The One Thinker saves Himself

[bito]

There is but one realization that is the truth of what is happening and that realization is that in all situations and in all circumstances, without exception, God is thinking about God.

This is the supreme realization that saves the God-thought "man" from his belief that his projected thoughts "of God, of Self" (has the power to) destroy the thinker. There is but One Thinker, One Power, One Being - One cannot destroy One.

God is the one and only Thinker - when he thinks Himself "evil", this is the truth of what is happening. God is the one and only Thinker - when he thinks Himself "good", this is the truth of what is happening. God is the one and only Thinker - when he transcends his darkness of believing Himself to be outside of Himself so as to be "good" and "evil", this is the truth of what is happening.

God is Self Realized or God is not Self Realized. This is the light and darkness of God. The light of God shines always on the darkness of God. The light of God draws the darkness of God as if upward toward Himself, toward Self Recognition, toward the realization that all dark thoughts are but Thoughts of Himself.

Truth absolute is that in all perceived realms of God, in all perceived levels of God, God is never separate from His thoughts of Himself.

The rest of God is the complete realization that every thought that comes unto His awareness is His thought and His Thought alone. What is to be disturbed about, what is there to be anxious about, what is there to fear, what is there to love, what is there to question, when every thought is that of the One Thinker?

When God meets Himself in all thought, the prodigal son returns to the Father. Being that the prodigal son is also a thought of God, even this, the last thought "FatherSon" is consumed in the supreme knowledge that God is the only Thinker.

Be still and know that I am God. Who else, what else, can I be?

[Rishabh]

Can you please explain this clearly?
I did not understand this properly.

[schrodinger]

Can you please explain this clearly?
I did not understand this properly.


:rofl::rofl:

[Flux]

The ultimate paradox of bito's supreme absolute is that although his god is above all dualities, seperations, and distinctions, he still manages to be male no less than 18 times in 8 paragraphs. Sorry, had to say it.

...God is the one and only Thinker - when he thinks Himself "evil", this is the truth of what is happening. God is the one and only Thinker - when he thinks Himself "good", this is the truth of what is happening. God is the one and only Thinker - when he transcends his darkness of believing Himself to be outside of Himself so as to be "good" and "evil", this is the truth of what is happening.

God is Self Realized or God is not Self Realized. This is the light and darkness of God. The light of God shines always on the darkness of God. The light of God draws the darkness of God as if upward toward Himself, toward Self Recognition, toward the realization that all dark thoughts are but Thoughts of Himself.

Truth absolute is that in all perceived realms of God, in all perceived levels of God, God is never separate from His thoughts of Himself.

The rest of God is the complete realization that every thought that comes unto His awareness is His thought and His Thought alone. What is to be disturbed about, what is there to be anxious about, what is there to fear, what is there to love, what is there to question, when every thought is that of the One Thinker?

When God meets Himself in all thought, the prodigal son returns to the Father. Being that the prodigal son is also a thought of God, even this, the last thought "FatherSon" is consumed in the supreme knowledge that God is the only Thinker.

[Chan Tiger]

The ultimate paradox of bito's supreme absolute is that although his god is above all dualities, seperations, and distinctions, he still manages to be male no less than 18 times in 8 paragraphs.

That's the perennial problem of trying to express a nondual truth---language is by its very nature dualistic. It simply can't be helped.

Still, as Zen master Dainin Katagiri always said, "You have to say something (http://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Something-Dainin-Katagiri/dp/1570622388)!" A truly nondualist worldview must be able to embrace even dualism---otherwise, it isn't actually nondualist!

I imagine this is (part of) what is meant by the saying that the Bodhisattva returns to the realm of samsara. Or as the saying goes:

Before Zen, mountains and are mountains and rivers are rivers.

During Zen, mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers [i.e. all is "One"].

After Zen, mountains are again mountains and rivers again rivers.

[jufa]

The ultimate paradox of bito's supreme absolute is that although his god is above all dualities, seperations, and distinctions, he still manages to be male no less than 18 times in 8 paragraphs. Sorry, had to say it.


Everything in man's world is labled by it, he, him, her, she, them, they, we, one, whole, fraction, finite, or infinite, or that or this. Not in exactness of what the person utilizing these lable mean, for this is an impossiblity. All these lables are interchangeable according to the situation, circumstance, condition, state of mentality, or environ. This is the foundation of comparative relative communication. So in reality there is no paradox in the use of a word[s]reference for relative comprehension when singualrity is not defined, nor the subject matter. Therefore all references are personal opinions which, even viewed as a majoriry, nevertheless is no more or less an assumption which carries no more weight then the subject matter.

So the question which the above quote presents is which singulary 'he' is the paradox which brings forth the face of dualism? And

Compared with what? There must be an object of comparison.

Compared with everything else that is also called he?

How can such a comparison be made, and by whom?

Someone who also is a 'he'? Then from what position is the comparison to be made?

The fact that there is no actual point for a comparison to be made, to determine whether or not 'he' is, or is not a fact,
is revealing of the truth of the situation.

He is apparent, but not actual.

Permanence, constancy can only be found in relation to 'he', once 'he' is
believed to be occurring as a reality.

Our nervous systems are constructed to assess the thought of 'he', and so 'he' appears
real to us,
with respect to the way our nervous system constructs comparative
data.

Yet, a deeper awareness shows that our nervous system is fabricating its
comparisons based on its own structured assumptions.

We can thus say that flux is unmoving, is eternal, timeless, and noncomparative.

Thus, relativity can be said to be neither an ultimate truth, nor unreal.

Whatever is actually the case, cannot be ascertained by a thought designed to
assume comparison and dualism.

Yet the fictionality of that thought's accounts of reality can be ascertained.

Which means that 'he' is a relative truth within limits dictated by a
thought's structure for organizing
and reporting data -- but the thought's structure need not be a limit for awareness.

I am neither it, he, him, she, her, them, they, we, one, whole, fraction, finite, infinite, that, this, nor permanent.

Because my flux is eternal, I am not in a comparative relationship with the totality that is my being.

Thus, I am unborn in spite of countless births and deaths.

All phenomena speak of me -- I am in you, you are in me, and we are in Bozo the Clown.

There can never be a distinction which claims dualsim, singualrity, nor pluraity when there is only me. I am 'he' compared to me. Who can compare the God I speak upon? Compared to what? Who can compare the God Bito speaks upon? Compared to what? A belief, an assumption, opinion, concept, idea, theorem?

[j000han]

The ultimate paradox of bito's supreme absolute is that although his god is above all dualities, seperations, and distinctions, he still manages to be male no less than 18 times in 8 paragraphs. Sorry, had to say it.

1+8=9
1+8+8=17
1+7=8
thus this statement'18 times in 8 paragraphs'
contains a threescore 8(888)
Is that an esoteric proove that bito's absolute is indeed supreme?
Sorry had to say that.:)

[schrodinger]

18 x 8 = 1 gross :think:

[Flux]

That's the perennial problem of trying to express a nondual truth---language is by its very nature dualistic. It simply can't be helped.

Well said. I definitely agree that language is by its nature dualistic, and that any way that bito could have phrased what he did couldn't help but be dualistic in some way. But I believe that this points out something fundamentally mistaken in what bito is trying to do. I don't think that the "God" in the most abstract sense, as the absolute, is something that can be spoken of at length in an intelligible manner. I think that the ultimate is ineffable, insofar as it cannot be effed. I don't think that this is any fault of bito's, but simply the nature of the beast.

If the Zen master of which you speak is correct, and we do "have to say something", then it could be something other than a long speech about things that cannot be contained in words. Incidentally, although Zennists have indeed produced a body of literature, and a good one at that, if I recall correctly Zen Buddhists have historically been given to concise observations and sayings that cut through to the truth of things with lucidity of a certain razor quality, not paragraphs worth of exposition on ultimate matters using tools that by their very nature distort such a topic. I can’t imagine a Zen master giving a speech containing anything similar to what bito’s saying.

I mean all of this in as gentle a way as possible, for I believe that bito does have many good ideas. But I also don't find threads such as this coherent. For instance, bito said,

he transcends his darkness of believing Himself to be outside of Himself so as to be "good" and "evil", this is the truth of what is happening.

How is one to make sense of this? Less you think of me as the most stubborn of rationalists, I must remark that I do not think that our minds and rational procedures can ever hope to comprehend all there is. Having acknowledged this, I don't believe that bito's words as written are among those things simply to lofty to be comprehended--I think the words are complete nonsense, pure and simple.

I call these words nonsense not to be argumentative or rude, but simply because I wish to distinguish and preserve words that I feel really are worth listening to. I'm not trying to say that one can't ever speak coherently about spiritual matters, but rather that not all ways of speaking about spiritual matters are coherent. For instance, I admire the words of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Dogen. All of these wrote things that push the minds to the very limits. I don't believe that they were vainly struggling to describe an ineffable and paradoxical reality. Instead of engaging in an exercise in linguistic futility, these great sages steer us again and again into the contrarieties and paradoxes of language so that we may see beyond language, beyond paradoxes, into a world where there are neither, although calling it a "world" isn't exactly accurate. For in the end, all paradoxes dissolve, seen for what they are as problems generated by our attempts to verbalize the supreme. The greatest teachers help us approach truth indirectly; never do they expound at length on the supreme and ultimate itself, for "the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."

By virtue of having spoken of it, the God in bito's words is not the real God. He may well know God in a way that remains unspoken, but the way he has said is not the way he knows it. I'm writing this rebuttal as a simple refusal to accept and swallow writing simply because it sounds mystical. If it doesn't make sense to me, I do not automatically conclude then that the words are simply over my head and beyond my grasp.

As for the reason that I specifically pointed out bito referring God as male, that is quite a different matter. It's not so much that I entirely object to referring to God as a "he" as a matter of convenience, as that I think it's very important that we be mindful of the fact that by doing so, as we are apt to tacitly begin visualizing “God” as a personal male deity. Also, using "Man" to refer to humanity in the abstract makes me uneasy as well. I believe that language affects the way we think as much as the way we think affects our language. I also believe that it has made a difference in our thinking over the millennia that since ancient times, we have asked "what is Man?" "What is Man's purpose?” I think that as an exercise in mindfulness, if you will, the human race could benefit from thinking about humanity is a more gender neutral manner.

[Chan Tiger]

If the Zen master of which you speak is correct, and we do "have to say something", then it could be something other than a long speech about things that cannot be contained in words. Incidentally, although Zennists have indeed produced a body of literature, and a good one at that, if I recall correctly Zen Buddhists have historically been given to concise observations and sayings that cut through to the truth of things with lucidity of a certain razor quality, not paragraphs worth of exposition on ultimate matters using tools that by their very nature distort such a topic. I can’t imagine a Zen master giving a speech containing anything similar to what bito’s saying.

I completely agree with you. It's precisely the sparse beauty and tranquil lucidity of Chan (Zen) observations that led me to Buddhism. The attempt of all such discourse is to direct you as immediately as possible to the "just this, just this".

I also agree that in many ways the elegant parsimony of Chan discourse is the exact opposite of bito's florid language---which seems to borrow the vocabulary of Christianity, but filtered through Neoplatonism. On the other hand, the Buddhist tradition emphasizes upaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya) or "skillful means" over any set dogma. Different illnesses require different medicine, and a good physician must be willing to match the cure to the disease.

In other words, given that ultimate reality is ineffable, the point is not to conjure up a perfect, universal doctrine or theory, but to adopt the most efficient means of pointing to this reality. The most efficient means will always vary depending on the audience and their conditioning. Thus while bito's style may not be your or my cup of tea, it may still bring him or her to realization. And that's what's most important.

[Flux]

Fair enough. I agree that it would be egotistical on my part to judge bito's words only on the basis of whether I personally agree with the style of presentation.

[jufa]

Does a christian minister, shaman, zen master, or iman present to anyone anything others than pointers? And who can say what one of these entitities are pointing at, from their point of living, is totally foolishness to all men, women, and children? But beyond this, the only God which those appears to be the point of reference here is the christian God, which is Itself a metaphor shourded in a mystery which is unfathomable to the human mind.

No one here has clarified whether Bito is speaking metaphoracally as both Eastern and Westerm sages speak. Or that God is illogical or foolish to any human reasoning. Why? because for God to have a purpose, there has to be something which is not-God, to serve as a goal and thus define the purpose. No one here has presented anything beyond their personal inclination and learningand glimpsed the gist of Bito's position. Could what Bito is presenting be ones surrendering to That which has given them the life of awareness moment by moment by moment?

A story on what is the gestalt of surrendered living......

There was once a man named Mojud. He lived in a town wherehe had obtained a post as a small official, and it seemed likely that he would end his days as a civil servant of weights and measures.

One day when he was walking through the gardens of an ancient building near his home Khidr, the mysterious Guide of the Sufis, appeared to him, dressed in shimmering green.
Khidr said: `Man of bright prospects! Leave your work and meet me at the riverside in three days time.' Then he disappeared.

Mojud went to his superior in trepidation and said that he had to leave. Everyone in the town soon heard of this and they said: `Poor Mojud! He has gone mad' But, as there were many candidates for his job,
they soon forgot him.

On the appointed day, Mojud met Khidr, who said to him: `Tear your clothes and throw yourself into the stream, perhaps someone will save you.' Mojud did so, even though he wondered if he were mad. Since he could swim, he did not drown, but drifted a long way before a fisherman hauled him into his boat, saying:

'Foolish man! The current is strong. What are you trying to do?'

Mojud said: 'I do not really know.'
`You are mad,' said the fisherman, `but I will take you into my reed-hut by the river yonder, and we shall see what can be done for you.'

When he discovered that Mojud was well spoken, he learned from him how to read and write.
In exchange, Mojud was given food and helped the fisherman with his work.
After a few months, Khidr again appeared, this time at the foot of Mojud's bed, and said:

'Get up now and leave this fisherman. You will be provided for.'

Mojud immediately quit the hut, dressed as a fisherman, and wandered about until he came to a highway. As dawn was breaking he saw a farmer on a donkey on his way to market. `Do you seek work?' asked the farmer, `Because I need a man to help me to bring back some purchases.'

Mojud followed him. He worked for the farmer for nearly two years, by which time he had learned a great deal about agriculture but little else

One afternoon when he was baling wood, Khidr appeared to him and said: 'Leave that work, walk to the city of Mojud, and use your savings to become a skin merchant.'
Mojud obeyed.

In Mosul he became known as a skin merchant, never seeing Khidr while he plied his trade for three years. He had saved quite a large sum of money, and was thinking of buying a house, when Khidr appeared and said: 'Give me your money, walk out of this town as far as distant Samarkand, and work for a grocer there.'

Mojud did so.

Presently he began to show undoubted signs of illumination. He healed the sick, served his fellow men in the shop during his spare time, and his knowledge of the mysteries became deeper
and deeper. Clerics, philosophers, and others visited him and asked:

`Under whom did you study?

`It is difficult to say,' said Mojud.

His disciples asked: 'How did you start your career?'
He said: `As a small official.'

`And you gave it up to devote yourself to self-mortification?'

`No, I just gave it up.'

People approached him to write the story of his life.

`What have you been in your life?' they asked.

`Well…I jumped into a river, became a fisherman, then walked out of his reed-hut in he middle of one night. After that, I became a farmhand.
While I was baling wood I changed and went to Mosul, where I became a skin merchant.
I saved some money there, but gave it away.
Then I walked to Samarkand where I worked for a grocer.
And this is where I am now.'

`But this inexplicable behavior throws no light upon your strange gifts and wonderful examples,' said the biographers.

`That is so,' said Mojud.

[bito]

All words are conditions upon one's pure awareness unless used with the intent of removing the conditioning of human words from one's awareness. The usuage of words to remove one's conditioning of human learning is the work of God in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, the word God being a metaphor, the word Christ being a metaphor, the word world being a metaphor and the word Himself being a metaphor, each of these spiritual metaphors being tools of purification for cutting away every word (every lie) that stands in the way of the I AM.

If one uses words and does not understand that they are but metaphors for a mystery that cannot be said as if unconditionally true, they abide in the darkness and do not realize that they abide in the darkness. The moment one realizes that every word spoken from the mouth of man is a lie (a metaphor), the use of metaphors become the means by which all metaphors can be dropped. This is the reaching for the metaphor 'Father' or 'Mother' or 'light' or 'awareness,' the ascension of the illumed intellect unto Illumination, wherein all metaphors have been absorbed so as to be no more.

The Way of the spiritual metaphor is the Way of the Teacher, the way of Thought Purgation, the way the One Thinker saves Himself.

[Michael]

We are all eyes. Here is an observation

We Also Serve

I am upheld
that the awesome eye
can look and see
and be satiated