Salvijus

Not many people can do it through sheer will power unless you're like david goggins or smth. Or someone who does lots of physical activity. A wiser way imo is to intensify the spiritual practice to the point where the compulsion to explode drops by itself or at least lessens quite a bit. Then it's much more doable

The reason people are doing this but are not concious of it is because when one connects to the Devine Light he can manifest whatever he wants. You can ask this Devine Light for protection, prosperity, guidence, spiritual growth, etc. And it will come, it's the energy that fulfills all your needs. This energy can also heal you, so people tend to ask for healing. Healing in general is very popular topic in christianity not by accident.

"Invokation of the Divine Light" is a good name for prayer. When God's Glory & Light is pouring into you and every cell in your body is singing Hallelujah, that's when you're a in real prayer, or communion with god. The original aramaic Lord's prayer that Jesus tought to his desciples was actually a Divine Light invokation practice, by using certain consecrated sounds to become open, receptive and available for this Glory to enter us.

Prayer is love actually. It's when the flow of Light and Glory is flowing through the crown of your head, into the the heart and then the rest of your body. To tap into this energy of god's Love we may use figures like Jesus Christ or reading the bible or acim even. One needs to be sufficiently developed and sensitive to begin working with this new channel of energy that meditation cannot touch or open. Those who practice genuine prayer are likely to develop healing abilities, ability to communicate with angelic beings, perform miracles etc. It's quite an esoteric practice actually. Sometimes pictures can explain what prayer is better then words

This is how i picture how creation emerges out of nothing, how sound happens out of nothing.

This is actually beutiful. It is cracking my brains.

Edit. Nvm...

This is beautifully put. I would remove the word absolute here tho. And leave it like this: "You are always you, during all changes you always remain you." Then if we want to distinguish between different parts of You/The Mind we can say: 1. There is You/The Mind which is the Source, 2. and the objects that You/The Mind is imagining. At this point we can begin to label what is primary and what is secondary. Imagined objects would be secondary, source of all imagination is primary. And ultimately they are one and the same.

Nice

Lol

@Water by the River i think i can make it less confusing and propose this kind of framing. non physical energy (nothingness) is observing physical energy (coffee table). Ultimately it's just energy observing different manifestations of itself. But it's the primordial formless energy that is observing the manifest formful manifestaion, not the other way around.

This is pretty clean actually. Let me try putting it this way tho. Primordial non physical energy capable of awareness is there alone without any objects of observation and has nothing to observe. Then non physical energy takes a form of physical manifestaion, a grosser form of the same energy. Now nonphysical energy is observing other grosser manifestations of itself. Hense existence is observing itself. I would agree with this kind of framing But perhaps primordial non physical energy is the most intelligent form of energy capable of being aware alone. This I'm unsure of. But i intuit it is so.

It has something to do with ego i believe.

Everything is energy. Manifestion is gross energy, nothingness is primordial non physical energy. In that sense i would agree everything is one. It's one energy manifestaing in different ways.

Sounds kinda fun ?

I would agree that a small part of you vanishes when a coffee table vanishes. But your essental nature never vanishes no matter how many objects in the universe were to vanish. Hence that formless nothingness would fit the definition of absolute the best and everything else is also you, but it's your secondary nature, not primary.

That's clever. But let me challenge this. Who observes that the coffee table has vanished? There's somone else observing the coffee table coming into existence and then dissapearing. I would agree that observer and the objects of observation are ultimately one, but not the same. Bc if it was the same, then if a coffee table was to vanish, YOU would vanish with it.

@Breakingthewall there is one state in buddhism called nibbana where all experience is gone, all taste, sound, feelings, visions, thoughts, etc everything is gone except the primordial awareness witness that observes things arise and pass away. A state like that would make a very clear distinction that there is an absolute observer and there are temporary changeful objects of observation that come out of that infinite void. Absolute observer can exist without the objects of observation, objects of observation cannot exists without observer being there in the first place. I think this is a king argument that can't be beaten. ?

How so? Here's a question to challange this. Are you observing the coffee table or is the coffee table observing you? Clearly observer and the objects of observation are not the same, they are one i agree, but not the same.

Observer can exist without the objects of observation. Objects of observation cannot exist without the observer. Your true nature is absolute and eternal, your secondary nature is changeful and temporary. Your secondary nature is still part of you, but it's not your essencial nature. Because objects depend on the observer, observer doesn't depend on anything. IT IS ABSOLUTE! I should put this as a quote beneath my posts ?

@Breakingthewall Silence can exist without the sound, sound cannot exist without the silence is also thought provoking statement that show they are not equal dimensions of existence. It shows that one is absolute and another is dependant on the other to exist

Is sound the same as the silence? I would agree that they are one but i would not agree that they are the same. It makes more sense to me by definition to call silence absolute never changing essence of the universe. And sound as a manifestation which is changeful and relative etc.. ultimately they are one, but not the same.