White Powder Gold, or Monoatomic Gold - An Authentic Ascension Process
My question Is WHY?
I am trying to understand some of this stuff. I have been searching all my life for truth. My search is from a sincere perspective, at least that I what I would like to think. I was introduced to this site by a very good friend of mine because I suppose he know that I would find the information here fascinating.
The information I have been exposed to so far is very fascinating and mind blowing to say the least. I have questions.
1. If there is nothing beyond the vale and all of this is a dream, then why the rush to pierce the membrane to experience nothing? At least the ego seems to give us some sense of existing, and some sense of passion, etc.
2. If all of this is scripted, then the creation of the alchemy is scripted, and all of the dialogues in these forums are scripted, then what purpose does any of this serve?
3. If this is all a complex program, and we are all part of this complex program creating an artificial world for those of us experiencing it, then why would you want to wake one up to the reality that they are not real? What purpose does that serve? What advantage is it to the individual to be awakened?
4. Who created the complex program, and tricked everyone to think that it is real? If this is a program, then 2012 is also part of the program, the economic collapse is part of the program, etc.. why? Why? Why?
Thanks for your answers.
The information I have been exposed to so far is very fascinating and mind blowing to say the least. I have questions.
1. If there is nothing beyond the vale and all of this is a dream, then why the rush to pierce the membrane to experience nothing? At least the ego seems to give us some sense of existing, and some sense of passion, etc.
2. If all of this is scripted, then the creation of the alchemy is scripted, and all of the dialogues in these forums are scripted, then what purpose does any of this serve?
3. If this is all a complex program, and we are all part of this complex program creating an artificial world for those of us experiencing it, then why would you want to wake one up to the reality that they are not real? What purpose does that serve? What advantage is it to the individual to be awakened?
4. Who created the complex program, and tricked everyone to think that it is real? If this is a program, then 2012 is also part of the program, the economic collapse is part of the program, etc.. why? Why? Why?
Thanks for your answers.
Views: 27
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Staple on -
Story: A Master meets a poor man in the countryside. The poor man asks the Master, "How can I become a rich man?" The master replied: "If you dig down deep enough under that tree, you will find a buried treasure and you will become rich." The poor man was delighted. The Master added "There is only one thing that you absolutely must not do or you will fail." The poor man asked what that was and the Master replied: "You must never think about a white monkey!"
-
Permalink Reply by Phantom Core on -
In reading the un-teachings, I came across the following and I am having much trouble reconciling these things.
“We fully realize that much of what we're going to be saying below and in the ensuing unteachings is going to piss some people off. There are at least a couple of reasons for this: 1) many are going to think we're arrogant when we say that we're enlightened and you're not, but that nevertheless doesn't alter the facts; 2) it will be an offense to many egos, many of which are the teachers and gurus presently popularly working in the world today - and yet one sure sign of not being enlightened is when the ego is offended, which brings us to:”
“You are not enlightened because there is no you to be enlightened. You are the falsity. As soon as you accept this with the vast majority of your pixel particles human stuff data morsels, having let go of everything that you would hang onto to continue the charade, your moment has come. We'll be touching you on the forehead. As we widen the "pipe" through, many of you will just simply begin spontaneously "popping" like popcorn, a process that is designed to happen at this time, which brings us to the next point:”
Can someone please help me reconcile these two statements?
In one statement, the writer says: “1) many are going to think we're arrogant when we say that we're enlightened and you're not, but that nevertheless doesn't alter the facts;” yet in another statement in the same discourse the writer says “You are not enlightened because there is no you to be enlightened. You are the falsity”. How can these two statements be reconciled? It seems to be contradictory to me. Perhaps I missed the point, but I would like for someone to explain it to me.
-
Permalink Reply by judith on -
Phantom Core said:In reading the un-teachings, I came across the following and I am having much trouble reconciling these things.
>
In one statement, the writer says: “1) many are going to think we're arrogant when we say that we're enlightened and you're not, but that nevertheless doesn't alter the facts;” yet in another statement in the same discourse the writer says “You are not enlightened because there is no you to be enlightened. You are the falsity”. How can these two statements be reconciled? It seems to be contradictory to me. Perhaps I missed the point, but I would like for someone to explain it to me.
You mixed apples and oranges. The first part of your dilemma is the others enlightened thinking of us as enlightened. No one here will use that term any longer because we do know that we do not exist and enlightenment is just hogwash. What brought you to confusion is the way you are reading the statement (in my opinion) presuming the writer call himself enlightened, when in fact, he, Jason Davis, said very clearly "many are going to think we're arrogant when we say that we're enlightened" --so when you read that again, you will realize that you actually have no problem or contradiction.
My suggestion to you, is to simply read, absorb, and just watch what havoc those labels and comments stimulate in your mind, which you use to understand. Are you taking any of the alchemy? The Unteachings AND the alchemies are absolutely necessary allies.
Best to you--
(written by both Joseph and Jude)
-
Permalink Reply by Chad on -
Phantom,
I agree that it is a logical contradiction to imply "I am Enlightened but there is no you to be Enlightened"; however, gurus and ascended Masters are known to use contradictory statements as part of the teaching.
For example in Buddhism there is the concept of a "Koan". A guru might make a statement like "Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?". The student would then spend many hours meditating on this question until they have an answer to present to the teacher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan
These contradictions help the linear mind stretch and seek outside the box of normal thought which is necessary because the Enlightened condition is not linear and can't be understood logically. Most humans experience life in a single point in time that changes at a constant rate and so you observe an event in terms of cause and effect. You exist in the present with a memory of the past and a concept of the future.
In the Enlightened state you can observe the past, present, and future of an event simultaneously and yet some degree of causality is retained. You can see how you are one with everything and yet you maintain a degree of individuality. Some more advanced beings can also observe an event in multiple universes simultaneously. These claims seem contradictory to a human and so the transcendence of logic becomes a necessary condition.
Consider this other example: while walking in what some call the "valley of the shadow" people claim to see their life flash before their eyes in an instant. A linear mind can't accept this type of information. You could see your life played like a movie in fast forward but not "in an instant".
I think that what Jason and others are trying to describe is the sense you get when you wake up from a dream. In the dream state your consciousness shifts down a level and your subconscious fools you into accepting an identity that is not yours. Unless you are lucid dreaming you can't realize this because you don't have the awareness. When you wake up you think: "I remember playing a believable role in my dream but it does not seem real now and that was not really me".
Becoming Enlightened can make you feel like a dreamer who is awakening and the personality you knew before would seem fake... or so they say...
Chad.
Phantom Core said:In reading the un-teachings, I came across the following and I am having much trouble reconciling these things.
“We fully realize that much of what we're going to be saying below and in the ensuing unteachings is going to piss some people off. There are at least a couple of reasons for this: 1) many are going to think we're arrogant when we say that we're enlightened and you're not, but that nevertheless doesn't alter the facts; 2) it will be an offense to many egos, many of which are the teachers and gurus presently popularly working in the world today - and yet one sure sign of not being enlightened is when the ego is offended, which brings us to:”
“You are not enlightened because there is no you to be enlightened. You are the falsity. As soon as you accept this with the vast majority of your pixel particles human stuff data morsels, having let go of everything that you would hang onto to continue the charade, your moment has come. We'll be touching you on the forehead. As we widen the "pipe" through, many of you will just simply begin spontaneously "popping" like popcorn, a process that is designed to happen at this time, which brings us to the next point:”
Can someone please help me reconcile these two statements?
In one statement, the writer says: “1) many are going to think we're arrogant when we say that we're enlightened and you're not, but that nevertheless doesn't alter the facts;” yet in another statement in the same discourse the writer says “You are not enlightened because there is no you to be enlightened. You are the falsity”. How can these two statements be reconciled? It seems to be contradictory to me. Perhaps I missed the point, but I would like for someone to explain it to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Henry Peter Raspernickel on -
Yeah, it probably could have been worded better. A better word is ONE. Better than ONE can't be written. That's kind of annoying sometimes.
Phantom Core said:In reading the un-teachings, I came across the following and I am having much trouble reconciling these things.
“We fully realize that much of what we're going to be saying below and in the ensuing unteachings is going to piss some people off. There are at least a couple of reasons for this: 1) many are going to think we're arrogant when we say that we're enlightened and you're not, but that nevertheless doesn't alter the facts; 2) it will be an offense to many egos, many of which are the teachers and gurus presently popularly working in the world today - and yet one sure sign of not being enlightened is when the ego is offended, which brings us to:”
“You are not enlightened because there is no you to be enlightened. You are the falsity. As soon as you accept this with the vast majority of your pixel particles human stuff data morsels, having let go of everything that you would hang onto to continue the charade, your moment has come. We'll be touching you on the forehead. As we widen the "pipe" through, many of you will just simply begin spontaneously "popping" like popcorn, a process that is designed to happen at this time, which brings us to the next point:”
Can someone please help me reconcile these two statements?
In one statement, the writer says: “1) many are going to think we're arrogant when we say that we're enlightened and you're not, but that nevertheless doesn't alter the facts;” yet in another statement in the same discourse the writer says “You are not enlightened because there is no you to be enlightened. You are the falsity”. How can these two statements be reconciled? It seems to be contradictory to me. Perhaps I missed the point, but I would like for someone to explain it to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Chad on
-
When I joined this group I stated expressing some of the ideas behind Enlightenment that I had learned elsewhere. These ideas came from Bhuddism, Lao Tsu, and numerous channeled entities like the Ra Complex. I have read and thought a lot about this over the years. It has consistently surprised me how different the ideas here are from what I have studied.
I took a look at Jason's Wingmakers interview from Maggie's link yesterday and I read all 68 pages. I must say that it presents a rabbit hole deeper then anyone can imagine to the point where it is very hard to accept; however, it does suggest answers to some long standing questions I have had that the other sources have not answered.
The biggest questions on my list are: How is it that humans got so messed up and what is the extent of our limited condition? Are humans the exception to everything else in the universe and if so why? Why is it that everything else in creation works so well except for us?
The spirits and Masters give little pieces here and there but I never get enough information to put the whole thing together. Maybe they don't answer this for some good reasons? Maybe it is because we can't understand and would not be willing to accept the truth... that our minds have been imprisoned in a false reality long ago by an entity who wanted to be God.
It's a scary thought and I am not sure I buy it but it does fit in with what some of the Masters have been saying. We are led to believe that Enlightenment is an achievement but Jason and some Masters say this is not the case.
When we look at it as an achievement or graduation we think of it in terms of the illusion we are trying escape from which pulls us back into the illusion. They say that we were once spiritual beings existing in higher dimensions. Why would we need to earn the right to return to our true home where we lived before?
I would appreciate some thoughts from people here.
Thanks,
Chad.
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph on -
"They say that we were once spiritual beings existing in higher dimensions. Why would we need to earn the right to return to our true home where we lived before?"
Chad,
the idea is ONE. ...so that entire line and James (not Jason's) interviews, -I heard them all three,- and philosophy, no matter how clever and deep into the rabbit hole,
is out to the waste basket.
It is that simple, that focused, that arrogant if you wish,
and that single minded.
One IS.
Nothing else holds water after that.
"Maybe it is because we can't understand and would not be willing to accept the truth... that our minds have been imprisoned in a false reality long ago by an entity who wanted to be God."how convenient bull of crap.
We can't understand that there is nothing to understand. That's the dilemma.
We can't accept/refuse to accept, meaning of ONE.
WE can't stand simplicity of it.
Even when we talk pages on enlightenment.
Especially then.
.All the teaching from the past was only needed to bring you here, and to now.
"The spirits and Masters give little pieces here and there but I never get enough information to put the whole thing together"
That bits and pieces of info is what prevents you to BE.
Maybe's time to laundry them smarts out.
Then you can say, you don't know nothing, you just IS.
-
Permalink Reply by Heidi Loehrer on -
"We can't understand that there is nothing to understand. That's the dilemma."
Classic! Thank you Sir Joseph.
:)
-
Permalink Reply by Henry Peter Raspernickel on
-
a forum assumes more than one, but there only IS ONE. therefore, reductio ad absurdum, this forum is great!!! but not as good as Olde English on a crappy day during the noon day hour of your life. fight the good fight or not it doesn't matter. hopefully, this response didn't waste too much of ur time.
Badge
About
© 2012 Created by Jason Davis.
