Does Infinity co-exist with an “arising”? Part 4

To this Only One Being Aware, there is no danger of being imbalanced; no danger of dismissing the relative, being indifferent, or unsacred. It’s exactly the reverse. This only-ness of Awareness, Infinity, (sometimes called Emptiness) also could be called Purity, Completeness, or Wholeness. In one sense, It could be called Sacredness (if taken to mean holy, which means Whole).

To Infinity, having nothing existent but Itself, Its Purity is consciously functioning as Sacredness-Being-All. It is doing so non-stop, for Eternity, AS Eternity. This One must be wholly alive, with nothing blocking or standing in the way of Itself to Itself. It never is Sacred to another, for there is no other. As Being, It has to be present completely (or It could not be said to be) thus is fully, all-out present, specifically alive as Pure Oneness or Love. Its Absoluteness is incapable of being apathetic, half-hearted or indifferent. This is the Only One Being Conscious. It is not “a” Consciousness afar off, but THIS ONE alive, aware right here, now.

Can you imagine the Present being apathetic, half-hearted, losing interest in being present, and not “showing up” some of the time? Sacredness is Sacredness because there is only Itself, and It has no choice to fully be what It is. But It is not being Sacredness because of, or to honor, an appearance. It can’t, because to It, there simply is no appearance.

Just because Sacredness’ own ALLNESS actually precludes there being such an appearance (the screen’s stance), that equally does not mean that an appearance is being negated, or “not given its due.” Again, One cannot negate what never began. What all this means in “everyday living” here and now is that, identifying as such, One will live and appear to do things fully, lovingly, intelligently, perceptively, all the while being wholly present. Not because it’s “spiritually correct”—but because it’s actually effortless, and simply consistent with One’s already-present-and-operative Essence.

Glen’s point (with the Adyashanti quote) is well taken. On a relative basis, it may appear that some “get stuck” and seem to distort, or try to relative-ize the Unwithholdable Purity of the Absolute, and try to turn It into an escape from the finite, the relative. We’re not denying that may seem to happen. But this is not a fault or shortcoming of the Absolute—for “those” who would appear to do such a thing actually never left the relative. This behavior still would be human ignorance, assuming It has become Absolute (as long as it’s got something to escape from, it’s not very Absolute). From what could ALL possibly need to escape? If there were something, All wouldn’t be ALL. All simply cannot fail—ever—to show up and fully be present.

To All, Alive Infinity, (the One alive here, now), there is only Its own Timeless-Being-As-All, which does not change, and never is less than All. To THIS ONE, nothing besides Itself ever has existed, thus there is nothing that It “has risen above.” All can’t “rise above” for if there were something besides Itself to rise above, It wouldn’t be ALL. If it is mistakenly assumed (by ignore-ance, not All, Self) that there is something else that could be “risen above,” naturally one would not want to “return” to it, and would try to avoid it (i.e. retreat to what is assumed to be a mountaintop). But all of this mistakenly applies duality, time–a denial of the unchanging simplicity and Ease of One Present Being. It simply cannot fail to be less than All, One, thus Purity–or what could be called Love–which is incapable of “retreating” or “hiding away” and is Total Presence, undeviating at all “times.”

These preceding points are also discussed in the upcoming DVDs from

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete this to submit.