oneness

[buke80]

hey there,
i'm from turkey. i read the law of one books (ra material) and the booksa really confused my mind :) i could not exactly understand what "all is one" means. if all is one then are we all god according to the ra material. can you please help me? i've been thinking about this for a long time and i want an answer.

[LightEye]

as i see it - it means, in a nutshell, that there is no seperation. the question is though, as always, is what do you think it means?

that though, is what is confusing...

be well, be love.

david

[alchemikey]

sure all is god is another way of saying all is one...i feel the essence of oneness can be understood quite easily when one understands that there can only ever be one all...it really is mind boggling when you think about how much manyness there seems to be and then even more mind boggling when you think of all of the myriad of focuses that we know as our selves as the differentiation of that one being that is all things...when i first read the ra material it was pretty confusing but i then read a bunch of books from the advaita vedanta tradition which also talk exclusively about oneness and so that helped to crystalize my understanding of what oneness is

peace,
mikey

[Art]

hey all -

good job on the posts. my interpretation of oneness has been formed from many sources, but it still open to new ideas. however, i am still in the process of learning the ra material, so i will use my own term "one".

basically, "in the beginning", "one" was lonely. "one" decided to express itself in a grand explosion of love. so, everything in the universe is bound together, from the initial source. an underlying energy is ever-present throughout everything. life "functions" through wave dynamics of this energy. we are all connected to the initial source - you just have to look inside yourself.

we are an expression of "one"; an expression of love. there are many among us who are able to focus and "communicate" with the underlying energy. individuals have the choice to grow spiritually and look within. learn to love yourself and love others. take time to reflect, meditate; get outside and observe. your senses will awaken and you will no longer feel alone. you begin to take more of an active part in other people's life. this is commonly referred to as inner work. i believe outer work comes as a person completed their inner work - naturally, without effort or thought. this is where we serve. we all have jobs, or assignments to do during this time - here and now. when your moment comes, you'll know what to do, guided by your intuition, which, is directly connected to the initial source - the one.

surely this could be much longer of a post with regards to details. but, i've realized that its not important to be concerned with the details. we aren't learning, we're remembering. each of us is a spiritual being have a physical experience. this being existed before "you" were born and will after "you" die. our bodies are just vehicles, and our experiences here on earth are for karmic cleansing. in the near future, if ready, our spirits will have the chance to "graduate" into the next dimension. once you understand this concept, its much easier to connect.

in the meantime, "eat, drink, and be merry". :d rejoice for we are not only witnesses, but participants in the dawning of a new age, the likes of which cannot be described by mere words because mankind's "mind" is limited. :cool:

peace!

[Alisima]

basically, "in the beginning", "one" was lonely. "one" decided to express itself in a grand explosion of love.
for one ever to experience loneliness he first needs to become two. therefore, the act of becoming two isn't based on loneliness.

[alchemikey]

hey art,

i don't mean to butt heads or anything because i totally agree with everything you wrote except for that word "lonely" and i know that you are just using an analogy which i have read from other sources as well to describe how it all began but the whole idea of a lonely creator has never resonated that well with me

to think of the one infinite creator being lonely brings images to my mind of a depressed or bored being and i cannot fathom how a state of loneliness could fit the state from which the one infinite creator would create a creation

instead, i feel the one, the infinite, the all was so in love with itself, was in such a state of orgasmic passion that it was about to explode and so it desired a way to somehow share that love by differentiating itself into the diversified creation we know of today

i don't know why but i felt like i needed to share that :)

peace,
mikey

[Art]

this was defintely a difficult post to respond to, but i felt compelled to share the message of unity and love. mikey, your "description" sounds great - "lonely" was a poor choice indeed; thank you for having the words that i don't... you too alisima. :)

anyone else wishing to chime in, please do. i feel that deep down this is something we all need to express... to share the message with others.

[nem338nem]

it seems to me that love naturally duplicates itself. it was the law of one within the law of one. it was not ¨lonely¨. it is just like the microcosm of the breath, it expands and contracts. out - in, out - in. thus , we return to the one and go out again. notice: out first, meaning ¨give¨(masculine), then in - recieve (feminine).

the infinite creator was not alone, he just took a breath!

i am going to take a breather, after having said that!

ha ha,
peace nelson

[Alisima]

instead, i feel the one, the infinite, the all was so in love with itself, was in such a state of orgasmic passion that it was about to explode and so it desired a way to somehow share that love by differentiating itself into the diversified creation we know of today
i faintly remember something from alan watts, the reasoning sort of went like this: god is perfectly able to create mountains, but potent as he his, he will never be able to describe the process to us humans, simply because we don't have the words for it. so, similarly, we cannot describe the ways of god, nor the why's, because we don't have the proper words. and even if we had those words, it would all depend on whether we would understand them.

we are talking about god like a 6 year old talks about sex; all empty words.

[Art]

well, i must have done alright if that first sentence is the only one people don't like... being a recent "waker" (< 1 year), surely there are other words below that are "poor choices" or important "concepts" not mentioned...

looking forward to more "clarification", so please keep 'em coming! thanks for sharing guys!

art :d

[buke80]

does we are all one mean we are all the same?

[alchemikey]

does we are all one mean we are all the same?

"you are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. you are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. you are unity. you are infinity. you are love/light; light/love. you are. this is the law of one.”

based on that quote from ra i would have to say yeah we are all the same

how i understand it is that we are all the same in the sense that we are all the "i am" that is the consciousness of unconditional love, we are each unique based on the choices/distortions that we each make as free individual expressions of the one

peace,
mikey

[Alisima]

does we are all one mean we are all the same?
it means we all work together, in one big cosmic clockwork.

[Larry Seyer]

does we are all one mean we are all the same?

the following is my understanding of this and it may or may not actually agree with the teachings presented in the "law of one"...

to me it means that we are all collectively the "son of god" but we are having a dream that we are different/separate individuals existing as separate from god.

the differences we perceive between us are merely illusions based on our belief that we are not the same (i.e. "as you believe, so it is for you").

the apparent differences between us are not really there (thus the illusion reference), but our belief in the separation makes them appear real to us.

the mechanism for implementing this in the dream is the 'ego'.

in reality, we are all one and the same, still sleeping safely at home with our father forever safe from harm; we have never left home.

however, we are having a nightmare where we experience the 'dream' of separation from our father... and individuality.

none of this separation actually occurred, but we believe it did, therefore in our nightmare/dream it is real to us...

our belief in separation and our feelings of guilt and fear that we feel because of our belief that our father will somehow harshly judge us for dreaming these nightmares has the effect of keeping us in this cycle of death and rebirth.

in effect, we are running from our selves, constantly forgetting the truth of this as we traverse lifetimes.

the way out of this mess is forgiveness. we must forgive everything and everybody completely and totally and awaken from our dream of separation and death. ultimately, we must forgive ourselves because we believed that this was even possible... even though it never was.

our corollary belief in our father's harsh judgment of us is also one of illusion... there was never a split from our father,; our dream of separation is merely a dream and not subject to harsh judgment by our father.

our father would never judge us harshly, but we believe that he would, and because of this, we die and reincarnate seemingly endlessly in an insane attempt to hide from him.

much like the prodigal son story in the bible, our father waits for our awakening from our dream of separation to celebrate our joyning with him in full knowledge that we could never really leave. but because we share complete and total power with our father, all that we believe comes to our awareness and we view it as 'real'. it is not real, but we believe it is, so we experience it as 'real'.

the solution is to awaken from our dream of separation, forgive ourselves by realizing that this is not real, and then know that we are completely safe forever with our father.

hope this helps.

best to you!

larry seyer

[Nina]

dear art,
i like this very simple explanation fr cayce reading 1232-1:
"for the soul was made in the image of the creator to be a companion with that influence which is constructive, which is creative." nina

[buke80]

each entity is a unique portion of the one infinite creator (ra material)

can you imagine yourself as being a portion of god?

[buke80]

for those of you who have read ra material,
according to the book, are we created by god or are we parts of him?
i could not find the exact answer, so can you help me?

[alchemikey]

for those of you who have read ra material,
according to the book, are we created by god or are we parts of him?
i could not find the exact answer, so can you help me?

ra doesn't use the term god but instead uses intelligent infinity and this is how they describe that term:

"to define intelligent apart from infinity is difficult, for these two vibration complexes equal one concept. it is much like attempting to divide your sound vibration concept, faith, into two parts. we shall attempt to aid you however.

questioner: it is not necessary to divide it. the definition of intelligent infinity is sufficient. could you define that please?

ra: i am ra. this is exponentially simpler and less confusing. there is unity. this unity is all that there is. this unity has a potential and kinetic. the potential is intelligent infinity. tapping this potential will yield work. this work has been called by us, intelligent energy.

the nature of this work is dependent upon the particular distortion of free will which in turn is the nature of a particular intelligent energy of kinetic focus of the potential of unity or that which is all.

questioner: i would like to expand a little on the concept of work. in newtonian physics the concept of work is the product of force and distance. i am assuming that the work of which you speak is a much broader term including possibly work in consciousness. am i correct?

ra: i am ra. as we use this term it is universal in application. intelligent infinity has a rhythm or flow as of a giant heart beginning with the central sun as you would think or conceive of this, the presence of the flow inevitable as a tide of beingness without polarity, without finity; the vast and silent all beating outward, outward, focusing outward and inward until the focuses are complete. the intelligence or consciousness of foci have reached a state where their, shall we say, spiritual nature or mass calls them inward, inward, inward until all is coalesced. this is the rhythm of reality as you spoke.

questioner: then i think i have extracted an important point from this in that in intelligent infinity we have work without polarity, or a potential difference does not have to exist. is this correct?

ra: i am ra. there is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity. the basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind. the rhythms are clothed in mystery, for they are being itself. from this undistorted unity, however, appears a potential in relation to intelligent energy.

in this way you may observe the term to be somewhat two-sided, one use of the term, that being as the undistorted unity, being without any kinetic or potential side. the other application of this term, which we use undifferentiatedly for lack of other terms in the sense of the vast potential tapped into by foci or focuses of energy, we call intelligent energy."

below is letter written by carla which also may be of assistance:

"ra describes god, the ultimate being, the essence of everything as infinite intelligence or he puts it intelligent infinity. in its unpotentiated state, it is completely at rest, endlessly intelligent, but not doing a thing. the first distortion into this godhead is that the intelligent infinity uses free will to choose to experience itself. that is why so often in the ra material, free will is called the first distortion. it and not humanness is actually the very first distortion of god. therefore infinite intelligence, intelligent infinity, sets forth intelligent energy. this intelligent energy is called by ra the logos, or love. that is the one great original thought that has created all things that are."

so to answer your question i would have to say we are both the creator and the created or in other words the creator is the creation, we are each an aspect of god experiencing itself :)

peace,
mikey

[buke80]

dear alchemikey,
thank you for this detailed explanation.
yet there are things that still confuse me:)

[jeremy6d]

if all is one then are we all god according to the ra material.
that's an accurate interpretation of the ra material without necessarily being complete. yes, because all is one, we are god - but so is everybody else. rather than being a license for us to act as if we're better than everybody, this knowledge is really both liberation and sacred charge, because it means that we must treat everybody else in the same divine manner we need to treat ourselves (sometimes the latter is more difficult than the former).

my best understanding is that who we are - our identity - is not a fixed, static phenomenon, but a choice. as ra says, we choose to experience this seemingly separate, hierarchical, divided, incomplete reality as an alternative to unity with the creator. we draw a line between "me" and "the rest of reality" and experience life as a subject-object drama. but we have complete freedom to shift the line. changing the subject - ourselves - necessarily changes the object - everything else in creation.

realizing all is one is about more than just being god. it's about everything else being god, too. part of experiencing divinity is expanding your concept of "self" to include all of creation. just as you must accept yourself as creator, you must accept otherselves, and the rest of the creation, as the creator. by experiencing these different identities, you gain a variety of perspectives that expand your sense of self and promote catalysts that help you discover the creator in all aspects of life.

[buke80]

i don't know, i can't see myself as god since i didn't create anything and something else created me. did we create ourselves?

[Larry Seyer]

i don't know, i can't see myself as god since i didn't create anything and something else created me. did we create ourselves?

with total respect and a sincere desire to share i discuss this with you... i am not looking for conflict, but only to share.

no, we did not create ourselves... but we have hidden from our father because of fear of retribution from him.

just because you can't remember doesn't mean that it is or isn't so.

if there is a god (or to be less controversial, let's just call god -> everything), and given that you exist, either god is part of you or he is not.

if he is not part of you, then he cannot be all powerful can he? because there would be something that is not part of him (namely the you that is separate from him). if he is part of you, then why do you not remember him and his attributes?

shouldn't they be embedded within you and shouldn't you be able to recall them at will? surely if god wanted us to remember him, he would have given us the ability to do so.

in order to believe that we are 'separated' from everything (or god), requires that forgetfullness be so. it is not logical that god would make us forget him.

and if you are not hearing his voice, then who is not listening?

if it is possible to exist apart from god and we cannot hear our creators voice, then it is surely possible that we could forget him and the memories of him.

only a vengeful god would create his son and ask him to be alone. god (everything) is not vengeful... god merely is.

we make all of our attributes about god (everything) because we judge god to be what we perceive him to be. but truth does not care what we believe. truth merely is. and it shines like the sun on oracles and liars with absolutely no judgment.

our beliefs do not not change what truth is, but we believe that truth can be what it is not. the same is true for everything.

it is not possible for something to be separate from everything... if it were, then everything would not be everything. however, we are free to believe that we could possibly be separate from god though it does not change truth.

there is no right or wrong... only our judgments of what is.

all is one. because there is only everything (god) and any ideas, thoughts, or beliefs that think of separate thoughts can only be illusion or insanity.

this is what i have come to understand and is what i now share with you.

please share your thoughts.

larry

[buke80]

hi larry,
first of all i want to say that i can understan us being part of god. this is like me being a part of my mother and father. they created me and i am a part of them.
my word is to people who claim that they are god themselves.

wouldn't that be funny if we prayed to ourselves?

sorry my mother language is not english therefore i am not sure if i did express myself well enough.

[alchemikey]

hi larry,
first of all i want to say that i can understan us being part of god. this is like me being a part of my mother and father. they created me and i am a part of them.
my word is to people who claim that they are god themselves.

wouldn't that be funny if we prayed to ourselves?

sorry my mother language is not english therefore i am not sure if i did express myself well enough.

actually that is how i view things...when i pray i am praying to my self for there is only one self...even as i am writing these words, i am talking to my self for there is only one self...it is funny, i get a kick out of it that the creator talks to itself so much, almost like god has a split-personality :)

i am god but i mean that in the sense that prior to the initial individualizing of infinity and gifting of self with free will there was only the one self which we all were, a singular being which chose to know itself through the experience of manyness or finity...we are that self that chose to know itself, our experiences contribute to that knowledge

what does a creator create but more of itself?
can more even be created?
can one multiply itself in many?
how does one self replicate one self?

peace,
mikey i mean god i mean you

[jeremy6d]

i don't know, i can't see myself as god since i didn't create anything and something else created me. did we create ourselves?

who is "we"? that's the question. when you're talking about what "you" are, you're referring to something that seems very fixed but is actually quite fluid. you're thinking of "yourself", that conglomeration of behavior patterns, knowledge, feelings, etc. but, of course, you're more than that.

i suggest merely that what we pay attention to frames what we think "me" and "everything else" is. obviously, many spiritual phenomena arise from a change in perspective. it seems clear to me that what the perspective change entails is simply paying attention to more of the creation than you otherwise normally do. the boundaries of "me" and "everything else" shift to comply with your wishes.

"you" didn't create everything, because "you" don't choose to experience yourself as the complete creator. but "you" is malleable... in fact, one way of looking at creation is god experiencing itself through an infinity of different personalities, each a different definition of identity. one being "you".

just a thought.

[buke80]

you all accept that there is a creation, right?

[jeremy6d]

you all accept that there is a creation, right?

like everything else, it depends on your definition and your assumptions.

in one sense, i believe that there is no "creation", per se. since the creator is all that is, there is nothing that could be separate from the creator that would be what he/she/it "created". what we experience as the creation is a drama the creator constructed among different aspects of him/her/itself.

it all depends upon the perspective from which you're viewing the creation, because that perspective determines where you draw that line between what is "you" and what is "not you". the law of one, imho, simply asserts that there is a perspective available to you from which all is self and self is all. there are an infinite variety of other perspectives available, though, and there is much to learn from all of them. that's why finding the one "right" one is such a misplaced goal (and, in another sense, just another learning experience).

[soup]

i believe that a big part of the human experience
is to learn the lessons of being creative - in various
degrees of complexity.

at some point the complexity contained in the acts
of creation can become so enormous that one reaches
a limit of comprehension and begins to team with say,
co-creators who share in specialized ways.

by metaphor, a creation such as the dna programming
contained within a human being, may be the fruit of
some such team of co-creators. in a sense, one might
call them a social memory complex.

maybe this is part of what a social memory complex
can do - in the potential of what's possible - that is,
create life forms.

[buke80]

dear jeremy6d,

when you say that we are different aspects of him, i feel like i will go crazy because i think as if my identity is gone. when i look at my mother should i think that she is not my mother but a differnet aspect of god? these kinds of feelings make me upset.
what do you think?

[jeremy6d]

i believe that a big part of the human experience
is to learn the lessons of being creative - in various
degrees of complexity.

very well said. in a sense, the unified creator/creation is a state of absolute potential, where all is self and there is no actor nor anything to be acted upon. it is through the division or selective apprehension of aspects within the creator, applied in an infinitely complex variety of ways, that we experience "the creation" (especially to the extent that we ignore those aspects within ourselves and instead choose to experience them as "outside of me"). that's why the universe is often referred to as an illusion.

because we are all ultimately one, we find that co-creating is a means to more harmonious creations than a more sts approach, but we have ultimate freedom to selectively reinterpret the creation as we will.

[MarkM]

hey buke, try thinking of it like this:
imagine a big bright lightbulb, hanging from the ceiling, with a big, round lampshade around it like a big sphere, so you can't see the light. now drill a kazillion pinprick sized holes in it, all the way around the surface of the sphere. now as you look at the sphere, you see all these points of light, each one unique in that it shines a beam in a different direction. if you didn't know any better, you'd think there were a kazillion separate, unique little lights all individualized and on their own separate journey. in fact, if you were one of these point of light, you might think the same thing.
until you looked inward...

have fun, mark

[buke80]

according to ra material there is a creator and a creation. otherwise there wouldn't be an expression as the one infinite creator and in the ra material study guide creation is explained.
so isn't there a paradox here? there is a creator and creation but you say that we are different expressions of the creator. i can not understand it exactly.:confused:
i want to know if there is a creation or a divison.

[jeremy6d]

according to ra material there is a creator and a creation. otherwise there wouldn't be an expression as the one infinite creator and in the ra material study guide creation is explained.
so isn't there a paradox here? there is a creator and creation but you say that we are different expressions of the creator. i can not understand it exactly.:confused:
i want to know if there is a creation or a divison.

of course there's a paradox! ra comes right out and says that the mystery of unity is a paradox. the variety of aspects wrapped up in the universe guarantees that there are infinite number of perspectives from which one can view reality and the creation.

again, all the law of one really suggests is that there is a unified perspective where all is seen as self and self is seen as all. but we choose to view the creation differently. we can even choose a perspective where there are "godheads" which ra calls the "logoi" which represent extremely unified aspects of the creator. but ultimately the most unified perspective is to view all as one. and if all is one, how can there be anything else that would be "created", since that, too, is included in the original "all"?

the problem here, i believe, is that you're looking for "the" model that explains the universe. ra does not offer that, nor do they ever claim to. all they offer is some hierarchical models for looking at the universe from a different, perhaps more unified perspective. they constantly stress that we should focus on models that are helpful to our understanding, that bring us enlightenment and help us realize our potentials, rather than forcing a dogma down our throat and claiming that "this, and only this, is the way it is".

r.a. wilson has a good way of explaining it by using the analogy of a map and the actual land described by the map. the map is not the territory; it merely represents the territory. the words we're using to describe the map are even farther away from the actual terrain. so how can we possibly say what the territory *actually* is?

similarly, our nervous system signals are all the evidence we have about the world out there, but those signals are not the world themselves. we project a model of the world in order to make sense of it. since we control this model, we have the choice to change it. changing the model may yield new insights that we could not have gained before.

actually, that's a good analogy for one opinion of what the creation actually is: an infinite variety of perspectives and models of the creation, ensconced in "personalities" and "entities" that perceive themselves as separate from creation. they all represent the creator experiencing itself in a variety of ways by choosing to ignore certain aspects and stress others. but they're all ultimately part of one "thing", one creation.

[alchemikey]

according to ra material there is a creator and a creation. otherwise there wouldn't be an expression as the one infinite creator and in the ra material study guide creation is explained.
so isn't there a paradox here? there is a creator and creation but you say that we are different expressions of the creator. i can not understand it exactly.:confused:
i want to know if there is a creation or a divison.

there is a creator and a creation but they are like 2 sides of one coin...the creator is the creation, the creation is the creator or in other words the creator is within its creation just as the dreamer is within its dream...as i understand it the creator would represent the unmanifest (in the sense that consciousness/awareness is formless and cannot be seen) and the creation would represent the manifest but i feel what you are asking can best be explained in the quote below:

"questioner: can you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (i’m having difficulty with the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself.

ra: i am ra. this is an appropriate question.

the intelligent infinity discerned a concept. this concept was discerned to be freedom of will of awareness. this concept was finity. this was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the law of one. thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. the exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present."

so based on this quote we are the one intelligent infinity/creator experiencing that exploration of many-ness, we are each a focus of self-awareness that taps into the infinite and are therefore co-creators

hope that helps

peace,
mikey

[inside-up]

hi mikey,

this is why i prefer intelligent infinity to creator or creation. it is more descriptive and less parodoxical. if a creator is infinite and is "all that is" then it's not really a creator because nothing has been created. intelligent infinity is really an explorer of self by self as non-self. it is less confusing (to me) to say "the explorer and its' exploration" than to say "the creator and its' creation."

[soup]

there may be some element of the "density" paradigm
that could interlock within the discussion of creator
and creation. that is, the reproductive act seems a
creative act. two individualized creators co-create
in the act of reproduction which manifests a lifeform
of some density. at birth, the density of the child
may be less than or equal to that of the parents, in
more cases than not.

this may be difficult to generalize - that there may be
some exception in some cases where the offspring is
of higher density than the density of the co-creative
parents. and then there seems the cases where the
child evolves to a higher density than that of the
parents. possibly there is chance of mutation where
a baby is born of high density.

in this materialistic world, there seem many examples
of creators manifesting creations of density lower than
the density of its creator. but what about greater?
the trend of "indigo" children may be closer to the
threshold in this regard - the possibility of offspring
embodying higher density than that of the parents.

my impression is that typically creations are of same
or lower density to that of its creator's density and
that evolution to higher density comes through life
experience of some form or another, with differing
degrees of evolutionary rates. here one might argue
that there is a human potential density greater
than what most humans attain to.

if that pattern holds, it would imply the initial creator
of the human lifeform is of equal to or greater density
than the density that most humans attain to by their
life experience.

then again that seems a separative perspective and
within the higher densities the illusions of separation
dissolves. here mother and child are one and the
same. alternatively, from a separative perspective
a human lifeform may appear of equal to or lower
density separate than that of its creator. though
expanding to include the creator then the density
of the same human lifeform seems a lower density
facet of a higher density unitive being.

here a metaphor might be useful. as if the hair cells
of a person's head are of lower density than the brain
cells inside the head. a human lifeform may be as if
analogous to a piece of hair upon a greater being.

note, the existence of this greater being may not be
visible to the human lifeform. does the hair cell see
the brain cell? the reality of this greater being is
manifested inter dimensionally beyond an obvious
physical context within which illusions of separation
are promoted by way of human sensory nature and
its related limitations.

[buke80]

in christianity i think we are considered as parts of god, too. am i right?

[soup]

my impression is that jesus christ went to heaven
and sits at the right hand of god, in the christian
paradigm. i'd hesitate to suggest that satan or
mary sits at the left hand of god, so i'll propose
that possibly the seat is open and we all share it
once in a while.

[buke80]

are we human beings or god?:confused:
are we gods experiencing humanity?
can someone answer this?

[jeremy6d]

in christianity i think we are considered as parts of god, too. am i right?

heh. which school of christianity? there are so many to choose from.

i think *most* christians don't think about it much, and therefore default to an understanding of themselves as "creations" of god separate from "him".

[soup]

it seems ironic that christ the man evolved to embody such a feminine nature. maybe mary the woman likewise evolved to embody a masculine nature, but that part of the story was left out for protective purposes.

the story of christ contains beautiful symbolisms, and sometimes i wonder if the symbolisms were based upon dieties of earlier civilizations to add power of influence to the work. i'd go on but it may seem a sensitive topic and i don't feel completely free to talk about it, so i'll be quiet about it now.

[lisa renee]

you are god.

you wanted to experience it all.

you created an infinate amount of creations
in which to put yourself into to expericence.

then you became all those things that you had thought about.

you created rules/games for all these things, and you created a way for you to remember that you are god. you created it all. you are a part of yourself.

remember?

[soup]

i just discovered a dw lecture that talks about
the idea of men adopting feminine nature and
vice versus...as a potential path of spiritual
growth, it reminded me of the depiction of
jesus in his last days: merciful in some ways,
passive in other ways...then i remembered this
thread and so share it here in chance someone
else likewise sees a connection. (oh, maybe
this is why leonardo's last supper was painted
as it was, jesus and mary in complementary
colors - as some claim it is.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wazuc-djees&mode=related&search=

[buke80]

dear alchemikey and jeremy6d,

you talk as if we don't have any identity and we are all the same thing (god)
and god incarnated as us, the human beings. did i understand correctly? if what i understand id true then it's a terrible thing.

[jeremy6d]

you talk as if we don't have any identity and we are all the same thing (god) and god incarnated as us, the human beings. did i understand correctly?

well, first i just want to say that i offered my opinion. if it doesn't resonate with you, then please disregard it.

that said, i never said that we, as individual incarnations, do not have an identity. that's obviously not true. what i said - or meant, at least - was that identity is not a fixed thing.

you asked a question about the law of one. my most succinct take on a definition of it is that we have the perspective available to us to view the entire creation as, though seemingly separate, one. i stress again that we have the choice to view it as one. obviously, we do not; hence, our individual identities.

now, these individual identities are real, because everything that is real is part of the creation. to quote the course in miracles, "nothing unreal exists." therefore, if our individual identities are real, and yet we are part of a bigger identity, that means that to "become the creator" is not to lose ourselves - it is simply to transcend ourselves.

here's what i believe: we each have a unique, irreplaceable aspect of the original thought within us. that part which is us cannot be excluded from the creation without the creation being incomplete. the true, unified identity of which we are part would necessarily entail a total apprehension of both our personal, individual identity and the greater identity. we would not feel any "loss" of identity; we would simply have "more" identity, if that makes sense. that's my best understanding.


if what i understand is true then it's a terrible thing.

when i first encountered the law of one, i thought the whole idea of us being one with everything would entail some sort of impersonal, mechanistic collective - kind of like the borg on star trek. i sense that may be what you find so unpalatable.

the key is to realize that compulsion and conformity is totally antithetical to the creation. for if a piece of the creation must be changed fundamentally to fit in, that means that something about that piece was not part of the original creation. that simply is impossible, because only things that exist are part of creation. the true collective is the completely free and spontaneously coordinated expression of each individual's unique gifts - indeed, the creator is realized not by conformity but by perfect freedom and diversity of identity.

that is one theory on the purpose of creation - for the creator to know itself by giving perfect, uninhibited freedom to all of its "creation". if it were to compel conformity on one piece, it would stifle the expression of that part and not benefit from its unique contribution to the experience of "creation". that would undermine the purpose of the creation, under this theory.

i've concluded that it is impossible that who we really are, our true identity, is anything but a vital part of the creation. nothing is "lost", as ra says - we simply become ourselves + the rest of creation. your unique contribution to the creator knowing itself is something that could not be left without the entire endeavor of existence being for naught.

in short, there is nothing to fear about unity! does that make sense? i find it difficult to explain, so forgive me for any confusion.

as a postscript, i will say that this insight about collectivism prompted an essay i wrote on the political implications of the law of one. i believe that the last 200 years has seen an increasing collective consciousness as we approach 4d. many types of regimes and ideologies have attempted to harness this consciousness with varying success, usually based on the level of compulsion they exert on members to obey and conform. of course, the greatest expression of collective consciousness so far would be something like the internet or free market, or far less perfectly, a democratic republic - as opposed to communism or fascism or any sort of central planning.

if you're interested in the essay, i can post the link. i don't want to be seen as advertising my political beliefs, but i think the essay is sufficiently non-ideological to be worthwhile, and it deals with many of the fears that i sense you have about the unified identity of the creator.

[MarkM]

dear alchemikey and jeremy6d,

you talk as if we don't have any identity and we are all the same thing (god)
and god incarnated as us, the human beings. did i understand correctly? if what i understand id true then it's a terrible thing.

i wish to offer a few thoughts in response to your concerns, buke. as one begins to learn of the law of one for the first time, it is common to be concerned about one's own identity being swallowed or submerged by others. but this is not the way it is. your soul has already been evolving for countless millions of years, and i can assure you that your sense of self and awareness of your self has only grown in this time.

you are a very complex organism, made up of billions of cells, each having it's own life, but adding up to be you. you need not fear losing your identity, because your 'self' can only continue to grow. even when you eventually reach a perspective where you can see all others within yourself, you are still you; you still have all the memories you have now, and even more, for you will no longer be behind the veil of 3d life, and will be able to remember all lives you have lived. it is truly a joyous thing to contemplate when you begin to understand this. you have already come so far already just to be human, and you continue to become yourself. this process shall not change; you will continue to awaken to just who you are. this is not a terrible thing, it is the great miracle of life.

here is something to help understand: a drop of water, upon learning it is to fall into the ocean, fears it will dissolve into the ocean and cease to exist as itself. but if you pour the ocean into the drop, so that the drop absorbs the ocean, it becomes the ocean without losing it's identity. this is kind of like the situation we are in, but each of us has already absorbed a large part of the ocean.

so, rest assured that as you grow, your knowledge of yourself will continue to grow, and as you continue to 'absorb the ocean', you really are uncovering what you always have been, and that is intelligent infinity, or, if you like, god.

yours in the oneness and splendour of it all, mark

[soup]

that seems a yogic stretch of the mind, to imagine a drop absorbing an ocean. it seems as if the drop would necessarily lose its sense of boundaries in order to make such a stretch in the act of absorbing. so it wouldn't be say, a territorial drop looking for a fight but more of a friendly and all embracing drop. the logic of finite capacity seems useless even though i can't imagine a drop having a consciousness of what or how it does what it does in this regard - maybe that's a clue, you don't need to understand how to expand in such ways, it just happens.

[buke80]

thank you all
yes ı would like to see the link jeremy6d

[jeremy6d]

that seems a yogic stretch of the mind, to imagine a drop absorbing an ocean. it seems as if the drop would necessarily lose its sense of boundaries in order to make such a stretch in the act of absorbing.

well, that's why i wouldn't use the analogy of a "drop in the ocean". it gives the impression that each of us is a fungible part of the creation. we are not - without all of our unique contributions, the creation is incomplete.

[jeremy6d]

here's the essay: history as the evolution of identity (http://blog.6thdensity.net/?page_id=390), originally written for the bring4th.org community.

[soup]

...it gives the impression that each of us is a fungible part of the creation...

something about the drop metaphor reminds me of the concept of "consciousness unit". it seems easy to think of a unit as a quantum, as in a quantum energy state which can seem to vary with the atomic number of the atom. maybe it speaks of the periodic chart as microcosmic analogy to some macrocosmic reality - we can act as bonded atoms within some ever fabulous organic structure held together by the energetic bonding of adjacent atoms - some simpler than others. as the energy of the constuct increases, the atoms vibrate faster - things heat up. so likewise, there seems possibility that a consciousness unit changes energy state with an increased amount of energy transfered in one way or another. with enough energy, the water drop may evaporate.

[buke80]

i'm having difficulty understanding oneness. there is a question in my mind:
is oneness this: god incarneted in us so that we are all one? i really appreciate if you answer to this question. you can say yes or no

[jeremy6d]

i'm having difficulty understanding oneness. there is a question in my mind:
is oneness this: god incarneted in us so that we are all one? i really appreciate if you answer to this question. you can say yes or no

here's one way that ra recommends. how can a person understand infinity? there is no way to encaspulate the entire idea in your mind, because, well, it's infinite. the only way to understand infinity is as a unity - a single concept that aggregates what is otherwise inarticulable.

one way of looking at it is that we are all incarnations of god, experiencing god, which is why we're all one - because, ultimately, we share the same unified identity.

but there are an infinite number of ways of looking at creation. no one way is going to be "right" necessarily. the idea of unity, though seemingly a paradox, is simply the most direct model we're capable of comprehending intellectually.

[buke80]

i refuse to believe that we are incarnations of god because of my mental health
there must be another explanation

[jeremy6d]

i refuse to believe that we are incarnations of god because of my mental health
there must be another explanation

there are lots of alternative models for viewing greater reality, and i encourage you to find one that resonates with you. we don't have "the answer" because there isn't one answer - there is an infinite continuum of ways to view the creation.

[charran]

buke80,

a mental health issue is a sign that you need to ground yourself to mother earth. get some barefoot walking or standing in for at least 20 minutes a day. you will be able to see the difference. also start sucking down some vit-c and essential fatty acids (efas). truly it will help.

and you are divine....you are a sliver of god/goddess. never forget it. we are all one. you are a part of the universe and are not separated from it.

charran

[MarkM]

us human beings, in terms of our 3d experience, are by and large separated from god. those in 3d have incarnated behind a veil of forgetfulness. one reason for this is to learn first hand how to be of service to others, and how service to self always has a detrimental effect on us and others in the long run. it is only after many lifetimes worth of sometimes very painful experience that we gain some glimmering of the truth; namely, that we have some mysterious connection to the universe, and our sense of separateness is gradually replaced by the realization that all are somehow one. full understanding of this is even then only partial, perhaps only intuitively understood at best by us humans.

if you, buke, don't understand this, don't feel too bad. none of us here really, fully, understand this either. it isn't really necessary to worry too much about it . if you gain some more insight into this issue, then great! in the meantime, just know that the fact that you are reaching for understanding means that you are growing, and already have some insight into this issue. maybe move ahead into some spiritual insights that you already have and are comfortable with. if any issue causes you too much worry, don't be afraid to back off from it for awhile, you have all the time in the universe to get where you are going! i promise everything will be alright for all of us.

really! everything will be alright.:d

[soup]

it seems possible that our self image of what we are in actuality could be but a fraction of our total being. many people's sense of identity can appear as simply their physical body. their relationships, associations, material possessions, etc. can appear as external factors "separate" from themselves in ways they feel a need to put energy into maintaining them and controling them.

other people may feel the way they dress is an important reflection of who they are and so their wardrobe becomes part of their identity - where the marginal separation of skin and cloth seems negligible.

it seems possible that beyond sensory information there is a part of us that exists - as invisible or unfelt and unheard and so on, even though it is there; and this invisible part we wear with negligible separation just like the clothes on our backs.

to many people on a path of unity there may be a portion of their process where they accept this on blind faith - and then later down the path this part of them becomes more apparent within their own experience as they awaken to a greater reality than what they may have percieved before.

there's a chance that this elusive portion to our being is highly interconnected to the counterparts of other beings and by this way there can seem a connection in a unitive sort of way.

people who devote themselves to developing themselves spiritually may have a greater sense of this then the vast majority of people out there spending their time upon other concerns.

[jeremy6d]

us human beings, in terms of our 3d experience, are by and large separated from god. those in 3d have incarnated behind a veil of forgetfulness. one reason for this is to learn first hand how to be of service to others, and how service to self always has a detrimental effect on us and others in the long run. it is only after many lifetimes worth of sometimes very painful experience that we gain some glimmering of the truth; namely, that we have some mysterious connection to the universe, and our sense of separateness is gradually replaced by the realization that all are somehow one. full understanding of this is even then only partial, perhaps only intuitively understood at best by us humans.

if you, buke, don't understand this, don't feel too bad. none of us here really, fully, understand this either. it isn't really necessary to worry too much about it . if you gain some more insight into this issue, then great! in the meantime, just know that the fact that you are reaching for understanding means that you are growing, and already have some insight into this issue. maybe move ahead into some spiritual insights that you already have and are comfortable with. if any issue causes you too much worry, don't be afraid to back off from it for awhile, you have all the time in the universe to get where you are going! i promise everything will be alright for all of us.

that was very well said.

[Larry Seyer]

i refuse to believe that we are incarnations of god because of my mental health
there must be another explanation

i understand but unfortunately, truth is not determined by our belief in it... truth merely is.

your mental health does not change truth... although it can distort your perception of it.

re: "there must be another explanation"...

oneness is all that there is... but we are free to believe in two-ness, or separation if we want.

our belief in two-ness or separation does not change truth, but because we judge what we see, we believe that what we see is separate from us.

in truth, it is not... but for various reasons (including our 'judgements' and 'condemnations' of others) we see ourselves as separate from truth and from them.

this is why forgiveness is so important. forgiveness actually collapses time... or more specifically, it hastens the time we believe in two-ness or separation.

hope this helps.

best to you!

larry

[eyez4096]

dear jeremy6d,

when you say that we are different aspects of him, i feel like i will go crazy because i think as if my identity is gone. when i look at my mother should i think that she is not my mother but a differnet aspect of god? these kinds of feelings make me upset.
what do you think?

good question and i'm not sure anyone is really fit to answer it...

there is a great deal of duality -- multiplicity -- associated with the concept of oneness. it's really quite funny. it tickles my mind to think about it. i will try to use an analogy to illustrate the point:

one person may be a mother while another is a son. lets say they are part of the same family. there is now a separation and a unity; one person is separate from the other yet they are both part of a unitary family. therefor they are both separate and the same, depending on which aspect you investigate. similarly two such families may be investigated; they are both different families but both are from the same society, lets say. this process of idividuation and unifying may continue indefinitely.

to expand this idea to the point of unifying god and the individual, one needs only accept that a single person can be a part of god... which, depending on your definition of "god", can be very tricky.

~"in the beginning there was only god. then he decided to create the universe. but there was only god, so from what did he create the universe? did he create you and i from something? and if he created us from something, have we not already accepted that there was only god? ....."

this is the line of reasoning that i once heard and it leads to the conclusion discussed in this topic. one way or another it is not hard to find some reasoning which connects the creation to god directly; unless one believes that in the beginning there was more than god... in which case, where did that "more" come from? what created that? again following this line of reasoning, one comes to the conclusion that at some point we are created from something, and we may choose to call that something "god."

i believe the axiom in this discussion, used by those who choose to call us a part of god, is that "god" is defined to be the most basal force/idea/material of creation in which case one may easily come to the conclusion being discussed.

-charles

[Asa]

i do not usually post but i have been following this thread daily and have found it quite interesting. even though i will be sharing in the greatest of love with no intent to infringe i would like the reassurance that if you find what i write does not resonant, that you would please, discard it as if it was never read.

i will share mhv of what i see to be two questions that comprise this thread. the first is how does one grasp the seeming paradox of being part of unity yet being one's self at the same time and second how can it be that we are co-creators.

first, the seeming paradox of being part of unity while still being an "individual" at the same time. throughout the all each entity has within it an essence or portion of the one infinite creator. every blade of grass, tree, ant, everything contains the one infinite creator. as ra stated when one looks in the mirror one sees the one infinite creator, when one looks on other self one sees the one infinite creator. just as each tree in a forest is different it is still the one infinite creator.

so it is quite simple i can be me and at the same time i am the one infinite creator. perhaps a metaphor might make it clearer. please understand that this will be a very crude metaphor as it is very difficult to articulate these things that one comes to know. when you gaze upon a beach you see a wonderful scene composed of a sandy beach with the waves lapping gently upon the shore. that beach that can seemingly stretch to the horizon is composed of sand. the sand is composed of uncountable grains. the grains themselves contain the exact elements of the rocks or other material from which the grains originated but yet each is different one to the other.

just as the beach is composed of uncountable grains of sand, the all is composed of an infinite number of entities. all of which in their totality make up the all.

the second question how does one grasp that we in 3d can be co-creators. we are and have always been co-creators. i do admit that as we progress through the various dimensions of the octave our co-creation abilities will change and sophisticate. the simpliest terms of how to view some of our co-creation abilities is to listen to dw's science of peace series. he gives multiple examples of proof of our co-creator abilities.

simply look upon it this way. have you not ever encountered another and simply by giving them a smile did created a smile in the other person? has not someone began an argument with you and created in you a level of anger that was not there before? what of the invincible defense force that dw speaks about in his series? did they not create an atmosphere that produced a decrease in the deaths and injuries from the lebanon conflict? what about cleve baxter's experiments? are not all these examples of being able to create?

if one thinks great creation thoughts--creating a sun, a moon, or even causing the manifestation of solid objects from the ether, no we are not capable of doing any of these for we are yet at even the infant stages of being co-creators. however, we are co-creators in our right.

i again, humbly ask that if this does not resonate with you, please, disregard it as i do not desire to cause any conflict or agitation.

asa

[MarkM]

question: the law of one is truly universal in creating a progression towards the 8th density in all galaxies. correct?

ra: that is correct. there are infinite forms, infinite understandings, but the progression is one. (b1, 156)

ra: the universe is infinite. this has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to yourselves, of your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creations. (b1, 66)

ra: we leave you now in appreciation of the great illusion in which you now choose to play the pipe and timbrel and move in rhythm. we are also players upon a stage. the stage changes. the acts ring down. the lights come up once again. and throughout the grand illusion and the following and the following there is the undergirding majesty of the one infinite creator. all is well. nothing is lost. go forth rejoicing in the love and light, the peace and the power of the one infinite creator. i am ra. adonai. (b5, 175)


mark here! oneness is the greatest paradox, it contains all potential for diversity. no thought or concept is outside of the realm of oneness. all beings are a unique piece of the puzzle (as indeed are all thoughts and concepts). all these pieces are needed to complete the picture, so to speak. it is impossible for anything to not have total validity.

it is for any one seeker to choose for themselves what things, concepts, thoughts or ideas to peruse, sample, and to use or discard as is useful to them. the thoughts contained in my or anyone else's words on this forum spiral out beyond this website and into the universe and can be accessed by untold numbers of souls in all times and places. this forum is a great catalyst for thought-generation, and has inspired me with many new 'spins' (pun intended) on my own concepts of me and my world.

please peruse, sample, use or discard these thoughts as is useful to you.

yours in diversity, mark

[soup]

the word construct "all is one" may contain some inherent implication that renders it confusing. the word "is" in this context may suggest another word "defines", such as "all defines one." here the idea that the unknown is a portion of "all" and is "defineable" seems paradox. so to accomodate the unknown as undefineable the word "is" may be substituted with another word which can alleviate confusion, depending upon a person's perspective.

here artistry comes into play, and a sense of aesthetics may be helpful. personally, i prefer a word construct "all seems one". one reason for this may be that it seems built using e-prime principles that can lend a person a sort of software download that enables language use that may foster dopey states not far dissimilar to feelings of endeared love. another reason may be that, well the unknowable seems simply unknowable and the word "seems" helps me acknowledge my own ignorance in such regards.

[buke80]

dear friends,

can we say that our souls are not seperate from god but we are created by him?:rolleyes:

[MarkM]

yes! you have it, buke!!

[odiseo]

i think that a good example to understand the meaning of one is (ra) itself. think of ra not as a person but let's say a group of souls for example that share the same purpose, to love, to help. in that group there could be let's say 20, 100, 1000 souls or could be and entire planet doesn't matter, they all share the same love, desire to help to evolve so they become one. i hope you get the point.

[jeremy6d]

dear friends,

can we say that our souls are not seperate from god but we are created by him?:rolleyes:

of course!

let me just reiterate a point: *we* don't know "the truth". we don't. we may think we have a perspective on the truth that is less distorted than others', but it's just one perspective. any concept of god we arrive at in third density will almost certainly contain some distortion.

there is great freedom in this reality, because it lets you find a way to experience divinity that is as undistorted and nuanced as you like. like soup says, to say "all is one" is not necessarily the best expression of the law of one for every person at any time in any context. the beauty of the statement comes from its abstract simplicity and directness, but it is also subject to quite a bit of interpretation if you wish to act upon it in the real world.

in other words, "all is one" is relatively true and undistorted without necessarily being correct for you at this time. the important thing is to maintain a spirit of gratitude and peace with your highest concept of divinity, whatever that is. that is much more important than having the model correct.

[buke80]

then we all become with the creator to evolve ?

[soup]

some people consider the physical body as an energy transducing engine, that is, we consume energy of one form and transduce it into other forms. one form of energy the physical body can produce is "a feeling of love." it seems likely that this energy can directly flow to non-physical dimensions of reality.

within these non-physical dimensions there seems a possiblity of making connection to other beings by way of riding upon energetic waves. these waves can be as simple as "a feeling of love." it may be that in some people's perspective, this is how a soul comes in contact with other souls and how a sould merges with another soul.

there's a common term "soul mate" that might describe a merging of this sort, as if the energies of the physical body used in a specific way allow one to make connection in a way that another part of the being (i.e. the soul) may be enabled to do things that it wouldn't be able to do otherwise.

my impression is that good soul connections can be analogous to good conventional communication - it takes two to communicate well within an alternation of talking and listening. in other words, its difficult to hold a conversation all alone and its more fulfilling to be in conversation with others. this might be a form of service to others, reaching out in this way.

[buke80]

i think the law of one is a pantheistic belief. what do you think?

[pyramidnj]

buke, i had never thought about this, but now that you have raised it, and i have now invoked the process of deep thought [well, relatively so....], i am going to give you my take on your question, more from a place of feeling rather than thinking, actually....pantheism is ultimately the ability to see and experience god in all things, in all of creation, from the most minute to the most complex; it means having the capacity to experience god in every manifestation of creation; it simply means that we can perceive the smile of god in a stone randomly found in the country-side, in a grain of sand on the beach, in the lone leaf of a tree struggling for survival in a drought-ridden field, in the eyes of an exhausted homeless person seeking a place to crash, in the joy of a third world child amused by the potential of a random piece of junk to serve as a toy, ad infinitum....until you fully integrate the law of one as a word description of all that is, all that ever has been, and all that ever will be....with infinite love! jo anne

[buke80]

the law of one resembles monism also.

[billybobbutterball]

i think the law of one is a pantheistic belief. what do you think?

reply:

i think the term, "pantheism" falls short of the mark. a more sophisticated
view would be that of "panentheism" -- which implies that the essence of god is of a far greater order than the sum of the physical parts i.e., of the cosmos' of which we are somewhat aware.

for what it is worth the christian new testament describes god as being both immanent and transcendent in relationship to its creation. so, as postulated above, it makes sense that "god", as the one creator, is not limited to being merely the self-evident cosmos.

my question is: if the above is not so then what was the state of the "one-not-yet-creator" before the "undifferentiated one" created a cosmos to further define itself?

non existance? don't think so!

note: search out past discussions in the archives.

google panentheism and much good stuff will come up... including the conclusion from plilosopher charles hartshorne that the basic concept of panentheism is the most philosophically logical term -- out of some 26 candidates -- that most satisfactorily fills the descriptive requirements.

my best, bill g. aka billybobbutterball ...flunked philosophy, but still trying.

[buke80]

i think panantheism best suits for the law of one.

[buke80]

dear friends,
if we are all god, what about our unique personalities

[jeremy6d]

if we are all god, what about our unique personalities

they are aspects of god.

[Chris Hamilton]

hi buke,

i have watched this with interest, because your questions roll right along the path i took when i was first exposed to the law of one books. i remember being quite confused about some of the wording in the books. from what i originally read in '96 or so on the llresearch.org site, i didn't quite understand and gave up on the excerpts that were available at the time. i didn't come back to it until '99 or so, when david came out with his outline of the books (gleaned from information by a man named childress). the concept of oneness incorporates some mid-eastern religions and philosophies,and christianity does contain some of loo ideas, but it is not a religion, it is a philosophy, and this confuses many people. it makes no judgements as religions can often do. the law simply states that all are one. (which makes us more confident of who we are individually)

so, if you would like to get an idea of what this loo is, then i would suggest reading david's outline first. just go to his free books section and it is there, or do a search on "the law of one outline". there is so much great advice for us all in there :)

take care buke, and keep asking those great questions. chris

[buke80]

dear jeremy6d;

i can not believe that we are god literally. god is transcendent, he is not us.
in quran it says that he put something from himself into human beings. we have a part from him but we are not him. i don't know, maybe i misunderstand you. do you really say that he is us? do you mean it literally?

[alchemikey]

try looking at it this way...there is nothing but god hence the term "all is one", everything that exists anywhere in the cosmos is some aspect of god experiencing itself

sure god transcends human beingness but then again so do you for the divine spark within you is just as eternal as god is, the human form is a vehicle that god uses to learn more about itself through its interactions with itself

we are a part of god and we are in the ultimate sense the whole of god, it is just that right now we focused as a part playing the role of a human being

i actually prefer the term "i am" to refer to god for anyone can relate to the sense of being an "i am"...are you? if you are then you are god too :)

peace,
mikey

[MarkM]

it occurred to me today that even god had to evolve, someway, somehow. there is a concept of a great out breathing and in breathing where an out-flinging occurs of primordial fragments of energetic units (us) which go into the universe to learn and evolve and eventually return to source (god), enriching god with our experiences. perhaps god then repeats the whole exercise again, this time out-flinging into a universe made bigger and better with the benefit gained from the previous foray.

maybe this has already occured countless times already, back to a time and/or beyond time when god and the universe was very much less evolved then now. maybe one of the first cosmic outbreathing and inbreathing cycles was a cycle leading to the achievement of 1st density only. maybe this cycle is leading to a 9th density universe for the first time?

well, i certainly don't know. this is a very rough draft of the first inklings of an idea. a very rough draft indeed.

yours in the freedom of idle speculation, mark

[buke80]

are these energetic units parts of god or its creation? is god an energy?

[MarkM]

after i posted to this thread yesterday, i thought of what ra has said about god being intelligent infinity. if the universe(s) are infinite, there must be an infinite number of souls all gaining experience in all times and places. i do believe that our experiences are god's experience.

so maybe we can think of god as the ultimate multi-tasker, differentiating into an infinite number of souls in order to gain all of experience. ra says that intelligent infinity becomes intelligent energy, and experiences 'manyness'. i guess that what is impossible for us to fully grasp is the concept of infinite manyness being oneness at the same time. but when you think of all the experience of all living things on this one planet alone, you get a tiny idea of the totality of experience known by god.

this is a tiny, distorted idea, but even ra in sixth density say they can't fathom the core mysteries of eighth density (intelligent infinity). but in this universe made of love, we will continue to approach the one god, as we approach one another.

i think that this is how god knows and loves us all.

[billybobbutterball]

after i posted to this thread yesterday, i thought of what ra has said about god being intelligent infinity. if the universe(s) are infinite, there must be an infinite number of souls all gaining experience in all times and places. i do believe that our experiences are god's experience.

so maybe we can think of god as the ultimate multi-tasker, differentiating into an infinite number of souls in order to gain all of experience. ra says that intelligent infinity becomes intelligent energy, and experiences 'manyness'. i guess that what is impossible for us to fully grasp is the concept of infinite manyness being oneness at the same time. but when you think of all the experience of all living things on this one planet alone, you get a tiny idea of the totality of experience known by god.

this is a tiny, distorted idea, but even ra in sixth density say they can't fathom the core mysteries of eighth density (intelligent infinity). but in this universe made of love, we will continue to approach the one god, as we approach one another.

i think that this is how god knows and loves us all.


mark, i imagine that trying to grasp the nature of ultimate being is probably a fool's errand. i think that even the very best that we can do boils down to just playing around with unsatisfactory generalizations.

it is a given that god, the one creator, has complete knowledge of its basic state of absolute infinite oneness. however the creation of the cosmos opens a whole new realm of extended being to be explored. in theological terms the concept of "god" learning from his explorations of self is known as process theology -- an idea bitterly opposed by orthodox christianity as being virtual blasphemy since it implies a limitation of god's supposed omniscience. ( philosophically/theologically meaning the complete and perfect knowledge of god, itself and all other beings, past, present, and future, or merely possible , as well as all their activities, real or possible, including the future free actions of human beings.) anyway, as i understand the ra material that type of all-knowing of the creation doesn't fully obtain ( but then there is the added confusion of the slippery nature of "time" as not being linear to be figured in.)

myself, i have trouble with the term, "infinity." it is too often mistakenly used as a synonym for "large beyond comprehension...seemingly endless, etc."
on top of that the term " intelligent infinity" seems to lack something when applied to supreme being -- the problem being the lack of defining the quality of the intelligence. to me, god is better described as "infinite intelligence" -- which carries a different connotation in that it adds the idea of quality...but then that doesn't fit comfortably with the concept of process theology....

confusing.

there is a work in the approved divine cosmos reading list that i find adds great insight as to the role of the one creator. the book is "the third millennium" by ken carey. i'm in my second reading. i read a page or two just before i go to sleep. i had some trouble re-concilling aspects with the ra material, but when kicked up to a higher level the two seem compatible to a high degree. i think of it now as being the ra material romanticized...for instance as a literary device we have the one creator as a personage narrating the facts of cosmic life. (the work came out about the same time as the ra material) i'm surprised that on my second reading how much i missed or misfiled in my brain during the first go-around. need to read it a third time.

as for the one creator being described as a multi-tasker, i don't think so in any direct hand's on sense. as a product of the the original creative impulse there came into being a hierarchy of real multi-tasker entities, those who do all the spade work, so to speak....that would be the various sub-logi...right down to our sub.sub.sub logi status (:>))

i don't think god has to "know" our various peccadillos to love us...it is axiomatic to existence that god "loves" itself. we are an extension of god in some manner or the other, so it follows that the totality of the cosmos -- including ourselves of course -- is loved far beyond our dim understanding.

hmmm. i hope i didn't merely further cloud the already murky waters!

best bill g aka billybob whatsoever.

[MarkM]

great thoughts, billybob, more fat to chew on...

i do agree with a lot of this, but i don't see any real harm in speculating about the nature of god, i thing it is within the nature of the human mind to try to understand what it can in it's own terms. the mind is, though, a tool for functioning in third density first and foremost so of course has it's limitations. for example, we can only approximately grasp the meaning of all lives lived simultaneously, as is mentioned in david's reading post of today. this isn't to say that mind isn't illuminated by spirit, so we can have some intuitive understanding.

when i was much younger, i thought a lot about what god could be.this was before i had assimilated to any great degree any concepts of oneness. i heard much of evolution vs. creation and came up with the ideas of evolution having been created, or creation having evolved, or something like that, but for me each concept required the other. having been awakening to the reality of oneness of all things lately, i can't help but think that our oneness with god requires some concept of god evolving too. but i could just as well be off the mark(pun not intended) on this one.

on carla rueckert's site the most recent q'uo reading states that we are god in a young, unrefined state (or words to that effect). for me, an uncomfortable sense of dualism results from seeing god as being absolutely complete and finished, totallised and whole, right from absolute day one, without evolution in some divine continuum, without a dynamic and intimate oneness with us, and without gaining and growing intrinsically in some way from all of our experiences. but i still prefer to view god as being absolutely transcendant and fully potentialized, infinitely intelligent and perfected, perhaps on some far off or infinite past, simultaneous or future point/plane/time that encompasses all of creation and the eternal now. (yes, i know, murky waters!) who's to say that the 'all there is' can't expand? i really don't know. consciously anyway.

but i'm really just speculating as i go, it's kind of fun. i don't take myself seriously at all. we are free to think these thoughts, to contemplate the nature of the cause of it all. again, these are thoughts of the moment, subject to revision at any time. to keep one's personal cosmology fluid and changing is, i think, what's important. as frank zappa said, "i may be totally wrong but i'm a fool."

the law of one teaches that as we grow through the densities, we incorporate more and more of everything until we each realize and find out that we are god, literally.

and as you are god, you are evolving. learning to love. i do think that every bit of you is known by god because god is you. there is no separation. and as we meditate on and contemplate this we gradually intuit this for ourselves. again, the mind is just a tool, it is not us, and the joy of inner knowing is not of the mind.

but to come back down to earth for a moment, what's more important for me right now is to continue to experience and develop the oneness with myself that i perceive in others. this is where the lion's share of my energies go now. and to again refer to david's posting of today, the acceptance of catalyst for the clearing through of old unresolved issues is of great importance in the present, there's nothing frivolous about this work. as my mother once said to me, 'if you let your head go soaring off into the clouds, make sure it's attached to your shoulders with a good, strong tether!"

blasphemously yours, ;) mark

[soup]

there is a concept of a great out breathing and in breathing...


this reminds me of nancy chen's study of qigong. just as qigong embraces the breath, the spread of qigong across the globe seems to cycle like breathing. those who study qigong seem known to develop very large lung capacity, as opposed to those who don't who lose their lung capacity with age. qigong also can promote energetic flow in ways which diffuse both energetic surpluses and shortages caused by blockages. could there be some correspondance of principle from micro to macro and onto larger scales which somehow supports the context of this thread?

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/archive/99-00/09-99/nancy_chen_to_lecture.htm

[buke80]

we were one in the beginning like a seed of a tree. then we became the leaves of that tree. we will return back to the oneness again but now we are seperate from each other in this 3d density. what do you think?

[MarkM]

within the seed is the pattern for the tree. within the seed as well as the tree is the pattern for the forest. within the seed, tree, and forest is the pattern for the planet. within the seed, tree, forest and planet is the pattern for the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, etc,etc, all the way up to the creator, which contains the pattern for the seed.:d

[buke80]

still can not understand oneness...:confused:

[Kris]

i have been reading the law of one (plus this forum and other of david's materials) and i think i understand the concept of oneness to a point. what i have trouble with is thinking in terms of being one with things that are not alive such as say a brick or a slab of concrete or a computer. i can comprehend being one with 2nd denisty beings such as trees and animals because they are alive, but have difficulty understanding how we are one with inanimate objects.

[pyramidnj]

kris, somehow in my spiritual meanderings i have come to understand that everything that exists, seen and unseen, is alive...whether it be a brick or a flower, a rusty old metal pipe or a glorious siberian cedar....all is made of the same "stuff" but only of diverse densities,structure/organization, intensities, manifestations, shaping or sound of the "stuff" and so on. is that "stuff" actually of the source? if all is one, then there is no way that anything could not be alive, for the one is life in the truest sense of the concept, or is my reasoning completely off track? what does your inner guidance whisper to you as you consider what precedes?

dancing in the light and sound!
jo anne

[MarkM]

yeah, this is a hard one to get one's head around!

that which we call inanimate objects is referred to by ra as 1st density life. 1st density is not aware although called towards growth. all matter is formed from light, which is life, and matter such as rock can be looked at, i think, as a very condensed form of life.

in our illusion of separateness, we see individual rocks and pebbles, but in reality they are not really 'individual'. ra does refer to the subjective concept of 'infinite rockness', and i refer to this in contrast to the objective concept of a rock.

1st density matter (earth, wind, fire and water) manifests in our consciousness as separate things, but what it all has in common is what is popularly known as an atomic structure. an atom is now known to be not made of matter at all, but localized foci of energetic wave patterns, patterns that permeate and make up the entire universe. the energy behind these patterns is life itself, life which can be assembled into an infinite number of patterns for living things, or rather the vehicles for living things as they manifest into physicality.

as it is said that you do not really 'live' in your body, and that your body is as a vehicle which you remotely control in this world (your body is actually made up of 1st density minerals and chemicals), life is somehow 'behind' all matter and not really, truly 'in' it, in the sense of an entity being 'in' it's vehicle, although the vehicle is formed of life energy.[note: an 'entity' is an individualized portion of consciousness with some degree of awareness -mark]

although there is 'life' in rock, composing the rock, the (or a) rock in our physical experience is not a separate living being.

as lifeforms or entities evolve and become more aware, they require more complex vehicles which are nevertheless made up of the basic building blocks of 1st density matter, which in turn are formed of these standing wave patterns of energy, this energy being life. so in this way a brick or a bronze statue are not individual entities in themselves, but are made of the same stuff that your body or mine is made of...life energy itself.

your body is made up from individual cells. a cell is a basic form of 2nd density life, a vehicle for a primitive entity with the first spark of awareness and is the end result of millions of years of evolution and organizing of 1st density chemicals, minerals, and the like. 1st density life lacks this 'individual entity-ship', as evidenced by it's lack of dna. dna is what seems to me to define an entity bearing vehicle in the densities of matter.

i've tried to simplify these concepts somewhat but they are rather difficult to apprehend at first, and are written from the human viewpoint of the illusion of separateness. in reality there is only one all encompassing field of life/love, seeking a diversity of experience. wilcock's 'convergence iii' is a good place to start to learn of these matters, aside from the ra study guide.

welcome to the forum, kristina.

[Kris]

thanks for the response joanne and mark. you have both helped me to understand quite clearly that everything is one.

mark -i didn't realize that our bodies were made from 1st density minerals and chemcals. it seems to me then that everything is about energies that make us evole from 1st density to 2nd density and now 3rd. i guess in the same way as when we evolve into 4th density our body, or our new vehicle as you put it, will be different again and, of couse, a much better vehcile.

joanne - i have been working on trying to focus more effectively on what my "inner guidance" tells me. how to channel my higher self and figure out who my guides are etc.

i have almost finished the loo study guide and am anxious to start reading it again because i think the second time around i'll have a far greater understanding and answers to my own questions (of which there are plenty). i have been reading the forum discussions over the last few months and that has been very helpful as well. it is amazing how many truly enlightened (and intelligent) people are writing and that "newbies" such as myself can write questons and get answers. it is very much appreciated.

i feel i have awakened, but i have a lot of spiritual growth ahead of me, which is really quite a wonderful feeling.

take care.

kris

[Kris]

hi buke

having just finished the loo study guide myself, i am probably the least knowledgeable person in this forum to offer advice to anyone on the subject of oneness, however, i just wanted to say that one of the things that stood out for me while reading loo was that ra said that if we asked for help from within we would receive help. so to me this means that if you look within yourself and ask of your higher self to help you to understand oneness, perhaps the answers will come to you.

i don't think that anyone can give you a cut and dry answer that will help you understand. although the concepts are within the materials, i think you have to figure out what it means to you personally.

as q'uo says: "if you simply continue to watch yourself think and become conscious of the process, you shall eventually achieve realization."

[Art]

still can not understand oneness...:confused:

hey there buke -

first let me apologize for not responding sooner. after all, the magnificent discussions within this thread can all be "attributed" to you; in other words, your questions have been the catalyst for many members sharing their fantastic perspectives, leading to enriching discussions! way to go! :d

alot of ideas, concepts, perspectives, etc., have been shared in this thread, and well, they're all correct. i would tell you though, that you need to make your own interpretations and formulate your own beliefs, not "adhere" to others. "if these writings do not resonate with you, discard them and continue."

oneness to me is not a concept or even a philosophy. it is the truth. however, it can be very difficult to comprehend and understand with our limited minds and knowledge. oneness has gained popularity because of the drive towards spirituality (1st person). religion (3rd person) lacks in many ways, leaving people feeling separate. however, spirit is connected, so there is no separation. from a "unity" perspective, we will continue to come together - this world is about to be rocked!

another good one - "we are spiritual beings having a physical experience, not the other way around." most people lack the spiritual part of life and simply do not experience life from this perspective. members of this forum are driven to enriching their spiritual lives, and we have been able to accomplish this by accepting the truth of oneness.

my humble argument for oneness would be,

1). our most respected scholars in the scientific community agree about the unified field (which goes by various names). therefore, all is connected. in addition, they have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially energy, different "forms" of course.

2). if all is energy and connected, the sum of the parts "equaling" the one, then logically, the one would incomplete without you!!!

thats it! those are the only significant offerings i can give you. i could keep going about love, consciousness, etc., etc., but the point here is understanding these two simple statements, in my humble opinion. don't fret over the details!

once i finally "quit" obsessing over the details and accepted these truths, then the challenge becomes living it. my spirituality has developed, grown asking the very questions you are, so keep on asking my friend - the answers you get will lead you to truth. these answers will come from within.

we all have the ability to significantly impact our immediate environment individually, however, together, our "strength" grows, effectively "impacting" a larger environment. we are learning and teaching together. even as great as that is, the power of this forum does not exist here, it exists in how each individual member experiences life outside of this forum. the lessons are here and the tests are out there.

so, in my mind, this forum is a tool for learning, developing and practicing oneness. this is our school, and we are all teachers, peers, and students. here i am fortunate enough to open up and write my thoughts for all to see. i remain to be open-minded, with a drive to learn, especially from "debating" and "constructive criticism". i owe many an individual here huge thanks for helping me to see the light more clearly.

do not fret my friend - the answers you seek are within you, and nowhere else. keep searching, asking. we're here to offer a hand.

"may the light of our creator illuminate our paths so that we may serve in harmony with all that is". :d

keep on keepin on! ;)

[Robert Riedel]

hey there, art!

i'm just guessin', but i suspect that your students are in for a surprise, this fall! keep up the "good" work!

bob

[Art]

hey there, art!

i'm just guessin', but i suspect that your students are in for a surprise, this fall! keep up the "good" work!

bob

hey bob!

possibly... i am often reminded about "not violating someone else's free will". all i can do is be open to discussions, and surprisingly, i've found many people want to discuss their views on religion, spirituality, etc.

it's funny you mention "this fall"... i have been tossing an idea around for next fall - a multi-part "lecture" series on the new sciences and how they converge, sacred geometry, etc. unfortunately i reside in a "fundamentalist" christian community, so i have to tread lightly on the topic of spirituality and religion.

the goal would be to present "oneness" from a scientific viewpoint and open each "lecture" for discussion. i'd be doing this for free, and it would be "driven" by demand. if attendees want more, i'll try to give 'em more. if not, then, i can say i tried and learn from the experience. either way, it is an exciting, but daunting prospect.

hope you had a good 4th my man. take care, and keep on rockin! :d

[daresh]

oneness

if you can't understand the word oneness then that is because it is not explainable through words. it is like the buddha once said, "my teachings are like a finger pointing to the moon, don't mistake the finger for the moon."
the word oneness is a word, it is unity, it is all there is, it is that...
but this word is empty without experience, you have to experience this yourself to know what it is.

everybody has experienced oneness on some occassions, for example
"when walking on a beach on a quiet way and you are in a certain mind state and suddenly you see a bird and you are totally in the moment, for a moment youbecome the bird and the bird is you, there are no thoughts, you forget your surroundings, there is absorption into the moment.
this is oneness, this is a unity experience.
there are deeper gradations of this experience, in deep meditation you can experience the deepest unity, unimaginable, unexpressable in words.
this is where the infinity and also you is all there is, is experienced, we are totally one with the infinite creator, this is reality but on this 3d level we don't see this every moment because there is an illusionary seperation, this seperation has a meaning and there is reason for this, to learn our lessons and gain experience.
but in the big picture there is only oneness.
and this can be experienced here and now to.

how can there be oneness and manyness at the same time?
this is what the law of one talks about as being a paradox, but it is solved in unity.
infinity has the potential to experience an infinite amount of finite things.
this means that the finite things, the many diffrent things are still in essence infinite. so you have (unity/infinity -> manyness -> unity/infinity), all comes from the same undifferentiated source and returns to the same undifferentiated source and in the while is the same source!
this does indeed mean that our identity in the very very end of 7d will be totally absorbed into the one infinite creator, into oneness, of unimaginable beauty and become everything there is once again.

with love,
Unknown

[daresh]

we were one in the beginning like a seed of a tree. then we became the leaves of that tree. we will return back to the oneness again but now we are seperate from each other in this 3d density. what do you think?

this is correct, but can i add some minor ideas?
the seperation is only illusionary. seemingly a tree and a leaf are very diffrent but if we would go and look to the essence, on a subatomical level, we would see they are all made from the same thing, ...
this means that in essence they are not different at all, it only looks like that, this is the illusion, the idea of seperation.
so although the leaf can think that it is different, it is not in essence.
on a 3d level which we are now, we are in the same situation, the leaves think they are different from the tree, but this is part of the whole lesson, it's all part of the plan, the lesson of choosing through free will between service to others or service to self. if we would already experience total oneness all the time, there would be absolutly no desire to experience something else or more and evolution would go much slower. the idea of seperation speeds up evolution because it gives a force to seek the light...

peace,
Unknown

[Art]

the word oneness is a word, it is unity, it is all there is, it is that...
but this word is empty without experience, you have to experience this yourself to know what it is.



Unknown -

elegantly written! :d

art

[soup]

dear friends,

can we say that our souls are not seperate from god but we are created by him?:rolleyes:


this seems an example of language containing some implication that may be outworn or limiting, specifically, the patriarchal attitude that god is a "he".
(could such implications violate a reader's free will if not consciously questioned?)

my impression is that such statements, "god as he", seems not completely untrue though it seems possible that it doesn't contain the whole essence.

the image of a man and woman in the act of copulating may contain metaphorically, a more accurate essence of "the creator." note, this is not a hermaphroditic model of god, but one of sexual unison where he and she are bound together intimately, as within an act of conception, i.e. a fertilized egg at the moment it becomes fertilized.

i suggest this in part because in the observation of my creations (of my writings), the more fruitful and fertile creations seem as if on some level the result of a devine genesis as that of feminine and masculine polarities conjoined.

and so i offer thanks and praise to the divine feminine for allowing that to happen.

[One 66]

soup,

it all comes back to the negative and positive dance round and round, the masculine and feminine are forever together bound... as one. there is no separation, only the idea of separation.

[buke80]

what does oneness mean in simple words. thanks to the one who answers to my question.

[Art]

what does oneness mean in simple words. thanks to the one who answers to my question.

the simple:

oneness is a spiritual philosophy, backed by scientific evidence (i.e., unified field & zero point energy) linking everyone, everything in the universe. the sum of the individual parts, in which all are connected, is indeed one.

a little more:

by using the term philosophy, oneness is open to individual perception and interpretation. in my humble opinion, the details are not important. what is important is acceptance of continuous unity with all that is. in other words, there is no "judgement" of your soul when you physically die (common to current "major" religions, creating a fear-based mentality) - that is not the only time you are unitied with "god". you always have been connected, and always will be; you are not a full physical being having a limited spiritual experience, but rather a full spiritual being having a limited "physical" experience (currently on 3d earth). additionally, oneness is not fear-based; it is love-based, and tolerant of diverse opinions, ideas, and perspectives. the purpose of "practicing" oneness is not to go to "heaven" when you physically die, but to serve others the best we can while physically alive, fully aware that not only our actions, but also our thoughts affect the universe...


i tried to keep it short. if this doesn't help, please respond why, and i'll do my best to try and clarify. there is no single answer to your query, and eventually, you'll have to formulate your own "definition" of oneness. of course, there are many here who can probably answer your question better than i, so hopefully you'll get the answers you seek.

humbly yours,

art

[daresh]

what does oneness mean in simple words. thanks to the one who answers to my question.

oneness = unity

what does unity mean in simple words?
unity = that which is

if this doesn't clear anything up then please read on:
if my guess is correct you are looking for oneness in the sense of being the total truth, that which is, the eternal truth, unimaginable peace, the honey of the soul...
you know, this is what everyone is seeking, every being alive is seeking this subconsciously, some are consciously seeking this like buddhists, yogi's, gnostics. oneness is what they experience in deep meditation. total oneness, total bliss,...
but you must understand that you won't get an explanation in words which will make you understand this. this is like asking, "make me enlightened in 2 seconds". this is not how it works.
the reason why this can not be understood in words is because words are dualistic. you only have an egg because you know there is something which is not an egg. in total oneness this dissapears, there is only that....

this is also the reason why in zen buddhism they use koan's.
these are questions which cannot be understood by logical thinking because in the end infinity/unity/oneness/nothingness cannot be understood in words and thus are beyond logical thinking. they are beyond words. this is why with koans they ask the meditator to meditate on these koans untill they let go of all logical thinking and concepts and by letting go of that they can experience oneness. or why in jnana yoga in hinduism there is guru which talks with the student and will question everything until the student lets go of all his concepts and will experience reality as it is.
almost all meditation is eventually focused on unity or oneness or patato or whatever you want to call it. have you ever meditated? the nothingness meditation of buddhism is a way how i clearly experienced deep oneness for the first time.

if i am correct and you are actually seeking the deeper meaning of oneness, the total truth, life itself! then you will have to go deeper, search in yourself. this is a question that will not be answered by anybody here, because it is a personal experience, deeper then anything words will ever be able to explain.
total absorption in the now, total absorption into this moment, no thoughts, absorption in silence, pure awareness of awareness itself....
when talking about it the best answer is silence but that didn't seem like a good response in this case :)
oneness can be experienced on many ways but the most well known is meditation.

the key here is, that you can experience it,... seek and you will find.
if you want some links about nothingness meditation or something similar email me.
seek in yourself, there you can experience them
and then you can see the meaning of oneness in everyday life.
there are gradations of oneness, the whole ecosystem, the earth, the cycle of u breathing and the trees giving us air. these are examples of oneness on a physical level, but for pure oneness in it's deepest sense, you will have to go inside.
please don't get to hung up in words. i had the same problems with the word acceptance, i asked myself stupid what acceptance meant. i wanted a clear definition, a phrase i would be able to say so i would be absolutly sure i would do the right thing. but it's silly and with me it was actually about wanting control. total acceptance is also beyond words,...
words are only symbols pointing to something deeper. it is like a finger pointing to the moon, don't mistake the finger for the moon. if you are totally focused on the finger(the word) you don't see the moon(the deeper experience). if you say the word apple, the word isn't the apple itself. you got to eat the apple to find the word

greets,
Unknown

[alchemikey]

oneness to me simply means that every iota of existence is me (that probably sounds a little solipsistic but i have found it helpful to view all that appears as outside as different viewpoints of the one self that all is)

perhaps these are simpler words: everyone is everyone...there is nothing other than the one unified field of consciousness/awareness/presence

even simpler: silence is...

peace,
mikey

[Kris]

what does oneness mean in simple words. thanks to the one who answers to my question.

hi buke:

i, like you, have been searching for a simple answer to your question and so i wanted to share an experience i had very recently with you whereby i believe that i now truly understand oneness.

i was sitting outside in my backyard, all alone in silence, enjoying the flowers in my garden, and i sat back and looked up into the sky and i saw what i thought was a plane up very high in the sky. i watched it for a minute and it started turning in such a way that i knew it could not be a plane and as i watched it i knew it was a bird in flight way up there very high in the sky and i watched it soar and glide. it was so free. it was so beautiful. i felt my spirit soar and i felt one with that bird as if i was flying with it. i realized at that moment that i understood oneness. it was a feeling, a connection.

simply put, for me, after all the reading i have done and all the questions i have asked myself and others, i think in order to truly understand oneness, you have to feel it.

so keep reading and asking questions and searching within yourself. there is a lot of great insight on this forum that has helped me tremendously. keep looking at all the beauty that is around you and when you feel it, you will know you understand it.

kris

[Art]

simply put, for me, after all the reading i have done and all the questions i have asked myself and others, i think in order to truly understand oneness, you have to feel it.

exactly! these experiences are subjective and personal, but they are very real. and, once you begin to understand how these experiences "work" or why the are so "profound", you begin to see them all around you, all the time. this is where a shift occurs - a shift in perception. the love and light are all around us, but often we choose not to see through the fog (the veil). once this shift in perception occurs and you begin to not only observe oneness on a continual basis, but also participate in the present moment, well, then you're pretty much there...

again, well put kris! ;) keep up the good work!



art

[soup]

....

the image of a man and woman in the act of copulating may contain metaphorically, a more accurate essence of "the creator." note, this is not a hermaphroditic model of god, but one of sexual unison where he and she are bound together intimately, as within an act of conception, i.e. a fertilized egg at the moment it becomes fertilized.

i suggest this in part because in the observation of my creations (of my writings), the more fruitful and fertile creations seem as if on some level the result of a devine genesis as that of feminine and masculine polarities conjoined.




today i discovered that q'uo 20060528 transcript also suggested a fused masculine and feminine interplane "guardian" (not hermaphroditic) described as a genesis of adam and eve. maybe that garden (or womb) seems within reach.

[buke80]

are we parts of god? how can this be possible? we are created by him. how can we be parts of him?

[soup]

maybe there is a possibility of changing perspective in order to diffuse frustrations of misunderstanding, though difficult to say.

[jeremy6d]

are we parts of god? how can this be possible? we are created by him. how can we be parts of him?

ultimately, i think the answer you seem to be seeking in vain on this message board actually exists within you. none of us have answers, just experiences and points of view. these either resonate with you or they don't, but the resonance is what matters, not the explanation.

it seems like some of our opinions disturb you, and you're holding out for the one explanation that seems comfortable. so you're not really seeking an outside perspective so much as a "resolution to the paradox", as ra would put it. if you're going to do that, why not cut out the middleman - namely, us - and simply contemplate these matters in your own way at your own pace? none of us can do better than that for you!

this is what i was trying to indicate by stressing that none of us here have "the" answer, let alone the one that you necessarily need to hear. we're not going to have the answer that best suits you - you have that answer, and you either recognize it in our explanations or you don't. but much more powerful is the ability to recognize it in yourself, as a matter of experience and seeking.

i mean, really, what more is there to say, when we've tried to express the impossible-to-express and it's still insufficient?

[twva]

i mean, really, what more is there to say, when we've tried to express the impossible-to-express and it's still insufficient?

one might even say this thread is "a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach."

[SuperManny]

ultimately, i think the answer you seem to be seeking in vain on this message board actually exists within you. none of us have answers, just experiences and points of view.
very well put, jeremy, i agree; and if you get a hundred responses to your question about oneness, you will likely get a hundred viewpoints that will probably still not give you a complete understanding. buke80,you are searching for answers from outside of yourself, and no ones experience or opinion will give you a complete understanding, altho they can help you in your own understanding. the only concept of oneness that will put you at ease is your own unique formulation.

personally i don't see it as an issue, because we operate in a world of duality, it is the nature of the 3rd dimension. from a higher perspective all that exists is oneness, but sometimes it helps us to understand things better when we break it down into arbitrary divisions.

you might say that we (humanity) are that part of god that experiences and creates this 3rd dimensional reality. perhaps it would help your understanding to imagine individuals as atoms and molecules, and as groups of individuals come together to form cities or communities, so do atoms and molecules group together to form cells. and as groups of cells come together to form organs, etc., so do groups of cities make up the countries or the different civilizations, and all together we make up humanity as a whole, much as the different parts of the body are all brought together as a whole, or like the stars group together to form galaxies, who come together to form universes, etc. likewise all things brought together form the all-that-is, also known as god.

consider all these wonderful theories and all these wise ideas that have been posted here and then form your own unique idea of oneness. once you have a general concept you may notice that it is always being revised and updated, as you experience new things and grow in your own special way.

[voidzero]

well, i just read the first page so please bear with me. i thought art's description was really good. don't judge the word 'lonely' - it is as it is. lonely being, alone. if god was alone yet not lonely, why would the seperation occur?

the all subdivides into multiple variations of that all, that would seek the creator, firstly from a state of unawareness about its seeking.

this is being followed along the path of red, orange and yellow vibration. next step is a harvest that focuses the intent and power of love to the entity, coordinated by free will, sometimes being obfuscated so that perception of this love does not occur.

thus, the feeling of loneliness is a big catalyst for the service to others individual. and because the all is one, a part of the all will be infinitely lonely, seeking or not seeking to perceive self as [a part of] the creator.

anyway, feel free to poke holes in my theory :)

[One 66]

[quote=supermanny;22726]you might say that we (humanity) are that part of god that experiences and creates this 3rd dimensional reality. perhaps it would help your understanding to imagine individuals as atoms and molecules, and as groups of individuals come together to form cities or communities, so do atoms and molecules group together to form cells. and as groups of cells come together to form organs, etc., so do groups of cities make up the countries or the different civilizations, and all together we make up humanity as a whole, much as the different parts of the body are all brought together as a whole, or like the stars group together to form galaxies, who come together to form universes, etc. likewise all things brought together form the all-that-is, also known as god.
quote]

well said, supermanny!

one 66 :cool:

[soup]

...thus, the feeling of loneliness is a big catalyst for the service to others individual. and because the all is one, a part of the all will be infinitely lonely, seeking or not seeking to perceive self as [a part of] the creator.
...

i think a common response to the occurance of "relationship breakup" is a state of loneliness which may be useful for the grieving process to take place. for many people, an act of rebounding onto another relationship may actually interfere with the grieving process, in that they may otherwise be using that period to make peace with aloneness, from which they may better approach a new relationship from that more grounded foundation, i.e. as not afraid of being alone.

i feel compelled to seek dw's work here - saw some excerpt of his which seemed to relate to dealing with grief, that may apply, (thanks for that.)

[AmelieJolie]

i feel very strongly that there is no good reason for the extremities of suffering which beings experience on earth.

i also feel that there is no such thing as evil.....in as much as what we think of as "evil" is simply a being which has lost themselves deeper and deeper in the amnesia of who they truly are.

the nature of our reality today......i see no good reason whatsoever for why it is the way it is.

perhaps the only thing that holds us back from infinite consciousness is our attachment to form?

i read some more of the ra material today (i'm new to this website), the section about the veil.
and what i read persuaded me even more that this is the case.

furthermore, any being who interacts with us, is likely to be a part of the world of form and not one with the infinite consciousness, otherwise they wouldn't be interacting?

[zephyr]

quote jeremy6d "are we parts of god?...... how can we be parts of him?"

hi jeremy6d,

i think of the answer to that question this way (as explained by a canadian scientist, nassim haramein that goes something like this):

"think in fractals. the mandelbrot set. humans are like fractals. every human comes out of another human... and those humans give birth to more humans."

we may have slightly different genetic patterns to our individual make up, but we are all basically the same as the parts of our ancestors. and so all the way up/down the ladder of dna, god was the first part... dividing and dividing until there were finally beings that could take this information and use it to create plants, animals, etc. (even if it began with a bang! and/or chemical exchanges).

as for 'oneness' - i agree that it's a feeling that one must experience - and it is real. i've also found that once a person experiences this state, it's much easier to have compassion for others and for creation in general. it's a wonderful awareness that has changed my life for the better.

all the best,
zephyr

[johnasmodeus]

one might even say this thread is "a poignant example of both the necessity and the near-hopelessness of attempting to teach."

siddhartha: "this cannot be taught."

the gods: "teach."

ha ha ha. the gods can be real **ll-breakers sometimes. :)

the fact that you don't understand or experience oneness actually means you're normal. we're apparently not supposed to be able to experience it (except for certain fleeting experiences, few and far between) in this density.

just mull it over in your mind every now and then. if you meet experiences that seem to lend credence to the idea, then great. if not, that's fine too.

[AmelieJolie]

but compassion can make it difficult to bare living in a world of such terrible suffering.

[AmelieJolie]

hey art,

i don't mean to butt heads or anything because i totally agree with everything you wrote except for that word "lonely" and i know that you are just using an analogy which i have read from other sources as well to describe how it all began but the whole idea of a lonely creator has never resonated that well with me

to think of the one infinite creator being lonely brings images to my mind of a depressed or bored being and i cannot fathom how a state of loneliness could fit the state from which the one infinite creator would create a creation

instead, i feel the one, the infinite, the all was so in love with itself, was in such a state of orgasmic passion that it was about to explode and so it desired a way to somehow share that love by differentiating itself into the diversified creation we know of today


interesting.

i was thinking just now.
if there was no suffering, there would be no need for rescue.

but does infinite love have a desire to create if everything is constant and timeless....i wonder?
perhaps when we return to our true source, if we became creators, we'd be careful not to create such a mess again?

can we go back in time and alleviate the suffering of the tortured?

:(

[zephyr]

quote: ameliejolie
"but compassion can make it difficult to bare living in a world of such terrible suffering.
it would be nice to evolve some sort of telepathy of the heart; empathy. a feeling, knowing inside how we are all interconnected. empathy/ love would be a law in itself."

i love your idea of feeling empathy/love, and if we could evolve to that point perhaps we would practice compassion rather than fear or tolerance of sorrows and suffering.

perhaps we could eliminate sorrow and suffering if we were to feel that interconnectedness and practice compassion. in fact, i think that is the key to joy.

here is just one example of how experiencing 'oneness' changed my life:
i used to be a farmer and slaughtering some of the animals for food was part of my life. i used to eat a lot of meat. one day - out of the blue - it felt as though i was taken into another dimension of pure love and absolute light. all of my animals were there with me. it was a beautiful experience and i felt a oneness and connection with them that is beyond words, beyond peace and joy.

that experience changed my life.

i'm no longer a farmer... and found good homes for all of my animals (there are vegetarians who raise animals for other purposes). i felt blessed to find homes for them.

(i tried being a vegetarian for three years and ended up with health problems because of my blood type, so i do eat a little meat occasionally now with gratitude for the life of that animal). if nothing else, i would like to see slaughtering practices changed in this world. i'm still looking for a way to be healthy without eating meat.

that first experience of oneness with my animals was the beginning of a life changing path. i learned compassion and instead of 'tuning out' their feelings while being slaughtered (and they do experience a horrible fear - animals have feelings too), i was now consciously aware of what they were experiencing.

back to your first quote:
"but compassion can make it difficult to bare living in a world of such terrible suffering."

i have found:
"compassion has brought me joy as i have found one small way of removing suffering."

and this one small way has led to other small ways... one way at a time which really does create a sense of joy and gratitude.

one small way at a time.

lots of love,
zephyr

quote: ameliejolie
"can we go back in time and alleviate the suffering of the tortured?"

maybe - maybe not. but perhaps we can do so in the now.

[AmelieJolie]

i used to be a farmer and slaughtering some of the animals for food was part of my life. i used to eat a lot of meat. one day - out of the blue - it felt as though i was taken into another dimension of pure love and absolute light. all of my animals were there with me. it was a beautiful experience and i felt a oneness and connection with them that is beyond words, beyond peace and joy.

that's amazing!

[Art]

zephyr -

thank you for offering your story and insight. i can relate. in my younger years, i was a hunter - not hardcore, not a trophy hunter by any means, but i did hunt yearly with my father. to me, back then, it was a bonding thing.

respect for nature and "our game" was a lesson my father and grandfather taught me. however, when i got out on my own, i eventually gave it up. its not that i didn't enjoy it - being out in the woods all day can really change your perspective and open a whole new world to you. in fact, i still enjoy "hunting" - i just don't bring a gun, etc. :d i much prefer to observe nature than try to master it...

i assume that some day, if needed, these skills will come in handy, but for the meantime, like you, i have come to a deeper connection with animals - both wild and domesticated. for instance, spending time with my pets each day helps ground me and brings me happiness. :d

i could rave on and on about your words on compassion in your reply to ameliejolie - you nailed it! well done sir!

art

[zephyr]

quote from art: "well done sir!"

;) thanks art, but your reply gave me a bit of chuckle as i've never been called 'sir' before. 'mam' might work!

zephyr

[AmelieJolie]

lol.

sir...mam....hehe.

in any case, the experience you had was amazing, zephyr.
may i ask, have you any feelings on why you in particular were given this experience?
perhaps this sort of thing could, in theory, happen to anyone. but perhaps you were ready, in some way, to have the experience..... whereas others might not be?

anyway, much love to you all!

it's really nice to know you. :)

[zephyr]

quote: ameliejolie "may i ask, have you any feelings on why you in particular were given this experience? perhaps this sort of thing could, in theory, happen to anyone. but perhaps you were ready, in some way, to have the experience..... whereas others might not be?"

hello ameliejolie

since then, i've had several different experiences at different times and most of them seem to be centered around my exuding feelings of exceptional joy and gratitude and/or a deep longing to be close to my creator.

other than that, i have no idea why, except to say that i think we are being prepared to go home and there will probably be more and more people experiencing these feelings and new dimensions as time goes on.

actually, that’s happening right now with several people on this forum as well as countless reports of paranormal experiences all around the globe. i think we have a lot to look forward to with 2012 just around the corner.

:d lady zephyr

[buke80]

are we the creator who experiences to be human?

[MarkM]

yes, i believe that to be true.

i believe there is one infinite creator experiencing through all of its creations, including humans.

each of us is part of the direct experiencing of the creator. everything you experience is experienced by the creator; this is part of the reason the creator knows and loves us so well.

you are the creator reading these words right now!

-mark

[buke80]

if you say that creator knows and loves us you accept that creator and we are seperate entities, right?

[HeavyFlea]

if you say that creator knows and loves us you accept that creator and we are seperate entities, right?

i know this wasn't addressed to me, but i'm joining in late...

not really, the separateness is the illusion. if all is one there is only unity. we are all one being. if you want to call that god, so be it.

an analogy i like to think about is our bodies. all these individual cells acting by themselves and sometimes together for some purpose. they're all separate and not aware of a grander being, but your still there. (i'm not saying this is how it works, but it can be used as an example of perspective of how 1 can be many.)

[twva]

an analogy i like to think about is our bodies. all these individual cells acting by themselves and sometimes together for some purpose. they're all separate and not aware of a grander being, but your still there. (i'm not saying this is how it works, but it can be used as an example of perspective of how 1 can be many.)

this works for me, especially if we add in the concept of "holographic", so that each of the cells somehow also is the whole.

[buke80]

how can you all live with this. if we are all one what about free will.

[twva]

how can you all live with this. if we are all one what about free will.

exactly. we are all one and we have free will. it's a mystery, no?

[HeavyFlea]

how can you all live with this. if we are all one what about free will.

i grew up roman catholic and studied various religions, nothing ever clicked with me the way the way the ra material did. but different strokes for different folks, what is right for some people may not be for others. in a sense knowing any of this isn't really important as understanding isn't apart of this density of experience.

in terms of the ra material, free will is key to the unity, the oneness, being separate. all the ra books are offered for free online if your interested, take what you will and disregard what doesn't feel right or resonate with you.

[One 66]

buke80,

it's only the idea of separation that separates all things. either i accept this or i don't, that's free will for you :cool:

one 66

[jax]

gang!
the easiest way to put it is.... 1 + 1 = 1. if someone asks you what the meaning of life is, just reply, "it's the the meaning of life.". no one ever knows know how to respond to it :rolleyes:

[jpstephens2012]

wow, this quote is something i have been looking for for a while. i have been intently interested in a machine developed by a man named [please email jim if interested in the name]. he maintains that the active component of electricity is voltage, not current. i totally agree with him and he has proven it with his machine as seen in the following video:

[email jim for url]

this quote from ra says exactly the same thing. that is why nothing is capable of producing overunity effects. everything is designed to be operated by the current aspect of electricity so it uses up a dispensable resource and the illusion of lack is maintained.

ra: i am ra. this is exponentially simpler and less confusing. there is unity. this unity is all that there is. this unity has a potential and kinetic. the potential is intelligent infinity. tapping this potential will yield work. this work has been called by us, intelligent energy.

the nature of this work is dependent upon the particular distortion of free will which in turn is the nature of a particular intelligent energy of kinetic focus of the potential of unity or that which is all.

[HeavyFlea]

this works for me, especially if we add in the concept of "holographic", so that each of the cells somehow also is the whole.

funny you said that, the 'holographic' thing has been following me around. everything i've read or listened to lately mentions it. and then today when reading something one the web.. thought of your post and had to come copy over this quote...

" the point is: stop filling your consciousness with monotheistic philosophies planted long ago to imprison your being. can't you see it by now, after all you have learned, that there is no source, there is no leader, there is no basis, there is no overseer, etc... you literally possess, within your consciousness profile, all the power that exists within all of creation!?! you absolutely have all that exists, ever has, or ever will, contained within your mind. all you have to do is learn how to use it, and at that moment, you will literally, literally, be all that is, was, and ever will be!!!!!!!! "

[twva]

that's some quote. i don't disagree with the gist of it, but i do have some reservations about some of the wording.

not sure that all of creation is contained within our minds. our beings, yes. but mind is only part of our being.

to say "all you have to do is learn how to use it" seems to imply that it's simple and easy, and even that we're somehow lacking for not having learned yet. the ra material gives a much clearer idea of the discipline and work involved.

don't think i agree that monotheistic philosophies are designed to poison us. ra has good things to say about moses, about jesus, and about mohammed.

[HeavyFlea]

i posted it more in relation to the hologram comment... how holograms hold all information everywhere at all times, if you take away 99% of a hologram all the info is still stored in that one percent, although it's not a perfect image etc.

so it all reminded me... if the universe is a holgram or like it, this quote kinda just smacks you over the head with a ultimate possibilty. probably not as simply as it may imply and probably over stated a little to provide impact. but perfectly true if the universe, or the analogy of cells in the body, was holographic

i'm sure there's good in everything, even monotheistic philosophies, in context i think it was more of a poisoning of the mindset. religions do sort of teach that this is the way follow our one and only god and you'll be saved. that's very general but i'm sure you see what i'm aiming at. so i could see that how over time this could have 'poisoned' (for lack of a better term) an individual's conscious/subconscious? or a global (sub)consious. religion and monotheism is a bad and good thing.

anyway it's not to be taken as absolute or anything i read new material very skeptically, but can and do see the possible truth in the quote. plus it's kinda like an in you face very shortened version of oneness.

and really perhaps the 'learning to use it' part that seems simply stated is really about the learning part of the evolution through densities? or perhaps it is easier than we all think and that part just has to open, or that ultimate faith in knowing you are everything. actually true monotheism would be you right? only one being, only one god as all is one.

but as in everything, we should all take what feels right to our own learning process etc. etc.

[buke80]

are we god who experiences to be human

[Stu]

buke80,

firstly , this is my first post and must warn of my anylitical mind and writing style. in no way do i wish to come off as a "know it all" and can assure all i come with a humble visualization of self , but may try to be to articulate at times due to my distortion that words can deliver the thought pefectly. what'd i tell ya? let's try this. most all have seen ourselves as the ruler of our body. we seem to control the body, directing where it will go, when it will sleep, when and what is to be consumed, how much physical effort to be exerted...

and we are given the senses to measure our existance and often use the tools to arrive at a conclusion of comfort level. however, there seems to be many things unseen or behond our control within our body that may cause discomfort , confusion , well being or happiness. and although we may attempt to diminnish or heighten such sensations or symtoms, beautiful or not, the possibilities and sensations could not be unnaccepted as part of our existance , in our body and mind that confirms our existance.

now if we may , view the universe as the body of god , your existance within that body can not be denied. at this point one could see our lives experiences as the sensations god may know uppon his and her mind , gods experience. all sensations , possitive , negative , beautiful or not , so accepted as part of the body. and within the mind god may always balance but never change that which is done as within your existance you may attempt to rebalance but can never change what has been done. and although the ultimate creator may have a total understanding of it all , nobody ever prooved god has a different set of sensations than ourselves or a different mechanism to understand it all.

a great thing for me in regard to what is exposed on this site is the repition of cycles and creation from macro to micro. ofcourse the trick is to be able to transcend the self through the understanding.( i've have a lot of work to initiate for sure) a quick analogy of what we create in the 3d and how i often have gone about discovering myself could be that of the company. its easy for me to plug myself into any part of the company.from the ceo to the janitor all are part of the company. and no one person less a being than the other. one man may have conceptualized the prodouct to be created but has no real true understanding of how to mannifest the company and product. he does understand that others know , and organizes all the vital parts. he may not realize the parts like to create using different methods and unbalance most certainly may occur . hopefully he will have secured the services of someone who understands the nature of imbalance and how to correct that , all the while acquireing the understanding of how the company may opperate iniformly as not to make major misteps along the way. meanwhile many people of the company may have themselves created the vision of how the company should run , often making assumptions or decisions in areas outside of their understaning. if not careful the creator of the company may choose to focus on the tiniest of details that he believes are the cause of his company not opperating to its fullest potential. he may have a fleeing glimpse of his efficient company but fails to have the understanding of how that may be mannifest. and at all times he is accepting the company for as much as he would want or initiate change , as it is in any moment it must be accepted. and although made of many parts it is one. ironicaly , any member of the company rightdown to the office cleaner, with equal resources , understanding , desire and initiative could create our efficient company and apply the binding force to keep it together. the potential is within all.

so it is in my existance. the tools of understanding and implimenting have thus been laid upon my mind or in any case the map to the desired points to pick them up. as david said, give more be more . four small words with a lot of direction and that wich i have much desire to act upon. so buke80 like so many have said you have initiated the process simply by questioning. the answer will come , with so many others , simply with the desire to know.

peace to all,

stu

[Larry Seyer]

are we god who experiences to be human

...and we are given the senses to measure our existance and often use the tools to arrive at a conclusion of comfort level. however, there seems to be many things unseen or behond our control within our body that may cause discomfort , confusion , well being or happiness. and although we may attempt to diminnish or heighten such sensations or symtoms, beautiful or not, the possibilities and sensations could not be unnaccepted as part of our existance , in our body and mind that confirms our existance.

the following comments are meant to provoke thought and not hostility. enjoy!

pain and pleasure are really the same thing. it is our interpretation of those signals that determines our reaction to them.

remember that all is one!

separation and division is only in the mind. it is not real. naming a signal as different from another splits the mind and we then see them as not the same thing.

it is only through this process that can we see them as different and have the ability to name one signal as pain and the other signal as pleasure.

how quickly do we change our minds when pleasure turns to pain? how else does one change his/her mind about pain as it it turned into pleasure?

it is our interpretation (i.e. judgment) that places those signals into their respective categories in our thought system.

removing judgment (i.e. forgiveness) allows us to experience (see) those signals for what they are... an illusion... a separation device. they are not real... and they are the same.

if you look past pain and into its source, you will see guilt. forgive the guilt and the pain turns into pleasure.

all is one... there is only love, remember? it is through our guiltlessness that we see pain as what it really is... pleasure twisted by our sense of guilt.

forgive and be free. all is one... that which seems to be separate from you is not. it is you!



now if we may , view the universe as the body of god , your existance within that body can not be denied. at this point one could see our lives experiences as the sensations god may know uppon his and her mind , gods experience. all sensations , possitive , negative , beautiful or not , so accepted as part of the body....god is not something outside of you. god is you!

how can "everything" not include "part of everything"? (i.e. how can you not be a part of god?). it is not possible.

it is possible to forget who we are and believe that we could exist separate from everything. but that is insanity. (yes, we are insane and not in our 'right' mind). if we were sane, we would know that this life of separation is not real.

if god is everything, then is he not you, too? and if you do not remember who he is, who removed that knowledge outside of your awareness? we did!

we are cause and not effect. once we own up to this, we start to heal. (i.e. remember).


... the answer will come , with so many others , simply with the desire to know.agreed.

once we quiet our small 'mind' (i.e. the ego) we start to remember the truth.

our path to awakening is certain and can only be delayed by listening to our individual selfish thoughts. the path to awakening is shortened by our willingness to 'let go' and remember the truth that simply is.

once we fully listen to the one mind that our small minds share, we realize that we never left home... but are simply playing the game of dreaming.

all is one... always has been... always will be.

best to all!

larry seyer

[onething]

perhaps i should start a new topic, but i can't figure out how to...

was reading in david's blog (a new earth?) some of the ra material re the history of this planet and the coming shift which i find a bit disturbing. something i've noticed is how a lot of "new age" stuff really does coincide with christianity. but i'm also pretty convinced that christianity has gone way out on a negative limb, and in fact that it's theology was taken over by negative, deceptive entities interested in damage control. (from their point of view.)

so ra says that our planet was the recipient of a strange experiment in putting together a lot of stubbornly negative entities from disparate planets and it did not turn out well - which seems obvious to me that it would be a bad idea. then, ra says, due to some violations, our planet was quarantined, again coinciding with some of my deep suspicions and i think this quarantine is very damaging to people because it increases our sense of isolation and allows the more ridiculous illusions of judgemental religions to take hold. this tends to reinforce an idea that has been growing in me for the past couple years which is that we are actually in a mild kind of hell and don't know it.

i personally feel the quarantine very keenly.

so now he says we are going to have a harvest (not sure what that means but i guess its self-descriptive) because three strikes and you're out - so my question is, what happens to the ones who are still not ready to make it? it seems like if they get stuck too long in a situation in which the cards are stacked against progress and in which most all beings are negative, how will they ever escape?

[twva]

so ra says that our planet was the recipient of a strange experiment in putting together a lot of stubbornly negative entities from disparate planets and it did not turn out well

not negative entities, just undecided.


this tends to reinforce an idea that has been growing in me for the past couple years which is that we are actually in a mild kind of hell and don't know it.

that reminds me of this quote from ra: "the earth seems to be negative. that is due to the quiet, shall we say, horror which is the common distortion which those good or positively oriented entities have towards the occurrences which are of your time/space present. however, those oriented and harvestable in the ways of service to others greatly outnumber those whose orientation towards service to self has become that of harvestable quality."


i personally feel the quarantine very keenly.
i think many of us do, hence the longing for ufo/et disclosure. but if you think about it, wasn't the ra contact an opening of the quarantine?


what happens to the ones who are still not ready to make it? it seems like if they get stuck too long in a situation in which the cards are stacked against progress and in which most all beings are negative, how will they ever escape?

according to ra, they get to try again on a different third-density planet.

[onething]

that reminds me of this quote from ra: "the earth seems to be negative. that is due to the quiet, shall we say, horror which is the common distortion which those good or positively oriented entities have towards the occurrences which are of your time/space present. however, those oriented and harvestable in the ways of service to others greatly outnumber those whose orientation towards service to self has become that of harvestable quality."

that's a bit convoluted. at any rate, i'd say the negativity is not only due to the reaction of the traumatized, but more due to the deception and violence of the ones in service to self. at any rate, i have a lot of catching up to do on the ra material, but it sounds like he is saying that there is a harvest of both the positives and the negatives. what does such a harvest mean? why harvest the unripe? or are they ripe in their negative path? and if they are to be separated into a society that is filled with negative beings, what is their learning process about? no wonder they graduate into 5th density negative and 6th density negative - what other choice is there?


i think many of us do, hence the longing for ufo/et disclosure. but if you think about it, wasn't the ra contact an opening of the quarantine?
oh, yes of course it was. but i refer to the vast majority of people for the majority of time. and it seems like now the veils are being lifted, and i think this will gain momentum.


according to ra, they get to try again on a different third-density planet.
oh, i'm confused! that would be because our planet will no longer be 3rd density? but what about 4th density neg and so forth?

[twva]

at any rate, i have a lot of catching up to do on the ra material, but it sounds like he is saying that there is a harvest of both the positives and the negatives. what does such a harvest mean? why harvest the unripe? or are they ripe in their negative path?
yes, exactly.


and if they are to be separated into a society that is filled with negative beings, what is their learning process about?

it follows the same progression as the positive path: 4th density -- love, 5th density -- wisdom, 6th density -- unity. the difference being, of course, that it's love of self rather then love of others. there are some interesting descriptions of the situations on 4th, 5th, and 6th-density planets in the law of one information. in early 4th density, for example, there is intense competition until the pecking order is established.


oh, i'm confused! that would be because our planet will no longer be 3rd density? but what about 4th density neg and so forth?

right. according to ra, those who qualify for 4th-density positive stay here; those who qualify for 4th-density negative go to a negative planet, and those who haven't managed to choose yet go to another 3rd-density planet.

[soup]

....the difference being, of course, that it's love of self rather then love of others....

i think that where one delineates the "self" comes into question. for example, is it at skin surface? i think for some of us there can be an experience of being physically alone yet ethereally so extended that physical aloneness seems as if a device to help manage such extensions. the work then grows to extend the boundaries of self until any sense of delineation or individuality dissolves. the cyclical desire to individuate seems to become balanced more towards serving the source or creator and communing so in closer proximity somehow, though difficult to say for sure.


soup

[soup]

there's that law of confusion, which in some sense may act to insure the integrity of freewill. so part of such a spritiual extension can come a feeling of vulnerability - a feeling of being very bare. it may be that such feelings can very profoundly influence behavior. for example, if someone is feeling very vulnerable they may be less apt to outreach in some way, difficult to describe. so the law of confusion may lend benefit of doubt to circumstance in some way that can help a person manage their feelings, i.e. how such feelings may influence their choice as to what they may be allowed to do.


soup

[soup]

...i could not exactly understand what "all is one" means....


i may have mentioned this already - sorry for repeating, if so.
years ago i was pondered this - as within a "law of one" writing group based out of the la area, who had put this slogan on one side of their pendant - and a counter-clockwise crop glyph on the other side.

and so i suggested that counter-clockwise expanding symbols seeemed regressive in nature.

i also suggested that, in congruence with the e-prime language syntax, the word "is" may seem to a greater degree distorted than other word forms. so i proposed that "all as one" may seem a less distorted slogan. the idea draws upon the law of confusion - that from the perspective of our limited comprehension, we are not able to say for sure that "all is one", though some may say so from a leap of faith.

and i subsequently wandered away from that writing group...


soup

[daresh]

soup said:
i also suggested that, in congruence with the e-prime language syntax, the word "is" may seem to a greater degree distorted than other word forms. so i proposed that "all as one" may seem a less distorted slogan. the idea draws upon the law of confusion - that from the perspective of our limited comprehension, we are not able to say for sure that "all is one", though some may say so from a leap of faith.


from our mental, mind comprehension we can not say this for sure. in words it is impossible to fully express this as the nature of words is dualistic itself.
what you say is an excellent example of this. instead of seeing the oneness, the unity that the symbols of words are pointing at you end up in word games by mentally playing with them. the phrase "all as one" for me is more distorted as it points to seperation -> all is as the one, this means the one is somewhere else and everything is like it. while "all is one" means the all is truly the one and is so in every experienc, the one is in every experience. leap of faith?
the spirit complex allows for direct experiences of unity, of oneness this is beyond the mind, beyond the individual self, beyond concepts and understanding! there you can experience that all is truly one and all is as one.
i think all is one is an excellent phrase, how closer can you get to undistorted oneness when language distorts everything in dualism. all is one is an old phrase, all the mystics of all the religions agree with it. even on a logical mind concept thinking way, one can see how everything is interconnected. the air comes from a tree, the rain from the clouds, from the sun on the ground, on the wheat, through the farmer to the baker in the bread in your mouth.
and through the spirit complex, the pure oneness, the pure emptiness where everything arises in can be experienced directly, all is one on a much deeper level. eventually after decades of meditation people get this one taste experience where everything from the most mundane to the most high experience gets the one taste feeling. the simple awareness which is present in every moment from waking, to dreaming to deep sleep, where everything arises in. here the one is truly there in every experience hence all is one.

maharshi once wrote:
the world is an illusion.
only brahman is real.
the world is brahman.

(or
(the world of senses, seperation, things is an illusion)
(non duality, the one, only the infinite creator is real and can be experienced, hence a direct experience all is one)
(the world, in every experience is non dual!, all is one))

this phrase all is one goes deeper then i can imagine.

greets,
Unknown

[buke80]

ra says : each entity is a unique portion of the creator

we are all parts of the creator and we are all unique.

if we consider the creator as the whole we are then are the parts of the whole, right? we are not the whole. what do you think?

[buke80]

let me ask the question this way:

ra says "each entity is a unique portion of the creator"

this means that we are all parts of the creator and we are all unique.

so if we consider the creator as the whole, according to this quote we are then are the parts of the whole, right? we are not the whole. however if you say that each entity is the whole, then it means that we are all the same. then what about the uniqueness of each entity that ra talks about?

[twva]

the part contains the whole:
it shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the one creator which is infinity.i think it comes down to free will. we are each the creator, it is true. but starting from the same place, each goes in a different direction due to free will. that doesn't change the fact that we are one, but it does give us each a unique experience of the creator.

as ra said, "all begins and ends in mystery."

[Aghsan Branch]

hello buke. you said,


ra says "each entity is a unique portion of the creator"

this means that we are all parts of the creator and we are all unique.

so if we consider the creator as the whole, according to this quote we are then are the parts of the whole, right? we are not the whole. however if you say that each entity is the whole, then it means that we are all the same. then what about the uniqueness of each entity that ra talks about?

one might call this a divine dilemna. you are unique, just like every one else.

many say that us, in fact all of reality is holographic in nature. a hologram of a ball depicts a three dimensional image of a ball. take a piece of this hologram and reflecting light through it again you get an image of a three dimensional ball. not a piece of a ball, but the entire ball.

one may see reality in such a way.

we are but small reflections of the larger reality that exists that we all similarly reflect (the enlivening power of love/light as the true source, substance, and action of all that exists) and yet we are broken off from this connection--not fully and permenantly--yet indeed broken off in this density of the separateness of things.

we gain by having a personality that can experience this separateness--it is in fact this separateness that enables a unique personality to exist. but only can it really experience this uniqueness or separateness (both words being equivalent if you will) if there was an underlying oneness of existance that is known intrinsically--maybe felt instinctually--but forgotten or overshadowed by a stronger influence to feel unique/different/separate.

but maybe your image of the creator is different than mine. if you visualize the creator as a personality such as that of yourself then you may not agree with the above. that ok, but i would only suggest to think of the creator as more--as everything--as maybe a native american indian would...

hope that helps
agh

[buke80]

if we see the creator as everything then we are the portion of the creator since we are not everything, right?
however we are a holographic portion of the creator which means that we .....? can you complete the sentence?

[One 66]

.... are that which is, and that which is not. i am that i am. i think therefore i am (ah no), i am therefore i am!

just my 2 cents,

one 66

[Berry Chastain]

if we see the creator as everything then we are the portion of the creator since we are not everything, right?
however we are a holographic portion of the creator which means that we .....? can you complete the sentence?

we are the individualized and unmanifested potential for all that is.

[Silvanus Sanctus Germanus]

if we see the creator as everything then we are the portion of the creator since we are not everything, right?
however we are a holographic portion of the creator which means that we .....? can you complete the sentence?

hi buke80,:)

how about: we carry the blueprints for all of creation within us, a change in just one of us means a change in all of us as a whole;), that is the nature of fractal unravelling..............sylvain............

[btsumm]

hi buke80,:)

how about: we carry the blueprints for all of creation within us, a change in just one of us means a change in all of us as a whole;), that is the nature of fractal unravelling..............sylvain............

yes...as one of us changes...

so do we all change...in love...

such a beautiful creation we are...

[eagleye]

hi,

we need a foundation from which to understand it, even though most of the progress will come from meditation. still we will never fully grasp it in this density.

what is the foundation? well, most people are attempting to understand multidimensional concepts through a narrow 3d perception.

i would liken it to looking through a colored lens like a pair of yellow or red sunglasses and attempting to see what other colors look like.

you could look for “explanations”. and someone might attempt to explain it to you for hours upon hours. but no matter how they word it, you will never understand unless you remove the lenses.

how do we do that? simple, we change our “perspective”. perspective is the way we look at things or how we approach something.

if we want to understand how a single consciousness can make up all their is, we should not ask ourselves the question, “how is it possible for my mind to be everyone else’s mind”? or how can my mind be everything?

what you are really asking is, “how can my three dimensional perception comprehend infinity”?

the answer is it can’t, because it is only a portion of infinity. in order to understand infinity, your consciousness must first become infinity.

your individual self is really a walled off part of the whole, created by nothing more than forgetfulness.

instead it would be better to ask, “what makes up my three dimensional perception that enables me to experience physicality”?

when you comprehend the answer to the above question, you will then have a basis from which to build an understanding of what is oneness.

i think that is what david has been trying to teach us with all of the books he has written and posted on this site.

it would also appear to be the reason why ra spent so much time painting a picture of an entirely different model of physics that was not known to the mainstream scientific community. it is the foundation for understanding what oneness is.

[buke80]

dear eagleye,

you said "if we want to understand how a single consciousness can make up all their is, we should not ask ourselves the question, “how is it possible for my mind to be everyone else’s mind”? or how can my mind be everything?" in your post. in here you mean these questions are wrong questions and these are wrong ideas right?

[eagleye]

hi buke80,

thanks for your question; i really do enjoy these kinds of discussions. please note that in no way do i consider myself an authority on anything.

if i feel i can contribute to other people having an understanding then i will do my best to help. we are all on the same journey weather we know it or not.

all contribute to meaningful conversations in their own unique way. and all questions are meaningful. i don’t think there is any “right” or “wrong” question.

however, if we want to comprehend these types of concepts it might be helpful to us if we could focus on the questions that can best lead us in the right direction.

also we must ask the questions in the right order. for instance if we are learning math we don’t first ask how can 10x10=100 if we don’t understand the basics of addition and subtraction, or if we don’t first know how to count from 1-10. do you see what i am saying?

so it is not that the question of “how can 10x10=100?” is a wrong idea or question. instead it was not the best question. or in the best order to understand what you are seeking. a foundation first needs to be laid in order to ask more advanced questions.

what i meant by my statement is that most people if they don't have that foundation, probably on a subconscious level, are asking other questions by the question they are asking themselves consciously. that could lead to a blockage of understanding.

how do i know that? i know it because i realized that is the question i was asking.

when i started asking different questions things became much clearer.

now these blockages are be in the form of your subconscious mind telling you things from conclusions that were reached by asking questions like “how can my three dimensional perception understand infinity.

this subconscious question leads to an answer that is not beneficial to your continued learning. the answer telling you that you cannot understand it.

the bottom line is that there is no mind separate from conscious infinity. “we” are all one. yes ultimately all consciousness is connected and because of the forgetfulness or “veil” as ra calls it, people are not aware of this fact. all individual minds are an illusion created by the veil.

you are not only you, but everyone and everything.

[KassandraLoves]

i just dumb "oneness" down for myself i guess....i look at it this way:

lets say the big bang theory is correct, right?

if it is, then that suggests that we all started as a little point of very very dense energy. that energy boomed into a huge, less dense, did i say huge? field of energy manifesting itself in different ways.

so, we are all made up of that exact same essence. the trees, the plants, the rocks the planets, the air, the stars, the beings, etc etc. all born of the same genetic material. all fingers of the same hand.

and when i see oneness as actual first, and spiritual second, it helps he understand how really connected we are. its physical and spiritual.

so we are all one. just living under a cloak of seperation.

and the seperation is obviously purposeful. just like the saying goes, "you dont know what you got til its gone." we will know "what we got" soon enough. it only seems to be gone at the moment....

see you all soon!!!

[buke80]

but you don't see one thing. ra says that each entity is a unique portion of the creator. doesn't being unique entail having separate minds?

[KassandraLoves]

but you don't see one thing. ra says that each entity is a unique portion of the creator. doesn't being unique entail having separate minds?

well, i would say its like the creator is a flower and we are all petals of that flower. we still have the same roots in the ground and are made of the same genetic materials, yet, each petal is not the same petal....

we are the flower at the same time as we are petals....

[buke80]

i had written those words to eagleye not to you kassandraloves:)

[eagleye]

buke80,

you ask very good questions. unfortunately the questions you ask continue to come from the perception of a 3d being. you are starting from the assumption that what you are experiencing is not an illusion.

how can one mind be many? well first i could start by giving you an example. there is a condition that physiologists have been observing in certain people for a long time and the name of it is called “multiple personality disorder” or (dissociative identity disorder).

i could suggest that you do some research on this condition because you will be amazed at how well documented it is and how it is a disorder that is proven to exist through not hundreds, but thousands of documented cases.

it is characterized by what some would call symptoms and here are some of them:

1. at least one “alter” personality that controls behavior.
2. the “alters” occur spontaneously and involuntarily, and are said to function independently of each other.
3. unity of consciousness by which we identify ourselves is absent.
4. significant amnesia which cannot be explained by “ordinary” forgetfulness.

so there it is, “scientific” proof that such a thing is possible and exists, regardless of the cause.

it has been observed in some with this condition that they are capable of displaying not hundreds but “thousands” of different alter egos.

yes each ego is separate, unique, and a portion of the source which is the same mind or consciousness. but the separation is still an illusion created by the forgetfulness

even though the conscious mind is not aware of it, the subconscious is because that is where the alter egos are being created.

this helps us to see how we can be aware of something, but not aware of it at the same time. our consciousness operates at different “levels”.

so if you want to understand what ra was saying you have to take into consideration that he spent a great deal of time describing how we are in this illusion.

everything he said has to be looked at from the perspective of the illusion he described.

i cannot stress enough how important i think it is for us to study this model of physics that ra described.

david has done an amazing job with his research and writings to help us learn about this. i have not read all his books yet, but have read a lot, and have a long way to go.

within this model ra explains to us how we can begin to lift the veil and evolve to the next level of consciousness, the forth density.

the first step is becoming aware and believing that we are in a hologram created by consciousness.
:)

[eagleye]

kassandraloves,

thanks for your comments. i like your attitude. you seem very upbeat with a positive frame of mind. that may help to balance this discussion with my boring serious tone. keep up the good work.

on another note i would like to address your words on approaching oneness from a physical standpoint instead of a spiritual one.

the only problem i can see in such an approach is that the most important element of the whole equation could be lost.

the “element” removed in your equation is the foundation that this entire reality is built on. you are removing that and replacing it with another foundation, the big bang.

you assert that the “source” is the big bang and the energy contained within.

in doing that, you withdraw your focus from the true source, and replace it with an irrelevant concept.

why is physicality irrelevant in our quest to understand oneness?

because understanding oneness, is the spiritual journey that we are all on. it is not a physical journey, even though that is one of many stops along the way.

what is important in 3d are the "mental" lessons we learn while here.

it would be like planning a trip or journey. this is a round trip, so you want to understand how to get there and back. you need a map to eventually guide you back to your original destination or your “source”. otherwise you will be lost forever.

the purpose of this journey is so you can have new experiences and learn from them.

it would be irrational to obtain a map that only showed one of the “stops” along the way and did not provide a complete path for you to follow back to the source.

the source cannot be ignored and replaced with something else. if you replace it you will never find your way back.

that is why the source is the most important element on the map. it is our reference point of return.

so what is the source of everything? it is not the big bang. it is not even energy. instead it is the consciousness that all these things come from.

the universe is not made from energy; it is made of consciousness that creates the illusion of energy.

ra describes this source as “infinity” that became aware. awareness is focusing. out of this awareness came the desire to experience itself.

from this desire comes the “creator”. the creator is a part of infinity. it generates out of the nothingness that has the potential to be, that which we perceive to be as space or outer space. or what we call the universe or universes.

notice he said that we only perceive this, indicating again that it is an illusion. and the most important comment that can help us to understand what really makes up the universe is when he said “the creation itself is a form of consciousness which is unified”.

once again we can see clearly that the source or point of origin is not energy but consciousness.

so what really is spirituality? it is our consciousness. that is where our focus should be if we want to progress in the journey. :)

[Art]

hey all,

this doesn't mix with the current conversations, but falls under the oneness category...

i stumbled across this link on project avalon's forum. at first i didn't want to read it, as alot of the stuff on avalon is twisted and has a negative vibe to it.

however, upon reading it, i was able to reflect on my journeys and how i would take blind steps in "following" this teaching or that.

then i came here. dw and this forum has helped to ground and center me. spirituality is individual, so to each their own. i enjoy learning with others, and dw does a great job of inspiring and motivating me to pursue my own truth, while not giving such "edicts". in fact, if i remember correctly, he has said "there is nothing to do".

in my opinion, a worthwhile read, but only with an open-mind. as with anything, use your own discernment.

{please pm for link}

art

[buke80]

what do you mean by separation and connectedness? we are not separated from the creator. ra says we are portions of the creator. but this does not mean that we are same with the creator and everything else.
we are body, mind and spirit complexes and each of us is unique.

[eagleye]

i agree with you that we are portions of the creator. but in what way are we a portion? is this in a physical way, like if you have a whole physical piece of something and divide it up into fractions?

or is this separation just an abstract idea? once again the answer to those questions can not be found by looking at just one statement made, but can only be ascertained by looking at the entire previous context leading up to that statement.

everything ra says throughout the entire series constantly makes the point that we are both separate and one at the same time. but this seems like a paradox since both cannot be true, right?

this is correct. in fact ra himself describes it as a paradox as we shall see. he explains to us very clearly what he means in his descriptions of both oneness and many-ness.

before i give any quotations from the law of one i would like to point out that he uses the phrase “distortion” continually throughout his description of creation.

if you look at a distorted image of something, and can see the original to make a comparison, you will conclude that the distorted image is a false representation of the actual object. therefore if separation is a distortion it is not the reality. so what is the true reality?

well starting from the beginning, you will notice in ra’s description of the creator that he says the creator creates because the creator wants to “experience or know itself” through the creation. this indicates that the consciousness of the creator is in all creation.

then he says describing the creation, “the creator becomes that which may know itself”. if the creator becomes the creation that means they are one and the same.

going on about these “portions”, that it has now become, he says they “partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. the creation itself being a form of consciousness which is unified”, once again showing that all creation is made of one consciousness.

moving on from there he talks about the three main distortions from which all others spring. mentioning “free will” he says, “in this distortion of the law of one it is recognized that the creator will know itself.

this reiterates the same concept that the creator experiences itself through the creation since it is the creation that lives this concept of free will. thus the creation is the creator.

time and time again we see that ra describes the creator as being the creation showing they are one and the same.

the only way this could be possible is if what we are living in is an illusion. he shows that this indeed is the case by the next quote, “in your illusion of the physical existence all experience springs from the law of free will or the way of confusion”.

then he mentions the second distortion love. he makes known that love is a type of creative energy which seeks to experience itself when he states, “love uses its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of illusions or densities in order to satisfy its own intelligent method of knowing itself.

many, many times it is stated very clearly that this existence is a hologram.

finally we get to the section you mentioned that is 9a in the study guide under the title the creator explores the concept of many-ness (individual entities)

in this section he describes clearly that the concept of many-ness is nothing more than an illusion because it is a contradiction of reality.

he says, “that which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. in an infinite creator there is only unity.

notice he describes many-ness as a concept. concepts are not concrete but abstract, they are thoughts.

he said “this concept of finiteness” was “the first and primal paradox or distortion of the law of one”.

what does that mean? a paradox is something which contradicts itself. he already stated that which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. so how can one be many?

his answer to the paradox was shown by clearly stating that “intelligent infinity discerned a concept; namely, freedom of awareness. and that it “invested itself in an exploration” of this concept.

so infinity is merely exploring a concept of many-ness through illusions that it has created.

after all of this we get to the statement you made namely “each entity (mind/body/sprit complex) is a unique portion of the creator.

there is no way we could get the true sense of what ra was saying here if we ignore the entire context of the previous statements made before coming to this last idea.

the last statement was the culmination of his entire explanation of this subject.

in conclusion the only viable explanation is that separation is not concrete but an abstract idea as are all other things that we think we see or experience.

you mentioned before that we don’t see one but many. what you don’t realize is that what you think you “see” is not really there but is an illusion created by your own higher consciousness. in reality nothing really exists except infinite intelligence.

this existence that you are experiencing is the result of infinite intelligence focusing its intent to create illusions of itself or yourself.

this focusing occurs by this intelligence walling off parts of its own infinite to create units. keep in mind these units are not physically separate because physicality does not really exist. the “intelligence units” are organized in such a way as to create the illusion of being separate through different levels of forgetfulness or awareness.

when you look at it from this perspective you can begin to see how the creator can also be the creation.

in other words different parts of creation have different levels of awareness. for instance you are “self aware” whereas most plants are not.

their entire level of awareness is focused on their mechanical operations. the same goes for atoms and subatomic particles.

there is a lot we are not yet aware of. the ascension process ra described is the process by which you gradually regain your memory and an expanded level of awareness is granted to as you continue to evolve mentally.

:)

[buke80]

hmmm. well you mean that creation itself is an illusion then, right?
when ra mentions body, mind, spirit complexes he mentions illusions then.

[eagleye]

yes! i am so happy that you are beginning to look at it from a new perspective. it is very hard at first, but the more we think about it the easier it becomes.

the realization that creation is an illusion in no way takes away from the value of the experience we are having.

creation may be an illusion, but the experiences are real since they are a result of intelligent infinity experiencing itself. consciousness is real.

therefore seeking the creator is not done just through meditation or in helping others, but also in the experience of every moment. each moment is a different disguise of the creator.

through the revelation of our true self we can begin to understand how powerful we all are, and learn to use this consciousness to transform our reality. we can literally change the experiences that we are having simply by making that choice.

this is not to say though that we are in a position to transform the reality of other mind/body/sprite complexes.

that is where free will comes in. if someone else wants to believe this is all real, and all that is, then it is their choice to do so and no one has the authority to force them to change.

both are acceptable and desirable since each offers a new opportunity to learn and experience.

that is why no information about our true nature is given by higher beings unless a choice is made to obtain that information.

ra said “it is not our understanding that we have the right or duty to share our perceptions on any subject, except philosophy, without direct question".

personally i think a lot of needless stress could be avoided if everyone followed that same rule.

there is no need to argue or get angry if someone does not agree with you. many in here have mentioned that this is what they see in other forums, and that it is nice to be able to come here and have meaningful conversations without the childish behavior.

we help those who want our help and ask for it, instead of trying to force anything on anyone.

i can see that almost everyone in this discussion forum has consciously made the choice to move on to forth density and are actively seeking knowledge of ascension.

we can all help each other and our power for change grows with our increased awareness. :d

[yossarian]

what do you mean by separation and connectedness? we are not separated from the creator. ra says we are portions of the creator. but this does not mean that we are same with the creator and everything else.
we are body, mind and spirit complexes and each of us is unique.

where does the concept "infinity" come in for you?

infinity is a pretty important concept. the one infinite creator he is called.

it seems to me that you are looking at the logical interpretation of ra but are leaving out infinity because it is hard to deal with logically speaking.

infinity is probably the hardest thing for humans to understand but is also the crucial, defining aspect of the true reality. we are not just portions of some thing, we are portions of infinite, and if you take a math class they teach that portions of infinite are themselves infinite.

the world is not a bunch of stuff with beginnings and ends, it is all infinite. this is what people mean when they talk about a holographic universe and i think it is this concept specifically that you are not including in your logic.

[tuesday]

that ^ was very well written, eagleye, and very well said.

thanks to all who are having this conversation. i'm reading over your shoulders, and learning all the way!

[eagleye]

thank you tuesday for your kind words. it makes me feel good that this conversation is benefiting others. you know most people would think i am crazy! that’s ok though; all revolutionary thinkers in our time have always been ridiculed and laughed at.

yossarian,

this is a very good direction to steer this conversation. infinity is one subject that none of us will ever be able to truly understand in our current level of awareness.

earlier i stated that the only way to comprehend it is to become it. as ra made clear this will only happen once the eighth density is penetrated which is not really a density since it is all that is.

and as mentioned, we don’t become it in the sense of changing who we are, we simply remember that we are it and always have been.

in addition i think we can explore certain concepts to get a better idea of what it might mean. math is a good one you mentioned.

the two main concepts that go hand it hand to infinite are time and space, these two subjects can really bend our minds if we try to focus on them from a 3d angle. again i think this is the case only if we try to look at it from a space time perspective.

first let me start off by saying both space and time are an illusion. yes believe it or not they don’t really exist except as concepts. how is this so?

let me start with space. what is space? space is the perception that we have of giving reference points from one place to the next, or the size of one thing in comparison to another. you could say you are referencing a “point”.

although there are other methods in use mathematically, these reference points are most commonly given in three dimensions or measurements in our environment. these are length, width, and depth.

if this is an illusion and separation is an abstract concept, rather than concrete, then we can also conclude that there is no way for us to really make such a comparison of one thing to another, or of one place to another, because they don’t really exist as separate.

places don’t really exist, only one consciousness exists. this consciousness creates ideas and experiences but not any real separate places or things, only illusions of them.

it would be like saying my body is bigger or smaller than my body. it is neither. such a statement is ludicrous when you realize you need two “physical” things to make a comparison. you cannot compare one whole thing against itself.

if you were to split your body into parts then a comparison could be made, since there would be more than one part. but with “one part” no comparisons can be made.

now, we have a forth dimension which we call time. it is a way to measure physical change in our perception of this “space”.

for instance, if you move your hand from left to right it is now in a different position than it was before you moved it. if you say it took you one second to move your hand, you are measuring the rate of change.

these four coordinates give us the reference points for us to be able to experience this “reality”.

but if physicality is an illusion and there is nothing really to reference then what is time. time is created by our freezing a moment of intention.

your perception created by your 3d brain is what causes that “freezing”. by the time you have perceived it, it seems to have moved on.

the “perception of your brain” is you experiencing yourself as separate from infinity.

how would infinity experience things differently? i suspect infinity would not need reference points because all possible experiences are happening in the same moment. it seems that is what ra meant by the first creation being infinity.

the possibilities are actualized by the expressions or experiencing of concepts.

in other words, infinity focuses its intent on a possibility of a concept and creates an illusion of separation in order to explore it.

this does not happen in the sense of one at a time, but all at once. one at a time would be separation and finiteness. all at once is everything, all that is, infinity.

some one can correct me if i’m wrong but it is my understanding that in order for the first creation to be infinity, not only would all possibilities be present as concepts, but also the actualizing of them as well.

that means infinity would also have to be experiencing these possibilities all at the same time.

time and space are only the result of the illusion created by the concept of separation. that is what is meant by the first creation being infinity.

to sum it all up: infinity has no beginning and no end since all things occur at once. space is an illusion created by separation. beginning and ending are only space time concepts and not real.

your “memory” is the illusion of experiences having moved on. but that is not the way that infinity would perceive things.

it is also the reason why infinity has no memory, because memory is a distortion and is not really needed when you experience yourself as all possibilities.

it is a vastness of awareness that we cannot currently comprehend. most of our awareness is cut off in this density so that we are not capable of keeping track of that much information at one time.

for intelligent infinity it is no problem!

finally, what about the concept of an infinite number, as in the number of possible expressions?

maybe someone else has some insight on this concept because i have no idea.:eek: i don’t know if that is within the realm of our understanding no matter how we look at it.

[buke80]

well i prefer to say that creation is an action done purposely. the creator split itself/himself into portions and gave each a free will.

ra says free will and other things are distortions not illusions. he says in your illusion you see yourself separate from the creator, he doesn't say that you are an illusion.

what do you think?

[One 66]

eagleye,

the number of possible expressions is infinite, like the moment we exist in right now! :cool:

one 66

[Enivid]

exactly one 66

all is one for eternity. we only know what we know through logic. and the mainstream the mainsource of information is creating reality.

the 8 dimensions is the logical way to find and become all with all of infinity. when we do that it will be amazing. but before that we have a positive earth (probably the greatest planet ever made) to live on until we continue towards more wisdom and merging with all of negativity until we finally see the singular infinte circle.

you should really have the mindset: there is only me here, and when you understand that you will love everything, absolutley everything!

- enivid

[eagleye]

buke80,

what is a distortion? i will give you some of the definitions i looked up for you.

one source defined the word as a “non realistic reproduction, or non ideal formation”.

here is another one: “changing the way an object looks, exaggerating a shape's normal image by stretching or changing to make it more interesting or to emphasize the image.”

and another: “the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of an object, image, sound, waveform or other form of information or representation”.

now here is the definition for illusion i found in wikipedia: “an illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. while illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people. some illusions are based on general assumptions the brain makes during perception”.

in light of the entire context of the law of one david gave a great definition at the beginning of the study guide he said “distortion = anything that may erroneously be seen as a separate or individual unit, (since all is one,) including all philosophical ideas, teachings and concepts related to the oneness as well as such things as the nature of light in the different densities … since there is only one light that has “distorted” itself into an octave”.

in conclusion i would like to say that from the very definitions of both words we can see that illusion and distortion are the same. illusion is a custom form of distortion in the form of sensory distortion.

if separation is a distortion that falls into the category of you only sensing yourself instead of all there is as one, that means it is an illusion since it is a distortion of your senses.

;);)the basis of the distortion is the assumption that your brain makes in your perception that you are separate.

thus you, we, are illusions since we perceive ourselves as being separate when only one octave exists that has distorted itself into different colors.

what ra meant was that the separation is the illusion. if separation is an illusion then all things we see and experience are indeed illusions and not real. all is one.

[buke80]

eagleye,

1)it doesnt't mean that we do not exist but it means we are not separate beings, right?

2)also can you tell me a little bit about what you understand of being unseparated.

note: sorry, i may not sometimes grasp what you mean well enough since my native language is not english:)

[One 66]

enivid,

one knows what it knows through experience, not by logic. logic distorts the known. feelings confirm that which is known... logic confines the known and crystalizes it... which then creates a system of belief. i choose not to believe, but to know.

one 66

[eagleye]

one 66,

yes, i was aware that the number of possibilities is an infinite number. but can we understand what that concept really means?

if we have a number, any number, no matter how large or small we can always add 1 more to make it bigger.

if we want to add to it nothing stops us, we just do it. the same goes for division with an unending number of decimal places. but does that get us any closer to infinite? no.

i don’t see how an infinite number could be within the scope of our current understanding using logic.

the idea of an infinite number is ill-logical since logic is based on things that are “known”. i can’t think of anything that would even come close to compare it to.

even though we can’t use logic to understand it we can use logical concepts to conclude that ill-logical ideas like infinite numbers are real and exist. in this case the logic tells us that we can always add one more.

but what is logic? logic is nothing more than making comparisons in order to understand things.

these comparisons come from knowledge that we have gained from our current or past experiences as groups or individually. this is the definition of logic.

like it or not our minds are logical by design.

before i go any further in a discussion of logic it must be noted that logic would be considered a distortion under the law of one since comparisons do not need to be made in order to understand anything.

everything is already understood by intelligent infinity.

i would like to continue on with this discussion to cater to our distorted perception since it is the only one we presently are aware of.

for us in this illusion, knowledge can be divided into two categories, the known and unknown realm. logic operates in the known realm.

enivid rightfully stated that all we know is through logic. but that only applies to the distorted perception that we have in separation.

another thing that is distorted is the very meaning of logic by people making incorrect assumptions. they do not really understand what logic is in its purest form.

it is mistakenly concluded that all proof for logic must be deduced from the scientific method.

the reasoning is that something can only be considered “known” when proven with repeated experiments. to put it bluntly, this is crazy when considered from a logical perspective.

the problem is that we are taught never trust ourselves and always look for an answer from an external source. this programming is a lie and can easily be exposed through simple examples.

here is one: if someone were to say to you that they feel sad, it would be a logical statement as a result of you yourself having felt sadness. that is where the comparison comes from.

sadness is known to every human being on earth through personal experience. so you are using what is universally known to logically conclude what the meaning of sadness is.

but what if you had never felt it before? in that case it would be within the realm of the
“unknown”. you would have nothing to compare it to in your scope of knowledge.

for you, it would be an ill-logical concept, but not so for someone who had already experienced it.

they have no need to perform experiments of observation in order to prove it exists. feeling it is a much more powerful form of proof, far superior to any experiment.

some things are “universally logical”. for “individual logic” a need does not arise to prove the knowing to others.

some things can only be felt not explained. that does not mean they are any less logical.when you know, you know.

that knowing provides the basis for a logical conclusion that the feeling does indeed exist.

on the other hand it is a contradiction for someone to say that they do not believe in something because it is not logical.

anyone making that statement does not really understand what logic is and they have become ill-logical for the reason that they are not using what is “known” about logic.

they have broken the first commandment of their own religion of logic, which is to be logical at all times. i call these people fanatical logics. their zeal for logic blinds them to rational thinking and leads to a direct violation of their own beliefs.

the truly logical person realizes it is beyond the realm of possibility to be logical at all times. why? because there are many things known to us, that reveal the existence of unknowns that we must believe in.

for instance look at math, many people actually believe math is always logical. to me this is not only a ridiculous belief, but also not logical.

the fundamental aspects of math can only be expressed as concepts and are not really known. numbers are part of infinite and therefore infinite themselves. math only attempts to use symbols to “solve” problems. many of these “problems” don’t have known answers or are unanswerable.

anyone that has attended grade school would have learned that even some of the most basic numbers or symbols that we use in mathematics are ill-logical, meaning they are unknown.

let’s look at the number represented by the greek letter pi. this is the number that describes the relationship of a circles diameter to its circumference. it is written in part as 3.14159

without this number many of the formulas in science, engineering, and math would be impossible.

a great number of those beautiful buildings, roads, bridges, and other technological advancements that we have grown so fond of would have never been constructed or even thought of without it.

yet this number is not even based on logic. presently, with the most powerful supercomputers in existence, the number has been calculated to more than 1 trillion decimal places and still no end in sight. it seems to be infinite. the number is not really known and only a concept.

it is only possible to utilize the number because the level of inaccuracy resulting from using a finite number of decimal points is too small to be detectable.

if we really want to progress to higher thinking we need to get out of the mentality that it is always necessary to prove things through “known variables” and except there are many things not known and await discovery.

to say otherwise is arrogance of the highest degree. it means you claim you know everything and there is nothing else to know.

this is a direct contradiction of logic. logically we are aware of humanities constant evolution of discovery and restructuring of belief systems.

logic reveals to us through past knowledge that some things considered universal knowledge, are now known to be false and misguided. like the earth being flat, the stars revolving around the earth and so on and so forth.

some of the most fundamental elements of our society today are based on the unknown irrational realm, yet most people for some reason are unaware of this fact and foolishly believe in only the known aspects.

here we see the same rigid arrogance displayed by our ancestors. why should we think our society is any different?

this society breeds irrational thinkers who believe they are rational. that way they are easy to control and manipulate.

i guess my whole point is that logic is a useful tool for us to use in this perception but can be misused and is only beneficial when not stretched beyond its limits. it does have limits. :cool:

[buke80]

eagleye,

being an illusion doesn't mean that we do not exist but it means that we are not separate beings, right? also can you tell me a little bit about what you understand of being unseparated.

[One 66]

eagleye,

"like it or not our minds are logical by design." yes, i know...

"everything is already understood by intelligent infinity." ;)

"the problem is that we are taught never trust ourselves and always look for an answer from an external source. this programming is a lie and can easily be exposed through simple examples." i agree, example 1, i'm looking all around my self at everything right now.

"another thing that is distorted is the very meaning of logic by people making incorrect assumptions. they do not really understand what logic is in its purest form." agreed, it's a thought/idea/concept.... an illusion.

i need to head on some errands but wanted to post this part first ;)

one 66

[eagleye]

buke80,

now i see what the problem is. i’m sorry if i confused you. if you would have told me before i could have tried to give you better answers.

don’t worry though; you are lucky since most people only have one language. :)

if you don’t understand the meaning of any of the words i use you can simply go to google and type in define: then any word or even some phrases. a list of definitions will show up directly in the search results.

i will now sum it up for you in very blunt terms with no supporting evidence to back up my statements. all of the supporting evidence can be found in my previous posts in this thread.

the first thing i will tell you is that there is no need to complicate things in our minds. it is really very simple.

yes we all exist. but your existence is of a different nature than what you originally assumed.

you don’t exist as physical and you don’t exist as energy. you don’t exist as a separate person either.

you do exist as pure consciousness. that is it plain and simple. you are everyone and everything because everything only exists in your mind. it is all an illusion in your mind.

the original consciousness, which is you, decided to focus its attention on an infinite number of possibilities that are really only concepts or ideas. they are not solid or tangible. at this point it became aware. this was done by choice and with a purpose.

creation happened when this consciousness created an illusion of being separate in order to experience these abstract ideas. creation is you fooling yourself to believe everything is real.

you do this by making yourself forget at different levels of your consciousness.

this consciousness that ra termed “infinite intelligence” is really only one. there is no you, or me, or anyone else. we are all the same person.

the illusion of the separation is what creates this entire universe with all its densities.

buke80 i am going to tell you something, you are the creator of all things and you are an infinite being. you are all knowing and all powerful. you just don’t remember it because you made yourself forget who you are so that you could experience an illusion.

to put it another way, when you talk to someone else you are really talking to yourself.

you are me, i am you, and everyone is everybody. everyone is also all things known in our universe because they only exist in your mind.

so my view on separation is that is does not really exist and is an illusion.

that does not mean that you do not exist. you exist as one, you are the universe because it is in your mind. it is your mind.

i hope that helped clear some things up for you. :cool:

[buke80]

dear eagleye,

now i clearly understand what you mean and unfortunately have to say that i do not agree with you. you say we are the same person. i think that's a total misunderstanding. ra never meant to say that.

thank you for your detailed explanations and considerate approach towards my questions.




*well i am very curious what all you guys think about the discussion going on here.

[One 66]

i was going to start where i left off but decided not too after reading the last posts...

over all, the truth cannot be told, but experienced. the body is an illusion of the senses, along with all things (except that which is love). by sacraficing for others and giving to others what you most want for yourself, giving of yourself will you be able to overcome matter/the illusion. one can ask all the questions he/she wants but until one decide to act and experience matter, they'll never know the truth....

it is a tuff and hard lesson, but not one that's impossible to overcome

love,

one 66

[tuesday]

i have no idea who wrote this, or even where i got it, but i keep it on my desk because it makes sense of 'oneness' for me:

since the matter and substance of things
are indestructible
all its parts are subject to all forms, so that
each and everything becomes
everything and each,
if not at one and the same time,
and in a single minute, then at various times
and in various moments.

:)

[One 66]

tuesday,

i like what you posted... simple, profound and to the point ;)

one 66

[alchemikey]

dear eagleye,

now i clearly understand what you mean and unfortunately have to say that i do not agree with you. you say we are the same person. i think that's a total misunderstanding. ra never meant to say that.

thank you for your detailed explanations and considerate approach towards my questions.




*well i am very curious what all you guys think about the discussion going on here.

i have been watching this discussion and i am enjoying the ongoing conversation...i basically agree with what eagleeye has been saying and just wanted to show that ra does precisely mention this in the 1st session:

"you are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. you are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. you are unity. you are infinity. you are love/light, light/love. you are. this is the law of one."

"questioner: if an individual makes efforts to act as a catalyst in general to increase the awareness of planetary consciousness, is he of any aid in that direction, or is he doing nothing but acting upon himself?

ra: i am ra. we shall answer your question in two parts, both of which are important equally.

firstly, you must understand that the distinction between yourself and others is not visible to us. we do not consider that a separation exists between the consciousness-raising efforts of the distortion which you project as a personality and the distortion that you project as another personality. thus, to learn is the same as to teach unless you are not teaching what you are learning; in which case you have done you/them little good. this understanding should be pondered by your mind/body/spirit complex as it is a distortion which plays a part in your experiences at this nexus."

my take on these words is that ra is saying that there is only one of us here :)

peace,
mikey

[KassandraLoves]

i dont think, in this form, we are too incredibly capable of understanding infinite energy and oneness. we sure try, dont we though?

we all want to fully understand it. for it to just "click" one day and for us to say, "ah-ha! i get it now!" but, the truth of the matter is, even if we think we get it, we probably dont fully get it.

i think thats why ra always says that we need not get so caught up in understanding...because this is not the density of understanding.

ive said this before and i will say it here as well: i dont have to know how the sun works to know that it keeps me warm and it will grow my crops.

we need not toil so hard to understand right now. :) we just need to be and know that we are one anyway. a baby doesnt fully comprehend what "mama" is, but it sure knows that it needs her and that she will protect/feed/hold it. right?

i dont know the schematics and inner-workings of it all, but thats just it. it works whether i get it or not. we are one whether my head can wrap around it or not. and i trust that. i trust that we are all one. its not blind faith, its something different....maybe a small little bit of cell memory? i dunno...

just my 3 cents....

love!!

[eagleye]

buke80,

i respect your views and would not try to force you to believe what you choose not to. your view provides a unique experience for the creator.

experiencing the perception of separation is not only acceptable also desirable to the creator. :)

my next comments are directed towards everyone listening and are not describing buke80.

reading my last post brought to mind some interesting thoughts for me. i had to laugh when considering my own words because i was reminded of morpheus in the in the movie “the matrix”.

in particular i remembered the scene where he had neo in the loading program after he had taken the “red pill” and was shown the “real” ship where everyone lived underground.

he revealed to him that the matrix was only a mental projection of his digital self, and stated bluntly, “you’ve been, living in a dream world neo”.

in an amazing display he showed him what the real world outside looked like and explained how the matrix was built to control humanity and turn them into a power source for the machines. now here is the part that is funny to me.

at the point that everything had been fully revealed to him neo started to panic. he said “no, that’s impossible, i don’t believe it”. moving backwards he began yelling into the bright white light of nothingness and demanded, “stop!”, “let me out!”, “i want out!”, “i want out!”

after snapping back to the ship and struggling to be released from the chair strapping him in, he continued his panic stricken outburst by yelling “don’t touch me!” “stay away from me!”

turning around in circles he glared at everyone in the room with a gaze of distrust and fear.

in a tone of contempt he continues on, “i don’t believe it”, “i don’t believe it”, “i don’t believe it”. finally he collapses, vomits, and goes into a comma.

i really do love that movie!:)

people can really relate to it because it gives a really accurate depiction of the way most humans would react to those kinds of situations. it strikes a chord in us on a very personal level.

in regards to oneness, many people might reject the idea out of fear that if it is true, they somehow become less important, less real, like in the matrix movie when neo panicked.

they feel as though taking away their individuality is the same as taking away their life, as if they do not exist at all without it and are merely just a passing breeze in winds of time.

maybe they feel like their “personality” is equivalent to their life.

to me all these ideas are misguided. they only come from illusions of separation.

our personality is not what makes us aware and alive; it is only something that we identify with. the same can be said of the physical body and our environment.

really the opposite is true in oneness because we are what makes them, they do not make us.

plus the perception of losing the personality is not possible. if infinite is all possibilities happening in the same moment then you do not loose, you gain all other possible personalities in addition to your own and have the opportunity to experience them all. :cool:

[buke80]

i do not want to be seen as repeating meyself but i have to say that we can not be unique and same at the same time. ra emphasizes that we are unique entities several times in the law of one books. i accept that our source is the one infinite creator and we are holographic portions of him which means that we are infinite too.

i recommend you to have a look at this link: http://www.religionandspirituality.com/view/post/1224515024911/

[alchemikey]

i do not want to be seen as repeating meyself but i have to say that we can not be unique and same at the same time. ra emphasizes that we are unique entities several times in the law of one books. i accept that our source is the one infinite creator and we are holographic portions of him which means that we are infinite too.

i recommend you to have a look at this link: http://www.religionandspirituality.com/view/post/1224515024911/

carla definitely has a way with words which i am forever thankful for...after reading what you suggested it still seems to me that carla was saying that we are both unique and the same at once...the way i understand this topic which has been shaped immensely by the transcripts at llresearch is that we are all the same at the level of "i am that i am" which is the undistorted love of pure being or pure consciousness itself while at the same time we are unique in the ways that we express our freedom of will or desires

another way to say this is that the consciousness that is looking out my eyes is the same consciousness that is looking out of your eyes....we all share the same "iamness" or awareness of self and it is only when we start adding words on to "i am" that our uniqueness becomes apparent

so we all the same snow and yet we are each a unique snowflake with a unique pattern which is formed by our unique vantage point of exploring the infinite creation of octaves and making choices that will never be repeated by any other individualized portion of the creator which makes each snowflake as precious as every other snowflake to that which is the snow :)

here is a channel from q'uo i have come back to time and time again about this very concept:

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/issues/1990/1990_0513.aspx

peace,
mikey

[eagleye]

i may have created some confusion with my earlier choice of words. the reason why i usually give such long statements in my posts is to make sure people are on the same page as me and do not reach wrong conclusions about what i am saying.

we are dealing with concepts that must be explained trying to use 3d words to explain multidimensional concepts and ideas that sometimes can be very easily construed if you don’t explain everything that you mean when using certain words and statements.

the mistake i made was in using the word “person”. i said that we are all the same person and i suspected while i was writing it that it had the potential to be easily misunderstood.

i went against my better judgment. and in an effort to simplify things and write a shorter post, i actually made it more confusing. i apologize for that.

i will now go into some detail of what i meant by it. this will show how the word person was not the best word. it was a mistake to use it.

what is a person and could intelligent infinity be considered a person, as in a specific personally, like each of us?

no i don’t think so. let me explain why i believe that to be the case.

first of all a personality is created through separation. it encompasses our “separate” traits that “characterize” us as an individual. these include emotional, mental, temperamental, and behavioral attributes. a person is an individual entity with a personality.

so in short the person is the individual and the personality is the characterization of that individual. both words denote separation.

from the definition of these words we can see that intelligent infinity would not experience itself as an individual having a personality. this would denote separation and ra showed us that infinite is unity, not separation.

it must also be stressed that ra described separation as an illusion that is created through a focusing of awareness of concepts. the traits of our person are all concepts.

at this point we come to the question of how intelligent infinity would experience itself, if not as an individual person with a personality, then what would the experience be like?

there is only one possible answer to the question mentioned. if intelligent infinity is all there is, including us, then it would experience itself as all possible personalities, the possible number of personalities in infinite.

not only that but it would be much broader than just personalities. it is everything in the universe.

ra shows that all creation is unified consciousness, therefore all creation is aware.

to put it simply the experience of intelligent infinity is beyond our comprehension. it is much vaster than our current perception.

but this does not stop us from knowing that the creator and creation are here for the very purpose of intelligent infinity to experience itself as all that is.

just as we experience ourselves as being the person we are, intelligent infinity experiences itself as much more than that. it is an experience of all that is in the universe.

our personalities and our awareness are connected to a single consciousness that encompasses all of us and everything around us, the awareness that we possess come from this consciousness.

we can look at it in the sense of the creator being in our minds experiencing us as ourselves along with us. or vise versa we could also say that we are in the creators mind. it is the same thing.

every thought we have, the creator also has. every emotion we feel the creator also feels. every physical sensation we have the creator also has at the same exact time in the same exact moment.

not only that but it is the same for everyone. the creator also experiences them in their awareness.

it is clear that the creator does not experience itself as a single personality and therefore is not a person as in an individual. instead it experiences itself as all persons at the same time in its experience of itself through us. that is why person was not the right word to use.

a better word to use would have been to say that we are of the same consciousness. it is a level of awareness that the creator has as all creation.

so when i said we are the same person i was speaking of the creator, not our individual personalities as in my personality experiencing all personalities or that i am aware of the experience of any other person except my own.

that is what carla meant when she said we are not the same person. we are different people connected by a singe mind which we are currently not aware of.

this intelligent mind has the experience of being everyone and everything in one moment.

the more this single mind is divided and subdivide, the farther away it gets from the vastness of experience.

our perception as ourselves as individuals with single personalities is a severely limited experience in comparison with those of intelligent infinity.

the persons or personalities, which are us, spring from separation. separation is an illusion created for the experience of intelligent infinity.

intelligent infinity does not really have such a limited experience as we perceive ourselves to be. this consciousness, our consciousness, realizes that this limited view of ourselves as personalities is not the reality of its true experience.

somewhere way in the back of our minds in that vastness we can feel, which has no end, we are connected at a higher level to intelligent infinity.

this is a mental connection that is the gateway to the knowledge of all that is and it is available to us as we move higher and higher in our awareness in this wonderful journey of experience. :)

[Enivid]

enivid,

one knows what it knows through experience, not by logic. logic distorts the known. feelings confirm that which is known... logic confines the known and crystalizes it... which then creates a system of belief. i choose not to believe, but to know.

one 66

yes, you are correct! what i meant we can't really know about the 8 dimensions without experienceing them, but we can through logic and science answer questions that goes beyond what we can experience.

so yes, to know is the answer and i know from feelings and empirical evidence.

[buke80]

hi,

can you say that our individuality is a distortion?
i was talking to a friend of mine who has read the law of one books at least for 15 times and he said that we actually gain our individuality at the time when we first leave the main source and that individuality is not a distortion. he said that for example our higher self is which is in the sixth density is individual and without distortion.

what do you think?

[eagleye]

quote ra “the basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind. the rhythms are clothed in mystery, for they are being itself. it’s unity is undistorted. however, there is a vast potential to be tapped into by focuses of energy, which we call intelligent energy”.

this means the only thing undistorted is unity not individuality.

quote ra “in your illusion of physical existence all experience springs from the law of free will or the way of confusion. in another sense, which we are learning, the experiences are this distortion”.
showing all experiences are a distortion. you experience yourself as being an individual.

quote ra “the heart of the discipline of the personality is threefold”.
the third discipline is quoting ra “three, become the creator.”
quote ra “to become the creator is to become all that there is. then there is no personality of the type the adept had when it begins its learning.”
this shows very clearly that our distorted individuality will be replaced with eventually becoming all there is.
it is a return to the undistorted unity.

[billybobbutterball]

hi,buke

eagleye's post summed it up quite well.

however, here are some tidbits that i would add for extra emphasis:

"distortion"per se is not a dirty word -- its part of the plan. a helpful quotation that resonates with me is this: "the plan of creation is that wisdom is acquired through knowledge obtained by the experience of diversity within unity" (in this example the individual is the distortion/diversity while humankind would represent the particular unity in question.)

then there is the tricky case of polarity being an important factor in distortion in that the 6-d ra have mentioned in passing that they are without distinctive polarity...yet i would assume that other distortions would still obtain since the ra do have an active interest in eathlings.

anyway, an interesting footnote to all this is that a person having the distortion of christian doctrine upbringing would take it as a "given" that god/(the defacto one creator) would be a hand's down, no-brainer example of 100% positive polarity.

but that ain't so.:eek: positive polarity is a distortion:cool: the creator is unity without distortion.

best, bbb ... hoping that he got the above right! eeek!


hi,

can you say that our individuality is a distortion?
i was talking to a friend of mine who has read the law of one books at least for 15 times and he said that we actually gain our individuality at the time when we first leave the main source and that individuality is not a distortion. he said that for example our higher self is which is in the sixth density is individual and without distortion.

what do you think?

[buke80]

below is a section from the dialogue between q'uo(another entity carla channels) and a questioner. i could not exactly understand the part i put between " " (quotation marks). can you help me?


e: i am wondering if it is possible to meet yourself in the form of another person in this life?

i am q’uo, and am aware of your query, my brother. in the largest possible sense this is always true with each entity that you meet, for each entity is an other self, an other aspect of your self and of the one creator from which all aspects move into experience through the illusion. "in the sense which we feel you are asking at this time we would also suggest that is also quite possible for entities to have the opportunity to interact with other portions of the self which have incarnated from other periods of the, as you would see it, the river of time moving from one point to another. however, we would suggest that this experience is one which has the purpose of allowing each aspect of the larger self to integrate with another in order that there might be a more complete experience for that portion of the self which might be termed the oversoul or the higher self. this portion of each entity’s self exists at a level of experience which can be seen as existing in your future. however, it also is that which exists in what you see as your past. the experience of each of its portions is undertaken in order that an overall balance might be achieved."

is there a further question, my brother?

e: how would you recognize such a meeting?

i am q’uo, and am aware of your query, my brother. we would suggest that the recognition is most difficult, for the great majority of the third-density population is unaware of the possibility of such an experience and would not be able to identify the feelings of familiarity and the intuition that alerts the conscious mind to the recognition that is subtle, profound and powerful.

[efields]

hey there,
i'm from turkey. i read the law of one books (ra material) and the booksa really confused my mind :) i could not exactly understand what "all is one" means. if all is one then are we all god according to the ra material. can you please help me? i've been thinking about this for a long time and i want an answer.
it means we are all cells in a living aware body. this body is being called a planet which is a member of a larger body called a universe. all of which reside in the mind of the creation. no biggie... it means if you trash your area all the others have to live with it. so do be conscientious please... :)

[buke80]

dear friends,

i wonder if q'uo may be talking about soulmates in the dialogue i wrote in my post above. what do you think?

[eagleye]

this is a good one buke80. very interesting indeed is the subject of timelines. ra shed considerable light on the matter.

but i warn you that you are entering an extreme mind bending subject which may confuse you even further.

quote ra “the nature of true simultaneity is such that, indeed, all is simultaneous. however, in your mode of perception you perhaps would more properly view the seeding of the creation as that of growth from the center or core outward.”

from the above statement we can see that ra is describing how all of infinity occurs at the same time and it is only our “perception” of the illusion of time that would lead us to believe otherwise.

ra goes on to describe this concept further in mentioning our “higher self”.

quote ra “the higher self, as you call it, is the self which exists with full understanding of the accumulation of experiences which have not yet been understood by the conscious self. it aids the entity in achieving healing, and assists in programming further life experiences.”

so our higher self, is us in the future that has come back in time to lead us in the path of least resistance on our journey back to oneness.

next ra shows how our mind/body/sprite complex does not exist in only one timeline. in fact we experience multiple timelines at once that in our perception of time would be considered a parallel universe or another one of ourselves that we are not currently aware of consciously.

once again it must me noted that time is an illusion so the parallel universes are only the perception of being in a different place at a different time for the mind/body/sprite complex in a space/time view point. and from the standpoint of your higher self, which is you, these things are occurring at the same moment and can all be viewed simultaneously so that the higher self can try and map out the path of least resistance.
quote ra “the mind/body/spirit totality is a nebulous or vague collection of all that may occur, all of which is held in the mind’s understanding of itself; it is as the shifting sands, and is in some part a collection of parallel developments of the same entity. this information is made available to the higher self aspect. the higher self may then use these projected probability/possibility vortices in order to better aid in what you would call future life programming.”
from the above statement we can also see that we are not aware of our total collection of experiences but only of those in this particular timeline. the individual that we perceive ourselves to be is a collection of multiple timelines.
the total possible number of timelines would be the sum total of possible choices that we could make sending us in a different direction to the same destination which is oneness.
keep in mind that creation is infinite possibilities that would include the possibilities of your individual self. there is another aspect of you that made other choices, and as a result is in a different timeline of possibility.
quote ra “thus the higher self is like a map on which the destination is known and the roads are shown, and the traveler has already reached the destination in some universe … maybe this one. the higher self, at the destination, looks back on the way that has been traveled … and assists the traveler in arriving at the goal in an easier way.”
here we can see again how ra describes that your individual self has already reached the destination in another timeline resulting in the existence of your higher self which is you in the future. when you finally reach that point in future time you will realize this is true.
quote ra “the higher self is the end result of all the development experienced by the mind/body/spirit complex up to that point”
q’uo was describing the same thing and called it other portions of the self along the river of time. :cool:

[buke80]

dear eagleye,

well here, what other portions of self are mentioned other than higher self? our higher self is in the 6th density, not in this life (3rd density). we have a higher self and i do not remember ra talking about other portions of ourselves.

[buke80]

dear eagleye,

another thing is, you say "next ra shows how our mind/body/sprite complex does not exist in only one timeline. in fact we experience multiple timelines at once that in our perception of time would be considered a parallel universe or another one of ourselves that we are not currently aware of consciously"
here, as you say the mind/body/spirit complex of us that exists in different timelines is the same mind/body/spirit complex. but the question that is asked to q'uo is " i am wondering if it is possible to meet yourself in the form of another person in this life", which means that if it is possible for us to exist in a different mind/body/spirit complex.

also as you say in the sentence("next ra shows how our mind/body/sprite complex does not exist in only one timeline. in fact we experience multiple timelines at once that in our perception of time would be considered a parallel universe or another one of ourselves that we are not currently aware of consciously") our mind body spirit complex exists in different timelines but q'uo says the portions of self may exist in the same life time.

[eagleye]

buke80,

if we are to understand the subject of time lines we must first except the fact that time is an illusion. you can go no further in your understanding of this subject if you do not set this concept as the foundation.

once again ra said “all is simultaneous”. from that one point alone their can be no mistake that time is an illusion created by separation.

this “person” you perceive yourself to be, exists not only in this perceived present moment, but also in the past and in the future.

if you can except that you existed in the past and also that you will exist in the future, why is it that you cannot except that it is also possible for you to exist in another time line as in a “parallel” existence?

this is because in your current perception you believe yourself to be the sum total of only the thoughts that you are currently aware of and not those of your total accumulation of experiences.

this assumption that you have is incorrect because ra mentioned that there is “the accumulation of experiences which have not yet been understood by the conscious self”.

these include not only your past lives but also the various time lines you experience simultaneously with this one.

you were not correct when you stated that ra made no mention of another self besides your future higher self.

in fact ra described that your “mind/body/spirit totality” was a “vague collection of all that may occur”, “and is in some part a collection of parallel developments of the same entity.” notice the mention made to your “parallel developments”.

these quotes from ra also show that we are not even consciously aware of the “totality” our mind/body/sprite complex.

just think for a moment if you were to travel back in time and meet yourself. would you consider this to be a “different” mind/body/sprite complex as you say?

of course not, this is because you have a memory of this self and are consciously aware of the particular self that existed as you.

it would be possible for you to meet your past self in your current lifetime if you were to travel backwards in your current time line and meet face to face.

also consider traveling forward in time ten minuets and meeting yourself. would you accept that this was also you? probably you would and you would be correct.

why do you assume that if something exists parallel to you that it is not the same mind/body/sprite complex and is different.

this is because you assume that the mind/body/sprite complex is a collection only of your current lifetime that you are consciously aware of and not that of your other selves when in fact you are a collection of thoughts and experiences many of which you are not even aware of consciously.

the only reason you come to these conclusions is because you believe that the reality of your existence is in space/time when actually your consciousness exists outside of time.

your total consciousness is aware of all that occurs in the same moment.

that is the reason q’uo was correct in the first part of their answer when they showed how meeting other “individuals” in your current time line was also the equivalent of meeting your same individual self.

weather you were to meet your individual self from the past, present, or future makes no difference because separation is the illusion of your true self.

the separation of our self in time is only a portion of who we really are in totality. you true self is infinite that occurs simultaneously.

ra shows that our path to higher and higher consciousness will eventually lead us back to the source, meaning we will once again remember that we have always been aware of all that is. we will become consciously aware that we have always been one with the creator.

at that point we will realize that our true self is not our higher self but actually that of the creator. ra shows that your “future self” is the creator. :)

[billybobbutterball]

hi, guys

i don't know what confuses me more...grasping the geometric language of crop circles or dealing with the conundrum of time/no-time. however, giving me some insight into 'time' is a glib little witticism "time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." (probably a remembered example of latwii's droll humor ):cool:

another brain puzzle is that of our future 7-d self "knowing" that our 3-d self will eventually reach that very self-same spot... but, if that is the case, wouldn't that kind of exact knowledge point to a doctrine of pre-destination which conflicts with the ra's postulated vital free will?:eek:

one explanation that avoids the above conclusion is this: the 7-d self knows only what will be the final outcome -- but does not know the exact path the 3-d voyager will choose in getting to that point by self-determination. ( i.e., "free will") ... if this explanation will fly then we do at least manage to give a ground for the more acceptable concept of "soft" determination" -- thus avoid the "hard" version of all being being pre-set in divinely cast concrete?

if none of the above makes sense please take the time to pop my bubble while i yet have time to learn... be quick tho!:p

best, bbb :)

[eagleye]

billybobutterball,

here is the way i see it.

free will is the first distortion. when you get to the point where your awareness realizes true simultaneity all seeming contradictions disappear.

this can be seen from the following quote from ra, “the higher self protects when possible and guides when asked, but the force of free will is paramount. the seeming contradictions of determinism and free will melt away when it is accepted that there is such a thing as true simultaneity. the higher self is the end result of all the development experienced by the mind/body/spirit complex up to that point.”

notice also the ra group says that free will is protected by only guiding when asked.

the higher self knows all possible paths that could be taken in reaching oneness. this is what ra tells us when he said, “the mind/body/spirit totality is a nebulous or vague collection of all that may occur.”

describing this further he says “the higher self may then use these projected probability/possibility vortices in order to better aid in what you would call future life programming.”

they go on to show that these probability/ possibility vortices are actually all possible choices that you could make in saying “the choices which must be made to achieve the ,higher self, as it is now, must be made by the mind/spirit/body complex itself.”

the choices that you do not make in this universe are made in other time lines and make up the totality of your mind/ body/ sprite complex.

all of these possible roadways can be seen by the higher self and they will try to guide you to the easiest vortices or time line.

this does not mean that it will be successful since you ultimately make these choices of least resistance. because of this free will is protected.

you are right when you say that they do not know which choice you will make in this time line since that choice still lies before you.

they do know all possible choices made in all time lines. the choices you make will lead you into one of these time lines.

this knowledge makes up the totality of the mind/body/sprite complex.

another statement made by ra seems to show that the closer we get to understanding oneness the less possible number of choices exists for us to make. that is why we eventually all end up at the same “destination”.

here is the statement, “the more in balance an entity becomes, the less the need for parallel experiences.”

this scenario makes me visualize the shape of a pyramid. the possible number of choices at the beginning of our journey could be represented by the wider bottom portion of the pyramid.

as you get closer and closer to a less distorted perception the number of choices you would make becomes less. that is why it is impossibility for us to not end up as our higher self.

predestination would mean that there is only one choice to make. this is impossibility since infinity includes all possible choices you could make.

free will is allowing you to choose which path to take but does not include the destination since there is only one possible reality in oneness. :)

[KassandraLoves]

this scenario makes me visualize the shape of a pyramid. the possible number of choices at the beginning of our journey could be represented by the wider bottom portion of the pyramid.

as you get closer and closer to a less distorted perception the number of choices you would make becomes less. that is why it is impossibility for us to not end up as our higher self.

predestination would mean that there is only one choice to make. this is impossibility since infinity includes all possible choices you could make.

free will is allowing you to choose which path to take but does not include the destination since there is only one possible reality in oneness. :)

i love it! i always use the anaology of a house with a thousand doors. the doors you take to get inside can be different and multiple, but your still going to the same place inside the house.

i like your analogy a lot better. :d thank you for that!

[buke80]

dear eagleye,

in order for us to exist in parallel universes and multiple timelines simultaneously shouldn't we be the same person? but the question is "can you meet yourself in the form of another person ?

[buke80]

dear eagleye,

also, i wrote the dialogue between q'uo and the questioner in a turkish forum site about metaphysics. one person said that our higher self sends its portions for experience to different galaxies in the form of different persons and rarely these portions are encarnated in the same place like the world we live in. these portions of ourselves are called soul mates, he said. what do you think?

[buke80]

dear eagleye,

won't you respond to my question?:((

[eagleye]

buke80,

the plot thickens. you will notice i devoted one of my earlier posts to the discussion of persons and personalities.

and you are right when you said the question was can you meet yourself in form of another person in this lifetime. but what is “another person” and “yourself” when we are dealing with the mind/body/spirit complex and time lines.

in the overall spectrum of things it was noted that we cannot all be the same individual person, as in a personality, because that would imply that the creator has only one individual personality in a finiteness of limited characteristics.

this would be impossible since the creator exists as infinite possibilities which are all experienced in true simultaneity.

the scope of the creator’s expression is a vastness of awareness that includes not only our individual personalities but also the totality of all that exists in this illusion of separate concepts.

the illusion of space and time is the interface that makes it possible for us to experience ourselves as “separate” individuals with a finite number of characteristics known as a personality.

although we identify with this personality it is not who we really are.

this individualization that we experience is only a distortion of the creator. there is no real separation, only the perception of this concept.

because all is one and this is an illusion, things are possible in the organization of creation that we may have assumed are impossible.

what you are asking is the same as saying can our mind/body/spirit complex experience itself as different persons at the same time, in the same time line because a separate incarnated person does not necessarily equal a separate mind/body/spirit complex.

in fact your mind/body/spirit complex is a collection of many separate individual personalities and lifetimes spread out in time and in different time lines.

when you die, it in no way changes the identity of the mind/body/spirit complex. the same identity is kept throughout your next incarnation.

if we really want to know the answer we must first understand what ra said about the nature of time lines. that is why i discussed that in the last posts.

ra’s explanation of time lines established that our mind/body/spirit complex is much more than the person we perceive our self to be at this point in time.

also remember that ra said creation is infinite possibilities and the experiences of those possibilities by the creator.

it seems to me that we can conclude from this that these infinite possibilities would also need to include all possible choices that we could make.

the possible number of choices we can each make has the effect of creating different time lines or outcomes in our combined life experiences that will lead us in different directions to the same path.

these time lines and different versions of our individual selves are created by the possible number of choices, experiences, and lifetimes. they could affect one another in various situations.

what creates different versions of your individual self?

the experiences that you have throughout your lives are constantly changing you as a person.

but there are also other versions of your individual self which are connected to your mind/body/spirit complex the same way you are and can have a parallel existence to your own.

not only that but other versions or your individual self can exist in the past and the future of this and other time lines.

this means they are also connected to you since you are your mind/body/spirit complex.

it can also be said that the choices you make change you. the choices that cause you to have those unique experiences create the outcomes.

next we come to the question of how much our personality would have to change before we would no longer consider ourselves to have the same personality.

for instance consider the past version of yourself when you were a small child.

would you consider yourself to have the same personality as the child that used to be you? maybe to some extent, but mainly you are a completely different person with a different perception.

if you were to go back in time and meet your child self would you consider that person to be the same individual person as you?

probably you would because you have a conscious memory of being that child and are in what you would consider the same life time.

but then the problem is when you meet face to face you do not see one person, you see two. from this you might conclude that you are two people because you perceive physical separation.

but when you realize that physicality and space are an illusion and all events occur simultaneously you will be able to understand that consciously you are the same person.

physicality does not create the entirety of the min/body/spirit complex; it is your consciousness that does this.

with this understanding the answer to your question would be yes. what you say is possible and does occur.

continued in second post……

[eagleye]

also it can get really complicated for us to try and think of all the possible number of choices we could have made before we got to this point in time and how many different time lines their really are.

the variations in our environment and the interactions with other selves that would have an influence on us as well as us on them would create this number of choices.

i don’t now if you have ever heard of the butterfly effect but it would apply in this discussion (i would recommend the movie entitled the butterfly affect).

having considered all of the above we can also think about our future selves coming to help us and incarnating as a wanderer.

this would allow you to meet yourself in the form of another person. or maybe you are the wanderer and can meet your past self.

i think the main problem anyone might have in understanding all of this is getting too hung up on making it mandatory that we only identify ourselves with our current personality.

this is only one small portion of who we really are as a mind/body/spirit complex.

in a bigger spectrum each mind/body/spirit complex is also a portion of the creator but these portions are mental projections of a perceived identity and not really separate.

the purest definition of the word self is the consciousness of your identity. the self is not limited to just one personality or one lifetime. it is the entirety of your true identity.

with this understanding comes the knowledge the there are different levels of our consciousness that you are aware of and not aware of.

it gets further complicated when you consider another expanded level of consciousness that encompasses all total choices and experiences made by a social memory complex in all time lines both past, present and future up to the point of the higher self.

it seems ra described this as a mind/body/spirit totality.

the social memory complex includes all those individual personalities which are harvested together and evolve from the forth to the seventh.

whew!! i think i need a drink of water now. :eek:

sorry it took so long to get back to you but i have been busy with other things and this subject required some deep thinking in order to reply.

many more variables come to play when we think of the entire situation ra describes.