So, we're all Adolf Hitler and he is us!

I read a post back about a question of God, if there was a God or if there is God and I wondered? Why ask this question? Why this unanswerable question? Such an incomprehendable question? Then it occured to me that the seer can not see the seer. The promised land is the journey. Alpha is Omega. We search for what has not been lost. You see, we are ONE. It's like a big Cosmic mirror has been lifted in front of our face and we can finally for the first time see our own face. It is the face of the ONE searching for itself. We are soon home to the ONE. Joyous, jubilation...There are no more questions. I yearn for no more. This has been all purely for the experience. of experiencing creation. There is no Cosmic moral angle. You ARE Hitler and Stalin and Mao. You are Jesus and all the Prophets and all goodness and light. We are all the ONE. Every particle. Every wave. ONE.

PEACE, LOVE N LIGHT

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.

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

reply to post by grizzle2


It actually isnt an excuse for doing nothing. Non dualism is not nihilism.

And for the "love and light" crowd, this is really nothing that Buddha has not said either. Its the same underlying thing, that all division is apparent or "illusory" only, and that the multiplicity is a singularity, although in truth even that division is meaningless in the face of what IS. That desire is the root of all suffering. And lusting after a better world, my friend, is desire. Longing for the light, is desire. Its a non acceptance of what actually is, and it is a root of much suffering.

Non dualism just asks that you be what you are. If you are a rainbow warrior dedicated to spreading unicorns and rainbows, love and light, be that. Open yourself to it and be it. If you are a general on a battlefield and it is your task to give the orders that will kill many you care for in a civil war, be that general. Be that and be non resistant to it. Hate not yourself or those who play another role. You can do your task without judgment, simply out of obedience to Gods will, or your own nature, whatever you choose to call it.

(The example of the general is taken from the Bhagavad gita. Where "God" tells him the people he is about to kill are already dead, that God has decided their fate, and he is the instrument, the weapon, not the swordsman) It is the same for Hitler, or Stalin. They were instruments through which the divine acted. Not that God wanted those people to suffer, or to punish them. Death is not suffering to God, and "He/she" is not punishing "you" because it is happening to and in God. Death has no meaning when the dualism of "dead/alive" is not. When you just are, and will be throughout eternity. In God is everything that ever was and ever will be, experienced in all ways at once. Dead alive, young old, it is experienced in a whole and complete way. Time and space have no meaning in God. God is complete, whole, and unmoving. The apparent cycle of inward and outward breath, expansion and contraction, is only how it looks to us, from a limited view. Like all opposites, in God it is meaningless to call it an opposite or think of it as two.

Jesus also asks you not to play at judgment. But to be perfect, (whole, complete, not dualistically minded) as the father. To have faith and trust, and not hate those who are enemy. The inception of dualism, (the knowledge of good vs evil) is the original sin, or mistake made by humans.

Its not some odd and radical idea. It actually sits at the heart of many of the spiritual traditions, and is ignored by the followers of those traditions.

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.

reply to post by NorEaster

I just want to say, what a great post.

You've put many more of my thoughts into words.

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?

During a recent deep meditation I came to realise that you are all my creations.
Human beings are truly alone.
We each live inside our own version of reality inhabited by our own creations.
In this way we are each gods.
Every thing we experience is of our own making, and is a part of us. This is how synchonicity works.
Unfortunately what that means is that you reading this are all created by me and when I die, you shall fade from existence.
Each of us are trapped in our own bubbles of Divine reality.
I am not unique, although you are not real, there are other beings who are experiencing their own different reality in which they are also the divine creator. Unfortunately I can never communicate with them, only theorise on the likelyhood of their existence.

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

Fair enough my friend.

Here is my proof of the existence of God. It is short and to the point.

Proof of God

You might find it of interest, you might not.

With Love,

Your Brother

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.

There is never any piece of "the infinite all"(God) that is
separate. Your analogy is wrong. The waves in the ocean are
the creatures that think they are separate, but waves are
only temporary manifestations of energy and are really never separate from the ocean. So individuals think they are separate but in reality are never separate. Individual consciousness is just a CONTRACTION OF ENERGY giving rise to the experience of fear, which is what we call LIFE. The ego is never alive,it just exists in a state of fear which it calls life.
The physical body is like a machine that is inhabited by the ghost of God (the dead Ego self) until it realizes its true nature (enlightenment). This ghost might go through successive linked incarnations but there isnt any real proof of that. As long as a body (animal or human) is created consciousness will apparently fill it.

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)

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 seeking.
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.
No Seeking is Reality,or Non Duality.

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.

Actually science doesn't assume that. A few Theoretical Physicists assume that, and the rest of science doesn't agree with them. Not that you'd know that if your entire range of research into this stuff involved YouTube.com. Particles and "waves" (a term that seems to be a Rorschach test in recent years when applied to physics) are not undifferentiated, since if they were, there'd be no particles AND waves, there'd just be a something that was neither particle nor wave. These riffs sound good if you don't know what they imply, but they fall on their faces as soon as you reach for a dictionary.

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.

Again, this is not true, and while there are a few books out there being sold that assert this, the bulk of the scientific community does not embrace this notion. The reason that this is the case is that there is no logical foundation for this sort of thinking. It suggests that human consciousness is primordial, and while anyone can claim this, it's no different than claiming that human beings are God. After all, if human perception establishes the foundation(s) of reality, then what's the difference between the human perspective and the creative power of God? No difference whatsoever.

I'm not sure you're aware that this is what you're claiming when you make these assertions. After all, many people don't really chase down the ramifications of what they declare to be reality. For them, if it sounds good, then it is good.

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.

Actually physics isn't heading in that direction. A couple books were published recently that made some news with this sort of zany philobabble as science, but the serious world of physics hasn't been affected by what these guys have published. Only here and on YouTube.com is any of that stuff getting real traction. Oh, and on Discovery Channel - between episodes of Ice Road Truckers, Sarah Palin's Alaska and the latest incoming end-of-the-world disaster documentary. It fits right in there as well.

The human mind is a product of reality. It's not the creator of reality. Not if you use the word reality as representing anything other than your own individual imagination and perception in a combination that you've accepted as real for yourself. If that's how you use the term reality, then we're having two very different conversations here. My version of the term reality describes the factual environment of existential congruence that brought you, me and this board into physical existence. I call all other forms of reality perception, and won't acknowledge reality as being an operative term to describe these states of mind that belong to only one point of human perspective. I just wanted to make that distinction clear and save you the 150 words of admonishment.

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.

What's actually happening, is that the ambitious folks in the field are panicking over the fact that the study of particle physics has advanced (due to technology) to the point where it has finally proven particle physics to be a blind alley concerning the establishment of existential origin.

Now, the more enterprising among these professionals are looking about and grabbing onto whatever hybrid will play to the crowd. Most of this unrealistic drama is due to the fact that books on this subject are selling really well, and some of it is due to the fact that these renegades are trying to establish some kind of real career at long last, and startling claims sell books, and book sales can lift an author out of the stockyard channels that exist in a field such as physics. After all, the PhDs were getting a bit scarce for a while there, and without one of those, you're teaching in a community college or even (ugh) a high school science class. Not exactly where some of these hard-chargers envisioned their careers crashing into.

A good selling book is a reasonable alternative to being on the stink end of the stick in any professional field. Heck, the guy who published that last book (translating the double-slit photon experiment into a claim that you can go back in time and change the past) lists a PhD after his name on the cover, but his PhD is in English - not Physics. Not something so easy to find out unless you did a little digging into his biography.

The modern world is a factory that blows out entertainment on a 24/7/365 basis. All kinds of entertainment. Bread and circus is what the Romans called it when they had their own fun factory up and running. We call it "keep them fed and distracted with whatever bullsh*t draws them in". Same thing. It works to help corporations and governments keep the people out of the street, and then the rank and file are finding ways to pay the rent with it too. Human beings are like water. They'll always find a way in or out, as the case may be.

As for David Icke. The man has some wild theories. None of which I subscribe to.
Did you keep the receipt for the book?

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.

Common contextual association allows for interaction without requiring each unique to lose its identity. Read up on holon theory. One of those obvious descriptions that I find refreshing. The baseball team is one holon, while each team member is a holon as well. Your corporeal body is a holon, while each cell that combines in common cause is a holon. I won't engage in semantics. This is unique identity engaged in community of common cause.

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"?

First - Jesus is an allegorical figure, so please save your effort here. The theologians argue over what the writer of the gospel was trying to suggest here, and the battle between Literalists and Gnostics over that line is not a battle that I see as important, since I know that Jesus never said such a thing. I do not embrace the notion that the bible is more than a philosophical masterpiece. From what I understand about life, I'm not legally required to embrace that notion anymore.

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.

Why do you bother? Seriously. Why? We've already been over this, and I've already explained that I looked into your community and was turned off by what I saw. Hell, that Bubba Free John character is enough to ruin anyone's afternoon. You people need to cull some of that stuff off your site if you want anyone to "see by your fruit" that you're in possession of any version of truth at all.

Then again, you did get to jump in and post the link to your site...didn't you? Clever.

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?

Geesh....I have...several times. It turns into a feeding frenzy of people trying to hijack the thread and send it off to page 2 with Internet links and dreary semantics debates. I've been on here for months with this exact same message, and it's remained the same pattern. 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. I remember when I got publicly schooled on the whole 9/11 thing, (collapse of WTC#7) and by a guy who'd replaced me in a band I'd walked off on in Boston. Man, that stung, but he was right and I had to deal with it no matter how much of a jerk he was. Learning isn't always fun.

There are a lot of competing themes that are battling over who's been freed up by the dramatic fall of Christian-centric ideologies in the modern industrialized world - particularly in Europe, where the decline has been more of a crash. Maybe there's money to be made off those people who just know that there has to be more, but who also know that a 2,000 yr old drama isn't going to cut it for them anymore as being that "more" that they feel a need to embrace? I don't know. I think that when this wave really hits the US, the impact of it will be remarkable, if not catastrophic in some ways. Americans aren't good at being disillusioned. They resent it. I don't even want to imagine what will replace it.

The we are all One and will flow into one All when life is over meme has been around for a long time, but it hasn't been so prevalent in the Western world. Mostly reaching in within New Age arenas, but even there, it hasn't been all that popular, and for obvious reasons. I mean, what's the draw to embracing the idea that as soon as you die, all that you've ever been and have become will simply blend into a slurry of everyone else who's ever been - including the jerks who make your life miserable in freeway traffic.

It's almost like pissing in a toilet after someone that's hideous just used it and didn't flush it. I don't know. I can't really bring myself to NOT flush the bowl clean before I use it. Okay, so it's not like that guy's skank can crawl up the stream after me, but I still don't want my waste mixing with his - at least not right in front of me. I would imagine that most folks would feel (sort of) similar about their unique and priceless essence sludging in with the skeeves that thoughtlessly, carelessly litter all over their days, weeks and years, as soon as they finally fall down for good. Having that to look forward to is pretty depressing. Frankly, the logic fails, but on a more visceral note - yuk!

(shudder)

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 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?

Good question. I don't know. The logic alone refuses to allow for such a surrender, and as far as what humans seem to display when challenged, logic might be the least of the hurdles that the All will have in front of it to get back to being One again.

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.

They say to lead with your strengths and my flaws are my most impressive aspects.

I appreciate the nod. Thanks.

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.

No it does not want to experience everything; it wants to experience itself (which physically is everything, yes) but it needs itself to manifest in the best physical form it possibly can. This is where the idea of souls and 'spiritual progression' CAN come in to play, however they are not necessary in describing this theory. Even on a very finite level; the more fulfilling, selfless and outwardly focused existence being led by a point of consciousness, the better those experiences are for the source. People fail to realize, but the key to understanding yourself and the form/formless around you is the dissolution of the ego; it is the ego that wants, that kills, that rapes, that gets angry or hurt, it is the ego that confines us within our individual perception.
So no, 'oneness' does not legitimize any projection of the ego, it's counter intuitive.

I've read a bit more of Icke's book and he goes on to assert that there are levels of consciousness between this one and the unified infinite consciousness, meaning that souls could reincarnate many times over before escaping that cycle and becoming one with the source (he really does mirror the Matrix films doesn't he). This tends to echo my understanding of pagan/mystic traditions where 'even the soul dies eventually'. I take this to mean that eventually, even the independent soul disappears, absorbed into the ultimate oneness.

This is a little easier to accept, for it means that our souls get to enjoy individual sovereignty, reincarnated over and over, until we reach a point where we yearn to be reunited with the one infinite consciousness.

reply to post by Cythraul


You have to understand that for well over a hundred years sociopaths have been trying to make society more friendly towards them(turn society into an ideal Sociopathic State, look up how a German government lady said some women did better under the Sociopathic East German system of ratting your neighbors out and other stuff[inconsequentially most people who died at the concentration camps were reported to the SS by German women, a fact that the "allies" kept secret till after most of them died]). From an intellectual perspective we can see this in the rise of Nihilism and Existentialism. Both philosophies enable sociopaths to justify their actions.

Personally I am going to stick with Plato(minus the philosopher King fallacy), Kant and the ideals of the Constitution/Declaration of Independence.