Ann Coulter,...more Lies

[vicente]

Ann Coulter,...more lies,...more republican reconstructionism. This woman is the epitome of Christian hate and conservative anti-Americanism. Her new book 'Treason', which defends the fear and oppressive tactics of her political Party, from McCarthy to todays 'faith-based' despotism, should be a instant best seller among the 1/3 of the delusional Christian citizenry who think we found WMD's in Iraq.

But the truth is, that in February 1950, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, held up a piece of paper that he claimed was a list of 205 known communists currently working in the State Department. The paper actually had no names on it, and neither did McCarthy, over the followings years, ever produce documentation for a single one of his charges. That politics of fear and terrorism upon the American people is the same formula George Bush has used in his propaganda which precipitated the current illegal, unjust, and immoral war against Iraq.

McCarthy, like Bush, Tom DeLay, etc, believed his was chosen by the Christian god to indoctrinate the America people and force upon the World his monotheistic Christian views. Right from the beginning of his crusade, he used Christianity to strike fear in the minds of the people. During the Wheeling, West Virginia speech, which launched his career of tyranny, he even attacked the Secretary of State by saying he is "the man who sold out the Christian world to communism". Even President Eisenhower was afraid to stand up to him.

Liberals may say that Ann Coulter has ever right to spew her lies and hate. I say the Treason is her own. To me, her continuing subversive, anarchist, anti-American agenda is not protected under our Freedoms of Speech. I say it's time liberals call a spade a spade, and Ann Coulters ilk, faith-based seditionists.


:)

[Ronagon]

Am I allowed to disagree with you, on the most fundamental level?

[zygoat]

zygoat here,hello all!!,
i believe that Ms. Coulter's book will prove to be more honest than Mrs. Clinton's,and that she will outsell her as well. :D

[vicente]

Ronagon, I'm fully open to a critique of whatever I post. That's part of the fun of a forum. As for zygoat and Clinton, like most conservatives comments, I don't get the connection. All I know of Clinton's book is that the ultra-conservative media hate machine immediately attacked her, and I didn't hear any comments regarding the content.
In my post above, besides bringing attention to the anti-American patheticness of Ann Coulter, I also delve into her message,...that McCarthy was what he was, a tyranical christian who, as todays Republicans, held/hold many Americans in their grip of fear, and not as she says, someone who needs defending.

Did everyone not see the poll last week which suggests that 38% of Americans think Bush has found WMD's in Iraq, and 22% who think Iraq used them against our coalition of bullies in March.

Americans are so easily media-ted.

vicente
:)

[Ocre]

Now, this is a completely different approach and by no means do I wish to judge the fascination with discussing these matters, but Vicente, isn’t the first question to confront, before “concluding” does its conditioned dance,: Is there really something outside of you (us) to observe?

:-)

[vicente]

"Is there really something outside of you (us) to observe?" No,...so why do you ask? Ignoring the anti-American ultra-conservatism in the US, or individual fascists like Ann Coulter, by saying "oh, they're not really there", is not going to expose the core issues, which, when unveiled, effortlessly dissolve; for the core issues were never real to begin with, and thus the rigidity of our self-imposed barriers ease, so we can more readily understand, not only that everything, as Plotinus said, contains all things in itself, but that everything is the same thing.

We could continue to say there is nothing outside us,...yet, until these Christian Republican anti-Americans see their despotic, faith-based agendas for what they truely are; the understanding that nothing is outside us will remain obscured; for the ordinary person can only perceive what is describe through words, and those words of description are currently governed by ultra-reactionary media mogals who do wish us to be unenslaved. That's what conservatism is all about,...clinging to tradition for ones identity, and the forced indoctrination of others to also cling to their traditions. In America's case, the clinging is to a Christian world view, which, no matter how one interpretes it, is in direct opposition to the US Constitution.

http://skepticreport.com/tools/10command.htm



vicente
:)

[Ocre]

I ask, because the question “happened” and needs no reason as if object/subject are actually separated.

What I find baffling in your reply (Baffling as in “completely trespassing on it’s own statement”) is this:

You seem to agree that there is nothing outside of us, but not everybody sees this…. ignoring that “not everybody sees this” is just as much not outside of you….
understanding that nothing is outside us will remain obscured;
Isn’t it just as much obscured if you take your own observations as if they point at something outside of you???

:-)

[vicente]

Ocre, inside the dream, which sees subject and object separate, only the language of the dream is understood. If I decide not to play with the delusioned, to not respond in a way which points to, in the dreamers linguistics, a direction for waking up, even though in reality there was never a "sleep", then my being here perpetuates the problem, not the cure.

At the same time; dialoguing on conservative anti-Americanism doesn't necessarily mean I'm attached to it, or see the patheticness of Ann Coulter or treacherous anarchist personalities like George Bush, Tom DeLay, etc as something outside myself.

It is perfectly ok if one does not see the depth of my posts, that is, the difference between an emotionally charged rant and an unattached reflection. The confusion basically arises, whether one wishes to see others through a skin encapcilated ego, as Alan Watts would say, or merely other personalities, arises from an inability to understand beyond their knowledge and belief patterning. As such, what some may see as pointing to something outside, because that is all they know, I am actually pointing to something else.

The attitude of turning the other cheek may be a very firm belief for many, however, as shown in the philosophical Billy Jack films of the 70's, turning the other cheek is just another form cope out.

History, although an illusion, has a tendency to repeat itself. America today is not much different then Nazi Germany of 1938. The fascist of then, are the compassionate conservatives of 2003, but worse.

Vicente
:)

[Ocre]

If I decide not to play with the delusioned, to not respond in a way which points to, in the dreamers linguistics, a direction for waking up, even though in reality there was never a "sleep", then my being here perpetuates the problem, not the cure.

That’s like saying: “I’m dreaming and I need to tell the characters in my dream they are dreaming as well …..

I am actually pointing to something else.
So still you are objectifying as if there is object and subject, as if there is something 'outside'.

:-)

[vicente]

Perhaps from your point of view Ocre,...from mine there is no object-ivety. In other words,...and as I previously mentioned, we only perceive to the limit of our vocabulary,...is that rejecting the illusion does not dissolve the illusion. The only way of which I'm aware that the illusion can be dissolved, is by seeing it. Once it is seen, it effortlessly vanishes.

Phenomenal reality is an illusion,...it is not real. Yet, I interact with the phenomenal, with what is false. This does not mean I am not aware to some degree that object-ivity is an illusion, or that I do not understand the false as the false. Neither is this a claim that you are less or more aware than I, albeit queer you offer no suggestions of how to inact with the illusion without being attached to it.

For me, I resonate well with the bodhisattva idea of using my piece of the illusion to liberate the reflections around me from suffering, thereby liberating myself. In other words, the more I can unveil beliefs, expose faith, show a spade as a spade, the more the walls which protect and precipitate the illusion loses the adhesiveness that holds it together.

And no,...by saying that I am actually pointing to something else is not objectifying,...only in your limited view is that objectiving.

Although nothing can be measured without light,...light itself is currently unmeasureable, except by those who have directly experienced the Stillness of Light. The way to have such a direct experience, is to surrounder the mental-emotional based ideas regarding subject and object, and just Be, as if in a state of preferencelessness. Then, as the predispositions are let go, one becomes aware of the reverse flow of forward moving things, the illusion of subject and object dissolve,...and our conservation can ascend to another level.

In the meantime, by pulling out one or two comments from the whole flow of the post, seems as if a diversion to cover up the essence of what is being pointed to.

vicente
:)

[Ocre]

The illusion is that anything might exist outside of you.
Nothing that is observed can be truer or falser than another observation as if observer and observed would actually exists separately.

Truth cannot be pointed at, all appears in Truth.
All is direct experience, veiled only by conditions attributed to this direct experience. It is not about dissolving identity, but about dissolved attachment to identity, that can be no ‘deed’. (And rejecting experience, wishing to change it, stems from attachment to identity)
Consciousness IS identity, but doesn’t have ‘an’ identity. So identity without attachment realises all is direct experience (no ‘doer’), seeing things that need change is attachment to identity. And this needs no change either, for nothing can add to, or detract from, Unchanging Awareness.

All appears within the same Unchanging Awareness. If it seems to matter how it appears, there is belief in form within identity and this belief creates the image that identity needs dissolving.

:-)

[sahyo]

The illusion is that anything might exist outside of you.


no "outside"-inside, no "of", no "you"


So identity without attachment realises all is direct experience (no ‘doer’), seeing things that need


no thinking-separate-' id-entity' left to no realise, to experience

*
All appears within the same Unchanging Awareness.


no "within the"

[vicente]

Ocre,...to me, that was a well presented reply,...you've certainly done some considering upon the BigView. Although I agree with much of what you said, I have few different understandings.

From my experience, truth can be pointed to, especially by pointing to what it is not. Piggy-backing on that observation, I would say that all is not "direct experience", for experience born of belief is always experienced through the condition of that belief, and thus, not a direct experience. A "direct experience", from my observations, arises through preferencelessness, innocence, thoughtlessness. And yes, I am certainly implying that 99% of the Collectives experiences are useless, except for the mental-emotional energy they supply as a food source within our perceived solar system. In other words, I concur with others, ie., Colin Wilson in his work 'Mind Parasites', GI Gurdjieff, etc., that human experiences are mostly generated for Moon Food.

I agree that nothing exists on the outside, nor the inside in that context,...thus, as you suggested, there is no false, which I agree,...however, we still deal, on a perceived daily basis, with an outside that doesn't exist. It is the "wish" of the bodhisattvas to assist in the liberation from the illusion, which, first of all, should not be construed as a hope, desire or expectation, for a wish is different than that; a wish is not attached to predisposition,...and second, working within the illusion does not necessarily suggest "how it appears" should be different, for as all buddhists should be aware, suffering is the consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are,...however, the bodhisattva wish is about the Flow, and about letting go of the predispositions which inhibit that Flow.

From an ego point of view, yes, truth cannot be pointed to,...if it could, such would instantly bring the dissolution of the attachment to ego, even though it was never real to begin with.

The idea of the top post regarding Ann Coulter, and America's rightwing delusions, is how do we precipitate the letting go of attachments to conservative views which do nothing but feed that which is not real. Is non-attachment turning the other cheek? Is non-attachment the delusion of voidance? To me, non-attachment is not being identified with, yet at the same time, not rejecting that an identity persists.

If there is nothing on the outside, than ultimately we are our brothers keeper,...but in an non-identifying sense.

vicente
:)

[zygoat]

vicente,
It is perfectly ok if one does not see the depth of my posts, that is, the difference between an emotionally charged rant and an unattached reflection. The confusion basically arises, whether one wishes to see others through a skin encapcilated ego, as Alan Watts would say, or merely other personalities, arises from an inability to understand beyond their knowledge and belief patterning. As such, what some may see as pointing to something outside, because that is all they know, I am actually pointing to something else.

it is PERFECTLY OK if one does not see the depth of my posts(you are quite sure of something that you cannot possibly be sure of)that is the difference between an emotionally charged rant and an un atttached reflection(that is relative,for one and is merely egotistical to say the least)are you smoking marijuana?because you seem to me that you are a pot smoker!!if so you should reconsider because it seems that no matter the reply you consider yourself better than others and that if others don't see things your way,that you will pick up your ball and go home!!! :blink:

[vicente]

Yes, It is perfectly ok if one does not see the depth of my posts,...in that case, I was speaking to no one in particular, but in this case I'm quite certain from the text of zygoat's post that the poster identified as zygoat is clearly engaged in an emotional charge, albeit to zygoat, unidentifiable.

It is interesting that zygoat feels Ann Coulter's book will be more honest than Mrs Clinton's (a line I'm sure you got from the Fox News Channel), however, since Coulters book, just through the advance, shows her work is more arrogant christian conservative revisionism, like her last, then I must gather you think that Clinton's book is a more serious lie, and more seriously invading of the Life, Liberty and Access in America. Your basic premise though is interesting. How can a lie be more honest or less than anther lie?

Well, considering your (in black and white) thoughts on the subject, I assume you are basically as inept as your anti-Constitution leader and will probably claim, as him, that if one isn't for your (deceit) than they must be against you (and your deceit). However, I'm not against you, I'm against your unAmerican beliefs, which, like it or not, are not you.

As for marijuana,...although I'm not smoking, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc., were smokers. In fact, before Randolph Hearst and DuPont had marijuana delegalized for fear that hemp would cut into their woodpulping profits, marijuana was used by many of the greatest contributors to to evolution of humankind. So the real question is not only why zygoat isn't a smoker, but why does zygoat see pot smokers as less than he? When is the last time zygoat founded a Country?

vicente
:)

[Ronagon]

I'm going to possibly shock a lot of you with what I have to say in response to Vicente, and I'm not kidding in the slightest when I say it.

Communism is hell, no if's, and's or buts.

Those who have actually lived through it, know this. But you never will, no matter how many pretty words and speeches you give to the contrary. In the back of your faithfully indoctrinated minds, you are still doggedly holding on to the belief that it actually works, if only done right.

This is not true. Communism is a philosophically invalid notion, and it always will be. Capitalism was never the enemy, and it never will be. What always HAS been the enemy, is the lack of separation of economics and government.

Big money corruption only exists, when there are no stop-gaps to prevent businessmen from being able to buy government muscle... the power to tax by unexplicit threat of force. With that kind of muscle behind it, big business can become corrupt, and does.

But capitalism is not to blame for that. The poor constitutional design of a nation IS. Under a typically poor design, businessmen can harness the power of government to gain an unfair advantage over their competition, and undue, sinister longevity. Without the ability to do that, however, they quickly crumble, as they deserve.

Because I, and many others, know all of this, we know just how evil communism truly is. We also know several other things...

1) The war in Iraq was the right thing to do,

2) The war in Vietnam was the right thing to do,

3) The House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC) was the right thing to do.

Communism is dictatorship, and many die-hard liberals love it, because the true purpose of liberalism is to liberate people from critically thinking for themselves, and taking truly assertive responsibility for their own lives. They want to live in a wishful-thinking world, where government is their "good shepherd".

Get a clue. Stop trusting blindly.

[vicente]

That was an interesting reply Ronagon,...a slight drift in the subject, but interesting nevertheless.
I've never met a person who was pro-communism, nor was ever directly exposed to it myself. From my understanding however, communism is a totalitarian economic system, and as such, in a world shared with capitalism, will eventually meet its doom. Even so, most people appear to have a media-ted idea of what communism is and is not. One thing it is not, is an atheistic government.

Although, from all I've seen, ie., the Soviet Unions non-promotion of the myth of monotheism, I've never seen in any context that they promoted atheism. In the US however, in direct opposition to the US Constitution, there was, and continues to be, a promotion of the US as a monotheistic State, and the disinfranchizement of those who do not believe in such myth, through "forced" songs, oaths, pledges and the constantly seen propaganda on currency.

In response to other points,...I totally disagree that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was "right" in any way. It was an illegal, unjust and immoral hostle ingress precipitated through lies and deceit. It was totally unAmerican. The UN inspectors should have been given the opportunity to complete their job.

I felt it also a disgrace how US citizens, media-ed by conservative hate, reacted to France for not joining in the illegal attack. Little information was given about France's enormous military preparations in case the UN inspectors failed.
Personally, I think France should ask for the Statue of Liberty back,...at present, America doesn't deserve it.

The House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC) was not right in any way. It, like Bush's invasion of Iraq, was based on lies and deceit. In all the years of his despotic ranting, McCarthy never produced one shread of evidence against even one person, yet thousands of lives were destroyed.

I don't know if Vietnam was the right thing to do,...in hindsight things could have been done different. However, if America would have stopped McCarthy before he started, like the Germans should have stopped the Nazis in the 30's, or like America should have stopped the fascist Bush Administration from ever being appointed by the SCOTUS, then things would have certainly been different.

In my opinion, the greatest possibility for peace and justice in the world is the US Constitution,...yet, if we continue allowing faith-based anti-Americans like McCarthy, Coulter and Bush to continue their Christian activities, 1930's Germany will look like utopia compared with the nightmare that the rightwingers are moving us towards.

If you wish to get a better grasp of what such a Christianized society will look like, try Margaret Atwood's 'A Handmaids Tale'. Several universities use that as a text in their Religious Studies programs.

vicente
:)

[dog goddess]

Originally posted by vicente@Jun 24 2003, 01:53 AM


In response to other points,...I totally disagree that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was "right" in any way. It was an illegal, unjust and immoral hostle ingress precipitated through lies and deceit. It was totally unAmerican. The UN inspectors should have been given the opportunity to complete their job.


i think we should have attacked those places long ago just because of the way they treat their women.

circumcision of women, death by stoning for the crime of BEING raped, forced marriages, honor killings.

someone should have gone in a long time ago and done something to help them.

no one really cared about them though. i suppose if there had been some monetary value to be gained by freeing them of their pains then maybe someone would have. to bad their suffering is not the issue so many want to fight against.

[vicente]

dog goddess,...you are certainly misinformed for a bitch. Woman in Saddam's Iraq had more equal rights than most country's in the world. Now that conservative Islam is back (Saddam hated religious fundamentalism and Bin Laden), thanks to America, the women of Iraq are under threat once more from the Islamic clerics who Saddam had a passion to kill.

I particularly didn't care much for Saddam, even though I would like to see the US's faith-based, anti-American Christian clerics impaled, starting with Bush and DeLay, but it would be fair to keep the stories straight from what America's ultra-right controled media propagandizes,...ie., the US Army in 1989 said Saddam didn't "gas" his people, it was the Iranians who "gased" the Kurds.

The truth is, there are only three or four Country's on Earth who don't know who is the evilest, most peace threatening, environmentally abhorent Nation on Earth,...and I assure you it was not Iraq.

America, through its hateful christian values and faith-driven disregard for its Constitution, has truely become a very mean place.

vicente
:)

[dog goddess]

oooohhhhhh vicente told me.


i'm not the one who is misinformed though.

[zygoat]

vicente,
dog goddess,...you are certainly misinformed for a bitch i feel for the women in your world :o

[Ocre]

If you agree that “nothing exists on the outside, nor the inside in that context,...thus, as you suggested, there is no false”, what is this ‘outside that doesn’t exist, but we deal with” other than a denial of this insight?

“Working with the illusion”, to me that’s like saying “I know dragons exist in fairy-tales, but I need to deal with them anyway…, or again, like trying to wake the characters in your dream…

There is no object/subject, no ‘you’ to dissolve, what is transitory is not what you are, what you are is where all this seems to take place.
Whatever you perceive to be “not me” is the illusion. When you feel things need changing, this is a denial of the perfect reflection that always is.
When this perfection is seen and nothing needs change…everything changes.

It seems to me as if you believe that “differentiating” has to dissolve altogether, while it is only a matter of not attaching worth to what is differentiated. This happens (meaning loosing meaning) when it is seen that all appears from the same void and nothing can appear better or worse..

Loosing ‘identity’ and still experiencing (as if that would be direct experience) appears as an idea, only because of what identity is thought to be.
There is no Identity to loose, only attachment to form within Identity. Consciousness IS Identity.
All is direct experience, it doesn’t matter if you feel you are “the man peeling the potatoes”, or if you feel you are “the peeling of potatoes”, or if you feel you are “the observer of the man peeling the potatoes”. What you are is what is unchanged in all of these.

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Jun 23 2003, 01:25 AM

The illusion is that anything might exist outside of you.


no "outside"-inside, no "of", no "you"


So identity without attachment realises all is direct experience (no ‘doer’), seeing things that need


no thinking-separate-' id-entity' left to no realise, to experience

*
All appears within the same Unchanging Awareness.


no "within the"
No “no….” Asheera… ;-) (just mimicking you, no offence intended)

There are no characteristics to “That” and no “no characteristics” either.
The objectifying nature of “naming” can’t be nullified by omitting certain words, or pointing at them when you read them….;-)
Reading them is no different from writing them, it shows meaning is attributed to the words that you avoid writing…
Attributing meaning needs no dissolving either.

:-)

[sahyo]

No “no….” Asheera… ;-)


not which ocre thinking ;)


There are no characteristics to “That” and no “no characteristics” either.
The objectifying nature of “naming” can’t be nullified by omitting certain words, or pointing at them when you read them….;-)


not which ocre thinking ;)


Reading them is no different from writing them, it shows meaning is attributed to the words that you avoid writing…
Attributing meaning needs no dissolving either.


not which ocre thinking :)

[Ocre]

....brings us right back to the thread “words”...;-)

“Not which Ocre thinking” is attributing meaning; It is Asheera’s ‘finding’ on 'Ocre’s thinking' ...

:-)

[sahyo]

no :)

[Ocre]

Then what is not which ocre thinking ?
To me it means "Asheera's reply".

:-)

[sahyo]

To me it means "Asheera's reply".


yes would :)

[vicente]

I agree Ocre, there is no "you" to dissolve,...but there is a "you" you think you are, which, when dissolved, is as wakening from a dream.

A direct experience is an experience in which nothing steps between a phenomenal/noumenal experience and the noumenal experiencer.

Considering what Schwaller de Lubicz said, "You do not know the questions unless you already have the answers",...one cannot have a direct experience while attached to a belief, especially the belief that their is no experiencer, or experience. That is attaching oneself with false answers, thus the questions are equally as false. All I can suggest is to simply surrender those notions, in fact, all notions, and witness the eternity open to consciousness through stillness, that is, the letting go of predispositions.

:)

[sahyo]

vicente

not belief 'experiencer-experienced-experience not' :D

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Jun 25 2003, 12:33 AM

To me it means "Asheera's reply".


yes would :)
To Asheera, it is not Asheera’s reply....?

:-)

[Ocre]

I agree Ocre, there is no "you" to dissolve,...but there is a "you" you think you are, which, when dissolved, is as wakening from a dream.
A non-existing “you” needs dissolving? Where can this viewpoint come from, other than from a belief this “you” you think you are, is real…? What could come up with such a belief other than the you you think you are….;-)..

A direct experience is an experience in which nothing steps between a phenomenal/noumenal experience and the noumenal experiencer.
There is no “you” to step between, once this is seen, direct experience is no longer seen to have false qualities as if it is not NOW, but “to be achieved”. Identity only seems to be something that needs dissolving, when it seems to be something you ‘have’ instead of you ‘are’…

one cannot have a direct experience while attached to a belief, especially the belief that their is no experiencer, or experience.

All experience is whole (experiencer- experience- and experiencing are undivided.) And all experience is shaped by the belief of it’s experiencer and visa versa. While what you and I are is neither, but where all this appears. Truth is not an object, nothing is excluded from Truth.

That is attaching oneself with false answers, thus the questions are equally as false. All I can suggest is to simply surrender those notions, in fact, all notions, and witness the eternity open to consciousness through stillness, that is, the letting go of predispositions.
All questions are diversions, but the final one: “What am I”? (Not: what do I need to do to become what I already are and only can be….)
When attention then gets directed towards what is experiencing, not what is experienced, the wholeness, the NOW, is realised.


:-)

[vicente]

Ocre,...one monent you seem so close, then you begin to rationalize a truth from something it is not.

A non-existing “you” needs dissolving? Where can this viewpoint come from, other than from a belief this “you” you think you are, is real…? What could come up with such a belief other than the you you think you are….;-)..

If you read my comments, I did not say a non-existing you needs dissolving, but that the non-existing you, the you, you think you are, dissolves, as the you, you are (which isn't to be confused with a self) awakes. In reality there is no dissolving, but from non-reality, the dream, there appears to be a dissolving, yet, the dissolving never really occurs. How can one dissolve something that is not real?

All experience is whole (experiencer- experience- and experiencing are undivided.) And all experience is shaped by the belief of it’s experiencer and visa versa. While what you and I are is neither, but where all this appears. Truth is not an object, nothing is excluded from Truth.

I very much differ with that. Most experience, ordindary experience that is, from my observations, is divided, and not even close to Whole. Basically, this is because most experience, as the term is generally accepted, arises from the illusion of division. Second is that all experience is not shaped by belief,...direct experience is free of belief.

I can only assume that the reason you believe what you have said is that you are not cognizant of having a direct experience. There are though, many ways of triggering a direct experience. I would suggest you accept the possibility that direct experience, a belief free experience, can be realized.

When attention then gets directed towards what is experiencing, not what is experienced, the wholeness, the NOW, is realised.

Absolutely. That illustrates what I meant with my opening statement. How do you understand the above, yet think all experience is whole? That all experience is shaped by belief? A belief, no matter what, cannot enter, as it were, the Now. To even imagine that a condition could merge with the Now, to me, is insane.

I've often said, the we that we think we are do not experience the world that surrounds us, but the world which surrounded us. In the most simplest of words, experience arising from belief, can only be experience through the conditions of that belief. And that is not realizing Wholeness. That is merely identifying with what is around the "hole".

Visualize a keyhole for a moment; one of those slotted holes that can be peeped through, like in older colonial type homes. Now,...describe that hole.
It may be perceived as having the shape of a circle with a rectangle whose width is smaller than the diameter of the circle projecting from the bottom; or maybe that the hole is surrounded by a brass plate which is attached to a door, which is attached to a wall, etc. Perhaps we could look through the hole and see what's on the other side. But that's not describing the hole; that's describing what's around or through the hole. This is how most, especially Westerners perceive their own
Wholeness,...by what's around it.

vicente
:)

[Ocre]

Exactly, there is no dissolving, but in the eye of that which feels there is a dream…., so “…the you, you think you are, dissolves, as…..”, is a perception from a “you you think you are…”.

Most experience, ordinary experience that is, from my observations, is divided, and not even close to Whole. Basically, this is because most experience, as the term is generally accepted, arises from the illusion of division.
Here again you do the same thing: If I leave out the middle, you write: “ Experience is divided because it arises from the illusion of division….”.
Nothing is Divided, but from an illusional viewpoint… When this viewpoint is seen as in need to change, this viewpoint is believed… There is no division between ordinary experience and direct experience unless there is attachment to form.

The paradox Vicente, is that you ‘are’ the experience and only if you see no need for change, direct experience is recognised as having no characteristics and “you” is seen to have no identity…

I find my’self’ reflected in every ounce of ‘existence’, in awe of my limitlessness, without having to look for this through some exercise. How can ‘it’ ever not be ?

:-)

[vicente]

Ocre,...the belief that the illusion is not divided from reality, to me, is like saying the projection on a theaters screen real. I would agree that "Nothing [real] is Divided, but the illusion is not real.

I would say that nothing not Now, is not real. Of course many people, like Eckhart Tolle, give a good talk on the Now, but weaved through their dialogue are the clingings to their past and beliefs. The Now is the Now. It's not the "almost now", but the Now itself.

The Now does not contain conditions. If merely one condition was attached to the Now, that Now would no longer be Now. The Now is Undivided.

The phenomenal universe however, is divided. Creation is the manifestation of division. And once divided, its sole function is to rejoin the Undivided, which first, is what precipites motion/energy, and second, can never happen.

I feel you are very close to understanding the fundamentals here Ocre, however, to me, you continue to cling to the belief that there is a paradox, when there isn't.

An ordinary, belief born experience has no relationship to a direct, belief free experience. The former arises from the illusion, and the second through the Now,...that is, Timelessness. Even the inellect should be able to grasp that.

There is no time in the Now. If I was to leave out your beginning and end, what your middle appears to be saying is, that for you, time is undivided. What I'm saying is that time is simply a dream,...a dream of being divided, which, while sleeping, people concede is real.

Nice dialogue by the way.

vicente
:)

[Ocre]

There IS no division. That’s not saying “illusion is not divided from reality”, but saying Illusion needs no approach as if it’s real, unless it is believed.
I can see, if illusion NEEDS to be for you in order to hold on to a belief of “something needs changing and I am not always and only looking at (my)’self’ ”, you would need to translate it that way….;-)

I would say that nothing not Now, is not real. Can there be anything outside the Now? What are you so desperately looking for? It already IS.
All the talk, the images of people and teachings, learning and unlearning happens on the screen Vicente…those characters are not who you are. You are the screen itself and nothing needs to appear on that screen differently, for it cannot effect the screen.

Only when it is still believed something real happens on that screen, it might appear as if there are “others” and it might look as if you are not me and I am not you…
Realising the NOW can see no ‘one’ to point the way for, that’s like saying “I am whole, but I can still see that you are not….” Realised wholeness can see no lack of it anywhere…

Do you Vicente, see a “lack of wholeness”? Even if you do, this belief does not in the least effect it! :D

:-)

[sahyo]

no "screen"ing

no "the NOW"

"Realising the NOW can see no ‘one’ to point the way for, that’s like saying “I am whole, but I can still see that you are not"

which ocre posted wasn't pointing?


:)

[vicente]

Yes Ocre, agreement, there is no division,...yet the illusion, what is perceived as the phenomenal universe, is divided. There is also agreement that belief could be the underlying adhesive which holds the perception of the illusion together, as if it was real.

We can discuss that there is nothing real outside the Now, and as such, am aware that all what my senses observe is in the past; regardless. I (that is, an aspect of beingness which appears to arise from the heart of essence, sapience, verses the intellect, science, or sense/memory based emotions), do interact with the dream, and am connected to the dream in many ways, yet, and not for my immediate predilection for Stillness, remain as a prisoner in the illusion, albeit sort of an aloof one.

To me, nothing real happens on illusions screen, its all rather meaninglessly transitory,...nor do I observe any lack in reality. Any "need" implies lack. What is seen however is wholeness "covered". Like turning a flashlight on at night and shinning it through ones hand,...our beliefs appear to obscure the full illumination of our light.

In addition,...from my observations, the dream, the illusion, the phenomenal universe, is not of my design. I feel the designer, the dreamer, awoke long ago, yet the dream perpetuated itself. Which is not to say I feel helplessly trapped. For as Plotinus had said, "everything contains all things in itself",...that is, although this is not my dream, there is a way to disrobe from the garments which attach us here. What that way is, I have not yet re-membered, except to continue lightening whatever is concealing my fully naked exposure..

One thing that does seem apparent,...that is, that the more the Collective lets go of its veils, its beliefs, and surprisingly, the converse, that is, the more the Collective holds onto its veils, its beliefs (as the curent American majority are doing), the more opportunities arise for me to witness my own beliefs. And what is most dazzling, is that once beliefs are seen, or in some cases, when previous beliefs are seen, they effortlessly dissolve.

To expound on that,...yes, sometimes I've experienced one core issue/belief/attachment, and for some reason, other beliefs, seemingly with nothing to do with the core, dissolve at the same time.

vicente
:)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Jun 26 2003, 09:26 PM
no "screen"ing

no "the NOW"

"Realising the NOW can see no ‘one’ to point the way for, that’s like saying “I am whole, but I can still see that you are not"

which ocre posted wasn't pointing?


:)
Words always point Asheera, whether you leave out I’s and you’s, add ‘-ing’ or you don’t …. ;)
The objectifying nature of Awareness needs no dissolving (=the illusional illusion) when it is seen that Identity itself is no object, but “the objectifying”. Once it is seen that all can only point and look at itself, there can be not better or worse way.

(You left a question unanswered, top of page 3)

:-)

[Ocre]

Vicente,

The “illusion” is that Identity is an object, to be ‘had’ or dissolved…
Once it is seen that this image of ‘identity dissolving’ only appears because of how Identity itself is objectified, (while Consciousness IS “Identity”) nothing needs change.

Since nothing can actually be objectified (as if the Observer is not the Observed) there is nothing true or untrue within all this differentiating that effortlessly takes place, it’s meaning is conditioned, depended and changing (=meaningless), forming “reality” where attention is directed.
There is no object/subject, no need for ‘the objectifying’, the ‘differentiating’ to disappear.

Experiences where the sense of self changed, are no indication for a truer state of ‘wholeness’, they only show how ‘reality’ seems to appear where attention is. It shows how attention directed at “what is taking place” creates a different sense of identity than attention directed at attention itself, directed at “where it seems to take place”.
What is unchanged in all experiencing is what ‘you’ are and once this is seen, Self is Realised.

:-)

[sahyo]

Words always point Asheera, whether you leave out I’s and you’s, add ‘-ing’ or you don’t ….*


didn't say words didn't point, ocre
....youthinking-assuming-concluding based on how write


The objectifying nature of Awareness needs no dissolving (=the illusional illusion) when it is seen that Identity itself is no object, but “the objectifying”. Once it is seen that all can only point and look at itself, there can be not better or worse way.


didn't say or indicated "The objectifying nature of Awareness needs no dissolving", "better or worse"....again youthinking-assuming-concluding since do not understand which posted


(You left a question unanswered, top of page 3)


responded the question....are desiring an answer?

:D

[sahyo]

no "screen"ing

no "the NOW"

"Realising the NOW can see no ‘one’ to point the way for, that’s like saying “I am whole, but I can still see that you are not"

which ocre posted wasn't pointing?



ocre: "Realising the NOW can see no ‘one’ to point the way for, that’s like saying “I am whole, but I can still see that you are not"

ocre pointing

[Ocre]

didn't say words……
Who didn’t say Asheera?

....youthinking-assuming-concluding based on how write
Here Asheera, thinks, assumes, concludes based on how Ocre writes that Ocre thinks, assumes, concludes …you just leave out the I and the you…;)

It is not about not differentiating, but about attaching worth to it.

didn't say or indicated "The…….
Again, who didn’t say or indicated Asheera……?

responded the question....are desiring an answer?
Where and how did you respond?

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Jun 29 2003, 12:43 AM

no "screen"ing

no* "the NOW"

"Realising the NOW can see no ‘one’ to point the way for, that’s like saying “I am whole, but I can still see that you are not"

which ocre posted wasn't pointing?



ocre: "Realising the NOW can see no ‘one’ to point the way for, that’s like saying “I am whole, but I can still see that you are not"

ocre pointing
I already answered that with:
Words always point Asheera, whether you leave out I’s and you’s, add ‘-ing’ or you don’t ….
The objectifying nature of Awareness needs no dissolving (=the illusional illusion) when it is seen that Identity itself is no object, but “the objectifying”. Once it is seen that all can only point and look at itself, there can be not better or worse way.

Or are you insisting you see a person?

:-)

[sahyo]

:D hahaha

[killervampire]

One thing I know is that everyone is living in the past there is no such thing as "now" or "exact time". in example if you ask a person what is the exact time and they tell you its exactly 6:00 p.m. by the time they had finished the words a certain amount of nano seconds had passed and the exact time is already irrelevant.

[sonrisa]

y'all need to get out & look at some fireworks. :P

[sahyo]

daylight :lol:

[sonrisa]

later on tonite :D

[sahyo]

living state capital
so lastnight watched much fireworks
:D

[sonrisa]

our fireworks start in about an hour. There is a park near my house that has a fantastic view of them. :)

[sahyo]

great :D

was also fantastic lastnight for watching....
living apartment top floor

[sonrisa]

cool! :P
catch u later. Once upon a time this park used to be one of the neighborhood's better kept secrets. Unfortunately the word got out & now you gotta get there a little early to get a decent spot. Later :)!

[sahyo]

:D

[sonrisa]

well the fireworks were da bomb!! all over the city skyline. Mama nature threw in some of her own too! :o
fortunately we only got a little wet :)



ps richie thinx we shouldn't be talking about fireworks in this topic :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

oh firewettingworks!! :D

:blink: rich?


;)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 5 2003, 12:46 PM
oh firewettingworks!! :D


yeah :D

[rich]

Sonrisa,

asheera always puts a damper on everything. Probably because you did not invite her to float away on the float.You better do so next year. :D :lol: ho la ho.