Individual origin

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Greenslade -- hello there!
Well, I can only say so many times that you need to get past the words if they trouble you. Focus on the concepts, I say. The concept here is alignment with your centre and the spectrum on which it exists, from pursuit of misalignment to pursuit of alignment, and all the perspectives in between. If you are doing that (aligning with your own centre), then you are getting that and it doesn't matter how you OR others label it. You be you and likewise, let others grasp and apprehend and refer and name things as they see fit, as well. Most are not going to ditch language and words despite their limitations, although they will allow you to craft your own meanings for existing words if that is what you need to do -- you'll just have to explain yourself thoroughly if you wish to rewrite the Oxford dictionary too awfully much. Many others would rather further discuss and refine and explore the concepts underneath the existing words. It's all good.

As to the fact on its face that some appear to be IMO misaligned and even in hard pursuit of misalignment with their centre...it's true many are engaged in what I call pursuit of misalignment with their centre. I say this because over the span of eternity, I see and experience all things eventually tending toward the truth of who and what we are...and that with deeper and truer realisation, I see and experience that we tend to move away from misalignment and toward alignment, because we come to a place where we simply seek and resonate more deeply with joy and kindness. You say you believe differently, and so it is. You be you and I will be me, and all the rest have their say too.

I'll grant that there are some who need contained whilst they pursue misalignment and many others who should be avoided or left in peace if possible, whilst they do the same. Their right to spew harm is not greater than the right of all the rest of us to live peaceably...and this is where avoidance and containment are applicable. But what I have experienced and known is that over the millennia of eternity, all tire of falsehood and emptiness and all seek truth and groundedness. Eventually. Just have to give them time and, often, a wide berth.

I've never been much interested in the concepts, I wanted answers to my own Life and wasn't much interested along the way. Granted, often I'd pick things up along the way but gaining a library of knowledge and concepts never really suited me. I'm not a scholar, and I'm a trainer by trade and not a teacher.Strangely enough often it's been the academics that haven't grasped that difference.

When I first joined a Spiritual forum 'positive' and 'negative' were the common parlance and granted I started using them, but it wasn't long before they just stopped resonating with me - they weren't helpful at all. Then I started to dig a little deeper - why was I using them and what did I men by them? What made 'positive' positive and what made 'negative' negative? People would tell me which was what but no more than that, which was pretty useless. In my reasoning I gained from my experiences because after all, that's what I was here for. If I was going to 'learn the lessons' then I would, because I was sure and certain I didn't want to come back. Learning what was positive or negative didn't seem like a sensible Life's Purpose/Karmic Obligation somehow.

If there are people who need contained what does that say about us? Have we become judge, jury and executioner while throwing away so many Spiritual concepts that we hold dear? What makes their actions misaligned? And if containment (another word for imprisonment?) is applicable then is our right to be left in peace greater than their right to spew bile, if that's in alignment with their centre? Avoidance I can understand - up to a point - but containment?

Is misalignment with one's centre not as valid a Path/lesson as any other? Because I can learn something from that - in fact I already have.

If nothing changes then nothing changes.

Where most people would say "I am enlightened" I ask "What am I enlightened to?" or "What am I aware of?" I don't know what I don't know.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Agreed - and whether we like it or not, the gift and blessing (or curse some would say?) of consciousness on the journey is that we can't go back, meaning once the veil is lifted, there is no more pretense and blissfully ignorant indulgence in misdirection. It has to be ever more consciously chosen...ever more stubbornly engaged in, despite the call of the soul and the small still voice.

Amen to that, and it's OK to metaphorically plant our flags on top of the hill and resist all comers, after our own fashion - it is a trinity after all.

If nothing changes then nothing changes.The call to truth -- to know and align with our centre -- is so strong that at some beautiful, amazing tipping point, it requires an eternally exhausting effort to deny it and to continually turn from it. Even for those who've spent an eternity denying the sheer brilliance and omnipresence of spirit and centre...eventually the love and light permeate them and transform them too. Like I said, just loads of time, is all. And a wide berth.

There's so much beauty and purity in that realisation, that I don't even know how to begin to capture it.

Ah joy

Peace & blessings
7L[/quote]Perhaps for you, if that's where your Soul and mind come together in harmony. I've found peace and the Universe continues to be a reflection of me, and it's been a long time coming. I'm at peace with myself and my surroundings, including the 'loud and vexatious people', because they have their stories too and like everyone else they want to be heard. Loads of time if that's what it takes but a wide berth? I'm infectious, the mechanisms are already in place so often all it takes is to use them consciously. Love, light and transformations take place in many ways.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Greenslade -- hello there!
Well, I can only say so many times that you need to get past the words if they trouble you. Focus on the concepts, I say. The concept here is alignment with your centre and the spectrum on which it exists, from pursuit of misalignment to pursuit of alignment, and all the perspectives in between. If you are doing that (aligning with your own centre), then you are getting that and it doesn't matter how you OR others label it. You be you and likewise, let others grasp and apprehend and refer and name things as they see fit, as well. Most are not going to ditch language and words despite their limitations, although they will allow you to craft your own meanings for existing words if that is what you need to do -- you'll just have to explain yourself thoroughly if you wish to rewrite the Oxford dictionary too awfully much. Many others would rather further discuss and refine and explore the concepts underneath the existing words. It's all good.

As to the fact on its face that some appear to be IMO misaligned and even in hard pursuit of misalignment with their centre...it's true many are engaged in what I call pursuit of misalignment with their centre. I say this because over the span of eternity, I see and experience all things eventually tending toward the truth of who and what we are...and that with deeper and truer realisation, I see and experience that we tend to move away from misalignment and toward alignment, because we come to a place where we simply seek and resonate more deeply with joy and kindness. You say you believe differently, and so it is. You be you and I will be me, and all the rest have their say too.

I'll grant that there are some who need contained whilst they pursue misalignment and many others who should be avoided or left in peace if possible, whilst they do the same. Their right to spew harm is not greater than the right of all the rest of us to live peaceably...and this is where avoidance and containment are applicable. But what I have experienced and known is that over the millennia of eternity, all tire of falsehood and emptiness and all seek truth and groundedness. Eventually. Just have to give them time and, often, a wide berth.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I've never been much interested in the concepts, I wanted answers to my own Life and wasn't much interested along the way. Granted, often I'd pick things up along the way but gaining a library of knowledge and concepts never really suited me. I'm not a scholar, and I'm a trainer by trade and not a teacher.Strangely enough often it's been the academics that haven't grasped that difference.

When I first joined a Spiritual forum 'positive' and 'negative' were the common parlance and granted I started using them, but it wasn't long before they just stopped resonating with me - they weren't helpful at all. Then I started to dig a little deeper - why was I using them and what did I men by them? What made 'positive' positive and what made 'negative' negative? People would tell me which was what but no more than that, which was pretty useless. In my reasoning I gained from my experiences because after all, that's what I was here for. If I was going to 'learn the lessons' then I would, because I was sure and certain I didn't want to come back. Learning what was positive or negative didn't seem like a sensible Life's Purpose/Karmic Obligation somehow.

If there are people who need contained what does that say about us? Have we become judge, jury and executioner while throwing away so many Spiritual concepts that we hold dear? What makes their actions misaligned? And if containment (another word for imprisonment?) is applicable then is our right to be left in peace greater than their right to spew bile, if that's in alignment with their centre? Avoidance I can understand - up to a point - but containment?

Is misalignment with one's centre not as valid a Path/lesson as any other? Because I can learn something from that - in fact I already have.

If nothing changes then nothing changes.

Where most people would say "I am enlightened" I ask "What am I enlightened to?" or "What am I aware of?" I don't know what I don't know.

Amen to that, and it's OK to metaphorically plant our flags on top of the hill and resist all comers, after our own fashion - it is a trinity after all.

If nothing changes then nothing changes.

Greenslade, hello there!
Well, everyone knows language is limited. But that aside, I think this is all about what you need to figure out for you. And it's the same for all of us, really. You'll see I didn't once mention the terms, but I'm going to let you talk about positive and negative in the way you like, since you want to keep coming back to them. I'm not discussing the terms but you're free to discuss them as long as you like...provided you feel that this is helpful for you and not a distraction from better things. I don't resonate with your arguments nor with a morally weighted either/or use of terms to describe the context of our reality, but of course you're free to frame things the way you like and if that is helpful or meaningful for you, then I think that's great.

I can see you are having an issue with particular words which you discuss...as you can see, they are not words I use much, as I've said over and over, just as the polarized presentation of either/or concepts in general doesn't resonate with me. You are welcome to say what you like, though I don't think there's much I can say since IMO it's just easier to find concepts and words that are more meaningful to me, rather than to continually discuss why I don't like the either/or use of certain terms. So...then don't use those terms in a polarizing, either/or fashion. That's what I would say to you

Language is a key way in which we communicate...particularly remotely. I'm fine with allowing for universal meaning and concepts, which we explore and grapple with individually and collectively. I'm also fine with you rejecting all that. But it will limit what sorts of discussions you can have with folks, and you'll likely need to educate folks on what words do retain meaning to you, whilst understanding that they are not required to learn your lingo unless they feel moved to do so ;)

Also - regarding containment, I mentioned this by way of agreement with your observation that many are pursuing what I refer to as misalignment. Those who are egregiously violent or abusive (violent or predatory recidivists, violent or predatory psychopaths, etc) toward others will often require containment in a responsible society, so that (ideally) they are free to live their lives whilst allowing others to exist and to live theirs as well. I really didn't think this needed a mention as it is a visible aspect of our current reality, but I did so for clarity.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

The call to truth -- to know and align with our centre -- is so strong that at some beautiful, amazing tipping point, it requires an eternally exhausting effort to deny it and to continually turn from it. Even for those who've spent an eternity denying the sheer brilliance and omnipresence of spirit and centre...eventually the love and light permeate them and transform them too. Like I said, just loads of time, is all. And a wide berth.

There's so much beauty and purity in that realisation, that I don't even know how to begin to capture it.

Ah joy

Peace & blessings
7L

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Perhaps for you, if that's where your Soul and mind come together in harmony. I've found peace and the Universe continues to be a reflection of me, and it's been a long time coming. I'm at peace with myself and my surroundings, including the 'loud and vexatious people', because they have their stories too and like everyone else they want to be heard. Loads of time if that's what it takes but a wide berth? I'm infectious, the mechanisms are already in place so often all it takes is to use them consciously. Love, light and transformations take place in many ways.

Yes. Absolutely. This is authentic love in action. We each get to choose. Again, for those who are hostile, predatory, and/or violent but who are not contained by society, the wide berth is another form of authentic self-love and amounts to a non-invasive containment of the hostile or violent other. We are each entitled to exercise this option and determine for ourselves what we will and will not tolerate.

You (or I, etc) are no more pervasive or present (I don't resonate with infectious) than any other being in this realm or any others. Authentic love in my understanding means that we each absolutely have the right (to the greatest degree our context allows) to determine what is and is not acceptable, decent, and resonant with us. We matter equally to all others, not less than. Coercion aside, we do not have to "sign on" to any of it that we find to be against our values and our humanity -- and we absolutely have the right to say no, to walk away, and to practice a non-invasive containment. That's the deal. We are also free to choose (to the greatest degree possible) those things that resonate more fully and which affirm and heighten our being and our journey.

When those pursuing misalignment, particularly via hostile and violent methods, decide to pursue alignment, equanimity, and authentic love, then once again many of us collectively and individually may revisit the "wide berth", based on what they bring to that moment, particularly the degree of awareness, ownership, and equanimity/authentic love of the other equally to the self.

Peace & blessings
7L

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Greenslade, hello there!
Well, everyone knows language is limited. But that aside, I think this is all about what you need to figure out for you. And it's the same for all of us, really. You'll see I didn't once mention the terms, but I'm going to let you talk about positive and negative in the way you like, since you want to keep coming back to them. I'm not discussing the terms but you're free to discuss them as long as you like...provided you feel that this is helpful for you and not a distraction from better things. I don't resonate with your arguments nor with a morally weighted either/or use of terms to describe the context of our reality, but of course you're free to frame things the way you like and if that is helpful or meaningful for you, then I think that's great.

I can see you are having an issue with particular words which you discuss...as you can see, they are not words I use much, as I've said over and over, just as the polarized presentation of either/or concepts in general doesn't resonate with me. You are welcome to say what you like, though I don't think there's much I can say since IMO it's just easier to find concepts and words that are more meaningful to me, rather than to continually discuss why I don't like the either/or use of certain terms. So...then don't use those terms in a polarizing, either/or fashion. That's what I would say to you

Language is a key way in which we communicate...particularly remotely. I'm fine with allowing for universal meaning and concepts, which we explore and grapple with individually and collectively. I'm also fine with you rejecting all that. But it will limit what sorts of discussions you can have with folks, and you'll likely need to educate folks on what words do retain meaning to you, whilst understanding that they are not required to learn your lingo unless they feel moved to do so ;)

Also - regarding containment, I mentioned this by way of agreement with your observation that many are pursuing what I refer to as misalignment. Those who are egregiously violent or abusive (violent or predatory recidivists, violent or predatory psychopaths, etc) toward others will often require containment in a responsible society, so that (ideally) they are free to live their lives whilst allowing others to exist and to live theirs as well. I really didn't think this needed a mention as it is a visible aspect of our current reality, but I did so for clarity.

[quote=7luminaries]I was watching The Hobbit yesterday, Mrs G decided she wanted to see it again. The good thing for me is that it's easy to forget, in that way I can see it again for the first time. Somewhere in the back of my head are memories that I had already watched it at the same time - having watched it yet never having watched it. Einstein said "Genius is being able to hold two opposing concepts in your mind at the same time," but sometimes they're dichotomies and not concepts and are within a fractal Universe. That is useful to me.

In the movie Bilbo and the company of Dwarves had lost their way in the Mirkwood, Hobbits and Dwarves are so short and the trees so tall so it's easy to become lost when the canopy is so high and the trees so dense. Then Bilbo simply climbed the tree, and he could see the sun and therefore the direction they should take.

To me, Spirituality is often like walking through the Mirkwood and losing direction. It's not a judgement and I can understand that sometimes it's OK to lose direction so you appreciate coming back on track more, and it's just as OK to go off-track if you have a mind to. It's also OK not to have a direction, as Gandalf said "Not all those who wander are lost."

Positive and negative are simply extremes of the same thing. Alignment and misalignment, good and bad, Spiritual and non-Spiritual/mundane...... The Universe simply allows and I take my cue from the Universe, because regardless of how we label, perceive or anything else that's the way it is.

What constitutes a responsible society? And are you talking about separation and not containment? And more to the point within a Spiritual forum what would the Spiritual thing to do be? Surely it would be to show them Unconditional Love - even the egregiously violent ones because they are in pain, and what does it say about us when we abandon them or contain them in their need? How do we then 'measure' our Spirituality? It's a long way from Christ consciousness.

While we define ourselves as Spiritual by that definition we define others as non-Spiritual, so already the rot has set in and we're in conflict with Spirituality. Spirituality says and Spirituality does, this and that, us and them, duality and separation - that aren't supposed to exist when "We Are One." No we ain't it seems. For this reason I don't use the words 'enlightened' or 'aware' or 'aware' or 'Spiritual' or 'positive' or..... so many others.

Your reality is defined by your perceptions, your perceptions are defined by your beliefs and your beliefs are defined by your definitions. If that experience is defined as 'positive' or 'negative' we deal with it on that basis and it becomes polarised, and what isn't widely understood is that using words like 'positive' or 'negative' and 'Spiritual' or 'mundane' has psychological repercussions. It's called cognitive dissonance, it's similar to dropping two pebbles into the water and dissonance waves occur where the two wave-sets meet. That's what happens in our heads and why Spiritual people don't get on so well with non-Spiritual people.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Yes. Absolutely. This is authentic love in action. We each get to choose. Again, for those who are hostile, predatory, and/or violent but who are not contained by society, the wide berth is another form of authentic self-love and amounts to a non-invasive containment of the hostile or violent other. We are each entitled to exercise this option and determine for ourselves what we will and will not tolerate.

And a 'measure', a window into our consciousness if we care to look through it. If it is not tolerated, what does that say about us?

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

You (or I, etc) are no more pervasive or present (I don't resonate with infectious) than any other being in this realm or any others. Authentic love in my understanding means that we each absolutely have the right (to the greatest degree our context allows) to determine what is and is not acceptable, decent, and resonant with us. We matter equally to all others, not less than. Coercion aside, we do not have to "sign on" to any of it that we find to be against our values and our humanity -- and we absolutely have the right to say no, to walk away, and to practice a non-invasive containment. That's the deal. We are also free to choose (to the greatest degree possible) those things that resonate more fully and which affirm and heighten our being and our journey.

That I disagree with. I quite like 'infectious', I stole it from a Bashar YouTube and I enjoy his sense of humour. Some people not only have different energies but they also have different intensities. There are some that are more pervasive or present than others, at least in my perception anyway.

Other than that, if the focus is on what we tolerate or not then how does that reflect on us? What is it that we're not tolerating? And that isn't as obvious as it might seem at first glance. It's never about what's given, it's always about what is received.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

When those pursuing misalignment, particularly via hostile and violent methods, decide to pursue alignment, equanimity, and authentic love, then once again many of us collectively and individually may revisit the "wide berth", based on what they bring to that moment, particularly the degree of awareness, ownership, and equanimity/authentic love of the other equally to the self.

Peace & blessings
7L

Again we part company here. I understand your definition of alignment but respectfully I disagree with it. When I was young my mother taught me that people who were nasty to anyone else 'had something missing', and I've found that to be true throughout Life. Later on I learned that people lash out at others because they're in pain of some description and the only way they can express it is through anger, aggression or similar. Often these things are a cry for help more than anything else. I was watching a Matt Khan YouTube yesterday that had a similar message. Often the people you would call 'misaligned' aren't, they're trying to find a balance, a redress for what they're missing and are crying out for help. What does that say about us when you use words like 'tolerance' and 'containment'? For me, the problems don't arise in the definitions of the word, the problems arise in that while we want a world full of sunshine and roses in which we can tell ourselves we're enlightened, awake and aware Spiritual beings - are we really?

I don't want the answers, I want to explore the questions. I don't want to stop at the definitions I want to know what's behind the definitions - I want to, in my reality, define myself as someone who goes beyond the definitions.

I was reading an interesting article on FaceBook of all places about 'practical' and 'impractical' beliefs; basically 'practical' beliefs stood up to the challenge and 'impractical' beliefs fell apart when challenged. The 'positive', 'Spiritual' thing to do would be to set barriers against that which we have decided we will not tolerate, that which we have defined as 'misaligned'. But in that we have forgone showing Unconditional Love for the sake of ourselves, we have not only not recognised another Soul in pain but allowed that pain to continue if not increased it by our actions. So while our 'primary mission' is to fill the Universe with Love and Light we've actually failed and made the great divide even more divisive.

Just for a bit of tongue-in-cheek, does all that mean 'positive' or 'negative' karmic brownie points? I don't have an issue with the words, I have an issue with how they are used and why. The words I use are a reflection of my paradigm and if I challenge my definition I challenge my own reality, and right now it's just something I feel the need to do.

[7luminaries]

Greenslade, hello there!
Let's see what we have here

Well...it's true I have said many, many, many (LOL), many times...that I don't resonate with using polarised either/or terms which - in your discussions - are also morally laden with judgment. Also I've said that past the most elementary stages of our journey, I don't feel it's helpful or relevant to the individual on his or her journey to centre. Meaning once we grasp that the journey of life exists on a spectrum, it's more about knowing who and where we are on our own journey, relative to our own centre.

So from what you've said, I also get that you [as I understand] don't care for polarised terms either, which you've given examples of, as you did above, also many, many, many (LOL) many times...hahaha!

So, I think we are in agreement there. And thus, it's why I don't and haven't had much to say in response. I do want to let you say your piece of course.

But if you want a dialogue on this, then we would need to also include my and other points on this. Such as, as I stated right above, that none of this is relevant to the individual, once he or she has grasped this point -- which is that morally-laden polarisations do not fully or accurately or meaningfully represent our reality, neither collectively nor individually. (At best they are guideposts which we reference when we are discussing the spectrum of reality, helpful only to a point, and should be seen as such and no more.)

Originally Posted by 7luminaries
Yes. Absolutely. This is authentic love in action. We each get to choose. Again, for those who are hostile, predatory, and/or violent but who are not contained by society, the wide berth is another form of authentic self-love and amounts to a non-invasive containment of the hostile or violent other. We are each entitled to exercise this option and determine for ourselves what we will and will not tolerate.

What constitutes a responsible society? And are you talking about separation and not containment? And more to the point within a Spiritual forum what would the Spiritual thing to do be? Surely it would be to show them Unconditional Love - even the egregiously violent ones because they are in pain, and what does it say about us when we abandon them or contain them in their need? How do we then 'measure' our Spirituality? It's a long way from Christ consciousness.

Authentic love is love that actively desires and actively seeks the highest good of all. The mutual highest good of all. That does not mean we allow the violent predator to murder freely, even if he is bent and cannot be reoriented to a different lifeway this go-round. It means that through some passive or active containment, including separation, we ideally find a situation where violent predator is able to live his life whilst others are able to live theirs (alive, LOL). This is absolutely the authentically loving thing.

We do not withhold love, as that does not require physical presence. We do remove or separate our physical presence, however, so that we do no harm to ourselves whilst also allowing the murderer to have his space. Not to say that all should not have the support and resources they need, as of course they should. But likewise this cannot come at the expense of another's life, so workable situations must accommodate this.

That is authentic love...it is unconditional love for the suffering and/or the needs of the murderer. It is also equally unconditional love for all those who will now not be murdered and who equally deserve life and love.

Peace & blessings
7L

I believe that my soul comes from God and its biological vessel comes from my parents

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Greenslade, hello there!
Let's see what we have here

Well...it's true I have said many, many, many (LOL), many times...that I don't resonate with using polarised either/or terms which - in your discussions - are also morally laden with judgment. Also I've said that past the most elementary stages of our journey, I don't feel it's helpful or relevant to the individual on his or her journey to centre. Meaning once we grasp that the journey of life exists on a spectrum, it's more about knowing who and where we are on our own journey, relative to our own centre.

So from what you've said, I also get that you [as I understand] don't care for polarised terms either, which you've given examples of, as you did above, also many, many, many (LOL) many times...hahaha!

So, I think we are in agreement there. And thus, it's why I don't and haven't had much to say in response. I do want to let you say your piece of course.

But if you want a dialogue on this, then we would need to also include my and other points on this. Such as, as I stated right above, that none of this is relevant to the individual, once he or she has grasped this point -- which is that morally-laden polarisations do not fully or accurately or meaningfully represent our reality, neither collectively nor individually. (At best they are guideposts which we reference when we are discussing the spectrum of reality, helpful only to a point, and should be seen as such and no more.)

I was looking for definitions not polarisations, something that made sense of it all but yet it remains illusive still. My own thoughts lead me towards digging even deeper until I find the place where I bounce back because there is nowhere left to go.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Authentic love is love that actively desires and actively seeks the highest good of all. The mutual highest good of all.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

That does not mean we allow the violent predator to murder freely, even if he is bent and cannot be reoriented to a different lifeway this go-round. It means that through some passive or active containment, including separation, we ideally find a situation where violent predator is able to live his life whilst others are able to live theirs (alive, LOL). This is absolutely the authentically loving thing.

We do not withhold love, as that does not require physical presence. We do remove or separate our physical presence, however, so that we do no harm to ourselves whilst also allowing the murderer to have his space. Not to say that all should not have the support and resources they need, as of course they should. But likewise this cannot come at the expense of another's life, so workable situations must accommodate this.

That is authentic love...it is unconditional love for the suffering and/or the needs of the murderer. It is also equally unconditional love for all those who will now not be murdered and who equally deserve life and love.

Peace & blessings
7L

Sorry but I still haven't found what I'm looking for, because what you're saying here is moral judgement - who defines the mutual highest good of all? I understand it all from an entirely human perspective but certainly not from a Spiritual one, because 'highest good' can be anything you want it to be, including a critical mass of what's acceptable or not but really all that does is creates a circular argument. No offense but I feel as though this is stuck in human morality and not Spirituality.

[7luminaries]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I was looking for definitions not polarisations, something that made sense of it all but yet it remains illusive still. My own thoughts lead me towards digging even deeper until I find the place where I bounce back because there is nowhere left to go.

Hello there Greenslade
Yes I think we all seek understanding and illumination, if not concrete definitions per se. It's just that since we are limited to language of some kind, we are at that level stuck with searching for the elusive perfect word to match to that illuminated wisdom...it's a challenge.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Sorry but I still haven't found what I'm looking for, because what you're saying here is moral judgement - who defines the mutual highest good of all? I understand it all from an entirely human perspective but certainly not from a Spiritual one, because 'highest good' can be anything you want it to be, including a critical mass of what's acceptable or not but really all that does is creates a circular argument. No offense but I feel as though this is stuck in human morality and not Spirituality.

No, I'm not saying that the highest good of all is a pejorative (bad) moral judgment per se. You are saying that it is Again, we have to refer back to our first point. We are trying to grasp a concept that we haven't yet the wisdom to fully articulate, and words are limited as it is, even if we had the fullness of the apprehension of what the highest good of all is. Put another way, if we understood the totality of authentic love, then we would directly know what the highest good of all means, full stop. Including in this current existence in which we now find ourselves.

Although we cannot yet fully articulate what we do not yet fully grasp, the highest good of all, equally for all, would be just that...and our limited grasp of what that is would have only as much to do with its reality or What Is as our limited understanding allows. We in our limited intellectual and spiritual capacities are the limitation here, not the fullness of What Is, and not the fullness of authentic love which is What Is.

So right now....most of what we can say about authentic love at our level of current intellectual and spiritual development is at the most basic universal level of our common humanity. And that's where we start. See my signature...Rilke's statement is an expression of authentic love for each person, and it is expressed at a level we can grasp, that of each person considered separately.

Now comes the hard part...this applies to all persons equally. And also in each moment. Therefore, the most fundamental rights, the right to be and the right to freedom of expression and freedom from coercion or enslavement, cannot be abrogated or else we know, full stop, it is not in the highest good of all, equally.

This means for one person or group simply to allow others to indulge in their choice in this moment (or lifetime) to murder or torture or abuse cannot be held to be "higher than" the most basic universal rights to life and liberty. These actions, when held to our most basic and universal standards of right to life and liberty, are not in the highest good of all equally at any given point. Thus we both individually and as a collective have tended to actively contain these actions which would abrogate the highest good of all equally in each moment.

This universal (ultimately, one day) stance on the "rights of man" (humanity) is a manifest indication of our spiritual struggle, both individually and collectively. It is very much a spiritual issue in the most fundamental and practical sense of living what we know is sustainable and equitable, or striving to do so. And it is not an issue of what you have posed as a pejorative form of "moral judgment" at all. Unless in fact you are saying that the right to be and the right to basic liberties are moral decisions that we take when we form human societies with one another -- but ones which you say are pejorative (?) And in that universal case then I would certainly agree that they are decisions taken since the dawn of time, but also that it has been good in the sense of both efficient and necessary to rise to this decision-taking in order to even survive as a species -- even whilst throughout history we have had to routinely expand the liberties granted and restrict the abuse and taking of life, in order to continue to come to the next level of sustainability and equity with one another.

That dialogue and struggle to expand the right to be and to expand basic liberties from only those in power to all humanity has also been good and necessary. As we come to better understand that all humanity are entitled to the right to be, and to basic liberties, we better come to understand who we are at centre. Just as we come to better understand the need to align with that, to live in integrity with our centres. This struggle is the de facto progress we have made to date toward authentic love for all, toward the highest good of all equally -- even just at this most basic level. And even if still a work in progress.

This is very much both us and our spirituality in action, meaning humanity's progress to live in harmony with ourselves...with our centres and with one another, in recognition of the divinity and connection of each in collective with all. To separate the intangible from the tangible, and to speak of them as wholly different, is simply another aspect of our limitation. We exist in all "places" at once. Our current limitation or inability to perceive this or discuss this with clarity does not change the fullness of reality.

So in truth, the separation of what we may individually conceive as spirituality or morality or anything else is simply a reflection of our limited state and the way in which we often must compartmentalize and separate in order to grasp and to try to perceive. It is our various individual simple ways of handling of our world, not the fullness of it. We need to keep that in mind as I see it, so as not to further limit ourselves and our growth.

We're not there yet. But this is a simple example, given to speak to where we are on our journey and thus the ways in which we can more easily understand what authentic love/highest good of all equally means at the level at which we current exist.

Peace & blessings
7L