Greater clarity on pain and suffering and the need for such catalyst

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

Humans are not the only beings who are in pain and suffering here, thanks to humans.

I take issue with any so-called Creator (though, by referring to the source of consciousness or existence thus may be anthropomorphizing). I personally do not like the way free will is wielded here. If humanity wants or needs to suffer for whatever reasons, fine (though it is not easy to witness). But when humans cause suffering beyond their species, I contend that is a cruel system. I would think humanity could learn compassion within its own species, since humanity is all humanity (for the most part) seems to be concerned about. Though I am open to other interpretations.

Many humans are concerned about animals. Witness the animal rights movement and the many laws against animal cruelty.

95.24
Ra: [...] to the pure, all that is encountered speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator. The cruelest blow is seen with an ambiance of challenges offered and opportunities to come. Thusly, the great pitch of light is held high above such an one so that all interpretation may be seen to be protected by light.

How strange that, to the pure, even animal cruelty speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator. How can such a perspective be possible?

"A great pitch of light protects all interpretation." It is the interpretation that is protected...  not the animal... not the animal's mind or body or soul or experience.

Ra is explaining cruelty by talking about "protection" BUT NOT the protection of the animal! Ra refers to the protection of the observer!

You think the animal is suffering. You see the animal suffer. No. It is NOT the animal who is suffering in this scene. It is YOU who is suffering in the way that you are witnessing.

The animal is the creator. The abuser is the creator. You are the victim--you suffer because you have been fooled by the creator's illusion.

The pure witness sees the animal as One Infinite Creator. The abuser as One Infinite Creator. Himself as One Infinite Creator.

The pure does not see the protection of the animal. The pure has his "interpretation" protected by a "great pitch of light"

You must consider this deeply.

I am struggling with this response. To me this is exactly the problem with this kind of thinking. That the animal is fine and its just my interpretation of suffering that is suffering. I am not going to throw in the towel on my own sense of real life human compassion and empathy to justify the need for suffering as a catalyst for evolution by "God". No, in this world, on this level of 3-D experience compassion and suffering are very very real. So Ra was referring to the Pure ones. I am not a pure one. I take that to mean I am not able yet to hold enough faith in my heart to feel okay with the fact that so much suffer. However I don't think "pure" ones are okay with suffering!! It seems to me that Jesus, Buddha (classic examples) were very very compassionate. I think this quote by Ra talk more to the suffering a "pure"one is receiving, not to overuse the classic example of Christ on the cross. But how he did not hate the ones who perpetrated the pain against him. He in fact opened his heart to them and asked God to forgive them "for they know not what they do"......

[flofrog]

Last night I woke up and started to read the book of Q’uo that I started a week ago, and I came on this very interesting passage, exactly on suffering, I find it very beautiful

This quote is more on the suffering you exoerience in relationship , though, while less about the suffering you would experience at seeing what is happening on Earth right now...

******

So from Q’uo , session 12

“ Q’uo has chosen to remind us that you are here to gather experience. Some of that experience is joyful. Some is confortable and some distinctly uncomfortable.

We have previously discussed the difference between pain and suffering. When it is painful, it is not pleasant. But there is only suffering when you become stuck in the illusion and begin to grasp at changing what it is. It is not the discomfort of an arising physical or emotional sensation that causes suffering. It is your aversion to what arises.

You are each asked to live with one foot in the illusion and one foot in ultimate reality. You straddle a threshold like actors in a play. You play a role here. And, like actors, you must play a role as if it matters. You must involve yourself in the illusion if there is to be learning. Otherwise you might have as well not chosen incarnation.

And yet there still must be awareness. Just as the actor must have awareness that he plays to an audience, so as not to turn his back on the audience and not muffle his speech, so you must maintain awareness of your true self while performing the myriad functions of the human personality.

When you are stuck in the small ego-self, then that awareness is disconnected. That ego screams and kicks, as we spoke of earlier, fearing that its needs will not be met. If you dismiss that as illusion and disassociate yourself for it, there is the comfort of dwelling in the spiritual plane, but there is no learning. And there is still duality because, at some level, disassociation is created by a separate self seeking to protect itself.

As you straddle this threshold, there seems to be an infinite wall that divides day by night, fear from love, and separation from connection. With practice, you learn to allow this wall to dissolve and begin to transcend that duality that is the product of delusion.

The you learn to be in this discomforting situation without struggling, skillfully looking to resolve it in the ways in which that is possible, but also allowing the experience.

You watch with wisdom of your higher self. You find the ability to smile at this ego that keeps reemerging. In short, you find the ability to be with the whole span of your being, neither preferring the spiritual form, nor seeking the bliss of merging yourself in that oneness that is the spirit’s foundation. Instead there is a coming together of the whole, an integration.

In October we ended our sessions, speaking of faith and praying without stopping. We spoke of living in faith. As you allow yourself to move beyond the limits of the small ego-self and recurrently experience, through meditation and through awareness, your connection with all that is, you stop struggling like a fish out of water with the experiences that life brings. As you relax into the incarnation, personal faith does deepen. Increasingly, you find the ability to be more undefended when you are threatened.

(...)

As you relax the struggles with the incarnation, and make the skillful decision to let go of some of the fear; as you allow yourself to experience living without defensiveness, then those seeds of deeper love, wisdom, compassion, and loving kindness within your heart begin to flower.

So much of the frantic kicking and screaming - What about me ? Will I have time for what i want ? Will attention be given to me ? Will I be nurtured ? - so much of that frantic activity simply winds down. You begin to see from a higher perspective. Then, as Q’uo has suggested, you begin to embrace rather than condemn this human incarnation, this actor on the stage that is sometimes caught in the illusion.

I ask you to remember the qualities of compassion and loving kindness kindness and natural to you. They are your natural state. When fear arises, it blocks the natural expression of love. It is not useful either to grasp at the love or to attempt to get rid of the fear.

Coming back to a concrete exemple, suppose there is one who makes requests of you that seem in your mind, to lead you to dany your needs. There you are on one side of the threshold. The foot in the illusion is saying ‘ I can’t do this ! ‘ or ‘ why does he or she keep demanding this of me ?’

“ B keeps asking this of me. B is so frightened. Why does not B do it itself ? I’d I keep serving B , I will not have time left for me.” Anger rise. Fear arises, like that fish out of water, it just flops about.

On the other side of the threshold is that level of clear seeing that says , “This is illusion. I am spirit, I am connected. “ Compassion arises for B. But there is a distorsion because there is no connection between the two perspectives. It become an either / or proposition - to give or to receive.

So fear arises, self-discipline and courage may lead you not to act on fear and greed. Here, awareness may dissolve this wall so that the human, with its fear and greed, and the spirit, with its high aspirations, merge; so that you see the whole range of your behavior. This clear seeing allows a level of faith : “ No matter how much I dislike the situation I am in, it is just where I need to be. I am safe. I can experience this discomfort without closing in my armor, without further protecting myself. “

You remind yourself over and over, “ I am safe. I can allow the fullness of the experience.” The fear of the human combines with the deep sorrow and loving aspiration of the spirit, which sees its perfection, but, because of the human aspect, cannot manifest that perfection. What deep sorrow is there. ! But the more you keep your heart open to all of it, the more struggle falls away.

When you allow tof fear and discomfort, have faith that you are where you need to be, and allow yourself to be open and vulnerable, or let go of security. Then the heavens open and you come back into the intactness of body, mind, spirit to your connection with the Divine. “

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

Humans are not the only beings who are in pain and suffering here, thanks to humans.

I take issue with any so-called Creator (though, by referring to the source of consciousness or existence thus may be anthropomorphizing). I personally do not like the way free will is wielded here. If humanity wants or needs to suffer for whatever reasons, fine (though it is not easy to witness). But when humans cause suffering beyond their species, I contend that is a cruel system. I would think humanity could learn compassion within its own species, since humanity is all humanity (for the most part) seems to be concerned about. Though I am open to other interpretations.

Many humans are concerned about animals. Witness the animal rights movement and the many laws against animal cruelty.

It's true that some humans care about animals. "Many" is somewhat misleading. While many people care to an extent, what I was saying is that most of humanity, from my observational standpoint, is self-centered (literally, not in a way that I'm judging them with metaphors). It's an evolutionary issue. Statistically, "many" may be only 2% or something like that. I made that percentage up—it just seems to me that most of humanity is pretty much asleep. I wasn't judging humanity; I was taking issue with a system—if it has the meaning and purpose we want to give it—that includes so much suffering.

95.24
Ra: [...] to the pure, all that is encountered speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator. The cruelest blow is seen with an ambiance of challenges offered and opportunities to come. Thusly, the great pitch of light is held high above such an one so that all interpretation may be seen to be protected by light.

How strange that, to the pure, even animal cruelty speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator. How can such a perspective be possible?

"A great pitch of light protects all interpretation." It is the interpretation that is protected...  not the animal... not the animal's mind or body or soul or experience.

Ra is explaining cruelty by talking about "protection" BUT NOT the protection of the animal! Ra refers to the protection of the observer!

You think the animal is suffering. You see the animal suffer. No. It is NOT the animal who is suffering in this scene. It is YOU who is suffering in the way that you are witnessing.

The animal is the creator. The abuser is the creator. You are the victim--you suffer because you have been fooled by the creator's illusion.

The pure witness sees the animal as One Infinite Creator. The abuser as One Infinite Creator. Himself as One Infinite Creator.

The pure does not see the protection of the animal. The pure has his "interpretation" protected by a "great pitch of light"

You must consider this deeply.

Well, I don't, and have never, contended to be so enlightened as you apparently are. I can agree with part of the above. I agree that I suffer when I see suffering. But you are leaving out the ideas of compassion and empathy.

Are you trying to say factory-farmed animals or starving children don't suffer? When I watch a person or animal crying out in horrible pain, yes, it makes me suffer too. But I can't be so glib as to look upon them and say, la la la, it's okay, it's the OIC's game and that makes it all right. Screw the OIC then. I get the idea of oneness, and manyness, and experiencing all there is—but in my mind these are intellectual considerations.

See? I'm not very enlightened. I really do not like this new agey talk about how everything is perfect and okay as is. It's not okay. And no matter why I'm here, I still take issue with suffering. Even if I'm a wanderer to spread light in darkness, why would I be doing that? Because it's perfect here?

And, I am not a blind follower of anything, including the Ra Material, though I respect most of it immensely.

To me, your above ideas are mostly intellectual statements, and I can imagine being so advanced that this whole place is seen from a different perspective. But being here in the trenches is another situation. Unless you really are so advanced, you can watch a starving child die trying to crawl to a food wagon for a handful of rice, and feel nothing but love. If you can I envy you. I'm not being sarcastic; I wish I could really feel that way.



Don't misunderstand me—I do understand the idea of "the pure witness" and I can, to some extent, maintain that stance with humans, who are the creators of their own species' sufferings and collective consciousness. Where it really breaks down for me, as I alluded to in my original post, is when humanity's need for suffering and the complications of self-ceneteredness bleeds out into other species (including the planet). That bothers me. And I don't have to like it. 

You must consider this deeply.

Why MUST I consider what you say? Are you the messenger of ultimate truth then? I am openminded and I consider everything that comes my way. That's where we might differ. I have only working theories, and it appears you have beliefs.

Please forgive my sarcasm—I only mean to inject some snarky humor. I really don't resonate with "absolutes."

Thank you for such a well written heartful response, Diana. It helps me to know others struggle with this question about suffering and it is frustrating that people think you can just "think deeply" this issue away. I actually think it is one of the most fundamental issues of life and a major paradox in our reality, if we want to believe there is an orchestrated "God" or infinite/intelligence that would allow for this. I'm not saying there isn't God but i'm saying it is a fundamental reason for why we feel separated from it. And perhaps (O bother!) the essence of the catalyst.

[unity100]

https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=starving

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this.

Pure witnesses have no business in an incarnation in this planet.

[flofrog]

I don’t know Taralie, but it seems to me that Creator sends us, or rather we send ourselves to the sandbox with the appropriate bandaids whenever it gets a bit rough, but still we like that we can sustain being in the sandbox, since somewhere in the inner plans, we are safe...

I am not sure it takes power from Creator, see ? . Rather, we might add to it, lol

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

It is hard for me to integrate the idea that infinite intelligence would create a density with so much pain and suffering.

Can anyone help!! thanks.

Just a thought or two.  First, crating conditions to allow hardship here is the only way to allow others to offer help.  No suffering, no compassion and no helping.

Second, one aspect of this level of evolution is beginning to encompass the whole of the possibilities of Creation as self.  There's no way to embrace the pain and tragedy without being exposed to it.

Third, there is ample capacity here for suffering, to be sure, and so many humans are biased towards making that worse.  On the other hand, if we all could actually co-operate in a truly positive fashion, life here would be far less brutal, it seems to me.

I hope the material serves you well.  Welcome to these forums, TP.

 These are good points, thank you. But does it ever feel like an obscene game to you? I mean if infinite intelligence has all this power what is the point of playing such a game, just to know itself??? and why create more intense catalyst to "hurry" up the process for something with infinite time? I feel sickened by the process and resentful to any supreme designer. No, my new theory is that "god" isn't actually that powerful...it too has to succumb to its own mistakes, which is weird. But if "infinite/intelligence" did this on purpose I'm disgusted! I feel if I could get over this anger I would be a more spiritual person because I do sense that it gets in the way of my having faith.

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

I don’t know Taralie, but it seems to me that Creator sends us,  or rather we send ourselves to the sandbox with the appropriate bandaids whenever it gets a bit rough, but still we like that  we can sustain being in the sandbox, since somewhere in the inner plans, we are safe...

I am not sure it takes power from Creator, see ? . Rather, we might add to it,  lol

hmmm yes this maybe does shed some light. Perhaps my anger towards Creator is a bit of me stuck in the victim complex.

[yossarian]

Pure witnesses have no business in an incarnation in this planet.

Et tu, unity100?

"Witness" in the context of spiritual discussions does not mean "bystander"!

Do you think the Buddha is not a pure witness, but just a passive indifferent bystander?!

Purity and witnessing are not mutually exclusive to love, compassion, action, and service!

Our spiritual examples throughout all history, every last one, demonstrated how they combined purity with action.

The Buddha is the All Being in One who sees All Is One, All As Creator, and the Buddha also has infinite compassion for all suffering, and the Buddha labours to enlighten the world, the Buddha chops wood and carries water. Jesus was a carpenter who revived Lazarus and threw out the money changers.

Do you see these examples who were pure witnesses but NOT bystanders?

The Buddha sees the Creator winking at him in every situation but he also has infinite compassion and takes action.

Hence the Ra quote that the appropriate action is to feed the starving. There is no contradiction here.

to the pure, all that is encountered speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator.

To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body.

There is no contradiction here! Both are precisely true and not mutually exclusive. In states of enlightenment you see both and you do both. You see the worst suffering as the love and light of the One Infinite Creator, and you are also moved by infinite compassion to serve and love that Creator in all guises, by, for example, feeding the starving.

And from this vantage you also discover the purpose of suffering. The Creator knowing itself in exquisite perfection.

[yossarian]

I am struggling with this response.  To me this is exactly the problem with this kind of thinking.  That the animal is fine and its just my interpretation of suffering that is suffering.  I am not going to throw in the towel on my own sense of real life human compassion and empathy to justify the need for suffering as a catalyst for evolution by "God".  No, in this world, on this level of 3-D experience compassion and suffering are very very real.    So Ra was referring to the Pure ones.  I am not a pure one. I take that to mean I am not able yet to hold enough faith in my heart to feel okay with the fact that so much suffer.  However I don't think "pure" ones are okay with suffering!! It seems to me that Jesus, Buddha (classic examples)  were very very compassionate.  I think this quote by Ra talk more to the suffering a "pure"one is receiving, not to overuse the classic example of Christ on the cross.  But how he did not hate the ones who perpetrated the pain against him.  He in fact opened his heart to them and asked God to forgive them "for they know not what they do"......

You seem to be suggesting that "seeing the Creator in everything" is equivalent to "not having compassion"

Did you get that idea from me?

Seeing the Creator in everything is exactly equal to having infinite compassion for everything. You can't have one without the other. They are identical states.

[Sacred Fool]

It is hard for me to integrate the idea that infinite intelligence would create a density with so much pain and suffering.

Can anyone help!! thanks.

Just a thought or two.  First, crating conditions to allow hardship here is the only way to allow others to offer help.  No suffering, no compassion and no helping.

Second, one aspect of this level of evolution is beginning to encompass the whole of the possibilities of Creation as self.  There's no way to embrace the pain and tragedy without being exposed to it.

Third, there is ample capacity here for suffering, to be sure, and so many humans are biased towards making that worse.  On the other hand, if we all could actually co-operate in a truly positive fashion, life here would be far less brutal, it seems to me.

I hope the material serves you well.  Welcome to these forums, TP.

 These are good points, thank you.  But does it ever feel like an obscene game to you?  I mean if infinite intelligence has all this power what is the point of playing such a game, just to know itself???  and why create more intense catalyst to "hurry" up the process for something with infinite time?  I feel sickened by the process and resentful to any supreme designer.  No, my new theory is that "god" isn't actually that powerful...it too has to succumb to its own mistakes, which is weird.  But if "infinite/intelligence" did this on purpose I'm disgusted!   I feel if I could get over this anger I would be a more spiritual person because I do sense that it gets in the way of my having faith.  

The fact that you are using your heart to explore these matters is a good thing.  In my experience, the road to the heart-of-hearts is full of complaints and bitter feelings.....among other things. As your sensory apparatus opens up over time to encompass more levels of engagement, the scope of your interest may expand and these particular issues might become less interesting, but your current passion could possibly guide you to a deeper experience of all this if you are able to follow it within you, down to deeper places in your being: that is, down to areas of more distilled compassion and, as you mentioned, faith.  Otherwise, then maybe the god who created all you can ever know and become probably is just a poop-head who can't administrate her affairs very well.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To respond more directly, after seeing news this morning of (1) US politicians sacrificing the mental health of immigrant children in the hopes of getting more legislative concessions from opposing politicians and (2) a report on sexual torture camps set up by the Emiratis in Yemen, I can only agree that, yes, this stuff can overwhelm one's sense of decency.  It then becomes my choice as to whether I will only accept this as externalized suffering, or whether I will also turn inward to clear the discord it creates in my being.  It is my belief that the work I do to clear my own anger, helplessness, etc. is a gift to the planet and, to some small degree, helps to calm the pervading dissonance.  The more deeply I can track the internal outrage and balance it, the more profound is the service--and, additionally, the more concretely I can then anchor energies of Divine Love.

 

[loostudent]

The Buddha sees the Creator winking at him in every situation but he also has infinite compassion and takes action.

Buddhism refuted concepts like Intelligent Infinity, Creator, creation, eternal soul ...

[Diana]

to the pure, all that is encountered speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator.

To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body.

There is no contradiction here! Both are precisely true and not mutually exclusive. In states of enlightenment you see both and you do both. You see the worst suffering as the love and light of the One Infinite Creator, and you are also moved by infinite compassion to serve and love that Creator in all guises, by, for example, feeding the starving.

There may not be a contradiction. But the first quote I would not interpret literally, because to me, it is only a working theory that there even is or could be a "One Infinite Creator" as interpreted by us via the channeled material. And even more so, that "to the pure, all that is encountered speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator" is a statement of real value here at this time.

We are here, now. To philosophize about the meaning of life, the cosmos, the nature of reality, and so on is fun and possibly a drive we can't avoid as thinking beings. But in practical terms, saying "all is the love and light of the One Infinite Creator" can be a lovely way to view this world, but it can also be a way to avoid being accountable, responsible, empathetic, thinking for one's self, being open-minded to new perceptions, etc. I think one must take into consideration the nature of channeled material, the many cautions Ra has given regarding that material, and use discernment as to how this information is applied in a practical sense here in the 3D trenches.

The second quote, however, makes perfect sense to me. It speaks inherently of nonjudgment, compassion, free will, unconditional love, and detachment; and doesn't require me to believe anything.

And from this vantage you also discover the purpose of suffering. The Creator knowing itself in exquisite perfection.

Perhaps this is true; perhaps not. But even if it is, it would seem Chaos Theory has had a hand in the Creator knowing itself, and this 3D planet running amok.

I personally do not consider it exquisite perfection when 3rd density entities have power over, and torture and kill, 2nd density entities and the planet. 

---

There is another perspective—a more impersonal one. Humans have the tendency to give a Creator human qualities (calling the Creator "Father" and the like). Following that everything in this existence (universe) may have consciousness and seems to, one could imagine considering the whole of everything to have enormous consciousness commiserate with our own, expanded to infinite proportions. However, there is another way to see it.

In David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, he postulates (and I am paraphrasing) a field of infinite potential as the "implicate," and when acted upon by some force, say, observation, a portion of that field becomes "explicate." This is demonstrated by the double-slit experiment, where wave (infinite possibilities) becomes particle (one collapsed outcome) when observed. The reason I bring this up is because the implicate/infinite field of possibilities/the One Infinite Creator/the source of consciousness may be a really impersonal entity/force. This aligns with unconditional acceptance.

So my point is that we humans are making up this suffering (the animals aren't doing it; the trees aren't doing it; a Creator isn't doing it). Though everything may be a part of the whole (implicate order, One Infinite Creator) it does not follow that "manyness" or experience should include anything in particular, as this would be conditional, and making creation into a slave.  

To say we are experiencing whatever so the Creator can know itself may not be wrong, but it can take the form of "passing the buck." It gives humanity a reason to do whatever for the sake of the Creator and all is well no matter what. It is another form of avoidance like religions have offered. 

If we are to embrace the full spectrum of experience, let's own it. Let's not say it's for the Creator. 

[yossarian]

There is nothing wrong with what you're saying, I think your insights are all extremely intelligent and valuable.

In this specific case, they just don't apply to me personally, because I'm not philosophizing (though I do like to do that too so I could understand how you might think I am)

Philosophizing: using reasons to deduce how things must be

Fantasizing: imagining different ways things COULD be

Experiencing: seeing things for yourself

Gnosis: knowing things in a Godlike, almost impossible to describe way

In this case I'm speaking from experience rather than philosophy or intellect. My intellect does understand it, but only because my intellect has experienced it, and in that experiencing, my intellect slightly redefined the words to fit the experienced reality.

So for example before I experienced perfection I thought that perfection meant something, but after I experienced perfection I realized it meant something more. I realized what "they" meant when "they" say perfection. If I had to answer "how" i experienced this, I would say "the disciplines of the personality".

My view is that compassion and action are not just compatible, but are inseparable from unity with the one infinite creator. This view comes from experience rather than philosophy. So it's not something I can substantiate.

Note that Ra never said witness. Ra said "the pure". I think you guys have all made it really clear why "witness" is not the best word. It is easily confused with "indifferent bystander"

I assure you, The One Infinite Creator is NOT an indifferent bystander. The One Infinite Creator is active, and compassionate, infinitely compassionate.

Having said all that... I think your reasoning is extremely good but it's just not quite applicable to my own thoughts on this issue.

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

Pure witnesses have no business in an incarnation in this planet.

Et tu, unity100?

"Witness" in the context of spiritual discussions does not mean "bystander"!

Do you think the Buddha is not a pure witness, but just a passive indifferent bystander?!

Purity and witnessing are not mutually exclusive to love, compassion, action, and service!

Our spiritual examples throughout all history, every last one, demonstrated how they combined purity with action.

The Buddha is the All Being in One who sees All Is One, All As Creator, and the Buddha also has infinite compassion for all suffering, and the Buddha labours to enlighten the world, the Buddha chops wood and carries water. Jesus was a carpenter who revived Lazarus and threw out the money changers.

Do you see these examples who were pure witnesses but NOT bystanders?

The Buddha sees the Creator winking at him in every situation but he also has infinite compassion and takes action.

Hence the Ra quote that the appropriate action is to feed the starving. There is no contradiction here.

to the pure, all that is encountered speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator.

To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body.

There is no contradiction here! Both are precisely true and not mutually exclusive. In states of enlightenment you see both and you do both. You see the worst suffering as the love and light of the One Infinite Creator, and you are also moved by infinite compassion to serve and love that Creator in all guises, by, for example, feeding the starving.

And from this vantage you also discover the purpose of suffering. The Creator knowing itself in exquisite perfection.

Yes, but I think that person was implying that your post made it seem like you weren't compassionate. The way you wrote your point of view, that they were responding to,it just didn't sound compassionate, it sounded like you were aloof and using all sorts of new agey justifications for being above the suffering. You even said yourself you were there a few years ago but now you were beyond it you've moved into your indigo ray or whatever! I mean come on! Nobody gets beyond this stuff. Buddha taught the first lesson is to realize that to live is to suffer. Also Jesus died on the cross and his last words were "God why have you forsaken me?" showing even in the last moments Jesus was deeply questioning.

[yossarian]

Yes, but I think that person was implying that your post made it seem like you weren't compassionate.  The way you wrote your point of view, that they were responding to,it just didn't sound compassionate, it sounded like you were aloof and using all sorts of new agey justifications for being above the suffering.  You even said yourself you were there a few years ago but now you were beyond it you've moved into your indigo ray or whatever!  I mean come on! Nobody gets beyond this stuff.  Buddha taught the first lesson is to realize that to live is to suffer.  Also Jesus died on the cross and his last words were "God why have you forsaken me?"  showing even in the last moments Jesus was deeply questioning.

Thank you. I really appreciate your feedback.

I didn't say I was "beyond suffering" I said I was beyond a specific kind of existential despair and outrage with the creator for the existence of suffering. I'm not enlightened, but I did move from a place of being upset about this specific issue of "how could the creator create pain" to "oh.... now I get it"

I will work on my approach that appears to lack compassion.

[Minyatur]

I didn't say I was "beyond suffering" I said I was beyond a specific kind of existential despair and outrage with the creator for the existence of suffering. I'm not enlightened, but I did move from a place of being upset about this specific issue of "how could the creator create pain" to "oh.... now I get it"

Simillary, I also had strong moments of distilling the infinite principle of pain and, like with most things, what broke the paradoxical loop was to find acceptance toward the infinite nature of free will in its seeking derived from its being.

I think this is what "all is well" is about, not that wrongs will be righted but that everything is rooted in free will just as held in unity. Then there is no need to remain blocked or to desire control and rather the path of learn/teaching the love of acceptance becomes clear and one gains the ability to touch infinite intelligence in which all is known to be well and complete.

[Diana]

I didn't say I was "beyond suffering" I said I was beyond a specific kind of existential despair and outrage with the creator for the existence of suffering. I'm not enlightened, but I did move from a place of being upset about this specific issue of "how could the creator create pain" to "oh.... now I get it"

Simillary, I also had strong moments of distilling the infinite principle of pain and, like with most things, what broke the paradoxical loop was to find acceptance toward the infinite nature of free will in its seeking derived from its being.

I think this is what "all is well" is about, not that wrongs will be righted but that everything is rooted in free will just as held in unity. Then there is no need to remain blocked or to desire control and rather the path of learn/teaching the love of acceptance becomes clear and one gains the ability to touch infinite intelligence in which all is known to be well and complete.

What I am apparently failing to communicate regarding this viewpoint is this: I DO get what you are saying. (And I think many do.) I HAVE felt this sort of comprehension (I call it detachment, and while I can be detached that never precludes compassion in the way I mean it), all except the "all is well" part. I simply don't like the ridiculous amount of suffering here; I take issue with it; but I have no desire to control it though I fervently hope it resolves to a more compassionate, intelligent, aware existence. Even if this a step along the path of evolution, that does not mean it has to be anything (or everything) in particular.

You may imagine, or anyone who has this "understanding," that you know what you're talking about. I submit that you don't; that there is no way, given the essence of evolution itself, that anyone can be at the end-all of "getting it," or even at a point in the path and saying—This is it then. Because our knowledge evolves.

I submit that we are all at some point along the path of understanding—even Ra. So, to that effect, what do we know? We know there is suffering here in 3D. We choose what to do with that knowledge. 

Regarding what Unity posted about witnesses having no business being here, I would like to muse a bit. How is being here worth anything to anyone if you are a witness only—even if you are radiating knowledge and unconditional love? Couldn't you do that without incarnating? All wanderers take a gamble coming here and not getting caught up in the maelstrom and thereby adding to it—this according to Ra and their own experience in Egypt being an example.

On the other hand, if the universe is basically impersonal and unconditional, as in Bohm's supposition, that leaves us with no constructed pathway such as the LOO or Christianity or Buddhism etc. It leaves us as humans wholly responsible for everything we create for ourselves and the planet we inhabit, and there is no loophole that says it's all for a Creator's experience.

This is not a difference in philosophy or "knowingness," this is a difference in perspective and individual responsibility, as I see it.

[flofrog]

I didn't say I was "beyond suffering" I said I was beyond a specific kind of existential despair and outrage with the creator for the existence of suffering. I'm not enlightened, but I did move from a place of being upset about this specific issue of "how could the creator create pain" to "oh.... now I get it"

Simillary, I also had strong moments of distilling the infinite principle of pain and, like with most things, what broke the paradoxical loop was to find acceptance toward the infinite nature of free will in its seeking derived from its being.

I think this is what "all is well" is about, not that wrongs will be righted but that everything is rooted in free will just as held in unity. Then there is no need to remain blocked or to desire control and rather the path of learn/teaching the love of acceptance becomes clear and one gains the ability to touch infinite intelligence in which all is known to be well and complete.

What I am apparently failing to communicate regarding this viewpoint is this: I DO get what you are saying. (And I think many do.) I HAVE felt this sort of comprehension (I call it detachment, and while I can be detached that never precludes compassion in the way I mean it), all except the "all is well" part. I simply don't like the ridiculous amount of suffering here; I take issue with it; but I have no desire to control it though I fervently hope it resolves to a more compassionate, intelligent, aware existence. Even if this a step along the path of evolution, that does not mean it has to be anything (or everything) in particular.

You may imagine, or anyone who has this "understanding," that you know what you're talking about. I submit that you don't; that there is no way, given the essence of evolution itself, that anyone can be at the end-all of "getting it," or even at a point in the path and saying—This is it then. Because our knowledge evolves.

I submit that we are all at some point along the path of understanding—even Ra. So, to that effect, what do we know? We know there is suffering here in 3D. We choose what to do with that knowledge. 

Regarding what Unity posted about witnesses having no business being here, I would like to muse a bit. How is being here worth anything to anyone if you are a witness only—even if you are radiating knowledge and unconditional love? Couldn't you do that without incarnating? All wanderers take a gamble coming here and not getting caught up in the maelstrom and thereby adding to it—this according to Ra and their own experience in Egypt being an example.

On the other hand, if the universe is basically impersonal and unconditional, as in Bohm's supposition, that leaves us with no constructed pathway such as the LOO or Christianity or Buddhism etc. It leaves us as humans wholly responsible for everything we create for ourselves and the planet we inhabit, and there is no loophole that says it's all for a Creator's experience.

This is not a difference in philosophy or "knowingness," this is a difference in perspective and individual responsibility, as I see it.

I so agree too about the questionable issue to be only a witness. Why incarnating then. All wanderers take a gamble, am so in awe of them.

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

I didn't say I was "beyond suffering" I said I was beyond a specific kind of existential despair and outrage with the creator for the existence of suffering. I'm not enlightened, but I did move from a place of being upset about this specific issue of "how could the creator create pain" to "oh.... now I get it"

Simillary, I also had strong moments of distilling the infinite principle of pain and, like with most things, what broke the paradoxical loop was to find acceptance toward the infinite nature of free will in its seeking derived from its being.

I think this is what "all is well" is about, not that wrongs will be righted but that everything is rooted in free will just as held in unity. Then there is no need to remain blocked or to desire control and rather the path of learn/teaching the love of acceptance becomes clear and one gains the ability to touch infinite intelligence in which all is known to be well and complete.

hmmm I am finding there is something I think is helpful to me in this and I want to understand you clearly. I am not sure what you mean by distilling the infinite principle of pain...do you mean? it became clearer in understanding to you? also to see if I get what you mean in how you broke the paradoxical loop...is are you saying you saw how to value free will as essential and that the seeking itself comes from its own being almost like it can't help it? or let me restate that the Creator has no choice but to seek itself through free will?

[yossarian]

Regarding what Unity posted about witnesses having no business being here, I would like to muse a bit. How is being here worth anything to anyone if you are a witness only—even if you are radiating knowledge and unconditional love? Couldn't you do that without incarnating? All wanderers take a gamble coming here and not getting caught up in the maelstrom and thereby adding to it—this according to Ra and their own experience in Egypt being an example.

Its a strawman argument. You are confusing detachment with sacredness.

There are Buddhists (but not the Buddha, I would argue) who seem to share your characterization of "this" as "witness ONLY" but thats not where I am personally coming from.

When I previously used the word witness I meant it in the mundane sense of a person watching a crime. I didnt mean it in the Eckhart Tolle sense. What a blunder that word is!

I agree with you that a lot of people take "this understanding" to mean detachment. And now I understand why I was guided back here to speak to you. Because you really deeply disbelieve that when I say "this" includes action, I mean it. And you are calling out very loudly for answers. All credit and admiration to you for the strength and sincerity of your call.

"This understanding" has zero tolerance for inaction in the face of injustice.

Which is precisely why Jesus and Buddha were active. They had missions. They worked hard. And what they did DID matter.

You are implying that I'm downgrading the meaning and importance and reality of 2d/3d suffering. No. That's not it. In the state I'm talking about that doesn't happen. It's the opposite. In that state, I take 3d suffering so seriously that I am willing to inflict and suffer tremendous pain on myself to relieve the suffering of the other-self. Christ Consciousness is MORE active, not less.

I'm not like this all the time, because these states cycle in and out. But its just not true that Christ Consciousness is passive, "witness only", detached, indifferent. That's a different state, a spaced out state, a less alive state, an avoidant state. That's not what Ra is talking about. Ra is talking about the infinite perfection, beauty, and power of the One Infinite Creator, which is closer than hands and feet, nearer than breathing, smiling behind the corner of each thought, infinitely loving, actively caring, bringing you nearer, and living every moment to its maximum.

On the other hand, if the universe is basically impersonal and unconditional, as in Bohm's supposition, that leaves us with no constructed pathway such as the LOO or Christianity or Buddhism etc. It leaves us as humans wholly responsible for everything we create for ourselves and the planet we inhabit, and there is no loophole that says it's all for a Creator's experience.

The universe is not impersonal. You are rocketing toward nihilism while screaming out for someone to save you. The One Infinite Creator belongs to you alone and you are the entire substance of his/her concerns. Why aren't you letting him/her in? S/he is lurking just out of site.

This is the sacred mystical truth and you're calling it to yourself by exploring its opposite, just as Ra advises.

Go into Christ Consciousness and your power to save the animals will increase thousandfold. You have an army of angels at your back. You are their commander. Only you can do it. They are banging down my door for me to get this through to you. It's about you personally.

I'll tell you what I hear... the Creator is extremely pleased with the energy of your seeking and is waiting just outside view for you to see him/her. Then you will see that its not detachment and its not just love but is infinite care, concern, and effort. The creator will NEVER ask you to abandon your animals. The creator will never ever ask you to stop caring or to care less. The creator does ask for things but they are always far more perfect than what you'd think of yourself. The Creator is extremely personal and values you and every iota of your desires far more than you realize.

All that Buddhist nihilism is going to slingshot you back right into the very, very personal and intimate hands of The One Infinite. The Heavens gather around you in awe and admiration and an orchestra of angels has composed a symphony just in honour of you, to be played at the triumph of that event.

Sorry I know its over the top. I know you don't care -- you just care about the animals. But my lord have you marshalled a strength of light with your service and calling.

The message I think you need to hear is that knowing the creator does not mean abandoning the animals.

It Does Not!!! It does not mean ceasing your service. The horses need you and the creator will never ever ask you to leave them. It appears that your duty is to transform the earth into a place where no animals suffer and this is not something you are meant to abandon BUT you don't have to forsake Christ Consciousness to carry out your mission!

To my ears it sounds like it's time for you to do both. Without neglecting one iota of either.

Sorry that this is so weird we all gotta do what we gotta do. You need to save the higher consciousness 2d animals, I need to preach that you do it while loving The Creator.

This is not a difference in philosophy or "knowingness," this is a difference in perspective and individual responsibility, as I see it.

The Creator is being responsible. The Creator is you and the Creator has created you to clean up this mess. What a perfect name you have!

[Diana]

I'll read your response later yossarian. While working I came across some quotes from Bohm, which seemed to fit here. The second one is something I think (if I am thinking :-P) we should all consider in our pursuit of truth and realization. I will add these now and respond later when I can turn my attention to it.

[Minyatur]

I didn't say I was "beyond suffering" I said I was beyond a specific kind of existential despair and outrage with the creator for the existence of suffering. I'm not enlightened, but I did move from a place of being upset about this specific issue of "how could the creator create pain" to "oh.... now I get it"

Simillary, I also had strong moments of distilling the infinite principle of pain and, like with most things, what broke the paradoxical loop was to find acceptance toward the infinite nature of free will in its seeking derived from its being.

I think this is what "all is well" is about, not that wrongs will be righted but that everything is rooted in free will just as held in unity. Then there is no need to remain blocked or to desire control and rather the path of learn/teaching the love of acceptance becomes clear and one gains the ability to touch infinite intelligence in which all is known to be well and complete.

hmmm I am finding there is something I think is helpful to me in this and I want to understand you clearly.  I am not sure what you mean by distilling the infinite principle of pain...do you mean?

I meant I saw that there is no end to pain. Any focus you can have upon pain can only miss most of what it is, looking where you yourself need to be looking at.

A light analogy I somewhat like to illustrate the infinite principle of what one may see as a hell is : how many times has the Creator stubbed its toe?
You can think to yourself you want to never experience this again, yet as Creator and by your infinite nature this is bound to happen over and over, what may seem perhaps even like near-infinite times only in this small world and the course of its history.

it became clearer in understanding to you?  also to see if I get what you mean in how you broke the paradoxical loop...is are you saying you saw how to value free will as essential and that the seeking itself comes from its own being almost like it can't help it? or let me restate that the Creator has no choice but to seek itself through free will?

What became clearer in understanding is how it is both sought and needed. Through this, I shifted my focus from the paradox of rejection into seeking to accept and then I was allowed to distill the catalyst of pain into a newer perception that saw it under a different light and offered to not feel blocked contemplating the same.

I've always found this easier to do with myself. Generally, I can see a clear non-randomness to the events of my life just as it comes somewhat naturally to see my own need of catalysts when they occur. The above moment I referred to was exactly that, I was from get go aware of my own attraction of my catalyst of pain and from that made use of it to meditate on pain itself as it is reflected without myself. This made me feel a deep helplessness at how I had no control in regard to the pain of others and the vastness of it, which to me was truly infinite, and so I felt stuck wishing for all things to be without pain but I also knew the helplessness I felt sprang from the paradox of rejecting this aspect of existing. To find that all is well is an act of release, that you need not to be bound stuck blocked but may find to accept and allow your focus to shift, like taking a step of light.

There's many times I've reached very high states of mind in this life. In these states, it was not detachment that I felt in regard to the suffering contained in this world, more like crystalline awe and wonder at how they come to be and pass away also. I felt a certain madness at how deeply beautiful everything is, like my being here could not contain it. It is not detachment, because much more than you could will to look away you instead look deeper and deeper, radiating brighter in your polarized feedback rooted in the love of acceptance. This is because I could not just see things as I would normally see them as with a veil of confusion, and instead would see them within their actual context of existence. I think this is more the time/space view, where you are able to see any moment within the context of itself, how it was lead there and to where it goes, what hidden purpose and need there is to it. These were states where contemplating the most horrible of humans would only emulate a radiant love in myself, because that was just how beautiful these souls are when gazed upon by a sight of clarity that is not blinded by emotions of separation nor confusion.There is also a deep sovereignty to each entity, they are crowned beings, each with pure infinite deepness to what they are in every moment.

A concept I found often misunderstood on this forum is that of unity. It often seems like it should imply a state of harmony between separate things, when I believe it implies a perpetual state of completeness to what is contrasted into separation. White light is not white light because it holds the colors one can find a liking to wear. White light is white light because it holds all colors whole and complete in their full spectrum.

What if you were told that for anywhere to have a color the equivalent balance of the rest of the spectrum of color needs to be reflected also, should infinity then be rendered void?
Infinite intelligence knows that it shouldn't (in a synergetic way), but in its point of view it also knows the infinite intelligence to believe that it should.

that the seeking itself comes from its own being almost like it can't help it? or let me restate that the Creator has no choice but to seek itself through free will?

I think that's essentially it. All actions derive from a point of view and we (Creator) are bound to a point of view because we are.

[flofrog]

I think this is what "all is well" is about, not that wrongs will be righted but that everything is rooted in free will just as held in unity. Then there is no need to remain blocked or to desire control and rather the path of learn/teaching the love of acceptance becomes clear and one gains the ability to touch infinite intelligence in which all is known to be well and complete.

hmmm I am finding there is something I think is helpful to me in this and I want to understand you clearly.  I am not sure what you mean by distilling the infinite principle of pain...do you mean?

I meant I saw that there is no end to pain. Any focus you can have upon pain can only miss most of what it is, looking where you yourself need to be looking at.

A light analogy I somewhat like to illustrate the infinite principle of what one may see as a hell is : how many times has the Creator stubbed its toe?
You can think to yourself you want to never experience this again, yet as Creator and by your infinite nature this is bound to happen over and over, what may seem perhaps even like near-infinite times only in this small world and the course of its history.

it became clearer in understanding to you?  also to see if I get what you mean in how you broke the paradoxical loop...is are you saying you saw how to value free will as essential and that the seeking itself comes from its own being almost like it can't help it? or let me restate that the Creator has no choice but to seek itself through free will?

What became clearer in understanding is how it is both sought and needed. Through this, I shifted my focus from the paradox of rejection into seeking to accept and then I was allowed to distill the catalyst of pain into a newer perception that saw it under a different light and offered to not feel blocked contemplating the same.

I've always found this easier to do with myself. Generally, I can see a clear non-randomness to the events of my life just as it comes somewhat naturally to see my own need of catalysts when they occur. The above moment I referred to was exactly that, I was from get go aware of my own attraction of my catalyst of pain and from that made use of it to meditate on pain itself as it is reflected without myself. This made me feel a deep helplessness at how I had no control in regard to the pain of others and the vastness of it, which to me was truly infinite, and so I felt stuck wishing for all things to be without pain but I also knew the helplessness I felt sprang from the paradox of rejecting this aspect of existing. To find that all is well is an act of release, that you need not to be bound stuck blocked but may find to accept and allow your focus to shift, like taking a step of light.

There's many times I've reached very high states of mind in this life. In these states, it was not detachment that I felt in regard to the suffering contained in this world, more like crystalline awe and wonder at how they come to be and pass away also. I felt a certain madness at how deeply beautiful everything is, like my being here could not contain it. It is not detachment, because much more than you could will to look away you instead look deeper and deeper, radiating brighter in your polarized feedback rooted in the love of acceptance. This is because I could not just see things as I would normally see them as with a veil of confusion, and instead would see them within their actual context of existence. I think this is more the time/space view, where you are able to see any moment within the context of itself, how it was lead there and to where it goes, what hidden purpose and need there is to it. These were states where contemplating the most horrible of humans would only emulate a radiant love in myself, because that was just how beautiful these souls are when gazed upon by a sight of clarity that is not blinded by emotions of separation nor confusion.There is also a deep sovereignty to each entity, they are crowned beings, each with pure infinite deepness to what they are in every moment.

A concept I found often misunderstood on this forum is that of unity. It often seems like it should imply a state of harmony between separate things, when I believe it implies a perpetual state of completeness to what is contrasted into separation. White light is not white light because it holds the colors one can find a liking to wear. White light is white light because it holds all colors whole and complete in their full spectrum.

What if you were told that for anywhere to have a color the equivalent balance of the rest of the spectrum of color needs to be reflected also, should infinity then be rendered void?
Infinite intelligence knows that it shouldn't (in a synergetic way), but in its point of view it also knows the infinite intelligence to believe that it should.

that the seeking itself comes from its own being almost like it can't help it? or let me restate that the Creator has no choice but to seek itself through free will?

I think that's essentially it. All actions derive from a point of view and we (Creator) are bound to a point of view because we are.
[/quote]

Then Elros, would you say this point of view, personal, melts at times to a unified universal point of view, let’s say, in moments of meditation, meditative bliss, etc... ?

[Agua]

removed

[yossarian]

To say that the Creator is impersonal is to say that the Creator is LESS full of life than you yourself are.

But no. As below, so above. The Creator is even more personal than the personal person themself is. This is the power and nature of infinity. This is how we know that we emanated from The Creator, not vice versa.

The Creator is "extra" never "less"

My wife just told me she's in active labour. And I'm starting a new job next week. See you all again next time the Creator swings me around this way! <3 <3 <3

[rva_jeremy]

Diana, that was a wonderful post. I especially applaud this:

…it is only a working theory that there even is or could be a "One Infinite Creator" as interpreted by us via the channeled material.

I've often thought about asking Q'uo about how close to reality our mental model of Confederation philosophy is, the one that most Law of One students hold in their head about how everything works and fits together… for example I could describe this world to somebody who'd never seen it using all the laws of physics, but that still wouldn't communicate the totality of the experience of being on this planet. I wonder how much more nuanced, inconceivable and magnificent the greater reality actually is, and it's probably pretty different than the working model in my head -- in fact, probably different enough that a lot of the tough questions posed in this thread become moot. 

This leads me to the conclusion that it's just as important to acknowledge our lack of certainty as it is to acknowledge those things we can be certain about. In other words, models are tools, and if you could never ever lay a hammer down, would it really be as useful? We need a certain amount of flexibility that can drift into and benefit from a discrete interpretation of the channeled material but also drift out and return to the inchoate matrix and mystery of it all. We need both, I think.

It's so very important that we remember that these works of wisdom are starting points, not authorities circumscribing the bounds of proper spirituality. One's personal, hyper-subjective seeking is the real "Law of One", not any channeled material, teaching from another person, etc. To the extent channeled material starts us down the path and gives us a structure helpful to orienting ourselves on a day-to-day basis, it is worth paying attention to and drawing from. But anytime we use it to shut down possibilities and wall off areas of inquiry, we are doing ourselves a disservice. I include in this walling off the intellectualization of Confederation philosophy that admires the precision and perfection of Creation from afar, without the emotional investment that certifies to the Creator the total character of our foray into separation and reconnection. 

I also wanted to comment on the uses of the 95.24 quote. It's important to keep in mind that Don and Ra are discussing the archetypes, specifically Experience of Mind:

Questioner: From that statement I interpret the following meaning: That if the Experience of the Mind has sufficiently chosen the right-hand path, as total purity is approached in choosing of the right-hand path, then total imperviousness from the effect of the left-hand catalyst is also approached. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is exquisitely perceptive. The seeker which has purely chosen the service-to-others path shall certainly not have a variant apparent incarnational experience. There is no outward shelter in your illusion from the gusts, flurries, and blizzards of quick and cruel catalyst.

However, to the pure, all that is encountered speaks of the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator. The cruelest blow is seen with an ambiance of challenges offered and opportunities to come. Thusly, the great pitch of light is held high above such an one so that all interpretation may be seen to be protected by light.

First, I feel like the "There is no outward shelter in your illusion from the gusts, flurries, and blizzards of quick and cruel catalyst" part is being lost. Those of us who are not yet pure, well, we are in for catalyst. If we were pure, I'm not sure we'd be here at all.

Second, because this is an archetypal discussion, its focus is on the subjective nature of personal experience as constructed by deep mind. It is not a statement that can simply be pasted upon any seemingly fitting situation without losing a huge chunk of meaning; it is very particular to individuality and how we personally relate to matters like this. I feel that the more we try to dislocate the full emotional resonance of archetypes in other people, the more we abstract it and separate ourselves from its truth (which is why I rarely see much usefulness in conversations about archetypes). This, in my opinion, is how we cheat ourselves of the full lesson and gloss over the true depth of emotion that informs so much of the richness of life.

Finally, it's worth noting that Confederation invocations of "love and light" ought to be understood as more nuanced than we often hear. These qualities of love and light seem reflexively positive, but over and over in communications, Confederation sources impress upon us the insight that love is so much more than we recognize. We see warmth and sweetness in there, but is love not also at work in the service-to-self entity's embrace of solipsistic domination? When we see suffering, is the heartache we feel not also a form of love?

Confederation sources continually stress that the word "love" is a wholly inadequate cultural construct filling in for what they are really trying to express; it is simply the closest word they can find. Let us not misinterpret the admonition that "all is well" to mean that all is well in exactly the way that we would have it, that "all is love" means that everything is really just a big valentine's day thought. Love can be harsh, painful, sorrowful, etc. Those of Ra describe themselves as the "brothers and sisters of sorrow" and I believe this empathy and willingness to hurt along with us in third density is wrapped up in the nature of their love, the fullness of the Creator's power in this universe to know itself totally.

As Diana said, we can seek to personally own the 360 degrees of experience. In fact, far from dismissing experience as merely benefiting the Creator in a "passing the buck" way, owning it fully in my opinion is precisely how the Creator is most engaged in experience, since we are the Creator's agents in manifestation, illusion, and separation. There is no way to offer experience to the Creator that does not involve full investment in the experience, and to the extent that our intellectual understanding of this channeled material gets in the way of that direct feeling, we might be advised to release it.

[Minyatur]

Then Elros, would you say this point of view, personal,  melts at times to a unified universal point of view, let’s say, in moments of meditation, meditative bliss, etc... ?

I think so, but would also say each point of view in what it is should be regarded as with worth and not something to overcome. The veiled point of view here is what allows a vivid experience to be had.

The melting is the effect of a choice and in this I believe things suffer to the extent they require it. Like I said in my first post, I don't believe the Logos creates beings so much as it creates the right nexus for their will to come to manifest, and so everything here is here because this place offers what they need to shape their growth. I think it is much easier to recognize our own pains as having helped us to grow into what we desired, like the Universe is always connected to our will, than it is to do so with others because we see them in what we are not (at least in the moment) distilling as our own personnal experience, hence we feel separate from the cause and effect and attraction.

I don't advocate to partake in creating pain nor entertaining it, more that across pain each being remains sovereign of its own experience., just as will come to cherish and not wish away what has been its experience.

I had felt a resistance to post this quote (saw it a few days ago posted by L/L Research), but I think it attempts to convey the same as I am :

This is why we iterate quite often, when asked for specific information, that it pales to insignificance, just as the grass withers and dies while the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator redounds to the very infinite realms of creation forever and ever, creating and creating itself in perpetuity.

Why then be concerned with the grass that blooms, withers and dies in its season only to grow once again due to the infinite love and light of the One Creator? This is the message we bring. Each entity is only superficially that which blooms and dies. In the deeper sense there is no end to being-ness. - Ra

[Patrick]

...
I meant I saw that there is no end to pain. Any focus you can have upon pain can only miss most of what it is, looking where you yourself need to be looking at.
...

 
We can only hope that after this cycle is done (this entire octave).  Pain is not part of the design of the next one.
 

[Agua]

removed

[rva_jeremy]

I enthusiastically concur with Agua's point about pain:

I found suffering mostly is a state of resistance to pain and not pain itself. We resist because deep down we fear we cannot bear it, for whatever reason.
So we refuse to feel the pain fully and instead only experience a superficial portion of the pain paired with our state of resistamce, and resistance is a very unleasant state.

I'm certain Q'uo has stated just this. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have sympathy for suffering, because what is the ego we all inhabit but a system of resistances? We can all relate to resistance, so we can all relate to suffering, and the way it focuses us in spite of our resistance.

I also really liked this point you made about pain, Elros:

I meant I saw that there is no end to pain. Any focus you can have upon pain can only miss most of what it is, looking where you yourself need to be looking at.

This is spot on and dovetails precisely with Agua's above point. To focus on pain itself is kind of like focusing on "homework" rather than focusing on the particular lessons that homework is supposed to help you learn. Pain is part of our experiment with separation. It cannot be vacated without losing something of the very reason for experiencing separation in the first place. We don't need to celebrate it, but we certainly cannot reject it.

It is so very tempting to take an abstract, impersonal relation to the function of pain. When we accept that pain is something we cannot escape, but simply part of the experience of separation from the Creator, we can at once see its abstract teleology and have a personal experience of it that grounds us. We can begin to resolve the paradox between the personal and impersonal.

Keep in mind we live in a society that sees happiness and fulfillment as the end-all-be-all goals of life. It is natural that, should we suffer, we would see ourselves as failing to live up to this social ideal. A lot of our suffering comes from an inability to accept ourselves as validly suffering, to see our suffering as a problem to be eradicated. We might do better to see society and its judgments and values as themselves impersonal, instead of trying to depersonalize our own experience, and understand that society is a configuration of consciousness not designed to fully appreciate suffering until such time as it fully accepts all its constituents, i.e. social memory.