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.
Originally posted by grizzle2
Originally posted by CythraulPerhaps a part of me is disgusted by the proposition that, ultimately, I am Tony Blair and he is me; I am Joseph Stalin and he is me; I am Jack the Ripper and he is me; I am the rapist and he is me. I work towards self-betterment whilst others don’t, and yet all that work goes not to the betterment of my eternal consciousness but merely contributes towards the neutral consciousness of the ‘I’ that is all of us. You can’t even call us a ‘combination’ of souls because that again implies the presence of more than one.
My BS detector goes off big time with regard to this idea. It's an excuse for not doing anything. Icke has said "I love you, George Bush." I don't. And neither am I George Bush. Everything is not everything.
I'm sure the bad guys would love for everyone to believe in this.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Now, some people can work up a philosophical argument to defend it to their own satisfaction, but then they're stuck trying to figure out why there are polarity responses, why a person's atoms don't simply join with the atoms in a chair they just sat down in, and why the concept of Identity exists at all. So, this is when they start in on the whole "it's part of a universal effort to experience identity by delineating the whole into infinite bits, for each to have their own illusionary identity, with the purpose of juxtaposition for the sake of juxtaposition, and the experience of it."
Originally posted by Nightfury
reply to post by IAMIAM
I beleive in God, the only TRUE God, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Who created the heavan and the earth in 7 days.
I believe in Jesus Christ His only Son, who lived and died for my sins on the cross. Who rose from the dead on the 3rd day, who went to heavan and is sitting on the right hand of God. I believe in the Holy Spirit.
This is MY God.
He said:
John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
I have not seen God personally, BUT I have seen His works. I have seen people change and make a 180 from who they were to who they are now.
By God's grace people have turned their lives around, from addictions to all kinds of destructive behaviours, to being very kind an honarable people.
My God loves us all..
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
This is the God I believe in.
God Bless
Originally posted by Cythraul
Originally posted by RRokkyy
Your body dies,your consciousness IF fully enlightened
merges with the infinite consciousness. But for how long?
Eventually it will, it must,return to the lower states of
consciousness.
But how can the same exact piece of 'the infinite all' return to lower states of consciousness if it has merged with infinite consciousness?! That's like pouring a cup of orange juice into the sea and then later scooping a cupful of seawater and expecting your cup to be full of orange juice.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by grizzle2
Originally posted by CythraulPerhaps a part of me is disgusted by the proposition that, ultimately, I am Tony Blair and he is me; I am Joseph Stalin and he is me; I am Jack the Ripper and he is me; I am the rapist and he is me. I work towards self-betterment whilst others don’t, and yet all that work goes not to the betterment of my eternal consciousness but merely contributes towards the neutral consciousness of the ‘I’ that is all of us. You can’t even call us a ‘combination’ of souls because that again implies the presence of more than one.
My BS detector goes off big time with regard to this idea. It's an excuse for not doing anything. Icke has said "I love you, George Bush." I don't. And neither am I George Bush. Everything is not everything.
I'm sure the bad guys would love for everyone to believe in this.
Y'know, you make a good point here. If everything was everything, then it would literally be everything all the time.
Now, some people can work up a philosophical argument to defend it to their own satisfaction, but then they're stuck trying to figure out why there are polarity responses, why a person's atoms don't simply join with the atoms in a chair they just sat down in, and why the concept of Identity exists at all. So, this is when they start in on the whole "it's part of a universal effort to experience identity by delineating the whole into infinite bits, for each to have their own illusionary identity, with the purpose of juxtaposition for the sake of juxtaposition, and the experience of it." But then they insist that the ultimate goal is to reunite all of this once again and to feel the unity of "oneness" - almost as if the experiment got out of hand and the big challenge is to gather up everything and make it one again.
But, they never actually explain the core notion of why fragmentation (separated into definable and identifiable units) was ever a desirable state of being for this One in the first place. Oh sure, they suggest that it wanted to be fragmented to experience fragmentation, but if it was always this unified One, and if fragmentation is not a natural or even desirable state of existence, then why did it invent the notion of fragmentation, and when it did (keep in mind that it would've had to absolutely invent it out of whole cloth) why did it suddenly desire to become fragmented? What would've been the impetus for such a bizarre need? They will claim - "It can want what it wants, who am I to say why". But in the same breath they will tell you that they know that it wants to reunite with itself as One, so apparently they do believe that they can say "why" for this One, and that they have the authority to do exactly that.
The more you challenge this notion, the more it begins to stagger around the room and assert that "you'd know why if you were enlightened", and "those who can't sense it, know it, be it, will always lash out at it in ignorance and anger, and you're no different than they are". As if each question is like a wound that it resents and you are just another enemy of what is true and right. But all you're trying to do is have them explain why this has such a problem connecting with what you know to be true about the world and about your own life, as soon as you stop listening to them or reading their texts, and step back out into that world.
Of course, they simply insist that your world is a lie. That you've accepted this lie as truth, so it is all you are able to experience. The way I see it, if a premise has to declare everything else to be a lie for it to survive, then it's more than likely a lie itself. It's like the guy who gets caught naked and in bed with a woman by his wife and says to her "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" A factual premise must have a point where it dovetails with that which is universally undeniable. As a premise, it can be initially counterintuitive to a person - depending on that person's life experiences - but the connections between it and what is commonly perceived reality must exist and be provable with a minimum-to-reasonable amount of exposure for it to be viable.
To accept that the whole of everything is actually indivisible, there's just too much that needs to be debunked. I have never seen the case made for this notion. Community of purpose is one thing, and I can defend that notion all day long, but declaring that there is no unique and permanent identity for the human being is something completely indefensible. It just doesn't survive a full logical challenge. In fact, it fails such a challenge almost immediately.edit on 2/18/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by NorEaster
Now, some people can work up a philosophical argument to defend it to their own satisfaction, but then they're stuck trying to figure out why there are polarity responses, why a person's atoms don't simply join with the atoms in a chair they just sat down in, and why the concept of Identity exists at all. So, this is when they start in on the whole "it's part of a universal effort to experience identity by delineating the whole into infinite bits, for each to have their own illusionary identity, with the purpose of juxtaposition for the sake of juxtaposition, and the experience of it."
Everything IS everything all the time. But like a coin has two sides all the time, the human being can only view one at a time. Its sort of like how waves and particles exist in an undifferentiated state until they are observed. Well science assumes that they collapse into one or the other in fact.
That consciousness makes them one or the other. Its more true, but not the complete truth, to say that they appear to become one or the other because that is the only way the human mind can work with them. Its a result of the way our minds are, not the thing itself.
It may sound weird and airy fairy, and "you just have to have the experience" but even physics is heading in that direction. With the idea of many dimension you cannot see, meaning that you see only a tip of an iceberg, and more may be out of your ability to view it, and the idea that time may be a product of the human mind, illusory only, not something with objective reality.
There is no theory in physics that completely describes the mystic reality. But physics is moving in that direction, they are beginning to tread on ground, and describe scenery, that the mystic recognizes.
Originally posted by RRokkyy
The concept of separateness is even harder to defend or explain. Each separate thing or even idea would have to
exist in its own universe completely alone. Separateness is literally insanity. If things interact then they are not separate.
Separateness is just the Religion of Narcissus,gazing at himself in his pond.
How do you explain Jesus saying,"I and the Father are One"?
You ask for the PREMISE OF TRUTH, one that dovetails with
with commonly perceived reality and must be provable.
BEHOLD I GIVE YOU THE PREMISE OF TRUTH: You are always avoiding being already entirely in relationship. You are always separating yourself from yourself as Reality. You are always in this moment creating the illusion of separation. Simply examine your consciousness in each moment and you will see that this is what you are doing.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by NorEaster
This is such an excellent post, I would wish it had more exposure. Any chance that you may consider using it as the basis for a new thread?
It seems like there's a club of these folks here, and they can get pretty irritated with you if you start making challenges to their assertions stick. I guess no one likes to be debunked to their own faces.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by NorEaster
It seems like there's a club of these folks here, and they can get pretty irritated with you if you start making challenges to their assertions stick. I guess no one likes to be debunked to their own faces.
This underscores an inherent contradiction in the "we are all one" declaration by some of the posters. A person who has somewhat dissolved their ego-held boundaries would be willing to examine any reasonable challenges to their assertions, but instead what seems to be growing in prevalence is a curt dismissal of all challeneges on the basis of a supposed inferior level of consciousness of the one presenting the challenges.
If the ego resists yieldiing at such a basic initial stage, how wlll the entire identity structure, mental, emotional and spiritual, be surrendered to the All?
By the way, I am probably starting to sound like your apologist in some of these threads, but you do have an obvious talent for writing, and especially for piercing through some of those veils of (possible) delusion. While we do diverge in several aspects of our beliefs or perceptions, I do appreciate your candid style and willingness to expose your own flaws to make a point.
Originally posted by Cythraul
Originally posted by ballsdeep
...a life focused on material pursuits is just as unfulfilling whether you subscribe to these philosophies or not.
I take your point, and yes, I agree it probably does represent the truth. If I didn't think there was some truth to it I wouldn't have bothered starting this thread. As for what you say above, you're right about material pursuits, in a sense. However, if the 'one infinite consciousness' has divided itself into infinite pieces sent to this realm of existence to 'experience everything', then by default it is preferable that some humans do focus on material pursuits, and worse yet - murder, rape and abuse. This theory of 'oneness' legitimises murder, rape and genocide. One person in this thread suggested that those who murder and rape may have separated themselves from the infinite consciousness. A good theory, but does infinite consciousness want to experience EVERYTHING or not? If it does, then the theory does legitimize murder and rape. I'm just having difficulty reconciling that.