Bridging Esoteric Thought

[bito]

Are we here, trying to bridge our attachments to our 'individual' understandings of cosmology, so we may 'cross over' the bridge and be...be...???

[Nick_A]

Bito

The wish to understand each other does not translate into the ability. Instead of going forward, I believe that it is necessary to go back to the beginning.

The Bible has a good story about this:

Genesis 11


The Tower of Babel

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [1] they found a plain in Shinar [2] and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [3] -because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

This is a psychological explanation of our unconscious nature. Moving "east" is movement towards esoteric thinking. But instead of building on reality (stone and mortar), we use man made concepts (brick and tar). The result of this is a disaster so the ability to communicate was confused. It is better not to understand at all than to understand wrongly which can really do damage to your being. This is the reason IMO why the natural relationship between magick and Christianity has become so misunderstood. Knowing the "Laws of Resonance" without first knowing yourself can really cause great harm to yourself.

[bito]

This is the reason IMO why the natural relationship between magick and Christianity has become so misunderstood. Knowing the "Laws of Resonance" without first knowing yourself can really cause great harm to yourself.

Because you reference magick and Christianity, instead of esoteric and exoteric ways of understanding self/universe, an inner resistence rises within me...why be thought-specific, rather than thought-general?

I do, however, understand (I think) and agree with (if indeed, I do understand :) ) your last statement about doing great harm to oneself if one does not first know onesself (in the context of the Whole).

I am in the process of recovering from just such an experience. For years, I submerged myself into metaphorical-cosmological 'thinking' - quotation marks around thinking, because, I was, literally, trying to kill thought or transcend thought completely in order to 'see' the Whole - which of course, was like trying to kill the witness to be the witnessing - hopefully you get my drift.

At one point in my mystical-drowning, I felt as if I were going insane. What brought me 'back' was the truth that thought cannot be killed or completely transcended - how absurd!

Now, I see the Father (or Source) as including Thought...it is now my life's purpose to understand 'what' that Being-Thought 'is', and how to live 'it' so...so...so...words fail me here...in time...in time... :)

[sahyo]

since most people respond confused asheera posts, researching internet found this, which says same, using words the way most people want:


Thought comes to an end. Then there is that sense of absolute silence in the brain. All the movement of thought has ended. It has ended but it can be brought into activity when there is necessity in the physical world, Now, it is quiet. It is silent. And where there is silence there must be space, immense space, because there is no self. The self has its own limited space, it creates its own little space. But when the self is not, which means the activity of thought is not, then there is vast silence in the brain because it is now free of all its conditioning.

"And it is only where there is space and silence that something new can be that is untouched by time/thought. That may be the most holy, the most sacred - may be. You cannot give it a name. It is perhaps the unnamable. And when there is that, then there is intelligence and compassion and love. So life is not fragmented. It is a whole unitary process, moving, living.


Krishnamurti

[...]

But when the self is not, which means the activity of thought is not, then there is vast silence in the brain because it is now free of all its conditioning.

..indeed, and what that happens, what always is inspite of thoughts chatter, becomes obvious...

[Corri]

:)

[bito]

asheera, ..., corri:

All the movement of thought has ended. It has ended but it can be brought into activity when there is necessity in the physical world

Please explain your meaning of ' necessity' and 'physical world' .

[Corri]

Bito:

At one point in my mystical-drowning, I felt as if I were going insane. What brought me 'back' was the truth that thought cannot be killed or completely transcended - how absurd!

Actually, ego recovered it's control. Feeling as though one is going insane is satori, in a sense. In those moments of insanity, you were probably closer to clarity than you've ever been. You feel as though you are going insane because the mind can no longer process, the feeling of insanity comes when the mind refuses to give up on 'processing' and struggles to put what it cannot fathom into some sort of context, but it cannot. We do not kill thought... thought is transcended.

Please explain your meaning of ' necessity' and 'physical world' .

Necessity and physical world are subjective and relative. Thought is subjective and relative. Mind and Ego are subjective and relative. Feeling and Emotions are subjective and relative. Even birth and death are relative (to the physical world). Without the subjective and relative there can be no understanding the Absolute... for Absolutely, understanding isn't.

Corri

[DavidS]

Originally posted by bito@Nov 3 2004, 09:55 AM
What brought me 'back' was the truth that thought cannot be killed or completely transcended - how absurd!
I'm with you, bito - IMO, in order for one to continue to participate in THE dance-flow-process of the ABSOLUTE's Creative UNFOLDment or FULFILLment, one eventuallly has to come back to and creatively exercise one's faculties (or "senses", as in "He came back to his senses.")

The 'operation' of the 'witnessing' and 'sensing' (as in making sense of what is going on in and around one's historically evolved-derived 'personal' self) faculties are as 'naturally', or 'innately', ever-ongoing as the body's breathe. I am as inclined to believe someone who personally claims/says s/he's stopped 'thinking' and/or generally doesn't 'think' as I am to believe someone who claims/says s/he's stopped 'breathing' and/or generally doesn't 'breathe.'

I suppose, because of their 'relativistic' perspective, such individuals would say that I've "fallen" back (Ugh!!) into the 'impure' 'ditch' of my "ego", implying that that was somehow a delusional and/or 'diminished' way of Being. But, from my point of view, since their "egos" are always abundantly apparent to me, they're 'immersed' in a kind of 'negative hallucination' (as in the case of leader-led and follower-supported 'hypnotized' stage subjects who can't/don't see or hear something that is quite apparent or audible to everyone in the audience, off stage). It's a kind of "The King has no clothes on" phenomenon (I assume you are familiar with the folk take?), I would say.

[bito]

Actually, ego recovered it's control. Feeling as though one is going insane is satori, in a sense. In those moments of insanity, you were probably closer to clarity than you've ever been. You feel as though you are going insane because the mind can no longer process, the feeling of insanity comes when the mind refuses to give up on 'processing' and struggles to put what it cannot fathom into some sort of context, but it cannot. We do not kill thought... thought is transcended.

Corri, I do appreciate your response, for I do hear an honest desire to express your experience so I can understand. Thank you.

You are most correct...it was indeed my ego that recovered its control. If it is not the ego that returns, then what is it? I call it transformed ego (or transformed personality) that is, it sees through the illusion of believing that we are separate from reality, but it retains the flavour and essence of the individual person...the person's preferences, differences, etc.

Krisnamurti mentioned the holy, the unnamable, and I completely understand his meaning and know the 'sweetness' of union with this ?... :) , but this holiness, does it not also mean Wholeness?
Inclusion? As in, including all levels of consciousness, once transcended?

[Corri]

Bito:

Have I given the impression that of what I speak is a constant state? It is... but I am not, at least, not physcially speaking. I suppose I could be... but it would be quite impossible, for the body is of the physical world, and hence, has its physical needs. Plus, all of what David says...

Krisnamurti mentioned the holy, the unnamable, and I completely understand his meaning and know the 'sweetness' of union with this ?... but this holiness, does it not also mean Wholeness? Inclusion? As in, including all levels of consciousness, once transcended?

Yes.

And once transcending occurs, it is understood that there is no seeking. You are that which you seek... unless understanding of this is not realized. This is suffering.

It has been my percepting that you are not struggling with understanding, but how to describe it, talk about it, communicate it?

Corri

[bito]

I'm with you, bito - IMO, in order for one to continue to participate in THE dance-flow-process of the ABSOLUTE's Creative UNFOLDment or FULFILLment, one eventuallly has to come back to and creatively exercise one's faculties (or "senses", as in "He came back to his senses.")

That is exactly how I experienced my return from my 'drowning' - as if I was returning to my senses, my faculties.

I suppose, because of their 'relativistic' perspective, such individuals would say that I've "fallen" back (Ugh!!) into the 'impure' 'ditch' of my "ego", implying that that was somehow a delusional and/or 'diminished' way of Being. But, from my point of view, since their "egos" are always abundantly apparent to me, they're 'immersed' in a kind of 'negative hallucination' (as in the case of leader-led and follower-supported 'hypnotized' stage subjects who can't/don't see or hear something that is quite apparent or audible to everyone in the audience, off stage). It's a kind of "The King has no clothes on" phenomenon (I assume you ar[e familiar with the folk take?), I would say.

I would agree that everyone here is ego-speaking, or why would they be here at all?

[bito]

It has been my percepting that you are not struggling with understanding, but how to describe it, talk about it, communicate it?

Most perceptive of you, Corri. More on this later ... for now, thanks!

[Corri]

That is exactly how I experienced my return from my 'drowning' - as if I was returning to my senses, my faculties.

Can one 'return' from that which one has never left? Please explain what you mean by drowning and returning... returning to my senses, my faculties, means they were absent for a time? If they were absent, then what was there? What happened?

Be explaining.

Corri

[sahyo]

it was indeed my ego that recovered its control.



not possible



I call it transformed ego



not possible to transform when not happening

[sahyo]

it is now my life's purpose to understand 'what' that Being-Thought 'is', and how to live 'it'



doesn't happen residue "purpose to understand 'what' Being-thought is" "how to live 'it'"

[bito]

Can one 'return' from that which one has never left? Please explain what you mean by drowning and returning... returning to my senses, my faculties, means they were absent for a time? If they were absent, then what was there? What happened?

In the drowning, it was light-silence-blissing. Senses and faculties had not left, I was functioning well in my physical life, but I had lost my need of them, my mental and emotional connection with them. In my darkest moment, I wanted to leave my physical body altogther and not return. It was this wanting to leave that frightened me, for I dearly love all the people in my life (none of whom could understand what I was 'going through'. I felt as if I were caught between two worlds...

In the returning, I consciously 'reclaimed' my mental and emotional connection with my senses and my intellect, and in the process, did some reading on consciousness evolution and quantuum physics, both of which helped a great deal in understanding the 'what' of my experience...

I am still 'finding' my footing in this returning 'time'...

So, here I am... :)

[sahyo]

why would they be here at all?



seems "why" happening?

[sahyo]

reading on consciousness evolution and quantuum physics, both of which helped a great deal in understanding the 'what' of my experience...



not that seeming thought left over either

[bito]

doesn't happen residue "purpose to understand 'what' Being-thought is" "how to live 'it'"

asheera, I often do not understand what it is you are trying to tell me, and this is one of those times. I appreciate your effort, but your sending is simply not connecting with my receiving.

My emotional sense of most of your messages (not all) is that they are negative and non-inclusive, as if you are wishing to destroy ego and duality, which I do not believe is desirable or even possible. I could be way off, but I'm wanting to be honest so that we can communicate honestly.

Do you see ego and duality as existing as expressions of Consciousness? Transcended, yes, but not 'abandoned'? If not, then there is no point in our continuing this back-and-forth dance.... :blink:

[bito]

asheera, I submitted my last post and there you were....two more responses, and I'm still :o

Perhaps if we were sitting together in a nice, cosy bar, downing a brew or two.. :D :D

[Corri]

Bito:

In the drowning, it was light-silence-blissing. Senses and faculties had not left, I was functioning well in my physical life, but I had lost my need of them, my mental and emotional connection with them. In my darkest moment, I wanted to leave my physical body altogther and not return. It was this wanting to leave that frightened me, for I dearly love all the people in my life (none of whom could understand what I was 'going through'. I felt as if I were caught between two worlds...

In the returning, I consciously 'reclaimed' my mental and emotional connection with my senses and my intellect, and in the process, did some reading on consciousness evolution and quantuum physics, both of which helped a great deal in understanding the 'what' of my experience...

I am still 'finding' my footing in this returning 'time'...

So, here I am...

Communicating does not appear now to be a problem for you. When you are asked, you are replying for the benefit of another. Communicating flows. When one tries to describe, when not asked, one gets tripped up on their own ego... for the ego tries to personalize the experience and get the description 'just right.' When you reply for the benefit of another, you speak. If the questioner needs clarification, he/she will ask, and then you will respond... but you will not forever sit there and try to 'edit' yourself when responding.

Do you see what I mean? Understanding is understanding... there is no personalizing it... meaning, upon reflecting, understanding is... it is when we try to apply words to 'what is' for our own benefit that perhaps we get 'hung up.' That is posturizing, no?

But when asked.... communicating of understanding is the motive... not ego.

Perhaps.

Corri

[bito]

But when asked.... communicating of understanding is the motive... not ego.

What I understand from your words is that this understanding is love...meaning a genuine desire to comprehend and be comprehended. As if, in the loving-understanding, each person is 'lifted' 'out of the darkness' (not seeing) and into light (seeing)...

Perhaps... :)

Thanks, Corri.

[Nick_A]

Bito wrote

At one point in my mystical-drowning, I felt as if I were going insane. What brought me 'back' was the truth that thought cannot be killed or completely transcended - how absurd!

Now, I see the Father (or Source) as including Thought...it is now my life's purpose to understand 'what' that Being-Thought 'is', and how to live 'it' so...so...so...words fail me here...in time...in time...

You are very lucky. I've seen people take this route and do not recover. "Techniques", if you don't know what you are doing, can cause a person great harm.

I remember in my younger days being the divorced musician living with the town witch. The only trouble was that a lot of her insights came from the days when she studied with Dr. Timothy Leary. This did great harm to her and probably the biggest reason we could never get closer..

I could never understand why there should be a difference between real intellectual truth and emotional truth. The fact that they seem opposite to one another meant that there was something wrong with our approach. I've learned in life that this is definitely a minority opinion.

How to put thought into perspective? Asheera's quote from Krishnamurti doesn't suggest not thinking but only not having it replace the ability and effort to be open. "It has ended but it can be brought into activity when there is necessity in the physical world, Now, it is quiet".

We cannot think as we know it from the level being spoken of simply because it is beyond the desires that spawn associative thought. I marvel at how Meister Eckhart describes this:

God is in himself so exalted that he is beyond the reach of either knowledge or desire. Desire extends further than anything that can be grasped by knowledge. It is wider than the whole of the heavens, than all angels, even though everything that lives on earth is contained in the spark of a single angel. Desire is wide, immeasurably so. But nothing that knowledge can grasp or desire can want, is God. Where knowledge and desire end, there is darkness, and there God shines.

But if I am right and the purpose of mankind is to connect the higher and the lower cosmologically within our own presence, we have to be able to do both. The quality of our knowledge will be determined by the quality of our being. The line of being is vertical to the horizontal line of knowledge. Different people can have different levels of being so their place along the vertical line of being will be different from another. The point at which the line of knowledge intersects the line of being defines a person's "understanding" This is another meaning of the symbol of the cross. The value of thought will be determined by a person's being as well as the knowledge itself. Some day even modern education may begin to appreciate this. :)

Many think that existence is black and white. It either exists or it doesn't. As I've learned, existence varies in relation to being itself and the being of man can vary a great deal. So I've changed over the years to value the integration of my collective self so that the thought process itself can include not only the usual associative thought but the idea of "esoteric" thought described by Father Sylvan as a process without conceptualization, a sort of look from above without comment.

[Nick_A]

Corri and Bito



But when asked.... communicating of understanding is the motive... not ego.


What I understand from your words is that this understanding is love...meaning a genuine desire to comprehend and be comprehended. As if, in the loving-understanding, each person is 'lifted' 'out of the darkness' (not seeing) and into light (seeing)...

I agree that a real understanding is love. In fact this was the original meaning of Christian love before the experts destroyed it. Now when people refer to Christian love they speak of feeding the poor or providing shelter to the homeless etc. This is all worthwhile but there is nothing uniquely Christian about it.

When a person has experience something that has allowed them to see the value of awakening, they wish to share it with those that still walk around in the dark. This desire to share is Christian love. On that level it is similar to the quality of love known by the esoteric sides of all the ancient traditions inspired by a conscious source.

It is ironic that "Love your neighbor as yourself" can be understood purely egotistically or from something within us that strives to experience and live beyond egotism and help another, having felt its value, to do the same.

[sahyo]

I could be way off, but I'm wanting to be honest so that we can communicate honestly.



:D




My emotional sense of most of your messages (not all) is that they are negative and non-inclusive, as if you are wishing to destroy ego and duality




Do you see ego and duality as existing as expressions of Consciousness?



seems as though "ego and duality" happening?




our continuing this back-and-forth dance....*



seems back-and-forth?




;)

[sahyo]

asheera, I submitted my last post and there you were....two more responses, and I'm still :o

happened was still forum

[sahyo]

:D :D



:D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Corri@Nov 3 2004, 01:09 PM
Actually, ego recovered it's control...[Etc.]
I may have 'read' your words too narrowly, but it strikes me that what you say, or at least the way you say it, implies that, short of 'mindlessly jettisoning thought completely, the only 'navigational' choice one has in relation to [one's] 'ego' is to live under the control-sway of its choice-inclination dominion. In my view, as presented in the following excerpts (transcribed from I: Reality and Subjectivity by David R. Hawkins), other options may be functionally pertinent.

Q: Why does spiritual work often seem like such a struggle?

A: The ego has habitual modes of determining perception. They have to be identified first before the can be disassembled. One has to give up guilt about having an ego. This can be facilitated by examining its origins.

The human is in a very difficult position in the evolution of consciousness. Life on this plane is traditionally pictured as starting from the primordial 'ooze' and having primitive organisms. From the very onset of biologic life, we see that an organism is confronted with multiple challenges to survival. The basic motives and devices of the ego are simple and obvious if we merely look at the products of animal life.

Human life entails the strategies of the animal: territoriality, species competition, turf wars, group domination, hunting, killing rivals, mating rituals, protection and nurturing of the young, sibling rivalry, intimidation, and control of others. In addition, there are the fear of attack, dangers, and the fear of expulsion from the pack or the herd. These animal patterns are ingrained into physiologic and emotional responses as the so-called instincts.

Over the millennia arose a sophistication of these instincts as learned patterns of behavior that were reinforced by societal and parental input and training. These became not just individual but heavily reinforced societal patterns which were formalized into political, nationalistic, and judicial positionalities and belief systems. The intellect became an important tool for survival, and its sophistication allowed for elaboration of all these basically animal programs. Consciousness has no inherent programs; they are all inputted as software into the hardware of consciousness itself.

Although now expressed in the intellect, the basic configurations of these survival patterns arose from the animal world. Even education is dedicated primarily to survival and success. The inherent motives of the ego are therefore survival and gain, both of which are fear based.

The mechanisms of the human organism are also regulated by the neurochemistry and structure of the brain, with its inherent pleasure/pain responses. This self-actuating reward mechanism is another trap that has to be bypassed. Human ingenuity has baited this mechanism by the discovery of artificial reward/pleasure devices, such as artificial substances to which the chemistry of the brain is vulnerable and reprogrammable; thus, there is even an inherent genetic propensity to addiction which then eclipses and replaces all other goal seeking.

To make matters worse, all these levels of behavior and programmed attitudes emit an energy field in the collective energy field of all mankind. They are thus reinforced from the field of influence, which is inaccessible to ordinary awareness. These consciousness levels are further reinforced by the media and all forms of human communication that support these programs and introduce social approval and disapproval.

Although this recapitulation of the biologic roots of the ego may seem obvious, the purpose is to increase awareness of the origin and importance of these mechanisms which are inherent and inborn rather than personally self-created. Relief of guilt and greater compassion for oneself and others occur through realizing that the individual person did not volitionally create the structure of the ego, nor did anybody else. The human condition is primarily a karmic 'given.' It can be accepted compassionately as such without condemnation and is therefore neither good nor bad. Mankind lives in the realm of tension between emotional instincts and the counterbalancing power of spiritual awakening (i.e., the animal/angel conflict).

Q: If the ego is biologically rooted, genetically propagated, societally reinforced, and strongly reprogrammed, how can it be overcome?

A: It can be transcended. More important is not the nature of the ego, but the problem of identification with it as the 'me', the 'I', or 'myself'.

The ego was inherited as an 'it', and is actually an impersonal 'it'. The problem arises because one personalizes and identifies with it. That 'it' of the ego structure is not unique or individual, and it is relatively similar, with karmic variations, in everyone. What really varies from individual to individual is the degree to which one is enslaved by its programs. The degree of dominance is therefore determined by the extent to which one identifies with it. Inherently, it has no power, and the power to decline the ego's programs increases exponentially as one progresses spiritually. . . .

When we see how people are dominated by the ego's programs, we realize that, without awareness or insight, they are relatively unable to help themselves. We say they are 'driven' by greed, hate, fear, addiction, or pride. It is a mistake to adopt the hypothetical, moralistic positionality that 'they ought to know better.' As a matter of fact, that is really not the case. To be unconscious means just that; thus, 'sin' can be seen really as a limitation in the evolution of consciousness. This limitation was termed 'ignorance' by both the Buddha and Jesus Christ. As evolution expresses itself in gradations, some people will be farther along the road than others. When we see this simple fact, forgiveness and compassion replace anger, hear, hatred, or condemnation. The willingness to forgive others is reflected in our own capacity for self-forgiveness and acceptance.

Q: Would not acceptance of limitation expressed in a sinful way verge on immorality or lack of ethics?

A: Compassion and forgiveness do not mean approval. Those who live in the energy fields below 200 are subject to relentless torment. In the Christian tradition, one is taught to pray for sinners. At the same time, one is advised to also avoid and dissociate from nonintegrity and negativity ('evil') rather than confront it. The 'sinful' can be seen as unfortunates whose spiritual growth is still rudimentary.

Q: Is the purpose of becoming familiar with the ego to disarm it and open the way to acceptance?

A: We see that trying to 'overcome' the ego without really understanding it brings up guilt, self-condemnation, and other negative feelings, which is one of the main reasons why many people are reluctant to become involved in spiritual work. Because of this, people are afraid to be honest with themselves and tend to project the downside of the ego onto others or even onto God. Jealousy, retaliation, vengeance, partiality, etc., are all attributes of the ego not of God.

From a greater context, we can view that the ego is not 'evil' but primarily a self-interested animal. Unless the 'animal' self is understood and accepted, its influence cannot be diminished. Like a pet, the inner animal can be comical and entertaining, and we can enjoy it without guilt and look forward to getting it trained and properly housebroken. This training is what is meant by the word "civilization."

[Corri]

David:

I would agree with most of that... I'm just not as eloquent as Hawkins. :P

I'll state for the record that I do not view the Ego as evil, vile, or anything which must be destroyed. It has necessity, and can in fact be quite enjoyable, and in many instances is a never-ending source of humor.

This exchanging we do here I do not necessarily see as 'all ego.' I suppose it could be termed as such in the instances where 'ego' does not allow for differing points of view, if I were to feel that I am 'right,' or if I had a mission to prove someone wrong.

I, like Bito, search for ways of explaining on a conceptual level, that which is not experienced conceptually. I view this forum as a wonderful method of... exchange. I appreciate what you've shared of Hawkins, indeed, what anyone shares here... on many levels, most especially Asheera, for with Asheera, I MUST listen first and foremost.

And in any form of communication, is listening not as important, if not more, than speaking? (or in this case, writing?) Who said, 'seek first to understand, then to be understood....' The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People guy...

So... anyway... I don't know if you took what I said too narrowly, or if I said it too narrowly.... in any event, food for thought, and I thank you for it.

Corri

[bito]

I may have 'read' your words too narrowly, but it strikes me that what you say, or at least the way you say it, implies that, short of 'mindlessly jettisoning thought completely, the only 'navigational' choice one has in relation to [one's] 'ego' is to live under the control-sway of its choice-inclination dominion. In my view, as presented in the following excerpts (transcribed from I: Reality and Subjectivity by David R. Hawkins), other options may be functionally pertinent.

You know, what is becoming clear is that communicating the moon is a very difficult thing to do, or at least, 'my' moon anyway... :lol:

Thanks, David, for caring.

:)

[bito]

seems as though "ego and duality" happening?

seems back-and-forth?

seems beer is working

;)

[DavidS]

I appreciate your bulls-eye-ing arrow-communications.

:thumbsup: (maybe someone will come up with an emoticon for zen-bowing - ('bow' here, meaning body bow which expresses 'reverential recognition').

[DavidS]

Originally posted by bito@Nov 3 2004, 09:07 AM
Are we here, trying to bridge our attachments to our 'individual' understandings of cosmology, so we may 'cross over' the bridge and be...be...???
be...be...be.come.and.be... as lovingunderstanding-related to one another as we [hopefully] are to our 'selves', may be...?
:alien: :xmas:

[a random hack]

(maybe someone will come up with an emoticon for zen-bowing - ('bow' here, meaning body bow which expresses 'reverential recognition').

david,
what's the difference? :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Nov 6 2004, 06:26 AM
(maybe someone will come up with an emoticon for zen-bowing - ('bow' here, meaning body bow which expresses 'reverential recognition').

david,
what's the difference? :)
Well, if :thumbsup: is interpreted as felt-n-intended by 'me' (the 'being' transmitting the signal, in this case), none really.

But the 'wink' may also be interpreted otherwise, I imagine[d].
-------------
P.S. relating to an earlier comment: I intended to 'address' "I appreciate your bulls-eye-ing arrow-communications" to bito, Nick and corri. Was surprised to 'see' that I had omitted mention of them. So much for 'intentions'. :duh:

[a random hack]

<_< huh?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Nov 6 2004, 08:28 PM
<_< huh?
:think:

We seem to not be on the same wave length. The zen 'bow' I was refering to was the at-the-waist, not the 'bow'-that-shoots-the-arrow, kind. Does that clear up the confusion?

[DavidS]

Interesting and seductive the notion of "getting beyond 'my' way", expressed in the title of this thread. Let me argue the position that such actualization (as stated, at least) may not be desirable, or, for that matter, even possible.

Let me start with words expressing nondual views of 'reality' (transcribed from The World's Wisdom: Sacred Texts of the World's Religions; any underscores represent my emphasis):

On the Nonduality of the Real

Ramakrishna:
Absolutely Not Two
My dear formless and nameless friend, the omnipresent process of creation and dissolution, the sheer dynamism of Divine Power, is your blissful Mother. The nameless, formless Reality . . . is precisely the same Reality that you perceive blossomng around you. Brahman is not different from shakti. The perfect peaceful Absolute is not different from the playful relative universe. They are simply not two realities. Nor are they two dimensions of the same reality. They are not even two perspectives. Not two! Absolutely not two!

. . . Your very life-breathe must become the conscious, timeless affirmation of Reality by Reality. SOHAM, SOHAM, I am it, It is I.

Ramana Maharshi:
Reality Is Always Already Here and Now
There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed [or dis'credited', at least - my words] before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be on the day you laugh is also here and now.

If one accepts these as a 'premise', each of us has no choice but to proceed in our 'own' way, which is both characterized by and is an expression of the 'totality' of who or what each of us is at each and every 'point' in the 'here and now'. We cannot go 'beyond' this - being-dancing what we are. Even those who are, let's say, 'self-negating' are being-dancing the way they (currently) are in mind-n-heart. The choice we do do have, it seems to me, is to find and elect to engage and interact in ways (each instance of such being the elector's own, self-determined, or chosen, way) characterized by spirit-motives aimed/geared towards understanding, acceptance, inclusion, embrace, sharing, love, celebration, etc., in relation to others who are part of the same infinitely greater BEING-DANCING. This does not mean 'giving up' or 'going beyond' one's own way, but rather doing so, assuming such are or someday become one's own heart-felt motives, with diligence, discernment, and, 'artistic' adeptitude.

[Corri]

Dave:

I gotta agree with you. This is quoted directly from Tony Parsons web site:

Welcome to The Open Secret

There is no me or you, no seeker, no enlightenment, no disciple and no guru. There is no better or worse, no path or purpose, and nothing that has to be achieved.

All appearance is source. All that apparently manifests in the hypnotic dream of separation - the world, the life story, the search for home, is one appearing as two, the nothing appearing as everything, the absolute appearing as the particular.

There is no separate intelligence weaving a destiny and no choice functioning at any level. Nothing is happening but this, as it is, invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is . . . the abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful mystery.

Seeing or Not Seeing

The nature of oneness is incomprehensible and so any communication about it can only be an interpretation of the ideas that surround it. Those ideas can either be generated from confusion or clarity. However, to suggest that one idea is better than the other and that the telling or the hearing of those ideas are a personal choice, would be a contradiction of the very essence of the Advaita perception.

The communication of confusion is just as much an expression of oneness as the clarity which exposes it.

It seems that there is an idea that the apparent separate individual can choose to make an effort to approach something called non-dualism through the application of practice, process, purification, the cultivation of understanding or whatever else can be taught or learnt.

The concept of reaching a level of understanding wherein the so-called sage can accept the dualism of life and live in peace with himself and others, seems to be the perceived aim. And yet this kind of perception could not be less relevant to the liberation which brings with it the realisation that there is nothing and no-one that becomes liberated.

The kind of teaching that is based on personal endeavour is a teaching of imprisonment simply because it reinforces the idea of the sage, the seeker and the sought. The very idea of there being "various approaches" to Advaita comes out of a basic ignorance of its essence. How is it possible to indirectly or directly "approach" that which already is? Who will make the "approach" and what is being "approached"?

So what is the fundamental difference between the personal and the impersonal perception?

The word Advaita means not two and expresses as nearly as possible in words the perception that all and everything is already only oneness, and that there is nothing else but that.

When this is clearly seen by no-one, it completely exposes the idea of subject and object merely as an illusory concept held within the hypnotic dream of separation. Consequently, the idea that an apparent separate individual (subject) can choose to attain enlightenment (object) becomes completely irrelevant. It also becomes clear that all practices or effort to follow a path leading to a future goal continuously reinforces the sense of personal seeking and is a direct denial of abiding unicity.

The idea that presumes the possibility that dualistic practices can lead the apparent seeker to the non-dualistic perception, is similar to the idea that with sufficient effort and determination you can teach a blind man to see. To quote "Doctrines, processes and progressive paths which seek enlightenment only exacerbate the problem they address by reinforcing the idea that the apparent self can find something it presumes it has lost. It is that very effort, that investment in self-identity, that continuously recreates the illusion of separation from oneness. This is the veil which we believe exists. It is the dream of individuality." (The Open Secret)

Out of all the many awakening that have been described to me, it is continuously confirmed that one of the first realisations that arises is the seeing that no-one awakens. And yet we see that the majority of teachings, both traditional and contemporary, are constantly speaking to an apparent separate seeker (subject) and recommending that in order to attain enlightenment (object) they should choose to meditate, self-enquire, purify, cultivate understanding, still the mind and the ego, surrender, be honest, seek earnestly, give up seeking, do therapy, do nothing, be here now, and so on . . . the ideas are as endless and as complicated as the mind from where they are generated.

These recommendations arise from the belief that the "enlightenment" of the "teacher" has been attained or earned through the application of choice, effort, acceptance or surrender, and that other seekers can be taught to do the same.

Of course there can be nothing right or wrong with earnest seeking, meditation, self-enquiry, understanding and so on. They are simply what they appear to be. But who is it that is going to choose to make the effort? Where is the effort going to take the apparent chooser to? - where is there to go if there is only oneness? If there is no separate individual there is no volition, and so how can an illusion dispel itself?

The concept of personal enlightenment arises within the mind which sets up a false structure consisting of a "spiritual ego" or so-called "higher self" which has adopted or been attracted to a set of taught ideals about the need for self-purification, for instance, which it believes will eventually bring about the prize of enlightenment. It then attempts to discipline the so-called "lower self" to carry out tasks which appear to the "lower self" to be contrary to its nature. Here is the source of the struggle, confusion and sense of inadequacy and disillusionment that abounds in the search. It is also the main reason that, until recently, apparent liberation has seemed to be a rare occurrence. But when liberation apparently arises it is seen that there is no difference between being asleep and being awake. When this is realised, again by no one, then the whole hierarchical edifice of masters, teachers, students and disciples simply collapses.

As far as can be seen, the radical, clear and uncompromising expression of absolute non-dualism is very rarely communicated. However, to imply that one kind of message is truer than another would be as dualistic as thinking that there is a divide between the absolute and the relative. There is no such thing as the truth, there is only what is, as it is.

Nevertheless, should the apparent seeker request "guidance", then there would be a direct response out of impersonal clarity which will constantly and uncompromisingly destroy illusion and leave nothing but the possibility of liberation. This response arises without the slightest regard for tradition, belief, understanding, personal consideration, aesthetics or anything else that arises out of the dreaming mind.

What is longed for and feared most is absence . . . the absence of the "me" that feels separate. In that absence another possibility arises which is absolutely beyond the idea of understanding, teaching, becoming, destiny, karma and personal attainment. It appears that there is a considerable readiness to listen to this rare, simple and incredible message. It will either be heard or not heard, and that is all there is.

"And from wherever and whenever this insight is communicated, it has no connection with end-gaining, belief, path or process. It cannot be taught but is continuously shared. Because it is our inheritance, no-one can lay claim to it. It needs not to be argued, proven or embellished, for it stands alone simply as it is, and can only remain unrecognised and rejected, or realised and lived."

Tony Parsons

Corri

[Nick_A]

The kind of teaching that is based on personal endeavour is a teaching of imprisonment simply because it reinforces the idea of the sage, the seeker and the sought. The very idea of there being "various approaches" to Advaita comes out of a basic ignorance of its essence. How is it possible to indirectly or directly "approach" that which already is? Who will make the "approach" and what is being "approached"?

This is a perfect example of what happens once knowledge of cosmology and relativity is lost. The perception of the eternal movements of involution and evolution and their connectedeness is also lost. The worst of it IMO, is that the appreciation of human purpose in conjunction with universal purpose itself is lost and begun to be seen as an illusion and only strengthening the ego's satisfaction with its own concept of "oneness" and the opportunity it provides for escapism. Sorry to be depressing but I just couldn't let this one go by without at least a small "ahem". :)

[Corri]

Nick:

Sorry, don't mean to be flippant, but your use of all these 'big words,' dims your meaning for me. Can you restate, in a more simplistic fashion? Meaning, dumb down your meaning for me, guy. You're losing me. I don't get the point you are making... :)

Corri

[bito]

Nick -

Nondual realization is not escapism. I was going to add more thoughts to that one thought, but realized - how silly, how ironic, to debate nondual realization.

Could it be that all this discusssing of that which cannot be discussed is the ultimate addiction? Sort of like, well, when you realize reality is appearance and appearance is reality, what the heck do you talk about except that reality is appearance and appearance is reality?

Good grief, I think I need a support group :lol:

[Nick_A]

Corri, I wish I could do it. I can see how someone who is unaware of the purpose of creation itself and the interaction of what exists within creation believing that it has no purpose. If it doesn't have a purpose, why should we have one so just let go into oneness. He seems to imply that there is either onesess or nothing. There is no appreciation for the cosmological scale of "being" itself.

Don't ever repeat this to anyone and if you do I'll deny it, but for right now *gulp*, I am at a loss for words to really simplify it. :)

[Corri]

Nick:

Oh. Welp. I don't think this guy is discounting anything, but that's just my opinion. You ARE the purpose. Being is purpose, but most people don't want to settle for that. This guy's point is... everything is the miracle, we are right smack dab in the middle of it, the awe-inspiring, holy-shit-I-just-can't-believe-it, how-could-I-have-ever-missed-it!! revelation, moment by moment by moment -- we just don't see it.

The great mystery... the open secret is... THIS is IT.

Bito:

Could it be that all this discusssing of that which cannot be discussed is the ultimate addiction? Sort of like, well, when you realize reality is appearance and appearance is reality, what the heck do you talk about except that reality is appearance and appearance is reality?

I came to that same conclusion. There is simply nothing to discuss.... but I still enjoy showing up and chatting at everyone. There is no purpose other than discussing... just because. What better reason could you have? :lol: So... I guess I better go pay the bills....

Corri

[Nick_A]

Bito

Nondual realization is not escapism. I was going to add more thoughts to that one thought, but realized - how silly, how ironic, to debate nondual realization.

People can talk of nondual realization but to really experience it requires something capable of experiencing it. It would be rare to find those that have begun to distinguish between realization and escapism. Consider the following statement. Can you see the importance of the distinction being made.

"Karma Yoga is the science of action with non-identifying. This phrase must be remembered by everyone. It must not be changed into "the science of action without identifying".

Corri

Being is purpose, but most people don't want to settle for that.

Yes because as you describe it as static. It is without movement so it is dead. The universe, creation, is alive and in movement. Nothing stays the same. Everything is either serving the processes of involution or evolution

It is one thing to inwardly experience the miracle of existence but another to appreciate its directions and its purpose not to mention our purpose within it..

[Corri]

Nick:

Being is purpose, but most people don't want to settle for that.

Yes because as you describe it as static. It is without movement so it is dead. The universe, creation, is alive and in movement. Nothing stays the same. Everything is either serving the processes of involution or evolution

It is one thing to inwardly experience the miracle of existence but another to appreciate its directions and its purpose not to mention our purpose within it..

I don't know how else to describe it. "Being" is inherently active. Meaning, it can't NOT be active. I think where a lot of people get hung up is in seeking that 'profound' purpose within it all.... when they don't realize that 'being'is profound. I'm not sure that existence has a 'direction,' but then again, I'm not sure it doesn't either... but existence, being, of everything, IS the purpose. I think we take that for granted because we're here... not realizing what an incredible miracle that simple fact is... we just seem to want to make it deeper than that... and that's where I think 'ego' steps in... for IT wants to matter, uniquely, unto itself.... for that is the nature of 'ego.' It's whole purpose is to be "ME," and make it ALL about ME (the collective ME).

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

but existence, being, of everything, IS the purpose

Maybe I'm missing something but "isness" and "purpose" are two different concepts. "Being" is "isness". Its "isness" reflects a purpose. You've got me confused. :)

[Corri]

Nick:

Maybe I'm missing something but "isness" and "purpose" are two different concepts. "Being" is "isness". Its "isness" reflects a purpose. You've got me confused.

Exactly. They are concepts, and concepts are functions of the mind. Who has a purpose? Who is the one in 'need' of a purpose? My human form, or my ego? My purpose is being human. That's what I am. That's what I do. If my purpose of 'being' goes beyond that, I see it as a function of 'ego.' What kind of person will I be? Will I be good? Will I be bad? Will I be beautiful, or smart, or funny, or compassionate, or leave a lasting impression on generations to come by my benevolent deeds? Is that 'being' human? Or is that being 'ego?'

Do I think we need 'agreements' so that I don't walk down the street and just 'take' whatever I want... Yes. But that is a purpose of 'community,' not of 'being.' And every other 'group' of animals has the same type of behavior modification on its members, so no, I do not see that as a function of a 'higher being of consciousness.'

Do you see an oak tree trying to become a pine tree? No. An oak tree is an oak tree, and it is what it is. Humans take 'what is,' to a whole new level of complexity.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

Now I believe we are getting somewhere. You say that your purpose is to be human. This is the whole idea of inner work or separating the wheat from the tares within. The idea is to separate the human from the artificial.

The ego SHOULD cooperate with this and if we were more conscious it would. I maintain that the ego is corrupt and where the our emotions, thought and sensing should act as "one" so we could sense, feel, and draw associations in a balanced manner as we interact with external life, our corrupt ego does not allow it. The connections between our thought, feeling, and sensing, are now the artificial results of primarily fear and imagination. The ego that serves a necessary part for our lives has been corrupted so much so that often our thoughts, feeling, and sensory experiences react in opposition to each other.

So if our purpose is being human and an attribute of humanity is consciousness, its seems to be a good idea to determine why we only possess it in short intervals.

The lack of consciousness produces nations and communities as they exist displaying the enormous talent and the greatest cruelty simultaneously. Since our being is scattered, so is the collective being of a culture.

I remember when Bettejo returned from Iraq she told me how difficult it was for her to reconcile that on the one hand the most incredible architecture existed in some buildings and yet they could be so easily blown up. How could a race of beings capable of such quality resort to such destruction? Needless to say it was a helluva discussion that evening.

An oak tree is an oak tree

Yes an oak tree is an oak tree but in relation to an oak tree, we are an acorn. While in nature an acorn can become an oak through the mechanics of nature, for man to become human, at some point, consciousness beginning with self awareness is necessary.

[Corri]

Nick:

Now I believe we are getting somewhere. You say that your purpose is to be human. This is the whole idea of inner work or separating the wheat from the tares within. The idea is to separate the human from the artificial. The ego SHOULD cooperate with this and if we were more conscious it would. I maintain that the ego is corrupt and where the our emotions, thought and sensing should act as "one" so we could sense, feel, and draw associations in a balanced manner as we interact with external life, our corrupt ego does not allow it. The connections between our thought, feeling, and sensing, are now the artificial results of primarily fear and imagination. The ego that serves a necessary part for our lives has been corrupted so much so that often our thoughts, feeling, and sensory experiences react in opposition to each other.

The ego is corrupt? Perhaps. But guess who corrupted it? At least in my instance? My parents, my siblings, my teachers, my various religions, my culture. Did any of them do that to me on purpose? "Let us make a corrupt child..." No. Each was doing the best one could, and in some cases, maybe not. But you cannot teach to a child what you lack yourself.

There is far more awareness out there, now, I think, than what has ever existed. And as it evolves, there will still be a variety of methods and thoughts surrounding it. The ripples-in-the-pond effect. Do I think we need to have concensus on what is more appropriate methods than others? Absolutely not. That is just another attempt to create a new religion. People are far smarter and more intuitive than you seem to be giving them credit for.

So if our purpose is being human and an attribute of humanity is consciousness, its seems to be a good idea to determine why we only possess it in short intervals.

It might also be productive if we ask ourselves..."we seem to be able to retain this for short intervals, where before we couldn't even do that. What are we doing now that we had not been doing before that we get this, now, for short intervals?"

Seems to me this all starts on a personal level... and before I go rushing out into the world telling other people how to put their homes in order, I should have my own home in order first, hm? And if I get really, really good at keeping my home in order, there will be people who ask me how I do that.... they'll want to know my secret. Their motivation in learning my secret is going to be far higher because they have asked, as opposed to my going out, leaning my head in the door and saying "...psst... you need to get your house in order and I can tell you how to do that..." For in asking the motivation has come from within them... I haven't put it there. If I have somehow managed to pull that off, all I am is a salesman, and I perpetuate the dream.

Yes an oak tree is an oak tree but in relation to an oak tree, we are an acorn. While in nature an acorn can become an oak through the mechanics of nature, for man to become human, at some point, consciousness beginning with self awareness is necessary.

Then you had best tend your own garden, hm? :) If you get it to grow like mad, people will ask you, 'what's your secret?'

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

The fact that the human ego became corrupt is not anyone's fault. It is just the natural result of man's being. We speak of awakening. Buddhism, Christianity, and other great traditions refer to it in their sacred text. It never seems to dawn on us that if we need to awaken it must mean that we are somehow asleep to reality.

So what kind of "teaching" is possible between sleeping people? the society, parents, peers etc. just pass on their own sleep to the young who go to sleep with them adopting their habits. Because we are unaware and helpless in front of it, it is the best we can do.

The very fact that people talk more does not mean that there is more awareness. Exactly the same moments of self awareness have occurred in the past as they will in the future, and gradually be forgotten until they return.

What good is a new religion other than to sell books and make a profit. The methods are known but we cannot understand them as we sleep.

Unfortunately the concern is always for what we do. But since we aren't really doing anything in sleep other than follow habit, it never dawns on us to concern ourselves about what we "are". This is an old idea and people such as Meister Eckhart were condemned for saying such things. Our egotism doesn't want to endure such insults. Read what he says:

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works."

How many would understand the deep truth that what we do changes from day to day but what we are is our potential for awakening.

The value of our awareness can only be reflected by what we are. An image can be created by what we do on one day. How smart and intuitive are people primarily concerned with the image of doing the "right" thing. For me, the real awareness begins when a person begins to realize not only the human condition but their own condition within. I do not put myself above this. I suffer this along with everyone else.

Seems to me this all starts on a personal level... and before I go rushing out into the world telling other people how to put their homes in order, I should have my own home in order first, hm? And if I get really, really good at keeping my home in order, there will be people who ask me how I do that.... they'll want to know my secret. Their motivation in learning my secret is going to be far higher because they have asked, as opposed to my going out, leaning my head in the door and saying "...psst... you need to get your house in order and I can tell you how to do that..." For in asking the motivation has come from within them... I haven't put it there. If I have somehow managed to pull that off, all I am is a salesman, and I perpetuate the dream.

You've now described why the charlatan is so effective. A person desires to make money and become admired so he becomes a Guru. He gets his house in order and practices speaking in a sort of hypnotic monotone that impresses people into believing he is in touch with something. Then they want to know the secret and buy books. He can retain his aim because it is an expression of his corrupt ego.

I am suggesting that there is something beyond getting your house in order and it is related to awakening. An awakened person is not identified with all sorts of negative emotion so is free to keep their house in order. Before putting the house in order it may be good to take a hard impartial conscious look at the mess itself.

An awakened person of real humanity doesn't want to create slaves and admiration. His cause is to allow man to be free.

This freedom is only desired by a few and in ancient times they were referred to as "black sheep". They somehow knew that they really weren't sheep and set out to find those that had grown from the "ugly duckling" for example into the swan in spite of the protests from the educated and the experts.

A person who has grown inwardly can become very charismatic because of the quality of their being and attract adoration. This is why the true teacher will push this away. A person must be drawn from the right reasons and not just because they feel charisma.

The true teacher never tells people what to do but instead allows them to find it which is why they don't advertise.

The attraction of the charlatan is always to build on the illusions that are already there which is why they are so widely accepted. The true teacher insists on beginning at the beginning which is always unpleasant and why the true teacher student relationship is relatively rare

[Corri]

Nick:

So we can't tend to our own gardens because we become charlatans and mislead others? I hope I am misunderstanding you. Does a teacher not tend his own garden? If someone wants to know how he gets his garden to grow so well, then he will explain/demonstrate/point. Otherwise, he tends his garden.

Corri

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Corri@Nov 12 2004, 12:47 PM
Nick:

So we can't tend to our own gardens because we become charlatans and mislead others?* I hope I am misunderstanding you. Does a teacher not tend his own garden? If someone wants to know how he gets his garden to grow so well, then he will explain/demonstrate/point. Otherwise, he tends his garden.

Corri
Hi Corri and Nick. Great communicational tennis! Had many 'grand' thought-feeling resonations and counter-resonations. The following relates to Tony Parsons' 'message', which strikes me as being the 'teachings' of an aspiring 'teacher'. Contrasting my 'view' with his, I kept noticing that matters of significance (to 'me', that is) were 'missing' from his garden.

And yet this kind of perception could not be less relevant to the liberation which brings with it the realisation that there is nothing and no-one that becomes liberated.

This totally sweeps the very-pertinent-to-all-things issue of 'atmanic' or 'soul-character' evolution under the rug. "Sleight-of-hand salesman overcommitted to his own 'product'" was/is my personal subjective 'perception'.

The kind of teaching that is based on personal endeavour is a teaching of imprisonment simply because it reinforces the idea of the sage, the seeker and the sought. The very idea of there being "various approaches" to Advaita comes out of a basic ignorance of its essence. How is it possible to indirectly or directly "approach" that which already is? Who will make the "approach" and what is being "approached"?

Quite the contrary to Parsons' emphasis, which is 'blindly' non-discerning or non-differentiating IMO, every actual "approach" to "Advaita" (or
anything else, for that matter) is necessarily unique to the 'soul' or 'atmanic unit' as it finds it's own way (in response to whatever 'attractions' and 'aversions' it experiences) and progresses towards Conscious Communion. Though it is 'true' that every such case may legitimate-meaningfully be described or characterized as someone/something finding itself, 'logically' making the "approacher" and "approachee" one and the same and thus rendering moot questions like "Who will make the 'approach' and what is being 'approached'?, the FACT is there is no truly 'common' approach (or whatever else anyone may label the phenomenon); rather, the FACT is there are only "various" (i.e., soul-evolutionary-fingerprint-differentiated unique ones. [Note: this does not 'negate' the FACT that they all share certain Body related 'characteristics' in common, it merely gives greater emphasis what Parsons sweeps under the rug.]

…It is that very effort, that investment in self-identity, that continuously recreates the illusion of separation from oneness. This is the veil which we believe exists. It is the dream of individuality. (The Open Secret)

This is too one-sided a view, IMO. 'Individuality' and 'communality' (or 'oneness') are NOT mutually exclusive 'opposites'. In relation to all differentiable aspects of Being, what such words refer to are both always-everwhere 'simultaneously' true.

Out of all the many awakening that have been described to me, it is continuously confirmed that one of the first realisations that arises is the seeing that no-one awakens. And yet we see that the majority of teachings, both traditional and contemporary, are constantly speaking to an apparent separate seeker (subject) and recommending that in order to attain enlightenment (object) they should choose to meditate, self-enquire, purify, cultivate understanding, still the mind and the ego, surrender, be honest, seek earnestly, give up seeking, do therapy, do nothing, be here now, and so on . . . the ideas are as endless and as complicated as the mind from where they are generated.

It is true, the ideas are endless and endlessly 'complicated' (meaning that they cannot, without doing they and those who process them grave 'injustice'. 'simply' be reduced into this or that categorical column or even a set of them. Any true 'psychotherapist' or 'healer' type who understands and compassionately enters and accompanies others on their journey-"approach" to "knowing" and "learning" to adeptly navigate the vicissitudes of their own 'unique' Life-presence-n-circumstance-flow as an integral part of the expression of the ONE-ALL will tell you: that endlessly surprising flow of personal mental-n-emotional 'configurations' induces a feeling of humility and gratitude for the opportunity to 'witness' such impressive glory. I don’t know the fella, but given that, I must say Parsons statements strike me as being pooh-poohing 'in service' of boosting his personal product-package 'sales'.

These recommendations arise from the belief that the "enlightenment" of the "teacher" has been attained or earned through the application of choice, effort, acceptance or surrender, and that other seekers can be taught to do the same.

Again, much toooo one-sided an assessment, IMO. The FACT is that one who 'knows' can 'show' (in the sense of 'point' 'towards) thangs to others which they may not have noticed or appreciated before – to some degree, that is: I do not mean to abscure the FACT that not everyone is as adept a show-er and not everyone is as adept a see-er; also, theres no denying that things in this regard can get pretty convoluted since some show-ers themselves have soul-blinders on. Also, it is to 'logically' 'discredit' the notion of 'teaching' or 'being 'taught' since people must ultimately come to point of recognizing and heeding 'the truth' for and by themselves, but the FACT is that it is quite possible to [u]facilitate the development of such recognition and reinforce such 'heedance' by aproposiate guidance and/or coaching – if and when/where the the aptitudes and motivations of the guider and coacher and guidee and coachee are 'healthy', or 'sane'. Of course, they may go 'wrong' in a zillion and one ways, if they aren't.

Etc., etc. etc. to Parsons' presentation. I am sure his kind of 'teaching', or 'guiding', or 'coaching' (you agree that his 'writings' are quite deliberate ways of doing just that, don't you) will be 'of benefit' to some despite the fact that, by the kind and manner of his assertions, the 'slickness' of his sleight of mind-hand will 'fool' many into 'overlooking' matters of great significance/consequence (that is, of great significance/consequence IMO).

I have more 'resonations' and 'counter-resonations' to add to the idea-music stew. But other things presently more urge-ntly beckon.

[Nick_A]

Corrie

So we can't tend to our own gardens because we become charlatans and mislead others? I hope I am misunderstanding you. Does a teacher not tend his own garden? If someone wants to know how he gets his garden to grow so well, then he will explain/demonstrate/point. Otherwise, he tends his garden.

I must not have been clear. It is not so easy to define what this garden is. You might be surprised by what is in the garden of a master that is necessary for his goal. We may find it unappealing and it wouldn't sell books.

Of course we must tend to our gardens but the charlatans make it out to be just the most wonderful and lovely of all things. However, for some, it is the environment of life in the "raw" and it is not so wonderful in appearance. The person who is attracted to a real teacher has outgrown their dependence on appearance and looks for substance. They've been through the mill, This will always be in a minority.

The aim of the charlatan will always be appearance while the aim of the master will be substance and the welfare of the student. This can often appear as a very tough love. Consider the life of Milarepa and you'll get the idea.

Hello David

I don’t know the fella, but given that, I must say Parsons statements strike me as being pooh-poohing 'in service' of boosting his personal product-package 'sales'.

When I read the article I had similar sentiments to those you've just mentioned. Being the new kid on the block and already a bit "suspicious", I didn't have the heart to say it. But now that you, an established veteran of the site has come on the scene to say it, I'll offer agreement. ;)

[Corri]

David:

As always, certainly welcomed comments and food for thought. I'd recommend reading his book, though, as what was presented is totally incomplete.... :) If you cannot find it online, I'd be happy to lend you my copy. Don't know that I am a follower, but his writing all went into 'the bin,' so to speak.

The best of teachers, in my opinion, leave you with nothing. In so doing, you find that nothing has been taught, but you have learned. This is what has been my experience of Tony Parsons, and others I have found along the way. I quote, not because I lack words myself, but I see it as not needing any editing by me. If I have posted this elsewhere already, I apologize for the repeat:

A master teaches essence. When the essence is perceived, he teaches what is necessary to expand the perception. The master does not speak of gravity until the student stands in wonder at the flower petal falling to the ground. In this way, the master dances with his/her student. The master does not teach, but the student learns.

"Every lesson is the first lesson," says the master. "Every time we dance, we do it for the first time."

"But surely you cannot be starting new each lesson," says the student. "Lesson number two must be built on what you taught in lesson number one, and lesson three likewise must be built on lessons one and two, and so on."

"When I say that every lesson is the first lesson," says the master, "it does not mean that we forget what we already know. It means that what we are doing is always new, because we are doing IT for the first time."

This is another characteristic of a Master. Whatever he does, he does with the enthusiasm of doing it for the first time. This is the source of his/her unlimited energy. Every lesson that he teaches (or learns) is a first lesson. Every dance that he dances, he dances for the first time. It is always new, personal and alive.

Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters


Corri

[sahyo]

When the essence is perceived, he teaches what is necessary to expand the perception.



not possible preceiver to "preceived" nor "preception" to expand

[Nick_A]

Asheera



When the essence is perceived, he teaches what is necessary to expand the perception.




not possible preceiver to "preceived" nor "preception" to expand

Its not that it expands but instead, inhabits the totality of itself. This is the whole purpose of the Christian experience of gnosis or the Zen experience of satori.

It is one thing to speak of and respect that which exists before our earthly organs of perception it is quite another to deny the validity and necessity of their presence and their purpose of experience.

[Corri]

Asheera:

The following discourse is attributed to the Chinese Zen master Ch'ing yuan Wei-hsin of the T'ang Dynasty and provides a window into the understanding of Zen:

Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Zen, I said, 'Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.' After I got insight into the truth of Zen through the instructions of a good master, I said, 'Mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters.' But now, having attained the abode of final rest, (that is, Enlightenment) I say, 'Mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters.'

Are the three understandings the same or different?

Corri

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Nick_A+ Nov 11, 2004, 07:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nick_A @ Nov 11, 2004, 07:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is a perfect example of what happens once knowledge of cosmology and relativity is lost. The perception of the eternal movements of involution and evolution and their connectedness is also lost. The worst of it IMO, is that the appreciation of human purpose in conjunction with universal purpose itself is lost and begun to be seen as an illusion and only strengthening the ego's satisfaction with its own concept of "oneness" and the opportunity it provides for escapism.
* * *
I can see how someone who is unaware of the purpose of creation itself and the interaction of what exists within creation believing that it has no purpose. If it doesn't have a purpose, why should we have one so just let go into oneness. He seems to imply that there is either oneness or nothing. There is no appreciation for the cosmological scale of "being" itself.
* * *
It is one thing to inwardly experience the miracle of existence but another to appreciate its directions and its purpose not to mention our purpose within it.[/b]
Hi Nick – I found myself reverberating in complete resonance with what you so eloquently said. "Perception of the eternal movements of involution and evolution and their connectedness" – absolutely ;) 'beautiful'.

Hi Corri - From what you said I take it that 'ideas' related to the direction and purpose of Creation seem to at best be 'questionable'. Here are some excerpts from my attempt at book-writing which address the subjects. I do not consider my take on these to be completely definitive, and, for all I know, Nick may have a quite different view. I offer what follows for whatever contemplational-stimulus value it may have for you.
- - -
The potentially liberating and amendatory truth (which, for the forementioned reasons, many don't appreciate) is that everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed 'atman' or 'soul' by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of 'Brahman' and 'God'. But, because such words have been misappropriated by custom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by misusage, I generally refer to it alternatively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source 'element' from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am, That Which Is at root within each and everyone. (Though the full import of this cause of all causes may yet escape you, the following review and analysis of our catalog of scientific knowledge should at least make its fundamental character obvious.)

Even the simplest cases of what's called gravitational attraction provide perfect illustration, if viewed without prejudice. Bodies of matter-energy must move themselves, for nothing really pushes or pulls them one towards the other.[fnote a] And they must perceive both presence and relative location, else they could not attempt to move as they do, with an acceleration proportionate to the mass and proximity and in the direction of coexisting others.

[Fnote a: As one of my college physics professors humorously commented, there are no 'rubber bands' or 'strings with hooks' connecting them. But let me also point out that the notion of force fields permeating space is a purely etheric invention, though as they've grown accustomed to using the idea for explanatory and predictive purposes many have come to believe such things actually exist and exert a 'powerful' influence.]

Electromagnetic and nuclear interactions, where repulsion occurs as well, are additionally revealing. Ongoing scientific investigation has led us to understand the fact that sense perceptions are basically ‘gross’ acknowledgments, and that everything is fundamentally a wave-form and nothing is actually solid at core. So, besides there being no substantive means to constitutionally link those bodies which form conglomerates, there is no real ‘boundary’ that so-called objects bump into when they apparently bounce off one another. The only inference this permits, if one has enough courage and faith in Life not to invent extrinsic agency as a false postulate, is that the movements that bodies make and the stations they take result from the impulses and choices of discerning, autogenic ‘interiors’.

The direction and purpose of such inherent power and intentionality can be deduced from the cumulation and trend of results which have so far occurred. Progressively, the creative essence of Being has conspired to form an array of what, because of our material orientation, we’ve called ‘sub-atomic particles’; these have interacted and engaged in such ways as to produce ‘electrons’, ‘protons’ and ‘neutrons’ which, in turn, have combined to create the various ‘atoms’ and ‘molecules’ we have become familiar with; and these, through more concerted effort, have coalesced into cellular and multi-cellular units, in stages, generating ever more complex aggregations of body,[fnote b] mind and spirit—the whole hierarchy and procession we know as Life.

[Fnote b: It may be better to simply think of this as ‘form’, since matter is really just localized ‘vibration’ that is not inherently ‘substantial’.]

In ascending sequence, with prior developments integrated and built upon, ‘bodies’ have become more coordinated, ‘spirits’ more potent, ‘minds’ more perceptive, resident Intelligence more designful and adept. Even what some call ‘simple’ single-celled organisms are architectural masters capable of cognizing, culling and compiling environmental ingredients so as to reproduce themselves and further their particular line of development. Each succeeding level of integration further demonstrates the aim of the impetus inherent within all being—that is, to seek and establish cooperative affiliation with suitable others in order to enhance creativity and increase the degree of intelligent actualization.

Life’s evolutionary accomplishments in such pursuit are extremely varied in range and infinitely diverse; and, because of the involuted nature of their interconnectedness and interdependence, the ways in which its many forms and levels are related cannot be simply stated. Generally speaking, however, one might say that ‘lesser’ combinations of body, mind and spirit tend to be incorporated by, and serve to sustain, those more comprehensively developed.[fnote c] With their more energized spirits, more mobile bodies and more dimensional minds, for example, animals prevail over vegetation for the most part; and the more capable among them prevail over the rest.

[Fnote c: Note, however, this principle is not strictly interpretable on an ‘individual’ basis. In fact, since every living entity is part of a larger one (except for the whole), the very concept of ‘an’ individual is a categorical oversimplification of the truth. As is clearly the case with multi-cellular organisms and the cells that comprise them, Life is not an individual phenomenon or attribute. Existence is an integrated continuum, with ‘lesser’ Life nested within ‘greater’ Life, from the very least, up to and including the totality of being. Actualization is therefore not just a private matter, governed by individual power and choice. The principle of ‘the survival of the fittest’, for example, is less a function of personal power and prerogative than of living context. While ‘individual’ units pursue goals of their own, the results of their initiatives are determined by the hierarchical bearing of entities they are part of, as these go about effecting more comprehensive values in the same process.

* * *
another passage from my writing (which deals with the involution and evolution 'thang' rather extensively) which jumps out at me as pertinent:

. . . Life’s most basic, impulse [u]is to actualize and experience joyful vitality in loving [/COLOR]communion with other aspects of Being . . .

<!--QuoteBegin--Corri[/i]@ Nov 11, 2004, 07:26 AM

Do I think we need 'agreements' so that I don't walk down the street and just 'take' whatever I want... Yes. But that is a purpose of 'community,' not of 'being.' And every other 'group' of animals has the same type of behavior modification on its members, so no, I do not see that as a function of a 'higher being of consciousness.'[/quote]

I hope you can see from the above, in my 'view', 'community' is part and parcel of the 'actualization' of the 'purpose' of (all) 'being'.

Salut!

[sahyo]

Its not that it expands but instead, inhabits the totality of itself.



:lol:



It is one thing to speak of and respect that which exists before our earthly organs of perception it is quite another to deny the validity and necessity of their presence and their purpose of experience.



can "before" after?..."denying organs"? :lol:

read as though denying?


;)

[sahyo]

Are the three understandings the same or different?



can tell the bray from the donkey?

[Corri]

Asheera:

Are the three understandings the same or different?

can tell the bray from the donkey?

You tell me.

Corri

[sahyo]

:lol:

[Corri]

AN OPEN WINDOW INTO THE UNDERSTANDING OF ZEN

JIJIMUGE


The following discourse is attributed to the Chinese Zen master Ch'ing yuan Wei-hsin of the T'ang Dynasty and provides a window into the understanding of Zen:


Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Zen, I said, 'Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.' After I got insight into the truth of Zen through the instructions of a good master, I said, 'Mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters.' But now, having attained the abode of final rest, (that is, Enlightenment) I say, 'Mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters.'

He then asks:

'Are the three understandings the same or different?'

Over and over in Zen and Buddhism something like 'All is illusion' or 'The world is delusion' is presented. The problem with such understandings if presented as being true or otherwise representitive of reality, absolute or otherwise in the final sense, is that any and all persons presenting the statement and any and all persons recieving the statement would be themselves immersed products in that self-same illusion or delusion. Offering or making decisions on anything at all from that illusional or delusional position would be questionable, inturn totally undermining any credibility on such a statement, understanding, or belief.

Saying 'All is delusion' or 'The world is delusion' is by implication saying illusion/delusion IS, that is, that it exists, that it has it's own independent existence, existing independently without need. Dependent Origination on the other hand, implies there can be absolutely nothing whatsoever that is real or eternal behind this actual world and beyond the interdependence of everything. Because of that interdependence all that exists is inherently empty. It can be argued on the conventional level there is causation that could or would back up illusion/delusion, but because causation has no inherent existence either, neither then could or would illusion/delusion. To perceive that causation DOES have inherent existence is what is called ignorance. Perceiving that LACK of causation in inherent existence is wisdom.

Almost everybody that reads a little about Zen starts thinking that NOTHING exists because everything is inherently empty, so what we perceive as reality must be delusion. But emptiness is the absence of independent existence. What that means is SOMETHING must exist and one of the qualifications of that existence is emptiness...the absence of independent existence is only possible because there is SOMETHING that exists...otherwise there would be no 'need' for the absence of independent existence, and if there was no absence of independent existence, then everything would not be empty.

Wei-hsin's the mountains are mountains, waters are waters discourse, to the uninitiated and many others perhaps, seems to outline a definitive lineral progression, step-by-step process or series of stages approach toward the enlightenment/awakening experience. However it is more of a presentation of language problem than a Zen problem. The discourse is simply layed out in such a fashion that it is comprehensible in the written or spoken word. The 'steps' or 'stages' are presented in such a fashion that linguistically through the way words are used, that steps seem to be indicated, when in reality the steps do not exist as steps per se'. The 'third step' may transpire simutananeously with the 'second step' and the third and final step includes the first and second step, for example. It is extremely rare in Zen that such a step-by-step discourse is layed out so clearly for both the Zen adept and the novice to experience. That said, for our purposes here the term 'steps' will be used......

The 'first step' then, is before Wei-hsin studied or practiced Zen. The 'second step' after he studied and came to a certain insight. The 'third step' equals Satori.

In the first 'mountains are mountains, waters are waters' step Wei-hsin and the mountains are two, he is separtating himself from the mountains, the mountains are over there, he is over here. He is differentiating between himself and the mountains, setting up the classical subject (him) / object (the mountains) split, typical dualism of the everyday, conventional Samsara world.

In the second 'mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters' step there is a 'not this, not that" negation from the understanding of the first step. The conceptual distinction, or differentiation, of the mountains, waters, self, and others disappears. However, in the process, a higher level differentation is implied. In other words there becomes a differentation between the type of differentation of the first step and the 'disappeared differentation' or 'no differentation' of the second step. Just as the first step differentation was negated, the implied higher level differentation of the second step must also be negated in order to realize ultimate reality. When that happens there is a break through to the third step...the classic Zen bottom of the bucket break through, known in Zen lore as Smashing the Black Lacquer Barrel in an AN UNIMPEDED INTERDIFFUSION OF ALL PARTICULARS. Here 'mountains are really mountains', no more, no less; 'waters are really waters,' no more, no less. What happens is a negation of negation which is nothing less than an affirmation, albeit not in the relative sense but in the absolute sense. There is NO illusion/delusion, and although all remains truly unnamed in the greater realm of undifferentiated reality, the mountains are REALLY mountains, the waters are REALLY waters. That is why a Zen adept needs to breath air, drink when thirsty, eat when hungry, rest when tired, and put on extra flannel when cold.

[Nick_A]

Corrie

You've posted a good description of the corrupted ego becoming normal that I was trying to explain. The third level is the functioning of a healthy ego. Although it is not directly stated here, it requires the right conscious efforts to attain such freedom from our acquired corruption

[bito]

Nick:

I believe that our cosmological models are very similar, but where we seem to diverge, is in this idea that one must acquire a soul in order to actualize our full Human Potential. The idea that the soul is an acquisition is a spiritually repugnant one to me (I'm being frank here).

Which leads me to share my cosmological model as a catalyst for further communication between us. This model (subjective thinking?) is one that I adopted after ‘returning’ from my ’boundary shattering’, as it most closely pointed to my experience. It is most simplified here, but should give us enough ‘meat’ to share our respective understandings.

The Father is Empty-Full Absolute Subjectivity/Objectivity. The Father (for ‘reasons’ unknown) leaves Himself to find Himself. This leaving is Thought. Closest to the threshold of The Father, are archetypes and symbols of His Unity/Oneness, and as He emanates outward (involution) thought becomes increasingly more complex, leading ultimately to the fragmented and grasping ego, which could be described as The Father in completely amnesia.

The return to Unity/Oneness begins with a remembering, an awakening to one’s true nature, which is that of spirit. The journey home (involution) is the peeling away of the layers of thought that veils this truth.

In other words, I see The Father and Son as never having been separated - only through thinking this is so. Ergo, it is not effort that brings us home, it is remembering that calls us home. This is not to say that the remembering experience is not a difficult one, it is. As each dualism presents itself in apparent opposition - body vs. mind, time vs. space, subject vs. object, the remembering Father (as the Son) experiences suffering.

Our largest difference seems to be that you see this cosmic dance as being ‘deliberately’ purposeful, whereas, I do not. I used to believe this, but could see no evidence within or without that this is so. Having said this, it is my experience that once one experiences Source (one's true nature) and surrenders to its Remembering, there is only a yearning/knowing to reflect this Radiance - only this. To sustain this reflection is the journey.

Summary: We are perfect in the eyes of the Father, for we are the Father remembering Himself. We are not perfect, for we are ‘always remembering’, never arriving…except, perhaps, at death.

[Nick_A]

Bito

I appreciate your sincerity and willingness to share your experience. Time constraints will force me to reply gradually. Step 1 :)

I believe that our cosmological models are very similar, but where we seem to diverge, is in this idea that one must acquire a soul in order to actualize our full Human Potential. The idea that the soul is an acquisition is a spiritually repugnant one to me (I'm being frank here). I

It is natural and actually IMO a good thing that it is repugnant, I know when I first read of it I had the distinct impression of solidifying something wrong, almost evil. It took a long time for me to admit to myself that this concept was beyond my grasp to judge but just to keep an open mind. I couldn't see how much control my defenses had over my imagined objectivity. It is also a dangerous thing. The soul basically is "I Am". This can easily become demonic if not careful

In Christianity as well as Buddhism, the earth is central to something. Over the years the concept has been lost and people think it means our planet in the center of the universe whatever that is. But the real meaning of "center" is that it is the point at which the conscious influences involuting can meet unconscious evolution and help it with the addition of consciousness. Earth in this context is not considered a globe but a cosmological level. On the other thread you mentioned the Star of David and these two influences. They meet at the earth and something should be created as a result. This is necessary to "spiritualize" the earth. This should be our "work in the garden". This spiritualization requires a conscious directed attention to allow the earth to receive. In this way the higher conscious influences blend with the unconsciously evolving influences and produce a sort of "middle" which reconciles these two realities. The experience of this middle sometimes is a vivid experience for us and a kind of "remembering".

What makes it appear repugnant is that it is not us but our defenses that are considering and we are aware of this at more real depths of our psych. In reality this is something that is beyond our normal understanding which is dominated by our corrupt egotism which, is really what we are. This is very difficult to accept and to really appreciate it for what it is. It took a while for me to see that the soul appears repugnant because I perceive it from the point of view of my defenses I need more than misguided defenses to be able to really see anything.

The following may also appear repugnant to you. I post it to express how little we are in relation to our potential. We do not "do" anything and are completely satisfied with this through our imagination. This IMO is why the question of human purpose, though an obvious one, is so shunned. Buddhism asserts that we will just screw it up and there is a lot of truth to that. Christianity has become so perverted that the question is normally met with some sort of accepted dogmatism having lost higher understanding. Secular life has no interest in it since it doesn't require consciousness and just disturbs the status quo.

But I believe that it is really a good thing that you do feel it to be repugnant because, as we are, it would be repugnant. The human soul is beyond our subjective capacity for appreciation.

"To be or not to be". That really is the question. "To be" in the human sense refers to the beginnings of a soul and human evolution and the ability "to do" as Man .

'As I have said before, man's chief delusion is his conviction that
he can do. All people think that they can do, all people want to do,
and the first question all people ask is what they are to do. But
actually nobody does anything and nobody can do anything. This is the first
thing that must be understood. Everything happens. All that befalls a
man, all that is done by him, all that comes from him -all this happens.
And it happens in exactly the same way as rain falls as a result of a change
in the temperature in the higher regions of the atmosphere or the surrounding
clouds, as snow melts under the rays of the sun, as dust rises with the wind.
"Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings,
convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences,
external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought,
a single action. Everything he says, does, thinks, feels - all this happens.
Man cannot discover anything, invent anything. It all happens.
"To establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of
its truth, means getting rid of a thousand illusions about man, about his
being creative and consciously organizing his own life, and so on. There is
nothing of this kind. Everything happens - popular movements, wars,
revolutions, changes in government, all this happens. And it happens in exactly
the same way as everything happens in the life of the individual man.
Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to, but as it happens. Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire - all this happens.
"But no one will ever believe you if you tell him he can do nothing. This is
the most offensive and the most unpleasant thing you can tell people. It is
particularly unpleasant and offensive because it is the truth, and nobody
wants to hear the truth."

[bito]

I appreciate your sincerity and willingness to share your experience. Time constraints will force me to reply gradually.

I also appreciate your sincerity and willingness to share your beliefs. I say beliefs, because I do not know yet whether or not you have experienced that which you believe. You have mentioned others who have, and have quoted others who have, but unless I have missed a post or two, I don't remember reading about your own spiritual experiences.

In Christianity as well as Buddhism, the earth is central to something. Over the years the concept has been lost and people think it means our planet in the center of the universe whatever that is. But the real meaning of "center" is that it is the point at which the conscious influences involuting can meet unconscious evolution and help it with the addition of consciousness. Earth in this context is not considered a globe but a cosmological level. On the other thread you mentioned the Star of David and these two influences. They meet at the earth and something should be created as a result. This is necessary to "spiritualize" the earth. This should be our "work in the garden". This spiritualization requires a conscious directed attention to allow the earth to receive. In this way the higher conscious influences blend with the unconsciously evolving influences and produce a sort of "middle" which reconciles these two realities. The experience of this middle sometimes is a vivid experience for us and a kind of "remembering".

Your cosmological model is a positive one, no arguments. Positive in the sense of physical life affirmation. Where I experience an uncomfortable jolt are the 'shoulds' included in your vision of an earthly utopia. How do shoulds make for an authentic transformation? Is it not psychologically true that if we are TOLD to be or do something, then the subsequent being and doing will not be experienced as 'belonging' to self - it will always feel borrowed?

"But no one will ever believe you if you tell him he can do nothing. This is
the most offensive and the most unpleasant thing you can tell people. It is
particularly unpleasant and offensive because it is the truth, and nobody
wants to hear the truth."

I agree that this is the truth that no one wants to hear. But in the hearing of it through self-inquiry (who is The Thinker?), there is joy in the discovery that one can do nothing. All comes through The Father.

It is natural and actually IMO a good thing that it is repugnant, I know when I first read of it I had the distinct impression of solidifying something wrong, almost evil. It took a long time for me to admit to myself that this concept was beyond my grasp to judge but just to keep an open mind. I couldn't see how much control my defenses had over my imagined objectivity. It is also a dangerous thing. The soul basically is "I Am". This can easily become demonic if not careful

Please explain 'imagined objectivity' and 'demonic'.

[Nick_A]

Bito

My own spiritual experiences have been rather intense and life altering. These things are hard to explain. I am convinced that I was able to experience the truth of certain things I could not have done on my own. Hence, there was a little help from above.

Your cosmological model is a positive one, no arguments. Positive in the sense of physical life affirmation. Where I experience an uncomfortable jolt are the 'shoulds' included in your vision of an earthly utopia. How do shoulds make for an authentic transformation? Is it not psychologically true that if we are TOLD to be or do something, then the subsequent being and doing will not be experienced as 'belonging' to self - it will always feel borrowed?

First of all there can be no earthly utopia. Evolution is only for a small minority that can appreciate its value. This cannot be helped. It is the way it is. There are many that are said to be asleep in Christ. This means that a contact with the higher has been created but is just dormant. Their future is at the end of the Aeon or when the cycle begins again. For the minority that do awaken, their position is more advanced requiring less repetition and are worth more than just service to the earth.

I don't know the "shoulds" you are referring to. As pointed out we are not doing anything so how do "shoulds" enter? If by "shoulds" you mean striving towards conscious awareness through "know thyself", it would be pretty hard to value conscious awareness without striving for consciousness and discriminating between the real and unreal acquired imagination and fears that dominate our presence.

I've insisted that we are not capable of faith so it is imperative to verify everything through experience. Black sheep don't do as they are told. :)

I see the "Father " a bit differently and maybe we will get into that a little later

Please explain 'imagined objectivity' and 'demonic'.

As soon as someone tells me they are objective I begin to worry. We may imagine ourselves to be objective but we really are not. To the contrary, we only want to take pride in our ability to judge.

"I AM" is a very potent expression. It must be reserved with the intent of the actualization of the whole and reality of oneself. It is the unity that reconciles diversity. However, especially in modern times and through the influence of modern teachings, I Am becomes an expression of egotism. Spiritual growth would require the forces that deny unity to be second to the truth of conscious reality. This allows them to be seen (Get thee behind me Satan). It serves its purpose for inspiring growth, something to rise above. However, if it is strengthened through inner work as taught by some experts, it becomes dominant and feeds off the living kernel of life we possess that has the capacity for spiritual evolution. In these times we have increased knowledge of the inner man but it is distorted because we are distorted and unfortunately there are those that are insistent enough in their experiments that they cause themselves genuine harm. It is not easy to do but it can be done. They create something within themselves that I can only describe as a psychic cancer that just starves out the living kernel of life or the seed of Man.

This is another reason why the true teacher insists on beginning at the beginning where a person has seen their nothingness.

[bito]

I don't know the "shoulds" you are referring to. As pointed out we are not doing anything so how do "shoulds" enter? If by "shoulds" you mean striving towards conscious awareness through "know thyself", it would be pretty hard to value conscious awareness without striving for consciousness and discriminating between the real and unreal acquired imagination and fears that dominate our presence.

These shoulds :) :

They meet at the earth and something should be created as a result. This is necessary to "spiritualize" the earth. This should be our "work in the garden".

I've insisted that we are not capable of faith so it is imperative to verify everything through experience. Black sheep don't do as they are told. :)

Thank God :) Baaaaaa :D

I see the "Father " a bit differently and maybe we will get into that a little later

Hey, tit for tat.

"I AM" is a very potent expression. It must be reserved with the intent of the actualization of the whole and reality of oneself. It is the unity that reconciles diversity.

Agreed re the first two statements; however, I see diversity as an expression of unity, not as something that needs reconciling.

However, especially in modern times and through the influence of modern teachings, I Am becomes an expression of egotism.

I see this danger, but I do not see all of them as falling into this category.

[bito]

What I am seeing through the communication of our subjective metaphysical beliefs is the absurdity of discussing them at all. Since man is unable to realize absolute truth, then logic tells me that all beliefs and experiences are subjective, personal truth. I can share mine, you can share yours, but until God Him/Herself tells us unequivocably what He or She is saying beyond I Am, we do not KNOW.

Perhaps it is the acceptance of this uncertainty that frees us. Perhaps this acceptance of not knowing is the pure faith we seek.

[Nick_A]

Bito

It really is something that words have such different emotional connotations. I know Corri startled me when I saw how much we differed on the emotional content of "right and Wrong". Now the word "should" appears to be another example of the same kind of difference. Maybe I'm wrong but you seem to me to place an association that reminds me of "guilt" I've experienced in the past. When parents or elders said "this is what you should do", It inspires a kind of guilt..

But I was using it strictly in the scientific, emotionally neutral fashions. I see this universal skeleton as allowing me to see how everything is connected. If I see a ladder with a rung missing, I might say that there should be a rung over here. this is not to promote guilt that there isn't one, it is just an observation. Having seen the skeleton of universal plan it appears that man "should" be "here". There is no emotional significance. In conjunction with the logical skeleton I've become familiar with, it is reasonable that this "should" be man's work in the garden.. This is as I see it now with no necessity to defend anything. It just makes sense and it helps me a great deal to see the sense of it all in order to consider concepts my ego finds repulsive. It allows me to see the sense of existence larger than my self interests. Nothing to huff and puff about but just admitting to the sense of it that I am not the center of the universe

I see diversity as an expression of unity, not as something that needs reconciling.

This is the old "can't see the forest for the trees" idea again. The trees may be connected to the higher level of "forest" which unifies them but if we cannot hold the idea of forest in our psych we are just lost in selected trees. If we are lost in diversity or "in the trees", for me it is reasonable that, in the search for a higher conscious understanding, somehow, it should be reconciled to allow us to perceive the forest. This is a new conscious perspective rather than the usual automatic shuffling about in the trees.

Perhaps it is the acceptance of this uncertainty that frees us. Perhaps this acceptance of not knowing is the pure faith we seek.

I believe this is important. Most talk is just the attempt to make the higher understandable to the lower. Some people become experts in this misconception and spend their lives deceiving themselves and others.

However, sometimes a person becomes disappointed in what they have prided themselves most in so it becomes useless to hide behind the normal rationalizations. Then a person begins to feel even more empty and a real search can begin. there is an old expression that when the student is ready the teacher appears. I believe there really us some truth to that; almost a type of synchronicity.

This, I believe, is when we can get out of our own way long enough to become in touch in a way that doesn't immediately become captured by our egotism. But first one must acquire something to become disappoionted in.

Normally, for us, the occasions of higher experience are immediately captured and classified by our corrupt egos and quickly becoming useless as a result. At those times when we are more open through this experience of disappointment, we don't defend our egotism as much and we are able to receive more as is possible for us.

Sharing is good and necessary. The question is how to do it. For example, environments that encourage argument rather than openness are a disaster unless one still gets their rocks off from the joys of argument rather than the benefits of understanding.

[bito]

Nick, for now, and maybe for the rest of my life, I am content to sit at this place of uncertainty. It is a clean, good, pure place and that last thing I want is a teacher to mess it up. Who but me can show me consciousness? That's a rhetorical question by the way... :)

Sending you a universe of good wishes on your skeleton seeing... :star:

[Nick_A]

Sending you a universe of good wishes on your skeleton seeing...

It even gets better when it is clothed flesh and skin. But then, again, proportion is everything. :)

[bito]

It even gets better when it is clothed flesh and skin. But then, again, proportion is everything. :)

:o :lol:

[DavidS]

Hi bito and Nick –

Though I can't claim (i.e., don't delude myself) that I 'got' all what you had in heart-n-mind when you wrote your words, I very much appreciated the deep thoughtfulness and genuine responsiveness 'displayed' in your (the preceding) conversational tete-a-tete.

Some comments to bito, first:

Originally posted by bito@Nov 14 2004, 08:25 AM
Our largest difference seems to be that you see this cosmic dance as being ‘deliberately’ purposeful, whereas, I do not. I used to believe this, but could see no evidence within or without that this is so. Having said this, it is my experience that once one experiences Source (one's true nature) and surrenders to its Remembering, there is only a yearning/knowing to reflect this Radiance - only this. To sustain this reflection is the journey.
This "yearning/knowing to reflect" that "Radiance" – could it not be hypothesized, at least, that such being, or 'wanting' (from some e·motion·al 'reason) to be "reflected" (or expressed) and thus ex·peer·ienced by primal awareness or 'consciousness' may also be 'reflective' of, and thus 'evidence' of or for, some 'inner' purpose of "the Father", now actualized in you, as "a Son"? Couldn't it be construed', with some degree of 'truth' (in terms of 'connotation', or 'characterization'), that the foreavowed "yearning/knowing" to "reflect" that "Radiance" has at least become your operational 'purpose', not as a deliberate in the sense of ego·willful personal 'choice', but as a deliberate in the sense of being the only thing that now makes valid 'sense' to you and/or in the sense of being the only thing that you now find spiritually 'satisfying?

Of course, even if 'the truth' were as hypothesized above, there's 'logical' room for the possibly that there may be 'more' to the 'purpose' or 'purposes' of "the Father" than just this.

Summary: We are perfect in the eyes of the Father, for we are the Father remembering Himself. We are not perfect, for we are ‘always remembering’, never arriving…except, perhaps, at death.
Amen. Also, conceivably (to me), potentially in some other-theatre 'thereafter', where "we" are not 'embedded' in our present sort of 'worldly' 'configuration'?

=====
And here's something from "Seth" (in The Nature of Personal Reality by Jane Roberts) which strikes me being, or at least touching on something that is, soul-related. I personally find his articulations on the subject quite 'rich' in meaning. [Note pertaining to what follows: My personal understanding is that Seth often references the "soul" as the "inner psyche" or "inner" you, with what is 'normally' regarded as being one's 'you' or 'me' being part of/U] IT's expression]:

Your experience in the world of physical matter flows outward from the center of your inner psyche. Then you perceive this experience. Exterior events, circumstances and conditions are meant as a kind of living feedback. Altering the state of the psyche automatically alters physical circumstances.

There is no other valid way of changing physical events. It might help if you imagine an inner living dimension within yourself in which you create, in miniature form, all the exterior conditions that you know. Simply put, you do exactly this. Your thoughts, feelings and mental pictures can be called incipient exterior events, for in one way or another each of these is materialized into physical reality.

You change even the most permanent-seeming conditions of your life constantly through the varying attitudes you have toward them. There is nothing in your exterior experience which did not originate within you.

Interactions with others do occur, of course, yet there are none that you do not accept or draw to you by your thoughts, attitudes, or emotions. This applies in each are of your life. In your terms, it applies both before life and after it. In the most miraculous fashion are you given the gift of creating your experience.

In this existence you are learning to handle the inexhaustible energy that is available to you. The mass condition of the world, and the situation of each individual within it, it the materialization of man's progress as he forms his world.

The joy of creativity flows through you as effortlessly as your breath. From it the most minute areas of your outer experience spring. Your feelings have electromagnetic realities that rise outward, affecting the atmosphere itself. They group through attraction, building up areas of events and circumstances that finally coalesce, so to speak, either in matter as objects – or as events in "time."

Some feelings and thoughts are translated into structures that you call objects; these exist, in your terms, in a medium you call space. Others are translated instead into psychological structures clled events, that seem to exist in a medium you call time.

Space and time are both root assumptions, which simply means that man accepts both, and assumes that his reality is rooted in a series of moments and dimensions of space. So your inner experience is translated in those terms.

Even the duration of an event or object in space or time is determined by the intensity of the thoughts or emotions that gave it birth. Duration in space is not the same as duration in time, however, thought it may seem that this is the case. I am speaking in your terms now. An event or object that exists briefly in space may have a much greater duration in time. It may have far greater importance and intensity, existing in your memory, for example, long after it has disappeared in space. Such an event or object does not merely exist symbolically within your mind or memory – but in your terms its actual reality continues as a time event.

Nor is its reality in space annihilated as long as it exists within your mind. Let us take a very simple example. A child has been told not to play with a doll. The order is disobeyed. The child, wittingly or unwittingly, breaks the doll, and it is finally throw away. The doll exists in time quite vitally as long as the child or the adult-to-be remembers it.

If the doll sat on a bureau and this is also vividly recalled, then the space in which the doll sat still carries the impression of the doll, though other objects may be placed there. You react, therefore, not only to what is visible to your physical eyes in space, or to what is directly in front of you in time, but also to objects ad events whose reality is still with you, thought they may seem to have disappeared.

Basically you create your own experience through your beliefs about yourself and the nature of reality. Another way to understand this is to realize that you create your own experiences through your expectations. Your feeling-tones are your emotional attitudes towards yourself and life in general, and these generally govern large areas of experience.

They give the overall emotional coloration that characterizes what happens to you [I am reminded of your discussion of "what 'happens'," and think what Seth says is 'congruent' with what was said there] . Period. You are what happens to you. Your emotional feelings are often transitory, but beneath there are certain qualities of feeling uniquely your own, that are like deep musical chords. While your day-to-day feelings may rise or fall, these characteristic feeling-tones lie beneath.

Sometimes they rise to the surface, but in great long rhythms. You cannot call these negative or positive. They are instead tones of your being. They represent the iner portion of your experience. This does not mean that they are hidden from you, or are meant to be. It simply means that they represent the core from which you form your experience.

If you have become afraid of emotion or the expression of feeling, or if you have been taught that the inner self is no more than a repository of uncivilized impulses, then you may have the habit of denying this deep rhythm. You may try to operate as if it did not exist, or even try to refute it. But it represent your deepest, most creative impulses; to fight against it is like trying to swim upstream against a strong current.

These feeling tones, then pervade your being. They are the for your spirit takes when combined with flesh. From them, from their core, your flesh arises.

Everything that you experience has consciousness, and each consciousness is endowed with its own feeling-tone. There is great cooperation involved in the formation of the earth as you think of it, and so the individual living structures of the planet rise up from the feeling-tone within each atom and molecule.

Your flesh springs about you in response to these inner chords of your being, and the trees, rocks, seas and moutons spring up as the body of the earth from the deep inner chords within the atoms and molecules, which are also living. Because of the creative cooperation that exists, the miracle of physical materialization is performed so smoothly and automatically that consciously you are not aware of your part in it.

The feeling-tone then is the motion and the fiber – the timber – the portion of your energy devoted to your physical experience. Now it flows into what you are as a physical being and materializes you in the world of seasons, space, flesh, and time. Its source, however, is quite independent of the world that you know.

Once you learn to get the feeling of your own inner tone, then you are aware of its power, strength and durability, and you can to some extent ride with it into deeper realities of experience.

The incredible emotional richness and variety and splendor of physical experience is the material reflection of this inner feeling-tone. It pervades the vents of your life, the overall inner direction, the quality of perception. It fills up and illuminates the individual aspects of your life, and largely determines the persuasive subjective climate in which you dwell.

It is the essence of yourself. Its sweeps are broad in range, however. It does nhot determine, for example, specific events. It paints the colors in the large "landscape" of your experience. It is the feeling of yourself, inexhaustible.

In other terms it represents the expression of yourself in pure energy, from which your individuality rises, the You of you, unmistakably given identity that is never duplicated.

This energy comes from the core of BEING, from All That is,, and represents the source of never-ending vitality. It is Being, Being in You. As such, all of he energy and power of Being is focused and reflected through you in the direction of your three dimensional existence.

While your feeling-tone is uniquely yours, still it is expressed in a certain fashion that is shared by all consciousnesses focused in physical reality. So in those terms you spring from the earth as all the other creatures and natural living structures. You are, while physical, a portion of nature, therefore, not apart from it.

Trees and rocks possess their own consciousness, and also share a gestalt consciousness, even as the living portions of your body. The cells and organs have their own awarenesses, and a gestalt one. So the race of man also has individual consciousnesses and a gestalt or mass consciousness, of which you individually are hardly aware.

The mass race consciousness, in its terms, possesses an identity. You are a portion of that identity while still being unique, individual and independent. You are confined only to the extent that you have chosen physical reality, and so placed yourself within its context of experience. While physical, you follow physical laws, or assumptions. These form the framework for corporeal expression.

Within this framework you have full freedom to create your experience, your personal life in all of its aspects, the living picture of the world. Your personal life, and to some extent your individual living experience, help create the world as it is known in your time.

[A couple of paras omitted here.]

I have spoken of "you," yet this must not be confused with the "you" that you often think you are – the ego alone, for the ego is only a portion of You; it is that expert part of your personality that deals directly with the contents of your conscious mind, and is concerned most directly with the material portions of your experience.

The ego is a very specialized portion of your greater identity. It is a portion of you that arises to deal directly with the life that the larger You is living. The ego can feel cut off, lonely and frightened, however, if the conscious mind lets the ego run away with it. The ego and the conscious mind are not the same thing. The ego is composed of various portions of the personality – it is a combination of characteristics, ever-changing, that act in a unitary fashion – the portion of the personality that deals most directly with the world.

The conscious mind is an excellent perceiving attribute, a function that belongs to inner awareness but in this case is turned outward toward the world of events. Through the conscious mind the soul looks outward. Left alone, it perceives clearly.

In certain terms, the ego is the eye through which the conscious mind perceives, or the focus through which it views physical reality. But the conscious mind automatically changes its focus throughout life. The ego, while appearing the same to itself, ever changes. It is only when the conscious mind becomes rigid in its direction, or allows the ego to take on some of its own functions, that difficulties arise. Then the ego allows the conscious mind to work in certain directions and blocks its awareness in others.

And so it is from your larger identity that you form the reality that you know. It is up to you to do this with joy and vigor, clearing your conscious mind so that the deeper knowledge of your greater identity can form joyful expressions in the world of flesh.

======

Of course, the experiential next-phase 'destiny' route of those (souls?) who/which are 'steeped' in "feeling-tones" of [i]alone·ness, fear, hate, greed and the like is then 'bound' to be quite different from those who/which are or become 'free' of (or 'liberated' from) these and 'steeped' instead in "feeling-tones" of love, all·one·ness (at·one·ment, kinship) and the like, completely.

Maybe he doesn't really 'know' what he is talking about, but I find the 'perspective' prsented to be quite a juicy way of 'framing' (and thus 'approaching') Life-n-Living, which 'suits' 'me' quite well at present.

P.S. The underscores in the transcribed portion are/were in the original.

[bito]

This "yearning/knowing to reflect" that "Radiance" – could it not be hypothesized, at least, that such being, or 'wanting' (from some e·motion·al 'reason) to be "reflected" (or expressed) and thus ex·peer·ienced by primal awareness or 'consciousness' may also be 'reflective' of, and thus 'evidence' of or for, some 'inner' purpose of "the Father", now actualized in you, as "a Son"? Couldn't it be construed', with some degree of 'truth' (in terms of 'connotation', or 'characterization'), that the foreavowed "yearning/knowing" to "reflect" that "Radiance" has at least become your operational 'purpose', not as a deliberate in the sense of ego·willful personal 'choice', but as a deliberate in the sense of being the only thing that now makes valid 'sense' to you and/or in the sense of being the only thing that you now find spiritually 'satisfying?

Most insightful of you David. I find myself at a crossroad where what I have experienced up to this moment is pressing upon me to contemplate its meaning to me, and from this contemplation, understand my earthly purpose, and from this understanding, decide on actions that will express this purpose in loving, fruitful way.

Of course, even if 'the truth' were as hypothesized above, there's 'logical' room for the possibly that there may be 'more' to the 'purpose' or 'purposes' of "the Father" than just this.

Always room for more revelations, more understandings as to one's human*beingness purpose here on earth. We can never say we have arrived, for where is the arrival except with each moment's understanding?

Summary: We are perfect in the eyes of the Father, for we are the Father remembering Himself. We are not perfect, for we are ‘always remembering’, never arriving…except, perhaps, at death.

Amen. Also, conceivably (to me), potentially in some other-theatre 'thereafter', where "we" are not 'embedded' in our present sort of 'worldly' 'configuration'?

Perhaps this theatre is waiting, perhaps not. For me, personally, I have surrendered all thinking of afterlife to focus on how to most purposefully live the remaining years of this physical life. I confess that once upon time, things such as afterlife preoccupied my soul. I guess I'm done with my preoccupations and am ready to turn my soul-energy towards 'occupation'.

Thanks for input...most appreciated.

:)

[DavidS]

Hi bito: The convergence is delightfully heartwarming.

Originally posted by bito@Nov 18 2004, 05:47 PM
. . . conceivably (to me), potentially in some other-theatre 'thereafter', where "we" are not 'embedded' in our present sort of 'worldly' 'configuration'?

Perhaps this theatre is waiting, perhaps not. For me, personally, I have surrendered all thinking of afterlife to focus on how to most purposefully live the remaining years of this physical life. . . .
I am throughly convinced that such theatre awaits every earth-soul-egg 'hatchling', but my 'focus' is also on maximally joy-love-wisdom-feeling-n-knowing-n-sharing-purposefully live the remaining years of this life on a day-to-day basis, quite 'assured' that any and all 'tomorrows' and 'afterlife' (or 'lives') will be more than sufficient unto themselves.

The thought occurs to me that if I didn't believe-n-feel so 'assured', I might get 'uptight' in my 'present' life, as a result regarding it as unduly 'precious' - not just as richness beyond measure, everflowing.

On second thought it occurs to me that the way "I" am am-ing about now, I'd probably feel the same way even without such 'assurance'.

[bito]

Hi bito: The convergence is delightfully heartwarming.

:star: