To Have Light

[StandingOnTheEdge]

I know I've missed something in the readings. I've kept the confusion under wraps, thinking I'd look really stupid if I asked, but heck, once a Fool...

I love the expression "Knowledge equals Light equals Love". I love learning. I love love. But I don't know what it means to "have light". I visualize the light bulb going off above the head, or the halo around the saint, or Our Lady of Gualalupe emanating lightning bolts all around her. I feel warmth sometimes in my heart when I "get" something.

Is to "have light" then, simply a metaphor, or do we actually experience it/see it/feel it when it occurs?

Thanks for any response

 

[jan]

Hi standing on the edge, to me light is a radiance that surrounds a person, a twinkle in the eyes. They have a glowing essence about them that is unmistakable. fwiw

 

[Mountain Crown]

Hi StandingOnTheEdge,

Esoterically, the fundamental concept of light is awareness. It is a more comprehensive term however, including concepts such as information, creativity, freedom, expansion, clarity, truth, etc.

If one considers the phrase "to be in the dark" many useful insights may come "to light."

Are such things felt within one's being? I say most definitely yes.

 

[anart]

Is to "have light" then, simply a metaphor, or do we actually experience it/see it/feel it when it occurs?

Thanks for any response

Here are some transcript quotes that might help clarify (some of them are a little long, but the context is interesting):

Q: He also says: 'I believe that an enlightened being is
emanating love where ever that person is, and this is even
without being asked. It just happens because that is what they
are - love.' Comment, please.
A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is not a
highway.
Q: What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don't get that
one!
A: Why not?
Q: They are completely unrelated!
A: Exactly!!!
Q: What IS an enlightened being?
A: An enlightened being.
Q: What is the criteria for being an enlightened being?
A: Being enlightened!
Q: When one is enlightened, what is the profile?
A: This is going nowhere because you are doing the
proverbial round hole, square peg routine.
Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an
enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have the
idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is what they
radiate, and that this is a result of being enlightened.
A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good.
Just smart.
Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?
A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.
Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?
A: An intelligent being who only gives.
Q: Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love
to those who don't ask, what do they give and to whom do
they give it?
A: All; to those who ask.
Q: He says: 'As you can see, I believe in the power of love. I
am open to try to understand that which I have not yet been
able to. Perhaps that is why I am here with you guys. So,
could we talk more about this subject? Could provide more
of what the C's have said about Love?' I collected the
excerpts from the text about love and how you had said that
Knowledge was love and light was knowledge and all that.
Anything further you can add to that?
A: No, because the receiver to this does not wish to receive.
Q: Okay. S responded: 'Eddie thank you for your pointing out
the paradox of the concept of the expression of love between
the C's and that as some of us think we know, but KNOW
what we experience. I feel that it may be very difficult for the
C's to deliver adequate understanding into our 3rd density or
dimension. [...] My view of the paradox is thus: If one
emanates love as a natural course to the Universe it is not
consciously limited or directed - at least I, for one, cannot do
this; that simply is the way some of us are a lot of the 'time.'
To eliminate groups or individuals is beyond my
comprehension to constantly define since a lot of this is done
unconsciously anyway; and it certainly would compromise my
experience of sending love. Unless one is Bodhisattva, love is
probably only directed with greater intensity when focused
toward an individual; how is one to know whether the
intended recipient is not ready/able to receive?' [...] And
'receive,' I think is a clue: the intended recipient can either
remain oblivious or ward off the love energy - free agency.
A: Yes.
Q: If it IS 'love energy' is it subsequently corrupted by STS?
A: Maybe.
Q: She then says: 'If one directs love very specifically toward
an individual it can be directed freely, judgmentally,
subjectively..... One challenge is to direct love freely...'
A: No.
Q: 'Giving love to the Universe may be the best way
generally, but if one does focus toward a loved one and it
CAN be effective, could the general Universe be JUST as
effective?'
A: The universe is about balance. Nuff said!

Q: (L) What about Love?
A: What about it?
Q: (L) There are many teachings that are promulgated that
Love is the key, the answer. They say that illumination and
knowledge and what-not can all be achieved through love.
A: The problem is not the term "love," the problem is the
interpretation of the term. Those on third density have a
tendency to confuse the issue horribly. After all, they confuse
many things as love. When the actual definition of love as you
know it is not correct either. It is not necessarily a feeling that
one has that can also be interpreted as an emotion, but rather,
as we have told you before, the essence of light which is
knowledge is love, and this has been corrupted when it is said
that love leads to illumination. Love is Light is Knowledge.
Love makes no sense when common definitions are used as
they are in your environment. To love you must know. And to
know is to have light. And to have light is to love. And to
have knowledge is to love.

Q: What is the distinction between union with the One and
God?
A: Only at 7th density is God unified.
Q: When God 'dis-unifies,' or 'destabilizes,' or 'disperses,'
where, and I know 'where' is not the right term, what density
is then manifested?
A: Wrong concept totally.
Q: What is the RIGHT concept?
A: Well, first of all, God does not destabilize or disperse, for
that matter. Purge the linear inner concept.
Q: Okay, I am purging. All just simply is. At 7th density there
is union with the One. At 6th density there is... what? An
equal balance of dark and light, or being and non-being, is
that correct?
A: Pure consciousnesses no need to physicalise.
Q: And, I think that there are the 3 ethereal densities, and the
3 material densities, and the middle density, the variable
physical/ethereal density...
A: Close.
Q: And these densities are only distinguishable by virtue of the
nearness to union with the One, is that correct?
A: Nearness?
Q: Well, you know I don't mean it in a that sense... Help me
out here!
A: No, you are doing just fine.
Q: Now, I am seeing it sort of like the perpendicular reality
image. The circle in the center, and the out raying
perpendicular realities which go out and out and out, and
eventually come back to the center, because the gravity in the
center brings them back. Something happens in a concentric
circle sort of way, or in the idea of the shells of an atom sort
of way, that distinguishes shells, or states of being, in relation
to this center and these perpendicular realities. What is the
level of shells, the realm levels, what is the relationship
between the perpendicular reality and its moving outward that
distinguishes it at certain relational points from the center
itself? I understand that it is consciousness, but we are also
dealing with non-being. Being and non-being. What is the
relationship of these perpendicular realities to the seven
realms of existence?
A: Not essentially correct. Perpendicular reality is
knowledge/awareness/being matrix. Realms are merely
experiential divisions based upon consciousness energy
directors.
Q: What are consciousness energy directors?
A: Compare yourself to your backyard denizen. How do
each of you view calculus?
Q: Well, I don't know exactly what calculus is, but I know it
is important. I never thought I was able to learn such things,
so I didn't try. But, I think it is important, and someday I will
know something about it. I am sure that the dog would not
only think it is not useful, he would not even be aware of it.
How does that relate to consciousness energy directors?
A: All in nature seeks balance. One day, so to speak, "Percy"
will indeed have an opinion of calculus.
Q: Okay, so consciousness energy directors are like a
horizontal reality in relation to the perpendicular ones?
A: Slots, my dear, slots.
Q: Are these slots comparable to the appearing and
disappearing of electrons in the shells of an atom?
A: Not the point. You are still trying to use 3rd density
awareness to measure the reality parameters of all other
density levels... Talk about your square peg and your round
hole! Tell Arkadiusz to trust in gravity waves to be merely his
pathway to higher understanding, not the means to an end.
Q: Now you have mentioned these 'slots.' What are these
slots, and how does one move from one slot to another?
A: Picture this: you have 7 sizes of marbles. You have 7
widths of slots. Where do the marbles "fit in?"
Q: Do the marbles represent units of consciousness?
A: Close. Or, divisions of consciousness level energy
resonance profiles.
Q: Do these divisions of consciousness grow and change?
A: Yes.
Q: And they grow and change through acquiring knowledge,
is that correct?
A: Basically.
Q: And acquiring knowledge is akin to acquiring energy? Or
light? Light energy?
A: Not exactly. That would be like saying that "filling up" at
the gas station is akin to acquiring speed.
Q: So, knowledge and light are like the gas for the car, but
speed comes from utilization?
A: Yes.
Q: And utilization means...
A: Knowledge application which generates energy, which, in
turn, generates light.

I personally don't think it is a metaphor, but I do think that our current level of perception prevents us from perceiving it as what we think of as 'light' - I think we'll 'get it' when we 'get there'. fwiw ;)

 

[Buddy]

Is to "have light" then, simply a metaphor, or do we actually experience it/see it/feel it when it occurs?

Thanks for any response

Can it be both? After reading anart's post, I hesitated to respond because I think the transcripts speak for themselves. I decided to go ahead though, in case my view is distorted and could benefit from some correction.

Since we're surrounded by so much illusion in 3rd density, "having light" could be most useful as a metaphor for having objective knowledge. However; having said that, in 3rd density terms, one way I explain it to myself is: "when you experience a mirror that exposes something in you to your conscious awareness that you realize in your heart is objectively true. That new, accurate understanding could be considered light (conscious awareness of objective knowledge). In other words, what was previously a darkness is now in conscious awareness (light) and the associated feeling is one of objective love.

Maybe it's all the same thing on some density; it just appears to be separated into various components in 3rd density because on this level, our perception is divided into the various sensory categories (sight, sound, touch, taste, hearing, etc).

I could be wrong, of course, but this makes sense to me at my current level of understanding.

 

[anart]

Can it be both? After reading anart's post, I hesitated to respond because I think the transcripts speak for themselves. I decided to go ahead though, in case my view is distorted and could benefit from some correction.

Since we're surrounded by so much illusion in 3rd density, "having light" could be most useful as a metaphor for having objective knowledge. However; having said that, in 3rd density terms, one way I explain it to myself is: "when you experience a mirror that exposes something in you to your conscious awareness that you realize in your heart is objectively true. That new, accurate understanding could be considered light (conscious awareness of objective knowledge). In other words, what was previously a darkness is now in conscious awareness (light) and the associated feeling is one of objective love.

Maybe it's all the same thing on some density; it just appears to be separated into various components in 3rd density because on this level, our perception is divided into the various sensory categories (sight, sound, touch, taste, hearing, etc).

I could be wrong, of course, but this makes sense to me at my current level of understanding.

Makes sense to me - I've certainly experienced the darker parts of myself dragged into the light and how painful and illuminating that can be. How small those parts eventually seemed, once they no longer lurked in the darkness where they grew to mythic size and strength in my mind - what a difference a little 'light' makes - so metaphor certainly works as well!

 

[Masamune]

Is to "have light" then, simply a metaphor, or do we actually experience it/see it/feel it when it occurs?

I agree with Buddy and anart on their points. I think that light can be felt, especially when gaining knowlege. For me when I am reading some material, such as the C's transcripts or Bringers of the Dawn I feel a certain energy that I absorb as I read. I don't think that you see lights when you "have light" but you may be able to see the light in things as you advance, or as you gain light you may be able to better recognize it in others. To me it is a type of energy that you can feel inside of yourself and carry it around. I agree that it can feel as if it hurts as it shines on the darkness inside ourselves, it felt that way as I read through the books on narcissism. ;)

 

[StandingOnTheEdge]

Thank you everyone so far for your thoughts.

A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is not a
highway.
Q: What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don't get that
one!
A: Why not?
Q: They are completely unrelated!
A: Exactly!!!
Q: What IS an enlightened being?
A: An enlightened being.
Q: What is the criteria for being an enlightened being?
A: Being enlightened!
Q: When one is enlightened, what is the profile?
A: This is going nowhere because you are doing the
proverbial round hole, square peg routine.

It seems we here on 3rd are consistently not understanding what is being meant by 'light', 'enlightened' or even 'love'.

I personally feel fairly unsure when I relate to knowledge that brings that 'warm feeling' that 'enlightens'. I tend to mistake that warmth for what 'my heart is telling me'...'it feels right...' for having reached some objective truth. It makes me think of New Age patterns of feeling the warm, fuzzy feeling that says you are 'on the path' that puts me into a state of complacency and back into slumberland.

Opposite this feeling, with beliefs that are brought to objective analysis and seen to be false, and here Anart has mentioned the pain of being dragged out of the darkness and into the light, and here, the metaphor makes more sense to me.

On one side is "warm, fuzzy" and on the other is "cold, objective". Both could describe light, and both can be confused by us 3rd D'ers, because what gets spoken by one person doesn't always get understood by the listener.

It is wonderful to have this forum to explore these questions, and how lucky to have the C's to push us along.

Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an
enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have the
idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is what they
radiate, and that this is a result of being enlightened.
A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good.
Just smart.

...

Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?
A: An intelligent being who only gives.

...

Q: I feel that it may be very difficult for the
C's to deliver adequate understanding into our 3rd density or
dimension.

...

how is one to know whether the
intended recipient is not ready/able to receive?' [...] And
'receive,' I think is a clue: the intended recipient can either
remain oblivious or ward off the love energy - free agency.
A: Yes.
Q: If it IS 'love energy' is it subsequently corrupted by STS?
A: Maybe.
Q: She then says: 'If one directs love very specifically toward
an individual it can be directed freely, judgmentally,
subjectively..... One challenge is to direct love freely...'
A: No.
Q: 'Giving love to the Universe may be the best way
generally, but if one does focus toward a loved one and it
CAN be effective, could the general Universe be JUST as
effective?'
A: The universe is about balance. Nuff said!

Maybe it is hazardous for us to interpret light and love since it appears to be able to be usurped fairly easily by STS.

Q: (L) What about Love?
A: What about it?
Q: (L) There are many teachings that are promulgated that
Love is the key, the answer. They say that illumination and
knowledge and what-not can all be achieved through love.
A: The problem is not the term "love," the problem is the
interpretation of the term. Those on third density have a
tendency to confuse the issue horribly. After all, they confuse
many things as love. When the actual definition of love as you
know it is not correct either. It is not necessarily a feeling that
one has that can also be interpreted as an emotion, but rather,
as we have told you before, the essence of light which is
knowledge is love, and this has been corrupted when it is said
that love leads to illumination. Love is Light is Knowledge.
Love makes no sense when common definitions are used as
they are in your environment. To love you must know. And to
know is to have light. And to have light is to love. And to
have knowledge is to love.

I guess I am seeking definition of these three terms and not just "light". And maybe Anart is correct by saying ...

I personally don't think it is a metaphor, but I do think that our current level of perception prevents us from perceiving it as what we think of as 'light' - I think we'll 'get it' when we 'get there'. fwiw ;)

My humanity must deal with my impatience, especially when love gets into the picture. There is such a large piece of me that wants to know...yipes! there's that word!...know...light...love....

Maybe the only way to know is to act. I'll stop. I realize my muse is getting noisy...

 

[Kessy]

May I try a go at this?

The way I currently percieve it is that Light is spiritual weight. When your soul gains enough weight it can then slot into the next hole (density). That weight is gained by those A-ha moments we get from objective realization about our reality and ourselves, and the resulting experience of using this new understanding to change the way we DO things, that becomes Knowing.

As for Love... I think that love is a joyful acceptance that everything is as it should be, that the universe knows what it's doing, that STO and STS are both necessary and valid and have their place for inter-related learning. So love is accepting that everyone (including oneself) is where they need to be in order to learn to gain Light/Knowing. Light/Knowing helps you to navigate (DO) through life to choose which of those paths you want to follow. Love is letting you be who you are at any given moment while striving for further learning/Light/Knowing - spiritual growth.

Well, that's how I see it at this point on my learning cycle anyways.