On 27 Aug, 14:34, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> this seems in agreement with the mystic Neville's concept of awakened
> imagination, the law and the promise - his notion of how we create our
> experience based on our awareness of the law (all that is) and the
> promise (its unfoldment into our experience through our viewpoint.)
> Very nice.
>
Neville was/is correct. And I only first heard of him 2 weeks
ago. ;-)
> On Aug 27, 9:02 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Aug, 13:33, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I can't speak to Pat's motives, but I will say what I think in light
> > > of his work. He courageously outlines for us, the realm of
> > > possibility as he sees it. He tells us that we cannot change what is,
> > > which is everything possible. But we choose our awareness of all that
> > > is, our viewpoint. But doing this, we change who we are and live our
> > > potentiality of all that is. This is how we, as some say, co create.
> > > We do by making the possible real. We don't really change what is
> > > possible.
>
> > Exactly!! To encapsulate that, "Make it up as you go along; you
> > have no choice but to do that." In a weird way, when we 'make it up
> > as we go along', we are, in reality, 'going with the flow' and, as you
> > say, become co-creators, as we are the agents of God.
>
> > > On Aug 27, 8:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > The thing about it though, all of it is that here Pat is giving us
> > > > what he rationalises as a cure for man's ills, a system based upon the
> > > > spirtual belife of the Oneness of God, but who's logic is scientific.
> > > > He presents it as a viable system for the betterment of man, and yet a
> > > > part of it says that what will be will be, and we have no control over
> > > > that.
>
> > > > So why present it at all, what are his hopes? It is clear to me that
> > > > the uptake of this idea may not ever happen, at least on the scale
> > > > that Pat says is must. Who's mind is he trying to change and why, in
> > > > the light of his revelation that none of us have a choice in the
> > > > matter.
>
> > > > If instead then he wants us all to become more aware of the truth of
> > > > the matter, then agian how are we to do this, if we cannot will it so?
>
> > > > This idea denies us any sort of control over our Selfs or our
> > > > destiny's, so really what is the point of mooting such an idea to us,
> > > > if we cannot control wheater or not we belive it?
>
> > > > In short what are Pat's motives for posting this?
>
> > > > If Pat has motives then I'm afraid I am witnessing the evidance of
> > > > Pat's own will here, which invalidtates his claim that he has none,
> > > > does it not?
>
> > > > On 27 Aug, 13:06, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > What I like most about your work, Pat, is that it takes us through
> > > > > monism into a new paradigm, into completion with the inclusion of
> > > > > modern science, allowing clarity of the rational in the trans
> > > > > rational. I have been tossing around your no free will concept, and
> > > > > suspect that reticence to it may be a matter of semantics. I have the
> > > > > same trouble when people talk about the world being "illusion", or the
> > > > > world of duality an illusion. In our lives, there is duality, but
> > > > > there is also more, there is non duality. And we can choose our
> > > > > viewpoint, giving us the feeling of free will. We are at the pool of
> > > > > Bethesda and our own self image prevents our entry into the waters.
> > > > > Only our own higher ontology can stir the water for us, and in this
> > > > > awareness, we are the first in. But, as you say, we reach the point
> > > > > where we understand that what we are choosing is to be aware of our
> > > > > own divine nature in a different way. So when you say that it always
> > > > > is, but our awareness of all that is changes, not being but awareness
> > > > > of being changes- be still and know that I AM, this I can understand.
>
> > > > > On Aug 27, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Over the past few days, as I’ve returned to this forum and responded
> > > > > > to various statements from my own viewpoint, it seems that I’ve
> > > > > > caused
> > > > > > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have found my
> > > > > > statements confusing in certain ways, particularly in the area of
> > > > > > morality, which seems to be a popular topic on the forum based on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > recent posting titled ‘More morality’. In particular, Lee’s
> > > > > > reticence
> > > > > > to accept that a decent morality can be derived from my viewpoint,
> > > > > > especially in light of the proposed loss of free will. So, I feel
> > > > > > compelled to reveal a few of the cards I’ve been holding in this
> > > > > > regard. The following is an excerpt from my book from the chapter
> > > > > > called ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve described my
> > > > > > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the older members
> > > > > > here are reasonably aware (Essentially, it uses string theory to
> > > > > > describe the universe as a function of one entity of stringy energy
> > > > > > and explains that this one entity, the only entity that really
> > > > > > exists
> > > > > > is, in fact, God.). Note: I don’t go into the ‘damnation’ topic in
> > > > > > this excerpt; I’ll retain that card for a moment.
> > > > > > Now, of course, I don’t expect everyone will agree with my
> > > > > > theory, as no one, yet, has come up with a theory to which everyone
> > > > > > subscribes. But I expect that the following excerpt will allay some
> > > > > > fears people have when they realise that the NEW morality that is
> > > > > > derivable from my theory is the old morality. The difference being
> > > > > > that, now, rather than relying solely on faith, we can practice it
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the knowledge that it is based on logic and a scientific view of
> > > > > > reality (given that I work from a premiss that my theory is
> > > > > > correct).
> > > > > > So, to paraphrase The Who, “Meet the new morality. Same as the
> > > > > > old morality.” As always, let me know what you think!! ;-)
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > What is sin if there is only one actor in the system? Wise
> > > > > > King Solomon had the answer to that when he told us, in the book of
> > > > > > Ecclesiastes, of the woes begotten of vanity: “Vanity of vanities;
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > is vanity.” (Eccl. 1:2)
> > > > > > When a soul thinks “I”, he separates himself from the one that
> > > > > > is. Vanity is when we think “I”. This fundamental grasping of our
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > identity is completely counter to the concept of the oneness (rather
> > > > > > than ‘unity’, ‘oneness’ describes God as One without unity) of God.
> > > > > > In Ecclesiastes 1:9, Solomon says, “The thing that hath been, it is
> > > > > > that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be
> > > > > > done; and there is no new thing under the sun.” The first clause of
> > > > > > Eccl. 1:9 is another declaration of the oneness of God, saying that
> > > > > > God (the thing that hath been) is the only thing that exists and is,
> > > > > > thus, that which shall be. The second clause pertains to the
> > > > > > argument
> > > > > > of fate vs. free will. In our space-time continuum, all events are
> > > > > > extant in the whole of space-time. The future is just as much
> > > > > > “there
> > > > > > and then” as is the past. That which is (to be) done is that which
> > > > > > shall be done. The concept of obligation inherent in the concept
> > > > > > “shall” is also relevant because God is obliged by His very nature
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > perform every act at the right time and at the right place
> > > > > > everywhere
> > > > > > always. The third clause is saying that there is no new thing under
> > > > > > the sun (a metaphor for God) because there can be nothing other than
> > > > > > the one thing, which IS God. It is also a metaphor for
> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed from
> > > > > > one form to another; because ‘that which exists’ is energy that has
> > > > > > always existed and always will, there can be nothing ‘new’.
> > > > > > In the Torah, eight of the Ten Commandments are negative
> > > > > > commandments, i.e., those that prohibit behaviours. The first
> > > > > > negative commandment is, “I AM the Lord thy God…thou shalt have no
> > > > > > other gods before me”. God states that it is a sin to acknowledge
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > existence of Gods OTHER than Him. It would be impossible for a
> > > > > > monistic God to acknowledge an entity other than itself. After all,
> > > > > > He’s omniscient; He would know there was no other. So, too, it is
> > > > > > wrong and vain for man to acknowledge any other.
> > > > > > The second negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not make unto
> > > > > > thee any graven image…of anything that is in Heaven or on the Earth…
> > > > > > for I AM a jealous God.” In this commandment, God gives His
> > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > for the prohibition. Jealous, in THIS usage, means demanding of
> > > > > > complete loyalty. One is not permitted to try to depict God as any
> > > > > > one thing because He demands complete loyalty and, in order to be
> > > > > > completely true to the concept of a monistic God, one would have to
> > > > > > depict the entirety of space-time in order to be comprehensive.
> > > > > > Anything less is a vain attempt. To think that one could, in any
> > > > > > item, truly depict God “in toto” is vain.
> > > > > > The third negative commandment is, “Thou shalt not take the
> > > > > > Lord
> > > > > > thy God’s name in vain.” Here, it’s plainly stated. Again, to
> > > > > > think
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
