A while back I read Mellen-Thomas Benedict’s NDE experience that I keep being drawn to reread over and over. For those that haven’t read it or would like to reread it, it’s located here:
http://www.mellen-thomas.com/stories.htm

I think a lot of the time we think our primary purpose of existence is to become more like God or to grow towards the divine by living life according to the golden rule. Now I’m not saying that this incorrect, but I’m increasing impressed with Mellen-Thomas’ statement that God is becoming us and I wonder what all of you think about this. Is God becoming us? If so in what ways do you see this occurring?

Thanks for your comments.

Love,
Kathy

It seems to me Kathy that viewed from one level the two directions are sides of the same coin. That it's not possible to have one movement without the other.

But that at another they are separate, in that while an omniscient God can't be excluded from a part of his own creation - even if it's been hijacked by a bunch of egos labouring under the delusion of separation - the fact is that we perceive it to be that way.

And that at yet another level they've never been separate, that as above the sense of separation is only a figment of our egocentric  delusion.

;) Clear, huh!!...

Kathy,

Absolutely not God created us, not the reverse, although I admit that some sects have conceived god in their own image. However, all  life  like rain drops from the infinite Ocean of love we will return to Him by the beautiful rivers of life.

alan

I think you are right kathy.God is us,and we are God,it just is in us,a part of us,and we are in God.Hard to image,but yes its true.George

I'd qualify that by suggesting that that's possibly only true if we consider 'us' to be all sentient beings in all the universes - meaning that 'we' may include lots of things we mightn't regard as beings right now, probably in fact everything animate and inanimate as we'd presently classify it....

Hi---

Whoa!
How could my spark hold the entire sun?

If God wants to pour more of Itself into Its creation, then I hope to receive more godliness too, but i don't get Bendict's wording at all!

Bets

Kathy-

I presume you are basing your "God is becoming us" premise on this NDE.

Seems to me that first, we have to know more about Mellen-Thomas Benedict.  What is his credibility?  How do we know he actually experienced these things, and even if he did, how do we know if he accurately described his adventure?

I know this comes off as being skeptical, but I for one would want to know a whole lot more about the guy who penned this account before reaching any conclusions, especially about something as profound as the nature of God.

R

I believe it is all about perspective. I believe that God is a real son of a gun...if you know what I mean...but at the end of time... she is a brilliant being of love... who even had to forgive all of that b.s he tried to do to us... before he figured out that love really is the answer... When you are a first time parent you want your children to keep between the lines to prove that they are bright... but then... for an older parent...they see those abstract pictures as the most beautiful of all pictures...
They see beauty... and they don't care what everyone else sees... they just are excited to see you and hope like crazy that you will just look up and say, I love you" from time to time...
love& light,
rudi

To me, the term "God" always has the connotation of "everything", so that nothing is separated from God, and all is part of God. But "God" as well to me has the meaning of "unity". How does that fit together with all these diverse things we can see?
  My personal myth about this is, there is the aspect of an absolute unity, but then, when this unity starts to think, to have a thought, then there is a thinker and a thought, this is the beginning of diversity, it will not stop with duality, a process of (infinite?) diversity has started (btw, it reminds me of dave_a_mbs approach of an iterative complexation process). This all cannot be described in time, and therefore, the unity is still there, "together" with the diversity.
  From this viewpoint, we as humans are parts of God's diversity side. In some of my mind journeys I had the impression that there were many little parts with a sort of consciousness which are growing, with the help of attractors, one of it the Earth-Life-System; those attractors are like condensation-seeds which make those consciousness fractions conglomerate and grow, and to me this seems to be a process of re-gaining unity out of the diversity. Maybe at the end is again unity, but in a somehow evolved form.

Spooky

Greetings again,

Kathy LoL,

How did you see it?

Love, Bets

Hi Ian,

Clear??? lol yeah right!

I like your analogy… two sides of the coin. I think this is why I find this idea intriguing. It’s a paradox. Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about paradoxes and how we exist within these.  

Hi Alan,

I’m not so sure that the idea of God becoming us negates God creating us. To me it is more like God expanding and utilizing all of us as the means by which the whole of us becomes more than what we were. I feel humbled by that thought.

Hi George,

It’s always good to see you here and I appreciate your comment.

Hi Bets,

“How could my spark hold the entire sun?”  

Hmmm… that’s a good question that science seems to speak to with the idea of the holographic universe.


Quote:

“The body is the most magnificent Light being there is. The body is a universe of incredible Light. Spirit is not pushing us to dissolve this body. That is not what is happening. Stop trying to become God; God is becoming you. Here.”

In this quote he seems to be saying something to the effect of “heaven on earth” within the physical body. Perhaps he’s talking about evolution of humankind? Perhaps the form this takes is in what we consider miracles such as all of humankind possessing the gift of healing that would bring about longevity of life. Peace within the world, harmony with God, the earth, and ourselves. Harmony among all within the earth is something I have dreamed of since a little girl.

Hi Roger,

While I have no reason to doubt the validity of Benedict’s NDE, I don’t think one needs proof of the validity of it in order to ponder this question. Whenever I close myself up in a box, I feel like I can’t breathe. :-?

God is after all what we believe him/her/it to be. Personally I like the Tao description = the “unnamed” which is the invisible mystery of that which gives life as well as that which is the "named" 10,000 things, which is everything else that exists. The Tao is always present in everything and together we as co-creators participate in creating the 10,000 things.

Hi Rudenski,

Thank you for your comments and welcome to the board.  :)

Hi Spooky,

Yes I like your thoughts here. It’s almost like the goal of creation, if there is one, is to move through duality back into unity or a time when “God and man will walk hand in hand.”

Love,
Kathy

Hi Kathy and members,


God is becoming us in the sense that physical reality is a great sacrifice - God the Feminine (differentiated) willingly makes for our ultimate benefit as the opportunity to evolve/realize true Identity in individuated form.

God the All-Knowing (static/eternal/infinite, etc) male principle (Heaven) involves/descends into matter ie: through the active feminine into cosmic ignorance/nescience of the physical (finite/mortal/active) - we find ourselves created in Ignorance as a sacrifice the Mother makes for this blessing of human birth.

This is why on the micro scale as a 'holographic' corellation of cosmic creation, it is the female who creates, gives birth and sustains life, not male.



The link below is part of a series of essays by Sri Aurobindo on the Cosmic Mother, dealing with 3 major aspects Transcendant, Universal, and Individual, that may relate to this topic:



The following is an excerpt of the below link:


Quote:

...The Mother not only governs all from above but she descends into this lesser triple universe. Impersonally, all things here, even the movements of Ignorance, are herself on veiled power and her creations in diminished substance, her Nature-body and Nature-force, and they exist because, moved by the mysterious fiat of the Supreme to work out something that was there in the possibilities of the Infinite, she has consented to the great sacrifice and has put on like a mask the soul and forms of the Ignorance. But personally too she has stooped to descend here into the darkness that she may lead it to the Light, into the Falsehood and Error that she may convert it to the Truth, into this Death that she may turn it to godlike Life, into this world-pain and its obstinate sorrow and suffering that she may end it in the transforming ecstasy of her sublime Ananda. In her deep and greater love for her children she has consented to put on herself the cloak of this obscurity, condescended to bear the attacks and torturing influences of the powers of Darkness and the Falsehood, borne to pass through the portals of the birth that is a death, taken upon herself the pangs and sorrows and sufferings of creation, since it seemed that thus alone could it be lifted to the Light and Joy and Truth and eternal Life. This is the great sacrifice of the Purusha, but much more deeply the holocaust of Prakriti, the sacrifice of the Divine Mother. - Sri Aurobindo, from essays on 'The Mother'

http://intyoga.online.fr/mothr06.htm#3ways



-  u

ultra wrote on Mar 8^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Hi Kathy and members, God is becoming us in the sense that physical reality is a great sacrifice - God the Feminine (differentiated) willingly makes for our ultimate benefit as the opportunity to evolve/realize true Identity in individuated form. God the All-Knowing (static/eternal/infinite, etc) male principle (Heaven) involves/descends into matter ie: through the active feminine into cosmic ignorance/nescience of the physical (finite/mortal/active) - we find ourselves created in Ignorance as a sacrifice the Mother makes for this blessing of human birth. This is why on the micro scale as a 'holographic' corellation of cosmic creation, it is the female who creates, gives birth and sustains life, not male. The link below is part of a series of essays by Sri Aurobindo on the Cosmic Mother, dealing with 3 major aspects Transcendant, Universal, and Individual, that may relate to this topic: The following is an excerpt of the below link: Quote: ...The Mother not only governs all from above but she descends into this lesser triple universe. Impersonally, all things here, even the movements of Ignorance, are herself on veiled power and her creations in diminished substance, her Nature-body and Nature-force, and they exist because, moved by the mysterious fiat of the Supreme to work out something that was there in the possibilities of the Infinite, she has consented to the great sacrifice and has put on like a mask the soul and forms of the Ignorance. But personally too she has stooped to descend here into the darkness that she may lead it to the Light, into the Falsehood and Error that she may convert it to the Truth, into this Death that she may turn it to godlike Life, into this world-pain and its obstinate sorrow and suffering that she may end it in the transforming ecstasy of her sublime Ananda. In her deep and greater love for her children she has consented to put on herself the cloak of this obscurity, condescended to bear the attacks and torturing influences of the powers of Darkness and the Falsehood, borne to pass through the portals of the birth that is a death, taken upon herself the pangs and sorrows and sufferings of creation, since it seemed that thus alone could it be lifted to the Light and Joy and Truth and eternal Life. This is the great sacrifice of the Purusha, but much more deeply the holocaust of Prakriti, the sacrifice of the Divine Mother. - Sri Aurobindo, from essays on 'The Mother' http://intyoga.online.fr/mothr06.htm#3ways -  u

  That's an interesting perspective.  I never thought of it that way before.  I'm going to take this to meditation and see what i get.  

 Thanks for sharing it.   I don't know a lot about Sri A. or his teachings, but from what i do know i respect the man.  

Hi Kathy-

Actually I think we close ourselves in a box when we expend so much energy trying to figure out such things as the nature of God.  Mainly because we will never....at least in this lifetime....get to the bottom of such a question.

There are so many permutations of this question that we could spend the rest of our lives chasing our tails.  Interesting for sure, but all trails will lead to dead end roads.

God is ineffable.  Above all, ask yourself this question- even if we were to fully grasp God's nature and purpose, how would that knowledge change your life?

I would guess such knowledge would cause at least some of us to take a fresh look at the Golden Rule, and try to live our lives accordingly.

And that's something we can do right now, even without knowing who or what God is.

R

Hi Ultra,

You and Sri Aurobindo express an answer to my question beautifully.

I’m glad you brought up individuation. I think it is sometimes difficult for us to realize the interconnectivity of us all. Yet even our scientists proclaim the truth of this. Individuation is not the same as separation. Separation promotes fear and a victim mentality, both of which support the illusion of being powerless. Individuation and holism promotes power through self-responsibility, respect and acceptance. This power, as I’m sure you already know, comes from our divine essence within.

Thanks for the link.  :)

Hi Roger,

I think I understand what you’re saying. Basically that one can lead their self into a state of confusion by trying to figure it all out. That usually happens when one looks outside of one’s self for the answers to important questions. If one chooses to judge less and look for possibilities, the search for knowledge and understanding becomes filled with the joy of discovery. I’m sure Don could probably explain this better than me.

Thanks again everyone for your replies.

Love,
Kathy

Hi Kathy, all. wonderful thread, thanks for starting it. I have a feeling you started it for love of all of us; as knowing you, I'm sure what with spring approaching, I know you won't have much time for us! (me too, with my cactus stuff.)

aside from that I'm reading "90 Minutes in Heaven" by Don Piper. Sitting here reading what that minister went through when he died for 90 minutes in a car accident had me in tears, to read of his depression and pain of the body when he was brought back to life, and frankly, really upset after being in heaven!

about god becoming himself/herself in us...you could see it that way quite easily. With Piper, his turning point and spiritual healing came when...all his congretation would file into his hospital room and never failingly they would each inquire "what can I do for you?" May I run an errand, bring a magazine, plump your pillow, bring u a strawberry shake?"  All the while Piper is gritting his teeth so as not to show them the excruciating pain he was enduring, for 13 months.
He would always say no. theres nothing you can do for me.
Until the minister who had taken his position when he got hurt came in one day. He said you've got to let these people do for you and stop trying to act so strong. They really care about you.

finally he cried alone in his bed for an hour to realize he shut out the love they wanted to give him but didn't know how. so even though he was in pain and would not read a magazine (he kept passing out from pain, never fell asleep, just passed out)
he said one day to a visitor's question what he could do, he said, why, yes, you can bring me a magazine. the visitor rushed out happily and bought a whole armload of magazines upstairs in the most eager way to show his love. and so on with the strawberry shake and other things they tried to do for him.
Piper said he was healed spiritually by his people by their love and he knew god had a reason for him to stay alive to tell of his NDE, which he wanted to keep to himself, lest it become cheapened somehow in the telling, for he had known it was sacred, the place he had gone to.  It was very touching to read his story of how he finally got to the part where he could trust that god had his life in hand and he would walk again and stand up and tell about his 90 minutes in heaven. Reading him makes my life and anything I've gone thru pale next to what he went thru and it also makes one believe in heaven and gives a glimpse into what suffering does to bring us to greater enlightenment by letting others participate in our healing.

Hi Ultra. thanks for your post. I gave birth to twins this life. It was the hardest thing I ever did, but I hosted them into this place and I was never alone after that. but I'd never want to be pregnant again. if I come back, I'll be a man!  :) no wait, I'll be both.  :)

Alysia:

You make me feel like I should read Don Piper's 90 minutes in heaven sometime. My spirit guidance showed me the cover of his book a while back. I went to the bookstore and read the NDE part, but not the rest. Perhaps I should stop being a cheepskate and buy the book so I can read all of it.

What you describe reminds me of what Ranelle Wallace and Howard Storm went through after their NDEs (I have both of their books). They really had to pay the price for their NDEs.  Lots of physical pain afterwards. Ranelle experienced really bad burns all over her body. They'd put her in a whirlpool bath, several people would hold her down, and scrub her wounds really hard with a big plastic brush.  This would be done several times a day for a period that lasted a number of weeks. When she wasn't getting scrubbed she'd hear the other burn victims in the burn unit scream with pain as they got scrubbed. Nevertheless,  I bet you she and Howard would go through the pain they experienced again, in order to have their life changing NDEs. I on the other hand had my night in heaven in experience without having to go through any pain. I believe I should think of this as grace. Actually, I've had some other difficult growing pains in my life, and I'd be willing to go through them again.

Kathy:

I figure God got the process of creation going, and then we continue with the process. There is nothing that exists but God's being, so even when bits of God such as ourselves are involved, God is always involved, even when we create in an ungodly way.

P.S. I sort of understand what it is like to have burns scrubbed, because my head and face got burned one time, and it really hurts to get scrubbed when you don't have any skin protecting your nerves. I didn't get burned as bad as Ranelle, and no scars resulted.

Albert-

I was in bookstore about a year or so ago and saw the 90 Minutes in Heaven book.  I bought it, but it was a major disappointment.

This book is a great example of marketing.  I was drawn by the title, as would most folks.  But as it turned out, there is a grand total of 15....that's one-five....pages describing his NDE.

The rest of the book describes his life since his NDE.

Talk about deceptive marketing techniques, this book is it!!

I really have mixed feelings about anyone who would try to make an entire book out of such a brief experience.  

My advice is to save your money.  There are far better examples of NDEs on the internet, and they don't cost any money to read.

Kathy-  I agree!  Spiritual insights usually come when we least expect them.  They tend to be spontaneous as opposed to coming when we really want them.  I think we can trust that we will gain the insights we need at the appropriate time, and trust that the afterlife will unfold on its own terms and on its own timetable.

R

I see what you're saying Rondele; however, sometimes people have good lessons to share that come outside of an NDE.  Alysia's thread shares such a lesson. Opening up to love from others is really important. We hurt ourselves when we play the role of a person who doesn't need to receive love from others. Howard Storm's and Ranelle Wallace's books make some good points when they aren't talking about their NDE.

Whatever the case, I changed my route while going for my daily walk today, and picked up a copy at a local bookstore.  If I don't like the book, perhaps I should have Alysia send me a refund. ;)



rondele wrote on Mar 11^th, 2008 at 5:40pm:

Albert- I was in bookstore about a year or so ago and saw the 90 Minutes in Heaven book.  I bought it, but it was a major disappointment. This book is a great example of marketing.  I was drawn by the title, as would most folks.  But as it turned out, there is a grand total of 15....that's one-five....pages describing his NDE. The rest of the book describes his life since his NDE. Talk about deceptive marketing techniques, this book is it!! I really have mixed feelings about anyone who would try to make an entire book out of such a brief experience.   My advice is to save your money.  There are far better examples of NDEs on the internet, and they don't cost any money to read. Kathy-  I agree!  Spiritual insights usually come when we least expect them.  They tend to be spontaneous as opposed to coming when we really want them.  I think we can trust that we will gain the insights we need at the appropriate time, and trust that the afterlife will unfold on its own terms and on its own timetable. R

ha ha R, u try to get a refund from me be like squeezing a turnip for blood.. :)

At first I was like Roger, disappointed only 15 pages describe his NDE of Piper. But then since I am cheap, I like to suck all the value out of a book by completing it and glad I did. I'm not pushing this particular book, after all, there's so many NDE available on the net for free.
I happened to grab it at the airport as it was the ONLY book there about the afterlife. and not only that, in florida airport they will give you 1/2 of your money back if you bring it back to any bookstore. unfortunately I don't live in Florida so I spent the money and made a new friend by doing it. Don Piper. I read on and then I met his family in the book. I never knew there were loving families like that in the world. His wife kept a constant vigil at his bedside, and then at home when she wasn't working.

she let him read her diary. It said "Don is starting to complain about everything I do; he must be getting better!"

lol. The reason i like to read it, is Don Piper is a minister and yet I saw that God works with ministers the same as those that are not ministers. Ministers are human too.

He had had to be the strong leader for his church, and now he had to turn around and let the congregation find out about their own power to heal him.
For it was about the power of prayer too.

one last little thing so I can spoil the read for R.  when he was in heaven those 90 minutes, another minister had stopped and asked the policeman if he could approach the vehicle and say prayers for the man inside. the cop said, it's no use, he's pronounced dead, but go ahead if u want.

so this minister climbed into the trunk, right, and placed his hands on Piper's shoulders and began praying. Piper had been dead for 90 minutes remember. Suddenly Piper began singing (came back to life) what a friend we have in Jesus. The minister had a lot of trouble convincing everyone at the scene Piper was now alive.
but thats not the point. later, Piper was thanking the guy for praying for him and he said I felt you holding my hand all through your prayer. thank you so much! The minister said, no, it wasn't I holding your hand because you were laying on your side and I couldn't reach your hands, I could only touch your shoulder....then he said you and I know who was holding your hand don't you? It was an angel.

love, alysia

Hi, All,


The Super-consciousness is the un-caused, cause of the totality of existence and goes beyond the concept of some great god-being. It has nothing to do with religion it has always existed. We vaporize from this great ocean of awareness falling as individual drops of awareness on the fields of nothingness, progress in the endeavors of life until returning by different paths or rivers to the infinite ocean of composite awareness's . While we  finally become the Super-consciousness in that great ocean, somehow we retain our unique awareness's like individual drops of water within the infinite mind.that is the great Super-consciousness ocean.

Do you find my thinking processes too convoluted or do you resonate with some of it?

Regards

Alan

Hi Alysia,

Oh yes, I am ready for spring planting! It won’t be long now before I can dig in the dirt. lol

It sounds like Piper’s book is a love story. My favorite kind. I love to love. I think there are a lot of people that forget loving is a two way street of both giving and receiving. So many times people have trouble with the receiving part, which is the same as allowing another to give/express his or her love. So in a way receiving is also giving by allowing the other person to give. Opening up to another’s expression of love as Albert mentions.



Quote:

I figure God got the process of creation going, and then we continue with the process. There is nothing that exists but God's being, so even when bits of God such as ourselves are involved, God is always involved, even when we create in an ungodly way.

Quote:

What you describe reminds me of what Ranelle Wallace and Howard Storm went through after their NDEs (I have both of their books). They really had to pay the price for their NDEs.  Lots of physical pain afterwards. Ranelle experienced really bad burns all over her body. They'd put her in a whirlpool bath, several people would hold her down, and scrub her wounds really hard with a big plastic brush.  This would be done several times a day for a period that lasted a number of weeks. When she wasn't getting scrubbed she'd hear the other burn victims in the burn unit scream with pain as they got scrubbed. Nevertheless,  I bet you she and Howard would go through the pain they experienced again, in order to have their life changing NDEs. I on the other hand had my night in heaven in experience without having to go through any pain. I believe I should think of this as grace. Actually, I've had some other difficult growing pains in my life, and I'd be willing to go through them again.

Hi Albert,

Yes this is my way of understanding, too. It’s hard for us to see God in everything that exists sometimes, especially when it comes to pain and suffering. It’s almost like there is a hidden characteristic in each of us that allows us to move through the physical world in a body, while still being perfectly aligned with the originating creative force. Kind of like the body is an extension of this spiritual hidden characteristic that allows us complete freedom to make choices during our individual journey here. And perhaps our journey is all about discovering the hidden virtue within. And that is what makes all of our pain and suffering worthwhile.


Hi Alan,

No I don’t find your way of thinking to be convoluted at all. You present a good picture of what you’re expressing. In a way your description seems like an impersonal view that goes along with what I’m trying to express above, so perhaps this hidden characteristic is also impersonal in the sense of allowing us to ‘make it personal’ with our activities in the physical world.

Love to all,
Kathy

Alan McDougall wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 2:59am:

Hi, All, The Super-consciousness is the un-caused, cause of the totality of existence and goes beyond the concept of some great god-being. It has nothing to do with religion it has always existed. We vaporize from this great ocean of awareness falling as individual drops of awareness on the fields of nothingness, progress in the endeavors of life until returning by different paths or rivers to the infinite ocean of composite awareness's . While we  finally become the Super-consciousness in that great ocean, somehow we retain our unique awareness's like individual drops of water within the infinite mind.that is the great Super-consciousness ocean. Do you find my thinking processes too convoluted or do you resonate with some of it? Regards Alan

Hi Alan  I am somewhat in agreement but I agree this would sound for most people too impersonal to relate to. Humans have a need to personalize everything, including their concept of god; is why we have the ascended masters to look up to as super consciousness is a hard concept to deal with while in C1 consciousness. yet to complete my thought in alignment with yours, the thought of being drops in the ocean can bring one to the meditation of "nothingness" and therefore where "everythingness" begins..because then we can understand our total reliance upon one another in our oneness and how we all contribute to make this world here and now what it is aside from ego projections of grandeur, something that is against the oneness concept or the super consciousness what you've called it. The trick is for a human how to be attain oneness consciousness (global?) without losing individuality in the merge. in that case we fall back on god, which is Love undistorted by ego.

Religion must remain for the spiritual traveler (and we are all spiritual) signposts only pointing to what god is. if one were on a road walking for instance, there would be signs pointing to destinations, that is what religions are. just signposts. the ego would tend to worship the signposts rather than his own fellow man, the divine within each one.

There will always be greater beings than ourselves. there will always be some being whose light shines brighter than our own. for my own purposes I see the planets as beings. that might be personalizing a planet but I didn't hang the stars, I didn't create myself in the beginning, and I'm no accident of an explosion. Humanity I believe separated itself off from a god being in order to generate more of itself and circle it back into the place it originally separated from, increasing life that way.

We call god, the father. This puts it into perspective, we are the children. A father loves his own creations, his children, the children love the father. this is how we personalize our god in religious terms. if we depersonalize everything in favor of scientific reference, or left brain logic we soon lose touch with the heart path where love abides, and for me Love is God, therefore since I'm a child of god I too sprang from this love and seek to remember my identity.

so is god all of us? Yes, but I do believe it's even more unlimited than that mere conjecture. He is first cause..we are coming after first cause. We can increase god's kingdom by seeing the god within each person and remembering for them who they really are, should they have forgotten.

love, alysia

Greetings,

Although I don't wholly grasp the concepts you are dealing with, not enough to have them as a basis of my thought, I now find two tracks I can follow into this new territory of 'are we becoming God?'

When Alysia says she thinks of the planets as conscious beings, I am in harmony with that thought. The same idea is in Lucifer's fate and in mythology. I believe we are all being prepared for such a responsibility, countless lifetimes away. If you think about the spiritual perceptions skills we are developing, with a few leaps of active imagination one can see that they'll come in play in managing a planet. Consciousness after all is everywhere.

And here's another trail into this concept, although Dave ambs has warned me about potential errors of this method: When I pray/meditate to various levels of the heavenly guidance system, ( I still use Christian terminology for these) I sense/feel an activation of nerves energy within myself. I notice that the level for God is not quite at my crown and that I will sometimes feel higher energies if my thoughts are attuned to a consciousness beyond my own concepts. So in this sense I can accept what Alan said.

The time lines for becoming  so much more than human are impossible for me to imagine!

Bets

I pretty much agree with what Alysia wrote; including the part about us intentionally seperating from God for a while. However, I don't believe we ever become completely seperate.  We wouldn't be able to love each other if we did.

Sort of related to this, Ranelle Wallace wrote something interesting in her NDE book. She spoke of how she met spirits she knew before she incarnated. Spirits she was close to. She saw that there were two types of spirits. Those who had experience being human, and those who have yet to have experience being human. They seemed innocent and less developed than the spirits that had experience being human. This part of her experience reminded me of when Robert Monroe met his I-there.

I figure becoming human teaches us something. It provides perspective. It enables us and whoever we share our lessons with to understand what compassion means. It enables us to truly understand what happiness means, by seeing what a lack of happiness is like.  It enables us to truly appreciate what we have when we move on to the World of spirit. Plus it provides us with all kinds of experience and knowledge that we can make use of according to need when we are in the World of spirit. Becoming human also enables us to develop our uniqueness.

Here is another factor that sort of relates to this discussion.  When people meet light beings during NDEs and OBEs, these beings aren't hallucinations. They have too much love, energy and truth in them to be hallucinations.  I figure these light beings know all about the oneness, without having to first become non-existent as unique beings.

Quote:

The time lines for becoming so much more than human are impossible for me to imagine!

Hi Bets,

I suppose in a way it can be hard to imagine us having more than what we might call ‘normal’ human characteristics. But take healing for example. Healing is our birthright and everyone is born with this completely natural ability. And we can learn to enhance this natural ability by utilizing the energy that flows through the palms of our hands.

For example: What do you do if you bang your elbow against a door? You automatically and lovingly put your hand over where it hurts. Why? Because it makes it feel better. Usually we take our hand away when the pain lets up, but if we were to leave our hand there longer a deeper healing would take place. For example, broken blood vessels will be healed creating less bruising or no bruising at all. The same is true when we lovingly place our hand on someone else. The energy flows out the palms of our hands to them. Have you ever noticed what another persons touch feels like? If so, you are feeling the kind of energy they are running through their body.

Another example is someone sprains their ankle and it heals quite naturally within a couple of weeks. But if one were to use their hands to smooth the aura over the foot, ankle and leg, the sprained ankle will heal much, much faster. Why? Because the natural healing ability of the body is enhanced by working with the aura that creates the body and all of its parts.

The same is true for other illnesses. Different colors of light that flow through the palms affect various things. For example lavender light destroys micro-organisms. The various colors change and flow naturally and automatically from a higher source that knows what is needed. In other words we don't choose. Consciousness chooses from a higher part of us.

If we all recognized “God becoming us” through healing I think we could create much less suffering in our world and I’m all for that.

Love,
Kathy

Rudolph Otto wrote a classic cross-cultural book on this question called "The Idea of the Holy."  What is most commonly reported in most religions is just the opposite of "God becoming us."  God is generally experienced as "wholly other" and that aspect of mystical experience explains why "fear" in the sense of reverential awe is a standard aspect of such experiences.

In its most basic form, the Judeo-Christian concept of God denies that God even exists!  In other words, God is not a Being in the sense of one among many beings.  Rather, God is "the ground of all being" (Acts 17:28) or the elusive answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?"  Thus, God is not "All That Is," but rather the ground of "All That Is."  One of the major branches of modern theology is called "Process Theology," meaning (1) that God is in constant process and (2) that creation ultimately expands and changes the Ground of Being.  From a Christian viewpoint, we cannot become God, but we can "participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)" and simultaneously retain a sense of our own individuality and uniqueness.  

The spiritual danger of monistic God-talk is not metaphysical error, but the trap of praying to our own Self by virtue of our identity as God.  Practically speaking, such a tact almost inevitably precludes true humility in deference to ignoble pride.  We must remind ourselves of a simple fact: an omnipotent God can create independent units of self-consciousness which are free to make decisions that reflect the opposite of divine love.  If one accepts the moral value of love, then the creation of free will is best conceived as "dualism," since in ordinary word usage, "monism" lacks a moral perspective because it construes reality from a perspective beyond the level of polarities like good and evil.  As such, monism strikes me as the perfect rationalization for dysfunctional narcissism. I consider Matthew's analogy with Einstein's relativity  theory and quantum mechanics a weak analogy to the monist-dualist distinction because it overlooks the pragmatic consideration of the moral dimension of freely offered love which requires polarity.

Don  

Hi Don,

I was hoping you would join in on this thread. :)


Quote:

Rudolph Otto wrote a classic cross-cultural book on this question called "The Idea of the Holy."  What is most commonly reported in most religions is just the opposite of "God becoming us."  God is generally experienced as "wholly other" and that aspect of mystical experience explains why "fear" in the sense of revential awe is a standard aspect of such experiences.

Probably one of the best examples of spiritual experience where I can relate to “wholly other” and reverential awe is when I’m close enough to a light being to feel their radiance of unbelievable love. The being is “wholly other” or “not me” when I’m close to it, so I know it is “wholly other” yet it can completely surround and absorb me and then I am it and still me all at the same time. When I’m not within this light being, everything in me wants to be. Right now as I write this and remember what this is like, there is nothing that I desire more than to be in this light. It is an incredible draw or desire to be in the light. But I’m here and I’m supposed to be here otherwise I would be there. lol

I guess what I’m saying is that we do not always experience the mystical as “wholly other” yet the experience itself is complete reverential awe and incredibly humbling. So I guess I can both agree and disagree with Otto’s summation.

I’m sure you’ve read Benedict’s NDE. What do you think he means when he says for us to stop trying to become God, God is becoming us?


Quote:

In its most basic form, the Judeo-Christian concept of God denies that God even exists!  In other words, God is not a Being in the sense of one among many beings.  Rather, God is "the ground of all being" (Acts 17:28) or the elusive answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?"  Thus, God is not "All That Is," but rather the ground of "All That Is."  One of the major branches of modern theology is called "Process Theology," meaning (1) that God is in constant process and (2) that creation ultimately expands and changes the Ground of Being.  From a Christian viewpoint, we cannot become God, but we can "participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)" and simultaneously retain a sense of our own individuality and uniqueness.

Yes, I like the way you explain this and I completely agree. I think this is explained in other major religions in much the same way or at least in my understanding of what I have read.


Quote:

The spiritual danger of monistic God-talk is not metaphysical error, but the trap of praying to our own Self by virtue of our identity as God.  Practically speaking, such a tact almost inevitably precludes true humility in deference to ignoble pride.  We must remind ourselves of a simple fact: an omnipotent God can create independent units of self-consciousness which are free to make decisions that reflect the opposite of divine love.  If one accepts the moral value of love, then the creation of free will is best conceived as "dualism," since in ordinary word usage, "monism" lacks a moral perspective because it construes reality from a perpective beyond the level of polarities like good and evil.  As such, monism strikes me as the perfect rationalization for dysfunctional narcissism. I consider Matthew's analogy with Einstein's relativity  theory and quantum mechanics a weak analogy to the monist-dualist distinction because it overlooks the pragmatic consideration of the moral dimension of freely offered love which requires polarity.

It is always interesting when you and Matthew get into this discussion. I understand what you’re saying about the danger of monistic God-talk and falling into the trap of praying to one’s own self, but it seems to me that would have more to do with egoism rather than the experience of true spiritual unity, which is as I mentioned above extremely humbling, yet incredibly joyful. There is no pride in the true experience of oneness at least not that I’ve ever experienced. For pride to exist it needs to come from the separated ego, which is grounded in duality. With the experience of oneness or unity there is only individuality without separation.

If I remember correctly, on another thread you said the creation story in Genesis is about the creation of dualism. I would agree and go further to say that dualism was created with the belief in fear. If we are to have the experience of freedom to choose then duality seems absolutely necessary as a part of our experience, however, as we evolve why do we have to continue to choose to create a dualistic world? Why can’t we move through and out of dualism and into more of a monistic belief system? Certainly that would be within our power of free choice wouldn’t it?

Now I’m the one with a thousand questions. lol  ;D

Love,
Kathy

Hi Rondele, members,


quote = Rondele

Quote:

Actually I think we close ourselves in a box when we expend so much energy trying to figure out such things as the nature of God.  Mainly because we will never....at least in this lifetime....get to the bottom of such a question.  There are so many permutations of this question that we could spend the rest of our lives chasing our tails.  Interesting for sure, but all trails will lead to dead end roads. God is ineffable.  Above all, ask yourself this question- even if we were to fully grasp God's nature and purpose, how would that knowledge change your life? I would guess such knowledge would cause at least some of us to take a fresh look at the Golden Rule, and try to live our lives accordingly. And that's something we can do right now, even without knowing who or what God is.

If not in this lifetime than when?
In what sense does aspiration mean closing oneself in a box? Closing oneself in a box would be suffocation.
This attitude of gladly accepting limitation while seemingly charming, may also not be very inspiring. Is it self-defeating in that it wants to remain unconscious - not ask the question - while at the same time, presuming to know the answer for the question it doesn't want to ask?!?  If true, this attitude does not recognize the inate human potential to be explored and developed - an alternative question also with an implied answer, but one that is implied by faith in the ineffable within.  And if one really genuinely wants to be practical about it, then one's mantra might be: "right here and now" instead of "don't, can't, maybe later".

There are indeed "so many permutations of this question", and yet that is the mystery of life - also the blessing of human birth that offers self-consciouness and free-will as opportunity,  part of that mystery. Ironically, or not so at all, each human being is exactly that: one single permutation of the question, "Who am I?"  In that case, it is just one instance, albeit an important one that we are individually responsible for - right here and now. This leads to another question: If one answers the question, "Who am I?", will the Golden Rule be subsumed by the answer? One would hope so, and if true then nothing is lost in the greater quest.

"...we could spend the rest of our lives chasing our tails."?  
Can we just skip over the most glaring implication of that assertion and proceed from the physiological to the philosophical?...
 
Again, another forgone conclusion that implies already knowing the answer: 'a dead end'. So why bother?
Might as well pop the cork and watch the game - we're all going to die anyway, right?  
This is the same rationale that concludes with suicide, and from a spiritual pov, that is exactly what a wasted life is, because it means continued submergence in ignorance. It is the negative form of skepticism - life as futility, etc. - a premise in which there seems to be at least an equal measure of presumption as the inverse premise which does not imply self-limitation. So why choose the lesser?

Deferrence and submission to external authority can only ultimately lead to this kind of defeatism because its very action builds and becomes the limitation that necessarily - because of inherent orientation - circumvents the invocation and discovery of the truly authentic inner authority.  

How would that knowledge change one's life?
Because one would then consciously be God. How's that for a 'reality-show' makeover?
Of course, that is blasphemy for many conventionally religious people, which is understandable.
It is a very tough belief-system leap to make.

God is ineffable because God cannot be known through the finite concrete mind, which is itself structurally rooted in ignorance.
One needs to invoke higher principles embodied (latently) in human life in order to become, not perceive through the separating mind, this ineffability.

Yes, we can all be (or try to be) worldly good citizens politely operating within the Golden Rule, 10 Commandments, etc, etc., and yet still never discover our true nature. As a matter of fact, at one point in our development, people probably said the same thing prior to the advent of Golden Rule. ie: "Even without knowing Who or What God is, we can surely go on haplessly killing each other." Yet because of some unfathomable Sacrifices - huge numbers of people now have clearly defined, inspiring opportunities that are far beyond the possibilities of what the groundwork of simply 'being nice to one's neighbor' partly provides as a fertile field. So, right here and now in this life the question is - what will God grow into? Miraculously, we actually get to make that choice.
That's hardly closing ourselves in a box by any stretch of the imagination.

- u

Hi Don, members,



All quotes below = Don


Quote:

In its most basic form, the Judeo-Christian concept of God denies that God even exists!  In other words, God is not a Being in the sense of one among many beings.  Rather, God is "the ground of all being" (Acts 17:28) or the elusive answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?"  Thus, God is not "All That Is," but rather the ground of "All That Is."

God is both, and that is monism.

 
Quote:

One of the major branches of modern theology is called "Process Theology," meaning (1) that God is in constant process and (2) that creation ultimately expands and changes the Ground of Being.

(3) that we are part (participate) of that process, as you say below, and acheive the Ground of Beingness - that is the expansion. (it sounds like 'Process Theology' is essentially qualified non-dualism)


Quote:

From a Christian viewpoint, we cannot become God, but we can "participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)" and simultaneously retain a sense of our own individuality and uniqueness.

This is God-realization. Are we becoming God or are we already God, and just not conscious of it, waking up to it?
Are you sure you are talking about Christian pov, or just an obsolete Victorian agnosticism?  


Quote:

The spiritual danger of monistic God-talk is not metaphysical error, but the trap of praying to our own Self by virtue of our identity as God.

 

The only 'spiritual danger' is the trap and the metaphysical error of thinking that our Self is entirely the material ego/personality within the ignorance of physical plane reality.  That would indeed be a trap. Fortunately we have been shown ways to avoid this.


Quote:

Practically speaking, such a tact almost inevitably precludes true humility in deference to ignoble pride.

Back to Christian pov -  Was Jesus being merely ignobly prideful when He said "I and My Father are One"? How could He say that in a dualistic world and still be moral? Blasphemy? Or does that oneness imply monism?

Back to practicality - Pride (at least human pride) would not be practical at all if one were truly interested in God-realization, since that kind of pride is due to a perception of separation. Plus, there is no 'humility' in a deliberate obfuscation of divne essence inherent in human life leading to a debased servitude to Ignorance. The true humility is in recognizing and being appropriately responsive to this divinity which would then be practically doing - not just practically speaking.


Quote:

We must remind ourselves of a simple fact: an omnipotent God can create independent units of self-consciousness which are free to make decisions that reflect the opposite of divine love.

Yes, and we must also remind ourselves that if God is truly omnipotent (as well as omnipresent, omniscient, and all/unconditionally loving), that would obviate any 'anti-love reality', would it not? Or is God not omnipotent? Take your pick, or don't remind yourself, whichever is most convenient! This is a faulty and limited morality-based perception of love. While there may be degrees, which to a limited 'dualistic' perspective seems to approach 'the opposite' when there is relatively less, lesser, least - there really is no 'opposite', since even the free will choice of seeming 'opposite of love' is actually still love in the form of the support of the very existence and free-will that has the sustained 'being' to operate as it does. Why impose human limitation on a divine 'process'? Does the 'omni' in omni-potence/present/scient/benevolent mean here, but not over there?


Quote:

If one accepts the moral value of love, then the creation of free will is best conceived as "dualism," since in ordinary word  usage, "monism" lacks a moral perspective because it construes reality from a perpective beyond the level of polarities like good and evil.  As such, monism strikes me as the perfect rationalization for dysfunctional narcissism. I consider Matthew's analogy with Einstein's relativity  theory and quantum mechanics a weak analogy to the monist-dualist distinction because it overlooks the pragmatic consideration of the moral dimension of freely offered love which requires polarity.

I have already dispatched this faulty thinking above by simply not accepting the premise of the 'moral value of love' with subsequent 'perspective' of 'good and evil' as the sole determinant of Reality, since real love is transcendent of 'moral value'.  Yes, of course monism construes reality from beyond the level of polarities like good and evil - but it does not exclude them, their possibility.

Additionally: That dualism/moralism is in itself, in all its relative manifestations a perfectly functional formation, not even a rationalization -  of narcissism !

In "ordinary word usage" - 'moral perspective' is a redundancy. Morality is based in dualism, defined by it, and an artifact of it. (and this is your whole point, is it not?)

Also, this premise of freely offered love 'requiring' polarity is more of the same limitation in conception. Just a little imagination will allow one to consider God as Self-amorous in all (again, the omni thing) attributes, forms and manifestions, which can ably be made a pragmatic qualification as well, if one chooses.

It all really boils down to this: Dualism and no God-realization, or Monism and God-realization.
So choose your belief system whether it needs to be reasoned or not. Either one is quite available and viable.


- u

Kathy Dear,

What about these thoughts from my writings?

I rested and dreamed

I experienced time only in my dreams said God. God first dreamed. The cup of dreams ran over like unto rivers that overflow their banks. For God dreamed Infinity of dreams in an instant, and the Infinity multiplied by infinity for an Eternity created all possibilities in one awesome now. It was the Realm of Chaos. God began to create outside the Absolute Realm and started the first realities based on dimensions and textures.

For eons, slumbering God just observed the dreams. God delighted and God began to alter the flow and pattern of His dreaming state "by switching from observer to participant". For God grew tired of the confusion and started controlling his dreams until they became patterns of joy that grew with beauty, precision and majesty. When God learned moved from his rest his time of chaos was over and the dawn of the Perfect Realm began. Moreover, the universe sprang into being. Chaos changed back to order.

Wonderful paragraph Kathy.  :)

[quote author=Lights of Love link=1204905154/15#27 date=1205466887]
Probably one of the best examples of spiritual experience where I can relate to “wholly other” and reverential awe is when I’m close enough to a light being to feel their radiance of unbelievable love. The being is “wholly other” or “not me” when I’m close to it, so I know it is “wholly other” yet it can completely surround and absorb me and then I am it and still me all at the same time. When I’m not within this light being, everything in me wants to be. Right now as I write this and remember what this is like, there is nothing that I desire more than to be in this light. It is an incredible draw or desire to be in the light. But I’m here and I’m supposed to be here otherwise I would be there. lol

Ultra,

I just wanted to say that your discussion of monism and dualism was very well done, and quite eloquent.  I haven't had time to respond yet to this topic, (but very much want to), however you have captured the very essence of the problem of separation from the divine or unity; that there may be a middle ground of qualified dualism or qualified monism whereby a person is both at the same time a unique consciousness while being at one with God and the universe.  The nature of consciousness implies perspective, which implies a thought process that includes some dualistic thinking.  Yet those who have merged with the divine in NDEs (Howard Storm as an example), describe the unity and still unique perspective as a feeling or knowing without being able to explain it further in words....

The idea that those with monistic tendencies must be narcissists who wish to revere and worship themselves is, in actuality erroneous.  In fact in practice, quite the opposite occurs.  People with true monistic beliefs and experiences tend to do more for others and be less ego driven, since they are aware of their being part of the whole instead of an other.  

Thanks for your interesting words.

More to come from me...

Matthew

Continuing with what Don, Ultra, Matthew and others wrote:

I figure there was a time where God (my name for source being) existed all by God's self. God used his entire being or much of it, to figure out what the creative aspect of his being is about. Once he figured it out, he used numerous parts of his "own" being to create everybody else.

When it comes to which portion of God continued to play the role of God's lead consciousness, and which parts became all of us, it was probably an arbitrary thing, because at the beginning, all of God's being understood what it understood before God started creating the rest of us and resultantly allowed parts of himself to get lost for a while.

When each of us rejoin the Godhead we probably have access to all knowledge just as the part of God that never lost track of its self, since after all, all of us come from the same place.  When it comes to what our basic nature is, each of is basically the same.

Perhaps the human body can be used as an anology.  The human body is God, the body's brain is the portion God thinks with, the body's nervous system is the holy spirit that connects God's mind to the rest of his body, the cells that make up the rest of the body are us, and eventually each cell develops so it can understand the entire body. Of course, each cell needs to be willing to see beyond its limited "assumed" role in order to do so. ;)

I need to add, that when I've made contact with divine beings at a higher level than me, I've had feelings similar to the feelings Kathy expressed. Yet, I don't feel like these beings want to be worshiped.  They are more concerned about us being able to have feelings of grattitude, appreciation, humility, reverence and love, when we are in contact with divinity.

I figure that if all of us are going to be able to experience a great oneness some day, we can't have a lot of barriers in place that limit how completely we can love each other.  All of the barriers need to be gone with each of us feeling as if we are completely worthy of being loved, and each of us feeling like we have nothing to hide. I'm talking about the greatest collecton of friends one can imagine.

Kathy Doc, Don and others my somewhat poetic rendition of the reality most call GOD. God is not a "being"

Some of my thought on what is God is

Aware of infinite potential in vast unploughed fields of nothing, I strode with great beams of cosmic light toward the infinite horizon of eternity, sowing seeds of existence before the timeless moment of creation. I am the boundless Mind, Original Self-Awareness the cause of everything, relative to nothing I am This. On the panorama of bleak blackness, I rode on the back of the Absolute, sowing universal energy. Reality was my aim and the beauty of my achievement. Illuminating the darkness with beams of dazzling radiant glory was the first event of reason. I formulated in my mind the first number and called it “One”,
With the now realities of the fundamentals of’ “one, and ‘zero”, I made everything. I am the Prime Mover and there was no proponent to my First Cause.

I am the Immovable Rock and the Alpha point. I took these first numbers and weaved them into the fabric of the reality, creating all the limitless universes on the infinite timeless foam of nothing, which now makes all up existence. Indeed, I became the Almighty One. If you are, wise. “Do one thing, respect me the LORD! .


God rested and dreamed

I experienced time only in my dreams said God. God first dreamed. The cup of dreams ran over like unto rivers that overflow their banks. For God dreamed Infinity of dreams in an instant, and the Infinity multiplied by infinity for an Eternity created all possibilities in one awesome now. It was the Realm of Chaos. God began to create outside the Absolute Realm and started the first realities based on dimensions and textures.

For eons, slumbering God just observed the dreams. God delighted and God began to alter the flow and pattern of His dreaming state by switching from observer to participant. For God grew tired of the confusion and started controlling his dreams until they became patterns of joy that grew with beauty, precision and majesty. When God learned moved from his rest his time of chaos was over and the dawn of the Perfect Realm began. Moreover, the universe sprang into being. Chaos changed back to order.
Time - Actually the use of the word time here is inaccurate, but it will have to suffice for lack of a better term. From God's perspective, there is no time, only an ever changing now. Our use of time is a way to express beginnings, ends, and is used here to mark the beginning and ending of chaos.
Alan 15/9/2007


I am the painter and the painting, singer and the song, the dance and the dancer, the stage and the actors, the writer of the script of existence. I am all these things who am I? I am Ultimate-All the Absolute Totally of all existence, yes, I am This, and do you exist? Then why cant to I exist? The imprudent ask where you are, the wind blows on your cheek and you ask ‘where are you? The oceans roar and you ask,’ ‘where are you? The stars glow and you say mysterious one, ‘if you would only show yourself, blood flows in your vessels and you say ‘what are you? Indeed, I am the First Cause and the Immovable Rock.

I am the encompasser and enfold all things within the substance of my being. Resonating with profound unfathomable vibrations, creation trembles at the passing of my presence.

"I am the stalker of the soul, the defeater of death. I am Supreme and take the abstract, and convert it into concrete matter.(" Note here I seem to differ from you dont i Milo?)

I dwell in composite bright light, which is the breath of my life. I now look with delight upon the beauty of the garden of my creation, sparkling out of the darkness of infinite universes. In eternal joy, I survey my prime creation and called it life.

I set and start the clock of eternal time while dwelling outside in the ever-now moment.

alan 10/8/2006





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

this continues to be interesting here, thanks everybody!  :)  Kathy, glad u mentioned the healing that we all could develop with the hands. I've known Kathy awhile now and we both have done this thing at one time or another. I remember your telling us of how you fell one day and sprained your ankle and then u put your hands on it and received your healing.  :)

It reminded me I must have carried the wrong belief that I could not be healing myself, but I could project healing by seeing myself and the other as "one." and then asking and receiving is a biblical statement I believe in. and it happens. so I see you healed yourself and I'm positive in your character to do that and I examine my false premise. perhaps false humility it is.
my, we are a complicated bunch of people!  :-?

I remember when I was doing it Kathy. I remember asking. Then waiting. a lot of seconds go by. Still waiting. I would first have to see the other person the way god sees them. With mercy and love, that I would think god was that. With that I also would think of the rule "where two are more are joined in my name, there I am. So that would cause a feeling of love for the person. Only then would there be a surge of energy come out, first thru the head, my head, filling up my head and going out thru the hands, in like surges of exquisite joyful union with this other; then nothing was wrong to fix, simply put, it reminds me of reading Bruce's books where he says to "see it not there" the gooey stuff he mentioned encountering during a retrieval/healing.

although I can think of one instance where I asked for healing for myself, only because I was going to have to go home with no paycheck if I didn't heal myself...and I received it.  We've had some similar experiences you and I. It's so easy to forget we can do it..for me that is. maybe I need to put a note on my refrigerator?  :)
I don't think it has anything to do with spiritual pride to say we are healers, or to say we are one with god. its true no matter how we might express ourselves with mere words, we can be easily misperceived by the nature of how we define others according to our own set of beliefs.

Reading The Flight of the Feathered Serpent by Cosani now. would like to share just a bit pertinent to this thread:

My Rabbi Jesus cured the sick, gave sight to the blind and cleaned the leper.
"Where is your power Rabbi? I asked him one day.
"I can do nothing from myself" he answered.
Love your god above all things and your neighbor as yourself. Watch and pray so that you do not fall into temptation. you cannot watch without praying and you cannot pray without watching.

One of my favorite reminders is this thought from the Rabbi from Galilee: The father who is in heaven knows what we need even before we ask him for he has also given you your needs.


personal translation of the father is an All Permeating, intelligent Light in which we move and live and have our being. In a sense we are made from this stuff of the universe we call Light. I see god as a hierarchy of ascended masters who can take on form if they wish, and I do not see that they would be having a gender, but be whole in that they are both polarities in this wholeness, and able to be appear as individuals in order to answer a prayer in that form.

concluding we can bring heaven to earth only by sharing heaven's premises (our truthful intentions) with all others, and that makes it real, what was only premise before.

we are living in the end times, but they are really the beginning time. we are about to take some incredible leaps in human evolution in terms of the spirit of mankind.

Don, and Others,

Something instead of nothing?
Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.

Many physists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is. (Ridiculous nonsense). I cannot believe that, indeed, I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory or final answer to this ultimate of all questions. Why is there something instead of nothing?

With nothing, I mean the un-existence of everything. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.) Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have “nothing”, but definite and absolutely do indeed have ‘something’. This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one. The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were nothing, there would be no creator, of course.

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?

Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things by the very best minds of the human race. There are simply mysteries out there that will never ever be solved by mere mortal man. You see the universe has a strange Goldie locks condition about it, i.e., it cannot be too hot, or too cold etc, etc, erc, but it has to be just  absolutely correct, precise and right or life would not have come into existence and we would not be around to contemplate, debate or dialogue on this ultimate enigma. We would not exist. Life hangs on and depends on this knife- edge of harmonies conditions that have to be sustained over countless billions of years, for us to have come into existence and continue to exist. Makes one think, does it not

alan

Lights of Love wrote on Mar 7^th, 2008 at 11:52am:

A while back I read Mellen-Thomas Benedict’s NDE experience that I keep being drawn to reread over and over. For those that haven’t read it or would like to reread it, it’s located here: http://www.mellen-thomas.com/stories.htm I think a lot of the time we think our primary purpose of existence is to become more like God or to grow towards the divine by living life according to the golden rule. Now I’m not saying that this incorrect, but I’m increasing impressed with Mellen-Thomas’ statement that God is becoming us and I wonder what all of you think about this. Is God becoming us? If so in what ways do you see this occurring? Thanks for your comments. Love, Kathy

Hi Kathy - thanks for sharing that link. I find the viewpoint quite interesting matter of fact.
Taking a step back and looking at majority of religions and the practises, one can really see that "we humans" do indeed always seem to strive towards a HIGHER self, as if "we seem to know something which we really can`t quite put our finger on, but we do know it..lol..." Do you agree?

Lets go to the big bang thoerie, in itself it makes sense. The pulsating, the milli uncountable millions of vibs and then maybe a burst. Kinda reminds me of a mega mega climax..lol..

or if I may put it in a funny sense of cross reference =  the birth of a male child. Lets face it, wenn males are born, it sometimes takes 20 min for them to wiggle their way out of a woman`s body- but they spend the rest of their lives trying to get back into a womans body :-*...lol..ROFL.. ( No offense intended guys... ;) )

Whatever the case may be... I firmly believe that I am one tiny tiny tiny, little (did I forget to say itzy bitzy teeny weeny tiny) fragment of the wholebeing called God and you are the same as I. The black guy down the road too, so is the islamic lady wearing her headcovering as well as the heroin junky sitting at the trainstation, the lady of questionable virtue in the cat house too. The mouse, the eagle, the fly, the grass, the trees - every bit of it is a part of God.

We all are tiny fragments of one, and my goal is to always remember that, so to be able to treat each and every one of the people, animals and matter I see, meet or interact with - like that which we truely are:

A part of God.

Hugs,
Nanner

welcome back Nanner. reading you is like sipping strong coffee in the morning. gets me stimulated dearie.

Alan your question boils down to one often asked whether the egg or the chicken came first. Nobody can really answer that question sufficiently to satisfy another. maybe there's a clue if we ask why we even bother to try to answer it, and why we all come here to talk together. communication can turn into communion, if we are all one with god, then we are all one with each other, it's more scientific? if we can say, no matter whats coming down, we effect each other's well being or we create mayhem on one another with false premises expressed without love.

I'll just leave off on the question with that we study alot right here on this site what is a thing called perception versus knowledge.
perception is just perception. we perceive something. but do we perceive it correctly and do we perceive the whole of it? We cannot perceive the whole of it if we are just a part of it. so then we make that ok with ourselves, like Nan says god is putting on an act. that other person over there who gives you trouble, they are also YOU. you can never get rid of these other you's. but by not resisting what is perceived as evil, that same perceived evil becomes transformed by the PUL in you. this is what I mean by extension of your true knowledge from your personal, nonsharable experiences with other dimensions of consciousness, such as retrievals, transcendent meditations, prayer, etc.

Knowledge would be related to gaining of experience within Earth physical realm and imparting that  to others. Like those who have NDE, come back and report the experience that they PERCEIVED as best they can. They only way to keep something, in other words is by giving it away.

yet what they perceived was far grander than they can express with mere language and this is their cross to bear and I suppose the reward is in the effort to share their knowledge because by passing it on the kingdom come idea is increased in our oneness. this has to do with PUL, not with the self serving ego which has no Oneness premise.

I know some of your experiences Alan, you want to pass on, but it's very difficult isn't it? thats ok, I think you do ok, I knew from the start what your good intentions were here, I caught a glimpse here and there, that you had had some doozies out there that you'd like to pass on.

haha! physics. lemmee see if I was Einstein my brain would be totally fried. heres a formula:
0 + 1 idea = one.     1 + 1 idea shared = 2   2+2 ideas shared = 4  and so on and etc.

and do we need to know where the sun came from in order to enjoy the warmth of it? Nanner, it's raining here. yesterday the wind was blowing fiercely. the day before was just enough sun, not too hot, not too cold. I thought I had died and gone to heaven all the day. In the summer here, it's usually even as hot as 120.  all this weather conditions makes us enjoy when we do get a day that's just right. actually the sound of the rain is enjoyable too.
then, lol, when it's raining we can come here and make dumb remarks to each other all the day long!

Rereading Kathy's NDE account with Mellen-Thomas about God becoming us instead of us becoming God. I could think of something else along those lines...maybe...if I try.

It reminds me of this little icon I have of JC knocking at a door. God cannot come in unless we open the door, and that has to do with free will and our individual focus. I think it has to do with purification which has to do with the way we hoard good will and support evil by believing in evil as real.

I still rely on some thought that when I came to Earth I looked around and everyone wanted to be a movie star on stage. the field was overrun with would-be stars who ended up pumping gas or slinging hash on their way to stardom. The world is a stage and we be but actors and actresses. I decided not to be an actress but to be the best darn hash slinger in the diner because of the serenity prayer, always give thanks for your job however small it is and do it perfectly because somebody has to feed the aspiring stars too. Through PUL practice  the forces of god called grace and the way is made smoother by degree of perception. Love is the closest thing to God we can perceive, undistorted by self serving ego. In our oneness we can be set free in our spirits.

omygod I think I just laid a Sunday sermon on you guys!  :-*  blow me down, thanks for puttin up with me!

I always sign off with love. One time George here, bless his heart said "I like the way alysia signs off with love." then recently, I get this more often "I wouldn't sign off with love, because I don't feel it, so it's a fake thing to sign off with.

Let me set the record straight I FEEL IT! Otherwise I wouldn't sign off with love either. You don't have to be like me..y'all just have to let me sign off the way I want to, with my feelings.

so there  :-*  with love, your pal, alysia

Greetings,

Your previous post, Alan, is like poetry, very beautiful !
The variety of ways that people who their understanding is what makes this site so wonderful!---thank you!

Bets

DocM wrote on Mar 14^th, 2008 at 2:59pm:

...of the problem of separation from the divine or unity; that there may be a middle ground of qualified dualism or qualified monism whereby a person is both at the same time a unique consciousness while being at one with God and the universe.  The nature of consciousness implies perspective, which implies a thought process that includes some dualistic thinking.  Yet those who have merged with the divine in NDEs (Howard Storm as an example), describe the unity and still unique perspective as a feeling or knowing without being able to explain it further in words.... The idea that those with monistic tendencies must be narcissists who wish to revere and worship themselves is, in actuality erroneous.  In fact in practice, quite the opposite occurs.  People with true monistic beliefs and experiences tend to do more for others and be less ego driven, since they are aware of their being part of the whole instead of an other.   Thanks for your interesting words. More to come from me... Matthew

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for the kind words.
Following up - -
My understanding of this issue is as follows:
First of all - these are terms that signify constructs and belief systems that may all be operable depending upon whether one adopts any one and they do all seem to co-exist on the Earth-plane in various cultures and societies as individual and group beliefs at the present time - maybe one of the primary sources of ideological 'conflict', as people migrate from more restrictive constructs to more expansive constructs.

Dualism: that God (Spirit) and the Creation (matter) are separate and inaccessible to each other. Basically, God created the universe and 'let it go'. This is supposedly a primitive construct and not utilized by most of the so-called 'civilised' world.

Qualified Non-Dualism: God created the universe not of His entire Being, but with a portion of His Essence which permeates the Creation and is part of it. However there are limitations to 'access'. Right now, this is the dominant conception for most of the world - (like 90%?), but it is fast changing.

Monism: Everything, whether physical or non-physical is God in some form. There is nothing anywhere in any form that is not God. Any aspect of individuated form (in the physical) is actually God and has therefore the potential to become conscious of this Reality by evolution and transformation of this transitory ignorance.

We can accept qualified non-dualism (and definitely monism) if we acknowledge that individuals like Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Ramakrishna, etc., were God-realized and still retained their individuality (seems they did) , while operating in the physical world and not simply as part of an NDE, etc. Further, if one accepts the possibility and/or reality of God-realization presumably exemplified by these historical figures and probably many unknown others, this creates a problem for the purely dualist conception which posits that God (Spirit) is necessarily separate from a material Creation.

In qualified non-dualism God is seen as creating a separate physical universe with His Essence, but it is a one way street and still separate from access (to God). In both strict dualism and qualified non-dualism there is separation that is only resolved with the dissolution of life whether as parmeceum, person, or planet - and return of the soul - the divine portion to the Source through death. Iow's - dualism is resolved through death (one belief system that has generated many 'problems' on Earth)  Neither of the dualist conceptions allow for the phenomenon of God-realization except in q.n.d. in which case is explained as a fiat appearance by one way descent  into the physical world ie: Avatars (Incarnations) - direct descent of Godhead into physical personality. It does not allow for the construct that a 'mortal' person could attain God-realization working from the physical, since there would be the intrinsic separation of the dualistic reality, only resolvable by death and subsequent return to Source through process of death. The soul is merely our 'conscience' in a 'moral' world and that is as far as it goes. Hence the problem many have with the possibility of God-realization as well aas many other problems originating in this structure/belief system.

Yet, stange that all the Great Teachers have carefully explained that God can be attained by the individual through various means and methods while in this life (although even now this is still seen as radical by most), seeming to suggest that the dualist model persists only though stubborn adherence to ignorant tradition which keeps human beings indefinitely enslaved to Ignorance in a spiritual/material schism that is the source of many problems within individual and institutional belief systems at this time in human evolution. Iow's - it seems to me that monism is at the cutting edge of human understanding and implimentation of Divinity. It offers the most common sense view that explains most comprehensively the whys and hows of the human predicament and offers the best possibilities of transcending it, which the other models do not.

Consciousness at 'the high end' has been described as Existence/Consciousness/Bliss, in which there is no differentiation between those qualities and the one experiencing them. This does not necessarily mean that an individual cannot participate in that 'scheme' (which is a baseless 'fear' of the dualist/materialist conception), and is again, what is described by those who have experienced these states as differentiated human personalities Who did retain their individuality and operated on Earth as such.

You bring up an interesting point in discussing the narcissim issue on the individual level which i wasn't even alluding to. But yes, it seems clear that opposite to the dualist conception, monism (oneness) supports service within the Creation without the rationales we see with dualism that cause so many difficult secondary problems - for instance like inquisitions, crusades, and separative, condescending, authoritarian attitudes that are inherent in the constructs themselves. The dualist conception willfully or incidentally promotes a materialst view (matter being un or antidivine) in which any actual becoming of divinity (vs submission to divinity ie external Authority), is given as impossible therefore any real occurance of this is seen as an absurdity, narcissism, erroneous self (small 's') worship, megalomania, and various irreligious distortions - the same things the Pharisees said about the Christ. Even short of a discussion on the divinity of the Christ etc, there are all kinds of individual, social and cultural problems that stem from the spiritual/material dualistic conception of reality and transposition onto the social/interpersonal level, like the obvious shortcomings of morality and why that debate will go nowhere - because it has reached its limits on a social level in terms of the sheer number of people it does not now serve positively.

What I was previously refering to was this:
On a larger scale, what better model of narcissism than dualism? - An Almighty, Infinite, All Knowing, All loving God somehow can't get it together, and projects an ineffectual false-self (Creation) in which Ignorance, futility and finitude abound, creatures callously destroy and consume each other merely to survive another day, everything that is born has to die including the Universe itself, and for humans - the perplexing 'bad things happen to good people" among much worse - confusing and debilitating brutality, turmoil, and suffering that does not seem to live up to all the confabulated grandiose hype we hear about the great wonderful God. Talk about a grandiosity gap - narcissism or what?

It is in monism where all of this physical plane ignorance makes sense and actually has some meaning within larger possibilities inherent in the scheme, at least as a remedial basis for 'return' in which there is the 'double ladder' of involution/evolution which cannot be true in the dualist (separated) conception where the greatest possibilities of life are available only through divine fiat and not inherent in the reality itself as is the case with monism. Monism is where human birth has the greatest potential since human beings are inherently self-conscious, and so God-realization is at the forefront of physical plane possibility. In this scheme the individual does not narcisissitically worship themselves (their outer form) but they aspire to the divinity within themselves and respond to the inherent divinity in others - which supersedes an externally applied (therefore arbitrary) morality as a determinant of 'goodness' on the physical plane. It is subsumed by and adherance to or an aspiration and willingness to surrender the small will (ego) to God's Will, present and available within each person. It is with dualism that we see the culture of narcisism and form/image worship, condescending and authoritarian power trips over other beings and societies, etc..

- u

hi y'all. responding to Ultra here or doing a take on it. btw, Mathew is Doc in case anyone wonders. Doc, in your post it says more to come from you... :)  well, I'm waiting!  ;)

don't know if anyone cares or will think I'm a narcissist, lol, but I've had out of body adventures to meet up with Ultra and as well with Doc, quite some time ago, and they were very pleasant, getting to know you sort of casual meetings. I only meet up with persons more or less I can resonate to mentally. qualified monism? never heard that term before, so was intrigued with it.

I'm basically in agreement with everything Ultra has laid out here for us. Can't spiff it up a bit, lol, but I see this kind of thought as cognitive thought. During what I call the shift in consciousness occurring now, is a speed up sort of thing. In our schools perhaps the colleges, cognitive thought may be taught in psychology or philosophy classes. It maybe should be taught in elementary schools.
Not monism would be taught, but how to think would be taught.
perhaps thats on the horizon even as I speak. Cognitive thinking is according to a dictionary, a process of "considering all the possibilities" of a question while thinking about it. so that the word "never" is not a word that is in your vocabulary eventually. To have cognitive thinking is to think from overview of both sides of the question and to be a balanced perspective.
There would be no hard hitting passionate dogma presented here in that case, which a true monistic person does not let his passions dictate his thinking. Therefore monism does not look to greater authorities, but it's a way, like a pathway to expansion of mind, as we used to say back in the 60s.

about the possibility or nonpossibility of reaching what is called God-realization, to say yes is not narcissistic, but one could be accused of having a large, uncontrollable worship of one's own self, the ego, then if one says nay, it puts an automatic feeling of being constrained or limited back into the subconscious, when you say nay to anything at all as to blocking off our potentials to expand.

So not to say yay or nay, but sit and rather consider what is possible, and to do this consistently until it becomes habitual, that you close no door to serving your unlimited capacity within linear time trekking.

I liken monism to being more readily able to ascertain the divinity within each person I meet, because I would desire to see that we are one and not divided in essence.
Somehow, seeing the divinity in another causes them to reflect the divinity in yourself back to you, so it's a win-win. some called this inspiration? possibly.
theres some brilliant people on this board. I saw them several times, though I forget their names, they would mention that the reason we judge somebody as "less than" is because the crime we are accusing them of is the same crime we hold ourselves to be guilty of. In this sense the pot ends up calling the kettle black.

thanks for the thoughts Ultra and Doc, nice chatting as usual. love, alysia

Well now, I’m glad to see all of you have kept this thread going.

Hi Alan,

Yes, I do enjoy your writings. They can initiate in me the desire to wander off into meditative/contemplative thought. I’m not sure that I understand the idea of out of chaos comes order although it might seem so, however I do agree that there is divine order even when this is not recognized. You also have an interesting question… “Why is there something instead of nothing?” I suppose that one could say the only “something” that is absolute is consciousness and everything else is relevant only to consciousness in an outgoing and feedback process on both an individual and collective basis.

Hi Albert,

I love what you say here.


Quote:

I figure that if all of us are going to be able to experience a great oneness some day, we can't have a lot of barriers in place that limit how completely we can love each other.  All of the barriers need to be gone with each of us feeling as if we are completely worthy of being loved, and each of us feeling like we have nothing to hide.

I think the first step for this to happen is for each of us to let down the wall or the barriers we’ve created by allowing our self-awareness or identity to become separated from the spiritual wisdom within. We lost our spiritual identity to love because of our creation of fear. Out of fear and ignorance we tried to right ourselves with the creation of our ego identity to form, which of course created further separation that led to greater fearful thoughts and beliefs.

The creation of our ego is like a defense system ready and waiting to cover up our original pain caused from the betrayal of our true self, which instinctively knows the goodness within because our true self is the “image” of God, our source and ground of being. The separated ego awareness believes it must prove itself to be good and worthy because it has forgotten that it already is goodness and life itself.

Hi Alysia,

When we allow our understanding of the purest, highest love that we know to freely flow and emanate out from us… we are healing to those near to us. Healing energy flows automatically from the divinity within each of us when we are in this state of being. I like the way you say this…


Quote:

personal translation of the father is an All Permeating, intelligent Light in which we move and live and have our being. In a sense we are made from this stuff of the universe we call Light.

Hi Nanner,

You are welcome for the link.  :)
Yes I agree there is something in us that knows we are so much more than what appears on the surface.

Hi Ultra and Matthew,

Ultra, I like this summary:


Quote:

It is in monism where all of this physical plane ignorance makes sense and actually has some meaning within larger possibilities inherent in the scheme, at least as a remedial basis for 'return' in which there is the 'double ladder' of involution/evolution which cannot be true in the dualist (separated) conception where the greatest possibilities of life are available only through divine fiat and not inherent in the reality itself as is the case with monism. Monism is where human birth has the greatest potential since human beings are inherently self-conscious, and so God-realization is at the forefront of physical plane possibility. In this scheme the individual does not narcisissitically worship themselves (their outer form) but they aspire to the divinity within themselves and respond to the inherent divinity in others - which supersedes an externally applied (therefore arbitrary) morality as a determinant of 'goodness' on the physical plane. It is subsumed by and adherance to or an aspiration and willingness to surrender the small will (ego) to God's Will, present and available within each person. It is with dualism that we see the culture of narcisism and form/image worship, condescending and authoritarian power trips over other beings and societies, etc..

I’d like to hear more from you, too, Matthew.  :)

Hmmm… Don seems to be MIA. I wonder if he has conceded to monism?  ;D

Sorry Don… just missing you.  :D

Love you all!
Kathy

Thank you Kathy. I love what you said too.

Hi again Kathy-

Don said:  "God is generally experienced as "wholly other" and that aspect of mystical experience explains why "fear" in the sense of reverential awe is a standard aspect of such experiences."  

This reminds me of a story I had told on this board a few years ago.  I was working for a really hard-bitten, sacrilegious boss. Life did not deal John a very good hand.  His wife was suffering from MS and his son was constantly getting into trouble.  To sum up, he was pretty much of an SOB and definitely a person you would not want to ever cross.  John was an avowed atheist and didn't care who knew it.

One day he came into my office and shut the door.  He said something had happened the night before and he needed to share it because it affected him in a profound way.

He said he had just gotten into bed when he felt compelled to look up at where the wall joined the ceiling.  

He saw what he described as the most beautiful, perfect hand imaginable.  He said it was like alabaster and seemed to be glowing.  One finger of the hand was pointing at him, in what he interpreted as symbolizing rebuke.  Strong yet incredibly gentle and loving.  

The most striking part was when he said that he knew, intuitively, that he would not be able to bear gazing on the entire figure if it were to appear.  He said it would have been too painful, not because of fear but because of the sheer spiritual power he felt radiating from the hand into every cell of his body.  If the whole figure had materialized, he said he would have had to look away. He said he knew he couldn't bear the sight.

The rebuke was because John was not handling his wife's illness in the way he should.  He had taken up with a woman who worked in the office which he knew was wrong but he was not able or willing to break it off.

Had John been a religious person, it probably would not have had much of an impact on me.  But I was totally unprepared for the story he told.

Is God becoming us?  I hardly think so.  But that's just my opinion.

(And by the way, when you say "us", to whom are you referring?  We humans living on earth?)

R

Nice story Rondele. Thank you for sharing.

Hi again to you, too, Roger.

I agree this is a very nice story. I'm wondering did this experience change your boss' life?

Actually the question 'Is God becoming us?' comes from Mellen-Thomas Benedict’s NDE I posted on the first page of this thread. He is the one that said God is becoming us, so I wondered what all of you thought about this idea.

K

Such amazing replies to a wonderful question.

If we are all part of a higher good, or God, and God is understood to be infinite LOVE, then God is also infinitely in the process of BECOMING LOVE, and so, as parts of this infinite bliss that is God, we are ever becoming MORE LOVE. We are BECOMING ABSOLUTELY INFINITELY LOVE.

Kathy-

No, that vision had no affect on John's life.  He continued as before.  On the one hand he was stunned by his experience, but on the other hand he was totally materialistic and was not willing to change his ways.

The other thing that continues to intrigue me is why was John singled out for this profound experience?  I mean, what he was doing was wrong, but millions of others do the same thing and far worse.  

Why are these sorts of experiences relatively so rare?  Is there a protocol that must be in place in order that they happen, or are they purely random?  Altho if the experience was divinely inspired, it would seem to rule out a random occurrence.

R

This is a difficult question to answer, since we have so little to go on as to God's true divine nature.  However, to throw my two cents in - the question implies that we are separate from God and the divine, at that as we experience and mature, we join again with God, and thus he incorporates these new points of view and experiences (our own) into a universal mind.  

To me, however, this implies a complete separation between man and God that may not be real.  The separation seems to come when man distances himself from God, acts to create fear or evil, and acts indulgently rather than from a higher purpose.  

It would be presumptuous to say however that we know God's perspective on us.  As his creations, God may not feel a separation from us (though he may allow us to artificially separate ourselves from him by our thoughts and actions).  

The question implies dualism, and separation.  It may be true that this dualism exists to we human beings, but from a divine perspective, out of the temporal realm of earth - I'm not sure that there is a distinction.

Matthew

wrote on Apr 1^st, 2008 at 7:42pm:

Such amazing replies to a wonderful question. If we are all part of a higher good, or God, and God is understood to be infinite LOVE, then God is also infinitely in the process of BECOMING LOVE, and so, as parts of this infinite bliss that is God, we are ever becoming MORE LOVE. We are BECOMING ABSOLUTELY INFINITELY LOVE.

I totally agree from a slightly different slant Blink. I submit we are in process of remembering we are love (absolute nondualistic Love) after having dived into matter and agreed to the veil of forgetfullness that we are infinite love, and one with god. Becoming implies we go forward (in time) towards our unlimited beingness (god)
while it is the ego who would place limits on just how far we can go in one life.  We are all courageous in our souls to have taken an Earth life.

love, alysia

Hi Blink,

LOVE is where it’s at for me, too. I love to BE love! Thanks for responding.


Quote:

Quote Roger: No, that vision had no affect on John's life.  He continued as before.  On the one hand he was stunned by his experience, but on the other hand he was totally materialistic and was not willing to change his ways. The other thing that continues to intrigue me is why was John singled out for this profound experience?  I mean, what he was doing was wrong, but millions of others do the same thing and far worse.   Why are these sorts of experiences relatively so rare?  Is there a protocol that must be in place in order that they happen, or are they purely random?  Altho if the experience was divinely inspired, it would seem to rule out a random occurrence.

Hi Roger,

You always ask such good questions that make me think. lol

When we try to answer questions like this from a perspective of morality I think it is impossible to come up with plausible answers that are satisfactorily applied to each of us. These types of experiences like John had do happen or at least have the potential for happening every moment of everyday with anyone.

The reason we believe they are rare is because many times we are unable to identify with who we really are. We have not yet manifested conscious recognition of our true spiritual nature to a large degree. Instead what we have manifested is a conscious recognition of the material world in which we find our identity such as we believe we are our thoughts and the stories we tell ourselves. I would say this is why John continued in his ways. His material world is what he identified with. His experience did become of a part of his conscious awareness even though his behavior didn’t change on the surface.

These stories we all tell ourselves are based on the physical world of form. Our thoughts are forms that we have manifested according to our belief systems regardless of what we believe. The stronger our belief about something, the stronger that belief becomes because we charge it with continual thoughts and emotion regarding the belief.

The pastor of a church once told the congregation that if you stop attending church, stop reading the Bible on a regular basis, etc., your belief in Christ would diminish perhaps to the point where you will no longer believe in him. And that is true. The thought forms manifested regarding this belief would diminish or become a stagnant part of our conscious awareness. This is also true for anything we believe regardless of whether or not we consider the belief healthy or morally correct.

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for responding and yes in some ways the question does imply separation. Perhaps us even trying to describe God’s true divine nature is what leads us to believe we are separate beings. The highest spiritual frequency of being that I’m aware of contains no belief as I described on Albert’s thread. Perhaps God consciousness is pure potentiality where nothing at all exists except God. Perhaps God needs us as a creative aspect as much as we need God in order to be a creative aspect or in other words, if God were not everything that exists, nothing would exist.

Hi Alysia,

Yes I think we are in the process of manifesting the consciousness of all that we really are. Or maybe keeping in line with Mellon Thomas’ statement… “God is becoming us.”  It might be said that God being us is in the process of manifesting the consciousness of all that God really is.

Love you all,  :)
Kathy

Kathy hit upon a good point..". The highest spiritual frequency of being that I’m aware of contains no belief.."

this statement reminds me of TMI's premise, there is no bad, there is no good. it's a nonduality consciousness as I see it, and in religious terms is a nonjudgmental approach to life.
____

In regards to the topic head, is God becoming Us? I reflect back to years ago here, we were all talking about a subject such as why the Earth plane was birthed, and we talked about how God played hide and seek and loved to surprise Him/Herself.  When we say in some circles "I am trying to find myself"
It could be seen as God seeking Himself/Herself.

I don't like to use gender to define God, but we are stuck in that definition for the time. I used to joke, God is a black woman, but it's not funny anymore! lol.  The created cannot be separated from the Creator.

Love is the glue that glues it all together. great post Kathy.

In regards to Rondele's account of the materialist, atheist I could offer that I don't think it was a random type of experience, the pointing finger materializing. I think the finger planted a seed which sprouts in time.

When one's spouse is sick like his wife had MS, the marriage provides fertile ground for spiritual headway on the part of the one who is well. I believe he still loved his wife, but was no longer getting what he needed in the marriage because of her declining health. Because he still loved her, he developed a guilt complex and shoved it into his unconscious. the guilt rose because he turned to another to fill his needs, unable to sacrifice himself. A spiritual outlook would be to stick to his vows and see his wife through her trials. Not many are this self sacrificing in a marriage, especially not an atheist.

He knew what he should do but he pushed the thought from his mind. Yet what is in the subconscious as a conflict, will still manifest in these paranormal experiences, and we could say his higher self was instigating the lesson plan of the pointing finger, as surely, he was out of touch with spiritual principle.

I believe all relationships are sacred ventures, even with enemies, that can be turned around to show that god is working there too, to find himself.
Marriage is a very serious thing to undertake, but great opportunity exists there to discover our propensity to love fully. In his heart the man knew this, and he knew he was failing Love's purpose and that's why this was not a random experience, but a divine one.

Briefly, I've told this story before too Roger, why do we have to retell it?  :)

My sister had cancer, was dying. Her husband took up with another woman while sis laid there in her bed dying. They had seemed to have a good marriage until this. Sis died very bitterly at only about 38 yrs of age. She loved life until then and had a loving fun nature up until then.

I think she knew he was out cheating already but not sure, all I know is she started to hate everybody in the whole world and certainly her man was not helping her deal with it.

It would have shown some bit of kindness? to at least wait until she died before running around on her, so she probably didn't want to fight uphill all by herself to get well.

so here's poetic justice does occur. All of us are connected, on an unseen level. Some are more sensitive to that collective pot and have lucid dreams, Obes, impressions come. My mother, who was emotionally attached to both sis and her husband, and had even been instrumental in advising sis to marry this man....had this phenomenal encounter in a lucid area with this cheating man.

She didn't have many of these experiences, so when she told me about it, I knew it was poetic justice unraveling. it's tit for tat.  Sis died, and her husband moved in the other woman right away into the home they had built together. Either he died himself or the union broke up, as he came into mother's dream world screaming Help me! Joan won't see me! She wants nothing to do with me! I was so wrong to treat her that way...please help me get back with her!

Mother was at a loss what to say to him. Then I also saw my sister in an Obe afterwards. She showed me she had found someone on the other side, a man who loved her dearly. so I conclude love is alive on the other side as well, it could be alive here if we would do what our vows suggest. be true.

Life is a lesson plan I do believe towards discovering what it means to love each other within the promise to do so. We don't always succeed, but there's opportunity to re-learn what we are doing here.
We're getting there. We're still in duality and have moved off the straight and narrow path yet we have these extraordinary experiences to help us realize the right choices.

love, alysia