It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oneness. All is one.

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
No one will convince me of this being something legitimate to even think of. The double think involved is mind boggling. All this is is a re-branding of all the worlds religions without the deities.


I accept the deities as having existed. So it isn't without the deities. At this point it isn't up to anyone to convince you. You entered this forum already knowing that you weren't going to accept it and now you're leaving knowing you aren't going to accept it. There exists a term for that, its called closed-mindedness. I've always kept an open mind, I wouldn't have posted something like this if I hadn't experienced it first hand as being true. I would have never taken the leap of faith required to challenge what I believed about my existence in such a way that I have now arrived at this final conclusion that has made all of life's mystery's unmystery and led to a relatively unimaginable fulfillment. I am thankful that I adopted an open mind, otherwise I probably would have denied reality every time it hit me in the face.


There is no such thing as open-mindedness. No one is open to any and every experience. If someone asked you to do something you thought immoral would you do it out of open-mindedness? No. We are all close-minded in some ways. By saying this oneness is the only way like it or not is to be close-minded. I wouldn't be surprised if you say that about everyone who doesn't agree with the idea. Everyone has their own beliefs and philosophical outlook on life. Maybe you should be open-minded and look into others to see if there is one that makes more sense to you? You never know...

And no, before I clicked into this forum I did not think I was not going to accept it or not. I didn't know what it was about at first. I've read all the posts and I've come to the conclusion that it's not something I'm interested in. Believe me, it makes perfect sense to look out for your fellow man and to recognize that we need to take care of each other. But if everything were beautiful how would we know?
edit on 1/17/2011 by PhantomLimb because: (no reason given)


There's no such thing as open-mindedness? Really? I wouldn't do something immoral because I learned from experience not to behave immorally and learned what is immoral and what is right. Sorry for assuming things about you and your disposition. Maybe I can try one more time to help you see what I'm saying.

There exists everything. You are a part of this everything.
From the perspective of everything, it is ONE thing.
Perceiving oneness is in other words, tapping in to the perspective of everything (that perceives IT'S SELF as one thing) and not limiting yourself to the perspective of the part.

The everything does have its own perspective. I know this because I have tapped in to it, and seen what it sees. Not seen with my eyes, but more with my brain.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon



By saying this oneness is the only way like it or not is to be close-minded.
reply to post by PhantomLimb
 


Even though I support the "onenness" way (in my individual way, lol), I totally agree that other philosophies may be just as valid, if not truer or closer to the mark.

I also think there is a distinction between sharing an idea, and preaching it. I hope there has been more sharing than preaching from my end.




Definitely. It was nice talking to you.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
No one will convince me of this being something legitimate to even think of. The double think involved is mind boggling. All this is is a re-branding of all the worlds religions without the deities.


I accept the deities as having existed. So it isn't without the deities. At this point it isn't up to anyone to convince you. You entered this forum already knowing that you weren't going to accept it and now you're leaving knowing you aren't going to accept it. There exists a term for that, its called closed-mindedness. I've always kept an open mind, I wouldn't have posted something like this if I hadn't experienced it first hand as being true. I would have never taken the leap of faith required to challenge what I believed about my existence in such a way that I have now arrived at this final conclusion that has made all of life's mystery's unmystery and led to a relatively unimaginable fulfillment. I am thankful that I adopted an open mind, otherwise I probably would have denied reality every time it hit me in the face.


There is no such thing as open-mindedness. No one is open to any and every experience. If someone asked you to do something you thought immoral would you do it out of open-mindedness? No. We are all close-minded in some ways. By saying this oneness is the only way like it or not is to be close-minded. I wouldn't be surprised if you say that about everyone who doesn't agree with the idea. Everyone has their own beliefs and philosophical outlook on life. Maybe you should be open-minded and look into others to see if there is one that makes more sense to you? You never know...

And no, before I clicked into this forum I did not think I was not going to accept it or not. I didn't know what it was about at first. I've read all the posts and I've come to the conclusion that it's not something I'm interested in. Believe me, it makes perfect sense to look out for your fellow man and to recognize that we need to take care of each other. But if everything were beautiful how would we know?
edit on 1/17/2011 by PhantomLimb because: (no reason given)


There's no such thing as open-mindedness? Really? I wouldn't do something immoral because I learned from experience not to behave immorally and learned what is immoral and what is right. Sorry for assuming things about you and your disposition. Maybe I can try one more time to help you see what I'm saying.

There exists everything. You are a part of this everything.
From the perspective of everything, it is ONE thing.
Perceiving oneness is in other words, tapping in to the perspective of everything (that perceives IT'S SELF as one thing) and not limiting yourself to the perspective of the part.

The everything does have its own perspective. I know this because I have tapped in to it, and seen what it sees. Not seen with my eyes, but more with my brain.


I meant to say complete open-mindedness. Sorry. It's late. However, I did read all of the posts and put it to consideration and I don't believe it has solid ground to walk on. You don't even explain HOW this works.

How does "the everything" have it's own perspective? Would that not give "it" individuality?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Dragonfly79
 

Unity in diversity in unbounded freedom, no loss of integrity at any level you still don't get it yet.


Thanks! Lucky me.


So it would seem that we are both up in arms over nothing, once recognized as being free, created beings in eternity having the opportunity to experience it both in part AND in whole.


edit on 16-1-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


First I'm unarmed, second I'm seperated from all those who believe everything is connected and all is one, that is some other infinity. It's my free will to believe so, even if this does not conform to your free will which is to believe everything (including me I suppose) is one and connected and all that blahblah.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by smithjustinb


Upon perceiving oneness the only choice you will "want" to make is a choice that involves doing something for someone else. I believe that you never lose full individuality until you arrive at the absolute.

Free will is an illusion as well. All things are done for the greater good of the all. You eventually evolve to a point of just pure being of infinite intelligence. There is nothing to do at that point, you just are.



Originally posted by smithjustinb


When you realize oneness, the only aspect of free will you lose is selfishness.


If free will is an illusion then I never had it to begin with. This is absurd.


You're absolutely right, you didn't have it until you learned about it's existence, which you probably heard from other people and this can be traced back to ancient times where a group of clever people started thinking for themselves and had enough of controlling eachother so they invented this thing called free will and made everyone believe they have such a thing.

If that didn't happen back then, if I were to say to you that you are a loser, you would have believed me just like that and would not be able to argue or resist since you did not believe you could choose to see yourself as you like. Humanity would remain monkey's only able to follow the body's will (hunger, sex, etc) never overcoming it.
edit on 17/1/2011 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Beautiful, this is how it really is. I feel that this is how the Creator experiences his creation, through us.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by NorEaster

Author Koestler invented the term "holon" to describe the reality of unique wholes that combine to form a collective whole that can be identified as a unique whole relative to the larger environment that contains it. Like the team members of a baseball team, who join to be that identifiable team while maintaining their unique and singular identities as players. If "oneness" means joining the same team with others, then okay, that's feasible and definitely desireable. If "oneness" means vacating one's existential identity to become some version of a formless and identity-less wash of general consciousness with whatever else has somehow done the same, then good luck with that. It simply can't be done. That isn't the true nature of consciousness, regardless of what some Internet forum posters insist.


edit on 1/16/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


I arrived at the conclusion of the holon theory through contemplation independent of any knowledge of a supporting theory. It seems likely to me. Like I said, I don't have any proof, although I don't doubt that any exists. If you want proof, I think David Wilcock might have some, idk. That's the only name that rings a bell.


David Wilcox is pretty nutty. He claims to be Edgar Cayce's reincarnated self. I once read that he says that he travels to other planets through a door he owns. That guy doesn't have proof of anything. Go up on divinecosmos.com... and see for yourself. He doesn't even try to make sense.


Oneness IS joining the same team with others. Like a collective awareness type thing. I know in this human body I will still retain my individuality, but THE PERCEPTION OF ONENESS EXISTS nonetheless. Like I said, just accept it first, then make yourself see it, and you will probably convince yourself too. Evolution in my opinion is going to be like a transition to a greater perception. Instead of self awareness, we gain group awareness, as earth. The holon theory is especially believable if you could at least see the earth as a life form in itself. From there you evolve to a Stellar awareness. Upon perceiving oneness, I "realized" that Stars are alive too. Again, I don't have any proof. But, just because I can't prove it, doesn't make it true.


Okay, so Oneness (for you) is joining the community of all that exists as a contributing member, and accepting the full validity of all that exists as being equal to your own. I absolutely agree with this, and encourage everyone to embrace this notion. This is Oneness that is realistic and positive.

The human being is an inherently community-centric being. It needs community as a staple aspect of its corporeal experience, and nothing makes it feel more whole and secure than the community it so desperately needs. If this is what you mean by Oneness, then God bless you and keep you happy in your pursuit of such Oneness. We'd all be much better off if this was the goal of all humanity.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
By saying this oneness is the only way like it or not is to be close-minded. I wouldn't be surprised if you say that about everyone who doesn't agree with the idea.


Sorry to break this to you but oneness is a scientific fact of life. You can not, and will never, disprove that you are a small part of the whole, the One.

No matter what mental gymnastics you do to blind your self from seeing this fact, you will still be a part of the whole. The energy which makes up your body will always be a part of the Universe, a part of existence itself, like a few pixels in One digital image.

Until you can see this, you will just be living a lie.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by NewAgeMan





My, aren't you two wonderful.

How easy it is to write what you write, and how clean the explanation is that those who disagree simply haven't progressed to a point of being able to experience what you claim as commonplace within your own lives. Reminds me of when I hung out on a local rock scene forum in Boston years ago. A band would have a local club show, and then the next day, a flock of friends would all agree with each other on the board that the show had been incredible, that the band was poised to break national, that major label reps had been spotted in the room that night - all kinds of claims. Funny, I'd be there in the same room that evening, and there'd been 10, maybe 15 people, and the show started late, ended without fanfare, and the between the two moments, nothing had transpired worthy of note.

Words are easy to line up next to each other, and they don't resist whatever placement you decide for them. Reality isn't as maleable as the description of it. I've learned that everyone online is tall, good-looking, and ripped like Brad Pitt in Fight Club. They're all transcendent masters of whatever it is that's being discussed. Describing intuitive sensing and oneness as having been achieved is fun stuff, but please realize that only you and those exactly like you take your claims at face value. Experiences are not reality. They are perception, and perception is not, and never has been, reality.

I'm sorry if this seems insensitive, but I'm just - in essence - letting you know that you have toilet paper stuck to your shoe. It's compassionate in its own odd way of being so.


I disagree. Perception is reality. But only when it is from the point of view of the Absolute. The all-knowing. Oneness is the absolute. It is the whole. It is God. And Oneness wants you to see it.

I agree. A single entity's perception of his experience is just that. It is reality to the single entity, but a second entity may perceive the same situation differently, therefore there is conflict of reality. What is reality, is the situation and experience itself, without biased perception. But within the experience there exists the observation which is not independent of the experience. In the perception of oneness, you see that you are the observer and the observed. This give the oneness "perception" entitlement to reality.


I think that if we were both using the same terminology to represent our notions, we'd agree.

There is a true "real", and this "oneness perception" you refer to seems to be this true "real". If it is, then I agree with you, and this is what I was commenting on in my reply. People spin a version of reality that serves them, whether it be through amplifying their accomplishments or mitigating their failures. It's become so expected now days that no one takes anyone at face value anymore. While this is to be expected, and often is the proper way to deal with "spin", the truth can easily slide right by without anyone ever taking a moment to recognize it for what it is.

And this is the real problem with spin.

In a world where everything is its own version of true, nothing is ever seen as true. Not true as in possessing the impact of that which is authentically true. Information degrades into infotainment, and wisdom becomes a collection of six letters that can be used in a variety of way within a sentence.

Meanwhile, authentic truth persists. It persists because it simply does, and for no other reason. If Oneness is just another term for authentic reality as a collective whole, then someone needs to stabilize this term to specifically mean that. After all, if a term is supposed to represent such a rigid and factual collective, then the term itself must be likewise defined and restricted.
edit on 1/17/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
By saying this oneness is the only way like it or not is to be close-minded. I wouldn't be surprised if you say that about everyone who doesn't agree with the idea.


Sorry to break this to you but oneness is a scientific fact of life. You can not, and will never, disprove that you are a small part of the whole, the One.

No matter what mental gymnastics you do to blind your self from seeing this fact, you will still be a part of the whole. The energy which makes up your body will always be a part of the Universe, a part of existence itself, like a few pixels in One digital image.

Until you can see this, you will just be living a lie.


So then, another way of describing Oneness IS the phrase "absolute reality"? If this is so, then someone needs to stop being so vague about it.
edit on 1/17/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by PhantomLimb
 




More or less, where does oneness end and individuality begin when it comes to conscious thought and action?


That is an excellent question, and also highlights my personal aversion to the word "oneness". (I use the word here because it is the subject of the thread.)

Individuality is always maintained, the self does not lose its personal point of reference, but the consciousness of self diminishes in relation to the consciousness of the greater whole. Thoughts and actions become more mindful of our part in the world, both near and farther afield.


The problem is that what is "good" for the greater whole is sometimes bad for the individual.


Just like your own body. If your finger is going gangrene you have the choice to sever the finger which is bad for the finger and good for the body, or you can leave the finger ultimately being bad for both.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


That is just one of many ways to describe it, yes. There are many ways to describe it. It's just a matter of what is easiest for you to understand.

What is so vague about saying you are "One"? You are the Uni-verse. The Universe is your body. A part of One object. You are all that is. You are reality itself. You are life and existence. You are a part of the whole. A part of the All.

"All in all is all you are." -Nirvana

Once you understand your place in this Universe, from there you can discover many philosophical truths, like those found in the original post.

 


Side note:

Here is a interesting video you should watch:



 


This is good too..


edit on 17-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 



I know that we are all connected to each other and the universe in a physical sense seeing as we are made of the same materials as stars. Don't get me wrong on that. My problem lies in the part about being connected through our consciousness. I've read the OP's other threads describing telepathy to be acquired by realizing that the person sitting across from me is myself and they are me. If one realizes that then they can communicate telepathically. This is absurd thinking. I am not that person because my consciousness is inside of myself and theirs in them. We are separate in those means and will never be one whole no matter how hard we try. It's nice to think about this oneness where everyone holds hands, sings cumbaya, and there is universal love but that is not the way the universe works. There must be balance in the system.

If everyone is good and seeks to be good then someone will have to decide what is good? Who will decide this? The whole? If the whole cannot come to an agreement who decides then? I see huge flaws in this thinking.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonfly79

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by smithjustinb


Upon perceiving oneness the only choice you will "want" to make is a choice that involves doing something for someone else. I believe that you never lose full individuality until you arrive at the absolute.

Free will is an illusion as well. All things are done for the greater good of the all. You eventually evolve to a point of just pure being of infinite intelligence. There is nothing to do at that point, you just are.



Originally posted by smithjustinb


When you realize oneness, the only aspect of free will you lose is selfishness.


If free will is an illusion then I never had it to begin with. This is absurd.


You're absolutely right, you didn't have it until you learned about it's existence, which you probably heard from other people and this can be traced back to ancient times where a group of clever people started thinking for themselves and had enough of controlling eachother so they invented this thing called free will and made everyone believe they have such a thing.

If that didn't happen back then, if I were to say to you that you are a loser, you would have believed me just like that and would not be able to argue or resist since you did not believe you could choose to see yourself as you like. Humanity would remain monkey's only able to follow the body's will (hunger, sex, etc) never overcoming it.
edit on 17/1/2011 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)


The terminology came from other sources, yes. But free will has always been a part of my life. I have always been fiercely independent and making decisions for myself. Even at a young age and have questioned what free will was and what it means since a very, very young age. You see, I was brought up as an evangelical christian and taught that we have free will but God knows your future. This convinced me that there was something wrong if a Creator said every choice was yours to make but He already knew what choice you would make. It seemed paradoxical to me. However, free will is real. You experience free will when you say it is not real. You are free to choose what it means to you.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by scratchmane

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by PhantomLimb
 




More or less, where does oneness end and individuality begin when it comes to conscious thought and action?


That is an excellent question, and also highlights my personal aversion to the word "oneness". (I use the word here because it is the subject of the thread.)

Individuality is always maintained, the self does not lose its personal point of reference, but the consciousness of self diminishes in relation to the consciousness of the greater whole. Thoughts and actions become more mindful of our part in the world, both near and farther afield.


The problem is that what is "good" for the greater whole is sometimes bad for the individual.


Just like your own body. If your finger is going gangrene you have the choice to sever the finger which is bad for the finger and good for the body, or you can leave the finger ultimately being bad for both.



Bad analogy. It is bad for BOTH the finger AND the body to get gangrene seeing as the finger is part of the body. That's a terrible way of thinking of the individual in this sense. What I'm trying to say is that if the individual wants one thing and the whole want it the other way then it seems the individual must go against what they want for the greater whole. There have been times in history where the greater whole destroyed the lives of the individual all for the greater good. Remember, when Communist governments take over a country the anarchists are the first to die because, they do not serve the greater whole. I guess you could say they are looked at as gangrenous fingers.
edit on 1/17/2011 by PhantomLimb because: clarity



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


I know that we are all connected to each other and the universe in a physical sense seeing as we are made of the same materials as stars. Don't get me wrong on that.


So you understand that everything is physically One, and we are all connected by multiple forces and systems?


Originally posted by PhantomLimb
My problem lies in the part about being connected through our consciousness.


Who are you to claim our consciousnesses are not connected in some form?

The Universe is one object with multiple consciousnesses. Your consciousness and my consciousness are just 2 of the many consciousnesses that exist within the One. All of our consciousness are connected to the One, and exist within the One, and are a part of the One. So in a manner of speaking, the Universe knows everything I know, knows everything you know, knows everything everyone knows, because it is everyone, it is all consciousness combined... omniscient.

The Universe is like a person with multiple personalities. Each one of those personalities may be different and somewhat unique and have different perspectives, but the reality is, they are all connected and a part of the same being. Who is to say that one personality (consciousness) can't understand another consciousness or communicate with another? This possibility could make possible certain things like telekinesis.

What is consciousness anyway? To you it's probably a bunch of chemical reactions which create electric charges which allow your senses to control your mind and cause your mind to form thoughts, ideas, and your over all personality, and allows you to experience the Universe.... It all comes down to electricity. Without electricity you would not have chemical reactions, you would not have senses, and you would not have any thoughts, and wouldn't experience what you call consciousness. Electricity is the flow of electrons.... Science doesn't even know exactly what electrons are, or what they are capable of. Electrons flow through your entire body, and flow through the entire Earth, and flow through everyones body, and all elements on Earth, and all life on Earth. Basically electrons are shared between the stars and planets and everything in the Universe, and on top of that they give rise to what you consider consciousness. Who is to say electrons can not link consciousnesses together?

Just because YOU can't do it as of now, doesn't mean others can't, or that it is not possible.


Originally posted by PhantomLimb
It's nice to think about this oneness where everyone holds hands, sings cumbaya, and there is universal love but that is not the way the universe works. There must be balance in the system.


Who are you to say how the Universe works? You don't even know the first thing about it.

What balance are you talking about?


Originally posted by PhantomLimb
If everyone is good and seeks to be good then someone will have to decide what is good? Who will decide this? The whole? If the whole cannot come to an agreement who decides then? I see huge flaws in this thinking.


You only see flaws because you are asking flawed questions.

There exists Universal good... do you really not know what "good" is? It has already been decided.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
No one will convince me of this being something legitimate to even think of. The double think involved is mind boggling. All this is is a re-branding of all the worlds religions without the deities.


I accept the deities as having existed. So it isn't without the deities. At this point it isn't up to anyone to convince you. You entered this forum already knowing that you weren't going to accept it and now you're leaving knowing you aren't going to accept it. There exists a term for that, its called closed-mindedness. I've always kept an open mind, I wouldn't have posted something like this if I hadn't experienced it first hand as being true. I would have never taken the leap of faith required to challenge what I believed about my existence in such a way that I have now arrived at this final conclusion that has made all of life's mystery's unmystery and led to a relatively unimaginable fulfillment. I am thankful that I adopted an open mind, otherwise I probably would have denied reality every time it hit me in the face.


There is no such thing as open-mindedness. No one is open to any and every experience. If someone asked you to do something you thought immoral would you do it out of open-mindedness? No. We are all close-minded in some ways. By saying this oneness is the only way like it or not is to be close-minded. I wouldn't be surprised if you say that about everyone who doesn't agree with the idea. Everyone has their own beliefs and philosophical outlook on life. Maybe you should be open-minded and look into others to see if there is one that makes more sense to you? You never know...

And no, before I clicked into this forum I did not think I was not going to accept it or not. I didn't know what it was about at first. I've read all the posts and I've come to the conclusion that it's not something I'm interested in. Believe me, it makes perfect sense to look out for your fellow man and to recognize that we need to take care of each other. But if everything were beautiful how would we know?
edit on 1/17/2011 by PhantomLimb because: (no reason given)


There's no such thing as open-mindedness? Really? I wouldn't do something immoral because I learned from experience not to behave immorally and learned what is immoral and what is right. Sorry for assuming things about you and your disposition. Maybe I can try one more time to help you see what I'm saying.

There exists everything. You are a part of this everything.
From the perspective of everything, it is ONE thing.
Perceiving oneness is in other words, tapping in to the perspective of everything (that perceives IT'S SELF as one thing) and not limiting yourself to the perspective of the part.

The everything does have its own perspective. I know this because I have tapped in to it, and seen what it sees. Not seen with my eyes, but more with my brain.


I meant to say complete open-mindedness. Sorry. It's late. However, I did read all of the posts and put it to consideration and I don't believe it has solid ground to walk on. You don't even explain HOW this works.

How does "the everything" have it's own perspective? Would that not give "it" individuality?


Honestly dude, there's a lot I don't know. Most of the questions answer themselves in a certain way. It has its own perspective because I've been able to tap into the perspective and know it exists. I read about oneness and was skeptical for a long time after hearing about it. Then one day, I saw it for myself. That's how oneness is, you have to see it for yourself.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
It's nice to think about this oneness where everyone holds hands, sings cumbaya, and there is universal love but that is not the way the universe works. There must be balance in the system.


I perceive a balance. The yin and the yang. From this world, we have two paths that we can choose to take. Each path is energetically keeping the Universe going. God, Oneness, is the beginning and the end of these paths. He is one and the whole universe from start to finish is in him. At the end of the road, the positive and the negative become one. There is no more to experience. However, the end is another beginning, and a new universe can be born for the energy is still there, although balanced. It is the positive energy that allows for the negative energy.

At the end of the road before the final convergence, a positive being will look back and see all the glory of creation from the loving life that he led, and although the end is in sight, he will be strongly hoping for a new beginning, because the first ride was very enjoyable.

A negative being will look back and see the destruction he caused along the way and will fill remorse, for now he finally understands the wrongness of his decisions. He sees the end in sight but due to his negative ways, he can't create the energy necessary to imagine what good it would be to start another universe, so he welcomes the end and hopes that is it. He sees his wrongdoings for what they are and can't imagine doing them again.

Thus, the positive energy of love will be the first to step up and begin another Universe because when that energy looks back, it knows that it definitely wants to ride the roller coaster again. The negative energy of destruction threw up on the ride and does not want to ride it again.

This causes a great unbalance, and due to the fluctuations of the conflicting energies, a new universe is born.

So the question is, do you want to enjoy your ride and make the best of it, or do you want to be scared of the ride and make the worst of it?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PhantomLimb
 

If everything is one thing, then to a degree, free will is an illusion I think I understand what you're saying. At best we are free to be chosen..?
And of course when we do choose, we must choose something or some action for it's own sake, and not between two things, since it's not really a choice to pick one thing only because it's not another thing or relative to that other thing, in much the same way that evil can never justify the good as being good simply because it's not evil, which is absurd.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


The creator is created
The preserver is preserved
The detroyer is destroyed

Thus, what's not fruitful or formative ie: destructive, is already destroyed, and is not needed, since everything is already preserved, already "grokked" most fully in eternity.

Evil is not a neccessity for fun and enjoyment.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join