Interesting article.  Definitely a cultish type of group if it has ranks and rules for "advancement" and all that sort of thing.  You don't have to spend thousands of dollars on retreats to get true spiritual wisdom.   I agree that this sounds like a phoney STS-oriented group.   Like most successful cons, some of what they're saying is probably true which is what draws a lot of the people in.   But if it's mixed in with garbage, it might as well be all garbage unless you're so wise as to be able to tell the difference 100%.  But if you are that wise, then you really don't need to be joining groups like this in the first place.

Well, in defense of the Institute of Noetic Scences. I think it is worth pointing out that a LOT of people are invited to speak at the gatherings and conferences. It is kind of like listening to a radio talk show. The guest is invited, we listen and decide for ourselves as individuals whether or not the topic has any merit. Is is not a Christian organization or New Age organization by any means. The mission (statement)has been, esentially, to bridge the world of science and metapysics/spirituality. I have been a member of our local chapter for over a year and a half - and these groups that meet once or a few times a month are made up of atheists, skeptics, scientists, spiritual types and the average Joe and Joanne. And in my experience, for each person's interest there as many reasons as people that attend . This is  a worldwide organization and the overall member base is very  culturally, spiritually and scientifically diverse.

I learned abut the whole Ramtha thing several years ago and had seen JZ on video and/or tv several times and heard her speak as herself and also as Ramtha. It had always seemed a vary cultish situation and community to me and kind of creepy. Never liked that they stockpliled weapons either, at least back then-but then Ramtha is a 35,000 year old warrior who defended the underdogs!  (o;   Anyway, I can also recall that pretty early on I found Ramtha to be a strange one. JZ also seemed kind of aloof and strange as well.

But I must say that when I heard her interviewed the other night (guess where, lol!)  JZ, herself, had a lot of things to say that I found compelling this time around. I perceived (no idea if I am accurate on this) that she seemed older (as she is, of course) and much wiser and **much** more grounded. Truthfully, she seemed incredibly genuine in personality and spirit. I have no idea about Ramtha these days but I'd be willing to take a look at something recent, if given the opportunity.

The difficult thing about any large and organized community that has an agenda (bad or good) is that like people, some do wrong and then grow and evolve, some just make unwise choices, and no matter what, no matter how many personalities are present that might be wonderful, somehow the Disagreeables will stand out, as well, and create an impression that may or not be an accurate at any one point in time in the life of such a community. But nonetheless such an impression could last for years.

Hard to say what exactly  is going on up at that property, in Washington. I admit I am curious. Would be intreresting to see if my overall sense of it all would be  the same - or radically different.

Got the word about the movie later than many. I do want to see it but may have to wait for the video now.

The article criticizes some of the beliefs of the cult of Ramtha which I actually do think have validity, beliefs such as, take charge of your life, don't be a victim, etc.   I think that's actually true, and well and good.   But overall I see how there is major corruption, greed, STS hierarchial manipulation and disinformation aplenty in this cult.  Any group that centers around one head guru, and requires the members to blindly follow along and "climb the hierarchy ranks" is just pure STS.   And BS      

Anyway, it's an interesting read, so enjoy:

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5860

They both share the same "first person(s)" (if I can use that term) consciousness...however both experiences - although having similarities - are not the same.

And yes; although I would phrase it differently, I agree with the message from James Hillman.  (I think it's very important not to get hung-up on phraseology.  That happens far too often; causing people to miss the message, as well as fail to realise they are often saying the same thing in a different way).

However that is very different when in physical reality.  For example; within your dreams, all the characters are an aspect of your own consciousness.  However, in physical reality; each consciousness has its own experience.

I think it's more subtle than this. In physical reality / shared dream, each soul has a direction and autonomy of its own. However we meet a particular soul because they represent something (an archetype) in our own dream, and because we represent something in their dream. So it's important to both recognize this autonomy (ie. this person is not "mine") and that we have something to learn from this person. I think it comes down to detachment in the end.

Here's what a psychologist has to say about this. He talks about the personal dream but I think it applies equally well for the shared dream:

I love this quote I have found this separation to be very important for me in the past months. Instead of taking everything personnally, I can see more clearly what's going on, feel the energies and act more impeccably, while before it was a confusing mish-mash of everything that was paralysing me.

On another note, I realized recently that those with a strong STS polarity tend to live fully in the dream/unconscious and thus the people they meet are literrally the archetypes of their own dreams of which they are God. So maybe STS means "service to own dream", while STO means "service to cosmic Dream".

However that is very different when in physical reality.  For example; within your dreams, all the characters are an aspect of your own consciousness.  However, in physical reality; each consciousness has its own experience.  This is one of the many differences in how consciousness is expereienced depending upon "where" it is.

Another aspect would be as you illustrate - the development of intellect...which again requires discernment between "self" and "other".  If this wasn't the case intellect could not develop as our consciousness would not possess the ability to create separation from the oneness.

Marcus wrote:

Well ermolai, I'm yet to be convinced that all reality is entirely a dream.  However I do certainly believe that certain aspects of how we experience some aspects of reality occur in a dreamlike fashion.

Reality is simply that which is perceived. If you are awake, then this physical world is your reality. If you are dreaming, then the nonphysical dream world is your reality. Anyone who has ever had a lucid dream knows just how real it feels; just as real as this world. So, what's the difference?

Maybe our consciousness has been incarnated into physical form, in order for us to determin that difference...

Well ermolai, I'm yet to be convinced that all reality is entirely a dream.  However I do certainly believe that certain aspects of how we experience some aspects of reality occur in a dreamlike fashion.

Reality is simply that which is perceived. If you are awake, then this physical world is your reality. If you are dreaming, then the nonphysical dream world is your reality. Anyone who has ever had a lucid dream knows just how real it feels; just as real as this world. So, what's the difference?

I maybe interpreting this incorrectly, but I assume you are commenting on the differences between how you and I define reality?

I agree.  Though I tend to feel that percieving the physical world as a "prision" is also a trap.  (It's only a prison if we don't open the doors - which we are entirly capable of doing).

Whether or not we percieve the physical realm as "real" depends on our definitions.  Using what we can learn within the physical realm assists us with developing other areas of our being.  That doesn't necessarily mean we should move "outside" of the physical realm.  But neither should we use what we learn of the "outside" to futher confine ourselves.

I agree, but as I already stated the issue here is not this false duality.

We don't need to "use spirituality or thought to alter the physical realm", especially if this is to rely on our myopic minds. We automatically move to different and more subtle parts of the Dream whenever we transcend dualities and pass initiations. This is a lot of grand words, but it's basically an everyday life process.

Marcus, I don't think the problem is so much in the false duality between materiality and spirituality, but rather in the way we use these two different plans of reality. The physical world is just a dream, but we need it to find the keys to move ourselves to different, hopefully less distorted illusions. However using spirituality to "improve" the material world (for example to establish "world peace") only traps us in a golden jail. If you understand this, you're already much closer to the truth than the large majority of "spiritual seekers". I haven't yet fully integrated this realization, but I feel it's a Big One. And I did weep when I understood this.

I agree.  Though I tend to feel that percieving the physical world as a "prision" is also a trap.  (It's only a prison if we don't open the doors - which we are entirly capable of doing).

Whether or not we percieve the physical realm as "real" depends on our definitions.  Using what we can learn within the physical realm assists us with developing other areas of our being.  That doesn't necessarily mean we should move "outside" of the physical realm.  But neither should we use what we learn of the "outside" to futher confine ourselves.

It appears that we should intergrate each aspect of reality into a unity so that we can seamlessly exist (percieve?) in each aspect at the sametime.  So; yes we can use spirituality or thought to alter the physical realm, I feel that is a good thing.  On the condition that we don't further tie ourselves to the physical.

Marcus, I don't think the problem is so much in the false duality between materiality and spirituality, but rather in the way we use these two different plans of reality. The physical world is just a dream, but we need it to find the keys to move ourselves to different, hopefully less distorted illusions. However using spirituality to "improve" the material world (for example to establish "world peace") only traps us in a golden jail. If you understand this, you're already much closer to the truth than the large majority of "spiritual seekers". I haven't yet fully integrated this realization, but I feel it's a Big One. And I did weep when I understood this.

You have good points about Ramtha's connections to the filmmakers....in fact, the woman channeling Ramtha, (or maybe she is Ramtha?...) has a prominant role in the movie as one of the people being interviewed for their views.   However....the movie isn't "New Age Propaganda".   Even though I saw it and had a shoulder shrugging attitude towards it, I can't slam it either.  It's not bad.  It's just not fantastic.   It's a movie about Quantum Physics, not New Age philosophy, although it delves into thoughts affecting matter in positive and negative ways.....If that can be labeled "New Age."  I don't think it is, I believe it's fact.    So if nothing else, this movie is introducing Quantum Physics to the masses.   So don't knock it til ya tried it.  It's not bad really.  But again, you have a good point about Ramtha.  I did wonder myself who that woman was and how in the frickity frack she wound up in the movie!