Conversations with Zoe and Buddha: The Three Musketeers
Buddha: The Three Musketeers- I like that story. The story that resolves itself around a principle that I myself taught and continue to witness being taught.
One for All and All for One!
You are bonded by your heritage- part of the cosmic force that defies time and space, form and formless and conceptual reality. You are all one species, physically, here on earth.
Yet you spend time distinguishing self for others. ‘This makes me special, unique, individual’. I say ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL! Be your selves. You are separated by the unique combination of the parts that make a body look a certain way, a voice sound a certain way, a mind influenced and think in ways. All of you are unique aspects of the other. This is what your differences are- a reflection of the other parts that you are currently not in this life. So are you unique? In a very tertiary and transitory way. Like a fleeting thought, a small gasp of air. But truly you a real part of the kaleidoscope of ALL. Unite your perspectives and physical forms and see the ALL that you are.
Buddha: My time on earth was a fascinating one. I lived, I loved, I laughed, I lost, I was found and I was.
I still am. Some ask me what am I? Am I air? Sand? Sea? Surf?
I am a resolute force. Do you like my use of the word ‘resolute’ after our last post? This is what I am. I am one with a single purpose: to lift mankind out of the depths of their illusion and allow them to understand their nature as Beings of All. There is no difference between you and another and another and you. This is all falsehood and illusion. Nothing exists as an entity separate from the self, and the self cannot exist as separate from the All.
What is All? Everything. So why wonder about it when you can BE it. BE it today. Practice Being the All today with me. This is just an intention to set forth into this world- nothing more. Who know- we may have fun!
Jesus: The time is now to rest your arms against your fellow man. The time for destruction based on separation (you there, me here) is over. Unite.
This isn’t just warring parties but for each individual.
Who carries destruction through separation in his/her mind. End the discrimination. End the bitterness and envy towards others. End this now and you will be freed from the coming wave.
So for today work to see the similarities in one another. Resolve to explore what you share and not desire to withhold apart.
Conversations with Jesus and Zoe: Lesson on Love Part 3
Jesus: It is not easy to love in the face of adversity. Love is a state that can be cultivated easily for it is your natural state! It is only the stresses and fears of modern life that separates you from your love and others for your love too.
Love is not for sunshine days but for rainy days too. (It is especially effective then.)
Learn to cultivate love in your everyday reality and come closer to me.
How do you do that? Make it your intention to practice love throughout the day. Pay particular attention to times when you disconnect from love (it will be a time of perceived slight) and then reconnect.
Conversation with Buddha and Zoe: Where are you? An Exercise
Buddha: So reader, with a pen and paper in front of you draw a square and put you name inside the square.
Now where are you, are you in your body or are you in the square? Are you in both? For those of you who are acquainted with the sensations of energy, are you pulled into the square therefore connected to it or do you simply feel nothing at all?
Now draw a circle under the square, put your name in this. Draw a line connecting the square to the circle. Where are you now? You are in your body, you are in the square, you are also in the circle and you have made a connection.
Now below the circle draw a square and write the name of your sibling or the name of your friend. Where are you now? You are in your body, you are in your square, your circle, the connections between your square and your circle. Are you in this square with your sibling or friends name? No for you can’t. For those of you who are sensitive to energies do you feel attracted or repelled to the square with another name in it? This square, with the other name in it, is a form that is separate to your own yet can you enter that form? No. You can depict that form in letters and shape. This has often been the case with art but can you enter the form of another? No.
So you cannot enter the form of another. But you can enter other forms of yourself. Now I will try not to speak in riddles as this is a subject that I could speak about for many hours.
You, whilst here on earth, have a body yet you are able to put parts of yourself into form that is outside of your body. You do this with your work. You do this with your food when you create a meal. With every creative project you put part of yourself and you become linked to that creative project. So you create a trail whilst living; a trail of essence or, at least those who are working and connected to their essence, create this.
There is a piece of you in everything you will do, in everything you have ever done. And this is deliberately been designed to be the case. You are unbelievably creative and invest you in everything you do. Yet the great experience for most of you is life lives on automatic pilot or with resistance. Would you change what you did and what you do if you knew that part of yourself became invested in it and connected to it?
This is my question for all of you today. You cannot escape your actions, the choices. This is so. At all times you can also change form. This is so. So when you realize that you have been drawing squares through deeds and realize that you do not like the fact that part of you is invested in a square then you can simply start from that point to draw a circle or any other shape you fancy. For whilst you need to reconcile what has been done with what you do, with the present and with where you are, know that you can also use the present to create a new.
Conversation with Master Buddha and TMichael: Gay Marriage
TM: I’ve been reading news accounts of the battle between those who favor gay marriage being sanctioned under law and those who oppose it. Some oppose it on religious grounds and some on biological grounds in that it doesn’t facilitate pro-creation naturally. What is your view on the religious grounds for or against gay marriage?
Master Buddha: If a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, there is a probability pregnancy will result, and a second probability that child birth will follow. This is commonly known and understood in modern society. That wasn’t always the case—many centuries ago it was a mystery how offspring were conceived by the vast majority of human population. There arose from the mystery many superstitions around conception and child birth. Conception and child birth require the engagement of male and female contributing each their part. This is a biologic fact. It doesn’t require a social bond to be successful. As a matter of modern fact, it doesn’t require that they ever physically engage in person (artificial insemination).
TM: Ok, I’m with you so far. Creating babies follows sex between a man and a woman, or by artificial means. A long time ago, and I hope a very long time ago, people didn’t quite make the connection and so developed superstitious beliefs around baby-making.
Master Buddha: So, by biologic fact a gay male marriage cannot produce offspring between the two partners, but can enlist a female outside the marriage to perform that role. The same of course then for two female partners. This means that gay couples are capable of producing offspring by proxy of a third partner if they so desire. This is the same for heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive a child. It merely accommodates the biologic fact.
TM: If it’s a biologic fact, then how does it become a religious issue or even a social concern?
Master Buddha: I’m pulling this apart for you, because it can get very tangled. At some point in human history there was a shift in social belief that the chief role of marriage between a man and woman was to create offspring. To ensure that their offspring would not just be running around in reckless abandon they also created social convention around the single-family household and the early beginnings of property rights. The child belonged to the parents and the household and was subject to their supervision and responsibility, and they together as a household subject to the larger society and community.
TM: You’re saying it was a social evolution, not a religious one. Is that correct?
Master Buddha: It is difficult to separate religion from social, because religion is a social enterprise. This is why this subject is so impossible for some people to intellectually grasp. I will continue now to explain.
Religion is a social enterprise, which means that humans have created religions and formed into social sects in order to propagate their religious beliefs and social tenets.
TM: Hold on a second, almost all religious people will say that religions were created by God, or Gods through prophets or enlightened intermediaries (present company included), and that they are followers of that particular religious teaching. God laid the foundation and they followed his word to build on it.
Master Buddha: Please refer to other conversations we’ve had on the subject of truth and how it is convoluted with faith and a state of not knowing everything. Humans will posit truth on a great many things, but that doesn’t make it true. It is merely their belief in what is true. Let’s assume for a moment that religions were founded on direct expression of truth from God or Gods. Humans, as you suggest, interpret that and build on it to make it a social belief system. The filter applied is still of human origin, and therefore subject to the ignorance of humanity.
TM: I don’t mean to stray from our topic, but this seems important to clear up, because so much of what follows is dependent upon this point. You’re saying that religions are social institutions and are birthed and propagated as social tenets, not the word of God.
Master Buddha: I don’t wish to belabor the point of origin of religious beliefs, and so for our discussion I said we could assume that religions spring from the word of God or Gods. Humans the take that word and add to it their interpretations and filter it into social conventions by which they live. That means that religions become social entities imbued with human constructs of socialized behavior. May we continue?
TM: Yes, but maybe we have to come back to this at some point.
Master Buddha: The great problem for humanity in building laws that govern society is that they cannot separate social convention from religious teachings. Gay marriage as it relates to law must pass through the filters of social convention, which is conditioned by religious beliefs. So you can easily see the conundrum. And this provokes a challenge to the truths held by those who believe that the word of God prohibits such human relations.
For them the syllogism flows like this:
God has said that the purpose of a man|woman relationship is to create babies and form single-family households and rear their offspring.
Gay couples cannot create babies directly.
Therefore, gay marriage is not sanctioned by God, and must be excluded from human options.
For religious believers, denying this logic is tantamount to denying the word of God. It will then undermine a society based upon the word of God and eventually lead to the ruin of society. How it reconciles with many other words of God in which it produces conflict and contradiction is inconvenient, but doesn’t cause their belief to waver. They must default to the only intellectual escape possible, which is that God is mysterious and knows more than humankind, and so it isn’t the place of humanity to question this contradiction. It is for humanity to follow the things that are clear as well as the things that aren’t without fail. God will sort it out later.
TM: Yes, I believe you’ve stated that correctly according to what they believe. But is that correct?
Master Buddha: The question is presented incorrectly. Let me re-frame it. What is the role of religion for humanity and what is the role of social convention in creating laws that govern human behavior?
TM: So, you won’t just come right out with an answer to settle the question will you?
Master Buddha: I’m taking an approach that will help you understand the issue and formulate an answer. As we have stated previously in these conversations, the role of religion is to represent spiritual theories for individuals to ponder in an effort to expand their imaginations and range of possibilities for living a better life. Religions form from spiritual ideas and concepts, that in the pure state apply to an individual. Religions become social institutions because they are comprised of like-minded individuals. The purpose of which is to share and discuss the spiritual idea and concepts.
Humans have taken religions in this social form and expanded them into governance entities. Therein lies the problem. It sets up massive conflicts between different religions and between members of society who subscribe to those different religious beliefs. The only way for a system of religious-dominant laws to work without constant and violent conflict is too segregate inhabitants by religion and assign each to their own geographic place. Since that isn’t practical today, you must have a different way. Democratic societies have created a separation of religion and government. Ideally, this should work in a pluralistic religious society. But, it doesn’t work as perfectly as intended, because those who are aligned with religious beliefs that have been interpreted to guide their daily lives in an integrated society, immediately come in conflict with behaviors they find inconsistent with their beliefs. The resulting dissonance cries for resolution. They seek to alter laws to remove the dissonance.
TM: I can see why you’re not so popular with Christians and Muslims. From what I observe both religious groups would love for everyone to line up with them to rule the world according to their beliefs. In that scenario they could outlaw all the behaviors inconsistent with their beliefs and presumably find the harmony in governance.
Master Buddha: Well, secretly all religious groups wish for that scenario, but some are more vocal than others.
TM: Years ago when I visited Nepal and spent some time in Kathmandu, I noticed the incredible non-hostile melding of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians. But back to our topic. How do we bring this conversation to a conclusion?
Master Buddha: Gay marriage could only be subject to religious scrutiny within a purely religious context. Religious context is confined to individuals and their peers for introspection. Social institutions that are erected for governance must take into consideration that there are many types of life styles and it is the responsibility of government to create laws that promote harmony among the differences while removing violence. The fact that gays must seek legal sanction within your laws informs us that the separation between government and religion is not yet a reality.
TM: Will it ever be?
Master Buddha: It’s possible of course, but only when people representing religions surrender to living peacefully with others with different beliefs and abstain from their agendas of hegemony in thought and behavior.
Conversation with Buddha and Zoe: It Simply Is (Part Four)
Buddha: How often is it then that a distractive mind becomes a fearful mind? There are very few of you who have spent time exploring their minds so that a distraction becomes fear, fear becomes a distraction and all that exists is the hamster wheel of being, of doing, as opposed to the presence of God in the moment. So I say to you explore the mind.
There is nothing to be frightened of. You will find fearful thoughts, fearful forms, but more importantly, you will find distraction. And of what you feel is fearful, only a small proportion will actually be fear-full; the rest will be distraction. And of that which is fear-full, simply sitting and acknowledging it as a thought form will allow it to move. Simply state, “You are a thought form, go. I am capable of being. I need not acknowledge you, and in that acknowledgment, allow you to take me over and allow you to become.” For that is all that happens when one engages in these types of thought forms, the thought form is able to become. And as a human being, is this not you worst nightmare? Engage not with the thought form. Simply acknowledge it and state to it, “You are a thought form go. I am me, I will be.”
The minds of men are messy, are distracted—have become fear-full. Chaos reigns and only those who are willing to become a disciple of clarity will work to free themselves from the bondage. For this is the truth: Mankind as whole is in chains to itself, in chains to that which separated it from an animal, which for some has meant that part of the species has become lower than that of the animal and through desires, through allowing thought forms to become have allowed catastrophes and horrors of being, such as that not seen in the animal world.
This is not your destiny. This was never your destiny going below the level of animal, no. You were meant as a species to find us from the level of form; to explore new ways of love and being while inhabiting different forms. This is all within you. This is the blueprint of humanity. However, this will require the disengagement of current mind, the individual to become disciple of clarity and from there mankind will be able to raise itself to its destiny. And individuals, such as yourselves, will be able to see clearly what is the beauty of this place that you call your home, earth, the love that does exist within the hearts of all, the essence of God, the connection, the oneness to all that is an indisputable truth.
Work to become clear of mind and the gifts of gods will be yours.
Conversation with Buddha and TMichael: Reincarnation and Karma
TM: Yesterday we were discussing reincarnation and I asked you if we could include karma. Will you explain karma and whether or not it affects reincarnation?
Master Buddha: Karma does factor into reincarnation. It does so by the nature of what karma is. Let me explain. Karma is simply the eternal spirit of a human taking personal responsibility for his or her life experience. There is an ethical element of course, but not to the degree that many believe. The intensity of the ethical element is an effect of the person herself emphasizing this aspect. That is to say there is no external force determining which acts of the individualized self are subject to karma and which are not. It is the person who decides.
If for example a person commits an act of violence, a consequence is set in motion. Let’s say that the violence is acted out against someone. There is the consequence of injury to the victim and there is the consequence of how the violent actor feels about this act.
TM: What if the violent actor feels good about the act; it was an act of vengeance? What is the consequence to that?
Master Buddha: It depends on the victim’s collaboration in this particular incident. Believe it or not, there are acts that are requested by victims, even horrific acts that you would say that you would never wish on anyone. But let me explain, because I can hear your mind protesting this claim.
From the time of mind endowment for humans, a sense of right and wrong began its slow development. It was at that time that karma also began for humanity; once humans were able to discern and feel ethically, they were responsible for their actions and consequences. Religion in its many forms became a guide as well as an enforcer and judge of unethical acts and their consequences, and also the reward provider for ethical acts. This system of informing humans of what is ethical and what isn’t, however crude, was the first step toward recognition on a social level of the responsibility accorded to an experiential life on Earth.
Karma has nothing to do with the justice meted out by human institutions. If a person commits a violent act toward another, then justice as administered by fellow humans shall determine the consequences of punishment, and retribution if any for the victim. This is as it should be for now. But this is not karma; this is humanity providing justice for itself as a social act. Karma reflects responsibility of the eternal essence of being and is determined by that essence through its personalized spirit relationship with its creator. This is only possible because the eternal essence is one with its creator ultimately, yet is differentiated for the purpose of experience. It is never in reality separate, but has the experience of being so.
TM: So, I’m not clear yet on how a victim asks for it, so to speak.
Master Buddha: Yes, I know this one is difficult for you because in your conscious human state you can’t imagine that you would ever ask for such a thing and that it is just a way for wrongdoers to justify their actions. On a spirit level there is communication between beings that is not evident in their conscious human awareness. Sometimes you recognize it, but not very often. Personalized spirits, such as you, are at once one with your creator and yet separate for the purpose of experience. It is in the state of separation that experience leads you to that which is not your true spiritual nature. Karma is the correction, harmonizing or balancing act. When you take responsibility, of your own volition, your divine nature leads and no external force or judgment is required. This why karma is acted out over many lifetimes. The eternal essence corrects that which is not of its divine nature by its choice in time, place and lifetime.
The difficulty for you to accept this is that you are accustomed to the human ethical nature, which operates in the norm of “don’t get caught”. For you to imagine that you would deliver your own justice is nearly impossible.
TM: You’re right it is nearly impossible, but not entirely. What if human justice is experienced, does the essence still have to do a correction, or karmic experience, separate from the human one?
Master Buddha: Yes. But again I emphasize that it may not be in the way that you will interpret based upon your code of justice.
TM: In the case where the victim doesn’t arrange to be the victim, what responsibility does the perpetrator have in karmic terms?
Master Buddha: As I said, it is up to the personalized spirit essence to determine that. That means it is specific and particular to that essence in bringing relationship to his creator back into harmony and unity.
