|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 2, 2016 19:31:35 GMT -5
As a teenager, I saw the universe as malevolent, and God as my immortal enemy. Nothing else made sense to me. Later, I came to see it as uncaring, which is to say uninvolved in it's own creation, leaving the chips to fall where they may. Now I know it to be benevolent, and yet explaining how that can be in the face of some unspeakable horrors has escaped me for a long time. Maybe there is a way.
We can talk about how the universe unfolds from the perspective of manifestation as the dream forms from within the dream, which places human consciousness center stage in that unfolding. The person does not create his own reality, as there is nothing separate that can create, but this does not mean the thoughts and feelings of the person are not the creative force of the world, only that the individual is not the author of those thought/feelings.
Many fear their own negative thoughts, which are themselves borne of fear, but fear is not a part of the force of creation. What you are is God, and God is Love, and Love is the force of creation. Fear is not Love, but rather that which seems to block Love, and in this context, to block the benevolence of the universe; to block your desire.
I'm going to make the radical statement that creation is the expression of desire, unrestrained by fear. I understand the difficulty in reconciling that statement with the world as it appears.
Desire resides at both conscious and unconscious levels, and they often conflict. To understand unconscious desire one must realize that the unconscious is not rational. That fascination with destructive acts of nature and horrific car crashes, and with evil itself, is innocent and naive and does not account for the human cost of such manifestations. Without benefit of the reasoning mind it has no means of predicting the implications of it's interest, which is sometimes a better word than desire when it comes to creating suffering.
From a conscious perspective, it becomes clear why and how we manifest what we do not consciously desire, from that which we unconsciously desire, and in that clarity, the unconscious desire fades. It also becomes clear that the universe is a movement of Love, propelled by sentient desire, given birth through a consciousness that has fallen into it's own dream and temporarily lost it's way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 9:42:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 3, 2016 11:52:40 GMT -5
As a teenager, I saw the universe as malevolent, and God as my immortal enemy. Nothing else made sense to me. Later, I came to see it as uncaring, which is to say uninvolved in it's own creation, leaving the chips to fall where they may. Now I know it to be benevolent, and yet explaining how that can be in the face of some unspeakable horrors has escaped me for a long time. Maybe there is a way.We can talk about how the universe unfolds from the perspective of manifestation as the dream forms from within the dream, which places human consciousness center stage in that unfolding. The person does not create his own reality, as there is nothing separate that can create, but this does not mean the thoughts and feelings of the person are not the creative force of the world, only that the individual is not the author of those thought/feelings. Many fear their own negative thoughts, which are themselves borne of fear, but fear is not a part of the force of creation. What you are is God, and God is Love, and Love is the force of creation. Fear is not Love, but rather that which seems to block Love, and in this context, to block the benevolence of the universe; to block your desire. I'm going to make the radical statement that creation is the expression of desire, unrestrained by fear. I understand the difficulty in reconciling that statement with the world as it appears. Desire resides at both conscious and unconscious levels, and they often conflict. To understand unconscious desire one must realize that the unconscious is not rational. That fascination with destructive acts of nature and horrific car crashes, and with evil itself, is innocent and naive and does not account for the human cost of such manifestations. Without benefit of the reasoning mind it has no means of predicting the implications of it's interest, which is sometimes a better word than desire when it comes to creating suffering. From a conscious perspective, it becomes clear why and how we manifest what we do not consciously desire, from that which we unconsciously desire, and in that clarity, the unconscious desire fades. It also becomes clear that the universe is a movement of Love, propelled by sentient desire, given birth through a consciousness that has fallen into it's own dream and temporarily lost it's way. I like using the idea of the best dream always winning. Another way of saying that is the best thought always wins or people always think what they want to. By putting it in terms of the best dream we can get into the context of shared dreaming (this is where telemetry would come in) and then explain how and why the current state of humanity is the best we've come up with so far. We can talk about how unconsciousness alters the best dream through the compensation mechanism, and how this alteration leads some to question the dream like quality of what can from many angles be considered a nightmare.
But when people say good always triumphs over evil, the best dream winning dynamic is what they're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 3, 2016 11:55:41 GMT -5
I love the Peas. I did a freestyle tribute song about a year ago to this same track. Of course I could never touch the original. For anyone following along on Yadira and the hybrid preggo thing she's linked on this same channel while carrying talking a bit about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2016 14:12:59 GMT -5
As a teenager, I saw the universe as malevolent, and God as my immortal enemy. Nothing else made sense to me. Later, I came to see it as uncaring, which is to say uninvolved in it's own creation, leaving the chips to fall where they may. Now I know it to be benevolent, and yet explaining how that can be in the face of some unspeakable horrors has escaped me for a long time. Maybe there is a way. We can talk about how the universe unfolds from the perspective of manifestation as the dream forms from within the dream, which places human consciousness center stage in that unfolding. The person does not create his own reality, as there is nothing separate that can create, but this does not mean the thoughts and feelings of the person are not the creative force of the world, only that the individual is not the author of those thought/feelings. Many fear their own negative thoughts, which are themselves borne of fear, but fear is not a part of the force of creation. What you are is God, and God is Love, and Love is the force of creation. Fear is not Love, but rather that which seems to block Love, and in this context, to block the benevolence of the universe; to block your desire. I'm going to make the radical statement that creation is the expression of desire, unrestrained by fear. I understand the difficulty in reconciling that statement with the world as it appears. Desire resides at both conscious and unconscious levels, and they often conflict. To understand unconscious desire one must realize that the unconscious is not rational. That fascination with destructive acts of nature and horrific car crashes, and with evil itself, is innocent and naive and does not account for the human cost of such manifestations. Without benefit of the reasoning mind it has no means of predicting the implications of it's interest, which is sometimes a better word than desire when it comes to creating suffering. From a conscious perspective, it becomes clear why and how we manifest what we do not consciously desire, from that which we unconsciously desire, and in that clarity, the unconscious desire fades. It also becomes clear that the universe is a movement of Love, propelled by sentient desire, given birth through a consciousness that has fallen into it's own dream and temporarily lost it's way. I happened to see this 13 mins after you posted it, thought I'd give it some play before posting. I like everything up until the underlined (but we've been through that before). .....But I don't know how the other stuff gets done if consciousness has fallen into its own dream. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 14:40:41 GMT -5
I love the Peas. I did a freestyle tribute song about a year ago to this same track. Of course I could never touch the original. For anyone following along on Yadira and the hybrid preggo thing she's linked on this same channel while carrying talking a bit about it.
Cool, I'll check it out. Thanx  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 3, 2016 16:01:34 GMT -5
As a teenager, I saw the universe as malevolent, and God as my immortal enemy. Nothing else made sense to me. Later, I came to see it as uncaring, which is to say uninvolved in it's own creation, leaving the chips to fall where they may. Now I know it to be benevolent, and yet explaining how that can be in the face of some unspeakable horrors has escaped me for a long time. Maybe there is a way. We can talk about how the universe unfolds from the perspective of manifestation as the dream forms from within the dream, which places human consciousness center stage in that unfolding. The person does not create his own reality, as there is nothing separate that can create, but this does not mean the thoughts and feelings of the person are not the creative force of the world, only that the individual is not the author of those thought/feelings. Many fear their own negative thoughts, which are themselves borne of fear, but fear is not a part of the force of creation. What you are is God, and God is Love, and Love is the force of creation. Fear is not Love, but rather that which seems to block Love, and in this context, to block the benevolence of the universe; to block your desire. I'm going to make the radical statement that creation is the expression of desire, unrestrained by fear. I understand the difficulty in reconciling that statement with the world as it appears. Desire resides at both conscious and unconscious levels, and they often conflict. To understand unconscious desire one must realize that the unconscious is not rational. That fascination with destructive acts of nature and horrific car crashes, and with evil itself, is innocent and naive and does not account for the human cost of such manifestations. Without benefit of the reasoning mind it has no means of predicting the implications of it's interest, which is sometimes a better word than desire when it comes to creating suffering. From a conscious perspective, it becomes clear why and how we manifest what we do not consciously desire, from that which we unconsciously desire, and in that clarity, the unconscious desire fades. It also becomes clear that the universe is a movement of Love, propelled by sentient desire, given birth through a consciousness that has fallen into it's own dream and temporarily lost it's way. I happened to see this 13 mins after you posted it, thought I'd give it some play before posting. I like everything up until the underlined (but we've been through that before). .....But I don't know how the other stuff gets done if consciousness has fallen into its own dream. The fundamental realization that results from a cosmic consciousness experience is that all of reality is a vast unified living whole. This simple truth can also be intellectually understood by doing some thought experiments regarding boundaries, but it can't be felt to the same degree as during a CC experience. If there is no separateness, then there is no other. In Christian terms, God is all there is. If God is all there is, then God is the only unbounded thing here. As a human being, God falls into a dream/idea of being a separate thing, and upon either a CC experience or SR, God/Self/Source wakes up from that dream (becomes free of that idea) and realizes its inherent oneness. From my experience, it's much easier to understand this via a CC experience (via positiva?) than through SR (via negativa?) because in one case there is a direct apprehension of the Infinite by the Infinite, and in the other case there is a direct realization of what is NOT so. Either way, it's seen that whatever is happening is an undivided field of being interacting with Itself. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 3, 2016 16:31:43 GMT -5
I happened to see this 13 mins after you posted it, thought I'd give it some play before posting. I like everything up until the underlined (but we've been through that before). .....But I don't know how the other stuff gets done if consciousness has fallen into its own dream. The fundamental realization that results from a cosmic consciousness experience is that all of reality is a vast unified living whole. This simple truth can also be intellectually understood by doing some thought experiments regarding boundaries, but it can't be felt to the same degree as during a CC experience. If there is no separateness, then there is no other. In Christian terms, God is all there is. If God is all there is, then God is the only unbounded thing here. As a human being, God falls into a dream/idea of being a separate thing, and upon either a CC experience or SR, God/Self/Source wakes up from that dream (becomes free of that idea) and realizes its inherent oneness. From my experience, it's much easier to understand this via a CC experience (via positiva?) than through SR (via negativa?) because in one case there is a direct apprehension of the Infinite by the Infinite, and in the other case there is a direct realization of what is NOT so. Either way, it's seen that whatever is happening is an undivided field of being interacting with Itself. I can buy the no separateness thing - as theory. How can interaction be, without two? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 3, 2016 19:16:27 GMT -5
As a teenager, I saw the universe as malevolent, and God as my immortal enemy. Nothing else made sense to me. Later, I came to see it as uncaring, which is to say uninvolved in it's own creation, leaving the chips to fall where they may. Now I know it to be benevolent, and yet explaining how that can be in the face of some unspeakable horrors has escaped me for a long time. Maybe there is a way. We can talk about how the universe unfolds from the perspective of manifestation as the dream forms from within the dream, which places human consciousness center stage in that unfolding. The person does not create his own reality, as there is nothing separate that can create, but this does not mean the thoughts and feelings of the person are not the creative force of the world, only that the individual is not the author of those thought/feelings. Many fear their own negative thoughts, which are themselves borne of fear, but fear is not a part of the force of creation. What you are is God, and God is Love, and Love is the force of creation. Fear is not Love, but rather that which seems to block Love, and in this context, to block the benevolence of the universe; to block your desire. I'm going to make the radical statement that creation is the expression of desire, unrestrained by fear. I understand the difficulty in reconciling that statement with the world as it appears. Desire resides at both conscious and unconscious levels, and they often conflict. To understand unconscious desire one must realize that the unconscious is not rational. That fascination with destructive acts of nature and horrific car crashes, and with evil itself, is innocent and naive and does not account for the human cost of such manifestations. Without benefit of the reasoning mind it has no means of predicting the implications of it's interest, which is sometimes a better word than desire when it comes to creating suffering. From a conscious perspective, it becomes clear why and how we manifest what we do not consciously desire, from that which we unconsciously desire, and in that clarity, the unconscious desire fades. It also becomes clear that the universe is a movement of Love, propelled by sentient desire, given birth through a consciousness that has fallen into it's own dream and temporarily lost it's way. I happened to see this 13 mins after you posted it, thought I'd give it some play before posting. I like everything up until the underlined (but we've been through that before). .....But I don't know how the other stuff gets done if consciousness has fallen into its own dream. What other stuff are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 3, 2016 19:27:06 GMT -5
The fundamental realization that results from a cosmic consciousness experience is that all of reality is a vast unified living whole. This simple truth can also be intellectually understood by doing some thought experiments regarding boundaries, but it can't be felt to the same degree as during a CC experience. If there is no separateness, then there is no other. In Christian terms, God is all there is. If God is all there is, then God is the only unbounded thing here. As a human being, God falls into a dream/idea of being a separate thing, and upon either a CC experience or SR, God/Self/Source wakes up from that dream (becomes free of that idea) and realizes its inherent oneness. From my experience, it's much easier to understand this via a CC experience (via positiva?) than through SR (via negativa?) because in one case there is a direct apprehension of the Infinite by the Infinite, and in the other case there is a direct realization of what is NOT so. Either way, it's seen that whatever is happening is an undivided field of being interacting with Itself. I can buy the no separateness thing - as theory. How can interaction be, without two? Just curious. Don't you interact with your own nightly dream characters? And yet those characters are creations of the same mind that interacts with them. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2016 8:07:29 GMT -5
The fundamental realization that results from a cosmic consciousness experience is that all of reality is a vast unified living whole. This simple truth can also be intellectually understood by doing some thought experiments regarding boundaries, but it can't be felt to the same degree as during a CC experience. If there is no separateness, then there is no other. In Christian terms, God is all there is. If God is all there is, then God is the only unbounded thing here. As a human being, God falls into a dream/idea of being a separate thing, and upon either a CC experience or SR, God/Self/Source wakes up from that dream (becomes free of that idea) and realizes its inherent oneness. From my experience, it's much easier to understand this via a CC experience (via positiva?) than through SR (via negativa?) because in one case there is a direct apprehension of the Infinite by the Infinite, and in the other case there is a direct realization of what is NOT so. Either way, it's seen that whatever is happening is an undivided field of being interacting with Itself. I can buy the no separateness thing - as theory. How can interaction be, without two? Just curious. The ocean gets whipped up by the wind into "individual" waves. Are the waves waves, or are they the ocean? The waves break into spray. Are the droplets of spray the ocean, the waves, or droplets of water? In the 15th century Kabir wrote: I've been thinking of the difference between water and the waves on it. Rising, water's still water, falling back, it is water, will you give me a hint how to tell them apart? Because someone has made up the word "wave," do I have to distinguish it from water? ____________________ Two waves crash against each other, do we have to imagine "waves?" Do we have to imagine "two?" Do we have to imagine "an interaction?" Is it necessary to imagine? What happens if we stop imagining? What is the difference between imagining waves rising out of the ocean and falling back into the ocean and imagining humans rising out of reality and falling back into reality? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 4, 2016 9:16:29 GMT -5
I can buy the no separateness thing - as theory. How can interaction be, without two? Just curious. Don't you interact with your own nightly dream characters? And yet those characters are creations of the same mind that interacts with them. Yeah, I think we all do interact with our dream characters. Your response makes sense, but doesn't include all the stuff in and of life. I guess that's where and why I hold back from whole-heartedly agreeing. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 4, 2016 9:20:47 GMT -5
I can buy the no separateness thing - as theory. How can interaction be, without two? Just curious. The ocean gets whipped up by the wind into "individual" waves. Are the waves waves, or are they the ocean? The waves break into spray. Are the droplets of spray the ocean, the waves, or droplets of water? In the 15th century Kabir wrote: I've been thinking of the difference between water and the waves on it. Rising, water's still water, falling back, it is water, will you give me a hint how to tell them apart? Because someone has made up the word "wave," do I have to distinguish it from water? ____________________ Two waves crash against each other, do we have to imagine "waves?" Do we have to imagine "two?" Do we have to imagine "an interaction?" Is it necessary to imagine? What happens if we stop imagining? What is the difference between imagining waves rising out of the ocean and falling back into the ocean and imagining humans rising out of reality and falling back into reality? That is a good-sounding response. I find it hard to abandon either view. I say you're imagining the 'answer' and are just like any other person and going with what feels good. There are many ants in a colony - it's always gonna come back to the many unique individuals (even with ants being so similar, heh) and the whole colony. A coin has two sides sorta thing. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2016 10:18:36 GMT -5
Don't you interact with your own nightly dream characters? And yet those characters are creations of the same mind that interacts with them. Yeah, I think we all do interact with our dream characters. Your response makes sense, but doesn't include all the stuff in and of life. I guess that's where and why I hold back from whole-heartedly agreeing. What stuff are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2016 10:23:18 GMT -5
The ocean gets whipped up by the wind into "individual" waves. Are the waves waves, or are they the ocean? The waves break into spray. Are the droplets of spray the ocean, the waves, or droplets of water? In the 15th century Kabir wrote: I've been thinking of the difference between water and the waves on it. Rising, water's still water, falling back, it is water, will you give me a hint how to tell them apart? Because someone has made up the word "wave," do I have to distinguish it from water? ____________________ Two waves crash against each other, do we have to imagine "waves?" Do we have to imagine "two?" Do we have to imagine "an interaction?" Is it necessary to imagine? What happens if we stop imagining? What is the difference between imagining waves rising out of the ocean and falling back into the ocean and imagining humans rising out of reality and falling back into reality? That is a good-sounding response. I find it hard to abandon either view. I say you're imagining the 'answer' and are just like any other person and going with what feels good. There are many ants in a colony - it's always gonna come back to the many unique individuals (even with ants being so similar, heh) and the whole colony. A coin has two sides sorta thing. He's saying "What happens if we stop imagining". Separation is part of what's imagined. |
|
