|
|
|
|
|
The surface of the bubble is a portion of the ocean, but it is not the entire ocean. That bubble/surface cannot exist and was never separate from the ocean as it is always in contact with the ocean. Even if it ever considers itself a spun-off creation or the sum total of existence, the bubble is always part of the ocean. There are different levels and types of currents and the mysterious ocean, the existence and characteristics of which the bubbles, literally and figuratively, cannot fathom. Temperature, pressure, salinity, dissolved gases, and bioelectrochemical gradations are the carriers and aspects of communications (telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, remote viewing, teleportation, etc.) between all levels of the ocean. The bubbles cannot deliberately cause one of these gradations to occur, but can reflect them when the gradations arise/happen by themselves. In fact, there's no such "thing" as a wave, no such limited, self-existent object. It's just a function of the limitless ocean, a way the ocean expresses itself. (Conversely, what is a mountain without the rocks and trees, grass and hills which make it up and are themselves constantly changing? Trees, rocks, and grass constantly exchange places as energy changes form.) The whole universe is ruled by the cycle of give and take, absorb and reflect, grow and die, concentrate cosmic power and dissipate it again into the great cosmic ocean... If you know the ocean, be it asleep or stirring or fully awake, you know God and you know what all the Christs in the history of humanity have talked about. If you do not know the ocean, you are just simply lost no matter who you are. You may know about the ocean as if in a mirror only if you are afraid to drown in its depths, but you can never stop being a part of the ocean, emerging from its depths and returning to its stillness. And in coming from and returning to the ocean, you take its depth with you; not a little bit of depth as against the great ocean depth. Not a milligram of depth as against a thousand tons of depth. Depth is depth, no matter whether in a gram or a ton. It is a quality, not a quantity. All boundaries and categories are ultimately artificial constructs created for our convenience. That which we point towards with the multi-colored term "God" ultimately is neither the Biblical Jehovah nor the Roman Jupiter nor Greek Zeus nor the Christian Father-Son-Holy Spirit nor the Islamic Allah nor the Hindu Brahman/Ishvara nor the Chinese Shangdi, nor any of the many other anthropomorphic personalized deities which humans have tried to relate to, a supreme being said to exist enthroned within or above creation. Each of these is still a very limited attempt by humans to portray the highest and most future development of which we can conceive -- and then much. (These personalized versions of the deity are facets which exist at lower levels, middle management, as it were -- as the current or wave, in our analogy here.) Gods speak through their followers, so when prevailing interpretations of a god change, the very character of the god changes... Vital to a god's capacity for growth is the semantic flexibility of scripture. Within limits, people can look at their holy texts and see what they want to see -- see what meets their psychological, social, political needs. What if God was bigger than we were told? If we're happy with only part of a grand story, wouldn't we want the rest? Consider it an enhancement of truth, not a destroyer of it. When a Human channel or prophet comes back from a vision and gives us doom and gloom predictions, here is what they are really saying: "A beautiful 'angel' came to me carrying the potentials of the planet in each hand... good and bad. I chose the bad one since it looked a lot more interesting!" Who exactly gave this news? Was it the 'angel' who carried the whole picture and was silent, or the one of us who chose to channel only the parts that were dramatic? All information is given, but only the parts that we wish to take back with us are shared. This places the power into the hands of us and the responsibility of the messages is ours alone. It has always been this way and all our planet's scriptures were given to us by us... Channelling is the mind of the Human Being interpreting interdimensional information from a place that can be confusing and definitely not 3D. [Think about how difficult it is to describe to someone else even a vivid dream you had.] Therefore, it takes practice, wisdom and a countenance that is studying mastery. Beware of the casual prophet, for they will use their gifts to create unintentional drama, and many will follow them, giving seeming credibility. Look to the one who gives us the whole story, and then can give us the added information about which reality is the most probable, based on this planet's changing energy at the moment. It's easy to draw a crowd if you shout loud enough, for this is Human nature. It's far more difficult to gather people to listen to a sweet message of hope and wisdom. But that audience will be [made up of] the meek ones... the ones who will inherit this planet. The old energy [is being] converted. You actually are taking a look at the "old novel ending" and are saying, "This isn't who we are anymore. We now may continue on a new path and create new potentials. We are not finished yet!" [And thus some of the old scriptures need to be rewritten. The subject matter and teachings of those books fits an old paradigm that is no longer here.] Our emotional and psychological beings are of such vast richness that our concepts of selfhood [so far] have always forced us to dilute them down to a degree that we can understand. [And so doing this, of course, allowed us to explore perceptions of reality along the way that we otherwise would not have experienced...] Maybe the most defensible view -- of electrons and of God -- is to place them somewhere between illusion and imperfect conception. Yes, there is a source of the patterns we attribute to the electron, and the electron as conceived is a useful enough proxy for that source that we shouldn't denigrate it by calling it an "illusion"; still, our image of an electron is very, very different from what this source would look like were the human cognitive apparatus capable of apprehending it adroitly. So too with God: yes, there is a source of the moral order, and many people have a conception of God that is a useful proxy for that source; still that conception is very, very different from what the source of the moral order would look like were human cognition able to grasp it. The various concepts of god have served as stimulations of development. Seemingly outside of the self, they have led the self into its greatest area of fulfillment. The Ego emerging needed to feel its dominance and control and so it imagined a dominant god apart from nature. A god who might then change the order of things because of our pleas, petitions, prayers, or promises -- if only we follow some official guaranteed formula. (Then, again, prayer is not just for asking the Heavenly Father for things...) But the god images would/inevitably do change as consciousness did/does. Our ideas of personality are too limited to contain the multitudinous facets of God's multidimensional existence. Altogether these images, these ideas, these concepts speak as a psychic and spiritual blueprint. Not as "inner images of perfection," but more like inner working plans that can be changed with circumstances. To some extent they are idea-lizations. Each of these has some small degree of validity because each is a small piece of a much, much larger and wonder-filled intricate puzzle or tapestry. Some might be a little more comprehensive than others, but none has any claim to exclusive truth or ultimate direction. No single human point-of-view -- no matter how many persons believe or follow it, no matter how strongly any authority claims it has "the truth" by divine revelation -- can even start to define or contain the vastness of What Is. We have little justification for defining what "God" really is. We do know that God is so much greater than any religion, belief system, scripture, prophet, or congregation can claim. (And, again, it is only by being able to explore in detail all these different and sometimes contradictory concepts that we are better able to start to understand what "God" likely is.) All That Is creates its reality as it goes along. Each world has its own impetus, yet all are ultimately connected. The true dimensions of a divine creativity would be unendurable for any one consciousness of whatever import, and so that splendor is infinitely dimensionalized, worlds spiraling outward with each 'moment' of a cosmic breath; with the separation of worlds a necessity; and with individual and mass comprehension always growing at such a rate that All That Is multiplies itself at microseconds, building both pasts and futures and other time scales you do not recognize. Each is a reality in itself, with its own potentials, and with no individual consciousness, however minute, ever lost. as quoted in Roberts, The "Unknown" Reality, Vol. Two, pg. 651. Pantheism, said to be a relative of paganism / neopaganism, is also said, in a sense, to be a natural derivative of animism. Pantheism, however, is a little too "spiritually sterile" to be equivalent to what we are talking about in this long two-page article. The pantheists might refer to this page as being about panentheism. This latter does acknowledge a supernatural -- properly speaking, a metanatural -- basis for existence and may come a bit closer to what we have laid out here, but it is not quite this. (Or possibly we have here fleshed it out a bit more than what most people know it as...) Universalism describes some of the more religious features. God is that out of which existence arose and arises, that of which each and every thing is a part. God is not "complete" or "finished" in the usual sense but is an ongoing experience of all dimensions and forms of consciousness, learning every possible aspect of existence. The universes are the combined body of God's soul, so to speak, including that portion which was literally made flesh to dwell among us as our own bodies. God is responsible for the energy that gives vitality and validity to our private multidimensional selves, which in turn forms our image in accordance with our own ideas. God is hidden in ourselves; so much a part of us and everything else. And this is what we do not like to admit. We do not want to acknowledge that we are lost gods who are not really lost but just not awake. Even so, God is not a bland, generic blend of everything. Rather, God is immediately and continually aware of the lives of each and every single element and being and atom within all of creation -- whether we agree with that concept or not. We cannot even suspect the magnitude of our ultimate self. God as the external causation of the universe is a false concept, because God IS all existence -- although more so than we as humans can ever comprehend. "The Dao which can be talked about [and verbally conceptualized] is not [the same as or equal to] the eternal Dao." The so-called "Big Bang" or "Electric Universe" or "Biocentrism" or (possibly a little closer) "Holographic Universe" are all parts of God's very nature. ("God as the universe" has always been extremely difficult for most to comprehend. "God as maker of the universe" has always been a much easier concept to grasp and develop as we create [the concept of] God in our own image.) The concept of Darwinian evolution or natural selection is a crude and imperfect explanation of the "mechanism" by which the universe "works." "Religion," as it is commonly understood, seeks the "why" of existence; "science," as it is commonly understood, seeks the "how" of existence. There is little overlap between these two "jealous gods" whose combined realms are only part of the big picture. Our "turning away" from God is part of the learning experience of what is possible: the creative illusion of being "lost" or "separated from" or "unforgiven" or "damned" by God. As a long-time reality, this simply does not exist. The "way" which can be digressed from is not the eternal "way." (The life that can be told is not the same as one's actual life.) At the end of each incarnation we, so to speak, take a rest from focused experience to reflect back upon our learnings and wishes during a temporary "heaven" or "hell" or "limbo" of our own making. Only in such an existence of all possibilities can there be the exploration of the various and myriad belief systems which humans, for example, are so creatively subject to. And all other life forms have their own versions of incarnations within this God as well. The concepts of "good" and "evil" are learning tools derived from certain particular points-of-view adopted in order to specifically experience existence in various ways. They act as a dynamic engine for experience. From the standpoint of a particular incarnation, yes, there can be such a very real thing as "evil" -- and its companion generator or focus, the "devil" -- but to a deeper/wider/non-physical existence [that is, outside of this, our present and very real life or world], "evil" and "divine punishment" are temporary non-absolute tools. (The devil as an evolutionary pushblock by which we can move ahead more strongly.) "Morality" and "immorality" are similar judgment-based values which are not necessarily consistent everywhere and everywhen. The traditional arguments of God being able or not able to prevent evil, or of God's omniscience vs. man's free will, do not apply here. God does not exist to prevent death or illnesses or devastating natural catastrophes or the insane or foolish acts of others from touching our lives, and thus prevent opportunities for our responses to challenges during our physical incarnations. Personal responsibility: To be responsible is to be able to respond. We are in the process of becoming. It is the right of each of us to learn by making choices and, often, mistakes. Our works are flawed -- but they are flawed apprentice works of a genius artist in the making. If we are not yet perfect, how can all of our acts be expected to be perfect? Our present technology and playthings are not mistakes, only extremely primitive precursors of the incredible organic processes which we can at some point create. The errors in themselves are creative, and have brought about unforseen probabilities that now enrich -- and also change -- our original course. Our mistakes, our attempts at improvement or trying more workable options, are, indeed, "sins" in the sense of "arrows missing the target." We are ongoing-works-of-art, preliminary sketches of what we see ourselves ultimately to be. "To err is human, to forgive divine." To love the neighbor (ourselves, those characteristics we are comfortable with) and to forgive, i.e., to understand the motives of the enemy (the other, those characteristics of us which we are not happy with or proud of). We are exactly where we should be at every point in space and every moment in time. God certainly owes no mortal as such an explanation for God's decisions. Yes, God's ways can be mysterious -- if we otherwise demand that they be similar to human plans, decisions, choices, limitations, comfort, and logic. God's revelations to us are also ongoing, not subject to the arbitrary limits or physical confines of any particular belief system, authority, or manuscript. Existence is not yet complete, is not yet finished, is not yet ready to be ended. And neither is God. If you fail to take responsibility for your life, you do not exist. If you do not feel free, it is because you have not yet declared your freedom, you are waiting for it to be given to you. Where everything is sacred, including one's life and self, nothing needs to be permanent, for there can be nothing not sacred. The sacred is all one thing, all one Flow. In the Flow all is relation and unity. Communion is our natural state. Everything possesses everything else. The Flow is the river which can't be stepped in twice [To paraphrase Heraclitus, as quoted by Plato.] In the Flow all forms are transient, since consciousness is an act, a movement, a verb. God of creation is never the same, is different each time, yet consistent. There is no "essence" abstracted out of being. There is only being. God is All. There is nothing that is not God. All That Is represents the reality from which all of us spring. God, by Its nature, transcends all dimensions of activity, consciousness, or reality by being a part and foundation of each. Thou Art God. (When we say "we are human," we are not implying that each of us is the sum total of humanity. In a similar way, when we say that "Thou Art God," we are not implying that you are the sum total of God...) All beings are interdependent. It is always a pleasure to participate in the flow of energy and life. Our self is our divinity. Express our self. We are individual cells of a living organism. The kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, is within us. "Thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" are unnecessary. All is acceptance and appreciation. When we bless, we acknowledge and explore this inherent unity. (And when we curse, we artificially split ourselves from All That Is.) Life is a gift -- and not a curse. We are unique, worthy creatures in the natural world, which everywhere surrounds us, gives us sustenance, and reminds us of the greater source from which we ourselves and the world all emerge. Our bodies are delightfully suited to their environment, and come to us, again, from that unknown source which shows itself through all the events of the physical world. THAT feeling gives each organism the optimism, the joy, and the ever-abundant energy to grow. It encourages curiosity and creativity, and places each individual in a spiritual world and the natural one at once. The eternal now is God's realm -- all of creation and existence to God happening in a given moment and place. To all the rest of creation, individual existence takes place in each of our own measures of "time" and "space." (Another version of this concept can be found here) Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." |
|
In the spring of 1972 I was introduced to the concept of reincarnation, which seemed to explain a couple of images I'd had in mind for years. Attempts to understand some other personal images from childhood which my Roman Catholic upbringing did not address, including spontaneous and semi-voluntarily induced (without drugs) altered states of consciousness. These were later explored as part of about one hundred psychic readings I gave, and separately as less than a dozen limited and deliberate experimentations with marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, or LSD over thirty years ago. My natal horoscope was first interpreted while I was finishing high school, and my aura happened to be first described to me early in my first semester in college. A few years later I cultivated the ability to see the inner colorless layer of the aura as well as feel it, but was unsuccessful at deliberate astral travel. Later there was a one semester course in "Sacred Dance." This was followed by personal research in Blessing, and the multi-lingual God Quote project ("I Am Who I Am. I Love You, No Matter What. Just the Way You Are. -- God") I've had long-time self-directed studies of dream interpretation with a few dream diaries kept at various times. A few semi-guided hypnotic regressions and two sessions in an isolation tank. Very early and primitive attempts were made to portray what became this Hypothesis by way of a set of Venn diagrams based on the four primary brain wave states. Informal studies about comparative religions including at least one respectful visit to a service at each of the following places of worship: Orthodox Eastern, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Evangelical, Latter-Day Saints, Reformed Latter-Day Saints, Conservative Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Jōdo Shinshū Buddhism, Nichiren Buddhism, Daoist, assorted New Age and Non-Denominational, and my naive Roman Catholicism. (I never have turned down the opportunity to worship with participants of another faith, but I was never re-baptized after infancy.) I witnessed a number of channelling sessions several months before I gave my first psychic reading. I have never consciously seen a UFO, but I have seen with my unaided eyes the moon, five planets, several eclipses, a handful of comets and star clusters, satellites and Skylab and the ISS, the multi-colored trails of launched rockets and a slow blazing rocket stage re-entry, meteor showers and occasional fireballs, weather balloons and hot-air balloons and U2s, distant birds and aircraft, awesome sunsets and lightning storms. I've had a few lucid dreams but not any Near Death or Out of Body Experiences. I never saw a ghost, but two close friends have claimed to independently see some form of nonhuman entity. I had experience with elementals in at least one small vegetable garden I briefly kept at one very small rental house. I've had my share of coincidences and synchronocities. Insignificant ouija board experience, some definite mirror gazing results, ambivalent results with pyramid-focused energies. I saw the Mitchell-Hedges Crystal Skull up close, but did not pick up or sense anything extraordinary. Informal studies in comparative linguistics after a semester of college courses in that group of subjects, the learning of various amounts of Polish, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese, and the gathering of over a hundred language phrase books, grammars, and introductions (which I've now cut down to only about sixty). (In addition to study and article-clipping since childhood about biology, archaeology, mythology, geology, astronomy, space science, medicine, official history and revisionist history, and my becoming my family's genealogist. Plus, this whole journey.) Much reading and note-taking. Note: the various quotes given in this paper have been standardized/paraphrased to be first-person-plural and some might include [a little extra] text to further develop the thought. A goodly amount of the unattributed material is my paraphrasing of other sources, for which I'm still hunting down citations and attributions. Jane Roberts, including The Seth Material (1970), Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (1972), The Education of Oversoul Seven (1973); The "Unknown" Reality (1977, 1979), The Nature of the Psyche (1979), The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events (1981), Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment (1986), et al, and the related "Seth on 'The Origins of the Universe and of the Species' -- An Integral Conscious Creation Myth"; assorted ongoing material from researcher and past life regression therapist Dick Sutphen (1976-present), beginning with his You Were Born Again to Be Together; of course not originally in chronological order, Victor Gollancz's anthology Man and God (1951); Wilhelm Reich's The Murder of Christ (1953); Martin Gardner's Human Potentialities (1961); Herbet A. Otto (ed.) Explorations in Human Potentialities (1966) and Guide to Developing Your Potential (1967); Herbert A. Otto and John Mann's Ways of Growth (1968); Erich Fromm's You Shall Be As Gods (1967); John C. Lilly, M.D.'s Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer (1967, 1968); Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier's The Morning of the Magicians (1960, 1963); Carlo Suarès' Cipher of Genesis (1970); Emmet Fox's The Sermon on the Mount (1938); Thomas A. Harris, M.D.'s I'm OK -- You're OK (1967, 1968, 1969); Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner's Teaching as a Subversive Activity (1969); Robert E. Neale's In Praise of Play (1969); Kingdon L. Brown's The Power of Psychic Awareness (1969); Alvin Toffler's Future Shock (1970); Eli S. Chesen, M.D.'s Religion May Be Hazardous to Your Health (1972); Dr. Lawrence J. Peter's The Peter Prescription (1972, 1973); Paul Williams' Das Energi (1973); Edward Rosenfeld's The Book of Highs, 250 Methods of Altering Your Consciousness Without Drugs (1973); Joseph Chilton Pearce's Exploring the Crack in the Cosmic Egg (1974); Lehmann Hisey's Keys to Inner Space (1974, 1975); Carlos Castenada's The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge (1968), Journey to Ixtlan (1972), and Tales of Power (1974); J. Krishnamurti's Education and the Significance of Life (1953) and Beginnings of Learning (1975); Thea Alexander's 2150 A.D. (1971, 1976); Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's Messages From Michael (1979); Morris Bergman's The Reenchantment of the World (1981); Anne Wilson Schaef's Native Wisdom for White Minds (1995); Caroline Myss' Anatomy of the Spirit (1996); Lynn Margulis' Symbiotic Planet (1998); Dean Sluyter's The Zen Commandments (2001); Joyce & River Higginbotham's Paganism: An Introduction to Earth-Centered Religions (2002); Robert Scheinfeld's Busting Loose From the Money Game (2006); Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D.'s On Life After Death (1991, 2008); Robert Wright's The Evolution of God (2009); Chris Carter's Science and the Near-Death Experience (2010); Timothy Beal's The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book (2011), and Jonnie Hughes' On the Origin of Tepees (2011). Also, Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy's The Destroyer series, esp. 1971-1977; Cosmic Awareness Communications (Olympia, WA) biweekly printed newsletters from 1977 through 1990; and more recently the Kryon Channellings; in addition to numerous half-forgotten or unreferenced newsletters, articles, and other books. Additional notes taken from the above body of material might be added to this Hypothesis from time to time as I revisit them. Olaf Stapleton's Star Maker (1937, 1972) and Alfred Bester's The Stars, My Destination (1956). John Lennon's "Imagine," "Watching the Wheels," and "Instant Karma (We All Shine On)"; Heart's "These Dreams," Billy Joel's "River of Dreams," and Gary Wright's "Dream Weaver." Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror." The following films were most impressive upon me, especially in some of their first week showings at the theater: "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "Contact," "What Dreams Might Come," "Cloud Atlas," and "Arrival," Further explorations of small portions of this can be found in these films: "Defending Your Life," "Inception," the "Matrix" trilogy, "The Cell," and many others, including those about/involving reincarnation and exploring what is beyond linear time, as in these movies. See also Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's La Monadologie (1714, and this 1999 English translation and commentary), Bernard Haisch's The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, And What's Behind It All, various works by Alan Watts, especially Nature, Man and Woman (1958), The Joyous Cosmology (1962, 1970), and The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are (1966), and the more recent John L. Peterson article here. Much simpler and dutifully orthodox uses of part of this metaphor can be found here, here, here, here, and here. Of course, these examples severely limit themselves to belief in the kind of diety and worldview as specifically described and defined by the Bible, Torah, Qur'an, Vedas, Sutras, Book of Mormon, Chinese mythology, Greek mythology, Mayan mythology, other classic mythologies, etc. all their various commentaries and apologetics, environmentalism, and any number of other world and cultural views. The Hypothesis as presented here does not require such a belief -- it is more a general blueprint of what is, whether we accept it or not. (And it very much changes the usual playing field of discussion/debate for religion and science and politics and the rest of common philosophical explorations...) No tablets, plates, scrolls, supposed tomb walls, tea leaves, or sacrificial animals were harmed in the making of this page. Other areas still to be considered here include (but are not limited to) grief and mourning, the esoteric tradition sequence of bodies, and more thoughts on heaven and hell and the afterlife. We do not necessarily believe or endorse everything found in each of these books or links. (Most of these authors probably would not believe everything found combined with their ideas here.) We most certainly have no thing and no one to join, convert to, give up, buy, condemn, save, or die for. It is what it is, whether we or you believe it or not. Background changing color code adopted 14 Feb 2011 from the Chakra Healing Sounds website. |
|
|
|
|