Intellect

[sahyo]

Rumi:


The intellectual is always showing off,

the lover is always getting lost.

The intellectual runs away.

afraid of drowning;

the whole business of love

is to drown in the sea.

Intellectuals plan their repose;

lovers are ashamed to rest.

The lover is always alone.

even surrounded by people;

like water and oil, he remains apart.

The man who goes to the trouble

of giving advice to a lover

get nothing. He's mocked by passion.

Love is like musk. It attracts attention.

Love is a tree, and the lovers are its shade.

[sahyo]

Rumi:


Those who don't feel this Love
pulling them like a river,
those who don't drink dawn
like a cup of spring water
or take in sunset like supper,
those who don't want to change,

let them sleep.

This Love is beyond the study of theology,
that old trickery and hypocrisy.
I you want to improve your mind that way,

sleep on.

I've given up on my brain.
I've torn the cloth to shreds
and thrown it away.

If you're not completely naked,
wrap your beautiful robe of words
around you,

and sleep.

[sahyo]

read these yesterday
http://www.khamush.com/love_poems.html#Ode%20314

:D

[a random hack]

mmmmmm :)

[sahyo]

mmmmmm :) mmmmmm

[sonrisa]

mmmmmmmmm like this one:

A Lifetime without Love is of no account
Love is the Water of Life
Drink it down with heart and soul!


:dancing:

[sahyo]

:D

[sahyo]

"Advice doesn't help lovers!
They're not the kind of mountain stream
you can build a dam across.

An intellectual doesn't know
what the drunk is feeling"

[sahyo]

When the ocean comes to you as a lover,
marry, at once, quickly,
for God's sake!

Don't postpone it!
Existence has no better gift.

No amount of searching
will find this.

A perfect falcon, for no reason,
has landed on your shoulder,
and become yours.

Rumi

[Owen]

asheera:
The intellectual is always showing off,
the lover is always getting lost.

Why do you think that this has sense?
Neither statement is determinate.
Because, we can easily find contrary cases.

The intellectual is always showing off, is false
and, The lover is always getting lost, is false.

Clearly, you have not said anything at all.


asheera:
The intellectual runs away.
afraid of drowning;
the whole business of love
is to drown in the sea.

Why do you think that this has sense?

asheera:
Intellectuals plan their repose;
lovers are ashamed to rest.

??

asheera:
The lover is always alone.
even surrounded by people;
like water and oil, he remains apart.

??
How is it that a lover has no lover?

asheera:
The man who goes to the trouble
of giving advice to a lover
get nothing. He's mocked by passion.

Eureka! I think I have found one that does make some sense!!
Maybe not.

asheera:
Love is like musk. It attracts attention.
Love is a tree, and the lovers are its shade.

Back to gibberish, I see.
------------------------------------------------------

asheera:
When the ocean comes to you as a lover,
marry, at once, quickly,
for God's sake!

Surely, you cannot be serious, for God's sake! (If such there be)

Would you marry any good lover, even a machine that you
believed was a person?
e.g. a cyber individual that satisfied all of your wants,
and needs.

[sahyo]

asheera:
The intellectual is always showing off,
the lover is always getting lost.

Why do you think that this has sense?
Neither statement is determinate.
Because, we can easily find contrary cases.

The intellectual is always showing off, is false
and, The lover is always getting lost, is false.


hehe



Clearly, you have not said anything at all.


B)



asheera:
The intellectual runs away.
afraid of drowning;
the whole business of love
is to drown in the sea.

Why do you think that this has sense?


owen desire sense?



asheera:
Intellectuals plan their repose;
lovers are ashamed to rest.

??


:D



asheera:
The lover is always alone.
even surrounded by people;
like water and oil, he remains apart.

??
How is it that a lover has no lover?


cannot how :)



asheera:
The man who goes to the trouble
of giving advice to a lover
get nothing. He's mocked by passion.

Eureka! I think I have found one that does make some sense!!
Maybe not.


hehehe :D



asheera:
Love is like musk. It attracts attention.
Love is a tree, and the lovers are its shade.

Back to gibberish, I see.
------------------------------------------------------


hehehehe



asheera:
When the ocean comes to you as a lover,
marry, at once, quickly,
for God's sake!

Surely, you cannot be serious, for God's sake! (If such there be)


:lol:



Would you marry any good lover, even a machine that you
believed was a person?
e.g.* a cyber individual that satisfied all of your wants,
and needs.


was it saying that?

[sonrisa]

:goodlaugh:

[sahyo]

hehehehe

[sonrisa]

a cyber individual? Like the $6,000,000 Man? :D

can't afford him B)

[bito]

If the waters of love flood before thinking understands what love-self is, self can drown in love's ocean.

Intellect is not always showing off. Sometimes it saves.

:P

[sahyo]

hehe...bito frightened? :P

[bito]

:hahaha: :o

Love in concert with the intellect = balance B)

[sahyo]

wouldn't use much words like the quote, nor word like it, but for people desiring words, found:


The moment innocence disappears, the soul of intelligence is gone, it is a corpse. It is better to call it simply "intellect." It can make you a great intellectual, but it will not transform your life and it will not make you open to the mysteries of existence.

Ordinarily we think intellectuals are intelligent people. That is not true. Intellectuals live only dead words. Intelligence cannot do that. Intelligence drops the word ? that is the corpse ? and just takes the living vibe in it.

Never misunderstand intellect with intelligence, they are polar opposites. Intellect is of the head; it is taught by others, it is imposed on you. You have to cultivate it. It is borrowed, it is something foreign, it is not inborn. But intelligence is inborn. It is your very being, your very nature.

The society does not need intelligence; in fact it is very afraid of intelligence. The society needs stupid people. Why? — because stupid people are manageable. Intelligent people are not necessarily obedient; they may obey, they may not obey. But the stupid person cannot disobey; he is always ready to be commanded. The stupid person needs somebody to command him, because he has no intelligence to live on his own. He wants somebody to direct him; he seeks and searches his own tyrants.

Intelligence is a totally different phenomenon, it has nothing to do with the head. Intelligence is something that comes from your very center. It wells up in you, and with it many things start growing in you. You become happy, you become creative, you become rebellious, you become adventurous, you start loving insecurity, you start moving into the unknown. You start living dangerously, because that is the only way to live.


then ceases seeming others" "center"-nocenter "happy"-not happy "creative" -notcreative "insecurity"-security "dangerously"-notdangerously "unknown"-known....words were only used

[sahyo]

was bito assuming



hehe...bito frightened? :P



was saying



:hahaha: :o



?

[a random hack]

asheera,
what have you got for people not desiring words ??

:D :lol:

[sahyo]

................ :goodlaugh:


.................................... :hug:



...... :holiday:

[bito]

:hahaha: :o I was laughing at fear...sorry for the misunderstanding...perhaps words might have helped? :)

The transformed intellect serves the universe, not the ego. Call it intelligence if you will, but the difference feels like hair-splitting to me.

[a random hack]

:o :D think think :unsure: :lol: B)

[bito]

asheera

My response was :ph34r: ...permit me a fresh start...:loveyou:

The boundlessness of Love did indeed, frighten me. It wasn't until I encountered the teachings of an enlightened intellect (at least that is how I see his teachings), that I understood why I was frightened by Love. And, in this understanding, the fear disappeared. This is why I say that the transformed intellect serves rather than shows-off. I believe the words you chose to speak of innocence and intelligence were words spoken by Osho...was Osho not an enlightened intellect, meaning, did he not study the nature of Reality before Reality :)'d in Osho?

[bito]

What I'm trying :lol: to say is...

The intellect cannot see Love, it points to Love, even, sometimes, when it appears to point in the 'opposite' direction.

Words... :duh:

radiance, seeing radiance
wishing, wishing
never leave
to wording seeing

sigh...

then...

radiance laughing

and wordings
tumble-pour from light
poetry pouring love
thinking tumbling love
each pointer dancing
no?

;) :)

[sahyo]

I believe the words you chose to speak of innocence and intelligence were words spoken by Osho...was Osho not an enlightened intellect, meaning, did he not study the nature of Reality before Reality 'd in Osho?



yes was called osho
...though used intellect, wasn't thought intellect intellegence...
knowledge-information wasn't thought as though called reality




The intellect cannot see Love, it points to Love, even, sometimes, when it appears to point in the 'opposite' direction.



no but yes ;)




Words... :duh:



hehe :D




radiance, seeing radiance
wishing, wishing
never leave
to wording seeing

sigh...

then...

radiance laughing

and wordings
tumble-pour from light
poetry pouring love
thinking tumbling love
each pointer dancing
no?



yes
but
no
but
yes
no but

just...

like-this

not pointer
nor to fro

like-this not this
though like-this
ecstacy-bliss
though not like-this






yet
:loveyou:

[bito]

yes was called osho
...though used intellect, wasn't thought intellect intellegence...

yes...enlightening uses intellect to break intellect's fruitless grasping...and when grasping over, intellect freed to play in 'transparent duality', if wishing to play

knowledge-information wasn't thought as though called reality

yes...yet reality cannot know itself until first perceiving splitting itself by thinking what it is and it is not...a knowledge-information gathering-rejecting 'process' that results in :wallbash: ... ouch! :lol:

QUOTE

The intellect cannot see Love, it points to Love, even, sometimes, when it appears to point in the 'opposite' direction.




no but yes ;)

yes but no ;)

yet

ecstasy-bliss when dreaming ending







until
:loveyou:

[sahyo]

intellect freed to play in 'transparent duality', if wishing to play


not that concept-idea

[bito]

intellect freed to play in 'transparent duality', if wishing to play


not that concept-idea

needing more or different wording for understanding meaning :)

[Corri]

Owen:

Just curious, what is a logical, analytical guy (girl?) like yourself doing hanging around with people who are obviously well beyond logical, analytical processes (a function solely of the mind)?

Words are an expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Yet, you converse as though words are the beginning and the end. You conclude and move on based upon the clever arrangement of your words, yet if something expressed does not make sense to you based upon your understanding of things, you dismiss them, or call them unclear, or non-sensical.

This seems extraordinarily narrow to me. If narrow comforts you, fine. But are you always so sure that the other view is what is always out of kilter? It must not be so, for I cannot imagine any other reason for you being here. So if you question, why not ask rather than attack?

Corri

[Nick_A]

The intellect of duality is neither good or bad. It has its purpose as we interact with life. However, it is limited in its ability to appreciate man's spirituality. This is where the problem enters since it is normal to want to use this mode of our intellect since we believe it is the source of all understanding. However, duality cannot comprehend existence itself based on a triune system. The duality of two forces is insufficient.

If our duality based intellect could be restricted to its value for us, than these conflicts would not exist. We don't because many have never had the alternative experiences that lead to a higher quality of thought that is not dual in origin but instead connects, for want of a better term, the conscious and unconscious within us.

An excerpt from the obscure but remarkable journal of Father sylvan has helped me to appreciate this:

"It is extraordinary to think how much of the intellectual activity of man is actually a beginning contact with this force, this third person of the Holy Trinity. All efforts to think, being the call for confrontation between levels, are a first step towards the prayer to the holy reconciliation of presence. Thought begins with seeing, but ends, unfortunately, with the slavery to the mechanisms of conceptualization. Out of these conceptualizations, which are only the records left in the nervous system by moments of seeing, and which are needed as instruments of the energy of the spirit existing in the world, or the lower reality - out of these neural results of the spirit man erroneously tries to imitate the work of the spirit. but only the spirit can do the work of the spirit.

Thought, which means in essence seeing, exists on these many levels. There are no esoteric thoughts or esoteric ideas, as such; but there is esoteric thinking, an inner action which carries the energy of harmonization and reconciliation between levels........................

[sahyo]

...intellect freed to play in 'transparent duality', if wishing to play not that concept-idea needing more or different wording for understanding meaning :) called lovewaterlovevaporingloveiceloveseems "trasnsparent duality"?...does seem as though a-what-who-intellect-seeming that? :)...

[sahyo]

The intellect of duality


and if not an-intellect-imagining-duality-of?

:)

[bito]

Nick, your words deeply resonate. Again, thank you for sharing your clarity.

[bito]

asheera...all words added to I Am, to me, is transparent duality playing...no exceptions...also, intellect always used when wording used, no exeptions...intellect using words understood by shared culture, so understanding happens...heart feeling, intellect speaking... :)

[sahyo]

asheera...all words added to I Am, to me, is transparent duality

what "duality" bito?

[bito]

what "duality" bito?

To me, reality is nondual but communication of nonduality is an act of duality. If I say I Am, no act of duality. If I say I Am Love, act of duality. Love, as in all words added to I Am, has a subjective meaning. Subjectivity when speaking of I Am = act of duality.

Perhaps we'd best agree to disagree on meaning of duality :gone:

:)

[sahyo]

To me, reality is nondual but communication of nonduality is an act of duality. I Am Love, act of duality. Love, as in all words added to I Am, has a subjective meaning. Subjectivity when speaking of I Am = act of duality.


only may seem if is happening thinking-believing-ideaing-duality is happening


Perhaps we'd best agree to disagree on meaning of duality :gone:


not whether agree or disagree

:)

[bito]

only may seem if is happening thinking-believing-ideaing-duality is happening

Is happening not as in happening in time. Is happening as in self-awareness. Ego thinks-believes-ideas as ego IS self-awareness.

not whether agree or disagree

I disagree :) . All communication is agreeing or disagreeing, for all communication comes from ego. A long-winded speech is agreement or disagreement. A smilie is agreement or disagreement.

:)

[sahyo]

Is happening not as in happening in time. Is happening as in self-awareness. Ego thinks-believes-ideas as ego IS self-awareness.



:lol:


I disagree . All communication is agreeing or disagreeing, for all communication comes from ego. A long-winded speech is agreement or disagreement. A smilie is agreement or disagreement.



:lol:

[bito]

One thing communicating with you has done for me, asheera, is bring resolution to my awakening that romanticism-idealism-dancing is not enlightenment. It is a partial seeing, as is all egoic understandings.

[vicente]

The intellect of duality is neither good or bad. It has its purpose as we interact with life. However, it is limited in its ability to appreciate man's spirituality. This is where the problem enters since it is normal to want to use this mode of our intellect since we believe it is the source of all understanding. However, duality cannot comprehend existence itself based on a triune system. The duality of two forces is insufficient.

Very nice Nick,...a mistake of intellect however, is that it actually thinks 'one-way'. The triune is observed (not meaning through the intellects perception) when we understand the reverse flow of forward moving things. Buddha said that how we realize oneness with a flower is to simultaneously come back into ourselfs as we go out. This is to say, when we observe (not through the we we think are, but through the we that we are) the actual full spectrum nature of Duality, Duality dissolves,...just like if one was to add all positives to all negatives,...the sum is Zero,...the fulcrum or projection point,...from which duality effects its motion.

:)

[Nick_A]

Vicente

This "reverse flow" you are speaking of is evolutionary in my way of thinking; towards inner unity, while this forward movement is involutionary or into diversity. The eternal movement of these two streams, closer to and further from the "center", is what sustains the universe and allows it to accomplish its purpose. It has been said: "time is breath" since it is this movement.

This is why I cannot agree with this idea of "duality dissolves". It doesn't dissolve as I understand it. Instead it is reconciled as the manifestation of the "middle". The fact that the "middle" which can be divided into the scale of "being" is existence itself does not deny the the essential force of the yin and yang or active and passive which must always be present to sustain universal purpose.

In Christianity, the interaction of these two flows are called "night and day" though not many are aware of it.

[sahyo]

One thing communicating with you has done for me, asheera, is bring resolution to my awakening that romanticism-idealism-dancing is not enlightenment. It is a partial seeing, as is all egoic understandings.



dancing doesn't mean motion notmotion nor motionnotmotion
...dancing isn't more less nor moreless dancing....
nor does dancing mean someone noone anyone is dancing

................:dancing:

:D

[sahyo]

This is why I cannot agree with this idea of "duality dissolves". It doesn't dissolve as I understand it. Instead it is reconciled as the manifestation of the "middle".



not possible to reconcile which wasn't happening

[Nick_A]

Hi Asheera

not possible to reconcile which wasn't happening

Well you can see where we disagree. :)

I have always been intrigued with the question of why we are here. People normally draw purpose and meaning from life itself. Others find it through the arts and philosophy and other beliefs. Yet others like myself find it still insufficient. What then is the purpose of organic life on earth? What is man's purpose on earth as a part of organic life? What is it all doing? Is that all there is? Taking away all subjective cultural and personal psychological considerations, is there a purpose that transcends all of what we subjectively consider?

I believe so and have found that there are a minority of others who agree. When purpose and meaning that exists behind the purely subjective are better understood, a lot of what provokes people to argument is no longer relevant. For example, there is nothing wrong with ego. It has only become perverted and cannot function as it should.

There is also no contradiction between faith and reason. People always take a side yet in reality they are complimentary. Another example is the battle between peoples conceptions of Christianity and magick. People have died over this in the past. Yet objectively they are complimentary and need each other.

All of this is more easily understood when purpose itself is grasped and there can be no purpose in what does not exist. We would agree that our subjective perceptions are illusory but I strongly maintain that the objective interactions of forces within materiality that permeates the universe is connected with its purpose and like it or not, we are a part of it. The question is how to understand it. It requires "awakening" but what this means is also often misunderstood IMO.

[bito]

I strongly maintain that the objective interactions of forces within materiality that permeates the universe is connected with its purpose and like it or not, we are a part of it. The question is how to understand it. It requires "awakening" but what this means is also often misunderstood IMO.

Are you saying that you, or others, have transcended individuated (subjective) consciousness (beyond bliss) and know Universal Purpose?

Or am I mis-listening to your meaning?

:unsure:

[bito]

dancing doesn't mean motion notmotion nor motionnotmotion
...dancing isn't more less nor moreless dancing....
nor does dancing mean someone noone anyone is dancing

Until you tell me what dancing is rather than what dancing is not, I'm gonna 'two-one-two-one-two-one' step...

:dance:



:D

[Nick_A]

Hello bito

Are you saying that you, or others, have transcended individuated (subjective) consciousness (beyond bliss) and know Universal Purpose?

I cannot speak for others though I do suspect some have gone rather far. In my case, I only became aware of this vast universal skeleton in which it is my task to fill in the parts. But before my exposure, there was no skeleton; no conception of the cosmology that comprises the vast external universe itself and the universe that exists on a smaller scale within us in which our possibilites lie.

[bito]

I only became aware of this vast universal skeleton in which it is my task to fill in the parts. But before my exposure, there was no skeleton; no conception of the cosmology that comprises the vast external universe itself and the universe that exists on a smaller scale within us in which our possibilites lie.

Your vision immediately brought to mind some of the artwork of my favourite transcendental artist:

http://www.alexgrey.com/

I would love to know if his cosmic-seeing resonates at all with yours.

:)

[Nick_A]

I must be honest and say that this art doesn't relate to my experience which was the revelation of an additional dimension I was previously unaware of which was the experience of cosmology itself. I have the mind of a chess player but once I had that experience I knew that speculation without this knowledge could not lead anywhere when pondering human purpose. I read that "knowledge begins with the study of the cosmos" and now I knew why it must be so.

I know that Prof Needleman understands this which is why he was able to write this book the first chapter of which is found on the following site. It is just ancient knowledge that has been largely forgotten but can explain a great deal that is impossible without this understanding. If you would like, read this first chapter found here: http://www.rawpaint.com/library/intro.html.

Just click on Jacob needleman "The Universe". You may find something that really resonates.

[slayer]

I must be honest and say that this art doesn't relate to my experience which was the revelation of an additional dimension I was previously unaware of which was the experience of cosmology itself.

LUDICROUS!

[sahyo]

For example, there is nothing wrong with ego. It has only become perverted and cannot function as it should.


not whether right or wrong, when cannot
...does seem ego as though fact?

[sahyo]

Until you tell me what dancing is rather than what dancing is not, I'm gonna 'two-one-two-one-two-one' step...


hehehe...cannot say :D

[sahyo]

This is why I cannot agree with this idea of "duality dissolves". It doesn't dissolve as I understand it. Instead it is reconciled as the manifestation of the "middle".



does seem possible can reconcile imagined-idea-"duality"? :)

[bito]

QUOTE

Until you tell me what dancing is rather than what dancing is not, I'm gonna 'two-one-two-one-two-one' step...



hehehe...cannot say :D

willow branch bending
weeping love
diamond whispering
lily bleeds orange

heart gathering lily
sunset in sunrise
willow branch swaying
pumpkin green sky

...from bito :dance: to asheera
(imagine bow in bito's hair :) )

[bito]

(imagine bow in bito's hair :) )

p.s.

seeming bow...

:lol:

[Nick_A]

Hello Asheera

does seem possible can reconcile imagined-idea-"duality"?


There is an old Arabic expression "A stick has two ends". What reconciles the two ends? We see it as a stick. :)

[Corri]

There is an old Arabic expression "A stick has two ends". What reconciles the two ends? We see it as a stick.

Not if truly seeing.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

Now you've got me curious. What does "seeing" mean to you? What is seen?

[Corri]

Seeing is what is, as it is. Concept.... is not.

The talk of 'stick' is conceptual, with conceptual attributes applied.

We see it as a stick.

... is applying conceptual attribution and meaning in a conceptual context, and thus, the word 'see' in this instance takes on conceptual meaning.... which is fine, when 'talking.' But talk of 'seeing' and 'seeing' are not the same thing.

When the illusion of concept is removed, all that remains is seeing and 'stick' is no more.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

When the illusion of concept is removed, all that remains is seeing and 'stick' is no more.

What do you see when you see a stick? What do you see without conceptualizing it? Is its mass any less real regardless of whether or not we conceptualize it?

[Corri]

What do you see when you see a stick? What do you see without conceptualizing it? Is its mass any less real regardless of whether or not we conceptualize it?

You are still conceptualizing.

Seeing is seeing. Period.

"I see" is not 'seeing.'

"I see" is conceptualization. At this point, "I" has a place in time and space, becomes 'subjective' and object emerges, with 'see' becoming operative to the concept.What is 'seen' is now separate from "I," both now located in space and time.

"I" (subjective) am here, "it" (object) is there. "I" has unique attributes separate from "it" over there. Those attributes, including mass and whatever else is assigned conceptually by "I" is the process of a dualistic mind and is conceptual.

That process has nothing to do with 'seeing.'

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

If this process has nothing to do with seeing, then what is seeing?

You seem to be speaking from theory but what is it that you see?

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to put you on a spot because I agree with some of what you are saying and believe you to be sincere. But we must verify something to believe it to be true.

You seem to want to deny your existence in space and time for the gift of seeing. But what does this really mean? What advantage does it serve. Suppose your existence has a purpose and by denying it you are continually doomed to repeat it eventually losing the possibility to find it?

There is a difference between the "I" you refer to that is separate from the observed. Yet there is another concept of "I" in which you are within. This is what is meant by "Know Thyself". What can "know thyself"? It is the development of "I" through the addition of consciousness. A person can become conscious of themselves and our possibilities for balanced evolution are directly dependent on this quality of consciousness.

This is from my post which begins the third page of this thread and is part of Father Sylvan's journal

Thought, which means in essence seeing, exists on these many levels. There are no esoteric thoughts or esoteric ideas, as such; but there is esoteric thinking, an inner action which carries the energy of harmonization and reconciliation between levels........................

What does "seeing" mean to you and how have you experienced it?

[Corri]

Nick:

If this process has nothing to do with seeing, then what is seeing? You seem to be speaking from theory but what is it that you see?

Seeing is... seeing what is, as it is. And that is what is seen.... by.... no one.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to put you on a spot because I agree with some of what you are saying and believe you to be sincere. But we must verify something to believe it to be true.

I don't feel put on the spot.... and things are either true or they are not. Verifying, for some, is necessary for acceptance. Verifying is not necessary for truth.

You seem to want to deny your existence in space and time for the gift of seeing. But what does this really mean? What advantage does it serve. Suppose your existence has a purpose and by denying it you are continually doomed to repeat it eventually losing the possibility to find it?

Well, there is no denying to it. No loathing of self, or denial of significance, if that's what you mean. And one does not have to deny space or time in order to truly see. Denial of one is not necessary for the ability of the other. They actually don't have anything at all to do with one another. It only requires understanding. Now mind you, I can imagine this sounds rather cryptic... and that is not done with intent. For like I said, the 'talking of seeing' is not 'seeing' itself... and there is a ton that gets lost in translation.

There is a difference between the "I" you refer to that is separate from the observed. Yet there is another concept of "I" in which you are within. This is what is meant by "Know Thyself". What can "know thyself"? It is the development of "I" through the addition of consciousness. A person can become conscious of themselves and our possibilities for balanced evolution are directly dependent on this quality of consciousness. This is from my post which begins the third page of this thread and is part of Father Sylvan's journal

Thought, which means in essence seeing, exists on these many levels. There are no esoteric thoughts or esoteric ideas, as such; but there is esoteric thinking, an inner action which carries the energy of harmonization and reconciliation between levels........................

I can understand thought to be a type of 'seeing.' It is my immediate 'thought' to say that what Father Sylvan describes here is different than that of which I am speaking, only because I think of 'thought' as conceptual. Now thinking, yes, is in essence the same thing as seeing. The I-N-Ging of it being key.

The subjective I and the inner I of which you speak.... though I understand the comparison, and the difference between ego identity and consciousness... 'seeing' transcends all "I," in any form.

What does "seeing" mean to you and how have you experienced it?

I'd love to discuss with you, if I can make it into intelligible sense, but it has been my experience so far that "I" cannot make "it" (understanding) into anything other than what it is, for as soon as I try, "it" (understanding) becomes what it "isn't" (something else). Does that make any sense to you?

Corri

[sahyo]

*
Until you tell me what dancing is rather than what dancing is not, I'm gonna 'two-one-two-one-two-one' step...



hehehe...cannot say* :D




willow branch bending
weeping love
diamond whispering
lily bleeds orange

heart gathering lily
sunset in sunrise
willow branch swaying
pumpkin green sky




ah :D hhhh
... still cannot say



...from bito :dance: to asheera
(imagine bow in bito's hair* :) )



imagine "to"?

:)

[sahyo]

We see it as a stick. :)



"it as a"? :)

[sahyo]

Rumi:


The intellectual is always showing off,

the lover is always getting lost.

The intellectual runs away.

afraid of drowning;

the whole business of love

is to drown in the sea.

Intellectuals plan their repose;

lovers are ashamed to rest.

The lover is always alone.

even surrounded by people;

like water and oil, he remains apart.

The man who goes to the trouble

of giving advice to a lover

get nothing. He's mocked by passion.

Love is like musk. It attracts attention.

Love is a tree, and the lovers are its shade.

[Nick_A]

Asheera

Very often, people today believe that love and intellect are in opposition to each other. This is because these qualities are not considered in a scale of quality.

As I understand it, as we are, we cannot love in the manner that could be considered "human" if for no other reason than this ability has atrophied from lack of use.

What we call intellect is usually the functioning of the lowest part of the mind unable to comprehend the functioning of higher mind. since we no longer strive for higher mind, it also atrophies from lack of use and the functionings of higher mind are replaced by fantasy.

So the result is that where in a balanced human being the fully functioning intellect and the capacity for love would be complimentary, as we exist now, in chaos, they are seen existing in opposition to each other. To make matters worse, often this is considered "normal" and that somehow we must choose between them.

Damn! it is to early in the morning for a glass of merlot. :P

[sahyo]

Very often, people today believe that love and intellect are in opposition



the poem wasn't pointing imagined "opposition"


What we call intellect is usually the functioning of the lowest part of the mind unable to comprehend the functioning of higher mind. since we no longer strive for higher mind, it also atrophies from lack of use and the functionings of higher mind are replaced by fantasy.



"higher"/lower is imagined


Damn! it is to early in the morning for a glass of merlot. :P



hehehe

:D

[sahyo]

So the result is that where in a balanced human being the fully functioning intellect


not "fully" nor notfully but 'imagined is imagined'

[sahyo]

dance
naked'ing
laugh'ing
weep'ing
electric'ing
liqiud'ing sunearthocean
quietlying s'ing'ing

forget books
forget discusions
and every seem'ing th'ing
that were taught to conceive
want to hold on to
want to believe

live nippl'ing
naval'ing

l'ing'ing
l'ing
l'ing

and
will
happen
like
seed'ing
spr'ing
which
you
are
seek
ceas'ing
you

[Nick_A]

Asheera

"higher"/lower is imagined

You would say this to a person who has been suggesting the necessity to reestablish the inner perception of our cosmological makeup in order to grow towards our potential.

If nothing else, we make some pair. :)

I've read in one book:

'It becomes clear that throughout history as we know it, the very first idea that disappears from tradition when it begins to lose its power is the teaching about gradations of the being of man."

From the Journal of Father Sylvan:

The idea of levels of Christianity may never again be known in the West. There is an intermediate level of Christianity which teaches the way that the higher level becomes distorted. We need the intermediate level. We need to observe how we lose Christianity, lose mysticism, lose the energy of God. Here lies the origin of sin and repentance, on the border between heaven and hell.

Modern people do not understand that the Christian ideals to which half the world attempts to conform comprise a description of the results of a specific inner act and inner inquiry. Mysticism is a result, a great result perhaps of the inner inquiry; but everything is corrupted when I confuse inner work with the results of inner work.

To experience love for God or my neighbor, even for an instant, is no less a result than mystical experience. To be virtuous is a result. To have faith is a result. Similarly, wisdom and compassion are results.

All corruption and tradition begins with the confusion and mixing of inner work with the results of inner work. Jesus saw that the Judaism of his time had fallen into this confusion and that no one was practicing the inner discipline free from the expectation or assumption of results.

You say that higher/lower is imagined. You speak of the value of dancing naked. Yet Tibetan Sacred dance is also dance but with a different understanding in mind. It appreciates the value of knowledge of postures and movements. Free flowing dance is good to feel the flow of natural rhythms. Sacred dance can allow a person to transcend this level of natural earthly energy flows to experience a higher quality of energy. Since you do not discriminate between the higher and lower, such sacred dance would be meaningless to you.

There really is nothing I can say but to respectfully disagree since everything I've come to value has been as a result of my personal experiences with these gradations of qualitative difference.

[sahyo]

You say that higher/lower is imagined. You speak of the value of dancing naked. Yet Tibetan Sacred dance is also dance but with a different understanding in mind. It appreciates the value of knowledge of postures and movements. Free flowing dance is good to feel the flow of natural rhythms. Sacred dance can allow a person to transcend this level of natural earthly energy flows to experience a higher quality of energy. Since you do not discriminate between the higher and lower, such sacred dance would be meaningless to you.



cannot "higher"/lower :)

[sahyo]

does nick
think'about' when
dancing
loving
?

[sahyo]

fear burning?

[Nick_A]

Asheera

does nick
think'about' when
dancing
loving

Not sure what you mean. I don't dance well enough for real partner dancing so I indulge in the art of "faking it". At those times, if I'm just enjoying myself, I'm really in free flowing associative thought.

My appreciation of cosmology has helped my attitude over the years. The value of a more conscious love has been made obvious to me. So if I am "loving" another (I'm not sure if you're including sex into this) It has become rewarding for me to try and appreciate the needs of the other. To be conscious of another requires a quality of thought so yes I do think about the other.

There have been times when just the appreciation of something natural has inspired a feeling in me like a love for life itself. No thought is involved when this happens.

This is hard for you to understand without appreciating the gradations of thinking, loving, sensing etc., These attributes are rich in their variety and in their quality. This is why I cannot really understand your question. It can be taken in a myriad of ways.

I may be wrong but I'm getting the impression that what you are really against is inhibition. And I agree that thought is used to rationalize meaningless inhibition. But this is really a form of inner lying or lying to oneself so while it is an aspect of low grade unconscious thought, it would be naive to define the human range of qualitative thought by these rationalizations.

[sahyo]

I'm getting the impression that what you are really against is inhibition.


not referring inhibition


I don't dance well enough for real partner dancing so I indulge in the art of "faking it". At those times, if I'm just enjoying myself, I'm really in free flowing associative thought.


"well"?, or not like you think 'well' is/isn't

"associative thought"?


So if I am "loving" another (I'm not sure if you're including sex into this) It has become rewarding for me to try and appreciate the needs of the other. To be conscious of another requires a quality of thought so yes I do think about the other.


"rewarding for me"?


To be conscious of another requires a quality of thought so yes I do think about the other.


what "about"/'between'?


This is hard for you to understand without appreciating the gradations of thinking, loving, sensing etc., These attributes are rich in their variety and in their quality.


trying assigning "attributes"?

[Nick_A]

Asheera, I found two more gray hairs and they are your fault. :)

"rewarding for me"?

Of course! We can all better ourselves from the developing the ability to recognize another so as to truly give.

what "about"/'between'?

If by "between" you are referring to objective thought or the realization of conscious scale, it is unnecessary at these times. If there was a conscious awareness during such moments, it wouldn't hurt but it is not necessary and I'm not that good. Cultures continue without any objective thought.

Between can be easily limited to the occurrences in-between the sheets.

"well"?, or not like you think 'well'

There are subjective culturally defined standards for "well" in the standard dances so from a higher perspective it really is meaningless. However, the dance between the sheets can maintain complimentary movements between the dancers where "well" can be appreciated with inner objectivity through results and made visible to the outer world by means of a certain unique and distinctive "smile".

trying assigning "attributes"?

Sometimes ya just gotta be honest and assign some attributes.

[sahyo]

I found two more gray hairs and they are your fault. :)



hehehe


Of course! We can all better ourselves from the developing the ability to recognize another so as to truly give.



can "give"er/taker without imagining i/"another"?


If by "between" you are referring to objective thought or the realization of conscious scale, it is unnecessary at these times. If there was a conscious awareness during such moments, it wouldn't hurt but it is not necessary and I'm not that good. Cultures continue without any objective thought.



"scale" ?

wasn't referring called "objective"/subjective


Between can be easily limited to the occurrences in-between the sheets.



imagine "Between" then?


There are subjective culturally defined standards for "well" in the standard dances so from a higher perspective it really is meaningless.



and without imagined "perspective"?


However, the dance between the sheets can maintain complimentary movements between the dancers where "well" can be appreciated with inner objectivity through results and made visible to the outer world by means of a certain unique and distinctive "smile".



can w-here/"maintain"between"inner"outer"results"?



the lover is always getting lost.

The intellectual runs away.

afraid of drowning;

the whole business of love

is to drown in the sea.

[Nick_A]

Asheera

What is "real"? Is there anything real for you other than ultimate unity or wholeness?

[sahyo]

Is there anything real for you other than ultimate unity or wholeness?



what "other than"?

without imagining "other than"/not"ultimate unity or wholeness"
would still seem as though is an "ultimate unity or wholeness"?

[sahyo]

http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/shan.jpg


does seem can remove or add as though can
"other than" and so "ultimate unity or wholeness"?

[Nick_A]

Asheera

What is an "experience"?

[sahyo]

does seem can remove or add as though can
"other than" and so "ultimate unity or wholeness"?