The Oneness enigma

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Yes to, and delighting in, all your point(er)s, guthrio.

My caveat to the Bashar and similar '5D' 'pitches' is that, all too often IMO, such 'you-create-your-own-reality' or 'you-create-your-own-experience' tunes are danced to in 'I-got-mine-you-go-get-yours' ways which actually 'miss' the 'point' (meaning opportunity) that our 3+1D stage setting provides which is necessary IMO for real/true honest-to-goodness soul-growth and soul-flowering.

I don't know what their true intent*** is, but their (such disembodied spirit's) 'messages' may be and often are (in my view) seductively miss-leading (like giving a 'kid' a fast 'car' or a 'loose' girl, or boy as the case may be, to play with).

*** Some have speculated that they are basically 'lost' souls who 'feed off' the energies of those who 'follow' them, who in effect serve as their spirit-battery charging 'devices', the same way as earthly 'performers' get a boost from and so, in effect, feed of the 'attention' and 'devotion' of their 'audiences', I suppose.

Their teachings don't emphasize and, as a result of emphasizing other things, often distract people from contemplating and following up on their understanding(s) of the nature, importance and potential of Love of Conjoint Life, i.e. of what I call Communion with others and All, IOW - again IMO.

Not so in your case, obviously.

High-Five, Soul-Bro!

Thanks, and back at ya Davidsun! (SF moderators where is the high five icon?)

Though I think you may find it a bit ironic, to ascribe such selfish motives to those you call "disembodied", who are equally as responsible to "create their own realities" with the Creator's power, as we, temporarily embodied, beings are.

All are freely endowed with the Creator's Own Spirit, to create as we will, whether embodied or not...with perfect freedom to learn the hard way or the easy way at each echelon of existence. None are spared the rewards of conformance to God's infallible Law, nor the results of nonconformance thereto (because, as co-creators, this is the law of our OWN being).

That's what unconditional love is, whether as Spirits, embodied or disembodied....on our respective journeys back to the inevitable realization that we are already The Spiritual Source of All we've been seeking "outside ourselves" from the beginning.

I am proud to be traveling on this Soul-journ with you and others I have met here and elsewhere.

Originally Posted by weareunity

Re: Objectivity.

If we imagine a person coming into the reality of oneness as evidenced by thought word and deed which is I think the step following simply becoming aware of oneness--then I think we are seeing that person becoming consciously included in that reality. As such that person is no longer under the illusion of being separate from that reality. I think it is reasonable to say that Objectivity functions across the separation between observer and what is being observed, if that separation no longer exists then objectivity seems no longer possible. How then is understanding to proceed?
I think from empathy resulting from being at one with the subject.
Love is empathic as well as sympathetic I think. So perhaps here is a safeguard if you like--the greatest understanding comes to whoever is in all senses unable/unwilling to use that understanding for any purpose which is evidently contradictory to oneness.

Actually we can see this sort of breakdown of objectivity happening in society today in circumstances where people are enticed/manoeuvred/broken into situations where they are purposefully moulded and engulfed within a retaining group of artificial oneness. Here again objectivity becomes overwhelmed, but instead of empathy being on offer as an alternative way of understanding, exactly the opposite happens--artificial separation, isolation, suspicion and often hatred of all else beyond the group is fostered--with the result that the person in such circumstance is trapped in a situation from which they cannot easily escape themselves. If they do find release then the damage done is it not easily repaired.

petex

Very, very perceptive. Thank you for your words of unity, Pete.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by guthrio

Though I think you may find it a bit ironic, to ascribe such selfish motives to those you call "disembodied", who are equally as responsible to "create their own realities" with the Creator's power, as we, temporarily embodied, beings are.

Everyone/anyone who isn't (yet) 'Christed' is (still) operationally 'selfish' (to one degree of another), I think.

Our world is plenty-full of souls that are 'parasitical' (unless and until they choose to be otherwise in the course of their soul-development). I have no reason to think that 'disembodied' spirits are different. I don't know, but I have read and it makes sense to me that the only way a soul can change (in the sense of 'maturing' to the point of Christhood by learning and growing from co-relational experiences) is via 'incarnating' - becoming 'embodied' in the context of other 'bodies', in the 'Body' of The Entity of Life - hence Jesus' pronouncement that “I*am*the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) - his 'me' referencing The Entity of Life which he personally totally 'i'dentified' with.

No reason that you 'should' do so, but you are going to have to fully and closely read and grok what's in my treatise if you want to get 'on the same page' as me on this score, guthrio.

My own 'sense' is that Bashar ain't 'Christed'. I am still wondering about Seth, but leaning towards thinking that's true of him as well - though they both celarly know and convey a LOT of 'Truth'. I question the 'nature' (fullness, Christedness) of their 'Love', IOW.

I once read that one of Satan's (i.e. Selfish-Spirit's) 'tricks' is to give you a LOT of 'Truths' (till you get into trusting what 'he' says) and sandwish-sneak a 'lie' (distortion) in - in ways which, because of the 'trust' that's been established, peeps are not able or inclined to 'detect.

As I have said the notion that "I create MY own Reality and YOU create YOURS" essentially belies the FACT that the REALITY of LIFE is a conjoint creation.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Everyone/anyone who isn't (yet) 'Christed' is (still) operationally 'selfish' (to one degree of another), I think.

Our world is plenty-full of souls that are 'parasitical' (unless and until they choose to be otherwise in the course of their soul-development). I have no reason to think that 'disembodied' spirits are different. I don't know, but I have read and it makes sense to me that the only way a soul can change (in the sense of 'maturing' to the point of Christhood by learning and growing from co-relational experiences) is via 'incarnating' - becoming 'embodied' in the context of other 'bodies', in the 'Body' of The Entity of Life - hence Jesus' pronouncement that “I*am*the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) - his 'me' referencing The Entity of Life which he personally totally 'i'dentified' with.

No reason that you 'should' do so, but you are going to have to fully and closely read and grok what's in my treatise if you want to get 'on the same page' as me on this score, guthrio.

My own 'sense' is that Bashar ain't 'Christed'. I am still wondering about Seth, but leaning towards thinking that's true of him as well - though they both celarly know and convey a LOT of 'Truth'. I question the 'nature' (fullness, Christedness) of their 'Love', IOW.

I once read that one of Satan's (i.e. Selfish-Spirit's) 'tricks' is to give you a LOT of 'Truths' (till you get into trusting what 'he' says) and sandwish-sneak a 'lie' (distortion) in - in ways which, because of the 'trust' that's been established, peeps are not able or inclined to 'detect.

As I have said the notion that "I create MY own Reality and YOU create YOURS" essentially belies the FACT that the REALITY of LIFE is a conjoint creation.

Davidsun,

....The view(s) you've espoused and written of in your Treatise, form a very effective guide for your continuing journey of discovery.

The path(s) upon which I walk in said journey of discovery, are guided by how I've learned to Treat(ise) myself as a living book of learning, upon whose pages I apply the "pen"-siveness of experience acquired upon said path(s), gained, step-by-experiential-step....

...each of which I am guided by "an inner knowing that keeps me going".

I salute your path(s) and methods of inquiry as perfectly suited to your needs as I salute my own; as I continue to enjoy my own path of learning with the same integrity I am certain that you are pursuing yours:

....as described in my previous response to you "Integrity" comes from "integer" which originates from "one". When a person realizes that "everything" is really just ONE thing, and that they are an integral part of this ONE thing, then they instinctively & automatically treat everyone & everything with the care, respect, and consideration, which which they would like to be treated. This is "integrity".

And because of this integrity, Brother Davidsun, I will "bank" upon the absolute certainty that the universe-sized network made up of an infinite array of banks upon banks of computers matrixially web-strung together by way of both parallel and series connections, all simultaneously, individually and together, multi-processing the above referenced Love and Joy ‘program’, with each processor and every amalgamation thereof functionally outputting the ‘solution’ it ‘calculates’ will, not, probably, yield the greatest possible Love and Joy ‘result’....for us All....

...because of it!

Toward that end (of a new beginning), I offer blessings to us both on our respective journeys as the Infinite Essence we'll always be.

"And I___

"I took the road I travel by, and that has made all the difference..."

...to me".

[davidsun]

Amen to your choice, though it is not mine and I argue that it is too personal self-serving and so not the best possible one, guthrio.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Amen to your choice, though it is not mine and I argue that it is too personal self-serving and so not the best possible one, guthrio.

Amen, indeed Davidsun!

Though we cannot make choices for one another, we can choose to enjoy one another's company and the sacredness of the I Am's presence within us... on this journey....with the very integrity the Creator endows all.

P.S. Still lookin' for that High-Five icon!

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by guthrio

Amen, indeed Davidsun!

Though we cannot make choices for one another, we can choose to enjoy one another's company and the sacredness of the I Am's presence within us... on this journey....with the very integrity the Creator endows all.

P.S. Still lookin' for that High-Five icon!

might have to do.

Hello

Interesting question when two co-creators meet in the same space/time frame…

Brings me back memories of when I was bonze (monk) in shaolin wing chun kung fu.

In all that time of practice/meditation there was this rule of Jade to follow. Not following it would at the most bring one to be excluded from the “school” as Bruce Lee was.

Yet in this few moments of actual combat, moments where two co creators would meet in movement, there was no rules left to follow except one.

The person who would stop to be in the here and now just for a glimpse of a moment is assured to have lost the “combat”.

Enjoy!

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by davidsun

might have to do.

...works for me, too, my Friend!

(Had to exchange the "headbang" icon for the "occasion" icon you used, per SF rules of only 5 icons total per post). Nice fit "for the occasion", don't ya think? Maybe someday, we can "knock back" a few cold ones before heading for the Pearly Gates!

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by Legrand

Hello

Interesting question when two co-creators meet in the same space/time frame…

Brings me back memories of when I was bonze (monk) in shaolin wing chun kung fu.

In all that time of practice/meditation there was this rule of Jade to follow. Not following it would at the most bring one to be excluded from the “school” as Bruce Lee was.

Yet in this few moments of actual combat, moments where two co creators would meet in movement, there was no rules left to follow except one.

The person who would stop to be in the here and now just for a glimpse of a moment is assured to have lost the “combat”.

Enjoy!

Hello Legrand,

...strange that it would have been considered a loss for a monk to have glimpsed, in the eternal moment that "here and now" truly is, that there would no longer be further need for combat with an "opponent", then clearly perceived to be...

....his very Self!

Ever here; even now.