posted September 05, 2003 06:46 PM         

It is good to hear your Voice, Meili.

posted October 07, 2003 04:02 AM         

I do not know what Meili thinks, but I do not believe the soul can die. True, it can withdraw from the body before the body dies, but I do not believe the soul itself can perish. I have read beliefs to the contrary, and perhaps Meili thinks likewise ... only she can tell us that! I hope she sees this and responds - I would surely like to know her thoughts.

... and I think there is always hope! It may be difficult, but always hope!

posted October 08, 2003 12:57 PM         

What you said is very inspiring and it gives a person hope. It also reminds us that if we connect with GOD miracles can happen. This truth we know deep down inside but often forget.

P.S. if you get anymore information on this subject please share it! I think it's vitally important with the ascension going on.

posted October 10, 2003 04:55 AM         

A mistake corrected is not a mistake at all, it is simply growth.

Thank you for being here. (have I said that a few times already? )

posted October 10, 2003 07:56 AM         

To enlighten me, would you please give some examples of what could cause the extinction? Is animal primate without consciousness of the self. A form of insanity/depravity? I understand the physical mind achieving this state, but not the soul.

Thank you !!

posted October 10, 2003 12:35 PM         

What I'm talking about is extinction of the soul not in terms of each human existence but the soul life including all lifetimes. Basically what I'm trying to say has to do with ascension. This is what ascension is all about, and why we have such a desperate need to find the truth. It literally is a matter of life or death for the soul. We either ascend or get taken. I think we know this deep down inside on a subconscious level. All throughout history generations have been sending us warnings and messages because they new of the seriousness. We can compare this to a rose- it takes many lifetimes to bloom (I guess like the period of ascension 25,000 years) and for it to actually bloom it needs it's twin flame which burns all the old and ascension occurs (just like a butterfly) So if you don't make it, if your love or the love from life or society doesn't provide you with adequate nurturing your soul will die. (if you are at that point of blooming/ascension) that's why it's so critical to learn all your lessons in all your lifetimes to protect you, and like Meili said exactly, to stay on your path or soul extinction can truly occur. What happens than is another question.

posted October 13, 2003 09:24 AM         

The mind is ego with learned behaviors. The soul the spark of the divine, our first perfect state of being.

Your answers certainly give me something to think about. To round this thought out, a couple more questions .

Wouldn`t this be a horrible injustice to the primate? . What happens to the animalistic soul when the primate passes over?

Hope all is well and your goals accomplished!

juniperb

posted July 09, 2004 09:29 AM         

I am not intentionally being stubborn or ignorant . Some of it still hangs out there for me and doesn`t compute.

Perhaps it is my place to roll around in this pigpen of Earth school being more concerned with the trivial then the state of self enlightenment/evolution. It just may be the rubber I`m smelling as I spin my wheels going no where fast

Thank you for the insight Meili. Much more to contemplate!

The daylilys are budding out !!

juniperb

posted August 23, 2004 10:56 PM         

Deano, I miss your insightful Elf

posted August 24, 2004 06:57 PM         

Truth does not recognize any responsibility to accord with human sympathies. It is clear that man suffers, and, as suffering is undesirable, it is likewise clear that the universe was not specifically designed for his accommodation, since, obviously, the universe contains suffering (or rather, suffering is contained within the relationship between man and the universe). If the universe is an emotional entity, it is clear that its emotions do not coincide with man's. Therefore, from the scientific man's point of view, all phenomena may be explained only by equally subjective, that is, relative phenomena. Emotional value judgements aside. For example: Why is the grass green? Because of the conditions present in it's representation (i.e. chlorophyll, sunlight, etc.). A less satisfactory explanation would be to say that the grass is green because God wills it so. This may very well be true, but it is not verifiable by empirical knowledge as we perceive it. Unless of course, by God we mean to say simply what is, and by will, what must be. God, as far as we know, is not partial to the color green.

This may all sound annoyingly obvious, but it is the ground for further deductions. Since it appears that the existence, and understanding, of all phenomena is dependent upon relative phenomena coexisting in space-time, the conclusion to be drawn is that all is connected and interdetermined. The same is true of metaphysics as it is of physics; causal relationships determine all existent phenomena. To deny this is analogous to asserting that it is possible for something to exist within a vacuum, independent of the universe which surrounds it. Just as the nature and apparition of a tree is dependent upon its soil, location, physical laws, what-have-you, so, the nature of a man is dependent upon the universe which birthed him. An individual ought to be recognized as the sum of his parts. He is the necessary and logical result of his genes, environment, instincts, habits, experiences and thoughts. Everything for him is an influence just as he is indirectly the influence of everything else. This is comparable to the Buddhist teaching of oneness, however, this symbiotic unity does not appear to express communion with God, but rather, an unbreachable alienation from God. Man, it might be said, is only a part of God in the manner that a single cell is a part of man. The cell can no more transcend the laws of the body, than man can transcend his place in the infinite. Though it may be pointed out that a man, in contrast to a cell, is a conscious entity, it must be admitted that this elusive consciousness, as with all aspects of the universe, is itself determined by outlying phenomena. Because of it's unique quality, that being its ability to make an object of the world, we are tempted to think of consciousness as something other, something separate from these causal processes. When in fact, it is determined by the objective in just the same way that it determines the subjective.

Cause and effect is the essential characteristic of space-time, without which the appearance of change is impossible. If a body gravitates it is because gravity exists. If gravity exists it is because it is itself the effect of a curvature of space. The factors determining this curvature lie beyond our view of empirical reality, therefore, it is on the brink of their discovery that we are obliged to admit our ignorance. Likewise with the concepts of a first cause or an eternal being.

The paradox of free will is not a paradox at all. It can be explained by the very fact of our subjectivity; that what appears to us to be a possibility (or a potential choice), is in reality no such thing. The future will be as it will be, there are not multiple futures. Something is either going to happen or not going to happen, there is no potentiality. From an inverse angle, the same can be said of the past; what has happened has happened and, in relation to hindsight, which only exists in the present moment, what is demands that what has been could not have been any other way.

For instance: A man murders another man. There is undoubtedly an equation which produces this result. Either the man himself conceived of 'reasons' for the committing of a murder, or his passions prevailed, or some other unperceived cause held sway. To say that the man himself "chose" to do so demands one very impossible condition, namely that he exists in a void independent of all effects and is, by some incredible contortion of reason, his own cause. To consider him accountable for his actions it must be admitted that he is fundamentally evil and responsible for his own evil, or else such an action must be found logical (in the ethical sense) and he is himself the cause of his own awareness of logic (or goodness). This is absurd. Even by taking into account the popular belief that man has free will, such an action is inexplicable in terms of accountability. It must be held that either murder is a logical choice, or else there was some misunderstanding or ignorance involved. By judging one man innocent by reason of insanity (which is itself merely a misconstruing of the facts) and another guilty, we are plainly stating that the crime of the latter is sane. It is no wonder, however, that the masses do not notice this glaring inconsistency, for if they did they would have to find all men innocent, albeit misguided, and the idea of exerting force upon another would reveal itself to be unfair, albeit necessary for the maintenance of the social order.

Understanding the innocence of your adversary only makes his domination all the more distasteful, for then, all war between men must be seen to be civil war, specifically war not merely between brothers, but unwitting children. What we are wont to call motives - greed, selfishness, pride, and yes, even magnanimity, - are no more than the elements of a man's substance, like the shapes of his fingers or the color of his skin.

posted August 25, 2004 08:50 PM         

HSC, I found a couple of inconsistencies such as cells do have there own awareness, but I guess they can't act independently as the overall being, which you may be referring to. I agree about the injustice of insanity vs just plain cruelty, but sometimes the cirumstances could enable a temporary insanity in some people. Another point though, is that going to an asylum may not be as pleasant as a jail, plus it could take considerably longer to become free, but that's just my two cents here.

Meili, when you refered to people in asylums, do you mean that some do speak certain truth, but maybe we don't understand them? This reminds me of a series of books by David Eddings. They recorded the ramblings of many madmen over a LONG period of time, and then tried to deterime "truths" regarding a battle between Light and Darkness. You have also refered to such battles. Could you please give an example of such a battle?