Reagarding Faith......

[Navaratna]

I understand your point, Diana.  If "all is well" is believed to be a fact in real time, then one blocks opposite or contrasting experiences from one's consciousness.  And yet, as it is used here, the term has no basis in fact and is not logically derived; which is to say, it is actually NOT solidified and is not a mental construct. 

Instead, it's more like, after eating a refreshing bowl of ice cream on a hot day, when one feels inherent satisfaction, there is no mental construction needed: the satisfaction is just inherent in the experience.  Of course, when one experiences the vicissitudes of the outer world (where mentation plays a key role), this kind of satisfaction is not the most commonly felt response.  Yet, do you find, when tuning in below the waves of outer disturbance down into the deeper regions of self, that there is an inherent satisfaction there--not in the sense of escaping the outer world, but in the sense of feeling a bit closer to the warm center of Creation?  Isn't that what you sense when you purify and more deeply settle into your own experience of what you refer to as "acceptance?"   In that feeling of oceanic acceptance, is there not also a sense that--ahem--all is well.....or something similar to that?

I'm totally with you here. And I do have a a connection to that level of perception, with the caveat that I don't feel "all is well" for all beings.

Let me see if I can be articulate about what I mean, which I am dubious about . What I sometimes try to get across just doesn't fit well into words and sentences.

That feeling of connection is my feeling, my connection. That does not make unimportant the "outer world." I make a distinction between the outer world and the drama of the outer world. The drama is all human. The outer world includes all beings.

There are levels of consciousness, existence, perception, and evolution. Is one more important than the other? I may be able to enter that stream of consciousness that connects to all things, that is a beautiful wordless sense of well-being, but that does not equate to "all is well" in my opinion. It may be well for me when I am in that stream, but there are other levels of perception/consciousness where things are not well. By faith I presume you mean that this stream of well-being is what justifies "faith," in that at some point or level of experience all IS well seemingly. But what makes that level of consciousness or being more relevant than this one? This one is ephemeral, but that does not, in my mind, make it any less important than a million years or infinity. It all just IS. Would it be responsible to ignore one's accountability in any brief experience or interaction?

I cannot, no matter how much I connect to that stream of well-being myself, feel that all is well for the other beings in this existence. I can stretch my perceptions to comprehend the possible benefits of suffering for humans. But even then, there is just so much of it, and Ra did allude to there being anomalous and random catalyst and that they could not comment specifically because of it. I really can't know that people are without food and hungry without sadness. And I can't consider the very long list of suffering that humans put animals through, and plant life, insects—all other life but human without sadness. To me, this is not "all is well." And just because it's a fleeting life, and some think it's okay because we are evolving and learning lessons, and everything works out in the end, I question that stance. I am not a proponent of "the end justifies the means."

Maybe I'm just not evolved enough to be above the suffering. I have never claimed to be. But I challenge anyone to consider that all levels of being are equally relevant. Not just where we will be "down the road." Ra did talk about the concept of responsibility. Are we only to be responsible in certain circumstances, knowing that the greater reality is all bliss, and have faith that everything is okay within the context of that that greater reality? Faith would contend that you just have to have faith that it is. Well, that is circular thinking (or feeling), and great if you can believe it. For my part, I will continue to question and push boundaries and skate on the edges of consciousness.

I like your post because it does make a good point of illustrating that you can't just gloss over all the pain people are in. There is evil in our world. There's a tremendous amount of it. No matter how much illusion there is in witnessing it, or how much we hate thinking we are one with it. It exists even if it is simply a figment of my imagination. The idea of evil events unfolding still exists.

I think the way I can minimize all of the anguish is just the understanding than for however many years you've been alive, the current moment is spontaneous. I suppose you could say trying to minimize sections of time would be impossible. A "moment" isn't a defined measure of time and a second can be divided in to a trillion fractions, but my general idea is let's say in the current hour looking back on your entire life...or all life on Earth that has existed in the past has already transpired. It can be condensed in to the current moment, and because of the temporary nature of everything there's no need to dwell on any of what used to be. Past is past.

People are starving and will be going forward but if you weren't born in to a locality where something like that is occurring, I can't help but think that it isn't a part of your "souls" journey in achieving more self-recognition. It isn't a part of your consciousness unless you feel like making it a part of it.

I don't think it's incredibly selfish to think that saving the world... is not completely your responsibility.

I think something that has really underlyingly irked me about the way our planet is run is how much people charge each other for food.

The cost of food outside of a developed country is one of the biggest differences you'll see in the cost of living. Not electronics or cars, mostly rent and food. So what does that tell you? People in developed countries who make five times as much money on minimum wage, yet pay an enormous sum more in rent so the only money they oftentimes have left is for food.

But food could be so much cheaper...a lot of it is imported anyway so the cost of labor isn't really an issue. People being able to eat is just business to people though. "Why would I sell food if I wasn't making a decent profit? What's in it for me then?" the grocery companies think.

If the food prices were kept at their actual affordable costs, lower-income people in developed countries who already get the majority of all their money mandatorily taken from them as a part of their monthly bills..would never have to worry about what they eat or settle for over-processed crap and develop illnesses like diabetes and obesity or cancer. They'd have money left over they could actually donate to the starving people in countries where people are paid less. Or wow amazing idea--actually be able to save a portion of their own income so they don't go insane in a pandemic. It will likely never happen though. People are too selfish.

That meme about avocado toast comes to mind...lol "You damn millennials actually think you should be allowed to eat fruit and bread in the same meal?!" while a café in some other country would have it at a price where you could eat avocado toast all day.

These dynamics make me think that where you incarnate shaped/shapes what kind of issue you were presented with evolving around.