GabrielS

Biology of belief

23 posts in this topic

In his book Biology of belief Dr. Bruce Lipton talked about how the perception of enviroment and not the genetic has a major role in  the destiny of the cell and ultimatly shape our destiny cause we are made of cells.  How can we explain the destiny of  a  infant baby who just been diagnosted with terminal cancer ?  Karma? we have just said there is no previous programing no genetic involved ?  then how we explain ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it has something to do with the original intention prior to entering life here on earth - the intention of having the experience of terminal cancer as an infant and how that experience can contribute to greater growth and learning. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce establishes that we not necessarily a victim of our genetics and that we do indeed have a far greater degree of control over our biology (and by extension our reality) then we previously thought, but I do not believe he says that this means there is no previous programming or genetics involved. After all, the birth of a child from inception to adulthood has an incredible amount of programming that is running on auto-pilot. It seems that some aspects we just aren't meant to control. For example we can use intention to activate and increase the effectiveness of our immune system, but we can't necessarily use our intention to grow another limb or stop ourselves from growing old. There are rules in place that are not easily broken.

As for why a child can get cancer, there are different perspectives that offer ideas. Biology of Belief doesn't necessarily cover these subjects. Perhaps that being decided to incarnate with a disease to have that experience for a specific reason. Maybe it is to gain an appreciation of what it means to be healthy and come into this world in another incarnation. Or maybe it is victim of a probabilistic universe. I see both as potential causes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i agree... that could be a possible answer  considering that we start learning even before birth (the voice of parents, sounds, lights etc)  I guess the problem is always because we want to "understand" things in the first place.....we force things to pass through our cognitive system, trying to make things fit according to our beliefs according with what generally make sense or what is comunely accepted.  The answer lies outside the Box :) i guess. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you watched Teal's video "Fuck the LoA"?

This pre-birth intentions do not make sense to me. Just think about it. If you're God sitting at your computer and want to create a perfect video game for your soul (baby). Are you going to put yourself through hell to learn about life? or are going to make fun and easy and help yourself to experience as much joy as possible?

I don't understand why people think we only able to learn and appreciate life through contrast. Can you imagine how much more we can achieve as humans if all the possible tools were provided to us?

They say babies are conscious creators just like adults. I doubt any baby would want to experience cancer or other traumas. We are the only specie that come here to gain most of our knowledge from our caretakers (unlike animals who already come with most of the knowledge necessary for life).

In that video Teal also talked about two of our selves - you and your higher-self. And she explained that what you want may not be what your higher-self want. Okay. That may be beneficial sometimes, but, for example, those of us who have children know that we would never intentionally wish anything bad to them, and to their children as well and so on. 

So, whatever universal law we have here, I think it has some serious glitch in it :)

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people may have misinterpreted what Teal was trying to say in that video mostly because of how it's titled, and the way she expressed the message. That video was interesting to me personally, as it played quite differently than any of her other videos.

Teal expressed frustration about the LoA, and titled it thusly. I don't believe her intention was to discredit the law, but instead to express her difficulty with it in a video, in order to provide awareness of not only what happens when misusing the law, but the resolution (through her own experience) on how to reestablish the ability more effectively.

As far as pre-birth intentions go, my own understanding is that a consciousness wishes to experience a thing, and places itself in a position where the possibility of that experience taking place is high (or inevitable?). The ideas, and emotions of a fetus within the body of a woman are not entirely their own, but of the mother's instead. (I could be wrong about this, but I was certain this idea was shared by Teal in a video.) I imagine the child will share quite a bit of their own experience (through physical manifestation) similar to what the mother does until more free will is established, at which point changes can then be made to the child's entire life down to the most minute detail as they (the child) see fit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add onto the topic of pre-birth intention, I always thought of babies and young children passing away or becoming seriously ill as part of a soul contract. If I want to experience life having lost a small child, someone from my soul family would agree to come into this physical world and act as the child. This would serve their own expansion in some way as well. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"I don't understand why people think we only able to learn and appreciate life through contrast. Can you imagine how much more we can achieve as humans if all the possible tools were provided to us? "

@Garnet I'm so with you on this. I also had the same question sometime ago but then I thought to myself perhaps it is because my higher self is beyond comprehension and infinite so there is no way to understand my true self without going through a contrast. I am a complete being in another realm and I cannot understand myself without having another attraction point. I have come to realise that life itself is eternal therefore there is no end to the things we can achieve. In other words it is not a matter about achievement it is about knowing and experiencing who 'I' really 'am' (higher self) through experiences.  

Would love to hear your thoughts on this perspective :) 

Edited by Teena
typo error "sometimes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Teena said:

"I don't understand why people think we only able to learn and appreciate life through contrast. Can you imagine how much more we can achieve as humans if all the possible tools were provided to us? "

@Garnet I'm so with you on this. I also had the same question sometime ago but then I thought to myself perhaps it is because my higher self is beyond comprehension and infinite so there is no way to understand my true self without going through a contrast. I am a complete being in another realm and I cannot understand myself without having another attraction point. I have come to realise that life itself is eternal therefore there is no end to the things we can achieve. In other words it is not a matter about achievement it is about knowing and experiencing who 'I' really 'am' (higher self) through experiences.  

@Teena Thank you!

I often hear negativity around desire. As you might know Buddha believed it was the root of all the suffering. He had learned a lot through experiencing contrast and by freeing himself from desire,  he supposedly achieved true enlightenment .   

While it may had  worked for Buddha , it does not work for me! :) 

As far as I know Teal talks about desire as the cause for expansion. But to truly know what we want, we have to know what we don't want.

I do  agree with her concept, but again... what are those who already know long ago what they want suppose to do? I know so many people who have their dreams for years... have tried LoA, spells, give up, not give up...

Btw how many of us can truly give up on their dreams/desires ?

I have to admit that giving up did work for me sometimes. But not when it comes to something major in my life.

But what if we try to forget about contrast?

What if Buddha instead of leaving his castle would had learned to truly enjoy what life had given him? What if he'd had taken a completely different approach to life and just made it easier for himself?

why does it have to be hard?

Are we that lazy that we still need contrast? I know, I am not. Haha :) 

@Jerry Tyfting and I had talked about this before and basically it came down to learning to desire that what you already have. Relationships are great example for this.

it seems to me that the reason we keep chasing new dreams/desires is because once we get what we wanted we stop cherish it very shortly after. If we continue doing this than it makes sense to me why the Universe can't expand without suffering, lol 

Maybe if we learn to  fuel the desire that has been achieved, then we can take it to the next level? :D

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

@Garnet what a synchronicity! Couple of days ago I wrote to @boxofrain about this. 

I do not think that  we can give up on dreams; I've heard we should rather 'give into dreams'. Trying everything to achieve something means you have a greater resistant to where you at. I think we are both the dreamer and the dream (the journeyer and the journey) therefore we should learn to enjoy the moment. I think we cannot deviate from true longing/desire no matter how much we try. 

2 hours ago, Garnet said:

But what if we try to forget about contrast?

did you watch Teal's video on spirituality 3.0? She explains importance of manifesting from a neutral point. Most often we make choices because we want to move away from something not because we want to experience truly. She actually gives an example of choosing strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate. When you are consciously aware of the choices you make and it is not motivated by the pain body you choose it for experience. So you choose strawberry ice cream not because you hate chocolate but because you truly love to taste the strawberry ice cream. 

2 hours ago, Garnet said:

What if Buddha instead of leaving his castle would had learned to truly enjoy what life had given him? What if he'd had taken a completely different approach to life and just made it easier for himself?

 

Thank God he didn't take a different approach if he did you and I wouldn't have any discussions about enlightenment lol  

I think someone else would have taken the difficult approach and would have named it differently. It was Buddha's  intention prior to incarnation so he didn't want to make it easier. We see it as a difficult path but he truly desired to experience suffering to experience enlightenment. I think he was actually enjoying the life at the castle until one day he saw some dead bodies on the street while he was going some where (this is the what I have heard I'm not a Buddhist so I don't know the facts) and this made him question about life. If he were to take a different approach he would have lived in doubt and fear and that resistant would have manifested in a different manner. Instead he dived into pain and that was his path!

2 hours ago, Garnet said:

why does it have to be hard?

Are we that lazy that we still need contrast? I know, I am not. Haha :) 

lol I know sometimes I question myself about this too 

We all have pain bodies/shadow selves so as long as we perceive things from that perspective we think the process is hard. Instead try to go with the flow and try not to resist what may appear on your path. 

 

Edited by Teena
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11 June 2016 at 0:04 AM, GabrielS said:

In his book Biology of belief Dr. Bruce Lipton talked about how the perception of enviroment and not the genetic has a major role in  the destiny of the cell and ultimatly shape our destiny cause we are made of cells.  How can we explain the destiny of  a  infant baby who just been diagnosted with terminal cancer ?  Karma? we have just said there is no previous programing no genetic involved ?  then how we explain ?

If you haven't watched the 3rd Zeitgeist movie yet. Do so. They go into this. ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now