Oneness and differentiations within Consciousness

I wrote this a while ago into an article titled 'This Picture Has Creationists Terrified'. A puerile headline that gives away the Tweedledum and Tweedledee tiff between disconnecting polarities of one idea... that it is up to human thought to define 'Creation' or All That Is - and that such definition can be exclusively 'right', rather than a facet or perspective upon All That Is from a particular point of view.

Anyway... I wrote:

There are two 'creations'. one is depicting First Cause as if it were a time sequence, when of course it is always ever Now,  extending as all levels of expression, and the second depicts the differentiation of consciousness within Consciousness such that "Lord God"  and a separated human consciousness arose from 'the mist'.
Everyone is free to read as they choose, but if it (Bible) is allowed to be a structure of reflection for consciousness as to the true nature of Consciousness, presented in a language that can be accessible to the physically identified personality structure, then it is not read as a scientific account of the physical. Which 'modern' man worships as if IT (physicality) were the One Lord God from whence all reality derives, and whose 'secrets' he (or she) alone comes to possess and so have favour and validity and dominion as the 'right hand man'; "God's doer".
The mind that dreams itself alone in search of itself special is turned away from all that shares Conscious Existence so as to 'see' only as its own judgements and definitions dictate.
The urge to power is a coercive control mentality that would 'Lord it' over others and creation. But the True Mastery of Life yields unto its true Nature and 'Lords it' over none.

Popular religious Creation tends to separation and magic. Scientific creation tends to separation and anti-magic.
Consciousness is not in Fact separated from any of its objects, nor defined by them.

This response from  haloMarch:

I can't think of an accepted school of psychology that would agree with you. Freud, Skinner, Jung, they would all probably see this as complete nonsense, let alone today's cognitive science which would not even believe in your idea of "consciousness".

OK and ... so what?
I am not writing to the schismed mind that seeks to map and control itself as if it were outside itself - which is a derivative of the idea; 'lording it' over Life.
Consensus is a herd mentality, that the people you name did not altogether follow or they would be unremembered.
But the edifice of learning that grows upon a false foundation can never become true, no matter how diligent and dedicated the work.
You can want it to be true and believe it true and experience it true - but you cannot truly step outside Consciousness - as if to judge it - not in any degree whatsoever. Such is an imagination, used as a foundation and a lens and as basis for a currency of idea and experience. Such exploration is all well and good - but our joy in living and being is our true basis of expression - so if you/we teach y/ourself to be isolated and depleted and compelled to herd conformity, it is still y/our choice - y/our free willingness to accept or refuse.

Consciousness is implicit in every idea! Rather than assemble a 'private mind' - why not feel the resonance and relevance of the idea to your interest, excitement, joy and wholeness of being - and flow with it? (Or pass it by unused if it has no relevance).

This kind of consciousness is NOT coercive upon you. The Lord - if we are to use the term for Primary Unified Power - is One. Not a unified THEORY - though theorizing is ok too.

As you allow your oneness to express in place of a conflicted self-definition, you will resonate with All That Is and will feel pure joy. Nor will you need grasp at it as if it can be lost. Yes this is 'out of control or accountability' in the sense we usually use these terms, simply because it is not fearful and so not calling upon a fearful rationalisation and control.

I'm not suggesting anyone believe anything I write - I am inviting recognition within the reader. Make your own direct connection as your own intuitive discernment - but of course test everything with the utmost self-honesty. Mentality is ever a deceiver if it is not directly aligned with presence - no matter how earnest and rational it may seem.

Thoughts that leave the living context of their relational being are like money; they can become agreed currency, yet have no intrinsic value and can lose it overnight when the herd runs (or is directed) over a cliff.

To God or not to God is not the question!

I'd dearly love to tell you of the Nature of God, not truly lost but merely forgotten amidst compelling distraction and false allure.

But for now am moved to say that for each of us our personna, in its orientation and strategy, indicates a mythos or story 'justification' for  separation (of God), whether expressed as a sense of  loss, abandonment and punishment or exclusion - or whether experienced as non-existence of feeling, as a 'world' in which love is weak, unreal and in-valid, and presumed or rendered absent from the very premises of thought, self and experience.

Such is the nature of our idolisation of - and preoccupation with - our thoughts, and of our identification with our particular personality stratagems for personal self 'salvation' (in terms of maintaining or prevailing as our 'self' amidst otherwise confusion), that it is very difficult to find a communication channel open.

Conflict is the very basis of the foundations of a psyche 'separated from God' - and the mode and game of conflict is its game, in which nothing is allowed to interfere ... until the game wears thin.

The term 'God' as I use it here, has nothing to do with our concepts of God or belief in such concept or investments in such belief or disbelief. It is a placeholder for direct experience, that cannot be given or communicated one to another, but like Manna (in the Bible story) - must be received and shared FRESH.

Fresh from a Source we (humanly) do not define, control, edit or manipulate.

Truth, Is (and is inherently undefinable). This Fact is Stillness of mind. (The absence or utter ineffectuality of any capacity to define).

But the Expression (or manifestations) by which Awareness knows Itself Aware, has qualities that can be recognised as the Singular Unifying and Timeless, space-less (or Non-Local), Basis, Nature and Condition.

Mr Dawkins is serving well in many respects the deconstruction of an external God. His science is serving the uncovering of a similarly illusory 'self' presumed to be 'internal' - and no more valid in 'understanding reality via laws' than of appealing wishfully to magic thoughts.

Any validity of our seeming 'self' is not in its myth of becoming or prevailing, but in its alignment with Universal Purpose;

"Know Thyself"

The wonder and vitality and energy and abundance of Life is given to share. Or rather its Nature is Shared. It is Being All That We Are. To step out of Life in attempt to control it, is an "As If". On the basis of "As If", the mind can fragment and spin out of control into ever more desperate attempts to retain a mind OF control.

O Love aren't you tired, yet?

Who wrote the Bible?

Whatever seems to be going on on the outside - what we call the world - is a correspondence of something Prior to the world and the mind that experiences itself within a world.

The understanding of the Bible from a surface based perspective is like any other surface based understanding in that it merely serves to validate surface based identity. When the identification with the surface identity breaks down or begins to disintegrate, a more inclusive awareness rises through the experience of being alive. In all times and cultures there are stepping stones, bridges and transitional aids that serve the re-awakening of being to its true nature - which is always and already true - but had been seen through a glass darkly; through the definition structures of thought and belief that filter and distort the experience of pure awareness or being - into a polarised play of apparently conflicting forces. I am writing in the heart and I rest in the meaning that is in my heart to share. Words can and will be given meanings what not intended - in a mind that is inclined to determine meanings rather than discern meaning. True authority does not use external props. Jesus' way is not idolatry of external specialness - but a living example for our own heart to recognize regardless of outer religion. Truth is to be realised through our own willingness and acceptance and not determined by talk or thought - or our vanity becomes insanity.

Comment: I fully agree. But you have to find a less didactic way of putting it if you hope to convince the Atheists and agnostics here or even to help them understand it.

Reply:

I dont seek to persuade or convince anyone here. Your mind is yours to engage or to release to serve a greater trust - but not mine to manipulate or coerce. I like good company - and look forward to being understood­, but the love in a shared willingnes­s to honour and value life doesn't wait on being understood in concept - but only of finding welcome.

Is there a need for fresh ways of speaking of things that cant really be spoken - usually associated with spirituali­ty and religion? Fresh ways start from fresh foundation­s and it is this difference in foundation that cannot communicat­e to thinking based identity - because that thinks it already knows.

Receptivit­y isn't just about processing informatio­n. One may feel a communicat­ion without being able to currently make sense of it at head level.

Our opportunity - indeed our responsibi­lity - is to discern the movement in our heart and allow it to move us. If this is truly un covered and extended, then it truly shares. The gift may not be fully accepted or understood but I have the benefit of having shared and you have a witness for your worthiness of my appreciati­on.

What we say in our mouth is not the governing principle - but what we think in our heart. If we limit ourselves to surface ‘realities­’ we do not know what we do because we do not know our own heart. But we are not really escaping the truth.

Comment 2:
The cultural shift from story mind to scientific observing mind is beneath the seeming conflict between the Bible as heart-guide and the Bible as historically valid document.

The truth in a story is reflected in the heart of the teller/writer as well as the reader/listener and is not to be confused with the story itself - but honour the messengers of Peace. No image, concept, symbol or story can be equal to truth. The Bible teaches this. To realize truly we have to 'be still and know, rather than to imposture unrealized truths as if our own.

Science is not concerned with truth because it is inherently blind to the heart - but is involved with what it can map, measure and define and thus predict and control. It’s usage of the term truth is outside the heart sense of truth because the  'observer’ is presumed to be outside the observed. This itself is a story and serves as a mechanism and filter that brings forth a powerful capacity to manipulate the world - but with an ever depreciating wisdom - because it is disconnected from real relationship.

Thinking mind may define 'love, and relationship', but unless surrendered in service to the truth of these it is simply a way of distraction from intimacy - which is the nature of Reality despite that tricksy mind dissociates and hides in stories it wants to be true. What is truth to the mind that wants its own story to be true?

Invisible!

Comment 3 - not posted on HuffPo

In a sense, the form or world-aspect of a spiritual communication is secondary to the point. It reveals something true of your own heart and life as you become capable of discerning or recognizing truth. In defensive mind we will hardly listen, for one will be seeking to validate or protect the mind as it defines itself in your name. But self-seeking mind is destructive of true peace, love or joy and brings in time a willingness to reevaluate from a less demanding perspective, for we are not truly at home in conflict, limitation and pain.

When we open to the truth that renews, heals and reveals our freedom, what then tends to humanly occur is that the form or vehicle that served a true communication is lost to the mind that uses it as an idol - as an external absolute authority or power - and thus usurps the true authority of heartfelt communication, in support of private self-will.

Self-will operates as a largely a hidden or private attempt to control or manipulate one’s own experience founded on a usually unconscious but active desire to judge, which is a process of division and exclusion by which a pseudo sense of self is accorded reality and acted from as if it were true. All of our experience is filtered at this level such that we are deceived by our own mind and know it not - excepting we do know a loss of love, joy and peace no matter what thinking might be used to justify the denial of the heart, Soul or Spirit. And that is why we must question or challenge our experience from the basis of a true foundation and not from the basis of one’s own past based thinking.

The way that such guidance appears or arises in our lives differs - but the Bible, when read in a true willingness to listen rather than persuade or coerce the mind is a rich source of the opening to you of a higher law than human thought can imagine - and that cannot therefore be brought into the realm of human casual association without ‘taking the Name in vain’.

It is not possible to communicate to the surface from the inclusive depth because the nature of the surface is to turn away from the depth so as to engage in self-will. But it is also impossible to ACTUALLY disengage from true will or to CEASE to be what you truly are - no matter what 'experience' is generated to seem to prove otherwise. That which is untrue doesn't so much perish - as cease to be seen as ever having been real. There is a basis for the release of the false and the regaining of a true inheritance, but the mind that wants to study 'ABOUT' the spirit is simply a way to extend the avoidance of relationship.