~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Ummm ... how do I explain this?
Based on what you've written, I'm guessing that you have been very brave... but also naturally adaptable, which may not feel brave to you. Rather, you've just done what you had to do... it sounds like.
Yes i was never brave nor am I now. i, just like every other child, never felt brave to just 'wanting' to live and exist. Although there were plenty of times i wished i never came into existence, genetically the body and spiritually the i, would not let 'me' give up. They always "fight" in order to continue to exist, thrive, and survive. There was no giving up or going back, as such, but i did learn through experiences why some do like to end their existence. The beauty of genes and of the inner spirit is their mutual and natural adaptability to survive. They will find a way to 'fit in', and be the fittest, in order that they survive, and get passed on, for as long as can be.
Lacewing wrote: And you've continued to strive forward/onward/inward/outward. :D You've found acceptance of what is, to a large degree... which is a rare thing to find, it seems. Your journey (it sounds like) has given you a unique opportunity and path.
I think it would be hard to not have acceptance of 'what is'. Just saying this now sounds even logically extremely hard, if not impossible, to be able to not accept 'what IS'. How could any person, or any thing, not accept 'what IS'?

Also, I do not think it is a case of me finding acceptance of 'what is' but rather it was a case of 'what is' finding me. My journey i found was not mine, which i somehow made up, nor did i give me a unique opportunity and path. What I found was 'what is' gave me a unique opportunity and path. I was fortunate enough to never have experienced love, before in childhood, and then take it for granted later on like so many people seemingly do. 'What is' created me, and the environment and me, and i found that the trillions x trillions of chances that could have happened that somehow i was the most luckiest, fortunate and rewarded person their could be, so far. I say 'so far' because of 'what is's' natural adaptability and instinct 'It' will provide as many unique opportunities and paths as necessary for every person so that every person also experience True Love.
Lacewing wrote:I hope you are basking in the pure love that hugs this world... now.
I have felt that hug, but do not necessarily feel it, now, from this "world", the way it is now. But I know very, very soon that ALL will be basking in pure Love, and that is when the real and pure warmth will be felt by ALL.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I realized that through the One Mind, within every body, this is God, and this real and True 'I' have been inspiring peoples for millennia, however, people themselves misconstrue and misinterpret what I have been saying from within. When people try to explain, what 'I' have really been saying, they get 'My' tangled up in their own language, and then distort that even further with their own preconceptions, prejudices, beliefs and assumptions. Some people like mohammed, jesus, einstein, buddha, and way to many others to name now have done a better job than others at translating what 'I' have said and continually am saying, but equally none of them have really done that a "good" job of translating it. I say this because look at what messages I have, from laying within the Mind within every one, have sent to every person, but which has unfortunately been re-layed confusingly and how this has caused some of the worst confusion and "religious" fighting and wars ever seen and known.

So here's my string of questions... 8) ...Why would this be any surprise to the one/collective mind?
It is of no surprise whatsoever at all. I understand perfectly why this has happened and continues to happen now.

If we have the awareness within us, but we have set it aside to play this "temporary game"(?), isn't that okay for us to do?

Yes perfectly okay. And, if the Truth be known it is a necessary part to play. Humans learn much more and understand much better by experiencing. If human beings did not learn what is right and what is wrong in life by not experiencing wrong and by not doing wrong, then they would not be able to learn how to stop ALL wrong doing AND they also would not learn how to teach how to teach what is right, properly. This "temporary game" of Life also plays out in human beings learning more and better about what is truly important and learn what they truly want more of, at their "death bed", as they say. The more human beings are destroying their one and only home now, i.e., planet and/or mother earth, the closer they are to wiping themselves out and, hopefully not right up to the very last "minute", that will bring them closer to Wanting to change in order to save not just themselves but their future offspring. The beauty of Life, within everything, 'I/It' WANT to keep My Self alive. This is seen and felt in the physical genes and also seen and felt and in spirit. Just look at any one life form. They ALL WANT to live and pro-create for their species. 'i' am no different for the human species, and, 'I' am no different for ALL, of Life, species as One. 'I' do NOT see any one species better nor greater than another. 'I', We, ALL UNIVERSALLY WANT TO SURVIVE.
Lacewing wrote:And if some of us want to access that awareness in order to improve the game, we can.
Yes, we can. But if we have not yet learned how to do something, then how could we know how to do it?

For example people living 200 hundred years ago from "today" could not JUST learn how to drive a car or fly a plane if they have never experienced how to do it. However, if we bring those people from 200 years ago from "today" we could teach them. ALL human beings have 'intelligence', the ability to learn, understand and reason. That ability is within ALL human beings, it is what makes human beings different than any and ALL other animals actually, however, just thinking about the question and realizing that actually how are we supposed to learn how to do something if we have never been taught it does not mean we are unable to learn how to do it. For example if i put, and this is only a guess, most people in this forum into the cockpit of a airplane and/or helicopter and told them to fly it, I am guessing here again that most people would say, "But i don't know how to fly it". Although they say this and they might also believe it to be true, the actual Truth is that they can fly it, they have just not learned how to do it, YET.

So, if some have not yet learned how to access the awareness in order to play the game, then, I for one, would not expect them to know how to access that awareness, yet.

But in saying that accessing that awareness is really very EASY, once you learn and know how to. Learning how to do anything is also very easy but only if you truly Want to. Actually HOW to learn anything, which is truly meaningful, is really rather easy also once you have and know-HOW. HOW is being Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting or Willing to learn, then everything meaningful can be learned near instantly. But, getting back on track and exactly as you said, " if some of us want to access that awareness in order to improve the game, we can". That is, if 'we' seriously WANT to access that awareness, in order to improve the game, then YES 'we' ALL can.
Lacewing wrote:But when our bodies die, we probably go back to pure energy... and this little life-excursion happens in the blink of an eye (on the supposed cosmic timeline)... so are we worrying over something unnecessarily?
YES, YES, and YES. There is nothing at all to worry about. In fact when the Truth is known there are more amazing things that ever could be imagined from within a very short-lived body. And, ALL of those things are more amazing than could ever be imagined. Life Itself is, literally, an amazing journey and finding the way through this labyrinth maze amazements just keep coming bigger and better all the time. Being amazed ALL the time is one thing that keeps Life worth "fighting" for. I wonder how often do you really stop and actually wonder about how ffffing amazing Life, and being HERE in It, truly is. And on top of that how ffff.... amazing human beings themselves are. Just look at what human beings have created, all by themselves, and continue to create. There is NO other animal that even comes close to this ability that ONLY human beings have. Human beings could and will make this game of LIfe much better when they just "put" Thee Mind to it.

And I could, and would, go on forever if I do not stop now. :)
Lacewing wrote: If/when the collective mind wants to shift gears... can't it do so?
Thee Mind can and does do whatever It wants. Just look at the power of humans to create, from the open Mind. Human beings can listen to another human being on the other side of the planet, or even a long way out of the planet, through a relatively tiny box and not just hear what the other are saying but also that noise they are making still makes sense, and also that noise comes through in the exact same accent. Now think about how you can actually see that other human being on a screen and "now" also being able to walk around the streets with that small box "catching" "monsters" in some sort of "augmented reality". This is above and beyond the computer itself, the plane itself, the cars, boats, electricity, etc. etc. etc. and everything else human beings have imagined and created from the open Mind. The only thing the open Mind can not do is force or make anything, including human beings, do anything that they truly do NOT want to do.

'I', the truly open Mind, have been talking, guiding and showing THE way for millennia. 'I' can not and will not force any person to listen nor do anything that they truly do not want to do, find, discover or imagine. 'I' leave that freely up to 'you', people. 'I', collective Mind, am HERE only to help ALL of those who truly Want to help 'them' self.
Lacewing wrote:When an individual thinks they need to "fix something", their ego must surely come running forward saying, "I know what to do! I can fix it!" And then it becomes a different agenda from that moment on... loosing sight and respect for what is.
Maybe that happens for some individuals, and i am sure it happens a lot. i am sure if done that a few many times also. But that certainly did not happen for me when i sought to change me for the better. But I guess I had a very fortunate upbringing, which lead me down a different path, in that situation. When the thought in this body needed to "fix something", the next thought was "how and/or where do I go for help?", then all the following thoughts we very Open and Honest. The main driver though was I Wanted to do it not for me at all, but for my children. The Want, or Will/ingness, within is the main driver for all our behaviors. How much we seriously and truly Want to achieve something and probably for what purpose is what will influence the outcome. The more people who would benefit from the desire to change, for the better, then probably the more will be and is learned. I never thought about this that much before. I learned that what I was actually discovering what for the better for future generations, which in turn is for the better of me and Me. me in the sense that if my children are happy, then i am happy, and, Me in the sense that the passed on genes keep Me alive and the passed on better and Truer knowledge, which leads to EVERYONE living in peace and harmony, is also much more inline with 'Me', the collective Mind, who actually lives and exists forever.

However, when a thought, turns away from the open Mind, by believing i know how to fix this and this "fix" is only for some and not for ALL, then instantly the agenda's changed and also, like you said, lost sight and the respect of and for 'what is', i.e., what is best for EVERY thing.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:The invisible Mind always talking and showing but the One that no one is really wanting to be listening and noticing.
Why does the invisible mind have a desire to be heard and noticed?
Really this is one question that i am not actually sure how to answer yet. i, because of my childhood, have a huge desire and wish to be heard and noticed and i am not sure if this is influencing/distorting the view from the invisible open Mind. However, also when i am looking from the 'i', the Mind's collective and Universal 'EYE' I also have not a feeling but a sense of WHY be HERE alone. I know to share life's experiences with one another is a very human sensation I also wonder what is the use of being HERE at this level of the Collective and Unified hindsight and not be able to share what is SEEN and known from HERE.

i, think, I am justified in saying that the 'I', the 'Mind' or God, also has, dare i say it, the "desire" to be heard and noticed. I think i am justified in saying that because 'God', something, has been inspiring people for many upon many of generations. The desire to be One with others instead of being a one and only is the driver behind the desire to be heard and noticed. After I think about this more why the Mind has a desire to be heard and noticed is because that IS 'what is'. The proof of this is in any new born baby and in just about every human being till the day the body dies the desire to be heard and noticed is within all human bodies. The very fact a new born baby could not and would not survive if it were not heard and noticed and that desire stays throughout because is there any use/purpose for living if one is not heard nor noticed, in other words a 'nothing'. Also, within every human being there is a desire to be heard and noticed for 'Who i/we are'.
Lacewing wrote:If the invisible mind is already in everyone, isn't that mind part of this whole experience, with all of the non-listening and non-noticing? Might this be part of the whole fantastic spectacle?
Yes this is necessary to this whole Life/Existence experience and fantastic spectacle. This abusive behavior of being non-listened to and non-noticed is so that 'we', adults can SEE it for 'what it is', so that we learn from it and not grow up to do the exact same thing to 'our' collective children.
Lacewing wrote: Does it need to be fixed... or might it shift when the spectacle has run its course?
The shift happens when it happens. Although i and I would LOVE that shift to have happened many decades and millennia ago, depending on who's perspective i or I am looking from, : ), that shift WILL happen when It does.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:a better world is desperately wanted by some people so much that that then drives them to desperately want to takes 'us' all "there", which 'I' call is HERE.
I want it too... and I have seen glimpses that blew my mind... of such acceptance, love, perfection, and connection... which makes me wonder why I don't strive for it more. First, I think that striving would be the very thing that wouldn't work. Second, there's that sense like when I was growing up, and I felt like I had to slow down to be with others, or go it alone. I chose to be with others... and I think I still do. Third, maybe there's a fear of how good it might feel... and how foreign that would be. :D Sort of like you might not realize how much pain you're in until it stops. I can imagine such lightness of being... that I might just float up in the air, unable to hold myself down any more. It's unsettling. I've had many dreams of that happening. I always feel embarrassed (in the dream) as to how I can explain it to others.
That 'floating up' sensation is literally what comes from a truly uplifting experience.

The reason you chose your path, in later years, is solely due to all of those experiences from conception/birth hitherto. Every choice we make is depended upon everything that has happened previously. The reason 'you' chose, 'your' seemingly chosen, path IS because of those reasons you gave and all the other reasons, which were ALL caused from ALL of the experiences that body you are in experienced. There are a multitude of reasons why we all choose to go on the path that we do, but there is only one exact same reason we all choose the path that we "choose". my path "chosen" is the exact same one reason you "chose" your path and which is the exact same reason every person ""chooses" their path. This reason is because of we have all had individual past experiences and that is the reason why we all choose individual different paths.

If you feel embarrassed or any other feeling to any new experience NOW then that is because of what was experienced in those earlier years.
Absolutely EVERY individual thought and feeling in a body NOW, which controls what that body does NOW IS because of what that individual body individually experienced PRIOR.

Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:But probably the biggest restriction is me, myself, ken, i, in using all these "rubbish" excuses for just not doing what it is that i truly want to do, i.e., be heard and fully understood.
Okay, so... personally... I've been letting myself off the hook... by explaining it like this: If I am part of oneness (as others are too), and that oneness doesn't fade or go away, then oneness is probably experiencing through me (and others), and we are giving oneness quite a show! :D And part of that involves thrashing around as a human sometimes... when I'm not floating above the landscape in my glory moments. :D I'm trying to embrace it all, you know? I'm trying to revel in it all... and argue with it... and be with it. But most of all, I'm trying to drink in every delicious drop. And if some days are bitter-tasting, I might gag a bit before I spit out that mouthful and take another.
Oneness is experiencing through us, and through the human brain. In fact the human brain is needed for Oneness because that brain is the only thing that can gather, store, hold and maintain information. An invisible non-physical open Mind, obviously is not able to gather and store.

The beauty of being uplifted and floating about existing as One in Oneness is that ALL still happens down-HERE on earth. Only in the non-physical sense are we "up above" and enlightened, so that we can be uplifted, but we still are allowed to be able to continue thrashing about in the physical human bodies the same as we have always been doing. Just this "time" we will be doing it by embracing and supporting each other instead of doing the opposite, which we are doing now.

Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote:I think when individuals get themselves out of the way, the collective can function more as a collective... and the individual experience then transforms such that the individual can actually watch themselves being an individual, rather than being totally absorbed and consumed and intoxicated within the individual illusion.
I agree here wholeheartedly.

But did you notice that you yourself are doing exactly what you have being questioning why others do it, i.e., thinking you "have the answers others do not".

Where you actually watching yourself here being an individual, in the last paragraph?
Hmm... well, I'm really trying to see what you're seeing that I'm not seeing. I do not know the answers... I'm just guessing and making things up as I suspect everyone else is. The explanation I gave above describes how it has been for me. When I get myself out of the way, I find myself in a bigger flow that works much better than anything I could direct or think of. And then, yes, it's as if I'm watching this "self" go through the motions... like I'm doing right now as I type this. When I'm in the flow, there's less identity with the self. The individual self doesn't matter as much... the bigger flow becomes more important to be part of. Often these days, I say things to people that my "self" would never have said before. It feels honest and truthful, but sometimes very feisty and sharp. Still it feels right to do. It kind of feels like sparring on a spiritual level. I do not do it out of malice. I do it (it seems) to question what might be concealing itself. The responses received almost always prove that concealment is going on and continuing! It may be a pointless game... but I get the sense that there's value. I have no expectations or significant agenda related to my interactions. I imagine I will feel compelled to move on at some point.
After 'what is', which is being concealed IS revealed, then moving on just happens, naturally.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Did you notice the individual being an individual here? Or, were you ".... being totally absorbed and consumed and intoxicated within the individual illusion?"
Did I understand and respond appropriately (above)... or is there something I'm not seeing?
There can not be an inappropriate response, whatever is responded is, as you say, 'what is'.

You wrote:
"I think when individuals get themselves out of the way, the collective can function more as a collective... and the individual experience then transforms such that the individual can actually watch themselves being an individual, rather than being totally absorbed and consumed and intoxicated within the individual illusion."

There are individual views, which may or may not perfectly match the collective view.

I agree 'your' view here matches the collective view perfectly, but the very thing you are talking about, 'if individuals do not get themselves out of the way, then the collective is not able to function more as the collective, and then the individual is not able to watch themselves' is exactly what i see you doing here. I thought you could not or did not notice it, so I was just questioning to clarify with you and it appears you did not notice it. I am not sure how to explain it at the moment.

Ummm.... If we change the word 'illusion' to 'view' and.... Umm You are expressing this as just a view, within that body, which is about the most appropriate way to express anything but expressing it as an individual 'view' (what you think) is not allowing the collective to function more as the collective and thus 'you', the individual, is not able to transform such that 'you', the individual, could actually watch 'you, being an individual. If you still can not see it, then it is of no importance. I was just wondering if you could notice and see it.

There are no inappropriate responses in regards to me because they all will be seen for what they are truly are by the collective Mind. Even when sthitapragya responds to me trying to prove me wrong in whatever way, the response given is just perfect. The response is completely appropriate because it suites the collective Mind perfectly and proves everything that I have been saying. This also will be fully seen and understood later.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:We all put our own individually gained learned knowledge that we think is right ahead of the collectively already known knowing (...that is already within us.)
I think so too! It can really be very sweetly simple... but for some reason we've ramped it up for quite a dramatic show... so I'm guessing there's some sort of sense or perfection in that... and I'm comforted and continually inspired to think that it's not all we are, nor all that is.
Yes we are all in perfection now. There is only One Existence and we are in It NOW. Some people just do not realize yet. Also, when we learn how to make this One and only Existence a "much" better place by making it a Heaven for our children to live in rather than the Hell we are have and are creating now "today", then the Perfection will be better realized and understood.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote: I think science can and will verify everything I have to say...
You won't accept it, but this is a belief. If you had said, "IF science verifies everything I say..." or "science MAY verify everything I have to say..." it would mean that you are giving a hypothesis about which you are fairly confident. Your statement is "Science CAN and WILL verify everything I have to say.." that means you are certain your theory is right. You however have no proof but are waiting for science to verify it. So that the world can know that you were right. You personally KNOW you are right. That is a belief.

It also suggests that till science verifies or disproves everything you say, you have closed your mind to every other option. You might suggest to other people to open their minds, but you have closed it yourself.

You can either get angry and think I am accusing you of being closed minded, or think about what I said with an open mind.
I NEVER got angry and am not surprised at all WHY you make so many wrong assumptions, including this assumption. The reason you do it so often is obvious, to Me anyway. Also, why would you relate getting angry and thinking that you are accusing me of being closed minded. You obviously ARE accusing me of being closed minded, that perception is fair enough because of the beliefs you absolutely are maintaining you are unable to see anything else.

By the way YOU STILL ARE NOT READING WHAT I AM WRITING. I NEVER suggest other to open their minds BECAUSE people do NOT have "their" minds. People ARE thoughts, which some people confuse as being their mind, but there is ONLY One Mind, within ALL people. This Mind is ALWAYS open and can NEVER be closed. People, however, can close off or shut this Mind off with beliefs and assumptions BUT THEE Mind is never closed. This i think can and will be verified scientifically, when and after ALL i want to say is said.

I HAVE thought about what you said AND obviously you HAVE NOT noticed that I used the word 'think' as in 'I think...." which actually does imply AND actually does mean I am NOT sure, as in I ONLY think so. Thinking something is right is very far different from believing something is right.

So again, I am not sure if I am wrong or right but what I think is that science can and will verify everything I have to say. Did you notice the think word this time that actually does only imply that i think the ... statement... right.

So, contrary to what you believe I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

By the way have you considered at what age does a person supposedly HAVE TO have beliefs before they are unable to live anymore and thus stop existing?

Just maybe your belief that we ALL must have and have to have beliefs otherwise we can not exist anymore IS actually causing you to see things that are not actually there, and, not see things that are actually here?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

Walker wrote:
ken wrote:
Walker wrote: I understand that.

I used to know what I knew of someone, but what I knew was not that person. What I knew was of that person. But I was not that person.

Then, that person died.

What happened to that other person who I was not, and who was not anyone else’s vision, though he may live on for awhile in the memories of others?

What happens to the person who knows they are not another person?


My memories of that person who died are not who that person was, even when he was alive. Where did that person whose memories were his own, the person who existed in no one's memory (although he did exist as a memory in others), go after his body died?

Science has yet to provide the answer.
Hi walker, were you asking Me these questions directly or were you just expressing them in your writings?

I am not sure whether to respond or not, but I am more than willing to if you wanted me to.

I think you understand who the missing person I describe is, and if you'd like to tell me where he is, I would really like to hear it, in any way you must tell it.
Honestly i do not understand who the missing person is. i could make an assumption but it would be a total guess. Would you like to expose who the "missing" person actually is?

Then I will respond.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by Walker »

The other person who existed independent of your perceptions and memory.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by Lacewing »

Ken... to try to summarize what I think I see in your communication, is that sometimes you acknowledge the perfection of all that is, but then you also talk about fixing it? I wonder if it is representative of your own struggle? Or am I misunderstanding?
ken wrote:I think it would be hard to not have acceptance of 'what is'. Just saying this now sounds even logically extremely hard, if not impossible, to be able to not accept 'what IS'. How could any person, or any thing, not accept 'what IS'?
I guess there are so many ways to interpret a sentence (and an idea), these differences could disrupt our shared understanding as significantly as if we were speaking completely different languages. I see all kinds of people apparently NOT accepting "what is". I'm not talking about "what they surrender to because they have no choice", I'm talking about attitude and understanding... and whether people accept or struggle with the state of things and the existence of things. It appears to me that people struggle with just about everything... and often see "what is" as wrong and defective, rather than a type of perfection.
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote:I hope you are basking in the pure love that hugs this world... now.
I have felt that hug, but do not necessarily feel it, now, from this "world", the way it is now.
To clarify, I was not referring to a love/hug "FROM this world"... rather a love that embraces this world. What happens within this world seems to be significantly lacking in clarity and lightness and love. (Yet, I'll say again... I can see it as perfection, just as it is. If we were watching it on a movie screen, we would say, "WOW! What a fantastic movie!!!")
ken wrote:I realized that through the One Mind, within every body, this is God, and this real and True 'I' have been inspiring peoples for millennia, however, people themselves misconstrue and misinterpret what I have been saying from within. When people try to explain, what 'I' have really been saying, they get 'My' tangled up in their own language, and then distort that even further with their own preconceptions, prejudices, beliefs and assumptions. /...which has unfortunately been re-layed confusingly and how this has caused some of the worst confusion and "religious" fighting and wars ever seen and known.
Lacewing wrote:Why would this be any surprise to the one/collective mind?
ken wrote:It is of no surprise whatsoever at all.
The reason I asked that question is because, although what you say about people tangling things up seems true to me, there seems to be some contradiction in the way this is being expressed, because: a) the "one" is trying to communicate, but the communication is distorted (how could the one not know this / i.e. be surprised); and b) when you use a word like "unfortunately", again it seems to indicate that this situation/outcome is unexpected (i.e. surprised). I'm thinking there is no separation between the one who is communicating and the people tangling it up. Therefore, I don't see a struggle BETWEEN what is relayed and what is received. The ONE is doing ALL of it.
Lacewing wrote:And if some of us want to access that awareness in order to improve the game, we can.
ken wrote:Yes, we can. But if we have not yet learned how to do something, then how could we know how to do it? /...could not JUST learn how to drive a car or fly a plane...
What I'm referring to is not at all like learning how to operate a car or plane. I'm referring to what I see as already built "into us", yet it may be obscured as if we are half-asleep. If there is no separation between the one body of awareness and the people who might be ignoring it, there is nothing unknown to learn, rather there may be an unknown to be realized/remembered/re-connected with. And there are so many ways this can occur, there is no particular path of learning required to transition from one "supposed point/position" to another. It's all connected... and probably all in the SAME point/position/space. Separation and process and steps are essentially an illusion. They serve the stories of our human movie well.
ken wrote:I wonder how often do you really stop and actually wonder about how ffffing amazing Life, and being HERE in It, truly is. And on top of that how ffff.... amazing human beings themselves are.
Really? You read what I write, and yet you wonder this about me? I see and think about this all throughout EVERY DAY! :D Yes, I see it all as so ffffing amazing... ALL OF IT... that I feel compelled to ask challenging questions when people DON'T SEEM TO BE NOTICING THIS. There are people on this site who have such specific ideas about "what is wrong" and how "it needs to be fixed" and what "their role is"... that I just have to ask them: Really? Where are these ideas actually coming from? These people will say, they're seeing the ultimate truth. How can everyone be seeing different ultimate truths? IT'S ALL ONE... AND >> IT << IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT and magnificent in its completeness. Our human gyrations... in the imagined realm of "separateness"... are to be explored and enjoyed and played with and experienced and (hopefully) loved. They do not reflect or define the true nature of the oneness.
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote:When an individual thinks they need to "fix something", their ego must surely come running forward saying, "I know what to do! I can fix it!" And then it becomes a different agenda from that moment on... loosing sight and respect for what is.
Maybe that happens for some individuals, and i am sure it happens a lot. i am sure if done that a few many times also.
Just to clarify, I was not talking about fixing things on the physical level or with ourselves... rather what we might think we must fix in regard to the all-that-is/oneness, because maybe we think people aren't seeing it or doing it right. If it's really ALL ONE, how is it "not right"? That's where the ego arises... in seeing itself as separate and significant. It seems to me that the ego forgets that all is one, and perfect as that. Anything to be "fixed" is simply part of the movie.
ken wrote:i, think, I am justified in saying that the 'I', the 'Mind' or God, also has, dare i say it, the "desire" to be heard and noticed. I think i am justified in saying that because 'God', something, has been inspiring people for many upon many of generations. The desire to be One with others instead of being a one and only is the driver behind the desire to be heard and noticed.
I think desires are part of the human realm. When I had my own experience of "slipping behind the curtain", this is what I "knew/realized/felt". There was absolutely no fear, judgment, desire, need... none of that... just wide open perfection and being-ness. Nothing "mattered". Nothing was required. In contrast to our world, it was peaceful and restful and quiet and infinite -- and I'm only using these words now/here to try to describe it now/here. THERE, had no words... and there was NO judging or defining going on. Just pure IS-ness. Like floating in space with NO AGENDA or IDENTITY. It absolutely did not matter "there" whether this "self" died or returned "here". There was no significance either way. That experience is why I think all of THIS stuff we experience is human stuff... and that we are convoluting things when we apply our requirements to the realms beyond our most immediate view/experience.

I think that all of our judgments and ideas are for this world alone. They are for this movie. Such small judgments and ideas do not extend to all-that-is. We can try to point to what is "greater" than "this", but it's all just enthusiastic gesturing.
ken wrote:If you feel embarrassed or any other feeling to any new experience
I was talking about feeling embarrassed in the DREAMS I have, because I couldn't explain my unexpected levitation. :D For most of my life, I was very thoughtful to not scare people with the things I might say or do. Since suddenly levitating would likely scare people, I think I felt embarrassed (in the dream) about how to explain it. I do not seem to get embarrassed in my waking life... unless maybe I forget a detail or name that I think I should know. Most of the time, I feel that love/hug that (I think) surrounds our world and me and everyone/everything. That's why I respond sharply to people who seem intent on suggesting that others (than they themselves) are separate from "the one". It's a hateful thing to do... and many do it on behalf of their idea of their god or exclusive beliefs.
ken wrote:Oneness is experiencing through us
I think so too. This is why I think there's contradiction when someone says that our experience is at odds with the One. ALL, is part of the ride. ALL, is part of this experience -- which (I'm guessing) is temporary, perfect, and not serious. Regardless of a person's particular views/framework, imagine if more people loved it instead of hating it.
ken wrote:You are expressing this as just a view, within that body, which is about the most appropriate way to express anything but expressing it as an individual 'view' (what you think) is not allowing the collective to function more as the collective and thus 'you', the individual, is not able to transform such that 'you', the individual, could actually watch 'you, being an individual.
Okay, I think I see what you are saying. What I can say is that watching ones "self" as an individual, CAN allow one to do and say "apparently" individual things, without actually imposing that individual activity on the whole. (This is how it seems to me.)

It's really not that different from what I think you've been trying to demonstrate with the 'i' and the 'I'. It's a matter of where our attention/vibration is focused. And that does not prevent us from interacting in this world. I can describe it as "myself" being a toy, with which broader awareness plays. This is a fascinating thing to experience. It helps remove a lot of the "grounded" intensity that we might normally feel with our "identity"... and allows for a more free-flowing form of creation and potential.

I don't know if what I'm trying to communicate will come through as clearly (and be shared) as I would hope, but I sincerely appreciate this discussion which has inspired me to put some things into words... discovering more in the process.
ken wrote:Yes we are all in perfection now. There is only One Existence and we are in It NOW. Some people just do not realize yet. Also, when we learn how to make this One and only Existence a "much" better place by making it a Heaven for our children to live in rather than the Hell we are have and are creating now "today", then the Perfection will be better realized and understood.
Okay, I see what you are saying. At first, it seemed to me that you were saying perfection could be better. :D The fact that "people do not realize" perfection, would be part of the perfection, would it not? I'm not advocating that we don't actively participate in exploring and creating potential! Quite the opposite. However, the way we FRAME IT has a lot to do with the results... I think! If we go about it, thinking that something is wrong... I think we create more that fits into that mindset, because it's what we're familiar with. Whereas, if we view everything as already perfect and connected... I think we discover how to see more and more and greater and greater demonstrations and potentials of that. It's quite a tricky effort. It challenges us to live in the illusion, but not be convinced by it.
sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by sthitapragya »

ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote: I think science can and will verify everything I have to say...
You won't accept it, but this is a belief. If you had said, "IF science verifies everything I say..." or "science MAY verify everything I have to say..." it would mean that you are giving a hypothesis about which you are fairly confident. Your statement is "Science CAN and WILL verify everything I have to say.." that means you are certain your theory is right. You however have no proof but are waiting for science to verify it. So that the world can know that you were right. You personally KNOW you are right. That is a belief.

It also suggests that till science verifies or disproves everything you say, you have closed your mind to every other option. You might suggest to other people to open their minds, but you have closed it yourself.

You can either get angry and think I am accusing you of being closed minded, or think about what I said with an open mind.
I NEVER got angry and am not surprised at all WHY you make so many wrong assumptions, including this assumption. The reason you do it so often is obvious, to Me anyway. Also, why would you relate getting angry and thinking that you are accusing me of being closed minded. You obviously ARE accusing me of being closed minded, that perception is fair enough because of the beliefs you absolutely are maintaining you are unable to see anything else.

By the way YOU STILL ARE NOT READING WHAT I AM WRITING. I NEVER suggest other to open their minds BECAUSE people do NOT have "their" minds. People ARE thoughts, which some people confuse as being their mind, but there is ONLY One Mind, within ALL people. This Mind is ALWAYS open and can NEVER be closed. People, however, can close off or shut this Mind off with beliefs and assumptions BUT THEE Mind is never closed. This i think can and will be verified scientifically, when and after ALL i want to say is said.

I HAVE thought about what you said AND obviously you HAVE NOT noticed that I used the word 'think' as in 'I think...." which actually does imply AND actually does mean I am NOT sure, as in I ONLY think so. Thinking something is right is very far different from believing something is right.

So again, I am not sure if I am wrong or right but what I think is that science can and will verify everything I have to say. Did you notice the think word this time that actually does only imply that i think the ... statement... right.

So, contrary to what you believe I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

By the way have you considered at what age does a person supposedly HAVE TO have beliefs before they are unable to live anymore and thus stop existing?

Just maybe your belief that we ALL must have and have to have beliefs otherwise we can not exist anymore IS actually causing you to see things that are not actually there, and, not see things that are actually here?
People are thoughts is a belief too. That there is one mind within all people is also a belief. You have no proof of it. Yet you are sure it is true. Just like Theists are sure God exists without proof. It is belief.

There is no age that you don't have beliefs till you die. Except from birth till you develop mental faculties. That is why children need care and attention. As they grow older and develop reasoning faculties, they become more and more independent. Total independence varies from person to person. And belief alone cannot keep you alive. It is one of the requirements.

Maybe your belief that we do not need beliefs is causing you to see things that are not actually there and not see things that are actually here? See? This works both ways. You have no proof. I have no proof. Both believe. I accept it. You don't.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

Walker wrote:The other person who existed independent of your perceptions and memory.
Ahhh ok, because you used the word 'he' i was starting to think you may have been referring to an earlier 'you', like in your childhood, or to a father or maybe grandfather so that is why i asked for clarification.
Walker wrote:What happened to that other person who I was not, and who was not anyone else’s vision, though he may live on for awhile in the memories of others?
The hardest thing I think to explain and thus understand is separating completely the 'my' and 'your' from perceptions, memories, and thoughts, in that there is no 'one' who has perceptions, memories, and thoughts. From now on I will only use the word 'thoughts', which is made of all perceptions, ideas, memories, beliefs, assumptions, views, preconceptions, etc,. So there is no my or your thoughts there is only just thoughts. The reason this is seemingly hard to separate is because for thousands upon thousands of years human beings have been calling them 'our' thoughts. Getting out of this habit could appear hard. Continually calling them 'our' thoughts and continually saying it that way makes them appear as though we own the thoughts, but then we back to the problem of who is that one? (Although, there is One that does actually own absolutely EVERYTHING, including thoughts, we need to separate the idea that people own those thoughts within a body first in order to then discover this next level, but this is a side issue). Those thoughts within a human body are a person. This may be a relative new way of looking at this subject but seeing people in this form fits in with how all of Existence works.

A human baby is born, for the sake of this argument, this baby is devoid of all thoughts at birth. The body is growing and experiencing the environment with it's five senses. Through these five senses information is put into a storage facility, namely the brain. For lack of complete accuracy of placement, let us say thoughts start coming into existence within the brain. These thoughts are a result of what information has come into the brain. These thoughts are the person, the one we give a name to.

Although it is generally accepted that the body is the person it will be discovered that that is not the case, but again is an issue that could take pages to explain the full reason of why, but if it can be accepted now that a person could be thoughts only, then how a person is transferred or passed on into other bodies is not by 'memories of' that person but by what the body, which a person is in, has created in the environment. For example the words from walker's "grandmother" may have told her "daughter" (walker's mother) to make her bed every morning. Walker's "mother" became thoughts similar to the 'bed must be made every morning'. Walker's "grandmother" (the thoughts within that body that they were in) are now in the body that walker's "mother" is in. Walker's "mother" could now believe that a bed must be made every morning or maybe assume that it is better to make a bed every morning. If in the body, which walker existed and was changing in as the body was ageing, was in an environment where the words from it's "mother" were saying ever morning "make your bed walker", then that is a person getting passed on through generation to generation. If these thoughts are now being passed on into walker, then that means that part of, what was generally known as walker's "grandmother" are still alive and existing within the body walker now lives. From the environment the body walker is living in information being fed into that body is a part of the people who existed in other bodies previously. The whole person obviously does not keep exist and living in other bodies, only the parts that are being transferred on are.

The 'memories of' part, of another person, depending how this is being view may need to be disregard altogether to understand this better. First and again there is owner of memories so there is no 'my', second, if there is memory of another person, then that is NOT the other person being passed on, which I talk about here. That 'memory' itself is just the current changing person living within a living body now.
Walker wrote:What happens to the person who knows they are not another person?
If a body is still pumping blood and the brain is still functioning, then the 'thoughts, the person, within, who knows they are not another person, do as they have always done while that brain they are in is still functioning, and that is continually change. This change happens continually because information is continual being fed into the brain through the five senses, which comes from the continually changing environment.
Walker wrote:My memories of that person who died are not who that person was, even when he was alive.
This quote starts of with 'My memories', then, 'of that person who died', and then, 'when he was alive'.
1. We do not have, nor own, memories. If and when memories are taking place within a brain, then that is who we are at that particular moment. Memories are just thoughts, in other words are just us.
2. If a 'thought, a person, is going to keep thinking that when another person who died or that people die, then to that person 'people die'. If that is what a belief says that is true, then that will distort all that is being said here.
3. If a 'thought', a person, says 'when he was alive', then that thought is just reinforcing that people die.
Walker wrote:Where did that person whose memories were his own, the person who existed in no one's memory (although he did exist as a memory in others), go after his body died?
Again all I can say is this needs to be looked at from a completely new viewpoint in that people do not have "their own" memories. There is no "my", "your", "his" nor "her" own memories. Memories are a part of thoughts or thinking and thoughts/thinking is THE person. Parts of every thought (person) that were (who was) continually changing when a body was still pumping blood exists in one way or another through the thoughts (people) in other blood pumping bodies.

Obviously I am not yet ready to fully explain this succinctly.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by Walker »

Hmmm. Consider that the person not the body is like a drop of water returning to the ocean. The drop loses that boundary which made it separate, but it continues to exist.

What if this ocean of soul energy too subtle to detect with any instrument other than uncorrupted mind and body was in fact, finite.

What would be the implications?

Bear in mind before looking for questions that I’ve already asked one and that we are working with the same materials, so this should be enough information for a question-free response, when you give it some thought.

The answer doesn't have to be profound or anything like that. Just, would be the logical implications?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
You won't accept it, but this is a belief. If you had said, "IF science verifies everything I say..." or "science MAY verify everything I have to say..." it would mean that you are giving a hypothesis about which you are fairly confident. Your statement is "Science CAN and WILL verify everything I have to say.." that means you are certain your theory is right. You however have no proof but are waiting for science to verify it. So that the world can know that you were right. You personally KNOW you are right. That is a belief.

It also suggests that till science verifies or disproves everything you say, you have closed your mind to every other option. You might suggest to other people to open their minds, but you have closed it yourself.


I NEVER got angry and am not surprised at all WHY you make so many wrong assumptions, including this assumption. The reason you do it so often is obvious, to Me anyway. Also, why would you relate getting angry and thinking that you are accusing me of being closed minded. You obviously ARE accusing me of being closed minded, that perception is fair enough because of the beliefs you absolutely are maintaining you are unable to see anything else.

By the way YOU STILL ARE NOT READING WHAT I AM WRITING. I NEVER suggest other to open their minds BECAUSE people do NOT have "their" minds. People ARE thoughts, which some people confuse as being their mind, but there is ONLY One Mind, within ALL people. This Mind is ALWAYS open and can NEVER be closed. People, however, can close off or shut this Mind off with beliefs and assumptions BUT THEE Mind is never closed. This i think can and will be verified scientifically, when and after ALL i want to say is said.

I HAVE thought about what you said AND obviously you HAVE NOT noticed that I used the word 'think' as in 'I think...." which actually does imply AND actually does mean I am NOT sure, as in I ONLY think so. Thinking something is right is very far different from believing something is right.

So again, I am not sure if I am wrong or right but what I think is that science can and will verify everything I have to say. Did you notice the think word this time that actually does only imply that i think the ... statement... right.

So, contrary to what you believe I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

By the way have you considered at what age does a person supposedly HAVE TO have beliefs before they are unable to live anymore and thus stop existing?


People are thoughts is a belief too.
If that is what sth believes and says, then so be it.
sthitapragya wrote: That there is one mind within all people is also a belief.
If that is what sth believes and says, then so be it.
sthitapragya wrote:You have no proof of it. Yet you are sure it is true.
What evidence is there to support the belief that I actually believe any of this, and that I am sure it is true?
sthitapragya wrote: Just like Theists are sure God exists without proof. It is belief.
Naming people as anything other than what they are is just as ridiculous and believing it.
sthitapragya wrote:There is no age that you don't have beliefs till you die. Except from birth till you develop mental faculties.
AND, at what age does mental faculties develop?
sthitapragya wrote:That is why children need care and attention.
I thought ALL children need care and attention because they needed it, not because they have not formed any beliefs yet.
sthitapragya wrote: As they grow older and develop reasoning faculties, they become more and more independent.
Is this a belief?
sthitapragya wrote: Total independence varies from person to person.
Depending on what? How many beliefs are being had, or, how strongly a belief is held and maintained?
sthitapragya wrote:And belief alone cannot keep you alive.
I NEVER said anything in regards to this, so I am not exactly sure WHY sth would write this in this way
sthitapragya wrote:It is one of the requirements.
AGAIN, so the Truth is people can not exist without beliefs, right?
sthitapragya wrote:Maybe your belief that we do not need beliefs is causing you to see things that are not actually there and not see things that are actually here?
That could and actually would be true, I THINK, in capitals so sth could notice it more easily, if it was the case that I held and maintained that belief. But contrary to others beliefs sadly that is not true.
sthitapragya wrote:See? This works both ways. You have no proof. I have no proof.
So, if together we have no proof, then why believe anything, especially something that has not yet been proved?

AND, by the way, If I do not believe it, which I do not, then I really have nothing to prove.

So, in ALL honesty this does NOT work both ways.
sthitapragya wrote:Both believe.
If that is what sth believes, then so be it
sthitapragya wrote: I accept it. You don't.
[/quote][/quote]

What does sth want Me to accept exactly? What is believed by sth? If that is the case, then please explain to ALL of the viewers here WHY I should accept what sth believes is absolutely true, right, and/or correct, especially when that belief could actually be untrue, wrong, and/or incorrect?

And, if sth is absolutely right, in that no human being can exist if it is not believing, then what is the point sth wants to make with this astonishing knowledge? Is knowing this alleged "unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed" going to change and/or achieve anything here?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

Walker wrote:Hmmm. Consider that the person not the body is like a drop of water returning to the ocean. The drop loses that boundary which made it separate, but it continues to exist.

What if this ocean of soul energy too subtle to detect with any instrument other than uncorrupted mind and body was in fact, finite.

What would be the implications?
None, that I can see, now.
Walker wrote: Bear in mind before looking for questions that I’ve already asked one and that we are working with the same materials, so this should be enough information for a question-free response, when you give it some thought.

The answer doesn't have to be profound or anything like that. Just, would be the logical implications?
None, that I can see, now.

By the way I do not recall mentioning anywhere that there HAD TO be an infiniteness about this.
sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by sthitapragya »

ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote:


I NEVER got angry and am not surprised at all WHY you make so many wrong assumptions, including this assumption. The reason you do it so often is obvious, to Me anyway. Also, why would you relate getting angry and thinking that you are accusing me of being closed minded. You obviously ARE accusing me of being closed minded, that perception is fair enough because of the beliefs you absolutely are maintaining you are unable to see anything else.

By the way YOU STILL ARE NOT READING WHAT I AM WRITING. I NEVER suggest other to open their minds BECAUSE people do NOT have "their" minds. People ARE thoughts, which some people confuse as being their mind, but there is ONLY One Mind, within ALL people. This Mind is ALWAYS open and can NEVER be closed. People, however, can close off or shut this Mind off with beliefs and assumptions BUT THEE Mind is never closed. This i think can and will be verified scientifically, when and after ALL i want to say is said.

I HAVE thought about what you said AND obviously you HAVE NOT noticed that I used the word 'think' as in 'I think...." which actually does imply AND actually does mean I am NOT sure, as in I ONLY think so. Thinking something is right is very far different from believing something is right.

So again, I am not sure if I am wrong or right but what I think is that science can and will verify everything I have to say. Did you notice the think word this time that actually does only imply that i think the ... statement... right.

So, contrary to what you believe I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

By the way have you considered at what age does a person supposedly HAVE TO have beliefs before they are unable to live anymore and thus stop existing?


People are thoughts is a belief too.
If that is what sth believes and says, then so be it.
sthitapragya wrote: That there is one mind within all people is also a belief.
If that is what sth believes and says, then so be it.
sthitapragya wrote:You have no proof of it. Yet you are sure it is true.
What evidence is there to support the belief that I actually believe any of this, and that I am sure it is true?
sthitapragya wrote: Just like Theists are sure God exists without proof. It is belief.
Naming people as anything other than what they are is just as ridiculous and believing it.
sthitapragya wrote:There is no age that you don't have beliefs till you die. Except from birth till you develop mental faculties.
AND, at what age does mental faculties develop?
sthitapragya wrote:That is why children need care and attention.
I thought ALL children need care and attention because they needed it, not because they have not formed any beliefs yet.
sthitapragya wrote: As they grow older and develop reasoning faculties, they become more and more independent.
Is this a belief?
sthitapragya wrote: Total independence varies from person to person.
Depending on what? How many beliefs are being had, or, how strongly a belief is held and maintained?
sthitapragya wrote:And belief alone cannot keep you alive.
I NEVER said anything in regards to this, so I am not exactly sure WHY sth would write this in this way
sthitapragya wrote:It is one of the requirements.
AGAIN, so the Truth is people can not exist without beliefs, right?
sthitapragya wrote:Maybe your belief that we do not need beliefs is causing you to see things that are not actually there and not see things that are actually here?
That could and actually would be true, I THINK, in capitals so sth could notice it more easily, if it was the case that I held and maintained that belief. But contrary to others beliefs sadly that is not true.
sthitapragya wrote:See? This works both ways. You have no proof. I have no proof.
So, if together we have no proof, then why believe anything, especially something that has not yet been proved?

AND, by the way, If I do not believe it, which I do not, then I really have nothing to prove.

So, in ALL honesty this does NOT work both ways.
sthitapragya wrote:Both believe.
If that is what sth believes, then so be it
sthitapragya wrote: I accept it. You don't.
What does sth want Me to accept exactly? What is believed by sth? If that is the case, then please explain to ALL of the viewers here WHY I should accept what sth believes is absolutely true, right, and/or correct, especially when that belief could actually be untrue, wrong, and/or incorrect?

And, if sth is absolutely right, in that no human being can exist if it is not believing, then what is the point sth wants to make with this astonishing knowledge? Is knowing this alleged "unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed" going to change and/or achieve anything here?
Let us assume I am wrong. You can exist without beliefs. But you say that the mind and brain are independent of each other. Can you prove it? If you can, great, if you cannot, will you accept it is a belief?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by uwot »

Walker wrote:Hmmm. Consider that the person not the body is like a drop of water returning to the ocean. The drop loses that boundary which made it separate, but it continues to exist.
Contrary to popular belief, the laws of physics don't rule it out. You can even make a case that supports it. I've said it before: we simply don't know what consciousness is. We do, however, know that all confirmed examples of consciousness are associated with an organic brain. If we assume that there is nothing supernatural about brains or consciousness, then they are products of the same stuff that everything else in the universe is made of. It could be that brains are analogous to lightbulbs and correspondingly, consciousness is the light it produces. The light produced by a light bulb is not destroyed when the bulb breaks, it keeps going, just as there are stars visible that died long ago.
Walker wrote:What if this ocean of soul energy too subtle to detect with any instrument other than uncorrupted mind and body was in fact, finite.
Well, in effect, certain brain scanners do detect the 'light' produced by brains, the electromagnetic field to be specific, though reports of uncorrupted minds, of prophets or mediums say, aren't very compelling.
Walker wrote:What would be the implications?
Who knows? Weirder still is what the implications would be of consciousness is supernatural.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

Lacewing wrote:Ken... to try to summarize what I think I see in your communication, is that sometimes you acknowledge the perfection of all that is, but then you also talk about fixing it? I wonder if it is representative of your own struggle? Or am I misunderstanding?
i think there is a misunderstanding, but also by the last response in this reply, i think, there is a better understanding of what I am saying. 'Perfection' is certainly not some end point where nothing changes. Life/Existence is always in continual change and there is nothing, i think, that could stop change. This always-continual, evolutionary-creating, change is perfection, itself, so there is nothing to "fix" as such. But I am pretty sure we could ALL agree that preventing pollution, which can kill us, is a much better way, i.e., a solution, than the way of "today", which is creating more pollution. Making more of an effort to make this planet a better home for our children to live on is the only "fix" I would talk about. Causing pollution that destroys our one and only home surely is not moving towards a perfect or better way of living for our children. But changing "this" way by creating a pollution-free way would be a better way to go, which would naturally "fix" what we human beings have already created, could that be agreed?
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I think it would be hard to not have acceptance of 'what is'. Just saying this now sounds even logically extremely hard, if not impossible, to be able to not accept 'what IS'. How could any person, or any thing, not accept 'what IS'?
I guess there are so many ways to interpret a sentence (and an idea), these differences could disrupt our shared understanding as significantly as if we were speaking completely different languages.
Very true but... i do not think there is actually any difference here. Just a slight oversight in the words being used.
Lacewing wrote: I see all kinds of people apparently NOT accepting "what is". I'm not talking about "what they surrender to because they have no choice", I'm talking about attitude and understanding... and whether people accept or struggle with the state of things and the existence of things. It appears to me that people struggle with just about everything... and often see "what is" as wrong and defective, rather than a type of perfection.
I also see on a lot of occasions people very frequently not accepting 'what is', and I even catch My self out doing this also more times than I like. However I was NOT saying people always have acceptance. I was saying if we were to look at this, from the most logical of perspectives, then it would be very hard to not have acceptance of 'what is' all of the time. From the truly collective point-of-view, there would not be any perspective that could suggest to not accept 'what is' always, and in all ways.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote:I hope you are basking in the pure love that hugs this world... now.
I have felt that hug, but do not necessarily feel it, now, from this "world", the way it is now.
To clarify, I was not referring to a love/hug "FROM this world"... rather a love that embraces this world.
Yes i understood this completely.
Lacewing wrote:What happens within this world seems to be significantly lacking in clarity and lightness and love. (Yet, I'll say again... I can see it as perfection, just as it is. If we were watching it on a movie screen, we would say, "WOW! What a fantastic movie!!!")
Yes I agree wholeheartedly, but just after I said, "WOW! What a fantastic movie!!!" I would also say,"For a truly intelligent species those human beings can really do some very stupid thing also, hey? I can not wait to see the looks on their faces when they realize what is going to happen next"
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I realized that through the One Mind, within every body, this is God, and this real and True 'I' have been inspiring peoples for millennia, however, people themselves misconstrue and misinterpret what I have been saying from within. When people try to explain, what 'I' have really been saying, they get 'My' tangled up in their own language, and then distort that even further with their own preconceptions, prejudices, beliefs and assumptions. /...which has unfortunately been re-layed confusingly and how this has caused some of the worst confusion and "religious" fighting and wars ever seen and known.

Why would this be any surprise to the one/collective mind?
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:It is of no surprise whatsoever at all.
The reason I asked that question is because, although what you say about people tangling things up seems true to me, there seems to be some contradiction in the way this is being expressed, because: a) the "one" is trying to communicate, but the communication is distorted (how could the one not know this / i.e. be surprised);
I like to use a big O, for One, when expressing the collective Mind, and, small o, for one, individual person, just to clear this up.

I do not recall every saying I do not know this, thus surprised.

I, the One, KNOW the communication is distorted because just like if ken communicated to his wife before he left the home to wake up our son at 7am because the bus leaves at 7.30am. I leave home and then I sit back and watch the movie unfold, from the camera set up in the bedroom, I see that wife wakes son up at 8am because wife thinks I said bus leaves at 8.30am. i see, thus know, my communication was distorted. This is not to say who lacked the ability to communicate but just that what i wanted to communicate was distorted. If i do not have any belief nor assumption prior, then i am not surprised when I see the movie.

The One, Mind, sees and knows ALL.

What the One was, for millennia, trying to communicate has been distorted through misinterpretation. This I know, from the One Mind's eye, which can see everything. I communicated that everything evolves through a creative process. For example when I communicated that eve came out of adam and adam came out of the earth I was communicating how everything is created in an evolutionary process. But when I "sit back" to watch the movie unfold, in real Life, and see that My communication being totally misinterpreted, in the way the bible was written, is then read, and then through the way the bible is taught, I do KNOW how much My communication is being distorted. This was of no surprise to Me, "back then", as it is of no surprise to Me "today". I still have the issue of learning how to re-arrange language so that My language fits in exactly with human beings language.

Lacewing wrote:and b) when you use a word like "unfortunately", again it seems to indicate that this situation/outcome is unexpected (i.e. surprised).
I say 'unfortunately' just like when ken sees their son miss the bus and sees the unfortunate outcome of miscommunication but again ken is not surprised because of 'what is' 'will be' attitude. If there are no beliefs and no assumptions prior, then there are no surprises.

I, also, just find the misinterpretation of what it is that I am really saying unfortunate, but not surprising. In fact if what I really wanted to express what fully and truly understood prior to NOW, then I would possibly be surprised.

By the way ken would LOVE to have that 'what is' 'will be' attitude far more often and be that accepting when his wife misunderstands him then it appears to be the case here. They were just examples of the One's way of not being surprised.

I'm thinking there is no separation between the one who is communicating and the people tangling it up. Therefore, I don't see a struggle BETWEEN what is relayed and what is received. The ONE is doing ALL of it.

There is more Truth in this thinking that i can see now, than i realized before, and i will be more accepting of this from now on.
Lacewing wrote:And if some of us want to access that awareness in order to improve the game, we can.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Yes, we can. But if we have not yet learned how to do something, then how could we know how to do it? /...could not JUST learn how to drive a car or fly a plane...
What I'm referring to is not at all like learning how to operate a car or plane. I'm referring to what I see as already built "into us", yet it may be obscured as if we are half-asleep. If there is no separation between the one body of awareness and the people who might be ignoring it, there is nothing unknown to learn, rather there may be an unknown to be realized/remembered/re-connected with. And there are so many ways this can occur, there is no particular path of learning required to transition from one "supposed point/position" to another. It's all connected... and probably all in the SAME point/position/space. Separation and process and steps are essentially an illusion. They serve the stories of our human movie well.
Just say, for example, Thee collective One reveals Itself to one human being and says that way to Me was a way that worked for you. Now share that way with others and let us just see what happens. While the one person is learning how to share that way, that one discover others, during that learning process, which enlighten that one a lot more. This enlightening could be coming from Thee collective One from within the others. So, really there is no separation of Awareness just a re-uniting or re-forming of It through lots of separate human bodies.

The learning of how to re-discover the seemingly "unknown", which is to re-actualized/re-membered/re-connected from within is taught through ALL the people.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I wonder how often do you really stop and actually wonder about how ffffing amazing Life, and being HERE in It, truly is. And on top of that how ffff.... amazing human beings themselves are.
Really? You read what I write, and yet you wonder this about me?
Sorry, I do not think that 'you' was directed at 'you', lancewing. But at ALL people in general.

I see and think about this all throughout EVERY DAY! :D Yes, I see it all as so ffffing amazing... ALL OF IT... that I feel compelled to ask challenging questions when people DON'T SEEM TO BE NOTICING THIS. There are people on this site who have such specific ideas about "what is wrong" and how "it needs to be fixed" and what "their role is"... that I just have to ask them: Really? Where are these ideas actually coming from? These people will say, they're seeing the ultimate truth. How can everyone be seeing different ultimate truths? IT'S ALL ONE... AND >> IT << IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT and magnificent in its completeness. Our human gyrations... in the imagined realm of "separateness"... are to be explored and enjoyed and played with and experienced and (hopefully) loved. They do not reflect or define the true nature of the oneness.[/quote]

Oneness is felt when We are together as One.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote:When an individual thinks they need to "fix something", their ego must surely come running forward saying, "I know what to do! I can fix it!" And then it becomes a different agenda from that moment on... loosing sight and respect for what is.
Maybe that happens for some individuals, and i am sure it happens a lot. i am sure if done that a few many times also.
Just to clarify, I was not talking about fixing things on the physical level or with ourselves... rather what we might think we must fix in regard to the all-that-is/oneness, because maybe we think people aren't seeing it or doing it right. If it's really ALL ONE, how is it "not right"? That's where the ego arises... in seeing itself as separate and significant. It seems to me that the ego forgets that all is one, and perfect as that. Anything to be "fixed" is simply part of the movie.
Yes totally agree, and it is only people themselves that need "fixing". There are absolutely NO problems in Life. Only human beings make problems, and therefore they are the only ones that can "fix" any and all problems.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:i, think, I am justified in saying that the 'I', the 'Mind' or God, also has, dare i say it, the "desire" to be heard and noticed. I think i am justified in saying that because 'God', something, has been inspiring people for many upon many of generations. The desire to be One with others instead of being a one and only is the driver behind the desire to be heard and noticed.
I think desires are part of the human realm. When I had my own experience of "slipping behind the curtain", this is what I "knew/realized/felt". There was absolutely no fear, judgment, desire, need... none of that... just wide open perfection and being-ness. Nothing "mattered". Nothing was required. In contrast to our world, it was peaceful and restful and quiet and infinite -- and I'm only using these words now/here to try to describe it now/here. THERE, had no words... and there was NO judging or defining going on. Just pure IS-ness. Like floating in space with NO AGENDA or IDENTITY. It absolutely did not matter "there" whether this "self" died or returned "here". There was no significance either way. That experience is why I think all of THIS stuff we experience is human stuff... and that we are convoluting things when we apply our requirements to the realms beyond our most immediate view/experience.

I think that all of our judgments and ideas are for this world alone. They are for this movie. Such small judgments and ideas do not extend to all-that-is. We can try to point to what is "greater" than "this", but it's all just enthusiastic gesturing.
Yes agree wholeheartedly here but will just have to think about 'desire' a bit more before i come back. i am still undecided if that desire is solely mine or partly Mine also or solely mine and Mine.


Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:If you feel embarrassed or any other feeling to any new experience
I was talking about feeling embarrassed in the DREAMS I have, because I couldn't explain my unexpected levitation. :D For most of my life, I was very thoughtful to not scare people with the things I might say or do. Since suddenly levitating would likely scare people, I think I felt embarrassed (in the dream) about how to explain it. I do not seem to get embarrassed in my waking life... unless maybe I forget a detail or name that I think I should know. Most of the time, I feel that love/hug that (I think) surrounds our world and me and everyone/everything. That's why I respond sharply to people who seem intent on suggesting that others (than they themselves) are separate from "the one". It's a hateful thing to do... and many do it on behalf of their idea of their god or exclusive beliefs.
But surely it can be seen how some people could feel completely separated from the One and Oneness? Remember a feeling does not necessarily mean truth.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Oneness is experiencing through us
I think so too. This is why I think there's contradiction when someone says that our experience is at odds with the One. ALL, is part of the ride. ALL, is part of this experience -- which (I'm guessing) is temporary, perfect, and not serious. Regardless of a person's particular views/framework, imagine if more people loved it instead of hating it.
Why think it is temporary?
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:You are expressing this as just a view, within that body, which is about the most appropriate way to express anything but expressing it as an individual 'view' (what you think) is not allowing the collective to function more as the collective and thus 'you', the individual, is not able to transform such that 'you', the individual, could actually watch 'you, being an individual.
Okay, I think I see what you are saying. What I can say is that watching ones "self" as an individual, CAN allow one to do and say "apparently" individual things, without actually imposing that individual activity on the whole. (This is how it seems to me.)

It's really not that different from what I think you've been trying to demonstrate with the 'i' and the 'I'. It's a matter of where our attention/vibration is focused. And that does not prevent us from interacting in this world. I can describe it as "myself" being a toy, with which broader awareness plays. This is a fascinating thing to experience. It helps remove a lot of the "grounded" intensity that we might normally feel with our "identity"... and allows for a more free-flowing form of creation and potential.
I describe it as My self. Capital M referring to the Oneness of I as the little s referring to one of the many players in the game of Life or one of those actors on the stage of Life.
Lacewing wrote:I don't know if what I'm trying to communicate will come through as clearly (and be shared) as I would hope, but I sincerely appreciate this discussion which has inspired me to put some things into words... discovering more in the process.


I am pretty sure just about everything has come through as clearly as was hoped.

I would just like to question for clarity what is the reason for coming and writing here? And, what is the drive to put things into words?
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Yes we are all in perfection now. There is only One Existence and we are in It NOW. Some people just do not realize yet. Also, when we learn how to make this One and only Existence a "much" better place by making it a Heaven for our children to live in rather than the Hell we are have and are creating now "today", then the Perfection will be better realized and understood.
Okay, I see what you are saying. At first, it seemed to me that you were saying perfection could be better. :D The fact that "people do not realize" perfection, would be part of the perfection, would it not?
Yes exactly, it is like when a brand new baby first comes into Existence/Life when it is born. It does not realize and is not expected to realize that has just arrived into perfection. What information the actual environment feeds that baby, through the bodies five senses, then will influence what that human baby soon realizes. A human baby born into a "hellish" like environment would not be expected to see and thus know the perfection that it is living in as quickly, or at all, as a baby born into a "heavenish/utopian,nirvanish" like environment would.
Lacewing wrote: I'm not advocating that we don't actively participate in exploring and creating potential! Quite the opposite. However, the way we FRAME IT has a lot to do with the results... I think!
Absolutely EVERYTHING is relative, to the observer... i think.
Lacewing wrote: If we go about it, thinking that something is wrong... I think we create more that fits into that mindset, because it's what we're familiar with. Whereas, if we view everything as already perfect and connected... I think we discover how to see more and more and greater and greater demonstrations and potentials of that. It's quite a tricky effort. It challenges us to live in the illusion, but not be convinced by it.
I think it is not quite as tricky if one was born into a better "illusion" than a worse "illusion". I use that illusion word very lightly here.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by Walker »

uwot wrote:
Walker wrote:Hmmm. Consider that the person not the body is like a drop of water returning to the ocean. The drop loses that boundary which made it separate, but it continues to exist.
Contrary to popular belief, the laws of physics don't rule it out. You can even make a case that supports it. I've said it before: we simply don't know what consciousness is. We do, however, know that all confirmed examples of consciousness are associated with an organic brain. If we assume that there is nothing supernatural about brains or consciousness, then they are products of the same stuff that everything else in the universe is made of. It could be that brains are analogous to lightbulbs and correspondingly, consciousness is the light it produces. The light produced by a light bulb is not destroyed when the bulb breaks, it keeps going, just as there are stars visible that died long ago.
Walker wrote:What if this ocean of soul energy too subtle to detect with any instrument other than uncorrupted mind and body was in fact, finite.
Well, in effect, certain brain scanners do detect the 'light' produced by brains, the electromagnetic field to be specific, though reports of uncorrupted minds, of prophets or mediums say, aren't very compelling.
Walker wrote:What would be the implications?
uwot wrote:Who knows? Weirder still is what the implications would be of consciousness is supernatural.
Implications are deduced, although folks certainly have the capacity to know what they know, and to not know what they don't know.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by Lacewing »

Ken, I very much appreciate the heartfelt energy you have put into our discussion. I think some interesting things have come up. I do find it difficult sometimes to keep straight your language. I am resistant to learning a new set of definitions... as I already find it challenging enough to express some concepts using the language I do know! :D
ken wrote:changing "this" way by creating a pollution-free way would be a better way to go, which would naturally "fix" what we human beings have already created, could that be agreed?
Of course, yes. A person would have to be crazy not to think so. To clarify -- and perhaps I didn't do a good enough job the first time -- I was not talking about the "fixes" WITHIN the system... WITHIN the world we know and operate in... WITHIN the dream... etc. For our discussion, I have really been focused on the idea of "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. being perfect ABOVE AND BEYOND what our little system/experience (here) looks like. And from that larger view... the tapestry is perfection... even with all the supposed "flaws" that we might think we see. And still looking from THAT view, I fail to see why the collective could be disappointed or surprised or striving or needing in any way... so when I think that someone might be saying that, I want to question it.

Sometimes you seem to switch between the views, within the same description, and I get confused because they seem like different channels to me... with very different characteristics and implications.
ken wrote:just after I said, "WOW! What a fantastic movie!!!" I would also say,"For a truly intelligent species those human beings can really do some very stupid thing also, hey? I can not wait to see the looks on their faces when they realize what is going to happen next"
Yes indeed! :lol:
ken wrote:I do not recall every saying I do not know this, thus surprised.
I was talking about the collective (not you) as I described above.
ken wrote:I, the One, KNOW the communication is distorted because just like if ken communicated to his wife...
I have a hard time with these examples which compare "all that is", "the one", "the collective" with these examples you use from our lives within the dream and within the system. My goal is to draw a distinction between that which we are intoxicated by (here)... and that which transcends that intoxication. Beyond our intoxication, there is -- I'm guessing -- no judgment, need, agenda, "meaning"... none of it. It is just pure being or is-ness or what might seem like "nothing" to us because we are so used to all of our noise and density.

To apply our models to that which is beyond our limited world is similar to what many theists do... and it doesn't seem realistic to me at all. So I have a hard time with it. Maybe it makes sense to other people.

Generally speaking (and this is not aimed at you)...

I'm not trying to define or claim to know what "all that is", "the one", "the collective" IS... I'm trying to point to what it is SURELY NOT... because for some reason, when people try to superimpose our tiny ideas/rules/agendas on it... and even possibly personify it... that feels like a hideous distortion and delusion. I guess I shouldn't care (as I don't believe any of this is serious anyway)... and I should have more compassion for people NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY DO! :D
ken wrote:I do KNOW how much My communication is being distorted.
Surely it goes the other way too, Ken -- where you might be misunderstanding what someone else is trying to communicate. I think you and I have done reasonably well... but we've both put that effort into it.
ken wrote:I say 'unfortunately' just like when ken sees their son miss the bus...
Again, for me, this example does not translate to my intended point regarding the "all that is", "the one", "the collective" -- as there surely is nothing "unfortunate" from that view.
ken wrote:Just say, for example, Thee collective One...
No, no, Ken... no more new language (for me) -- this almost made my brain short-circuit. I can't help but notice that you say you want to LEARN how to communicate... and yet you are doing so much to RE-DEFINE common communication... with all the upper and lower-case letters, and quotes, etc. Most people are not going to be willing to look for the gem within the communication, if they have to struggle so much getting there. You know?
ken wrote:Sorry, I do not think that 'you' was directed at 'you', lancewing.
Minor point... but do you see that my name is Lacewing... not Lancewing? I haven't said anything 'til now because it's kind of cute, and I do like medieval stuff. :D
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: ALL, is part of this experience -- which (I'm guessing) is temporary, perfect, and not serious.
Why think it is temporary?
I'm saying this physical, worldly experience is temporary... for each of us. And (I'm guessing) that "all that is", "the one", "the collective" experiences through each individual's physical experience, yet is in no way defined by or limited by that.
ken wrote:I describe it as My self. Capital M referring to the Oneness of I as the little s referring to one of the many players
Okay, I'm quite sure smoke started coming out of my ears when I read this. Seriously, Ken, how can you expect/ask people to learn this language you are making up? It's too much. These concepts are hard and confusing enough to share between people of such different experiences... to then also start using a new language that no one except you resonates with.

Here's a thought that just popped into my head... and I hope you won't be offended for me to share it with you: Could it be that you're so familiar with being misunderstood throughout your life, that you are actually perpetuating it unnecessarily even now? You know, people crave and recreate what they're used to, even when they say they suffer from it. Familiarity is more desirable for most of us than freedom. Else, why would you be creating such a convoluted set of rules and meanings that no one understands? It seems harder than it needs to be.
ken wrote:I would just like to question for clarity what is the reason for coming and writing here? And, what is the drive to put things into words?
For me, I think it is to have more clarity. That's something I ask for in life every day. The interactions here reveal a lot about people and myself -- and thereby inspire contemplation about how it's all connected and working. It helps reveal "stuck ways" of thinking, it reveals self-defeating ego, I can see myself in others -- and them in me, and it is exhilarating to try to put "far-out ideas" into simple words, and to discover more about it while I do it! For me it is a creative unfolding of limitless potential... rather than getting too fixated on anything.
Post Reply