Thought Manifestation and Nature

[juroara]

this thread deals with two topics, the power of human thought to manifest, and the current state of nature there are already threads talking about the human thought manifesting in the physical realm. the movie and book The Secret talks about this subject matter nicely. if you aren't too familiar with thought manifestation, go find those threads first before coming here. holding that this thought manifestation is true, what kind of impact can human thoughts have on nature? do our thoughts destroy nature more than our actions? for example: there is a new belief going around (among the spiritual community) that we humans really are co-creators of earth. that we really do have dominion over the earth. and we have been co-creating on the earth since day one. once earth was a beautiful place with no suffering until the great fall - then after the great fall, earth transformed to match our thoughts. to match our consciousness we thought of suffering, pain, death, lack, struggle, strife - and all of this manifested as physical things on earth in nature. they go on to say, that nature is not the state that God created it in. God did not create the poisonous spider, the disease, or the systems in nature that see - that everything must essentially kill or eat something else. Rather, our thoughts created all of these things in the very same fashion our thoughts create how our lives turn out. Since the poisonous spider was not created by God, nor created by positive thoughts, should we from an environmentalist stand point, save it from extinction? We as human beings, can turn around and study nature. And we do so to learn truth. But of course in this vain, all we do instead is hold those thought manifestations as absolute reality. We keep nature the way it is just by believing it is meant to be this way and meant to stay this way. So again in this vain, with our thoughts keeping nature in the 'ice age', how can nature change and adapt to the times, if we don't believe nature can 'change'? Here are the major thought patterns generated by humans (average joe) about nature, as of TODAY. * Nature is just that, natural. What is natural is meant to be. * Since diseases are found in nature, they are natural and meant to be. * Since predator eats prey is found in nature, it is meant to be. * Since suffering and death is found in nature, it is meant to be. * Since humans create change not found in nature, humans create un-natural things. From our clothing, to our cooked food, to our houses, to our ancestral camp fires. All of these things are unnatural creations. * Therefore in general, humans are not really apart of nature. There is nature, and there is humanity. * Since nature is natural and we are unnatural, we pit against nature and therefore we can only destroy nature were ever we go. * Humanity and nature can not co-exist. Because humans always change and nature must remain the way it is. * nature should not be touched by humanity. We should live in our little bubbles, far away from it, because we are not natural. your thoughts on our thoughts manifesting in nature?? Even if you aren't a big believer in thought manifestation, I at least hope you can see how our mentality has manifested a cultural phenomenon. Which, then, influences with how we interact with nature. We are denying our own reality if we think us and nature are two separate things. What if we changed our thoughts about nature? What if instead we thought * Nature can change, and must change. The past can't exist with the future. Life itself is change. The past will cease to be. * Nature and humanity are not separate. Rather, humanity is the only one in nature that can make a conscious change within in it. It is our right as the most evolved being in nature. * Nature 'left alone' acts out of instinct. Only humanity can create systems that act out of compassion. * Nature provides for us, and we can provide for it. Humanity does not have to pit against nature. Or else we pit against ourselves. * Humanity can create positive change for all of nature, as it does for humanity. * Since humanity and nature are not separate, making positive change for one, makes positive change for the other. * Without humanity, nature can not change for the better. but instead remain in a state of dog eats dog world. It will never be a compassionate organism the overall change of mentality, is to see ourselves as one organism. we are the head of this organism. until we became, nature never had a head. it was just a mindless body. humanity completes nature. nature 'the body' isn't conscious enough to call itself beautiful, isn't conscious enough to care if it exists or not. only the 'mind' of nature, humanity, can do this. so what do you think is the impact of our thoughts and nature?

[Sornaensis]

Absolutely nothing. Thoughts are slef-reflection of memory. They can only direct us, but have no direct impact on anything. Humans are apart of nature. Do you argue that a bird's nest is a creation outside "nature"?

[juroara]

Absolutely nothing. Thoughts are slef-reflection of memory. They can only direct us, but have no direct impact on anything. Humans are apart of nature. Do you argue that a bird's nest is a creation outside "nature"? if a thought is a self reflection of memory, than we can think of nothing new. thoughts are more than that. I am not asking you to believe in the spiritual side of this, that mankind created the nature we see today *since science says were not nearly that old* but the reality that our thoughts affect reality, can one day be a very real reality proven by science. regardless, positive thought is needed first to create positive action. negative actions are created by negative thoughts. aren't we then only creating negative actions by holding a negative mindset about our relationship with nature?

[Sornaensis]

1. Well yea... Humans cannot think of anything "new". You cannot percieve of that which you have not experienced. 2. Thoughts do not affect reality. Reality affects our thoughts which recurse to affect our actions which affect reality. See biological stimuli. 3. "Positive" and "Negative" are human constructs and subjective. Science is objective, or at least seeks maximum objectivity. 4. See point '3'

[NonDualistic]

1. Well yea... Humans cannot think of anything "new". You cannot percieve of that which you have not experienced. Really, there is alot of truth in this. Unless one "tastes" an aspect of reality oneself, there is not much one can do to work with what one has not percieved. 2. Thoughts do not affect reality. Reality affects our thoughts which recurse to affect our actions which affect reality. See biological stimuli. This is the trap we find ourselves in. The trap the embodied Self falls into. It is one of the 4 noble truths, the nature of suffering, or ignorance of the true reality of our situation. The whole of the "playground" is created "collectively" . Following the establishment of that common base from which we all percieve the same playground to play on we enter into that playground and begin to see all that we have created as seprate from us rather than an extension of us, or part of us. We then react to what we see as though it were independant, as if these things has some intrinsic nature of their own. We even come to see ourselves as seperate from each other. From there the inherent creative powers of the mind go to work in a mode of separation and division rather than in union and cooperation. Few understand the nature of the mind and the creative energy inherent to it. If more did, you wouldnt see what you see on television anymore as it would be understood just how subtly destructive thiose images can be on the macro scale in relation to the power of mind and thought. 3. "Positive" and "Negative" are human constructs and subjective. Science is objective, or at least seeks maximum objectivity. Right on as per the comment above. We see what we see subjectively in a mindset of division and dichotomy- Duality , from apont of Self and other. Everything seems to have to be judged one thing or another rather than just "seeing" everything as it is without judging it. I realise Seismosaur, that you likely will not grasp the essence of what is being said here, but it is being said non the less.

[really]

This is a common topic here. holding that this thought manifestation is true, what kind of impact can human thoughts have on nature? You've already answered your question here; its effect on nature is for thought to be manifested. do our thoughts destroy nature more than our actions? Thoughts are not only responsible for our actions, but our environment - in the long term. we thought of suffering, pain, death, lack, struggle, strife - and all of this manifested as physical things on earth in nature. That's not true for everyone, and it is mainly caused by confused beliefs rather than direct intention. they go on to say, that nature is not the state that God created it in. God did not create the poisonous spider, the disease, or the systems in nature that see - that everything must essentially kill or eat something else. Again, this is drawn from confused beliefs. God has created All, because God is All. Rather, our thoughts created all of these things in the very same fashion our thoughts create how our lives turn out. Since the poisonous spider was not created by God, nor created by positive thoughts, should we from an environmentalist stand point, save it from extinction? No. Since God is actually part with our thoughts, we should preserve life, and that does not imply that we become stung by spiders - this is a separate issue. We as human beings, can turn around and study nature. And we do so to learn truth. But of course in this vain, all we do instead is hold those thought manifestations as absolute reality. We keep nature the way it is just by believing it is meant to be this way and meant to stay this way. So again in this vain, with our thoughts keeping nature in the 'ice age', how can nature change and adapt to the times, if we don't believe nature can 'change'? Nature and everything in existence is always changing, this is why time is an illusion to us. If nothing changed, we'd be non-existent. In your context, life is changing, but at a pace so slow it's undetectable unscientifically. We are evolving, it's self evident, especially here. Here are the major thought patterns generated by humans (average joe) about nature, as of TODAY. * Nature is just that, natural. What is natural is meant to be. * Since diseases are found in nature, they are natural and meant to be. * Since predator eats prey is found in nature, it is meant to be. * Since suffering and death is found in nature, it is meant to be. Since everything is nature, everything is natural; everything is meant to be. This is because God is the only thing there is - the Life Principle which animates all things it is part of (everything). * Since humans create change not found in nature, humans create un-natural things. From our clothing, to our cooked food, to our houses, to our ancestral camp fires. All of these things are unnatural creations. * Therefore in general, humans are not really apart of nature. There is nature, and there is humanity. * Since nature is natural and we are unnatural, we pit against nature and therefore we can only destroy nature were ever we go. * Humanity and nature can not co-exist. Because humans always change and nature must remain the way it is. * nature should not be touched by humanity. We should live in our little bubbles, far away from it, because we are not natural. Again, referring to the above context (pun intended), humans and nature are one. Within duality however, organic and inorganic are not. To live with duality, obviously encourages problems. Thus to transcend levels of consciousness eventually finds you the solution to any possible problem; to become ignorant is to reverse this process and create problems. Even if you aren't a big believer in thought manifestation, I at least hope you can see how our mentality has manifested a cultural phenomenon. Which, then, influences with how we interact with nature. We are denying our own reality if we think us and nature are two separate things. True. Problems are seen and contemplated, created and experienced by those who are generally unconscious. To the unconscious, or "low conscious" beings, even this post may possess information "too good to be true". * Without humanity, nature can not change for the better. but instead remain in a state of dog eats dog world. It will never be a compassionate organism While this is true, it is not relevant. God naturally only makes thing happen for the better; if not the world would generally be unbalanced and chaotic. "Dog eat dog" is natural, and the irony is that it is to sustain life of greater expression, in the general sense, regardless of morals. until we became, nature never had a head. Nature has always had a "head", and it is in constant growth. it was just a mindless body. It was not mindless, but fundamentally unconscious, to our estimations. humanity completes nature. Yes, if you view nature as a puzzle and humanity the last piece. This is just another perspective. The ant completes nature. Absolutely nothing. Thoughts are slef-reflection of memory. They can only direct us, but have no direct impact on anything. If this was true, humans would be erroneous robots! That is a little contradictory, but while thoughts do not have a sequential impact either. Some say thoughts include all the directions even before they're about to happen, or materialize. Humans are apart of nature. Do you argue that a bird's nest is a creation outside "nature"? Do you argue that humans are "a creation outside nature?" but the reality that our thoughts affect reality, can one day be a very real reality proven by science. It already is. But most live in denial, if not complete ignorance and spare no effort for necessary comprehension. 2. Thoughts do not affect reality. Reality affects our thoughts which recurse to affect our actions which affect reality. See biological stimuli. Again, you contradict yourself. Are our actions not reality? If this was true, everybody would have the same reality. But one person in the classroom failed the test, while the other passed with flying colors. They had the same reality - the same teacher. Do you now see the missing relevance? Science is objective, or at least seeks maximum objectivity. And now it proves just where it is falling short. Thoughts create reality. Reality is not as concrete or imperfect as most people have assumed.

[juroara]

[quote=really;762416]This is a common topic here. "You've already answered your question here; its effect on nature is for thought to be manifested." well I wasn't really asking a question, , I was asking your idea on the matter. I already have my own! "That's not true for everyone, and it is mainly caused by confused beliefs rather than direct intention." the above statement is from a religious point of view, regarding the fall of man. in this religious view - it was negative thoughts that created a less than perfect world - Not God *the head figure*. I wasn't really talking about the reality or lives today - lots of people today are positive people with positive realities. "No. Since God is actually part with our thoughts, we should preserve life, and that does not imply that we become stung by spiders - this is a separate issue." the religious idea that I am presenting was one that consciousness, or God, is encased in a container - a physical body. but that physical body isn't necessary the highest vision possible. self-transcendence is important in this religious view as well - God has no intention of keeping consciousness stuck in a single creation for all eternity. life must evolve, and if that means a poisonous spider ceases to be, then it ceases to be. I wasn't saying lets go out and kill certain species if we deem them 'bad'. but rather lets recognize that nature has to evolve. and nature can't evolve if we humans think we need to save every species one earth from extinction - otherwise we are keeping nature as it is and preventing evolution from taking place. You can't destroy energy right? God is not being destroyed here, only a temporary form giving way to a better one. "Nature and everything in existence is always changing, this is why time is an illusion to us. If nothing changed, we'd be non-existent. In your context, life is changing, but at a pace so slow it's undetectable unscientifically. We are evolving, it's self evident, especially here." isn't the rate of which humans changed and the rest of nature change different? "Since everything is nature, everything is natural; everything is meant to be. This is because God is the only thing there is - the Life Principle which animates all things it is part of (everything)." the above isn't my point of view. but rather my understanding of the point of view of nature and man in general. in general, society sees itself as separate from nature. I'm glad to see another person talking about God in the sense that God is the All, and not an old bearded man in the sky. But, I am wary, of anyone who thinks this mean we must see everything as meant to be - an 'all acceptance'. At some point we must say "this has to stop". At some point we have to cease accepting an outer condition. for example, if there is a group of people suffering from a disease. do we turn our backs on them and simply say "this is meant to be, suffer and die" or do we say "this is not to be, lets find a cure and heal them" You can say there is a God that is all accepting, otherwise diseases would not exist, since in this case nothing can exist without God. But you can also say there is a judgmental God who decides what should continue existing and what shouldn't within the parameters of this all accepting God. This is the God that is in us. We decide all the time, that something should stop existing. It is human nature to discard something we see as unworthy. "Thus to transcend levels of consciousness eventually finds you the solution to any possible problem; to become ignorant is to reverse this process and create problems." I agree. " "Dog eat dog" is natural, and the irony is that it is to sustain life of greater expression, in the general sense, regardless of morals." I think its very easy to think that 'dog-eat-dog' world is the best way to sustain life, therefore it is mandated by God. But this isn't true. . 'dog-eat-dog' world is fragile with entire eco-systems that could collapse if you just take one piece away *such as the top predator*. Not to mention "dog-eat-dog" cares little for the quality of life. There are better systems already existing in nature that are more productive than "dog-eat-dog". Look at a fruit tree. A fruit tree provides food freely for animals. It doesn't have to die or suffer. In return, it receives protection *sometimes ants* and the animals carry its young to more fertile soils. Its a win-win scenario. I think its important to recognize that nature has already shown us there are better systems than dog-eat-dog. "Nature has always had a "head", and it is in constant growth." I would say I would agree, that nature has always had a head. But I was trying to keep the post as non-religious as possible *too late* to a more scientific person, we are the most advanced mind, therefore the most advanced brain in nature. and we arrived much later in the scheme of things. "Yes, if you view nature as a puzzle and humanity the last piece. This is just another perspective. The ant completes nature." A human being calls a forest beautiful. A human being calls the mountains mighty. What other animal on earth that we know of can do us? If everything is God, if God is All, then recognize that we are the part of God that practices self-appreciation - self-love - worship. And we are the only ones in nature that can do this to the fullest. Take us away from the puzzle and it loses a deeper meaning. We ARE the final piece of the puzzle in that the puzzle had to be mostly complete before something in the puzzle steps outside of it and appreciates the work.

[thegnome54]

we thought of suffering, pain, death, lack, struggle, strife - and all of this manifested as physical things on earth in nature. It seems painfully obvious that thoughts of these things occurred after we experienced them, and not the other way around... Even if you aren't a big believer in thought manifestation, I at least hope you can see how our mentality has manifested a cultural phenomenon. Which, then, influences with how we interact with nature. We are denying our own reality if we think us and nature are two separate things. I totally agree with you here. It really pisses me off when people talk about "natural" things as opposed to "man-made". It's a pathetic attempt to raise ourselves above the rest of the universe, deep down. My biology textbook even talks about "natural vs. human foodchains". Fuck that, damnit. We are animals, too. Nature and humanity are not separate. Rather, humanity is the only one in nature that can make a conscious change within in it. It is our right as the most evolved being in nature. That's just wrong, on a few levels. First of all, all creatures can and do 'change nature'. Also, "most evolved" is meaningless. Nature 'left alone' acts out of instinct. Only humanity can create systems that act out of compassion. Now you are again separating nature and humanity. Compassion is "instinct". Have you never seen a non-human animal acting compassionately? Nature provides for us, and we can provide for it. Humanity does not have to pit against nature. Or else we pit against ourselves. Damnit. There you go again. "Nature provides for us" clearly creates a distinction between 'us' and 'nature'. Stop that, already. Without humanity, nature can not change for the better. but instead remain in a state of dog eats dog world. It will never be a compassionate organism You're assuming that absolute morality exists, which it pretty clearly doesn't. Your idea of a 'good world' will be very different from the next guy, and the next. Overall, most of your 'new ways of thinking' are really the same as the 'old ways'. You continue to attempt to raise humanity above the rest of existence, you assume that your idea of morality is somehow objective, and you're generally pompous about it. As for the whole "thought manifestation" thing, you need to realize that thoughts are a physical occurrence. As such, they affect things - mainly our actions, and further thoughts we have. The idea of our thoughts magically manifesting what we think about is pretty ridiculously unfounded.

[juroara]

[quote=thegnome54;762681] You did not carefully read my post "It seems painfully obvious that thoughts of these things occurred after we experienced them, and not the other way around... " I was just presenting to you a religious point of view that the human thought created the current condition of nature. I was not asking you to believe anything. "That's just wrong, on a few levels. First of all, all creatures can and do 'change nature'. Also, "most evolved" is meaningless." I said we are the only ones that can make a CONSCIOUS change. That is, we decide we want to change nature. Such as, making square fruit. No other living thing on earth makes a conscious change - they make instinctual changes. There is a difference. "Now you are again separating nature and humanity. Compassion is "instinct". Have you never seen a non-human animal acting compassionately?" I said "Only humanity can create systems that act out of compassion." SYSTEM. Not an act a single person does alone. Think of volunteer organizations that reach out to humans or wild life in need. This is not instinctual, and you do not see this kind of compassionate 'system' - of helping others without gain outside of humanity. I am not denying that animals have compassion. But other animals are hardly known for creating passionate systems. "Damnit. There you go again. "Nature provides for us" clearly creates a distinction between 'us' and 'nature'. Stop that, already." A tree provides fruit for me. That does not make me a tree. Understanding that nature provides for us does not have to create a division in anyones mind. You are reading the words too literally. Does not nature provide for humanity? If not, who else? I clearly said we pit against ourselves if we pit against nature. What division am I suggesting there is? NONE. "You're assuming that absolute morality exists, which it pretty clearly doesn't. Your idea of a 'good world' will be very different from the next guy, and the next." I'm not presenting an idea of a good world, or an idea of any world. I am presenting a new THOUGHT PATTERN for people to hold, and suggesting our thoughts influence our every action. Therefore if we think differently, things will happen differently. I am not talking about any 'world'. "Overall, most of your 'new ways of thinking' are really the same as the 'old ways'. You continue to attempt to raise humanity above the rest of existence, you assume that your idea of morality is somehow objective, and you're generally pompous about it." The idea of our thoughts magically manifesting what we think about is pretty ridiculously unfounded." You misunderstood. I am asking us to have a new mentality of what kind of relationship we can have with nature, a new 'thought' pattern. Not suggesting that something 'magical' will happen. If we believe that nature needs us, that we can do good for nature, will this not affect our every action towards nature? Only a small minority believe we can do good for nature, mostly wild life conservationists. Here we can clearly see, how their thoughts affect their actions. Every physical action began as a thought. I was merely showing a different kind of mentality to hold - that we can be important to nature. Currently the thought trend is, nature is better off without us. I find this dangerous to hold.