Empathy or Telepathy?

[Frozn]

Continued from the topic Empath Anyone? under General Spirituality and Healing

I would consider myself VERY sensitive to the vibrations (Moods/feelings) of others, especially, as Leventis noted, in crowded public places. For a period of years, I found this sensitivity to be a great burden and hindrance instead of realizing that it is indeed a special gift. There are several things I would like to touch on here from my experience.

Originally posted by Leventis
When I am in a place with a lot of people like metro(ouu lots of sad ppl there) I get all messed up. I 've learnt to kind of block out the metro situation. Everytime I hag people I believe that I am able to express a lot and receive a lot.

I relate very much to your metro situation. I suffered for a long time over trying to block that kind of overload, only to realize that I was going against my own nature by doing so. Next time you find yourself in the situation (and this goes for anyone) where you are overcome by sensation in a sea of thoughts/feelings of sad/materialistic people to the point of overload, simply envision yourself as carrying a candle through the darkness you feel, and letting it shine on and soothe those around you. Even if it has NO effect on others, it is still something good to focus on other than feeling overwhelmed, and I am pretty sure the message of love and light is transmitted telepathically, although subtle, and have noticed a difference in that so-called ocean of thought.

Empathy is a form of telepathy, as it is the result of mind-mind communication. Anyone wishing to learn secrets of telepathy would do good to explore their innate empathetic abilities. There are no 'gifts', as we are all naturally able, the difference between abilities is practice and conditioning. Conditioning, as it means here, is the conditioning of our environment and upbringing and its cumulative effect on our own self-suppression of our nature. And of course, those who reckognize and try to learn all they can from this supposed '6th sense', and who practice will eventually become skilled enough to be considered 'gifted', but it is a self-sought cultivation of our own nature. nothing more.

That said, A friend of mine can sometimes exchange complete, instant, wordless thoughts with me and vice versa. This is what I would call TRUE telepathy. It is difficult to put into words but I'll try my best. When a 'Eureeka!' type of idea hits you out of nowhere instantly, its not in words or images, its something far more simple and concentrated but you KNOW exactly what it contains. Such is the language of thought. We (and according to Tom, all other beings in the universe) think in this simple yet potent language, and then filter it into words of our language. I think everyone has said something before along the lines of "I wish I could put it into words" or "This thought is simply too big to fit out of my mouth".

In the case of my friend, I might be in a seperate conversation with someone else in the room when I perceive a sort of 'thump' although thats not the right word. Instinctively, I look over to find him looking at me and in that instant we share a thought and have a good laugh. Most commonly, it happens when we are being lied to, and we exchange an acknowledgement of this without words. Sometimes, as much as I hate to admit it, we made fun of people who were with us through this medium and shared a good laugh at the common acknowledegment.

My experience leads me to conclude that empathy is the first step to actual telepathy. People who still have their natural sensitivity to outside feelings, and learn to listen by practicing meditation, for the necissary blank-mind, can eventually practice with a friend of similar skill level (If you are fortunate enough) and achieve a state where one can filter this information so well that they can influence others by "guessing" at what is behind what they say. This skill enables me to relate to and move people the more I practice it.

Anyone have any similar experiences?

[Alisima]

Empathy is about emotions, whereas telepathy is general mind-to-mind communication. So empathy is a from of telepathy.

Although the above definition of telepathy is not entirely correct. In a book couple of years ago I read that telepathy was not communication but the creating of a single thought in two minds, at the same time. Just as quantum mechanics have discovered particles being able to exist at 2 places simultaneously.

The same thing happens with telepathy, two minds bond into one and have one single thought.

[Frozn]

I wasnt trying to define telepathy per se, just recount my experience as well as highlight its connection with empathy.

The same thing happens with telepathy, two minds bond into one and have one single thought.

That is a VERY interesting way of looking at it!
Although I remain skeptical of a thought having two origins simultaneously, I will admit that it feels very much like that. If two minds think the same thing simultaneously, then it's a coincidince, and thus, not a communication. And in TP, Thao explains telepathy on a few occasions. It's early and I must get ready for work, or I would have pulled quotes. I'll have more input when I get home this evening, and thanks for your insight Alisima.

[Alisima]

I wasnt trying to define telepathy per se...

I know, but the title says "empathy OR telepathy". It would be the same as saying "BMW or a car". But enough about that.

Although I remain skeptical of a thought having two origins simultaneously

The two origins, or places in space-time, only appear to us as being seperate from each other. While in fact they are never seperate.

If two minds think the same thing simultaneously, then it's a coincidince, and thus, not a communication.

No, before the apparent communication between two minds, both minds must surrender their idea of seperateness, realise they are one, and think a thought. Then both minds, which are actually one, think that a thought occured to 'them', or at least observe the thought which occured, and start feeling seperate again.

Because they think they are seperate the only logical conclusion is that telepathy is the transmitting of information from one mind, through some sort of a medium, to another. This is ofcourse ridicules because such a medium, which transcends space, and perhapse even time, simlpy doesn't exist. I cannot, however, proove that it doesn't exists since there is no evidence that it doesn't exist, simply because it is not there to give evidence of its nonexistence. Otherwise it would exist, which is doesn't because there is no such evidence, neither of its existence nor of its nonexistence.

[Frozn]

I wasnt trying to define telepathy per se...

I know, but the title says "empathy OR telepathy". It would be the same as saying "BMW or a car". But enough about that.

While it is true that empathy is a form of telepathy, the two are indeed seperable, at least in our limited understanding of things. Empathy is 'emotional' telepathy, and since feelings are easier to send/hear, it is more common among people who are sensitive to the vibrations of others. Telepathy is a bit harder to describe, as it isn't felt in the same way feelings are, rather, in the direct language our ideas spring into our minds from.

No, before the apparent communication between two minds, both minds must surrender their idea of seperateness, realise they are one, and think a thought. Then both minds, which are actually one, think that a thought occured to 'them', or at least observe the thought which occured, and start feeling seperate again.

Now that is absolute rubbish. I know you're very big on the 'All is one' school of thought, but as hard as it may be for you to consider, we ARE seperate from one another, our higher selves (usually), and the source, no matter how close we are to each, respectively. Can you imagine a reason for this? So we can learn and grow on our own path, in our own lives maybe? Wouldn't it be a hinderance to your own development if you were 'one' with someone only half as evolved as you are? Come on.

Because they think they are seperate the only logical conclusion is that telepathy is the transmitting of information from one mind, through some sort of a medium, to another. This is ofcourse ridicules because such a medium, which transcends space, and perhapse even time, simlpy doesn't exist.

Aha. You're correct in a sense that such a medium does not exist. It doesn't have to. Thoughts dont HAVE to transcend anything, simply because thought doesnt have to conform to any barriers save Universal law, according to which Michel Desmarquet claims that by telepathy (if skilled enough), you can communicate directly with anyone in the solar system, so long as you know who will be the recipient. Extrasolar telepathic communication can however be accomplished with the use of a cosmically aligned pyramid. Why would we need to use a pyramid at all to commune with other worlds if we are already one with the recipients? Do I have to draw you a picture?

Thought exists where you place it. That is why you can think TO someone and be heard. The message doesnt need to travel through any medium, for it is already there. That is why when Allan Chumak concentrated on water as if it was a part of him, (Shown here in Fig. 2) its GDV rendered bioenergy increased thirtyfold. This energy didn't need to travel there, it manifested itself due to his effort. In a small sense, he became one with the water, or rather, concentrated on that notion and his own energy instantly started to influence the water.

I know you're going to jump all over that fact to further prove your point, but be sure to consider that he used his own effort to become one with and influence the water. He was not already one with it and then somehow 'realized' it. This visualistic concentration is useful for healing people (As he was famous for it) and manipulating objects, yet can even be a hinderance to simple telepathic communication.

Regardless, Alisima, I dearly value your point of view, and love arguing with you until truth is agreed upon. It concerns me however, when someone argues their side without challenging all that they consider to be true at the same time. This can be a self-limitation which can prevent good solid exhange of ideas. I encourage you to challenge what I think I know, but make sure that you're always open minded enough to do the same on your end.

Does that make me a hypocrite?

"Believing is not enough, you need to KNOW"
I stand behind my above statements, which have been verified and proven by and within me, and no longer do I need subscribe to any school of thought, or believe anything. I KNOW it to be truth because of my experience in the matter. Thus you cannot convince me that I need to surrender my idea of being seperate from others to achieve telepathic communication when I have done it fine without ever entertaining such a notion. That said, I am always open to new interperetations and new light to see my experiences in, but what you are asserting about telepathy is flat-out untrue.

I created this topic so that people could discuss their experiences with either empathy or telepathy, and discuss the fundamental basics of the science. Do you have such an experience regarding telepathy to contribute, or is your argument based simply on belief?

[Alisima]

While it is true that empathy is a form of telepathy, the two are indeed seperable, at least in our limited understanding of things. Empathy is 'emotional' telepathy, and since feelings are easier to send/hear, it is more common among people who are sensitive to the vibrations of others. Telepathy is a bit harder to describe, as it isn't felt in the same way feelings are, rather, in the direct language our ideas spring into our minds from.

I agree with your notion about telepathy, that it is spoken in the direct language your mind uses.

No, before the apparent communication between two minds, both minds must surrender their idea of seperateness, realise they are one, and think a thought. Then both minds, which are actually one, think that a thought occured to 'them', or at least observe the thought which occured, and start feeling seperate again.

Now that is absolute rubbish. I know you're very big on the 'All is one' school of thought,

No, not 'All is one', non-dualism, which isn't a school of thought, since thoughts are per se dualistic.

but as hard as it may be for you to consider, we ARE seperate from one another, our higher selves (usually), and the source, no matter how close we are to each, respectively.

It would be interesting for you to find out where, in history, the concept of a 'higher self' started, and what was actually meant with it. Besides that, all major religions, and all enlightened 'masters' say there is no seperate self, although it is most of the time obscured and not said literally. Ofcourse that doesn't mean it is true, but then again, considering so many have said it before, it is something to consider.

Can you imagine a reason for this? So we can learn and grow on our own path, in our own lives maybe? Wouldn't it be a hinderance to your own development if you were 'one' with someone only half as evolved as you are? Come on.

I cannot be one with someone else! For that someone would, obviously, be me. But enough about our idea's of seperateness, for that surely doesn't belong in this thread.

Because they think they are seperate the only logical conclusion is that telepathy is the transmitting of information from one mind, through some sort of a medium, to another. This is ofcourse ridicules because such a medium, which transcends space, and perhapse even time, simlpy doesn't exist.

Aha. You're correct in a sense that such a medium does not exist. It doesn't have to. Thoughts dont HAVE to transcend anything, simply because thought doesnt have to conform to any barriers save Universal law, according to which Michel Desmarquet claims that by telepathy (if skilled enough), you can communicate directly with anyone in the solar system, so long as you know who will be the recipient. Extrasolar telepathic communication can however be accomplished with the use of a cosmically aligned pyramid. Why would we need to use a pyramid at all to commune with other worlds if we are already one with the recipients? Do I have to draw you a picture?

Because we somehow believe we aren't?? And therefore need 'tools' in order to overcome our self-limitation.

Thought exists where you place it. That is why you can think TO someone and be heard. The message doesnt need to travel through any medium, for it is already there. That is why when Allan Chumak concentrated on water as if it was a part of him, (Shown here in Fig. 2) its GDV rendered bioenergy increased thirtyfold. This energy didn't need to travel there, it manifested itself due to his effort. In a small sense, he became one with the water, or rather, concentrated on that notion and his own energy instantly started to influence the water.

I know you're going to jump all over that fact to further prove your point, but be sure to consider that he used his own effort to become one with and influence the water. He was not already one with it and then somehow 'realized' it. This visualistic concentration is useful for healing people (As he was famous for it) and manipulating objects, yet can even be a hinderance to simple telepathic communication.

In a recent topic about controlling/manipulating dreams I have, partly, explained how this is done in a dream, and the same mechanism is used by people who manipulate 'real' objects. You can compare it to a puppeteer who operates 2 puppets, both puppets appear seperate, just like Allan and the water, but in fact are 'operated' by the same source. This is why 'Allan' can manipulate the 'water'. Not because 'Allan' is the water, but because there is no 'water' nor an 'Allan'.

Regardless, Alisima, I dearly value your point of view, and love arguing with you until truth is agreed upon. It concerns me however, when someone argues their side without challenging all that they consider to be true at the same time. This can be a self-limitation which can prevent good solid exhange of ideas. I encourage you to challenge what I think I know, but make sure that you're always open minded enough to do the same on your end.

Does that make me a hypocrite?

Yes and no.

"Believing is not enough, you need to KNOW"
I stand behind my above statements, which have been verified and proven by and within me, and no longer do I need subscribe to any school of thought, or believe anything. I KNOW it to be truth because of my experience in the matter.

Although you may believe yourself not to be subscribed to any school of thought, I doubt that is the case. Perhapse it is not a particular school of thought, but you still are, I think, conditioned and believe things which are false. Consider for example things you have been taught in school, or by your parents. If you say "Believing is not enough, you need to KNOW", then you must, per se, drop all that you don't know for sure, which is quite a lot, if not all, for you can never know for sure that you know for sure. Perhapse that is why they say that knowledge and ignorance are the same.

Thus you cannot convince me that I need to surrender my idea of being seperate from others to achieve telepathic communication when I have done it fine without ever entertaining such a notion.

You do not need to maintain such a notion in order to achieve telepathic communication, as long as you throw away all other notions, or just don't use them. Which is what I think you do, you don't use any technique nor any reasoning, but you just 'do' it. Which is, as can be seen by your ability to do it, the correct way.

Do you have such an experience regarding telepathy to contribute, or is your argument based simply on belief?

I am a natural empath and I have sufficient experience regarding telepathy, you just have to believe me on that. Or have to hope for us to meet so I can 'show' it.

[Yothu]

'operated' by the same source. This is why 'Allan' can manipulate the 'water'. Not because 'Allan' is the water, but because there is no 'water' nor an 'Allan'.

Elaborate!

[Frozn]

Although you may believe yourself not to be subscribed to any school of thought, I doubt that is the case. Perhapse it is not a particular school of thought, but you still are, I think, conditioned and believe things which are false. Consider for example things you have been taught in school, or by your parents. If you say "Believing is not enough, you need to KNOW", then you must, per se, drop all that you don't know for sure, which is quite a lot, if not all, for you can never know for sure that you know for sure. Perhapse that is why they say that knowledge and ignorance are the same.

You are absolutely right. I should have expressed what I meant a bit better, however. We read things about reality which sometimes make enough sense to us to adopt as fact, and thus it is a school of thought we confine ourselves to until we truly experience the truth or falsehood of our belief for ourselves. This is done in experimenting and practice, among other things. When you gain experience, you understand, and can throw away all that you remember studying about it, no matter how close to the truth it may have been.

By no means am I trying to say that in other things, that I have no such real experience in, that I dont subscribe to belief in my own and theories I may have read from sources such as TP. And even as regards telepathy, the understanding that I have is merely the basics and fundamentals, the rest is hypothetical, and I have no real book knowledge (Although I would like some ) on the subject.

As for conditioning, again, you're absolutely right. I believe my first post here was about that very subject. Again I'll say that one of the greatest tests in this life is growing up and realizing such mental limitations that were imposed on you before you came into your own, and dissolving them - or at least striving to. It is rewarding beyond words yet very hard to do. The more we challenge the foundations of what we know, the closer we come to that goal. I have a long way to go yet, but I feel like I'm on the right track.

Do you have such an experience regarding telepathy to contribute, or is your argument based simply on belief?

I am a natural empath and I have sufficient experience regarding telepathy, you just have to believe me on that. Or have to hope for us to meet so I can 'show' it.

That is definately a relief. Why wouldn't I believe you when you say you're a natural empath and can do telepathy? The reason I ask is because I would love to hear what experiences you have had in that area. Also it would very much help me to understand how and why you arrived at your own conclusions on telepathy. It would be much more persuasive to help me understand, rather than just stating your point of view on the matter verbatim.

In this way I believe we can all benefit one another through our insight through our own understanding. We may not agree fully in the end, but we will for sure have another perspective on things. That is good enough, so please. Elaborate for us.

[Alisima]

I am a natural empath and I have sufficient experience regarding telepathy, you just have to believe me on that. Or have to hope for us to meet so I can 'show' it.

That is definately a relief. Why wouldn't I believe you when you say you're a natural empath and can do telepathy?

It was a joke in response to the "believing is not enough..."

The reason I ask is because I would love to hear what experiences you have had in that area.

Well the latest was the realisation that there is but one mental world, just as there is but one physical world. And just like I can touch someone in the physical world, I can 'touch' him in the mental world too. In fact, there is no seperate I or him in this mental world.

Telepathy itself is the evidence that we are not seperate, how else could telepathy be possbile?? How else could thoughts 'transfer' from one mind to another?? Perhapse because thoughts are not subjected to physical laws, well, I tell you, 'we', or at least our nature, isn't either.

I know you would prefer to have me sum up my major telepathic experiences, but they have no use for other people but me, and would only increase people's desire of have similar experiences. Which, at best, would block people and prevent them from having their own experiences.

So I rather recommend you to open your eyes and see it for yourself, it is right in front of you. Really, it is there, now, always. It is so obvious that we overlook it, just like our ears which stop perceiving those frequencies which it is intensely subjected to.

In this way I believe we can all benefit one another through our insight through our own understanding.

No we can't. Just like you said, we don't know the truth until we experience it, or gain that insight. On an intellectual level we can, however, share information, but, apart from what I have already said, I recommend you to read books. They do a much better job than me here.

'operated' by the same source. This is why 'Allan' can manipulate the 'water'. Not because 'Allan' is the water, but because there is no 'water' nor an 'Allan'.

Elaborate!

There is only one 'thing', call it God, Tao, or whatever you wish, which operates Allan and the water. You could call Allan, just like the water, a fictional character in a one man show. Just like the puppets, Allan has no existence of its own.

You can compare it to our dreams. In a dream we have a dreamed 'I' character, with which we identify ourselves, several 'you' characters and ofcourse the dream environment in which it takes places. We, the dreamer who lies in bed, create and control both the 'I' character, the 'you' characters and the dream environment itself. Then in the dream the dreamed 'I' character tries to manipulates the dream environment, lets say the water. Ofcourse both the 'I' character and the water are created by the dreamer, who is still in bed. You could say the 'I' character in the dream has a sort of 'connection' to all in that dream. When he, the dreamed 'I' character, finally sees that all the objects in his dream, including himself, share the same source and that he is that source and all objects created by that source, 'he' can manipulate all he wants. And this is how dream control works, I know this for a fact.

This 'real' life we lead, is similar to the process described above. There is nothing more I can elaborate, this is it.

[Frozn]

Thank you very much Alisima. Now I can understand your position much better. Also I find myself able to agree much more to your point of view and understanding of telepathy.

In this way I believe we can all benefit one another through our insight through our own understanding.

No we can't. Just like you said, we don't know the truth until we experience it, or gain that insight. On an intellectual level we can, however, share information, but, apart from what I have already said, I recommend you to read books. They do a much better job than me here.

Now here is where I tend to disagree. I agree that no one can know truth until they experience it, in that you're 100% correct. You are saying that we cannot benefit one another through our exchange of experience and insight. I don't say that your understanding will, for example, make me understand anything automatically. Rather, you think differently from me, but you are walking down the same path as I am. Thus a fresh point of view can be gained from exhanging insight, and can help someone who is seeking individual understanding.

I also agree that books going into the subject thoroughly would seriously help me. The problem I have there is that most spiritual books out there are absolute nonsense. If you have a recomendation for me of a book that helped you, I would appreciate that. Even so, never doubt the ability of peers discussing their experience and ideas. If I feel that a book's definition of telepathy is incorrect, I cannot ask the book to clarify. Books don't talk back, but peers do. Both are very beneficial, but the most important thing in any case is individual understanding.

There is only one 'thing', call it God, Tao, or whatever you wish, which operates Allan and the water. You could call Allan, just like the water, a fictional character in a one man show. Just like the puppets, Allan has no existence of its own.

I am sure you are aware that such a statement is both true and untrue. We are an integral part of the essential oneness of all. All things have individual existances. You cannot say there is no Allan or there is no water because by clear observation, they are. Just as you exist, and I exist. Both oneness (as you call it non-duality) and individuality coexist in harmony in the universe. The harmony is so beutifully designed, that even our worst individual mistakes have a role to play in the grand plan of the singular process of all things.

That does not mean that it was DONE by the will of the creator, as if we are just puppets controlled by him. Rather, the creator is so intelligent and insightful beyond all comprehension, that he EXPECTED our descisions, and has woven our individual existances together into the most efficient and beutiful environment for learning (self development). The things that we learn in this life, the creator obviously already knows. Were we not ourselves, but just a small manifestation of the same all, why learn anything? The all would be all knowing and have no need for redundant understanding. But we do, as individuals.

The inherent conflict between Oneness and individuality can be likened to the conflict between evolution and creation. Both evolution and creation are half right. If you combine the two and say that we (and all other living things) were created to evolve, then it is possible to witness in your mind the beuty of the simplistic yet enormous plan at work.

So it is with Oneness of everything as it relates to individuality. We are all interconnected and act as threads in a much larger tapestry, yet we are still the thread, not the tapestry. I believe I may be quoting what you said (not sure), but it is like a grain of sand claiming "I am the beach" or a drop in the ocean saying "I am the ocean". Rather they should be saying "We are the beach". but we who? Each grain of sand by itself is individual, and unique, yet together comprise a much bigger picture.

I could continue for hours, but I think it would be best if me and you started a seperate thread discussing this as it doesn't much relate to empathy or telepathy. Reading through this entire topic so far however, I find that our exchange will be a very good read for anyone, and that makes me proud, as you should also be.

This topic is still open to more accounts of experiences though, if anyone else has an experience or idea to share, please do.

[Yothu]

There is only one 'thing', call it God, Tao, or whatever you wish, which operates Allan and the water. You could call Allan, just like the water, a fictional character in a one man show. Just like the puppets, Allan has no existence of its own.

I don't think so. This has been discussed in maaaaany debates already...
I don't think the person, the entity, the human being 'Allan' is on the same stage as the entity we call 'water'. The entity 'water' is to be manipulated by us, human beings. It is, like many other things in Nature, at our disposal.

I think it is a misinterpretation of Zen-Philosophy when you talk about us being connected to the one same source. To my understanding that doesn't mean we are in any way operated by the source, which makes a lot of sense to me, because if that was the case, my life would have been 'operated' a lot smarter...

Theoratically speaking: you might surrender to your creator's will if you decide so, but I highly doubt it will force anything upon you.

Didn't Thao talk about a certain part of the brain that is responsible for telepathic communication? It might be always there as you stated but it might be dormant in most of our fellow earthlings. If this is true, then this part in the brain can be activated and properly operated. The range in which telepathic messages can be sent and received seems to be limited to the solar system, as mentioned above by Frozn. This might not be the case in the domain of spirit, but it is the case in our physical world we're living in.

[Alisima]

Now here is where I tend to disagree. I agree that no one can know truth until they experience it, in that you're 100% correct. You are saying that we cannot benefit one another through our exchange of experience and insight. I don't say that your understanding will, for example, make me understand anything automatically. Rather, you think differently from me, but you are walking down the same path as I am. Thus a fresh point of view can be gained from exhanging insight, and can help someone who is seeking individual understanding.

Yes, I understand what you mean. But that is only on an intellectual level, and can only be on an intellectual level for we are communicating exclusively with words. If I were to meet you, however, things would be different. But we are here discusing with words, words!! The meaning I give some words are perhapse slightly different than yours, and therefore always results in confusion. 'Do not mistake the map for the territory,' or 'don't confuse the arrow for where it is pointing at.'

I also agree that books going into the subject thoroughly would seriously help me. The problem I have there is that most spiritual books out there are absolute nonsense. If you have a recomendation for me of a book that helped you, I would appreciate that.

Regarding books, I have always bought books solely on intuition and of the 60 books I got I perhapse have 2 or 3 which I haven't finished, or in other words, find absolutly nonsense. But I can recommend you any book by Wei Wu Wei, it is not about telepathy though, but he does a better job at explaining things than I do.

Even so, never doubt the ability of peers discussing their experience and ideas. If I feel that a book's definition of telepathy is incorrect, I cannot ask the book to clarify.

No, that is why you buy many of them. But I agree, peers do a better job than books. But still, I favor 'real' meetings above 'sending-words-through-a-wire'.

There is only one 'thing', call it God, Tao, or whatever you wish, which operates Allan and the water. You could call Allan, just like the water, a fictional character in a one man show. Just like the puppets, Allan has no existence of its own.

I am sure you are aware that such a statement is both true and untrue.

I am aware of my inability to express the truth. And that I find both annoying and at the same time very assuring.

We are an integral part of the essential oneness of all. All things have individual existances.

That may be the case, but we are not a 'thing'.

You cannot say there is no Allan or there is no water because by clear observation, they are. Just as you exist, and I exist.

Just like the dream character exists?? If that is your definition of existence, then they exist yes.

Both oneness (as you call it non-duality) and individuality coexist in harmony in the universe. The harmony is so beutifully designed, that even our worst individual mistakes have a role to play in the grand plan of the singular process of all things.

You are making a duality of non-duality and duality. I do not mean that.

That does not mean that it was DONE by the will of the creator, as if we are just puppets controlled by him. Rather, the creator is so intelligent and insightful beyond all comprehension, that he EXPECTED our descisions, and has woven our individual existances together into the most efficient and beutiful environment for learning (self development). The things that we learn in this life, the creator obviously already knows. Were we not ourselves, but just a small manifestation of the same all, why learn anything?

We are not the manifestation of the same all. Our persons, our ego's, our things, are. They can learn whatever 'they' wish. We are that all, that God, that creator, whatever name you give it. That beyond words and beyond objectification.

So it is with Oneness of everything as it relates to individuality. We are all interconnected and act as threads in a much larger tapestry, yet we are still the thread, not the tapestry. I believe I may be quoting what you said (not sure), but it is like a grain of sand claiming "I am the beach" or a drop in the ocean saying "I am the ocean". Rather they should be saying "We are the beach". but we who? Each grain of sand by itself is individual, and unique, yet together comprise a much bigger picture.

Yes, but the you, your 'I', isn't any of the grains of the sand, nor the bigger picture they comprise. So when the grain of sand says he is an individual, he is incorrect, and when he says he is "the beach", he is incorrect too. There is no grain of sand.

I could continue for hours, but I think it would be best if me and you started a seperate thread discussing this as it doesn't much relate to empathy or telepathy. Reading through this entire topic so far however, I find that our exchange will be a very good read for anyone, and that makes me proud, as you should also be.

Yes, best if we would that yes. On the other hand, it is still about telepathy, or rather, about the mechanism which brings it into existence. If we, in the end, revert back to telepathy I do see any problem.

So, let me just do that, from the last posts we know what my opinion about telepathy, and how it is able to 'transfer' thoughts from one place to another, is. But then, what is yours?? If we are indeed seperate, autonomous entities, how can we both experience the same thought together or, with mass-telepathy, with hundreds of people??

When I have a telepathic experience the feeling I have is that there is only one thought, but experienced by two persons and at the same time I 'sense' the other person being in my 'head'/mind, and perfectly know that the thought came from him, as opposed to the other people in the room.

Also when your mind is full with chattering it is obvious that you are not a good recipient for other people's thought. So meditation, or 'mind-fasting', could help you being a good recipient. On the other hand tought, if you were to discard all thoughts, which is what you do in meditation or at least in the practice towards it, you also discard other peoples thoughts, and therefore, again, are a lousy recipient. So you don't need a full mind, nor a empty mind, but a receptive or open mind, which is commenly associated with women. Perhapse that is why women are prone to have more intuitions than men, and why most men with more than average intuition have more women characteristics than men.

In order to receive telepathic thought you need a receptive, non-judgemental, all accepting, transparent open mind.

I think it is a misinterpretation of Zen-Philosophy when you talk about us being connected to the one same source.

No, 'we' are not connected to that source, but all manifested things are. We are, obviously, that source. Anyhow, although Zen does believe in the inexistence of individuality, it is way older. And it is certainly not a Zen-thing. In fact, Buddhism, Advaita, Tantra, early Christianity, and many others, all share the same believe.

[Yothu]

Yes, I understand what you mean. But that is only on an intellectual level, and can only be on an intellectual level for we are communicating exclusively with words. If I were to meet you, however, things would be different. But we are here discusing with words, words!! The meaning I give some words are perhapse slightly different than yours, and therefore always results in confusion.

The so-called problem of communication to which much attention is devoted is based on assumptions that are not acceptable. The common man says: "How can I make myself clear to somebody else past most trivial matters?"

For what should be communicated will be disclosed, no matter what. You do not need to look for an appropriate medium in the first place.

So, let me just do that, from the last posts we know what my opinion about telepathy, and how it is able to 'transfer' thoughts from one place to another, is. But then, what is yours?? If we are indeed seperate, autonomous entities, how can we both experience the same thought together or, with mass-telepathy, with hundreds of people??

I mean no offence, but this question sounds to me like: "How can we, a hundred persons, listen to one and the same piece of music played on one piano?"

I agree that a receptive mind is useful for practising it. I don't think there is any magic in telepathy or empathy. I also do not think that I have to be great in spirit to develop and improve these natural abilities that seem associated with a certain part in my brain, according to the book. Btw, there is a very good source of information available on telepathy on the web -> Telepathy Seminar

[Alisima]

I mean no offence, but this question sounds to me like: "How can we, a hundred persons, listen to one and the same piece of music played on one piano?"

If all is so simple I will happily gather 100 people and then I allow you to let them 'hear' a single thought-stream. Ofcourse, you are viewing it from theory, not practise. But still, from a physical standpoint, how does a thought get from here to there?? Ofcourse I already have answered that question sufficiently, at least for myself. I am just asking other people's opinion.

So how does a thought moves from my mind to another mind? Through which medium?? Or are you only interested in the ability and couldn't care less about how it got from A to B??

[Frozn]

So, let me just do that, from the last posts we know what my opinion about telepathy, and how it is able to 'transfer' thoughts from one place to another, is. But then, what is yours??

I apologize, I thought I had made my definition clear, but I suppose it got lost in the debate. What I was trying to illustrate with the Allan Chumak experiment is that thought exists where you place it. He focused on the water, and thought not so much TO it, but THROUGH it. When you think your mind to be in your head for so many years, thought really does feel like it exists there. You will agree that it does not. That understanding is essential for telepathy. Thinking -to- someone is thought with a destination. Parodoxically, when you think to a destination, the thought originates there, and didnt need to travel or be sent. It effectively skips all of that. This idea completely agrees with what you said:

When I have a telepathic experience the feeling I have is that there is only one thought, but experienced by two persons and at the same time I 'sense' the other person being in my 'head'/mind, and perfectly know that the thought came from him, as opposed to the other people in the room.

You yourself have clearly stated that you know perfectly well from whom the thought originated. You sense the other person's thought in your head. There we are, at last. Earlier in this topic you said:

No, before the apparent communication between two minds, both minds must surrender their idea of seperateness, realise they are one, and think a thought.

You feel a thought from another person, you know who was the originator of the thought, and thus you can still make the distinction between yourself and the sender. Therefore your whole basis of non-dualism of spirit has been contravened. "We are all connected" still holds true and indeed I agree there. If that is what you meant in the beginning, then my mistake.

Back on topic however, let me elaborate on my intellectual basis of telepathy. After you expressed your views further, I agree with what you said about a thought being created in two minds, after some reflection on that notion. A thought can exist in more than one place, but will still only have one origin. If I were to telepathise a message to you, you would be aware of it as if you had the thought yourself, but you would be much aware that it came from me.

Perhaps the thought only does exist in one place, but 2 different people have 2 different perspectives of it's location in 'space-time'. If I think something to you, I would feel it in my mind and you would feel it in yours, when it exists in half in both, and half in neither, according to shared observation. This difficult to explain property of thought, and how thought acts when 'sent' is a source of confusion from which argument begins. I am however very confident that you and I are talking about the same thing.

Yes, but the you, your 'I', isn't any of the grains of the sand, nor the bigger picture they comprise. So when the grain of sand says he is an individual, he is incorrect, and when he says he is "the beach", he is incorrect too. There is no grain of sand.

Why won't you accept that we DO in fact exist? So do grains of sand, so do beaches, as do planets stars and galaxies, the universe, all things, all spirits, all individuals, as well as the creator. Aside from the creator, everything and everyone else was created by him, and contains the essense through which we have evolved into our own individual selves. Think, the spirit created us to fulfill his spiritual need, according to Thao. I don't know about you, but love and companionship is the spiritual need I would want if I was already absolutely intelligent, perfectly evolved, and able to do all things. Seperate individuals as children and companions, free from his will to grow and be what they wish, to aspire toward him or not.

The creator gave us the possibility of life, but it is we who chose to live. He gave us life, and thus at that point that tiny spark of his life became our lives. Life is no illusion, although there is much more to life than what we tend to notice. Our perception is not designed to send us lies or illusions, but help us objectively see what IS. That is why Christ and so many others have said 'They have eyes but they do not SEE'.

Also when your mind is full with chattering it is obvious that you are not a good recipient for other people's thought. So meditation, or 'mind-fasting', could help you being a good recipient. On the other hand tought, if you were to discard all thoughts, which is what you do in meditation or at least in the practice towards it, you also discard other peoples thoughts, and therefore, again, are a lousy recipient. So you don't need a full mind, nor a empty mind, but a receptive or open mind

Absolutely true. I simply mean that learning how to meditate is essential in that it gives you the mental tools to reach such a receptive and open state of mind, by first eliminating the excess thoughts and clutter. Being good at meditation is essential, but not to be used for listening, because, as you correctly said, during meditation you are a lousy recipient.

In order to receive telepathic thought you need a receptive, non-judgemental, all accepting, transparent open mind.

Flawless account of the truth. Couldnt have said it better. You dont need absolute purity though, but the more the better. I am sure thats what you meant. I would continue but I can see that I am writing a short novel over here as it is so full stop.