08-07-2012, 07:50 AM
Godwide, my dearest and most precious of all, I will attempt to elucidate on your powerful attempt to express your experience after I speak to Siren and Pergrinus's posts because what is being very seductively sought after here is the chalice which human sanity has longed to drink from for its entire existence. Bear with me.
Peregrinus,
What you have relayed here is amazing,
"I will share with you a gift. In an early stage of my awakening, self humbly asked higher self and Creator to see my beginning, expecting to see some distant planet or life. Although it took me a day and a half to process the vision I was gifted, I will share it with you here. There is a post by me on the vision if I remember correctly. Following is an abbreviated version.
I saw the Creator alone in darkness. The Creator was simply there, unaware. It then, became conscious of self, upon which It asked self "What am I"? From this Original thought stemmed the requirement for a means to experience self, and Light became the medium. Upon Creating Light, Creator created Creation. It was in steps as I saw it, first the light, then like a big bang without the bang, simply silent, light spread in all directions.
Becoming aware... I would suggest that Ra could have better described it using the term "becoming conscious". Consciousness being, of course, far much more complex than awake or asleep." UNQUOTE
You have eloquently defined the true aspect of consciousness and of the One Consciousness which is the fore-bearer of The All. But I would ask you to reconsider one aspect of your expression of it. You say you saw the creator in darkness. But what if that was not the point before creation, but the immediate point after creation. You have no way of knowing at exactly what point in the history of the Creator that was set in. The reason I propose this to you is that I want to suggest to you that maybe what was created was not light, but the darkness. What if Light is infinity, and darkness is what was created in that instant of movement/thought/awareness? Infinity is not darkness, but light. reconsider your experience with that thinking and let me know if it opens any doors to you.
Godwide related to this as well, but in his case I think there is difficulty in expressing the point of observation, or the proximity of the lookout point if you will.
Siren, you make a great point about absorbing the essence of the message whilst trying to shake off the thorns of its vibration. This is the truest definition of gnosticism is it not? To follow that which guides us beyond the desire of the brain to rationalize. But in such intuitive following if intelligent thinking is not applied, the puzzle pieces that are discovered cannot be intelligently pieced together. A child can open a puzzle box of a thousand pieces and play with those pieces all day long without any desire to actually fit them into place. But until intelligence is applied and calculation put into motion, the true picture will not begin to form.
Intelligence is the mainstay of creation. It is the attribute of the Energy behind all that exists. And it cannot be cast aside in the intuitive process of following its results or the picture will not unfold as it has actually unfolded. Intelligence can however be cast aside if all that is sought after is the experience of playing with what has been placed in the box, with no intention of actually realizing the potential of what is in that box.
Intelligence demands that both the potential and the actual construction/design are sought after. Intuition is programmed into our very design for this purpose because the Designer seeks the same. Godwide pointed to this in his assertion that The Source might be seeking to know its prenatal experience. This is the essence of intelligent energy; to know thyself.
Siren you are becoming aware that our individual comprehensions are not so distant as they seem in that it is really only our attempts to clarify our thoughts that bear confusion. Light, love, thought, vibration, focus, logos, distortion, origin, void, infinity and so on, are the things we try to define within the limitations of this '3rd density', (oh how I dislike using that terminology), and because of individual limitation, unity of comprehension will not be had. You seem to have a strong affinity toward Ra's words and seem to be able to make them fit into your construction of the puzzle. And I wish that I could be that fortunate. Even Godwide, and I would love to be able to call him by name as I really do not like to refer to him by his user name, even he is bound to this burden of expressing individual comprehension of his experience, which is vastly beyond anything that I can even begin to fathom.
Intelligence is one thing, but the ability to express the discoveries by applying it is another matter altogether. Being does not require intelligence as GWV acknowledged. And it seems that intelligence does not necessarily mean an ability to express absolutely an individual comprehension in such a way that other individuals can absorb it.
This is the design of evolution and the concept of free will. Which is also the absolute evidence of Intelligent design. The fact that intelligence cannot describe itself. The design is individual fragments of experiences attempting to learn what they are while they create each experience through the process of being, and being limited to being able to share those experiences with other fragments by the individual comprehensive ability and experience of each. Thus each experience being unique fulfills the Divine design, but the limitation of expression also creates the drive to seek further means of sharing what is experienced. Some fragments are incompatible with others, and some have just the right connection to share components of their storehouse with another. This is the design of the evolutionary process of being.
As above, so below. If you reverse that ancient wisdom you will see what I mean. That which IS, is the same as that which will be, because it is all One process. That which will be was once that which is caught up in the same process of being and will become that which has gone on into the further aspects of this process.
There is a song that relates to this which relays a child asking its mother what it will become.
"When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother what will I be. Will I be happy, will I be sad, here's what she said to me.
Que sera, sera. What will be , will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera."
I have always loved that song and felt a powerful connection to it. it does not speak to predestination as many would think. It speaks to the process of the now becoming the then and the then having been through the same process. if it spoke to a destiny the song would not contain the message, 'the future's not ours to see.'
Simultaneity is a matter of removing the future from the process as though the process is no longer taking place. But if the process is ongoing, which is the true definition of infinity, then simultaneity is not possible. And here I enter the mind of my esteemed partner in harmony, Godwide.
Peregrinus,
What you have relayed here is amazing,
"I will share with you a gift. In an early stage of my awakening, self humbly asked higher self and Creator to see my beginning, expecting to see some distant planet or life. Although it took me a day and a half to process the vision I was gifted, I will share it with you here. There is a post by me on the vision if I remember correctly. Following is an abbreviated version.
I saw the Creator alone in darkness. The Creator was simply there, unaware. It then, became conscious of self, upon which It asked self "What am I"? From this Original thought stemmed the requirement for a means to experience self, and Light became the medium. Upon Creating Light, Creator created Creation. It was in steps as I saw it, first the light, then like a big bang without the bang, simply silent, light spread in all directions.
Becoming aware... I would suggest that Ra could have better described it using the term "becoming conscious". Consciousness being, of course, far much more complex than awake or asleep." UNQUOTE
You have eloquently defined the true aspect of consciousness and of the One Consciousness which is the fore-bearer of The All. But I would ask you to reconsider one aspect of your expression of it. You say you saw the creator in darkness. But what if that was not the point before creation, but the immediate point after creation. You have no way of knowing at exactly what point in the history of the Creator that was set in. The reason I propose this to you is that I want to suggest to you that maybe what was created was not light, but the darkness. What if Light is infinity, and darkness is what was created in that instant of movement/thought/awareness? Infinity is not darkness, but light. reconsider your experience with that thinking and let me know if it opens any doors to you.
Godwide related to this as well, but in his case I think there is difficulty in expressing the point of observation, or the proximity of the lookout point if you will.
Siren, you make a great point about absorbing the essence of the message whilst trying to shake off the thorns of its vibration. This is the truest definition of gnosticism is it not? To follow that which guides us beyond the desire of the brain to rationalize. But in such intuitive following if intelligent thinking is not applied, the puzzle pieces that are discovered cannot be intelligently pieced together. A child can open a puzzle box of a thousand pieces and play with those pieces all day long without any desire to actually fit them into place. But until intelligence is applied and calculation put into motion, the true picture will not begin to form.
Intelligence is the mainstay of creation. It is the attribute of the Energy behind all that exists. And it cannot be cast aside in the intuitive process of following its results or the picture will not unfold as it has actually unfolded. Intelligence can however be cast aside if all that is sought after is the experience of playing with what has been placed in the box, with no intention of actually realizing the potential of what is in that box.
Intelligence demands that both the potential and the actual construction/design are sought after. Intuition is programmed into our very design for this purpose because the Designer seeks the same. Godwide pointed to this in his assertion that The Source might be seeking to know its prenatal experience. This is the essence of intelligent energy; to know thyself.
Siren you are becoming aware that our individual comprehensions are not so distant as they seem in that it is really only our attempts to clarify our thoughts that bear confusion. Light, love, thought, vibration, focus, logos, distortion, origin, void, infinity and so on, are the things we try to define within the limitations of this '3rd density', (oh how I dislike using that terminology), and because of individual limitation, unity of comprehension will not be had. You seem to have a strong affinity toward Ra's words and seem to be able to make them fit into your construction of the puzzle. And I wish that I could be that fortunate. Even Godwide, and I would love to be able to call him by name as I really do not like to refer to him by his user name, even he is bound to this burden of expressing individual comprehension of his experience, which is vastly beyond anything that I can even begin to fathom.
Intelligence is one thing, but the ability to express the discoveries by applying it is another matter altogether. Being does not require intelligence as GWV acknowledged. And it seems that intelligence does not necessarily mean an ability to express absolutely an individual comprehension in such a way that other individuals can absorb it.
This is the design of evolution and the concept of free will. Which is also the absolute evidence of Intelligent design. The fact that intelligence cannot describe itself. The design is individual fragments of experiences attempting to learn what they are while they create each experience through the process of being, and being limited to being able to share those experiences with other fragments by the individual comprehensive ability and experience of each. Thus each experience being unique fulfills the Divine design, but the limitation of expression also creates the drive to seek further means of sharing what is experienced. Some fragments are incompatible with others, and some have just the right connection to share components of their storehouse with another. This is the design of the evolutionary process of being.
As above, so below. If you reverse that ancient wisdom you will see what I mean. That which IS, is the same as that which will be, because it is all One process. That which will be was once that which is caught up in the same process of being and will become that which has gone on into the further aspects of this process.
There is a song that relates to this which relays a child asking its mother what it will become.
"When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother what will I be. Will I be happy, will I be sad, here's what she said to me.
Que sera, sera. What will be , will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera."
I have always loved that song and felt a powerful connection to it. it does not speak to predestination as many would think. It speaks to the process of the now becoming the then and the then having been through the same process. if it spoke to a destiny the song would not contain the message, 'the future's not ours to see.'
Simultaneity is a matter of removing the future from the process as though the process is no longer taking place. But if the process is ongoing, which is the true definition of infinity, then simultaneity is not possible. And here I enter the mind of my esteemed partner in harmony, Godwide.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)