A few questions concerning TP

[shezmear]

I think it is very difficult to know what is the 'best' scenerio when you acted upon a choice. A spiritualist who negates materialism will only cause pain.
The 'best' scenerio is usually based on certain assumptions you have made.
One could establih a base for the next human survival. This is assuming that

1.the place will not be hit by natural disaster.
2.Catastrophic disaster will occur in your lifetime.
3.Laws will not change that invalidate your right of the land
and etc.

We live in a dynamic world. What is best now might not be the best in future.
For example, one might study laws because it was a highly demanded in the job market.
He was assuming that the demand is still there when he graduated from the course. Suddenly at his final years, the economy turned into recession. He couldn't find a job in laws. At the end, after a few years of non-practising laws, his degree was useless.

The latter is a real life story.

Hence, consciously, what you deem as a 'best choice' now might not be a 'best choice' in future. I think some mistakes could have been made which might make preview irrelevant.

The above has been on my mind for several years..whats is really important? I mean really???
I personaly am serton that there will be a disaster within my life time, or at least I will be forced to start again, in actual fact civilisations are death traps in time of disaster.
I think if you own your land you will be o.k, if the bank own`s it then that may be a problem.

[Alisima]

I think if you own your land you will be o.k, if the bank own`s it then that may be a problem.

What is the problem?? Really. I don't see it.

First you say that you don't know what is really important, and then you say that when the bank owns your land you have a problem. How can you state a problem when you don't know what is important?? If you don't know what is important how can you say that certain events are problematic?? They can only be problematic if they interfere with what is important, but since you yourself stated that you don't know what is important it seems obvious to me that you are in no position to say what is problematic or not.

Who cares that the bank owns your land?? Big deal. It is not your land anyway. So let them own it. Let them be in the illusion that they own something. You just carry on with what is important.

For example, one might study laws because it was a highly demanded in the job market.
He was assuming that the demand is still there when he graduated from the course. Suddenly at his final years, the economy turned into recession. He couldn't find a job in laws. At the end, after a few years of non-practising laws, his degree was useless.
The latter is a real life story.

And what if he didn't got into laws?? What if he didn't study laws?? The point is: you can't evaluate this situation against a situation which hasn't happened.

You can't say "I wasted 6 years of my life studying laws" because you don't know what would have happened if you didn't got into law. Perhapse then you would have wasted 9 years.

Perhapse this whole scenario was necessary for you. Perhapse to learn you the lesson that you should never become what others want you to become, but instead what you want yourself.

[shezmear]

I think if you own your land you will be o.k, if the bank own`s it then that may be a problem.

What is the problem?? Really. I don't see it.

First you say that you don't know what is really important, and then you say that when the bank owns your land you have a problem. How can you state a problem when you don't know what is important?? If you don't know what is important how can you say that certain events are problematic?? They can only be problematic if they interfere with what is important, but since you yourself stated that you don't know what is important it seems obvious to me that you are in no position to say what is problematic or not.

Who cares that the bank owns your land?? Big deal. It is not your land anyway. So let them own it. Let them be in the illusion that they own something. You just carry on with what is important.

For example, one might study laws because it was a highly demanded in the job market.
He was assuming that the demand is still there when he graduated from the course. Suddenly at his final years, the economy turned into recession. He couldn't find a job in laws. At the end, after a few years of non-practising laws, his degree was useless.
The latter is a real life story.

And what if he didn't got into laws?? What if he didn't study laws?? The point is: you can't evaluate this situation against a situation which hasn't happened.

You can't say "I wasted 6 years of my life studying laws" because you don't know what would have happened if you didn't got into law. Perhapse then you would have wasted 9 years.

Perhapse this whole scenario was necessary for you. Perhapse to learn you the lesson that you should never become what others want you to become, but instead what you want yourself.

You know, any one of average intelligence could understand what I was saying; you seem to be able to make a puzzling situation out of anything, I guess we all major in something… right?

[bomohwkl]

And what if he didn't got into laws?? What if he didn't study laws?? The point is: you can't evaluate this situation against a situation which hasn't happened.

That's has happened!!!! Don't I state that it is a REAL LIFE STORY?

You can't say "I wasted 6 years of my life studying laws" because you don't know what would have happened if you didn't got into law. Perhapse then you would have wasted 9 years.

How do you know that he might have wasted 9 years. You cannot assume that he would have wasted more years if he hadn't gone into the law. You cannot evaluate a situation that hasn't occured (as you said).

Perhapse this whole scenario was necessary for you. Perhapse to learn you the lesson that you should never become what others want you to become, but instead what you want yourself.

'What' on earth with a person with sanity would choose to study subject he didn't want when there was no condition whatsover imposed by the sponsor body on the subject. Besides the sponsoring body gave full scholarship and generous living allowance to study in one of the pretigious universities in the world.

Real life example is far better than arguing hypothetically.

[Aisin]

Hi guys, I think each of you has got some great ideas. However, may I remind you that your discussion runs the risk of turning into 'Ignorantia Elenchi' and 'Non Sequitur' fallacies. For definition of the terms, please refer to the Logical Fallacies thread.

[Alisima]

Bomohwkl, the point I wanted to get across was that your conclusion on your real-life story, the conclusion that it turned out to be a bad choice, is a wrong conclusion.

My arguments for that were that you can't compare the real-life scenario with anything that hasn't happen, for instance: the person not going into law. By this simple fact you can't say that it was a bad choice because you simply don't know what you would have ended up with if you took the other choice.

How do you know that he might have wasted 9 years. You cannot assume that he would have wasted more years if he hadn't gone into the law. You cannot evaluate a situation that hasn't occured (as you said).

Perfectly right. But the opposite, which I was trying to get across, is also true. You cannot assume that he would have wasted LESS years if he hadn't gone into law.

But this is not just about bomohwkl story, it is about all choices. You cannot evaluate a choice because you don't know what would have happened if you took another choice.

[dloheb]

But this is not just about bomohwkl story, it is about all choices. You cannot evaluate a choice because you don't know what would have happened if you took another choice.

Agreed.

And yes Vesko, very good. :p

Good input all around, I'm content at least. :p

[bomohwkl]

My arguments for that were that you can't compare the real-life scenario with anything that hasn't happen, for instance: the person not going into law. By this simple fact you can't say that it was a bad choice because you simply don't know what you would have ended up with if you took the other choice.

But this is not just about bomohwkl story, it is about all choices. You cannot evaluate a choice because you don't know what would have happened if you took another choice.

I strongly disagree. I think other choices are much better than doing something which is useless for your life.
If we cannot evaluate choices, there will be choiceless as everything looks the same. There will be not contrast and there will be no learning.
It is like saying it is OK to murder someone. It is like saying, "You cannot evaluate the situation of not murder the person because you don't know what would have happened if you don't murder the person."
Furthermore it is like saying, You don't know what will happen to you when you take magic mushroom becuase you haven't taken before.

[Alisima]

It is like saying it is OK to murder someone. It is like saying, "You cannot evaluate the situation of not murder the person because you don't know what would have happened if you don't murder the person."
Furthermore it is like saying, You don't know what will happen to you when you take magic mushroom becuase you haven't taken before.

Does it mean that you should murder?? Does it mean that you should take the magic mushroom?? It does not. It simply states that whatever could have happened by you choosing the opposite of what you have chosen cannot be known. Indeed, you don't know what would have happened if instead of killing someone you did't kill him. But if that is your reason to kill someone. Hmm, well, it certainly shows your respect to human life.

[dloheb]

I agree with Alisma. To put it another way: how do you evaluate what is a waste of time? A lot of what people look at as a waste of time or what they value is based on ego and material ideas and etc..

[dloheb]

I have a couple more things I'd like your comments on:

the first, is back to knowing what you're in for, and agreeing to do things that would harm your astral body:

In the book, Michel recollects that when he was in the war he KNEW when he was going to turn over the next corner that he'd see a little straw hut.. page 137-138

Well the first thing that's weird is that he asked his parents if he was down in Africa when he was younger...

Secondly, that's a pretty detailed point for a life that's "dynamic". Saying life is dynamic doesn't change the fact the book states you review your entire life, start to finish. Take note too, that the remembering of the preview (his deja vu) is a mistake, and that his higher self happened to mistakenly forget to erase him seeing a hut under a mango tree.
You can excercise your free will as much as you want, but I do not think it's impossible for a great mind to know all your moves.

By the way, wars aren't very quiet either , unless it's only the heavy disco beats that are truly damaging...lol

Thoughts?


Also, what do you guys think about Thiaooubans being among us? Don't you think they'd stick out in a crowd even when shrunken down? The faces all look the same. . . if I spot one I will ask for a few clarifications and then have her/him sign my copy of TP.

Just messing around, I was going to ask about why they'd bother to shrink down and how the bacteria wouldn't affect them but that question would be beyond pointless (if my other questions are pointless) I think.

note: I think the TP has a very interesting explanation as to how deju vu happens. . .

[Psi]

Also, what do you guys think about Thiaooubans being among us? Don't you think they'd stick out in a crowd even when shrunken down? ... I was going to ask about why they'd bother to shrink down and how the bacteria wouldn't affect them ...

Hi dloheb,

I guess the 'simple' answer would be to undertake the 'complex' task of creating a physical body that was able to survive on Earth - just as they did for Jesus' "lookalike". Alternatively, if they didn't want to go to all that trouble, I am sure they could inoculate themselves, as we do when we travel overseas.

[Rezo]

From observing the photos from illustrations, their faces dont seem all *that different...after all they are the same kind of human beings as us, right?

There are plenty of blondes that have slightly darker skin here, but of course, that does not necessarily mean they may come from Thiaoouba. Perhaps their shapeshifting ability is a bit more sophisticated than was demonstrated to Michel.

Reminds me of star trek when they do surgical stuff to make the away team appear like the inhabitants. Maybe its that also. If so many thiaoouba people maybe at least 500 are here, I dont know if the masters would want to go through trouble for all 500 to take on earthly appearance from our dna, like was done for one of their masters. Didnt thao say michel they only have Jesus' body there, only bodies w/planetary apperance of the world they went to, were significant fundamental spiritual / society changing figures, one from each. So probably its a different method, just a guess though.

[survivor]

Also, what do you guys think about Thiaooubans being among us? Don't you think they'd stick out in a crowd even when shrunken down? ... I was going to ask about why they'd bother to shrink down and how the bacteria wouldn't affect them ...

Hi dloheb,

I guess the 'simple' answer would be to undertake the 'complex' task of creating a physical body that was able to survive on Earth - just as they did for Jesus' "lookalike". Alternatively, if they didn't want to go to all that trouble, I am sure they could inoculate themselves, as we do when we travel overseas.

An advanced race, whom by choice are [one] death from the creator, And you suggest they may need to inoculate.Hmmm...that's funny.

[Rezo]

they dont need to inoculate, theyve got those really neat color-rooms!