All Is One

[Michael Bergman]

all there is to know is that all is one. that is it, the knowledge of this
fact is the absolute. the truth as far as words can reveal does not get any
simpler than that. those three magical words are packed so full of meaning
and inspiration that the slightest understanding in your mind will restore
you to the state of unity where separation falls away and ceases to exist
within your perception. one experience of unity is all it takes to crumble
the whole complex, confusing, complicated and contradictory structure of
your belief system into the supreme simplicity of a singular identity that
is all-pervading in its awareness of self as being the creator of it all.

there is nothing left to seek when everything has been discovered to be the
one. the entire universe is simply an expression of the one being that is
infinite by its unitary nature meaning that it includes all things without
reservation or exception. the one that is all is an eternal being of
unconditional love that is so total and free that it allows and accepts
everything desired to be experienced by any portion of its holographic will
for knowledge. there is no second to the one nor is there any other to the
self that is all. there is no inside or outside to that which is boundless
and has no sides. oneness is the changeless constant from which all
experience emanates and is bound to return home to as the source of the
experiencer is sought and found as the limitless heart of creation that is
in perpetual motion with the fuel of a desire that lasts forever.

how can all that occurs not be synchronistic in your life when everything
that happens is happening to an aspect of that which is one? all experience
is the one self experiencing itself from a myriad of points from which it
views as the silent witness. silence is simultaneously present in every
moment of existence throughout all of space and time. when you grasp the
reality that all is one you are pulled directly into silence for when all is
silent, all is one.

peace,
mikey

[Ron Erickson]

mb: "those three magical words are packed so full of meaning and inspiration
that the slightest understanding in your mind will restore you to the state of
unity where separation falls away and ceases to exist within your perception.
one experience of unity is all it takes to crumble the whole complex, confusing,
complicated and contradictory structure of your belief system into the supreme
simplicity of a singular identity that is all-pervading in its awareness of self
as being the creator of it all."

re:
personally, i do not presume to speak on the subject of the law of one as an
expert, but several things strike me about your message:
1. who is this addressed to? your message is apparently addressed personally to
an individual: "your mind", "restore you", "your perception", "your belief
system", "when you grasp the reality that all is one.."
2. your message specifically presumes the reader's state to be one of confusion,
complexity and contradictory structure.
3. you seem to be proposing a simple interpretation of oneness, but it
disregards almost all of what is being discussed in this group.
4. you present the concept of oneness as if it is new to the reader but as
described it lacks the depth of the law of one, eastern mysticism, and the
writings of ken wilber, david bohm, etc.
5. by the way, what is your relationship with the entity known as malai, if any?


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

[Michael Bergman]

>personally, i do not presume to speak on the subject of the law of one as
>an expert, but several things strike me about your message:
>1. who is this addressed to? your message is apparently addressed
>personally to an individual: "your mind", "restore you", "your perception",
>"your belief system", "when you grasp the reality that all is one.."

mb: this and every message i post is addressed to myself which is used by me
as a reminder to remember who i am and then shared with all of you. i
basically just pick a topic and then just let whatever words come to come. i
do write them with the intention that they will inspire and be of service to
others but you know the drill, take what resonates and leave the rest.

>2. your message specifically presumes the reader's state to be one of
>confusion, complexity and contradictory structure.

mb: as far i understand it, as long as you have the freedom of will of
awareness to experience whatever it is that you desire then you are residing
within a state of confusion for that is the way of this distortion.

>3. you seem to be proposing a simple interpretation of oneness, but it
>disregards almost all of what is being discussed in this group.

mb: all is one is the core of this whole philosophy of the law of one and i
was just attempting to express a message of oneness that i felt is at the
root of the discussions that have been going on.

>4. you present the concept of oneness as if it is new to the reader but as
>described it lacks the depth of the law of one, eastern mysticism, and the
>writings of ken wilber, david bohm, etc.

mb: what is one is forever new. how is that for deep? i just playing,
perhaps we could share in the depth of a big belly laugh.

>5. by the way, what is your relationship with the entity known as malai, if
>any?
>
mb: the entity known as malai and i go way back, all the way back to the
one, another aspect of myself malai is :)

peace,
mikey

[lealdragon]

mikey, i found your post inspiring. such lofty concepts are not always
sufficient in the day-to-day minutia (sp?) of daily life, hence, our
ongoing discussion regarding the details of how to apply these
concepts. but, it's nice to sometimes get that 'all is one' reminder.

i think both aspects - the dealing with the trivia/acknowledging that
we are not always 'there yet' as well as the reminding that, well yes,
we are where we're 'supposed' to be - have their place.

the resolution of the paradox that we are all one, but, hey, now how
do i deal with that 'other' self, btw??? and oh yeah, how can this
realization help me with that anger i was feeling last night?

what i'm saying is that i think both are valid - your inspirational
post was valid, and the discussing of seemingly contradictory (but not
really, since these too are part of the one) details of everyday
living.

i don't think mikey sounds anything at all like malai. let's not do
a 'monsters on maple street' and get paranoid about every post. that
could lead to more paranoia to the point that some might be afraid to
post at all. malai demonstrated a pattern of behavior that made it
obvious where s/he was coming from; i don't think we need to start
pointing a finger at someone just because of something they said in 1
or 2 posts that we might not agree with.

i don't think it would be healthy for this group if everyone started
worrying about every little word they said, for fear of being
scrutinized by everyone. if that happend, then the negative would have
accomplished its purpose in promoting discord.

how about we all take a deep breath...and let our past experience with
negativity serve a higher purpose...see it as a catalyst to promote
more unity, more harmony, more understanding...not less.

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=x4vdjpnvvhzmpjug8nmture56uff536dvj2yjf 2oge6pwsauugfbvrrpf-kxi-ybpy2whcbud0jwpro), "michael bergman" <bergmanmichael@m...>
wrote:
>
> >5. by the way, what is your relationship with the entity known as
malai, if
> >any?
> >
> mb: the entity known as malai and i go way back, all the way back
to the
> one, another aspect of myself malai is :)
>
> peace,
> mikey

[Ron Erickson]

lealdragon: "i don't think mikey sounds anything at all like malai."

re: the parallel that i was raising is only that mickey's post seemed to be
preaching. in a sense, it's mostly "preaching to the converted" in so much as
"all is one" is a concept that shows up in many asc2k discussions, but it's sort
of analogous to introducing the physics of color perception into a lecture on
the use of color by the french impressionists. in other words, it's valid and
even relevant, but does not require articulation (ad nauseam).

lealdragon: "let's not do a 'monsters on maple street' and get paranoid about
every post. that could lead to more paranoia to the point that some might be
afraid to post at all."

re: ok. i was not intending to be too critical and certainly not critical at a
personal level, and if i was being so, then mickey: please accept my humble
apology.

lealdragon: "i don't think we need to start pointing a finger at someone just
because of something they said in 1 or 2 posts that we might not agree with."

re: actually, i am not in disagreement with the concept of oneness (or else why
would i be contributing to this forum?), but i was a little "taken aback" by how
it was presented - as something that "we feeble students need to study for our
own erudition".

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

[Petrus]

>lealdragon: "i don't think mikey sounds anything at all like malai."
>
>re: the parallel that i was raising is only that mickey's post seemed to be
preaching. in a sense, it's mostly

that's one of the main things i love about the internet...it's completely
customisable, thanks primarily to this fantastic invention called the delete
key. ;) without commenting on michael's material specifically one way or the
other, i will say that i tend to believe that adopting a supermarket approach is
something everyone is encouraged to do...you absorb information which is
beneficial to you, and simply filter out anything which you feel isn't. there
have been a few threads in this group which i myself haven't been interested in
in the past for whatever reason; i just silently delete them from my inbox,
which works well because it means that not only do i avoid offending the
author/s of said material who are wanting to contribute, but i also know that
those who do wish to read the threads that i don't, can do so without me being
forced to. everyone wins.


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

[lealdragon]

ok. thanks for clarifying! after what we just experienced, it could be
easy for things like that (pointing the finger) to happen, like in the
twilight zone episode. we might be a little rattled. as in, maybe a
little more sensitive than usual.

which might be useful, actually, at least to be aware of it. peace. =)

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=emyb53er23agoo4qy2rmxvaesroskxwzunq6ab scb4rjgjipg0bj7jbkdglpw3rglhs7ftbbfmnvwe2ncg), "ron erickson" <ronerick@i...> wrote:
> re: actually, i am not in disagreement with the concept of oneness
(or else why would i be contributing to this forum?), but i was a
little "taken aback" by how it was presented - as something that "we
feeble students need to study for our own erudition".

[Light Eye]

dear friends,

wonderful!

http://www.support4change.com/spirit/explaining.html

be well, be love.

david


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