"The Universe is entirely mental"

[Sena]

This is an article written by physicist Richard Conn Henry in the prestigious scientific journal "Nature":

https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a

A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke 'decoherence' — the notion that 'the physical environment' is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type' experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental...........One benefit of switching humanity to a correct perception of the world is the resulting joy of discovering the mental nature of the Universe.

I think Seth would agree with Richard Conn Henry.

"Consciousness therefore continually creates and maintains itself, and this includes the physical materialization, the properties of the dimension, and yet basically there is no difference between the creator in these terms and the created. Nor between inner reality, which forms physical matter, and physical objects themselves, for the atoms which are manipulated to form objects are themselves a portion of consciousness, and alive in those terms."
—►(TES8 Session 338 May 1, 1967)

[inavalan]

The first hermetic principle is "The Principle of Mentalism":

• "The All is Mind; The Universe is Mental." — The Kybalion
  http://www.kybalion.org/kybalion.php?chapter=II

[Sena]

The first hermetic principle is "The Principle of Mentalism"

There are many scientists who cling to the delusion of physicalism.

[inavalan]

The first hermetic principle is "The Principle of Mentalism"

There are many scientists who cling to the delusion of physicalism.

Not sure what you meant exactly, as people sometimes give different interpretations to the same word.

For example, in my understanding, "scientist" is a profession, and as in any profession "scientists" are distributed on a curve of competency, which means that only a "tail" of them are really right, while the majority are "average scientists", meaning that they are only on the average right. Like all this recent "follow the science" with the meaning of "science is what I believe to be right". There is a "tail" of incompetent scientists too, and as expected some of them are attracted by, and migrate to administrative positions.

I don't want to seem that I analyze what you wrote to argue, or critique, because I'm just sharing what reading your succinct statement triggered in my mind.

To me, "delusion" has a negative connotation, even pejorative to some degree, meaning either illness, or refusal to acknowledge something obvious.

"Illusion" has a less negative connotation, meaning misinterpreting something, honestly.

This is one result of a search:  https://forensicreader.com/illusion-vs-delusion/

"Physicalism" is a word I didn't recognize so I had to look it up:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Physicalism
I am not sure that you used it in that sense. I suspect that you just contrasted it with the subject of this thread "The Universe is ... mental", in reference to the material universe.

I think that the overwhelming majority of people, and especially the overwhelming majority of scientists,  are absolutely sure that there is a material universe that we all observe. Even us, who to a large degree accept "what Seth channeled through Jane, taken down by Rob, and somewhat edited for clarity" have some differences about what we believe this physical reality to be, and about what we believe the wider reality to be.

From my perspective, science (even the smartest "tail" of the distribution) can't demonstrate the mental nature of the material reality. It can point to some explainable results, it can make hypotheses, but can't demonstrate it.

To really understand the mental nature of the physical reality we observe we'd have to almost turn everything we believe now upside-down.

I recall Seth mentioning that the instruments we use to measure are camouflage, even our own senses are camouflage.

But, even if I totally believe in a entirely mental universe, I have no way to prove it to anybody, and even more, I have no way to prove it to myself.

As I wrote earlier on another thread, interacting on a couple of forums with various flavors of non-dualism adepts (there are many flavors), I encountered some, read others that are absolutely convinced they have seen the Truth. They are as convinced of that as there are many deep religious people (I know some of those too), and many people who absolutely believe in the scientific-truth.

From my perspective, based on the altered-states-of-consciousness experiences I had, I am convinced that all of them are wrong, and can even pinpoint why in every case. The difference between them and me, is that I know that my conscious-beliefs are to some degree distorted by my unconscious-beliefs, acquired through education and as result of the telepathic connections with physical participants having their own beliefs.

I remember Seth mentioning that newborns get telepathic knowledge from their parents and others.

[Bora137]

The first hermetic principle is "The Principle of Mentalism"

There are many scientists who cling to the delusion of physicalism.

This is the problem of our time I think. The scientific ego and the establishments built from it want to explain the universe to us. It can't say it's not real and only in our heads because then it would lose standing and its own power. So it insists from the physical universe was born consciousness and not the other way round. We know consciousness created that which appears to be physical but the scientific ego and consumer based society won't have it. It is quite scary the degree to which we can be brain washed.

[Sena]

So it insists from the physical universe was born consciousness and not the other way round. We know consciousness created that which appears to be physical but the scientific ego and consumer based society won't have it. It is quite scary the degree to which we can be brain washed.

Bora, yes it is scary. Some philosophers, not all by any means, do recognize the "hard problem of consciousness". This means that it is basically impossible to derive consciousness from brain structure and the "firing" of neurons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

[Bora137]

I've not come across this expressed as the 'the hard problem' it's a very useful way to look at it. I have a book called Irreduciable Mind, it's written by a group of scientists making the argument that consciousness is not a product of and not limited to the material inside our skulls. It's heavy going and I only read a bit now and then but the evidence it presents is completely overwhelming. The only recourse the mainstream scientific community has is basically denial.

[Sena]

I have a book called Irreduciable Mind,

I have tried reading that book but, as you say, it is heavy going. It seems to me that the title of the book says it all. I am at present reading "The Idea of the World" by Bernardo Kastrup. Kastrup was mentioned a few months ago by member @leidl . I shall post a link to the book in the members only section.

[inavalan]

I haven't followed Dr. Deepak Chopra, but I just listened to this interview video, liked it, and I believe that others will like it too. It is almost one hour long, but it was worth my time. The first 7 minutes are mostly introductory.

Dr. Deepak Chopra recently published his 91st book called 'Total Meditation'

• https://www.deepakchopra.com/book/total-meditation/

The interview isn't an explicit promotion of the book, but a spiritual discussion.

NOTE: I accidentally posted it in this thread. I intended to post it here:
https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,2618.0.html

[Deb]

Deepak is great! I "discovered" him in 1995. My SIL was visiting and I told her I saw this great (Deepak) video and wanted to share it with her. She ran out of the room with her hands over her ears... she's a Born Again. Lol.

[inavalan]

Deepak mentioned the "stages of grief".



This drew my attention, and it kept coming back to me.

The last stage, "acceptance", is in fact the installation of the newly formed "expectation". So, this is in fact a process of creation (!).

Basically, we experience grief following some kind of loss, but we can turn it around and see the last stage of grief as the completion of the process of creation of that loss in our own personal reality. We know that expectation creates reality.

It should be possible to use this process of "installation of a new expectation", as a method of creating a desired reality.

All those stages of grief are negative emotions, hence suggestions, that lead up to the installation of that negative expectation.

In NLP and hypnosis there is a method of bypassing the resistance of the less suggestionable subjects: giving them negative suggestions. For example: don't think of a pink elephant! Guess what: immediately in the subject's mind, some kind of image of pink elephant forms. It is a matter of drawing attention, in a sneaky way, and it works! As the suggestion is repeated, the image becomes more stable. A suggestion given in various ways becomes even stronger, more effective.

I believe it should be possible, following these principles, to install a desired expectation, leading to reality creation.

Use negative formulations to express denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, of what you want to create: "I am not rich.", "Getting rich makes me so mad", "Can I not get rich please.", "I can't get rich, whatever I try", "I'll never be rich." ... 

[strangerthings]

I see delusion and I think of deluge lol (I think ignorance is well put here as a deluge)
 
And

Just wanted to toss this out here for any NLP and grief practices and it has some other exercises from others 

https://archive.org/details/nlp-devotional-grief-radical-practice