(Skepticism as a limited and biased form of investigation)
Who you are cannot be put into words. When the concept-ridden mind subsides, the Light of the Infinite begins to shine through. Once this Light or Awareness is sufficiently aligned to, words are no longer for you; they are merely tools to assist others in awakening to the Infinite within. ~ Bentinho Massaro
In my experience, even self-proclaimed “healthy skeptics” carry with them a vibration of non-wellbeing, mistrust and non-freedom. It feels more fixed and limiting than the skeptics themselves are generally able to see and admit.
The psychological root of skepticism tends to be a fear of being vulnerable, wrong or deluded, with an additional fear of being ridiculed by others, or by society at large, for being vulnerable, wrong or deluded.
Since most people already have deep doubts about themselves, their dreams, and what is possible in life, the attitude of skepticism is one that tends to easily spread and rub off on others. This is especially true for those who are less intellectually adept than the skeptics they are around. A smart skeptic’s influence on those with lesser intellectual confidence can often slow down their vibration, self-confidence and self-belief, as well as their general energy level and vitality.
Almost all of those I am aware of who left a deeply positive, ground-breaking mark on this Earth, benefitting millions of lives in inspiring ways, were generally imaginative, intuitive dreamers at heart, who believed that virtually anything is possible or accomplishable. This does not mean they were not also “realistic” from time to time, but skepticism and realism were definitely not their primary foundations. I think the only type of truly healthy skepticism is curiosity. Curiosity in its purest form is that which we see in a young child: an empty, truly open-minded attitude in which the only intention is to get to the bottom of what’s going on; to experientially understand, or grok, how something operates—without bias or a predetermined mindset.
Since skepticism, by its very definition, is never unbiased, it can also never lead to truly objective results or conclusions. A skeptic may be able to arrive at a conclusion that makes sense within certain agreed upon parameters, but to believe that this means a particular mystery, phenomenon, experience or paradox has actually been fully understood is folly.
Bentinho: Uhmm… not really. I have experienced it, so it was confirmed to me, and it’s locked-in at a really deep level. But I don’t have a memory of it based on images or anything, at least not in the conventional sense of memory, because memory was not there. It’s a different state of awareness, you could say. It’s a state of awareness or being with no contents. What if this substratum of being is always here, but is so subtle and formless that we have not trained ourselves to be able to recognize it consciously?
(Awareness as the formless, indestructible ground beneath consciousness)
There are many ways to say all this, but we could say that there is consciousness and then there is awareness, which is beyond consciousness. Awareness would be the container or essence of mind; consciousness would be the personal mind that experiences itself as the subject relating to the objects of its dynamic focus. But consciousness is not always aware of the pure existence, or awareness, “underneath” itself. If you learn to become aware of that awareness, that deeper, formless I am or beingness, then you can stay with it and more or less become absorbed in it by keeping your attention on that subtle, formless realization. You can lock your attention onto it, and then, no matter what happens inside of consciousness, no matter what happens experientially, your sense of existence can stay intact.
Bentinho: Yes. But what I’m saying is that awareness is always here, whether you are aware of it or not. That’s the only distinction I would make.
Russell D.: But also, if I was drunk right now, my awareness would be decreased. I would be less aware of my sensory data and my thoughts. I would be less aware of my awareness. My awareness and my self awareness would be decreased. Bentinho: I would say your sense of awareness and your sense of self awareness would be decreased, but that which knows that your sense of awareness is decreased is aware no matter what. It’s formless and indestructible. It’s immaterial yet real.
Russell D.: You’re saying that there is something there that’s core, that’s not affected by drunkenness. Bentinho: Beautiful! I couldn’t have put it better myself. Russell D.: So, how would you test that? You were talking about the three-year-old self that hasn’t changed. Bentinho: Yes. Can you get a sense of that—a sense of when you looked in the mirror at the age of three? Can you recapture that and focus on your self awareness during that moment, even if in that moment itself you were not aware of that awareness? You can actually go back into any memory and observe how there was a background, or core, of awareness that was witnessing the whole thing, even though you weren’t conscious of it at the time (so it’s not in your immediately stored memory of that moment). This witnessing happened regardless of what you thought or were conscious of. This is also where the conscious mind, the subconscious mind and the unconscious mind are transcended, if you will—they are transcended by this background awareness, which is aware of what you are conscious of and what you are not conscious of. So, I’m saying that there is a deeper awareness. Your conscious mind is that which is currently aware of subject-object relationships. It’s mostly aware of objects actually, but that infers the subject. The subconscious mind includes all the content that you have experienced, although you were not necessarily consciously aware of the subject-object relationships in that moment. All of these contents or appearances, whether they are conscious or subconscious to us, are witnessed by something deeper—by a deeper awareness that doesn’t change; by a deeper awareness that itself is free of objects, meaning it exists with or without object perception. And this is where the conscious mind, as you know it, lacks an ability to test it. The conscious mind depends on objects, and that’s where the basic sense of ego comes from. When awareness meets an object, it creates sort of an additional assumption—the assumption of a relative identity. Imagine a formless, space-like void that’s indestructible, sentient, awake, alive and aware, but has no form. You could almost say it has no self awareness. It just is.
Bentinho: You are aware, but you have the capacity for self awareness. Before there is self awareness there is awareness. It’s just not aware of itself. It has no actualized knowledge of itself because there is nothing other than itself. It’s “just” aware Infinity.
Bentinho: There is some source prior to the power to know, prior to the experience of sentience. To me, the fact that there is the power to know is evidence of the capacity for knowing. It’s evidence that there is a deeper source, an intelligence and an awareness as sentience, that is able to… Russell D.: It’s not material-based. Bentinho: No, it’s not material-based.
Bentinho: Sure. I’ll make it a blanket statement: Before anything—literally anything—can appear, there must be something to which it appears. That’s a slightly different way of saying it. There must be a power that manifests experience.
Bentinho: The Infinite or Absolute Reality is one. The manifestation of Creation, or the universal presence of all that is, is one. And the individual, the individuated experience, or the mind/body/spirit-based seeker is one. I don’t know if you have seen our logo symbol; it’s the infinity sign but with three loops. Awareness is the line itself; the bridge between the three components of the infinite. [Bentinho draws the trinfinity sign.]
Bentinho: I sense the possibility from the Infinite to also create an infinite illusion. Because it’s infinite, it also has infinite potential. Therefore, everything that it could ever possibly produce must be—including things that are not actually real, like this whole world creation. So, rather than a desire, it’s almost like an inevitability that comes with infinity. It’s not exactly like having the desire for an ice cream cone because you feel like you are lacking the sensation of a sugary treat, and you believe it will make you happy or more complete if you have one.
Would you prefer to figure out how to best navigate or move though this life, in order to better endure/enjoy this life, or would you rather experience sort of a timeless liberation that’s free from the constraints of this individuated life? Not that you can’t have both, but as a curiosity, if you had to choose. To say it another way: Would you want to know how to live well within the matrix, or would you want to be unplugged? [Bentinho is referring to the movie The Matrix.]
(The soul dreaming through incarnations toward full self-realization)
Call it the soul if you will. It reassesses what is the best next dream to dream in order to wake up further, based on the intelligence that it’s borrowing from its infinite source. The ultimate goal is complete liberation and realization of the One by itself, through the mirror of its own Creation; through the illusion of an individual soul that’s manifesting many different dreams—thousands or hundreds of thousands of dreams—until it realizes itself through that illusion. And the road along the way has the simultaneous purpose of expressing and experiencing all the infinite ways in which the infinite One can express and know itself in relative ways. Russell D.: And when it becomes self-realized, it becomes one with… Bentinho: With itself. Russell D.: Or with the Infinite.
Russell D.: And if it hasn’t reached that point, it comes back. Bentinho: It has to. Because the primal desire to evolve into full realization is still innately present at the root of this entity’s beingness. Russell D.: It comes back into another body? Bentinho: Into a body, yes. Into some type of vehicle for relative, subject-object experience. Russell D.: Could it be a rock?
Bentinho: There are seven different… let’s call them dimensions or densities or types of vehicles. Each successive level has greater self awareness. We could say that each has a higher density of aliveness, of self consciousness, of self awareness.
Bentinho: But something that is not aware of itself can absolutely grow in its desire to move. If you watch a caterpillar for example, it’s not conscious of becoming a butterfly, or at least it doesn’t seem that way to me. But there is something in its blueprint that knows what to do. There is a level of intelligence and a desire for growth that precedes the entity’s conscious abilities and guides the entity without its conscious knowledge toward its desired growth. This deeper, non-intellectual intelligence operates as a type of blueprint for the incarnation. The manifest portion of that entity doesn’t have to be aware of the impetus in order for evolution to occur. The impulse, or desire, precedes the understanding of it.
Russell D.: Are you 7th Density now? Bentinho: I perceive my baseline, or native state, if you will, to be of a late 6th Density nature, with penetrative and ongoing maturing experiences of 7th and 8th Density while incarnate here. Russell D.: Did you say 8th? I thought there were only seven levels.
Bentinho: My present understanding is that my baseline was already of a late 6th Density nature when I chose to incarnate here. I did this mainly out of the desire to be of service; to answer a strong, collective, energetic calling that was broadcasting from the consciousness and unconsciousness of this collective. I didn’t personally need this 3rd Density experience to become ready for the 4th Density experience/expression/lessons. My soul, if you will, already integrated those lessons a long time ago. This type of incarnation is more commonly known as being an old soul, or a wanderer. And lately, the New Age community has popularized the term starseed. If this makes any sense at all, you could consider the soul responsible for this body-mind projection into this dimension of beingness to be of a late 6th Density vibratory nature in its native evolution, and it/I chose to re-experience the 3rd Density environment because it/I sensed there was a strong collective calling for clarity and harmony on this planet.
Therefore, I find it important to share here that, as I understand it, there are literally hundreds of millions of wanderers incarnate on Earth at this time with a similar intention. I am, in that sense, not special, more holy or even rare for that matter. There are many wandering souls who show up out of love and compassion, and chances are high you are a wandering soul in service to a calling if you have found yourself attracted to this book. The degree to which I have awoken to my nature by penetrating the veil of forgetfulness inherent in 3rd Density consciousness is—though not special—still rare on this planet today. I am trying to help change that through the types of interactions, teachings and projects we’re creating through the Trinfinity and Bentinho Massaro brands.]
It was mainly an act of service to my brothers and sisters behind the veil; a choice to answer this collective calling I spoke of. It was an expression of deep love and compassion born naturally out of the knowingness that is so obvious in the 6th Density vibrations of unity—that all other-selves are in essence myself, and the knowingness that I could form myself in such a way as to be of assistance at this timing in this collective. There are also added “perks” to coming here, for my “own” development, as well as some risks and challenges, but I understand these to be added attributes or side effects that come along with the choice to “wander across densities.” The primary motivation is plain and simple: the answering of a calling. This is not unlike people accepting the duty of joining the military or devoting their lives to a truly charitable organization—or even like you answering an urgent phone call from one of your children—except that this is a very elaborate, layered and involved phone call or job. And it’s a call that lasts for a lifetime, or multiple lifetimes, and comes with some unique challenges, opportunities and risks. Russell D.: So, you were late 6th Density when you came into this world; when Ben took shape. Bentinho: On a soul level, yes. Russell D.: How much can people advance in one human lifetime? Bentinho: Potentially, though improbably, all the way.
The choice has to do with whether or not you want to maintain a foothold in the matrix of form, regardless of level. There have been examples throughout human history, though very, very few examples. But there have been some, I do believe, and they describe never experiencing the universe again, or being permanently established as the One, even though their body seems to be doing what it is doing.
My more time-based and prevalent desire at this moment is still the completion of my purpose and duty here—to fulfill the reason I chose this incarnation to begin with. Does the soldier want to go back home to see his family? Sure, but what he wants more is to complete the mission he and his comrades signed up for. The desire to go home and see his family again is ever in the background of his being, yet he maintains an alertness for his current mission and its required tasks. You could say the desire to go home is the desire he has for himself, whereas the desire to fulfill the mission is the desire he carries for other-selves. So, the meta-personal challenge for me has been to honor the impetus that brought me here to this density of the illusion—to use my relative time here as a springboard for my own soul’s development beyond its native point—while also helping as many (apparent) other entities as possible awaken to their potential, both in this life and beyond. Simply by continuing to allow my intuition, clarity and resonance to guide the flow of my actions.
Bentinho: More often than not, service is energetic too. It’s inspiration that can’t quite be grokked by the thinking mind. It’s like planting the seeds, so to speak, and then the seeds will grow. I’m not responsible for the growth of the seeds, but I can plant them, or at least offer them to someone to plant them for themselves, through my presence, vibration, radiance, and also in some cases, through my words or direct teachings. We all do this in a sense just by being ourselves and influencing others. I’m just more conscious of where that desire comes from, and the ways in which I can do it tactfully and non-intrusively. One of the primary laws of this universe is free will, and it becomes more and more important to uphold as you ascend the ladder of consciousness.
(Time as a timeless canvas where free will chooses its trajectory)
Russell D.: That’s a good topic you are bringing up. So, everything is universal presence. The future has happened, or is happening, and the past is happening. Bentinho…
Bentinho: Let’s use the analogy of a film strip. You go to watch a movie. If you deconstruct the film strip, you can see that all the images, from the first few scenes of the movie to the last scene, already exist. Your consciousness is choosing to play these particular frames, these potential creations, in a particular order to give you a unique experience of time and events. Russell D.: Yes, that’s the earthly time. Bentinho: Correct. How you respond to the scenes in the film, what you learn from it, how you choose to relate to it as a consciousness, as a being, and how it…
Bentinho: I would argue and say that the way you relate to what already timelessly exists is what is fresh. That’s what’s new; that’s what’s cutting edge. And it is the whole reason for this entire illusion; this mysterious and infinite adventure. Even to the Creator and its Allness, or Creation, your choices and realizations…
Bentinho: The sentience is relating to what appears to be insentient—the events of your life. The events don’t have an independent existence apart from the sentient one. They don’t exist apart from the observer, or consciousness, but they seem to. Every potential experience, every potential perception or object already exists, but how you choose to relate to these perceptions and objects, and how you choose to navigate through the infinite number of frames that are already laid out in a timeless universe—that path or trajectory is what is cutting-edge. That’s what is fresh and unique, and it’s the result of the primordial principle of free will. All images or creations that could ever possibly exist, already exist because there is no time. However, on this timeless canvas of infinite structures or configurations of atoms, the free agency of the intelligence of the Creator in the form of individuations is unleashed; it…
Russell D.: OK. This God knows what’s happening. It already knows what will happen a minute from now or an hour from now. Bentinho: It knows what happens structurally because it is already happening. Russell D.: It doesn’t know what I’m thinking a minute from now? Bentinho: How you respond to that thought is due to your free will. Russell D.: It doesn’t know how I will respond? Bentinho: No. Russell D.: Wow! Bentinho: That’s my current hypothesis, anyhow. Now if it wanted to, it could read the probabilities of how you are going to respond, based on the context of…
Bentinho: Nice! And yes, ultimately free will is an illusion. But it’s only an illusion in the final state—in the state of the Absolute reality prior to the creation of God consciousness. In the Absolute reality there is no time and no Creation, so there is no free will, as such. At least not in any way that we can relate to from this plane. There is only the One itself. Perfect, one, and infinite. No perception of anything but itself. So, you could say free will lies in abeyance until potentially re-activated to begin a new cycle of a Creation.
Free will was part and parcel of the first manifestation, and then that free will, or intelligence, began to generate this universe. This was before this free will further individuated itself into endless agents of consciousness. You could say this universe is the product of a single free will, which you could call God. But there are an infinite number of free will “extensions” of this that create other universes.
Russell D.: I’m trying to figure out what your definition or understanding is of this one universal love. Because it sounds like it’s not a human or common understanding of what it means. Bentinho: OK. I’m saying that there is no such thing as “human love.” It doesn’t exist. We can only experience the love that is, depending on how transparent we are to the love that is; depending on how much our individuated mind thinks as God thinks or sees as God sees.
Bentinho: God is a unity of energy that is intelligent—super intelligent, unimaginably intelligent, conscious and sentient. It’s a living field, if you want to imagine it that way.
Bentinho: It’s a bit like how a dream is not separate from the mind, but at the same time, the dream does not affect or define the mind itself, necessarily. The mind exists, whether it’s dreaming or not dreaming, you could say. In this analogy, the creative principle that produces the dream when you’re sleeping at night could be God. Whereas the mind itself would be the Absolute Reality. But this is just an analogy to show that God does not exist apart from the One Infinite Reality. It’s just one potential expression that then gives rise to manifestation and experience.
(Soul maturation and the final turn toward absolute reality)
Bentinho: Yes. At the very end of the maturation of the soul, or simply through an extremely intense longing or desire for the absolute truth, Infinite Reality can know itself. This realization doesn’t happen frequently in 3rd Density, at least not on this planet, and unlikely anywhere else either. It is the subtlest of realizations. The highest of the high. The densest of the most dense (dense in terms of requiring spiritual mass or focus). It generally requires great maturation of mind and spirit. By this point, many, many cycles of life and death, of different forms and experiences, of suffering and joy, and of chasing desires have been chosen to be experienced, until one reaches a state of inner ancientness and profound orientation toward the One Truth. Then, one’s interest is no longer in exploring this infinite universe of form and variety. Instead, there is a strange desire to transcend one’s experience of it; to turn one’s gaze completely toward the Creator and its Infinite Reality, and away from the Creation or the illusion of experiencing.
After maturation, the youthful interest in digging into things—studying this and doing that, improving this skill and having that relationship, etc.—has been exhausted through experience. It can be positively experienced or it can be negatively experienced, but it’s the same principle of doneness or tiredness or completion. So, it can be a giving up or it can be a sense of completion. A satisfaction, perhaps. A fulfillment in recognizing that one is at the end of one’s journey.
At the end of that threshold, there’s a complete turning inwards, which in and of itself, is generally a long journey as well. There’s a natural dispassion that grows towards form, and finally even towards all perception itself, because perception itself is no longer interesting; experiencing itself is no longer fascinating. If the heart or essence of an entity is not interested anymore, then what would sustain the subject-object relationship? The perpetuity of it is sustained by desire, interest, need, passion and curiosity. The end of such interest cannot be forced prematurely by a vain idea of wanting to realize The Absolute. It has to be a true maturation, in most cases, or it will simply cause imbalances that need rectifying later on in some lifetime or dimension.
As part of the canvas of your dream, you experience the perception of the mountain being over there and the body being over here. Because of this, you define there to be distance, differences and separation. But you can’t know that for sure. When you turn inward to I am-ness, to beingness, to consciousness itself, at the expense of looking at objects, you begin to realize your actual self, instead of being entertained by your non-self, or by appearances. As a result, your perception becomes more transparent, more mature and less distorted.
Bentinho: Correct. But it’s not an object as we know it; it is the perceiver and generator of all that is. It is the creator, the perceiver, and the intelligence that is the substratum of all consequent dreaming. It is the dreamer. It is the huge, apparently infinite, universal dreamer. But it is not truly infinite; it is only infinite in terms of the scope of its ability to generate an infinite number and variety of illusions. Just like a painting, it can take on infinite shapes and colors, each unique depending on its blend, but it can never not be made of paint.
Russell D.: I think you probably just said this, but what’s the difference between Infinite Reality and God? What’s one difference between them? Bentinho: God is the creative aspect of the potential intelligence that is innate to Infinite Reality. Russell D.: And the Infinite Reality is potential. Bentinho: Not exactly. It has potential, but it is the Infinite Reality. It is simply and totally itself.
It uses the God state of pure consciousness-beingness-bliss, which is the final state of consciousness an entity experiences in late 7th Density, as a mirror to realize its independence from Creation or God. God is the “trampoline” the entity uses to realize that, in truth, it really IS the Absolute, for that is all there really is. It uses God, the great experiencer of all, as the final mirror to see its own faceless Self. It is before manifestation or quality of any type. There’s nothing beyond the Absolute Reality; it transcends all perception and perceivers.
Bentinho: Anything perceivable is within the universal “bubble” of God consciousness, including the illusion of physics.
Bentinho: Yes. The first step is to perceive beingness or presence or consciousness by giving away all perceptions of objects. Then you become the subject itself, the universal subject, which is pure is-ness, beingness, consciousness. If you are able to maintain that for long enough, you can begin to awaken even deeper, with a faculty that is not the mind. It is actually Infinite Reality awakening to itself in contrast to God consciousness. Russell D.: Let me rephrase this. I think this is kind of exciting! So, you kind of learn little pieces of the God bubble—experiences, perceptions, and knowledge—and you sense into it more and more to get the whole picture… and then, you throw it all out! [Russell D. makes an excited swoop of his arm in the air, with a smile on his face like he just figured something out. An aha! moment for Russell D.!]
Whatever perception comes up for you, whatever is registered in your consciousness—throw it in the “trash bin” of God, or I am. Give it back to the beingness. Say to yourself, “This all belongs to beingness, to God, to the Great I Am.” This way, all of the individuated perspectives are given back, or surrendered, to the wholeness of God, enabling you to experience the God essence state more and more vividly, more and more brightly. Then, after maturing in this God consciousness—soaking in it like you would soak your body in a long, warm bath—you deny that very God consciousness completely. You ignore it and see what remains without even that pure essential beingness. What is revealed is your Self—you without any additions; Infinity Reality. What follows is indescribable.
Bentinho: Yes. From the Absolute, I’ve glimpsed or sensed other “Creation bubbles,” if you will. Like miniature specs or bubbles of light, each containing an entire Creation, floating in an infinite perfection, and impossible to describe to consciousness. The Absolute is never affected in the slightest by any of these Creations. Each of these bubbles or specs of light are hardly noticeable from the Absolute, unless focused upon and zoomed-in on using the innate ability of awareness to focus itself. Then, such a bubble or Creation becomes “bigger” if you will, and apparently more real, as it zips into focus.
The idea that things can exist in both perceptual domains simultaneously: the domain of diversity, separation, and multiplicity and the domain of Oneness. Both are true, and this paradox is often addressed in my work. Obviously, not specifically as it refers to God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Or at least not in those terms and not based on any particular religion.
Bentinho: A trinity is applicable to many aspects of our experience, but originally, when I came up with this name the main pillars were: 1. The individual consciousness. 2. The presence of God or consciousness itself. Some people might call this “the field,” or a sort of oceanic Oneness that is the root substratum, the root intelligence or the God principle that constitutes and underlies every individual. 3. The Absolute or Infinite Reality. We discussed this previously; I hope you remember your conclusion about it!
Russell D.: So, you’re not saying that individual consciousness is the same as the universal consciousness… Bentinho: In essence they are the same, but they are experienced as quite different. But they are not separate, just as a dream does not exist separately from the dreamer. Yet to experience a dream without awareness of the dreamer feels very different than to experience it being aware of the dreamer. So they are different states of consciousness, yet never separate from one another.
Bentinho: This is why I remarked that we are now getting into “my territory”—because of these types of paradoxes regarding a simultaneity of oneness and diversity. Within the realm of Creation, or this Great Illusion, there are many co-existing truths, which to the linear, 3D-oriented mind seem like opposites or contradictions, when in essence there is no friction between any of them. It takes the transcendence of the conventional mind to grasp the simultaneity of these types of laws or truths. So yes, on an expression level, there is a difference between our consciousnesses, but ultimately, there is not. Both statements are true within their own perceptual domains of being. Even if one may be illusory and the other not.
Bentinho: In a sense it works, but it depends on the level of perception we experience. There is an all-inclusive unity or simultaneity existing all at once, and it consists of different levels of perception. From each level of perception, different things appear to be true at different times. You can even see this on a human scale. For example, if you ask a child about a complex issue, he or she will likely only be able to see and describe the surface of it, but what they see and describe about the issue is most likely correct in terms of what is being observed and stated, as in “I see this, I see that…” Even though it’s not the whole picture, that doesn’t make the observation from the child’s level untrue. It’s just not the whole picture, and it’s being seen from a certain level of understanding.
Russell D.: Are any of these levels more true than the other levels? Are they all true? Bentinho: Here is the paradox within the paradox—yes and no! It’s like an infinite fractal of paradox. The paradox is always resolved, if you can accept it. If you can’t accept the paradox, then it will never be resolved, because there is always a paradox inside the paradox from the limited, linear mind’s point of view. I’ve noticed this with these types of questions. The paradoxical questions don’t ever have to end for as long as they are entertained. So, I would say yes, there are truer levels of perception where the perceptions of life are less distorted than at other levels. And yet, the distorted levels of perception are also, in essence, inseparable from the Creator’s perception of itself. Whether the Creator sees itself clearly in one area of its Creation and unclearly through another expression or individuation of itself, both are still the Creator knowing itself. So in a way, they are to be valued as equally valid to any other level of perception, even though one does not have to ascribe to the distorted perception or stay stuck there. Appreciation does not mean to indulge or identify with it; it simply means we can (and ultimately will) appreciate illusion as being part of the Creator’s exploration of itself.
However, from a mathematical point of view (if you will), or from a universal-scale point of view (if you will), or from the level of purity or wholeness (if you will), the more whole perspective would be to see the Oneness over the multiplicity. In that sense, the Oneness is more true than the illusion of separation. But because there is only one Oneness, an entity who is at the level of complete Oneness would have an innate and natural appreciation of each lesser point of view as being part of the whole—inseparably so. There would be an appreciation of it as if that perspective too, is the Creator, in all of its fullness. And again, this appreciation of illusion does not mean one is blinded by or bound to that illusion, or that one believes it to be true.
Bentinho: Nice. I like that analogy. I would say it’s true as an experience, because it’s truly experienced in that way. The perception is a truly valid perception as a perception, but it might not be mathematically, structurally or mechanically correct, so it may be a distorted perception. Yet the experience of that perception is as valid as any other experience of perception that the Creator is having of itself within this Great Illusion through an individuated, distorted view. To create a hierarchy of which perception within the Great Illusion is more valid than another is helpful, if provided by a master with clarity and a structure designed to help the seeker advance. Such a structure of advancement can be helpful, at least to the beginning and intermediate seeker. However, at the higher levels of communion with the universal Beingness, an unconditional love, clarity and transcendence from individuated points of view begins to loosen up these opposites, polarities and contradictions. Thus, at the higher levels, the paradox is experientially resolved for the seeker of God, and the obviousness of unity begins to outshine the apparent (but ultimately illusory) nature of separate realities.
If you go high enough in consciousness, the whole predicament disappears; it simply no longer occupies your interest, and instinctively and directly, the lesser truths are integrated. They are included in a larger body of knowledge which indeed has synthesized or resolved the paradox.
What is seen is that there are an infinite number of parallel expressions, which are all equally purposeful in that they all express the one infinite God, Creator, or Source Intelligence in every way possible. Every perception performs its duty, whether it does so consciously or unconsciously, by being a useful extension, expansion or manifestation of the infinite potential of the Creator knowing itself, experiencing itself, expressing itself, and creating all these illusions or hallucinations out of its own beingness.
But from a higher level of consciousness, none of them can ultimately be said to be “more true” because ultimately none of them are true. And yet they are all equally valid as expressions, as hallucinations, as experiences of the Oneness. These are all provided by the Oneness to itself, in a variety of temporarily valuable, yet illusory, ways. This way of seeing it is the result of having experientially resolved—or transcended—the duality or illusion of separation.
He wants to figure out the truth of the matter without believing that there could be a straight stick. It’s kind of like that when you say to me, “I want to get to the bottom of whatever this is, but what if I don’t believe that the universe exists inside of consciousness?” To me, that’s a greatly limited investigation of truth, just as on a more relative level, it would be a greatly limited investigation of truth if the guy on the tropical island was not interested in knowing the stick outside of the water. He wants to figure out the truth about the stick, but he refuses to pull it out of the water.
Bentinho: We are expanding upon the toolbox that we have. We’re trying our best to put this into an intellectual framework, but no matter how accurate the intellectual framework is, it will never be the truth. It will always be an image, a collection of sensory data, thought processes, reasoning… which is obviously not the truth itself. It is the attempt to use these tools to recreate an image of the truth.
(The master teacher adapting the message to the filters of the student)
I’m using an intellectual framework to give people a roadmap to find the edge of their intellect, and hopefully, to find the will and the interest to explore what is beyond that edge.
Bentinho: All of these things can work. I don’t particularly recommend drugs, and have never been big on using them myself, but people seem to have opened certain perceptions or levels of consciousness through them. In the ideal case, it’s the combination of intuition, meditation and will. I would say it starts with a will to know; the desire to know the truth. And that desire must be coupled with an intuitive sense, in order to become strong enough to transcend the realm of the senses and the intellect. If the person in your analogy sees the stick bent in the water, he is not wrong. Similarly, I also see what you’re seeing when you’re explaining intellectually sound things. I agree with what you are seeing; I see it too. I understand your world, or rather: your perception of life.
The stronger the will to know the truth becomes, the more rapidly you’ll find the limitations of the tools you’ve been using so far. If your will or desire is not very strong and/or your intuition is not yet activated (or relied upon or trusted), then you won’t be bothered by the limits of the intellect and the senses. Nor will you seek to find their limits, because you’re not looking for anything else. Would you agree?
The prerequisite to having a good meditation is true curiosity, or will, and some degree of faith that there is an intelligence or a truth beyond what’s obvious to you now, and the faith that this intelligence can somehow be accessed by you.
So, meditation is a method that can help accelerate this. But it is not necessarily needed. There are people who have penetrated very deeply into subjective levels of truth, or into experiential perceptions of existence that don’t seem to fit into the paradigm of the intellect and the senses, who haven’t adopted any formal meditation practice. By the sheer strength of their desire to know, and/or by their connection to their intuition, or their appreciation of that “gut feeling,” they have been able to penetrate…
Bentinho: Is the seeking itself; the will to seek, the desire. That will then attract all of the other tools needed. Russell D.: What do you mean when you say, “You will find what you seek”? Bentinho: You will always find the proof, the evidence and the conclusions that are commensurate with the level, or the nature, of what you’re looking for. This is one of the inherent limitations (and beauties, if you can appreciate it from a distance) upon the…
He started with a belief, and rather than try to find the truth nakedly, without bias, he simply sought to prove what he already thought. This can be very interesting to the world he is writing for, and it can help to expand or ground or complete that paradigm, but it is no longer a desire…
Bentinho: When the desire for truth becomes strong in a consciousness, in an individual, then all these other levels of intelligence begin to operate, begin to activate and move inside the body, the nervous system, and the brain; but also in my understanding, beyond that. The more metaphysical or spiritual components of one’s intelligence, of one’s capacity, begin to open up or activate. The brain is the conduit, or the receiver (like a radio tuner), but it’s not the originator of consciousness or knowledge. In my opinion, the brain receives insight and different perceptions of consciousness, and then translates that into imagery, activity, linearity and understanding. But it is not the source of it; it is the radio—the translator. To me, the source of any type of insight or perception can most closely be compared to the ethers, or the frequencies that a radio tunes into. I see the brain as a “resonating chamber” that can be used to tune into certain perceptions or truths and receive “downloads” of truths and convert them into imagery and insights and understandings and perspectives that are commensurate with the frequency that one is tuned into. But the map is not the territory… The song, as you hear it coming out of the radio (or translator), doesn’t actually exist in the ethers; it exists as vibration, as information. Once the radio tunes into it and does what it is designed to do, it becomes music, it becomes a representation, or an explanation, of that frequency; it becomes an image of that frequency. It becomes something that the senses can hear. Similarly, I think the brain operates as a receiver of universal data or knowledge. The ethers or vibrations exist whether or not the radio is turned on or is even created. In the same way, the truth exists before and beyond the brain, and whether or not the brain is dialed into the possibility of translating the truth. The truth is not the image that the brain presents. What if there is a way to directly perceive, know, experience or even be the frequencies themselves, rather than be limited to the song that is produced by the radio or translator? Similarly, what if we can access higher levels of truth directly, and even “become” them (or remember that we already are them), instead of just perceiving ourselves through the intellect and the senses? Wouldn’t you much prefer direct knowledge or experience…
Meditation can definitely open this up for people, and just the sheer desire to seek beyond the known can open it up. If the desire is not greater than the complacency or okayness with our current understanding, those new avenues will most likely not be activated, except accidentally or by what religious people call “grace” perhaps. By God’s grace, through some kind of incident or accident or coincidence, or due to some kind of handicap, physical disease, or terminal illness, or some sudden…
Bentinho: This is just a side note, but there are differences in how we choose to use symbolization. I am aware of the distortion that is inherent in symbolizing something that is known directly—it becomes more indirect. It becomes religious. It becomes a symbol. A distortion. There is a direct perspective, perception or experience, and I am making it less direct through symbolization, words and images. I distort it. I have to if I wish to use words and symbols. Now, I can share these symbolizations or distortions with another entity, with or without the conscious intention for them to be able to use it as a pointer to then tune-in themselves so they can have the same direct experience. This is like Neo coming into the matrix (again, to use the analogy of The Matrix). Morpheus asks Neo before he wakes up, “Do you…
I think this is sometimes the fault of religion—it’s laid out there as a truth; it is not used as a tool for each individual to then, from within their own sovereignty, independently realize their connection to…
This is what distinguishes the master teachers of all times from many other wise men and women and philosophers, or perhaps simpler teachers. What makes the master teacher a great teacher, among several things, is the ability to quickly know the world of their student or audience, to a point where they can accurately estimate how they will translate (and necessarily distort) the message into words or symbols. As a result of being aware of the student’s tunnel of distortions that their own translation will have to pass through, master teachers can modify what they say to fit the filters of the student. They can predict with a high degree of accuracy how the given words will be interpreted and finally land in the conscious and subconscious mind of the listener.
Whereas a simpler teacher simply translates the experience according to their own set of symbols, the master teacher does not speak the words he or she prefers or is most familiar with per se, but rather deals directly with the interpretations and filters of the listener and adjusts his or her message accordingly.
Think about it… isn’t the genuine purpose of teaching for the student to get the message? If a teacher simply toots his own horn or speaks his own language, then who is he really doing the teaching for—the student or himself?
So nowadays, master teachers have to jump through a lot more mental loops and make certain concessions in their messaging. They have to be aware of their entire audience. This complicates and necessarily further distorts the message. However, in my opinion, it is still better than no message, and it can be done to a satisfactory degree. The master teacher, or mirror being, is someone who is sensitive enough that they can even get a fairly precise read on the collective’s filters as a whole and provide a message that will pass fairly undistorted through most filters. Of course, there are always severely biased people whom you cannot account for. These people will gravely misinterpret the message, no matter how it is worded. The message is simply not yet directly for them, even though they may be exposed to it. The master teacher has to accept that their true message, their own experience, and their apparent identity—which by the way, are all the same thing in the accomplished master (their beingness or identity is their message)—will be greatly misunderstood. Being understood by others is simply not one of the privileges of a great and sincere teacher; being adored by some and attacked by others is more likely the outcome.
Bentinho: It’s extremely worthwhile as a means to gain a deep sense of fulfillment—even for that alone; truth aside. And truth has always been very valuable to me; it has been a main component of my search. If you asked me in my earlier seeking years, and still today, “Would you rather be happy or would you rather know the truth?” I would choose the truth. But I’ve actually found them to be the same thing.
And I think there is a beauty sometimes (not always but sometimes) with people just being completely OK with what they know and not seeking any greater knowing. I don’t recommend it overall, but sometimes I think it can really suit a particular person. But it’s rare. It usually doesn’t look too good on a person, from where I stand. It usually feels like they are simply asleep. Like the walking dead. But there are cases where it just really suits that person; it’s perfect for where they are at, and there is a radiance and peacefulness about them. And I really appreciate seeing that, though it is rare. Russell D.: Are you talking about someone who is happy but not spiritual? Bentinho: Not consciously spiritual perhaps, yes. I would not generally classify them as truly happy, but rather as content, peaceful, in acceptance, having sort of a mastery of themselves, integrated, having come to terms with who they are in this world. The ideal grandfather or grandmother. There is a beauty to that, and there is a certain