Spiritual Guides / Angels - are those made up?

[embrace]

Hi all,


I'm not implying all angels / guides are made up, but sometimes it seems that people do make those up to feel more secure. I believe I myself did make myself believe that I was contacting my guide in dreams, but now I doubt it was true - it was a difficult period of my life when I felt lonely and I really needed to feel some sort of support.


Any thoughts?

[CFTraveler]

It depends on your worldview. If you believe that everything is God, then the distinction really doesn't matter.
Some guides seem to be self aspects. This of course, doesn't mean they are psychological creations, but I'm sure some are.
However, if you look at some accounts of events that people report, then it makes you wonder what we are capable of.
When it comes to reports like these, discernment is important. I'm not too credulous nor am I skeptical, because I've witnessed many wonders personally to know that miracles do happen.
I think what you call them (miracles, angels, avatars, amazing feats, etc.) depends on your cultural context.

[SiriusTraveler]

In Robert Monroes book Ultimate Journey he writes about times where he meets or watches angels/guides that he later recognizes as himself from the future, helping himself in a past life or in this life. Even though he didn't se this entity as an angel, one with a different worldview might have. Its possible that self aspects might be interpreted as angels if that's what they look like to the observer but that to boils down to what kind of worldview we have. On another hand we probably can manifest entities with our mind, looking like we imagine they would look etc.

[ButterflyWoman]

If you believe that everything is God, then the distinction really doesn't matter.
Indeed. In my worldview, everything is "made up" and illusory, including myself.

I was watching the Martin Scorsese documentary of George Harrison, and in it, George was answering a question (in the late sixties) about whether he believed in God. He said something like, well, it depends how you define God. I got past the "man in the sky" idea ages ago, but then I came to realise that God is that, too, and everything else.

That's how I feel about angels and spirit guides and, for that matter, god-figures. Basically.... why not? It's all illusion, so what does it matter? Work with it, enjoy it, learn what you can from it, because ultimately, it's all the One.

[Korpo]

I would say neither angels nor guides are made up. They exist.

However, what people "see" and how they translate and interpret those experiences is a wholly different matter.

[dreaming90]

There is no single category of being that is a "guide" or a "helper." I believe they come from every manner of place. Self-aspects, spiritual entities, future selves along your own timeline, and even just entities who lend a hand and then go on their way.

My guide is a future "me." It doesn't make her any less real, or the interaction any less valuable.

[AstralCody]

@butterfly so do you mean if everything is "made up" and illusory, including myself"

I right now, am creating you?

Not thinking thats crazy to say or anything it's very interesting... I guess it's where you gotta think outside the box ya know...

[SiriusTraveler]

I think that all of physical reality could be illusory, but not our soul/self so to speak. It goes hand in hand with the theory that the brain is just like a bridge that lets our consciousness work in the physical dimension. So my guess is that consciousness is not illusory, its not made up by someone else but rather is a part of a bigger whole, and that physical reality is made up by our collective consciousness. Thats where i stand right now.

[AstralCody]

Sirius do you think when I am in OBE and talking to other entities I am talking to other beings? Or am I simply creating them? I hope I am not creating everything... Is it more of a mix you think? I know in the astral you manifest things like crazy.

[SiriusTraveler]

I dont know really, but my gut feeling is that its very hard to tell whats self manifested and whats not. Perhaps some things manifest and some not. Perhaps the soul/self of the beeing you are interacting with is not made up by you, even though you probably could make it up if you wanted to. My guess is that if you want to create something in certain dimensions, you can and if you dont know you created them then its diffucult to tell whats made up and whats not. But if I were out of body and met another entity and communicated with it, then my gut feeling would be that the only thing made up could be the look of the beeing.
The next time you meet one try and ask some questions to make sure its not made up by you. Experiment with it :) I'm by no means an expert and I'm only guessing here. After all I have only had one or two experiences that I can draw experience from.

[ButterflyWoman]

@butterfly so do you mean if everything is "made up" and illusory, including myself"
Yes.


I right now, am creating you?
It's not as clear as that, but yes. The thing you interact with, which you think of as "ButterflyWoman" is your own creation. Your interpretation, your judgement, coloured by your experiences and beliefs. And I'm in your reality because your reality allows me to be in it. (You can also get people/things OUT of your reality by disallowing them; I'm much better at that than I am at allowing.)


Not thinking thats crazy to say or anything it's very interesting...
It's pretty standard non-duality, really. I didn't adopt it or choose it. I came to see and experience it after many years of transformation. I only later found out that it's a pretty well-documented worldview, and is shared by most spiritual teachers and masters (not that I'm claiming to be that, by the way). People have different ways of expressing it, of course, with different cultural and personal and other biases and filters. But it comes down to the same thing: everything is an expression of One consciousness, and that which we think of as reality isn't what we think it is.

[AstralCody]

I think I get what you mean...

I just find it so hard to believe it's just me making all of this up. I believe "butterflywomen" Is a being here in the physical, just like me... but I am not "creating her existance" you know? Bahhh I am probably making no sense. It's late and I got to get some sleep!

[SiriusTraveler]

Perhaps its not just you creating her, perhaps its all of us creating everything. Or perhaps it is already created and we just mold it into what we believe is real.

[ButterflyWoman]

I just find it so hard to believe it's just me making all of this up.
Well, it's not something people normally just change their minds about. I mean, it took a long time before I came to this conclusion, and I had a LOT of transformation and peak experiences and existential crises and on and on. I guess some people just totally awaken to it one day, out of the blue (Eckhardt Tolle apparently did, for example), but usually it doesn't work that way, because, as you say, what you believe gets in the way.


I believe "butterflywomen" Is a being here in the physical
That's funny, because I don't. :) Which just goes to show that this "butterflywoman" in your reality isn't the same as the one in mine. ;)


I am not "creating her existance" you know?
The being you believe exists does not. Therefore, you're creating her in your reality, and I'm creating her in mine, but as you can't possibly know or re-create the person I experience being, because each point of view is absolutely unique, the one in your reality isn't the same as the one in mine. But what or who is looking through these points of view? One and the same Consciousness.

Think of it this way. I'm all alone, and bored. I wish that I could be two puppies, so that I could play together.

That's pretty much it, right there.

[AstralCody]

Butterfly thanks for the reply.

I feel like this right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UskJNZ9INKM
As far as confusion goes. lol.

I got alot of learning to do I guess... Like my sig says. I need to just keep learning and growing and seek more answers as I learn in this world.

[SiriusTraveler]

Thats what were here for (imo), to learn :)

[AstralCody]

sirius- Couldn't agree more :)

[Sinera]

From a merely linguistic point of view, it is interesting for me to notice that there is at first glance an inner contradiction here, often in the same sentence. It boils down to the equation: "reality = illusion" - but both terms are actually antonyms (real ≠ illusory). You see what I mean? Makes one dizzy somehow. :wacky1:

For me, as both 'concepts' or 'world views' are mutually exclusive somehow it is a matter of choosing either/or, but maybe only to describe the "same" thing after all. Choosing between these, I am rather an "all-real"-ist instead of an "all-illusion"-ist. So: Everything for me is reality / realities. The "soul" / Higher Self which might be a part of the "One" being, which in turn might be the 'ultimate reality' then, but that does not make its 'offspring' or 'split' or 'creation' less real. So why call it not 'real' then? For me it is. Same applies to all 'created' realities that we want and can experience, that's why it is called "real-"ity, after all. Every 'experience' is 'real' too, for me.

So what for others is 'an illusion' is for me 'all real' as there is no other thing as reality in the first place. The irony is that we might mean the same thing. Since there is no other thing as reality (apart from non-existence) how can it be illusion? It's real. This world is real, this "me" is real - even as a temporary creation or experience, then it is a 'real(ly) temporary' experience. The Source it emanates from is 'real' like every other thing it creates. I am a 'real' part of it that 'really' (co-)creates in a way, or not, who knows. ;) I even keep up this view if I (my body and all material thing) turns out to be 'holographic' or 'digital' in nature. Doesn't matter. It's real anyway.

And of course (back on thread topic), imo, this is true of 'guides', too. I see this from a more utilitaristic and phenomenological pov. Is a guide a 'creation' (which is real) of mine? Is it another 'soul' (=real) who does this job (a real job) of helping (a real) me? Is it my (higher / future?) self (real,too)?
Be there underlying cause as it may, from a phenomenological view, they are always guides anyway. And real guides if their help is valuable to me. Their 'source', even if I cannot determine it with 100% accuracy (or not at all) is secondary. Judging a tree by its fruit, they are helpers/guides anyway, be they of whatever ('real') origin.

What is somehow to be called illusory for me is many concepts and ideas that people have of the world (of reality :wink:), especially the (still) prevalent 'scientific' world-view (e.g. matter as the basic element instead of consciousness, etc.). But as concepts or belief systems of sth they are again - in their own way - as real as anything else, too, at least if we consider the difference between Saussure's signified and signifier. I admit, I also have a problem with the common view of hallucinations or 'delusions' as they are (for me!) real in some way, too. Every CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE for me is REAL.

Makes sense? Well, maybe not at all. I admit, maybe my view is even more weird than anything posted above.
8)

[SiriusTraveler]

I agree with you volgerle about that what we experience is real. If I saw an illusion right now, then that illusion was real to me. So I might as well call that illusion a part of the reality Im experiencing, hence real :)
Either way, I wrote earlier about that something can be an illusion, and by that I mean that one can classify the entity/thing discussed earlier as an iilusion in the sence that it was made/created by one self, without taking away the reality of the experience. So for me, even if I would have known that I made the entity up, the experience would have been real and the entity would be an illusion... or reality depending on personal choise! Haha..

... my head is dizzy.

[ButterflyWoman]

The experience is real. Of course it is. Every experience is real.

But this "reality" thing that we think is objective, and "out there", and solid and so on.... it's not what people generally think it is. When I say "illusion" I don't mean "fake and without substance". I mean "not what it appears", just like a stage illusionist makes it appear that he sawed someone in half or set himself on fire, when he actually did no such thing. Smoke and mirrors.

And I want to stress that I didn't "choose" this. I only came to this when there was nothing else left to cling to, when all my other beliefs and perceptions about the nature of reality were sawn in two or set on fire. ;)

I understand that it seems to be a paradox. There are plenty of Zen koans about precisely this sort of paradox, and at least a couple of parables, and some stories and poems in various sacred writings, and so on. But it actually isn't a paradox. It just depends on where your point of view happens to be; the apparent paradox isn't a paradox at all, it only seems that way from certain viewpoints.

And, yes, it's enough to really bake your noodle, but the most amusing part is that the further one travels, the less one knows. The rabbit hole is infinite.

[CFTraveler]

Cody, if the idea of 'illusion' is hard to swallow (I don't like it either, also for linguistic reasons) try to think of it as a 'mirage'. It's not that it's not real (as 'it isn't here') but as it is here because you can see it. If you have time, get yourself a copy of the Kybalion (which is free online in pdf form) and read it, especially the part about God. It uses different language (way of expressing it) and I think it illustrates the concept in a more 'western' way.

[ButterflyWoman]

I didn't realise the word "illusion" was problematic. Hmmm. I always think of "illusion" in the sense of a stage magician. It APPEARS that he just sawed his own finger off (okay, if he's Penn Gillette ;)) or that he made an elephant disappear or that his assistant was magically transported from one side of the stage to another or whatever. You're seeing it, it's there in front of you, ta da. The experience of it is certainly real enough, or nobody would go to a stage magic show. But they're not actually doing what you think they're doing, or what it appears they're doing. That's what I mean by "illusion". It's just that it looks like something it isn't, or it isn't what it looks like, or both.

Even modern physics has to admit that everything is really made up of mostly nothing, held together by bits of energy. I'm simplifying, and physicists use all kinds of important words and mathematical models to explain it, but what it comes down to is that everything is really nothing. And in my experience, nothing is also really everything.

Words suck. This is why I get discouraged when I try to talk about these kinds of things. People get hung up on this word or that one and it just ends up being a big mess of confusion and I look like a lunatic and nobody understands anything. *sigh*

[CFTraveler]

I'ts not 'how you say it', many others say it, and many 'new spirituality' groups interpret the words a certain way- language sometimes does suck. There is a whole subculture out there that tells their students that 'nothing is real' therefore 'nothing is happening' and pretty much to do nothing about anything ever.... I won't say which one because I will get stoned (with stones, if you know what I mean).
My former minister used to say "Just because something isn't real doesn't mean it isn't happening to you, it just means you have to look at it a different way". I like an approach that doesn't make you wrong for caring about stuff and people, and this particular subculture (not anyone here, understand) does, and often.

[ButterflyWoman]

My former minister used to say "Just because something isn't real doesn't mean it isn't happening to you, it just means you have to look at it a different way".
Yes. Experiences are real. That's the whole point of being here, as far as I can tell: to have experiences. And the experience of a story in a book is real, even if it's fiction. And the experiences we have in dreams are real, even if we're not awake. Experience is certainly real (and variable, because the memory of it can change what it was/is if your perspective changes, which I always find really interesting when it happens).

I do find it tremendously frustrating, though, to try to explain the unexplainable. I really don't know why I keep trying to do it. I keep saying I won't, and then I turn around and do. Sometimes I think I do it just because I need a certain level of frustration in my life, and maybe I need to do stuff that I know isn't going to work out, just because I'm so used to be frustrated and thwarted (or at least, I'm used to feeling that way, and to interpreting things that way). Perhaps if I can remove that pattern of belief/thought (and it goes way, way deep; I know because that's where I've been working lately) I won't feel the need to frustrate myself and confuse others by babbling on about stuff that just gives people a headache. :)

[CFTraveler]

Maybe a picture will do-

photo.php (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150940774856030&set=a.387583371029.167523.83636976029&type=1&ref=nf)

[dreaming90]

I prefer to think of physical reality as a very convincing group dream, with "dream dimensions" becoming less dense as you move towards Source/Tao/Brahman/pick-a-name. It's almost like this reality is a slowed-down manifestation of our thoughts, rather than instantaneous manifestation like in the astral.

I think ultimately, we are all dream characters in the mind of Source.

[ButterflyWoman]

I think ultimately, we are all dream characters in the mind of Source.
Indeed. And therefore part of Source, manifestations of Source, in the same way that characters in a book are part of and manifestations of the imagination of the author.

[Sinera]

Oh yeah, and "Nothing" is yet another such interesting and strange concept. :cool:

Imo, it's only "nothing" from our limited viewpoint as humans. For this, there are many nice parables and metaphors given. E.g., I personally like the 'flatland' metaphor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4). For these flatlanders in 2 D there is no 3rd D., it simply does not exist, hence it is no(t a)thing = nothing for them. If they have encounters with phenomena 'out of nothing' (the finger in the video or the voice) they cannot explain it because they don't understand why it came 'out of nothing'. Some flatlanders then might call it a paranormal event and try to deny it due to their cognitive dissonance based on fear or close-mindedness ("the A-word is forbidden!" - "Above?" "*screams*").

Actually, it's the same with us "3D-landers", I'm talking about the mainstream here, of course. Nothing is not understood correctly at all, it's just used to further nihilism (and probably materialism and atheism too).

Consequently, as the English language lends itself to this fine wordplay, some philosophers (of the metaphysical streak) like to spell nothing apart as "no ... thing". We are in a world of manifested things, or 'form'. Basic, underlying reality is much more fluid and 'formless', or form and in potential. But this we (as 'flatlanders' in 3d) can only guess from our point of view and our best scientists are only starting to understand this now.

Btw, I like Alan Watt's speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrMVous0Ac) on Nothingness (or... No Thing -ness ;)) a lot.

[ButterflyWoman]

Nevermind.