Janice Pickett, author, intuitive counselor, healer, actor, film and TV producer and friend asked the following question...
I've included (right) The God Code by Gregg Braden as recommended reading because it describes the how and ramifications of Heaven that is coming.
This galactic observation, below, which appears to be support of a broad spectrum Ascension that is coming, is a wonderful example that critical mass of awareness is not limited to the conscious awareness of the human-being parts of us who dwell on the spec of us called Earth. In other words, we (the individuated parts of us called humans) are so tiny; therefore, how could we think that a critical mass of a tiny piece of our infinite existence could be all upon which we have to rely in order reach a critical mass of awareness that would bring Ascension, which (I hope) includes a personal awareness that we are organically One?
Paul Goldberg, a Law of Attraction Coach, submitted the following status on Facebook:
"Love Yourself!...if you don't, who will?"
Metaphysical Life Coach & Public Speaker
A friend on Facebook asked, “Who really discovered America, metaphysically speaking?”
From an historical perspective, Christopher Columbus did not discover America.
Metaphysically speaking, all things always are and always have been. We conjured the context of having discovered a thing and believing it's true that we've discovered it in order to have a point of contrast. The contrasts provide a place for us to bite into the life or to engage in it. It's the only way because all things are perceivable only by virtue of their comparison to something else.
Metaphysically, we are literally one All-that-is, without points of separation. If this is true, when we discover anything, we are merely remembering a part of ourselves that we've forgotten or are newly entertaining. The parts of us include all things - even rocks and "their" particulates. Rocks are living conscious parts of us, albeit we have difficulty realizing it because we associate life and living with a heart, brain, lungs, blood-flow, etc. Our puny selves have opinions about what constitutes life or being.
Life and consciousness occur energetically. It's about energy vibration. The forms are merely constellations of vibrations upon vibrations reflecting upon layers and layers of perceptions amongst all the parts of us. When I say "all the parts of us", they include the quarks and whatever other minute particulates we've conjured to try to figure out of what we're made. Even the particles are made-up - conjured. Additionally, each of all the conjured parts are perceiving and reflecting those perceptions about each other.
Here's the thing... All the stuff is made-up. We are living in a product of our creativity and imagination. Even the experiences of a physical domain, life and death, etc. are the result of perceptions layered upon perceptions ad infinitum that illuminate a physical experience. "Physical" is merely a label we apply to categories of experiences, perceptions, thoughts, etc., which we call true when they are not. The stuff is real only to the extent that we actually experience it. We really do experience this stuff; however, the manifestations are illusions. They are real, but they are not true.
So, who discovered America? Nobody. There is no America or USA… There is only one us – US, WE, ONE. We made up a context called “Discovered America” for fun.
By the way, this Oneness thing that we are is also called Love or God. We are love. Why the contrasts? Because, we cannot experience ourselves (Love) without something to which to compare ourselves. Remember? We need the stuff that is not love or the resistance to love, in order to recognize love. We’re here in contexts of physical-ness to access experiences of ourselves that are only available in this domain. The physical domains provide all the contrast we need and desire to re-discover who and what we are. We are one and love.
Thanks for taking the time to explore these perspectives. I like to try them on like a coat and ask myself, “If this is true, what else might be true?”
Metaphysical Life Coach and Speaker
The following Facebook status and comment inspired this post. Thank you for the opportunity to look and remember....
Image: Courtesy of e-Potpourri.com
Thank you for your attention to consider this with me.
Perhaps to be subservient or submissive does not equal to be weak and dependent. Independence (being the source of and being accountable for the love that we are) and strength give us the freedom to allow whatever is in Love and be whole or holy in it, because we are faithful and confident to know that we are One and that all is well and perfect.
We are at a point of consciousness where we identify ourselves with the bodies. Maybe we're off. Perhaps the forms of us, e.g. men, women, dogs, cats, etc. are reflections, manifestations and aspects of our higher ethereal being - our wonderful flavors of light. The contexts of strong and weak are primitive labels of the fleshly physical experience. Maybe we're all opinionated chocolaty chocolate chocolates.
Let's try this on. In the context of the scriptures, to be weak means to be "allowing" and ready to serve Christly for Christian pursuits – an undertaking that takes more strength and independence than any other endeavor. The women of us are the backbone and the pinnacles of our experience and reminders that we are love and loved. Without which, we are lost and nothing. So, thank you!
Metaphysical Life Coach & Speaker
I came across the following Epicurus (341–270 B.C.)quote in a Facebook comment:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
First, I want to be clear that I am exploring and sharing a perspective in the context of the entire quote, not just, "Why do we call God, God?" I am sharing a perspective based on why we call him God withstanding the conditions that Epicurus presents.
Perhaps we call him God because we feel like adding meaning to things and labeling things. Ironically, the labeling is insidious, e.g. we're predisposed to perceive a category of "separate" or "third party", hence we refer to and apply a “He” when there is none. Maybe we simply exist in a being or a becoming state of is-ness that is God. Hence, there is just an is state. I know that may sound strange. Of course, there is only one is. Imagine we might decide to distinguish, categorize, define, judge, label and count is’s. Actually, that’s what we do.
Finally, let's consider that the label “evil” and the descriptors, e.g. “malevolent” are fictitious. We apply the labels “good”, “bad”, etc. to our opinions of a thing and call it true, when it is not. In this case, therefore, we hold the fabrication labeled “He” accountable to the opinions and the labels that we attach to them. Uh-oh, then who is accountable? declare that I am accountable with the collective I's (is) that we are.
Thanks for the opportunity to look!
Metaphysical Life Coach & Public Speaker