wide open, and while I am tempted to say, go buy Church’s book, I will just say it includes sheath and tendon material. NOW, go buy Church’s book!

I’ve mentioned Bruce Lipton earlier. He and Rupert Sheldrake (also talked about) are biologists who have been led outside the strictures of the laboratory into trying to find the reasons for the mysteries they found in cells.

I had a problem with what they’d come up with though. I didn’t know of any way for what they were talking about to actually occur. Lipton talks about us being a field, ‘owning’ a body by having identity ‘tags’ that let us run the cells. Sheldrake talks about Morphogenetic Fields capable of storing information at a species level, and seemingly generating mass change (think the 100th monkey syndrome) across groups.

The problem was, I couldn’t see any way for fields to be a factor – there didn’t seem to be a way to connect together the Kirlian aura with the triggers for cells, to link in some esoteric field to the everyday practical life of cells. Intellectually I could think of fields directing cells, making decisions that resulted in actions but I didn’t see a mechanism. I could accept that maybe we are quantum fields, but such things seemed to be orders of magnitude too fine for any operation at the much grosser physical level.

In Dawson Church’s book, The Genie In Your Genes, I have found quite a number of ideas that have me connecting things together to come to new understanding. Mind you, this isn’t necessarily research he personally has done, but rather his synthesis of what is happening in the world of research and his linking together of new data we are finding.

It is entirely possible this could be the most important book you can read – Church is showing how the systems function, how there is mechanism for things that until very recently, most scientists held to be thoroughly in the world of the mystical.

Recently, around 2000AD, Science completed the mapping of the Human Genome. The pharmaceutical companies were very disappointed – they’d held the view that when the genes were counted, they’d have the chance to create medicines for individuals, but that was based on there being way more than 100,000 genes that make a human – there isn’t. There are a little over 23,500 of them.

That may sound like a lot but it isn’t, not for something as complex and intricately intertwined as the mechanisms of the human body. There’s not a lot of difference between a mouse and a human and we even share a lot of the same genes.

So there’s a bit of a mystery about the human genome. It just isn’t complex enough, the genes get turned on and off instead of being relatively set at conception as was first thought and very small differences in the pattern can produce vastly different effects. Even identical gene sets (identical twins) can have radically different outcomes.

I’ve mentioned before about how most people think of DNA as the brains of the cell, but it simply isn’t so. As we’ve learned more about the workings of a cell, it has become apparent the cell is a response system – something tells it what to do & it performs a task.

And now we have a gene issue as well. Genes simply don’t seem able to produce the interwoven complexities of a human. And we see the same gene in different people and even different animals performing different functions, or, as it is termed, being ‘expressed’ differently.

Are genes magic? Do they have an ability to do different things based on their own decisions? Dawson Church brings together a wide range of information that says, rather emphatically, No.

Here’s one: We have carefully documented cases of people who have been diagnosed with incurable disease. Then suddenly, they seem to have no evidence of the disease. There seems little coherence of the factors involved – in other words we can’t look at their lives and see that they all did a particular thing to get well.

Here’s another: All living things have a Kirlian Aura. If you take a living thing and place it within a high frequency electric field, then photograph it, there is a glowing field around the object. This is not simply an effect of the tiny electric impulses we’ve known about for so long, and video of the aura shows it can change and react to outside influences.

Weirder still, if we take a leaf and look at its Kirlian aura, then tear the leaf in half and look again at one half, the missing piece still shows, and it continues to show for half an hour or more.

Here’s one more: Plants can feel. There’s solid objective evidence that a plant will react not just to damage, but to thoughts of damage. A plant will set a flurry of activity on an EEG or a polygraph when someone intends to harm it. Maybe those who think eating vegetables need to rethink their ‘moral’ stance?

Another one: there are documented cases of people receiving transplants from unknown (to them) donors, who subsequently develop strange cravings or behaviours – on checking back, researchers have found the new behavior was characteristic of the donor, now deceased.

Here’s yet another: From what we have learned about nerves and how they work, a batsman in cricket or a batter in baseball should not be able to hit the ball. That little sphere comes at them so fast there is not the time for several sights of the ball (to be able to calculate trajectory and speed) ro reach the brain, be thought about, even instinctively, and the results to be sent back out along the nerves to start the swing – and the bat makes god contact with the balls to often for it to be blind or chance hitting.

There are many such puzzlements in our lives, often ignored or brushed aside as wacko ideas. But we all have strange little experiences in our lives, all of us.

Recently, around 2000AD, Science completed the mapping of the Human Genome. The pharmaceutical companies were very disappointed – they’d held the view that when the genes were counted, they’d have the chance to create medicines for individuals, but that was based on there being way more than 100,000 genes that make a human – there isn’t. There are a little over 23,500 of them.

That may sound like a lot but it isn’t, not for something as complex and intricately intertwined as the mechanisms of the human body. There’s not a lot of difference between a mouse and a human and we even share a lot of the same genes.

So there’s a bit of a mystery about the human genome. It just isn’t complex enough, the genes get turned on and off instead of being relatively set at conception as was first thought and very small differences in the pattern can produce vastly different effects. Even identical gene sets (identical twins) can have radically different outcomes.

I’ve mentioned before about how most people think of DNA as the brains of the cell, but it simply isn’t so. As we’ve learned more about the workings of a cell, it has become apparent the cell is a response system – something tells it what to do & it performs a task.

And now we have a gene issue as well. Genes simply don’t seem able to produce the interwoven complexities of a human. And we see the same gene in different people and even different animals performing different functions, or, as it is termed, being ‘expressed’ differently.

Are genes magic? Do they have an ability to do different things based on their own decisions? Dawson Church brings together a wide range of information that says, rather emphatically, No.

I’ve recently been working my way through Dawson Church’s book, The Genie in Your Genes. It has been an very interesting journey so far, and it is taking me longer than many books I have read – not that it is hard going, but simply because as I read, so many things are ‘clicking’ into place. I’ve grown accustomed to these ‘clicks’ in my life. They aren’t really sounds, just the sensation when something I learn ‘snicks’ into place with associations across a variety of subjects.

I was an average to good student in school – smart enough to be able to get by while being lazy, dumb enough not to realize that if nobody else pushed me I should do it myself, but after a while I noticed that when someone asked a question, I could string together an answer that, to me, had to be a lie, but sounded good enough for them to accept it. Later they would thank me and I came to know that somehow, I had produced a correct response.

Over the years I came to understand what was happening – while I wasn’t a classic student, able to regurgitate at will the facts and figures force fed to us, those same facts were going in and being assigned a place. When I started trying to answer someone, the recovery process would reach across subjects, finding bits and pieces of data and fitting them together. Edward de Bono calls it Lateral Thinking.

So I spent my life learning, not worrying specifically about what it was, or from whom it came, and fairly early on I developed a view of problems that, if I couldn’t find an answer in a short time, I would work out all the things I could about it, then send it to ‘the back of my mind’ for an answer to come later. Sooner or later, I’d have an ‘Aha!’ moment as the answer came forward.

And sometimes, questions I had held for some time would suddenly find the missing jigsaw piece as I heard or read something new and I would almost literally feel the ‘snick’ as the pieces came together.

Dawson Church’s book has been like that for me.

I can’t help wondering if there IS a Law of Attraction. When we look at how much the quantum reality depends on consciousness to trigger the probability collapse into a coherent state, when the implications of entanglement are taken up, (and I am by no means promoting myself as expert in these areas) it seems to me that rather than a Law, it is a matter of what we allow ourselves to actually see or experience.

I hold the view that our senses are NOT things which enable us - rather they are limits. We can see, but only a fraction of a line infinitely long, we can hear a tiny amount of what sound can offer, we smell (well some do) only a fraction of what animals can achieve etc.

If the Universe is a hologram, some kind of image of a real reality in which we partake as active contributors by perceiving it, then our perceptions are crucial to how it unfolds. We’ve all seen this because we live in a society.

Two people are in identical situations, with the exact same things happening to them – perhaps colleagues side by side in a workplace, or neighbours on the same street. One person will moan and groan about their fate, seeing the worst of events, able to predict with almost uncanny vision how all the events are going to make things worse for him.

The other one will see the same things happening but sees them in a more positive light, able to bounce back and find new paths through the exact same situations. The only things different in the two situations are their views of things, yet they have very different experiences from the same circumstances.

Can we really say these two people are living in the same reality?

As time passed I began paying more attention to working out who I was and what things I considered were ‘right’ and ‘good’ – this came about mainly because I saw myself doing things that hurt others and this would react inside me and make me depressed. Logically I figured that I needed to work out what things I thought were wrong so I could avoid doing them and so reduce the times I felt bad due to my own actions.

It took me probably more years than it should have, probably because of influences like alcohol and dope, but eventually I found a way to begin to like myself. It took more years before I could operate within my ethical limits on a regular basis. I think I’m a slow learner.

But maybe it is just that I am blocked; that veil I talked of earlier is still there. I listen to others talking about what goes on in their minds and I am constantly reminded that mine simply doesn’t work like that. Others seem to be able to look inside and find motives, or see events or actions; I seem to float on a dark sea of Me, where ideas and thoughts come to the surface after an unknown process floats them to where I can see them.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing all the time – I am quite a lateral person, able to connect the dots across wide gaps where none are to be seen. But it is highly annoying when one is trying to work out who one might be. Even finding something like personal goals becomes hit and miss – how does one run a scenario inside to determine if something might be true if one cannot see past the veil to the inner workings?

During our normal waking times, we miss a lot of what is going on around us. It’s estimated that, if you were to take a picture the size of your computer screen, then what we consciously perceive of our experiences would be about the size of one pixel on that screen. That’s smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence.

It may seem strange to think of it that way, but our bodies record many things of which we have no awareness. Just sitting in your room, reading this screen, there are sounds, smells and sights from your peripheral vision of which you have no ongoing awareness. If you focus you might become aware of them but as soon as you focus on the screen again, they’re gone, lost in the background glow of incoming perceptions.

I spoke some time back on here about Spotlight and Floodlight awareness, how we are taught from birth to be firmly in the spotlight world of focus on the passing moments. Floodlight awareness is like when you go for a drive with friends – conversation flows back and forth, and it is an enjoyable trip. Usually you don’t stop and think at the end of the trip how much you recall of the actual travel and driving, but when you do you will be surprised at how little there is to remember.

Your ‘spotlight’ mind has been involved in the conversation, and the job of driving was handed over, without notice, to your ‘floodlight’ awareness. We pay for the immediacy and clarity of a Spotlight’ life with a loss (mostly) of the full scope of the world we live in.

I’d be interested to know how many readers here have had the experience of getting to the end of a trip and realizing most of it had passed without conscious notice being paid to it?

I had an online conversation recently on the Karma subject and found out how (apparently) confused I am. Other people joined in & it appears that many people aren’t as confused as I am because they all have very definite ideas as to what Karma is – the fact their ideas are backed by certainty and different each from the other seems to escape their notice.

I’m not sure I understand why karma should be a difficult thing to understand. It seems to be either (depending on to whom you speak) a reward/punishment system or a balancing system or a keep you on track system. I don’t think the system itself is complex so much as those who believe in it seem to advocate their favoured version of it.

But the whole ‘emotions’ subject is a strange one if we begin to separate out the being & the body. Maybe we need a new definition - how about emotions are the body thing that is linked into peptides & the basic brain & autonomous nervous system & the equivalent ‘feelings’ for the being we can call ‘Values’ rather than getting confused between the setup we arrive here with & that engendered by being within the chemical system of the body.

That way, we can have emotions which are attached to experience & which we, ideally, should use as extra information coming in with the event data, & we have values which come as part of the considered (or not :grin:) response to the event.

So, because of an event when we are children, we may feel anger when something similar happens to us as adults. The emotion is anger, but the spiritual emotion, the value we use to react might be indignation as our core inner values are violated, or it might be amusement as we recognise how we might have been manipulated had we not seen how the event pushed against our sense of fair play.

So emotions are things which we should be able to stand away from, to consider simply as additional information in our responses, while values can be a basic to our character, a colouring of our personality that comes from the lives we’ve led & maybe the mix of beingness we came here with.