philk wrote:
So, my question . . .
Upon transition, does my individual personality/focus point shift to another of the millions
of meat sacks currently plugged into our common non-physical at the beginning point of
its existence (birth), understanding that there is no time and we are only 'coronated'
once, all exists in the now.
So, effectively, we just switched to a different now.
BOB: You've thrown a lot of different pieces of information in there.
It might be of benefit to parse it all out, but I'd more suggest that, for
your own sanity, you don't go there.
Just sayin'. haha
There is no "different now", and there is no reincarnation.
We've created these terms and concepts for things that we have little
to no understanding of.
There is no reincarnation, because there is no death.
And there is only one, eternal "now", that includes us either engaging
physicality, or non-physicality (the Guf).
I realize you're working with the words and insights iON is providing,
but I don't think you can get there from now.
You're, kind of, putting the cart before the horse.
We need to know what we are - what it is that's happening in the
physical "here and now" before we can delve into the unseen.
What happens elsewhere can't be communicated to us - it must be
experienced; only then can there be knowing.
Of course, as we engage this process of ascension, the knowing
blooms in us, but again, that comes from experience and not data
that is provided to us.
It's not really relevant, otherwise, to our experience here.
iON has tried to explain the process, but remains mostly vague.
He's even referred to the container the angels use to deliver the
departed into the Guf as like a "lunch pail".
Really, a lunch pale? Oh, iON said, "It's
like a lunch pail...". Is
this something we're suppose to commit to memory? haha
No, the answer is no. Whatever iON shares - most of it - he flips,
overlays, or switches around on us.
We may think we've come to understand something - we'll have this
neat and tidy visual image, or framework for something, but you have
to consider your concepts as a sandcastle - one that iON will stroll up
and joyfully knock down.
That's the just short, polite way of saying, be careful what you ask
for - only insofar as concept-making.
Otherwise, anything else you want, ask / wish away.
What iON does with concepts is awesome, because it keeps us in the
here and now, and focused on the dynamics of the engagement /
exchange itself instead of in our heads.
It's this immediate and lively engagement with life - the process of
interaction itself, that iON encourages and not the abstractions and
concept building.
This may be one reason iON said that most of what he's shared up to
this point has been for the 99%ers. Say what?!
It just means that the data has been secondary to what has been
occurring in spite of ourselves.
Oh, and I should add, none of this has anything to do with our "putting
things together". That's irrelevant.
What's happening is happening "despite" (the little despot) us.
It's that very practice of projecting and conceptualizing (i.e., making
our thoughts too rigid, or concrete) that iON wishes to disabuse us of.
In any event, back to your original question,
philk wrote:
Upon transition, does my individual personality/focus point shift to
another of the millions of meat sacks currently plugged into our common non-physical
at the beginning point of its existence (birth), understanding that there is no time and
we are only 'coronated' once, all exists in the now.
So, effectively, we just switched to a different now.
There is only one - this eternal "now". Whether or not you're here,
in this world, or in the Guf, you're in the same "now".
iON has touched on our position as regards the Guf a little. Basically,
the distance and divide we've assumed exists between us and this place
is totally wrong.
iON has said that the Guf is only about three inches from our left hand.
Is this the case? Ask iON. haha
iON has been intentionally vague on the matter, because it's a deep
subject, and one conducive to rabbit hole travel.
The subject may just be too outside of our frame of reference to serve
us should iON decide to share it all.
I don't see iON holding anything back necessarily, but more, in this case,
to use an analogy, of seeing the pointlessness of handing an instruction
manual on how to build a car engine written in Latin to a primitive
tribesperson.
When one "departs", they simply engage another experience of the now.
It happens in an instant.
When someone departs, their experience shifts from the physical world
to a broader, unfettered and totally blissful experience - in the now, but
just not physically oriented.
When we return, we return to the same now, just with different coordinates.
It's all one, seamless existence / experience of now.
Now, whether or not we choose to return to the same time frame from
which we exited the physical is another story. However, in that case, it,
again, would just be different coordinates - in the physical; the same,
eternal now.
Again, starting from right here, right now we not only don't know what iON
is, we also don't know what the Guf is (really), or even what we are.
We're kicking the words God and ascension around, but just as the word
earthquake is different from the thing itself, we still haven't had an
experience to which we can properly attribute those words.
We imbue words with meaning when in fact they have none (outside of that
which we subjectively attribute to them).
Actually, I believe iON suggested it might be interesting to pursue the
meaning of meaning. Just to send folks onto another tangent.
This is from Merriam,
Quote:
mean·ingnoun \ˈmē-niŋ\
1a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport
b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import
2 : something meant or intended : aim <a mischievous meaning was apparent>
...
An aside, as regards iON's comment that "What you can see isn't real,
and what you can't see is real", this statement undermines our reliance
on the visual, while simultaneously drawing our attention to that which
is outside of our attention and knowing.
In other words, that statement, if considered correctly, should leave one
in a place of a sort of arrested attention.
It doesn't just apply to the building or tree you may be looking at, but
also the images of the mind.
So, you're left standing at the threshold between these worlds, unable
to connect with either (psychologically).
At that point, you're in a, sort of, absence of space and time, because
your referents have been removed.
For me, I went to the ear to try to consider a sense faculty that might
offer some form of contact, or receptor for the so-called "unseen".
The point being that my mind wouldn't allow for two dead end roads. It
needs something concrete to engage.
So, if considered properly, iON's statement can place one in a sort of no-
man's land where one's being may be forced to either develop greater
sense faculties, or otherwise create a space of suspended conceptualization
that might facilitate the merging of the physical and so-called non-physical.
This is all dynamic. And, considering things are in flux, I realize you've
had time to reflect on your post and your position may have changed...
Maybe not.
As soon as someone says "past" or "future" (or a different now - not picking
on you) we start image-making; but these experiences all exist now.
It might also be the case that we have yet to experience events from our
past, just to further throw things a bit off-kilter.
Bob Neveritt
Login
FAQ
Search
