Why should I care about becoming everything again?

[AnthroHeart]

It's hard to accept the things my mom makes me do, but then I get over it and help her anyway.
I tend to avoid certain challenges if they are too hard. Not sure if I'm learning my lessons.

It's interesting you bring up "lessons", I feel like many people misunderstand the whole "spiritual lesson" thing. It is not that there are set prescribed lessons you have to learn, rather it is just a knowingness that gets further defined with each experience you have. It's a lot more organic than a set of course lessons you have to work through. Each experience simply makes you more aware, and as that awareness grows, you naturally gravitate to a space appropriate for the place your consciousness has expanded to. This is why spiritual advancement is not an authoritarian process.

Consciousness is like grades of fluid with different densities (another reason the density concept is so great), and you just naturally gravitate to the appropriate space for the vibration being emitted.

So in that sense, GW, you are learning your lessons just fine.

That's great to know. I was worried I'd have to repeat lessons ad infinitum, because I didn't get them. Lessons like loving my mom more. She's difficult, I just raised my voice to her because she kept nagging me. She likes to command me to do things for her. I do them and she's not satisfied. So I thought my lesson was to put up with her and not punch her in the face like I think about doing. My punch is weak anyway so it wouldn't do anything but piss her off and call the cops on me. She like to do that, call 911 if I'm off. But I called 911 on her once because she threatened to kill herself with medication. I knew she didn't mean it, but she threatened it, so I called on her. She was mad at me for that. Then later she gets a vet to neuter my dog without my permission, I think in retaliation.

And at work I'm lazy. I'll sometimes take a 2-3 hour nap at lunch, because I work from home, and the only monitoring we get is through Instant Messaging which tells if we're away for more than 15 minutes. So far I haven't gotten in trouble. But sometimes I can't sleep at lunch, so I'll just sit quietly doing nothing.

If projects are difficult, I tend to ask someone else to help me with them. I pass the work onto them. And if they can't do it either, I just let the work slip by. I don't like it if I have to apply a lot of thought into the work. And I work a desk job, computer programming. It's more like report writing, which is pretty easy for the most part.

And I've stolen a few items from the store when I can't afford them. Not learning my lesson there either. But you say that lessons are more experiencing. I just hope I'm not building bad karma from doing these things. I try to be an honest person.

[Raz]

Now that was cool synchronicity, I dreamed I was making a Rainbow shot with unusualy many layers this morning, got a major flash back from it from that picture

[Adonai One]

Why care at all? Why not care? Why ask why?

Perhaps it isn't about caring or acceptance or rejection but about the questions we are choosing to ask that is really relevant to the question of "Why?".

If you want to know why, examine yourself and see what you are asking. The answer to 'why' isn't the answer to A question, it is the answer that precedes the question before it even arises.

The meaning of life, Tanner:

"All men desire only satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Satisfaction of their desires."

"Their desires for what?"

"Their desires for satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Their desires."

"For what?"

"For satisfaction"—etc., ad infinitum.

It's only about satisfaction in the end. That is all we are looking for and it can be found right now.

[Unbound]

How can we be looking for something which is always existent? That is completely redundant. Perhaps we are looking for the realization of that always existent satisfaction, that would make sense to me. However, why should things stop at satisfaction? Why must satisfaction be opposed to desire? The whole circle is self-defeating, and frankly, in my opinion, is not in any ways expressive of the reality of humans.

The truth is we are not looking for anything, it is only the looking that determines what we see. You see that all is about satisfaction because you are enthralled by the idea of desires. I see satisfaction as but one petal on the flower of light and life. Is the only fulfillment that which is devoid of all striving or is that idea itself a rejection of the effort of striving? If all is well in all moments then any claim of slavery, authority or control is completely baseless and in this way I find you continually undermine your own apparently core message. You perhaps miss that all slavery begins with the self by the self.

My point being, you have answered your own question before you have asked it. Can you remember the first question you ever asked in the entirety of your life, of your being? What was the first question of the Creator?

[anagogy]

"All men desire only satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Satisfaction of their desires."

"Their desires for what?"

"Their desires for satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Their desires."

"For what?"

"For satisfaction"—etc., ad infinitum.

It's only about satisfaction in the end. That is all we are looking for and it can be found right now.

Except that satisfaction is found in the play out of desire. The flow of desire is literally the feeling of life, or prana, coursing through you.

You can try to short circuit, or overcome the pathway of desire and skip to the satisfaction part, but as Ra explained, "The reason it is unwise to overcome is that overcoming is an unbalanced action creating difficulties in balancing in the time/space continuum. Overcoming thus creates the further environment for holding onto that which apparently has been overcome."

"[...] this very control potentiates and necessitates the further incarnative experience in order to balance this control or repression of that self which is perfect."

[Adonai One]

I am not overcoming if I accept the desire so far as to be satisfied within desiring.

I am satisfied yet I desire at once. Desire satisfies me inherently, even not met.

---

Suppression would be me avoiding my desires entirely and saying they are meaningless. My desires have meaning fulfilled and unfulfilled.

---

...My point being, you have answered your own question before you have asked it. Can you remember the first question you ever asked in the entirety of your life, of your being? What was the first question of the Creator?

Some animal demanding food and not receiving any and failing to see starvation as satisfying, thus leaving a state of infinite acceptance to finite acceptance.

My core message is that everything is acceptable and one.

[Unbound]

So hunger is the first question of being?

[Adonai One]

Assuming you believe the soul was a result of the investment of "light" into evolving animals, yes.

In my theory, the resistance of hunger/thirst created the first will to live. The environment suppressing one's desire to eat/drink created the first spark of almost every soul, the resistance, the repulsion against being sent back to the eternal, just carbon on a planet's surface.

[Unbound]

See, I still believe in souls existing prior to the formation of animal bodies although I see the "investment" as being the soul which has been prior existent choosing a pathway of vessels and incarnation for experience upon any planetary sphere. I see the soul as being that which is the continuous mind of the individuated Creator whereas the forms of the body are continuously changing as a vehicle.

The reason I believe that the soul is developed prior to the actual experience in the body because I see souls as the blueprints for all of manifestation, so the bodies had no need to exist until the souls had developed sufficient desire to experience a physical body which is, to my understanding, an outward manifestation of the soul. Perhaps our difference is that I see the soul world as being something which is foundation to the physical world rather than the other way around. To me, the physical experience is the "excrement" or very last aspect of manifestation to come in to appearance and experience. In my experience and conception I have always perceived a vast "non-physical" state of existence needing to exist as the foundation to the physical reality which is an interface between the apparently non-physical entities that are souls.

In short, I think physical bodies could not exist at all and there would still be souls.

For me, I see it that souls are able to perceive time as a spectrum rather than a point like we do. Therefore, in each soul plan, I see it that all of the creation and evolution of animal bodies has been at the orchestration of many individuated souls whom is each adding its own part to the overall Logos design. I see it that those souls created animal bodies and reincarnated continuously because they were aware of what they are/were intending to evolve in to and so there were no coincidences in regards to the intelligent energy that has flowed through each creature and being.

So that being said, I agree with the idea of animals being invested in to produce the evolution of self-awareness, however I see it as being the soul which does this investment and it is not something which just "appears" as a result of an animal spontaneously receiving energy for no reason.

I admit, I would almost interchange the words soul and Logos as they describe almost the same thing to me.

[Adonai One]

The physical to me is the primordial "soul." I guess this is where we differ.

[Unbound]

Aha That would appear to be so. I see the physical as only the outside of the shell of being, incredibly useful I might add but the soul is the essence of being itself in my mind.

[vervex]

I believe you could go deeper than addressing hunger/thirst. Perhaps addressing the phenomenon of consciousness and unconsciousness could give us clue as how this mechanism of seeking to fulfill and know oneself through desires works. Consider a (unit of) consciousness which veils part of itself; it may feel incomplete and seek externally as well as internally to fill the lack it perceives. Through each experience and fulfilled desire, it is one step closer to understanding and uncovering its nature. I believe this mechanism happens subconsciously in most of humanity, yet it could well be what propels us "forward", so to speak.

This of course could link to your example of hunger being the primordial need of a living being: in the abstracted form of a body, because it perceives lack it seeks to fill this illusory void which it experiences.

Feel free to disagree if you think I am wrong. This is my understanding at this time but I am always open to broaden my horizons

[Adonai One]

I don't think metaphysical concepts that go deep into the universal mind are useful for skeptical perspectives. Sure, that's the truest core of it but for the atheist, it isn't helpful.

The most provable primordial concept is eating and drinking and perhaps the most potent example in some cases.

Panpsychism has not been proven yet.

[Unbound]

Perhaps then the question is for what reason does any part of consciousness veil itself from itself?

[Adonai One]

An infinite series of events for the sake of them alone.

[Unbound]

I don't think metaphysical concepts that go deep into the universal mind are useful for skeptical perspectives. Sure, that's the truest core of it but for the atheist, it isn't helpful.

The most provable primordial concept is eating and drinking and perhaps the most potent example in some cases.

Panpsychism has not been proven yet.

How about breathing?

[Adonai One]

I don't think metaphysical concepts that go deep into the universal mind are useful for skeptical perspectives. Sure, that's the truest core of it but for the atheist, it isn't helpful.

The most provable primordial concept is eating and drinking and perhaps the most potent example in some cases.

Panpsychism has not been proven yet.

How about breathing?

I wouldn't be surprised if a resistance to drowning created souls.

In my understanding, every desire is fueled by a repulsion from a possibility and a soul to me is pure desire based on repulsions.

[Unbound]

The reason I disagree is that because humans are grown in the womb and in this time all of their survival needs are thoroughly taken care of and since I don't believe the instant moment of birth to be the beginning of the experience of the soul consciousness it would seem natural to me that although hunger/thirst are indeed primary desires immediately beginning at birth there are in fact desires which would precede this in the womb.

---

I don't think metaphysical concepts that go deep into the universal mind are useful for skeptical perspectives. Sure, that's the truest core of it but for the atheist, it isn't helpful.

The most provable primordial concept is eating and drinking and perhaps the most potent example in some cases.

Panpsychism has not been proven yet.

How about breathing?

I wouldn't be surprised if a resistance to drowning created souls.

In my understanding, every desire is fueled by a repulsion from a possibility and a soul to me is pure desire based on repulsions.

Not a propulsion to a possibility?

---

Also, I suppose we would have to gauge the first "birth conditions" to really know what the first experiences of bodies being grown were.

[Adonai One]

A possibility doesn't exist without an acceptance of what it is not: An impossibility.

An impossibility is primordial to possibility.

A circle is created on canvas by saying it is impossible for it to be purely canvas.

[vervex]

Perhaps then the question is for what reason does any part of consciousness veil itself from itself?

Although I am far from having all the answers to this question, I tend to believe unconsciousness is the primordial way the universe may use know itself; points of views are created from the illusion of separation. That alone seems like one good reason to veil oneself

---

Also, in response to your earlier post about souls, do you perceive the mind to also be soul, Tanner? When Ra speaks of the mind/body/spirit complex, do you make a distinction between what is mind and what is spirit?

I cannot provide any proof but I can share a personal experience, perhaps: I have experienced a state and memory in meditation which had me without body nor spirit. I experienced a state of pure thought, pure mind - no vessel of any kind. There was no radiance of light even. Additionally, "space" as we term it felt like a vacuum; it was perceived yet was non-existent.

You are free to interpret this as you wish, however I perceive the mind, body and spirit to be different manifestations/abstractions of the one. How do you see it?

[Unbound]

How exactly do you get that? What is "impossibility"?

To me, impossibility is something which arises from possibilities that are counter-effective. No possibility in itself is impossible, but possibilities can be made impossible by their correlation with other possibilities.

I think I get what you are saying that to accept a possibility as being possible you have to accept the rejection of what it is not and that is an impossibility or lack of possibility. Thus by rejecting the impossibility the way is open for the possibility to be.

However, that is where I am confused, because I do not see how the acceptance of rejection leads to the acceptance of the possibility because it would seem to me that there is no need for the rejection if there is already acceptance. To me there only needs to be the acceptance of the possibilities which give rise to the possibility and the impossibility falls away in the face of what is accepted with no need for the effort towards rejection.

Perhaps I am to better grasp you if you mean that by accepting a possibility you are thereby also accepting that all of those things which are counter-effective with that possibility are thus impossible due to improper conditions and so to accept the possibility automatically includes a rejection of possibilities not supportable with the initial possibility.

However, that still leaves the impossibility as an illusory relationship formed of the interactions between possibilities and is not in itself actually that which determines possibility but is, instead, an effect.

[Adonai One]

The Potentiator of the Mind is this precise concept.

All I mean is to accept something as possible and true is to negate its anti-thetical possibilities. May I say I still encourage seeing everything as possible.

It is indeed illusory as negation is.

[Unbound]

Perhaps then the question is for what reason does any part of consciousness veil itself from itself?

Although I am far from having all the answers to this question, I tend to believe unconsciousness is the primordial way the universe may use know itself; points of views are created from the illusion of separation. That alone seems like one good reason to veil oneself

---

Also, in response to your earlier post about souls, do you perceive the mind to also be soul, Tanner? When Ra speaks of the mind/body/spirit complex, do you make a distinction between what is mind and what is spirit?

I cannot provide any proof but I can share a personal experience, perhaps: I have experienced a state and memory in meditation which had me without body nor spirit. I experienced a state of pure thought, pure mind - no vessel of any kind. There was no radiance of light even. Additionally, "space" as we term it felt like a vacuum; it was perceived yet was non-existent.

You are free to interpret this as you wish, however I perceive the mind, body and spirit to be different manifestations/abstractions of the one. How do you see it?

I have had experiences which would fit very similar descriptions I can say. To me, the soul is the trinity of Mind/Body/Spirit Complex, Higher Self and Mind/Body/Spirit Totality and is essentially the Logos which is that focus giving rise to the experience of the Mind/Body/Spirit cycle. The soul is the individuation of the Creator according to free will. It is the circle circumscribed around the point. The point is the creator, the circle is the soul created by the free will of the creator. (The circle is a good symbol for free will as it is equal and all encompassing in all directions and is infinitely scale-able.)

I also see the mind, body and spirit as different manifestations but the soul is not the same as any of these to me.

[anagogy]

I cannot provide any proof but I can share a personal experience, perhaps: I have experienced a state and memory in meditation which had me without body nor spirit. I experienced a state of pure thought, pure mind - no vessel of any kind. There was no radiance of light even. Additionally, "space" as we term it felt like a vacuum; it was perceived yet was non-existent.

You are free to interpret this as you wish, however I perceive the mind, body and spirit to be different manifestations/abstractions of the one. How do you see it?

So how do you personally define mind, body, and spirit vervex?

---

I am not overcoming if I accept the desire so far as to be satisfied within desiring.

I am satisfied yet I desire at once. Desire satisfies me inherently, even not met.

---

Suppression would be me avoiding my desires entirely and saying they are meaningless. My desires have meaning fulfilled and unfulfilled.

I think you and I have different understandings of what "satisfaction" constitutes exactly.

I don't deny that you can feel a certain satisfaction in desire itself. We are desires enfolded in desires enfolded in desires enfolded in desires. And the desire, or preference, to feel desire, is a certain kind of subtle desire in its own right that is met simply by having desire, and I fully agree with that. But there are other forms of satisfaction that are not met with just that level of desire.

Desire is momentum in consciousness. The difference between will and desire is that will is desire made predominantly conscious.

If one were truly satisfied, in all respects, they wouldn't have desires in the first place. Dissatisfaction is the fuel for the athanor of growth. It compels us forward, and is part of the deliberate design of our density. Desire. or "wanting something", validates the reality of "not having" or lack. You don't desire what you already possess. But you can appreciate it. Which is kind of like the "abundance" side of the vibrational equation.

So we could say there is both satisfaction, and dissatisfaction present in all people in varying degrees. We are always in a process of expansion from the vibration of not having to the vibration of having. You experience catalytic contrast, desires are born, higher self become the vibrational equivalent of them, and we tune our thoughts which manifest into real world actions until we also find the vibration of having whatever it is we are desiring.

"It is not until there is a reason to wish to excel that most entities will attempt to excel."

"We may suggest that in order to progress, a state of some dissatisfaction will be present, thus giving the entity the stimulus for further seeking."

It seems from some of your posts, that you are trying to get out of this "growth" business. Perhaps I'm misreading you, but my current understanding is that growth is why we exist as we do.

Cheers, Adonai.

[Adonai One]

I see growth as inherent so, indeed, the term has become redundant to me. I breathe air. I do not strive to breathe air. I just breathe. This applies to every one of my desires.

I do not struggle to breathe or do. I just do. I just follow my desires. I don't see a striving necessary. Even in balancing, the actions are inherent. Everything is inherently given, it's just about following it.

---

Dissatisfaction to me is satisfactory. I cannot tangibly explain this but once we have a momentum of acceptance, there is only bliss. If you don't resonate, I understand.

[Unbound]

Does that make all conscious activity a struggle or a striving? Is "following it" not then something which requires an effort of will which could be considered striving? For example with breathing, I am a very conscious breather and indeed I often put in conscious effort to be consciously involved in my breathing and that is because I am always working to most fully make use of the tool of breath as it is available to me. So am I being controlling because I am not accepting the "default" manner of breathing or am I being accepting of my full conscious capacity and making use of that?

To me, I do not see the difference between "following" and "striving" as those are, to me, essentially both requiring a conscious effort. Are you saying that all effort and striving results in suffering? But wouldn't that just be your rejection of the idea of effort itself?

Are you sure you're not just secretly very lazy? Aha

---

I guess I just don't understand how you take the idea of "inheritance" and from that suggest that because things have inherent aspects those aspects are no longer relevant to that which they are aspects of.

From the way you express it and perhaps my misinterpretation, it's like saying "Well, I inherently have arms, so I have no arms because they are just an extension of the body, there is only the body, no need for arms."

---

Also what if you accept the striving? Does that mean the striving is also inherent? If absolutely everything is just inherent, then I suppose we are to be deterministic creatures.

Yet, I cannot help but think that you are striving to nullify striving, which seems kind of self-defeating.

[Adonai One]

We are deterministic creatures. Everything will be spawned and return to timelessness and there is nothing we can do about it.

Will is a choice and choice is unconciousness of timelessness.

---

Effort is unneccessary in my view. We will just have to disagree.

[AnthroHeart]

I desire timelessness and unity. Something I won't realize here in 3D. Thus I desire what I cannot have.

[Adonai One]

You'll find, somewhere down the road, that timelessness is just embracing every possibility, including possibly having what you don't currently have.

[vervex]

So how do you personally define mind, body, and spirit vervex?

In all honesty, I do not have a clear cut answer to this question for you anagogy But here's my current understanding of the mind, body and spirit:

Consciousness in its purest form is the mind. The mind is pure thought; it does not have form, but it is what gives birth to form. It is without vessel, it is the realm of thought, potential and ideation.

The mind gives rise to form; the body. Light is furthermore a physical manifestation which imbues all forms. It is the primordial manifestation. The reality we experience and navigate, the body, is, in my understanding, an abstraction of light.

The spirit is, in my understanding, the domain of thought and form interacting seamlessly.

I believe it is difficult for us to grasp the full extent of the spirit from our view point as we are immersed in the body to such an extent we become unaware of parts of the mind. The form is both a result of an expression and (temporary) suppression of the mind, hence the perception of limitation we experience.



Furthermore, I do not make a difference between spirit and soul; to me, they are synonymous. I see no reason to see them as disparate and I believe employing them as separate concepts is a misunderstanding of the nature of the spirit. That is, of course, my personal opinion.