Monism - Dualism - Synthesis

[cosmiccell]

> who want to come in and attempt to sway the entire list to their way
of thinking, while attacking our own in some way.




*** David,


if I had known that the group was emotionally deeply associated with
the "Walsh opus", I would have kept the last remark for myself. I
mentioned Walsh, because he is a popular example of the "New Age"
thinking (Monism). Again, I ask for pardon for having upset various
members, and I didnÃà‚‚Â ´t attempt to sway anybody to my way of thinking.
However, I am on the path, too, and crash testing my beliefs against
other philosophical systems (like Monism). Until now, I didnÃà‚‚Â ´t find
true "resistance", since what I throw in as thesis is not at all
complicated or hard to follow. In contrary, there are numerous people
who feel that thereÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s something wrong with CWG, but canÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t express it
with their own words, such is its subtlety.




> DW: As far as I know, Buddhism is still alive and well throughout
much of Southeast Asia and environs. So from the very first sentence
the post is questionable - is "Cosmic Cell" a member of a Vedic
Buddhist "Shankara" cult, for example? This is just a question that
sort of hangs unanswered.




*** Of course, everybody knows that Buddhism is alive today more than
ever, I just translated a passage out of a bigger context. Shankara -
as some also will know - lived in India and he succeeded in shifting
an entire culture from Buddhism back to the vedic authority in only 20
years. IsnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t that remarkable? I thought you would be interested in the
discussion of Advaita (Non-Dualism), since it is closely related to
"Oneness". And no, I am not a Buddhist or Hindu or "cult".






>We have definitely had problems with cults in the past.




*** IsnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t Neil Donals Walsh himself propagating kind of a New Age
cult?




> don't think, in this particular case, that we have anything other
than a person who has done a lot of study




*** thanks. :)




and feels a particular affinity for this teacher's material.




*** not quite so, I have simply studied Risis famous "Trilogy on
Multidimensional Cosmos" and how the Vedic paradigm revolutionizes the
ways and concepts with which we look at the world.






> DW: The Law of One does state that all is one, and thus the
densities themselves are "illusions," as is the "illusion" of a
separate self. However, the Law of One clearly differs from Vedic /
Buddhist thought in terms of seeing this as "impersonal." It is VERY
personal, because the farther you travel along the spiraling line of
light, the closer you get to your original personality as the Oneness.




*** Do you agree that only an "individual" can posess a "personality"?
Hence, when you say "original _personality_ as Oneness", this would
imply that "Oneness" does have an individuality! And by this again, it
exists simultaneously to that abstract, impersonal "All". On the other
side, if God is complete, he encompasses by definition of "complete"
all imaginable attributes, thus separatedness as well as
non-separatedness. This fundamental realization is described in the
Vedas as: "acintya bhedaabheda-tattva" - as "the unimaginable
(acintya) simultaneous separatedness (bheda) and non-separatedness
(abheda) from God and Gods energies".




So, would you also agree that ultimate truth can only be described in
paradox statements? God would be at the same time _one_ with his
creation, and still _separate_. As a logical conclusion, Monism ("all
is one", "everythingÃà ‚‚ÃÂà ‚Â‚ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s relative") can only claim to describe 50% of
the truth (the other 50% are described by Dualism).




> It is for this reason that Ra states that their goal is to have "no


> personality, no memory, no identity, just the beingness of the One."




*** So "their" goal is to "have" someting. There remains an individual
which "has" (or strives for) "something". LOVE needs two individuals
to be exchanged between them. LOVE is sustained "tension" of "unity in
diversity". Accepting the "free will" and the uncertainty of another
individuality. There cannot be love if there is no counterpart. True
love is the only thing which cannot be enforced! Everythig else -
opinions, interests, fears - can be manipulated.




It is said that man was made as an image of the creator (microcosmos =
macrocosmos = fractal, recursive self-embeddedness). Thus, as we do,
God, too, has a personality and an individuality.




If there is no personal God to whom to respond to, then whatÃà‚‚Â ´s the
sense of human life? God wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t be interested in our lives, as God
wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t have an absolute will. Our destiny would be absolutely
meaningless compared to "infinity" or "impersonality". This would be
very hard to bear, let alone to build a positive philosophy out of it!




>All religious strains of thought throughout human history have
distortions.




*** You are classifying religion from a point of view which sound a
bit dismissive. Why not say: all religions have the same essence (e.g.
the immortality of the soul)?




>That's why if someone comes in and tries to attack the Law of One
without actually discussing the material itself, there's not likely to
be a favorable reaction.




*** I noticed that that we are already dealing with the very core of
the concept of "Oneness".




>It is left to others who are more familiar with the Law of One to
either engage or withdraw.




*** If "The Law" was fundamental, it shouldnÃÃà‚‚‚ÃÂÂà ‚‚´t be difficult to
disprove my points. :)






>The problem is that if everyone comes in and refers to outside
materials without bringing in the Law of One text, then there


is a preciously small supply of those left who can actually engage
these questions and teach those who want to 'lurk and learn.'




*** ArenÃà‚‚Â ´t the concepts of Advaita ("Non-Dualism") and Monism ("all is
one") closely related to "Oneness"?






> DW: Remember that Ra said in the Law of One series that they CANNOT
see us as separate beings - it is simply not possible. However, within
the constraints of our own illusion, we do have separate personality
selves that BELIEVE they are separate, to a very large degree.




*** This is exactly what the Vedas call "Mayavada" (concept of
separation, caused by illusion - Maya). Mayavada (Monism) sounds
"spiritual", but it is one-sided, because it limits God to an energy
and ignores individuality. "Cosmic energies" are impersonal and
without wish or will. They are per definition nothing but forces which
can be manipulated. As long as God ("The Oneness") is merely energy,
the beings in the universe are "free" and not responsible to anyone
("everything is relative"). Power and justice is then in the hands of
those most capable of manipulating the energies.






>Remember - free will is THE MOST IMPORTANT principle in the Law of
One to be married with love. Free will ACKNOWLEDGES that we BELIEVE we
have a separate personality self, and that therefore its wishes must
be honored, EVEN THOUGH ultimately all is One.




*** How can then illusion exist, if ultimately all is one? The
illusion of "seeing a snake, where there is only a rope" (you will
surely have come across that analogy), is created in the conscious of
an individual. It doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t say that there is no rope or snake. In
contrary: _because_ there is a rope, one can mistake it for a snake,
and this means that a snake must exist somewhere, too. Because how
else would it be possible to mistake a snake with a rope? The Monists
want to prove with this analogy that there is only the rope (Oneness)
but no snake.




And then: WHO is mistaking the rope for a snake? How can you mistake
sth with sth else, when there is only "One" (the rope)? Then there
wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t exist a person, which is subject to illusion, nor anything
ese which you could mistake for the One.




Suddenly the Hermetic wisdom becomes a reality: "What is below,
resembles what is above, what is above, resembles what is below, so
the mystery of the One can be accomplished."






> Without the first distortion of the Law of


> One (Free Will,) then all you have left is evil.




*** Why does the Law of One call "free will" a "distortion"?




> If you deny the importance of free will, then rape or murder could
be seen as just another part of a spiritual life as part of this
Oneness.




*** And if you _accept_ the importance of free will, doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t crime
still remain part of this "spiritual Oneness"? Behind free will there
must be the reality of _individuality_, otherwise it wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t matter
who is harming whom.




> There's no getting around the law of Karma, which is implicitly
designed with the understanding that in the "illusion," *the separate
personality self is very much a real phenomenon,* and if its free will
is violated, there are full, multi-incarnational karmic implications
of such an extreme intrusion.




*** The law of Karma doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t provide an absolute point of reference
for the definition and uphold of human values.




> DW: It's fine if Shankara feels that way - but that doesn't make it


> true. The logical mind CANNOT fully probe the mystery of the
Oneness.




*** Why limit Oneness to inconceivability? If the absolute was to be
complete, it would have to include the aspect of comprehensibility.
And even if it didnÃà‚‚Â ´t: WouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t the bhedaabheda-tattva paradox be much
closer to the relative statement "cannot fully probe" than the
absolute statement that "Oneness is impersonal and there is no
individual creator"?






> Ra said, "Understanding is not of your density." No one can fully


> understand this mystery - period. Shankara is one of those people
who cannot fully understand this mystery. He can certainly choose not
to believe in Oneness, but Oneness is still all there is. You just
have to be more familiar with the Law of One concepts to understand
how that Oneness works.




*** From vedic viewpoint Dualism AND Monism are one-sided concepts,
because they emanate from human logic. God (Oneness) isnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t simply an
impersonal energy, and also not simply a person which fights with the
adversary. _Both_ are distorted concepts which support ego-centered
claims for power and absolutism.






> DW: It is very easy for Jeremy or anyone else to take this quote as
a personal attack against everyone on this list.




*** Beware! It is a self-trial of Shankara, that intellectual giant
who, by refined logical analysis - changed completely the religious
landscape of a subcontinent in only 20 years!







> Again... I KNOW this was not the writer's intent.




*** Thanks! BTW: I consider myself an intellectual fool, too.






>However, anyone who wants to participate here will end up learning
very quickly how carefully they must speak if they want to start
posing critiques, challenges or arguments. It is very, very dicey
territory. Words can be so easily misinterpreted.




*** Please understand that I am not attack for attacks sake, but feel
the urge to discuss with you wide spread, one-sided concepts, which
dominate todayÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s material world.






> DW: Even if Shankara's quote was accurate (and I certainly do not
feel that it is,) there is no statement / evaluation of percentages of
truth in the quote. Thus this conclusion becomes an interpretation of
an interpretation, all built upon words uttered from entities within


> third-density who *cannot* fully plumb the mystery of Oneness, as
far as the Law of One philosophical teachings are concerned.




*** Not quite so! Monism (50%) is the contrary of Dualism (50%). BOTH
are limited, because both have to be UNIFIED!







> First problem: A statement is made that love cannot exist without


> separation.




*** It cannot exist without individualities. Since there wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t be
anyone to love someone.




>In the Law of One series we learned that there was a time *before*
the concept of separation ever existed. In what is known as "the
veiling," entities were blocked from a full conscious awareness of
their subconscious and superconscious selves. It was only then that


> there could even be an *imaginable* concept of separation. This was
when the negative path, the path of separation, first became possible.




*** You are refering again to the concept of Mayavada: The illusion of
separation. This is a limited concept, as was elaborated above.







> Before this time, there *was* love, but there wasn't as much
motivation to keep seeking it and thus return to Oneness. The concept
of separation allowed for there to be a greater motivation to seek
Oneness, to seek love.




*** So, what is love by Raà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s definition? How can there be love without
individuality?






> So, in one sense you could say that separation is a very strong


> motivator to seek love, but love can and does occur *without*


> separation.




*** How is that "occurrence" explained by "The Law of One"? It is not
clear to me.




As you become more self-respecting and self-accepting, the


> separation within your own being is emptied out to be replaced with


> love.




*** This statement again yields semantic questions: How can there be
separation within ones own (individual) being? How can separation be
"emptied"? How can separation be replaced with love? Love between
whom?




> Second problem: "Love flows only between individuals with a free
will." There is, again, a rather significant misunderstanding of what
love really is. Remember that the full essence of love *cannot* be
understood by the third-density mind - period. Understanding is not of
this density. So no one can make a bold proclamation about what love
is or isn't, and expect to fully encompass the concept.




*** So you withdraw to dealing with it the easy way: Period! =o)




> The Law of One gives us what I feel is a less distorted
understanding of love than most. From this perspective we see that the
intrinsic energy of Creation is love - or more specifically,
love/light energy.




*** Love is not simply "energy"! The _unifyiing factor_ of the
individuality is what can be described by the word "love". Because
love is that, which connects individuals. (Therefore you say: "united
in love"). This is true, on the material (in a relative sense), and on
the spiritual level (in an absolute sense). Divine love is the pure,
shadeless expression of our very own individuality, which is always
connected with free will and self-liability, because love is
_voluntary_.




Where we focus our love or donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t focus, is our free choice and our -
and only our - responsibility. True love is the only thing, which
cannot be enforced. This is the philosophical explanation of the
statement "God is Love", which is true, although it is often used
superficially and relatively. Because only divine love is the unifying
force between individuals and the absolute connection between the
parts and the whole (God).




Therefore Jesus could say: "I and my father are one." (Joh 10,30). But
Jesus didnÃà‚‚Â ´t say: "I am my father"! This is the highest conclusion of
all divine revelations, including the Bhagavad-Gita.




>Free will doesn't really come into play as a tangible factor in a
personality until third density, when the consciousness of the self as
a separate entity becomes possible. Yet, the energy of the universe
still definitely flows between beings of first and second density.




*** How can the third density contain more information (i.e. the
concept of free will) than hierarchically higher densities? This would
contradict the fundamental hermetic ("fractal, self-embedded") law of
"As below so above".







> DW: Here the thoughts get a bit more on track. Yes, there is indeed
a difference. Both are functional aspects of Oneness.




*** This relativises the difference as if there was none!




>Choice is everything in the Law of One teachings.




*** Choice between what? Choice by itself doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t reveal any guidline
or value. It is completely neutral. Choice towards God or away from
God is the only one we can truely make. Everything else is a
consequence of this primal choice.






>Third density is referred to as "the Choice." Ra has said that there
does need to be a certain small percentage of entities who choose the
negative path in order to create


> universal balance, and the Creation is biased in favor of the
positive path as it offers "protection" whereas the negative path does
not. The positive path is a more complete understanding of the Law of
One at an earlier age in one's development.




*** Of course, evil has its deep sense. But the fact, that evil has a
function, doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t imply that the evil isnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t evil any more!




> This is the hidden darkness that is in so many people of


> Earth today - they simply haven't made a choice.




*** "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those, who, in times
of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." (Dante, The Inferno).




> DW: I believe that Walsch's intentions with the CWG series were


> positive.




*** Take care: The CWG is in a certain way seductive, thatÃà‚‚Â ´s why so
many people without discrimination feel attracted to it.






> That's why they were SO tight on semantics, on trying to get
everything as precise as possible, and rewriting the language along
the way if necessary in order to do it.




*** However, ità‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s quite irritating that critical reasoning is simply
blocked (period). =o)




> A very important part of the Law of One teachings is that no one
really overcomes anything.




*** In deed, the prerequisites for the spiritual path are PPP:
patience, purity and perseverance. Spiritual growth resembles very
much an organic growth in time, with its timing and cycling in
resonance with the universe. Start early, drive slowly, reach safely!






> "The primary purpose of an entity is in this density to experience
all things desired - to then analyze, accept and understand these


> experiences, distilling the love and light (wisdom) within them.
Nothing is to be overcome - that which is not needed falls away."




*** Yes, but what is a concrete goal and the steps towards this goal?
Regardless of what one _desires_, he must admit that heà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s never
independent from the Absolute. "All are revealing Myself in the degree
of how they surrender to Me. All are on their path to Me." (Bhagavad
Gita 4.11). By turning towards God, true spirituality begins. Turning
is the beginning, surrender the goal (through divine grace the
illusion is eventually unveiled).




Thanks,


Cosmiccell

[Chris]

Comiccell,

In due respect, every single one of your questions or statements below show your
ignorance of the Law of One Material. I would like to suggest that you read
David's Ra Material Outline first and acquaint yourself with the material and
then go to LL Research to read the full transcripts. There can be no common
ground between you and this group if you don't know what we are talking about,
period. Respectfully, Chris


*** It cannot exist without individualities. Since there wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t be anyone to
love someone.

*** So, what is love by Raà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s definition? How can there be love without
individuality?

*** This statement again yields semantic questions: How can there be separation
within ones own (individual) being? How can separation be "emptied"? How can
separation be replaced with love? Love between whom?
>
*** Love is not simply "energy"! The _unifyiing factor_ of the
individuality is what can be described by the word "love". Because
love is that, which connects individuals. (Therefore you say: "united in love").
This is true, on the material (in a relative sense), and on the spiritual level
(in an absolute sense). Divine love is the pure, shadeless expression of our
very own individuality, which is always connected with free will and
self-liability, because love is
_voluntary_.

[Jeremy Weiland]

THANK YOU CHRIS!

(Yes, all caps for shouting is intended :-)

Love you bunches and bunches,

Jeremy

--- Chris <chris.hamilton2@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=LYowew0llC_ZZH4HwJnPIeC3G7_6jqXiTBcsMC WUIChfhJff7doPOzEi5DcGIO199pamPwYyhpZ8MRvvyJCmN746 kuuu)> wrote:
> Comiccell,
>
> In due respect, every single one of your questions
> or statements below show your ignorance of the Law
> of One Material. I would like to suggest that you
> read David's Ra Material Outline first and acquaint
> yourself with the material and then go to LL
> Research to read the full transcripts. There can be
> no common ground between you and this group if you
> don't know what we are talking about, period.
> Respectfully, Chris
>
>
> *** It cannot exist without individualities. Since
> there wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t be anyone to love someone.
>
> *** So, what is love by Raà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s definition? How can
> there be love without individuality?
>
> *** This statement again yields semantic questions:
> How can there be separation within ones own
> (individual) being? How can separation be "emptied"?
> How can separation be replaced with love? Love
> between whom?
> >
> *** Love is not simply "energy"! The _unifyiing
> factor_ of the
> individuality is what can be described by the word
> "love". Because
> love is that, which connects individuals. (Therefore
> you say: "united in love"). This is true, on the
> material (in a relative sense), and on the spiritual
> level (in an absolute sense). Divine love is the
> pure, shadeless expression of our very own
> individuality, which is always connected with free
> will and self-liability, because love is
> _voluntary_.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asc2k/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ekbHx--0_NzkSsSATXfPWVRNFvpdJgMXIgm6RQmMXDdIdXp_e0eeh_F8r UEp8BwLmbufz0ebBiEq_FRHe1JKrztTLHY9HUsJdnw)
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

[Lesley Schultz]

Dear Comiccell:

I appreciate that you're only trying to open a dialog,
and to get us to expand our thinking, but I have to
agree with Chris. The Ra Material and DW's on the
website is good stuff, and I think you'll find it well
worth your time to acquaint yourself with it before
you start comparing them with other vedics and their
materials.

I don't know that the rest of us are as familiar with
the seers you mention [at least I'm not] and without
some kind of context to put them all in within the Law
of One material, it causes my head to ache, my
trousers to bag, and trouser socks to slide down with
the exertion of trying to figure out where you're
going with this.

Nonetheless, I hope you don't feel picked on and I
hope we'll hear some more when you've had a chance to
review the LofO material.

Blessings,
~lesley






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

[srachele2003]

RE: Cosmiccell's responses to David's responses

Sal here:

CC, what you say has an air of sophistication and wisdom behind it.
However, there is another criteria for evaluating a teaching, such as
The Law of One or Conversations with God. And that is: WHAT IS THE
ENERGY BEHIND THE TEACHINGS?

Personally, I read two of the CWG books and they sounded very nice and
somewhat humorous and somewhat instructional, but the energy was
rather subdued. IOW, it didn't move me to passionate experience of
truth. There are many teachers out there with elegant words, but
little or no energy behind them. Only one who is reasonably well
integrated and connected energetically to the higher realms of the one
God can immerse power and love into their words of wisdom.

As for love, I perceive it as a spiritual dimension of boundless
energy. This energy triggers bliss, ecstacy or rapture, depending on
the level of openness to it. It's like a radio station. It's
broadcasting all the time, but are we tuned to it?

I found myself wanting something more from your discourse -- something
with FEELING! Something to make me shiver with kundalini. Maybe I'm
expecting too much, but if it doesn't move me, then it's probably just
an intellectual exercise. I know, because I've been an intellectual
fool most of my life, too.

Blessings,

Sal

[mawk]

Dear Jeremy and Gary,

From the top of the world down under, please accept my heart felt birthday
wishes for you both. May I also take this opportunity to thank you for the
polyphony of insights that you guys have imparted over the years.

Double Cheers,

Mawk

PS Jeremy how novel and refreshing to see you can break the rules on your
birthday, I will remember that. And of course I will not mention the little
issue of deleting dead text on such an illustrious occasion. Mischievously
Mawk:-)

[Vincent, Fran]

Sal, Cosmiccell, Paul, and Other selves:

Sal wrote, 2/3/04: Maybe I'm expecting too much, but if it doesn't move me,
then it's probably just an intellectual exercise. I know, because I've been
an intellectual
fool most of my life, too.

Lucky Fran--Sal this is funny and not funny. I am responding to this
because for the last two weeks, I have been aware/identifying with those of
us that spend a great amount of our time in our brains, intellectualizing.
I realize that we need to be more balanced and work with our hearts too, but
when we have questions, if we do not intellectualize, and find answers, we
become stuck in our thinking and progress.

We have not reached a critical point where are FAITH kicks in and replaces
all the intellectualizing. This also means we do not have the answers we
need to get there!

So All, let's be patience with our intellectuals. We are going to be
subjected to more information than we can handle, but they will send us
jewels that we would never have known existed.

Love and Light,

Bless You All,

Lucky Fran

This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to
whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended
addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or
distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you very
much.

[Michael Bergman]

Good day Group,

I really like this thread for my path has also intermingled with the
teachings of advaita vedanta and so this offers much catalyst for me. So
thank you both for expressing your truths.

> > DW: The Law of One does state that all is one, and thus the
>densities themselves are "illusions," as is the "illusion" of a
>separate self. However, the Law of One clearly differs from Vedic Buddhist
>thought in terms of seeing this as "impersonal." It is VERY
>personal, because the farther you travel along the spiraling line of
>light, the closer you get to your original personality as the Oneness.
>
>
>*** Do you agree that only an "individual" can posess a "personality"?
>Hence, when you say "original _personality_ as Oneness", this would
>imply that "Oneness" does have an individuality! And by this again, it
>exists simultaneously to that abstract, impersonal "All". On the other
>side, if God is complete, he encompasses by definition of "complete"
>all imaginable attributes, thus separatedness as well as
>non-separatedness. This fundamental realization is described in the
>Vedas as: "acintya bhedaabheda-tattva" - as "the unimaginable
>(acintya) simultaneous separatedness (bheda) and non-separatedness
>(abheda) from God and Gods energies".
>
>
Mikey: You raise a very good question there CC. What David wrote and what
he quotes as Ra's goal seems to contradict themselves. How can there be a
personality in oneness? In my understanding there is no space for
personality/individualality in the complete unity of being/oneness. Is
there personality in the beingness of the one?
>
>
>So, would you also agree that ultimate truth can only be described in
>paradox statements? God would be at the same time _one_ with his
>creation, and still _separate_. As a logical conclusion, Monism ("all
>is one", "everythingÃà ‚‚ÃÂà ‚Â‚ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s relative") can only claim to describe 50% of
>the truth (the other 50% are described by Dualism).
>
>
Mikey: The Creator/God is not separate from the creation, we are the
Creator experiencing Itself as creation. Why introduce separation where
there is none? The Creator is more mysterious than separate for as the law
of one states, "The Creator does not properly create as much as Itself
experiences."
>
>
> > It is for this reason that Ra states that their goal is to have "no
> > personality, no memory, no identity, just the beingness of the One."
>
>
Mikey: This quote seems to imply that the beingness of the One is
impersonal. To have no personality sure sounds impersonal to me. However
what I feel Ra meant is that there is Ra and there is the Creator and they
seek to become so full of the Creator that the distinction of the
personality known as Ra falls away and they become one with the experience
of the Creator. So I guess my question is what does impersonal really mean?
>
>
>*** So "their" goal is to "have" someting. There remains an individual
>which "has" (or strives for) "something". LOVE needs two individuals
>to be exchanged between them. LOVE is sustained "tension" of "unity in
>diversity". Accepting the "free will" and the uncertainty of another
>individuality. There cannot be love if there is no counterpart. True
>love is the only thing which cannot be enforced! Everythig else -
>opinions, interests, fears - can be manipulated.
>
Mikey: Love is the primal Co-Creator. Love is the creative force which
seeks/desires to know infinity. Love is the energy which flows from the
individualizing/focusing/tapping of unity/oneness/being/infinite potential.
Only love is real. Love is consciousness/awareness, everything is love, all
appearances are illusions/distortions of truth.
>
>It is said that man was made as an image of the creator (microcosmos =
>macrocosmos = fractal, recursive self-embeddedness). Thus, as we do,
>God, too, has a personality and an individuality.
>
Mikey: Why separate your self from God/Creator? You are the
personality/individuality of God/Creator.
>
>If there is no personal God to whom to respond to, then whatÃà‚‚Â ´s the
>sense of human life? God wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t be interested in our lives, as God
>wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t have an absolute will. Our destiny would be absolutely
>meaningless compared to "infinity" or "impersonality". This would be
>very hard to bear, let alone to build a positive philosophy out of it!
>
>
Mikey: Our destinty is to become the Creator, to realize/remember our
infinite being which lies within, from which all life/love emanates.
>
>
>*** If "The Law" was fundamental, it shouldnÃÃà‚‚‚ÃÂÂà ‚‚´t be difficult to
>disprove my points. :)
>
>
Mikey: All is one is a complete philosophy. As Ra states
"Oneness/infininity only has referant when termed as a unity." The law of
one offers truth without proof, your experiences become the proof as you
attempt to live the offered truth.
>
>
>*** ArenÃà‚‚Â ´t the concepts of Advaita ("Non-Dualism") and Monism ("all is
>one") closely related to "Oneness"?
>
>
Mikey: Yes, they are precisely the same as they both point to the
mysterious unity of our infinite being.
>
>
>*** This is exactly what the Vedas call "Mayavada" (concept of
>separation, caused by illusion - Maya). Mayavada (Monism) sounds
>"spiritual", but it is one-sided, because it limits God to an energy
>and ignores individuality. "Cosmic energies" are impersonal and
>without wish or will. They are per definition nothing but forces which
>can be manipulated. As long as God ("The Oneness") is merely energy,
>the beings in the universe are "free" and not responsible to anyone
>("everything is relative"). Power and justice is then in the hands of
>those most capable of manipulating the energies.
>
>
Mikey: How is an energetic God limited? The energy of love which is God is
limitless and eternal.
>
>
>*** How can then illusion exist, if ultimately all is one? The
>illusion of "seeing a snake, where there is only a rope" (you will
>surely have come across that analogy), is created in the conscious of
>an individual. It doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t say that there is no rope or snake. In
>contrary: _because_ there is a rope, one can mistake it for a snake,
>and this means that a snake must exist somewhere, too. Because how
>else would it be possible to mistake a snake with a rope? The Monists
>want to prove with this analogy that there is only the rope (Oneness)
>but no snake.
>
>
Mikey: Nothing exists but the great I am of all-pervading consciousness.
yet the illusion is real. There is no rope and there is no snake. Both are
appearances on the screen of the pure awareness of being. How else can the
infinte One become known but through the illusions of individualized
experience?
>
>
>And then: WHO is mistaking the rope for a snake? How can you mistake
>sth with sth else, when there is only "One" (the rope)? Then there
>wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t exist a person, which is subject to illusion, nor anything
>ese which you could mistake for the One.
>
>
Mikey: I chose to see the snake of separation and not the rope of oneness.
I chose to experience this shadow world instead of the unity of love/iight.
Who is this I we all share? Who is this I from which all of creation is
attached? That is the mystery, the silence of the infinte One.
>
>
>Suddenly the Hermetic wisdom becomes a reality: "What is below,
>resembles what is above, what is above, resembles what is below, so
>the mystery of the One can be accomplished."
>
>
Mikey: That is the key, the concept of oneness can only be grasped while in
the duality/polarity of opposites. In utter confusion and seeming
separation is where the choice for unity in absolute faith is made.
>
>
> > Without the first distortion of the Law of
> > One (Free Will,) then all you have left is evil.
>
>
Mikey: Could you please explain what you mean by evil there? I do not
understand what you mean by that statement.
>
>
>*** Why does the Law of One call "free will" a "distortion"?
>
>
Mikey: Because the freedom of will of awareness is the concept of manyness
and manyness is a finite concept. That which is finite cannot be infinite,
therefor it is a distortion of oneness for in oneness there is only the
unity of infinity.
>
>
>*** And if you _accept_ the importance of free will, doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t crime
>still remain part of this "spiritual Oneness"? Behind free will there
>must be the reality of _individuality_, otherwise it wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t matter
>who is harming whom.
>
>
Mikey: The awareness/consciousness of infinity is that which
focuses/individualizes the oneness into love. There is no other to harm,
all harming is of the one self which cannot really happen for how can
infinity be harmed? All harming is an illusion for what is there to hurt,
your deepest being is eternal and cannot be harmed only transformed closer
to the original vibration of unconditonal love?
>
>
>*** Why limit Oneness to inconceivability? If the absolute was to be
>complete, it would have to include the aspect of comprehensibility.
>And even if it didnÃà‚‚Â ´t: WouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t the bhedaabheda-tattva paradox be much
>closer to the relative statement "cannot fully probe" than the
>absolute statement that "Oneness is impersonal and there is no
>individual creator"?
>
>
Mikey: Oneness is inconceivable because it cannot be completely known by
the mind. There is nowhere for the mind to begin to understand the infinity
of being for infinity has no beginning. Oneness can only be known by
becoming one and in oneness the knower dissolves.
>
>
>*** Not quite so! Monism (50%) is the contrary of Dualism (50%). BOTH
>are limited, because both have to be UNIFIED!
>
>
Mikey: The concept that all is one is another way to say all is unity. All
is contained in the limitless being of oneness, 100 % pure love.
>
>
>*** It cannot exist without individualities. Since there wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t be
>anyone to love someone.
>
>
Mikey: You appear to be speaking of human love which is very distorted from
the primal Co-Creator known through the law of one as love. I repeat, love
is the individuation of infinity/oneness.
>
>
>*** So, what is love by Raà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s definition? How can there be love without
>individuality?
>
>
Mikey: I do not have the material at hand so forgive me if I have been
misquoting Ra but if I remember it correctly love as defined by Ra is "The
focusing of intelligent infinity as an aware or conscious principle into
infinite energy known as love." Love is the energy which emanates from the
potential of infinite oneness. Love is the great activator, the kinetic
energy of the Creator.
>
>
>*** This statement again yields semantic questions: How can there be
>separation within ones own (individual) being? How can separation be
>"emptied"? How can separation be replaced with love? Love between
>whom?
>
>
Mikey: There is no separation, that is the illusion caused by the veil of
forgetting between the self and the deeper/higher self which is aware of the
unity of all.
How is anything emptied? To empty separation is to surrender, to let go, to
release all that does not resonate with the tune of love and unity.
Love will fill the void created by surrendering your seeming separate self
to the infinite One.
Love between the self and the mystery of oneness.
>
>
>*** Love is not simply "energy"! The _unifyiing factor_ of the
>individuality is what can be described by the word "love". Because
>love is that, which connects individuals. (Therefore you say: "united
>in love"). This is true, on the material (in a relative sense), and on
>the spiritual level (in an absolute sense). Divine love is the pure,
>shadeless expression of our very own individuality, which is always
>connected with free will and self-liability, because love is
>_voluntary_.
>
>
Mikey: Yes, love is the energy which seeks to know Itself by forming
connections and becoming one/unified from which another octave of creation
is born.
>
>
>Where we focus our love or donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t focus, is our free choice and our -
>and only our - responsibility. True love is the only thing, which
>cannot be enforced. This is the philosophical explanation of the
>statement "God is Love", which is true, although it is often used
>superficially and relatively. Because only divine love is the unifying
>force between individuals and the absolute connection between the
>parts and the whole (God).
>
>
Mikey: True, where we focus our attention is where the love flows, or where
creation goes. If only we could keep our thoughts from leaving the end of
our nose. Sorry the poetry seeks expression sometimes :)
>
>
>Therefore Jesus could say: "I and my father are one." (Joh 10,30). But
>Jesus didnÃà‚‚Â ´t say: "I am my father"! This is the highest conclusion of
>all divine revelations, including the Bhagavad-Gita.
>
>
Mikey: To me those two statements are the same. There is only one "I", one
"my", one self and I feel Jesus was aware of that. I feel on some level
Jesus knew he was that which he called the father.
>
>
>*** Choice between what? Choice by itself doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t reveal any guidline
>or value. It is completely neutral. Choice towards God or away from
>God is the only one we can truely make. Everything else is a
>consequence of this primal choice.
>
>
Mikey: The choice between only viewing your self as the Creator which
implies separation and viewing your self and all of creation, all other
selves as the Creator which implies unity. Either way is a gift to the
Creator for every choice, every experience adds knowledge of who the Creator
is. What is the primal choice but the choice of limitless freedom to choose
in the ways of knowing the one self?
>
>
>*** Of course, evil has its deep sense. But the fact, that evil has a
>function, doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t imply that the evil isnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t evil any more!
>
>
Mikey: What is evil? From the standpoint of unity where all is seen as the
self how can there be evil? There cannot, there can only be love, for only
love truly exists. Evil against whom? There is no other to project evil
upon, good and evil is all within the mind and who you really are is beyond
the mind, beyond time and space.
>
>
>*** Yes, but what is a concrete goal and the steps towards this goal?
>Regardless of what one _desires_, he must admit that heà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s never
>independent from the Absolute. "All are revealing Myself in the degree
>of how they surrender to Me. All are on their path to Me." (Bhagavad
>Gita 4.11). By turning towards God, true spirituality begins. Turning
>is the beginning, surrender the goal (through divine grace the
>illusion is eventually unveiled).
>
>
Mikey: The goal is to seek and become one with the undistorted love of the
Creator. The steps towards this goal are precisely what you mentioned; that
is to turn towards God in each moment and to surrender your limited self to
the infinite One. "not my will but thy will"


Well that was fun :)
peace,
Mikey

__________________________________________________ _______________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software ? optimizes dial-up to the max!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1

[Jeremy Weiland]

Thanks for helping me tackle these questions, Mikey.
You bring a very direct experience to the table which
I value highly. I'll be replying to both your
thoughts and CC's.

(Single >'s for Mikey, >>'s for CC)

> Mikey: You raise a very good question there CC.
> What David wrote and what he quotes as Ra's goal
> seems to contradict themselves. How can there be a
> personality in oneness? In my understanding there
> is no space for personality/individualality in the
> complete unity of being/oneness. Is there
> personality in the beingness of the one?

I don't think there's a contradiction as long as you
are willing to consider the use of definitions and 3D
concepts for what they are - intrinsically limited
concepts. We attempt to use these concepts by
extrapolating their meanings to facilitate an approach
towards some understanding of the expanded reality we
seek to describe. In other words, words are
approximations of 3D reality, and the farther we get
from 3D reality, the less descriptive they are.

Therefore, to get bogged down in concepts like "are
higher densities above lower ones or infolded or
within" or "does the unified Creator have a
personality" is unwise, for language will never enable
you to communicate a coherent model of what you seek
to describe.

Now, to offer my *limited* understanding on this
matter, I would say that the term "personality" should
be played with. What defines our individual
"personalities"? Is the personality really a concrete
concept to begin with?

IMHO, to conceive of a "personality" of the unified
creator forces us to face the question of what about
our individual personalities is transient vs.
intransient, what is distortion vs. what is true. I
think what David was saying was that, as a person
attunes him or herself with the original thought /
vibration, he or she develops a more and more personal
identification with that oneness. The oneness becomes
the self. Consciousness is not obliterated, only
altered, and identity is transfered from one subset of
reality to another. The resulting identity may not be
anything like what we 3d humans consider a
"personality" - but is that really important? :-)

>> So, would you also agree that ultimate truth can
>> only be described in paradox statements?

Hell, I'd go further: ultimate truth cannot be
described by *any* statements whatsoever!

However, I understand where you're going. Certain
qualities of "ultimate truth" will manifest themselves
in our logical, semantic system of thought as
paradoxes. It's up to you, I suppose, to determine
whether that reflects an inadequacy in the concept or
in the language articulating the concept.

> Mikey: The Creator/God is not separate from the
> creation, we are the Creator experiencing Itself as
> creation. Why introduce separation where there is
> none? The Creator is more mysterious than separate
> for as the law of one states, "The Creator does not
> properly create as much as Itself experiences."

I agree wholeheartedly with you here, Mikey, and I
think you make a salient point about the difference
between separation as a mystery and separation as a
reality.

I agree with CC somewhat in that, while we are in this
sector of awareness, duality does seem to be the order
of the day. However, by qualifying it in such a way,
I am simultaneously implying that I do not actually
know for certain what the real underlying order is.
To act in accordance with the Law of One, therefore,
is to act in a dualistic framework according to an
inner belief in the ultimate oneness of all.
Therefore, "love" can be thought of as an expression
of unity through the distorted lens of duality. Does
that make a little more sense? *The duality is
occuring WITHIN the unity*, and is therefore a subset
of the unity and less fundamental.

> Mikey: This quote seems to imply that the beingness
> of the One is impersonal. To have no personality
> sure sounds impersonal to me. However what I feel
> Ra meant is that there is Ra and there is the
> Creator and they seek to become so full of the
> Creator that the distinction of the personality
> known as Ra falls away and they become one with the
> experience of the Creator. So I guess my question
> is what does impersonal really mean?

Yes, this is *exactly* what I was saying above, and
you worded it much more directly, Mikey :-)

> > *** So "their" goal is to "have" someting.

Their goal is to realize something that they already
"have" or "are".

> > There remains an individual which "has" (or
> > strives for) "something".

This is difficult to reconcile with the alternative
viewpoint: the individual seeks to redefine itself
completely.

> LOVE needs two individuals to be exchanged between
> them. LOVE is sustained "tension" of "unity in
> >diversity". Accepting the "free will" and the
> uncertainty of another individuality. There cannot
> be love if there is no counterpart. True love is the

> only thing which cannot be enforced! Everything
> else - opinions, interests, fears - can be
> manipulated.

OK, sure. Like I said - love is a projection of unity
onto duality. It is the essential unity, distorted to
accomodate a subset of truth and true experience.

You seem to reject a unity of creation because it
would preclude the need for love. Well, maybe it's
the other way around: maybe individuals have a need
for love as an alternative to being one with each
other and everything!

Is there value in dualism and individuality? Of
course - otherwise we would not be experiencing it.
But the reason it is valuable is because it imparts a
variety of experience *relative* to the experience of
the unified "all is one". It is on the bedrock of
that unified existence and consciousness that
dualistic reality takes place.

Mikey, I agree wholeheartedly with your points on love
and the futility of insisting on digesting these
concepts from the 3D mindset exclusively.

> >*** If "The Law" was fundamental, it shouldnÃÃà‚‚‚ÃÂÂà ‚‚´t be
> >difficult to disprove my points. :)

Not only is it difficult, it's *impossible*. The Law,
being fundamental, is entirely too fundamental to
conceptualize adequately in language. What you seek
from us is better sought from within.

You are not required to agree with us, but in order to
participate we have to agree with each other at some
point. If you find this philosophy is not suited to
you, and we have been more than accomodating to your
skepticism, then you would serve yourself and us best
by discontinuing your participation in the group. You
certainly are welcome to say, but as our guidelines
state, we cannot make any headway on our primary
purpose if we are constantly defending the
fundamentals from attack.

> The law of one offers truth without proof, your
> experiences become the proof as you attempt to live
> the offered truth.

Right, Mikey. It's like CC said: "true love" cannot
be forced, it is naturally expressed under certain
conditions. I think the point of the law of one is to
provide an underlying explanation for love's utility
in our experiences, and to explain the broader
"playing field" in which love participates.

> > This is exactly what the Vedas call "Mayavada"
> > (concept of separation, caused by illusion -
> > Maya). Mayavada (Monism) sounds "spiritual", but
> > it is one-sided, because it limits God to an
energy
> > and ignores individuality. "Cosmic energies" are
> > impersonal and without wish or will. They are per
> > definition nothing but forces which can be
> > manipulated. As long as God ("The Oneness") is
> > merely energy, the beings in the universe
> > are "free" and not responsible to anyone
> > ("everything is relative"). Power and justice is
> > then in the hands of those most capable of
> > manipulating the energies.

<Whew> There is so much to address in this paragraph.

First, you insist on bringing outside teachings like
the Vedas and CWG into the conversation. What do I
care what *they* say? They are essentially irrelevant
when dissecting the Law of One. In other words, you
can't diss tLoO by pointing out a flaw in the Vedas.
That is not logical.

Second, one of the essential elements of tLoO is that
*everything* is alive at different levels of
consciousness. The reality and nature of "God"
encompasses a different sector of consciousness that
would encompass ours and surpass it. There's no
reason to believe we would "lose" anything from unity
with creation except our sense of separateness.
However, it's difficult to speak of losing something
that didn't really exist anyway.

Thirdly, a big part of the conflict here is that you
*insist* upon being able to understand the nature of
the unified Creator in 3D, philosophical terms. Do
you realize how futile (let alone arrogant) this is
(at least from the perspective of our approach via
tLoO)? I understand the compulsion to comprehensively
dissect and digest the principles of reality
scientific-like, and this is possible to a certain
extent, but every scientist and philosopher has
eventually hit a brick wall at some point when
discussing these ideas at more and more fundamental
levels. Which is ok, from our view, because part of
the appreciation one has for the self / Creator is the
essential ***MYSTERY*** of it all.

In summary: you demand proof. It is contrary to our
philosophy, however, to pretend that it exists, let
alone offer it. All we can do is share what we
believe, and hope that if you agree, you share your
understandings with us on this forum. If you do not
agree, please respect the purpose of our group.

> Mikey: How is an energetic God limited? The energy
> of love which is God is limitless and eternal.

> > *** How can then illusion exist, if ultimately all
> > is one?

That's like saying, "How can unreality exist is only
real things exist?"

Illusion does NOT exist as reality, that's what makes
it illusion. Distortion is an illusion and less real
than the unified creation. Upon what we choose to
focus, however, is a completely different matter.
Thinking about things doesn't make them real in the
real world (at least the one we experience in 3D) but
that doesn't mean they can't be real for the thinker.

> The illusion of "seeing a snake, where there is only

> a rope" (you will surely have come across that
> analogy), is created in the conscious of an
> individual. It doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t say that there is no rope
> or snake. In contrary: _because_ there is a rope,
> one can mistake it for a snake, and this means that
> a snake must exist somewhere, too.

No, it doesn't. It means the concept for a snake
exists. I can mistake a cloud for a dragon - that
doesn't mean dragons ACTUALLY exist.

> Because how else would it be possible to mistake a
> snake with a rope?

Because the mind is equally capable of perception and
creation if it accepts illusion as it's reality (in
fact, some would say the two are the same).

> The Monists want to prove with this analogy that
> there is only the rope (Oneness) but no snake.

No, IMHO they are saying that there is a rope and a
snake, but that perception can be both passive and
active.

> Mikey: Nothing exists but the great I am of
> all-pervading consciousness. yet the illusion is
> real. There is no rope and there is no snake. Both

> are appearances on the screen of the pure awareness
> of being. How else can the infinte One become known

> but through the illusions of individualized
> experience?

Good point, Mikey.

> > And then: WHO is mistaking the rope for a snake?

The Creator, identifying with one subset of its
infinite qualities. This limited identification
allows for a dualistic experience.

> > How can you mistake sth with sth else, when there
> > is only "One" (the rope)?

You believe there is such a thing as "me" and "not
me", and the mind constructs reality around that
concept.

> > Then there wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t exist a person, which is
> > subject to illusion, nor anything else which you
> > could mistake for the One.

I wouldn't say it doesn't exist so much as it is a
limited expression of true existence. If you do not
identify with all as self, then you identify with
something less than that, which implies something else
exists. Your identity is the key, and that's a matter
of mind soley.

> Mikey: I chose to see the snake of separation and
> not the rope of oneness. I chose to experience this

> shadow world instead of the unity of love/iight.
> Who is this I we all share? Who is this I from
> which all of creation is attached? That is the
> mystery, the silence of the infinte One.

EXACTLY, thank you, Mikey. You definately express
these truths more poignantly than I.

> > > Without the first distortion of the Law of
> > > One (Free Will,) then all you have left is evil.
> >
> Mikey: Could you please explain what you mean by
> evil there? I do not understand what you mean by
> that statement.

Nor do I. I alone cannot transgress my own free will.
If I am all that exists, does free will even have a
meaning? As a corollary to that, how can there be
evil when evil cannot be "done" as a thing separate
from the self?

> >*** Why does the Law of One call "free will" a
> "distortion"?
> >
> >
> Mikey: Because the freedom of will of awareness is
> the concept of manyness and manyness is a finite
> concept. That which is finite cannot be infinite,
> therefor it is a distortion of oneness for in
> oneness there is only the unity of infinity.

Exactly.

> > *** And if you _accept_ the importance of free
> > will, doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t crime still remain part of
> > this "spiritual Oneness"? Behind free will there
> > must be the reality of _individuality_, otherwise
> > it wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t matter who is harming whom.

There is no harm in the sight of the unified Creator.
From our individual perspective, there is, but only
because we don't identify with the harmer and the
harmed simultaneously, and we don't see the big
picture in which these actions are balanced and
integrated and benefited from.

> Mikey: All harming is an illusion for what is there

> to hurt, your deepest being is eternal and cannot be

> harmed only transformed closer to the original
> vibration of unconditonal love?

Consequently, it begs the question: what is being
harmed then? The only thing which is vulnerable is
that which is not real, eternal, and infinite. When
we cease valuing that which is unreal, we cease to be
vulnerable.

However, a big part of Ra's teaching is that the
experience of vulnerability, separation,
individuality, all benefit the evolution of the soul.
The purpose of the illusion is for creator to
experience itself, to benefit and learn from this
experience.

> > *** Why limit Oneness to inconceivability? If the
> > absolute was to be complete, it would have to
> > include the aspect of comprehensibility.

That doesn't follow at all. That's like saying if you
don't see it, it doesn't exist.

> > And even if it didnÃà‚‚Â ´t: WouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t the bhedaabheda-
> > tattva paradox be much closer to the relative
> > statement "cannot fully probe" than the
> > absolute statement that "Oneness is impersonal and
> > there is no individual creator"?

From your point of view, where proof is required,
maybe it would be. However, from the point of view of
the Law of One student, the mystery is accepted
without proof. Our understanding of the Law of One is
the highest we can achieve at whatever level we are
at, and the only difference between us and you is that
we are ok with that. We do not reject the mystery
simply because it is not comprehensible.

At the same time, Ra has offered some information that
may or may not fit into our highest concepts of
reality. Insofar as that information aligns with our
beliefs, or calls upon latent, intuitive beliefs and
concepts, we find the Ra information helpful, and
appropriate it for our continued evolution. It's
alright if this isn't acceptable to you, but it's also
alright if we continue doing what we do without your
consent or approval. :-)

> > *** Not quite so! Monism (50%) is the contrary of
> > Dualism (50%). BOTH are limited, because both
> > have to be UNIFIED!

An assertion without basis. You demand proof of us,
but then you shove these axioms down our throats. The
difference, of course, is that you're on *our* turf -
we didn't come to you demanding your acceptance of the
"revealed truth".

> > *** It cannot exist without individualities. Since
> > there wouldnÃà‚‚à‚´t be anyone to love someone.

And this is an argument against monism because...?

> >*** So, what is love by Raà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s definition?

READ THE F___ING BOOKS ALREADY. Then you won't have
to breathlessly question our defintions. :-)

> How can there be love without individuality?

There can't. However, if there is only one entity to
begin with, why would love be necessary?

> > *** This statement again yields semantic
questions:

Of course it does, since you insist on understanding
ultimate truth semantically. :-)

Is there no room for contemplation in your quest to
integrate Ra and Monism into your preconcieved
notions?

> > How can there be separation within ones own
> > (individual) being?

Have you ever heard of "multiple personalities"?

> > How can separation be "emptied"?

No idea what you mean here.

> > How can separation be replaced with love? Love
> > between whom?

One more time: love is a distortion of unity. Love is
unity through duality's eyes.

> > *** Love is not simply "energy"! The _unifyiing
> > factor_ of the individuality is what can be
> > described by the word "love". Because love is
> > that, which connects individuals. (Therefore you
> > say: "united in love"). This is true, on the
> > material (in a relative sense), and on the
> > spiritual level (in an absolute sense). Divine
> > love is the pure, shadeless expression of our very

> > own individuality, which is always connected with
> > free will and self-liability, because love is
> >_voluntary_.

Yes. Each of us, individually, represent a unique an
irreplacable segment of the creator. I agree with you
above statement substantially, and find difficulty
seeing where your problems with our philosophy lie.

> > Where we focus our love or donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t focus, is our
free
> > choice and our - and only our - responsibility.

Responsibility to whom?

> Because only divine love is the unifying force
> between individuals and the absolute connection
> between the parts and the whole (God).

That's congruent with my understanding.

> >Therefore Jesus could say: "I and my father are
> one." (Joh 10,30). But Jesus didnÃà‚‚Â ´t say: "I am my
> father"! This is the highest conclusion of all
> divine revelations, including the Bhagavad-Gita.

It would have been the same thing to say that, from a
divine or unified perspective. Obviously, from the
perspective of those he was trying to teach, it would
not have been expedient to claim that you are God,
because they are not listening nor percieving from the
unified vanatage point.

However, saying "I and my father are one" is the same
as saying "you and the father are one". And saying I
am God is the same as saying you are God, from the
unified perspective.

> > *** Choice between what? Choice by itself doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t
> > reveal any guidline or value. It is completely
> > neutral. Choice towards God or away from God is
> > the only one we can truely make. Everything else
> > is a consequence of this primal choice.

But the guidelines/values are consequences of the
choice, not vice versa. If that were the case, if the
choice of polarity (towards/away from God is such a
cumbersome way of saying it) were dependent on one's
values, then it would be possible to compel "true
love" from individuals. But those values don't
necessarily reflect the inner vibration of a person,
which determines not whether he or she holds the
values but whether those values serve the individual
well.

> > *** Of course, evil has its deep sense. But the
> > fact, that evil has a function, doesnÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´t imply that

> > the evil isnÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t evil any more!

Depends on how you're looking at it. From the unified
perspective, there is nothing "wrong" with the world.
From our perspective, where we are limited by
individuality and apparent bodily and mental
constraints, evil can have a meaning (it may not be
useful to judge things thusly, but it is at least
possible).

> > *** Yes, but what is a concrete goal and the steps
> > towards this goal? Regardless of what one
> > _desires_, he must admit that heà‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚Â‚ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â´s never
> > independent from the Absolute.

One doesn't have to admit anything, but separation is
necessarily finite and therefore there will eventually
be a return of the "focus" to the unfied
consciousness.

CC, you would do well to familiarize yourself more
fully with the Law of One before attacking it. You
might find you agree with it more than you think.

Mikey, thanks for your poetic and direct thoughts and
observations.

Love and light,

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

[Paul Kandrah]

P: I was really enjoying all the responses to this thread, both from
Mikey and Jeremy. They were very inclusive in addressing the truth
as it is seen by each, with clarity. However, the discord crept in
again, without necessity. The quotes are Jeremy's.

"I agree wholeheartedly with your points on love and the futility of
insisting on digesting these concepts from the 3D mindset
exclusively."

"Not only is it difficult, it's *impossible* [to disprove points].
The Law, being fundamental, is entirely too fundamental to
conceptualize adequately in language. What you seek from us is better
sought from within."

"You certainly are welcome to stay, but as our guidelines state, we
cannot make any headway on our primary purpose if we are constantly
defending the fundamentals from attack."

P: If the fundamental come only from within, then how is it possible
to be attacked? 'What' is being attacked? Our notions and ideas?
Our true inner self is impervious. It just is. It need never feel
threatened.

"What do I care what *they* say? They are essentially irrelevant
when dissecting the Law of One."

P: The irony in this statement is biting! With the Law of One,
*they* are part of us.

"There's no reason to believe we would "lose" anything from unity
with creation except our sense of separateness. However, it's
difficult to speak of losing something that didn't really exist
anyway [that is, the separateness]."

"I understand the compulsion to comprehensively dissect and digest
the principles of reality scientific-like, and this is possible to a
certain extent, but every scientist and philosopher has eventually
hit a brick wall at some point when discussing these ideas at more
and more fundamental levels."

P: That 'more fundamental level' is partly the energy that comes
*through* the words.

I see much improvement. It's almost gone now.

I continue to hope.

[Paul Kandrah]

Beneath the words...

"The one who has attained final integration is no longer limited by
the culture in which he has grown up. "He has embraced all of life."
He passes beyond all these limiting forms, while retaining all that
is best and most universal in them, finally giving birth to a fully
comprehensive self. He accepts not only his own community, his own
society, his own friends, his own culture, but all humanity. He does
not remain bound to one limited set of values in such a way that he
opposes them aggressively or defensively to others. He is
fully "Catholic" [etc] in the best sense of he word. He has a unified
vision and experience of the one truth shining out in all its various
manifestations, some clearer than others, some more definite and more
certain than others. He does not set these partial views up in
opposition to each other, but unifies them in a dialectic
or an insight of complementarity. With this view of life he is able
to bring perspective, liberty and spontaneity into the lives of
others. The finally integrated person is a peacemaker, and that is
why there is such a desperate need for our leaders to become such
persons of insight."

~Thomas Merton

[Jeremy Weiland]

> However, the discord crept in again, without
> necessity.

When you've been here long enough, you realize these
things move in cycles. The discord is there - I
simply acknowledge it, rather than pretending I am
Jesus and somehow above it all.

Some people have a problem separating my participation
on the list from my moderation of the list. That's
unfortunate... but OH WELL.

> P: If the fundamental come only from within, then
> how is it possible to be attacked? 'What' is being
> attacked? Our notions and ideas?

Not so much as the cohesion that those notions and
ideas give us as a group. There's absolutely nothing
wrong with talking about much of this stuff, but the
list lends itself more to an informed sharing of
perspectives rather than the debate format we have
going on here. In other words, you don't have to
accept the Law of One, but you also don't have to hang
out here, either.

I thought I made it clear that my problem with these
discussions lie in their relevance to the group's
purpose, not in the value of the discussions in and of
themselves. I don't appreciate somebody busting up in
here and just flat out telling us we're wrong. It's
rude, and it causes "discord".

> Our true inner self is impervious. It just is. It
> need never feel threatened.

Great, in the meantime I guess anybody can just come
on here and say whatever they want. Great.

> "What do I care what *they* say? They are
> essentially irrelevant when dissecting the Law of
> One."
>
> P: The irony in this statement is biting! With the
> Law of One, *they* are part of us.

Yes, they are a part of us. That doesn't mean that
everything that comes out of their mouth is relevant
to any given discussion.

Just so we're clear, this "discord" concerns people's
attitudes towards our collective purpose and policies
*as a group*. CC has every right to believe what he
wants to believe, but he does not have the right to
change the direction of the group single handedly.
Nor does anybody else.

> P: That 'more fundamental level' is partly the
> energy that comes *through* the words.

Yes, but energy doesn't equal proof, which is what CC
insists on seeking.

It truly boggles my mind sometimes... and I do
apologize to everybody for the little "phase" we're
going through right now... :-)

Love and light,

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

[srachele2003]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=j7uQvBl1Tx7y7AZB_BOamSvC3nE8_H5ZMHPTcC Km-aTiUddMjeS0HoHqRjU7eRHEnmDyjIpsFwLD724), Jeremy Weiland <greenlantern113@y...>
wrote in response to Mikey and Cosmiccell:

> ...*The duality is occuring WITHIN the unity*, and is therefore a
> subset of the unity and less fundamental.

Sal here:
Exactly! I believe this is what the 'onion' analogy is really about.
The lower dimensions are contained within the higher ones. The higher
dimensions are where duality and separation are seen as illusions. It
is indeed difficult for RA to convey the 'monism' of higher dimensions
to those of us who appear to be 'stuck' in the lower dimensions.

Jeremy wrote:
> ...love is a projection of unity onto duality. It is the essential
> unity, distorted to accomodate a subset of truth and true
> experience.

Sal here:
Yes! Love is a higher-dimensional reality that is distorted as it
'cascades down' into the realms of perceived duality. That is why we
have so many forms (agape, romantic, etc.)

Jeremy wrote:
> every scientist and philosopher has
> eventually hit a brick wall at some point when
> discussing these ideas at more and more fundamental
> levels. Which is ok, from our view, because part of
> the appreciation one has for the self / Creator is the
> essential ***MYSTERY*** of it all.

Sal here:
Agreed. It was also mentioned that bringing other teachings into the
Law of One discussion is not prudent. I think it depends on how it is
done. I, personally, as a science teacher, seek many viewpoints to
broaden my understanding. Indeed, there are many teachings which seek
to validate and reinforce the LOO viewpoints, and it is sometimes
helpful to mention them (which I have already done on previous posts).
Bringing up contrary viewpoints may occasionally be helpful to our
understanding, but Jeremy's caution is certainly understood. It would
be like inviting Muslims to a Christianity discussion.

Jeremy wrote:
> Illusion does NOT exist as reality, that's what makes
> it illusion.

Sal here:
One definition of illusion could be "not perceiving things as they
really are." Perception itself is the illusion, because we never
perceive anything as it actually is. We could say that reality is
merely different configurations of vibrating energy in a quantum flux.
How we view that reality will always be in distortion, at least as
long as we are in human form. Then there are psychological illusions
that only exist to the perceiver, such as fear. Fear is an energy
pattern in the mind of the perceiver.

Jeremy and Mikey both discussed evil:
> ...how can there be evil when evil cannot be "done" as a thing
> separate from the self?

Sal here:
'Evil' is, IMHO, a state of distortion whereby one separates out one
or more parts of creation as being less deserving of Infinite Love
than other parts of creation.

Jeremy wrote:
> There is no harm in the sight of the unified Creator...

Sal here:
If my definition of 'evil' is valid, then Jeremy's quote would imply
there cannot be any 'evil' in the unified Creator, and therefore, no
'evil' can exist in reality. It is an illusion.

Jeremy continues:
> Consequently, it begs the question: what is being
> harmed then? The only thing which is vulnerable is
> that which is not real, eternal, and infinite. When
> we cease valuing that which is unreal, we cease to be
> vulnerable.

Sal here:
Precisely!

Jeremy wrote:
> However, a big part of Ra's teaching is that the
> experience of vulnerability, separation,
> individuality, all benefit the evolution of the soul.
> The purpose of the illusion is for creator to
> experience itself, to benefit and learn from this
> experience.

Sal here:
IOW, the Divine Plan is unfolding perfectly, despite appearances.

Jeremy quoted Cosmiccell:
> > > ...Monism (50%) is the contrary of
> > > Dualism (50%). BOTH are limited, because both
> > > have to be UNIFIED!

Sal here:
I disagree, as does Jeremy. We both stated previously that the duality
is contained within the unity and is part of the unity. How can it be
50-50 when we are talking about 'onion' layers? We live in ONE UNIFIED
UNIVERSE and contained within the One is the perception of many.

Jeremy quoted Cosmiccell:
> > > *** Of course, evil has its deep sense...

Sal here:
Only if you see our belief in separation as existing deep within our
subconscious mind. It's still a perception and therefore distorted.

********
I enjoyed Mikey's responses to CC even though I didn't comment on
them. (There's only so much time in the day to respond to posts.)
Thanks, Jeremy, for your wisdom.

--Sal

[Jeremy Weiland]

> Sal here:
> Agreed. It was also mentioned that bringing other
> teachings into the Law of One discussion is not
> prudent. I think it depends on how it is done.

Of course. What I said was that you can't point out a
flaw in one teaching (Vedas) and somehow use that as
an argument against another teaching (Law of One).
It's just not a logical form of argument.

If CC has a better understanding of what it was he was
critiquing, his contributions would be much more
beneficial to the group. The sum total of CC's
comments on Ra has been a systematic critique of the
material relying on perceived similarities with (what
I can only assume is) material more familiar to him.
I cannot accept such critique as either informed or
valid. His insistence on taking the Ra material out
of its native context and projecting it onto his
personal beliefs and theories is not conducive to
group study and comprehension of said material, and
this is the disturbance I have sought to articulate.

I do admit to losing patience :-)

> I, personally, as a science teacher, seek many
> viewpoints to broaden my understanding. Indeed,
> there are many teachings which seek to validate and
> reinforce the LOO viewpoints, and it is sometimes
> helpful to mention them (which I have already done
> on previous posts).

No doubt about it! But seeking other viewpoints to
broaden your understanding is primarily a individual
endeavor for personal growth. What we seek to do *in
this group* is discuss such matters in the context of
the core material. For instance, are there elements
of the vedas that correlate with tLoO? Elements that
contrast?

The key point is that group discussion of other
material *requires* context in the core material - we
need common ground from which to start if we are to
understand one another. That is *not* the same as
somebody picking through the study guide and find
things to fault. An honest, genuine effort has to be
made to understand the material before it can be
extrapolated upon to tackle other viewpoints and
integrate / contrast them.

> Bringing up contrary viewpoints may occasionally be
> helpful to our understanding, but Jeremy's caution
> is certainly understood. It would be like inviting
> Muslims to a Christianity discussion.

Exactly! Insofar as the Christians convened their
group to discuss Christianity, bringing Muslims in who
have not studied Christianity as thoroughly would just
not be fair to those who have. The key is not us all
holding the same specific ideas and opinions so much
as being able to work from common ground. A Muslim
might be able to make some good points about
Christianity, but only insofar as he/she had a
comprehensive understanding of the Christian material.
To just sit there and talk about how Muhammed is
better than Christ would be counterproductive to the
core mission of the group. In other words, it would
be rude.

> Jeremy wrote:
> > Illusion does NOT exist as reality, that's what
> > makes it illusion.
>
> Sal here:
> One definition of illusion could be "not perceiving
> things as they really are." Perception itself is the

> illusion, because we never perceive anything as it
> actually is.

Thank you, Sal - upon analyzing my statment a second
time, I realize that that is indeed what I meant. The
perception is not the same thing as the thing itself -
which is why true understanding comes not when you see
the object of your study clearly, but rather when you
*become* the thing you seek to understand.

> Jeremy and Mikey both discussed evil:
> > ...how can there be evil when evil cannot be
> > "done" as a thing separate from the self?
>
> Sal here:
> 'Evil' is, IMHO, a state of distortion whereby one
> separates out one or more parts of creation as being

> less deserving of Infinite Love than other parts of
> creation.

And is that not a belief / perception that is not more
fundamental than the reality of unity?

And do we all not do that to some extent? That's why
I have a problem with using the word "evil" - it's so
apocalyptic, last judgement. Evil implies some
archenemy plotting your annihilation in his secret
underground lair... just not realistic or applicable,
to my life at least. That's why I prefer terms like,
"negative", and "service to self", where the
philosophies can be analyzed in terms of what they
actually are, rather than carrying biblical or moral
baggage.

> Sal here:
> If my definition of 'evil' is valid, then Jeremy's
> quote would imply there cannot be any 'evil' in the
> unified Creator, and therefore, no 'evil' can exist
> in reality. It is an illusion.

That is my opinion, yes. The perception of "evil" (by
your definition) requires the perception of
separation, which is not fundamental to true reality.

> Jeremy quoted Cosmiccell:
> > > > *** Of course, evil has its deep sense...
>
> Sal here:
> Only if you see our belief in separation as existing
> deep within our subconscious mind. It's still a
> perception and therefore distorted.

Well, I interpreted CC's statement to mean that there
is a utility to evil when determining its nature in
the cosmic play. I agree with that; it is the
experience of the negative, "unreal" polarity that
allows for imbalances to (seemingly) occur and
catalyst to (seemingly) be necessary to (seemingly)
correct it. In this way (the experience of
distortion, negativity, "unreality") the Creator
learns about itself through experiencing different
"finitizations" of its infinite qualities.

> Thanks, Jeremy, for your wisdom.

Thanks very much, Sal, for providing your clarity and
wisdom.

Love and light,

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

[Vincent, Fran]

Comiccell, Sal, Lesley, Mikey, Jeremy and Other Selves:

Lucky Fran writes: Cosmiccell's use of words below, concave and convex, as I
recall were not used in the Law of One works. But CC's information did
trigger a long time question I had in my mind, related to the Law of One.

As a common denominator, do most of us agree we are going into the fourth
density? My question is, in fourth density: is the earth, and we sub logi
literally moving toward the Sun, or further away from the Sun, and this is
where CC's info plays into my thoughts.

Your E-mails answered my question. Yes, the earth is traveling toward the
Sun, especially Lesley's responses}.

Could it be that when the Creator is creating, breathing out in the
expansion process, the densities and spheres are in convex mode? And vice
versa, when the densities and spheres are returning to the creator,
breathing in, the contraction process, then the densities and spheres are
concave?

My interpretation: the spheres and densities are in different modes
depending on the evolutionary phase of the creator and it's creation.

Light and Love to All,

Lucky Fran

[srachele2003]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=kfoG-MmhXvlGLRLxPFMiFgM5tfOEVv3kQ4QyHwZiDiv7t6chaB4X3B8 uWMBdcypMK7E7zXwZvPj0PBuWeNg), "Vincent, Fran" <fran.vincent@p...> wrote:

> Could it be that when the Creator is creating, breathing out in the
> expansion process, the densities and spheres are in convex mode? And
> vice versa, when the densities and spheres are returning to the
> creator, breathing in, the contraction process, then the densities
> and spheres are concave?...
>
Sal here:

Yes, that's sort of how I see it.

In Jim Hurtak's "Keys of Enoch" and other sacred science writings, the
term "centropy" is used to mean the opposite of entropy. The Creator's
out-breath is entropy, and the in-breath is centropy. The amazing
thing about our Universe is that it appears that the Creator is
breathing in and out at the same time, depending on what density you
are viewing. In the strictly 3D sense, entropy is the dominating
factor. But the evolution of awareness (whereby we take disorder and
make sense (order) out of it, is centropy.

In essence, our evolutionary process is centropic -- and eventually we
merge back into the One. And yet the creative process is entropic --
we breathe life into the void and it cascades down into lower and
lower densities. I think RA uses slightly different words to describe
this, but David's description of the geometries of each density seems
to indicate that forms can 'morph' in either direction -- say a
tetrahedron into an isocahedron or vice versa. If you look into a
kaliedoscope, it appears everything is contracting into a singularity
if you turn the dial one way, and expanding into infinity if you turn
the dial the other way.

I think the Universe tends toward one polarity or the other (entropy
or centropy), but the One Itself is, of course, beyond the
inhale-exhale process. The process of creation is, by its very nature,
a study of dualism. Push-pull, light-dark, inbreath-outbreath,
entropy-centropy. I guess this is what keeps the Creator interested in
his/her/its creation.

Sal

[Vincent, Fran]

Sal and All:

Thank you for expressing your historical knowledge, and interrelating the
terms: convex to entropy (out-breath), and concave to entropy (in-breath).
Due to your through explanations, you have settled for me this particular
question

But of course more questions arise. See below.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my message.

Light and Love to ALL,

Lucky Fran

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=3VnLi0cZ6MmwymmGTPubQEn1r3xFqYXCwSmunz kX5VuM0JMXenI0W6luf4aQgKOoBvuE58pGgSdS_YrIhw), "Vincent, Fran" <fran.vincent@p...> wrote:

> Could it be that when the Creator is creating, breathing out in the
expansion process, the densities and spheres are in convex mode? And vice
versa, when the densities and spheres are returning to the creator,
breathing in, the contraction process, then the densities and spheres are
concave?...
>
Sal here:

Yes, that's sort of how I see it.

...In the strictly 3D sense, entropy is the dominating
factor. But the evolution of awareness (whereby we take disorder and make
sense (order) out of it, is centropy.

Fran writes: Sal, you indicate that entropy is primary in the 3D sense. Do
you mean that this is when the Logos is in the matter/physical stage? And
conversely, when traveling back toward the Logos/spirit, and the evolution
of awareness, that disorder then is replaced and creates order? (I may have
found my answer by asking the question--we are going toward Unity, the
consequence being order?)

Sal wrote: In essence, our evolutionary process is centropic -- and
eventually we
merge back into the One. And yet the creative process is entropic --
we breathe life into the void and it cascades down into lower and
lower densities. I think RA uses slightly different words to describe
this, but David's description of the geometries of each density seems to
indicate that forms can 'morph' in either direction -- say a tetrahedron
into an isocahedron or vice versa.

...I think the Universe tends toward one polarity or the other (entropy or
centropy), but the One Itself is, of course, beyond the inhale-exhale
process. The process of creation is, by its very nature,a study of dualism.
Push-pull, light-dark, inbreath-outbreath, entropy-centropy.


This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to
whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended
addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or
distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you very
much.

[srachele2003]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=22sU4QWdkahDtvdIlgfn3-2zW8wzgdVZmS4rJEQO0S1TOD75PvQ8hfT2m_GQe9UsgPuCfVQp OvWICIFqB9I), "Vincent, Fran" <fran.vincent@p...> wrote:

> ...Sal, you indicate that entropy is primary in the 3D sense. Do
> you mean that this is when the Logos is in the matter/physical
> stage? And conversely, when traveling back toward the Logos/spirit
> and the evolution of awareness, that disorder then is replaced and
> creates order? (I may have found my answer by asking the
> question--we are going toward Unity, the consequence being order?)
>
Fran, Sal here:
Yes, I think you correctly grasped what I was trying to say. The hard
part is not the in-breath, out-breath (concave-convex) action of the
One, but rather, the simultaneous nature of the duality. The
collapsing of time into a singularity is not well understood, but can
be experienced directly. I think it's sort of like looking outward
from the singularity -- from the center of Being -- and seeing both
in-breath and out-breath occurring simultaneously. New creation
spreads outward into disorder, while mature creation evolves inward
toward Source.

I realize it's difficult to put this into words, but I appreciate your
interest in grasping the duality within Oneness.

Blessings,

Sal

[Vincent, Fran]

Sal and All:

Sal--Fran here. Thank you for responding to my confusing statements. I am
acquiring more clarity, thanks to your help and others. I keep attempting
to understand the processes without incorporating the Allness.

All is Well,

In Peace and Light,

Lucky Fran

Sal wrote:...The hardpart is not the in-breath, out-breath (concave-convex)
action of the One, but rather, the simultaneous nature of the duality. The
collapsing of time into a singularity is not well understood, but can be
experienced directly. I think it's sort of like looking outward from the
singularity -- from the center of Being -- and seeing both in-breath and
out-breath occurring simultaneously. New creation spreads outward into
disorder, while mature creation evolves inward toward Source.

This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to
whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended
addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or
distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you very
much.