you are all things...in potential?

[isis]

isis, lack of awareness is what creates the potential.

what does that mean?
so you are saying u think that one is not all things at all times - despite what one is perceiving? but that one is only all things in some potential that exists only in the future?

if so, i can't agree with that

"this stone is a stone, it is also animal, it is also god, it is also Buddha, I do not venerate and love it because it could turn into this or that, but rather because it is already and always everything"

[zenmaster]

isis, lack of awareness is what creates the potential.

what does that mean?
so you are saying u think that one is not all things at all times - despite what one is perceiving? but that one is only all things in some potential that exists only in the future?

What do you think "potential" and "future" mean? They refer to the same thing. You don't have one without the other.

[isis]

"The more you are focused on time—past and future—the more you miss the Now, the most precious thing there is...the past gives you an identity and the future holds the promise of salvation, of fulfillment in whatever form. Both are illusions." ~Eckhart Tolle

potential/future = illusion. i still say "you are all things." right now. not in potential (if i ever grow out of this mindset, fang, u'll be the 1st to kno)

[zenmaster]

The opposite of potential is actual. Self actualization is only provided by awareness. If you take "you as all things" as the datum, and conveniently exclude actualized beingness, then yes, you are indeed what has yet to be revealed of your unconscious as well as that which limited consciousness reveals.
How does the identity of yourself as that which is unconscious, suit you?

[isis]

The opposite of potential is actual. Self actualization is only provided by awareness. If you take "you as all things" as the datum, and conveniently exclude actualized beingness, then yes, you are indeed what has yet to be revealed of your unconscious as well as that which limited consciousness reveals.
How does the identity of yourself as that which is unconscious, suit you?

i think all things have ultamitely already been revealed despite the fact there are (obviously) things presently concealed bc of a necessity or desire. & i think i likely know what all's concealed every time i sleep / lose consciousness/awareness...& 1 of the things that (obviously) isn't concealed from me right now, from my actualized beingness, is that i'm all things. there was a time this was concealed from me (most of my life) & the place i was then wasn't nearly as peaceful as the place i am now. i'm constantly reminded (thru sychronicity & other ways) that i'm all things, at all times, & to ignore the way things appear. i can't deny things appear separate so i'm not exactly excluding actualized beingness. i do not appear to be you but i've been made aware of the truth behind the appearance so i choose to see that despite what i'm actually seeing with my eyes so to answer your question it suits me fine

[xise]

I understand the perspective that we are all things in potential.

However, rather than describe us as all things in potential, I would describe us as being all things in veiled actuality. We are actually all things, but limited in our ability to perceive this due to veiling (veiling as a concept inherent in the first distortion of free will, not just due to the "veil").

I see our journey through creation is one that is self-discovery through illusion rather than self-empowerment of or self-growth into potential, though both are related in practice. To me, potential conjures images of a seed not yet a tree - we are all things in potential- and while that kind of makes sense, a better analogy for me would be the blind KKK Dave Chapel skit (a blind black man leading the KKK because he doesn't perceive he is black, hilarious btw) -we are all things in veiled actuality.

[zenmaster]

i can't deny things appear separate so i'm not exactly excluding actualized beingness.

You may not be excluding fully actualized beingness from potential consideration, but it is indeed excluded from awareness. This provides you with an opportunity to learn something, if you are inclined, or hide in the dark until you do not need to be reminded that you are all things.

[Fang]

"this stone is a stone, it is also animal, it is also god, it is also Buddha, I do not venerate and love it because it could turn into this or that, but rather because it is already and always everything"

Have you actually read this book? You've been quoting a lot of things out of context lately...

[AnthroHeart]

What density does your awareness begin to reflect that you are all things?

[isis]

i can't deny things appear separate so i'm not exactly excluding actualized beingness.

You may not be excluding fully actualized beingness from potential consideration, but it is indeed excluded from awareness. This provides you with an opportunity to learn something, if you are inclined, or hide in the dark until you do not need to be reminded that you are all things.

this is a bs post (imo)

we'll just have to agree to disagree again

---

"this stone is a stone, it is also animal, it is also god, it is also Buddha, I do not venerate and love it because it could turn into this or that, but rather because it is already and always everything"

Have you actually read this book? You've been quoting a lot of things out of context lately...

this is a bs post (imo)

we'll just have to agree to disagree again

[Fastidious Emanations]

In order to 'become' that which we have, anything must/musn't be possible/probable.
The rituals are more for sacrament, removed from their stricture one may see that visualisation is the conscious direction/co-creation of light... In word.

[Sagittarius]

In order to 'become' that which we have, anything must/musn't be possible/probable.
The rituals are more for sacrament, removed from their stricture one may see that visualisation is the conscious direction/co-creation of light... In word.

Why visualize when everything you need to become more aware is right in front of you and comes to you with time ? Visualization implies separation.

Why place context's when all is one context ? Context has come in handy to subsume other self and to see how to really communicate with them but all the different ones eventually become automatic and it's only the deeper communication about the one context that is seen and acted.