Lightworkers and Eternity

[rei]

fair enough there was an entirely different undertone in your last post, which tells me you may have genuinely considered what i said. though i realize, if that is the case, it is entirely because you wish to serve your own ethical code, and not because you want to appease me, i do appreciate that you seemed open to feedback.

though i agree the idea of service generally flows outward, it is impossible to only serve those things outside of us. if that were true, we would not have the words "self-serving" or "self-interest." besides, according to the hermetic principle you can't really take action only for self or only for others. whatever you do for one focus is mirrored in the other. i think that is how the universe maintains balance, though we may not always see the energy flowing to match our conscious focus.

i talked before about how the Pavlina idea of lightworkers and darkworkers is different from the metaphysical idea signified by those terms. anybody know if this understanding is inaccurate?

[Cado]

Originally Posted by rei

fair enough there was an entirely different undertone in your last post, which tells me you may have genuinely considered what i said. though i realize, if that is the case, it is entirely because you wish to serve your own ethical code, and not because you want to appease me, i do appreciate that you seemed open to feedback.

No one who is closed to feedback gets anywhere in life.

i talked before about how the Pavlina idea of lightworkers and darkworkers is different from the metaphysical idea signified by those terms. anybody know if this understanding is inaccurate?

While I can't answer that question definitively, from what I've heard I would say the common metaphysical perception of lightworkers and darkworkers is little more than good v. evil in new age terms. I say that because most metaphysically oriented lightworker material I've come across paints darkness in a very unflattering light, to say the least.

On a more true-to-life model, the difference is easily recalibrated as psychopathy/zealotry v. sane, sustainable polarization. In other words there isn't a real difference, one is simply more nuanced. (And more accurate, IMO.) As far as how that impacts you after death... You got me. I have no clue and frankly I'm skeptical of anyone who claims they do. Too often it comes across as human ego feigning certainty of the unknown.

The subject goes deeper, of course. Is there karma? If so, who is the keeper, if anyone is? I think one can infer where I stand based on what I've said, so I'll stop here before I derail the topic.

[Andrew Gubb]

I like how Asmoday put it: darkworkers expand their list of choices whereas lightworkers accept fewer and fewer choices. A darkworker needs to reason through their morality and decide on a case-by-case basis how they're going to act in regard to others whereas for lightworkers the most significant choice they can make is who or what they will serve. They will always retain some autonomy over their own lives if they choose well, but they are, as Asmoday stated somewhere else, "God with one hand tied behind their backs."

I see this as a darkworker perspective.

From my point of view, lightworkers are not subservient. In fact, many of them are rebels (and those who are not rebels have decided to pick their battles, but they have rebel potential). Darkworkers, if I understand what a darkworker is, see things in terms of superiority and inferiority. Lightworkers - true lightworks as I concieve of them - see all beings as equal and can be neither lords or servants, in the way a darkworker thinks of the ideas. To clarify, they can (and do) wield power, but not in the same way.

Subservience to God is something different from subservience to any THING, as God is not a thing, God came before things. When I surrender to God I am surrendering my attachment to worldly struggles. When I surrender to a wordly opponent he limits me, when I surrender to God I become limitless.

God is our true nature, is love, is naturalness. So to fight against these things is to fight against ourselves. Surrendering a fight against oneself is liberating.

God loves us and cares for us because we are a part of him, we are his very body... we ARE him... so surrendering to him is only sane. The incredible, unbelievable thing is that it is possible not to surrender to him, not to remember you are him.

It's only in short bursts I've had these sorts of mystical experiences but I've had a sort of intuitive understanding of these things ever since I remember.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

From my point of view, lightworkers are not subservient. In fact, many of them are rebels (and those who are not rebels have decided to pick their battles, but they have rebel potential).

I mentioned rebellion in another post, and I didn't say they were subservient to earthly powers per se. Some are, they're mostly zealots. The rest hold an ideal, a god, or a person whom they feel embodies God, as the thing which they mold themselves to. Before you scoff at the last part: Jesus. He was a man, there's no way of knowing whether he was truly anything more than that, but a lot of people followed him and still do right up to this day. Now, the vast majority of his followers have given him a bad name, but the few that hold to the principles of what he taught are pretty upstanding people if I do say so myself.

To clarify: as I see it, anyone who emulates an ideal rather than choosing entirely on the basis of their own will is subservient. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (though I'm obviously biased and I'm not gonna try hiding it) but it's different than a darkworker's M.O.

Darkworkers, if I understand what a darkworker is, see things in terms of superiority and inferiority. Lightworkers - true lightworks as I concieve of them - see all beings as equal and can be neither lords or servants, in the way a darkworker thinks of the ideas. To clarify, they can (and do) wield power, but not in the same way.

They don't wield the same kind of power darkworkers do. If rebellion is what gets your rocks off, there's nothing better than darkworking. Creative destruction is darkworking 101. In each phase after that there's a more advanced version of the same class. Lightworkers aren't incapable of utilizing creative destruction, but from where I'm standing it looks like it comes a lot later. Steve is a prime example. It took him years before he started writing articles about Nazi Chicken. My best guess is he's at the point where the whole duality thing starts breaking down. If I weren't as well educated as I am, I would have mistaken him for a darkworker because that kind of thing is what -we- do.

Lightworkers are a lot gentler on the whole. Darkworkers shake the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bed. Lightworkers are better suited to work with people who are already willing to listen, darkworkers are the guys who put people onto the fact that something is wrong in the first place. Am I saying lightworkers are incapable of wrath, can't use violence, and are a bunch of bleeding heart ******* on the whole? Absolutely not. Some go that way, but -as a darkworker- I facepalm at how terribly misguided that approach is.

However, there is no denying that if it's a fight of wits, tactics, and guile, darkworkers have a huge advantage. We expose ourselves to the vilest things life has to offer in order to inoculate ourselves against it, we give ourselves permission to use hate, fear, deceit, etc. even if we never do, and the culmination of all that is we can think like our enemy and in so doing provide a formidable offense and defense against them. If a lightworker really wants to effect change on a mass scale where the groundwork has not yet been laid, they're going to need the help of the darkworkers who are on their side.

As far as the whole hierarchy thing goes, there -is- a hierarchy. Some animals survive, some don't. Some people are great at writing, some aren't. All men are not equal in terms of their talents and their position in life. (And not all people are equal in importance to me. I'm only one man, I have to choose!) On the most basic level, though? I think everybody should have a level playing field. To me, that's what equality means. People who are worth something will prove they are worth something (everybody is potentially worthy), and in my interactions with people my aim is to speak to that part of them and bring it to the surface. Nobody benefits from standing on the backs of the downtrodden, at least not if they're looking to build something that'll last.

Subservience to God is something different from subservience to any THING, as God is not a thing, God came before things. When I surrender to God I am surrendering my attachment to worldly struggles. When I surrender to a wordly opponent he limits me, when I surrender to God I become limitless.

That's one way of describing the experience, and for those who wanna walk your path it's a good thing to know how you see it. It's why I tell people, "if you want accurate information, go to the source." Though I was giving a nod to your perspective when I talked about sane lightworkers and the struggles they go through.

The thing about "serving God" is that it can be hella hard to know whether you're actually doing that from moment to moment. Sure, you have mystical experiences wherein you feel like you get a taste of enlightenment, and after you've had a taste you never want it to end, but what about when the high wears off? It's a double edged sword-you have something to shoot for but there's a lot of entities who have just been alerted to your presence who, even if they mean well, will **** you over if you listen to them. (Oh, and they offer a great substitute for the legitimate high you got early on.) It might feel great when you're following God, doing what source wants you to do, etc, but during the downtime? It's easy to think all that was just a delusion.

And again, you might -feel- limitless, and in a strict metaphysical sense you are, you still have one hand tied behind your back so long as you're unwilling to hone your so-called negative emotions into tools. I understand it's not for everyone (and regarding the people it's not for, I wish you well where you do go) but it significantly limits your actions in the here-and-now. That's the trade off we make when we polarize-we suck at what the other side is best at. (Again, until the structure starts breaking down.)

God is our true nature, is love, is naturalness. So to fight against these things is to fight against ourselves. Surrendering a fight against oneself is liberating.

Eh? Who said anything about fighting against yourself? You are a god. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. But "God", whatever it is, is everything. (And even that places a limit on it because everything only expands to what we know about.) God, in its infinite wisdom, can will anything. As God, I will myself to power. That's the darkworker equivalent to what you're talking about. There's no reason for me to knock your experience because it's a valid half of one whole. If every expression or part of God, however you wanna phrase it, all tried doing the same thing it'd be a lot like every cell in the body deciding it's gonna pump the heart. A useful function, but meaningless if the other cells ain't doing their thing.

(And just for clarity: though I use the body analogy, I don't view the world in terms of oneness. Honestly, it feels like the whole "oneness" thing presumes too much and defines what is by definition incomprehensible. With that said, I have my own theories on the nature of life and its ultimate ends, but I keep it mostly in my fiction. At best it is an inspiration, not the modus operandi of my life.)

God loves us and cares for us because we are a part of him, we are his very body... we ARE him... so surrendering to him is only sane. The incredible, unbelievable thing is that it is possible not to surrender to him, not to remember you are him.

Mmmmm, I know I love me.

It's only in short bursts I've had these sorts of mystical experiences but I've had a sort of intuitive understanding of these things ever since I remember.

Just like I've always had an intuitive understanding that I'm far greater than the little plebe I was always told I was. And you know what? I-my Self-was right.

It's SHOWTIME!

[blossom]

Wasn't Satan just an angel that dared to defy God by thinking for himself and doing what he wanted instead of what he was told to do all the time. Satan took the initiative to DISOBEY and was thus cast out of heaven...to form his own world.

Sounds alot like Jung's Individuation process to me!

[Cado]

That's one way of looking at it. I think most who would call themselves lightworkers or darkworkers agree: the god of the Bible, rather the god the church, is a tyrant. He's about as anti-lightworker or darkworker as you can get. "Do as I say, not as I do" to the lightworkers, "submit or perish" to the darkworkers. Frankly he's a pretty miserable little entity pretending he's big-time by terrifying what is, compared to him, a bunch of ants.

Let me tell you, if there's a god to serve, it's behind and above that guy's throne.

[blossom]

Agreed. The God of the Bible...he's a sadistic prick...and anyone who follows him must surely be the most masochistic of all of us.

[royster]

Thanks to ALL of you. It is certainly an interesting discussion. While the essay is on-going, I add this for you here...

"Darkworkers" are not "evil" by most definitions; they are a designation of misuse of energy. I have learned that anything not in alignment with the Divine Plan is a misuse of energy, and the extreme polarization of 'evil' is more man's concept and duality than it would be the Divine's. Darkness, by your (a commentor via e-mail) description, is the balance within the Divine Plan; there are sentience's dwelling there that are benign to us, beneficial to light, and necessary for balance.
We see with the younger people who attend "head-banging" concerts, flipping the "devil" sign and acting as if they are into all the satanic stuff, but most grow away from it. There can be no question that energy vampires prey on less developed minds...and I'm avoiding calling those vampires anything more than that so as to not empower them. But we know elements of higher government promote diversions to distract persons away from the Lightpath. This is where free will takes place, and it's up to the individual to either listen to Light frequencies, or continue thumping along with the lower bass-chakra energy. Following Light frequency suggestions is an act of ascension, while remaining in bass-chakra density...well, I'm sure each soul has its reasons, so there can be no judgement call.
As with all topics of today, the reference 'Lightworkers/Darkworkers' was bound to not only polarize and stereotype, but also become an emotional manipulation. My intention for this topic was to clarify basic outlines to hopefully remove some of the "attachments" the subject has picked up."

I have been nudged to perhaps change the referrence to "Ascenders/ DEscenders".

I didn't take notes while reading all your posts, so please forgive me if i don't remember a couple user names in replies:

Regarding slang - nothing wrong in the here and now, but on an eternal time-line (quite an oxymoron!) terms of reference need to be consistant.

Andrew: you're couragious to speak freely about your energies, and i thank you for that. In my ascension I consider myself currently a-sexual, but was bi-sexual all my life, and in the gay community for many years. I just passed a 10 year mark with my best friend Janice, who i no longer consider to be my "wife", as our interests have gone in different directions. Suffice it to say, I am happy being single. The point I wish to make here, though, is that I'll be writing an essay on the Metaphysical Aspects and Mechanics of sex. I know a lot of people who are "trapped in the wrong bodies" or remember previous incarnations of the other sex. It's a touchy subject to approach, but I think there's VOLUMES of information waiting for us, untapped, precisely BECAUSE it's taboo.

I invite you all to visit my board at my home forum:
ETERNITY WORKSHOP MENU

There have been some disruptions at that forum recently, and as well, I'm working in a remote location, away from my own computer. So the turbulence is everywhere.

Does this post area have a spell check? If not, please pardon dust.

I wanted to check in and thank you all, and when the winds calm down, I'd like to share and hear more. Roy

[rei]

ascenders and descenders sounds even more judgmental to me. how do we know a person did not choose, prior to incarnation, to work with power in that non-lightworker way? how do we know such an individual is not completing that process as the last requirement for enlightenment after several incarnations developing in this sort of 'benevolent' form of spirituality?

i am sure this idea can sound strange, definitely doesn't mesh well with the typical lightworker groupthink, but really it is a serious question. how can we know with any certainty that our generalizations would hold water when we consider the ultimate eternal truth, if it is even possible to do that in a 3/4d form?

good luck with the technical snags that have been going on.

[royster]

Good golly, rei, you're bang on it! VERY well stated.

An excellent idea to avoid the seemingly judgemental call, it may well be I go back to just "student of the universe".

And I also see "Lightworker" or "Darkworker", indeed, as just another spiritual phase, so there is a legitimate designation...but it's really gotten out of heart (hand).

I'm looking forward to your keen insights, rei; they certainly resonate with me.

[royster]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

You're welcome. For more usability information, go to useit.com: Jakob Nielsen on Usability and Web Design. Speaking as someone with a genius-level IQ, a college-level vocabulary, and who has taken journalism classes that required her to write on a 5th-grade level, I must forewarn you that communicating what you're trying to communicate using smaller, simpler words is incredibly difficult.

Oh.

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by royster

Oh.

Hey thanks for digging up an old thread! I thoroughly enjoyed reading the whole thing. It's like a celebration of consciousness. Comparing and contrasting definitions, describing this and that, all with the aim at creating a sense of clarity.

After several months, he responds: Oh.

I love it! You have to love it! And to top it off it's an edited response. How many ways can I say oh... let me count them...

My favorite concept after reading this was the "intention" behind the actions. That's where I notice if I'm being devious or direct. Many times I'm about to say something or do something and there is a feeling that comes with it of being justified and right, but it doesn't feel the same as glowing and happy. It doesn't feel like a celebration of consciousness. That's when I like to pause before expressing. I'll notice the concepts in my head continue to grow like a flower, incorporating this and that, and when finally they are mature and ready to be expressed, there is a feeling of shear joy to them.

I think all expressions are perfectly valid, just like you can eat a green raspberry or a red and juicy one. I just like the flavor of the red and juicy ones! MMMMMMmmmmmm! They are sooooo good!!!!

[royster]

Thank you for such a spirited response, Aaron.
I.Q. is not a measure of spiritual capacity. I see digging this thread up prompted some other responses, all of them quite satisfying to me. From THIS Lightworker's point-of-view, I.Q. is meerly a measure of capacity to conform to the existing system, and once that system fails...



oh.

[Andrew Gubb]

If you ever want to impress a stupid employer, you can go to the library and read all of the books containing the standard IQ tests. Once you've learnt them all and had a lot of practise, anyone can be a genius!

As for lightworkers, this could come as something funny for someone who writes on a website called "lightworkers connection" but I don't know if I can make a very solid definition of one. But something we can all agree on is that a lightworker dedicates his or her life to helping people and raising the world's vibration. Consciously, that is. Everyone plays their part at the very least, unconsciously.

Most people want to help each other at some level, but most are asleep to varying degrees, and their energy is sucked into the System and is used to maintain vibrations low. So a lightworker is an awakened, liberated person with a strong sense of caring and justice, who acts in accordance with his beliefs and doesn't just live in a cave somewhere.

Ascending or descending... I don't know. When we get TOO metaphysical it's hard for me to know what to think. But a guy with a flaming desire to help the world rise up and to become what it was made to be.............. yeah, I can understand that.

[Ekb]

Highlight of the article that are still in my brain...
THESAURITIS! laughing quietly in my head and little smile, because it reminded me of using the dictionary in bed to look up verisimilitude last night...

And my own little synopsis of darkworking...
Say the consciousness thing is like the three year olds brain... packed full of zillions of wonderful amazing neurotic connections, what comes next? The chop chop baby!
This tree of wonder has to be pruned zealously according to what is going on at the time. And then I get to the point... are the darkworkers the pruners of neural branches that are no longer useful? Or do these branches just hang out, dead until a gust of wind blows them away or a wild animal munches them or some guy uses them for firewood?

[rei]

Heh, it was fun to read back over my previous comments here. Ekb, thesauritis, hehe, that's a work that I came up with when I was teaching college freshmen how to write, glad it gave you a chuckle royster, I'm so glad we've developed a deeper connection since this thread was first posted. Btw, royster, I was taking a FB break, but today I'm back on there and acting on your PM.

[Ekb]

oh god, you didn't teach them how to write art history essays on modernism by any chance :P

[rei]

Originally Posted by Ekb

oh god, you didn't teach them how to write art history essays on modernism by any chance :P

Ha! I'd say most of them didn't even have enough understanding of Modernism to do that The class was more about showing them there's more than the five-paragraph essay and writing can actually be fun, especially when you get to pick your own topic.

I even had a few students come to me at the end and say thanks to how I taught the subject, they planned to switch to a major in English... I made sure, before they switched, they understood the standard pay with a major in English

I was always a bit partial to postmodernism... Playing with that existential uncertainty. Using it to create all sorts of fun, silly, nonlinear, spastic things. Now excuse me while I kiss an Oompa Loompa

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Eckhart Tolle, interestingly, talks of God as being stillness. He considers that the feminine principle is closer to spirituality than the male.

I dislike "he" too, though I may use it out of linguistic convention. My God is both man and woman.

How not surprising. I haven't read anything by him besides the raving endorsements on this site of the nowness approach, but as a whole I think New Age promotes a feminime approach.

- The ego is bad - you are supposed to distill your beingness to get to a broader state.
- Experiencing oneness is the best - individualism (in beingness) is bad.
- Emotional words like "peace", "contentment" etc are stressed, as opposed to more "active" terms like "passion", "excitement".
- Mindful practices like meditation are a cornerstone, where the goal is to be present and not really be active in anyway, certainly not think elaborate thoughts.
- "Going back to Source/Oneness" is the goal, always. This "oneness" state is always stressed as something desirable, and having a more focused and direct experience (like all of us) is always thought of as being inferior to that state.
- This as opposed to being adventourus, having new experiences, having a more focused way of experiencing reality, constantly "pioneering spiritually" (whatever that would be...). If used, these approaches are really just a means to an end to get back to Source, and rediscovering who you are. To get back to a state of passive oneness.

[rei]

Originally Posted by Elrond

How not surprising. I haven't read anything by him besides the raving endorsements on this site of the nowness approach, but as a whole I think New Age promotes a feminime approach.

- The ego is bad - you are supposed to distill your beingness to get to a broader state.
- Experiencing oneness is the best - individualism (in beingness) is bad.
- Emotional words like "peace", "contentment" etc are stressed, as opposed to more "active" terms like "passion", "excitement".
- Mindful practices like meditation are a cornerstone, where the goal is to be present and not really be active in anyway, certainly not think elaborate thoughts.
- "Going back to Source/Oneness" is the goal, always. This "oneness" state is always stressed as something desirable, and having a more focused and direct experience (like all of us) is always thought of as being inferior to that state.
- This as opposed to being adventourus, having new experiences, having a more focused way of experiencing reality, constantly "pioneering spiritually" (whatever that would be...). If used, these approaches are really just a means to an end to get back to Source, and rediscovering who you are. To get back to a state of passive oneness.

Adding to this line of thinking, many many spiritual approaches strike me as a kind of way of reclaiming the experience of being in the womb. Where you're just swimming in bliss and have your needs taken care of organically.

Now, you can be in the womb as male or female, but the womb itself has a feminine connotation. I think this relates to the notion of being in touch with yourself as Creation instead of as Destruction - moving into yourself instead of away from yourself. But I'd also say the internal world is neutral, neither masculine nor feminine. The internal world contains passion as much as peace, it contains a sense of activity as well as stillness. Or, you can look at it as the body takes care of the action so the mind can focus on the stillness.

But I think folks would be doing themselves a disservice, perhaps, to view spiritual exploration as something counter to their own gender. If anything it seems like it would be about correcting imbalance, since social conditioning tends to lead males to withdraw from and ostracize their innate yang. The yang doesn't disappear just because the culture says it's counter to being your biological gender.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Elrond

How not surprising. I haven't read anything by him besides the raving endorsements on this site of the nowness approach, but as a whole I think New Age promotes a feminime approach.

- The ego is bad - you are supposed to distill your beingness to get to a broader state.
- Experiencing oneness is the best - individualism (in beingness) is bad.
- Emotional words like "peace", "contentment" etc are stressed, as opposed to more "active" terms like "passion", "excitement".
- Mindful practices like meditation are a cornerstone, where the goal is to be present and not really be active in anyway, certainly not think elaborate thoughts.
- "Going back to Source/Oneness" is the goal, always. This "oneness" state is always stressed as something desirable, and having a more focused and direct experience (like all of us) is always thought of as being inferior to that state.
- This as opposed to being adventourus, having new experiences, having a more focused way of experiencing reality, constantly "pioneering spiritually" (whatever that would be...). If used, these approaches are really just a means to an end to get back to Source, and rediscovering who you are. To get back to a state of passive oneness.

My viewpoint has changed since I wrote this and I do feel like tolle is rather yin. But he is old and wore his yang down with a lot of unconsciously driven activity before he awoke, i guess.

I agree with rei, spirituality is about balance.

[royster]

What I glean from my own experience is a pulse over the lifetimes: we start as the One spirit, sail off to the farthest parts of ego, and swim back to the One (I AM). In understanding this, I have shed tons of pre-conceived prejudgementalismolgicalimpressionoptic junk. The ego is a great teacher, and in all of its manifestations, certainly is the prompt to send us "home". As the goal is to learn, what better tool than something that gets you into irrevokable trouble? We've always gotten out; we just forget that we turned our focus back to the Light.

With this view, I can QUITE concur with the equal "value" of darkworker or Lightworker. For myself (pun just happened) I have had enough "me" for now. I need not drive a fat ego with an I.Q. hood ornament, aiming at people who threaten my beleif structure(s)...because they threaten my temporary comfort. It's REAL UNCOMFORTABLE after you run them over. Then there's the insurance claims. Or claims, period.

Hypocritical, I see. O shucks, anyhows.

My evolving view is that Lightworkers tend to the work of maintaining the Christed continuity. Somewhere along the line, someone put forth that Jesus did all the work, and we need only utter a few casual, hollow words. I beg to differ.

Jesus showed us the workings and "economy" of the universal structure. It is up to us to not only live within those guidelines, but also to assure they are passed on to the future...a future we will be born into, and NEED those guidelines. I, for one, want to make sure the guidelines I receive there are true and correct. This will occur, with or without me. I choose to let it occur with me.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by rei

But I think folks would be doing themselves a disservice, perhaps, to view spiritual exploration as something counter to their own gender. If anything it seems like it would be about correcting imbalance, since social conditioning tends to lead males to withdraw from and ostracize their innate yang. The yang doesn't disappear just because the culture says it's counter to being your biological gender.

If someone dismissess something because they are afraid that it might be effeminate or something, that's their baggage. Whether it is "correcting imbalance" is a value judgement based on if one thinks that there is some imbalance to begin with. Masculinity and femininity are concepts that are hard to define without any vagueness, and at the same time assert that there are any person that are employing them almost exclusively. If one thinks of masculinity as doing and action, one would have to be in perpetual motion physically/mentally or something to say that one is almost exclusively masculine. Noone does that, and noone emasculates anyone for not being like this.

In my value judgement, new age spirituality is heavily biased towards a feminime approach, and I don't know if that is a good approach or not. But from my own worldview, this approach seems imbalanced. Abraham-Hicks is perhaps the only school of thought that might employ both masculine and feminime traits. Abraham is "on the other side", but that doesn't mean that they are "ascended" and nearer the ultimate goal of coming back to a oneness soup of hugs and kissess. Being as focused as we are was chosen by us, not because we need it to get back to Source and we need this experience to learn a bunch of stuff that has been prepaved for us with karma and reincarnation and all that jazz.
No, because it is fun to be where we are, a different kind of experience than that of having a more broad focus (like Abraham). And it is about experiencing new things and creating thoughts that go beyond where thought has been before. And without us taking thought beyond where it has been before and expanding the Universe, then there would be no Source to go back to anyway, because it would seize to exist. We need adventures like this to expand ourselves, because if we don't there would be no mother womb to go back to anyway. It isn't about learning 1000000000000000000 lessons and then attaining bodhi and going back to a state of perfection (and they lived happily ever after...). there is no perfection because perfect gets improved upon all the time, and this expansion never ends. One could conceptualize beingness as feminime and consciousness as masculine. Without beingness, there would be nothing for consciousness to experience. Without consciousness, there would be noone to experience beingness. Without consciousness, there would be noone to focus and thereby take thought beyond where it has never been. Without Source, there would be no life to be borne from this expansion.

[royster]

Excellent observations, Elrond.
It might be useful for some to visualise the "Donut Universe"...this is what we're pretty sure it looks like. As you see this, you begin to understand that there is no "goal", and that at any point there can be no "judgement" about where, exactly, anyone is on this map. The journey never ends, just the experiences and the events that mark milestones. But these might be eclipsed by another sojourner, so who's to say "you're wrong" when in fact, you, yourself, are constantly "just coming around the bend?"

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by royster

Excellent observations, Elrond.
It might be useful for some to visualise the "Donut Universe"...this is what we're pretty sure it looks like. As you see this, you begin to understand that there is no "goal", and that at any point there can be no "judgement" about where, exactly, anyone is on this map. The journey never ends, just the experiences and the events that mark milestones. But these might be eclipsed by another sojourner, so who's to say "you're wrong" when in fact, you, yourself, are constantly "just coming around the bend?"

I enjoyed this observation. It always looks "new". But is it? Many people seek new experiences all the time, just so that they can satisfy there craving for something new, but really if they get to experience something new, it brings them that "same old feeling" of newness that they had yesterday. That isn't new, it's a repeat.

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by Elrond

In my value judgement, new age spirituality is heavily biased towards a feminine approach, and I don't know if that is a good approach or not. But from my own worldview, this approach seems imbalanced.

I would agree that the "approach" is feminine. But the "reception" is masculine.

What do we need to do? Nothing! (Feminine)
And what do we get for it? Everything (Masculine)

3 other permutations would be:

• Do nothing for nothing. (The passivist)
• Do everything for everything. (The working man's ethic)
• Do everything for nothing. (self sacrifice)

I really like the "Do nothing for everything" approach. My life is moving in the direction of doing less and less IN ORDER TO receive more and more. It doesn't mean I'm not very playful in life and don't have lots of energy to play around with, it's just that I don't do things as a form of payment to get things. It's free lunch everyday!

Originally Posted by Elrond

There is no perfection because perfect gets improved upon all the time, and this expansion never ends. One could conceptualize beingness as feminime and consciousness as masculine. Without beingness, there would be nothing for consciousness to experience. Without consciousness, there would be noone to experience beingness. Without consciousness, there would be noone to focus and thereby take thought beyond where it has never been. Without Source, there would be no life to be borne from this expansion.

In this case consciousness would be the creator, beingness the experiencer. Without the creator there would be no experience. So I would agree in this sense, that creating is an important part of experiencing. But I don't see consciousness as the only form of creation. Consciousness does other things too. It brings an environment into it to determine the available options of what can be expressed now, and then chooses some form of expression that makes sense within the environment it is perceiving. The sun is a symbol of pure expression. Pure creation. It does not need to "feel out the environment" in order to express. If it did, it would express the same thing anyway. Imagine that regardless of what the environment was, you were going to express whatever you choose to, and you didn't need to evaluate it's effectiveness because you believe fully in your capacity as a creator. In that moment you would have no need for consciousness, because one set of circumstances really wouldn't be any different than any other. Consciousness will never die, but when it's usefulness is no longer apparent, it will be laid aside because it isn't necessary to do what you love to do most anyway.

[rei]

Originally Posted by Elrond

If someone dismissess something because they are afraid that it might be effeminate or something, that's their baggage. Whether it is "correcting imbalance" is a value judgement based on if one thinks that there is some imbalance to begin with. Masculinity and femininity are concepts that are hard to define without any vagueness, and at the same time assert that there are any person that are employing them almost exclusively. If one thinks of masculinity as doing and action, one would have to be in perpetual motion physically/mentally or something to say that one is almost exclusively masculine. Noone does that, and noone emasculates anyone for not being like this.

Good points, Elrond. I'll also say, focusing on this kind of spirituality doesn't automatically create balance either. Lots of spiritually-minded folks could do with being more active than they usually are.

There's a tendency to move up and out of the body for the spiritual experience, instead of moving down and in and letting heaven (or bliss or peace or etc.) come to you. That's not wrong by any means, but there's also upsides to keeping your awareness with yourself and letting the beauty or the exotic experience come to you from that place.

[royster]

Syncronistic with this post
Impacted Energies

[royster]

I have taken great pains to insure that the terms of reference and subjects are universally accepted by a wide range of spiritual ’institutions’, both ’on world’ and ’off world’.

While we live in a world now fairly saturated with deception and highjacking-of-thought, it is essential to remember key terms-of-reference as a navagtional tool. There are certain things that don't change over the course of eternity, like the life pattern (Flower Of Life) that sustains all light. AND darkness.

[royster]

...as you move forward on the path of en-Lighten-ment, and you come to a better understanding of cosmic law and the workings of the universe, we welcome the opportunity to occasionally give you a better understanding of some of the concepts of Creation and the complexity of the physical vessel.

Archangel Michael's Monthly Messages