True Enlightenment

OBE's, NDE's, lucid dreams, and the like...
Posts: 2116
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:35 pm

Re: True Enlightenment

Post by dijmart » Sun Aug 03, 2014 4:58 pm

Sometimes the only way to avoid a war is to have a war.
Sometimes you have to do what you don’t want to do in order to ensure that you won’t have
to keep on doing it! This apparent contradiction is part of the Divine Dichotomy, which says
that sometimes the only way to ultimately Be a thing—in this case, “peaceful”—may be, at
first, to not be it!
In other words, often the only way to know yourself as That Which You Are is to experience
yourself as That Which You Are Not. CWG, Book 2
Take what you like and leave the rest.

Posts: 1930
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm

Re: True Enlightenment

Post by Enlightened2B » Sun Aug 03, 2014 6:28 pm

I agree with both Jen and DJ and karma here. I think everyone is right.

I was referring to War in general with my post. That war is never a solution because there is always an agenda with war that stems from an unconscious perspective of fear and separation. Granted, it's still a perspective that serves the greater whole in ways we can't possibly imagine as I see it, and I still would not label war as 'good or bad' from the greater perspective. But, from the relative perspective, war is clearly unconscious and so is the notion of 'survival at any cost' which is merely an animal instinct and often seen as 'the only option'.

Granted, it might be the only option, once 'in the moment', (as DJ and Karma are saying), I still don't believe in the perspective that 'pre-meditated killing for survival' is ever a viable way to live as an outset, unless we are killing for food which in my opinion, is part of the cycle of life. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that we can never act out of presence which, in some cases, involves killing for self defense (which again DJ and karma are saying), but doesn't mean that we need to uphold the mindset that war/or the mindset of kill at any cost, is ever a solution in my opinion prior to encountering a situation. Killing might naturally happen during the course of the unfolding of experience (as Jen is saying) as opposed to creating the mentality prior to approaching a situation.

You guys ever see the movie 'The Deer Hunter'? With Robert Deniro and Christopher Walken? Really good movie.

It's a good example during a scene, when they're held captive and forced to play Russian roulette with the guns to their heads and they have no choice, but to kill the Vietnamese officers who are holding them captive in order to save themselves.

This is a good example of how killing/or at least wounding is likely the only option in order to stay alive. Or the case that Karma brings up in the post above. However, it's still not a premeditated mentality that 'killing is the only option', but merely an act of presence in that particular unfolding moment of survival.

So, let's all agree with each other. Since I think ultimately, we all do agree here.

User avatar
Posts: 3787
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: True Enlightenment

Post by smiileyjen101 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:48 am

DJ said: So, I guess by what you're saying you can think of no circumstance in which you would kill?
No, I haven't said that, it may appear that way, but if you look again I was saying that the natural consequences of killing vs murder are the same - one is dead, one is living with the experience of killing another human being.

What I have also said is that each will do 'whatever' according to their awareness, capacity & willingness, in this moment, and the natural consequences of that will unfold.

What I did ask was -
Is anyone who is killed any less dead than someone who was murdered?
Is anyone's family of someone who was killed, going to grieve and mourn them any less than someone who was murdered?
Is the blood on our hands of someone who was killed, less or more blood than someone who was murdered?
A person who comes into your home & does 'whatever' does so according to their awareness, capacity & willingness. In response others will do 'whatever' in their awareness, capacity & willingness, and then yet others will herald or punish in their awareness, capacity & willingness. All naturally unfolding consequences.

But in the end - in natural consequences of actions --- there is no 'difference' the dead will be dead and the living will be living with the natural consequences of their choices, even if that is holding tightly to the notion that there was no choice.
If violence is our first choice - war on this, war on that, war on everything and everyone else we are choosing to 'maintain' the 'whatever we're at war with' as our enemy or obstacle to our happiness. What we resist, persists.

But planning for 'whatever' making enemy where there is none, that's a whole other layer of insanity. It doesn't have to be that way.

Scotland for instance is having a referendum in September for Independence from the UK. Absolutely there are people whose perspectives align with the for and the against, all within their awareness, capacity & willingness.

This time though (and likely not before time in the Scottish - English differences) it's going to a vote, rather than a war. Regardless of who wins, everybody has already 'won'. If they go to war again, regardless of who wins, everybody loses.

Natural consequences unfold, and even in the asking 'what if' people have begun to share perspectives wisely and peacefully, albeit fear is still being used as well. The dooms-dayers are having a field day, but the clarity of one woman saying you know, so far something like 93 countries have won their independence from 'mother England' and not one of them... not a single one, have asked to come back into the fold. Wonder why? :wink:

Only humans get impatient for the natural consequences to unfold and institutionalise 'punishment', or call on fear to impose control over others in 'preparation' for war. This is based not on reconciling differences, but on the love of exerting power over others. In order to maintain this power societies need to keep their citizens in a state of fear, and how better to do that than to call and maintain wars on this, that, the next thing and tell anyone who disagrees with our love of power that they cannot live without us.
E2B said: That war is never a solution because there is always an agenda with war that stems from an unconscious perspective of fear and separation.
And this 'fear and separation' mentality permeates everything.

Eg: In Australia our govts are telling us that the 'age of entitlement' is over - that medical care and welfare support for the disabled, the sick, the unemployed and the retired need to be 'reigned in' because 'we can't afford it' amid an aging population. That job creation or unemployment benefits is not a sure thing any more as it was in the past and that the public purse is stretched to breaking point. That our foreign aid and refugee allowances must also be cut. Bringing down the tightest and cruellest federal budget in our history.

And then, after the Treasurer and his pals have a good suck on their imported cigars, they go into debt to order $12.4 Billion in new war planes, not even being built here and creating jobs, nope, but boosting the coffers of other nation's war industries.

To 'protect' what exactly? This society that promotes these 'values'?

Our govt thinks it's 'value for money' to buy 58 new planes to 'boost' their capacity to what... kill more people, create more refugees, and making sure that its citizens are kept in fear? Oh and just because we have homeless people, men, women, families, returned service personnel, mentally ill, and no room for them in hospitals or shelters, doesn't mean we should spend our public money addressing these issues, don't be silly - it's easier to make 'enemies' of the homeless, the sick, the elderly, the underemployed, the refugees seeking asylum (from wars we participated in and funded), the mentally ill... it's more important to feed and house these new jets.. to the tune of another $1.6 Billion to upgrade two military bases to house them.

And then they say that they're buying these fighter jets in the hope that they don't need to actually use them????
Really??? Excuse me a moment while I go out and buy a tank on credit and build a new wing to my house to garage it ....
:shock: ....what do you mean the kids want some supper? We don't have money growing on trees you know, and I'll have to put in a new security system to protect the tank, and insure it as well!! :wink:

Can you see the ingrained insanity yet?

If we live our lives in fear, making enemy of this and war of that, we'll get to the end of them and realise we haven't lived our lives anyway - what's to protect?

(apart from the new war planes/ tanks that is?)
Hitler would have stayed in power if he was not invaded upon.
Hitler didn't commit all the murders and atrocities himself. In many ways the word as it's used now as a defence for war, the 'label' of Hitler, is used as a scapegoat to continue to allow the abdication of our own awareness, capacity and willingness.

Hitler or any other warmonger has (a lot of) help, with a lot of people buying into, and some even profiting from, the insanity of fear, on both sides, while abdicating their response ability and saying they didn't have a choice. Each responding within their own awareness, capacity and willingness of course, but not looking inward at that, instead reflecting it outward to blame their 'enemy' for 'making them do it'.
E2B said: I was raised part Jewish/part Catholic. So, I have Jewish family who can't understand why I refuse to take a side in the conflict. Maybe because I no longer see the difference between the two sides and only see the fear/belief systems unconsciously at work keeping 'war' alive in the delusion of separation.
There's an interesting poster circulating that says -

if I am horrified at the devastation in Gaza, it doesn't have to mean that I'm anti-Semitic / Israel, or pro Arab / Palestine -
it just means I am human.

DJ said: The prospective that it's not "wrong" to defend the body, against it being killed if one so chooses to defend it.
It's not 'wrong' to do anything. If you feel you have to justify it, you'll just spend your life justifying it whenever you think about it. Spending time and energy and resources justifying it in advance, that's a little crazy (like buying Billions of $$$ worth of war planes you 'might never need', but have them at the ready just in case you do :wink: )

No choice is wrong, it just brings a different experience.

But, we bring the experiences on our selves. Realising this... just might be 'true enlightenment'.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen

User avatar
Posts: 3787
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: True Enlightenment

Post by smiileyjen101 » Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:54 am

karmarider wrote:
Sometimes we have to be who we don't want to be to be what we want to be.
A quote from CWG book 2 above was further explained in CWG book 1 (which bless her heart, as I've always only borrowed these books from the library, my friend whose mother passed away recently gifted me with her Mum's hardcover copy ...aww, with so much love & gratitude). While I was pondering this topic I flicked it open to this page - p154-155.
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in these matters.
But by your decisions you paint a portrait of Who You Are.
Indeed, by their decisions your states and nations have already painted such pictures. By their decisions your religions have created lasting, indelible impressions. By their decisions your societies have produced their self portraits, too.

Are you pleased with these pictures?

Are these the impressions you wish to make?

Do these portraits represent Who You Are?

Be careful of these questions. They may require you to think.

Thinking is hard. Making value judgements is difficult.

It places you at pure creation, because there are so many times you'll have to say "I don't know. I just don't know."

Yet still you'll have to decide. And so you'll have to choose. You'll have to make an arbitrary choice.

Such a choice - a decision coming from no previous personal knowledge - is called pure creation. And the individual is aware, deeply aware, that in the making of such decisions is the Self created.

Most of you are not interested in such important work. Most of you would rather leave that to others. And so most of your are not self-created, but creatures of habit - other-created creatures.

Then when others have told you how you should feel, and it runs directly counter to how you do feel - you experience a deep inner conflict. Something deep inside you tells you that what others have told you is not Who You Are. Now where to go with that? What to do?

The first place you go is to your religionists - the people who put you there in the first place. You go to your priests and rabbis and your ministers and your teachers, and they tell you to stop listening to your Self. The worst of them will try to scare you away from what you intuitively know. They'll tell you about the devil, about Satan, about demons and evil spirits and hell and damnation and every frightening thing they can think of to get you to see how what you were intuitively knowing and feeling was wrong, and how the only place you'll find any comfort is in their thought, their idea, their theology, their definitions of right and wrong, and their concept of Who You Are.

The seduction here is that all you have to do to get instant approval is to agree. Agree and you have instant approval, some will even sing and shout and wave their arms in hallelujah!

That's hard to resist. Such approval, such rejoicing that you have 'seen the light'; that you've been saved!
Approvals and demonstrations seldom accompany inner decisions.

Celebrations rarely surround choices to follow personal truth. In fact, quite the contrary. Not only may others fail to celebrate, they may subject you to ridicule. What? You're thinking for yourself? You're deciding on your own? You're applying your own yardsticks, your own judgement, your own values? What do you think you are, anyway?

And indeed, that is precisely the question you are answering.

But the work must be done very much alone. Very much without reward, without approval, perhaps without even any notice.
And so you ask a very good question. Why go on? Why even start off on such a path? What is to be gained from embarking on such a journey? Where is the incentive? What is the reason?

The reason is ridiculously simple.


(What do you mean?)

I mean this is the only game in town. There is nothing else to do. In fact, there is nothing else you can do. You are going to be doing what you are doing for the rest of your life - just as you have been doing it since birth. The only question is whether you'll be doing it consciously, or unconsciously.

You see you cannot disembark from the journey. You embarked before you were born. Your birth is simply a sign that the journey has begun. So the question is not: why start off on such a path? You have already started off. You did so with the first beat of your heart.

The question is: Do I wish to walk this path consciously, or unconsciously?
With awareness, or with lack of awareness?
As the cause of my experience, or at the effect of it?

For most of your life you've lived at the effect of your experiences. Now, you're invited to be the cause of them.

That is what is known as conscious living. That is what is called walking in awareness.

Now, many of you have walked quite some distance, as I've said. You have made no small progress. So you should not feel that after all these lives you've 'only' come to this. Some of you are highly evolved creatures, with a very sure sense of Self.
You know Who You Are, and you know what you'd like to become. Furthermore you even know how to get from here to there.
For me, it's this knowing or not, that is our awareness, capacity and willingness. To abdicate it is to live the life others would choose for you. And he's right, there is little celebration, no reward, and you may well be at great odds with other in your societies and nations if you do choose the path of your higher Self. It's true. BEing aware of the choices you are making, and making them from the knowledge of Who You Are will set you apart from those who still abdicate in favour of others' opinions and beliefs.

Musing what one 'might' do in particular circumstances, and even more 'distanced' what another 'should' do as events unfold moment by moment, has absolutely no bearing on what one actually does in the situation, in the moment, in awareness and acceptance, or abdication of what is known.

It may be hard to explain it to others, especially if one rejects the counsel of the law makers and the power hungry, more so then. But it is the only path of peace with your Self, and only one at peace with them self, can possibly hope to attain peace with others. Again I stress, there is no rejoicing, there is no reward. But as he says, it's the only game in town. Learning Who You Are, is the only (real) game in town.

The more you 'portray' Who You Are the easier it becomes to know - to remember.
(Then may I ask you - does it at least get any easier?)

Yes, yes - it does get easier. The more you remember the more you are able to experience, the more you know, so to speak. And the more you know, the more you remember. It is a circle. So yes, it gets easier, it gets better, it becomes even more joyful. ...
So then that also goes in a circle, to the quote in the OP we are co-creators with life, and all that we meet and experience in it.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen

Posts: 2116
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:35 pm

Re: True Enlightenment

Post by dijmart » Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:07 am

From CWG Book 1, pg 133
This is the answer to your question, “If love is all there is, how can man ever justify war?” Sometimes man must go to war to make the grandest statement about who man truly is: he who abhors war. There are times when you may have to give up Who You Are in order to be Who You Are. There are Masters who have taught: you cannot have it all until you are willing to give it all up. Thus, in order to “have” yourself as a man of peace, you may have to give up the idea of yourself as a man who never goes to war. History has called upon men for such decisions. The same is true in the most individual and the most personal relationships. Life may more than once call upon you to prove Who You Are by demonstrating an aspect of Who You Are Not. This is notsodifficultto understand if you have lived a few years, though for the idealistically young it may seem the ultimate contradiction. In more mature retro- spection it seems more divine dichotomy. This does not mean in human relationships that if you are being hurt, you have to “hurt back.” (Nor does it mean so in relationships between nations.) It simply means that to allow another to continually inflict damage may not be the most loving thing to do—for your Self or the other. This should put to rest some pacifist theories that highest love requires no forceful response to what you consider evil. The discussion here turns esoteric once more, because no serious exploration of this statement can ignore the word “evil,” and the value judgments it invites. In truth, there is nothing evil, only objective phenomena and experience. Yet your very purpose in life requires you to select from the growing collection of endless phenomena a scattered few which you call evil—for unless you do, you cannot call yourself, nor anything else, good—and thus cannot know, or create, your Self.
Take what you like and leave the rest.

User avatar
Posts: 3787
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: True Enlightenment

Post by smiileyjen101 » Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:39 am

It is indeed a 'divine dichotomy' DJ.
This does not mean in human relationships that if you are being hurt, you have to “hurt back.” (Nor does it mean so in relationships between nations.) It simply means that to allow another to continually inflict damage may not be the most loving thing to do—for your Self or the other.
When it is 'ourselves' who are 'continually' inflicting damage - real or imagined... well then we need to start looking at ourselves, rather than at our 'enemies' for the cause. If each time we 'conquer' an enemy we set about building another one, at some point we have to realise that while we are pointing one finger away from us in 'blame', there are three-fold pointing back at us.
Of the past 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them, or just 8 percent of recorded history. NYT
And yet, we still think that we are 'fighting for peace' and that it's a fight that we can win. :wink:

Unemotionally, war is an industry - a big one, an influential one, and a profitable one for those on the 'right side' with the 'right connections'. This 2003 NYT article outlines it well I think. ... gewanted=1

One can't really get away from the notion that Insanity, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen

Post Reply