there is truths in the information but because of those who recieved it programmed views the information has become destorted much like religions, ive had some of the cass group say to me they are followers and reported me for pointing out that cass work is very much negative polarity orientated, also had some say there is no hope basically there words "no win situation" at least with David Icke he has aloud love and compassion in, has aloud the green vibration into his being cassiopaeas seem to have created blocks this is evident in denoucing of Indigos and others here to assist this world as well as the attitude taken when Laura mentioned love and light...peace
]]>Do you understand meaning of disinformation? Disinformation is mixing energys of truths and lies to create a confusion there for a deception but the person will feel it true because there is pieces of truth in it, remember no one source is 100% at any one time, it is but parts you need to put to together to figure out the whole, if your focus on one side only you miss other side of the circle...
This stuff is almost a priori around here, Arthur.
]]>I do think that the shock of hearing an apparent opposition, in the context of particular situations, can help sift out pre-programmed responses from genuine ones.
In doing this, you always risk the ire of those you have the most affection
for, even if it isn't meant that way.
You can change the world and make it a better place, inside and outside, of course. Anything is possible. This was just to show that in the complex chain of events, we may miscontrue something bad as something good, and vice versa, or perhaps miss the opportunity of going beyond the sense of judgement at all, if only for a moment. We may be certain that someone else is wrong, but perhaps, in the end, they are meant to be wrong. Perhaps in some mysterious way, that will be their best path to realizing what is right. And to correct them is to make their problems our problems, to attempt to heal all the world is to rob it of YOU ( which in your case Zonabi is an excellent "you" and in just being here, I believe, is helping the world.)
That is how I feel today!
P.S. It has taken me my whole life to get at these penny-anty realizations
and after it's all over, you'd be better off reading a George Carlin joke followed by a fifth of Watts and a shot of ..... one of your comics, perhaps. I lauph and lauph at those things. Gotta go. Gotta case of the giggles. Time to sprinkle some salt on my skin, ya know?
"creation = destruction, destruction = creation"
]]>The common New Age idea seems to embrace the concept that God created an outward expansion with his "Big Bang" that has left humanity on its outer fringes.
The so-called "Big Bang" is a scientific fallacy. Frontier science is finally beginning to accept that this theory is completely flawed and baseless, but has yet to offer a truly viable alternative. Suffice to say however that visible reality is a kind of super hologram, and must therefore be the result of an emission of some form of energy occuring at levels of reality more fundamental than that which we are capable of perceiving.
And, that our spiritual evolution, and what God expects, is for us all to return to him in sort of an implosion; perhaps, that is the proper spiritual path for some of us. But, does that hold true for all humans?
I doubt that God has any expectations of us; at least, none that we can so easily understand.
Is it not possible that for some, their true spiritual evolution -and eventual union with God- is not merely a return but rather a continual expansion of God through new creations?
I think that this is very possible.
It has been said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Or, "Every thought has been thought of before." Even if these shopworn expressions are true, when considering all of existence, are they necessarily true in our relatively small corner of reality?
The only thoughts of any lasting importance to me are the ones that I have myself, so it doesn't really matter whether they are original or not. I don't think there's some Universal Archangel of Original Thinking out there waiting to hand me a golden medal should I actually imagine something that hasn't been thought of in creation before. But then again, you never know! :-)
Certainly, the creative architect who designs and builds a beautiful, new city is more doing god's work than the aircraft pilot who destroys it all with bombs.
I would argue that both are doing God's "work" equally, regardless of whether our human minds can embrace the idea that God could see value in destructive acts. But what about a natural disaster--like a volcano, hurricane, tsunami, or earthquake--that destroys cities or countries killing millions: is that working against God?
Now compare the creative architect with a wise Tibetan hermit: one is expanding and beautifying God's creation, while the other is returning to God. Who is more holy in their activity, the one returning to God or the one using God's energetic substances in aesthetic and functional ways, and thereby increasing the consciousness of matter and energy?
Who is "more holy"? Well, no one is keeping score here. This is merely a return to old, judgemental Christian ways of thinking. We are all different, all unique, all have our own particular skills and abilities. But none is "holier" than anything or anyone else. We can verbalize our abilities and differences without it being egotistical or smacking of superiority. It is only linear, non-individualistic thinking that places "better" or "worse" value labels upon the individual, because this can only be accomplished by the invocation of some imaginary cosmic yardstick by which the relative value of all things can be measured.
May it be merely a matter of difference, wherein they are both doing God's work, thus both becoming one with God?
This phrase, "God's work", keeps coming up. But what is God's work? If all things are a part of God--and surely they must be--then all things must move and have their form within God. God's work, then, is in everything that is: from the tiniest vibrating sub-atomic particle all the way up to the rotation of a galactic disk, and everything in between.
Is there any wonder why our Establishments encourage us all to become more alike everyone else...lest we become marginalized?
They encourage us to become more alike because that stifles the free play of our individual abilities. And there is nothing more disempowering than to strip the individual of all of the things that make them so unique. This is why there are so many miserable bastards out there! ;-)
]]>I received the following which I thought I'd share with you all, since it resonanted with me.
"Neomatrix had an excellent thought when he wrote, "spiritual evolution: expansion of our sovereign uniqueness whilst still remaining an integrated and inseparable part of the whole."
All I would add to Neomatrix's above words are, "a strengthened connection with God comes from a creative expression of our uniqueness, which results in an expansion of God. And conversely, those who discourage uniqueness strengthen disconnections from God and hamper his expansion."
The common New Age idea seems to embrace the concept that God created an outward expansion with his "Big Bang" that has left humanity on its outer fringes. And, that our spiritual evolution, and what God expects, is for us all to return to him in sort of an implosion; perhaps, that is the proper spiritual path for some of us. But, does that hold true for all humans?
Is it not possible that for some, their true spiritual evolution -and eventual union with God- is not merely a return but rather a continual expansion of God through new creations?
It has been said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Or, "Every thought has been thought of before." Even if these shopworn expressions are true, when considering all of existence, are they necessarily true in our relatively small corner of reality?
Certainly, the creative architect who designs and builds a beautiful, new city is more doing god's work than the aircraft pilot who destroys it all with bombs. Now compare the creative architect with a wise Tibetan hermit: one is expanding and beautifying God's creation, while the other is returning to God. Who is more holy in their activity, the one returning to God or the one using God's energetic substances in aesthetic and functional ways, and thereby increasing the consciousness of matter and energy?
May it be merely a matter of difference, wherein they are both doing God's work, thus both becoming one with God?
Is there any wonder why our Establishments encourage us all to become more alike everyone else...lest we become marginalized?
]]>your explanation of it is completely true! no doubt about that.
its just that it uses the word "anything" which is quite broad, thats why i took it the wrong way i guess. but i do understand what u mean by it.
back on that excerpt Aya posted, i really do believe (resonate) with its ideas of "reseting" of the world, the "shiva dance" or whatever they called it. yes i believe things reset, and slowly but surely one side or the other begins to take over... but only for a period in time, all is balanced. what is interesting is the fact that they (hindu?) say that Evil begins to take over, then it is Reset, and Good (peace, paradise) is set in place. Then evil begins to come again...
this is similar to some idea i had a while back, i may have posted it here. what the idea was was that Negative forces always cause things to reset, whereas Positive forces can go on forever (if the negative didnt come into play) obviously there is a balance, but to me it seems (and its good to know) that positivity is the initial state, and probably as well, the final state!
z
]]>So I'm not exactly sure how that could have been construed as "pessimistic", but, maybe it's because you haven't seen the context in which it appeared, and what exactly it was supposed to be referring to....?
I'm sure that's precisely why, since Sedna has just the one statement quoted without the context. In and of itself I can see how it could be taken as a negative, if the reader was not familiar with the rest of what you said.
I have to agree with Zonabi as well, when you act out of love and try to make a better world for the benefit of all, I can't see how that could be viewed as an ego-based way of life, unless you're spending more time bragging about it than actually doing things.
I always try to do things based on what I feel to be right, and true, and fair, because I've been at the receiving end of my own share of injustices, and feel driven to make the world a better place where others might not have to go through some of the unpleasant things which I have experienced. So, take a moment to consider the question: is that an ego-based "want?" Or is it something else entirely? I feel strongly that it is something else, something of the spirit, and to view it as anything else is to seriously distort the nature of this kind of motivation and might lead some people to just give up on things entirely.
The achievement of success in spiritual endeavors results in a joy of the heart, not of the mind, and also a rightful sense of satisfaction. I say it's good and right to take a moment to be proud of those accomplishments for which you have worked hard, most especially when your actions are directed towards the greater good. Recognize yourself and the effects of your work, and then move on.
]]>Just an FYI, but the quote the Sedna has which you mentioned is not intended to be pessimistic at all....in fact, it was supposed to be the exact opposite. The context of the quote was in regards to fear. Fear holds many people back in this world, and prevents them from walking away from very negative situations, be it jobs, relationships, living situations, etc., because they don't believe there's anything better out there for them. So that quote was actually an extension of the saying "Leap....and the net shall appear." Don't be afraid to walk away from something negative....you CAN get better!!! There is ALWAYS something better and ALWAYS room for improvement!
So I'm not exactly sure how that could have been construed as "pessimistic", but, maybe it's because you haven't seen the context in which it appeared, and what exactly it was supposed to be referring to....?
]]>but you guys are making it seem like having the desire to help make this world better is an ego issue. i can understand what you guys mean, but i dont really agree with that. i can see that what you all mean (or more specifically Sedna in the last post) by ' not caring is ego -free' but what i think you really mean is that 'not caring' means you trust everything to go perfectly, how it should.
I kept wanting to go back and further elaborate on mine, since it isn't clear. I do believe that you should try to make the world a better place, and not to live with the idea that this place is lacking, or unworthy, in some aspect. My opinion is that you should go with the flow here, meaning, to take everything into account, instead of only wanting your version of paradise. My opinion would include, of course, accepting the ego as not some child and something to destroy, but to help it become the tool it can be, something that isn't led by every emotion that comes in front of it, to not be the center of one's life. My objective is to focus on one's life on the here and now, in this world, to treat it just as enthusiastically, with its limits and all, as one treats the spiritual world.
I think the key to life is to just do whatever comes naturally to you. Whatever you enjoy doing. If it feels good in your heart then surely it is the will of the infinite that we're all apart of. So if you enjoy trying to make the world a better place then keep on doing it.
I also agree with this statement, but it's a slippery slope for myself. I can imagine that we are who we are, and that even blindness has its reason, so that we can pursue something as if it is more important that it actually is in the scheme of things. My opinion is that those more enlightened do tend to not do much, and that, for most people, it's a good idea that enlightenment comes in increments, so that they will pursue their passions, no matter how "ignorant" they are, because, only in ignorance, will they pursue their passions. As far as what is really the best, I don't know, and it's hard to tell where responsibilty comes in to make one's self more enlightened. I guess one could squirm out of this and say that they are ignorant when they are ignorant when it's time to be ignorant, and they are enlightened when it's time to be enlightened. After all, ignorance and enlightenment both have a purpose, and we must accept them both.
]]>Keep on projecting those thoughts dude! Personally I think the world needs more people who are not afraid to express unconditional love and generally want to make things more positive for everyone.
I think the key to life is to just do whatever comes naturally to you. Whatever you enjoy doing. If it feels good in your heart then surely it is the will of the infinite that we're all apart of. So if you enjoy trying to make the world a better place then keep on doing it.
Even though I'm guilty of it myself there is no point in criticising the new agers or whover because they are just as much the infinite as we are, and therefore just as important. To do so is to fall into the "I'm more spiritual than they are" ego trap. So it doesn't matter whether you want to try and make the world a better place, or whether you think it's a stupid idea to even try. Both ideas are ultimately expressions of the infinite so I would think they are just as valid.
Anyway here's an except from Alan Watts' "The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are"
Today the Vedanta discipline comes down to us after centuries of involvement with all the forms, attitudes, and symbols of Hindu culture in its flowering and slow demise over nearly 2,800 years, sorely wounded by Islamic fanaticism and corrupted by British puritanism. As often set forth, Vedanta rings no bell in the West, and attracts mostly the fastidiously spiritual and diaphanous kind of people for whom incarnation in a physical body is just too disgusting to be borne. But it is possible to state its essentials in a present day idiom, and when this is done without exotic trappings, Sanskrit terminology, and excessive postures of spirituality, the message is not only clear to people with no special interest in "Oriental religions"; it is also the very jolt that we need to kick ourselves out of our isolated sensation of self.
But this must not be confused with our usual ideas of the practice of "unselfishness," which is the effort to identify with others and their needs while still under the strong illusion of being no more than a skin-contained ego. Such "unselfishness" is apt to be a highly refined egotism, comparable to the in-group which plays the game of "we're-more-tolerant-than-you." The Vedanta was not originally moralistic; it did not urge people to ape the saints without sharing their real motivations or to ape motivations without sharing the knowledge which sparks them.
For this reason The Book I would pass to my children would contain no sermons, no shoulds and oughts. Genuine love comes from knowledge, not from a sense of duty or guilt. How would you like to be an invalid mother with a daughter who can't marry because she feels she ought to look after you, and therefore hates you? My wish would be to tell, not how things ought to be, but how they are, and how and why we ignore them as they are. You cannot teach an ego to be anything but egotistic, even though egos have the subtlest ways of pretending to be reformed. The basic thing is therefore to dispel, by experiment and experience, the illusion of oneself as a separate ego. The consequences may not be behavior along the lines of conventional morality. It may well be as the squares said of Jesus, "Look at him! A glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners."
Furthermore, on seeing through the illusion of the ego, it is impossible to think of oneself as better than, or superior to, others for having done so. In every direction there is just the one Self playing its myriad games of hide-and-seek. Birds are not better than the eggs from which they have broken. Indeed, it could be said that a bird is one egg's way of becoming other eggs. Egg is ego, and bird is the liberated Self. There is a Hindu myth of the Self as a divine swan which laid the egg from which the world was hatched. Thus I am not even saying that you ought to break out of your shell. Sometime, somehow, you (the real you, the Self) will do it anyhow, but it is not impossible that the play of the Self will be to remain unawakened in most of its human disguises, and so bring the drama of life on earth to its close in a vast explosion. Another Hindu myth says that as time goes on, life in the world gets worse and worse, until at last the destructive aspect of the Self, the god Shiva, dances a terrible dance which consumes everything in fire. There follow, says the myth, 4,320,000 years of total peace during which the Self is just itself and does not play hide. And then the game begins again, starting off as a universe of perfect splendor which begins to deteriorate only after 1,728,000 years, and every round of the game is so designed that the forces of darkness present themselves for only one third of the time, enjoying at the end a brief but quite illusory triumph. Today we calculate the life of this planet alone in much vaster periods, but of all ancient civilizations the Hindus had the most imaginative vision of cosmic time. Yet remember, this story of the cycles of the world's appearance and disappearance is myth, not science, parable rather than prophecy. It is a way of illustrating the idea that the universe is like the game of hide-and-seek.
If, then, I am not saying that you ought to awaken from the ego-illusion and help save the world from disaster, why The Book? Why not sit back and let things take their course? Simply that it is part of "things taking their course" that I write. As a human being it is just my nature to enjoy and share philosophy. I do this in the same way that some birds are eagles and some doves, some flowers lilies and some roses. I realize, too, that the less I preach, the more likely I am to be heard.