Dreaming

[...]

..from Nisargadatta:

Seeker

If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the way out?

Maharaj

There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out is also part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as dream.

Seeker

If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where will it lead me?

Maharaj

Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs be done.

[sahyo]

you are dreaming a dream you call the world


people often confuse that as saying the world is a dream
....but called world isn't a dream....
is imagining as though separate/notseparate a world
which is called a dream....
dreamer/dreaming is imagined

[...]

Zhuangzi - [Chuang Tze]

One day about sunset, Zhuangzi dozed off and dreamed that he turned into a butterfly.

He flapped his wings and sure enough he was a butterfly...

What a joyful feeling as he fluttered about, he completely forgot that he was Zhuangzi.

Soon though, he realized that that proud butterfly was really Zhuangzi who dreamed he was a butterfly, or was it a butterfly who dreamed he was Zhuangzi!

Maybe Zhuangzi was the butterfly, and maybe the butterfly was Zhungzi?

tr. Brian Bruya

http://www.chinapage.com/chungtz2.html

[Nick_A]

All this dreaming can be useful for certain magicians like the one depicted in this tale.

"There is an Eastern tale that speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the
same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence
about the pasture where the sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell
into ravines and so on, and above all, they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and
their skins, and this they did not like.

"At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them, first of all, that they
were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned; that on the contrary, it
would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master
who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place,
he suggested that if anything at all were going to happen to them, it was not going to happen just then, at any
rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further, the magician suggested to his
sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to some that they
were eagles, to some that they were men, to others that they were magicians.

"After this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again, but quietly
awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins.

"This tale is a very good illustration of man's position."

I believe there is a way out that isn't a dream.

[sahyo]

Maybe Zhuangzi was the butterfly, and maybe the butterfly was Zhungzi?



not imagined word/meanings ;)

[sahyo]

I believe there is a way out that isn't a dream.



dream isn't happening

[Nick_A]

Asheera, if dream isn't happening, what is happening if anything?

[...]

Originally posted by Nick_A@Dec 20 2004, 10:53 PM
I believe there is a way out that isn't a dream.

..which way is that?

[Nick_A]

which way is that?

Awakening! But this is hard to understand since it is spoken of in sleep. Yet the idea is very ancient and at the source of all the great spiritual traditions. Look at this in Buddhism for example:

I Am Awake:

When the Buddha start to wander around India shortly after his enlightenment, he encountered several men who recognized him to be a very extraordinary being.

They asked him, "Are you a god?"

"No," he replied.

"Are you a reincarnation of god?"

"No," he replied.

"Are you a wizard, then?"

"No."

"Well, are you a man?"

"No."

"So what are you?" they asked, being very perplexed.

"I am awake."

Buddha means "The Awakened One". How to awaken is all he taught.

This is the "esoteric" side of a true tradition. Over time it is largely forgotten as it must by universal law and the tradition becomes purely secular reflecting dreams. Yet there are these individuals that are not content in dreams and strive to awaken.

[sahyo]

if dream isn't happening, what is happening if anything?



what's a dream?

[...]

Awakening!

- ..one might argue that this: "When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs be done." is awakening...

This is the "esoteric" side of a true tradition. Over time it is largely forgotten as it must by universal law and the tradition becomes purely secular reflecting dreams. Yet there are these individuals that are not content in dreams and strive to awaken.

- ..perhaps waking up from the dream is about realising there's nothing to wake up to?

[sahyo]

When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs be done." is awakening...



does dot believe a dream to wake from and a dreamer which will wake?

what doer to "done"?

[bito]

Your problem is that you like one part of the dream and not another.

Dreaming or not, the quote above is the essence of the message of awakening. When we desire to know heaven, hell appears - we are split in two and sleep. When we desire to know hell, heaven appears - we are split in two and sleep.

When we stop desiring heaven or hell, we are awake.

[...]

When we stop desiring heaven or hell, we are awake.

- ..yes, but, when you stop wanting life to be other than it is, suffering ceases. But does that automatically mean there's awakening? If all of this is dreamlike, it must mean i'm dreamlike too, and how can a dream wake up?

[Nick_A]

Asheera

what's a dream?

That is an involved question but for the purposes of this discussion, it is the tendency to live in our imagination of the past and our imaginary anticipation of the future. We don't have the ability to consciously continue to impartially live in the "now" so we live in our justifying conceptualizations of the past and future and in this way, live in a dream.

xxx

..one might argue that this: "When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs be done." is awakening...

Beginning to realize that you are not awake and awakening are two different stages of being.

..perhaps waking up from the dream is about realizing there's nothing to wake up to?

A sure sign of sleep. A sleeping person cannot know what awakening is. All that is initially possible without some sort of gnosis is to experience the "calling".

QUOTE
When we stop desiring heaven or hell, we are awake.



- ..yes, but, when you stop wanting life to be other than it is, suffering ceases. But does that automatically mean there's awakening? If all of this is dreamlike, it must mean i'm dreamlike too, and how can a dream wake up?

It is not that suffering ceases, it just becomes useful as opposed to the meaninglessness it now is. Awakening begins with the conscious awareness of the impressions of life and the experience that you have become aware.

[...]

Beginning to realize that you are not awake and awakening are two different stages of being.

- ..there is always a starting point for the dreamcharacter, and usually it begins with a growing dissatisfaction with reality, or his/hers perception of reality. Would you agree? From you POV, are you pointing at a exclusive kind of truth, or rather a generic one?

A sure sign of sleep. A sleeping person cannot know what awakening is. All that is initially possible without some sort of gnosis is to experience the "calling".

- ..altough not necessary for anything, i'd say a sleeping person has a hard time realising. If truth/awake is not about this reality as we percieve it, what is it about then?

It is not that suffering ceases, it just becomes useful as opposed to the meaninglessness it now is. Awakening begins with the conscious awareness of the impressions of life and the experience that you have become aware.

- ..who exactly suffers? If the duality between this and that ends, and suffering is nothing more but the inability to accept life as it happens, what is left is obvious. But if that is being awake or awakening, i don't know...

[bito]

- ..yes, but, when you stop wanting life to be other than it is, suffering ceases. But does that automatically mean there's awakening? If all of this is dreamlike, it must mean i'm dreamlike too, and how can a dream wake up?

Feeling includes suffering, and who would wish to be without feeling?

[...]

Feeling includes suffering, and who would wish to be without feeling?

- ..no, suffering does not include feeling, it includes the unwantedness of feelings. If i hit my thumb, the pain inflicted does not constitute suffering, but the thought of not wanting to feel the pain makes you suffer. Well, that's my take of suffering, have some salt with it :)

[bito]

- ..no, suffering does not include feeling, it includes the unwantedness of feelings. If i hit my thumb, the pain inflicted does not constitute suffering, but the thought of not wanting to feel the pain makes you suffer.

Hi dot? Dotty? Three dots? ...? ...do you have a preference? :)

Feeling includes suffering, not 'suffering includes feeling'.

I agree that it is the desire not to feel the pain that makes one suffer, but this is a different 'kind' of suffering than the suffering that is included in feeling.

The suffering that is included in feeling is the awareness that one cannot 'leave' or 'escape' the awareness of self.

Well, that's my take of suffering, have some salt with it* :)

Passing the shaker with mine... :)

[sahyo]

If truth/awake is not about this reality as we percieve it, what is it about then?



not "about"
not "percieve"

[sahyo]

what's a dream?



it is the tendency to live in our imagination of the past and our imaginary anticipation of the future. We don't have the ability to consciously continue to impartially live in the "now" so we live in our justifying conceptualizations of the past and future and in this way, live in a dream.



Beginning to realize that you are not awake and awakening are*



though imagining, i/you/we/it/"a dream"/dreamer/imaginer not happening, what dream?, what dream to awake from?, what dreamer to awake?

[Nick_A]

xxx

there is always a starting point for the dreamcharacter, and usually it begins with a growing dissatisfaction with reality, or his/hers perception of reality. Would you agree? From you POV, are you pointing at a exclusive kind of truth, or rather a generic one?

- ..altough not necessary for anything, i'd say a sleeping person has a hard time realising. If truth/awake is not about this reality as we percieve it, what is it about then?

You are referring to the normal problems and dissatisfactions of life and that people normally strive to solve or avoid. This is all in the progressive cycle between what we call life and death. We can be upset that we never got the right job, spouse, respect and what have you.

I'm speaking of a different quality of dissatisfaction. It is the realization that this whole cycle of life lacks meaning beyond this superficial level. This idea is common in all great teachings. It suggests that meaning, in the human sense, occurs on a higher plane of existence. Take Ecclesiastes 1 in the Bible:

2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.

"Utterly meaningless!

Everything is meaningless."

The desire to awaken is associated with the need for higher "meaning" after one has begun to feel empty inside. If normal life is void of meaning, how can we begin to experience meaning? Without this awareness of meaning beyond the routines of what we call "normal life", there is no value in awakening since dreams are meaningful enough.

who exactly suffers? If the duality between this and that ends, and suffering is nothing more but the inability to accept life as it happens, what is left is obvious. But if that is being awake or awakening, i don't know...

What makes you believe that "suffering is nothing more but the inability to accept life as it happens,"? There can be different qualities of suffering.

[Nick_A]

Asheera

though imagining, i/you/we/it/"a dream"/dreamer/imaginer not happening, what dream?, what dream to awake from?, what dreamer to awake?

Now it is my turn to say "No" :) Awakening to the fullest means "to be". Granted we "are not" so I agree with you to an extent but to appreciate the nature of man requires an understanding of what he can become or what it means "to be".

[sahyo]

Now it is my turn to say "No" :)



hehehe


Awakening to the fullest means "to be".



what's to awaken?....what emptyest/"fullest"?



but to appreciate the nature of man requires an understanding of what he can become or what it means "to be".



can imgined/past/future/entity "become"?
....can 'meaning'?


:)

[Nick_A]

Asheera

can imgined/past/future/entity "become"?
....can 'meaning'?

No. Imagination is unreal. It has taken the place of consciousness for us which is real. If one is willing to sacrifice their imagination in the struggle for consciousness, then awakening and "to be" becomes possible. I agree though that there is no future in imagination

[...]

..bito:

Hi dot? Dotty? Three dots? ...? ...do you have a preference?

- ..no, whatever you want is fine...

The suffering that is included in feeling is the awareness that one cannot 'leave' or 'escape' the awareness of self.

- ..yes, i see your point, but isn't this similar to prefering one feeling over another?

[...]

..nick:

I'm speaking of a different quality of dissatisfaction. It is the realization that this whole cycle of life lacks meaning beyond this superficial level. This idea is common in all great teachings. It suggests that meaning, in the human sense, occurs on a higher plane of existence.

- ..altough i agree with you that life lacks meaning, i fail to see any suggestion that a higher plane exist outside of wishful thinking/beliefs...

The desire to awaken is associated with the need for higher "meaning" after one has begun to feel empty inside. If normal life is void of meaning, how can we begin to experience meaning? Without this awareness of meaning beyond the routines of what we call "normal life", there is no value in awakening since dreams are meaningful enough.

- ..who needs meaning? Who requires it? This is an arbitrary distinction between meaning and meaningless, and as such has no merit...

What makes you believe that "suffering is nothing more but the inability to accept life as it happens,"? There can be different qualities of suffering.

- ..for me it was nothing else but the inability to accept life as it happens. I have not seen different qualities of suffering, therefore i can't comment on them...

[bito]

- ..yes, i see your point, but isn't this similar to prefering one feeling over another?

It's not a preference for suffering, but an acknowledgement that suffering exists, 'no matter what'.

Often there is a belief that 'at the end' of the perceived spiritual search, suffering will cease. What a surprise to discover that if suffering were to cease, feelings would cease, and feelings simply cannot be denied, 'left behind', escaped or destroyed.

So when our search for bliss is abandoned, what is left, but as you say, to live life 'as it happens'. I would express this as 'as it presents itself', but, hey semantics... :)

[Nick_A]

..who needs meaning? Who requires it? This is an arbitrary distinction between meaning and meaningless, and as such has no merit...

I agree that meaning is deeply personal. My need for meaning may suggest that beyond my subjective inclinations, there is objective meaning that manifests as an objective scale of "being", or it may be nonsense. But, if you want to find out if there's gold in them there hills, you've got to search in them there hills. In short, one has to verify for themselves.

As difficult as it is for you to appreciate ones calling for meaning, it is just as difficult for me to appreciate its absence. I remember in my younger days, I couldn't understand why life was the way it was which of course made me the scourge of modern education which found me very disturbing to be around.

Now, thanks to the efforts of some including those that have passed on years ago which have made me feel genuine gratitude, and my own personal efforts, I have been able to experience "meaning" including why things are as they are and why they cannot be any other way. Where at one time there was only nonsense, there has been a gradual appearance of the sense behind the nonsense.

for me it was nothing else but the inability to accept life as it happens. I have not seen different qualities of suffering, therefore i can't comment on them...

I don't know if this was accidental but I find a curious choice of word. If you would have said "I have not EXPERIENCED different qualities (not types) of suffering", it would have made sense to me but how does one "see" suffering unless you are referring to the reactions of others which is not something we can judge.

[...]

..bito:

It's not a preference for suffering, but an acknowledgement that suffering exists, 'no matter what'.

- ..but doesn't that mean that you equate living with suffering a chronic illness for example? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but at this end living does not equal suffering, but thenagain, i could be reading you wrong...

Often there is a belief that 'at the end' of the perceived spiritual search, suffering will cease. What a surprise to discover that if suffering were to cease, feelings would cease, and feelings simply cannot be denied, 'left behind', escaped or destroyed.
- ..to that i agree wholeheartedly, and i guess it comes down to ones perception of life/suffering. It's a buddhist approach, isn't it?

So when our search for bliss is abandoned, what is left, but as you say, to live life 'as it happens'. I would express this as 'as it presents itself', but, hey semantics...

- ..which includes suffering, doesn't it? So now i understand you better :thumbsup:

[...]

I agree that meaning is deeply personal. My need for meaning may suggest that beyond my subjective inclinations, there is objective meaning that manifests as an objective scale of "being", or it may be nonsense. But, if you want to find out if there's gold in them there hills, you've got to search in them there hills. In short, one has to verify for themselves.

- ..yes, that is true. I've only found 'fools gold' in them hills though, and i don't think that's due to a lack in searching :lol: but who knows what lies behind the next bend...

As difficult as it is for you to appreciate ones calling for meaning, it is just as difficult for me to appreciate its absence. I remember in my younger days, I couldn't understand why life was the way it was which of course made me the scourge of modern education which found me very disturbing to be around.

- ..i certainly wanted life to have meaning, but except life itself being meaningful [which is not a contradiction to me], there are no attachments following life...

Now, thanks to the efforts of some including those that have passed on years ago which have made me feel genuine gratitude, and my own personal efforts, I have been able to experience "meaning" including why things are as they are and why they cannot be any other way. Where at one time there was only nonsense, there has been a gradual appearance of the sense behind the nonsense.

- ..thank you for the clarification nick, i was going to ask you a little background info on this, but you beat me to it. Can you explain more about what that sense behind the nonsense is?

QUOTE
for me it was nothing else but the inability to accept life as it happens. I have not seen different qualities of suffering, therefore i can't comment on them...


I don't know if this was accidental but I find a curious choice of word. If you would have said "I have not EXPERIENCED different qualities (not types) of suffering", it would have made sense to me but how does one "see" suffering unless you are referring to the reactions of others which is not something we can judge.

- ..that's some nondual jargon creeping in :D as in 'seeing it happening here'. You can always ask the person who is apparantly suffering whether they are actually suffering, and each and every time the answer was about the inability to accept the experience as it occurs; "i don't want this", "i can't deal with this", "why is this happening to me?" and so on, but you say there is more to suffering than this? Could you share more on this?

[Nick_A]

thank you for the clarification nick, i was going to ask you a little background info on this, but you beat me to it. Can you explain more about what that sense behind the nonsense is?[/QUOTE

]Obviously this could not be done in one post. :) One thing that always baffled me in my college days was that whatever philosophy or religion was spoken of always seemed to me to be partial truths. It was always as though someone else had a counter and you always had to sort of pick your own truth. It was only later that I finally came to see that all of creation is one organic whole that all the seeming contradictions become sensible if seen from the perspective of relative wholeness. What I learned that was missing in college was the ideas of scale of being and relativity. Without an appreciation of these two variables nothing can make sense. Since there are universal laws that govern both scale and being, a person not only can "feel" differences in quality, but grasp it intellectually as well.

"Meaning" is another of these words that can only make sense within a sense of scale and relativity, not comparisons on one level but between levels of meaning itself. I know this is confusing but consider this from an old thread of mine from another site:

What is Meaning? At the bottom of it all I think we are really seekers of meaning. Some people say that we are all looking for love but what does love supply? meaning. It gives our lives meaning. The following is from Dr. Nicoll. . He gives John 1 in the Greek I believe. The word "logos" does translate as meaning and it is easy to see how the "word" is actually "meaning".


[QUOTE]"At the beginning (of time) Meaning already was, and God had meaning with him, and God was Meaning." John 1:1

When a man finds no meaning in anything he has at the same time no feeling of God. Meaninglessness is a terrible illness. It has to be got over. It is the same as godlessness, because if you say there is no God you are saying that there is no meaning in things. But if you think there is Meaning, you believe in God. Meaning is God. You cannot say that you do not believe in God but believe that there is meaning in things. The two are the same, in that one cannot be without the other. God is meaning. If you dislike the word God, just say the word meaning instead. The word God just shuts some people's minds. The word Meaning cannot. It opens minds.

Meaning was before time began. It was before creation, for creation occurs in running time, in which birth and death exist. Birth and death belong to the passage of time. But meaning was before Time and creation in Time began. there is no way of describing existence in the higher dimensional world outside of time, save by the language of passing time - of past, present, and future. Meaning is - not was - before the beginning of creation in time. It does not belong to what is becoming and passing away but to what is above Time. if then, there is Meaning above our heads, what is our meaning by creation?


A person can find meaning on one level where it is found from one source for a time and then from another and then another and on it goes. As we age, meaning changes. However, meaning can be of a different quality completely. You've probably heard the expression "Only fools fight in a burning house." Well this is the same idea. You take a mother, father, and two kids in a house having the usual battles and complaints and all this is supplying meaning. But the family from being so involved with this level of meaning may become unaware that a fire is slowly spreading. Nothing is worth arguing about as the fire is growing. Once they become aware, what was meaningful no longer is in the context of this fire.

Man, I believe, is in the same position. We are fools consumed with small meanings in a burning house unaware of a higher more human level of meaning that is being lost.

The sense behind the nonsense is really "perspective" in the context of relative "wholeness" but it cannot be explained; one has to become open to it. This is much easier said than done because being really open makes us vulnerable which is not easy to allow other than in our fantasies.

but you say there is more to suffering than this? Could you share more on this?

Does this make any sense?

"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."

[...]

..nick:

..on the subject of meaning; what you posted from Dr.Nicholl assumes many things, and i don't want to get into that level of subjectivity, suffice to say it does not reflect what is experienced here regarding meaning/meaninglesness...

We are fools consumed with small meanings in a burning house unaware of a higher more human level of meaning that is being lost.

- ..this i want to know, from your POV, is the christian way of bringing awareness to a higher level of meaning the only way? I don't think it is, from what you wrote, but like to make sure...

Nothing can be attained without suffering but at the same time one must begin by sacrificing suffering.

- ..i agree, but don't see the unwillingness to sacrifice suffering as a form of suffering, it's a clinging to what is known and, unwittingly, is enjoyed [but this is not important]. It does seem that all emotional problems occuring in people comes from the believe in a self, the being of an actual separated entity [the dream] and when those attachments are released, what is obvious [re]appears. Ultimately, it is quite unnecessary to sacrifice suffering, for there is no-one that suffers. Yet sacrifice does occur, and so life goes on :hahaha: ...

[bito]

If we knew absolute truth, that is, no doubt whatsoever as to the why, when, where, how of existence (universal meaning and purpose revealed) suffering (as we know it) would not exist.

No one knows absolute truth, ergo, suffering exists. The Big Why haunts us. It moves us to find personal meaning (suffering) yes, but we cannot know The Meaning (no suffering). We can believe we know The Meaning, but can never know this without doubt or questioning, ergo, suffering.

Perhaps the suffering we must sacrifice is the suffering of searching for The Meaning, for is this not simply a search for personal meaning on a grander scale?

And, even if we sacrifice this search for The Meaning, can we ever be free of the niggle that wants to know? Even if it is subconscious? To live completely without doubt, without question, without wondering?

I say existential suffering exists, even if it is denied by self as existing.

When suffering is accepted, is this not time for celebration? Are we not freed from the fruitless search of 'maybe this path will end suffering' or 'perhaps just around this corner suffering takes a hike'? Can we not :applause: when we finally smile, say 'whew'...time now for truly living personal meaning? Perhaps this is 'true' humility...

:rolleyes:

[Nick_A]

xxx

suffice to say it does not reflect what is experienced here regarding meaning/meaninglesness...

Very true. Relativity and scale are not the norm.

this i want to know, from your POV, is the christian way of bringing awareness to a higher level of meaning the only way? I don't think it is, from what you wrote, but like to make sure...

There is a law explaining why there are no straight line in nature. The process of natural existence isn't a straight line but in cycles. The same is true with a spiritual teaching that begins with a conscious source. After a while the public side, without conscious support, loses its conscious potency and the esoteric benefits it was designed to bring and becomes a system of subjective morals. So the depth of Christian awareness is not something we can know; it must be rediscovered through particular kinds of efforts. The same is true of the other traditions like Buddhism which has lost its potency in public.

Great knowledge as opposed to regular associative knowledge will be the same at the source of the traditions initiating with a conscious source. So when you speak of the "Christian way", it probably means something different than what I've grown to understand.

i agree, but don't see the unwillingness to sacrifice suffering as a form of suffering, it's a clinging to what is known and, unwittingly, is enjoyed [but this is not important]. It does seem that all emotional problems occurring in people comes from the believe in a self, the being of an actual separated entity [the dream] and when those attachments are released, what is obvious [re]appears. Ultimately, it is quite unnecessary to sacrifice suffering, for there is no-one that suffers. Yet sacrifice does occur, and so life goes on

I can see why you believe this but from what I've grown to appreciate about the psychology of man (not the usual meaning of psychology that restricts itself to the reactions of man), It is lacking in scale and relativity for me.

Bito :

When suffering is accepted, is this not time for celebration? Are we not freed from the fruitless search of 'maybe this path will end suffering' or 'perhaps just around this corner suffering takes a hike'? Can we not when we finally smile, say 'whew'...time now for truly living personal meaning? Perhaps this is 'true' humility...

This acceptance of suffering I see as the Christian message of carrying ones cross. If it is necessary, is there any profit that can come from it? Is there any advantage to consciously carrying ones cross as opposed to complaining our way through it or even denying its existence? I believe there is.

Creation is this enormous organism that eats itself sometimes depicted as Kronos eating its tail, consuming itself and continually recycling all its material densities. This really is universal suffering. Living in a dream has only created a great deal of unnecessary suffering which all the teachings seek to end. I completely agree with you as to the value of humility in growing to understand suffering.

It always struck me as sad when I'd read those stories or see them on TV where someone would proudly announce that they've suffered twenty years for another and now look what's happened. All sense of meaning was captured in this relationship with another.

It really is so subtle and we are conditioned so much that it is virtually impossible to understand what this suffering means.

How many times have you read where the parents are supposed to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their children. This is considered noble suffering. Now if someone were to suggest that maybe the parents should try to "become" themselves for the sake of not only themselves but for their children, 500 psychologists would feint dead away on the spot from shock. It is because this idea of becoming oneself is considered "selfish" in conjunction with cultural beliefs. Becoming oneself is rarely seen for what it is and seen as person becoming fixated with jobs, cars, boats, new sex partners, etc. which deny children so even the thought is suppressed and the suffering of denying oneself becomes noble. But in reality we either do not want to appreciate it for itself or even prefer to believe that it doesn't exist even as a potential. Part of becoming oneself would mean learning HOW to suffer. I don't even want to imagine a believer in modern western Buddhism reading that sentence. :)

What a mess. :)

[...]

..good post bito:

If we knew absolute truth, that is, no doubt whatsoever as to the why, when, where, how of existence (universal meaning and purpose revealed) suffering (as we know it) would not exist.

- ..this assumes there is absolute truth, a why, when, where or how of existence. It would seem that it's this very assumption that perpetuates suffering, wouldn't it?

No one knows absolute truth, ergo, suffering exists. The Big Why haunts us. It moves us to find personal meaning (suffering) yes, but we cannot know The Meaning (no suffering). We can believe we know The Meaning, but can never know this without doubt or questioning, ergo, suffering.

- ..from the nondual [non]perspective it is correct that there's no-one that knows absolute truth; there is knowing without a knower. Seeing without a seer, awareness without a center. What we do know for an absolute fact is THIS LIFE, don't we? I assume bito knows bito's alive? That's an absolute, right there. So where does that leave suffering?

Perhaps the suffering we must sacrifice is the suffering of searching for The Meaning, for is this not simply a search for personal meaning on a grander scale?

- ..yes...

And, even if we sacrifice this search for The Meaning, can we ever be free of the niggle that wants to know? Even if it is subconscious? To live completely without doubt, without question, without wondering?

- ..there can be wondering without questioning, there can be amazement without doubt, there can be freedom from that niggle, even if that niggle is you...

I say existential suffering exists, even if it is denied by self as existing.

- ..so who does the suffering?

When suffering is accepted, is this not time for celebration? Are we not freed from the fruitless search of 'maybe this path will end suffering' or 'perhaps just around this corner suffering takes a hike'? Can we not when we finally smile, say 'whew'...time now for truly living personal meaning? Perhaps this is 'true' humility...

- ..i'd say that it doesn't matter one iota if the release from suffering comes through beliefs, atheism, philosophy, watching a movie or whatever system that lead one there, as long as it leads one there. Yes, that is indeed a good time to celebrate, an uncumbered human being is a wonderful thing...

[...]

..hey nick:

Very true. Relativity and scale are not the norm.

- ..should they be?

Great knowledge as opposed to regular associative knowledge will be the same at the source of the traditions initiating with a conscious source. So when you speak of the "Christian way", it probably means something different than what I've grown to understand.

- ..i was unable to gather an answer to my question from what you wrote, nick. Could you clarify?

It is lacking in scale and relativity for me.

- ..i can appreciate that. For me, less has always been more...

Part of becoming oneself would mean learning HOW to suffer.

- ..the easiest way, for me, would be learning who suffers in the first place :)

[Nick_A]

xxx

should they be?

I don't think it is possible on a large scale so I can only think of "should" in relation to myself. My guess is that the loss of this perspective is what is meant in Christianity as "original sin". The real spiritual efforts would be to try regain what was lost and eliminate the effects of original sin.

i was unable to gather an answer to my question from what you wrote, nick. Could you clarify?

In the words of Father Sylvan:

Practically speaking, of course, one doesn't really need this distinction between Christendom and Christianity, between broken Christianity and real Christianity. We only know broken Christianity, so why worry about a word for the real thing.

Kierkegaard's distinction between Christendom and Christianity makes sense to me. Christianity is the initial conscious intent while Christendom is the ways in which the lack of conscious perspective has corrupted it.

The bottom line is that all the teachings that initiate with a conscious source have the potential for human transformation for those that can get out of their own way long enough in order to grow to understand them. It is not only Christianity

i can appreciate that. For me, less has always been more...

True, but there comes a point when the essence of something is lost. In ancient times this was the idea of the "atom" which is different than it is now since in those times it meant: "the smallest amount of any substance in which the substance retains all its properties, physical, chemical, psychical, and cosmic. From this point of view there can, for instance, be an 'atom of water'."

So if 'man' as we know ourselves is really the seed of something else, we are really an atom of man. Take away too much and making it "less" and it may no longer contain the possibilities of the seed.

the easiest way, for me, would be learning who suffers in the first place
Seems to me that the only way we can recognize the nature of suffering in others is first to understand it within ourselves, (Know Thyself), and now it is no longer so easy.

[...]

..nick:

I don't think it is possible on a large scale so I can only think of "should" in relation to myself. My guess is that the loss of this perspective is what is meant in Christianity as "original sin". The real spiritual efforts would be to try regain what was lost and eliminate the effects of original sin.

- ..isn't this just a system to get to a point where there's peace of mind? A way of explaining the confusion, offering a structure along which this unknown reality is made more palatable? Mind you, i'm not trying to downplay these systems, but i can no longer see any difference between them...

The bottom line is that all the teachings that initiate with a conscious source have the potential for human transformation for those that can get out of their own way long enough in order to grow to understand them. It is not only Christianity

- ..this is true...

Take away too much and making it "less" and it may no longer contain the possibilities of the seed.

- ..you know the saying: "the universe in a grain of sand", don't you? Even emptiness contains all possibilities nick, there is never a taking away too much :)

Seems to me that the only way we can recognize the nature of suffering in others is first to understand it within ourselves, (Know Thyself), and now it is no longer so easy.

- ..perhaps the distractions have grown over the years, but that doesn't mean that it has ever been easy :sweat:

[bito]

This acceptance of suffering I see as the Christian message of carrying ones cross. If it is necessary, is there any profit that can come from it? Is there any advantage to consciously carrying (keeping) ones cross as opposed to complaining our way through it or even denying its existence? I believe there is.

I've heard the Christian cross referred to as the 'matter' (matter = thoughts) cross. Is this related at all to what you mean, as in carrying one's negative thoughts within, rather than 'letting them rip' (to quote you in an earlier post :) ).

[bito]

- ..this assumes there is absolute truth, a why, when, where or how of existence. It would seem that it's this very assumption that perpetuates suffering, wouldn't it?

It is interesting that human beings sense there is absolute truth or objective consciousness - does this make it absolute truth? :duh: :lol: ...perhaps not...but it is interesting that since man first began thinking and then 'looked within' the pauses between his thinking, this idea of source, God, Void, etc. became his greatest passion (or lack of)...

Does this assumption perpetuate suffering? Since it is thinking that causes man to be aware of his thought-less 'state', and then, his thought-less 'state' that causes man to be aware of his thinking... :think:

- ..there can be wondering without questioning, there can be amazement without doubt, there can be freedom from that niggle, even if that niggle is you...

Since we are discussing that niggle, are we ever free? Once a 'thing' exists by nature of our thinking of it, how can it ever disappear? Just because we are not conscious of it does not mean it is not 'there', like a shadow, if you will. How amazing would amazing be if it was not shadowed by doubt? How wondering would wonder be, if it were not shadowed by questioning? Is this shadow we carry not at the very heart of our creativity, our very humanity?

I assume bito knows bito's alive? That's an absolute, right there. So where does that leave suffering?

bito knows bito is alive...her full belly from Christmas breakfast (which included champagne-orange juice cocktails) is definitely a verifying fact of her aliveness...perhaps the suffering will come later? ;)

oops...wrong 'kind' of suffering...

As for the suffering of bito's being 'nakedly' alive, if I were to respond only from my subjective intuition (and how else does one respond when referencing existence), I would say that suffering is that feeling awareness of the limitations of one's subjectivity and relativity. In the early stages of one's inner journey, this awareness may be experienced as feelings of frustration and even anger or rage (at God, the world, humanity, etc.), but then, as the light dawns, this feeling awareness becomes a sweet ache of loving acceptance. Hard to describe, but again, it is a most subjective description of 'where that leaves suffering'. :unsure:

- ..i'd say that it doesn't matter one iota if the release from suffering comes through beliefs, atheism, philosophy, watching a movie or whatever system that lead one there, as long as it leads one there. Yes, that is indeed a good time to celebrate, an uncumbered human being is a wonderful thing...

I'm not sure if you mean, by release, that suffering ends completely. Again, for me, it is the acceptance of suffering that is the freedom; to be unemcumbered according to this definition would mean a non-attachment to the suffering, rather, 'allowing suffering its burning-away'.

[Nick_A]

xxx

isn't this just a system to get to a point where there's peace of mind? A way of explaining the confusion, offering a structure along which this unknown reality is made more palatable? Mind you, i'm not trying to downplay these systems, but i can no longer see any difference between them...

Actually it is a way of opening the mind. You could say that in sense because the mind is opened to experience a different quality of direction exposing universal purpose that it brings peace of mind. Yes and no since it is fulfilling on the one hand to comprehend "purpose" which brings a certain quality of peace but not so peaceful for making use of it. Back to the old "wretched man" again.

To experience the difference between the real and the charlatans requires a certain inner "growing up" and becoming less gullible. Just like in regular life, it requires a quality of experience to spot the swindle, the same holds true for a spiritual teachings.

Its like a man being attracted to women. If he cannot see or experience any difference between them, he doesn't appreciate what a woman can provide for his unique self. When he does, he gradually searches for the "right" woman and the differences between them become more evident.

you know the saying: "the universe in a grain of sand", don't you? Even emptiness contains all possibilities nick, there is never a taking away too much

Emptiness is an interesting word. It can either mean "no-thing", absolute potential, or "nothing", a state of absolute death void of potential. Creation functions in stages in-between these two opposite poles.

The same laws that the functioning universe operates on exist in the grain of sand but this is not the same as to say that a grain of same is an atom of the universe since it doesn't contain its cosmological structure and as sand, is limited to one cosmos. This cosmological structure is, I believe, what is meant in Christianity as "in the image". This is why Man has been referred to in places as a mini universe and another reason why "Know Thyself" becomes valuable. To know oneself in the real sense reveals the greater universe as well and the greater universe reveals Man..

[Nick_A]

Bito

Christmas breakfast eh? Ah yes, the joys of suffering; the piper must be paid. :)

I've heard the Christian cross referred to as the 'matter' (matter = thoughts) cross. Is this related at all to what you mean, as in carrying one's negative thoughts within, rather than 'letting them rip' (to quote you in an earlier post ).

No; not as I understand it! This suppression is actually a poison for the psych. The goal is for the eventual transformation of negative emotion. It makes use of the emotional energy that we normally throw off as we "let er rip". Instead of throwing it away, we make use of it. It takes a bit of doing to reach the stage where this can be done. Maybe we can pursue that at some time.

I don't know what you mean by (matter = thoughts)? There is associative thought that isn't material. I've read it best described in the old Arabic expression: "pouring from the empty into the void". This type of thought didn't really originate from something nor does it reach a destination. Objective thought or consciousness is material.

When we carry the cross we allow ourselves to be open and vulnerable to all our objections so that we completely experience them. The goal is to see them for what they are from the greater perspective and not to be attached to "results". The process of transformation allows for the freedom and force for re-birth. This is hard to discuss superficially like this.

[bito]

No; not as I understand it! This suppression is actually a poison for the psych. The goal is for the eventual transformation of negative emotion. It makes use of the emotional energy that we normally throw off as we "let er rip". Instead of throwing it away, we make use of it. It takes a bit of doing to reach the stage where this can be done. Maybe we can pursue that at some time.

Suppression is not what I mean when I say to hold or ' carry within, at least by my definition of suppression, which would mean to not look at or feel or identify the emotional energy that one is experiencing. As for throwing emotional energy away, I'm not sure what you mean by this...so...as you say...another time... :)

[...]

It is interesting that human beings sense there is absolute truth or objective consciousness - does this make it absolute truth? ...perhaps not...but it is interesting that since man first began thinking and then 'looked within' the pauses between his thinking, this idea of source, God, Void, etc. became his greatest passion (or lack of)...

- ..an unwitting mind is an assuming mind. Yes, mankind has filled in the blanks with great passion, but if that is anywhere near truthfulness, i dare not say...

Does this assumption perpetuate suffering? Since it is thinking that causes man to be aware of his thought-less 'state', and then, his thought-less 'state' that causes man to be aware of his thinking...

- ..i can see how a sudden thougthless episode might make someone aware that such a thing exists, but how is that an answer?

Since we are discussing that niggle, are we ever free?

- ..define 'free' in this respect...

Once a 'thing' exists by nature of our thinking of it, how can it ever disappear?

- ..ofcourse it can, but the question is, does it need to?

Just because we are not conscious of it does not mean it is not 'there', like a shadow, if you will. How amazing would amazing be if it was not shadowed by doubt? How wondering would wonder be, if it were not shadowed by questioning? Is this shadow we carry not at the very heart of our creativity, our very humanity?

- ..no, not for me at least. I do see what you mean though, and you could be right, but that does bestowe more value to something that's not there than necessary...

As for the suffering of bito's being 'nakedly' alive, if I were to respond only from my subjective intuition (and how else does one respond when referencing existence), I would say that suffering is that feeling awareness of the limitations of one's subjectivity and relativity.

- ..a couple of years ago someone else made a similar comment, and she too felt to be suffering because of subjective limitations, and then too i went: "huh?". I don't know if this is a typical female issue because i've never heard men comment in a similar way, nor does it reflect an idea or sentiment in my case, but seeing how your brought it up my answer would be: "i've never felt that way"...

In the early stages of one's inner journey, this awareness may be experienced as feelings of frustration and even anger or rage (at God, the world, humanity, etc.), but then, as the light dawns, this feeling awareness becomes a sweet ache of loving acceptance. Hard to describe, but again, it is a most subjective description of 'where that leaves suffering'.

- ..aah, well, yes, okay, still, i see what you mean...

I'm not sure if you mean, by release, that suffering ends completely. Again, for me, it is the acceptance of suffering that is the freedom; to be unemcumbered according to this definition would mean a non-attachment to the suffering, rather, 'allowing suffering its burning-away'.

- ..to me, that is the same thing :lol: whether suffering is seen as it comes and goes or allowed to burn-away, the result is the same...

[...]

Actually it is a way of opening the mind. You could say that in sense because the mind is opened to experience a different quality of direction exposing universal purpose that it brings peace of mind. Yes and no since it is fulfilling on the one hand to comprehend "purpose" which brings a certain quality of peace but not so peaceful for making use of it. Back to the old "wretched man" again.

- ..what is making use of peace? I don't quite get where you're coming from with this...

To experience the difference between the real and the charlatans requires a certain inner "growing up" and becoming less gullible. Just like in regular life, it requires a quality of experience to spot the swindle, the same holds true for a spiritual teachings.

- ..in that case, any teaching is a swindle. Words are just words, combined abstract symbols with a specific, agreed to, meaning attached to them. Teachings have their uses, but ought to be discarded at the end of the day...

Its like a man being attracted to women. If he cannot see or experience any difference between them, he doesn't appreciate what a woman can provide for his unique self. When he does, he gradually searches for the "right" woman and the differences between them become more evident.

- ..yes, if you desire to be with a woman, to be with the right woman, that would be true...

Emptiness is an interesting word. It can either mean "no-thing", absolute potential, or "nothing", a state of absolute death void of potential. Creation functions in stages in-between these two opposite poles.

- ..it does?

The same laws that the functioning universe operates on exist in the grain of sand but this is not the same as to say that a grain of same is an atom of the universe since it doesn't contain its cosmological structure and as sand, is limited to one cosmos.
- ..there are more than one cosmosses? You know how every foton in a hologram contains the entire image? That's the same thing...

This cosmological structure is, I believe, what is meant in Christianity as "in the image". This is why Man has been referred to in places as a mini universe and another reason why "Know Thyself" becomes valuable. To know oneself in the real sense reveals the greater universe as well and the greater universe reveals Man..

- ..nick, let's just say that religion and beliefs are just not for me, and attaching meaning and importance to anything resembling that leaves a questionmark over my head...

[Nick_A]

xxx

And yo ho ho to you too. :)

I can see the difficulty we will always have in understanding one another will be related to scale and relativity.

what is making use of peace? I don't quite get where you're coming from with this...

I'll use my personal experience for an example. During a certain period in my life I developed an intense need for my life to make sense. It was one thing to know that I was always surrounded by partial truths that I was powerless to get around but quite another to think that this was all there was.

So circumstances resulted in my becoming aware of a new quality of understanding. I became aware of a new "dimension" so to speak that put everything into perspective and solved the problem of meaninglessness for me. Along with this I also experienced a sense of peace and of gratitude. But just because purpose was revealed did not mean that I should sit around all day saying "oh how wonderful". Now that purpose was revealed, I had to use this peace to fulfill "purpose".

..in that case, any teaching is a swindle. Words are just words, combined abstract symbols with a specific, agreed to, meaning attached to them. Teachings have their uses, but ought to be discarded at the end of the day...

The same is true with mathematics. but should we discard it at the end of the day? We can say that we have mastered addition, subtraction, multiplication and division and since everything else is based on it, who needs anything else.

You would say this is nonsense since the span of math is relative reflecting qualities of understanding.

A true teaching is the same idea but instead of appealing to relative associative thought, its purpose is allow the seeker to awaken to emotional relativity. In ancient times the word "art" reflected this idea. It has been lost and art now is the same as "expression". So there is ART and there is art. There are living TEACHINGS and there are teachings. Same word but differing in objective quality. Often one quality exists within the other just as say a liquid can exist within a solid as does water within wood.

..it does?

Yes! It is the basis of Hermes': "As above, so below."

nick, let's just say that religion and beliefs are just not for me, and attaching meaning and importance to anything resembling that leaves a questionmark over my head...

I agree. Without an appreciation of scale and relativity as it functions in Creation, it is all a bunch of nonsense for me to. Religion for example is relative in its objectivity. It contains within it the ability to appeal to whatever degree of emotional understanding the seeker is at. On the surface it is purely secular while at its source, it is conscious. In this way it serves as a sort of moral authority for the secular and also as the stepping stone between the conscious and unconscious within ourselves. It allows us to create a balance between deductive and inductive reason within ourselves since the gnosis experience can awaken one to their ability for deductive reason. These two directions of reason are reflected in the Star of David". I really appreciate the depth of this following explanation.

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

This is why Zen along with Esoteric Christianity for example place such importance on satori and gnosis. It is through such experience that a certain balance can be established between these modes of reason that could allow a person to reflect a more balanced reason providing of course that they do not become perverted as often happens.

So it is meaningless for me to say that religion and beliefs are either for me or not for me. It depends on scale and relativity in the objective sense. For me it isn't what we know but instead how it is known.

[sahyo]

This is why Zen along with Esoteric Christianity for example place such importance on satori and gnosis. It is through such experience that a certain balance can be established between these modes of reason that could allow a person to reflect a more balanced reason



when imagining separate/not separate ceases, imagining "reflect" "balance" "reason" ceases


For me it isn't what we know but instead how it is known.



"what"?
"know"? "known"
"how"?

[bito]

Dot

Yes, mankind has filled in the blanks with great passion, but if that is anywhere near truthfulness, i dare not say...

I did also say 'or lack of' to cover those who are passionate about not being passionate... :D

- ..i can see how a sudden thougthless episode might make someone aware that such a thing exists, but how is that an answer?

Not an answer, but The Big Question Mark...which leads to seeking answers...which leads us back to The Big Question Mark...you know the drill... :blink:

QUOTE
Since we are discussing that niggle, are we ever free?


- ..define 'free' in this respect...

I say that anyone who shares or debates metaphysical thought (or no-thought :) ) is addressing that niggle of questioning and doubt and self, ergo, is not free and suffers from 'seeker's syndrome'. I include 'teachers, preachers, learners, gurus, nay-sayers, negators, etc.). If you discuss 'IT', then you are not free. Is this a 'good' thing? Is it a 'bad' thing? :dunno:

QUOTE
Once a 'thing' exists by nature of our thinking of it, how can it ever disappear?


- ..ofcourse it can, but the question is, does it need to?

The brain stores every thought, so no thought disappears except in our suppression or repression of that thought...and no, no thought/thing need disappear...

- ..a couple of years ago someone else made a similar comment, and she too felt to be suffering because of subjective limitations, and then too i went: "huh?". I don't know if this is a typical female issue because i've never heard men comment in a similar way, nor does it reflect an idea or sentiment in my case, but seeing how your brought it up my answer would be: "i've never felt that way"...

You've never wished you could REALLY understand someone else so there was no gray area in communication? This discussion forum, to me, is a perfect example of suffering subjective and/or relative frustration. Words are so...so...limiting...they cannot say WHAT you really feel and know without getting all wound up in subjective understanding.

- ..to me, that is the same thing whether suffering is seen as it comes and goes or allowed to burn-away, the result is the same...

Helluva a good point... :thumbsup:

[Nick_A]

Asheera

QUOTE

For me it isn't what we know but instead how it is known.




"what"?
"know"? "known"
"how"?

Two people can know chess. Each knows how the pieces move and the laws of the game. Yet there is a big difference between how the game is known. I can play a good game and easily defeat those not on my level of understanding the game. However, put me with Kasparov and I'll be blown away. His knowledge is of a greater quality. We both have knowledge but his understanding, ability to play, is far beyond mine.

The same is true with human "being". Different people can know the same information but differ in their ability to understand it or to use it. This is normally not known because people do not appreciate that the quality of human being differs between people.

when imagining separate/not separate ceases, imagining "reflect" "balance" "reason" ceases

True for imagination. But when scale is consciously appreciated both diversity and wholeness simultaneously exist in differing degrees along the scale of "being".

The physical has a purpose. Denying it as imaginary may not be the best thing to do.

[sahyo]

people can know the same information


what is information?


But when scale is consciously appreciated both diversity and wholeness simultaneously exist in differing degrees along the scale of "being".


seems can scale/measure?


The physical has a purpose. Denying it as imaginary may not be the best thing to do.


what is ideaing/concepting/"purpose"?...."Denying"?


;)

[sahyo]

Since it is thinking that causes man to be aware of his thought-less 'state', and then, his thought-less 'state' that causes man to be aware of his thinking... :think:



"causes" not possible

[Nick_A]

Asheera

what is ideaing/concepting/"purpose"?...."Denying"?

Denying is the many ways in which you say "no". ;)

[sahyo]

responsing "no", posts which express imagined-happening, isn't denying

:D

[Nick_A]

Asheera

The phrase " isn't denying" is in itself a denial. ;)

[bito]

"causes" not possible

yes, no
perhaps
or is it
no, yes
maybe not?
affirm, deny
no difference
objectivity speaks
through subjectivity-listening
no one Knows
we are but believers
pointing question marks
at The Void

such a game is this we are playing for our amusement
our need for meaning, purpose, destiny
each player expounding wisdom 'rules' for
arriving to 'I know'
even when 'I' is not expressed
simply hidden
in 'I know'

it is not 'causes' that is not possible
it is 'I know' that there is not causes that is not possible

:D

[Nick_A]

Bito said:

it is not 'causes' that is not possible
it is 'I know' that there is not causes that is not possible

True! How can existence as reaction ever appreciate "cause"?

[sahyo]

it is not 'causes' that is not possible
it is 'I know' that there is not causes that is not possible


not possible "causes" nor "I know"

not moreless nor notmoreless, bito

[bito]

True! How can existence as reaction ever appreciate "cause"?

Existence is always reacting or responding. Except in zero time, which cannot be spoken. Yes calls forth no, no calls forth yes - always.

[bito]

not moreless nor notmoreless, bito

not meaning moreless or notmoreless, asheera

:)

[sahyo]

:)

cannot moreless nor notmoreless:


not possible "causes" nor "I know"

[sahyo]

Yes calls forth no, no calls forth yes - always.



not always

[...]

..hello nick:

But just because purpose was revealed did not mean that I should sit around all day saying "oh how wonderful". Now that purpose was revealed, I had to use this peace to fulfill "purpose".

- ..i see, thank you for clearing that up. It still sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy, but who cares, eh?

The same is true with mathematics. but should we discard it at the end of the day? We can say that we have mastered addition, subtraction, multiplication and division and since everything else is based on it, who needs anything else.

- ..few mathematicians killed or ostracised other mathematicians for seeing math differently. Sure, they argue and compete with eachother, but wars were never fought over who was right...

You would say this is nonsense since the span of math is relative reflecting qualities of understanding.

- ..don't really understand what you mean by this, so i wouldn't say it's nonsense because of it :P

A true teaching is the same idea but instead of appealing to relative associative thought, its purpose is allow the seeker to awaken to emotional relativity. In ancient times the word "art" reflected this idea. It has been lost and art now is the same as "expression". So there is ART and there is art. There are living TEACHINGS and there are teachings. Same word but differing in objective quality. Often one quality exists within the other just as say a liquid can exist within a solid as does water within wood.
- ..who or what decides whether there's an objective quality to teachings? If you decide that, it stops being objective, doesn't it?

I agree. Without an appreciation of scale and relativity as it functions in Creation, it is all a bunch of nonsense for me to.
- ..even in regard to scale and relativity, the bunch remains nonsense to me...

Religion for example is relative in its objectivity. It contains within it the ability to appeal to whatever degree of emotional understanding the seeker is at. On the surface it is purely secular while at its source, it is conscious. In this way it serves as a sort of moral authority for the secular and also as the stepping stone between the conscious and unconscious within ourselves. It allows us to create a balance between deductive and inductive reason within ourselves since the gnosis experience can awaken one to their ability for deductive reason. These two directions of reason are reflected in the Star of David". I really appreciate the depth of this following explanation.

- ..i'm sorry, not only is this too intellectual for my taste, but it also sounds like an elaborate excuse to believe what you want to believe. Not saying that's a bad thing, for from it, again, it's just not for me...

This is why Zen along with Esoteric Christianity for example place such importance on satori and gnosis. It is through such experience that a certain balance can be established between these modes of reason that could allow a person to reflect a more balanced reason providing of course that they do not become perverted as often happens.

- ..well, from a nondual [non]perspective, any experience reflects truth, and no specific experience is required. Granted, such extraordinary experiences might kickstart something, but you also run the risk of being awestruck by selfimportance through special occurances...

So it is meaningless for me to say that religion and beliefs are either for me or not for me. It depends on scale and relativity in the objective sense. For me it isn't what we know but instead how it is known.

- ..who knows? What is the one that knows? Can you answer this for me? And what is the difference between what and how?

[...]

..bito:

I did also say 'or lack of' to cover those who are passionate about not being passionate...

- ..well, there are all kinds of course, but i haven't met one of those yet :D

Not an answer, but The Big Question Mark...which leads to seeking answers...which leads us back to The Big Question Mark...you know the drill...

- ..at one point i felt like Private Pyle who ended up on the toilet with the barrel of a shotgun in his mouth, after killing his drillsergeant. Instead of pulling the trigger i realised i had killed the Question, and never looked back...

I say that anyone who shares or debates metaphysical thought (or no-thought ) is addressing that niggle of questioning and doubt and self, ergo, is not free and suffers from 'seeker's syndrome'. I include 'teachers, preachers, learners, gurus, nay-sayers, negators, etc.). If you discuss 'IT', then you are not free. Is this a 'good' thing? Is it a 'bad' thing?

- ..that's quite an assertion bito, are you absolutely sure this is the case? For me, it's a great way to spend time...

The brain stores every thought, so no thought disappears except in our suppression or repression of that thought...and no, no thought/thing need disappear...

- ..has there ever been a no-thought experience there, bito?

You've never wished you could REALLY understand someone else so there was no gray area in communication? This discussion forum, to me, is a perfect example of suffering subjective and/or relative frustration. Words are so...so...limiting...they cannot say WHAT you really feel and know without getting all wound up in subjective understanding.
- ..a couple of years ago i shared a mushroom trip with a dear friend. We spend hours as one, it was absolutely hilarious and she made a few comments that were wonderful and telling. When the trip subsided we both felt a distinct sadness that this connection was withering but in everyday life this is just how it is, and from this POV that is fine as it is. Looking in her eyes however there is always the same thing she sees in mine, which i see in others, which is sometimes seen by others. We are what we are, so be it...

[bito]

- ..at one point i felt like Private Pyle who ended up on the toilet with the barrel of a shotgun in his mouth, after killing his drillsergeant. Instead of pulling the trigger i realised i had killed the Question, and never looked back...

What is beautiful about sharing the Question journey is just this...the sharing of that moment when realization of its futility brings one to the 'wall' of "OK, it's done, now I know I can't Know"...:applause:...did you get a sense though that the futility journey is 'the' most valuable journey one can make, as if one's entire being can now relax and live?

QUOTE*
I say that anyone who shares or debates metaphysical thought (or no-thought* ) is addressing that niggle of questioning and doubt and self, ergo, is not free and suffers from 'seeker's syndrome'. I include 'teachers, preachers, learners, gurus, nay-sayers, negators, etc.). If you discuss 'IT', then you are not free. Is this a 'good' thing? Is it a 'bad' thing?

- ..that's quite an assertion bito, are you absolutely sure this is the case? For me, it's a great way to spend time...

Nah, I'm not sure, I see now that one can be aware of The Question without suffering The Question - but just to satisfy my curiousity, would you define 'spending' time?

QUOTE*
The brain stores every thought, so no thought disappears except in our suppression or repression of that thought...and no, no thought/thing need disappear...


- ..has there ever been a no-thought experience there, bito?

I must confess, your question has me going huh?, but I'm smiling as I'm huhhing... :) ...see?

- ..a couple of years ago i shared a mushroom trip with a dear friend. We spend hours as one, it was absolutely hilarious and she made a few comments that were wonderful and telling. When the trip subsided we both felt a distinct sadness that this connection was withering but in everyday life this is just how it is, and from this POV that is fine as it is. Looking in her eyes however there is always the same thing she sees in mine, which i see in others, which is sometimes seen by others. We are what we are, so be it...**

This sadness is the suffering to which I referred, the feeling of knowing one*ness, but not being able to 'keep' that knowing. Once upon a time, for me, this suffering was a grief so powerful I thought I would not be able to bear it. Of course, bear it I did, and from this grief 'grew' a beautiful flower of acceptance of the human condition, as you say...'we are what we are, so be it'... B)

[bito]

QUOTE

Yes calls forth no, no calls forth yes - always.




not always


I do apologize asheera; I should have said "for me, yes calls forth no and no calls forth yes - always"

Within this always, for me, is not the battle of yes and no, but the awareness that yes and no co-exist in thought, whether the thought is affirmative or negative according to one's subjective responding.

[sahyo]

responsing "no" which is imagined (not happening) isn't:


yes and no co-exist in thought



:)

[sahyo]

I should have said



no should/shouldn't dear :)

[Nick_A]

Bito

Of course, bear it I did, and from this grief 'grew' a beautiful flower of acceptance of the human condition, as you say...'we are what we are, so be it'...

The messge of Ecclesiastes is the same: to accept the human condition. It is funny how much this is scorned by people with agendas as lacking passion. Yet as I understand it, this quality of acceptance brings people further along the path then many guru types that only get in their own way inventing all sorts techniques to justify precisely what their efforts should seek to rid themselves of.

[bito]

responsing "no" which is imagined (not happening) isn't:

QUOTE*

yes and no co-exist in thought

:)

Thank you for your 'isn't'...your 'is'?


:)

[bito]

The messge of Ecclesiastes is the same: to accept the human condition. It is funny how much this is scorned by people with agendas as lacking passion. Yet as I understand it, this quality of acceptance brings people further along the path then many guru types that only get in their own way inventing all sorts techniques to justify precisely what their efforts should seek to rid themselves of.

Once one accepts completely, where/what is the need for 'further'?

[Nick_A]

Good morning Bito

Once one accepts completely, where/what is the need for 'further'? Acceptance doesn't get in the way of evolution but it is relatively slow. Also there are different degrees of evolution. There can be different results for those for those referred to in the bible as asleep in Christ and those awake in Christ for example.

The "accelerated" ways are beyond acceptance and their results do not require the completion of the aeon. But the accelerated ways are also much more dangerous since we leave ourselves open in ways that invite a lot of self deception. This is the drawback of so much New Age thought and practice since it just adds more difficulties for a person to transcend leaving them far behind the one with the attitude described in Ecclesiastes.

[sahyo]

yes and no co-exist in thought



saying 'no' which is imagined not thought/yes/no



Thank you for your 'isn't'...your 'is'?


"no should/shouldn't" wasn't saying "you"/"your" "is"/isn't

;)

[sahyo]

Thank



thank

[...]

..bito:

What is beautiful about sharing the Question journey is just this...the sharing of that moment when realization of its futility brings one to the 'wall' of "OK, it's done, now I know I can't Know"......did you get a sense though that the futility journey is 'the' most valuable journey one can make, as if one's entire being can now relax and live?

- ..it's easy to feel that way, it makes everything that went before sensible, doesn't it? To be honest, no, i don't sense that, whether the change happens or not is not our doing, it just happens. Just like everything else just happens...

Nah, I'm not sure, I see now that one can be aware of The Question without suffering The Question - but just to satisfy my curiousity, would you define 'spending' time?

- ..don't know, there are countless ways to spend time and this is just one of them...

I must confess, your question has me going huh?, but I'm smiling as I'm huhhing... ...see?

- ..have you ever had an experience wherein thinking was absent?

This sadness is the suffering to which I referred, the feeling of knowing one*ness, but not being able to 'keep' that knowing. Once upon a time, for me, this suffering was a grief so powerful I thought I would not be able to bear it. Of course, bear it I did, and from this grief 'grew' a beautiful flower of acceptance of the human condition, as you say...'we are what we are, so be it'...

- ..altough the actual experience of oneness is not something permanent, the knowing/sensing of oneness is permanent, and from that knowing: "'we are what we are, so be it"...

[bito]

- ..have you ever had an experience wherein thinking was absent?

Ecstasy. And by this, I do not mean the drug... :)

- ..altough the actual experience of oneness is not something permanent, the knowing/sensing of oneness is permanent, and from that knowing: "'we are what we are, so be it"...

Very well put.

Being the contrary type... :rolleyes: ... another question...

- ..it's easy to feel that way, it makes everything that went before sensible, doesn't it? To be honest, no, i don't sense that, whether the change happens or not is not our doing, it just happens. Just like everything else just happens...

What is the difference between the permanent legacy of the oneness experience and the experience of knowing one cannot know The Answer? In other words, you made sense of the oneness experience, the result being a permanent knowing of oneness...why not the 'killing the Question' experience, with the permanent knowing of not knowing?

'Just' happening...interesting choice of meaning...or is there no choice, 'just' happening of meaning?

:)

[Nick_A]

xxx

..altough the actual experience of oneness is not something permanent, the knowing/sensing of oneness is permanent, and from that knowing: "'we are what we are, so be it"...

Some though are not content with just the awareness which is why Buddha taught awakening and Jesus taught the value of re-birth. They did because of knowing the human condition as that of the "wretched man described by St. Paul in Romans 7

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?

"We are what we are" but some may not be as content with the experience and remaining as such..

[...]

Ecstasy. And by this, I do not mean the drug...

- ..that question came from this: "The brain stores every thought, so no thought disappears except in our suppression or repression of that thought...and no, no thought/thing need disappear..." I can't say that each time there was a thoughtless episode here it was because of re- or surpression of thought. It happened without volition, and that suggests that there's a third possibility to solving the riddle of thinking. Ecstacy, eh?

What is the difference between the permanent legacy of the oneness experience and the experience of knowing one cannot know The Answer?

- ..the one that attempted to know The Answer had been put in the backseat in the oneness experience, and he's still there...

In other words, you made sense of the oneness experience, the result being a permanent knowing of oneness...why not the 'killing the Question' experience, with the permanent knowing of not knowing?

- ..i can't agree with 'making sense of the oneness experience'. I never tried to make sense of it, altough it nevertheless resulted in a permanent knowing, and as indicated earlier in this thread, the oneness experience 'outweighs' the killing the Question experience. I know I know not, but oneness is not impressed :lol:

'Just' happening...interesting choice of meaning...or is there no choice, 'just' happening of meaning?

- ..judgment happens, finding meaning happens, anger happens, joy happens, laughter happens, choice happens; they happen to come, and happen to go and i happen not to be there when it happens :D

[...]

..nick:

"We are what we are" but some may not be as content with the experience and remaining as such..

- ..yes, i can certainly emphatize with the reasons behind this discontent, and the Void knows that i've tried to invite further experiences to stay a lifetime, but to no avail. Not only does this desire requires an egoic investment, from my POV, it is also unnecessary. Experiencing as such is so flexible, no solid truths can be derived from it except the truth that in any kind of experience is seen: illusory division between this and that...

[bito]

- ..that question came from this: "The brain stores every thought, so no thought disappears except in our suppression or repression of that thought...and no, no thought/thing need disappear..." I can't say that each time there was a thoughtless episode here it was because of re- or surpression of thought. It happened without volition, and that suggests that there's a third possibility to solving the riddle of thinking.

In no way was I implying that a thought*less episode is an effect of re- or suppression of thought! Holy moly, I'd best bone up on my communication skills! The suppression or repression of a thought requires will and fear be present, and if will and fear are present, no*thought 'ain't a gonna be no-how-no-way-no-time'... :D

I agree completely that no thought happens (I would say 'is') without volition.

Ecstacy, eh?

:dancing:

- ..the one that attempted to know The Answer had been put in the backseat in the oneness experience, and he's still there...

Are you saying that awareness and experience are one and the same?

- ..i can't agree with 'making sense of the oneness experience'. I never tried to make sense of it, altough it nevertheless resulted in a permanent knowing

For me, it was the trying to make sense of it that brought me to my revelation that I cannot make sense of it. This was not the case for you?

- ..judgment happens, finding meaning happens, anger happens, joy happens, laughter happens, choice happens; they happen to come, and happen to go and i happen not to be there when it happens :D

I sense this is the answer to your riddle of not thinking... :unsure:

If you are not 'there', then by what means shall happening communicate? Even more puzzling, why would happening communicate at all if happening is but a dream? Is happening unaware of its dreaming-self? Is happening talking to itself and not realizing this rather obvious faux pas?

So much for Intelligence...

:D

[...]

In no way was I implying that a thought*less episode is an effect of re- or suppression of thought! Holy moly, I'd best bone up on my communication skills! The suppression or repression of a thought requires will and fear be present, and if will and fear are present, no*thought 'ain't a gonna be no-how-no-way-no-time'...

- ..glad that's been settled :lol:

I agree completely that no thought happens (I would say 'is') without volition.

- ..what are the consequenses in regards to thought then? Can we dare to say thought happens [is] without volition too?

Are you saying that awareness and experience are one and the same?

- ..if you aren't making a distinction between the oneness experience and awareness, but simply say awareness and [any] experience, i'd say 'yes'. This was the stupidly beautiful simplicity that i was almost ashamed to admit, and the reason why there's nothing to do; there is no separation/distinction between them except in the dream...

For me, it was the trying to make sense of it that brought me to my revelation that I cannot make sense of it. This was not the case for you?

- ..well, i tried to make sense of a lot of things prior to that experience,and failed, so i subsequently failed to see any necessaty to make sense of it once it had happened, knowing it was senseless. Does that make sense? :D

If you are not 'there', then by what means shall happening communicate?

- ..a collage of 'me' thinks to be present at almost all communication happening, but knowing knows better...

Even more puzzling, why would happening communicate at all if happening is but a dream?

- ..communication is between this and that, which is an illusory separation of that which is always one. So, communication is the dream happening...

Is happening unaware of its dreaming-self? Is happening talking to itself and not realizing this rather obvious faux pas?
- ..that would be IT in a nuttshell :thumbsup:

So much for Intelligence...

- ..depends on who you're talking to ofcourse, but yes, intelligence can be overrated :P

[bito]

Dot ...

I am having way too much fun...:dancing:

OK...

- ..what are the consequenses in regards to thought then? Can we dare to say thought happens [is] without volition too?

Indeed, yes. Self does not create, it expresses. This does not mean that expression is not subjectively meaningful and purposeful according to subjective seeing and experiencing...and that, perhaps, this subjective meaning and purpose IS objective meaning and purpose being expressed. I call this divine duality, which implies Unity, or One*ing.

- ..if you aren't making a distinction between the oneness experience and awareness, but simply say awareness and [any] experience, i'd say 'yes'. This was the stupidly beautiful simplicity that i was almost ashamed to admit, and the reason why there's nothing to do; there is no separation/distinction between them except in the dream...

There is nothing to do, true...but there is doing according to one's awareness of one*ness. No separation here, except in the communication of the doing, which is necessary for the perceiving of time. No communication = no perceiving of time. No perceiving of time = no communication. Which is cool if one is content to sit in bliss 24/7. Borrrringgg, and besides, how do you buy toilet paper or order pizza? :D

Awareness is a nondual seeing. Put a pizza on the table and pizza and table do not exist as separate 'things'. Experience is different (divine duality); it is the distinction between pizza with cheese only and pizza loaded and the personal preference for one or the other.

Self expresses presence/essence. Divine duality. Unity implied. 'Both' are real. Knowing/feeling this divine duality, without speaking this divine duality, is ecstasy.

- ..a collage of 'me' thinks to be present at almost all communication happening, but knowing knows better...

So while the collage of you is thinking to be present at (almost all? :think: ) communication happening, knowing is reminding you that you are not really there? I don't mean to be a smartass, (well, maybe just a little :D) , but in order to realize you are not really there, you must be there, no?

- ..communication is between this and that, which is an illusory separation of that which is always one. So, communication is the dream happening...

The separation is an illusion, but it exists in awareness, therefore it is real, illusion or not. It is the real*ness that seems to get lost in metaphysical negating of self.

I do agree that happening (your term) is unaware of 'itself' dreaming, until it becomes aware that it is dreaming, then what happens to happening?

I say 'it' is no longer 'just' happening, but being its awareness of dreaming, which is no different than being aware of time and timelessness...

A rose by any other name... :P

[Nick_A]

Hello xxx

I guess we'll have to agree that we appreciate all this differently. :)

yes, i can certainly emphatize with the reasons behind this discontent, and the Void knows that i've tried to invite further experiences to stay a lifetime, but to no avail. Not only does this desire requires an egoic investment, from my POV, it is also unnecessary. Experiencing as such is so flexible, no solid truths can be derived from it except the truth that in any kind of experience is seen: illusory division between this and that...

What's wrong with an egoic investment? Just because our ego has become corrupt doesn't mean it must remain that way. Efforts may only appear unimportant because of underestimating the importance of receiving the shocks of open contact with the impressions of external life. What gives you the impression that what may appear as subjective division cannot be a shadow of a quite necessary scale of objective division?

There is random associative thought which serves the purpose of a release of energy in the absence of conscious attention. Since there is so little conscious attention, there is a lot of random associative thought that just plays on like a tape recorder. This thought is not organic or attached to any deeper source.

However, as I understand it, there is another quality of thought that reflects the attempt to reconcile along a scale of objective division but its value is lost through our erroneous conceptualizations. From the Journal of Father Sylvan

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

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

[bito]

Nick:

There is random associative thought which serves the purpose of a release of energy in the absence of conscious attention. Since there is so little conscious attention, there is a lot of random associative thought that just plays on like a tape recorder. This thought is not organic or attached to any deeper source.

Conscious attention (your term) does not release energy, this is true. To listen to one's subjective wisdom requires a still intensity (divine duality again :) - this is the 'holding' and 'keeping' to which I referred in an earlier post, which you interpreted as suppression - perhaps I was not still when I attempted to communicate my meaning :scatter:).

This does not negate the experience, though, of releasing or surrendering this intensity via joyful subjective emotional expression of self, in whatever 'form' this expression may be. This release is not happening when one is consciously wisdom-listening, no; surrendering/releasing happens when one is delighting in being [this] still*intensity.

I guess we'll have to agree that we appreciate all this differently. :)

Be it a dream talking to itself or be it the ray of creation or be it divine duality...it is this same*ing/difference*ing that ensures/invites communicating. Is this communicating meaningful, purposeful? If intelligence is accepted as existing, then logic says that meaning and purpose also exist.

[...]

..yo bito:

Indeed, yes. Self does not create, it expresses. This does not mean that expression is not subjectively meaningful and purposeful according to subjective seeing and experiencing...and that, perhaps, this subjective meaning and purpose IS objective meaning and purpose being expressed. I call this divine duality, which implies Unity, or One*ing.

- ..if i read you right, i think i can go along with that <_<

There is nothing to do, true...but there is doing according to one's awareness of one*ness. No separation here, except in the communication of the doing, which is necessary for the perceiving of time. No communication = no perceiving of time. No perceiving of time = no communication. Which is cool if one is content to sit in bliss 24/7. Borrrringgg, and besides, how do you buy toilet paper or order pizza?

- ..any expression is an expression of the one, and as such it is needless to forgo anything in order to be this oneness. Using toiletpaper after passing the pizza is just as an expression of oneness as bliss is, isn't it?

Awareness is a nondual seeing. Put a pizza on the table and pizza and table do not exist as separate 'things'. Experience is different (divine duality); it is the distinction between pizza with cheese only and pizza loaded and the personal preference for one or the other.

- ..yes, i can see where you're going with this...

Self expresses presence/essence. Divine duality. Unity implied. 'Both' are real. Knowing/feeling this divine duality, without speaking this divine duality, is ecstasy.

- ..that a novel way of putting IT for me bito, that is why this is a great way to spend time :loveyou:

So while the collage of you is thinking to be present at (almost all? ) communication happening, knowing is reminding you that you are not really there? I don't mean to be a smartass, (well, maybe just a little ) , but in order to realize you are not really there, you must be there, no?

- ..what is there is an apperition of the senses, translated through thought into being. This sensory hologram can realise it's a hologram, or any other figments of the mind :D

The separation is an illusion, but it exists in awareness, therefore it is real, illusion or not. It is the real*ness that seems to get lost in metaphysical negating of self.

- ..this real*ness is empty and runs the risk, as it does all too often, of being valued beyond it's worth. Empty or not, it does hold great beauty and is to be enjoyed as long as the eyes are shining, but always in the light of truth...

I do agree that happening (your term) is unaware of 'itself' dreaming, until it becomes aware that it is dreaming, then what happens to happening?

- ..nothing happens, everything stays the same. Perhaps the difference is that there are fewer and fewer rocks in the stream, and the ride becomes gentle...

I say 'it' is no longer 'just' happening, but being its awareness of dreaming, which is no different than being aware of time and timelessness...

- ..we could be saying the same thing with different words :P

[...]

..nick:

What's wrong with an egoic investment?

- ..the dividends aren't truthfull...

Just because our ego has become corrupt doesn't mean it must remain that way. Efforts may only appear unimportant because of underestimating the importance of receiving the shocks of open contact with the impressions of external life. What gives you the impression that what may appear as subjective division cannot be a shadow of a quite necessary scale of objective division?

- ..it is the final hurdle [or so it was for me] to take if the wave of meaninglesness is to wash you away. Ofcourse that hurdle isn't there, but who knows that? If ego is valued by you nick, are you able to discard it?

There is random associative thought which serves the purpose of a release of energy in the absence of conscious attention. Since there is so little conscious attention, there is a lot of random associative thought that just plays on like a tape recorder. This thought is not organic or attached to any deeper source.

- ..yes, that would be ego. The thinker. The me...

However, as I understand it, there is another quality of thought that reflects the attempt to reconcile along a scale of objective division but its value is lost through our erroneous conceptualizations.

- ..would you say this type of thought is still similar to the inner monologue? Some include 'knowing' in thoughtprocesses, and alot can be said about that, so could you elaborate?

[sahyo]

Self expresses presence/essence. Divine duality. Unity implied. 'Both' are real.



when imagining "duality" ceases so will imagining "unity"

[sahyo]

I say 'it' is no longer 'just' happening, but being its awareness of dreaming, which is no different than being aware of time and timelessness...



imagining dreaming/time/timelessness will cease

[bito]

yo dots :)

- ..any expression is an expression of the one, and as such it is needless to forgo anything in order to be this oneness. Using toiletpaper after passing the pizza is just as an expression of oneness as bliss is, isn't it?

Yes, I see that. For me, the term 'divine duality' better expresses the this*ing and that*ing of the one - a personal preference to be sure.

- ..that a novel way of putting IT for me bito, that is why this is a great way to spend time :loveyou:

Ditto as to your expressions - a great way to experience time :loveyou:

- ..this real*ness is empty and runs the risk, as it does all too often, of being valued beyond it's worth. Empty or not, it does hold great beauty and is to be enjoyed as long as the eyes are shining, but always in the light of truth...

Being valued beyond its worth - I wouldn't phrase it this way, but I agree with the essence of what I believe is your meaning. Its value is in the knowing of one*ness - nothing 'more', nothing 'less'. Once this is known, all expressions shine.

- ..we could be saying the same thing with different words :P

The little green guy with the rude tongue is me*you, except that me is prettier :naughty:

[bito]

QUOTE

Self expresses presence/essence. Divine duality. Unity implied. 'Both' are real.




when imagining "duality" ceases so will imagining "unity"

QUOTE

Self expresses presence/essence. Divine duality. Unity implied. 'Both' are real.




when imagining "duality" ceases so will imagining "unity"


What? And give up all those neat pronouns and adjectives and nouns?

:D

[sahyo]

hehehe....what's to give up?

:D

[Nick_A]

xxx

If ego is valued by you nick, are you able to discard it?

I doubt it and see no reason for it. Why deny life? It is one thing to allow consciousness to cleanse the ego have it become a legitimate tool for human evolution and another to try and discard it and deny its purpose.

..would you say this type of thought is still similar to the inner monologue? Some include 'knowing' in thoughtprocesses, and alot can be said about that, so could you elaborate?

This inner monologue is lacking in consciousness Higher thought has a conscious source but is often lost in the way described above. This is why sustained objective conscious thought is the affirmation of the simultaneous perception of the duality of yes and no. It is the affirmation of the duality of one level affirmed and reconciled from a higher level.within our complete presence.

[bito]

Nick:

How about substituting the term 'ego' with the term 'presence'? Might be a lot less fraught with subjective prejudice of meaning.

Just a thought... :)

[bito]

Nick:

The "accelerated" ways are beyond acceptance and their results do not require the completion of the aeon. But the accelerated ways are also much more dangerous since we leave ourselves open in ways that invite a lot of self deception. This is the drawback of so much New Age thought and practice since it just adds more difficulties for a person to transcend leaving them far behind the one with the attitude described in Ecclesiastes.

Without probing too much into the details, would you say that this path of "accelerated" ways 'offers' a deeper/greater/higher service to existence than the 'simple' acceptance of the human condition - subjective time-experiencing of one*ness?

[Nick_A]

Hi Bito

How about substituting the term 'ego' with the term 'presence'? Might be a lot less fraught with subjective prejudice of meaning.

Just a thought...

You've got a good point. "Presence" is more accurate but I thought it would be more misleading since it is natural to think that we normally have it. I recently read something that explained the futility of all the battles between people over faith vs. reason. The idea is that in the state of presence they are complimentary so the real question is not either/or but how to become more present so as to profit from them.

Without probing too much into the details, would you say that this path of "accelerated" ways 'offers' a deeper/greater/higher service to existence than the 'simple' acceptance of the human condition - subjective time-experiencing of one*ness?

Yes, and in the objective sense, I believe it is the authentic concept of the bodhisattva in Buddhism which has degenerated in the west into some sort of ethical humanist ideal.

The awakened person can "do" in the real sense and as a human being serving a necessary part in the spiritualization of the earth itself as well as in the preservation of humanities contact with what lies above it.

[bito]

Hi Nick

You've got a good point. "Presence" is more accurate but I thought it would be more misleading since it is natural to think that we normally have it. I recently read something that explained the futility of all the battles between people over faith vs. reason. The idea is that in the state of presence they are complimentary so the real question is not either/or but how to become more present so as to profit from them.

It seems to me that presence is only realized as a given once it is developed/evolved enough to see that presence is a given. Quite the metaphysical paradox.

As for complimentary opposites, such as faith and reason, this same paradox applies. One can say that they have never not been united, which is true, but until one experiences them as separate (in order to explore all that each means as per individuated self), then this truth cannot be realized nor can its fruits be wholly enjoyed.

Yes, and in the objective sense, I believe it is the authentic concept of the bodhisattva in Buddhism which has degenerated in the west into some sort of ethical humanist ideal.

I hesitate to say this is an objective statement, but my subjective experience says that you are on to something. A person devoted completely to an ideal can tend to deny the reality of the human condition, of its existence in time, of its dependence on necessity. Or become resentful/hurt that the world is not living by this ideal and either lash out at perceived 'sinning' other or withdraw into self, which is also perceived as 'sinning', for who can live up to an ideal? Such a person is not a bodhisattva, I agree.

Have you read anything by Ken Wilber on what he has coined 'Boomeritis'? His thoughts match very closely with yours, that the current 'crop' of seekers/finders are stuck in this place of idealism, of romanticism, with no tools to harvest the garden they have grown. (The garden analogy is mine). When I first read his criticism of the baby boomer unwillingness to evolve, I winced and denied, denied, denied that he was decribing me to a tee. What? Idealism is not enough? Wonder and innocence are not the arrival, but the knock on the door? You mean there is doing that goes along with being?

Waking up is hard to do, especially when you believe that there is no doing involved in the awakening.

[Nick_A]

Hi Bito

Wow! You're really on a roll. You've seen a lot and willing to admit another side of idealism.

I haven't really studied Ken Wilber but I do know a bit about the source of many of his thoughts.

[bito]

Hi Nick

Wow! You're really on a roll. You've seen a lot and willing to admit another side of idealism.

A wee bit of personal sharing...

Growing up, I experienced a mother who was a sensitive idealist and a father who was a logical realist. Complete temperament opposites, except in their inability to understand each other (to see value in the temperment of the other). It was as if idealism was pitted against logic, subjectivity against objectivity, with no means or desire to understand the value of each/both. Lots of reactive emotionalism by both parties, with my mother lashing out and my father pulling in. Much repression and suppression resided within both their souls by the time both of them died.

Being an observant child who was born with my mother's temperament but pulled always toward's my father's logic , I was inwardly conflicted, to say the least. I do believe that this inner conflict, as negative as it was, was also quite positive, in that it allowed me to hold the opposites within me until such time as I choose to explore 'what they meant' (to me).

This inner conflict of 'emotion vs./and reason' became my obsession in my mid-30's. I say obsesssion as I was totally unaware of how I was playing out this childhood drama as I plunged headlong into my spiritual journey. I found myself both drawn to and repelled by ideologies that were perceived by me as being either 'too' emotional or 'too' logical. It was as if I was trying to merge my parents, to make my feelings for them whole - and by doing so, to make me whole. Of course, I didn't realize this at the time, not until just recently. As an aside, both parents have been dead for over four years, and I was fortunate enough to be at both their bedsides as they took their last breath. A consciousness changing experience, to say the least - probably THE catalyst for understanding the equal value of heart AND intellect in the search for wholeness.

They are meant to marry, heart and intellect. My journey's purpose was/is to reveal this to me, for it has been the reoccuring theme throughout my entire life.

Hope you don't mind that little peek into my clothes-closet... :)

[...]

..nick:

I doubt it and see no reason for it. Why deny life? It is one thing to allow consciousness to cleanse the ego have it become a legitimate tool for human evolution and another to try and discard it and deny its purpose.

- ..at best ego [thought] interprets, not unlike subtitles to the movie of life. And like subtitles, alot is lost in the translation, or is translated badly or is not translated at all. Sure, ego is part of life, but it is a part that confuses and distorts wherever it goes. This: become a legitimate tool for human evolution and another to try and discard it and deny its purpose, is nothing more than a justification to keep ego fed. Don't mean to sound harsh, but there's no other way of saying it. Whether ego is a tool with a purpose is your invention nick, nothing else...

This inner monologue is lacking in consciousness Higher thought has a conscious source but is often lost in the way described above. This is why sustained objective conscious thought is the affirmation of the simultaneous perception of the duality of yes and no. It is the affirmation of the duality of one level affirmed and reconciled from a higher level.within our complete presence.

- ..there's no resonance with this at all nick, so i'll refrain from commenting on it. Thank you for your time and attention...

[Nick_A]

Hi Bito

Thanks for sharing. My background is somewhat similar since my mother was a bit of an artistic egotist while my father was a brilliant dreamer. They were different but somehow drew from each other.

Of course there are problems with this. I'm glad for you that you are taking such a mature attitude in relation to your parents. On my path there is a concept called "repairing the past" which is possible since the generations of our family tree are connected. The better you can forgive and help in the reconciling process within yourself, the more you help the past since it is all within a connected "now".

I see that my distinction between the corrupt and healthy ego has just bombed. Well it wasn't the first and I'm quite sure it will not be the last time. :)

[bito]

Of course there are problems with this. I'm glad for you that you are taking such a mature attitude in relation to your parents. On my path there is a concept called "repairing the past" which is possible since the generations of our family tree are connected. The better you can forgive and help in the reconciling process within yourself, the more you help the past since it is all within a connected "now".

I agree wholeheartedly. One of the benefits from drawing knowledge re human nature from parents who are tempermentally different from one another, and yet, loved each other (lots of discussion and laughter in our home) is that you play the role of devil's advocate very well. Always willing to see two sides to life, and I believe, within that seeing of two sides, an intuitive knowing that they are one.

As for your distinction between the corrupt and healthly ego bombing, yeah, it looks like you laid a big stinky egg! :lol: I think that in mankind's collective desire to understand his thinking nature and the conflict it has caused, he is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. But the baby can't be thrown out, only ignored/denied for a while. You know babies, loud, insistent and cute as hell... :)

Mysticism and science one day will 'marry', or perhaps, better said, will see that they were never divorced in the first place. Will that create a new renaissance? Hmmm...who knows? Until then, let's enjoy the dance of 'getting there'... :dancing:

[Nick_A]

Hi Bito

Hope you have a good New Years eve and are careful with the egg nog. :)

Mysticism and science one day will 'marry', or perhaps, better said, will see that they were never divorced in the first place. Will that create a new renaissance? Hmmm...who knows? Until then, let's enjoy the dance of 'getting there'...

I hope so to. In fact on my path there is the saying:

Take the understanding of the East and the knowledge of the West—and then seek

Of course both must be pure and untainted and therin lies the problem. The corruption of our ego is denies its ability to become the beginning of the human soul that connects the higher and lower realms within our presence

Though my path is not Anthroposophy, Rudolph Steiner's understanding of the Christ's influence in relation to Lucifer and Ahriman makes a lot of sense to me . His depiction of the Christ influence that allows for the existence of this soul by keeping both the Luciferic and Ahrimanic influence at bay is extremely revealing. Yet in modern New Age circles it is completely ignored which is why the most of these teachings are really nothing but the Luciferic influence IMO. The following is superficial and I found once on an Internet site that no longer exists. I always try to save good things. :) It is superficial but you can get a glimpse of Steiner's understanding. Notice how the Luciferic influence is so attractive. It is actually a lot of what draws people to become lost in the arts and away from "Know Thyself".

The Three Streams of Evolution

Rudolph Steiner essentially saw three main streams of spiritual evolution:
The Ahrimanic stream, the force of materialism and cutting off from the spiritual worlds, works to make things more heavy and dense, until eventually the world becomes so dense that man, and particularily the new man, the spiritual man of the future evolutionary stages, is unable to exist on it.

The Luciferic stream is the opposite. It strives to prevent man from incarnating on the Earth (the true theatre of divine evolution) by creating secondary worlds that are so attractive that people don't want to incarnate on the Earth. The Chinese Buddhist concept of the Western Paradise of Amitaba or of Kuan Yin is a good example of this. So bodies will be born without spirits, because all the spirits are in the Western Heaven (metaphorically speaking). This would prevent the Earth from having humanity on it; humanity being precisely the carrier of the Christ impulse which is to bring about the spiritualisation of the Earth.

If the double machinations of Lucifer and Ahriman were to succeed, the world would become hard and devoid of spirit, and would enter a different phase of evolution to the one the Gods intended: the Eighth Sphere rather than the Jupiter stage. (The term "Eighth Sphere" is derived from Theosophists like Leadbeater, who refer to a lower and unpleasant realm - a sort of hell or underworld - beneath the seven normal planes of evolution).

Which brings us finally to the Divine stream of evolution, represented in our present cosmic age by Christ, is the central impetus behind not just spiritual but even physical evolution. It is the Spirits of Form which in previous cycles (Old Saturn, Old Sun, etc) gave man his physical, etheric and astral bodies, and in this present Earth era - where they constitute collectively the Cosmic Christ - have provided him with the ego or self-consciousness, which in Steiner's system is equivalent to the Christian concept of soul.

The theme that humanity is the carrier of the Christ impulse necessary for the spiritualisation of the Earth was the cornerstone of Steiner's teachings. But he is not unique in having expressed the idea that we can embody the divine impulse and so aid in the conscious and spiritual, and indeed spiritualising the world. The Lurianic Kabbalists and their Sabbatean and Hassidic successors were inspired by precisely this same vision: that through the appropriate spiritual acts and spiritual consciousness man is able to aid in the redemption of the cosmos. It could even be suggested that the current ecological trend: the importance that the Earth be healthy, is a collective and social expression of this consciousness that was previously expressed only on an individual or family level.

Steiner represented this triune evolution in his famous sculpture of Christ as the representative of Man, casting blessings on the Earth with the one hand, while with the other holding Ahriman at bay and at the same time preventing Lucifer from descending.

[sahyo]

>see two sides to life, and I believe, within that seeing of two sides<

imagines "two sides"?

>corrupt and healthly ego <

imagined-ego not corrupt or healthy

[bito]

>see two sides to life, and I believe, within that seeing of two sides<

imagines "two sides"?

asheera - seeing two sides as a child with regards to human nature (being the devil's advocate) can open one up later in life to contemplating duality (this and that) and its meaning and purpose in the universal sense.

[bito]

Nick:

It is actually a lot of what draws people to become lost in the arts and away from "Know Thyself".


Getting lost in transcendence is like eating hollow chocolate. Nothing left to eat once you get to the center.

[sahyo]

seeing two sides as a child with regards to human nature (being the devil's advocate) can open one up later in life to contemplating duality (this and that) and its meaning and purpose in the universal sense.



when ceases imagining
"two sides"
"this and that"
as though
"meaning and purpose"