Suffering

[Nick_A]

This idea of "suffering" it seems has become understood differently. Some find value in it and others believe it should be avoided at all cost. If suffering can be valued, it is reasonable to ask what kind of suffering and for what reason.

I'll try to present two sides: one from Buddhism and the other from esoteric Christianity and see what develops. I hope other include their understandings from these paths as well as others.

Buddhism begins with the Four Noble Truths:

1. Life is suffering;
2. Suffering is due to attachment;

3. Attachment can be overcome;

4. There is a path for accomplishing this.

"Suffering" is the most common translation for the Sanskrit word "dukha" which can also mean stressful and related to samsara.

The idea is to eliminate suffering through the Eightfold Path.

1. Right view is the true understanding of the four noble truths.

2. Right aspiration is the true desire to free oneself from attachment, ignorance, and hatefulness.

These two are referred to as prajña, or wisdom.

3. Right speech involves abstaining from lying, gossiping, or hurtful talk.

4. Right action involves abstaining from hurtful behaviors, such as killing, stealing, and careless sex.

5. Right livelihood means making your living in such a way as to avoid dishonesty and hurting others, including animals.

These three are refered to as shila, or morality.

6. Right effort is a matter of exerting oneself in regards to the content of one's mind: Bad qualities should be abandoned and prevented from arising again; Good qualities should be enacted and nurtured.

7. Right mindfulness is the focusing of one's attention on one's body, feelings, thoughts, and consciousness in such a way as to overcome craving, hatred, and ignorance.

8. Right concentration is meditating in such a way as to progressively realize a true understanding of imperfection, impermanence, and non-separateness.

The last three are known as samadhi, or meditation.

(above taken from: http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/buddhawise.html

Now from the point of view of esoteric Christianity, Man has the possibility of conscious evolution to become himself and this "re-birth" requires suffering.

"I have already said before that sacrifice is necessary." "Without sacrifice nothing can be attained. But if there is anything in the world that people do not understand it is the idea of sacrifice. They think they have to sacrifice something that they have. For example, I once said that they must sacrifice 'faith,' 'tranquillity,' 'health.' The understand this literally. But then the point is that they have not got either faith, or tranquillity, or health. All these words must be taken in quotation marks. In actual fact they have to sacrifice only what they imagine they have and which in reality they do not have. They must sacrifice their fantasies. But this is difficult for them, very difficult. It is much easier to sacrifice real things.

"Another thing that people must sacrifice is their suffering. It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering. Man is made in such a way that he is never so much attached to anything as he is to his suffering. And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work. Later on a great deal must be said about suffering. Nothing can be attained without suffering but at the same time one must begin by sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means."

And another example:

Let us come now to the idea of conscious suffering as distinct from mechanical suffering. "This Work is Esoteric Christianity." He meant that this Work lies hidden in the New Testament. Let us take an example. The Work teaches that mechanical suffering is useless--it leads to nothing--but that conscious suffering leads to inner development. Can we find any parallels in the New Testament? I would say that in the Gospels, in the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, we find ample--in fact, copious verification. But let us take a clear example from Paul. He has written a letter to his group at Corinth cursing them for not working on themselves. He explains that to feel one has not been working--that is, that one has been fast asleep in life and its vexatious daily troubles and therefore identified with the events entering from outside via the senses--this is to suffer in another way. He calls this "godly suffering". I will quote the passage:

"For though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it, though I did regret; for I see that that epistle made you sorry, though but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry but that ye were made sorry after a godly sort, that ye might suffer loss by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold, this self-same thing, that ye were made sorry after a godly sort, what earnest care it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves . . ." (II Cor. vii.8-11)
Now this rather outworn terminology masks the real meaning. What Paul is saying is that to suffer because you have behaved mechanically can lead to something. And so he says that the suffering of the world leads to death--that is, mechanical suffering. From this brief example one can see what was meant in saying that this Work is Esoteric Christianity. Esoteric means simply inner--not obvious. People easily read the New Testament without seeing what is meant. The Work, once you begin to understand what it is saying, opens your mind to innumerable things said in the New Testament. Now reflect on this remark: "The sorrow of the world worketh death." Do you see that in these words is the same idea as "mechanical suffering is useless for self-development and puts us to sleep--that is, death? A man, a woman, must sacrifice their mechanical suffering". What then replaces it? What replaces it is suffering because you are suffering. That is, you must replace the luxury of mechanical suffering by suffering because you still love mechanical suffering.

In one of the Gnostic Books--the Acts of John--which are not included in the ordinary New Testament, there is a passage which runs in this way. It is connected with the Sacred Dance that Christ performed with his disciples.

"If thou hadst known how to suffer, thou wouldest have been able not to suffer. Learn thou to suffer, and thou shalt be able not to suffer."

First of all I believe that this Sanskrit word for suffering is closer to samsara than suffering. It is people over time, I believe, that have limited the meaning of dukha in Buddhism simply from not appreciating the change of being that is necessary for a person on the way to Buddhahood.

I find a great truth in what was written in regards esoteric Christianity. The idea is to know how to suffer and what to suffer. Buddhism is right I believe in that life is suffering within samsara. However, the question becomes if suffering is necessary? If so, are their ways to suffer for our benefit? On the earthly plane this idea is obvious. If a person wants to become a skilled pianist for example, they must suffer tedious practice. So it seems to me, from the esoteric perspective or inner growth, that we must suffer our lives and see it for what it is.

I can see that many would find it of no value since the belief is that nothing exists anyway.

So, do you feel that suffering should be avoided at all cost or should we "learn how to suffer" if we feel a calling towards our own inner growth and our "quality" (presence) within the moment itself?

[Corri]

Nick:

I can see that many would find it of no value since the belief is that nothing exists anyway.

I think confusion may be entering the picture here from the way you said... "the belief is that nothing exists anyway." When nothing is referred to here, at least for me, it isn't "nothing" as in nothing - complete and utter absence, as opposed to complete and utter fullfillment - but nothing, as in, there is nothing other than what is as it is.

Energy is all that is. In the 'different' forms which energy takes, including humans, we see ourselves as 'separate,' different... 'energy here' as opposed to 'energy there.' But in 'reality,' that is all that there is. And we are all the same 'energy.' There is nothing BUT energy.

Energy cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed. It just continually takes on different forms. Nothing IS and it IS NOT, same as energy. In its contradiction, it is absolute.

Suffering then, is the misunderstanding of 'what is.' It is the continual perception of the mind of what it is OR what it isn't. When 'what is as it is' is seen... by no one... suffering is no more, for it is realized, by no one, that there is no one to suffer.

(Boy, that sounds like one major load of shit, doesn't it? But... there it is...)

Corri

[bito]

Nick

Anyone who says that they believe that nothing exists is contradicting themselves immediately. Saying nothing exists is existence speaking. When someone gives me that line, I know that they are in the early stages of inner questioning (sorry to sound arrogant).

Suffering for truth/love (no difference) is at first, experienced as intense suffering, a burning away (the holy fire) of all that is 'in the way' of living truth/love. When the burning 'ends' , one sees that the burning didn't have to be, and yet, it absolutely had to be.

And 'from' the ashes of this holy fire - compassioning-joying-delighting.

Note to asheera: I was going to write compassion-joy-delight, but realized that your speaking-way suited the one*ing of my meaning...:dancing:

:)

[Nick_A]

Corri

Energy is all that is. In the 'different' forms which energy takes, including humans, we see ourselves as 'separate,' different... 'energy here' as opposed to 'energy there.' But in 'reality,' that is all that there is. And we are all the same 'energy.' There is nothing BUT energy.

Maybe this is why we see it so differently. The universe, as I've grown to understand it, is material. It consists of various densities of matter which correspond to the qualities of the three forces blending in their creation. These three forces as they involve into the cosmological levels of creation become increasingly more mechanical and less conscious. At the top it is pure consciousness and its materiality is the least dense and the highest and of the highest vibration and completely beyond our senses. At the bottom, existence is completely mechanical where matter is completely dense and its vibration is very slow. In-between lies the scale of "being"

Energy is continually resulting from interactions. Yes energy is neither created nor destroyed but it is changed or transformed as say the energy of light into heat. If we were just energy, I would agree with you but as you can see, I understand the levels of creation as being determined by the quality of force (consciousness) manifesting into matter. Man's evolution is related then to the development of consciousness and the will to support it

Suffering then, is the misunderstanding of 'what is.'

But voluntary suffering for a conscious purpose is the result of understanding precisely "what is"


Bito

And 'from' the ashes of this holy fire - compassioning-joying-delighting.


To quote Metropolitan Anthony: "Emotions must die so that "feelings' can enter.

Perhaps you are speaking of feelings here. I don't know.

[bito]

from bito: And 'from' the ashes of this holy fire - compassioning-joying-delighting.

from Nick: Perhaps you are speaking of feelings here. I don't know.

Compassioning-joying-delighting is One Feeling/Knowing. No separation between "I feel and know" and "feel and know".

It would be as if you were to wholistically 'see' your model of consciousness without the levels and scales... feeling/seeing/knowing 'Its' Being, 'Its' Essence, 'Its' Truth. Love, pure love.

:)

[Nick_A]

Bito

It would be as if you were to wholistically 'see' your model of consciousness without the levels and scales... feeling/seeing/knowing 'Its' Being, 'Its' Essence, 'Its' Truth. Love, pure love.

You lost me on this one. :) Love is one aspect and the force of unity or this "oneness" so often spoken of and binds the three elemental forces into "One". However, for some reason, it was not sufficient and needed to express the forces of creation which brings unity into diversity beginning by "one" becoming "three". If love blinded me to the reality of existence, the necessity of its plan and our possibilities within it, I would sense something wrong.

[bito]

You lost me on this one. smile.gif Love is one aspect and the force of unity or this "oneness" so often spoken of and binds the three elemental forces into "One". However, for some reason, it was not sufficient and needed to express the forces of creation which brings unity into diversity beginning by "one" becoming "three". If love blinded me to the reality of existence, the necessity of its plan and our possibilities within it, I would sense something wrong.

What is your understanding of 'God is Love' ?

[Nick_A]

Bito

What is your understanding of 'God is Love' ?

This is one of those statements that is always underestimated. This "love" is beyond our comprehension. However, I believe intellectually that It is the union of the initial primal three forces where individuality is interchangable and yet exists simultaneously as unity beyond time and space. Anything beyond time and space is beyond our understanding as we are now.

This love manifests within creation as Divine Love and blends proportionately with all manifestations within creation.

This raises the fascinating question if samsara, or the compliance with the laws of creation is necessary to sustain the potential of love itself. Does universal suffering sustain love? This goes against our senses since we've established ideas in relation to these labels but if God is Love, and creation is necessary for God, the suffering of creation sustains love.

This is what I mean when I say that the depth of these realities are beyond our self limiting conceptualizations.

[Corri]

Nick:

Maybe this is why we see it so differently. The universe, as I've grown to understand it, is material. It consists of various densities of matter which correspond to the qualities of the three forces blending in their creation. These three forces as they involve into the cosmological levels of creation become increasingly more mechanical and less conscious. At the top it is pure consciousness and its materiality is the least dense and the highest and of the highest vibration and completely beyond our senses. At the bottom, existence is completely mechanical where matter is completely dense and its vibration is very slow. In-between lies the scale of "being"

Energy is continually resulting from interactions. Yes energy is neither created nor destroyed but it is changed or transformed as say the energy of light into heat. If we were just energy, I would agree with you but as you can see, I understand the levels of creation as being determined by the quality of force (consciousness) manifesting into matter. Man's evolution is related then to the development of consciousness and the will to support it

Well. I don't know if we want to get into a physics discussion here... but, everything material comes from energy. We are energy. Our current form as carbon creatures is a different form of energy, which has properties unique to it... but at the micro-level, we are the exact thing that everything else is. How and why this all came together as it did is a matter of debate (obviously), and is quite fascinating... but the one thing that appears to differentiate us from other 'matter' is our 'awareness' of our own 'beingness.' We are nature, observing itself.

The properties and laws which seem to govern all of this is very well known at the macro-level (Newtonian Physics), and Quatum Physics (which is much less predictable) is the study of the micro-level (atoms and smaller)... but it's all part of the same thing, which we know as the universe.

At the subatomic level, mass and energy change unceasingly into each other. Strictly speaking, mass, according to Einstein's Special therory of relativity, is energy, and energy is mass. Where there is one, there is the other.

Quantum Mechanics discards the laws governing individual events (Newtonian Physics) and states directly the laws governing aggregations. It is very pragmatic.

The philosophy of pragmatism goes like this: The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore, it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue). Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience. (Zukav)

But voluntary suffering for a conscious purpose is the result of understanding precisely "what is"

I don't know about that. You are loosing me here. After the experience of having my first child, I voluntarily agreed to suffer the pain of child birth to have another. I would 'voluntarily suffer' the loss of a kidney if it would save my child's life. Would I voluntarily suffer the loss of a kidney for a complete stranger? I don't know. With the age that my children are, probably not. Not because I lack compassion for another, but because "I" have a need to see that my children have a mother, and to see them grow into adults.

But because I am not 'voluntarily suffering' does not mean I have a lack of understanding of precisely 'what is.' Suffering is not understanding, necessarily. I see suffering as 'resistance' to 'what is.' I see non-suffering as 'acceptance' of 'what is.' Conscious purpose, to me, has nothing to do with suffering.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

But because I am not 'voluntarily suffering' does not mean I have a lack of understanding of precisely 'what is.' Suffering is not understanding, necessarily. I see suffering as 'resistance' to 'what is.' I see non-suffering as 'acceptance' of 'what is.' Conscious purpose, to me, has nothing to do with suffering.

Voluntarily suffering for a conscious purpose means that the reason for the suffering is related to the effort to retain consciousness. What you've been referring to are the normal suffering related with our lives. We just follow established patterns and no self awareness is required. A conscious purpose must have consciousness as its goal.

[bito]

This raises the fascinating question if samsara, or the compliance with the laws of creation is necessary to sustain the potential of love itself. Does universal suffering sustain love? This goes against our senses since we've established ideas in relation to these labels but if God is Love, and creation is necessary for God, the suffering of creation sustains love.

Voluntarily suffering for a conscious purpose means that the reason for the suffering is related to the effort to retain consciousness

Once you know that there is a way out of suffering, how then do you continue suffering? Once truth is known, how do you undo this truth?

[bito]

Nick, you tricky guy... now I know why you're such an active poster...keeping yourself and all of us thinking, thinking, thinking...

:lol:

[bito]

Nick, you tricky guy... now I know why you're such an active poster...keeping yourself and all of us thinking, thinking, thinking...

I'm sure you know this, but I had to come back and clarify...I am pulling your leg here... :)

[Corri]

Nick:

Voluntarily suffering for a conscious purpose means that the reason for the suffering is related to the effort to retain consciousness

In some circles, this is called 'motivation.' The end goal is valued more than the pain one must go through to reach the goal, and this is a normal, everyday occurence (athletics, learning, mental disciplines). Just because you apply this concept to consciousness, doesn't mean the concept becomes exalted... or maybe it does... to ego?

I think one of the reasons why 'retaining consciousness' can seem like such a hurculean effort is because of the layers upon layers of beliefs, thoughts and assumptions one must overcome and unlearn. A baby learning to walk is not nearly as frustrated by the task as a man who must learn to walk again... this is a simplistic example, of course, but you get the picture.

This is perhaps what Jesus refers to with 'the little children.' Children are accepting, and they look upon the world in continuous wonder... until we train them not to. WE create suffering, even voluntary suffering. Not consciousness.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Bito

Pulling my leg eh! Well I guess it could have been worse. :)

Once you know that there is a way out of suffering, how then do you continue suffering? Once truth is known, how do you undo this truth?

Nothing glamorous about this. To outgrow useless unnecessary suffering and not just change its form, requires beginning at the bottom. You can't put new wine in old bottles. It is fashionable to use techniques and what not to build on the false in oneself. However, the first step is to begin to see yourself for what you are. Only then can you really acquire the incentive to clean yourself out of the inner deception so you can truly live.

Building on inner lies can be attractive but quite dangerous for yourself and defeat your purpose if is to truly come to grips with useless suffering.

It is like hitting bottom. All this means is coming to a place emotionally where one becomes truly open since you no longer are defending your vanity. This is much easier said than done and usually requires some genuine help since all your habitual life patterns fight against it. Their exposure to the light of consciousness means the end of their control. they do not want to take second place.

[bito]

Nothing glamorous about this. To outgrow useless unnecessary suffering and not just change its form, requires beginning at the bottom. You can't put new wine in old bottles. It is fashionable to use techniques and what not to build on the false in oneself. However, the first step is to begin to see yourself for what you are. Only then can you really acquire the incentive to clean yourself out of the inner deception so you can truly live.

Yes, we see ourselves as we really are - perfect in the 'eyes of the Father'. All it takes is one glimpse of this truth, and the journey of uncovering begins. Is this uncovering easy? Of course not! As Corri pointed out in an earlier post (and I'm paraphrasing) it takes years for these lies to be heaped on, by ignorance, in ignorance - layer by layer. How many people can understand, in the very depth of their being, that they are PERFECT 'SIMPLY' BECAUSE THEY EXIST in one moment, or one year, or ten years, or perhaps even in an entire lifetime?

Building on inner lies can be attractive but quite dangerous for yourself and defeat your purpose if is to truly come to grips with useless suffering.

Once you see that your self-hating-fearing IS The Big Lie, then yes, one perceives that one is suffering. To discover that the self that one clung to for so long is nothing but lies - well, yeah, there's gonna be an experiencing of some big time psychological/spiritual pain. It is as if there is a battle raging within - a battle to 'save' the lie and a battle to 'see through' the lie. Once we see the lie though, there is no turning back.

Nick, I do understand your desire to expose spiritual techniques as being a false way (I would call them a distraction, a postponement technique) to uncover truth, and I say, go, bro, go...you might reach some and save them some pain. But in my experience, the confused self will wander and stumble and fall until it has no where to go but to that dark silent 'place'.

[Nick_A]

Bito

Yes, we see ourselves as we really are - perfect in the 'eyes of the Father'.

This is the essence of our differences. For me we exist only as the potential of such a relationship. This is why God's will is not done on earth. When we can bear to "Know Thyself", we may acquire the incentive to become truly meaningful.

[bito]

This is the essence of our differences. For me we exist only as the potential of such a relationship. This is why God's will is not done on earth. When we can bear to "Know Thyself", we may acquire the incentive to become truly meaningful.

This is not only a difference, but a BIG difference.

Your way of seeing God offers no redemption, no liberation, no 'saving', no release from the human condition, for there is always only potential, no actualization. No knowing God...always reaching.

[Corri]

Nick:

This is the essence of our differences. For me we exist only as the potential of such a relationship. This is why God's will is not done on earth. When we can bear to "Know Thyself", we may acquire the incentive to become truly meaningful.

No... I suppose if God wanted His will done on Earth, He'd come down and do it himself. That's why He gave us Free Will, and loves us anyway.

You can't screw this gig up, Nick. You either 'see' it and 'live' it, or you don't. Either way, it's meaningful, simply because it is.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

Your way of seeing God offers no redemption, no liberation, no 'saving', no release from the human condition, for there is always only potential, no actualization. No knowing God...always reaching.

Of course if our position were hopeless it would be foolish to bring it up. I am suggesting that the first step is the appreciation of oneself as it is and the knowledge of the necessity of awakening. it is not easy since one has to come to grips with oneself but it is possible and has been done. This is how one becomes a real human being. Why do you think it is hopeless just because like anything else of value, it takes honest hard work, bravery, and help along the way?

No... I suppose if God wanted His will done on Earth, He'd come down and do it himself. That's why He gave us Free Will, and loves us anyway.

You can't screw this gig up, Nick. You either 'see' it and 'live' it, or you don't. Either way, it's meaningful, simply because it is.

If man needs to awaken and is asleep to reality, how can he have free will. Man is an assortment of small wills often in opposition to one another. Free will is the property of a real human being, not just a potential.

I agree it meaningful as it is. The problem is seeing it as it is without rose colored glasses.

Corrie, I know what I'm saying is not for everyone and frowned on by the majority but on a site that welcomes seeing the "big" picture, I'm trying to offer just such a picture. Yes at first glance it is disturbing but for me it has offered real hope.

The great messengers from above who have descended down to our plane of existence are filled with compassion for the human condition because they see it for what it is and our suggestibility that allows us to be so content with imagination and oblivious of our reality. Dealing with this as they have tried to do and all it entails is real compassion.

[bito]

Why do you think it is hopeless just because like anything else of value, it takes honest hard work, bravery, and help along the way?

Nick, the very fact that you believe that my response means that I think 'it' (I don't even know what 'it' is) is hopeless tells me that there is a huge gap in our individual understandings of self - a gap that I see as being simply too big to bridge.

I sense you are unmoveable in your views of God, I know I am in mine. No problem. This is the beauty of choice.

:)

[Nick_A]

Bito

Nick, the very fact that you believe that my response means that I think 'it' (I don't even know what 'it' is) is hopeless tells me that there is a huge gap in our individual understandings of self - a gap that I see as being simply too big to bridge.

The "it" refered to is my understandings. I wasn't referring to yours. It was obvious that you felt my ideas left us in a holpless position. I am suggesting that it is not so hopeless

I sense you are unmoveable in your views of God, I know I am in mine. No problem. This is the beauty of choice.

I am only unmovable in what I can verify until proven wrong. When I speak of the human condition as that which was explained as the "Wretched Man", it is because I've seen it in myself.

I can appreciate the concept of cosmology. it makes sense to me. I can see that I inhabit this body which in turn exists within a community which in turn exists within a state which in turn exists within the United States which exists within the Earth which in turn exists within our Solar System which in turn exists within the Milky Way which in turn exists within an infinite number of galaxies. It is not a stretch to see that there are certain levels then of an objective reality where one level exists within another and this structure exists within God as Creation.

If somehow it were proven wrong It would be fine. Why be unmovable if the search is for the truth?

[bito]

Why be unmovable if the search is for the truth?

Perhaps I should have put it this way: for me, truth is immovable, for truth is.

[Nick_A]

Bito

Perhaps I should have put it this way: for me, truth is immovable, for truth is.

Now I don't think you meant this but if you put the above statement together with:

I sense you are unmoveable in your views of God, I know I am in mine.

the implication is that your subjective concept is also an objective reality. I really don't think you meant that. :)

[bito]

the implication is that your subjective concept is also an objective reality. I really don't think you meant that.

No, I did not.

What I have come to realize is that no subjective concept can speak of truth.

[Nick_A]

Bito

What I have come to realize is that no subjective concept can speak of truth.

I believe it can and this is the basis of real ART. I quoted Father Sylvan before where he said that there were no esoteric thoughts but only esoteric thinking. Certain symbols for example can be appreciated both subjectively and objectively since they can, for those open to it, inspire the process of esoteric thought which, while during the short span of the legit process, puts the psych into alignment: the higher and lower are connected. Of course one must know how to let go of the subjective experience when it has served its purpose. At some point one must take off the training wheels and maintain balance.

[Corri]

Nick:

I am only unmovable in what I can verify until proven wrong.

Good luck with that. Verifying is subjective itself. If you can get out of seeing 'right' and 'wrong' then there is only what is as it is, and verifying loses its hold.

When I speak of the human condition as that which was explained as the "Wretched Man", it is because I've seen it in myself.

How do you save a man from himself, his 'wretchedness' if the man himself is not willing to be saved?

I think I do need to make myself clear here that I am not interested in changing your views or proving you right or wrong... I see value in the discussion as a means of 'looking at the mountain' from another vantage point, is all. Kind of like, "I never knew that was there... who knew?! What an interesting view!"

So... please keep that in mind. :)

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

Good luck with that. Verifying is subjective itself. If you can get out of seeing 'right' and 'wrong' then there is only what is as it is, and verifying loses its hold.
Have you ever wondered what is meant by the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" mentioned in Genesis? I know the experts have gotten a hold of it and now it is hard to make any sense out of it but it refers to objective good and evil as opposed to the normal subjective conceptualizations.

Right and wrong for us can only relate to our aim. It is subjective. I live in new York. If I want to go to Canada it is right, all things being equal, for me to go north and wrong to go south. This doesn't make north objectively right or south objectively wrong. Right and wrong for me is determined by my aim.

If my goal is sex with a woman, it is right for me to be concerned with my appearance and personality. If I want to make money in business, it is right for me to learn business practice and wrong to sit home watching TV.

If my interest and my goal is understanding and experiencing consciousness in a healthy balanced fashion, I must first consider "right" that which allows me to distinguish between the truth and illusion within my own presence and "wrong" that which perpetuates unnecessary fear and imagination.

The "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" refers to the knowledge of the laws of evolution and involution. Once man has experienced this consciously and understands how evolution concerns him, he cannot be content with what seems as "what is", since he begins to see that he "isn't" and this can be very disturbing.

I don't see any value in arguing over right and wrong. From the spiritual/conscious perspective, the value is in acquiring the ability to consciously discriminate the real from the unreal. Without this, all that is being argued is about dreams. Again, this only applies if ones aim is true spiritual development through bringing unity to our own inner chaotic multiplicity.


I agree that we should keep it in mind. :)

[sahyo]

'looking at the mountain'



"a :blink: t"

[Corri]

Nick:

Right and wrong for us can only relate to our aim. It is subjective. I live in new York. If I want to go to Canada it is right, all things being equal, for me to go north and wrong to go south. This doesn't make north objectively right or south objectively wrong. Right and wrong for me is determined by my aim.

Here is were semantics leads to confusion. I would say that if you live in New York and you want to go to Canada, then it is appropriate for you to go north, and inappropriate to go South. Right and wrong, to me, infers a moral judgement imposed upon a situation. (ie., it is wrong to kill another human, not inappropriate).

If my goal is sex with a woman, it is right for me to be concerned with my appearance and personality. If I want to make money in business, it is right for me to learn business practice and wrong to sit home watching TV.

Same point here.

If my interest and my goal is understanding and experiencing consciousness in a healthy balanced fashion, I must first consider "right" that which allows me to distinguish between the truth and illusion within my own presence and "wrong" that which perpetuates unnecessary fear and imagination.

Even in this instance, I would apply appropriate and inapprorpriate, for to consider myself 'right or wrong' in these pursuits will necessarily establish personal judgement, guilt and fear on the pursuit itself, which is what you are trying in the first place to rid yourself of.

The "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" refers to the knowledge of the laws of evolution and involution. Once man has experienced this consciously and understands how evolution concerns him, he cannot be content with what seems as "what is", since he begins to see that he "isn't" and this can be very disturbing.

There is no 'seems' to what is as it is. "Seeing that he 'isn't' can be very disturbing...." Disturbing indeed. And why do you think that is?

I don't see any value in arguing over right and wrong. From the spiritual/conscious perspective, the value is in acquiring the ability to consciously discriminate the real from the unreal.

And with what do you discriminate? What is your criteria? How is it decided that 'this' fits and 'that' doesn't?

Without this, all that is being argued is about dreams. Again, this only applies if ones aim is true spiritual development through bringing unity to our own inner chaotic multiplicity.

I hear you. What is your measuring stick?

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

Right and wrong, to me, infers a moral judgement imposed upon a situation. (ie., it is wrong to kill another human, not inappropriate).

But morals again are relative. You can say it is not right to kill another but it depends on circumstances. We kill in wars, self defense and the like. This is not considered immoral. If you prefer restricting right and wrong to emotional valuations, it is fine with me.

Even in this instance, I would apply appropriate and inapprorpriate, for to consider myself 'right or wrong' in these pursuits will necessarily establish personal judgement, guilt and fear on the pursuit itself, which is what you are trying in the first place to rid yourself of.

You've lost me here. Self awareness cannot be partial or judgmental. Then it is not self awareness but just personal criticism. It is not a matter of considering yourself right or wrong but just to experience, to see, oneself without the inner lies. If after the experience one desires to change a person must learn the appropriate (right) way to continue. Right and wrong for me doesn't have the same emotional connotation that it has with you. That doesn't make us right or wrong. :)

There is no 'seems' to what is as it is. "Seeing that he 'isn't' can be very disturbing...." Disturbing indeed. And why do you think that is?

It is a bit of a shock when we learn that we are not what we think we are and even more so if we are puffed up with either vanity or self importance.

And with what do you discriminate? What is your criteria? How is it decided that 'this' fits and 'that' doesn't?

I hear you. What is your measuring stick?

How to "Know Thy self"? This is a gradual process of inner discovery that must begin by seeing that we are not what we think we are. This is not judgmental but scientific. It is through impartial observation and experience. The measuring stick is our ability "to do". It is too difficult to begin with emotions so a person begins with a simple habit. Habits are learned yet they control our lives. Take a simple habit such as getting up at seven in the morning and as an excercise in "will" make a committment to get up at six for no reason other than personal will. After several times you will learn how this habit protests and tells you every reason in the world why it is the stupidest thing you've ever done. This habit wants to live and to dominate in its domain and doesn't need you to rock the boat.. This is getting to "know thyself". it isn't a matter if you succeed for a while or not; the whole point is to observe without any judgment the power of habits that decide your life for you. It is simple discrimination when we see how much acquired habits that lack any consciousness dominate our lives yet we can begin to become consciously aware of them and how it happens.

[bito]

What I have come to realize is that no subjective concept can speak of truth.

I believe it can and this is the basis of real ART. I quoted Father Sylvan before where he said that there were no esoteric thoughts but only esoteric thinking. Certain symbols for example can be appreciated both subjectively and objectively since they can, for those open to it, inspire the process of esoteric thought which, while during the short span of the legit process, puts the psych into alignment: the higher and lower are connected. Of course one must know how to let go of the subjective experience when it has served its purpose. At some point one must take off the training wheels and maintain balance.

What you are referring to is thinking/speaking about truth (the journey), not of truth (the unknown, the Father, the Pleuroma, that which lies beyond time and space)? Or am I being nit-picky here? :)

Would an example of these symbols you are referring to be the six-pointed star, The Star of David? The upward pointing triangle representing the lower self reaching upward toward the spiritual and the downward pointing triangle representing the spiritual reaching downward toward the lower self in order to lift it upwards?

I will be posting on the Bridging Estoteric Thought thread to subjectively speak about my cosmological views and how they relate to yours - perhaps some common ground may surface. :)

[Nick_A]

Bito

What you are referring to is thinking/speaking about truth (the journey), not of truth (the unknown, the Father, the Pleuroma, that which lies beyond time and space)? Or am I being nit-picky here?

Actually what you refer to are really just our normal thought. I am speaking of psycho/spiritual alignment where the higher and lower have a conscious connection. It is the alignment that is important and not the thought itself.

[sahyo]

This habit wants to live and to dominate in its domain and doesn't need you to rock the boat..



not habit "wants to live and to dominate in its domain"



the whole point is to observe without any judgment the power of habits that decide your life for you.



not habit "that decide your life"


:)

[Nick_A]

Asheera

Try breaking a strong habit and tell me which is stronger: you or the habit.

[sahyo]

habit source?

[Nick_A]

habit source

you

[sahyo]

:D

but is 'you' happening?

[Nick_A]

Yes: just like dog happening.

[sahyo]

but is i-this you-that happening?

[Nick_A]

"You" = many i's. Habit i's keep happening. No big "I" to organize small i's for choice. Happening continue.

[bito]

What is your understanding of 'God is Love' ?


This is one of those statements that is always underestimated. This "love" is beyond our comprehension. However, I believe intellectually that It is the union of the initial primal three forces where individuality is interchangable and yet exists simultaneously as unity beyond time and space. Anything beyond time and space is beyond our understanding as we are now.

This love manifests within creation as Divine Love and blends proportionately with all manifestations within creation.

This raises the fascinating question if samsara, or the compliance with the laws of creation is necessary to sustain the potential of love itself. Does universal suffering sustain love? This goes against our senses since we've established ideas in relation to these labels but if God is Love, and creation is necessary for God, the suffering of creation sustains love.

This is what I mean when I say that the depth of these realities are beyond our self limiting conceptualizations.

1. God Realization (One Mind, Soul Mind) = Empty Fullness = Objective Consciousness

2. Subjective consciousness = sense of separate self = experience of suffering

3. Subjective consciousness becomes aware of Objective Consciousness

4. Subjective consciousness brings suffering to Objective Consciousness for seeing of truth -what am I? why do I suffer?

5. Desire to know Objective Consciousness is Love for God, prayer, orison; experience of burning of sense of separate self (sacrificial suffering) is Love from God, the 'mystic' or 'holy' fire.

6. When burning is 'done', Subjective Consciousness and Objective Consciousness are known as One. Subjective Consciousness now feels and acts in the world as Divine Heart and Divine Intelligence.

Question 1. Are we seeing the 'same' Object?

Question 2. Do you see any common ground in my subjective understanding of the relationship between love and suffering and your subjective understanding of love and suffering?

[Nick_A]

Bito

We really are quite similar. I would say that objective consciousness only occurs for us in flashes and the impression enters in higher parts of our collective self. the impression drifts down and is captured by are regular associative mind which cannot understand and invents all sorts of theories that in some cases, even sell books. But the truth is that objective consciousness is not something we have access to with out scattered quality of being. It can only exist in our imagination which we have a great deal of. I remember reading somewhere and I'll have to find that quote that, and this is a paraphrase: Man has invented so many ingenious methods of self deception that even the arch cunning Lucifer himself is now green with envy.

We are separate from the whole though we exist within it. Creation is composed of different levels of being. All of creation exists within the highest level of being where everything is ONE. This is a tough one and it has caused more trouble for people trying to understand the Holy Trinity of ONE being THREE at the same time. It cannot really be understood by us since we are limited to the laws of time and space but such existence is beyond time and space.

This "separate self" is really the result of genuine selves together with corrupt impressions of self. I have to marvel at the way Paul expressed this which is so vile for those dependent on self esteem

Romans 7

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[3] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

This is my subjective self. It is love that attracts us to God and our egotism expressed as sin that denies it.

Sacrificial suffering as in the case of Jesus is something else again. His purpose was to pave the way back home through re-birth for those that could follow. I agree that this was a burning away of illusion.

At some level objective and subjective consciousness is the same. Jesus and Buddha I believe would understand each other completely since they are both objectively conscious. Yet they exist as individuals as well.in experience

Subjective Consciousness now feels and acts in the world as Divine Heart and Divine Intelligence.

Yes, and it would manifest through real "free will" which we know little of. By writing that I cannot resist sharing something with you from Meister Eckhart that would confuse many.

"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

Question 1. Are we seeing the 'same' Object?

We may be seeing the same thing but our interpretations are different.

Question 2. Do you see any common ground in my subjective understanding of the relationship between love and suffering and your subjective understanding of love and suffering?

I'm not sure if I understand yours. I believe that it is Love that is the unifying force that conscious evolution is dependant on. It is the basic attraction of unification and of a quality that few have ever experienced. Why burn away subjective consciousness? What is conscious is relatively real. Burning away subjective illusion is separating the wheat from the tares which is what I believe you mean.

Universal laws, Divine plan, Samsara, or whatever you may call it is a giant machine that continually transforms materiality. In a sense, this is continual suffering since really the universe is eating itself. It is also suffering for higher consciousness when it realizes its separation. Conscious evolution is the way towards God

Jesus was in a tough spot. He suffered being apart from the Father and suffered also being witness to the madness on earth which he chose to be a part of.through compassion to pave the Way for a way out for us.

I would agree that it is largely the voluntary suffering to clean ourselves from all this unnecessary fear and imagination that allows for the quality of suffering that can invite higher love to help. Now that I think of it, this is related to conscience in the objective sense which is something else only a very few have really experienced

[bito]

We really are quite similar. I would say that objective consciousness only occurs for us in flashes and the impression enters in higher parts of our collective self. the impression drifts down and is captured by are regular associative mind which cannot understand and invents all sorts of theories that in some cases, even sell books. But the truth is that objective consciousness is not something we have access to with out scattered quality of being. It can only exist in our imagination which we have a great deal of. I remember reading somewhere and I'll have to find that quote that, and this is a paraphrase: Man has invented so many ingenious methods of self deception that even the arch cunning Lucifer himself is now green with envy.

I agree that objective consciousness only occurs for us in flashes - at first. We are smitten, overwhelmed, perplexed and the grasping to explain it and hold it begins. It is when you fall deeply in the grasping and holding that you truly understand why the world is in the mess that it is in.

This is what I see that the collective consciousness is learning now, this very valuable lesson of the impossibility of applying one's subjective beliefs and desires to Objective Consciousness. It is as if we need to experience this before we can 'move forward.'

We are separate from the whole though we exist within it.

I do not know exactly your meaning here, but I shall share my understandings of separation from God. This idea that we are separate and yet we exist within the Whole burned inside my questioning for years. I had been taught we were separate, I felt as if I were separate, and yet, the idea that there is some kind of 'slice' in consciousness seemed, well, inconceivable to me. It was when I realized that it is not that we are 'actually' separate, but that we sense we are separate, that the light bulb went bing! The 'addition' of that one little word, so filled with meaning, for me, makes a huge difference. It is this sense of being separate that is our experience of sin.

For me, this seeing the difference between being separate and sensing we are separate was the breaking of my damn of understanding, a damn that was never really there, except in my thinking that it was :) . And yet, my belief that it was there seemed critical to the seeing that it was not. In other words, it is as if this belief in separation is necessary so that we will long for God with all of our mind, heart and soul. Somehow this longing is at the very heart of understanding the human condition, and without this understanding, we cannot act from compassion. And without compassion, well, look at our world...

Creation is composed of different levels of being. All of creation exists within the highest level of being where everything is ONE. This is a tough one and it has caused more trouble for people trying to understand the Holy Trinity of ONE being THREE at the same time. It cannot really be understood by us since we are limited to the laws of time and space but such existence is beyond time and space.

Intuition understands and compassion honors all subjective cosmological views.

Romans 7

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[3] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Yes, we are a slave to God's law, but only until we have experienced this battle of the 'good' self vs. the 'evil' self until we cannot bear the grief of this battle one more moment. And then, we are released from the law into grace.

This is my subjective self. It is love that attracts us to God and our egotism expressed as sin that denies it.

Yes, this is also my understanding.

Sacrificial suffering as in the case of Jesus is something else again. His purpose was to pave the way back home through re-birth for those that could follow. I agree that this was a burning away of illusion.

I also agree that his purpose was to pave the way back home, both in the sense of what living The Word means, AND of seeing that we are One Thought of God...no separation except in the necessity of our witnessing of this One Thought.


At some level objective and subjective consciousness is the same. Jesus and Buddha I believe would understand each other completely since they are both objectively conscious. Yet they exist as individuals as well.in experience

Yes! This is so important to understanding that nonduality does not mean destroying one's sense of individual experience. We do not identify with this sense of individual experience, as in being who or what we are, rather, it is the (transparent) clothing we wear until physical death. The moment we speak, we utter our individuality.

I'm not sure if I understand yours. I believe that it is Love that is the unifying force that conscious evolution is dependant on. It is the basic attraction of unification and of a quality that few have ever experienced. Why burn away subjective consciousness? What is conscious is relatively real. Burning away subjective illusion is separating the wheat from the tares which is what I believe you mean.

I also see Love as the unifying force, the 'substance' of peace, of creativity, of harmony, of the will of the Universe to Be, will in the sense of 'having no choice', for what choice can God have but to be?

You are right to say that this experience of Love is a quality. It is this quality that delights and enchants and invites...invitation...it's all about invitation...

You are correct in saying that I did not mean that subjective consciousness should be burned away, as in destroyed. As if that is even possible...not! :) . Again, the moment we speak, we utter our individuality. As for meaning the separating the wheat from the tares, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here...I think I know, but I'd best wait for confirmation. What I mean in the burning away, is the burning away of the sense of separation from God. When this happens, there remains no need to find a way Home. We see we are already Home. We only believe we left. The parable of the prodical son come's to mind :)

I would agree that it is largely the voluntary suffering to clean ourselves from all this unnecessary fear and imagination that allows for the quality of suffering that can invite higher love to help.

So beautifully put. And when the higher meets the lower, and kisses it with One Lip kissing... :)

We are singing our One Lip, right now, as I write and you read...:dancing:

[sahyo]

One Thought of God



as though thought?


Love as the unifying force



as though not-unified to unify?


higher meets the lower



as though higher lower to meet?

[sahyo]

"You" = many i's. Habit i's keep happening.



"habit i's keep happening"?, or as though imagining-i-habiting?


No big "I" to organize small i's for choice.*



big "I"? ..."organize" as though imagined-separate's to organize
and imagined-entity which can organize?

[bito]

One Thought of God

as though thought?

yes, as though thought, until thoughing :) not needed


Love as the unifying force

as though not-unified to unify?

already unified, except in believing


higher meets the lower

as though higher lower to meet?

no, except in believing

[Nick_A]

Bito

This is what I see that the collective consciousness is learning now, this very valuable lesson of the impossibility of applying one's subjective beliefs and desires to Objective Consciousness. It is as if we need to experience this before we can 'move forward.'

I imagine by collective consciousness you mean the center of gravity of mankind. I don't see anything that allows me to share your optimism. Often what appears as promising is really just part of a repeating cycle. I hope I am wrong but what is written in Ecclesiastes is what I see for collective humanity:

Ecclesiastes 3


A Time for Everything

1
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Lets face it. If man lacking consciousness is prompted by influences much like the rest of organic life, it will repeat these cycles just like organic life. Escaping the cycles of life on earth requires consciousness that society struggles against. Just look at what the entertainment dollar is spent on and you'll see what is important to society regardless of lip service. This is why I only see progress for individuals who begin to smell the coffee.

It is this sense of being separate that is our experience of sin.

Is your finger separate from your shoulder? For me the answer is both yes and no. The body is "one" so in this way they are not separated. Yet the body consists of cooperating parts that serve different purposes. In this way the finger and the shoulder are separate. Does this make sense to you?

Somehow this longing is at the very heart of understanding the human condition, and without this understanding, we cannot act from compassion. And without compassion, well, look at our world...

I agree. It is one thing to believe oneself feeling compassion by saying "oh how horrible" It is another thing to act from compassion and, like you, I cannot see such action without a quality of understanding that is very rare.

Intuition understands and compassion honors all subjective cosmological views.

I imagine that there are conscious beings of higher understanding that observe our thought process and it invokes great compassion in them for us. :)

The moment we speak, we utter our individuality.

When a person can do this it is a big thing. Speech tends to lose wholeness in conceptualizing the "right thing" to say. Our experience and our conceptualizations of our experiences are not necessarily the same. This is the essence of self deception. The tongue is looked upon with caution in all the ancient traditions and for good reason IMO.

So beautifully put. And when the higher meets the lower, and kisses it with One Lip kissing...

The higher wants to meet the lower but we do not allow it. One of the great mistakes of a lot of the modern teachings is denial of the lower as if it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

Rudolph Steiner spoke of this as the attraction of Lucifer. He said that this idea of "devil" was actually two. Lucifer's attraction was his beautiful light that attracts so many artists and thinkers. Its affect was to deny the spiritualization of the earth by being lost in this attraction.

The other side is Ahriman who is the stronger and pulls man into gross materiality unable to be himself. The attraction to materialism is related to Ahriman.

It seems so easy to say "when the higher meets the lower" but in practical terms, because of the nature of our being, it is extremely difficult.

[sahyo]

One Thought of God



as though thought?



yes, as though thought, until thoughing :) not needed

:) ...was needed thinking-imagining "One Thought of God"?





Love as the unifying force



as though not-unified to unify?



already unified, except in believing

yet said "Love as the unifying force" as though can happening





higher meets the lower



as though higher lower to meet?



no, except in believing

yet said "higher meets lower" as though can happening

[bito]

I imagine by collective consciousness you mean the center of gravity of mankind. I don't see anything that allows me to share your optimism. Often what appears as promising is really just part of a repeating cycle. I hope I am wrong but what is written in Ecclesiastes is what I see for collective humanity:

The collective consicousness to which I refer is the collective 'level of awareness' of humanity as a whole, and specifically, at this time, the majority's preoccupation with applying one's personal beliefs (subjective) to what is perceived as being an egoic God...the theocratic worldview that is threatening to destroy this earth...its drive to experience what I call 'absolute egotism'.

This brings up possible differences in our views on consciousness - do you understand consciousness to be collectively evolving?

It is this sense of being separate that is our experience of sin.

Is your finger separate from your shoulder? For me the answer is both yes and no. The body is "one" so in this way they are not separated. Yet the body consists of cooperating parts that serve different purposes. In this way the finger and the shoulder are separate. Does this make sense to you?

The laws of physics tell us that there is no physical separation in the universe. No matter how we try to bend this truth, we cannot.

The separation I am speaking of is the self's awareness of its awareness. And its experience of grief at this awareness. This grief, this 'sense of sin' in my view, cannot be underestimated. I believe this grief, this sense of sin, is the existential pain that cries out in the wilderness...

Intuition understands and compassion honors all subjective cosmological views.

I imagine that there are conscious beings of higher understanding that observe our thought process and it invokes great compassion in them for us.

I was not referring to beings of higher understanding but to the understanding of own's own intution and compassion. Do you not intuit that subjective cosmological views are only that, subjective? Do you not experience compassion in this knowledge, that we are limited only to this subjectivity?

Rudolph Steiner spoke of this as the attraction of Lucifer. He said that this idea of "devil" was actually two. Lucifer's attraction was his beautiful light that attracts so many artists and thinkers. Its affect was to deny the spiritualization of the earth by being lost in this attraction.

The other side is Ahriman who is the stronger and pulls man into gross materiality unable to be himself. The attraction to materialism is related to Ahriman.

The psychological journey to the authentic self. Where I believe we differ in our views, is that where you see the 'end' of this journey as the point where one begins acquiring a soul, I see the soul as the 'experiencer' of this journey to authenticity. The effort (I say effort, for 'acquisition' implies effort) is in the journey itself, not in the living of its revelations/understandings. This is not to say the soul is perfect and can sustain authenticity at all times, but that it cannot stray far without experiencing the tug toward being.

Where I see the challenge for mankind is that Light has taken on a whole new meaning, and that this new meaning could be perceived as a 'replacement' for the journey to authenticity. A confusion between the quantuum self and the authentic-individual living of this quantuumness (I'm sure this is not a legal word, but I like it, so it stays :) )

[Nick_A]

Bito

Some very profound and meaningful thoughts. I see you've done your share of pondering.

This brings up possible differences in our views on consciousness - do you understand consciousness to be collectively evolving?

Yes and no. As you say later in your post, everything is connected. The conscious evolution of man on earth, without any special efforts on his part, is connected to the evolution of the earth itself. This is very very slow for us. So practically speaking we cannot sense any sort of evolution. Many many generations and thousands of years could pass before there would be any collective gain. Astrological cycles could inspire behavior that could appear as conscious. Then, at a later time, another cycle will begin and it would appear that mankind has completely lost consciousness. In reality, the behaviors were just collective reaction and not as a result of conscious action.

The separation I am speaking of is the self's awareness of its awareness. And its experience of grief at this awareness. This grief, this 'sense of sin' in my view, cannot be underestimated. I believe this grief, this sense of sin, is the existential pain that cries out in the wilderness...

Sheesh, you've put a lot into three sentences. I call this experience of grief at this awareness "Remorse". How this relates to sin is something else again.

As I see it this "remorse is part of "awakening" which is a good and necessary thing for man's evolution but yet for me it is also original sin where awakening occurred prematurely. The reason for this which goes beyond this thread is that certain cosmic circumstances dictated that it was not the right time for awakening. It had to be postponed which lead to all the misfortune that you've noticed.

So I don't see sin as the awareness of awareness which is the beginning of human consciousness but more what does not allow us to build on this knowledge but keeps us attached to habitual illusion.

Do you not intuit that subjective cosmological views are only that, subjective? Do you not experience compassion in this knowledge, that we are limited only to this subjectivity?

I not only intuit it but have also experienced it. Before my experience I had read about "metanoia" as this change of mind but had completely underestimated it. Until one has the experience, it has no real meaning. I know in my case there is no compassion. The value of this emotion in the collective sense is beyond us IMO. What you do experience is "awe". Later on it can move to forgiveness since you experience what you lose by holding on to all sorts of negative emotions. Compassion for me only becomes valuable when you can do something with it.

The psychological journey to the authentic self. Where I believe we differ in our views, is that where you see the 'end' of this journey as the point where one begins acquiring a soul, I see the soul as the 'experiencer' of this journey to authenticity. The effort (I say effort, for 'acquisition' implies effort) is in the journey itself, not in the living of its revelations/understandings. This is not to say the soul is perfect and can sustain authenticity at all times, but that it cannot stray far without experiencing the tug toward being.

I believe you've misunderstood me. Man on earth is not awake so therefore asleep to reality. How can there be any sort of journey in sleep other than imaginary? The beginning of the journey is the experience of a quality of awakening that unites the higher with the lower within ones own being creating "presence" This is the beginning. Before this it is just mankind going around in circles with the help of good scotch.

Where I see the challenge for mankind is that Light has taken on a whole new meaning, and that this new meaning could be perceived as a 'replacement' for the journey to authenticity. A confusion between the quantuum self and the authentic-individual living of this quantuumness (I'm sure this is not a legal word, but I like it, so it stays

Its a good word. I like made up words. I'm not an anthropologist but I do agree with Steiner's concern for the "light". I would say that most of this new meaning for "light" is not the light of the sun (son) so to speak.. The quantum self will always express a mixture of influences. When Paul experienced it in himself, he called it the "wretched man".

I don't see it has a challenge for mankind. In order for there to be a challenge, someone has to be aware of it. I don't see any realistic awareness of the human condition that could promote any change. Since man is as he is, life will continue as it is. Again, this is why I see possibilities only for individuals as opposed to collective mankind. An individual can understand what collective mankind is incapable of since collectively man on earth, as he has become, is necessary only for the purposes of the earth which struggles against any collective awareness. I know it doesn't sound too "wonderful" but it is what seems to be the case as I look around me.

[bito]

I sense we have come to an understanding of the human condition beyond our individual journey to this understanding.

Thanks, Nick, for your thought-nourishment.

:)

[Nick_A]

Bito

I've been appreciating our dialogue as well. Much food for thought. I've been thinking so much that I see I made a mistake and in my last post wrote anthropologist instead of anthroposophist. Poor Steiner just turned over in his grave. Oh well, such is life. :)

[sahyo]

Thanks, Nick, for your thought-nourishment.



Bito

I've been appreciating our dialogue as well. Much food for thought.



likes thought feeding thought?

[sahyo]

fear naked?

[Nick_A]

fear naked?

Fear ignorance.

[sahyo]

thought-knowledge changes

[Nick_A]

thought-knowledge changes

Everything changes. Nothing stays same. Sometimes change even obvously good like with underwear.

[bito]

likes thought feeding thought?

likes inflowing thought guiding-catalyzing thought for seeing yes-no-yes-truth; also like outflowing thought for delighting, loving, joy*ing, celebrating one-two-one*ing

fear naked?

fear naked not manifesting naked; one-two-buckle my shoe, my shoes tap earth-me-dancing!

nakedloveseeing :dance: clothinglovebeing

[sahyo]

thought guiding-catalyzing thought for seeing

thought imagining "seeing" is only imagined

[bito]

thought imagining "seeing" is only imagined

asheera's meaning of seeing may not be same meaning as bito's meaning of seeing

[sahyo]

See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views,




When the mind ceases thus to be mind,

The true nature of the innate shines forth.

[Nick_A]

When the mind ceases thus to be mind,

The true nature of the innate shines forth.



When mind recognized,

The true nature of the innate shines forth.

[sahyo]

When mind recognized

as though a-where-mind to recognize and a-where-who which recognizes?

[Nick_A]

Becoming aware beginning of "to be".

[sahyo]

Becoming aware beginning of "to be".

not possible "becoming" "beginning" as though from-to

[Nick_A]

Not possible?? Was Buddha wrong?

"Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading."

Creation is continual "becoming". Becoming, fading is from, to. Living universal process.

[sahyo]

didn't happen reading "Buddha taught", but researching, called 'buddha teachings', for responsing the post, happened:


S. XXII. 29

Whoso delights in corporeality, or feeling, or perception, or mental formations, or consciousness, he delights in suffering; and whoso delights in suffering, will not be freed from suffering. Thus I say.


Ud. VIII. 1

Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.

This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.

[Nick_A]

S. XXII. 29

Whoso delights in corporeality, or feeling, or perception, or mental formations, or consciousness, he delights in suffering; and whoso delights in suffering, will not be freed from suffering. Thus I say.

Must be careful here. What means "delight? Suffering often confused with samsara. Being captured by delight is samsara since it must change. Must learn how to suffer to put delight into perspective.

Ud. VIII. 1

Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.

This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.

This be "Man" in pure sense. Not controlled by samsara. This control is suffering. Samsara just continual interactions of universal laws. Real Man not forced to be slave to them.

[sahyo]

sweeting...


S. XXII. 29

Whoso delights in corporeality, or feeling, or perception, or mental formations, or consciousness, he delights in suffering; and whoso delights in suffering, will not be freed from suffering. Thus I say.


Ud. VIII. 1

Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.

This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.


was responsing:


When mind recognized



Creation is continual "becoming". Becoming, fading is from, to. Living universal process.

[Corri]

Asheera:

S. XXII. 29

Whoso delights in corporeality, or feeling, or perception, or mental formations, or consciousness, he delights in suffering; and whoso delights in suffering, will not be freed from suffering. Thus I say.


Ud. VIII. 1

Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.

This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.

Where did you get those quotes? From a web site? Out of a book? Can you give the reference? I'd like to read more.

Corri

[sahyo]

:)

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/wob1.html

only read littlebit for using more words
for responsing the post

[Corri]

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/wob1.html

only read littlebit for using more words
for responsing the post

Okay, understood. Thank you.

Corri

[bito]

S. XXII. 29

Whoso delights in corporeality, or feeling, or perception, or mental formations, or consciousness, he delights in suffering; and whoso delights in suffering, will not be freed from suffering. Thus I say.

Ecstasying existence is being delighting being. No suffering in ecstasy*ing, except when self falls into fear and doubting of living ecstasy :) .


Ud. VIII. 1

Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.

This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.

Fine for very few people.

For those not wishing not to feeling*cognitively 'disappear', perhaps transcendence experiencing something like this:

Ecstasyingthinking existence = lovingreasoning beingself in world

[sahyo]

self falls into fear


thinks-imagining as though a-"self" which can fall form-to/ "into"?


Ecstasyingthinking existence = lovingreasoning beingself in world


thinks-imagining as though a-"self" as though out/"in"?

[venom mama]

i found a puppy that someone had thrown out at a dumpster. she was about 8 weeks old, starved, thirsty, covered in mage. her leg was split open from the top of the thigh down to her toes. split wide open. when i went to pick her up she screamed in terror. the vet said her leg injury was over a week old so whoever threw her out knew she was wounded. definitly suffering.

[bito]

thinks-imagining as though a-"self" as though out/"in"?

One self, no out/in, only seeming in body-feeling-music*ing-witnessing

[sahyo]

but posted:


beingself in



what "in"?



beingself



One self



what "One"?
what "self"?

seems as though a-what (an-entity) which is in?

[bito]

seems as though a-what (an-entity) which is in?

no entity, no what