So....... Does anyone feel energies

Flavus Aquila said:
I think the point of difficulty is when physics terms are being used to describe psychological/emotional phenomena.

People can have bad moods/emotions/intentions... but to say that the "energy" in them is negative is to say that there is something out of sorts with the very matter from which their body is formed.
Click to expand...

Only when the energy is out of sorts will the matter follow suit.
What is 'positive' and 'negative' depends on the individual perspective.
But the source of All That Is, Prime Creator/God, IS unconditional love and as such does have a preference - but no judgement.
So as we begin to turn our individual consciousness toward the Godhead our energy increasingly aligns with that Divine perspective.
 
I should mention that for the sake of my posts in which I may have mentioned negative energy, it's not negative, just unbalanced.
 
Do I ...? Perhaps ... maybe? Expect a response soon I should give it a thought.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I think the point of difficulty is when physics terms are being used to describe psychological/emotional phenomena.

People can have bad moods/emotions/intentions... but to say that the "energy" in them is negative is to say that there is something out of sorts with the very matter from which their body is formed.
Click to expand...

It's actually the reverse - using psychological/emotional phenomena to describe physics.

This is a prime example of dualism. It's mysterious and inexplicable perhaps, at times, but there's nothing separate about it.

Positive and negative are just owing to subjective perceptions. However these perceptions are real enough for many due to dependent origination and mutual natures. This is why suffering is real, and why it shouldn't be caused in others, and also why it is not enough to simply be apathetic.
 
o_q said:
I do not refute what you experience. I just don't like the idea that something emits energy. I mark this up as a way of understanding and perceiving. I accept any way of thinking so as long as it produces correct results. The whole issue I have with it is the prejudice that comes with this way of thinking. To feel something about someone, but having this notion that the feeling comes from the other person, not you. I find this irresponsible. If that person has a bad vibe, you don't take any responsibility for making this conclusion based on anything. After all, the energy came from him/her. The other issue is that there's no room for analysis. It's just there in your face, and it should be accepted as is, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

The concept of Indra's net shows that all things are dependently arising. It's like a spider web with water droplets, and in each droplet is reflected the web and all the other droplets, and in each reflection is the reflections of all the other reflections, infinitely.

There really is no 'other' and 'you' because if you take one of those away, the phenomena does not occur. It takes both, in conjunction, with things mutually causing each other.
 
And just to clarify something up... When i sit for my meditation and feel energy flowing through my body it has nothing to do with me looking at a person and deciding i know stuff about him because of energies.

Like sprinkles said, it's a matter of being conscious and sensitive enough to the subtle movements of mass/energy. It is quite known that everything is ever vibrating.
 
ThisIsWhoIAm said:
And just to clarify something up... When i sit for my meditation and feel energy flowing through my body it has nothing to do with me looking at a person and deciding i know stuff about him because of energies.

Like sprinkles said, it's a matter of being conscious and sensitive enough to the subtle movements of mass/energy. It is quite known that everything is ever vibrating.
Click to expand...

Yes. And almost everyone has a form of prejudice against something or other. Even things like death or pain.

Most wouldn't find the perception of death being negative as an unreasonable perception, but that is just as much a 'bad vibe' as anything else is. It's no more or less negative than somebody who just has a sour personality or whatever. If you feel it then you feel it, for various reasons, and almost nobody is entirely free from it.

If one must claim responsibility for how they feel their 'bad vibes' then it must also carry to all bad vibes, including death, pain, being stolen from, being lied to, not having any food to eat, etc. etc. but strangely one is not typically blamed for not holding themselves accountable for their feelings toward these equally subjective perceptions.
 
sprinkles said:
Yes. And almost everyone has a form of prejudice against something or other. Even things like death or pain.

Most wouldn't find the perception of death being negative as an unreasonable perception, but that is just as much a 'bad vibe' as anything else is. It's no more or less negative than somebody who just has a sour personality or whatever. If you feel it then you feel it, for various reasons, and almost nobody is entirely free from it.

If one must claim responsibility for how they feel their 'bad vibes' then it must also carry to all bad vibes, including death, pain, being stolen from, being lied to, not having any food to eat, etc. etc. but strangely one is not typically blamed for not holding themselves accountable for their feelings toward these equally subjective perceptions.
Click to expand...

Lol you make a very solid point there.
 
JGirl said:
i don't consider my being able to feel and send vibration to be a sixth sense or an extra sensory path of perception.
i think it's a neurological issue, not a paranormal one. i believe, at least for my own experience, that it has to do with being hypersensitive, using my 'ordinary' five senses.
Click to expand...

exactly. Not sure why every sensory ability or sensation has to be described as psychic.
 
[MENTION=5511]o_q[/MENTION] [MENTION=2240]rawr[/MENTION] [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]

Once a person stops feeding his ego 24/7 that person finds out little by little that reality is not as solid as previously perceived.
 
ThisIsWhoIAm said:
I did!

View attachment 18575
Click to expand...

lawl!

Maybe you were being serious, maybe not, but in almost all the people who have responded in the negative in this thread, I don't think it has to do with ego, or refusing to accept something. I think it has more to do with differences in perception.

I.e. I don't feel others' energies in a physical manner - how does that have to do with my ego?

I just don't. I also tend to agree with @o_q that some may tend to "over-spiritualize" (no offense meant to those who are spiritual) these kinds of phenomena and read too much into them. However, I am not discrediting this as a possibility. I just don't feel it personally.
 
sprinkles said:
Yes. And almost everyone has a form of prejudice against something or other. Even things like death or pain.

Most wouldn't find the perception of death being negative as an unreasonable perception, but that is just as much a 'bad vibe' as anything else is. It's no more or less negative than somebody who just has a sour personality or whatever. If you feel it then you feel it, for various reasons, and almost nobody is entirely free from it.

If one must claim responsibility for how they feel their 'bad vibes' then it must also carry to all bad vibes, including death, pain, being stolen from, being lied to, not having any food to eat, etc. etc. but strangely one is not typically blamed for not holding themselves accountable for their feelings toward these equally subjective perceptions.
Click to expand...

ThisIsWhoIAm said:
@o_q @rawr @Flavus Aquila

Once a person stops feeding his ego 24/7 that person finds out little by little that reality is not as solid as previously perceived.
Click to expand...

Why must emotion be equated with subatomic and atomic patterns of movement? The scale of phenomena is disproportionate.

We as humans have emotions and conscious appreciation of them on account of very complex biological systems, these are based on chemical interactions and so on. But our emotions are most closely attributed to macro and microscopic influences - and only remotely to the subatomic.

The approach used here is akin to saying a solar eclipse occurs because of the vibrations of the galaxy, when it is more to the point to say that an ecclipse occurs because the Moon passes in between the Sun and the Earth.
 
What i meant was that when someone starts thinking the world doesn't revolve himself he/she starts looking at things in a different manner than the average western person, and thus starts seeing things differently.

*Takes off his gloves*
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Why must emotion be equated with subatomic and atomic patterns of movement? The scale of phenomena is disproportionate.

We as humans have emotions and conscious appreciation of them on account of very complex biological systems, these are based on chemical interactions and so on. But our emotions are most closely attributed to macro and microscopic influences - and only remotely to the subatomic.

The approach used here is akin to saying a solar eclipse occurs because of the vibrations of the galaxy, when it is more to the point to say that an ecclipse occurs because the Moon passes in between the Sun and the Earth.
Click to expand...

The moon passes there because of a certain force that makes it so.
 
ThisIsWhoIAm said:
The moon passes there because of a certain force that makes it so.
Click to expand...

Agreed. These forces are very accurately described by physics.

But to describe an eclipse in terms of "feeling forces and vibrations" is hogwash, because feelings cannot predict eclipses, rather visual observation of the Moon's orbit and of eclipses allows one to deduce the nature of the unseen forces.

Likewise, observing/being aware of one's own subjective response and more especially, the physical and verbal cues of others makes us aware of their interior emotional states. If the hogwash about vibrations and energies were true, then one could deduce a person's emotional state from a fresh tissue, or blood sample. Or perhaps, through blindfolds in silence.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Why must emotion be equated with subatomic and atomic patterns of movement? The scale of phenomena is disproportionate.

We as humans have emotions and conscious appreciation of them on account of very complex biological systems, these are based on chemical interactions and so on. But our emotions are most closely attributed to macro and microscopic influences - and only remotely to the subatomic.

The approach used here is akin to saying a solar eclipse occurs because of the vibrations of the galaxy, when it is more to the point to say that an ecclipse occurs because the Moon passes in between the Sun and the Earth.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing for a soul then?

Why does the moon pass between the sun and the earth? Gravity and centrifugal force, and the balance of the entire solar system. If you don't have that, it doesn't happen.

So no, it is really not "just the moon passing between the sun and the earth". That is a consequence, not the reason it happens.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Agreed. These forces are very accurately described by physics.

But to describe an eclipse in terms of "feeling forces and vibrations" is hogwash, because feelings cannot predict eclipses, rather visual observation of the Moon's orbit and of eclipses allows one to deduce the nature of the unseen forces.

Likewise, observing/being aware of one's own subjective response and more especially, the physical and verbal cues of others makes us aware of their interior emotional states. If the hogwash about vibrations and energies were true, then one could deduce a person's emotional state from a fresh tissue, or blood sample. Or perhaps, through blindfolds in silence.
Click to expand...

Seeing is sensory perception just like feeling is. How do you see? With energy. Photon detection.

Why can one not deduce emotion from a blood sample? Because the aggregate is not present, only a part of it.

How does a lie detector work if machines don't have emotions?
 
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]

Also I'd argue that one is not fully aware of anything except through filters and approximations as all senses are subjective, building what is effectively a hologram out of interdependence, energy, and chaos beyond human distinctions.

The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top