Compassion through social strife

[Sacred Fool]

This is very well put, thank you. I believe it in my heart and mind. Sometimes, though, when resting in this understanding, a small voice will pop up. It will raise concern that this perspective, while valid, may also be a tool for bypassing an essential part of the experience we're hoping to have here on Earth. We have volunteered to experience and witness pain - what do we do with that pain, then?

I have two conflicting ideas of the process.

One is, by "doing the circle" of emotions and "touching unity anew," we are bringing the sacred light of unity and the Creator to that pain. To find unity amidst the difficulty is a powerful act and transforms not just ourselves, but the world.

The other idea is that, by witnessing pain and then defaulting back to unity, we are "averting the gaze," in a sense. Perhaps the pain has more to tell us that we are no hearing by intentionally diverting our attention from it?

I suspect that it's not the same for everyone in every situation. In this situation we're currently in, for my part, I'm feeling as though I would be missing something essential if I simply allowed myself to rest in the broader perspective of harmonious unity without engaging more in the collective pain being experienced.

I don't think you can so much rest in the perspective of unity, at least not in 3D. That is why I likened it to a journey, because for each thing it will start with your initial response to catalyst and something not of a very high vibration. Then, you can't either just dismiss it and turn to unity in one go. From the initial response, there will be many phases of transformation as you learn to balance your response and work with your own blockages. This will allow you to elevate the way you can feel until there is no emotional charge and only love remains. Or at least, that is the principle behind reaching a balanced state, which the material says can be easily confused with indifference while it is not indifference. The hardship when looking at everyone, is that we all resonate more with certain catalysts and less with others, so not every catalyst is meant to teach everyone something in the same fashion. Unity is nothing about a fully harmonious experience, unity is about separation and everything. There is no unity without pain, for unity teaches to accept the entire spectrum of experience and pain is its own rightful part of it. As such, pain is its own lesson, as an infinite principle, of unity.

I'm having a tough time understanding this discussion.  Am I reading this correctly?  For Austin, unity is a state of mind brought on by balancing emotions, while for Minyatur this is theoretically possible, but not a stable state--for most of us in real life?

So, the premise is that unity is an emotional place where one can share love without pain because one is not set off by catalyst?  Is that it?  And then Minyatur further says that unity is about separation along with everything else, therefore one cannot actually rest in it?

Then the experience of being one with Creation, being one with the Creator, is a modified version of normal consciousness reached in a linear fashion through emotional processing?  And because it includes separation, it cannot be stable?  Geez, that would be interesting.

Are you sure it's not a transformational non-linear leap to an higher level of "cosmic" awareness, and not something that the well known comfortably self rests in, but something one finds that one is?

Or maybe we're talking about two different things?  Maybe one is about a peaceable journey through refining emotional response to catalyst and the other is about recognition of self as consciousness on a variety of different levels simultaneously?  In the latter case, I see no meaningful conflict between being conscious of pain while also being conscious of unity.

I hope someone can follow this.  It's a bit psychedelic, I'm afraid.