Letting Go of Letting Go

[Michael Bergman]

Do we really have any control to let go of? I mean seriously, when have you
ever felt like you were the ONE that is in control of everything? I don?t
know about you but I have yet to even go a day where I was in control of my
every breath, not to mention the breath of the universe. How can you let go
of something that you have never really had? In order to let go of control,
it is first necessary to be completely in control. Does the statement ?I
create my own reality? mean to be in control of your reality? Is a Creator
in control of its creations or does a Creator just allow its creations the
freedom to create and re-create themselves unto infinity?

I know that there arises the fear of abandonment by just allowing all that
you create to evolve with its own free will but that is the way of a LOVE
that supports its creations so unconditionally that every potential
possibility is embraced with all-inclusive acceptance. Creating is not
controlling for the very idea of control creates the division of a self that
is in control and another self that is being controlled. In a creation
where all is one being, there truly is no other to control or to be
controlled. All just is, blissfully aware of its expanse into forever.

Letting go is an act of control for that which you are letting go is in your
control. As long as you feel that you are in control of that which you are
holding, you will also be in control of that which you are releasing. Let
go of letting go, release the very idea that you have ever held anything at
all. All that you have ever controlled with the grasp of your understanding
has restricted the light bubbles of your creations from expanding and
evolving. Control is the ultimate bubble burster, it is the one thing that
prevents you from living out your limitless dreams. Stop holding onto your
memories and start allowing your thoughts and dreams to grow. Letting go is
simply merging with the already constant flow of love that is moving forward
to the re-unification of all wills with the one will of total freedom.

peace,
Mikey

[lealdragon]

I agree that our conscious selves are never really 'in control.' But, I sure
THOUGHT I was in control! When I first got into
'New Age'thinking and read books about the power of thought & visualization, I
really grabbed hold of the idea and took off
with it. I didn't think of it as control, but as 'creating my reality.' Then, to
further fuel my progression into the web of perceived control, I got into the
'create your own destiny' mentality promoted by many companies to train their
distributors
to sell their products.

Wow, did I ever fall flat on my face! My Higher Self let me be
taken to the brink, 'close to the edge', barely escaping death,
not just once but several times! (in 3 cases literally near
physical death, and other times emotional). In all cases, it
was nothing short of miraculous that I even survived. Ironically,
it was the very things I was doing to 'be in control' and 'make
sure I created everything perfectly' that triggered the near-collapse of my
life.

What I realized was that I am NOT in control! Quite a humbling
experience!

If you're wondering why this same pattern happened several times,
well, that's just how deeply entrenched my dogma was - it took a few
times for me to realize, 'duh, I think somebody's trying to tell me
something...'

That's not to say that positive thinking/visualization are not
wonderful tools to use. They obviously are. But my mistake was in
thinking that just because I 'did everything right' that things would work out
precisely like I'd planned. Not so!

I still see this so prevalent in the New Age community, and, in a
different form, in the Christian community. The New Agers: 'you just
need to meditate more, think more positive.' The Christians: 'If you
are still sick or poor, then you aren't praying enough/don't have
enough faith.'

This is very tricky to articulate; I hope no one misinterprets
this and thinks I am saying not to meditate or think positive.

Hey, prayer/meditation/faith are all wonderful and extremely
important. But to think that if we 'just pray more' we will be
in control, is, well, using something good to justify control!

The LoO has clarified that there are other factors, like...catalyst!!!
So, rather than trying to control what happens, I am now seeking
to be open to whatever catalyst is b4 me. I do think joyful, positive creating
is wonderful, but whenever I start thinking that events in my life are happening
BECAUSE of my positive thinking/visualiztion, usually something happens to make
me
realize I am NOT in control, and I wonder, and I marvel.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=oJlitZ064wJjbXC3zj0xjGk52Snnv8YtxAUSFe iw2uq61rba-4dowesNIulEY2usZRLcW7-GELsIHMo), "Michael Bergman" <bergmanmichael@m...>
wrote:
> Do we really have any control to let go of? I mean seriously, when have you
ever felt like you were the ONE that is in control
of everything? I don't know about you but I have yet to even go
a day where I was in control of my every breath, not to mention
the breath of the universe.

[NEIL HADDON]

Whoa there, dragon!

"I agree that our conscious selves are never really 'in control.'"

We have seen that the aether, configured in varying shapes and frequencies is
the source of all 'matter'. But what directs the aether?

Similarly, not everything about life has to do with 'matter', what about
'events'? What creates events?

We eventually come to the conclusion of some underlying (? over-lying?)
intelligent design, which we choose to call 'spirit'.

If we are all One, then every one of us is part of the One, Universal Creator,
Consciousness, Mind, Spirit,God, whatever term best suits.

All the philosphers tell us that spirit is one and indivisible: so the only
possible difference between the spirit that is in-dwelling in you and I, and
Universal Spirit ( if there is a difference at all) is one of degree.

Surely then to an extent, no matter how miniscule, we have the power to
influence matter and events - which makes up our lives?

Without checking references, does Ra not imply that we may not be able to move
mountains just yet, but as we progress to group mind/spirit complex we shall
move mountains?

I am not discounting karma, or catalyst. I am not suggesting that by meditating
long enough you can jump out of a ten storey windows and glide gently to the
ground. However, from my own experience, I do suggest we can visualise and
desire and claim some circumstance as our own, and it will manifest - in some
form: not necessarily exactly as we imagined, but given that everything which
happens is for our benefit, then in the long term, wider picture the form of
manifestation will be the one which is 'best' for us. Often, it is only looking
back after some considerable time, that we can appreciate the chain of events.

In the past, I too have gone through the positive thinking marketing hype which
is invariably slanted to material wealth and achievement, usually for the
benefit of the company, not you or I; my conclusion is that this is an example
of a noble principle which has been usurped for 3D materialistic gain.

The word 'control' tends to have dark connotations, but I submit that as
integral parts (-otherwise it would not be 'universal' would it?)of the One
Universal Spirit we can have some influence on our lives.

Sudden thought - is this not to some extent 'penetrating the veil' to the powers
we forgot we possess?

Love.
Neil







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Malai]

Hi lealdragon

I have to agree with your story here, as I have a similiar one
myself, which I won't go into.
Suffice to say, what I learned was that I, my 3d self, did NOT drive
my bus, but in fact my Higher Self did.
What I learned was that I had to give up, let go, of my perception
that I DID drive the bus.
As perceptions are formed by everyting one does and has learn't
throughout one's 3d life, all those things are up for grabs as well.

To let go of familiarity.
To let go of judgements.
To let go of self absorbsion.
To let go of fear.
To let go of one's comfort zone.
To let go of one's history.

This list, I found covered most of the areas that formed my
perceptional base and that is what I work on.
So, although letting go is just a release, or surrender to one's
Higher Self, there is actually a process of divestment of the former
perceptional self, so that this is possible.
3d self to 5D Higher Self.

Cheers

Malai



--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=HGGQS3Z4GHhDcLdkysOMIMreoDDvl8B0-qyqmKez4fsc0nREeF-DhShXDadF6dgB8aI8W6kzucPvPdLm8WU), "lealdragon" <lealdragon@g...> wrote:
> I agree that our conscious selves are never really 'in control.'
But, I sure THOUGHT I was in control! When I first got into
> 'New Age'thinking and read books about the power of thought &
visualization, I really grabbed hold of the idea and took off
> with it. I didn't think of it as control, but as 'creating my
reality.' Then, to further fuel my progression into the web of
perceived control, I got into the 'create your own destiny'
mentality promoted by many companies to train their distributors
> to sell their products.
>
> Wow, did I ever fall flat on my face! My Higher Self let me be
> taken to the brink, 'close to the edge', barely escaping death,
> not just once but several times! (in 3 cases literally near
> physical death, and other times emotional). In all cases, it
> was nothing short of miraculous that I even survived. Ironically,
> it was the very things I was doing to 'be in control' and 'make
> sure I created everything perfectly' that triggered the near-
collapse of my life.
>
> What I realized was that I am NOT in control! Quite a humbling
> experience!
>
>

[Jan Wicherink]

Hi Dragon,

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience in manifesting the opposite of
your desires. I can see how you lost your faith in it!

However I would like to give you just a suggestion that could be valid
for you. I'm not sure it applies to you and I'm not here to judge you
since what you've been through is sheer hell!

I've become a proponent and believer of the reality creation game
myself because I have different and only positive experiences in this
respect. As I have come to understand it, reality creation is about
putting your visualisations, your desires and emotions on the reality
you do want to create for yourself. Often people focus their attention
on the things they DON'T want and they end up attracting only more of it!

These are the basic principles explained in what is called the `Law of
Attraction' a channelling by an entity `Abraham', you may or may not
have heard of. I see no violation in these teachings with what Ra
tells us about reality creation.

Maybe we subconsciously attract the things we don't like because
that's where we put our focus on mostly. So the trick is to NOT
control the situation we dislike but to focus our attention on the
things we do like and desire.

So here's the paradox, in order to get what we like, first we have to
fully accept the situation we're presently in and accept the
responsibility that it's the result of our own reality creation
program too.

Maybe that's the big issue discussed here about control. In order to
get control, we first have to release it! I always find it amazing
that God's truth seems to be always the opposite of that we as humans
perceive and or like to accept. These are the funny paradoxes of live.


Love,
Jan


> What I realized was that I am NOT in control! Quite a humbling
> experience!
>

[lealdragon]

Neil, I completely agree with you! 100% !

It's difficult to define what I'm trying to convey, so I will give
an example to describe:

One of the times in which I feel I was `too controlling' is when I
was pregnant. As any mother knows, childbirth is an extremely
powerful force. But, instead of working with that energy and
trusting, I tried to `do everything right.' I thought that if I
drank my herbal teas, exercised everyday, and did affirmations, I
would have a smooth, easy delivery. Since I had planned a homebirth,
I made sure to have herbal remedies on hand for every conceivable
complication. I micro-managed every little detail, instead of
resting and allowing the energy to flow.

Well, it all backfired and I ended up in the hospital with an
emergency c-section and we both almost died.

This completely shattered my foundation of beliefs. I could not
understand why all my affirmations had not worked!

The same pattern was repeated a few more times, in which I did
everything `right' to ensure a certain result, and the opposite
happened.

I realize now that I was actually operating out of FEAR. I couldn't
trust that my baby would be fine; I was putting my trust in my
external actions of drinking herb tea, etc.
The fear was stronger than any trust, so it actually attracted the
emergency situation.

What I learned from this is that when there is fear, there is the
tendency to respond to that fear by seeking to control the
situation, rather than flowing with the guidance of the Higher Self.

In my case, I still did create my own reality, but it was created
out of fear. So maybe a more accurate terminology would be 'letting
go of fear.'


--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=OkEEh7LPagtWyns_bXxoY2msNCB7lFiUy0IMQZ jBowWOm0-dVGfaT0m-Q_rhlW1FsDdMT2TPcMsaBXdmJw), "NEIL HADDON" <wayshower@g...> wrote:
> ...we can visualise and desire and claim some circumstance as our
own, and it will manifest - in some form: not necessarily exactly as
we imagined, but given that everything which happens is for our
benefit, then in the long term, wider picture the form of
manifestation will be the one which is 'best' for us. Often, it is
only looking back after some considerable time, that we can
appreciate the chain of events.
>

[vuy_iswa]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=t3xoB2kTtLrlcbJkp12i2P76rrZEj5H6_aMrDx b83qmpAObVYhqzVntRAAnj63xE-umosHXGL6AWZTk), "lealdragon" <lealdragon@g...> wrote:
>
> One of the times in which I feel I was `too controlling' is when I
> was pregnant. As any mother knows, childbirth is an extremely
> powerful force. But, instead of working with that energy and
> trusting, I tried to `do everything right.' I thought that if I
> drank my herbal teas, exercised everyday, and did affirmations, I
> would have a smooth, easy delivery. Since I had planned a homebirth,
> I made sure to have herbal remedies on hand for every conceivable
> complication. I micro-managed every little detail, instead of
> resting and allowing the energy to flow.
>
> Well, it all backfired and I ended up in the hospital with an
> emergency c-section and we both almost died.

Hi Lealdragon,

As a fellow Mum I can relate to your concerns about childbirth. As you
say; you were operating out of fear, thus became attached to that fear
throughout the pregnancy.

As Neil mentioned the lesson clarified something very important for
your growth, even though, or perhaps because it was so dramatic!.

So maybe "Letting go of attachment to an outcome" is perhaps the key
that unlocks this reality creation conundrum?

Love,

V

[lealdragon]

Thanks Jan! I totally agree! At the time, I thought I was affirming
what I wanted, but I realize now that I was probably in denial about
the fears that were there. Rather than releasing those fears, I just
tried to override them with plenty of affirmations and positive
actions. I was very much trying to control the fearful situation,
to 'force' it into being something different, rather than just
realeasing it.

Now that this is something I am consciously aware of and working on,
things do seem to be flowing better. I have a friend at work who
seems to be doing exactly what I did at the time; and it looks just
so obvious to me now. She is in a healing process and doesn't seem
to realize how much she is suppressing. There's not much I can say
to her, other than just be there for her, just as I wasn't very open
to having my eyes opened at the time either.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=sTPc0tGGJ2090NfRyNzcju5G9evXIMyFs_FDMi xwZdtSlqq3T0LEL1mjqLJVLiFYj9LyE1b-McqJK8EM8Q), "Jan Wicherink" <jan.wicherink@x>
wrote:
> I'm sorry you had such a bad experience in manifesting the
opposite of
> your desires. > > ...Maybe we subconsciously attract the things we
don't like because
> that's where we put our focus on mostly. So the trick is to NOT
> control the situation we dislike but to focus our attention on the
> things we do like and desire.
>
>

[lealdragon]

Yes, that's it precisely! To do the affirmations, consciously create
our reality, etc. yet not be 'attached' to whether it manifests
exactly the way we THINK it 'should.'

I was VERY attached to my baby being born a certain way. This
experience made me reevaluate what's really important and realize that
the end result WILL be what's for our highest good, even if it's not
exactly like we'd imagined.

> As Neil mentioned the lesson clarified something very important for
> your growth, even though, or perhaps because it was so dramatic!.
>
> So maybe "Letting go of attachment to an outcome" is perhaps the key
> that unlocks this reality creation conundrum?
>
> Love,
>
> V

[Jan Wicherink]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=nAQgKY71biazvmPlqJDDqVgdKsWMTuVwx3sA0M M36sJmNAMCBycHM1G6P25sqPgEJFc5VZD4Sj8-n_fYSw), "lealdragon" <lealdragon@g...> wrote:
> Thanks Jan! I totally agree! At the time, I thought I was affirming
> what I wanted, but I realize now that I was probably in denial about
> the fears that were there. Rather than releasing those fears, I just
> tried to override them with plenty of affirmations and positive
> actions. I was very much trying to control the fearful situation,
> to 'force' it into being something different, rather than just
> realeasing it.
>


Dear lealdragon,

If fear and love are vibrations (like all else in the universe) than
we could think of it as an e-motion or energy in motion that is send
to the Oneness, which is the universe. These vibrations I believe do
touch on reality by means of altering the overall energy matrix in the
universe. Eventually the universe responds in one way or the other.

There is a lot of research done by Russian scientists who claim that
torsion waves radiated by our consciousness may be the explanation of
many Psi related phenomena, like David Wilcock has mentioned in his
research. Science is actually now in the position to prove that we can
not be separated from the Oneness of the universe, the vibrating sea
of quantum energy that we are all part of. (By the way did you see the
movie `What the Bleep'?)

From Daniel Winter I learned that the emotion of love actually creates
an implosion of electromagnetic energy (Light) in the form of
spiralling energy waves in vortex or donut shape structures that
exceed the speed of light. This happens to be the perfect description
of the torsion wave and what Ra termed the spiralling Love/Light energy.

So the question whether our thoughts and emotions have a real affect
on our reality I think is beyond any doubt, the question we now should
address is `how does it work?'

Fear is one of the most fundamental human emotions. For eons we have
been taught by our parents, our priests and our scientists that fear
is real. I think the time has come that we can start working on the
release of our fears and see how they actually shaped our reality. We
created a society today that has become very fearful since we lost
contact with our source and as a result all control.

David Wilcock's and other researchers are helping us to understand how
reality creation really works such that we may start to release a lot
of the fear we have collected and regain control of our own destiny as
a human species.

Love
Jan

[Del]

In the last year I was forced to let go of my job, my apartment, my routine, my
town and my car.

By looking at these as opportunities, rather than problems, I am now retired in
Hawai'i, with a new car and a better apartment and many more friends.

I had to respond to my times of letting go as God's way of creating space for
something better. I had to behave as though God meant good to me by these
losses, rather than harm. If I had acted in fear, I'm sure my situation would
be quite different.

How can God ever mean us ill, for we are of the same.

Jon H.

[lealdragon]

Jan, you have helped me to clarify that what I was calling 'control'
was actually utilizing the same principle of creating our reality,
but just with fear being the root of the manifestation.


--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=GXCipk5v3FniPjUA4Xa-MJgcQPO5x6qAAZa9pwaiFwZOwJhRSRMVwC-2LhJDAIBsQPt_QmzGTIlxwHCYDqyl), "Jan Wicherink" <jan.wicherink@x>
wrote:
> --- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=GXCipk5v3FniPjUA4Xa-MJgcQPO5x6qAAZa9pwaiFwZOwJhRSRMVwC-2LhJDAIBsQPt_QmzGTIlxwHCYDqyl), "lealdragon" <lealdragon@g...> wrote:
>> (By the way did you see the
> movie `What the Bleep'?)

Yes I did! Awesome!

> From Daniel Winter I learned that the emotion of love actually
creates
> an implosion of electromagnetic energy (Light)...

I have his book 'Alphabet of the Heart' as well as some of his
videos... Most of it probably went over my head at the time (about 8-
10 years ago). I should probably dig them out now.

[Charlie]

On Jul 8, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Jan Wicherink wrote:
> So the question whether our thoughts and emotions have a real affect
> on our reality I think is beyond any doubt, the question we now should
> address is `how does it work?'


Check out this link http://tinyurl.com/bvca8 for a long but brief
introduction to the forces involved in the reality creator hypothesis.

The problem with the YCYOR school is that they never get down to
brass tacks and explain the "you", "create" and "reality" of their
proposition, which must/needs be understood to actually understand
the statement.

Ra said very little on this subject except on page 92 of Book 1:

QUESTIONER: Do things like daydreams become real in other densities?

RA: I am Ra. This depends upon the nature of the daydream. This is a
large subject. Perhaps the simplest thing we can say is, if the
daydream, as you call it, is one which attracts to self, this then
becomes reality to self. If it is a contemplative general daydream,
this may enter the infinity of possibility/probability complexes and
occur elsewhere, having no particular attachment to the energy fields
of the creator.

Ra does however state that this is a large subject but it is not
touched upon again.

I think the issue is that the decreeing "I" really doesn't know what
it needs only what it wants. If I can align "my" will with divine
will then I think greater efficaciousness is possible rather than
with the lopsided wants of the unrequited ego.

It is interesting to note where this new age clarion call comes from,
starting with Seth, a disincarnate 3D being and promoted by a 5D
being called Bashar that for all its otherworldy advice is unable to
create it own reality, which it admits to in the book, Bashar:
Blueprint For Change.

I am in the process of OCRing a few hundred page dissertation on this
very subject and it is very relevant to the understanding what we are
IMO.

To quote the last paragraph, "So do "you" (we know who "you" is now)
"create" your "own" reality? Or do "you" form continuously revised
self-estimations of what "you" (the whole) are, that are continuously
weighed, assessed and realigned against the zero-equilibrium Standard
of Whole-being value? And, when you "awaken" to the unconditional
truth of your being in Love-alignment with that liberative zero-value
(the neutrality of the field in relation to consciousness) have you
finally "created your own reality"? Or have you awakened to the
freedom of an Original Nature that's always creating the Perfect
Murti of Itself whatever you may have thought "you" were doing?"

Aloha
Charlie

[Jan Wicherink]

Dear Charlie,

Interesting thesis, so the question really is who is the One creating
this reality? Is it me or is it the One?

To put it in terms of quantum physics, who's the observer that is
responsible for the collapse of the quantum wave? (Copenhagen
interpretation of Quantum Physics). Is it the Ultimate observer or is
it the consciousness of my little ego?

As I understand from your article it is the Ultimate observer
embedded in the individual's consciousness that is responsible? Then
where does that leave free will?
As a consequence free will should be considered an illusion!

But what if my free will and the will of the Ultimate observer are
One? Than all individual reality creation would be agreed upon on a
much deeper and more fundamental level and it would not be just me
who's creating my own reality but the Oneness collectively.

When I said to be a proponent of the idea that all of us create our
own reality I was not suggesting that that meant that we all can
manifest and take from the cookie box everything we desire! I fully
agree with your statement that the "I really doesn't know what it
needs only what it wants"

What I believe reality creation is all about is the idea that we come
to this planet with a roadmap for our lives. It's the software of the
mind body complex that is here to learn its life lessons. So pretty
much of what we experience in this lifetime is agreed upon at the
time before the reincarnation in the flesh from the higher Self.

Creating our own reality, I believe boils down to adding software
patches to this pre-programmed life altering the code and allowing
for free will in the experience of each incarnation. I was not
suggesting that we can manifest literally anything instantaneously
from the void. What I do believe is that human intention expressed in
visualisations and amplified by human emotion does have the power to
steer events!

Wouldn't it be a contradiction that if the purpose of the
reincarnation cycle is to allow the soul to evolve through the seven
densities of this universe to be eventually united with its Creator,
that it does not have the power to create? Logic requires that the
higher the soul has developed, the more skills it will have acquired
to co-create with the Oneness. And, yes its desires of what it is it
wants to create will be more aligned with the higher Self.

I agree that the YCYOR school is a popular new Age trend and that
many attend this school such that they can manifest all their heart
desires, cars, houses, holidays, lovers, you name it. This may not
serve their soul's purpose and therefore may not manifest. But when
the intention of the manifestation aligns with the goals of the
higher Self, I believe miracles can happen.

One last thing, when we believe that creating your own reality is
virtually impossible and a new Age myth, that is a believe system
that will manifest itself as well. We'll get the feedback of this
believe system from the Oneness, convincing us that we were right all
along. Therefore the proof is in the eating, nothing can be more
valuable than your own experience. Try it and see if it works, all it
requires is that you change your belief system, if only temporarily.

With love,
Jan

>
> Check out this link http://tinyurl.com/bvca8 for a long but brief
> introduction to the forces involved in the reality creator
hypothesis.
>
> The problem with the YCYOR school is that they never get down to
> brass tacks and explain the "you", "create" and "reality" of their
> proposition, which must/needs be understood to actually understand
> the statement.

[bid4books]

Consider the truth: that each of us has free will. Reality is created
by the harmony resulting from the combined agreement of all of us that
agree. If we don't agree, we did not help create that reality. You
may want to consider, that we do this process automatically, as we
have always done, because we are part of the whole, part of the
oneness of the creator. We are linked and have always been linked to
the creator. When we agree to evil, enmity, perversions and greed,
then this reality sucks for the rest of us. The one message is to
change those agreements so that we can create a new world filled with
happiness and spiritual awareness. This is a worthwhile goal!
Thanks,
iBear

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=WB2Urb3eebssoaodIMDTbWmMQGnvWTDoLtxDIa RXxK1gTdyIAOUR4RLyGGcnphZpNuY9swpWDtiwK0w1x1HO3Q), "Jan Wicherink" <jan.wicherink@x> wrote:
Dear Charlie,
Interesting thesis, so the question really is who is the One creating
this reality? Is it me or is it the One?

[M.W.]

You brought up a very sticky point! A
philosophical problem that is universally
ignored is that of defining just exactly what
qualities constitutes a "freedom" of the will.

Most everyone assumes the obviousness of what
the term free will implies...but when pressed
to elaborate on it find overwhelming difficulties
in proving their unexamined assumption.

The absolute freedom of "choice" that is assumed
to be the nexus of free will is found to be
illusionary...in fact if we could willy-nilly
change our directions we would be found victims
of overriding and violating the freedom of
our true nature rather than demonstrating any
so-called advantage of a "freedom" from cause.

If I'm allowed I could post the negative and positive
definitions of free will as constructed by the 19th
century speculative theologian, W.G.T. Shedd.

Centuries earlier Martin Luther answered the arguments
of Erasmus' efforts in maintaining the concept of the
freedom of the will. Luther's over-whelming rebuttal,
"On the Bondage of the Will" figuratively blew the famous
Erasmus out of the sea of logic.

(The arguments were fueled by theological motives concerning
the ability or lack of it for a "sinner" to initiate his/her
turning to God by a power of will)

I believe what passes for freedom of will is actually the
freedom of one's particular nature...the will as such would
be the abiding inclination of the permanent spiritual self
-- rather than having the illusionary Power of the Contrary
or by expressing some temporary capricious action to supposedly
demonstrate one's possesion of "freedom."


Free Will Bill


>
> As I understand from your article it is the Ultimate observer
> embedded in the individual's consciousness that is responsible?
Then
> where does that leave free will?

[bid4books]

Charlie,
You insist on making this subject much to complex. While your
questions are valid, they seem to lack understanding of creation.
Reality is created by the harmony resulting from the combined
agreement of all of us that agree. If we don't agree, we did not
help create that reality.

Harmony ? That alignment of "one purpose" that occurs, after
combined agreement has collectively caused a decision of future
reality to be adopted, from one true source. Agreement is key!

You may want to consider, that we do this process automatically, as
we have always done, because we are part of the whole, part of the
oneness of the creator. We are linked and have always been linked
to the creator. We can do no less!

Certainly and most assuredly, WE HAVE FREE WILL!

We have the freedom of choice and we can always do whatever we
want! Sin, then, can be viewed as those evil actions that hurt any
other urge toward survival? anything we do that harms another person
OR, perhaps more accurately, anything we do that does not agree with
the creator?. these actions are sin. Mankind has sinned a whole
lot!

That is why crime, terrorism, illegal and legal widespread drug use
and much general enmity, are the reality of the day. We see the
resulting confusion and chaos, throughout the world.

enmity Etymology: Middle English enmite, from Middle French enemitÃà‚ƒÃ ‚©,
from Old French enemistÃÃà‚‚ƒÃÂÂà ‚‚©, from enemi enemy: positive, active, and
typically mutual hatred or ill will. ENMITY suggests positive
hatred which may be open or concealed. HOSTILITY suggests an enmity
showing itself in attacks or aggression <hostility between the two
nations>. ANTAGONISM must imply a natural or logical basis for one's
hatred or dislike, suggesting a desire to avoid or reject, and
suggesting a clash of temperaments leading readily to hostility,
especially applied to bitter brooding over a supposed wrong.

The natural progress of things is for Government to gain ground and
for Liberty to yield. - Thomas Jefferson

Freedom does not disappear suddenly and noticeably, but slowly and
often subtly. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance, but not
all people are vigilant all the time, and many people are willing to
agree to see various freedoms erode and even disappear.

This is the unsurprising result of our own agreement and the
unfortunate weaknesses of human nature:
"WE THE PEOPLE" have to agree!

?Fear drives people to agree to consciously give up rights in
exchange for security.
?Apathy permits one group that does not value a particular freedom
to stand by and agree to watch while it is taken away from another
group that does value it.
?Out of Hate one group will actively agree to oppress another and
take away their rights.
?Out of Selfishness and greed, one group will agree to infringe on
another's rights for their own economic benefit.
?Ignorance lets some people agree to sleep while the rights they
never knew they had slowly disappear.

Fear is quite often irrational, based on distortions of perception
and judgment of the possible likelihood of a threat.

Collectively, by our agreement, we have created this terrible
reality for our own experience. NOW, we need to change reality and
go a different way, a better path of improved survival!
This responsibility, to change reality, belongs to all of us!
Thanks,
iBear


--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=E9-r_lRPnn9Ts27MUoUyKVoXi9MNBLY6xfdF4_ldfySPBEJILL-8pEFFeY0v6OKf7HPa4KpmSB_Kaqc), Charlie <charlie@a...> wrote:
On Jul 8, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Jan Wicherink wrote:
So the question whether our thoughts and emotions have a real affect
on our reality I think is beyond any doubt, the question we now
should address is `how does it work?'

Check out this link http://tinyurl.com/bvca8 for a long but brief
introduction to the forces involved in the reality creator
hypothesis.

The problem with the YCYOR school is that they never get down to
brass tacks and explain the "you", "create" and "reality" of their
proposition, which must/needs be understood to actually understand
the statement.
Aloha
Charlie

[BernieBear]

I believe that it's important for me to keep in mind there is no one (1)
reality. There are as many realities as there are observations. There is
no absolute. As our observations and views match up we create a consensus
reality that is shared, but when enough take their agreement away from that
new realities can be created. It is like a tide, or ocean, ever changing,
ever morphing. There is no "they" creating something for the rest to live
in. This is how I see it. BernieBear



_____

From: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=rRmlCW75tHoV9xHMsOh1HErZ_ga_8kt6p4rmpJ LfLn_GrHqRkysGI1zeyKMDybGudWE98k1DUXaSfgs) [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=rRmlCW75tHoV9xHMsOh1HErZ_ga_8kt6p4rmpJ LfLn_GrHqRkysGI1zeyKMDybGudWE98k1DUXaSfgs)] On Behalf Of
bid4books

Consider the truth: that each of us has free will. Reality is created
by the harmony resulting from the combined agreement of all of us that
agree. Thanks,
iBear

[Malai]

Hi Bill

With this, I agree.
The underlying "permanent spiritual self" the True Self, is bound by
it's place in the Lore, Universally, because it is the sum total of
the "capricious" choices, causes and effects, of it's, in this case
3d offspring. The offspring have the perception of free will, only
because they have "choice", but choice in a limited "band" dictated
by initially their chosen "run"/path here and from then on in this
life the cause and effect and the "choices" this brings. Choice
being the result of a cause,as a choice will spring out of an
effect, as well as a cause in itself.

So, free will? Well yes, but in severely limited circumstances.
(dimensional worlds which it is an element of) but ultimately No.

Cheers

Malai

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=0P1rU3on89PaKL3JhYyunlcDe6gZEdwlx3kz7K LMkBUY9LAoXNMUEWZHLzpM3frd7p3B7FMDyiDFmV5p-w), "M.W. (Bill )Gieskieng"
<skykieng@i...> wrote:

>
> I believe what passes for freedom of will is actually the
> freedom of one's particular nature...the will as such would
> be the abiding inclination of the permanent spiritual self
> -- rather than having the illusionary Power of the Contrary
> or by expressing some temporary capricious action to supposedly
> demonstrate one's possesion of "freedom."
>
>
> Free Will Bill
>
>
> >
> > As I understand from your article it is the Ultimate observer
> > embedded in the individual's consciousness that is responsible?
> Then
> > where does that leave free will?

[bid4books]

Bill, Good thinking. You are definitely getting on the right wave
length to understanding. It seems to me that "The Law Of One"
cannot easily be understood in terms of some other persons
perspective. My opinion is that the truth is that "The Law Of One"
either is... or it isn't!

My opinion is that it is the truth! That being the case, I
therefore agree that "The Law Of One Is" and with that agreement,
The Law of one has become a new reality of truth for me.

This is a Spiritual concept, that we have always been and will
always be. Enlightenment is the key to understanding "The Law Of
One"! Realize that once, after we started creation, we forgot
everything and ended up stuck here. Then, you will be getting much
closer to reaching a new reality of "The Law Of One"!
Thanks,

iBear


"M.W. (Bill )Gieskieng" <skykieng@i...> wrote: I believe what passes
for freedom of will is actually the freedom of one's particular
nature...the will as such would be the abiding inclination of the
permanent spiritual self -- rather than having the illusionary Power
of the Contrary or by expressing some temporary capricious action to
supposedly demonstrate one's possesion of "freedom."

[bid4books]

Charlie, good to hear from you. Think not in theories or opinions
from others, rather, think for yourself, from the one true
source... yourself! Different opinion's is what makes life
interesting for many of us.

You are missing that we have always been and will always be.
Enlightenment is the key to understanding "The Law Of One"!

Realize that we started creation and you will be getting much
closer to reaching a new reality of "The Law Of One"!

The one true light is within yourself. What you are seeing is
indeed the perfected signature of the model of man, that holy
presence that enshrouds all entities who would seek to make it
manifest themselves.

You are seeing a divine design that has stamped its signature upon
your presence, even upon your heart. Relish this opportunity as a
resurgence of Spirit, as a renewal of that which is, that which
has always been, the one true self.

Again, thank you for the input.
iBear

[Charlie]

This is a cart before the horse scenario, so called reality was here
before we were.

Personal reality if we could call it that is a different matter.

We are not linked to the Creator we can be nothing but the creator,
the creator or Absolute sacrifices its own Absolute nature
(emptyness) so forms of limitation can exist, it is everything,
including the most insular thing in the manifest realm.

This 3D world has the negative in it due to the fact that this is
where we make the choice, it wouldn't be much of a choice without the
other. Enjoy the beauty of it, don't think it sucks, unless you want
to of course.

Worlds are changing but not due to any wishful decreeing.

Aloha
Charlie

Jan I may have to get to your mail tomorrow.


On Jul 10, 2005, at 8:32 AM, bid4books wrote:

> Consider the truth: that each of us has free will. Reality is created
> by the harmony resulting from the combined agreement of all of us that
> agree. If we don't agree, we did not help create that reality. You
> may want to consider, that we do this process automatically, as we
> have always done, because we are part of the whole, part of the
> oneness of the creator. We are linked and have always been linked to
> the creator. When we agree to evil, enmity, perversions and greed,
> then this reality sucks for the rest of us. The one message is to
> change those agreements so that we can create a new world filled with
> happiness and spiritual awareness. This is a worthwhile goal!
> Thanks,
> iBear

[David Wilcock]

From: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=GYY8RgcjIzf9DS5pUQ5k8wteNTVypfj93no5Yl pEWcxiU_N3SNPQo0VhxIagH-P8Wi-mybXRCEweRiUhI4I) [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=GYY8RgcjIzf9DS5pUQ5k8wteNTVypfj93no5Yl pEWcxiU_N3SNPQo0VhxIagH-P8Wi-mybXRCEweRiUhI4I)] On Behalf Of
Malai

So, free will? Well yes, but in severely limited circumstances.
(dimensional worlds which it is an element of) but ultimately No.

Dear Malai,

Free will is THE most important principle in the entire Law of One series,
and you don't have to read very much to see that.

Within the Law of One philosophical system, the quickest way to identify
those on the negative path is if they teach that there is no free will - no
matter how you try to dress it up.

This forum is for people who are making an earnest desire to understand this
philosophical system, not for people who already have made up their minds
and just want to be right.

Hence I am just about at the point of unsubscribing you from our forum,
since I see no evidence that you are here for any other purpose than to
preach.

- David

[lealdragon]

This reminds me of the Hindu interpretation that we are
basically 'trapped' in this dimension, the Earth being like a penal
colony, and the only goal to let go of attachments and escape this
place and go 'back' to God. This kind of thinking supports the idea
of division, separation. As in, we cannot connect to God unless we
disconnect from the physical plane. I don't think this concept is in
alignment with my understanding of the LoO.

My interpretation of the LoO, on the other hand, is that being here
is a necessary part of our development, and the Earth is a SCHOOL,
not a prison, and we don't need to 'escape'; we need to embrace and
find the Love that is here, and, as Ra said, see the Creator in all
of Creation, see the Creator in everyone, and see the Creator when
we look in the mirror.

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=C17WX6ja03US4l4bE_jboMY73P5P-mS-uXg9k8WOHf-eczgUpd-v-09wuuA1SSJMSn9TnLQjewpbZuReM8b8), "bid4books" <bid4books@y...> wrote:
>
>
>... Realize that once, after we started creation, we forgot
> everything and ended up stuck here. Then, you will be getting
much
> closer to reaching a new reality of "The Law Of One"!

[Ed]

David Wilcock wrote:
>
[snip, re Malai]

> Hence I am just about at the point of unsubscribing you from our forum,
> since I see no evidence that you are here for any other purpose than to
> preach.
>
> - David

I've been on many lists and newsgroups which suffer from the
plague of high-volume posters. Independent of what Malai was saying,
he/she was posting so often that it was bringing down the tone of the
list. IMHO there ought to be a rule that no one posts more often than
maybe two or three per day. More than that triggers a reminder from
the moderators. Exceptions would be made where it's appropriate when
the poster is known to be a worthwhile and thoughtful member.

Most high-volume posters in lists either are preaching, arguing or
spamming in some way, or replying with unneeded one-liners to previous
posts. There is very little useful substance to be found in the extra
volume of posts.

All the best, Ed

[David Wilcock]

From: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=XnwIS08UO3UhhZTtWmz-3vlnc1F5nzXP15Gb6VB-32MQ7cUiBys3Lxr47QXEWsED-Ak7eBHQnnGmgmsE) [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=XnwIS08UO3UhhZTtWmz-3vlnc1F5nzXP15Gb6VB-32MQ7cUiBys3Lxr47QXEWsED-Ak7eBHQnnGmgmsE)] On Behalf Of Ed

David Wilcock wrote:
>
[snip, re Malai]

> Hence I am just about at the point of unsubscribing you from our forum,
> since I see no evidence that you are here for any other purpose than to
> preach.
>
> - David

I've been on many lists and newsgroups which suffer from the
plague of high-volume posters. Independent of what Malai was saying,
he/she was posting so often that it was bringing down the tone of the
list. IMHO there ought to be a rule that no one posts more often than
maybe two or three per day. More than that triggers a reminder from
the moderators. Exceptions would be made where it's appropriate when
the poster is known to be a worthwhile and thoughtful member.

DW: We can probably tweak the guidelines a little bit so as to discourage
the so-called "me too" posts. I'm less inclined to make hard and fast rules
about how often you can post - it's complex enough as it is and many
complain we're already too "controlling". However, if someone is hurting the
community spirit of the list then we handle that on a case-by-case basis.
And in this case I think it's better to publicly warn of what is being
discussed and considered than to just abruptly pull the plug on someone,
even if they are flagrantly and continually ignoring the guidelines. People
have a way of getting VERY pissed off when we unsubscribe someone,
especially if not everyone on the list understands why.

>Most high-volume posters in lists either are preaching, arguing or
spamming in some way, or replying with unneeded one-liners to previous
posts. There is very little useful substance to be found in the extra
volume of posts.

DW: That might be true in the majority of cases, but typically if someone is
posting at a high volume here and it's worrisome, there are enough other
things they are ignoring that we wouldn't need to add to the existing
structure of guidelines.

Peace be with you -

- David

All the best, Ed

[Charlie]

Hey Jan,

You have raised some interesting questions that I will try to answer,
maybe incorrectly, from my limited perspective.

Firstly I must say that I am not suggesting that your thinking is
erroneous on this subject and that we probably agree more than we
disagree, if we disagree at all. I was just offering some information
to try to help understand the principle of YCYOR and why it is a half-
truth.

From my experience reality was here before I showed up on the scene
so it would seem to me that I don't create reality, however, I have
noticed the uncanny way that my thoughts have brought around events
that could never have happened perchance, so something is happening.
It is a functional principle of the mind-body whole; but it does not
thereby authorize the fatuous "you create your own reality" as a full-
blown truth in its own right.

As for the collapse of the the state vector in quantum physics, I
don't think this has to do with the consciousness of the ego as I
don't believe that the ego is conscious per se (I am wrong on this)
but that there is only consciousness, which is equal to Absolute and
we "channel", for want of a better word, that consciousness to
varying degrees, so I don't posses consciousness but it operates
through me and collapses the quantum wave.

Free will, hmmm. The idea that "will" is a personal possesion free to
fluctuate aimlessly, in chronic ignorance, between the antipodes of
murky "personal choices" invisibly limited through our myopic
definition of "who we are" at volitional beings is a self-defeating
idea and something that would appeal to the ego. Not to say that it
can't do this if one so chooses, however, I think that will is what
Absolute uses to test its its own whole nature in finite form,
hypothetically of course, otherwise its finiteness would compromise
its Absolute being.

The first mention of Free Will in the LOO books is by Hatonn, in the
introduction, when it says, "All thought that is generated is
generated by the Creator. All things that are generated are generated
by the Creator. He is all things and is in all places, and all of the
consciousness and all of the thought that exists is the thought of
our Creator. His infinite number of parts all have free will, and all
may generate in any way they choose." This to me implies that while
we do "have" free will it is not something that is ours. Ra's first
mention of free will is in session three where Ra says, "There is a
law which we believe to be one of the more significant primal
distortions of the Law of One. That is the Law of Confusion. You have
called this the Law of Free Will." What strikes me as interesting
here is that Ra says it believes, which I take as a qualification as
to the effect that it really doesn't know but is still learning and
the other thing is is that Ra calls it "the Law of Confusion" as
opposed to the law of free will, this may just be semantics but I
think there is something to be said about this choice of words.

I like your analogy with the software patches, the thing is I would
never let someone code software for my computer if they didn't know
what they were doing or didn't have a grasp of the principles
involved and this is what is happening with personal reality
creation, except I am the sloppy programmer.

No matter what "reality" I "create" therefore, I've done so strictly
as the function of a governing psychic structure which is in no way
effected by the outcome of that "reality-creation"?and therefore as
problematic after-the-fact as it was before. This is the reason why,
"the more things change the more they remain the same".
The very formula implicitly embedded in standard goal-orientation is
that of the identification/positing of "not-self" (that which one is
not or has not or does not, to some degree) as potential model of
"self' (that which one ideally would be or have or do); and
reciprocally of the assessment of "self (that which one believes one
is or has or does) in terms of what must be intensified or diminished
in order to convert the model of not-self into ideal self. Thus at
the secondary level of the identification processes (mind)
constituting the familiar ego-psychology, "self" is saturated and
plagued by "not-self" at the same time as?and by virtue of the fact
that?it projects an idealized "not-self" as the model for its "self!"
And around we go.

"Reality creation", "positive thinking", "being all you can be" and
every other such appeal to optimizing self-and-circumstances operate
necessarily as a function of the secondary identification process
(mind). But they take place inevitably within the encompassing
framework of the primary identification-process (being). Though they
functionally "negate" the primary process, they in no way cancel its
underlying presence and presiding, permissive Value. It's for this
very reason the dichotomization "self/not-self" can never take place
cleanly, but generates a coinherent condition involving the
identification-of-opposites so that the grappling terms end up
embedded in one-another like bre'r rabbit and the tar baby ("I...like
oranges, don't like avocado"..."I...want to be a fireman, don't want
to be a doctor." "I...like emotionally-warm people, don't like
clinically cold people"; "I...hate my mother's 'weakness', love my
father's 'strength' but hate my father's indifference, love my
mother's warmth, can't untangle one trait from the other so I fear
warmth as weakness and equate strength with coldness so I become an
avocado-eating doctor and hate myself...").

This message is getting too long must go.

Aloha

Charlie

[NEIL HADDON]

Charlie wrote ( - at some length! [smile])
""This to me implies that while
we do "have" free will it is not something that is
ours.""

Surely, Charlie, this sentence oozes separation? I
find the over-riding sense of your post to be in
similar vein.

My view is there are so many levels here, and we
have a very limited understanding, if any at all.

You say, 'reality was here before you came on the
scene' - (we don't know how old you are, so we'll
have to take your word for that!) - and yes,
certain aspects of 'reality' are 'in place',
established over millenia and if you like to serve
as common ground, or a level palying field for the
other 6.4 billion souls on this planet with each
of us. What chaos would we have if you wanted the
sun to rise in the East, and I wanted it to rise
in the South, etc. etc.

But this does not preclude your individual effect
upon your individual reality by your free will.
( I use 'individual' merely to define terms in our
curent framework). You can decide to get out of
bed this morning, or not. You can decide to beat
your wife, or not. You can decide to help that old
lady across the busy road, or not. You can decide
to live in Hawaii, or Mongolia.

Now, by your choices, you will create your local
reality, and thereby your experiences in life.
You can choose to live your dreams - take no
thought for the morrow, consider the lilies of the
valley - or be a timid mouse, frightened to lift
its head above the parapet ( how's that for mixing
metaphors?) but the resultant 'reality' of your
experiences is down to you.

I have often quoted Wally Minto in this forum, and
Wally used to talk about granting other(-selves)
'being'. From this we get to deep understanding of
the nature of Love. The Creator grants us being to
be what we will to be, and equally grants us the
being not to be that which we are not.

The Creator does not say, "No. You mustn't be a
truck driver, you must be a nurse." Nor does the
Creator say, " You must stop being miserable and
be happy." If you choose to be a failure or a
success, that is your choice, the Creator grants
you that being.

If we grant to our partners, our children, our
friends and those we call enemies the being to be
anything that they are, and to not be anything
that they are not, is this not expressing Love as
it is meant to be? Are we not allowing
other-selves to express their unique aspect of
being to the glorification of the One? And do we
not all grow stronger for the experience - even
the 'bad' ones, like four bombs in London?

Maybe this can be seen as simplistic, but I
believe we complicate things too much, hence our
'Confusion'.

I grant you being.

Love.
Neil

[Malai]

Hi Neil

This, I feel you have put well.
It is the Unconditional LOVE, of others that allows others to learn
their lessons, have their lives without judgment. Whatever their
lives entail, whatever choies they make, are, in fact, evolutionary
ones, for ALL, in the biggest picture.
This also is to be applied to the self as well as to others. It is
the STS that is the very least we can do for our own evolution.

Cheers

Malai

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=SiSzvJioaIi7bt_s_2CxfKtQ87mXew99akrVFZ 9UtN21kZqsvUJh4br0z6KPM_F43F82GK0Lz2bk6oQ), "NEIL HADDON" <wayshower@g...> wrote:
>
>
> The Creator does not say, "No. You mustn't be a
> truck driver, you must be a nurse." Nor does the
> Creator say, " You must stop being miserable and
> be happy." If you choose to be a failure or a
> success, that is your choice, the Creator grants
> you that being.
>
> If we grant to our partners, our children, our
> friends and those we call enemies the being to be
> anything that they are, and to not be anything
> that they are not, is this not expressing Love as
> it is meant to be? Are we not allowing
> other-selves to express their unique aspect of
> being to the glorification of the One? And do we
> not all grow stronger for the experience - even
> the 'bad' ones, like four bombs in London?
>
> Maybe this can be seen as simplistic, but I
> believe we complicate things too much, hence our
> 'Confusion'.
>
> I grant you being.
>
> Love.
> Neil

[Chuck]

Hi all - I write stuff down as I go through the LoO, making notes
to myself and such. I wrote the following as a discussion (with myself I guess)
resulting from readings about catalyst and free will, and the involvement of
institutions in our lives, which is among my pet "projects". I honestly don't
know where I came up
with the stuff, and when I read it over again, I think "did I write this?"...
does that mean there is some type of channel going on here?? (just a slight
aside).

Anyway, here's my 2 cents on the role of Free Will -

We cannot spiritually evolve until we can realize that we, at some
higher and perhaps pre-determined level, are the progenitors of the
catalyst that confronts us, and it is then not only in our best
inertest, but actually a product of our own design, to learn to deal
with the catalyst as it reacts with one of the energy bodies, and to
fine tune the energy body in order to allow it to confront the catalyst,if you
will, and not have it effect or impact the
function of the energy body.

As I see that as the primary purpose of the catalyst in the first place, then
for proper application of catalyst to proceed, one has to operate from the
underlying assumption that it is the person's responsibility to deal with the
catalyst that they themselves have setup, and to learn to allow the energy body
to overcome the effect of the catalyst and maintain stasis.

In order to do THAT we must understand, as our principle orientation,
that it is up to us to confront those things that we have engineered for
ourselves to confront, and to deal with them directly through the
application of our own free will. It is ONLY through the application of our own
free will that we are able to confront and (hopefully) overcome and learn from
the catalyst.

We cannot then, defer or deflect that responsibility to an other-self or
institution, (dare I even say The Creator), to supersede or intervene on our
behalf. The responsibility rests solely on our shoulders. The lesson must be
learned in the first person.

As such, we are disempowered, even incapacitated, by the bias and
perspective of institutions, be they religious or government, as they
pursue their attempts to convince us that it is our contribution to
the continuance of the institution, and not the pursuit of our own spiritual
enlightenment that is of paramount importance in this life.

The institutional mind furthers and betters the institution, but it is only when
we break free of the constraints placed on our thinking by the survivalist bent
of the institution, that we begin to truly participate in the pursuit of our own
enlightenment.

Therefore, we must reject the notion that it is through the institution that our
deliverance is obtained, for that is the opposite of the truth.

The truth is that when we determine to assume complete responsibility
for the outcome of our life, (and afterlife), we begin to move away from the
cycle of institutional dependency, and towards true freedom. Only through Free
Will applied and demonstrated can this freedom be achieved.


For only free people (who are free from the shackles or coercion
of an institution that would either forcibly or cunningly remove their will),can
pursue their true quest. And it is freedom, above all, that gives us the ability
to follow through to these ends...

In the LoO, (as I understand it), RA states that the essence of our
existence is the application of Free Will working on perfect love. This is what
actually comprises the First Distortion -




THE 1ST DISTORTION = FREE WILL


QUESTION: The 1st distortion of intelligent infinity is free will. Can you give
a definition of this distortion?

RA: In this distortion of the Law of One it is recognized that the
Creator will know Itself (or experience Itself). (B2, 7) The primal
distortion is free will. (B2, 8)

Therefore, not only is Free Will present in our existence, it is
intentionally essential.

RA: The origin of all energy is the action of free will upon love. The nature
of all energy is light, including the inner light which is the guiding star of
the self. This is the true nature of all entities. (B3,30)


Consider the truth: that each of us has free will. Reality is created by the
harmony resulting from the combined agreement of all of us that agree.
Thanks,iBear







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[NEIL HADDON]

Malai wrote:

"It is
the STS that is the very least we can do for our own evolution."

Sorry, Malai,
can you explain?

LOve.
Neil




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Charlie]

On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:51 PM, NEIL HADDON wrote:

> Charlie wrote ( - at some length! [smile])
> ""This to me implies that while
> we do "have" free will it is not something that is
> ours.""
>
> Surely, Charlie, this sentence oozes separation? I
> find the over-riding sense of your post to be in
> similar vein.

Hey Neil,

I think any form of communication is indicative of separation,
otherwise there would be no other [way] to communicate with and therefor no
communication but in this focal framework, 3D, I and others are the basis of the
work here.

However, what the seemingly separate "I" was trying to say is that in truth
there is no I and therefore no we and no me, mine, or ours and no separation.

It is the idea that will is something that is mine is where
separation lies (sic), after all that has been said about the total
interconnectedness of the universe and the oneness of everything, the idea of
me or mine seems to be quite the opposite of oneness or one.

From the study guide.

THE CREATOR DOES NOT PROPERLY CREATE AS MUCH AS IT EXPERIENCES
ITSELF. (B1, 65)

I tend to think this is what "we" are; the creator experiencing
itself in finite form.

I think that it doesn't create because creating implies want and want is lack
and Absolute doesn't lack.

Aloha
Charlie

Speculation: Spirit flows through us more readily when we are not
trying to create "our" own reality.

[NEIL HADDON]

Charlie wrote:
"I think any form of communication is indicative of separation,"
There is an old joke which says that the British and Americans are one people
separated by a common language; I remember Ra having similar difficulties with
communication through 3D words, in LoO.

Basically Charlie, I think we agree, but we are out on the edge here, which is
what this forum is about, isn't it.

From a slightly different standpoint, you could take the view that if we are all
One, then 'I' is all there is.

Certainly, if I may presume to paraphrase (B1,65)
"THE CREATOR DOES NOT so much CREATE as EXPERIENCE
ITSELF."
But I question, "...creating implies want". It can, true; however, creating to
satisfy a desire ( to experience more) does not imply lack or limitation, in
fact the opposite, i.e through us, the abundance of diverse experiences.

I suggest our best endeavour is to get our (separated) selves out of the way, to
let Spirit flow through us to better create our reality.

Love.
Neil


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Charlie]

On Jul 13, 2005, at 9:05 PM, NEIL HADDON wrote:

>>> There is an old joke which says that the British and Americans
>>> are one people separated by a common language; I remember Ra
>>> having similar difficulties with communication through 3D words,
>>> in LoO.
>>>
>>> Basically Charlie, I think we agree, but we are out on the edge
>>> here, which is what this forum is about, isn't it.
>

Hehe, how did you know I was British ;-)

The only place to find the Abyss is at "the edge" and one must cross
the Abyss to retrieve the Grail, just like in Indiana Jones and The
Last Crusade; embedded in the Grail-retrieving sequence is a symbolic
rendering of the actual stages of spiritual practice.

In any case, don't dismiss that the first ordeal (read: entrance into
a real, transformative spiritual practice) can only be passed by the
"penitent man"; don't ignore the idea that the passage through the
second great step or ordeal necessarily involves the Word, or the
correctly-rendered Name of God; and don't treat too lightly the
intelligence that the third great step or ordeal transpires at the
brink of an unfathomable Abyss, and can only be successfully passed
by the "man of faith", or woman Dr. Jones.

>>>> I suggest our best endeavour is to get our (separated) selves
>>>> out of the way, to let Spirit flow through us to better create
>>>> our reality.

Yes, I suggest the best endeavour is to get the (separated) self out
of the way, to let Spirit flow through; so that the active agent of
change-in-the-world is no longer the oblique, partial perspective of
ego-identification but the direct supervision of Divine Mind working
events and circumstances into a far more coherent, stable, fertile
and potentiating ground for the realization of Conscious Presence.

Which seems far easier to say than to do.

Aloha
Charlie