[melanie]

What we are, will ripple out there, and effect every-thing.



In all the universes, there is only 'being'
it lives in your heart as You.


All the universes are the perfect invisible eternal and unchanging conception, of this that is neither 'being' nor 'non-being'
This conception is inseparable from the knowing of it.

Complete Whole .. NOW!

Instantly brought into apparent being each apparent moment through these sensations, imaging a fragment, one with the sensing of them.
A momentary spark of divinity made manifest.

melanie.

[melanie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Thanks, Melanie.

I think I understand you better with each posting.

Thanks Fredrick.....most humble and gracious one

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=baV7J1...eature=related


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=itzhak+bentov

[melanie]

Christopher Calder.
( i thought it was an interesting read )

The ancients invented myths of immortal souls and a variety of heavens in order to lessen the fear of death, a fear which creates a continuous burden on the minds of intelligent animals who understand the inevitable time-death equation. In time we all die unless, of course, we invent a magical escape hatch called "reincarnation" or "heaven." Along with religious myths of immortality, meditation has helped humans escape suffering by training our brains to behave as a simple plant rather than as a complex mammal. Plants have no past or future, no goals, no desires, and no attachment to life. They exist right here and right now. The worlds of trees, shrubs, and grass have no problems because plants are not aware of themselves as individuals. They are full of life energy, but they have no individual consciousness or personal ego that can become bruised and hurt.

[melanie]

Fredrick;


Personally, I never liked the expression that we can agree on disagreeing,
but I have to admit to myself that the overall picture comes with that spot of disagreeing.
In all sincerity we are often not able to come closer together.

It is like looking at the picture of two faces and a vase, two faces in black, the vase in white.

One picture is only true at one time, while the other picture is true at the other time.
They cannot be true at the same time.
Somehow, these pictures agree to disagree in harmony.

ONE ''appearing'' as TWO

Fredrick:

I hope Melanie will come back one day too and continue with her posts,
but she does have a warrior inside her for sure.
Maybe one day, she can use that force not to support intensifying conflict, but to deliver us her toe! I hope so.

me too! .....

[Fredrick]

Hi Melanie,

Welcome back to the thread, and thank you for excellent words. You, Drifter, and I have very similar views and that makes me happy. What fascinates me is that I see very similar structures in thinking between what Drifter writes, in how you deliver your view, and how I view it all.

As you know, we are not standing in the same positions, but I am happy to see you are back and share very important and definitively rich information with us. I have to say the same to you, Drifter; you have very special knowledge that is kind of uncommon these days. It is a treasure reading your information.

The main location we seem to disagree is the overall perspective, with all three of us very much aware how much words and ideas can get in the way. I mentioned to you, Drifter, that an important distinction for me exists between the objective view and the subjective view.

All your words (and Melanie, your words, too) are subjective words. I do not claim that to be bad or negative; I'd just like to mention that as an observation. The example of 'sweet' is excellent in that it very clearly shows how fragile the difference is between objective and subjective views. Sweet is just a conclusion the taste buds made together with the mind to trick us for wanting more of the good stuff. So, in essence it is not really real, but it is our reality, a preconditioned situation we have to deal with. Good information to know, but..

There is no disagreement about 'sweet.' Whether sweet is or is not the actual sweet we ordinarily consider sweet is not a bone of contention. We all agree that sweet is sweet. That is what makes it objective. The same with a city ten miles away; miles is something conjured and used by us, but it is really just a man-made tool. However, it is an objective tool.

The subjective part of sweet is that some have no problem resisting it, while others better stay away from it, otherwise the'll eat it. Based on individuals, different positions are taken in about sweet stuff (but not about the question if it is sweet).

The same distinction of objective/subjective can be applied to overall positions. The divine answer is a personal answer. Our paths are our own, and while it is okay to let others know about our paths, it is impossible to state that our path is the only correct path. Only god can make that statement. None of us can (nor should) make that statement; it is vanity to do so, one of the seven sins. To understand god does not mean it is okay to sit in god's chair. You cannot sit in god's chair (for long).

Other than that, I think we are in agreement; we use different words and distinguish patterns differently, but I recognize that you have a lot in common with me (and others on this thread, too).

As for Nobody, he could not make the distinction between subjective and objective, and placed all objective information under a single overall subjective umbrella and considered it finished beyond doubt. He and I agreed on many things as well, and while I tried, I could not get him off that chair. I hope you realize that I am not in a chair, and that if I am, I only sit in it temporarily. You can point out when and where I am sitting in a chair, and I will gladly get up to show you I do not own it. I hope you can stand up from your chairs, and realize you did not have to sit down all the time.

Thank you, too, Melanie, for your exciting pictures.

[mkirkpatrick]

In the final analysis all is thought,the universe and all that is within it,we are basically and
I maintain factually ideas made manifest and living unfolding principles of absolute intent.


Consciousness is the cloth in which the master weaver weaves.



regards michael.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by melanie

Thanks Fredrick.....most humble and gracious one

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=baV7J1...eature=related


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=itzhak+bentov

Hello Love...Namaste`

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

In the final analysis all is thought,the universe and all that is within it,we are basically and I maintain factually ideas made manifest and living unfolding principles of absolute intent.

Consciousness is the cloth in which the master weaver weaves.

Thank you, Michael, you are quite right about this, but I cannot see through your words if you embrace the not-owning part of the final analyis:

The final analysis is a chair from which we can all stand up and walk around. The chair will still be there, it will not be taken in by anyone else, and you may go back and sit in it for as long as it feels right. However, you must conclude that you do not own the chair, for if you declare it a possession then you have made the final analysis an aspect that follows material rules, and that cannot be done. Though we can bring all back to thought, there is the all-important distinction between thought-of-thought and thought-of-matter; each follows different rules.

And, if done right, one can then drop the first part of thought, knowing that that part adds nothing fundamental, and simply establish the distinction between thought and matter. That's the secret of vanity: in our thinking, we take an extra step in vain. If we cannot give up on what is done in vain, then we actually hold on to considering god a material entity, which all by itself is an impossibility. The option to have god embrace all things material exists indeed, but to have that god be as real just like the material world is real to us, that is something we cannot do (only god godself has that option). If you are interested in that (I know Drifter is), this is the same issue that split the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church. Catholics claim a materialized god is possible, Greek Orthodox claim god is spiritual in nature. You know my thinking now: a materialized god in the kingdom of god is not possible. And if it is somehow possible, then that god can still not be equal to god.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

In the final analysis all is thought,the universe and all that is within it,we are basically and
I maintain factually ideas made manifest and living unfolding principles of absolute intent.


Consciousness is the cloth in which the master weaver weaves.



regards michael.

and quite the tapestry it is, when woven by the impostor/dictator weaver, who's intent is to shut out the Light.

The difference between Consciousness and Awareness.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwyuQbIb0Xs

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A09Ha5M82us&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OyRvqajrAj4&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AeaFXaPx11A&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=L0mkXLwZbI4&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0S8oAC_g41w&feature=related

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Thank you, Michael, you are quite right about this, but I cannot see through your words if you embrace the not-owning part of the final analyis:

The final analysis is a chair from which we can all stand up and walk around. The chair will still be there, it will not be taken in by anyone else, and you may go back and sit in it for as long as it feels right. However, you must conclude that you do not own the chair, for if you declare it a possession then you have made the final analysis an aspect that follows material rules, and that cannot be done. Though we can bring all back to thought, there is the all-important distinction between thought-of-thought and thought-of-matter; each follows different rules.

And, if done right, one can then drop the first part of thought, knowing that that part adds nothing fundamental, and simply establish the distinction between thought and matter. That's the secret of vanity: in our thinking, we take an extra step in vain. If we cannot give up on what is done in vain, then we actually hold on to considering god a material entity, which all by itself is an impossibility. The option to have god embrace all things material exists indeed, but to have that god be as real just like the material world is real to us, that is something we cannot do (only god godself has that option). If you are interested in that (I know Drifter is), this is the same issue that split the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church. Catholics claim a materialized god is possible, Greek Orthodox claim god is spiritual in nature. You know my thinking now: a materialized god in the kingdom of god is not possible. That god cannot be equal to god.

But man can...as a creature of/by God...create good or evil...depending upon whos 'will' "dominates"

Truth is easily seen when on eknows what to look for...no "believeing" involved.
It is KNOWN!...Thank You Fredrick...you are a True Gnostic sir...



The Gnostic Buddha
The historical Buddha Shakyamuni did not come to start a religion or to gather worshippers:
he came to demonstrate to all beings how they themselves must work to escape suffering.
This is the essence of Gnosis: knowledge that is acquired by one's own efforts.

“I cannot pull someone from the hell realm and carry them to nirvana. Leaving samsara, attaining nirvana or buddhahood,
depends on your own efforts.
You cannot rely on anyone - not the guru,
or the Buddha and bodhisattvas.” – The 14th Dalai Lama

The term 'God' is mostly misunderstood and this, when people speak of
'God'
leads to complications and mis-directions. In vain attempts to
personalize "That" we say (for the convention of speech) "Him" and or
"God".
There is a trinity that is spoken of in all traditional 'religions' as
well as most philosophies, worldwide.
"Matter is the vehicle for the soul on this plane of existence and
soul is the vehicle on a higher plane of existence for the
manifestation of the spirit and these three are a trinity synthesized
by life which pervades them all."
So what we have trying to be established here is the conduit or
channel that one such as man can open up too, to allow the higher
consciousness to flow into him. This is what some call the cup of
Ambri, or the current of Ambrosia, the Nectar of the Gods, Rapture,
Bliss, Sublimation, etc. etc.
But I think this was what the geniuses that possessed this higher
consciousness and who established 'religions' were trying to direct
their fellow man too. So that all of mankind could, through their
minds-eye, 'communicated with what they called "God" which is an
experiential endeavor and must need be of ones own volition and
conviction, all the moral attributes of "religions" (as the practice
has grown into) are byproducts of reverence for sustaining the purity
and occasionally of the experience.

Self to Self

That Thou Art

Namaste`...Brother/Self

Drifter