Ok, it seems we are in agreement. What you resist persists is a contextually true statement at best.
Dear Key Master, that we are in agreement is a contextually true statement at best
- what isn't?
hey smiiley, i missed the previous post.
Glad you caught it then!!
Attraction and repulsion are ideas to describe movements, and these ideas are valid within certain contexts.
Here we go again. Yes it's contextual, yes there are different perspectives and understandings of it. Yes we created by very loose agreement combinations of sounds and signals to signify contextual meaning, some of the same sounds have different meanings in different contexts. The same as 'gravity' doesn't exist as an individuated experience in the equilibrium because it would be balanced with anti-gravity, neither is there a need to describe the elements of 'things' or energies in motion outside of the contextual and individuated experiences of life in form.
My perspective is - all things are energy in motion at different vibrationary rates and frequencies - all things, all matter, all non-matter.
The universe couldn't be out of Equilibrium if it wanted to be. Its the worlds of separate peeps which appear to go into and out of chaos. The person doesn't become one with the universe through experience. Consciousness unbecomes 2. Can you rez on that?
It's probably not even right to say the universe is in equilibrium if there is energy in motion of which the universe is a individuation of influence - there's likely multiples of universes to balance our universe and others, and yes our universe is only known by the naming of it .. as in the equilibrium brings together more than that.
You'll have to forgive me a bit, I'm over the moon in love with the word Equilibrium at the moment, ever since I heard Don Miguel Ruez (the four agreements author) use it in a particular context. My whole being just went YES!!! That's THE word of the light! (the nde experience of all collapsed.balanced yet known by their parts from the human experience). The context that he used it in was that love is the equilibrium of gratitude and generosity
- which is yum enough but it can also be used to explain the depth of seriously-funny, wisely naive (all the seeming opposites balanced) and the whole shebang!!
This is the harmony/balance/understanding that accepts the 'width' of polarities but at depth - as seen in the light.
Just to be clear the definition that I'm using it is as - "the condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced, in a wide variety of contexts".
If the universe were the totality the universe cannot be out of Equilibrium, but in human form and even just in our universe we don't experience all aspects in the collapsed sense of that total equilibrium - we experience 'elements' of it in contextual dimensions (time, space, relativity, perspective) of individuated physicality with myriads of 'competing influences' in our experiences and perceptions of experiences, and absolutely - according to our knowledge/awareness.
As an example, in form we experience stimuli of temperature ranges we call hot - cold, in the equilibrium of the totality there is only the perfection of the balance of all the available temperatures - and of course it's 'perfect' in its balance-harmony. That's not to say hot and cold don't exist within the equilibrium, of course they do, as competing balancing influences within the whole, (equal and opposite forces) perceived by positioning and understanding in relation to the influences.
Very simply, say its snowing outside and you are in a perfectly warm room that is warmed by an open fire, generally if you position yourself too close to the fire you'll feel hot, if you go stand in the draught of a window or door you'll feel cold - and of course the wide variety of contexts are all but unlimited in the experience. We experience the nuances of the competing influences - even though centre of the room itself is a equilibrium of the hot/cold competing influences.
This is actually what is so brilliant about being in (human) form, we get to experience the individuated perspectives of everything. Ashley's recent story about the wave really being the ocean - there are elements of being an individuated wave that are fun too...even if it's scary and one might take it too literally seriously, forgetting who they really are.
It seems when all these competing influences merge into one the individuated nuances - there ain't no ice cream or hot chocolate in heaven
!! (forgive the use of that word in context' - I wonder if 'the equilibrium' could catch on). There also is no judging good/bad or any other competing influence, its all merged, blended, balance. This is the thing that is so hard for nde'ers and maybe those who've experienced it in other ways to describe. Equilibrium is the word!!
At the same time there is much that is wonderful about experiencing the nuances of the competing elements in individuated form (ala ice cream, hot chocolate, grace and fear, chaos and peace, joy and sorrow, birth and death, male and female, young and old, healthy and sick - they all are part of the 'whole').
Waking up ends the delusion of being the person. Those other ideas hold no weight absent that delusion. The person is irrelevant and in control of nothing. Agreed?
I don't see it as about control or of delusion - why is one perspective a delusion and another perspective 'awake'? They are both factors of individuated experience - whatever you call 'life' in form, energy as a human being experiencing the movements of energy in a contextual, relative experience.
All experiences in individuated form are factors of energy in motion by the force of individuated competing influences moving towards balance. I don't think it's the sole domain of humanity experiencing this movement of energy and enjoying the tensions and nuances. It is eternal motion and in order to have motion you must have competing influences in movement.
I would suggest don't get hung up on the 'law' of anything any more than you would any word used in context. It's a clumsy at best expression of an individuated experience of energy in motion - think gravity, think anything we've come to a loose agreement about the meaning of and workings of in context.
In terms of the loa notions / explanations it's just handy to have a commonly agreed language/word to use in context, no different to gravity conveying a notion of the workings of energy/forces.