Dissolving the "I". Becoming "ONE"

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by enaid

IMHO it’s all concepts, and what isnt is impossible to describe; so I would humbly submit that, yes, you do get to say neti neti to god.

Not cognizing that 'neti neti' and 'god' are also just concepts (invented by Intelligence to further 'true' understanding of Reality. aye what humble one?

From my book:

"The potentially liberating and amendatory truth is that everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by cus*tom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by mis*usage, I generally refer to it alter*natively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am, That Which Is at root within each and everyone."

[weareunity]

Hello all.

We might choose to simply realise that all is one. Always has been, always is, always will be.

We might also choose to use the word "becoming" in its nowadays little used meaning--as in, for example, " it is becoming to behave accordingly". --describing a sense of fitting and in harmony.

So that we do not become one, for one already is. We simply need to behave accordingly.

petex

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello all.

We might choose to simply realise that all is one. Always has been, always is, always will be.

We might also choose to use the word "becoming" in its nowadays little used meaning--as in, for example, " it is becoming to behave accordingly". --describing a sense of fitting and in harmony.

So that we do not become one, for one already is. We simply need to behave accordingly.

petex

From my treatise (which concurs - in a 'way' - with your belief in this regard, Pete):

Everything and so everyone in existence (i.e ‘in’ the realm of Creation) is an expression and so an extension of said Father’s (i.e., The Creator’s) Being. So nothing and no one can ever really be separate from ‘Him’ in the first place. What the idea that one may ‘come unto’ ‘the Father’ as a soul stems from is the ‘higher order’ exponential (as in f(x)=x to the nth power) growth‑capacity referencing matrixial truth that one may, by (way of) participating in said reincarnational learning and development process (eventually) become aware of one’s ‘Oneness’ with ‘the Father’ and so, possibly, electively choose to refine one’s motivation and improve the quality of one’s engagement with Life and others in It with the aim of becoming, and thereby actually (eventually) ‘grow’ into being, a full‑fledged partner in said “Father’s” Love and Joy ‘business’ venture. It is (only!) by repeatedly incarnating as (student) ‘drivers’ in Love and Joy experience-and-expression-capable (body) ‘vehicles’, learning from their successes as well as their failures and consequently becoming more expansively aware and broadly capable along said ‘way’, that souls may (eventually) reach the point where they meaningfully comprehend, integrally embrace and consciously choose to act in accord with the fact that the gestalts of their and others’ selfhoods are really subsidiary ‘i’dentities spawned and animated by our ‘Father’ for the purpose of effectuating and further exploring (as yet) unrealized Love and Joy experience↔expression possibilities. They thereby enter ‘into’ conscious communion with The Life of said Father and then, assuming they continue to function in such ‘unified’ mode (this always remains a matter of choice), ‘eternally’ live so thereafter.

[indent][/size=3]

[weareunity]

Hello David.

I have read the extract from your treatise which you have posted above, and understand the train of thought--and the rails of belief upon which that train runs. As you say, the final destination of anyone riding that train may be the same as anyone choosing to walk the walk as expressed in the post to which you have replied.

The difference being that walking the walk is an option immediately available to anyone who chooses to do so. No ticket is required, no prerequisite that any particular rails of belief have to first be laid and followed, no particular heavenly station as the tantalising reward destination.--Just simply choosing to walk the walk of how, not to where.

If there is indeed universal truth then we might choose to think that such truth is rightly able to be communicated by means which can be universally understood by all--of whatever background, culture and learning.

Good wishes David and all.

petex

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello David.

I have read the extract from your treatise which you have posted above, and understand the train of thought--and the rails of belief upon which that train runs. As you say, the final destination of anyone riding that train may be the same as anyone choosing to walk the walk as expressed in the post to which you have replied.

The difference being that walking the walk is an option immediately available to anyone who chooses to do so. No ticket is required, no prerequisite that any particular rails of belief have to first be laid and followed, no particular heavenly station as the tantalising reward destination.--Just simply choosing to walk the walk of how, not to where.

If there is indeed universal truth then we might choose to think that such truth is rightly able to be communicated by means which can be universally understood by all--of whatever background, culture and learning.

Good wishes David and all.

petex

I appreciate your close reading of what I have shared. Almost completely agreeing with what you have shared above:

Re: "no particular heavenly station as the tantalising reward destination. --Just simply] (there's that 'simple' disregard of the fact that the Matrix of Life that each and everyone of us is part of is a complexly interwoven phenom. again!) choosing to walk the walk of how, not to where", doesn't do 'justice' to the issues at hand -- i.e. of walking the walk -- IMO.

Originally Posted by petex

If there is indeed universal truth then we might choose to think that such truth is rightly able to be communicated by means which can be universally understood by all--of whatever background, culture and learning.

It matters greatly (again, IMO) both the degree to which said 'universal truth' is understood and how well (the 'narrative' whereby) said understanding is shared and communicated, IMO. Though there are of course individuals who are 'fully' realized in the way that I allude to in every culture, the historical fact is that different 'narratives' (backrounds and learnings) result in different kinds and degrees of relational/social actualizations (different degrees and kinds of 'walking the walk) by their carriers and constituents.

Your 'way' of walking and talking may not be as 'universally' shareable as mine as mine - or vice versa, of course!

Future 'civilization' will be a function of which kinds of 'narratives' and consequent 'cultures' generate the most viable psychospiritual 'ecosystems', I think.

Talking one's talk and walking one's walk requires that one aim to do so with maximal integrity and purpose - the Matrix will 'decide' what and which to 'embrace' and when - the history of the 'universalism' demonstrates this to be a progressive, evolutionary process.

Here's my 'critique' of the currently most widespread 'Christian' narrative in said regard:

As to the reason for [Jesus's] extreme emphasis on believing in ‘him’ in statements such as “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” (John 6:47) and “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (John 11:25‑26) – again, before I go on, let me once more remind you that his ‘me’ referenced the Living Entity of Life because Jesus personally completely ‘i’dentified with It! – my guess is that he figured that if folks didn’t at least believe that they had potentially ‘immortal’ (because existentially ‘rooted’ in said Entity) souls, such that they could (and would, if they lived ‘in accord’ with what he taught) continue to be functionally operational as coherent psychospiritual gestalts in the context of the ever-ongoing Flow of Creation after their physical body ‘died’, still ‘petty’ self ‘i’dentifying folks (which most of those around him then were) wouldn’t have sufficient ‘reason’ to choose to make the kinds of self-subordinating choices that are necessary for a soul to psychospiritually transcend the parameters of its ‘natural’ (while bodily ensconced, that is) constellation of selfishness. The ‘promise’* that the souls of those who believe that they have a Cosmic ‘I’dentity will (in due course) be ‘freed’ from having to suffer the many kinds of naturally unwanted experiences (such as frustration, pain, loss, and death) which are unavoidably part and parcel of existence in a physiosocial context and live in a state of unadulterated Love and Joy forevermore thereafter may indeed function as a self-transcendence motivating ‘pitch’ in relation to those who are still myopically entranced, and so essentially ‘enslaved’, by their own selfishness.

[Foontote*: As also ‘promisingly’ conveyed by other scripture-embedded statements, such as: “I will speak to thee now of that great Truth which man ought to know, since by its means he will win immortal bliss – that which is without beginning, the Eternal Spirit...” (The Bhagavad Gita, Ch.13); and “There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)]

Such kind of belief is a double-edged sword, however, because ‘negative’ effects may and often do accrue as a result of the self‑reifying motivation which often ‘greedily’, in such regards at least, hitches a ride on it. As many have over the course of time since become aware, it is important that those who presently aren’t (so aware) be educated to the point where they also appreciate the fact that, notwithstanding the many ‘positive’ results that are clearly attributable to the kinds of Life‑embracing attitudes and intentions which logically derive from people embracing said belief, a whole slew of negatively consequential errors in judgment and consequent malfeasance (‘sins’ if you will) have historically not only gone unrecognized as being such, but even been paraded and lauded as ‘holy’ as a result of over-simplistic interpretation and propagandizement of the ‘assurances’ and ‘guarantees’ pertaining to the futures which such kinds of ‘promises’ advertise.

Why? Because simply [] ‘thinking the thought’ and ‘talking the talk’, i.e. just believing and socially affiliating with others who ‘confess’ and ‘proclaim’ their belief that what Jesus and others have stated in similar regards is absolutely true, won’t result in a soul’s psychospiritually realizing the ‘eternally’ ongoing Life he referenced. One has to actually ‘walk the walk’ of self-transcendence by really considering and intelligently (one might say, Solomonically☺) evaluating what most likely will and what most likely won’t serve to maximize the experience and expression of Love and Joy in The Flow of Life and then really (i.e conscientiously!) choosing to do what(ever!) one consequently thinks and feels has the best chance of so serving – in other words, not just for one’s own self’s or any other particular self’s or set of selves’ Love and Joy ‘sakes’– as one goes along, for the kind of Life Jesus spoke of to be ‘entered into’ and soulfully ‘lived’ thereafter.

This of course (as previously cautioned) requires that one not become smugly self-assured, by way of thinking and feeling that what(ever) one presently believes encapsulates the totality of the truth in said (or, for that matter, any other) regard, but rather that one tolerate and embrace the kind of uncertainty that accompanies awareness of the fact that there may well be more for one to learn and know and consequently do (or know and do ‘better’!), and hence that one always continue to open‑mind-n-heart-edly consider, evaluate and garner wisdom from what may – based on my own experience, I say will! – in retrospect be seen as having been ‘errors’ of omission and/or commission stemming from one’s not having been completely aware of the relevance of dynamically operational situational factors, which process of learning and development of greater awareness and adeptitude will only continue (over the course of one’s incarnational involvement) if one doesn’t sabotage its potential ever-ongoingness by presumptuously concluding that there is nothing ‘more’ for one to know or that there is no ‘better’ way for one to proceed in order to fully become and completely be self-transcendentally, i.e. holistically, Cosmic‑Spirit aligned. It is only by virtue of proceeding humbly in said regard that further experience of incarnational embodiment (wherein the exigencies of personal limitation and corollary experiences of frustration, pain, loss, etc. associated with selfhood serve as ‘task-masters’ and so, in effect, as ‘teachers’ of self‑transcendence) are eventually rendered passé.

[weareunity]

To avoid our certainties becoming millstones around our necks, we might choose to rather consider them as stepping stones beneath our feet.

We might also choose to consider that love, being a way of doing and not a place to get to, has no ambition other than to share of itself without insistence.

petex

Originally Posted by weareunity

To avoid our certainties becoming millstones around our necks, we might choose to rather consider them as stepping stones beneath our feet.

We might also choose to consider that love, being a way of doing and not a place to get to, has no ambition other than to share of itself without insistence.

petex

Hello Petex,

You write beautifully!

[weareunity]

Hello Legrand. I really do feel that such appreciation is most properly acknowledged with thanks to the eye of the beholder. X pete

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello Legrand. I really do feel that such appreciation is most properly acknowledged with thanks to the eye of the beholder. X pete

The 'eye' is a feature/faculty of the "I" (of the beholder). Yes/no?

I remember hearing of a real-life story of someone who was helped by someone else expressing gratitude (thanks) to "God" for providing the help, rather than the person.

Originally Posted by weareunity

To avoid our certainties becoming millstones around our necks, we might choose to rather consider them as stepping stones beneath our feet.

I like the Advaita Vedanta perspective that all religions are seeking the same end albeit by different paths, some more aligned than others, but all with the same fundamental mission. For instance it regards Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as one of the great spiritual teachings and recognizes him as one manifestation of God incarnate.

I also don't see any inherent conflict between science and religion aside from those introduced by the more dogmatic members of both sides.