Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not seeing in that way (the bolded), I don't think. We are and always have been "playing in the orchestra". Collectively, humans evolved to the point where a Jesus (and a Siddhartha and a Confucius and a Lao-Tzu and a Socrates and a Rumi and a Ghandi and a St. Francis and a Martin Luther King Jr. and on and on) were able to become who they were. So, it wasn't one person who "saved" us, but rather it is that these people embodied, to some degree, the culmination of the collective expansion to that point, and who were then able to push the expansion further.
We were playing but it was discordant and dissonant - essentially cosmic noise from the human section. Individuals are capable of achieving some level of harmonic resonance but it is overpowered by the noise. Christ achieved perfect resonance (Identity) which cannot be overpowered (it is when the power function goes to infinity, sorry to get "sciencey" on you, Pleroo.).
Quote:
I was actually expecting a lot more pushback on the idea that there is not one singular consciousness that is the basis of all the rest (no Parent/offspring). It is that idea that intrigues me the most because, in my mind, it answers the problem of (as you call it) "red in tooth and claw" -- something that I have struggled with, for sure. If all creatures collectively, as non-physical consciousness, are God, and choose to partake of this physical existence and it's "contrast", then there's no need to be all angst-y about the question of why God allowed death and suffering. To me, it is a very empowering thought that this was not chosen or designed for us by some outside entity.
You have singled out the area of most concern for me, Pleroo. That is why I settled on the cellular model and analogy to our own bodies. All our individual cells die and are replaced regularly yet the consciousness that they contribute to creating remains. All the organs and parts of our physical body are contributory to the existence of our consciousness and most of the requisite processes are less than benign if seen from the perspective of the individual physical components. That is why I use the thought experiment of the perspective of an individual sentient brain cell trying to make sense of it all from within the "universe" of our body. It all contributes to the existence of our transcendent consciousness so I make the obvious extension of our cellular existence to God's transcendent consciousness.
Well, Pleroo, that is as good an explanation of "spirit" as I have seen. Whether it was in place from the beginning as a desideratum to be gained through experience (evolution?) may be argued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Argue it, if you please, because I'm not exactly sure I know what you mean. What is "it" that may or may not have been in place from the beginning? The collective? I think I see what you mean: It may have started as a singular consciousness and, as Trout says, perhaps more and more of us come into being, but still, we CHOOSE to take part in the physical experience. Is that what you're saying?
Well, "it" would be that "spirit" mentioned and it would be the essential nature we need to align with, whether it was original or developed as consciousness. I won't argue either way since the thing I find important is that "it" exists. Yes, we can choose to work at aligning with that "spirit," and I believe that we all are aware of it at some level however we may react to it.
Well, "it" would be that "spirit" mentioned and it would be the essential nature we need to align with, whether it was original or developed as consciousness. I won't argue either way since the thing I find important is that "it" exists. Yes, we can choose to work at aligning with that "spirit," and I believe that we all are aware of it at some level however we may react to it.
Okay, I thought you were meaning something completely different when referring to "spirit". I thought you meant "non-physical consciousness". So, okay, what is that good explanation of the essential nature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Well, Pleroo, that is as good an explanation of "spirit" as I have seen...
We were playing but it was discordant and dissonant - essentially cosmic noise from the human section. Individuals are capable of achieving some level of harmonic resonance but it is overpowered by the noise. Christ achieved perfect resonance (Identity) which cannot be overpowered (it is when the power function goes to infinity, sorry to get "sciencey" on you, Pleroo.). You have singled out the area of most concern for me, Pleroo. That is why I settled on the cellular model and analogy to our own bodies. All our individual cells die and are replaced regularly yet the consciousness that they contribute to creating remains. All the organs and parts of our physical body are contributory to the existence of our consciousness and most of the requisite processes are less than benign if seen from the perspective of the individual physical components. That is why I use the thought experiment of the perspective of an individual sentient brain cell trying to make sense of it all from within the "universe" of our body. It all contributes to the existence of our transcendent consciousness so I make the obvious extension of our cellular existence to God's transcendent consciousness.
If we are all part of the collective consciousness that IS love, then we (the Christ within us that is NOT physically focused) all already have perfect resonance.
Okay, I thought you were meaning something completely different when referring to "spirit". I thought you meant "non-physical consciousness". So, okay, what is that good explanation of the essential nature?
Sorry for my confusion.
Well, it could refer to a non-physical consciousness, but I'm not altogether sure that consciousness is a correct term... I just don't know and am not concerned.
I was referring to your entry:
"I'm not seeing in that way (the bolded), I don't think. We are and always have been "playing in the orchestra". Collectively, humans evolved to the point where a Jesus (and a Siddhartha and a Confucius and a Lao-Tzu and a Socrates and a Rumi and a Ghandi and a St. Francis and a Martin Luther King Jr. and on and on) were able to become who they were. So, it wasn't one person who "saved" us, but rather it is that these people embodied, to some degree, the culmination of the collective expansion to that point, and who were then able to push the expansion further.
IMO, the idea or ideal is well developed, but application has a way to go for each of us and especially for us as a species.
I typed up a post earlier this morning ........ and accidentally deleted the entire thing.
But my little one and I spent some time being super heroes and saving the world, so I think I'm sufficiently energized to attempt it again.
This ^^^^ (the idea that humanity was separated from God and needing fixing) is what I'm picking on.
My view of God for some time has been panentheistic in nature. Essentially, I saw God as the foundational singular consciousness from which all other consciousness have been birthed: God as the cosmic parent, in other words, and we as it's offspring. Our purpose, as I saw it, was to mature into "resonance" with our parent and somehow this physical experience was a necessary part of that. So, the need for a "savior" (someone to bridge the gap and heal the disharmony we create in our immaturity) wasn't out of the realm of possibility for me.
A still panentheistic, but new (for me -- it wouldn't surprise me if this is old news to many) concept, however, is this:
God is not a singular personality, but rather a collective of consciousness. Each singular consciousness within the collective can choose to become "physically focused" as it desires, and has done so numerous times. You and I, and all life forms from the least to the most complex, then, are each a singular consciousness within God, a part of which is physically focused in these bodies, while the larger part of us remains in the non-physical as God [this, to me, would be the Christian concept of "Christ within"].
The reason God wants/needs to be physically focused is that God, being eternal, is always expanding. No expansion would mean death. The physical experience is vital to that expansion because it offers a higher degree of contrast than the non-physical. As many of us who are physically focused at any given point in time are sort of explorers who came forward in order to use the contrast to propel us forward in our evolution and diversity.
Although the creative "energy" of God/love is always flowing toward us when we are physically focused, we are often out of alignment with it [pinched off]. This inhibits us from fully experiencing the expansion that we are creating in the here and now, which is what makes our physical experience varying degrees of enjoyment to suffering. But, we aren't fundamentally broken/in need of fixing. Once we leave these physical bodies behind, we will immediately be in harmony with who we really are again. At that point we will see and experience the collective expansion we are co-creating from the broader non-physical perspective.
Since the "Christ within" us IS God -- and that is who we really are in the non-physical -- this time spent physically focused obviously wouldn't be for the purpose of maturing in order to come into harmony with God. We have a felt sense of separation [and to the degree that we do not overcome that by coming into harmony, it's gonna suck as long as we are here] but it is an illusion created by the physical. Neither God as the collective, nor as our singular non-physical consciousness, is ever judging or condemning us/each other for how we live these physical lives. The focus on us in our physical manifestation is always one of love, appreciation, guidance, acceptance of where we are at, and awareness of what we are creating through our experience of contrast.
No real separation: therefore, no need for savior. So Jesus, if a literal historical figure, was simply a physically focused member of the collective, who in some way had a better grasp of his true nature and purpose (in that lifetime, at least) and attempted to share that knowledge with others.
Okay, squash away.
Hey Pleroo... When you say non-physical what are you referring to? non-physical consciousness... what does this consist of, what does this look like, feel like? Are you no longer pleroo? Are you aware of self? If so, what about awareness of other beings? When in "non-physical" form, do you cease to exist as pleroo, knowing yourself, and knowing of others you were close to?
Sorry to be so laser-focused on this one point, but I think any sort of further description/explanation about this part of your post, will help me understand more of where you're coming from.
peace,
sparrow
Last edited by .sparrow.; 09-23-2017 at 03:42 PM..
Hey Pleroo... When you say non-physical what are you referring to? non-physical consciousness... what does this consist of, what does this look like, feel like? Are you no longer pleroo? Are you aware of self? If so, what about awareness of other beings? When in "non-physical" form, do you cease to exist as pleroo, knowing yourself, and knowing of others you were close to?
No, I do not believe we cease to exist as individuals when we stop being non-physical. I won't forget my experience as pleroo, or be unaware of myself as an individual, and yes, I'll know you, and you will know me, but I'll be more than pleroo, and you'll be more than sparrow, because sparrow and pleroo are just the physically focused parts of who we really are.
What does non-physical consciousness look and feel like? I have no idea.
Quote:
Sorry to be so laser-focused on this one point, but I think any sort of further description/explanation about this part of your post, will help me understand more of where you're coming from.
peace,
sparrow
No, no. Do not be sorry. I want to explore these ideas, and questions help me do that.
No, I do not believe we cease to exist as individuals when we stop being non-physical. I won't forget my experience as pleroo, or be unaware of myself as an individual, and yes, I'll know you, and you will know me, but I'll be more than pleroo, and you'll be more than sparrow, because sparrow and pleroo are just the physically focused parts of who we really are.
What does non-physical consciousness look and feel like? I have no idea.
No, no. Do not be sorry. I want to explore these ideas, and questions help me do that.
Thanks, Pleroo. That does help!
hmmm. ok, gotta go ponder.
Your bubble of being "awake". You see things and explain things without much in the way of science training, that I can see anyway. But it fits exactly with what we know. Your "pinched off" statement is one example. endocytosis and exocytosis!!!. And you've done it before, your explanations match very nicely to what we see in the way of interactions.
Like we can treat letters and symbols as numbers we can explain groups of interactions with single notions like "memes' but they follow they same rules as other interactions.
death could be like exocytosis. Its more complicated to be sure, and the bubble that defines you is gone, but its not about the vacuole wall or cell wall that enclose us is it? its not really a wall, it's way more flexible and the "pieces" can move. Think of a cinder block wall where the blocks are a fluid. And you are encased in that for a short time. The "Peleroo" information is encased in our bodies for a short time. That information wasn't born nor will it die. It just doesn't work like that, as near as we can tell.
It's not a single field, its a volume (like a gallon) of energy potentials, doing work, ebbing and flowing in patters that is our universe. think of ants that reach out and grab a leaf. We do the exact same thing but our cells "the ants" are more numerous and connected together. But its the exact same process of grabbing and using energy to do work. to do us.
The ants don't know what going on. Our cells don't know whats going on. We don't know what's going on. The colony is real. We are real. What the summation of interactions of the biosphere is real too. they are just facts.
The earth is part of a larger more complex system. that's just a fact. if we are classified as life and we are in a more complex system than us, what is the only rational conclusion. what does regular common sense tell us?
sorry bout the rant, anyway, that's what I mean. You see all that without knowing it. Its amazing to me.
your bubble is bigger mine,
by a fair amount little lady.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 
