Soul Against The Intellect

[Nick_A]

W. B. Yeats (1865-1939), Irish poet, playwright. Letter, 10 Oct. 1893, to author Laurence Housman (published in Collected Letters, vol. 1, ed. by John Kelly, 1986). In an earlier letter (23 July 1892), Yeats had written: "The mystical life is the centre of all that I do & all that I think & all that I write. . . . I have always considered myself a voice of what I believe to be a greater renaissance- the revolt of the soul against the intellect."

Have you experienced what Yeats is describing? It seems to me as though we are great BS artists in the cause of image but something deep down isn't too happy about it and in fact feels trapped by it.

Does it have to be the case? Is it possible that the soul and the intellect could cooperate in the cause of freedom or is this just and eternal struggle or as some would say: Hell on earth?

[sahyo]

seems as though a-what which can "against" a-what? ;)

[venom mama]

why does the soul have to revolt? why do they have to be seperate?

[Nick_A]

Asheera, I must admit you've lost me. Please clarify.

Venomgirl

why does the soul have to revolt? why do they have to be seperate?

As they are now, they are separate. Whether they have to be is the question.

Consider what Yeats is saying. It is profound enough that it should annoy the majority.

We admire the renaissance- for its art and thought, It claimed the intellect and man's self importance to have great worth. However, I get the impression that Yeats is saying that its actual effect is to starve the life out of the soul. All the glitz surrounding this self importance and intellectual philosophy is really much ado about nothing since it is out of touch with reality. it reflects partial truths as opposed to any concept of wholeness, the possibility of which, is man's real worth.

Our associative thought is based upon duality...comparison. The life of the soul is not based on comparison but serves a purpose uniting the quality of being that exists above it with the quality of being that exists below it. There is nothing to compare since it is wholeness differing only in relative being.

So those like Yeats who have experienced these higher mystical experiences are attracted to this level. They've smelled the coffee. Being human and having the scattered being of normal humanity, we lose consciousness of the "wholeness" and get caught up in dual thought and emotions that reflect this quality of thought. As the old saying goes: "We can't see the forest for the trees" So how to be able to see both the forest and the trees and not continually get sucked into the trees?

So as I see it, the real freedom begins for a person having had higher experience with not losing oneself in associative thought and emotion so that a person can choose from a level beyond associative thought.

I would agree that if collective mankind pursued this freedom and thought and art reflected this collective goal of aiding the life of the soul at the expense of the glitz, it would be a true renaissance. In this way the intellect could cooperate with the needs of the soul. I've been around enough to sincerely doubt it could ever happen other than for the few who can distinguish between the real and the unreal within themselves and honor it.

[a random hack]

However, I get the impression that Yeats is saying that its actual effect is to starve the life out of the soul.

you mean, like this post?
and yes, i did feel compelled to read the whole thing to check if my 'soul' felt starved :lol:

[bito]

As they are now, they are separate. Whether they have to be is the question.

I say that the soul and intellect can only be perceived as being separate.

So as I see it, the real freedom begins for a person having had higher experience with not losing oneself in associative thought and emotion so that a person can choose from a level beyond associative thought.

This ‘level’ beyond associative thought - do you see this level as literally ‘being outside’ one’s consciousness, as in not being 'united' until some (?) point in space and time?

[sahyo]

:)


seems as though a-what which can "against" a-what?



can imagining a-what (the-soul as though an-entity) factually "against" imagining a-what (the-intellect as though an-entity)?

[bito]

seems as though a-what which can "against" a-what?



can imagining a-what (the-soul as though an-entity) factually "against" imagining a-what (the-intellect as though an-entity)?

is asheera questioning asheera?

:lol:

[Nick_A]

Hi Bito

This ‘level’ beyond associative thought - do you see this level as literally ‘being outside’ one’s consciousness, as in not being 'united' until some (?) point in space and time?

It is not outside ones consciousness. It is a result of being awakened or experienced consciousness. We consider ourselves conscious so I can understand how you could think that these experiences are outside consciousness. it becomes much clearer when you begin to see that you experience self awareness only on rare occasions. Normally we are on automatic pilot. So this level isn't outside consciousness but instead is an aspect of consciousness.

It only begins to make sense when one has a higher experience. This is why in true Christianity the experience of gnosis is so necessary. In Zen the same experience is called satori. There are these rare people that can cross the lines and see it as the same. When you get a chance you may appreciate reading Thomas Merton's explanation and you will see why he and Dr. Suzuki could be friendly. They understood something. Yet you can get so called Christians and Buddhists arguing over these things till they are blue in the face from lack of an experience and a defense of what they believe they know:

http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/merton...nchapthree.html (http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/mertonzenchapthree.html)

Associative thought is automatic. It is mechanical. It is not connected to anything. It doesn't arise from an essence and it isn't going anywhere. The human soul is life itself. So should the machine use the living or should the living use the machine?

The Bible is a bit direct on this when Jesus says to let the dead bury their dead. It means just this. Humanity that is governed by purely by associative thought is dead spiritually or to the man's potential. A person with an interest in awakening cannot take dead people seriously. Yet how many people with an interst in awakening have their lives governed by dead people not realizing what they lose as a result.

I agree with Yeats that if we could ever collectively realize this it would be a true renaissance.

[bito]

It is not outside ones consciousness. It is a result of being awakened or experienced consciousness. We consider ourselves conscious so I can understand how you could think that these experiences are outside consciousness. it becomes much clearer when you begin to see that you experience self awareness only on rare occasions. Normally we are on automatic pilot. So this level isn't outside consciousness but instead is an aspect of consciousness.

I do not think these experiences are outside consciousness, I was wondering if you believed this was so (your referencing the 'higher' and the 'lower' and making choices according to the 'higher'). It was when I believed that God/Father was 'outside' 'me' that I was so attracted to my mystical experiences, for I had 'put' unity outside consciousness. And how silly, for how can consciousness be outside consciousness?

It only begins to make sense when one has a higher experience.

Is this not the language that must end before this renaissance can begin? That there is a higher and a lower self, as if we are cut in two?

Associative thought is automatic. It is mechanical. It is not connected to anything. It doesn't arise from an essence and it isn't going anywhere.

Again, by saying this, are you not cutting self in two? Mechanical vs. living thought? I am not questioning perceived quality here, rather, questioning the perception that there are two separate thought sources...one being 'from' machine and one being 'from' a living essence?

Or...am I reading your meaning all askew? :)

[sahyo]

:lol:



B) :lol:

[Nick_A]

Bito

And how silly, for how can consciousness be outside consciousness?

But consciousness is relative. Say for example we have the state of sleep as in being in bed at night of which there are differing levels. This is one state of consciousness. Next you could have this waking sleep where people go to work, write books and do all the usual stuff in reaction to external influences. This state exists within a higher state of consciousness or self awareness where a person observes their reactions. "All the world's a stage and we are bit players" (something like that) but that is the idea. We "see" ouselves. This state of consciouosness exists within a higher state or objective consciousness which is without conceptualization. This is the property of evolved awakened human beings. One level of consciousness exists WITHIN the other and not outside.

Again, by saying this, are you not cutting self in two? Mechanical vs. living thought? I am not questioning perceived quality here, rather, questioning the perception that there are two separate thought sources...one being 'from' machine and one being 'from' a living essence?

We are more than Two; we are a plurality. Food influences thought, the opposite sex influences thought. Mother-in-Laws influence thought. Countless external influences cause different aspects of our plurality to react. Certain aspects of our plurality are more real and others are strictly the results of fear and imagination. Each can inspire conceptualization and its associated thought. Some are more alive and some are completely dead.

[bito]

But consciousness is relative. Say for example we have the state of sleep as in being in bed at night of which there are differing levels. This is one state of consciousness. Next you could have this waking sleep where people go to work, write books and do all the usual stuff in reaction to external influences. This state exists within a higher state of consciousness or self awareness where a person observes their reactions. "All the world's a stage and we are bit players" (something like that) but that is the idea. We "see" ouselves. This state of consciouosness exists within a higher state or objective consciousness which is without conceptualization. This is the property of evolved awakened human beings. One level of consciousness exists WITHIN the other and not outside.

We are more than Two; we are a plurality. Food influences thought, the opposite sex influences thought. Mother-in-Laws influence thought. Countless external influences cause different aspects of our plurality to react. Certain aspects of our plurality are more real and others are strictly the results of fear and imagination. Each can inspire conceptualization and its associated thought. Some are more alive and some are completely dead.

There is only consciousness. No here, no there, no up, no down, no inside, no outside, no levels...only in the belief that this is so. Perhaps this belief is needed to see that belief is the problem, perhaps not.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Nov 23 2004, 10:05 PM
However, I get the impression that Yeats is saying that its actual effect is to starve the life out of the soul.

you mean, like this post?
and yes, i did feel compelled to read the whole thing to check if my 'soul' felt starved :lol:
That's funny. Mine didn't. I rather enjoyed ('joy' being a kind of soul-delight to/for me) surfing the waves of Nick's verbal shenanagins. Maybe, whether or not somethang is 'experienced' as soul-food depends on a person's 'taste'-preferences and, thus, inclination/willingness to 'eat' of and capacity to 'digest' at least some aspect of it.

[Nick_A]

Bito

There is only consciousness. No here, no there, no up, no down, no inside, no outside, no levels...only in the belief that this is so. Perhaps this belief is needed to see that belief is the problem, perhaps not.

Well I guess we have to respectfully disagree on this. For me the relativity of consciousness is like say the relativity of heat. You could say only heat exists with no ups or downs about it. Heat may exist but there is also the question of how hot. So while heat is heat, the degree of heat is another question. Consciousness is like that. Consciousness is consciousness but what degree of consciousness is another question.

I don't see this as a problem of belief but only our inability to objectively experience relativity of being.

[Nick_A]

Hi David

surfing the waves of Nick's verbal shenanagins.

Now you know why I wsa so disliked by the Prof's in college. There's always got to be some idiot like me to rock the boat. :)

Maybe, whether or not somethang is 'experienced' as soul-food depends on a person's 'taste'-preferences and, thus, inclination/willingness to 'eat' of and capacity to 'digest' at least some aspect of it.

Do we want the naked reality or the glitz? This is what I believe Yeats is referring to as one who has experienced enough to feel both pulls.

Of course the trick in life to stay safe is to cover any soul food with a thick coating of Hellman's Mayonaise. This will taste good going down and securely hide the unique flavor of what it covers.

Hmmm......maybe that is a bit of Yeat's concern. Oh my gosh maybe that is why it is called Hellman's. This ability to hide reality is really Hellman's spelled with syllables reversed: MansHell. Could the tendency to smooth over everything be what sustains man's hell on earth? Can you imagine saying this where I could be tracked down. I would be boiled in oil for even thinking such a thing. :)

[bito]

Well I guess we have to respectfully disagree on this.

:)

For me the relativity of consciousness is like say the relativity of heat. You could say only heat exists with no ups or downs about it. Heat may exist but there is also the question of how hot. So while heat is heat, the degree of heat is another question. Consciousness is like that. Consciousness is consciousness but what degree of consciousness is another question.

We spoke of physical suffering in a previous post. How it seems just when the pain is most unbearable, that one passes 'beyond' this pain to peace? And then, is left wondering, well, if I passed beyond this pain, then what 'was' this pain that caused me to believe that I needed to pass beyond it? How is consciousness experience any different than this?

Do we want the naked reality or the glitz? This is what I believe Yeats is referring to as one who has experienced enough to feel both pulls.

It would be presumptious for anyone here to make a judgment re the 'reality' of any of our consciousness experiences. Short of supplying a detailed autobiography, how can anyone know the 'weight' of the 'truth' of one's words?

[Nick_A]

We spoke of physical suffering in a previous post. How it seems just when the pain is most unbearable, that one passes 'beyond' this pain to peace? And then, is left wondering, well, if I passed beyond this pain, then what 'was' this pain that caused me to believe that I needed to pass beyond it? How is consciousness experience any different than this?

The body mechanically puts forth hormones that block pain when extreme or render you unconscious. A skilled Guru can do the same thing consciously and block the pain receptors. Such experiences can lead to an appreciation of higher states of consciousness but it occurs in you by chance. If a person has consciousness it means that they can remain conscious at will. This is something different then an altered state that is put into a person either by chance or through drugs.

It would be presumptious for anyone here to make a judgment re the 'reality' of any of our consciousness experiences. Short of supplying a detailed autobiography, how can anyone know the 'weight' of the 'truth' of one's words?

I don't think Yeats and I know that I was not suggesting that we judge others. We can only appreciate consciousness when it appears for ourselves. The question is for what we must value for ourselves. Do we want reality or glitz for ourselves? Many would answer this question with a deep sigh that they want the honest truth since they value honesty. However, do we want elevated self esteem or to experience our nothingness? Put this way, the question will invite the appropriate growls.

[sahyo]

If a person has consciousness*



not possible "has"?

[bito]

If a person has consciousness it means that they can remain conscious at will.

However, do we want elevated self esteem or to experience our nothingness?

Where is will in nothingness?

[Nick_A]

Asheera

not possible "has"?

If consciousness, and in this case self awareness, only appears accidentally as it does with us now, what value is it other than to indicate a possibility? Self awareness is the beginning of inner unity which leads to something human. If it is not possible for man to have consciousness, there can be no true conscious growth or human evolution.

[sahyo]

Self awareness is the beginning of inner unity which leads to something human.

seems "unity"/notunity fact?...."something"?

If it is not possible for man to have consciousness

seems as though "something" which can "have" and "something" to "have"?
....imagines can one/two to "have"?

imagined-seemings fact? ;)

[Nick_A]

Asheera, I get the impression that for some reason you deny the physical body. Maybe you assume it is imaginary and if you do, I believe it to be a mistake.

I don't know the poem or the exact line but I remember close enough a line by Yeats that says: "I am trapped in the body of a dying animal."

Not a pretty picture. There is no connection between our higher and lower natures yet for us to progress, a connection is necessary. Then maybe this dying animal can be of service to "I".

What makes you think that the physical body is just an illusion or an inconvenience that could and should be discarded for spiritual freedom, some sort of pleasant non-existance, or blending with some higher wholeness?

Common sense tells me that instead of escaping the physical body, it should be occupied so that a connection could be established between our higher and lower natures that are now separated from egotism.

Yet am I wrong to say that you feel this is all rubbish and unreal? What leads you to this conclusion if it is how you believe?

[sahyo]

I get the impression that for some reason you deny the physical body.

not deny

[sahyo]

nick


If anyone asks you
how the perfect satisfaction
of all our sexual wanting
will look, lift your face
and say,

Like this.

When someone mentions the gracefulness
of the nightsky, climb up on the roof
and dance and say,

Like this.

If anyone wants to know what "spirit" is,
or what "God’s fragrance" means,
lean your head toward him or her.
Keep your face there close.

Like this.

When someone quotes the old poetic image
about clouds gradually uncovering the moon,
slowly loosen knot by knot the strings
of your robe.

Like this.

If anyone wonders how Jesus raised the dead,
don’t try to explain the miracle.
Kiss me on the lips.

Like this. Like this.

When someone asks what it means
to "die for love," point
here.

If someone asks how tall I am, frown
and measure with your fingers the space
between the creases on your forehead.

This tall.

The soul sometimes leaves the body, then returns.
When someone doesn’t believe that,
walk back into my house.

Like this.

When lovers moan,
they’re telling our story.

Like this.

I am a sky where spirits live.
Stare into this deepening blue,
while the breeze says a secret.

Like this.

When someone asks what there is to do,
light the candle in his hand.

Like this.

How did Joseph’s scent come to Jacob?

Huuuuu.

How did Jacob’s sight return?

Huuuu.

A little wind cleans the eyes.

Like this.

When Shams comes back from Tabriz,
he’ll put just his head around the edge
of the door to surprise us.

Like this.


rumi


:D

[Nick_A]

I feel a strong appeal for emotional love with this poem. The body is celebrated by the emotions from a lofty perspective. I compare this with 1 Corinthians: 19-20

19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

The appeal I feel here is not one of emotional love but of a different quality of love. What does it mean to occupy, to honor the higher with your body. What it may reflect is one thing, but how to honor it so it can be known by us and it can be of use to us for more than egotism?

[bito]

The appeal I feel here is not one of emotional love but of a different quality of love. What does it mean to occupy, to honor the higher with your body. What it may reflect is one thing, but how to honor it so it can be known by us and it can be of use to us for more than egotism?

To be this love in this world is to be ourselves, all of us, without thinking about what 'this' is. To trust love and stop naming love, analyzing love and most of all, fearing love.

For a long time, I have feared this love...

No more fear!

:star:

[sahyo]

I feel a strong appeal for emotional love with this poem.

what the poem read as emotional?

The appeal I feel here is not one of emotional love but of a different quality of love. What does it mean to occupy, to honor the higher with your body.

imagining higher imagines body as though lower, when not

What it may reflect is one thing

seems as though can separate-"reflect"?

but how to honor it so it can be known by us and it can be of use to us for more than egotism?

maybe not imagine serious when not?

[Nick_A]

Taking this opportunity to escape from Thanksgiving festivities.

Asheera

imagining higher imagines body as though lower, when not

maybe not imagine serious when not?

I know how this idea of levels throw people and why as a result of this, what is serious for a person is considered foolish by another.

The Gospel of Thomas is an extraordinary document. The only way to understand it is with the appreciation of levels. Since so few do, it is no surprise that so much foolishness is written about it. I will quote two excerpts from the Thomas Lambdin translation; take from it what you will.

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

(56) Jesus said, "Whoever has come to understand the world has found (only) a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world."

What does one have to have in them that can know themselves. This is different from the atempt to escape oneself. This knower is what can be known. It is natural for, though largely forgotten from being caught up in life, to want to distinguish what is alive and dead in themselves and to determine what that is dead can be brought into spiritual life. How many could accept the idea that what may appear as full of life is really a corpse?

This is what men like Yeats came to experience. The problem is of course what to do with this awareness.

[tangsky420]

Originally posted by Nick_A@Nov 25 2004, 03:40 AM
Bito

There is only consciousness. No here, no there, no up, no down, no inside, no outside, no levels...only in the belief that this is so. Perhaps this belief is needed to see that belief is the problem, perhaps not.

Well I guess we have to respectfully disagree on this. For me the relativity of consciousness is like say the relativity of heat. You could say only heat exists with no ups or downs about it. Heat may exist but there is also the question of how hot. So while heat is heat, the degree of heat is another question. Consciousness is like that. Consciousness is consciousness but what degree of consciousness is another question.

I don't see this as a problem of belief but only our inability to objectively experience relativity of being.
think of this our soul and intellect i would have to say are the same thing because of this, people often find themselves breaking there soul down beacause they are always paying attention to their intellect. Society always to puts stereotypes in the media and what we have to be to acheive perfection and if you always think on that and never use your soul to internalize the the thought inside of you you wont ever know what trully makes you happy and if you dont have that then i dont know what to say.

[Corri]

Nick:

I don't want to speak for Asheera, but I think you missed the point of Asheera posting the poem to begin with. There is nothing BUT being. It is not the 'who, what, when, where, why, or how' of being, it is just being. The who, what, when, where, why, and how of it is 'mind' assigning meaning to being, which is being as well. It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

I don't want to speak for Asheera, but I think you missed the point of Asheera posting the poem to begin with. There is nothing BUT being. It is not the 'who, what, when, where, why, or how' of being, it is just being. The who, what, when, where, why, and how of it is 'mind' assigning meaning to being, which is being as well. It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see mind as an aspect of being.

"What we call the universe is the creation of Mind descending, or dividing, into form and substance.

Consider a nerve entering a muscle in the human body. The nerve transmits a psychic energy which is transformed by the muscle int mechanical energy.
We see the external movements of living beings for what they are--patterns of material mechanism. What we do not see is that the law of descent is at work, from the psychic to the material. This particular transition is biological life."

While being is being, its manifestation into creation is qualitative. There are those that believe that the recognition of such quality is an illusion. I believe that to be a dangerous mistake.

[Corri]

Nick:

While being is being, its manifestation into creation is qualitative.

To whom?

There are those that believe that the recognition of such quality is an illusion. I believe that to be a dangerous mistake.

That could be. But I think the 'quality,' not the recognition, is what is illusory. My assignment of 'quality' to a thing/person/circumstance is the illusion. All is as it is, with or without my 'quality' assignment. Recognition of mind being mind is awarenesss.

Corri

[Corri]

From Ask the Awakened the Negative Way, by Wei Wu Wei

I Am Not

The Buddha alone seems explicitly to have preached the doctrine which declares that the universal presence knows no I. Here the impersonality of pure consciousness, inaccessible to the process of identification, represents the plentitude of the void.

The innovation hereby involved lay in avoidance of the intrusion of the I-concept, which occurs elsewhere every time ultimate reality is identified with Atma or I-Reality. Both visions are true vision, bu that of the Buddha obviates an immense obstacle.

The words "I am not" are senseless. Is this not a clear intimation that they should be true?

Pure consciousness is, is what is, nothing else is -- so I am not.

When we shall have digested that may we not hope that at last we shall find that indeed we are not? Having searched for the truth in the guise of "I Am," perhaps we shall find it in the guise "I Am Not."

We have said that we are it, but it cannot be--for there are no we. We have said that it is we, but it cannot be--for the same reason. There being no we, there is only it, unknown to itself. Nor can it be--for there is no thing. That must be why it is called the void, and the void must be void just because nothing is and there is no one to be.

And the universal presence is at the same time a universal absence--for there is nothing to be present and nowhere for a presence to be.

Perception

A perceiving is in itself pure, i.e., impersonal and real. the interpretation that follows introduces subject and object, and the result is a concept that is unreal. That is why there is no perceiver, nothing perceived, and only the perceiving really is. It is a manifestation of pure consciousness.

Thisness

All "things" and all sentiments are interpretations only, and interpretations cannot be real in any sense. If this is understood with insight it becomes clear that only mind is, that it is an impersonal non-entity, and that whoever is conscious of this is thing and nothing else.

"Reality" is Necessarily intemporal

Any object of perception appears as reality in Time, but since there was a period before it existed and there will be, or is now, a period in which it has ceased to exist, it cannot be a "reality." This demonstrates that what is real in Time is unreal in Intemporality, or, as we more categorically see it, the object is not real at all. There is, no doubt, nothing whatever that is "real" in Time.

Isness

Non-manifestation is isness. Manifestation is isness objectified by an apparent subject that is itself an object. This, we, as that pseudo-subject, can recognise as one kind of that which we know was a dream. Knowing, understanding this, we should find ourselves abolished--so that the dream should vanish, and only non-manifestation, timeless and immutable, remain.

Milarepa Too

"...to discover the non-existence of the personal ego and, therefore, the fallacy of the popular idea that it existeth....In realizing the non-existence of the personal ego the mind must be kept in quiescence."

"....to subdue the illusion of belief in a personal ego..."

Corri

[Corri]

From Ask the Awakened the Negative Way, by Wei Wu Wei

Vertical Vision, 1

Phenomenal life, the waking dream, may be said to take place on a plane surface--not as it is vertically perceived but temporally. On that plane surface every action is follwed by its reaction, every cause by its effect: this is the world of karma, of the force of circumstances, and is what we know as our life.

But an awakened sage lives and thinks vertically. If his body is flowing horizontally in the stream of time like the rest of mankind, his mind has acquired the vertical dimension which rises at right-angles from each moment of that time-river. While B hits A because A has hit B, tic-tic, the sage has no reaction, and knows no occasion for such automatic reflex--for, from the vertical dimension, the height from which he perceives, he sees not each moment's incident but the whole picture stretched out before him. He may ignore the blow, or he may turn the other cheek for the striker's sake, but the detachment of his vision will admit of no reaction. Perceiving the preceding circumstances of the blow, he is free from constraint to react to it, and the chain-reaction is broken.

To A and the rest of mankind, the sage's inaction is unaccountable, foolish or contemptible, though a few may regard it as wise. In fact is it is none of those things: it is the exercise of a freedom which he alone can have.

Vertical vision is a consequence, not a method. It cannot be practiced. But the undertanding of it, its being envisaged, may point towards the state of wisdom from which it will result.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

That could be. But I think the 'quality,' not the recognition, is what is illusory. My assignment of 'quality' to a thing/person/circumstance is the illusion. All is as it is, with or without my 'quality' assignment. Recognition of mind being mind is awarenesss.

While I would agree with you that our subjective assignments of quality are meaningless beyond our own subjective desires, I believe objective quality does exist. The whole scale of being itself is a scale of objective quality. The quality of mind in matter can be determined by the density and vibratory frequency of the matter it is blended with.

Evolution and involution is the movement of objective quality. These movements occur either consciously or mechanically. The greater the consciousness, the higher the quality of being.

Thanks for posting that excerpt from Wei Wu Wei. I believe there is truth in it but like many modern ideas, it seems to have discarded both the concepts of scale and relativity that I've become to value so highly. It seems to be suggested that scale and relativity are purely our subjective interpretations but do not exist in an objective sense that is beyond our limited subjective comprehension

This is why I cannot agree with it, For example take the following:

Non-manifestation is isness. Manifestation is isness objectified by an apparent subject that is itself an object. This, we, as that pseudo-subject, can recognise as one kind of that which we know was a dream. Knowing, understanding this, we should find ourselves abolished--so that the dream should vanish, and only non-manifestation, timeless and immutable, remain.

Our conceptions of isness may contain nothing objective but that is not to say that individuality does not exist in the objective sense according to the laws of scale and relativity.

This is all that is missing for me in his description of vertical vision. This is a very deep ancient idea but its real value is felt when it is appreciated within a cosmological context.

The eternal repetition of a moment is "man in time". All the moments of a man's life taken as a whole is called "man in eternity. Eternity is one dimension higher than time. This "vertical vision" is the witness to man in eternity, the continuing manifestation of repeating eternity and this perception, other than in flashes, is the property of evolved humanity....of our potential. It is the ability to see the forest and not be lost in the trees.

If understood rightly, it is the teaching of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. In the intuitive sense, this vertical vision is the essence of real faith that we have lost access to.

But the attempt to ponder vertical vision while discounting relativity and scale is a mistake in my understanding. The Christian church did just that. Scale and relativity was lost for the person and remained only for titles within the external church. Yet the real importance is how relativity and scale exists within ones being:

......................."We must seek the bishop within ourselves. Only when I experience the natural hierarchy of Creation within myself, only when I directly experience supplicant, priest, bishop, archbishop and Divine King within myself do I consciously become part of the sacred wholeness..................."

This is true cosmology. Man's development is in the direction of "I Am" which is our potential. I Am is when we have become whole again. Is this isness existence or non-existence? Does individuality exist as part of the great wholeness? I believe so; but it is what makes the Holy Trinity so hard to comprehend. It exists simultaneously as One and three. The difference lies beyond time and space and part of a perspective this vertical vision is indicative of.

[sahyo]

you missed



yes thinking-nick missed

[Nick_A]

Asheera, could you explain a bit of what I missed. I'm trying to understand the crux of it and apparently you believe I'm missing something and who knows, maybe I am.

[sahyo]

the poem wasn't
"a strong appeal for strong emotional love"

:)

[Nick_A]

The poem didn't appear to be an appeal to logic other than the idea that the creator can be seen in the creation. It wasn't an appeal to sensation. I felt it emotionally. Did you feel it emotionally? What emotion did you feel as above the rest?

[sahyo]

The poem didn't appear to be an appeal to logic other than the idea that the creator can be seen in the creation. It wasn't an appeal to sensation.

did thinking read for it to "appeal"?

Did you feel it emotionally? What emotion did you feel as above the rest?

didn't happen emotion

[Corri]

Nick:

I believe objective quality does exist.

But it can be there one moment and gone the next. This means it is not permanent. This is where the illusion takes place. For example, today I can be 100% certain of my qualitative assessment of something, and the next day, be presented with information which changes that 100% assurance. Objective quality cannot, then, be 'real.'

Assessing is real. The label (whatever qualitative label that may be) of assessment is illusory.

There is no hierarcy of being. Being is what it is, as it is. You want to know God? Smell the air. Smelling is. Smiling is. Laughing is. Dancing is. Anything else is illusory.

That to which Wei Wu Wei refers is beyond qualitative assessment. At the level on which he speaks, there is no soul, there is no intellect. There is no separation. Only at this level, freedom is. For there is no one to assess and there is nothing to be assessed, qualitative or otherwise. Of what you speak is subjective realism. On the one hand, if this is truth for you, then there is nothing to discuss, for your subjective, qualitative assessment is true for you, you create your own reality. There is nothing to debate, consider or discuss, for what you believe... is. If you reject subjective realism, then qualitative assessment does not exist... and again, there is nothing to debate, consider or discuss. All is, as it is.

The quality of mind in matter can be determined by the density and vibratory frequency of the matter it is blended with.

Did you know that according to science, the mind does not exist? It cannot be proven. The brain, yes, can be proven. Neurons firing, can be proven. The 'mind'... thinking, which sparks the neurons, cannot be proven. It cannot be measured. Its effects can be measured, but the act of thinking cannot.

What you have claimed is utter nonsense. Density and vibratory frequency is a measurement of electrical activity within the brain. It is not connected with 'mind.' Quality of mind is a subjective assessment. Quality of mind has nothing to do with soul, nor the brain. Mind is a tool, a lovely gigantic computer processor. It carries 'thought' to the brain. What sparks 'thought?' What or who is punching the keys on the keypad which prompts the hard drive (brain) to process according to the software specifications (mind)?

As to Asheera's post, in my view, 'emotionally' does not, cannot happen. Feeling is.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

It is obvious that we are far apart. It interests me because I try to understand further why these understanding are so different. However, if it gets to you, feel free to say so since I would be uncomfortable in having you become uncomfortable.

But it can be there one moment and gone the next. This means it is not permanent. This is where the illusion takes place. For example, today I can be 100% certain of my qualitative assessment of something, and the next day, be presented with information which changes that 100% assurance. Objective quality cannot, then, be 'real.'

The point I am making is that relative objective quality exists regardless of mankind on earth. If a giant asteroid hit the earth knocking it off its orbit and killing organic life on it, objective quality would still exist. The earth and man on it is extremely insignificant in the context of the scope of the universe. If the earth is no more, it won't even cause a sigh of relief for other beings.

Consider that there is a virtual infinity of galaxies and each contains a virtual infinity of suns. Many of these suns have planets. On one of these planets there are continents and these continents are further divided into man made boundaries that further divide into cities and towns. Within all of this which begins as an infinity of galaxies stands Corri. The claim is made that this enormous structure containing a hierarchy where suns exist within galaxies would not exist if Corri or mankind is not here to imagine it. That's tough to swallow. I must continue to believe that if man on earth is no more, the infinite qualitative functioning of this universal machine that eats itself will continue

Man on earth did not arise with God. Man on earth is a creation beginning at a lower level within creation at the level of our own sun. This is why Jesus said the way to the Father is through me since the Son exists within the Father.

There is no hierarcy of being. Being is what it is, as it is. You want to know God? Smell the air. Smelling is. Smiling is. Laughing is. Dancing is. Anything else is illusory.

You are smelling the earth and the products of the processes of its transformation of substances. Here I must agree with that old Sufi saying that "he who believes he is looking at the face of God, is looking at the face of the Devil". I agree though that the earth as a whole exists within the larger whole of the level of Sun which in turn exists within the larger whole of God.

That to which Wei Wu Wei refers is beyond qualitative assessment.

What he is referring to requires consciousness which by definition must be qualitative. Otherwise, what can we be conscious of? The higher can be conscious of the lower and in turn be the lower that something higher is conscious of. If you deny consciousness, what is vertical vision?

Did you know that according to science, the mind does not exist? It cannot be proven

It depends on how you are defining mind. Higher mind or conscious mind cannot be understood by science alone since science is binary and concerned with the linear relationship of before and after. This is duality. The conscious or higher mind is concerned with the quality of the moment itself, the quality of now, which cannot be measured by science limited to duality.

It is really amazing that we can appreciate existence so differently but such is life. :)

[Corri]

Nick:

If a giant asteroid hit the earth knocking it off its orbit and killing organic life on it, objective quality would still exist.

How? And more importantly, how do you know? You and I are not speaking of the same thing, for you will go on an endless list of what you think you know, what and/or who you can quote to prove your point, and in the end, all you are doing is quoting or theorizing or postulating... and my point to you is... it isn't what you say or what you don't say, who you quote or who you don't quote... it is in saying, regardless of content or intepretation, that what is as it is.... is.

Of what I am speaking is pure Functioning. In the absence of any and all interpretation, neither feeling for, nor feeling against, all that is left is 'pure perceiving, uninterpreted.

No interpretation (including objective quality/subjective quality, love and hate, pain and pleasure), either are or are not, exist or do not exist veritably, for their verity lies only in the uninterpreted perceiving, i.e., they are not as interpretations, but they are not basically inexistent on account of the perceiving (apparent Functioning of the Absolute) unerlying the interpretation, which itself, uninterpreted, is not in the serial dimension of time.

Every phenomenon, thing, concept, object, neither is nor is not. As an interpretation it is not, but it is not inexistent (its absence connotes a presence) as that which it is not (as its absence), for that, uninterpreted, is pure perceiving (Functioning), not on the part of a subject in time, but intemporally.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

You're on a roll. :) I don't know where you're getting this stuff from but it does get subtle. Easy to go wrong here.

You ask how I know and all I can do is verify my perceptions subjectively. But I can ask how you know and doubt if you could verify even subjectively so I'm one ahead. :)

"that what is as it is....is."

This is not so easy. The relativity of "is" is what has made the Trinity so difficult to understand. So how to discover what is is. (Good grief, I'm sounding like Bill Clinton)

Consider "2". it is as it is. However it also exists as the midpoint between 1 and 3. So can 2 be only taken as an individuality but must it also be considered in the context of a higher whole in which its individuality is dependant? So isness exists on one level as itself and as part of a higher context as well. It must be a relative context depending on perspective.

Now you can associate this with the next paragraph and say this is what is meant by both existing and not existing veritably.

I don't know what is meant by "the serial dimension of time"? Time can be considered as linear following the line that connects before and after or it can be seen as repetition or the repetition of the moment itself as it exists for each separate individuality. This repetition is uniquely subjective in that it doesn't result from an objective state but varies depending on the origin of each individuality.

Every phenomenon, thing, concept, object, neither is nor is not. As an interpretation it is not, but it is not inexistent (its absence connotes a presence) as that which it is not (as its absence), for that, uninterpreted, is pure perceiving (Functioning), not on the part of a subject in time, but intemporally.

OK, our interpretation cannot be the essence of a phenomenon. Our limited ability for interpretation is limited by not only time and space but our acquired preconceptions.

So the universe is this system of levers in which everything is connected while maintaining a certain level of individuality. Pure perceiving is its functioning but what is being perceived and what is the necessity of this perception? It is the interaction of the cosmological levels and the dynamics between them that allows for this necessary perception the purpose of which is to retain infinite potential through the continual transformation of substances. This is what life does. It provides the necessary stimulis to continue the higher process through its perceptions. It keeps the ball rolling and in the right direction by giving it a kick at the right time

[bito]

There was a time when man did not exist. It is safe to assume that the universe was still doing its thing, irregardless of man's absence. It is also safe to assume that it would continue doing its thing is if man were to wipe himself off the face of the earth. However we see the 'stuff' of the universe is irrelevant to the truth that it exists beyond our reflection of how we believe it to be.

My subjective perception? I like the metaphor, as simple as it is, that the universe is God 'thinking', and that means the whole of the universe, not just man. I see man's role as that of self-awareness, of reflecting what he sees in the universe, according to self's seeing. Could objective consciousness not be perceived as absolute subjectivity, with each person seeing 'some' of this subjectivity and reflecting it to other subjective seeings? It's not as if there is a choice here. Man is compelled by his innate nature to reflect what he sees.

Being aware of objective consciousness (absolute subjectivity) changes the way the subjective self communicates. That is why discussion forums such as 'thebigview' exist. Those who are aware of the Whole 'beyond' their 'part' are compelled to share this awareness. Poetry, art, music, intellectual contemplation/discussion - reflections of our awareness of absolute subjectivity (empty/full) - still subjective seeings, but shining through is the light of this awareness of Objectivity.

Why share that which we know will always be subjective?

'Cause we have no choice...

We are compelled, by our very natures, to communicate...

Just try and be totally :silent:...

:blink:

[sahyo]

Poetry, art, music, intellectual contemplation/discussion - reflections



imagining-"reflections" ceases when imagining-i-this-you-it-that ceases

imagining-"reflections" not necessary this, though not this, musicing-painting-poeming-singing-dancing...









:D

[bito]

imagining-"reflections" ceases when imagining-i-this-you-it-that ceases

imagining-"reflections" not necessary this, though not this, musicing-painting-poeming-singing-dancing...


:D

when all imagining-i-this-you-it-that ceases
when all musicing-painting-poeming-singing-dancing ceases
man's mirroring smashes, yes.
no matter! no matter!
'cept seven years bad luck.
oops!
no more man,
no more bad luck!

:D

[sahyo]

just read net:

In the west, perhaps Gurdjieff is the only man who has divided art into two sections: the objective art and the subjective art. Subjective art is from the mind, and is out of anguish. Objective art -- the Taj Mahal, the caves of Ellora and Ajanta, the temples of Khajuraho -- has come from meditative people. Out of their love, out of their silence, they wanted to share; it is their contribution to the world. (...)

Osho



yes not all arting imagined-reflecting

[sahyo]

wouldn't use words "meditative" "want" though,
though use

[bito]

In the west, perhaps Gurdjieff is the only man who has divided art into two sections: the objective art and the subjective art. Subjective art is from the mind, and is out of anguish. Objective art -- the Taj Mahal, the caves of Ellora and Ajanta, the temples of Khajuraho -- has come from meditative people.

Most objective art is subjectively reflected, according to the momenting in time of reflection. The builder of the Taj Mahal was influenced by Indian culture, a subjective reflection of the objective truth of Beauty. The art in the caves of Ellora and Ajanta reflected the life of Buddha, also a subjective, religious-time-momenting expression of Beauty.

From "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", William Blake:

"Eternity is in love with the productions of time".

Some objective art is truly timeless...asheera's paintings an example... B) although once identified as asheera's, then thinking 'asheera' when see paintings by asheera...thinking essence/presence of asheera in wordings/smilie's in 'bigview'...almost impossible to maintain complete objectivity in transcendent arting...

wouldn't use words "meditative" "want" though,
though use

:thumbsup:

[Nick_A]

I have a deep appreciation for what art is capable of. One of my ancestors was an artist with few equals in the ability to portray the elemental oppositions of forces: or to paint water. I know what I have seen even in some reproductions.

Gurdjieff IMO really understood the potential of art because his being matched his knowledge. This quality of understanding completely dwarfs me. This is why he could introduce such understanding in a way that could be comprehended by artists. The artist could begin to sense greater possibilities for himself and his art. During these times it seems though that for the majority, the word art means the same as expression. People can begin to feel the difference but sometimes it has to be shown to you and then you experience that famous "Aha!"

Not to cause any grumbles but those like Osho have done well for themselves by adopting much of what Gurdjieff introduced into the West but changing it for their own aims.

Anyhow if you're going to mention someone like Gurdjieff, lets see what he has said about art from a book that is a genuine source:

http://www.nccabq.com/~neil/art.html

[todd]

"There was a time when man did not exist."

How about, "there was a man when time did not exist". Is it safe or unsafe to assume this?

"I like the metaphor, as simple as it is, that the universe is God 'thinking', and that means the whole of the universe, not just man"

What is universe?
Is our mind part of it?
Why not "God is the universe thinking?"

"Why share that which we know will always be subjective?"
Because you need someone to tell you are right or crazy. Alone, you cannot make the difference, but that doesn't mean you can't be right.

[sahyo]

Not to cause any grumbles but those like Osho have done well for themselves by adopting much of what Gurdjieff introduced into the West but changing it for their own aims.

it wasn't changed...just expressed differently

[sahyo]

The artist could begin to sense greater possibilities for himself and his art.

doesn't happen "himself" "his art" nor "greater possibilities" than

[bito]

How about, "there was a man when time did not exist". Is it safe or unsafe to assume this?

I am guessing that you are referring to Adam and/or Jesus Christ, but you will need to confirm this for me.

What is universe?

I do not know via mind what is universe, and if truth be known, it matters little to me. When I feel universe, I am Whole. This is the 'value' to me, of universe. Seeing 'thinking' of God is grounding contemplation, that is all. :)

Is our mind part of it?

Our mind contemplates universe, so, yes it is a 'part' of it. Is universe contemplating mind? Maybe...

Why not "God is the universe thinking?"

The metaphysical chicken and the egg...does it matter?

"Why share that which we know will always be subjective?"
Because you need someone to tell you are right or crazy. Alone, you cannot make the difference, but that doesn't mean you can't be right.

If you feel like answering, I would love to hear how you ascertain what is right or crazy according to the perceptions of others.

:)

[Nick_A]

Asheera

doesn't happen "himself" "his art" nor "greater possibilities" than

It doesn't happen for US since we are only capable of subjective art which moves through us. It is difficult to conceive of something that exists in us only as a potential and realized when we become ourselves..

[todd]

How about, "there was a man when time did not exist". Is it safe or unsafe to assume this?


I am guessing that you are referring to Adam and/or Jesus Christ, but you will need to confirm this for me.

I think this means "there was a Mind when time did not exist"
Time, space, universe, light, mind, spirit, nothing and everything - one creation out of immaterial.
This why I asked - Is the mind creation of the universe or the universe is the creation of Mind?

[bito]

This why I asked - Is the mind creation of the universe or the universe is the creation of Mind?

:dunno:

:)

[jesupocaplypse]

Whats the difference? mind/creation/universe universe/creation/mind mind/universe/creation creation/mind/universe


throw it all in the blender. Chug it back. It's All the Same in The End.

tree falls in the forest...

or as Bito said, Chicken and the Egg. Why bother?

[jesupocaplypse]

Mind you, the chicken and the egg question has an answer:

Molecules combined, due to attractive energy... they formed more complex molecules. more energy, they combined further eventually forming a Cell. With more energy, Cells combined, forming tissues, and organs, and systems of organs, in what became a being. a creature. more energy, and some of these creatures 'combined' and formed another creature. this continued, until, with a whole lot more energy, the combination of two creatures, resulted in one of those creatures, dropping new ones out of it's rear. still more energy result in those creatures, continuing the process, hardening throughout, harder and harder. 'soon' the creatures that came out of the rear of another creature, came with a shell, to protect it from subjectively negative energy.

The (chicken) came first. End of Story. :star:

[bito]

or as Bito said, Chicken and the Egg. Why bother?

The (chicken) came first. End of Story. :star:

A scorpion asked a frog to carry it across the river to the other side. The frog hesitated, pointing out that the scorpion would sting it if it were to agree to such a request. The scorpion replied "Why would I do such a stupid thing? If I were to sting you, we'd both drown!". The frog, realizing the logic in the scorpion's reponse, agreed, and with the scorpion clinging tightly to his back, began swimming. As the frog approached the middle of the river, he felt a sharp stab into his left side, and felt his body sinking as the poison found its mark. "Why did you sting me?" he cried out to the scorpion, "now we're both going to die!" "I can't help it", the scorpion replied - "it's in my nature!"

Let's face it - we can't help ourselves... :lol:

[bito]

Let's face it - we can't help ourselves... :lol:

And it is this very trait that makes us so darn endearing!

Yeah, jesu, :star:

[jesupocaplypse]

that scorpion story, ....I have heard it before ... recently.... but where? i'm at a complete loss... damn ... this going to keep me up all night now.... -_-

[bito]

that scorpion story, ....I have heard it before ... recently.... but where? i'm at a complete loss... damn ... this going to keep me up all night now....-_-

I first heard it years ago in the movie "The Crying Game" (now there's a great flick :applause: ).

[todd]

Perceiving is not pure either real (and what does pure means if only perceiving is to be real?)

If we agree that something real exists, this means it is present and can be 'perceived' by other 'existent' things.
Real is defined as anything that is perceived or experienced (in multiple different ways), and saying that the only "perceiving" is real is altering the intrinsic definition of 'real' so everything following out of this is false, in a real meaning.

In nature all things are aware about the presence of the others in an unconscious way. A tiny atom has made the whole universe aware of its existence.

There is no 'perceiving' without interaction, without the physic involved.
Perceiving involves existence and duality. Everything is being perceived, and the non-existence is being perceived as long as something is.


The "only mind is" is a fake egocentric concept that managed to bring one half of the earth population into extreme poverty and starvation.
Of course, it is the easiest way, nothing matters but your soul, things are unreal, perception is false and soul is eternal. Give up everything, relax, contemplate, meditate, dream and eventually die. What have you been born for? Let's kill eachother and finish the story then, because life is meaningless and so is the search for the meaning of it. Death is the only reason you've been born for. Life is the real purgatorium.
Things are not real, people are not real, why doesn't anyone try to tell his 3 years old son that he is just a perception of his mind, false of course.
Death is all this is about, the fear of death is making people invent other levels of existence and reality, theories and false religions that are in fact drugs to blur your awareness.
Poverty is not good or bad, but when your children are starving and dying we should not blame karma.
Fight and struggle is what life is for and not meditation. Living in meditation waiting for death is not life.


Someone said here that it is about freedom.
What is freedom?
Is anyone NOT free?
Is something else, except maybe our own imbecility restricting our mind or spirit in any way?
Do YOU really believe in mind slavery?
Freedom is a concept invented to define power and domination better, but you always thought what you thought, what you found true to your comprehension.
Indoctrination and manipulation have nothing to do with your mind and soul freedom, but are a good object to blame and justfy incapacity.

[Nick_A]

Let's face it - we can't help ourselves

I like that sorpion/frog story. It reminds me of a similar tale I read a while back:

"Ones there lived a wolf who slaughtered a great many sheep and reduced many people to tears.
At length, I do not know why, he suddenly felt qualms of conscience and began to repent his life; so he decided
to reform and to slaughter no more sheep.

In order to do this seriously he went to a priest and asked him to hold a thanksgiving service.

The priest began the service and the wolf stood weeping and praying in the church. The service was long.
The wolf had slaughtered many of the priest's sheep, therefore the priest prayed earnestly that the wolf would
indeed reform.

Suddenly the wolf looked through the window and saw that sheep were being driven home. He began to fidget
but the priest went on and on without end.

At last the wolf could contain himself no longer and he shouted: "Finish it priest! Or all the sheep will be driven
home and I shall be left without supper!"

This is a very good fairy tale, because it describes man very well. He is ready to sacrifice everything, but after all
today's dinner is a different matter A man always wishes to begin with something big, but that is impossible; there
can be no choice, we must begin with the things of today".

Ah yes! Those damn details. *grumble* :)

[Nick_A]

Todd

Someone said here that it is about freedom.
What is freedom?
Is anyone NOT free?
Is something else, except maybe our own imbecility restricting our mind or spirit in any way?

I would say that we are not free. To understand what freedom is, one must be able to understand what it means to be able to choose as a human being in contrast to what makes an animal choose to move from here to there. Maybe "imbecility" has too harsh a connotation, but I would definitely say our collective ignorance due to our psychological construction manifesting as suggestibility supports and maintains this lack of freedom.

But this is how I believe we are. If not so, what would you suggest we do about it?

[todd]

I would say we ARE free. Nothing is limiting your mind or spirit in any way. You choose your own limits, you build your own safety places inside there, you choose your ideals, passions, you define your own good, your own truth.
We are our own prisoners.
What is that "one must be able to understand"? Everyone understands what he can understand and he also understands freedom as his own unique freedom within the border he has defined.
If you mean access to knowledge, to education this is something else, and I do not think it is too relevant. The level of education is not necessarily defining the cognitive ability.
I personally found amazing wisdom among analphabets, poeple that have never read a book in their lives and also found absolute idiots among university professors, judges, etc.

[Nick_A]

Todd

I agree that formal education is highly overrated but you've raised another issue that maybe deserves its own thread depending on interest namely how we define "quality of life. This is part of the struggle between the soul and the intellect.

I would say we ARE free. Nothing is limiting your mind or spirit in any way. You choose your own limits, you build your own safety places inside there, you choose your ideals, passions, you define your own good, your own truth.

You say that we choose but based on what? What determines these ideals for those even with the tenacity to pursue them?

I've learned in my own personal search both theoretically and experientially that we are unawakened. If we are living in a dream, on what basis do we believe we choose? This is what I believe a person begins to understand: that they exist as a state of personal contradiction. This is the prison as I believe it to be. What is believed to be freedom is often just freedom of prison life where your desires are established for you.

What does quality of life really mean? If freedom can lead to quality of life, what do you see as quality of life for yourself? What is it that your idea of freedom can provide that allows you to attain the quality of life you desire for yourself?

[todd]

I see what you mean but I think this is not about freedom. Awakened or not, you're still free, within the borders you choose. You may imagine a new level of freedom by exploring new ideas new concepts, theories, revelations and enlightenings, you are expanding the borders, pushing them further away so far that you may think they disappeared...they are still somewhere there, but you are FREE to go how as far as you like or how far you dare.
Your horizons may get wider but the level of freedom, is basically the same.
For me, the quality of life is a concept strictly related to the subject, and it basically represents the level of self-content, the sentiments of accomplishment that a specific person experiences. One may live happily in darkness, while another may suffer in enlightening....It is not up to us to judge the life quality of others.

[Nick_A]

We see it differently because you insist that "we choose" and I am saying that what is believed to be choice is conditioned response. The "choice" is really the strongest of opposing small desires and not reflecting the needs of the whole of oneself. What is FREE in this? You can "imagine" all sorts of things but freedom comes from the ability to experience without limiting preconception. Imagination just gets in the way of this.

For me, the quality of life is a concept strictly related to the subject, and it basically represents the level of self-content, the sentiments of accomplishment that a specific person experiences. One may live happily in darkness, while another may suffer in enlightening....It is not up to us to judge the life quality of others.

We are all like this. It is so difficult to speak honestly about what we truly need beyond the survival necessities that we shift it to what "one" wants. I agree that we cannot judge the life quality of others but the point I am making is that we do not "know thyself" to any degree that we can even admit and be open to our own needs that determine "quality of life" for ourselves. Forget about judging others and concentrate on learning something about this organism that carries you around. How can we be free to go as far as we like or dare if we don't know where we want to go because part of us wants to go here and other parts want to go there while still other parts of ourselves just say screw the whole thing, have a beer, and worry about it tomorrow since there is a really good movie on tonight.

[sahyo]

Most objective art is subjectively reflected,
according to the momenting in time of reflection.

From "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", William Blake:
"Eternity is in love with the productions of time".

may seem if imagining as though is happening reflection/eternity/time

almost impossible to maintain complete objectivity in transcendent arting...

"maintain"?


tweeting sundance flits
leaves scattering windblown drift
birds alightingsit



:)

[todd]

Oh, yes… I insist on ‘we choose’ and my opinion is that there is no such thing as unconditioned response. There is no unconditioned action, the response is an action, the choice is an action. “The needs of the whole of oneself” is a selfish and false concept, there is no such need as well there is no ‘whole of oneself’. The ‘oneself’ is like a tree in a jungle with the roots and branches mixed with the ones around him. Freeing it as you propose means killing it and denying it’s own existence. We are what we are…
Our dreams are linked to the girl we felled in love in the 2nd grade, our fears are measured by the distance from the warmth of our mother’s breast. We cannot be one absolute independent 'thing'
You say “we do not "know thyself" to any degree that we can even admit and be open to our own needs that determine "quality of life" for ourselves” – I say the infinite cannot be known (gnown), it can only be imagined. Do you really believe in this ‘know (gnow) thyself’, or it is just a good phrase to through in the face of the ignorants ? Do you know about someone that really ‘knew’ his self ?

[Nick_A]

Todd

There is no unconditioned action, the response is an action, the choice is an action.

How can we differentiate between action and reaction? I say action requires consciousness but it would take a great deal to try and explain why. Since there is not much consciousness on the earth, what is occurring IMO is continual reaction. I know how strange this must appear and shudder at the thought of the scorn poor Maistre must have endured after uttering this gem:

How can we be so willfully blind as to look for causes in nature when nature herself is an effect.[/QUOTE
]
That must have gone over like a lead balloon but I appreciate it. Not much action (cause) going on when consciousness is lacking.

[QUOTE]“The needs of the whole of oneself” is a selfish and false concept, there is no such need as well there is no ‘whole of oneself’. The ‘oneself’ is like a tree in a jungle with the roots and branches mixed with the ones around him. Freeing it as you propose means killing it and denying it’s own existence.

Since we do not exist as a whole but instead as a plurality, it is hard to determine the needs of the whole of oneself. I do agree that this plurality is mixed with all sorts of influences around it and becoming conscious of it would gradually deny the domination of its life. But this idea that we have two lives is an old one. One we create based on illusion and the other is a reflection of universal purpose.

Mark 8
35For whoever wants to save his life[1] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.

All the traditions originating with a conscious source speak of attachment and the resulting loss of perspective which you described well. Is that all there is? I don't believe so.

We are what we are…
Our dreams are linked to the girl we felled in love in the 2nd grade, our fears are measured by the distance from the warmth of our mother’s breast. We cannot be one absolute independent 'thing'

Becoming less dependent on attachment doesn't mean isolation. We are always under influences. However, awakening means a certain choice in what influences we can fall under and the ability to decide which is the more profitable for our being.

We are what we are but does this mean it is how we must be? Instead of limiting ourselves to changes in reaction, can our being, our isness, grow?

I say the infinite cannot be known (gnown), it can only be imagined.

Quite true but I believe it is possible to be less attached so that we can become more sensitive to higher influences that are not imaginary. I believe we can benefit from this awareness and connection.

I could say that I was aware of people who have known themselves to an advanced degree but how would this help you? I could say that Jesus and Buddha knew themselves but why should you believe it? A person can only try to "know thyself" and see what happens.

It is not up to us to judge the life quality of others.

and

or it is just a good phrase to through in the face of the ignorants ?

Who are these ignorant? :)

[todd]

Those who don't care.
Looks like the government is interested about our 'quality of life', how quaint..
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnew...hp?newsid=17265 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17265)

[Nick_A]

That link was, how shall we say, illuminating. :) I shudder to think how much that madness costs. Thanks for that enlightenment. :)