zoofence.com

Here are excerpts from a recent interesting email conversation I have had with a friend of TZF ("aaron9412" on Open Forum) --

In "falling from grace" by eating from the tree of knowledge, did we create our own egotistical selves?

So, according to the bible's metaphor, we ate knowledge in the form of a tree.

To eat: to take into one’s self and use it to continue being one's self.
Knowledge: the first person perspective of what we observe around us/me [and within us/me].
Tree: the shape created by the initial fall from grace (self separation) as we began to reproduce, creating a multitude from the one.

Did we, as humans, simply begin to think of ourselves as a "we" and an "us" and a "you"? And at this point, did we forget we were "Me" and "Yes" and "All"?

Quoting from TZF's Gazebo
"'Can Romeo ever really know who he is? Can he ever know Shakespeare?
Can Laurence Olivier play Romeo so effectively that he forgets he is Olivier?
If so, might he then, at some point, prompted by some inner alarm, seek to remember he is Olivier?'"

Are Jesus and Buddha and Muhammad our/all's inner alarms?

Their coming brought the holy spirit/enlightenment (which is maybe just a hint at the fact we were once an "All").

Before this, there had only been glimpses, through profits and older religions, all of whom yearned to find there true all-ness again, [as represented by Oliver] and all of these were declining as we became more of the "Romeo" (me/us/you) self. But with the "savior" (they must be singular while plural, just as humans should be singular while plural), are we jerking awake from beginning to sleep, and now slowly waking up to remember who we are?

---

You wrote, "Did we, as humans, simply begin to think of ourselves as a "we" and an "us" and a "you"? And at this point, did we forget we were "Me" and "Yes" and "All"?"

Surely it must be so. The lingering question is, Why?

Is the "creation" of the egoic perspective ("I am me, and you aren't me") part of Creation Itself, inevitably, intentionally constantly tending toward Enlightenment & Self-Realization? If God is All There Is (and if God , whatever that means, is Infinite, then how can it be otherwise?) then presumably it follows that nothing can interfere with God's Will.

In that case, then the answer must be, Yes, the Fall is Prelude to the Rise.

And, yes, as you suggest, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Nisargadatta, Ramana, Rumi and others, are our alarm bells, reminders from those who have Awakened (once again "I" not "we") that we too must (shall) Awaken.

-----

If there is nothing to get in God's way, then what need is there for hell?

If perfection was eventually intended, wouldn't there be no possible way for any human to fail, and therefore we should all again be one?

---

You wrote, "what need is there for hell?"

Exactly.

What precisely is hell? Where is hell? Is it possible that hell is a state of mind, and exists only in our minds?

If God is All There Is, as must be so if God is Infinite, then God is heaven-and-hell and everything else, including in ways we do not understand, ourselves.

We are who and where we are (God). We don't become something, because there is nothing else to be, except God. We don't go anywhere because there is nowhere else to be, except God.

Of course, we do not understand what that means, but it is True nonetheless. Our task, as seekers, is to discover what it means!

You wrote, "therefore we should all again be one?"

We already are One, because there is nothing else but One, God.

Why don't we know that? Why don't we feel that?

That's the question every seeker struggles with.

And what a joy it is ... most of the time, yes?

You asked what need is there of hell. Take my word for it, there is no need for God to create hell. I did that all alone, for myself. As it turned out, it was God manifested as my spiritual undertaking, which got me out of hell.

In AA we have a saying: "I do not need to fear going to hell -- I have already been there."

C. S. Lewis also addressd the issue, stating that "Hell is so small that if a single small bird in heaven swallowed it whole, he would not be aware he had done so." And he identified hell as a state of mind, I think, in the statement "All who are in hell, choose it." (That's from The Great Divorce.)

To one who chooses hell, all of the universe is hell; even the joys and pleasures are forms of hell; even hope and aspiration become hell; because there can really be no "partly" in the universe. "You cannot be totally committed sometimes." Choose again, and all the universe is "heaven" instead. ACIM tells us, "I could see peace instead of this."

Jai Ram
Art

There seems to be a basic core concept of a person in the world. This seems to be happening, but it's happening by itself... don't know why. How can I? I'm not here. There is no hell or a people who fell from grace, no Shakespeare or Jesus, no waking up. We don't know or feel oneness because there is no us to feel it. Still there is a sense of oneness.

We don't know or feel oneness because there is no us to feel it. Still there is a sense of oneness.

Very nice!

In an earlier thread, I mention the passage in the Gita (Chapter 11) in which Krishna gives Arjuna "a divine eye" with which

Arjuna saw what he had always been seeing, the universe. It was not a new or different or higher or esoteric or even more spiritual universe; in fact, it was not in any way a better universe. It was just the universe.

But there was one difference, and that difference makes all the difference. With his "human" eyes, Arjuna saw the universe as consisting of "manifold divisions." With his "Divine Eye," Arjuna saw the universe "all in one."

What the Gita doesn't say in those lines is that what Arjuna actually saw with Krishna's Divine Eye was ... is ... himself.