Reply To: Authors Ask: Do We Live in a Participatory Universe?

////Reply To: Authors Ask: Do We Live in a Participatory Universe?
#7270 Score: 1

Aurora Carlson
Keymaster
110 votes
@aurorac

Dear @robin and @jenniferl , I love our discussion and talking with you, I feel like a field flower opening wide to drink the freshness of the morning light.

So, we are reflecting on the purpose of words, on how focusing opens up new realities, on the state of the world, and on how to express spirit in such way that our planet is healed.

I agree with you Robin, words paint worlds, actually it’s not the words themselves, but the quality behind them, some would say their energy. Someone can say the perfect words but they convey something totally different (and I’m thinking of a particular president as a good example), someone can say tough words but we know there are the best intentions behind. Further, some need say nothing at all and their energy conveys their message clearly. All of this, as you Robin say, is a sign that “words (and I would add energy) create, or reflect, who we are and what moves us.”

But this is only true if “who we are” is the person, meaning a particular perspective. So even if we are aware that our energy/words paint=create the world… there is the personal perspective to consider. As long as there is a personal perspective, things will look differently for us all, regardless of words. Some examples:

I once used the words “Being, the Higher Self, God or whatever you want to call it” here on the forum, the word “whatever” meaning the traditional “pick your choice”. To someone else, holding another perspective on what is allowed when discussing God and also used to the slang meaning of the same word, that was an incredible insult. So… have I painted a world of clarity with my words or have I desacralized the Sacred itself?

Another example: A man thanks his wife for being a good wife and keeping the home tidy with a bouquet of flowers and a card saying “Thank you honey”. Perfect, loving words from a perfect husband? Yes, but not if the wife considers that she is an equal in the work done to keep the family going and wants equal access to the income and sure, why not flowers too.

A third example: A country leader represents a country that at one point has chosen a different political system than its neighbors and has kept going in that direction. As the other countries took other directions, that country and leader was increasingly criticized and derided for the different ideas, and was threatened with both arms and exclusion from the club. Not seeing anything of value in its opponents who see nothing of value in him, that leader refuses to obey. Are his inflammatory words a triumphant demonstration of the courage of a sane David against the evil Goliat or is he a mad worthless and dangerous fool surrounded by sane responsible people?

We all paint worlds, and we paint ourselves and each other. Sometimes we agree with how we are painted, and sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we fight to be “repainted” in what we believe are out true colors. But really… what are our true colors if not all of them?

What is the color of our world, in reality? Can it be so that it has all colors, and as Jennifer reminds us, as Deepak has written in probably all his books, as Menas affirms with this book and his work… there is a choice?

But is that choice really with the person? The person has a personal perspective and cannot escape it unless the person becomes another person 🙂 The person is stuck, it is a construct, and it cannot construe anything other than its particular view.

Spirit, on the other hand… spirit is free. Spirit is not afraid of any of its colors, and can choose as easily as placing an intention. As I see it, Spirit doesn’t paint dark colors other than for contrast and maybe fun. But any darkly coloured spot has a free will to change shade, if it knows itself as the wholeness of all colors and not as that particular nuance.

So how do we paint our world with brighter colors? Only from Spirit, only from the silence which knows itself as the transcendent source of any word and world, and who paints with an intelligent wholeness perspective impossible to hold by a localized mind. Being that is, as I see it, the only “act” that is needed and can change anything in our collective painting. What exactly we say … well… as I tried to explain above, that will have different effects depending on who is listening. But being, just being who we truly are, being it with clarity, extracting ourselves from the myriad of battles fought among the myriad of perspectives, no longer placing value on any of them, but placing the value where it belongs- in being, no longer painting each other as persons but accepting that we all are the undivided being … such are the “things” we need to do I would say.

What say you my friends? 🙂

This post has received 1 vote up.
X