You Are Already Where You Desire To Be By Tercy Logan

[hutchis01]

You Are Already Where You Desire To Be By Tercy Logan


We know that there is often a focus on getting somewhere. You want to move from where you are to where you would like to be. We would invite you to shift from this focus of getting somewhere to allowing and remembering that you are already there; there is here.

For now just let go of the idea of needing to get somewhere or achieve something and resurrect within your own awareness the infinite possibilities of already being there.

Imagine that you are already fully realized, you are already in a state of ecstatic bliss, you are already experiencing joy, and you are already awakened.

By bringing in this vibration of already being there, of arriving and of remembering, it allows these things to be in the same location as you. It brings them into the present moment and enhances joy. Through the enhancement of joy there is an enhancement of vitality, of vibration, and of vibrancy that rolls over into a sense of happiness, peace, and fulfillment.

Opening up to the joy that you already are allow you to be in the same location as those things that you have been seeking or trying to find. Have a sense that you are already there. In this transmission you are becoming current with who you are. It is the concept of being in ease and grace that allows that which you have become to be in the same location as you.

Wish you a wonderful day to you with lots of love & light. Tercy

Originally Posted by hutchis01

We know that there is often a focus on getting somewhere. You want to move from where you are to where you would like to be. We would invite you to shift from this focus of getting somewhere to allowing and remembering that you are already there; there is here.

Can't agree. The "path" is about getting to what I should have been all along by the end of my days here. I'm not entirely sure what that state is yet but that's to me what spiritual development is about. What, where and how I am now isn't where I was 30 years ago. I have certain ambitions in the mundane (which circumstances are forcing me to change) and I have similar ambitions spiritually. The two obviously connect. But it is clear as time passes that I'm not static - I doubt anyone actually is - and I'll develop, refine, hopefully become wiser, more sharply aware. Much illusion and delusion has been shed but I won't fool myself it's all been cleared.

By bringing in this vibration of already being there, of arriving and of remembering, it allows these things to be in the same location as you. It brings them into the present moment and enhances joy. Through the enhancement of joy there is an enhancement of vitality, of vibration, and of vibrancy that rolls over into a sense of happiness, peace, and fulfillment.

....which doesn't seem to agree with the statements I quoted above. You're anticipating beyond where and what you are now, here, no?

But these are just my personal views.

Wish you a wonderful day to you with lots of love & light. Tercy

Likewise to you.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Can't agree. The "path" is about getting to what I should have been all along by the end of my days here. I'm not entirely sure what that state is yet but that's to me what spiritual development is about. What, where and how I am now isn't where I was 30 years ago. I have certain ambitions in the mundane (which circumstances are forcing me to change) and I have similar ambitions spiritually. The two obviously connect. But it is clear as time passes that I'm not static - I doubt anyone actually is - and I'll develop, refine, hopefully become wiser, more sharply aware. Much illusion and delusion has been shed but I won't fool myself it's all been cleared.

But what you actually are is eternal and changeless, and it isn't a state, it isn't a concept, it isn't something that's external to you. The illusions and delusions sure can change over time, but all the while your true nature is there, completely unaffected; the spiritual path, for me, is about seeing through the transient and illusory and recognising what is and always has been eternally present. It brings to mind an Adyashanti quote about how enlightenment is not a process of acquisition, it's actually a destructive process.

Ah....! I shall celebrate my 6000th post here with you if you're of a mind!
I hadn't intended to get this far - a bit past my sell-by, coming from older traditions. Never mind.
Cheers!

Originally Posted by A human Being

But what you actually are is eternal and changeless, and it isn't a state, it isn't a concept, it isn't something that's external to you. The illusions and delusions sure can change over time, but all the while your true nature is there, completely unaffected; the spiritual path, for me, is about seeing through the transient and illusory and recognising what is and always has been eternally present. It brings to mind an Adyashanti quote about how enlightenment is not a process of acquisition, it's actually a destructive process.

It's probably a matter of interpretation. It tends to highlight the kind of ambiguity we run into in spiritual matters.

So...are you suggesting that the "me" here typing this reply IS the eternal "me" or "you" as you came upon my reply is the eternal "you"? ...Because I hope this "me" isn't the eternal me! Unless I've reached the end now, I sense...I have things left to do. In eternity I'd be flawed.

It's possible there's an ideal "me" (or "you") but what that might be we respectively have yet to find out. From my personal viewpoint I wouldn't care to speculate. I hope to climb back up the Tree of Life to the eternal union but I'll cease to be this "me" some way before then.

This seems philosophically deeper than the O/P intended with "You want to move from where you are to where you would like to be. We would invite you to shift from this focus of getting somewhere to allowing and remembering that you are already there; there is here." which honestly doesn't make sense. If your ambitions (spiritually or materially) are to "get somewhere" - if I can take a trivial example: you want to understand the Tarot which of today you don't - then you aren't there yet. There is not here. So really that passage is an invitation to be spiritually/motivationally lazy if it makes you feel better. It seems diametrically opposed to affirmation.

However, if feels worth the discussion.

The more i learned outside myself the more i realized i started in this world as exactly what i was striving for.

I felt that by striving towards this ultimate achievement i would become blessed with knowing and finally understand.

what i eventually came to is that it isn't the end result that is the prize, its the journey that is the prize, its the experience. The meaning of life truly is to just enjoy what is at all times. the meaning of life is life.

Its no longer about what i am learning that furthers me spiritually its about unlearning all i have learned that go me so far away from truth that i didn't recognize i already was there the whole time.

the more i discover self the more i realize i already am perfect and i have every answer i could possibly ask for. I only convinced myself that this wasn't true since childhood and now must release/surrender/destruct all of those ideas that convinced me otherwise.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Ah....! I shall celebrate my 6000th post here with you if you're of a mind!
I hadn't intended to get this far - a bit past my sell-by, coming from older traditions. Never mind.
Cheers!

Why of course, that's quite a milestone! Wow you racked up those last thousand posts quickly, seems like it was only yesterday you hit the 5,000-post milestone

So...are you suggesting that the "me" here typing this reply IS the eternal "me" or "you" as you came upon my reply is the eternal "you"? ...Because I hope this "me" isn't the eternal me! Unless I've reached the end now, I sense...I have things left to do. In eternity I'd be flawed.

(Let me just preface this by saying that I'm not trying to sound like a smart-alec know-it-all, though that might be how it comes across! Let me assure you, I know nuffink!)

This is probably going to sound really New Age-y, but as I understand it what's actually happening is that The One/Source/God/whatever you want to call it is having a conversation with itself (and they say that's the first sign of madness, don't they?). I find it hard to talk about in terms that don't sound hackneyed, which is unfortunate because it can sound like white noise after a while, in one ear and out the other.

Might help if I turn the question around on you (not to prove a point, 'onnist, just my head's starting to hurt) - if this that's reading these words right now isn't the eternal 'you', just what is it, exactly? The difficulty is that as soon as you apply a label to it, that isn't it, because it's beyond definitions, and so to know and understand it is to consciously be it (bearing in mind that when we talk about 'being', or when we consider what we are, we're talking in the present tense, hence the emphasis on the present moment).

It's possible there's an ideal "me" (or "you") but what that might be we respectively have yet to find out. From my personal viewpoint I wouldn't care to speculate. I hope to climb back up the Tree of Life to the eternal union but I'll cease to be this "me" some way before then.

Hmm... well, 'ideal' is subjective, isn't it? Who determines what's ideal and what isn't?

You talk about different 'me's', but isn't there something about you that's the same now as it was when you were a wee bairn? Or do you consider that there's a fundamental disconnection between the person you are now and the person you were then?

This seems philosophically deeper than the O/P intended with "You want to move from where you are to where you would like to be. We would invite you to shift from this focus of getting somewhere to allowing and remembering that you are already there; there is here." which honestly doesn't make sense. If your ambitions (spiritually or materially) are to "get somewhere" - if I can take a trivial example: you want to understand the Tarot which of today you don't - then you aren't there yet. There is not here. So really that passage is an invitation to be spiritually/motivationally lazy if it makes you feel better. It seems diametrically opposed to affirmation.

However, if feels worth the discussion.

Yeah I see what you mean, it does sound contradictory. I'm not sure, I think what the author's alluding to is the feeling of discontent we very often feel and that very often compels our actions, that keeps us constantly striving and struggling. It's not to say that we shouldn't have ambitions to acquire new skills/career/relationship, etc., but preferably not to do so from an underlying sense of lack and inadequacy.

I may have it wrong. But it's an interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by A human Being

Why of course, that's quite a milestone! Wow you racked up those last thousand posts quickly, seems like it was only yesterday you hit the 5,000-post milestone

Must have been sunspot activity though I do seem to have slipped up trying to bring a little light and air into a few murky posts. Murked 'em even more, no doubt and I really should bow out - more of a "fish out of water" thing with the New Age commandeering the spiritual arena.
You're catching up BTW. You'll soon overtake me.

(Let me just preface this by saying that I'm not trying to sound like a smart-alec know-it-all, though that might be how it comes across! Let me assure you, I know nuffink!)

According to Socrates, an admission of knowing nuffink makes you the wisest possible person, innit?!

This is probably going to sound really New Age-y, but as I understand it what's actually happening is that The One/Source/God/whatever you want to call it is having a conversation with itself (and they say that's the first sign of madness, don't they?). I find it hard to talk about in terms that don't sound hackneyed, which is unfortunate because it can sound like white noise after a while, in one ear and out the other.

Might help if I turn the question around on you (not to prove a point, 'onnist, just my head's starting to hurt) - if this that's reading these words right now isn't the eternal 'you', just what is it, exactly? The difficulty is that as soon as you apply a label to it, that isn't it, because it's beyond definitions, and so to know and understand it is to consciously be it (bearing in mind that when we talk about 'being', or when we consider what we are, we're talking in the present tense, hence the emphasis on the present moment).

I hear what you're saying hence some latitude for interpretation and the author being entitled to his view. It's difficult because my route on self-exploration was just different. It wasn't as simple as "here's the Source --> (and then various things happened, black-box style) --> me, because I was expected to find out what was in that black-box - the various checks and balances, the emanations, the resolution of illusion, that led to "down here" in this (as they name it) 4D world. I feel the new age analysis a little simplistic - like it doesn't take many other queries into account.

Hmm... well, 'ideal' is subjective, isn't it? Who determines what's ideal and what isn't?

Yeah, I borrowed from metaphysics (and of itself it's questionable) about the division of "things" into ideal essence, real essence, ideal substance, real substance". - things those Greek philosophers pondered on before they got into those huge debts. Probably Harry Stotle. Anyway, the ideal (what it should universally be) against the actual. LOL...if they'd worked for a living instead of sitting around inventing this stuff they may not be in the debts the Greeks are today!

You talk about different 'me's', but isn't there something about you that's the same now as it was when you were a wee bairn? Or do you consider that there's a fundamental disconnection between the person you are now and the person you were then?

.
The genetics, maybe. The seed contains all the instructions about what's to be done but the eventual shape is down to environment. Like if you planted 2 acorns from the same tree you'd get (probably) 2 genetically identical oaks but they'd end up different shapes. I sort of see growth more like that - what started like a seedling grew branches except that our branches are experiences, events and on, the richness of which is what we are but far more complex than the seedling. So there's no disconnection. Planted in a different environment one'd end up a different shape. Kind of..... So maybe there was an ideal in the original seedling but what's emerged is individual and actual.

I may have it wrong. But it's an interesting discussion.

There's no wrong in coming up with a different view. Those ancients probably whiled away their days trying to ponder things like this!
Hope you have a pleasant day. At least the sun's shining away at the mo!

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Must have been sunspot activity though I do seem to have slipped up trying to bring a little light and air into a few murky posts. Murked 'em even more, no doubt and I really should bow out - more of a "fish out of water" thing with the New Age commandeering the spiritual arena.
You're catching up BTW. You'll soon overtake me.

Yes, I've noticed you attempting to bring logic into certain discussions - will you ever learn?!

(Oh and not bloody likely, I might binge-post for a day or two but I soon run out of things to say )

According to Socrates, an admission of knowing nuffink makes you the wisest possible person, innit?!

So they say, yeah, I guess you're open to all possibilities if you have that mindset :)

I hear what you're saying hence some latitude for interpretation and the author being entitled to his view. It's difficult because my route on self-exploration was just different. It wasn't as simple as "here's the Source --> (and then various things happened, black-box style) --> me, because I was expected to find out what was in that black-box - the various checks and balances, the emanations, the resolution of illusion, that led to "down here" in this (as they name it) 4D world. I feel the new age analysis a little simplistic - like it doesn't take many other queries into account.

I remember hearing certain spiritual teachers saying that our true nature is without qualities, and it used make me think, 'Eh? ' But now I think I actually get what they're saying, because whilst we have a tendency to define ourselves (often unconsciously) by what we do and say, by our perceived strengths and weaknesses, by anything with which we invest a sense of self - what we really are is the source of all those things but it isn't, in reality, defined by them.

That might not seem terribly relevant to what you said... when you talk about self-exploration, do you mean in relation to the world? Like, in terms of knowing your place in the world, understanding your role in it?

Yeah, I borrowed from metaphysics (and of itself it's questionable) about the division of "things" into ideal essence, real essence, ideal substance, real substance". - things those Greek philosophers pondered on before they got into those huge debts. Probably Harry Stotle. Anyway, the ideal (what it should universally be) against the actual. LOL...if they'd worked for a living instead of sitting around inventing this stuff they may not be in the debts the Greeks are today!.

Ouch!

Mm, sounds intriguing, though I must admit that I'm not familiar with the subject of metaphysics (I've heard the word but I'll be darned if I know what it actually entails, I always thought it was a bit 'woo-woo' - that'll be the ignorance talking though). I'll have to read up on it, sounds interesting.

The genetics, maybe. The seed contains all the instructions about what's to be done but the eventual shape is down to environment. Like if you planted 2 acorns from the same tree you'd get (probably) 2 genetically identical oaks but they'd end up different shapes. I sort of see growth more like that - what started like a seedling grew branches except that our branches are experiences, events and on, the richness of which is what we are but far more complex than the seedling. So there's no disconnection. Planted in a different environment one'd end up a different shape. Kind of..... So maybe there was an ideal in the original seedling but what's emerged is individual and actual.

This is related to form and how it manifests, evolves, etc. (according, as you say, to its environment). I'm thinking more in terms of the formless source of all form, which obviously is altogether more difficult to pin down because, well, it has no form! When I talk about what it is in you that's the same as it was when you were a wee 'un, that's really what I'm talking about.

Maybe that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to you, though, and as I say I find it hard to talk about because it isn't something you can figure out mentally. It's more like you have to feel the truth of it.

There's no wrong in coming up with a different view. Those ancients probably whiled away their days trying to ponder things like this!
Hope you have a pleasant day. At least the sun's shining away at the mo!

Here's hoping you have a pleasant day too, and that the sun's still shining in your neck of the woods (we had a sun sighting in Manchester yesterday - everyone ran for cover, we thought the Apocalypse was coming ).

Originally Posted by A human Being

Mm, sounds intriguing, though I must admit that I'm not familiar with the subject of metaphysics (I've heard the word but I'll be darned if I know what it actually entails, I always thought it was a bit 'woo-woo' - that'll be the ignorance talking though). I'll have to read up on it, sounds interesting.

Crikey! You've caught me out there. (The true bluffer now responds with "Well, everyone knows what Metaphysical means, surely!" So the enquirers keep quiet not wanting to display their ignorance.)

My reckoning which could be wrong because there are variations, is basically "beyond the physical", like most of what's discussed on this hallowed forum. As a part of philosophy it deals with the nature of being, knowing and existence and other things. The bit I purloined up there is about abstracting general hypotheses about what are things really like?. So there's an ideal and a "real." Like the ideal essence of an apple is what ideal qualities give an apple its appleness.

This is related to form and how it manifests, evolves, etc. (according, as you say, to its environment). I'm thinking more in terms of the formless source of all form, which obviously is altogether more difficult to pin down because, well, it has no form! When I talk about what it is in you that's the same as it was when you were a wee 'un, that's really what I'm talking about.

Maybe that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to you, though, and as I say I find it hard to talk about because it isn't something you can figure out mentally. It's more like you have to feel the truth of it.

Now that's the sort of metaphysics that terrifies me. :cringe:
I think I perceive in the abstract what you mean - but you know what I'm like with thinking - got any aspirins? At the experiential level it makes a kind of sense, just impossible to visualise - in a way not unlike the conditions existing before the Creation - limitless light arising from limitless darkness.

Duhhhh, that's done me in for the day! I'd better get the Macallan's out...I could well be formless in a couple of hours and find out!

[jro5139]

I tend to agree with Lorelyen here.

I'm all for finding happiness and fun in the current moment, however, if 5, 10 years from now I am still in the same place I will be disappointed. And I'm talking mostly in the physical/ circumstance sense. But the same could be said for spiritually. I hope to continue to grow and expand; I think this is the purpose of living this life.

AHB, I look at the difference between the me that started out, and the me now, as less of a disconnection, and more of an expansion. The difference is, I have grown and better understand life now (or at least I like to tell myself that).

Having a sense that you are already there (as stated in the original post), sounds a lot to me like the whole "fake it til you make it" philosophy. Which I think works and has some merit, however, I agree with Lorelyen, seems to contradict the rest of the post that you are already there.
I think it is perfectly ok to use this philosophy while you need to, to get to where you want to be... but if you stay in a state of contending that you are all that you can be... I think after a while, this just becomes stagnant and delusional. If I constantly said, I am everywhere and everything that I want to be, I think this is deluding myself, or accepting stagnation. But then, I think there is much delusion in a lot of New Age thinking, like saying that everything is positive, when clearly it is not.

As far as what the eternal "me" is... there's massive layers to what me is, it all depends on how far you want to go with it, and I may not and probably won't get it all down in this lifetime, however, that doesn't stop me from trying. The fact that I know I will not in this lifetime, understand it all, doesn't stop me from trying.