What Is The Akashic Record?

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

I will no doubt upset many people with this question or with my answer. I am aware that there is a large base of people installed who make a living by the Akashic Record. They charge for classes, readings, etc. Similarly, there is a large number of people invested in accessing what they call the “Akashic Record,” who are convinced that they must find its wisdom outside of themselves. They believe that they have to go outside of themselves, into the universe, to find this wisdom.

Elaborate techniques exist to access these memories and bring them out or into life. However when I look at these techniques and what is brought back, more importantly, when I feel into what the “Akashic Record” itself is, my sense is very different from what I hear others saying. Specifically, I cannot access a record of what has been done and experienced in this universe other than life itself.

It is possible that there may be a technique or techniques of which I am unaware that would allow me and others to access these records and that they are distinct from life itself. It is possible that if I learned them, I might be able to access these records and I might say the same thing(s). However (1) I feel no draw toward these records; and (2) I find that the truth can be accessed intelligibly without them.

Occam’s Razor states that given a choice between two “explanations” of the universe, the simpler one is usually the better one. In spite of the fact that Occam proceeded from reason (or at least his Razor is presented that way), I find the principle is sound and useful. If nothing else, it is an invitation to notice what is absolutely necessary and to eliminate anything that is not. This awareness in itself is worth more than the price of admission.

Why would a universe that called forth someone like Occam have also created a separate record of events when one already existed? If it is possible to revisit any point in time, if time itself (as we “understand” it) is an illusion and we can actually visit time periods that are different than our own, why would the universe create and maintain a means to visit or view only time periods from the past with no ability to interact with or change what is experienced?

Such a creation would imply (by Occam) that we cannot travel back in time and that there is a fundamental difference between future and past. Otherwise, the record would be ultimately meaningless. Not only is the idea that past and future are fundamentally different questioned by modern physics, it seems to negate claims from shamanism, Huna, the Law of Attraction, and meditation. According to shamanism, for example, it is not only possible to travel to alternate (and past or future) time streams, it is possible to change them. In fact, this is a major healing technique available in shamanism.

It may be possible to imagine a situation in which a separate record exists and certain rules apply to the record that don’t apply to life, or what it reflects, but how much simpler and straightforward would it be to suppose that those who claim to be accessing the Akashic Record are actually accessing life and have a limited view of their access?

It seems easier, but it may not be. There may be a reason to support an Akashic Record that I don’t currently know of. I invite anyone who knows of such a reason to let me know it, but please be aware that while I assume that I may be wrong, I also assume that you may be wrong or that we may both be wrong. I also assume that we may create together.

© 2012, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”What Is The Akashic Record?” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

What You Notice

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

An easy thing to overlook is to notice what it is that you pay attention to. It’s a simple thing. We do it every day. It’s the simplest thing in the world to choose what you will focus on. It’s so basic, we are either born with it or we learn it even before we learn to speak, certainly before we learn to walk or roll over.

Choosing what you will focus on is critical because that determines what will grow. Notice that if you have an apple in your hand, you have the ability to notice it or not. If you choose to notice it, it will grow in your awareness.

Notice that you may see more and more detail as you look at the apple. The more you see, the more you can see. Eventually, your whole imagination may be taken up by the apple. The street you are walking on, the tree you are walking past may all become invisible to you. Even your own clothes and body may fade from existence for you as you focus on your apple.

Metaphorically and in fact, the apple “looms large” in your awareness. It gets big in your world. All of this began with a choice. You could have chosen to focus on the shoe on your foot or your empty hand or the cloud in the sky. Whatever you had chosen could have come to dominate your awareness as completely as the apple did. Anything could have become as big in your life. All it would have taken is a choice.

Life is the same way. We choose to focus on certain things in life and the things we choose grow larger in our lives. We choose to focus on life as (we tell ourselves) we find it and it looms large for us. As it does, we forget the greater parts of ourselves, our spirits, in the same way that we can forget our bodies as we focus on the apple in our hand.

Focusing on the apple doesn’t make our bodies disappear, similarly, focusing on life doesn’t make our spirits disappear. What is interesting though, is that as we apply our focus, whatever we pay attention to tends to become bigger, at least it does in our experience.

Since I can choose what it is that I will focus on, I can choose what will grow. This provides an interesting opportunity to exercise choice in my life.

One question that you may want to ask yourself in this connection is, “Who is feeling this or that emotion?” It becomes clear over time that you are not your emotion, although we are trained to think that we are. There is the thing you feel – your emotion – and there is the thing that supports your emotion. They are not the same thing.

What are you left with when your emotion floats away, “like a cloud in the sky?” You are left with the thing that supports your emotion – you. This is the goal of Witness and Narrative Consciousness.

In any case, it begins with a simple choice. What will you put your attention to?

© 2012, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”What You Notice” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

Intuitive Divination

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

Intuitive Divination is also called reading minds, reading fortunes, and clairvoyance (or clairaudience, etc.). It is a way to see into the future. One of the cheats or things we look for or ways to get an advantage over other people is by knowing ahead of time what will happen. In order to do that we can ask ourselves what we know about the future and sometimes pay a lot of money to scoundrels of every stripe who claim to know what lies ahead.

The range of would-be con artists is wide, as are their levels of conviction. Some believe that they have no more ability to tell the future than a rock does. Others believe that they are truly able to see beyond the “hard right edge” of the graph and foresee the future. They range from small-time operators who work with one or two people at a time to large groups who work with even larger groups or corporations to predict what the latest trend will be or what the hot new stock will be.

Assuming that what they are selling has some truth to it (at least for them), what are they selling? Is it possible that they are able to predict the future? If they were, that would seem to fly in the face of what it means to be in the universe. – At least, it would seem to decide that everything is preordained.

If it is possible to predict the future, then predictions would be true. That would mean that the future is predetermined, like a Newtonian top, whose entire trajectory is set and decided by a small number of variables, all of which are set at the beginning. All I would have to do in this case is find out what values those variables hold and then I would be able to predict exactly what the top would do at any point in its life.

Predictability in any one thing probably implies predictability in everything, which implies that everything can be foretold.

On another hand, media takes great pains to describe how having some information about the future, even accurate information, does not guarantee that you are able to predict the future. There are numerous examples in which information leads to a prediction which is shown to be the opposite of what happens and the prediction and information are shown to support both conclusions.

Such scenarios are often illustrated with incomplete information. Knowing something about the future does not mean that you know everything about the future and there may be a piece of the puzzle that you don’t have but need to distinguish one prediction from another. This allows foreknowledge but (usually) eliminates prediction, thus restoring freedom and individual choice.

Many such scenarios are possible. One of these, for example, supposes that everything that can happen does happen, but different outcomes for a single event appear in different continua or dimensions. Thus, choice is restored to individuals across all dimensions because different versions of me take different paths, while prediction is supported in individual dimensions. (Of course, this scenario ignores the possibility that predictions are made and found to be wrong and what that would mean.)

Several years ago, I realized that another possibility exists. What if individual predictions key into what that person is resonating with and not the universe as a whole? By reflecting what each person is attracting into his or her life, the prediction might be saying more about what that person is attracting than it is saying about what the universe is promising.

The prediction may be more about the person making it – and different people would be expected to have different predictions, just as they do different attractions – than it would reveal about the universe. In such a view, prediction might become more of a diagnostic tool, showing what someone chooses or attracts than it is a club to beat someone over the head with.

There is evidence that this latter view is accurate. Judge for yourself if predictions allow you to see or sense what the predictor is attaching him or her self to or attracting.

© 2012, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”Intuitive Divination” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

What Is Logic?

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

What does it mean to have a meaning logically? Or, (to avoid defining something by using the same word), how do I define it? To me, this is equivalent to asking, “what is logic?”

I find that what I understand as logic is something that I was taught in school. It is non-emotional and falls out of a combination of a small set of axioms and a small set of rules. These rules describe how to go from one thing to another, where the first thing is either an axiom or an observation and the second thing is generally held to be an inference.

However, it is also possible for either thing be an inference. In other words, it is possible to be cut-off from the outside world and never see an actual observation. It is possible to “see” only axioms and inferences, both of which can be chosen, so it is possible to come to a conclusion logically, that has no bearing at all on what is experienced in the “real world.”

I have heard it said of statistics, but I feel that the same is true of any logical system, that it can be made to support any conclusion. This supposes a few things. The thing that is pointed out and that we are meant to see is that the axioms and inferences I draw can determine the conclusions I reach, even if we both agree about the observations.

The thing that we are meant to notice less of is the fact that I (if I am making the argument) have chosen the conclusion before I formulate my argument. I might allow you to use logic as a predictive tool and follow it to it’s inevitable conclusion, but in formulating the argument that you follow in the first place, I go backward and start with my conclusion – the conclusion that I want you to draw.

This means that the conclusion that I start with is something that I see or define myself as being attached to. It is something that I create. Why did I choose this idea or conclusion? What drew me to it? What am I attached to (and how does being attached to it affect how I see – or define – myself)?

One thing that often helps me voice what I am attached to is to notice that there are whole parts of the universe – whole realms of possibility – that are eliminated by my choice. When I attach myself to a conclusion (any conclusion), possibilities that include my conclusion not happening are eliminated. This might be what I asked for, but it limits me. I can mitigate this limitation by noticing that it is there, but most of us are trained to not notice the role our choices play.

The thing that we are not meant to notice at all is that these possibilities present themselves and are plausible to us only because we have no feeling for what is true. If we use pure reason as our only guide forward, we condemn ourselves to grope blindly in the metaphorical darkness, searching for a truth we believe we will recognize when we touch it, without realizing (or admitting to ourselves) that our fingers have gone numb along with the rest of our selves.

The thing we are not meant to see is that logic, though it is predictive and can be mysterious to the body, can be self-contained. I believe that this explains cohort replacement – even in scientific groups. By itself, logic can only take us to things it had already contained in itself by its axioms and inferences. If I change these axioms and inferences, I can change what my logical system contains and therefore control what you can conclude. As long as I am sure that you limit yourself to what you can conclude logically, I can trap you because by definition, logic has no feeling.

(A deeper question that can come up immediately is, “do I trust myself.” Do I trust how I feel about things or what comes up? I find that most of us do but we are trained not to. We are trained to suspect things that come from emotion because they come from emotion. We do not ask or investigate what emotion is or where it comes from. We simply reject it and everything that comes from it. We reject it because we do not trust ourselves. I sense that this is a related but different topic that is probably better suited to another article or a series of articles or a book.)

Getting beyond logic to a sense of what is true from a felt sense of truth is impossible, or so I can tell myself logically. Making predictions from what I get about the truth makes no sense because the source of truth itself lies outside of logic. I don’t even get to the step of testing or even making my predictions because I object to the process by which they were derived in the first place. Therefore, anything that comes from a felt sense of truth must also be suspect, branded as non-logical, and rejected.

In my experience, I can (and have) followed this reasoning. In doing so, I have found myself in a neatly defined world, with neatly defined boundaries and corners, and no room for growth. I could choose to accept this world and define myself as my world defines me (and itself). I could defend my definition of myself (and my world) vehemently. I have. Of course this never meant that I or my world were right, just that they were well-defended. (I never asked myself what they were defending against or whom I was pushing so hard against.)

On the other hand, I could recognize logic as one quadrant of at least four and open myself to everything that the whole graph might offer. I could recognize that what I had heard about this totality was mostly confined to two quadrants – logic and emotion. I had been trained to access and use only half of what was available to me. It was up to me to find someone to train me to use the rest or for me to discover what was there, maybe both.

© 2012, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”What Is Logic?” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

The Mind-Body-Soul Problem

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

It may sound “new age-y” to look at the body, mind, and spirit as a continuous whole, but in fact, it is the historical and cultural norm. Most cultures embrace the unity of body, mind, and spirit. Even in the west, unity was the norm until fairly recently.

Although some may point to older things, most people agree that the modern western view of the mind and body as separate things has its beginnings in the philosophy of Rene Descartes, who lived in the first half of the Seventeenth Century. It is interesting to note that since then, much has been written about the “mind-body problem,” which seems to stem from difficulties in understanding the nature and operation of disconnected entities – the nature and dynamics of how the mind and body interact as separate entities.

It may make no more sense to separate the mind, body, and spirit than it does to separate the hand from the rest of the body. Yet physicians and philosophers spend great deals of time and energy trying to get their hands and heads around the nature of the “mind-body” problem and much more in trying to solve it (if they try to solve it at all). I recently sat down with a philosopher and heard what he had to say to a large extent.

It seems to me that he often comes close to a solution to his problem, but never solves it. For me, the solution to a problem is usually found in its problem statement. In other words, the answer is found it the question. I find that if an answer is not forthcoming then I don’t understand the problem fully or I am not stating it clearly or both.

Hence, when I do not hear an answer, I often find it profitable to look to the question. Likewise, formulating a question so that it can be inspirational – so that it can engender a creative insight in the hearer comparable to or greater than that in the speaker – makes sense given the observation that the answer is found within the question.

Naturally, this often takes time, yet people are often trained to expect themselves to come up with answers quickly or right away. If answers aren’t immediately forthcoming, they often insert their rationality to produce an answer (usually that they expect to hear themselves provide) and/or forget the problem entirely. They lose awareness that they can find answers within themselves – in their experiences of their intuitions and feelings – and look outside of themselves for answers – to their senses and reason.

In this case, I find that people are often stuck because they assume the problem is “out there,” outside of themselves. They are looking for a solution only beyond themselves, not in their statement(s). It usually never occurs to them to look inside their own problem statements or questions or inside themselves for answers. Such approaches may have been trained out of them. Instead, they are usually trained to look for a solution outside themselves.

It is possible that the only reason that they have been having a problem is that they have been assuming the problem in their statements without realizing they have. One way to see this is to consider the clothes and the person. The clothes might be seen as a separate entity. They might also be parts of the same, larger entity.

In one view, the clothes may not say anything about the person. In the other, “the clothes make the man,” so that what I wear may say volumes about who I am or how I see myself. It may also speak to how I expect to be treated or how I believe I relate with you. Thus, it may say volumes about my relationships to my network, our relationships to each other, and the networks we each belong to. It may say something about both of our “stations in life.”

Thus, it may say something about you as well as about me. However, this is only possible if I accept that what I see you or me wear has meaning. Notice that the same holds true of language (for example). Just as the “problem” of clothing looks very different whether I choose to look at it one way or the other, it is also possible to choose how I define my metaphorical Gaussian pillbox, how I define my problem and my universe. How I make my choices makes a difference.

Being aware of this brings me a step closer to realizing that how I structure my universe reflects how I order myself. What I expect of my world or what I receive from the world (how I expect my world to react) is determined and revealed by what I expect to receive. I shape myself to catch the ball that I expect. By watching and understanding how I shape myself, I get insights into what I expect.

Whenever I define my problem as part of my statement, or I define my statement in terms of my problem, I can include my problem as part of my statement. This ensures that I will always have my problem. By the same token, I find that the “mind-body” problem vanishes when I look at the whole system of mind/body/spirit as an integrated totality. Doing so naturally brings up further questions and opens new possibilities that aren’t available from the split entity perspective. Questions that naturally arise are: “Do the things this view gives rise to ring true?” and “Do they lead to more truth?”

© 2013, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”The Mind-Body-Soul Problem” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

Transcendence

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

Recently, I noticed a convergence that I hadn’t noticed before. It is between joy and silence. I have known them for a long time as different faces of the same truth – at least, I have assumed that they were from the same truth, but I have not experienced them as flowing from the same truth. I have not known them as inversions or reflections of each other. Now, I see that they are.

This brings to mind the thought or realization that we might come to the truth by different ways, as each follows his or her separate path from the edge of an old LP to its center. But we all come to the same center (assuming we don’t settle down somewhere in the middle – which many of us do). We may look across the center in different directions, so that we see different things, but we are all at the same center.

Seeing how these things are connected is one way to gain transcendence over them. Seeing how different centers are in fact the same center is (potentially) one way to see how different truths are actually the same truth. One question that I can ask is, “How are these (different) truths connected (or the same truth)?” Another question might be, “If these are the same, they are both true, so what else must be true or what else do they imply (apart or together)?”

As an example, let’s take the joy first. I have known for a very long time the experience of God (for lack of a better term) is joyful. However, I have heard in the Abraham Hicks community that God’s experience of the universe – of existence – is expanded through us. We represent the leading edge of existence and it (existence – all that is) is expanded through us.

It is through our experiences (most notably, the joyful ones) that our experience of the universe adds to the joy that God experiences of the universe. As we expand or grow more joyful, as our numbers increase and we each become more joyful, God does, too. At least, that is how I have understood Abraham’s teaching.

I have not been sure to date whether it is true that all things exist already in God, or new experiences are created in God. In other words, if everything that is created existed in God already, is it possible to create anything new? Alternatively, if we truly expand God, and what we create is new, then how can we appeal to God for truth?

To me, all of the experiences of spiritual, artistic, and scientific men and women have pointed in one direction – toward the sense that God contains everything – while (I heard, anyway) Abraham pointing in the other direction (toward God expanding).

On a related, but on a slightly different score, I was reminded recently of the old line that nothing new is possible, that God already contains all. Leaving aside the sense that this strikes me as an attempt to rationalize the non-rational – to bring what may be a sense of the truth into words and what I call external reason – and dealing only with the idea that there might be a kernel of truth reflected in what has been said, what is that truth? It may or may not be exactly what has been heard before. Does it bring me closer to truth? Does it open me further to more truth?

From the other direction, I am reminded of a vision I had, that showed that before anything in the universe was created, everything that could exist already existed. It was already contained in God (that is the nature of God, after all) as a kind of potential.

The universe as we know it was created in part to allow God to experience God as God. In other words, for God to manifest with answers, first a question must be asked and silence must follow. Into this silence, flow not words, but openness to hear and follow truth whatever it may be and wherever it may go. Without such openness, truth cannot be heard, no matter how divine it may be in origin. In order to hear the truth, we must first hear silence.

One truth we can’t deny is that we might each hear a slightly different silence and a slightly different truth. In fact, it is in our expressions of the same truth in which our differences lie. Some of us seek to define our differences in terms of different truths. However, I find that it is in different expressions of the same truth that we find and define our differences.

Far from being denounced by God, these differences are celebrated. When I come to something true and so do you, the differences between what I hear you say and what I hear myself saying can tell us both about how the two things that we say are the same by, ironically, pointing out how they are different. They can together point to new truths by contrasting what one holds as true with what another holds as true. Since they are both (at least tentatively) true, their differences hold information about the truth, as does their similarity.

Is it possible that both – the notion that God (and the universe) expands in joy and that God contains all possibilities – are right? Is it possible that what is true is always true, but that the details differ? Is it true that what will come to pass comes to pass and that how it comes to pass is open to question? If I don’t do something, will someone else?

When I look at this, I find (in myself) that the joy is not necessarily figuring things out. The joy is in discovering how existence unfolds. There is a convergence between the joy (which brings in the question of how and whether the universe expands) and the experience (which opens up appreciating the silence and new possibilities). In this convergence between joy and silence (since both are true), lies the truth.

© 2013, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”Transcendence” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

Beyond Silence

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

This essay could also be titled, “What Lies Beyond Silence” or “How Silence Illuminates What Follows.” In reading through the essay from a couple of weeks ago, I am reminded of why I am honest. For me, being honest is actually the easiest thing to do.

There are those who claim that in being honest, there is less to remember and therefore less to do. This is no doubt true. However, I find that there is more to it than that. Some people accept definitions (or define themselves) in accordance with what they find. When they change, they are conscious (to some degree) in their choices, and they realize that their conscious choices (should they continue) will require them to change how they define themselves.

Faced with what they see as a choice between dropping their chains and redefining themselves on one hand, and falling back to sleep on the other, they choose going back to sleep. There may be many reasons they choose to go back to sleep rather than risk going outside. They may think about their spouses, children, or siblings and how significant changes might force others to change.

They may focus on inconvenience or difficulty and fail to notice or appreciate difference. They may completely miss the fact that fires always seem most painful before you go into them. They are never as hot or painful as you expect them to be and they are always over more quickly than you expect them to be. You just have to allow them to be over.

For example, I knew a woman once who made it a habit to attend our weekly meditation and consciousness meetings. Each week for years she would freely share about who she was, who she expected herself to be, and who her spouse and children saw themselves to be and how they defined her. Each week, I pointed out how these things might be in her life to learn about herself. The time may also have come when her task was to allow them to go where they willed while she followed her own muse.

I was inviting her to realize that her attachment to a particular outcome may have been holding her back. While we are trained to praise those who say what they will do and then do it, I find that this behavior is only praise-worthy to the extent that they both (the word and the deed) come from the same truth. I expect myself to be constantly trying to get a better understanding of truth. Thus, what I say is the truth may change as my view of that truth changes. As my word changes, so should my actions. To hold onto something that was said long ago simply because it was said is specious at best.

One lesson that this person may have brought with her is that some people define themselves in terms of what they have said or promised. They would not know who they were if they eliminated their promises. They keep them because without them, they wouldn’t know who they were and who you are is (by definition) too hard to define, now.

They fail to see (or their Ego fails to see) that whole regions of possibility are eliminated by the simple act of making a decision. By refusing to reconsider a decision or by letting a decision stand by default, you are deciding to keep those possibilities ruled out.

This may be a conscious decision and the ruled out possibilities may have no bearing on the ultimate decision or what bearing they have may not be what is wanted. However, we tend to forget our decisions in life. When this happens, one thing that can follow is that we forget we have chosen something – we forget that we have chosen to define ourselves in a certain way – and we define ourselves as that thing. In other words, we become attached to our imagined outcome. We see ourselves as part of it and take our definition of who we are from how we understand the outcome.

By opening up to a possibility that I may no longer be in relationship with my child (for instance), I am not saying that I won’t be in that relationship. In fact, I may be in the same relationship with the same child. However, my saying that I will be in the same relationship (which is predicated on my sense of truth) is different for having come unstuck from my prescribed outcome.

By becoming unstuck, possibilities that I had been ruling out become possible. Whole regions of the universe come out of the dark. This may make some people feel unsafe (which, in itself is a tip-off that Ego is in play), but the final decision would have less weight if some possibilities were ruled out of consideration or not even noticed because they were eliminated by definition.

Thus, I am honest in my silence, not because it is the brave thing to do, rather, I am honest because I have learned that an area – any area – that I leave unexamined or unexpressed (even to myself) is an area that is ripe for growth. If I leave it in the dark, I will trip over it. I will shrink around it. If I shine the light into it, I am opened to more truth.

Many or all of the things I am currently growing from are things that have come from my own definition of myself. They emerged from the darkness of my own blindness only as I looked at how I was defining myself. As I saw more and more how I was self-defining, I saw how I was self-limiting. In other words, I saw how I was attaching (and defining myself) in terms of outcomes.

© 2013, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”Beyond Silence” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

Joy and Silence

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

Recently, I noticed a convergence that I hadn’t noticed before. It is between joy and silence. I have known them for a long time as different faces of the same truth – at least, I have assumed that they were from the same truth, but I have not experienced them as flowing from the same truth. I have not known them as inversions or reflections of each other. Now, I see that they are.

This brings to mind the thought or realization that we might come to the truth by different ways, as each follows his or her separate path from the edge of an old LP to its center. But we all come to the same center (assuming we don’t settle down somewhere in the middle – which many of us do). We may look across the center in different directions, so that we see different things, but we are all at the same center.

Seeing how these things are connected is one way to gain transcendence over them. Seeing how different centers are in fact the same center is (potentially) one way to see how different truths are actually the same truth. One question that I can ask is, “How are these (different) truths connected (or the same truth)?” Another question might be, “If these are the same, they are both true, so what else must be true or what else do they imply (apart or together)?”

As an example, let’s take the joy first. I have known for a very long time the experience of God (for lack of a better term) is joyful. However, I have heard in the Abraham Hicks community that God’s experience of the universe – of existence – is expanded through us. We represent the leading edge of existence and it (existence – all that is) is expanded through us.

It is through our experiences (most notably, the joyful ones) that our experience of the universe adds to the joy that God experiences of the universe. As we expand or grow more joyful, as our numbers increase and we each become more joyful, God does, too. At least, that is how I have understood Abraham’s teaching.

I have not been sure to date whether it is true that all things exist already in God, or new experiences are created in God. In other words, if everything that is created existed in God already, is it possible to create anything new? Alternatively, if we truly expand God, and what we create is new, then how can we appeal to God for truth?

To me, all of the experiences of spiritual, artistic, and scientific men and women have pointed in one direction – toward the sense that God contains everything – while (I heard, anyway) Abraham pointing in the other direction (toward God expanding).

On a related, but on a slightly different score, I was reminded recently of the old line that nothing new is possible, that God already contains all. Leaving aside the sense that this strikes me as an attempt to rationalize the non-rational – to bring what may be a sense of the truth into words and what I call external reason – and dealing only with the idea that there might be a kernel of truth reflected in what has been said, what is that truth? It may or may not be exactly what has been heard before. Does it bring me closer to truth? Does it open me further to more truth?

From the other direction, I am reminded of a vision I had, that showed that before anything in the universe was created, everything that could exist already existed. It was already contained in God (that is the nature of God, after all) as a kind of potential.

The universe as we know it was created in part to allow God to experience God as God. In other words, for God to manifest with answers, first a question must be asked and silence must follow. Into this silence, flow not words, but openness to hear and follow truth whatever it may be and wherever it may go. Without such openness, truth cannot be heard, no matter how divine it may be in origin. In order to hear the truth, we must first hear silence.

One truth we can’t deny is that we might each hear a slightly different silence and a slightly different truth. In fact, it is in our expressions of the same truth in which our differences lie. Some of us seek to define our differences in terms of different truths. However, I find that it is in different expressions of the same truth that we find and define our differences.

Far from being denounced by God, these differences are celebrated. When I come to something true and so do you, the differences between what I hear you say and what I hear myself saying can tell us both about how the two things that we say are the same by, ironically, pointing out how they are different. They can together point to new truths by contrasting what one holds as true with what another holds as true. Since they are both (at least tentatively) true, their differences hold information about the truth, as does their similarity.

Is it possible that both – the notion that God (and the universe) expands in joy and that God contains all possibilities – are right? Is it possible that what is true is always true, but that the details differ? Is it true that what will come to pass comes to pass and that how it comes to pass is open to question? If I don’t do something, will someone else?

When I look at this, I find (in myself) that the joy is not necessarily figuring things out. The joy is in discovering how existence unfolds. There is a convergence between the joy (which brings in the question of how and whether the universe expands) and the experience (which opens up appreciating the silence and new possibilities). In this convergence between joy and silence (since both are true), lies the truth.

© 2013, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”Joy and Silence” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

Being and Doing – II

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

What does it mean to “flow from being?”

As stated last time, there is a difference between flowing from being and going from doing, in my experience, although in the language, the differences between these two things is not immediately clear. In the language, as it is used by many folks these days, “doing” refers to things that you do automatically from what you are and also other things that you do. Commonly, the distinction between what you do and who you are is lost.

In fact, in many conversations, it is blurred, at best, any distinction between who you are and what you do is lost. Many schools teach that it is only possible or that the truest sense of who you are can only be gained from what you do. Some teach that it doesn’t matter who you think you are. The only thing that matters is what you do. It is thus a question of inference, of going backward from what you do.

Many such schools of thought even say that it is impossible to “know” who you are. You can only know with certainty what you do. What goes unspoken in many such schools of thought is that you are unable to know anything. You rely on the group or the crowd to tell you what to believe. – If the crowd says that a certain thing is true, it must be, even if your intuition tells you differently.

This is partly true – repeatability is part of predictability, and predictability is what science is all about. However, an accommodation must be found between repeatability and hearing your own voice as it whispers the truth. The fact is that all of the great scientists and artists have listened to their own senses of what has been true. They have done so long before they could “prove” anything to the crowd. In fact none of what we (in the crowd) view as predictability would have been possible in the first place if they hadn’t listened to their own senses of truth, first.

I believe that what is true is true will be true tomorrow. It is repeatable because it is true, not that it is true because it is repeatable (which is what the crowd insists on). Knowing what is true always leads to what is repeatable. If it is not, then the understanding of truth that led to a given inference is somehow flawed.

Repeatability and predictability are useful in catching such flaws, but they do not create them. Flaws usually come from a sense of having gone over or enunciated something that hasn’t, in fact, been fully articulated or in believing that I have said something other than what I have actually said. Repeatability demonstrates how what I have said differs from what I get, when it does differ. Knowing how it differs opens the opportunity to change what I say, so that it reveals (or reflects) more of the truth.

I experience the truth by going within myself – which is a great mystery as long as we continue to hold with the illusion that there is a difference between myself and the world. I note that by going within myself, I learn more about the world. I observe that predictability in what we agree is the “real world” can grow in so far as my understanding of myself is true. It can grow no more than my understanding of myself grows. Thus, my understanding of myself and my understanding of truth are the same thing, as long as I don’t fool myself about either who I am or what the truth is (which is one area where predictability can come into play).

Herein lies one rub – that it is possible to confuse doing with being. I find that it is common to forget what you do and identify it as who you are. Thus, carpentry is probably a sum of many things you do (check for warps, measure wood, see corners, cut wood, etc.). It is not a reflection of who you are. There are probably some who are carpenters, but many who are, don’t and many who do, aren’t. What you do does not necessarily align with who you are.

In many cases, we forget the difference between who we are and what we do. All we remember is what we do and that becomes who we see ourselves to be. I cease to do carpentry. I am a carpenter. We may try our whole lives to be the person whom we believe ourselves to be, only to find frustration and struggle.

One of the things I have learned is that we remember more of our spirits and of who we are when we are very young. As we grow older, we learn. Part of that learning (currently) seems to involve learning to forget the things we knew were true when we were children. This is one of the ways that children are holier than adults. They remember more of what it is to be spirit (before life and death). They are closer to that spirit and haven’t learned as much about life, yet. They haven’t forgotten as much.

I am reminded of the saying that posits being wise as a state in which we return to childhood but with the awareness of life of the adult. For me, flowing from being can be like being a child. A child does not second guess itself. It does not doubt that everyone in the room is completely devoted to it or that its experience of the world is completely joyful. It doesn’t doubt that everyone there is ready to interact with her, to smile at her. They are.

© 2013, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”Being and Doing – II” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!

Being and Doing – I

Creative Commons License
by DCH Park

As I have come across in my most recent out-of-body experience, there is a vast difference between being true to myself and doing things that I believe I ought to do. It doesn’t matter whether I am trying to be or become whatever it is that I think I ought to be. I don’t gain anything by trying to be something I am not. I certainly don’t gain anything by trying to prove it.

What is left unsaid is that by trying to be it, I assume that I am not it. My experience of myself is that I am different or separate from whatever I am trying to be. There is a sense of separation or distance between me and the thing as long as I am trying to be something that I am not.

By the same token, when I try to be recognized for something, there is a space between the recognition and where I am. My attempt to be recognized makes this separation clear. Even though I may try to minimize this space and bring us as close to each other as we can be, we each have a separate skin. Even when we touch, there is a difference, a distinction, between me and the other. This distinction does not go away, no matter how hard I try to deny it.

Both of these are examples of doing something. I am trying to be or to be recognized as something that I know that I am not. This serves to underline the separation at the same time that it might hide it from me. One of the defining characteristics of doing is effort. I find that in examining the process of doing something in general, it maps onto effort. I have to try. Usually, I notice something that I am trying to do. Sometimes the effort I notice is unrelated with (or serves to increase or solidify) the separation. It makes more undeniable the exact separation that I am trying to overcome.

For example, when I was a child, I wanted to be like Superman and will myself to pass through solid objects. I remember trying to focus so hard that I vibrated. I had no idea what to focus on, so I focused on many things, including what I remembered of what I had seen on TV and on the fact that I was focused. Of course, I failed.

I also failed to notice that there was a clear barrier between me and the wall or floor or whatever I was trying to phase through. By focusing on it, I only succeeded in making it more real in my awareness. I was making it harder to pass through the wall, not easier. By the same token, many years later, I found that in focusing on the difference between me and a client (for example), I was underlining for myself that the client and I were different people. To the extent that we are different people, we will always be separate.

It was my own beliefs that were getting in the way. I could heal her to the same extent that I was able and willing to heal myself. To do that, I had only to recognize and experience her the same way that I experience myself. (Of course, I am still working on this to fully enjoy the various aspects of healing, but I have partially received this gift already.)

On the other hand, being is an experience of who and what you are. As my out-of-body experience continues to unfold for me, one of the things that grows clear for me is that we each have a gift. We feel what we feel. We know at each moment that we feel, and we know exactly how we feel. If/when we don’t, we have the feeling. We can feel it. As long as we are honest about what it brings with it, we can follow it and find out what it has to bring us.

This can be a huge gift in that it is okay to feel whatever you feel as a starting point. It is okay to be as you are, as long as you recognize that what you find does not necessarily reflect who you will be, nor how you will feel. Your emotions do not reflect who you are.

In particular, I have found that how and what I feel, how that serves me (or once did), or what it reminds me of, changes for things that are characteristic of doing, but does not change for things that are true of being. In the former, one invariably leads to another, sometimes surprising, result. If I stay with the crazy hayride to its end, I find that the doing resolves into being, at which point, the reason for being (or existing) is clear. It is to be.

When we do, we are constantly bargaining with life or the universe for some safety, warmth, to be held, etc. When we act from being, we know that we are already loved. There is no need for pushing. The same thing, from doing can feel forced, while from being, it flows effortlessly. It is fun.

There is a difference between doing and being. From doing, it is pushed, or forced. It must be otherwise it wouldn’t be done. From being, it flows effortlessly. It is an expression of exactly who and what you are, much like breathing is an expression of being alive. The difference between force and flow may be subtle, but it is huge and important.

Flow from being.

© 2013, David Park. All Rights Reserved.

Creative Commons License
”Being and Doing – I” by DCH Park is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Flattr this!