:::How far do you take this idea of individual self-sufficiency? Should
each individual grow their own food? heal their own sicknesses? should
babies change their own diapers? I see our species as highly social and
interdependent. You?:::
In my initial post, I said: I am saying that our culture has issued forth
with an edict that it is WRONG or even EVIL to see the "self" as powerful,
complete, worthy, capable, and WITHIN VERY WIDE LIMITS, self-sufficient.
Our perceptions of how the world works are different indeed. I do continue
to believe that "within very wide limits" we are a self-sufficient species.
Does that mean that babies must change their own diapers? No indeed.
Not a reasonable thought. But then, perhaps, there is more than just the
immediate to consider. You see, I don’t believe children are born to us
unwillingly. I believe children choose their parents, just as parents
choose those same children. Weird, huh? I believe in the eternal validity
of the soul, and if something "can be" eternal, then it must exist without
beginning - just as the singularity exists beyond the reaches of time (thus
space). Something can’t be eternal if it has a beginning. That’s the
difference between finite and infinite. Then again, if one considers the
body of man (or the universe, as the case may be) as a singular, sentient
entity - singularity - then such notions are not so extreme or
unreasonable. In fact, they begin !
!
to show themselves as a stable contrast against an insane, seemingly out of
control world.
The notion that the souls of children are created through a sexual act
cannot conform to my understanding. I believe that consciousness creates
matter, and not the other way around. You, obviously, believe differently.
But the real question is - how sufficient are we. Let me approach this
again with the issue of diapers. Given my understanding of how this world
works, perhaps my children would not wear diapers and your children would.
In no case then, is the child required to change its own diapers. Perhaps
my child would wear diapers, a most likely occurrence, but the child being
born to me in this century would come to me (into this life) with an
awareness (and agreement) that diapers would be part of the experience.
The child’s utter dependence is an understood part of an agreement a soul
must make prior to entering a body, as are other considerations.
Should we grow our own food? If that’s what you want to do in the world
you choose to create, grow with joy! If that is not what you want to do,
then do what you love to do, and do it with joy! Food will be provided.
Simply believe it will be, and it will be.
Should we heal ourselves? Of course - if you believe you need and want a
healing - there can be no other way. I believe all illnesses are "belief
based" – all illnesses are thought forms - thus mutable.
But, I still haven’t really answered your question - the larger question
of "how self-sufficient are we"? Understand first that when I look out on
my world, I see evidence of the existence of a myriad of worlds - a
veritable banquet of unlimited possibilities - a host of coexisting
dimensions - each a part of the other.
It is "mine" to accept total responsibility for that "dimension" of life
that is at this particular moment in time known as "Gail". It is "yours"
to accept total responsibility for that dimension of life that is Howard in
this particular moment in time. At the same time, Gail and Howard also
live as parts of encompassing dimensions, and in that context only, we are
part of this "greater" reality. This greater reality, in my belief, exists
with as much validity and autonomy and "sentience" as Gail and Howard exist.
Here is an example. A couple of molecules of oxygen and a molecule of
hydrogen decide to form a relationship. Each element (in my belief
structure) is sentient. The molecules might well see themselves as
individual, unconnected units hanging around with one another for whatever
reasons, but when you and I look at the "relationship" they are having, we
see a droplet of water. I believe "relationships" are as sentient as you
and I are. Relationships are the "glue" that holds the fabric of our lives
together.
The idea of relationships being sentient, powerful beings, is not
inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings - even though it is in great conflict
with the teachings of the church that is known as "Christian". Jesus said
"where two or more come together, there am I". In other traditions, Nirvana
is the attainment of at-oneness. It is an idea of gestalt - where the sum
is greater than the total of its parts - not an unknown notion. In quantum
physics it is an aspect of a singularity - in the metaphysical, it is a
notion of synergy. There is great evidence to accept such notions.
Einstein, in his relativity theory (those parts now known as Law) detailed
these relationships, though he did not go so far as to credit them with
sentience (though I suspect that if he were at his prime today, he would).
Relativity is about relationships. Without relationships, nothing can
exist. In essence, life is a relationship and a myriad of relationships.
If I stand outside of a particular relat!
!
ionship, the "event" that is occurring will look different than if I stand
inside that same event. If we are both looking at the same "event" and you
are going in one direction and I am going in another - at whatever velocity
- then you and I will see something different.
In a purely physical world, without the ability to maintain a relationship,
be it with another person, or with a piece of wood, or with ourselves, we
would be brain dead - nonsentient - not alive, even if our bodies exist,
and sentience is restricted to that which exists on a cellular level -
where cooperation and relationships can be maintained.
Given that, absolute, total, autonomy and existence without thought for or
about another person, is not life. We can never be fully separated from
one another. It is not possible. We are a single unit.
I am going to try to abbreviate this a little:
The "greater" reality that the Gail that I recognize myself as this minute,
and the Howard that you recognize yourself as this minute, are not static.
Life is much vaster and grander than we have been "brainwashed" into
believing. There are an uncountable number of other realities where Gail's
and Howards coexist. As I said earlier, it is "mine" to accept
responsibility for the whole of the life experience known as Gail at this
moment..
This being said, when I choose to change the nature of my reality, I am
really simply walking into another reality where the circumstances are
different. Perhaps I will walk into a reality where another definition of
Howard exists, as well as another definition of Gail. The old reality
doesn’t go away or even cease to exist. It simply ceases to be the focus
of my attention in my own life. In this regard, I don’t separate myself
from people, though relationships must, in consequence, change (because of
the change in POSITION and MOTION).
My focus in this discussion is that a belief in separateness (and the fear
that evokes) is central to the maintenance of violence in our cultures. A
belief in unity (I can’t hurt you without hurting myself) re-establishes
trust and strengthens relationships. (In helping you, I help myself AND
PERHAPS OF GREATER IMPORTANCE: when I help myself, I help you). In
judging ourselves and our neighbors harshly, we judge ourselves harshly.
In judging ourselves, we limit ourselves, and it is our "believed in"
limits that forms the invisible prison walls around us.
I really can’t, in a few brief pages, explain the whole of Quantum
mechanics, the Seth philosophy, and Jesus’ teachings - a singular idea in
my opinion. I can only say that we live in a world where we are held
captive by a belief in lack when it is just as easy to live in a world set
free by a belief in abundance. The idea that I create my reality while you
create yours does not leave room for me to dictate your life to you or for
you to dictate my life to me. If I see myself as being victimized by you,
then perhaps what I am really seeing is my belief in my powerlessness and
vulnerability. Beliefs can be changed. That is within our power. I am
not conferred with the power to determine the nature of your reality. That
is not within my power. It is, however, in my power, to "believe" that you
have power over me. In such a case, the evidence will support the belief.
Simply that simple.
It is just as easy to believe in a world embracing peace as it is to
believe in a world embracing violence.
It is my understanding that the average person works almost six months a
year to pay taxes (State included). It is also my understanding that a
full 50% of our Federal tax dollar is spent on military issues. Let’s say
then, that the average person spends no less than 3 hours of every work day
in order to benefit the military industrial complex. How many hours a day
does that same person work to support the cause of world peace?
I am simply saying that for as long as an individual chooses to work at
least three hours a day to financially support war and violence, and that
same individual chooses to work no hours a day supporting global peace and
harmony, that fear, powerlessness, and a sense of separation is a natural
consequence. War (including street violence) is nothing more than fear
made manifest. We cannot inflict random acts of violence upon another
without reaffirming our belief in our vulnerability to random acts of
violence. When we reaffirm our vulnerability and powerlessness, we
strengthen our fears, and when we are afraid, we are unstable - a danger to
the physical life and well-being of all those who share in that same belief.
When I change my focus, and spend my "TIME" differently, that time responds
by presenting a different set of "natural consequences" to me.
A final "sum it up": When our species decides to accept a more accurate
definition of time, then unity can be achieved and war can come to an end.
When the powerless masses in our cities’ slums understand the POWER that a
better understanding of the nature of time promises - as an unavoidable,
natural consequence - they will no longer be sucking your life force and
financial resources in order to survive through a belief in lack and
limits. They will instinctively be contributors - because who would choose
lack when abundance is so readily available. Who would choose to walk away
from a hungry sparrow when he holds a sack of grain? Who would refuse to
deny the knowledge to his neighbor that protects him (and all who believe
like him) from the threats that a lack of such knowledge presents to those
who live in the fear that such massiv
------------------------
This message originated from the Nonviolence Discussion Board found at
http://www.nonviolence.org/board. Public replies can be made there.
Explore the Nonviolence Web at http://www.nonviolence.org/