Ownership
 

In spiritually advanced societies, a person "owns" something only in the sense of taking personal responsibility for it. She (or he) considers herself to be a steward of her property, not an 'owner' of it. Highly evolved beings do not "possess" anything in the sense of it being a personal belonging. They CARESS, not POSSESS. This means they embrace, care for and love things, but do not claim ownership of them. Therefore, they share everything with everyone else in their society.


:hug3:

How do you know?

:smile:

I know from years of experience and from intuitional awareness.

Intuitional awareness sounds good. Years of experience ...?

I resonate with this thought, Explorer21, discerning how possession is non-existent in higher vibrating societies. Such societies would not invest their creational experience in that which overpowers any other's sovereignty. The litmus test of our advancement which my experience has taught me, is a sense of being both one and many at the same time. Many Native Americans operated with this foundation of their intrinsic unity with nature, recognizing that what we do to another being, or to Nature, we do to ourselves.

Possessions and the relationship we have to them is as a sacred trust, in my inner realm. Everything is alive and nothing is trivial unless we make it so.

I have read of times when things appear voluntarily and then disappear back into the ether, just as voluntarily when they are not in use.

What you say about the power of the caress is awesome when I deeply think about it. Sharing manifests humans in touch with their inner self-love and compassion.
:icon_flower:

Starflower, I resonate with your idea that a society's advancement level is revealed by their sense of being both one and many at the same time. 'Oneness' is balanced with 'manyness' to create a highly evolved civilization. The beliefs of Native Americans and other indigenous cultures are very advanced and they are the key to saving Earth from environmental disaster.
:hug3:

Explorer21,

It seems the need to for possession may arise from the attitude one may have towards whatever it may. How one relates to it, IMO.

What my influence this, for me, is the kind of experiences I've had.

For example. Grew up in a rural area. The woods were my playground. Played and walked in them. Noticed some of the inhabitants who live there, both big and small. Noticed the interactions the living beings had with the forest. Brought a relationship with in myself with nature and an appreciation. Which I have to this day and still will take walks and notice the interactions going on, in the forest and around town.

Taught me to pay attention and that everything also has a life of its own, but supports the other as well.

There's a natural sharing with in nature. Can be rough at times, but can be protective and giving. If one just takes a moment to notice. Without thinking what's in it for me or demanding this or that be given.

For nature gives what is needed, but it takes me to also go out and learn how to find it. Yes, to embrace it.

Do you think, that through human advancement, industrial and technological that in some ways, some forget to simply engage with nature? Thus, don't connect with it? Which seems to form an attitude of possession, instead of sharing?

I like the message you give.

Just wonder if some have simply forgotten how to "Caress" and share. While others can and do help us to remember.:smile:

:hug3:

Here are some spiritually advanced societies that do not possess anything (in other words, everything "belongs" to everybody):

(1) Venus
(2) Mars
(3) Jupiter
(4) Saturn
(5) Sirius
(6) The Pleiades
(7) Alpha Centauri

All of those planetary societies exist on higher dimensions, invisible to our earthly senses.

I guess anybody can claim anything ... :)

Anyway, if something worked on another planet, in another (higher) dimension, there's no reason to believe that that would work on Earth, with humans, now. Even your claim that those are on higher dimensions, implying they're more evolved than those existing in our dimension(s), supports the conclusion that we can't have here what they have there.