+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: what is your opinion about opinions? (/showthread.php?tid=11810)
what is your opinion about opinions? - Raz - 09-30-2015
I feel opinions essentially are a form of expression and we have a tendency to cling/embody specific opinions to retain a static sense of self to use as a reference point when we compare self with other self... Hmmmm....
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - Plenum - 09-30-2015
I would probably say that opinions are reflective of the Viewpoint. In that the Viewpoint is the point at which consciousness is raised, relative to the kundalini. That 'meeting point' progressively becomes more inclusive, as it rises.
Opinions are just spinoffs from that Viewpoint.
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - anagogy - 09-30-2015
The only thing that separates us from others is our attention to differences, which sets us apart vibrationally. Were attention to apparent separation fully withdrawn, our experience would be one of utter unity.
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - Plenum - 10-01-2015
(09-30-2015, 11:16 PM)anagogy Wrote: The only thing that separates us from others is our attention to differences, which sets us apart vibrationally. Were attention to apparent separation fully withdrawn, our experience would be one of utter unity.
and yet, it would seem that the choice of physical vehicle in each density is to facilitate a certain type of attention to differences, or to emphasise a limited choice of experience. Case in point, the weakening of the 3rd density human vehicle, so that it would encourage a certain type of limited experience.
This is the one thing I have still yet to reconcile in regards to consciousness seeming to evolve with experience, and gaining understandings that 'attach' to the individual soul, and then the prospect/potential of ever-present unity and infinity, which would seem the birthright of every portion of the Creator.
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - anagogy - 10-01-2015
(10-01-2015, 12:00 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: and yet, it would seem that the choice of physical vehicle in each density is to facilitate a certain type of attention to differences, or to emphasise a limited choice of experience. Case in point, the weakening of the 3rd density human vehicle, so that it would encourage a certain type of limited experience.
This is the one thing I have still yet to reconcile in regards to consciousness seeming to evolve with experience, and gaining understandings that 'attach' to the individual soul, and then the prospect/potential of ever-present unity and infinity, which would seem the birthright of every portion of the Creator.
Perhaps you can be more specific about what there is to reconcile Plenum?
I see nothing to reconcile. From my perspective there is no change in the absolute. Evolution is the result of us adopting identification with mind, which involves a duality, a subject/object relationship between inner and outer. In the world of duality, the realm of comparisons, things appear to change and evolve. From the broader perspective of spirit, there is just undistorted stillness.
The best analogy I can think of is: a rock on a table. It is still and not moving. However if you take a powerful microscope and zoom into the subatomic level, there is a whirl of energetic movement. The portion looks different than the whole.
Similarly, we appear to evolve, incarnation by incarnation, lesson by lesson, seemingly moving from grace to grace. But when we arrive at the macro-perspective, we too will see that no change was occurring -- it was merely an artifact of examining a mere portion of our being.
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - APeacefulWarrior - 10-01-2015
(10-01-2015, 12:00 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: and yet, it would seem that the choice of physical vehicle in each density is to facilitate a certain type of attention to differences, or to emphasise a limited choice of experience. Case in point, the weakening of the 3rd density human vehicle, so that it would encourage a certain type of limited experience.
This is the one thing I have still yet to reconcile in regards to consciousness seeming to evolve with experience, and gaining understandings that 'attach' to the individual soul, and then the prospect/potential of ever-present unity and infinity, which would seem the birthright of every portion of the Creator.
I think one of the reasons it's hard to generalize about this is that 3D existence serves more than one purpose, AND from various things said by various channeled entities, it seems that Earth is something of a special case even among 3D worlds. For 2D and 3D entities, our existence is deliberately designed as a crucible that provides high-intensity catalyst that helps speed their evolution towards 4D+ states. For higher-density Wanderers who've already graduated, it's a playground that can provide almost any "physical" experience an entity might want to learn from for the sake of their further development.
Those who choose to incarnate here voluntarily are deliberately sacrificing their knowledge of Oneness / Intelligent Infinity / Universal Love specifically so they can challenge themselves, or find out how they react in unusual circumstances. And as each individual entity grows and expands, so too does the Creator grow. While we have no way of knowing the full motivations of the Creator in setting up this whole system, it certainly seems that the Creator wants to be more than it was -more wise, more loving, etc- and is using the incarnation process as a way of furthering its overall development.
The end goal, I suppose, might be "a more perfect union" as the American founders once put it. By investing sub-creations with free will and the ability to choose from a nearly infinite number of potential experiences, the Creator as a whole becomes ever-greater with each experience.
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - Plenum - 10-01-2015
@anagogy
I guess I will fumble here for some words, as I don't think I really understand the issue.
It seems like a stepping point to unity is the Higher Self. Ra even mentioned this in regards to invocations (last paragraph). Now, regardless of whether or not one does this explicitly, I still think all attempts and movements towards an experience of Unity proceed from such pathways, at least energetically speaking. The person may not consciously invoke such rituals, but in terms of mechanics, the Higher Self/magical personality is a bypoint to things beyond. One reason for this, I think, is that the Oversoul/Higher-Self sits in mid-6th density, and is the pinnacle of positive service. It is the embodiment of outward oriented activity, and everything beyond that point can only be inward gestation of the infinity of the self, ie, the compaction of the Creator.
so we move from the small self, to the higher self, and then to experiences of the infinite.
The issue seems to be with situations where someone is able to experience this dual state of the infinite, and also the incarnate. The prime example being Sri Nirsagadatta, but I have also recently had an experience via Skype of someone who had all the indicators of such a dual state. It was a miracle to behold, quite honestly. The experience felt very much on the same vibrational plane as reading I Am That. It was the same 'voice of the Creator' let's say.
So it seems that given any situation, we are simultaneously in three conditions. The incarnate self, the Higher Self, and the one Creator. That is the true reality, vibrationally speaking. Perceptually, we experience different degrees of it.
I guess the issue is that it is only ignorance which is preventing a fuller experience of all 3 simultaneous states. And Nirsagadtta also stressed that all sages are flawed in unique and human ways, referencing the incarnate personality which is still evolving.
My mind is still struggling with the notion of concurrent states. I think that's the primary issue here. There is some conceptual (self-limiting block/belief pattern) in place.
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - Plenum - 10-01-2015
thanks APW. Those are some elegant thoughts. I can vibe with what you've offered
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - APeacefulWarrior - 10-01-2015
(10-01-2015, 01:41 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: So it seems that given any situation, we are simultaneously in three conditions. The incarnate self, the Higher Self, and the one Creator. That is the true reality, vibrationally speaking. Perceptually, we experience different degrees of it.
I guess the issue is that it is only ignorance which is preventing a fuller experience of all 3 simultaneous states. And Nirsagadtta also stressed that all sages are flawed in unique and human ways, referencing the incarnate personality which is still evolving.
My mind is still struggling with the notion of concurrent states. I think that's the primary issue here. There is some conceptual (self-limiting block/belief pattern) in place.
I actually have thoughts very similar to these, in terms of the nature of reality being a triptych, at least in regards to 3rd Density experience. People are constantly trying to discover what the "true nature" of a thing (or themselves) is, but I think that requires at least a three-pronged approach. Roughly speaking, I would break these down as:
1 - The thing unto itself, how it appears in isolation, or in the case of self-aware entities, their self-perception.
2 - The thing as gestalt, an emergent result of the smaller sub-components and experiences that make it up.
3 - The thing as sub-component, taking into account how it affects and adds to other things in its environment.
So, a particular man might define himself in terms of his political or spiritual beliefs, while also being the cumulative result of the energetic interactions (atoms, chemicals, etc) that result in his mind/spirit/body complex, which then go on to be one component of a larger "corporate" body, such as his business or his family. These are ALL aspects of the man's "true self," and no one aspect could be rationally given supremacy over the others. Which is most relevent at any given time just depends on what point of view one is deploying.
(Which is to say, a doctor examining the man would be largely concerned with him as gestalt, whereas a business investor would only consider the man in terms of being a contributing subcomponent of his workplace as a whole.)
And of course, this would be true for everything, not just people. Anything could be analyzed in such a way.
I've also gotten hints/whispers from my higher selves that while I'm on the right path, a five-sided view would be even more productive. But I've so far been unable to concretely pin down what the fourth and fifth "dimensions" might be in a way I find satisfying. Perhaps one has to have a 5D view to really understand those arrangements. I strongly suspect, at least, I'm distorted in lumping mind and body together in #1, but it's convenient for a 3rd Density perspective.
Either way, seeing as most humans seem to tend towards a dualistic either/or view on things, such a view would help explain why it's so hard for people to pin down what "is" is, don't you think?
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - Plenum - 10-01-2015
yes, that's elegantly expressed. I grok
and getting back to the OP, it's the nature of our opinions which then create the boundary conditions of what we are able to usefully experience.
/ /
(10-01-2015, 02:43 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: Perhaps one has to have a 5D view to really understand those arrangements. I strongly suspect, at least, I'm distorted in lumping mind and body together in #1, but it's convenient for a 3rd Density perspective.
yes, perhaps being able to fully understand context would involve being able to fully comprehend all the components of catalyst. Which is not something which is available to our currently configured states:
"This is not a dimension of knowing, even subjectively, due to the lack of overview of cosmic and other inpourings which affect each and every situation which produces catalyst. The subjective acceptance of that which is at the moment and the finding of love within that moment is the greater freedom.
That known as the subjective knowing without proof is, in some degree, a poor friend for there will be anomalies no matter how much information is garnered due to the distortions which form third density."
That doesn't prevent one from trying to formulate principles in which to grasp larger frameworks, it's just that we wouldn't be able to really experience or utilize such principles given our chosen incarnational vehicles.
For eg, I find myself experiencing the effects of catalyst long before the conscious mind even has registered that there has been a shift in experience/vibrational condition. With attentiveness, the gap between onset of catalyst and acknowledgement/recognition of catalyst becomes shortened, but there is still some gap in perception. That's probably because the mind and it's thoughts have a certain inertia, and keeps on moving in a certain direction until attention is deliberately applied to 'look at' changes in one's condition.
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - rva_jeremy - 10-01-2015
APW, have you read any Hegel? His dialectical approach sounds very congruent with what you're describing. He even had his own three-pronged approach: the individual, the particular, and the universal.
RE: what is your opinion about opinions? - APeacefulWarrior - 10-02-2015
I won't pretend I've read\studied Hegel in great depth, but from what I know of his philosophies, I think he was on the right track by recognizing a fundamentally complex 3+ sided analysis is needed, and recognizing that perceived truths can emerge from each other in nested fashion through a dialectical process.
But I also think he got off-track as he went on. I disagree with him that Absolute\Universal Knowledge is truly knowable in any sort of verifiable or "scientific" way, and I completely disagree with him on the matter of freedom being derived from participation in social control systems. I basically agree with those who claim his philosophies ended up being turned towards supporting the Prussian state and then-burgeoning German nationalism.
I suppose the main difference is that I don't claim my particular way of describing things can lead to any sort of ethical or objective judgments about those things, but rather centers on cultivating a better-but-always-imperfect subjective view. It's a process for attempting to understand, and recognizing the complexity of any such evaluation.