oneness

[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...elated&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, originally written for the bring4th.org community.