Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

BrainMeta Forums _ Critique of Religion _ On The Spiritual Laziness And Gullibility Of Christians, Islamic Sheep, Buddhists, And Others Who Cannot Think For Themselves

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 11, 2006, 06:52 PM

It's funny that probably close to 99% of society believes in utterly primitive notions derived from religion. I have seen many actually hold their heads up high and be proud of the fact that they are naive and gullible enough to take the bible, koran, and other "sacred" works literally. How ridiculous is that?

In terms of mental, spiritual, and intellectual evolution and development, there is so much variability between individuals that it makes comparison and even dialogue difficult. How do you interact with people who are primitive christians, or primitive followers of islam, or primitive buddhists, or in general, people who are so mentally and spiritually lazy that they cannot think for themselves and instead choose to blindly accept the words of others as truth?

The best thing these religious sheep can do for themselves is to destroy their belief system, and start over from scratch, trying to think for themselves and make use of their experience. There is something far better than any religion can offer, but it is up to you to find it for yourselves. No one else can tell you what it is, though sometimes it's possible to point other people in the right direction. So come on, get to it!



Posted by: maximus242 Feb 11, 2006, 07:12 PM

lol I think the purpose of religion may be as a break from reality for those who cant handle it! haha funny but true. The notion that someone is looking out for you is to help those who are overly worried with their daily lives, the one that always gets me is "why does god make people suffer?" ugh the very question brings up ideas of smaking the ones who asked. Even if an almighty being did exist then what would the diffrence be between earth and heaven if no one suffred and further more (as previously discussed) not only would earth almost become more like hell than if their was suffering but no one would improve, everyone would become more and more lazy because their would be no reason for them to work or improve themselves. This actually has been occuring over time with the human race but on a much slower scale. It is also the reason for the increase in obesity, plainly we dont have to do anything! we dont need to hunt or walk or work. Everything is handed to us so we turn into lazy fat asses.

Although I do have to say the figure for those who believe in a religion is much lower than 99%. Although I cannot remember the statistics anymore I was shown what the worldwide percentages were for the major religions, then all the small ones were group together and what was left was the non believers tongue.gif. However I would not call people primitive unless I was to call myself primitive as well, this is because as foolish as it may seem that they believe in religion so too do non believers do foolish things. I do understand what it is like talking to someone who is a complete true believe in whatever lord they worship and it can be very frustrating. This lack of open mindedness is like beating your head against a brick wall. My solution is not to debate it out with them if they are completly unopenminded (because no matter how right you prove yourself they wont believe you) instead I let them go on with their lives believing in what they want as I spend my time looking for others who are above it instead of wasting time (I have tried) conversing with those who are to close minded to listen.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 11, 2006, 07:20 PM

Religion has some interesting ideas, but to blindly accept the tenets of any religion on "Faith" amounts to voluntary enprisonment of your mind and spirit. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.


Posted by: maximus242 Feb 11, 2006, 07:22 PM

actually you bring up an intresting idea, did you know almost all of the time people will choose security over freedom? this is what religions live off of.

Posted by: cerebral Feb 11, 2006, 07:25 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Feb 11, 04:22 PM) *

actually you bring up an intresting idea, did you know almost all of the time people will choose security over freedom? this is what religions live off of.


I'm inclined to think they live off pulling the wool over your eyes while demanding obedience and financial contributions. If you're cute enough, they might try to get other things too.


Posted by: maximus242 Feb 11, 2006, 07:31 PM

lol its sad but true what goes on in religion but it has improved 700% compared to what it used to be. I will put up some info on how cults and other agencies using mind control & mind manipulation operate by tommorow if I can. anyways g2g for now cyah tongue.gif

Posted by: Joesus Feb 11, 2006, 11:14 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 11, 11:52 PM) *

It's funny that probably close to 99% of society believes in utterly primitive notions derived from religion. I have seen many actually hold their heads up high and be proud of the fact that they are naive and gullible enough to take the bible, koran, and other "sacred" works literally. How ridiculous is that?

In terms of mental, spiritual, and intellectual evolution and development, there is so much variability between individuals that it makes comparison and even dialogue difficult. How do you interact with people who are primitive christians, or primitive followers of islam, or primitive buddhists, or in general, people who are so mentally and spiritually lazy that they cannot think for themselves and instead choose to blindly accept the words of others as truth?

The best thing these religious sheep can do for themselves is to destroy their belief system, and start over from scratch, trying to think for themselves and make use of their experience. There is something far better than any religion can offer, but it is up to you to find it for yourselves. No one else can tell you what it is, though sometimes it's possible to point other people in the right direction. So come on, get to it!



Is this a serious question or just a slam? Are you claiming to know something of the history or origin of these religions so as to be an authoritive spokesman or are you whining because you can't come to common ground with these people you have alienated from your set standards of evolution?

Do you find no benefit to the belief in God regardless of the limits one has in their knowledge of God?

Personally I find the idea that so many are focused on God even in a limited fashion quite compelling, in that there is a force in nature that inspires a desire to believe in something even if it's limited by personal knowledge.

You can pretty much trace every religion back to a single root. Those who became enlightened and shared their experiences attracted those who were in their own life ready for something, anything that might explain the drive within themselves to seek the answers to questions.
The only limits to the process are in the abilities of one to recognize something that exists outside of the box the personality has built in beliefs of reality.
One has to learn to crawl before they can walk. True compassion is in recognizing all levels of evolutionary progress and giving them equal value rather than trashing those that seem below our boxed standards built on our own weak sense of self worth. It's easy to trash the little guy when we are seeking to maintain our own elite status. In fact it becomes necessary so that we can maintain our position.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 11, 2006, 11:23 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 11, 08:14 PM) *

Do you find no benefit to the belief in God regardless of the limits one has in their knowledge of God?

Personally I find the idea that so many are focused on God even in a limited fashion quite compelling, in that there is a force in nature that inspires a desire to believe in something even if it's limited by personal knowledge.
...
True compassion is in recognizing all levels of evolutionary progress and giving them equal value rather than trashing those that seem below our boxed standards built on our own weak sense of self worth. It's easy to trash the little guy when we are seeking to maintain our own elite status. In fact it becomes necessary so that we can maintain our position.



Joesus, my post is a rant about blind acceptance of religious doctrine without backing it up with personal experience and thought. Your observation that many are focused on God is considerably less interesting when we begin to realize that many people just parrot what they've read or been taught without giving thought to what they're saying and what they're blindly accepting as true. We must question all our assumptions periodically. Religious doctrines are nothing more than a large conglomeration of assumptions that the religious authorities want you to accept on blind faith. This blind acceptance is what I take issue with and what disgusts me. So no, you will not find me sympathizing with thoughtless sheep anytime soon. Our time on earth is too short for nonsense and false identification.

I've said before that I believe religion has a purpose and that each of us must pass through a religious phase. But that being said, each of us also must pass through oral and anal phases as a baby, yet we don't elevate their importance or claim that they're the best phases in the world. Religion is no different. Anyone caught in it, who blindly accepts religious doctrines, I consider below a child and will treat as such. At least a child maintains an open-mind and looks upon all with fresh eyes. Religious doctrines are meant to dull the mind and turn you into a blindly obedient servant of the religious authority. It is all about power, ignorance, and gullibility. There is little that is holy or transcendental in that.

All assumptions can be questioned. Our lives are full of them, and most of the time we do not question them. We should be questioning and reevaluating. Wouldn't you agree?


Posted by: Joesus Feb 12, 2006, 04:55 AM

QUOTE
All assumptions can be questioned. Our lives are full of them, and most of the time we do not question them. We should be questioning and reevaluating.

It's funny that probably close to 99% of society believes in utterly primitive notions derived from religion.


Are you sure this isn't an assumption?
Couldn't you also say religion is interpreted through the primitive notions, or cognition of the inner impulses or clouded intuition regarding the forces of nature and the experiences of nature and its relationship with humanity?

IF, you had an understanding of the creation of the universe and a relationship that was united with it rather than separated from it would you rant about something that you were connected to?

Even if you had a limited knowledge and questioned the reality of God and the universe, rather than following any assumptions would it and does it do any good to complain about the things around you other than maybe temporarily satisfying some sense of self measure?

Wouldn't it be more constructive to look into your own relationship with the essence of that, which inspires all religions and relationships with God and the Universe rather than to point to something and complain about it?
Is there possibly something there to inspire YOU, to find more that satifies both the intellect and the heart in you? If so wouldn't that be something to be grateful for?

In my own experience I find that there is no such thing as Chaos.
The body and the world is only a reflection or extension of the mind in its own beliefs of reality. The mind when disconnected from the pure intuitive aspect of the heart always tries to find identity in a world that is constantly changing, creating beliefs based on experiences of the past which are usually created from limited beliefs in reality.
Often superstition perpetuates itself because the majority hides behind democratic process, not opening itself to differences in opinion and embracing that which connects individual experiences to the diversity of humanity. Focus is on what is wrong with the world rather than what is followed thru perceptions of personal realities and beliefs. In other words we tend to look at the world thru our own filters when we see something that inspires us to rant rather than to seek the Truth and then share that with those that are ready to drop their illusions for something more real.

There are a lot of good things in the Bible and the Koran if you know what is Truth. Just because someone doesn't use the tools correctly doesn't mean the tools are bad or that the untrained user is unable to grasp reality.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 12, 2006, 03:28 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *
QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 11, 03:52 PM) *

All assumptions can be questioned. Our lives are full of them, and most of the time we do not question them. We should be questioning and reevaluating.

It's funny that probably close to 99% of society believes in utterly primitive notions derived from religion.


Are you sure this isn't an assumption?

It is an inference based on experience. The only assumption is that my broad experience with individuals may be generalized to entire population. Given that my sampling of the population is biased towards educated individuals, I figure my original estimate of 99% of society thoughtlessly believing in primitive religious notions is an underestimate. The figure may be closer to 99.99%.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *

IF, you had an understanding of the creation of the universe and a relationship that was united with it rather than separated from it would you rant about something that you were connected to?

I don't see why not. Just the fact that we are all interconnected with everything else in the universe in one way or another does not imply we can't rant about things.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *

does it do any good to complain about the things around you other than maybe temporarily satisfying some sense of self measure?

complaining and questioning assumptions are two different things. I am not complaining. I am suggesting that people think more and question their assumptions more instead of blindly and thoughtlessly accepting other people's dogmas as truth.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *

Wouldn't it be more constructive to look into your own relationship with the essence of that, which inspires all religions and relationships with God and the Universe

I do both, and more.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *

Is there possibly something there to inspire YOU, to find more that satifies both the intellect and the heart in you? If so wouldn't that be something to be grateful for?

There is much to be grateful for, but there would be much more to be grateful for if more people learned to think for themselves. Wouldn't you agree Joesus, or are you grateful for the people who blindly and thoughtlessly accept what you teach them without giving it thought or relating it to their personal experience?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *

In my own experience I find that there is no such thing as Chaos.

What does this have to do with anything?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *

The body and the world is only a reflection or extension of the mind in its own beliefs of reality.

depends on how you define mind. Reflection is not the same thing as extension. Are you saying you believe the world is a reflection of the mind or an extension? Does this not make it different from the mind?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *

There are a lot of good things in the Bible and the Koran if you know what is Truth.

There are few diamonds in a lot of mud. We would do well to separate the wheat from the chaff and get rid of the "holy bs" books altogether.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 01:55 AM) *

Just because someone doesn't use the tools correctly doesn't mean the tools are bad

agreed, but irrelevent for the purposes of this dialogue


Posted by: maximus242 Feb 12, 2006, 03:34 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 11, 09:14 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 11, 11:52 PM) *

It's funny that probably close to 99% of society believes in utterly primitive notions derived from religion. I have seen many actually hold their heads up high and be proud of the fact that they are naive and gullible enough to take the bible, koran, and other "sacred" works literally. How ridiculous is that?

In terms of mental, spiritual, and intellectual evolution and development, there is so much variability between individuals that it makes comparison and even dialogue difficult. How do you interact with people who are primitive christians, or primitive followers of islam, or primitive buddhists, or in general, people who are so mentally and spiritually lazy that they cannot think for themselves and instead choose to blindly accept the words of others as truth?

The best thing these religious sheep can do for themselves is to destroy their belief system, and start over from scratch, trying to think for themselves and make use of their experience. There is something far better than any religion can offer, but it is up to you to find it for yourselves. No one else can tell you what it is, though sometimes it's possible to point other people in the right direction. So come on, get to it!



Is this a serious question or just a slam? Are you claiming to know something of the history or origin of these religions so as to be an authoritive spokesman or are you whining because you can't come to common ground with these people you have alienated from your set standards of evolution?

Do you find no benefit to the belief in God regardless of the limits one has in their knowledge of God?

Personally I find the idea that so many are focused on God even in a limited fashion quite compelling, in that there is a force in nature that inspires a desire to believe in something even if it's limited by personal knowledge.

You can pretty much trace every religion back to a single root. Those who became enlightened and shared their experiences attracted those who were in their own life ready for something, anything that might explain the drive within themselves to seek the answers to questions.
The only limits to the process are in the abilities of one to recognize something that exists outside of the box the personality has built in beliefs of reality.
One has to learn to crawl before they can walk. True compassion is in recognizing all levels of evolutionary progress and giving them equal value rather than trashing those that seem below our boxed standards built on our own weak sense of self worth. It's easy to trash the little guy when we are seeking to maintain our own elite status. In fact it becomes necessary so that we can maintain our position.



Religion has been traced all the way back to shamanism which is said the be the first form of religion. And lucid a lot less than 99.99% of people believe in a religion.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 12, 2006, 04:09 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 11, 08:14 PM) *

Do you find no benefit to the belief in God regardless of the limits one has in their knowledge of God?


Depends on how you define God. I believe beliefs have utility and sometimes are even related to truth, but we should all be examining and re-evaluating all of our assumptions every now and then, even assumptions involving God.

People who blindly and thoughtlessly accept and parrot what others teach should learn to think for themselves. Otherwise, they will be pawns of others.


Posted by: Joesus Feb 12, 2006, 07:33 PM

QUOTE
complaining and questioning assumptions are two different things. I am not complaining. I am suggesting that people think more and question their assumptions more instead of blindly and thoughtlessly accepting other people's dogmas as truth.

Ranting and questioning are two different things..

QUOTE
I don't see why not. Just the fact that we are all interconnected with everything else in the universe in one way or another does not imply we can't rant about things.

No it doesn't, it doesn't imply that you should either. I was simply suggesting that if you were omniscient you would have knowledge of what the end result of this creation was. There are different ideas about being connected. If you were the master builder of your own house you would know what you were building. Being that your own vision is that of a speculated opinion based on the knowledge of union rather than the experience of Union you still hold the world outside of you as in need of something but haven't a clue how to approach your diagnosis.

QUOTE
complaining and questioning assumptions are two different things. I am not complaining. I am suggesting that people think more and question their assumptions more instead of blindly and thoughtlessly accepting other people's dogmas as truth.


You are making an assumption that most are as interested in other peoples choices and opinions as you are, and that people in general blindly accept others choices, beliefs and points of view as their own.
Personally when exploring anothers beliefs I find making blanket statements about humanity as a whole based on a few individuals limiting.

QUOTE
I do both, and more.

Well I haven't seen any proof of that but I won't make make the assumption that you haven't done the best that you know how.

QUOTE
There is much to be grateful for, but there would be much more to be grateful for if more people learned to think for themselves. Wouldn't you agree Joesus, or are you grateful for the people who blindly and thoughtlessly accept what you teach them without giving it thought or relating it to their personal experience?

I'm not invested in what people decide to do with their power of choice. I find surrender in service regardless of the outcome quite expanding.

QUOTE
depends on how you define mind. Reflection is not the same thing as extension. Are you saying you believe the world is a reflection of the mind or an extension? Does this not make it different from the mind?

Only when you see reflection and extension as two different things, then yes mind becomes something different

QUOTE
There are few diamonds in a lot of mud. We would do well to separate the wheat from the chaff and get rid of the "holy bs" books altogether.

I hear that from a lot of people who do not understand the influence of God in creation. Generally from those that have their own expectations of reality, without the experience of Union.

QUOTE
agreed, but irrelevent for the purposes of this dialogue

Sounds like there is room for more in your experience of self reflection and evolution of both mind and body.

By the way defining God in any manner, including separating any aspect of what you see as being right or wrong or separate from the creation God is a blind assumption.
There are no victims and there are no pawns once you really get to know God.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 12, 2006, 07:40 PM

Joesus, I get the impression from you that you believe that being content with everything and being accepting of everything just the way it is is the sure sign of wisdom and the pinnacle of spirit. This is false. You may be content with the way things are, but I do not believe you are any wiser for it. Quite the contrary in fact.

People, when they age, tend to become more mellow, more feminine (or receptive), more resigned to "fate" and circumstance, and less able to make discriminating choices (hence, the "everything is the same" line). This is weakness, not the sign of wisdom. I have not seen any evidence that your motives for what you say are anything other than that of a tired person.

And let's face it, religious scriptures are poorly written, poorly articulated, and contain little in the way of wisdom. They appeal to the masses, hence their popularity, but since when does wisdom and truth compromise itself for the masses; never.

Our species would do better to extract out the few lines of wisdom from the mass of religious scriptures, and to put the rest to flame. Anyone who thinks wisdom is to be found from reading scripture is not wise. Wisdom is to be found in the experience itself.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 04:33 PM) *
Sounds like there is room for more in your experience of self reflection and evolution of both mind and body.

sounds like there's room for you too. There's room for everyone.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 04:33 PM) *
There are no victims and there are no pawns once you really get to know God.

No victims? If you really believe that, burn down your house and cut off your right arm.


Posted by: Guest Feb 12, 2006, 08:32 PM

People are generally getting smarter. We are more aware of the world around us. Technology is helping us to understand more, quicker. Institutional religion is in crisis. People just don't see the point in 'having faith'. Why waste time believing in something that is ineffable? Why not help fellow humans directly rather than spend time in a church worshipping? Why be exclusive? Why not judge people individually? Faith in God is falling apart I think. 'What is God' is increasingly being answered with: 'a dated control mechanism leveraging forced ignorance and the fear of the unknown for the benefit of the few'.

Posted by: Guest Feb 12, 2006, 08:40 PM

"Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it." -- Andre Gide

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens

Posted by: maximus242 Feb 12, 2006, 09:11 PM

QUOTE

I'm not invested in what people decide to do with their power of choice. I find surrender in service regardless of the outcome quite expanding.


I see no diffrence between your god and any other totaltarian. The idea that this loving god would threaten his people with the notion that if they didnt do what he wants he will send em to hell alone disproves the ideas of a loving god. Your no more than sheep to afraid of the wolves, so you follow the shepard to whatever end he will lead you to.

Posted by: Joesus Feb 13, 2006, 12:24 AM

QUOTE
Joesus, I get the impression from you that you believe that being content with everything and being accepting of everything just the way it is is the sure sign of wisdom and the pinnacle of spirit.

First impressions are often deceiving when one places their own thoughts about reality on the board as being universal Truth. I take it since you accept the idea that there's room for more in your experience that you won't be standing still in this single impression without (at some point) actually asking questions to receive more.

Heres a jewel for you.:
Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

and:

Eccles 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.


Got any Idea what this means?

QUOTE
People, when they age, tend to become more mellow, more feminine (or receptive), more resigned to "fate" and circumstance, and less able to make discriminating choices (hence, the "everything is the same" line). This is weakness, not the sign of wisdom. I have not seen any evidence that your motives for what you say are anything other than that of a tired person.

More projections of your personal beliefs? Should I or anyone else take for granted this and the other statement about 99% of humanity being sheep because you believe this to be true? If I was to accept this as being universeal Truth without having my own experience wouldn't I just become one of your sheep?

QUOTE
And let's face it, religious scriptures are poorly written, poorly articulated, and contain little in the way of wisdom. They appeal to the masses, hence their popularity, but since when does wisdom and truth compromise itself for the masses; never.

Sometimes poorly translated, most often misunderstood. I would agree that wisdom and truth do not compromise each other, it is only the misunderstanding of truth and wisdom that perpetuates the illusion of conflict and compromise.

QUOTE
Our species would do better to extract out the few lines of wisdom from the mass of religious scriptures, and to put the rest to flame. Anyone who thinks wisdom is to be found from reading scripture is not wise. Wisdom is to be found in the experience itself.

What do you recommend as the point of authority to determine Truth and wisdom?

QUOTE
No victims? If you really believe that, burn down your house and cut off your right arm.

Come again?.. If I burnt my own house and cut my own arm off, how would I be a victim to my own actions?




QUOTE
I see no diffrence between your god and any other totaltarian. The idea that this loving god would threaten his people with the notion that if they didnt do what he wants he will send em to hell alone disproves the ideas of a loving god. Your no more than sheep to afraid of the wolves, so you follow the shepard to whatever end he will lead you to.

God doesn't threaten anyone. Some people may believe God is threatening them thru their own superstitions and ignorant beliefs.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 13, 2006, 12:38 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 09:24 PM) *
First impressions are often deceiving when one places their own thoughts about reality on the board as being universal Truth.

I did not preach universal truths. I have only conveyed my observations of people in general, and issued a call for people to start thinking more for themselves instead of just accepting as true what religious authorities or others feed them. It is partly out of pity that I issued the call, and also in the hope that some might listen.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 09:24 PM) *
More projections of your personal beliefs? Should I or anyone else take for granted this and the other statement about 99% of humanity being sheep because you believe this to be true? If I was to accept this as being universeal Truth without having my own experience wouldn't I just become one of your sheep?

no-one is immune to projecting, not even you. We can do our best to guard against it as the situation warrants. No, you should not take anything I say for granted. Like I said before, I am not claiming universal truths. Only sharing my observations and making a request of others. I am not looking for sheep, simply to find resonance in others who share my sentiments.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 09:24 PM) *
Heres a jewel for you.:

I am too rich for that.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 09:24 PM) *
Got any Idea what this means?

I was not born yesterday.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 09:24 PM) *
What do you recommend as the point of authority to determine Truth and wisdom?

I do not recommend any authorities save our experience. We are the authorities. Not those old ones whose words echo throughout the centuries and who are parroted by parrots as soon as they learn to talk.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 09:24 PM) *
Come again?.. If I burnt my own house and cut my own arm off, how would I be a victim to my own actions?

no doubt some would say it was your own fault, but I would understand and would try to convince everyone else that you were a victim of your beliefs.


Posted by: Joesus Feb 13, 2006, 01:48 AM

QUOTE
I did not preach universal truths. I have only conveyed my observations of people in general, and issued a call for people to start thinking more for themselves instead of just accepting as true what religious authorities or others feed them. It is partly out of pity that I issued the call, and also in the hope that some might listen.

Interesting, you appeal to others to ask questions and seek answers, but before you ask questions of me you make general observations of me based on your beliefs of older people and the stereotyping you have attached to older people in general.
Is this what you are seeking to draw towards you, more like minded individuals who through their own similar beliefs look to change the world more to your liking?

QUOTE

no-one is immune to projecting
Then why make general statements about people around your changing experiences?

QUOTE
I was not born yesterday.

I'll take that as a no..

QUOTE
I do not recommend any authorities save our experience. We are the authorities. Not those old ones whose words echo throughout the centuries and who are parroted by parrots as soon as they learn to talk.
Experiences change. You haven't really met 99% of humanity nor do you seem to have the experience of studying religion to understand the concept behind it. You still haven't answered my question of what the quotes of scripture mean. Perhaps you need to ask more questions and seek to discover what underlies your approach in making general statements about the world from just your own single experience.

QUOTE
no doubt some would say it was your own fault, but I would understand and would try to convince everyone else that you were a victim of your beliefs.

I see... So much for letting others have their own experience and being their own authority..

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 13, 2006, 02:22 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
but before you ask questions of me you make general observations of me based on your beliefs of older people and the stereotyping you have attached to older people in general.

you're right. I should not have done that.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
Is this what you are seeking to draw towards you, more like minded individuals who through their own similar beliefs look to change the world more to your liking?

with others involved, there is no I, only our.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
Then why make general statements about people around your changing experiences?

why not? So long as I'm not projecting.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
I'll take that as a no..

You should take that as an "I will not be lured into that trap". The bible is open to ridiculously many interpretations. I don't need others misinterpreting my interpretations and attacking straw men.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
Experiences change.

Which is good. If they didn't, life would get boring really fast.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
You haven't really met 99% of humanity

I don't know what you mean since "humanity" is an abstract term. If you mean I haven't met 99% percent of the human population, well that's obvious. No-one has.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
nor do you seem to have the experience of studying religion to understand the concept behind it

if you have something to contribute, do. What do you believe is the concept behind religion that, according to you, I do not understand?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
You still haven't answered my question of what the quotes of scripture mean.

because it is irrelevant. And also for the reason given above. If there is some interpretation you think I'm missing, then out with it man.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
Perhaps you need to ask more questions

or perhaps I have been asking too many questions and need to take more actions.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 10:48 PM) *
I see... So much for letting others have their own experience and being their own authority..

you're the one who said there were no victims. Maybe instead of suggesting that you burn down your house and cut off your right arm, I should have just asked you if you would feel victimized if someone else burnt down your house and cut off your right arm with a steak knife.


Posted by: Joesus Feb 13, 2006, 11:35 AM

QUOTE
Is this what you are seeking to draw towards you, more like minded individuals who through their own similar beliefs look to change the world more to your liking?
with others involved, there is no I, only our.

You're mixing words..
The point is, that you are like the 99% you claim to have knowledge of in that you seek security within the beliefs of your own ideals regardless of how far you have taken yourself into the knowledge and experience of it. If you have room to grow than why make assumptions at your present level of experience?
If you feel you have that right then why not give that freedom and right to all others? What makes your personal Jihad most righteous? The rationalization that you face a majority that seeks to change the world to their point of view leaves you in a minority seeking to find union in a like minded attempt to change the majority.

QUOTE
Then why make general statements about people around your changing experiences?
why not? So long as I'm not projecting.

If your experiences change how do you know you aren't projecting from a lesser experience? So far you haven't really talked about the reality of absolutes or of consciousness, the essence behind reality and the manifest display of diversity and free will.
You seem interested in your will being righteous according to your level of experience and the condemnation of others who do not meet your expectations or standards. What of others who have more knowledge than you? Do they exist? And more importantly do they have the right to suggest as you have that you may be following designs based on ignorance or lack of knowledge and experience and would you accept that as you wish the lesser that you have outlined to surrender to your will?

QUOTE
I'll take that as a no..
You should take that as an "I will not be lured into that trap". The bible is open to ridiculously many interpretations. I don't need others misinterpreting my interpretations and attacking straw men.


Paranoia strikes deep.... I'm asking you to share your experience of the Bible, not your opinion of others words of the bible Why not give others the freedom to make their own determination of your knowledge and experience as you have done with them? How else are you going to offer the truth about religons and what is in the bible if you yourself do not understand what is in it? Simply making the statement that it should be burned is only coming from your opinion that it or those who read it have corrupted the 99% of humans that you are seeking to change. Have you read the Bible?



QUOTE
You haven't really met 99% of humanity
I don't know what you mean since "humanity" is an abstract term. If you mean I haven't met 99% percent of the human population, well that's obvious. No-one has.

How long does it take you to really know someone? I'm genuinely curious since you are making claim to having a relationship with the 99% you are seeking to change.

QUOTE
nor do you seem to have the experience of studying religion to understand the concept behind it
if you have something to contribute, do. What do you believe is the concept behind religion that, according to you, I do not understand?

I'm asking you to expand beyond the general concepts you have made about religion. Where your knowledge comes from. Have you actually read the Bible or the Koran since you mentioned them in particular, or the Upanishads, the Vedic Teachings. The Teachings of the East and the West are both founded in common territory.

QUOTE
You still haven't answered my question of what the quotes of scripture mean.
because it is irrelevant. And also for the reason given above. If there is some interpretation you think I'm missing, then out with it man.

It's not irrelevant. making general statements that the book should be burned does not discuss the essence of the teaching that inspired its creation. There are many interpretations, I'm looking for yours, that is what is missing from your claims to experience, not your opinion of others interpretations.
Evolution of spiritual awareness is part and parcel to the Growth of awareness, Scripture is ultimately flexible to allow all interpretations no matter how simple or obscure. Free will and the ability to make choices at all levels of experience is what makes humanity different than animals. No one is following anyone without their ability to make the decision to follow. Unfortunately you can't take that away and have others follow you and your ideals without taking their choice away from them or convincing them that your choice is best for them.
You have been suggesting that others need to see your point of view, and so far the point of view is that what you see is wrong and needs to be changed, but in order for someone to move past their own experience there necessarily has to be something greater for them to surrender to. Your opinion offers nothing greater to step into.
Perhaps if you had something of value to offer on God and religion they might listen to you.
If they believe in God and have an experience of God than I doubt that they will give up their experience for your experience no matter what you had to say.

QUOTE
Perhaps you need to ask more questions
or perhaps I have been asking too many questions and need to take more actions.
or perhaps you have been asking the wrong question.

QUOTE
I see... So much for letting others have their own experience and being their own authority..
you're the one who said there were no victims. Maybe instead of suggesting that you burn down your house and cut off your right arm, I should have just asked you if you would feel victimized if someone else burnt down your house and cut off your right arm with a steak knife.

Perhaps that is the reason you are at where you are at. Your own evolution of understanding and communication is still ongoing. If you want clarity for others you must first be clear.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 14, 2006, 10:25 AM

Joesus, you're assuming many things, such as my statements are due to limited concepts and experience, whereas what I was requesting at the start was a re-evalution of our widely held assumptions. I reread the thread, and it's evident we are not budging from our positions, so in light of this irreconciliability, let's agree to disagree, at least for the time being.

Posted by: Guest Feb 14, 2006, 11:49 AM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 14, 07:25 AM) *

Joesus, you're assuming many things, such as my statements are due to limited concepts and experience, whereas what I was requesting at the start was a re-evalution of our widely held assumptions. I reread the thread, and it's evident we are not budging from our positions, so in light of this irreconciliability, let's agree to disagree, at least for the time being.

I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply asking questions you seem to have not resolved in your own mind because you have no clear answers to them. So in light of this I'll agree that you are making general statements based on insufficient knowledge and experience.

Posted by: Joesus Feb 14, 2006, 09:20 PM

QUOTE
what I was requesting at the start was a re-evalution of our widely held assumptions.


I'm sure you've heard the old saying that you can't solve a problem from the level that it was created...

Posted by: Guest Feb 15, 2006, 07:19 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 11, 03:52 PM) *

It's funny that probably close to 99% of society believes in utterly primitive notions derived from religion. I have seen many actually hold their heads up high and be proud of the fact that they are naive and gullible enough to take the bible, koran, and other "sacred" works literally. How ridiculous is that?

In terms of mental, spiritual, and intellectual evolution and development, there is so much variability between individuals that it makes comparison and even dialogue difficult. How do you interact with people who are primitive christians, or primitive followers of islam, or primitive buddhists, or in general, people who are so mentally and spiritually lazy that they cannot think for themselves and instead choose to blindly accept the words of others as truth?

The best thing these religious sheep can do for themselves is to destroy their belief system, and start over from scratch, trying to think for themselves and make use of their experience. There is something far better than any religion can offer, but it is up to you to find it for yourselves. No one else can tell you what it is, though sometimes it's possible to point other people in the right direction. So come on, get to it!


Hello lucid_dream,

I agree with your general idea about religions. But religion is only one form of self-deception. If some one did not subscibe to any religion but had some other form of self_deception, that would also be harmful. I suggest that you focus on self_deception as the most basic evil. Have you thought about this idea? This is a friendly suggestion and not a criticism.

Posted by: guest Feb 15, 2006, 07:41 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Feb 15, 04:19 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 11, 03:52 PM) *

It's funny that probably close to 99% of society believes in utterly primitive notions derived from religion. I have seen many actually hold their heads up high and be proud of the fact that they are naive and gullible enough to take the bible, koran, and other "sacred" works literally. How ridiculous is that?

In terms of mental, spiritual, and intellectual evolution and development, there is so much variability between individuals that it makes comparison and even dialogue difficult. How do you interact with people who are primitive christians, or primitive followers of islam, or primitive buddhists, or in general, people who are so mentally and spiritually lazy that they cannot think for themselves and instead choose to blindly accept the words of others as truth?

The best thing these religious sheep can do for themselves is to destroy their belief system, and start over from scratch, trying to think for themselves and make use of their experience. There is something far better than any religion can offer, but it is up to you to find it for yourselves. No one else can tell you what it is, though sometimes it's possible to point other people in the right direction. So come on, get to it!


Hello lucid_dream,

I agree with your general idea about religions. But religion is only one form of self-deception. If some one did not subscibe to any religion but had some other form of self_deception, that would also be harmful. I suggest that you focus on self_deception as the most basic evil. Have you thought about this idea? This is a friendly suggestion and not a criticism.


guest,

what is your understanding of self-deception and harmfulness...what is evil?

Posted by: guest Feb 15, 2006, 07:48 PM

"I'm sure you've heard the old saying that you can't solve a problem from the level that it was created"

HUH? isn't the level that anything is created is as it source? thus...one must go to the source to solve a problem?



Posted by: Joesus Feb 15, 2006, 09:47 PM

QUOTE(guest @ Feb 16, 12:48 AM) *

"I'm sure you've heard the old saying that you can't solve a problem from the level that it was created"

HUH? isn't the level that anything is created is as it source? thus...one must go to the source to solve a problem?

So what would you identify as the source of this issue?

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 15, 2006, 10:23 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 08:49 AM) *
I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply asking questions you seem to have not resolved in your own mind because you have no clear answers to them. So in light of this I'll agree that you are making general statements based on insufficient knowledge and experience.

In other words, Joesus, you're making assumptions because what you said above is equivalent to the following:

QUOTE
I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply asking questions that I am assuming you have not resolved in your own mind because I'm assuming you have no clear answers to them. So in light of these assumptions of mine, I'll (wrongly) conclude that you are making general statements based on insufficient knowledge and experience.

That's a lot of assumptions for someone who's claiming they're assuming nothing, wouldn't you say? Is it possible for you to approach this topic with an open mind?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 06:20 PM) *
QUOTE
what I was requesting at the start was a re-evalution of our widely held assumptions.

I'm sure you've heard the old saying that you can't solve a problem from the level that it was created...

The problem here is the myriad assumptions and doctrines that people thoughtlessly maintain. So what solution are you proposing?

Posted by: Joesus Feb 15, 2006, 10:25 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 16, 03:14 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 14, 08:49 AM) *
I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply asking questions you seem to have not resolved in your own mind because you have no clear answers to them. So in light of this I'll agree that you are making general statements based on insufficient knowledge and experience.

In other words, Joesus, you're making assumptions because what you said above is equivalent to the following:

QUOTE
I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply asking questions that I am assuming you have not resolved in your own mind because I'm assuming you have no clear answers to them. So in light of these assumptions of mine, I'll further assume that you are making general statements based on insufficient knowledge and experience.

That's a lot of assumptions for someone who's claiming they're assuming nothing, wouldn't you say? Is it possible for you to approach this topic with an open mind?

No those assumptions are yours. I am assuming nothing.

To put it into your own words I've made some general statements which are allowable by your standards as long as I'm not projecting. ohmy.gif

QUOTE
The problem here is the myriad assumptions and doctrines that people thoughtlessly maintain. So what solution are you proposing?


Give them something to replace what they have in experience and belief that is greater than what they have. Unfortunately you can't control ones choices so I guess it boils down to finding peace within yourself rather than trying to control or manipulate the outside to protect yourself from having feelings and judgments about others.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 15, 2006, 10:39 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Feb 15, 04:19 PM) *
Hello lucid_dream,

I agree with your general idea about religions. But religion is only one form of self-deception. If some one did not subscibe to any religion but had some other form of self_deception, that would also be harmful. I suggest that you focus on self_deception as the most basic evil. Have you thought about this idea? This is a friendly suggestion and not a criticism.


Yes, all forms of deception should be confronted. Religion is just one of the worst sources of deception, which is why I focused on it instead of self-deception in general. In retrospect, it would have been better to have focused on self-deception, with religious deception as a subtopic. Other subtopics could include various other common fantasies and delusions people enact in their minds, in addition to the common assumptions they maintain, and oftentimes are unaware that they're even assumptions unless they're explicitly called out.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 15, 07:25 PM) *
so I guess it boils down to finding peace within yourself rather than trying to control or manipulate the outside to protect yourself from having feelings and judgments about others.


That's such a cop-out.


QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 15, 07:25 PM) *
No those assumptions are yours. I am assuming nothing.

Your responses suggest to me that you are coming into this with assumptions, in spite of your denials to that effect. You are probably assuming that, because I am not content with all as is, I must be in a suboptimal or non-illumined state of mind, but I would say this does not logically follow. Whether the highest and most illumined state of mind implies contentedness is beside the point and does not imply that the state of being content with things as they are implies the converse. In other words, just because you are content with everything as it is (or at least that's what you probably want us to believe) does not imply that that's in any way praiseworthy or desirable.

I'm sure that with a lobotomy, I could be passive and content with everything and not desire any change, but is that how I want to live? Never.

Posted by: Joesus Feb 16, 2006, 12:23 AM

QUOTE
That's such a cop-out.


So your saying that you have peace of mind and that this issue is not a personal issue driven by your own feelings but one that is driven by a higher source moving you toward a direction inspired by the source of all humanities highest interests?

QUOTE
Your responses suggest to me that you are coming into this with assumptions, in spite of your denials to that effect. You are probably assuming that, because I am not content with all as is, I must be in a suboptimal or non-illumined state of mind, but I would say this does not logically follow. Whether the highest and most illumined state of mind implies contentedness is beside the point and does not imply that the state of being content with things as they are implies the converse. In other words, just because you are content with everything as it is (or at least that's what you probably want us to believe) does not imply that that's in any way praiseworthy or desirable.


Probably assuming?
Your not very sure of your self.
Your lack of response to my questions suggests to me that you don't know the answers to my questions, therefore through the experience I have of you in avoiding the questions and making general statements based on personal experience I use the same general means of making statements to the effect of my experience of you. Convince me otherwise.

I did not make the statment that finding peace within yourself means that you do nothing, that would be a projection of a stereotype you have created similar to the old age stereotyping you demonstrated earlier. So far you have failed to inspire me to think anything other than that you hold a lot of judgment about the world and have little experience of it. If you wish to address an issue you will have to do better than just complain about a problem stating your own points of view and experience. If you want to change the world you had better know how it is created so that you can by understanding it, and your relationship to it, to do something to get different results.
So far you've convinced me you have an issue, but it seems that you have the issue and I don't, so to me it's a personal problem not a problem everyone shares with you.

Do you have an children?
If so do you let your kids work out their playground problems or do you get involved with every thing they do and feel when learning about their relationship with the world? Do you know the difference between guidance and programming?

QUOTE
I'm sure that with a lobotomy, I could be passive and content with everything and not desire any change, but is that how I want to live? Never.


You aren't taking this in a very enlightened direction. This is what I mean by projecting.
If you want to be the Teacher you will have to master what you intend to teach. Otherwise you will only approach each subject from the level of your own misunderstanding.
If you want to use all of your mental and physical faculties you won't be very affective if a good portion of your mind is whirling about in emotional stress and judgment. It takes a great degree of impartial and emotional detachment to be able to hear what is going on inside your own heart, let alone that of others.
People, like you, only want stability, love and reassurance that they won't be denied happiness. No one wants to be happy sometimes. God offers a lot of people hope that they can escape from temporary fixes and random glimpses of happiness when the world seems so divided and inconsistent. Can you offer them a better promise than heaven and eternal peace? If you want to tell them there is no such thing when they believe otherwise or want to believe otherwise then how are you going to convince them?
If you couldn't or can't can you find peace within yourself to know that there are things that you cannot change?

Ever heard of the serenity prayer?


God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

--Reinhold Niebuhr




Posted by: Lindsay Feb 16, 2006, 01:04 AM

For those who don't know of Reinhold Niebuhr, check out
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/niehbr3.html

Nieburhr was a minister who later became a professor at Union Theological Seminary, NY. He was the author of several influential books which were part of my studies in the 1950's. He was a great social democrat--perhaps a little too liberal and left wing for Republicans, even some Democrats. However, his ideas did contribute to civil-liberties causes.

BTW, I like to think of myself as neither left wing, nor right wing. I take a feathers approach to the political economy. Feathers cover the whole bird. Without them, especially the tail feathers, the strongest wings would be out of balance and useless. Perhaps this is why the world is in the mess it is in. The struggle between the left and the right is not good for the goose.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 16, 2006, 01:09 AM

Joesus, commonplace advice and trite remarks, peppered through with an occasional veiled attack or low opinion estimate, are no substitute for thoughtful reflection and useful exchanges. Have you even read what I've posted in this thread, or are you just attacking an army of straw men. Talk about having issues.

You are what your deep, driving desire is.
As your desire is, so is your will. As your will is,
so is your deed. As your deed is, so is your destiny.



Know where that's from (it's easy, I'm sure you'll find the answer online) and what it means?

Or can you tell me where this one came from and what you believe it means?

The light of self-knowledge alone illumines all experiences... Within the atomic space of consciousness there exists all the experiences...From that consciousness all experiences expand...In the twinkling of an eye this infinite consciousness experiences an epoch within itself.


Or pray tell me what this means and whence it is derived:

Galvanism, so long as the pile lasts, is also an aimlessly and ceaselessly repeated act of self-discord and reconciliation. The existence of the plant is just such a restless, never satisfied striving, a ceaseless activity through higher and higher forms, till the final point, the seed, becomes a new starting point; and this is repeated ad infinitum; nowhere is there a goal, nowhere a final satisfaction, nowhere a point of rest.

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 16, 2006, 01:46 AM

QUOTE
BTW, I like to think of myself as neither left wing, nor right wing. I take a feathers approach to the political economy. Feathers cover the whole bird. Without them, especially the tail feathers, the strongest wings would be out of balance and useless. Perhaps this is why the world is in the mess it is in. The struggle between the left and the right is not good for the goose.
In addition to the above I did not want to leave the impression that RN was far left. He was, but only in the early part of his ministry. In his later days, he did come back to balance. To really sample his writings, check out:
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=37

Joesus, and LD. It would be interesting, for me, to know a little bit about your theological and/or philosophical backbround and your attitude towards what others believe. Perhaps this can help us in promoting the art of dialogue/conversation.

In what sense are we all, including me, preaching to or teaching others? How can we share concepts and ideas in the spirit of dialogue. BTW, I am not adverse to learning from others, especially if they have access to knowledge of which I am unaware.

BTW, it is almost 2:00 AM in the Toronto area. The weather here is: No snow, and just above freezing--0 Celsius. I am off to bed.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 16, 2006, 02:18 AM

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Feb 15, 10:46 PM) *
Joesus, and LD. It would be interesting, for me, to know a little bit about your theological and/or philosophical backbround and your attitude towards what others believe.


I can't answer this without offending people. To put it nicely, I am open-minded but critical. I was brought up in a catholic environment for a few years in youth, and even believed in your garden-variety god that you say grace to at dinner, but as soon as I began reading and assimilating other's thoughts, I knew Christianity and other religions were a crock. There is no excuse for them. You can say that they're opium for the masses, but that's not a good reason to keep them around or to be sympathetic. Naturally, I differentiate between the truly stupid religious people who take the bible or other holy works literally, and the thoughtful sheep, who consider themselves christians or whatever, but are more intelligent yet not strong enough of mind to break free from their religous bonds. To the former, no sympathy, only disdain. To the latter, pity and respect if it's deserved. True religion is to be found in direct experience, not doctrine. Thus the parrots of the bible will get my foot in their mouth. I have had unfathomable experiences, and now I am moving towards the next stage if my will permits it, before old age overtakes me. My time is short; hence my lack of patience.


Posted by: Joesus Feb 16, 2006, 04:44 AM

QUOTE

Joesus, commonplace advice and trite remarks, peppered through with an occasional veiled attack or low opinion estimate, are no substitute for thoughtful reflection and useful exchanges. Have you even read what I've posted in this thread, or are you just attacking an army of straw men. Talk about having issues.


I think in your last post you said something like:
QUOTE
I can't answer this without offending people.

I'm not responsible for your interpretations of what I say as you are not responsible for the response you get from speaking your own mind. We do not crawl inside the minds to trigger the switches of response and feeling that one feels by our intentions when we speak. We may try to do so at times but the reality is that we have free will to choose how we follow thoughts and ideas and how we wish to live our lives.
You evidently see me the way you wish to no matter what I might feel or intend to portray in my messages. C'est la Vie
We feel threatened by what we see outside of ourselves when it lives inside of us making us believe we are victims to the outside with no control over our own choices to discrimate between truth and illusion. This mirror is often ignored because it isn't recognized.
QUOTE


You are what your deep, driving desire is.
As your desire is, so is your will. As your will is,
so is your deed. As your deed is, so is your destiny.

The deepest desire of the human is union with God.
The destiny of every human is this end result in the awareness and experience. This does not mean anyone is separate from God it simply means that as long as the awareness and knowledge of life continues in varying degress of understanding the best we can think of is what we create for ourselves in thought feeling and action.
Our thoughts have a ripple effect in the manifest reality of experience.


QUOTE

Know where that's from (it's easy, I'm sure you'll find the answer online) and what it means?


A verse from a translation of the Upanishads. Commentaries always vary from one translation to another but I gave you mine rather than the one from Eknath Easwaran.
QUOTE


Or can you tell me where this one came from and what you believe it means?

The light of self-knowledge alone illumines all experiences... Within the atomic space of consciousness there exists all the experiences...From that consciousness all experiences expand...In the twinkling of an eye this infinite consciousness experiences an epoch within itself.


Reminds me of Vasishta's Yoga

When one knows the Self one knows everyone and everything. All things are united in the One consciousness so it is in that which all things are found and known.
QUOTE

Or pray tell me what this means and whence it is derived:

Galvanism, so long as the pile lasts, is also an aimlessly and ceaselessly repeated act of self-discord and reconciliation. The existence of the plant is just such a restless, never satisfied striving, a ceaseless activity through higher and higher forms, till the final point, the seed, becomes a new starting point; and this is repeated ad infinitum; nowhere is there a goal, nowhere a final satisfaction, nowhere a point of rest.

This last one I have no idea where it comes from and I wouldn't know what it means to you or what you want me say about it to help you try and figure out where I am coming from. But if you wish to tell me what it means to you I can certainly comment on it if you wish.

Lindsay. It isn't really important where I came from. I don't think its relevent unless you wish to project where you think I am going by thinking you know where I am coming from.
I find no reason to let anyones beliefs interfere with my own nor do I think my beliefs would interfere with anyone elses. The only time beleifs become a threat is when somebody feels the need to find a place of measure to compare beliefs to that system of measure and then judge them from that point of measure.

In your theological studies have you ever studied the middle way Buddha describes? JJ Dewey had a great way of describing it in terms that are relevent to scripture.

Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.

Deut 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

Jn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.


This kiind of follows along the lines of what quote from the Upanishads is saying about the Self and the light of the Self.
When one unites with God or Spirit and leaves the identities of the Ego behind the The inner light of the Self speaks without distortion of beliefs that are constantly changing.
When Jesus said "I and my Father are one" he spoke of the living presence within the Body that was immortal, omniscent and invited by preparing the body and mind for its arrival through Prayer/meditation/purification. In doing so and having set aside all illusions of lesser beliefs of the ego presence all judgment is made through the heart or the living connection between spirit and flesh or the unmanifest and the manifest.
All great masters know through their own experience and the Teaching they followed that there is no judgment in God or spirit other than to meet each moment right on cue with what is needed by the wandering soul seeking experience to give them more insight to the source from which it came and freedom from any self imposed boundaries.
There are no limits to the human condition other than those that are self imposed.

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 16, 2006, 11:11 AM

It is 11:00 AM in Toronto. Snow started, early this AM. It stopped after it dropped about 2 inches of wet snow. Freezing rain in the area for the next while. Then getting colder. Typical January in Toronto. Fortunately, the snow belts are north and south (Buffalo, NY), of us.

Shortly, I will be off to a regular luncheon discussion group, which I moderate (I am not the guru), sponsored by the Family Life Foundation, which has been going on for over 30 years.

Topics are centered around what is happening in the media and we compare it to stories and teachings in the Bible, or other sacred literature. We have open-minded believers, agnostics and atheists. Needless to say the discussion if often animated. But always in good taste.

BTW, keep up the dialoguing/conversing. We can always agree to disagree agreeably, I trust and hope. I will read your stuff more carefully and respond in more detail, later.


Posted by: guest Feb 16, 2006, 12:00 PM

QUOTE
"So what would you identify as the source of this issue?"



that which percieves it

to be

as an

issue

Posted by: Guest Feb 16, 2006, 02:17 PM

QUOTE(guest @ Feb 16, 09:00 AM) *

QUOTE
"So what would you identify as the source of this issue?"



that which percieves it

to be

as an

issue

And what is it, that percieves the issue as an issue worthy of attention, and what is that going to do about the issue?

Posted by: guest Feb 16, 2006, 03:14 PM

QUOTE
And what is it, that perceives the issue as an issue worthy of attention


That which perceives

QUOTE
and what is that going to do about the issue?


What issue?


Posted by: Lindsay Feb 16, 2006, 03:57 PM

LD, tell me see if I understand your message, or not. I have arranged what you wrote so that it makes sense to me. Change it where you feel it needs to be fixed.

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 15, 11:18 PM) *
I was brought up in a typically Catholic home and community. When I was a child, I went to mass with the family, said grace at meals, etc. However, things were oh so narrow and dull. I was not overly or positively impressed.

As soon as I got old enough, with the help of the media, I began to pay attention to what was going on in the world around me. I began to read, to listen to the opinions of others and to think for myself. I made up my mind that all religions, including Christianity, had nothing that made sense to me.

If being critical of others and saying this offends people, so be it.

However, I am open-minded.

Also, I am offended by truly stupid religious people, the kind who take the Bible, or other holy books, literally, .....I have no sympathy for such people, only disdain.

However, I feel pity for those Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever, who are good and intelligent people but who are, obviously, not intelligent or strong enough to break free from their religous bonds. In a way, I pity them.

For me, true religion is to be found in direct experience, not in doctrines.


LD, I have no idea what you mean by: "I have had unfathomable (?) experiences, and now I am moving towards the next stage if my will permits it, before old age overtakes me. My time is short; hence my lack of patience."

What are you impatient about? What is it you want to get done? Do you dread old age?

What, for you, constitutes a "true religion"? Is there no place for communities of believers? Or should we all be rugged individuals?

Posted by: Rick Feb 16, 2006, 04:18 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Feb 15, 04:19 PM) *

I agree with your general idea about religions. But religion is only one form of self-deception. If some one did not subscribe to any religion but had some other form of self-deception, that would also be harmful. I suggest that you focus on self-deception as the most basic evil. Have you thought about this idea? This is a friendly suggestion and not a criticism.

Self-deception is one thing, but religions propagate themselves by deceiving others. While self-deception is key to the well-meaning practice of proselytizing, the hoodwinking of the innocent (especially children) is the greater evil.

Posted by: ontologicalrealist Feb 16, 2006, 07:19 PM


[/quote]

guest,

what is your understanding of self-deception and harmfulness...what is evil?
[/quote]

Hi,

What is self-deception? I would give one example. You have heard being said about someone that he is in denial. Being in denial is one form of self-deception.

I am willing to expand on this after I hear some responce.

ontologicalrealist

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 17, 2006, 12:00 AM

QUOTE(ontologicalrealist @ Feb 16, 04:19 PM) *

....What is self-deception? I would give one example. You have heard being said about someone that he is in denial. Being in denial is one form of self-deception.
What on earth is an ontological-realist?

BTW, when Rick writes "...religions propagate themselves by deceiving others", I wonder if he will deny it if I say:

Rick, because this is not the first time you have made a similar statement, you seem to be addicted to making the sweeping generalization that all religions are evil.

Furthermore, given that human beings, by nature, seem to be hard-wired to be religious--in one way or another--anyone who thinks that a sizeable number will abandon the religious component of their nature anytime soon has got to be living in denial of reality.


Posted by: Joesus Feb 17, 2006, 12:08 AM

QUOTE


What issue?



Exactly.. cool.gif

Posted by: OnlyNow Feb 17, 2006, 12:18 AM

Lucid Dream, I think I get where you're coming from about the religion thing.

I just revisited the first few paragraphs of the bible and noted that right off the bat things don't add up. God created the light of day and the darkness of night (day 1) prior to the creation of the sun (day 4). It's obvious that this passage did not emanate from a divine intelligence but rather from a human writer who didn't get that virtually every bit of our world's daylight comes from the sun. I could go on and on from there, but why bother? If even one part of the bible is illogical/impossible/wrong, then how can anyone rely on this book as the true word of God? I have a sneaking suspicion that every world religion can be proven fallible in a similar fashion.

What are we left wiith?

Going back to square one. Let's forget everything--and I mean everything--that any religion has tried to teach us about "God."

I'd be a lot more comfortable as an atheist if nothing existed at all. No God, no consciousness, no me, no you, no universe, no space, no thing. But the fact of the matter, it's evident that something does exist. Either this something arose out of nothing, or this something ALWAYS existed. If it arose out of nothing, then "something" must have caused THAT, and you're still left with...something. And you know, this something will always be around, won't it? Are there any other alternatives? It all sounds pretty magical to me, impossible to comprehend through religion, eastern thought, western science or anything else we've come up with. I wonder if our limited brains are even capable. Sure, we can analyze and expound on aspects of this something, but getting to the real meat of the question--What IS it? HOW is it here? Why? (I can't even figure out the right question.) We hum the melody and strive to learn the lyrics, hoping to understand the song. Maybe one day we'll get there. But that will never begin to address the mystery that there's even a song at all. To me, the concept of God is no more outrageous than this eternal song...this something that we all KNOW exists. Maybe God IS the song. Just a thought.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 17, 2006, 02:28 AM

OnlyNow, you hit the nail on the head. Your experience with the bible is not peculiar to the bible; it is true in general for all religious scriptures and doctrines. These religious works invariably contain a great deal of hand waving because the writers of scripture are a lot like car salesmen in that they are trying to sell you on the idea that they know something about God, and they will talk and talk, and blow so much hot air to fill the hindenberg, in order to convince you, the reader, that they are saying something significant. But the actual content of their bombast can usually be summarized in a few sentences. The problem is that these "religious authorities", these "religious car salesmen", are in the same boat that the most ignorant knaves are in, but by elevating their assumptions to unquestionable truths, they dupe the gullible and the weak-minded, and they acquire a small allegiance to their fantasies. Such is the way of religious institutions. If they are not functioning as vain social events for people of shallow mind to put their heads together and cluck like chickens, then they function as outright shams by trying to dupe the weak with fantasies from "religious authorities" who apparently can't contribute to society in a positive way. Oftentimes these religious car salesmen are just pawns themselves, being played by wiser car salesmen who have long since passed away. If only their foolish fantasies died with them, but no, as Rick pointed out, religions propagate themselves by duping others.

Lindsay, your rewording of what I said is nothing like what I said, and there are no minor edits I can make to make your rewording convey what I originally said.

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Feb 16, 12:57 PM) *
LD, I have no idea what you mean by: "I have had unfathomable (?) experiences, and now I am moving towards the next stage if my will permits it, before old age overtakes me. My time is short; hence my lack of patience."

you are a man of God by profession, and you do not know what I am talking about? Regardless of whether consciousness is the same light shining through each of us, and perhaps all the universe, the form of my consciousness is temporal, is fleeting. My state of self-awareness is a form of consciousness. Death, old age, and time in general, destroys all forms. Hence, my time is short. The unfathomable experience is exactly that. To explain more would be to fathom it, and this is not possible with the limitations of human language.

Joesus, the answers are Brihadaranyaka IV.5 (one of the Upanishads, like you noted), Yoga Vasistha (congrats, was not expecting you to get this but I figure you must have recognized "atomic space of consciousness" as one of the distinguished terms used in the Yoga Vasistha), and Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Idea". Schopenhauer is trying to convince the reader that the kernel of reality is will, a never-ending striving, a ceaseless activity, a continuous flux; there is not only no rest for the wicked, but no rest for anything, anywhere, anytime. This is in contradistinction to those who preach that stasis and timeless being are of the essence of reality. Clearly, you know something of Eastern philosophy, but it is a shame that you have neglected Western. Why is that? If you are ignorant of great concepts of Western philosophy, how can you expect to teach others of truth when you have much to learn yourself?

In fairness, my interpretations are:
Mt 7:6 - do not share or give important things or wisdom to those who will not appreciate it.
Eccles 8:17 - that even the wisest men do not know and cannot fathom the full works of God.
Cor 2:9 - that the reward for those who love God is beyond our senses of sight and sound, but is of the heart.

Again I ask, what is there of wisdom in this, or any of the bible for that matter? I would like to hear your interpretation.

Posted by: Rick Feb 17, 2006, 12:46 PM

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Feb 16, 09:00 PM) *

Furthermore, given that human beings, by nature, seem to be hard-wired to be religious--in one way or another--anyone who thinks that a sizeable number will abandon the religious component of their nature anytime soon has got to be living in denial of reality.

On the contrary, the fact that I have overcome my own hard-wired human inclination toward lazy acceptance of the easy answers provided by religion gives me hope that my words are doing some good. I have never said I deny the importance of the human emotion of reverence. I merely warn that it is our human duty to be sure that our reverence is not misguided or diverted by charlatans. Reason is the nature-given tool to accomplish these things.

Posted by: Joesus Feb 17, 2006, 01:49 PM

QUOTE

In fairness, my interpretations are:
Mt 7:6 - do not share or give important things or wisdom to those who will not appreciate it.
Eccles 8:17 - that even the wisest men do not know and cannot fathom the full works of God.
Cor 2:9 - that the reward for those who love God is beyond our senses of sight and sound, but is of the heart.

Again I ask, what is there of wisdom in this, or any of the bible for that matter? I would like to hear your interpretation.


Well then we might be close to being on the same page in the interpretation of the scripture.

As for value. Do you see nothing of any truth in these words? How would you define wisdom?

Would you try and explain college physics to a 5 year old?
Is there a finite answer to any question?
What is the heart? Is it associated with attached feelings of love or unconditonal love, the love that supports all things, all choices all desires?
You mention feelings but what are feelings or what feelings are you associating with the heart?

Since you are convinced that I know nothing of Western philosophy then we will not discuss it. Let's stick to eastern since you find we have commonality there. I wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable in thinking that you won't be able to communicate with me in common terms.

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 17, 2006, 02:44 PM

lucid_dream, post Yesterday, 11:28 PM

QUOTE
Lindsay, your rewording of what I said is nothing like what I said, and there are no minor edits I can make to make your rewording convey what I originally said.
NOTHING? You mean that you are NOT open-minded, RC, etc.? Then one of us must be from Venus, and the other from Mars. If this is true, then it is probably pointless for us to communicate in writing. No wonder we who live in the so-called "Judaeo/Christian West" cannot communicate with people and religions of the East, who often live in a different time frame. For example, with fundamentalist Muslims who still think in 12th-Century terms.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to speculate: What would it be like to have a verbal chat?
==============================================================
To my comment: "LD, I have no idea what you mean by: "I have had unfathomable (?) experiences, and now I am moving towards the next stage if my will permits it, before old age overtakes me. My time is short; hence my lack of patience" you responded: "You are a man of God by profession, and you do not know what I am talking about?" I prefer to think of myself as being IN G-D.

Then you added:
QUOTE
Regardless of whether consciousness is the same light shining through each of us, and perhaps all the universe, the form of my consciousness is temporal, is fleeting.....To explain more would be to fathom it, and this is not possible with the limitations of human language.
NOW I understand it. Without pride, prejudice or malice I add: It seems to me it is you who don't understand your fleeting consciousness and, therefore, have difficulty explaining it to others. No problem. We all feel this way, at times. smile.gif

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 18, 2006, 01:21 AM

Rick, I agree with what you say. You put it nicely. I would only note that reason is not the only guide to truth. Some of our experiences defy rational explanation and understanding.

Joesus, the term 'heart' means many different things, even in eastern philosophy, but so far as your choices are concerned, I would think it closer to unconditional love. Clarification on what heart means to you would be appreciated. I do not use that term in the spiritual sense because it is fluffy. I do see some value to the bible and in the passages you quoted, but the bible has done much more harm than is acceptable. A more desirable religious work would not contain myriad assumptions pronounced as truths and would not be responsible for the close-mindedness, intolerance, and violence that the bible and other works have begotten throughout history. I am not convinced you know nothing of Western philosophy, only that you may be receptive to some ideas from there that you may not be aware of. Out of curiousity, do you still experience awe and mystery, or do you consider all experience old hat? What are your thoughts on whether all of this has an overarching purpose beyond the personal?

Lindsay, you may choose to believe to be in God in the same way that shoes are kept in a box. .. whatever. If God is all, then we are of God. I am not referring to fleeting consciousness that changes daily or hourly, but to the fact that our self-awareness is a form of consciousness, and that all forms are transient. It would seem that you don't understand transcendent consciousness. You cannot learn these things by reading about them.

Just for kicks, I have reposted your rewording of my post with my comments in red:

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 15, 11:18 PM) *
I was brought up in a typically Catholic home and community I said for a few years, meaning 3-4 years. When I was a child, I went to mass with the family I never said anything about family, said grace at meals, etc. However, things were oh so narrow and dull I never said this. I was not overly or positively impressed. never said this either

As soon as I got old enough, with the help of the media I never said anything about the media, I began to pay attention to what was going on in the world around meI never said this. I began to read, to listen to the opinions of others and to think for myself. I made up my mind that all religions, including Christianity, had nothing that made sense to me.I said I became aware that they were a crock, not that they didn't make sense to me

If being critical of others and saying this offends people, so be it. I never said 'so be it'

However, I am open-minded.

Also, I am offended I never said anything about being offended by truly stupid religious people, the kind who take the Bible, or other holy books, literally, .....I have no sympathy for such people, only disdain. Lindsay, do you understand that disdain is not the same as being offended?

However, I feel pity for those Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever, who are good and intelligent peopleI never said anything about them being 'good' people but who are, obviously, not intelligent or strong enough to break free from their religous bonds. In a way, I pity them.

For me, true religion is to be found in direct experience, not in doctrines.


Like I said before, Lindsay, there are no small edits I can make to your rewording to make it like what I originally said. You completely distorted what I said and even fabricated large parts of it. Why is that?

Posted by: Dan Feb 18, 2006, 06:18 AM

Holy ganesh droppings, Joesus is back? (more importantly, I'm back?!?) Are you looking for new converts Joesus? wink.gif
Shouldn't you be spending your time in sadhana instead of enjoying tamasic indulgences such as blithering about on this message board ?

Posted by: Joesus Feb 18, 2006, 12:11 PM

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 18, 11:18 AM) *

Holy ganesh droppings, Joesus is back? (more importantly, I'm back?!?) Are you looking for new converts Joesus? wink.gif
Shouldn't you be spending your time in sadhana instead of enjoying tomasic indulgences such as blithering about on this message board ?

I come down from the mountain top on occasion to answer a call for help. wink.gif

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 18, 2006, 12:32 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 17, 10:21 PM) *
Just for kicks, I have reposted your rewording of my post with my comments in red:......
LD, I like the way you re-edited my quote. Thanks for taking the time to do this. It shows that, when we are willing, sometimes, communication is possible. I now understand you, much better. I hope this answers you queston: "Why is that?"

Keep in mind that I did not claim that I COMPLETELY and accurately understood what you were trying to say. This is why I gave the feed back. What I fed back to you is what I actually FELT you were saying.

For example, in your last post to me you say, "You (Lindsay) completely distorted (twisted out of shape, misrepresented, falsified) what I said and even fabricated large parts of it." If I did this deliberately intending to make you look bad, you would be right. The fact is: That was not my intention. My intention was to get more details on the background of posters who want, I trust, a response.
===========================================================
BTW, to save time looking for the quote by LD--the one that I did NOT, intentionally. distort, here it is: Feb 15, 10:46 PM
QUOTE
I (LD) can't answer this-- (I, Lindsay, had asked for background information from LD and others)--without offending people. (Honest communication never offends me.)
To put it nicely, I am open-minded but critical. I was brought up in a catholic environment (Which one would presume includes the family). for a few years in youth, and even believed in your garden-variety god that you say grace to at dinner, but as soon as I began reading and assimilating other's thoughts,(Which I assume includes all media.)I knew Christianity and other religions were a crock. There is no excuse for them.( Very judgemental, IMO.)

You can say that they're opium for the masses, but that's not a good reason to keep them around or to be sympathetic. Naturally, I differentiate between the truly stupid (You don't find stupidity, especially the conscious kind, offensive?)religious people who take the bible or other holy works literally, and the thoughtful sheep, who consider themselves christians or whatever, but are more intelligent yet not strong enough of mind to break free from their religous bonds.

To the former, no sympathy, only disdain. (Open-minded?) To the latter, pity and respect if it's deserved. True religion is to be found in direct experience, not doctrine. Thus the parrots of the bible will get my foot in their mouth. I have had unfathomable experiences, and now I am moving towards the next stage if my will permits it, before old age overtakes me. My time is short; hence my lack of patience.

===============

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 18, 2006, 12:48 PM

Now, I feel, we ARE communicating!

Posted by: Dan Feb 18, 2006, 02:30 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 18, 09:11 AM) *

I come down from the mountain top on occasion to answer a call for help. wink.gif


did somebody call you here? are you sure it wasn't your own inner cry for attention that led you to this nexus of babble? huh.gif

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 18, 2006, 03:05 PM

Dan what is your position on this thread regarding unexamined assumptions and the worth of holy literature?

Posted by: Dan Feb 18, 2006, 03:47 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 18, 12:05 PM) *

Dan what is your position on this thread regarding unexamined assumptions and the worth of holy literature?


Consciousness emerges from chaos via unexamined assumptions, therefore they have value. However, if one is to completely understand reality, one cannot take up permanent residence in any less-than-fully-examined state.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 18, 2006, 05:06 PM

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 18, 12:47 PM) *
Consciousness emerges from chaos via unexamined assumptions, therefore they have value. However, if one is to completely understand reality, one cannot take up permanent residence in any less-than-fully-examined state.
If unexamined assumptions presuppose consciousness, then how can you propose that consciousness emerges from unexamined assumptions? You have the snake biting its tail.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 16, 01:44 AM) *
The deepest desire of the human is union with God.
The destiny of every human is this end result in the awareness and experience. This does not mean anyone is separate from God it simply means that as long as the awareness and knowledge of life continues in varying degress of understanding the best we can think of is what we create for ourselves in thought feeling and action.
Our thoughts have a ripple effect in the manifest reality of experience.
Joesus, why would God's nature be such that, even though we are one with God, our consciousness can deceive us on this? Doesn't this imply malice on the part of God? Couldn't God have arranged it so that conscious beings are always conscious of being one with God? How could anything but a malicious God be responsible for so much of the illusions in everyday life that afflict billions of people on earth?

Posted by: Joesus Feb 18, 2006, 05:15 PM


QUOTE
did somebody call you here? are you sure it wasn't your own inner cry for attention that led you to this nexus of babble? huh.gif

It could be... I see why you have been elevated to the position of God.. wub.gif

Posted by: Dan Feb 18, 2006, 05:29 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 18, 01:58 PM) *

If unexamined assumptions presuppose consciousness, then how can you propose that consciousness emerges from unexamined assumptions? You have the snake biting its tail.

It is not an intrinsic requirement that consciousness form on unexamined assumptions, it is simply a matter of probability and opportunity. The probability of consciousness initiating in an omniscient state is exceedingly less probable than initiating in a 'veiled' state. It could happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath. However, if a veiled form of consciousness manages to congeal out of the chaos, it may then offer selective pressure on its own physical substrate in the direction of its own need. This feedback yields the vector of the ascendency of consciousness over chaos that is dominated at early stages by chance but at later stages by design. This increasingly design-controlled process would culminate in Shawn's "singularity". At the core of this process is the bare sense of need, not any 'assumption'.

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 18, 2006, 05:35 PM

interesting

Posted by: Joesus Feb 18, 2006, 05:38 PM

QUOTE
Joesus, why would God's nature be such that, even though we are one with God, our consciousness can deceive us on this? Doesn't this imply malice on the part of God? Couldn't God have arranged it so that conscious beings are always conscious of being one with God? How could anything but a malicious God be responsible for so much of the illusions in everyday life that afflict billions of people on earth?


Point of reference.
God/Consciousness is not separate from creation as humans perceive themselves to be in the identity of being something other than God/Consciousness.

If you build a house and burn it down does the house feel some resentment for having been created and then destroyed?
Is there consciousness or a conscious connection between creator and created. If yes then does that apply to objects such as Trees, rocks etc. Does our concious thought have any effect on inanimate objects, time and space? Where does our consciousness end? If we die does our consciousness die?

Lets say that if Consciousness is consciousness and it is unaffected by Time and space but is very much aware of it. Then if you as a human no longer exist who or what are you? Do you continue to hang onto your memories of your life of presumed separation and suffering?

Let's say you have a choice to place your awareness in a point of reference that is not situated in the sparation of consciousness and manifest reality. There you do not identify with being afflicted by any outside source but are the one creating the scenario. Now the house is the body and you may do with it as you will without any predisposed attachment to mortality. Then the body is like a car or a set of clothes. They are useful in playing a role in achieving experience and creating appearances only.

Have you ever gone into a movie theater and watched a movie where you became absorbed in it temporarily feeling a wide range of emotions? Fear, excitement, passion etc. Ever cried in a movie?
Would you say there was some predisposed intent to make you suffer by influencing you into losing control of your emotional rationale. Would you say a film has that power?

We are what we want to be within the experience of what we are. Are you the body if the mind is aware of itself extended beyond the body in dreams and witnessing itself in action?

Point of reference...

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 18, 2006, 05:48 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 18, 02:38 PM) *

QUOTE
Joesus, why would God's nature be such that, even though we are one with God, our consciousness can deceive us on this? Doesn't this imply malice on the part of God? Couldn't God have arranged it so that conscious beings are always conscious of being one with God? How could anything but a malicious God be responsible for so much of the illusions in everyday life that afflict billions of people on earth?


Point of reference.
God/Consciousness is not separate from creation as humans perceive themselves to be in the identity of being something other than God/Consciousness.

So I guess my question becomes, why is God's nature so that billions of humans perceive themselves as something other than God? Does that not imply a malicious God? Why isn't God's nature such that we are all "born" with the ideal point of reference and are always fully conscious of our union with God? Is this beyond God's powers? Is God perhaps, less than ideal, less than perfect? Is God impotent or otherwise defective? Or is God malicious?

Posted by: Joesus Feb 18, 2006, 07:08 PM

QUOTE

So I guess my question becomes, why is God's nature so that billions of humans perceive themselves as something other than God? Does that not imply a malicious God? Why isn't God's nature such that we are all "born" with the ideal point of reference and are always fully conscious of our union with God? Is this beyond God's powers? Is God perhaps, less than ideal, less than perfect? Is God impotent or otherwise defective? Or is God malicious?


Point of reference.

There is only one.

Those billions of people perceived to be in separation are only suffering because you believe they are real and that they are suffering.

Each cell in your body uses neuropeptides and reciever sites to communicate with each other, if one senses something it is transmitted within the body to all of the other cells, but there is just one body.

Those billions of people are part of a much larger body and a much greater consciousness. You choose to identify with the smaller or larger.

You have decided that you suffer, yet consider this. In the animal world does a cat wish it were something else, or that it might be more or less successful if it was in a different environment or does it be just a cat?

You might be taking for granted that others share your resentment of a God that you were programmed with in your childhood, that didn't save you from the experiences of living a crappy life that didn't meet your expectations.
You could be attracting like minded people that meet the needs of your beliefs to project your reality experience. (With an occasional distraction created by the heart to point you to something greater) wink.gif

I find that in any case no matter what the belief, what you put your attention on grows. Since you have decided that God has dissappointed you, you are not willing to give up your position until God gives you something greater than your own present experience.

God made man in his own image. Since the image is always changing you're just clinging to one, and are finding it painful to give it up. Since God created Man in his own image then its not up to a God outside of you to change anything, its up to the God within you to make it change. You just may be taking the long way around the barn in your present course of action. (not that it matters since God has all the time in the world...)

Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 18, 2006, 07:12 PM

so I guess my question becomes, why is it in God's nature to permit people to perceive illusions? Why does a sense of separateness sometimes accompany the state of being conscious? Why isn't God's nature so that conscious beings are invariably conscious of their oneness with God? Sounds pretty malicious on God's part to me.

Note that I never said that God disappointed me, nor should you take to reading that into my words. I am just asking questions, out of curiousity, and because I want to know other people's answers, particularly yours since you seem to believe that everything is perfect as is.

Posted by: Dan Feb 18, 2006, 07:54 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 18, 04:08 PM) *

Those billions of people perceived to be in separation are only suffering because you believe they are real and that they are suffering.

So my beliefs are the cause of the state of my external environment? i.e., if I believe that there is no Joesus, then the solipsistic 'yoga' that is frequently posted under the name 'Joesus' will also cease? dry.gif

Posted by: Joesus Feb 18, 2006, 08:24 PM

QUOTE

so I guess my question becomes, why is it in God's nature to permit people to perceive illusions? Why does a sense of separateness sometimes accompany the state of being conscious? Why isn't God's nature so that conscious beings are invariably conscious of their oneness with God? Sounds pretty malicious on God's part to me.

It sounds malicious to you because that is the way you choose to see it. What better way to experience the power of God in you than to have the power to see it any way you wish to see it?
QUOTE

Note that I never said that God disappointed me, nor should you take to reading that into my words. I am just asking questions, out of curiousity, and because I want to know other people's answers, particularly yours since you seem to believe that everything is perfect as is.



No you didn't say God personally dissapointed you, but in your posts you have a real thing about God not living up to anyones expectations, pointing to the discrepancies you see and experience in the religious community, and the relationship to the written word.
You also made mention of your own experience in which you made a point of expressing how dissapointing that was..
I would say, that you being dissapointed in everyone else who believes in God as an Ideal, and in your determination that they are sheep without any sensibility, and through your own logic, assume God is responsible (if God exists) to set the record straight.


Posted by: lucid_dream Feb 18, 2006, 08:40 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 18, 05:24 PM) *
It sounds malicious to you because that is the way you choose to see it.
Then how do you see it? What are your answers to my questions above, or do you not even believe they're valid questions? If you don't believe they're valid questions, then what sort of God permits invalid questions to be asked? Is this not malicious?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 18, 05:24 PM) *
No you didn't say God personally dissapointed you, but in your posts you have a real thing about God not living up to anyones expectations... You also made mention of your own experience in which you made a point of expressing how dissapointing that was.
There is a difference between disappointment and dissatisfaction. I am dissatisfied with people's childish notions of God and of their need to believe in foolishness. I am dissatisfied with my own limitations, and of human limitations in general. I am not necessarily disappointed. Please do not try to change this discussion into something it's not. I have legitimate dissatisfactions and questions, and you are trying to belittle it by sidestepping my questions and saying it's all in my head and that there is a problem with the way I am experiencing things. That's not very helpful, or honest for that matter.

I could use your logic and argue that the fact that you are satisfied with everything suggests to me that there is something seriously wrong with you and the way you are experiencing things. If you are satisfied with everything, then where is the motivation for spiritual and intellectual growth, and for changing the world. Being satisfied with everything is a prescription for laziness. Joesus, are you a sloth?

Posted by: Joesus Feb 18, 2006, 08:51 PM

QUOTE

So my beliefs are the cause of the state of my external environment? i.e., if I believe that there is no Joesus, then the solipsistic 'yoga' that is frequently posted under the name 'Joesus' will also cease?

No, you, with your beliefs in what you experience as real, communicating with others who also believe their experiences are real share a common belief that everything that is experienced is real according to the real interpretation of the person experiencing it.

Take a kids toy away and the kid screams thinking it is losing something. The average adult thinks he/she'll get over it. Take away a country boys prize 4 wheel drive and he may not see it the same way as he would with his kid who lost his toy 4 wheeler.
People place value on their attachments and this includes toys, relationships, feelings etc.

One person says I lost my girlfriend and I'm suffering. Someone loses their arms and legs and can't feed him/herself, then losing a girlfriend seems like an afterthought not worth of any attention.
Suffering is a state of mind. The mind and body are interconnected but the body does not rule the mind.
As long a like minded people like to wallow in their misery they will agree they are suffering. No one likes to suffer alone biggrin.gif

As for me.... you brought me here Dan, the thought of getting rid of me isn't as strong as your desire to have me in your universe.
It's like masturbation, your'e afraid to admit you like it or do it, but you still do it anyway. It's one of those things you wish you could openly embrace. wink.gif

Posted by: Joesus Feb 18, 2006, 09:07 PM

QUOTE
Then how do you see it? What are your answers to my questions above, or do you not even believe they're valid questions? If you don't believe they're valid questions, then what sort of God permits invalid questions to be asked? Is this not malicious?

What is so malicious about being able to ask questions? Perhaps you are getting the answers to your questions but facing in the wrong direction. Eveyone is so fixated on instant gratification. True appreciation of life is in the accumulation of all the gifts rather than jumping like a monkey from one tree to another seeking the ideal banana throwing away each piece of the puzzle because they don't have the patience to assemble the pieces

QUOTE
There is a difference between disappointment and dissatisfaction. I am dissatisfied with people's childish notions of God and of their need to believe in foolishness. I am dissatisfied with my own limitations, and of human limitations in general. I am not necessarily disappointed. Please do not try to change this discussion into something it's not. I have legitimate dissatisfactions and questions, and you are trying to belittle it by sidestepping my questions and saying it's all in my head and that there is a problem with the way I am experiencing things. That's not very helpful, or honest for that matter.

I could use your logic and argue that the fact that you are satisfied with everything suggests to me that there is something seriously wrong with you and the way you are experiencing things. If you are satisfied with everything, then where is the motivation for spiritual and intellectual growth, and for changing the world. Being satisfied with everything is a prescription for laziness. Joesus, are you a sloth?

Not a sloth, lazy at times but what inspires me is the expansion I get from embracing each moment and experiencing each moment with open arms rather than with prejudice by dragging the past into the present moment. It requires a conscious choice, rather than to let the mind operate out of habit.
Being dissatisfied can be a good motivator, but you have to be willing to put down the old for the new rather than dragging the past with you and comparing the new with the old. As long as your arms are full carrying the old crap around you can't really embrace much of anything new.
There is always more than one dimensional reality to our experiences and we can expand our awareness to experience even the worst moment in a new way if we aren't experiencing from judgment. One mans junk pile is another mans treasure.

Posted by: Dan Feb 18, 2006, 09:21 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 18, 05:51 PM) *

blah blah blah ... masturbation, ...blah blah...

so I can't believe you away sad.gif but I can cause suffering in others by believing them to be suffering? wacko.gif

Posted by: Joesus Feb 19, 2006, 12:24 AM

QUOTE

blah blah blah ... masturbation, ...blah blah...

so I can't believe you away sad.gif but I can cause suffering in others by believing them to be suffering?

I don't think that is what I said but if you want to mentally masturbate, I'll sit back and wait for you to finish.. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Dan Feb 19, 2006, 02:31 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 18, 09:24 PM) *

I don't think...but...to mentally masturbate...

that's too bad. Thinking can be quite useful when applied properly. cool.gif

Posted by: Joesus Feb 19, 2006, 02:56 AM

QUOTE

Thinking can be quite useful when applied properly.

Comprehension is useful too. But you have to be paying attention blink.gif

Posted by: Trip like I do Feb 19, 2006, 03:00 AM

....differentiating signal from background noise!

Posted by: Shawn Feb 19, 2006, 03:02 AM

nice to see you back, Dan and Joesus. So what's new with both of you?

Posted by: Dan Feb 19, 2006, 03:03 AM

mostly the same except it looks like I'll be gettin' hitched in June

Posted by: Dan Feb 19, 2006, 03:20 AM

There were two exceedingly important factors involved in my decision to resurface. (well, maybe three). First, I noticed that I am being surpassed in total number of posts by certain unnamed board villains. Second, Joesus dared to speak. Third, I was bored. I don't know how long I'll be interested this time around, but maybe I'll redevelop an addiction and spam the board for a while. rolleyes.gif

trip
everytime I look at your picture, the word 'whoa' comes to mind. It's like the Oracle hasn't yet convinced you that you are the One. cool.gif

Posted by: Shawn Feb 19, 2006, 03:29 AM

congratulations, Dan, and good luck. I hope you won't debate like this with your wife. I wasn't expecting you to stick around, but it was nice to see you drop in again.

Posted by: Dan Feb 19, 2006, 04:24 AM

funny thing
My fiance's father is a http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita-preaching swami based in http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiruvannamalai, India. He was high in the http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi organization in the early 90's.

Posted by: Joesus Feb 19, 2006, 12:12 PM

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 19, 09:24 AM) *

funny thing
My fiance's father is a http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita-preaching swami based in http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiruvannamalai, India. He was high in the http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi organization in the early 90's.

Now that's funny...

Will you be celebrating Mahasivaratri with the family this coming weekend? smile.gif

Posted by: Dan Feb 19, 2006, 02:48 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 19, 09:12 AM) *

Will you be celebrating Mahasivaratri with the family this coming weekend? smile.gif

Since the family (except for the girl) is in India, I can probably avoid it. The yoga taught by her father supposedly doesn't focus too much on deities and rituals, although he does have some priests at his ashram who do pujas for all events like this since Arunachala is a hotbead of Siva worship.

Posted by: Rick Feb 21, 2006, 03:09 PM

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 18, 03:18 AM) *
Holy ganesh droppings, Joesus is back? (more importantly, I'm back?!?) Are you looking for new converts

Welcome back, Dan. PhD in hand, I assume? Congrats on that and on your engagement, too.

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 21, 2006, 06:10 PM

QUOTE(Rick @ Feb 21, 12:09 PM) *

QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 18, 03:18 AM) *
Holy ganesh droppings, Joesus is back? (more importantly, I'm back?!?) Are you looking for new converts

Welcome back, Dan. PhD in hand, I assume? Congrats on that and on your engagement, too.
The last time I looked: PhD, stands for post hole digger; or, piled higher and deeper. It can also mean: knowing more and more about less and less, until we know everything about...nothing. laugh.gif

Posted by: Rick Feb 21, 2006, 06:24 PM

Hey, I resemble that!

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 22, 2006, 12:26 AM

Rick, if it truly offends, I can dissemble it. smile.gif

Posted by: Lindsay Feb 27, 2006, 05:49 PM

Obviously no offense was taken. Therefore, I conclude: All is well!

Posted by: Shawn Feb 28, 2006, 03:02 AM


So I guess we can safely conclude that we all need to examine our assumptions more closely at times; all of them. However, Dan's point about assumptions and consciousness is interesting.


Lindsay, I hadn't heard about the piled higher and deeper before. That's funny (seriously). What would you say M.D. stands for?


Posted by: Lindsay Feb 28, 2006, 03:50 PM

QUOTE(Shawn @ Feb 28, 12:02 AM) *

...Lindsay, I hadn't heard about the piled higher and deeper before. That's funny (seriously). What would you say M.D. stands for?
I will tell you what The Rev. stands for: The revolving one. Comes the revolution, I hope I will not be revolving, too fast...laugh.gif Now, I will leave it to you to reveal what M.D. stands for.

Posted by: Lindsay Mar 03, 2006, 02:47 PM

BTW, I will be away, on vacation in Florida, from this Sunday until March 21.

Posted by: Dan Mar 04, 2006, 03:50 AM

QUOTE(Rick @ Feb 21, 12:09 PM) *

Welcome back, Dan. PhD in hand, I assume? Congrats on that and on your engagement, too.

I just noticed this post, Rick. I wasn't blowing you off by not responding. I am not yet done Piling it high and Deeper, but I am ever closer. And thanks for the congrats cool.gif

QUOTE(Shawn @ Feb 28, 12:02 AM) *

... Dan's point about assumptions and consciousness is interesting...

yeah, it all makes sense to me now. I'm a natural born seer. I impress myself daily, sometimes more than once huh.gif

Posted by: mayonaise Mar 05, 2006, 12:31 AM

My 2 cents on this thread...

Both Joesus and lucid_dream exhibited some sentimentality. I may be wrong.

Sentiment is a lamentable condition of the human kind. This is no illusion.

We should do away with it, completely, and achieve unity so we would never feel we are truly separate from one another.

Posted by: Joesus Mar 10, 2006, 12:17 PM

QUOTE(mayonaise @ Mar 05, 05:31 AM) *

My 2 cents on this thread...

Both Joesus and lucid_dream exhibited some sentimentality. I may be wrong.

Sentiment is a lamentable condition of the human kind. This is no illusion.

We should do away with it, completely, and achieve unity so we would never feel we are truly separate from one another.


Union exists in and of all things. The only reason one doesn't see it or experience it is because of the personal realities that are placed between the inner and the outer.
Compassion is different than sentiment when it comes from a place of knowing.
God/The Heart is always leading one to the greatest thought one can have,... and just a bit further... wink.gif

Posted by: Hey Hey Mar 10, 2006, 06:54 PM

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13987

Posted by: mayonaise Mar 10, 2006, 07:48 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Mar 10, 07:17 PM) *

Union exists in and of all things. The only reason one doesn't see it or experience it is because of the personal realities that are placed between the inner and the outer.
Compassion is different than sentiment when it comes from a place of knowing.
God/The Heart is always leading one to the greatest thought one can have,... and just a bit further... wink.gif

I agree but I tend to like to discuss things from a more pragmatic point of view.

At the moment I think that while unity may be achieved by enhanncing the brain (including wiping sentiment), there might always be a certain level even above that, which can only be achieved by spirituality and a lot of meditation. But maybe even that can be duplicated some day.

Yet the prospect of people rising even to that lower level, would be quite spectacular IMO.

Posted by: Joesus Mar 11, 2006, 04:33 AM

QUOTE

I agree but I tend to like to discuss things from a more pragmatic point of view.
Points of view are relative

QUOTE


At the moment I think that while unity may be achieved by enhanncing the brain (including wiping sentiment), there might always be a certain level even above that, which can only be achieved by spirituality and a lot of meditation. But maybe even that can be duplicated some day.

Yet the prospect of people rising even to that lower level, would be quite spectacular IMO.

The word spiritual might imply the idea that there is something innate wihin us that connects us at all levels. The idea that it is real may lead us to find that connecting the inner with the outer is within the power of our being. Finding anything simply follows a search on some level whether intellectual or through intuitive resources. Meditation is the focus of attention.

There is a theory I found interesting, that at one time according to Egyptian, possibly Atlantean glyph translation, there were 3 ways that were being used to achieve enlightened awareness.
1. The old fashoned way being that certain people who were conscious enough to be aware of the Union between the unmanifest and the manifest allowed their beliefs which were inspired by their intuitive awareness had focused their attention on this reality to expand their experience of it. They in turn cognized no. 2. which is the passing on of certain aspects in universal laws ofTruth as a clear medium or voice in the capacity of Teacher to the student guiding the student towards their own experience.
Gaining knowledge of the affects of focus on manifest reality these individuals cognized the process of alchemy to combine spirituality and Science, #3. to create soma which when ingested boosted the molecular link between the subtle and the manifest allowing the experience of exhalted perception, or 6th sense and expanded intuition and vision. The idea being that if one was evolved beyond the basic need of the ego to cling to the fear of survival and see beyond the idea that the body rules the mind then the experience would be something that would propel the user into new experiences of the Self rather than scare the crap out of a superstitious person who might only believe the new experiences were dreams or hallucinations.

The theory was that those that would follow the inspiration of the heart to meditate or focus the awareness on that which was inherently true in all things were the clearest channels of Universal mind leading the secondary and third levels of consciously aware humans into a unified civilized structure that was without fear, greed, jealousy, sickness and even death.


I find that the external tools no matter what they are if used properly will give one the experience that they desire. True spirituality is in the expanding of unified principals that unite all beings and things. The Gifts of spiritual union are useless to those who are one sidedly seeking to achieve only material wealth. And material wealth loses its glitter when not integrated with the balance of spiritual awareness due to the fact that feelings, attachments to objects and the experiences of those objects never last. You can get tired of a good thing and there is no appreciation without the contrast of opposites and spiritual awareness.
The mind has to balance itself with both the manifest and unmanifest for neither stands or exists without the other. God cannot exist without Science or the expansion of intellectual knowledge because without the intellect there is no perception of creation being created by the creator. Science cannot exist without God because God is the underlying aspect of all beliefs, perceptions of reality and inspiration.
Even tho the ego believes in itself and its individual points of reference and thinks it can do without one or the other it still doesn't change the fact that Truth exists regardless of belief.

Pragmatism is an ideal that doesn't always lead to union when an individual takes sides in the debate between the realities of science vs God.
I think when you say you like to be pragmatic, that you are saying you're commited to sticking to a certain point of reference and would rather speak in terms of your own thinking and experience.
Combining wisdom and experience allows one to observe objectively rather than living subjectively on one side of the track carrying judgment and living with an attachment to things being a certain way.
All things being relative to something, the universe is only a reflection of the thoughts that we entertain as we create our own reality.
Ultimately you can look at it any way you wish but likes and dislikes are most probably going to be personal.

Some people like Miracle Whip

Posted by: Dan Mar 11, 2006, 08:40 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Mar 11, 01:33 AM) *
Points of view are relative

that's your point of view tongue.gif

Posted by: mayonaise Mar 12, 2006, 12:22 AM

First off Joesus, I have to say that your answer is the best from a spiritual point of view I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I get the feeling you seem to understand what I am saying.

I was unable to quote you so hope you can make out your own text.

" find that the external tools no matter what they are if used properly will give one the experience that they desire. "

Given that there are no tools today that could cause enlightenment, makes this speculation. The tools of today does result in what you say and a mind focused on Intuition/Heart is needed to go further.

" The Gifts of spiritual union are useless to those who are one sidedly seeking to achieve only material wealth. "

I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't see such a separation between people.

" You can get tired of a good thing and there is no appreciation without the contrast of opposites and spiritual awareness. "

I think the appreciation does not necessarily need to be cultivated. The code for it could be found and planted on a person's personality. Also, since attachment is sentiment and sentiment can, I think, be wiped even today, lack of attachment and spirituality are not the same thing - maybe I read you wrong.

What is spirituality? I don't think this has been set in stone. You say it's the contrast. I think that meditation for example makes one see the space between A and B and so icreases the contrast and slows one down. But spirituality can also be dyanmic. Both are methods of weighting with a common goal; yet what that goals exactly is, is hard to put in words.

" I think when you say you like to be pragmatic, that you are saying you're commited to sticking to a certain point of reference and would rather speak in terms of your own thinking and experience. "

I would rather say I like to be uncomfortable with not being able to logicly back up my intuitive experiences. Some may say that this way if I don't surrender to the Heart completely, I cannot see the truth. Well, alright, I guess ufo's can fly around all the time but isn't it a bit too simple to become a Believer after a couple of abductions?

" Combining wisdom and experience allows one to observe objectively rather than living subjectively on one side of the track carrying judgment and living with an attachment to things being a certain way. "

I think so yes. Yet there are many examples of the other extreme (letting experience only guide you) and that puts me off.

" All things being relative to something, the universe is only a reflection of the thoughts that we entertain as we create our own reality. "

So are you saying there are and are not ufo's depending on what one believes? That both realities exist at the same time and are equally valid?

" Some people like Miracle Whip "

smile.gif That can be understood in many funny ways.

Posted by: Joesus Mar 12, 2006, 02:52 AM

QUOTE
So are you saying there are and are not ufo's depending on what one believes? That both realities exist at the same time and are equally valid?

Yes

Posted by: lucid_dream Mar 12, 2006, 03:07 AM

Joesus, what is your opinion of John Welwood?

Posted by: Dan Mar 12, 2006, 03:57 AM

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.shambhalasun.com/archives/features/1999/Sep99/Welwood.htm

Posted by: mayonaise Mar 12, 2006, 08:20 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Mar 12, 09:52 AM) *

QUOTE
So are you saying there are and are not ufo's depending on what one believes? That both realities exist at the same time and are equally valid?

Yes

Why do you say so? How do you know it is so? If you don't know, Do you feel it?

Posted by: mayonaise Mar 12, 2006, 08:36 AM

There could be many spiritual men among schizophrenics - but how do you find out what is real in what they say when they are not mentally stable and/or not able to communicate their experiences well.

Some people have said that there is a difference between an elicited spiritual phenomenon and a genuine one. Naturally no placebo tests can be conducted.

It doesn't surprise me if one eventually could, after becoming open to such a phenomenon, learn to live between the supposed realities. Yet I would think such a state be vulnerable to noise and other stimuli; how could think straight in there, without accidentally imagining a tiger next to you and then trying to will it away and not panicking.

Have any Indians, let alone westerners documented the "changing body size by will" etc. one of the highest forms of mind over matter... I read that some yogis capable of that might still be alive.

Posted by: Joesus Mar 12, 2006, 12:58 PM

QUOTE
Joesus, what is your opinion of John Welwood?

I had never heard of him unitl I read the link posted by Dan.
However skimming through his essay I find there are some useful points that are mentioned regarding surrender, which point to different levels of conscious awareness, which differentiate the Teacher of consciousness and the Teacher of intellect.


QUOTE
Why do you say so? How do you know it is so? If you don't know, Do you feel it?

The universe is ultimately flexible to respond to the desires of any thought. The way you know this is not through the self perceived experiences of ones own past, although they can be useful. The mind can conjure up any amount of reasons as to why things are the way they are.
Differences of opinion according to points of reference in knowledge that are passed down from one to another are based on assumptions about the physical universe that are not connected spiritually to anything stable. They are connected to changing points of reference in the evolutionary knowledge base.

Our own history has shown us that what we determine to be truth through the interpretation of reality based on what we hear and project often distorts the underlying unchanging aspects of all things. Both science and religion have been changing with the need to meet the intellect where it is at and the choices that are made not from consciousness, but consciousness that is obsured beneath the layers of fear based programs of human ego that are threatened by the idea that we, as a species may not be the center of the Universe.. The fear of death and loss of identity leaves us without any form of control.

The way the spiritual masters approach reality is to align with the basic, fundamental principal of all things, which by appearances, are living and non-living.

Once one comes to know this Transcendant home of the consciousness that exists in all of humanity the mind can link itself to any reality, any human experience at will, because the universal mind is not bound by any body, past, present or future. Consciousness is not bound by time and space.
How I know this is the same way any spiritual master knows this. By giving attention to it.

QUOTE

There could be many spiritual men among schizophrenics - but how do you find out what is real in what they say when they are not mentally stable and/or not able to communicate their experiences well.

This is true however there are others who can communicate their experiences of Self mastery well enough and even better, they can lead the ego mind away from the stories of others and the fantasies the ego creates in the ideas of traversing the universe as God in control of things.

The Ego mostly fascinated with its own ideals and points of reference loves to expand its own box, but will never give up control willingly. It fears losing control. So many love to watch and hear the masters tell stories of how you can manipulate time and space, but will never cross a line that might threaten anything they are attached to.
Thousands followed Jesus but only a handful really understood what he was saying. The rest wanted someone or something to take care of them, to take away the very things they were creating from their own ignorance. Their inability to change things because of the beliefs in their own limitations and liabilities.
QUOTE

Some people have said that there is a difference between an elicited spiritual phenomenon and a genuine one. Naturally no placebo tests can be conducted.

Placebo tests are used all the time to show us just how powerful the mind is in influencing our experiences of life. The mind can influence the body and its ability to heal itself. The body is an extension of the mind and the world an extension of the body.
QUOTE

It doesn't surprise me if one eventually could, after becoming open to such a phenomenon, learn to live between the supposed realities. Yet I would think such a state be vulnerable to noise and other stimuli; how could think straight in there, without accidentally imagining a tiger next to you and then trying to will it away and not panicking.

You imagine the idea and you also break it down through your own beliefs in limitation.

QUOTE


Have any Indians, let alone westerners documented the "changing body size by will" etc. one of the highest forms of mind over matter... I read that some yogis capable of that might still be alive.

The bigger question would be, would you believe it if you read it?
The bible makes reference to Jesus walking on water and raising the dead, saying, "these things I do are not of my own will, and these things that I do you can do and even greater things."

Have you read "The life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East" by Baird T. Spalding? It is, according to its claims, the story of a scientific team that traveled into the East and spent several years with spiritual masters. Baird Spalding spent years afterwards lecturing about the reality of God within the individual and the mastery within all of us and how simple it is to achieve if one really desires to know it above and beyond the beliefs in human frailty and limitation.

Posted by: Laz Mar 16, 2006, 04:22 PM

Thank you Joesus, you remind me of this, did you see it Mayonaise?
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=319&hl=poole

This was both a ufo and not ;0)

Posted by: maximus242 Mar 16, 2006, 06:24 PM

hmm intresting, well I think illusion or not, religion still serves the same purpose to relieve people of the mental anxiety of life and death. Besides anything and everything is both real and illusion, we all have diffrent sub realities from which we view the world. Think of it this way, are we having the illusion that something doesnt exist or are they having the illusion that something does, or niether?

Posted by: code buttons Mar 17, 2006, 09:02 AM

I can already change size in some of my body parts at will, just by thinking about it.

Posted by: Laz Mar 17, 2006, 10:13 AM

Boooiiiinnnnnggggg!

Posted by: Guest Mar 17, 2006, 11:29 AM

QUOTE

hmm intresting, well I think illusion or not, religion still serves the same purpose to relieve people of the mental anxiety of life and death.


So does this bulleting board and TV.

QUOTE
Besides anything and everything is both real and illusion, we all have diffrent sub realities from which we view the world. Think of it this way, are we having the illusion that something doesnt exist or are they having the illusion that something does, or niether?

So your both making a point and not making a point.....

Non commitment the other religion.. dry.gif

Posted by: Laz Mar 17, 2006, 11:46 AM

QUOTE
So your both making a point and not making a point.....


It's what i do best :0) Have you heard of the middle way?

QUOTE
Non commitment the other religion.. dry.gif


might be, might not.

Posted by: Guest Mar 18, 2006, 03:20 PM

QUOTE(code buttons @ Mar 17, 06:02 AM) *

I can already change size in some of my body parts at will, just by thinking about it.

"What you put your attention onto, grows".

Posted by: Guest Mar 25, 2006, 12:25 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 18, 12:20 PM) *

QUOTE(code buttons @ Mar 17, 06:02 AM) *

I can already change size in some of my body parts at will, just by thinking about it.

"What you put your attention onto, grows".


I guess some are more interested in putting their attention on their johnson then conscious expansion...

Posted by: mayonaise Apr 07, 2006, 12:54 PM

Sorry for the long delay in posting.

>The universe is ultimately flexible to respond to the desires of any thought. The way you know this is not >through the self perceived experiences of ones own past, although they can be useful. The mind can >conjure up any amount of reasons as to why things are the way they are.

This could be true, I've been reading something about this.

>Differences of opinion according to points of reference in knowledge that are passed down from one to >another are based on assumptions about the physical universe that are not connected spiritually to >anything stable. They are connected to changing points of reference in the evolutionary knowledge base.

Are you saying that spirituality is stable, and the evolutionary knowledge base is not?

>Our own history has shown us that what we determine to be truth through the interpretation of reality >based on what we hear and project often distorts the underlying unchanging aspects of all things. Both >science and religion have been changing with the need to meet the intellect where it is at and the choices >that are made not from consciousness, but consciousness that is obsured beneath the layers of fear based >programs of human ego that are threatened by the idea that we, as a species may not be the center of the >Universe.. The fear of death and loss of identity leaves us without any form of control.

I like the concept of 'center of the Universe'. Intriguing. What would we know without fear. What would you know?

Yes - being a social creature also distorts our view of reality, but it may also clarify it. Probably intellect can do this same thing.

>Once one comes to know this Transcendant home of the consciousness that exists in all of humanity the >mind can link itself to any reality, any human experience at will, because the universal mind is not bound >by any body, past, present or future. Consciousness is not bound by time and space.
>How I know this is the same way any spiritual master knows this. By giving attention to it.

Time travel? Past lives? Those experiences can probably be induced but I admit it's scary if what you say is true.

>This is true however there are others who can communicate their experiences of Self mastery well enough >and even better, they can lead the ego mind away from the stories of others and the fantasies the ego >creates in the ideas of traversing the universe as God in control of things.

I like that.

>The Ego mostly fascinated with its own ideals and points of reference loves to expand its own box, but will >never give up control willingly. It fears losing control. So many love to watch and hear the masters tell >stories of how you can manipulate time and space, but will never cross a line that might threaten anything >they are attached to.
Well this is the first time I've ever heard of such a thing from an entity!

Are you saying that universe is built in a way that you're either a God stuck in time and space or a time traveller without control? Scientists should hook you up to an fMRI when you're doing that!

>own ignorance. Their inability to change things because of the beliefs in their own limitations and liabilities.

To change what things? You mean the ultimate yogic abilities?

>>It doesn't surprise me if one eventually could, after becoming open to such a phenomenon, learn to live >>between the supposed realities. Yet I would think such a state be vulnerable to noise and other stimuli; >>how could think straight in there, without accidentally imagining a tiger next to you and then trying to will >>it away and not panicking.
>You imagine the idea and you also break it down through your own beliefs in limitation.
Yes, I'm getting the hang of this...

>>Have any Indians, let alone westerners documented the "changing body size by will" etc. one of the >>highest forms of mind over matter... I read that some yogis capable of that might still be alive.
>The bigger question would be, would you believe it if you read it?

I wouldn't if it was by an unreputable paper. It would take a lot of effort to verify any extraordinary claims. Why don't these people show up on my door and demonstrate their abilities? Because they are too busy in their own thing?

>The bible makes reference to Jesus walking on water and raising the dead, saying, "these things I do are >not of my own will, and these things that I do you can do and even greater things."

Can you do either one?

>Have you read "The life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East" by Baird T. Spalding? It is, according >to its claims, the story of a scientific team that traveled into the East and spent several years with spiritual >masters. Baird Spalding spent years afterwards lecturing about the reality of God within the individual and >the mastery within all of us and how simple it is to achieve if one really desires to know it above and >beyond the beliefs in human frailty and limitation.

I haven't. I welcome books about this stuff with a western point of view.

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 07, 2006, 04:32 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Feb 12, 09:38 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Feb 12, 09:24 PM) *
First impressions are often deceiving when one places their own thoughts about reality on the board as being universal Truth.

I did not preach universal truths. I have only conveyed my observations of people in general, and issued a call for people to start thinking more for themselves instead of just accepting as true what religious authorities or others feed them. It is partly out of pity that I issued the call, and also in the hope that some might listen....
And thank you for your input, LD. It is appreciated.

A DREAM REALIZED
By the way, since the first Sunday of January, my wife, Jean, and I have been part of a new congregation of the United Church of Canada. It is called Pathways, and is sponsored by the York Presbytery of the UC. Check out http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.progressivechristianity.ca/

Since we both re-directed--I do not like the term, retired--in 1994, both of us have dreamed of such a movement. We even thought of starting one, ourselves. Now we do not have to...

THANK YOU, JOHN SHELBY SPONG, and others, such as Marcus Borg (Book: The God We Never Knew, and others).
Pathways is connected to other the progressive Christianity movements throughout the world, including that under the leadership of the Episcopalian Bishop, John Shelby Spong, who is the recently retired Episcopalian bishop of New Jersey. I have met with and conversed with JSS, more than once, at gatherings in Toronto.

ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS, WHOEVER, WELCOME!
To be a member of Pathways there is one requirement: Be willing to desire, and do your best to be, a decent, open-minded, totally-inclusive and loving human being. If you have any difficulty, let us know. We promise to see what we can do, with your permission, to help you. If we disagree, let us do so, agreeably.




Posted by: Joesus Apr 09, 2006, 03:00 AM

QUOTE


Are you saying that spirituality is stable, and the evolutionary knowledge base is not?

Spirituality is a personal connection to the source of all things, which is of itself stable and unchanging. However spirituality is also a term given to that same relationship which is filtered through changiong personal belief systems.
On the evolutionary path of Spiritual experience there is only one thing that doesn't change. The experience of that is relative to the awareness of time and place.
QUOTE


I like the concept of 'center of the Universe'. Intriguing. What would we know without fear. What would you know?

Only one way to know.. Get there. If you want to know how, it's simply a matter of choice.
QUOTE

Yes - being a social creature also distorts our view of reality, but it may also clarify it. Probably intellect can do this same thing.
If the intellect is sufficiently elevated above and beyond the illusions of the ego yes it can clarify reality.

QUOTE

Time travel? Past lives? Those experiences can probably be induced but I admit it's scary if what you say is true.
What is scary about it?
QUOTE

Are you saying that universe is built in a way that you're either a God stuck in time and space or a time traveller without control? Scientists should hook you up to an fMRI when you're doing that!

No I'm saying that the universe is ultimately flexible to allow you to experience whatever you put your attention on. You are neither stuck or out of control if your experiences are constantly changing along with your thoughts and desires. You may only be disconnected from the reality that you are the creator creating an experience of yourself.

QUOTE


To change what things? You mean the ultimate yogic abilities?

No the awareness of your infinite potential. Yogic abilities a label like supernatural abilities or superhuman abilities or anything that doesn't fit into the current box of beliefs and ideas are words that represent ideas that exceed ones capacity in experience and understanding.


QUOTE

I wouldn't if it was by an unreputable paper. It would take a lot of effort to verify any extraordinary claims. Why don't these people show up on my door and demonstrate their abilities? Because they are too busy in their own thing?

If you know something that another doesn't do you make a point of taking it to others so that they will know it? What would determine to you whether they would be interested or inclined to take it in as part of their universe as you would? Would you become the authority for another so that they would believe and listen to you or would those others find their own interest in what you know in their own time?
What is it that you look for to give another the authority over your present experience of life so that you will say to yourself my experience is incomplete and now I believe what the authority says and will include it in my own repetoire of conscious thought so that it will become my own experience?

There is a saying, "the heart knows no reason" and in that we all have experiences of doing something we would intellectually say makes no sense. Yet in the nonsense there is perfect sense. Will you let others determine your destiny and your beliefs?

QUOTE
>The bible makes reference to Jesus walking on water and raising the dead, saying, "these things I do are >not of my own will, and these things that I do you can do and even greater things."

Can you do either one?
Whether I can or can't isn't the deciding factor in the reality of Truth, or your capacity to believe whether these things are possible. You already know inside whether these things are true, you haven't taken it seriously enough to establish a connection to its reality.
QUOTE

>Have you read "The life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East" by Baird T. Spalding? It is, according >to its claims, the story of a scientific team that traveled into the East and spent several years with spiritual >masters. Baird Spalding spent years afterwards lecturing about the reality of God within the individual and >the mastery within all of us and how simple it is to achieve if one really desires to know it above and >beyond the beliefs in human frailty and limitation.

I haven't. I welcome books about this stuff with a western point of view.

I think you would like the books then if you really mean what you say.

Posted by: Plato Apr 09, 2006, 09:36 PM



Joesus,

Does this panel above mean anything to you?

I include the http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/03/myth-created-truth-felt-and-life-to.html as well to the subject of "heart" wisdom?

link fixed

Posted by: Joesus Apr 09, 2006, 10:06 PM

QUOTE(Plato @ Apr 10, 02:36 AM) *



Joesus,

Does this panel above mean anything to you?

I include the http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/03/myth-created-truth-felt-and-life-to.html as well to the subject of "heart" wisdom?

Your link has two http//'s in the address so I had to fix the address to see what it was, and after looking at the plate and then reading the link I think my answer might be a bit subjective.
However I saw in the upper part a school and in the lower, aspects of the Self leading the aspirant/self through lessons of measure and experience. In what the link describes as the afterlife where the God sits on his throne, my first impression was of a King/God or a master. Where the God that looks like Horace is gesturing, my thought was that he was offering the seat to the student of life in gaining Self mastery.

So I'd say yes it symbolizes the evolution of Man in experience and knowledge.
What I know of the Egyptions is that they, like the Atlanteans, were strongly connected to the teaching and living of Self Mastery. In fact the Egyptians were the same race of people that lived in Atlantis before it was destroyed.

The afterlife that the Egyptians believed in was not one of a physical death but the death of the ego.

Posted by: Neural Apr 09, 2006, 10:10 PM

Joesus, do you have an ego? Do you believe the ego has a useful function? Why does the ego predominate in today's society?

Posted by: Plato Apr 09, 2006, 10:37 PM

What about the heart and the feather any thoughts there?

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 10, 2006, 12:42 AM

Joesus writes:

QUOTE
The experience of that is relative to the awareness of time and place.
In the spirit of dialogue and questioning, I like it.

THE INAUGURAL MEETING WAS HELD AT THE MARKHAM THEATRE, DECEMBER 12
I just came from the Palm Sunday sacred meeting of the new Pathways Congregation, which, while respecting the great traditions, espouses a modern, progressive and all-inclusinve interpretation of the Christian Gospel. It is very interesting being in on the beginning of a new congregation which is now going through its gestation period. The Markham congregation began meeting at a golf course, January, 2006.

Check out http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.progressivechristianity.ca/ccpc/articles.aspx

Interestingly, this is the second time my wife, Jean and I have been through this experience. My first experience was in 1953/54 when, at 23, fresh out of divinity school in Halifax, NS, I was appointed, by the Newfoundland Conference of the United Church of Canada, as the first UC minister in the then squatter's town of Happy Valley, near the Goose Bay Airbase, Goose Bay, Labrador:
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.roads.gov.nl.ca/cameras/happyvalleygoosebay.stm
Amazingly, if you look at the current picture on the first page of the above site you will not that there is no snow on the road at this time. Today, the temperature, when I checked, was 38 degrees F, or 4 Celsius, where 0 is the freezing point of water. Believe it or not, I am in touch with a retired UC minister who has chosent to retire there. He now operates an organic farm.

The following site is about the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which is now over 10,000 people.
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.happyvalley-goosebay.com/comprof.htm

To get to Goose Bay in July, 1953, my wife and I took a plane--I remember it was a WW 2 DC 3. We flew from Moncton, New Brunswick, over Anticosti Island, northern Quebec. It was a three-hour flight. The weather was excellent.

On a beautifully warm July day, about 11:00 AM, we landed on the Canadian part --the larger part, built and used by the Americans since 1943--of the base where we were met by the Protestant base padre, Padre Phil Ross--a UC minister. He took us to his home for lunch. It was our first experience eating wild goose. Interesting and enjoyable. Both he and his wife came across as warm personalities.

During lunch Padre Ross said,
QUOTE
"By the way, Rev. King, I was asked to meet you and your wife and to take you to your new congregation. Because of certain difficulties, the details of which you will learn about later, it has been arranged for you to meet Thorwald and Alice Perault. They are actually Moravians. However, because they have some space, they have agreed to let you stay with them until things get straightened out. Were you aware that the only UC missionary on the coast, the Rev. Lester Burry will be on holiday for a month? (I wasn't.) He left, yesterday.

Much later, from a book written by a friend and a second cousin, the Rev. Dr. Hector Swain, I found out the following: the Rev. Lester Burry (1898--1977).
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=friendsofsafeharbour.org/revlesterburry.htm
After his graduation from Mount Allison University (BA in arts and theology, 1924) http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.mta.ca

Padre Ross told me:
QUOTE
I understand that the Rev. Burry served in Newfoundland from 1924 to 1932. Influenced by the famous medical missionary, Sir Wilfred Grenfell, he came to North West River, in 1932, and has been the only UC missionary in the area since. You are the second.


SIR WILFRED GRENFELL--Labrador doctor and missionary
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Grenfell

Following lunch, our host took us to "Happy" Valley. The trip was about six miles along a twisty, bumpy, sandy, tree-lined--mostly dark slim spruce--road. Except for the Grenfell Mission Station, and the one United-Church-owned-and-operated school--not far from where we stopped and were to stay, had the appearance of a shack town. The church was a shack. I later discovered that the community of about 115 families--living in reasonably-sized lots along the single road not far from the edge of the Hamilton river--had already been up rooted from homes they had built too close, according to the authorities, to the base.

By the way, none of the above--and the reason for this is a story in itself-- had been revealed to us prior to our appointment to this mission. Looking back, it seems as if we were was part of a "mission impossible".

We also soon discovered that, just prior to our arrival, the community--made up of about fifty per cent United Church, twenty five per cent Anglican, and twenty five per cent Moravian (See the site http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.mun.ca/rels/morav/morav.html )
had gone through a crisis. A failed attempt was made, by an independent group of Christian fundamentalists, one with a strict Pentecostal theology, to build what their leader, the Rev. Paul MacKinney (now deceased)--an American originating out of Chicago--told them was the one and only true church of God. I found out later that, originally, the Rev. MacKinney offered to cooperate with the UC and lead the people in building a truly united and community church. This did NOT happen.

Without going into the details of what did happen: By the time we arrived, only about fifteen families supported the Rev. MacKinney, his family and his ministry. One hundred families chose not to go to the so-called community church.

It soon became clear to me that the UC missionary, The Rev. Lester Burry, responsible to the UC for all Labrador at the time, without disclosing to me what he actually had in mind, had engineered that I be assigned to assist him in trying to prevent the take-over, by the Rev. Paul MacKinney, and the fifteen families who had left their original churches to follow him, of the one church property in the community.

In my next post I will outline what happened next. What I did caused one of the fundamentalist leaders to become so angry that, publically, he threatened violence.

THE CHURCHES IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.ucs.mun.ca/~hrollman/ Very interesting to history buffs.

Posted by: Guest Apr 11, 2006, 01:17 AM

QUOTE
Joesus, do you have an ego? Do you believe the ego has a useful function? Why does the ego predominate in today's society?

Yes I have an ego.
Yes the ego fulfills a function, whether it is useful depends on whether it is the servant or the master.
The ego is what connects the relative to the absolute, the manifest to the unmanifest, but if the the awareness is not conscious of itself then the ego often believes itself to be more real than the consciousness that created it.

Why does the ego predominate? Because one chooses to let it.


QUOTE

What about the heart and the feather any thoughts there?

Ya know there is a story that I read once about the crash at Roswell. Interestingly enough the myths that are passed through history often tell the story of spiritual visions, like the Gods of the ancient greeks and those of the Far East. The stories come from Teachers who cognize the images of certain Gods which represent in the manifest fragments of the Self.
Anyway this story about Roswell was told by a supposed grandson of a native American Indian who with a few of his spiritual buddies were on a vision quest in the desert when the crash at roswell occurred.
You can take it or leave it but I'll try and give you the readers digest version of it.

A small group of Indians were camped in the desert when a space ship crashed in the desert a few miles from their camp. They got to the crash site before the Army arrived and pulled a survivor from the crash. There were 4 on the ship, 2 were dead one dying and the other injured. They took the injured alien back to the camp where they waited for it to gain some strength and then took it back to their homes where the alien recovered enough to tell them his version of the history of the Universe.
He was one of 4 groups of huamnoid beings that had developed in the known Universe. The 4 known races evolved from reptiles, Insects, birds and mammals. As each species evolved in technology and developed space travel they finally encountered one another to share science and religion. Having shared their technology they often traded other things that were unique to each race. Some of the things they all used in the manufacture of their technology were certain elements that were short in supply to their own planets and so they often mined minerals in different planets and anyplace in the galaxy that was abundant was like the oil fields in the middle east. Whoever had access to the richest sources would seem to have the upper hand.
They developed the ability to jump through space using worm holes that exist like rivers in space. Our galaxy happens to be on one end of one of these worm holes and earth abundant in the minerals that they need to feed their technology. At the time that they discovered this planet it was inhabited by lower species of life than the humans that we know of.
Of the 4 species in the universe the huanoids that evolved from the reptiles and the mammals were the most aggresive followed by the ones who evolved from the insects and the Bird race were more spiritual in nature and more dedicated to advancement of spirituality than technology but had developed their own technology that was extremely advanced, in fact advanced enough to manipulate DNA in most species of life both animal and vegetable.
With the help of this technology the more aggressive species crossed DNA with their own races and the existing primates on Earth to create a labor force to mine the minerals in the planet. The idea was to create a mindless force that could be easily manipulated and wouldn't cause any trouble.
The Race that had evolved from the Birds had without the knowledge of the higher ups in the more aggressive races slipped a few DNA molecules of their own to give the humans the ability to think and feel beyond the projected levels needed for a mindless work force.
The Alien that told the story referred to this as the gift of the feather which connects the heart to its source.
The story went on to describe how they have been coming back to observe the spiritual evolution of the species as well as the pending interest in certain resources, and a galactic war between the 4 species over control of a shrinking universe etc.etc.

Anyway the question about the heart and the feather sparked the memory of the story, and thinking that the feather is also symbolic to a freedom from the burden of certain boundaries, and pictured together with the heart would only make sense even in light of Myth and Legends surrounding spiritual paths of Human origin, or those closer to what we might attach to our own history.

Interesting that I remembered that story...

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 13, 2006, 05:14 PM

Guests writes: "Interesting that I remembered that story..."

Go on, Guest! Please explain: Why do you find that you remembered that story "interesting"?

Posted by: Neural Apr 13, 2006, 05:36 PM

maybe it's time for some of us to clear the muddy water.

What are people's thoughts on individuation and its relation to self-realization and self-actualization? What are people's thoughts on the distinction between self-realization and self-actualization? What are people's thoughts on integrating spiritual insights into everyday Western life? Any thoughts on spiritual bypassing, on using spiritual practice to covertly reinforce the ego and destructive psychological structures and habits?


Posted by: Joesus Apr 13, 2006, 11:37 PM

QUOTE
Guests writes: "Interesting that I remembered that story..."

Go on, Guest! Please explain: Why do you find that you remembered that story "interesting"?

Guest replies: Who wants to know..and why?


QUOTE

maybe it's time for some of us to clear the muddy water.

What are people's thoughts on individuation and its relation to self-realization and self-actualization?
There is still only ONE consciousness, regardless of the images that create the illusions of individuality.
If you have one or more thoughts, they still originate in the same place, where they go is by intention but they still are not of themselves self created. Realizing the Self which has created them puts everything into a greater perspective. If in self actualization you mean to bring out the pure potential of the Self into creation then that has already been accomplished in the manifest reality of all things. If you are to define self actualization in the fantasy of the miracle power within personal control then you are still putting that reality into a perspective of the ego rather than in the pure surrender of the ego/self to the greater universal mind or Consciousness
QUOTE
What are people's thoughts on the distinction between self-realization and self-actualization?
Waking up doesn't change anything other than the perceptions of reality. What exists still is what it is, or isn't. Self Actualization is a term that is twisted by the perceptions of individuality to elevate the concepts of what would happen if this were to change. What most don't realize is that consciousness is always in charge and if anything is to be different in Self realization it is in the awareness of reality rather than changing reality.
The perception of change occurs in the greater understanding and expanding of the vision in what already exists.
QUOTE
What are people's thoughts on integrating spiritual insights into everyday Western life?
If you want to change your life there won't be anything that stops you.
QUOTE
Any thoughts on spiritual bypassing, on using spiritual practice to covertly reinforce the ego and destructive psychological structures and habits?
This is probably the most sensitive of subjects. Having a Teacher who has him/herself stepped through the veils of ignorance and the subtle tricks of the ego is vital in the process of Self Mastery.
The blind spots of ignorance are self created through beliefs and beliefs don't just go away without the experience of something greater.
Generally speaking a peak experience or a revelation can trigger the impulse to seek greater understanding but those that do it on their own don't go as far as those that seek the advice of one who has gone there. It is possible to learn brain surgery on ones own but I wouldn't want one of those who has, to operate on me. I'd rather have someone who has left their own pride aside to surrender themselves to the instruction of someone who has taken the time themselves to master the art through the passing on of generations of learning that has in its course improved on what works and tossed that which doesn't.
Hit or miss attempts at self mastery take lifetimes of trial and error, self created ideas are often just the rearraning of the same things that fit into the box of individuality.

Posted by: Neural Apr 13, 2006, 11:54 PM

so do you see no role for personality, Joesus? Are you elevating the impersonal above the personal, or do you believe both are important to recognize and develop?

Individuation does not imply anything less or more than one consciousness; it is about how consciousness expresses itself and is aware of itself.

Joesus, do you believe you have blind spots? What can you do about these?

Even the greatest teachers have their blind spots and often fall prey to illusions of grandiosity and elevation of ego, even while believing themselves egoless. How do we recognize this in ourselves, or must we wait to hear it from others?

I have heard of spiritual retreats where the students and teacher unwittenly fall into a child/parent relationship with the students vying for the teachers approval. No doubt many found it an enlightening experience. The conscious mind excels at story-telling and fantasy like nothing else.

We may have enlightening experiences, whilst the rest of our psyche has defects unbeknownst to us until they are triggered in everyday life. The experience of enlightenment does not imply it can in any way be integrated into everyday life. In other words, self-realization (the experience of enlightenment) does not imply self-actualization (the integration of enlightenment into everyday life and throughout one's psyche and being).

To what extent do people misinterpret the scriptures on enlightenment to reinforce pre-existent schizoid and anti-social behavior? Probably many in the West do. The East does not have this problem because the notion of individuality and self-expression (and creativity) is quite foreign to them. It is easier for people in the East to think like a collective. Individuality is elevated in the West. So we should be using caution when applying Eastern standards to Westernized individuals.


Posted by: Joesus Apr 14, 2006, 01:06 AM

QUOTE

so do you see no role for personality, Joesus? Are you elevating the impersonal above the personal, or do you believe both are important to recognize and develop?

The personal only exists when the ego believes it is in control or the master. The personal is created from the impersonal by the awareness following a thought into greater and greater density. If you follow each and every thought back to its source you will find that they all come from the same place. Trying to develop the personal only takes the awareness away from the source and puts it on an object of thought.
Like building a house and saying that is me. The awareness entertains itself in the thought temporarily untill it decays and falls away and then you have to create something else to try and entertain yoursel with and call real until it too falls away into decay and lack of interest.

QUOTE
Individuation does not imply anything less or more than one consciousness; it is about how consciousness expresses itself and is aware of itself.

individuation is not how consciousness expresses itself, it is one way it experiences itself. How it expresses itself is how awareness moves from a platform of potential, without boundaries and limitations. Individuality is limited within the sope of beliefs, that are constantly changing. Consciousness doesn't change, it only appears to change through lesser believes in individual perceptions of limitations in beliefs of reality.
A Conscious person who knows of Consciousness knows of the expression of thoughts but they also know there is no lasting or permanent manifestation of consciousness in individuality.
So if it's about how consciousness expresses itself it has nothing to do with giving attention to individuality.
QUOTE
Joesus, do you believe you have blind spots? What can you do about these?

What you focus on grows. looking for problems to fix only makes whatever you believe to be a problem real. The mind is a very powerful thing and it amplifies what you put your attention on. If you want to know the absolute consciousness then focus on that rather than the problems. Any blind spot or dark corner gets erased by the expansion of light as it fills all corners of darkness and shadows of beliefs.

QUOTE
Even the greatest teachers have their blind spots and often fall prey to illusions of grandiosity and elevation of ego, even while believing themselves egoless.
You speaking from personal experience or horror stories from the paranoid?
QUOTE
How do we recognize this in ourselves, or must we wait to hear it from others?
Do you have a friend that you trust to tell you what he/she thinks? Would you make yourself vulnerable to subjective and objective critcism? Or will you through your own protective mechanisms decide what and when you will open yourself to receive out of your own fear of being damaged?
QUOTE

I have heard of spiritual retreats where the students and teacher unwittenly fall into a child/parent relationship with the students vying for the teachers approval. No doubt many found it an enlightening experience. The conscious mind excels at story-telling and fantasy like nothing else.

I'd say the unconscious mind excels in fantasy and paranoia.
Sometimes it serves a student to allow him/her to project their greatest illusions onto the teacher but I know of no conscious Teacher who will fall into the fantasy.
There are a lot of egos out there who would like to tell you they are enlightened.
QUOTE

We may have enlightening experiences, whilst the rest of our psyche has defects unbeknownst to us until they are triggered in everyday life. The experience of enlightenment does not imply it can in any way be integrated into everyday life. In other words, self-realization (the experience of enlightenment) does not imply self-actualization (the integration of enlightenment into everyday life and throughout one's psyche and being).

Enlightenment like the absolute is relative to the subjective and objective experience. If it is permanent and stable it stayes with you in all experiences. Enlightenment is a lifetime commitment. If you are like many I know who are disgruntled because they have found no instant gratifying technique, path or experience it may be because you are not willing to change your point of reference.

QUOTE
To what extent do people misinterpret the scriptures on enlightenment to reinforce pre-existent schizoid and anti-social behavior? Probably many in the West do. The East does not have this problem because the notion of individuality and self-expression (and creativity) is quite foreign to them. It is easier for people in the East to think like a collective. Individuality is elevated in the West. So we should be using caution when applying Eastern standards to Westernized individuals.

If you look at the present condition of India I think you'll find that even in humilty, ignorance is still ignorance and creates more ignorance and suffering.
Truth is Truth be it Eastern or Western if one is ripe and willing then whatever method resonates will work.
You are suggesting that Truth will work if it is applied correctly, which is somewhat correct but there is a piece of scripture that contains an important truth.

Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

You can preach the truth to the holy roof tops as loud as you want but to deaf ears no truth is going to be heard. More often it will be thrown back in your face because most are simply not interested.
If you can familiarize yourself with both Western and Eastern Teachings you will find that they both say the same thing. You may find it useful if someone wants to ask you which you prefer.

Personally I can't seem to make up my mind which I like better, Truth or Truth...

Posted by: Neural Apr 14, 2006, 02:03 AM

Joesus, if you discredit the "personal", then what role, if any, do interpersonal relationships play for you?

If you get up in front of a crowd of people to deliver an important speech, and you stammer or fidgit due to nervousness, is this because you are any less enlightened, or is it because you have not fully integrated your self-realizations into every aspect of your life and being?

Have your self-realizations and enlightenment countered all your negative conditionings and habits? If not, why not?

The blind-spots are real, and pretending they do not exist does not solve the problem. Neither should we be creating problems where none exist, but should be receptive and open to our flaws and areas of our psyche that have not been transformed by our realizations.

I do not necessarily agree that the personal implies ego. In the state of enlightenment, there is no-one, but this does not imply impersonality if we take personality (beyond the typical definition of personality) as a very real expression of the absolute, as its evolution and development, and not subordinate to it. In other words, you elevate the source above the forms, but they are both important since one without the other is only part of the picture.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 14, 2006, 03:25 AM

QUOTE

Joesus, if you discredit the "personal", then what role, if any, do interpersonal relationships play for you?

I'm not discrediting anything. simply calling a spade a spade.
QUOTE


If you get up in front of a crowd of people to deliver an important speech, and you stammer or fidgit due to nervousness, is this because you are any less enlightened, or is it because you have not fully integrated your self-realizations into every aspect of your life and being?

Fear is a belief in separation
QUOTE


Have your self-realizations and enlightenment countered all your negative conditionings and habits? If not, why not?

There is a saying: "before enlightenment chop wood carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood carry water.
What one man might think as negative another might see as the impetus for evolution, to seek something greater in experience and understanding.
Have all of my boogeymen under the bed dissappeared and have I grown up?
Growth is a constant and there is no end. My point of reference is stable.
As long as I play within the realm of the human experience I will feel every human emotion, and experience the human experience but like a child that grows into the adult, the child must die for the adult to be born and so must the personal die in the belief that the ego is real and the master to experience the greater consciousness

QUOTE

The blind-spots are real, and pretending they do not exist does not solve the problem. Neither should we be creating problems where none exist, but should be receptive and open to our flaws and areas of our psyche that have not been transformed by our realizations.
They are real because you make them real.
By focussing on the absolute True reality there is no denying of anything, only the observing of those lesser things that come up to the surface, like fear, prejudice, hatred, sickness and death. The shadows are brought into the light where they are efforlessly released in the light of a greater truth. There is less stress to the nervous system when you are not seeking that which is wrong with you but what is Truth in and of you.

QUOTE
I do not necessarily agree that the personal implies ego. In the state of enlightenment, there is no-one, but this does not imply impersonality if we take personality (beyond the typical definition of personality) as a very real expression of the absolute, as its evolution and development, and not subordinate to it. In other words, you elevate the source above the forms, but they are both important since one without the other is only part of the picture.


Developing any system of measure is relative to the personal. Create any system that you wish for as long as you wish. The fact of the matter is that it will change with your beliefs and experiences. If you give your attention to the absolute, everything stays within the clear perspective of reality and there is no need to divide or add or explain anything, only the expression or movement of consciousness. You will have to surrender to it eventually. Until then your mind will seek its safety in an explaination of the universe and itself.
But you are correct. Within the relative boundaries of conditions terms and definitions all things are included in the realm of the Self/Consciousness.
The thing is, the ego can get very enlightened and complacent in its definitions of reality and establish a very comfortable home in the intellectual approach to enlightenment.
The New age movement is all about knowing the truth but it still is founded in conditions.
You can speak all you want about the truth and still carry judgment about the world and what is in it.
Very few are willing to give up their beliefs and their definitions to focus on something greater than the meager lifetime they believe is so real. They think it is just as real or more real than the infinite now.
Too bad. One can have it all, and all they have to do is to be willing to give it all up and surrender it to a greater experience.

I had a teacher who described it like this:
You got the finger on the remote control and its the same channel as your parents and their parents watched, in fact your whole ancestral tree watched the same channel and they all died. You think to yourself,"Ithink I'll watch it too because I believe something different will happen to me."

It doesn't just signify the actions, it signifies the intelelctual reasoning that everything that you sense feel and touch is real so that there is no reason to give your attention to anything else because this is what is real and this is what you can feel, see and touch.
It's why so many people refuse to believe in a God. Because if God really existed he'd/she'd/it'd come and show himself/herself/itself etc.
A dog can hear a frequency that a human ear can't.
A conscious mind can hear, see and feel things that subjectively and objectively someone who puts all their attention in their personal feelings, fears and desires can't, because their mind is full of thoughts. 100,000 of them and they think them over and over again daily.

You can focus on anything that you want to. Give the ego and inch and it will take you into the grave as soon as it can so you don't have a chance to take its illusions away from it.

Posted by: lucid_dream Apr 15, 2006, 01:26 AM

I enjoy reading your posts, Joesus, even when I don't agree with what you say.

Posted by: Plato Apr 15, 2006, 07:37 AM

QUOTE
Anyway the question about the heart and the feather sparked the memory of the story, and thinking that the feather is also symbolic to a freedom from the burden of certain boundaries, and pictured together with the heart would only make sense even in light of Myth and Legends surrounding spiritual paths of Human origin, or those closer to what we might attach to our own history.


It's one of those things you can be presented with in life and it becomes puzzling. Set my mind to thinking.

If one thought the gravity of the situation as an weighted assign heart value, had a balance relation to the spiritual truths, then in a way, the weighted heart might overtake the weight of the truth values we can have?

So in a sense, muddy and fog, as the emotive understanding can grow to clear, by us understanding the induced memories we create? Then the lesson in life I thought, is to see what the truth is, in relation to the feather?

How the emphemeral qualites there are to mind, that together with emotions, truthful qualities are realized to our existance? Working in the emotive realms then becomes clear and understanding about the weight of life, understood better? Allows us to develope further out, and balanced intellectually?

Just a thought smile.gif If something was ever planted then it would have been the ability to discern, and adapt accordingly?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 15, 2006, 01:17 PM

QUOTE(Plato @ Apr 15, 12:37 PM) *

QUOTE
Anyway the question about the heart and the feather sparked the memory of the story, and thinking that the feather is also symbolic to a freedom from the burden of certain boundaries, and pictured together with the heart would only make sense even in light of Myth and Legends surrounding spiritual paths of Human origin, or those closer to what we might attach to our own history.


It's one of those things you can be presented with in life and it becomes puzzling. Set my mind to thinking.

If one thought the gravity of the situation as an weighted assign heart value, had a balance relation to the spiritual truths, then in a way, the weighted heart might overtake the weight of the truth values we can have?

So in a sense, muddy and fog, as the emotive understanding can grow to clear, by us understanding the induced memories we create? Then the lesson in life I thought, is to see what the truth is, in relation to the feather?

How the emphemeral qualites there are to mind, that together with emotions, truthful qualities are realized to our existance? Working in the emotive realms then becomes clear and understanding about the weight of life, understood better? Allows us to develope further out, and balanced intellectually?

Just a thought smile.gif If something was ever planted then it would have been the ability to discern, and adapt accordingly?



Yes, so how would you find the balance, or establish a point of reference in knowing non attachment and non grasping so as to witness life unfold as the creator, rather than be a victim to it?

QUOTE
I enjoy reading your posts, Joesus, even when I don't agree with what you say.

Everyone has to find themselves through their own experience. Whether you agree with mine is not important, but if in recognizing that you are creating me and mine to recognize the judgments that are buried inside of you so that you can develop a greater relationship between you and your world then it serves its purpose in pointing you back to your own origins and waking you to being the creator of it all..

Posted by: Plato Apr 15, 2006, 03:27 PM

QUOTE
Yes, so how would you find the balance, or establish a point of reference in knowing non attachment and non grasping so as to witness life unfold as the creator, rather than be a victim to it?


That there is a continuity and flow, from the inside/out and back again? We already understand this interchangeability, do we not about energy and matter? That even though "the home" is where the heart is, we can still be free, to roam?

There is always conclusiveness about matter states. Hard to change that ,yet if we knew that we can be quite flexible and change our attitudes, such matters states, can elevated in those emphemeral qualities of mind this could change the way we see life maybe?

Allow us to move freer, knowing we had some ability to change our reality?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 15, 2006, 05:26 PM

QUOTE(Plato @ Apr 15, 08:27 PM) *

QUOTE
Yes, so how would you find the balance, or establish a point of reference in knowing non attachment and non grasping so as to witness life unfold as the creator, rather than be a victim to it?


That there is a continuity and flow, from the inside/out and back again? We already understand this interchangeability, do we not about energy and matter? That even though "the home" is where the heart is, we can still be free, to roam?

There is always conclusiveness about matter states. Hard to change that ,yet if we knew that we can be quite flexible and change our attitudes, such matters states, can elevated in those emphemeral qualities of mind this could change the way we see life maybe?

Allow us to move freer, knowing we had some ability to change our reality?

There is only One unchanging absolute. The appearances and experiences change as we elevate the intellect and the senses through the manifestation of the creator re-creating itself in our conscious awareness as it expands.

When we follow a set of beliefs then awareness cycles itself in and out of a box temporarily rearranging the known.
When the awareness is on the absolute we experience the creation of thought made manifest, witnessing thought not as ourselves or as ourselves being the thought but ourselves witnessing the thought giving insight to a greater Self than the thoughts and the experience.
Matter is arranged within the limits of belief. Natural laws are created to maintain limits of belief otherwise one experience would bleed into another and nothing would appear in what is experienced as form. But consciousness is not bound by any law or form or belief.

Posted by: Neural Apr 15, 2006, 05:34 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 15, 03:26 PM) *

There is only One unchanging absolute.


So how is this different from pantheism? This "All is One, One is All" does not seem a matter of contention because it does not communicate anything very informative and seems to be as useful and informative as saying "All is MUHAHA, MUHAHA is All". In the end, it amounts to a statement practically devoid of content. Do you think starving children in Africa give a rat's ass that All is One? Do you give a rat's ass about other people in desperate need of basic necessities like food and shelter? If so, then why aren't you there helping them and doing something to make the world a better place instead of handing out truisms?

Joesus, you can believe whatever you want, but unless your beliefs bear fruit in action, then they are worthless fantasy. Unless your beliefs completely tranform your being and psyche throughout, and this transformation is manifest in all of your behavior and actions, then they are worthless lies. That is the simple truth behind the statement " You will know them by their works ", and allows us to distinguish empty words and recited lines from the individuals who manifest and actualize them throughout their being and behavior. Unless your beliefs transform you in such a way, they are worthless.

I'm not sure if this was your intention, but your beliefs would seem to justify escaping from the responsibilities of the time granted us.

Do you have no purpose or calling to your life?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 15, 2006, 08:56 PM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 15, 10:34 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 15, 03:26 PM) *

There is only One unchanging absolute.


So how is this different from pantheism? This "All is One, One is All" does not seem a matter of contention because it does not communicate anything very informative and seems to be as useful and informative as saying "All is MUHAHA, MUHAHA is All". In the end, it amounts to a statement practically devoid of content. Do you think starving children in Africa give a rat's ass that All is One? Do you give a rat's ass about other people in desperate need of basic necessities like food and shelter? If so, then why aren't you there helping them and doing something to make the world a better place instead of handing out truisms?

Joesus, you can believe whatever you want, but unless your beliefs bear fruit in action, then they are worthless fantasy. Unless your beliefs completely tranform your being and psyche throughout, and this transformation is manifest in all of your behavior and actions, then they are worthless lies. That is the simple truth behind the statement " You will know them by their works ", and allows us to distinguish empty words and recited lines from the individuals who manifest and actualize them throughout their being and behavior. Unless your beliefs transform you in such a way, they are worthless.

I'm not sure if this was your intention, but your beliefs would seem to justify escaping from the responsibilities of the time granted us.

Do you have no purpose or calling to your life?

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


I can still count on the fingers of my hand how often this conversation has come up, so I guess it's still relevant.
So what is the purpose of life? Is it to feed the starving children in Africa? Who shall be the judge and who shall determine the destiny of men. Shall you be a fisher of men or a fisherman.
I don't know how familiar you are with the whole bible story but since you want to quote Matthew and his recollection of Jesus during this particular discourse to the disciples.
He began verse 7 with
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


But back in verse 6 he says:

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. The light is God/The One unmutable/Transcendant Consciousness

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

This is similar to the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The ego and duality

24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

When you separate God and creation you will see them both differently. By serving God in a form and idea differently you will see everything that is in creation as it is judged within the interpretations of your own beliefs of reality

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

So much for the starving people in Africa

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?


Now he is beginning to point in the direction of Truth and tow what the mind shall be focussed on so that the body shall follow and therefore the fruits of focus shall be in the awareness of truth for all that is manifest is of the one consciousness.



Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Once you are established in the light of truth you are automatically aligned in service to all of humanity. to be a fisher of men rather than a fisherman who believes in evil and injustice. ye shall cast no pearls before swine and ye shall lift up those who are ready to bear witness to the One. to put into bible type speech.

My purpose is in surrender to God and service to the evolution of humanity.
My experience has changed my life and my experience and actions have helped others to see possibilities and changes within themselves but I don't measure my worth by the things that I do, but recognize it in the things that open my awareness into greater vision of the Truth

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 15, 2006, 11:10 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 15, 05:56 PM) *
...My purpose is in surrender to God and service--I presume you mean, "to be of service"?--to the evolution of humanity.

My experience has changed my life and my experience and actions have helped others to see possibilities and changes within themselves but I don't measure my worth by the things that I do, but recognize it in the things that open my awareness into greater vision of the Truth
Sounds okay to me. Now how does one make this happen on a day by day basis?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 16, 2006, 02:43 AM

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Apr 16, 04:10 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 15, 05:56 PM) *
...My purpose is in surrender to God and service--I presume you mean, "to be of service"?--to the evolution of humanity.

My experience has changed my life and my experience and actions have helped others to see possibilities and changes within themselves but I don't measure my worth by the things that I do, but recognize it in the things that open my awareness into greater vision of the Truth
Sounds okay to me. Now how does one make this happen on a day by day basis?

Surrendering to God in service: to surrender all thought feeling and action to the absolute. Give it all back to the place from which it came. I am, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, where it starts it ends. God is the motion which arises from the absolute stillness.

How do you do that? In union with all things there is no separation of the unmanifest and the manifest. In knowing the absolute, one must make the eye single, by taking the mind inward to the stillness of the absolute. Once one does this with regularity the mind effortlessly stays there in its awareness then bringing it to the surface in the perception of activity through action the two join themselves together in both awareness and experience. Through discipline of prayer/meditation one begins to witness the Self in the changing subjective and objective experiences.

Each state of consciousness is distinct subjectively and objectively. The inner experience and the metabolic rate are different in Waking, Dreaming, Sleeping and transcended awareness.

Waking is characterized by mental alertness and high physical activity.

Sleeping is characterized by no mental alertness but deep rest.

Dreaming is much more physically active than Sleeping, although the activity is slightly less than during the Waking State.

Transcended awareness in meditation or deep prayer is the fourth major state of consciousness. It is similar to sleep in that the rest is very deep, but the mind remains awake and alert. Sometimes it is called, 'the missing state of consciousness,' for everyone has certain gaps in their circadian rhythms when the body attempts to settle down into the deep rest of the absolute. The afternoon nap is a modern holdover of this unfulfilled longing. What do most people do to fulfill it? Have a cup of coffee or a cigarette. But that, of course, is not what the body is missing.

In the ancient literature of the East, transcended awarenesss through meitation/prayer is simply called 'Turiya' which means, 'The Fourth.' It is also called Samadhi in India and Satori in Japan. In the West, it has been called the 'peace which passes understanding,' because the mind and intellect cannot fully describe the experience of transcended awareness -- it's beyond all words, beyond all thought. Whatever it's called, however, the experience is the same. Ever since the human being has existed, there has always been the ability to experience the Absolute spontaneously. The subjective experience of expansion of consciousness and the objective experience of deep rest are the same for all, regardless of age, belief system or any other external criteria."


The cycle of rest is like this: the body is most active in the waking state, less active in dreaming, less active in sleep and least active in the transcendant awareness of meditation/prayer.
The cycle of alertness is the opposite: the alertness is least in sleep, slightly more in dreaming, slightly more in the waking state, and most in the Transcended awareness of medititation/prayer. So we could say that the awareness reached in meditation/prayer is both the Source and the Goal of the other states of consciousness: the rest is deepest and the alertness is the greatest. The Ascended conscious awareness thru the process of meditation/prayer underlies or permeates the other states of consciousness.



Meditation/prayer is characterized by deep rest, deeper than sleep and mental alertness. Associated with this experience is a very high degree of orderliness in brain wave patterns. Normally, the experience of brain waves is that of incoherence.
Scientists measure the brain waves by attaching electroencephalographic leads to the left and right hemispheres, on the parietal, occipital and temporal lobes. The measurement of the waking state is quite chaotic: no two parts of the brain are producing the same wave patterns at any given time.
"In contrast to this, during meditation/prayer, the entire surface of the cortex becomes completely coherent. This is the best objective measurement we have for the Peak Experience described by Abraham Maslow and is found even the first time someone reaches the expanded state of meditation.
This kind of brain wave activity is also found in small infants when they are nursing and in pets when they are being petted. It is a measurement of deep inner peace. Experiencing this even once can lead to tremendous healing power; it can permanently transform the life.
"The mind is very like a pond. When we drop in a whole handful of pebbles, the surface of the water becomes very choppy. This is like the 100,000 thoughts a day we normally think. When we drop in one pebble at a time, the water becomes very orderly; perfectly coherent ripples spread across the surface of the pond. When we drop one thought at a time into the mind, the mind becomes very orderly. This is the result of conscious thought, in meditation."


The pure experience of the Absolute occurs when the all thought has faded away in the process of correct meditation, awareness is left experiencing itself. This experience is usually at first short and intermittent, but with practice it comes to be lived for longer and longer periods of time, because it is so very attractive to the mind and enjoyable to the body."

In olden times, cloth was died by dipping the cloth into the dye and then letting it fade in the sun. Someone might complain, 'I wanted bright yellow! Look how faint is the color!' But the wise dyer knows that it is by fading the cloth in the sunlight that the color becomes fast. By decreasing the color, the color becomes permanent. Similarly with expansion of consciousness. The mind expands with meditation and then contracts with activity. It is by the process of expanding and contracting, expanding and contracting, that the mind becomes permanently expanded. This means that sitting and meditating continually is not the key for fastest growth. Fastest growth occurs when one alternates meditation with activity. Regular practice and regular activity together make the master key that unlocks the Door of Everything." Other examples: stretching a spring or a rubber band. The experience of the absolute grows into all the other states of consciousness.

What happens is that the state of inner silence, of coherence of thought, is so attractive to the mind that the mind holds onto it for longer and longer periods of time. The absolute is no longer experienced just with the eyes closed, while one is meditating; the absolute is dragged out from its transcended reclusive status and begins to be lived on the surface of everything."
What is being created is a fifth major state of consciousness, unlike waking, dreaming, sleeping or the Fourth, transcended awareness.
To be defined as a major state of consciousness, not just an altered state such as one produced by hypnosis or day-dreaming, a state of consciousness must be subjectively and objectively distinct from the other major states of consciousness.
The objective experience is that the brain becomes very still and quiet continually -- the state of coherence of brain waves is no longer found just during meditation but all the time, twenty-four hours a day. Because of this, the efficiency of the style of functioning of the body is so much greater, health is naturally maximal and the need for rest is dramatically decreased. The body is running with super-oil bathing its cylinders -- the wear and tear on vital bodily organs dramatically decreases as the mind functions with maximum efficiency.
The subjective experience of this fifth state is that the awareness of the Unbounded, of the absolute, is being lived along with waking, dreaming and sleeping. This is a permanent state of witnessing consciousness, where it feels as if you are watching yourself do everything: see, touch, hear, think, act, dream, sleep.
This is a very distinct experience, very concrete, very real. This state has been called different things in different parts of the world. In our Christian tradition, it is called, 'Praying without ceasing.' Praying without ceasing is impossible without establishing this fifth state of consciousness -- the mind is always wandering until the mind has permanent stability in Infinite Awareness. In India, it is called 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi' -- permanent or unchanging awareness of the absolute. We can call it enlightenment, for the fifth state means that your awareness is continually open to the light of infinite consciousness. It is sometimes called, 'Cosmic Consciousness,' for Cosmic means all-inclusive, and what the fifth states means is that the fourth state, expanded ascended Consciousness, has become so permanent in the mind that it is lived along with Waking, Dreaming and Sleeping. But Patanjali/Govindra Yogindra called it, 'Perpetual Consciousness,' for the experience is perpetual, permanent, never lost.

This state could be called the beginning of human life, for in this state, life is lived completely in the Now. No longer are we subjected to the old belief systems and habits, acquired through our unfortunate experiences since birth or from our parents' wishes or society's desires or from the collective hypnosis of our cultural conditioning. This is Freedom. This is what human life was meant to be. This is the beginning of truly human life. And it develops so very quickly! It took so long to stress the body and addict the mind to destructive habits. But it takes such a short time to free the life from the past, from worry for the future, to establish Perpetual Consciousness and live life fully Here and Now. This is joy. This state means that we are no longer victims of our past or of others' beliefs or desires; we are completely free to choose exactly how we want life to develop and grow.

As this expanded awareness grows into exalted perception and Union all thought feeling and action is realized as being that of the creator, one naturally lives in the now without projecting stress of belief and fear of failure into experience. The mind in its transcended state is flowing with the river rather than grasping at the brambles and branches of the shoreline in its flow towards the ocean of complete fulfillment. One learns to trust completely that all action is cosmically directed in Ascending thoughts and waves of unconditional love of the One God and creator, and one surrenders every thought feeling and action in Union with God, in the service to humanity, as a living example of Truth.
"Thou art that" a statement of truth, also called a "shruti" in sanskrit, pointing all things to being one with God.


You do not have to live up to anyones expectations. Jesus didn't always do what the people expected of him, to take away their choicess in perception of reality and belief. to conquer their enemies and fears, but he did live as an example.
He said "I am the way and the life" and he showed them how to live life also saying, "these things I do, I do not of myself" He also said "of these things I do ye shall do greater things than these" leaving humanity a bone, to lead it to greater awareness through Self enquiry.

Posted by: Plato Apr 16, 2006, 07:31 AM



QUOTE
When the awareness is on the absolute we experience the creation of thought made manifest, witnessing thought not as ourselves or as ourselves being the thought but ourselves witnessing the thought giving insight to a greater Self than the thoughts and the experience.


http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/harmonic-oscillation.html

Even if this is spoken, the tangible is still far from understood, so one has to grasp for the deeper meaning.

For instance, this flowing from the one state to another and back and forth, comparisons are made in my mind as to what this absolute is. So I might construct an analogy to help awareness proceed deeper into the meanings by adopting models for consideration,. YOu say, only "one" absolute, while my words may contan the ambiguities, there is still the desire to know that voice may contain the deepr source of expression, so I looked for it.

So from this, and all life may issue from it, what is the most symmetrical state in existance? Some had the "nothing" is the absolute, yet I find ths hard to comprehend this "nothing." It made more sense that all life could issue from something, the absolute, being the source, how might it be described?

Let's call it a harmonic oscillator, where from the absolute, the basis of expression is the signature defined in this harmonic oscillator( the basis for all vibration arises). You might call it one more belief, yet, by it's very nature I am from the source? The ocean of possibiites?

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 16, 2006, 08:56 AM

Joesus writes

QUOTE
How do you do that? In union with all things there is no separation of the unmanifest and the manifest. In knowing the absolute, one must make the eye single, by taking the mind inward to the stillness of the absolute. Once one does this with regularity the mind effortlessly stays there in its awareness then bringing it to the surface in the perception of activity through action the two join themselves together in both awareness and experience. Through discipline of prayer/meditation one begins to witness the Self in the changing subjective and objective experiences.
The challenge, IMHO, which we need to overcome, it seems to me, is the tendency for our ego to resist . For whatever reason, it does not willingly want to tune in to the universal vibration.


Posted by: Joesus Apr 16, 2006, 12:22 PM

QUOTE
The challenge, IMHO, which we need to overcome, it seems to me, is the tendency for our ego to resist . For whatever reason, it does not willingly want to tune in to the universal vibration.



No it can't remain in its intellectual supremecy if everything that has been accumulated in building a relationship with its independance is destroyed in the greater understanding that beliefs are created by grouping identifications of this is this and that is that. If there is intellectual doubt and no awareness of the living faith that connects one to a greater being than the one perceived through building on the past information, then fear takes over and the mind shuts down.

It rationalizes its beingness within the constructs of the perception of the senses. The fear it lives on to protect itself is that it stays away from anything that is not directly experienced and then fit into the groupings of the past impulses. The mind and the ego gets more stubborn as innocense is lost and we get older.
This not a rule, but generally speaking there are more possibilities in the innocense of children before they are taught by adults what they can and can't do, and what is real and not real.
We are taught by those we look up to how to define life within the limits of what we can touch, hear and see. The inner senses aare ignored and they atrophy in most.

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 17, 2006, 09:58 PM

Joesus, I have taken the opportunity to summarize what I feel you are saying is the fifth level of meditation. Have I read you correctly?

QUOTE
MEDITATION—SUMMARY OF THE FIFTH LEVEL

The fifth major state of consciousness is that which is beyond being awake, dreaming, sleeping, or in a transcended state of awareness.

The objective experience of this state is for the brain to become very still and quiet, continually. Because this makes for an efficient brain, the entire body become healthier. The need for physical rest is dramatically decreased. The state of consciousness is found no longer just during meditation times, but for twenty-four hours a day.

In this fifth state we become subjectively aware of the Absolute, the Unbounded. We are in a constant state of being able to see ourselves do
This is a very distinct experience, very concrete, and very real.

This state has been called different things in different parts of the world. In our Christian tradition, Paul writes of it as being able to pray without ceasing. In India, it is called 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi' – permanent, or unchanging awareness of the Absolute. Buddhist call it enlightenment.

I believe that since the first member--or should we say members?--of our mysterious human species became conscious, we have been intested in the nature and function of consciousness. And, IMHO, this is a good thing. In 1901, a Canadian psychiatrist, Dr. Maurice Bucke, who was interested in the whole transcendental movement, wrote a book he called, “Cosmic Consciousness”. In other words, all-inclusive and perpetual consciousness. For some details about Dr. Bucke's very interesting life, check out: http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/cartwright/edpe650/bucke.htm

This state is, in effect, the beginning of the authentic human life, for in this state, life is lived completely, in the Now. No longer are we trapped in the old belief systems and habits, acquired through our unfortunate experiences since birth, or from our parents' wishes, or society's desires, or from the collective hypnosis of our cultural conditioning. This is Freedom. This is what human life was meant to be.

This is the beginning of the truly human life. And it can be ours by our simply being willing to allow ourselves to become what Jesus meant when he said, "Born again...of the water and the spirit". Read the first two or three chapters of the Gospel of John--what he said to the woman of Samaria, and to Nicodemus. Sure it took a long time to stress the body and to addict the mind to destructive habits. But the good news is:

In a very short time we can free ourselves from feeling guilty about the past, from worry in the present, fear of the future, and to establish a Perpetual Consciousness which allows us to live life fully in the here and now. This is the real joy of living we are meant to have. This state also means that, in tune with the Absolute, the Relative and the Personal, we are no longer victims of our past, our negative beliefs, or our desires; we are completely free to choose exactly how we want life to develop and grow.

Posted by: Plato Apr 18, 2006, 12:30 AM

Intuition, as small moments of enlightenment, also called, peak experiences?


Of course http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/abraham-maslow-and-peak-experience.html for sure.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 18, 2006, 01:24 AM

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Apr 18, 02:58 AM) *

Joesus, I have taken the opportunity to summarize what I feel you are saying is the fifth level of meditation. Have I read you correctly:



Have you read "The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali" which goes into the 6th and 7th states of consciousness?

Posted by: Neural Apr 18, 2006, 02:31 AM

which translation do you recommend, Joesus?

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 18, 2006, 07:03 AM

Have you read "The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali" which goes into the 6th and 7th states of consciousness?
[/quote] No. What kind of a read is it? Can it be easily summarized?

JOESUS, It just came to me: This was discussed by you, Feb 20, 10:56 AM, in my thread:
Experiments In Prayer/mediation (pm). Do You Find Pm Valuable? Or A Waste Of Time?
Tell us if you have done any experiments.
AND THANKS FOR THE SUMMARY YOU GAVE.

Here's a thought: Would it be possible for us to set up a thread where "keeper" quotes and references could be deposited.? It is easy to forget that we have been over that territory before. Anyone who has ever been lost in the woods, as I have been, knows the feeling. In case anyone is wondering, I did find my way out. Or did I?

BTW, for an excellent and brief summary of the story of Dr. Bucke (1837-1902), check out:
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/cartwright/edpe650/bucke.htm
==================================================

2. At the age of 35 ("at the beginning of his 36th year" - spring of 1872) he had an illuminating, mystical experience.
1. For Bucke, illumination is the catalyst which triggers the eventual dominant form of consciousness. A single revelation is all that is necessary and the change which ensues during that few seconds, is permanent.

1. Read here what Bucke said, in the third person:

1. It was in the early spring at the beginning of his thirty-sixth year. He and two friends had spent the evening reading Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, Browning, and especially Whitman. They parted at midnight, and he had a long drive in a hansom. ...His mind, deeply under the influence of the ideas, images, and emotions called up by reading and talk of the evening, was calm and peaceful. He was in a state of quiet, almost passive enjoyment. All at once, without warning of any kind, he found himself wrapped around as it were by a flame-coloured cloud...he knew that the light was within himself. Directly afterwards came upon him a sense of exaltation, of immense joyousness accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual illumination quite impossible to describe... he saw and knew that the cosmos is not dead matter but a living Presence, that the soul of man is immortal, that the universe is so ordered that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all, that the foundation principle of the world is what we call love and that the happiness of every one in the long run is absolutely certain.

Bucke defined Cosmic Consciousness to be a higher form of consciousness than that possessed by the ordinary man and a consciousness of the cosmos...of the life and order in the universe.

Posted by: Plato Apr 18, 2006, 08:21 AM

Richard Maurice Bucke and cosmic Conscousness was one of the first books that I read about almost 35 years ago. It was long ago simmilated, so I couldn' tell you much other then I question the role now that might be presented to our awareness for those developing and being responsive to intuitive moments. Or what a enlightened individaul might be after having meeting moments that may correlate to what enlghtenment might be, "more then once," for the initiated?

I'm thinking out loud. smile.gif

Does such an elevation really make the individual any different remembering and being respectful, of the life they are currently living/others?

I personally don't think these constructs change in which we had to learn to use in how we assess/work life. Means, that the job is ever more difficult and the responsibility to living life ever more complicated/greater. We are now supposed to be more aware?

We now understand possibly what the emotive developement means in how we produce memory and the attitude developement granted to reacting in life ( what can be changed in the future). Yet, we are still involved in purifying these emotions, still the uneducate ruler(ego) exists, by the unleashed potentials of a mind who still sleeps, while it should be awake?

Yet, the mind has been synchronized, with the development of the lower centers and the" heart," the place where such development begins? How do all such probabilites come to mind?

We now become aware of the responsibility we have for truth to ourselves/others and the illusions we might have perpetuated? The fog and qualities of working towards a "http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/future-of-book.html" that may be met because of the issues we developed/developing, along in life.

Of course there could be many interpretations caused by my ambiguity of words choosen, yet, is enlightenment really ever that far away for each of us to experience? That such potentials could exist if we had thought these things not sancrosanct to mysticism alone, but is really part of developing and working responsibly, in our quest to understand life?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 18, 2006, 11:57 AM

QUOTE
which translation do you recommend, Joesus?


"Enlightenment" The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali By MSI
ISBN # 0-931783-52-6


QUOTE
No. What kind of a read is it? Can it be easily summarized?

Depends on your level of consciousness. It is layered in the depths of multidimensional reality. Read it once and you get something. Read it twice you get more, read it 3 times and you get more. Enlightenment cannot be summarized but it can be talked about and experienced.

QUOTE

Does such an elevation really make the individual any different remembering and being respectful, of the life they are currently living/others?
Absloutely
QUOTE

I personally don't think these constructs change in which we had to learn to use in how we assess/work life. Means, that the job is ever more difficult and the responsibility to living life ever more complicated/greater. We are now supposed to be more aware?

Stabilizing conscious awareness requires a discipline. Choice becomes more important as one evolves because the mind is full of habits that are attached to beliefs in the reality of the world as it Had been experienced. Your thoughts when followed outward are different than when taken inward and witnessed. Trying to recapture fleeting glimpses or intuitive moments does not help stabilize or establish permanence in higher awareness. Remembering peak experiences or drawing the past memories into the present does not establish conscious awareness in the absolute.

QUOTE
We now understand possibly what the emotive developement means in how we produce memory and the attitude developement granted to reacting in life ( what can be changed in the future). Yet, we are still involved in purifying these emotions, still the uneducate ruler(ego) exists, by the unleashed potentials of a mind who still sleeps, while it should be awake?

King James Version Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


What you also understand is how you believe the world is and how you are interacting within it. You have an intellectual understanding of enlightenment and possibly a peak into some experiences. But...
You ain't there until your there.... The world looks differently to each individual who sits within the paradigms of belief and to the enlightened it is realized for what it is.

The cosmic waters of the absolute are the very fabric which the mind interprets its ideas of reality.
What you focus on grows, nothing changes if you believe it won't change, and beliefs alone will not change what you know in the layers of your mind to be true.
Enlightenment is a process of letting go of what you know by expanding the intellect with the absolute rather than facts.
This does not exclue intellectual knowledge, the mind in its habitual need for identity will need to break habit by using habit, but it must be done with wisdom and greater awareness.
QUOTE

Yet, the mind has been synchronized, with the development of the lower centers and the" heart," the place where such development begins? How do all such probabilites come to mind?

By taking the mind from the surface layer of thoughts inward and below the thoughts.

QUOTE


We now become aware of the responsibility we have for truth to ourselves/others and the illusions we might have perpetuated? The fog and qualities of working towards a "http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/future-of-book.html" that may be met because of the issues we developed/developing, along in life.

Of course there could be many interpretations caused by my ambiguity of words choosen, yet, is enlightenment really ever that far away for each of us to experience? That such potentials could exist if we had thought these things not sancrosanct to mysticism alone, but is really part of developing and working responsibly, in our quest to understand life?

It is never far away. Home is usually only in the oppoite direction that we are facing. We need only turn in that direction to begin to take the awareness in that direction and remember.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 18, 2006, 11:07 PM

QUOTE
How does one know they are there? Considering…there ain’t no there…nor here…or anywhere…just isness.
I'll take your isness and raise you a there.

QUOTE
What is the world to an enlightened being…what is realized…what depths to they tread?

The manifestation of the Self... The Self... More expanded awareness of the Self and its pervasiveness.
QUOTE
I find the above statement a bit conflicting…if beliefs are thoughts…and thoughts alone will not change what is known within the layers of the mind…and enlightenment is a process of letting go…….but then…isn’t the concept of enlightenment a thought, that one believes, thus they focuses on this belief in which to make it manifest?

Enlightenment is spurred by the infinite consciousness both in idea and actualization. Beliefs are not required to expand consciousness. For example if you are Jewish and you believe in the history of the world and what is to come according to that Tradition, and you epand conscious awareness it will take you beyond the ideas of Jewish beliefs.
Same with any belief system. If you expand conscious awareness you will transcend any idea wrapped around the belief. As the mind transcends the original thought the mind may attempt to wrap new ideas around consciousness but it will not come to a finite conclusion, it will not come to a desireless state until the mind surrenders itself to stillness without thought in experience of the manifest and unmanifest.

QUOTE
How can one expand with the absolute…is they do not have a concept of it…or any understanding of it?

Understanding is not required. The absolute is not separate. When one lets go of thought it slaps you upside the head when you aren't looking for it.

QUOTE
What is the difference from facts and the knowing of the absolute?
Relative meanings are constantly changing. Knowing of something and experiencing something that doesn't change within the experiences expands the mind as it tries to match its unboundedness with limits in concepts as it continutes to give it attention.
QUOTE
How is the absolute known if facts are disregarded…would it be through intuition and inspiration? Doesn’t intuition and inspiration derive from the intangible?
As the mind expands by putting more attention on the absolute, what is already connected becomes more tangible and fuller as the mind lets go of its limitations and boundaries.
QUOTE
If remembering experiences or drawing past memories into the present does not establish conscious awareness in the absolute…what does?
Taking the mind inward, being aware of the surface thoughts, the thoughts that lead the mind outward and letting them go to establish the awareness on the absolute below the surface thoughts of the mind. There are thoughts that lead the mind inward and upward such as praise grattitude and love, while other thoughts lead downward and outward, such as thoughts that are based on fear and separation. Thoughts of the past mixed within the minds box of other memories take the mind to thoughts of the past and then they are projected into the future. The mind, connected to the heart, when present in the pure experience of the absolute recognises the difference.

QUOTE
So…my question to you is…what is one to remember? And how can one fully remember if the path is cluttered with past experiences? We could disregard each experience…as useless mumbo-jumbo…but wouldn’t the essence…the heart of knowing…through each experience be NOT remembered?


You mean like the experience of terror, hatred, jealousy, intimidation, manipulation, comparison, hunger, pain, being drunk, being stoned, changing experiences of being a child then an adult, birth, death, sickness, watching TV, masturbation, brushing your teeth, having a period, war, being bitten by a mosquito or a poisonous snake.
In the differing subjective and objective experiences of conscious awareness the measurment of the brain wave patterns of the left and right hemisphere are chaotic when measured in the normal waking state person. When one is a deep state of rest in meditation or during a peak experience as described by Abraham Maslow the brain waves become coherent. The intuitive part of the brain becomes more active than when one is doing mundane mechanical work whirling thoughts about on the surface of the mind.
The connective awareness between consciousness and the heart is often muffled by the surface chop that is created by dropping so many thoughts onto the mind all at once.

Face it, not all experiences are intimately connected with the heart in conscious awareness.
Pople have feelings mistaking them for the heart, some believe that God lives in the sky and the devil underground. These create feelings of fear which are not connected to the heart which only knows love. The mind then is wandering in thoughts, not knowing.

Posted by: Neural Apr 19, 2006, 01:56 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 15, 06:56 PM) *
My purpose is in surrender to God and service to the evolution of humanity.


so what does this mean, practically speaking? Please be more specific. How is it that you are helping to evolve humanity? What does "humanity" mean to you?

What do you do when surrendering to God conflicts with helping to evolve humanity, or is it your claim that God "wants" to help humanity evolve?

Also, if you identify with the Self, and if the Self is God, then your statement about surrendering to God amounts to saying that you surrender to yourself; i.e., you do whatever you want. Where is the selfless in all of this? Is this a correct interpretation of your statement?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 19, 2006, 11:28 AM

QUOTE


so what does this mean, practically speaking? Please be more specific. How is it that you are helping to evolve humanity? What does "humanity" mean to you?

Humanity from the perspective of the waking state mind is a collective of Souls. From the experience of the One it is the multidimensional being of One consciousness.
The Shruti "You are That" or "Thou art That" refers to this.
QUOTE

What do you do when surrendering to God conflicts with helping to evolve humanity, or is it your claim that God "wants" to help humanity evolve?
The natural direction is evolution, the collection of experience to expand awareness within the understanding of the Self. This is part of the natural law of this universe.
Now, being that time is not a universal law within the natural being of the one consciousness the shifting patterns of evolution and devolution are taking place simultaneously. God is creating itself again and again within the manifest simultaneously in the experience of perception and uncreated within the potential that God is.
QUOTE

Also, if you identify with the Self, and if the Self is God, then your statement about surrendering to God amounts to saying that you surrender to yourself; i.e., you do whatever you want. Where is the selfless in all of this? Is this a correct interpretation of your statement?

Selflessness is a word used to separate one from another, to do something without regard for ones own needs or desires. From the awerenss of the one this is not a reality it is an illusion.
What one does is connected to the other, in co-operation.

You could say one lays down their life for the other in a shared experience whne a murder is created, the thought is generated within the potential of the one consciousness and two actors are created on a stage and the scene unfolds.


Posted by: Joesus Apr 19, 2006, 12:02 PM

QUOTE


The Self is not separate from the self…the self IS manifestation. Is there an end point to this expansion of awareness, or is one in perpetual expansion?

The One is in a perpetual state of becoming.
QUOTE
If one is in perpetual expansion, then one is in perpetual surrender (to use your concept)…if one is in perpetual surrender then they must realize that each truth they ‘find’ in turn must be surrendered to a greater ‘truth’…if one realizes this…then one must ask…what is truth if its in the state of perpetual expansion? Without a question how can any ‘answer’ be ‘found’ or without the self, how can the Self be realized?

By separating the One Truth from relative truths. IF the ego establishes a reference point in a relative truth it will not last when exposed to the greater truth that there are no relative truths that are permanent. The One is everlasting and perpetual. All conceptualized truths are forever changing within the everpresent lasting truth.

QUOTE



So…through thought and the experience of what is thought…one becomes enlightened?


No the conscious enlightened One Self is already enlightened.
QUOTE

Without belief or truth…how can anything be conscious? If one becomes still…without thought…then they would be unconscious…in being unconscious…how can the stilled mind…know its stilled?…how can a stilled mind know it has reached the absolute? Is it possible that the stilled mind is that without judgment…that which observes, and allows what is to be, to be what IS? If this is a possibility…how are judgments…or duality, stilled?
You're not paying attention. The experience of enlightenment is created in duality. It is created from the stillness, the absolute.
I am the alpha and the Omega. within the manifest there is a beginning and an end. The One is both and neither for time does not exist within the One consciousness but has to be created to experience events of perception. IT is the natural law of the manifest to have a beginning and an end, yet consciousness in it's infinite awareness is not bound by any laws.

QUOTE


Understanding is wisdom accrued through experience…this is not required to exist in this world?
To be in the world one must know of it in relative terms. Wisdom then become relative to measure. The wisdom of the 1400's was that the world was flat and anyone sailing far enough towards the horizon would fall off the edge of the world.
QUOTE
One must perceive what they think they know…in which to ‘step’ into what they think they know, in which to find that which truly knows, knowingly.

This is a belief. The one consciousness does not need anything
QUOTE
Without self knowledge, how can the knowing of Self be realized? Why does thought slap you up side the head once you let go of it? Where does this thought come from?

If the ego dies what is left?

QUOTE


I agree, truth is relative. If the absolute is unchanging…and if we are it…forever changing…is the absolute really still?
In the pure experience of the One there is stillness, fullness, potential
QUOTE
The something from the nothing…if something derives from the nothing…then the nothing cannot be nothing…the mind is that which perceives the illusion of binding the unboundable…creating experience, through measuring what it thinks it knows, through sensing that it does not know…How can the mind match the unboundlessness that it senses…when the concept/potential of unboundlessness is of the mind?

If it is of the mind then what mind is it of? The created mind of relative wisdom or the universal mind?

By the way I don't believe there was any reference to the stillness being nothing, I think that was an assumption.


QUOTE




So… the mind pushes away its past experiences…

Another assumption based om your past experiences of knowledge and wisdom?
QUOTE
wouldn’t this create memory? And wouldn’t it then be… through memory that the source would be remembered?
This may appear to be true to the ego and it does become complacent in amassing relative ideas to create the illusion of Union rather than actually rising beyond relative boundaries.
QUOTE
The mind is that which focuses, through focus it creates potential…as long as the mind extends its focuses outwardly, all experiences will be placed into memory…if the mind focuses inwardly…into that which is called memory…the mind ceases its creative focus in which to find the answer through creating questions…

Yes but if the mind goes inward beyond relative points of reference it expands beyond the personal memories of the ego and opens up the infinite potential of universal mind
QUOTE

that which creates, must still its desire for creating, and observe that which was created, unfolding memory…unfolding the illusion of binding the unboundable.

The ego or the personal must die and let go of its identity to realize the universal mind within the One consciousness. One must beable to let go of the personal memories to expand outside of the personal.


QUOTE


Yep…I mean all those perceived negatives. All is connected and there are no mistakes. People perceive what they must…for it is of their own creation, in which to experience creating the vessel, filling the vessel or harmonizing the vessel…fear is of the mind not understanding what it senses, in not understanding, it questions, and through questioning it creates, through creating, it experiences… unfolding experience brings forth understanding, which brings forth acceptance. Perceived fear/negatives is just as divine as perceived love…without the experience of fear, how would love be understood…and without love, how could fear be understood? They are the same thing…face it.

Fear and love are not the same thing. Love creates the movement fear draws the mind away from love. There is no rule that one must experience fear to know love.

Posted by: kortikal Apr 19, 2006, 02:37 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 19, 08:28 AM) *

Selflessness is a word used to separate one from another, to do something without regard for ones own needs or desires. From the awerenss of the one this is not a reality it is an illusion.
What one does is connected to the other, in co-operation.


This makes no sense. Selflessness is not used to separate one from another. Quite the opposite in fact.

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 19, 2006, 02:57 PM

Please, when you give a quote from a fellow poster, would you please name the poster--at least at the beginning. I would also like to know, now and then, from whence you write, the time of day and the weather.

For example, Markham, Ontario, is immediately north and east of metro Toronto. It has lots of open country-like spaces, at this point. At the same time, there are areas of much development throughout the area. It is truly a community of communities.

Thornhill, where I have lived since 1988, is one of the oldest parts of Markham. It sits like a small cap on the head of the big city.

The time, now, is 3:35 PM. The sky is clear, the air is warm--at least for this time of yea--the grass is growing fast, green and almost ready for the first mowing. In addition, the forsythias, a shrub of the olive family, are blooming, and other bushes are budding. In short, this is one of the best springs I have seen for some time. May we have more like it.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=uk.multimap.com/wi/56648.htm

Interestingly, the short street on which the Kings live is called King's Inn Trail. It is south of 407--a major toll-raod across the north of Metro. It is just west of 401--part of the transcanada system. Go north of metro and you will see the open spaces. The greater Toronto area is over 2,000,000.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 19, 2006, 06:37 PM

Bah we are just running in circles, its already been argued that truth is based on internal interpretation of ones own mind or to be bound by laws of nature and theories seen as truth which have been created by scientists, ect. Whether you want your One Truth or your everyone has their own truths most agree that people have diffrent opinions on what truth is..

Posted by: Guest_Dianah_* Apr 19, 2006, 06:45 PM

smiles....

that is the point trying to be made here...all enfolds...unfolds...convolutes...its all relative

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 19, 2006, 06:51 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 19, 03:37 PM) *

Bah we are just running in circles...


Max, of course we are! But it must be fun, right?. Otherwise, why would anyone go on doing it?

You add, "Whether you want your One Truth or ... everyone has their own truths, most agree that people have different opinions on what truth is."

Of course, you are right!!!!

So what else in new?

Posted by: Neural Apr 19, 2006, 08:19 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 19, 09:28 AM) *

QUOTE
so what does this mean, practically speaking? Please be more specific. How is it that you are helping to evolve humanity? What does "humanity" mean to you?

Humanity from the perspective of the waking state mind is a collective of Souls. From the experience of the One it is the multidimensional being of One consciousness.
The Shruti "You are That" or "Thou art That" refers to this.


So how is it that you are helping to evolve humanity? Please be specific.

Posted by: Neural Apr 19, 2006, 08:21 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 19, 09:28 AM) *

QUOTE

What do you do when surrendering to God conflicts with helping to evolve humanity, or is it your claim that God "wants" to help humanity evolve?
The natural direction is evolution, the collection of experience to expand awareness within the understanding of the Self. This is part of the natural law of this universe.


So according to you, the Self is evolving?


Posted by: Plato Apr 19, 2006, 10:04 PM


http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/08/big-horn-medicine-wheel.html


Posted by: Joesus Apr 20, 2006, 02:29 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 20, 01:21 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 19, 09:28 AM) *

QUOTE

What do you do when surrendering to God conflicts with helping to evolve humanity, or is it your claim that God "wants" to help humanity evolve?
The natural direction is evolution, the collection of experience to expand awareness within the understanding of the Self. This is part of the natural law of this universe.


So according to you, the Self is evolving?

No the manfestation of unconscious thought is evolving

Posted by: Neural Apr 20, 2006, 02:43 AM

So according to you, Joesus, there is a Self whose nature is such that it manifests evolving unconscious thoughts? Is this your definition of God too?

Posted by: Plato Apr 20, 2006, 07:09 AM

While still retaining perspectve about life, such things raised in our attempts at understanding model expresssions, are in essence, asking about the, "http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/purpose-of-compton-lecture-series.html. "

So how shall it emerge into our awareness?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 20, 2006, 11:32 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 20, 07:43 AM) *

So according to you, Joesus, there is a Self whose nature is such that it manifests evolving unconscious thoughts? Is this your definition of God too?

No one can define God!

I was describing the nature of the relative universe in which one experiences growth in awarenss of consciousness.

Posted by: Guest Apr 20, 2006, 12:21 PM

if you want to move deeper into the pysche...read what you write as if it were written to yourself...

Posted by: Joesus Apr 20, 2006, 02:27 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Apr 20, 05:21 PM) *

if you want to move deeper into the pysche...read what you write as if it were written to yourself...

self anal-yzation. Not to be confused with Svadhaya or the study of the self.
The mechanics of Self study involve looking beyond definitions rather than trying to substantiate them in meaningful concepts.

Its not important to wade through the beliefs of the relative though it does satisfy the mind temporarily to give meaning to itself. Putting the attention on that which creates it does not necessarily require the slow proces of deconstruction.
The separated intellect has needs, and it projects that idea onto the Self, thinking that the all pervasive is incomplete without our help to fill voids in its being. The psyche is a construct of patterns and beliefs created by unfulfilled desires and beleifs. Unconscious thought stirs the cosmic waters creating ripple effects that perpetuate the ongoing support of beliefs. When the mind settles down into stillness there is no incomplete being, only being.
From separation we believe we are incomplete without certain knowledge or experience.
God is hardly lacking in either and without the need to understand itself to express itself. The return to innocense frees the mind of such boundaries in expression. requirements of need and structure in purpose. All is created equally and supported equally. Every thought feeling and action is generated in awareness and becomes thick in the attention that is given to it. If you want to know the psyche you might be lucky to unravel some ideas about it but the psyche is everchanging and being recreated constantly. What hope would you have of gaining union with all things by studying the workings of the ego and validating its reality?
You will eventually have to give it back to that which created it which is the filtered desires for union that that mind atttaches form and illusion of need.

You have a choice. You always have a choice, to move into the manifest consciously or unconsciously.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 20, 2006, 04:03 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 20, 10:32 AM) *

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 20, 07:43 AM) *

So according to you, Joesus, there is a Self whose nature is such that it manifests evolving unconscious thoughts? Is this your definition of God too?

No one can define God!

I was describing the nature of the relative universe in which one experiences growth in awarenss of consciousness.


How can you claim to not define god if he is exsistant? By your logic nothing can therefore be defined because everything that is - exists and if god exists and cannot be defined then therefore everything that exists cannot be defined. So thus nothing can be defined because everything exists and so does this lack of definition lead to propegate that nothing exists? and thus your god is non-existant?

Posted by: Neural Apr 20, 2006, 04:13 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Apr 20, 10:21 AM) *

if you want to move deeper into the pysche...read what you write as if it were written to yourself...


The psyche does not require language for thought or understanding. More often than not, language is a circuitous roundabout and very imperfect medium for communicating thought and understanding. There's no reason to expect language to reside in the depths of the psyche, or to be able to communicate what's there. Quite the contrary in fact. Hence the essence of the 'ineffable' experience.

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 20, 2006, 04:15 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 20, 08:32 AM) *

No one can define God!
Okay, I agree. However, this does not, IMHO, prevent us human, or thinking, beings from thinking about the god-concept and matters having to do with philosophy and theology'
Some of what I write here may be a repeat of what I have said in other threads. If this is old stuff to you feel free to pass over it quickly.
For some years I have been interested in the philosophy of Alfred North Whithead. For the details of his life and work, check out

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

ANW wrote extensively--and he is not an easy read--on what he called "process philosophy" and "process theology".

The same is also true of Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000). Here is a good summary of his thinking

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_842_hartshorne.htm

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=plato.stanford.edu/entries/hartshorne/

I like things simple so here is a simplified synopsis of process thought, by Sheela Pawar:
====================================================
QUOTE
Process thought is based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947). Whitehead departed from traditional philosophy by conceiving of individual entities as series of moments of experience instead of as masses of static substance.
Within each moment, an entity is influenced by others, creates its own identity and propels itself into further experiences. Because of the involvement of all moments of experience with each other, Whitehead conceived of the entire cosmos as an organic whole. Just as all the cells in our bodies are interrelated, all elements of the universe -- from the light waves of a distant star to a human being living in Boise, Idaho -- are interrelated.
These relationships are not all equal: a single skin cell on a person's toe does not affect his or her life as much as does a nerve cell in the brain. Complex groups of cells, such as the nervous system, have a greater influence on the person than single cells. Analogously, social groups are more effective than single individuals, and individuals are more effective than single cells.
People living in the United States are affected by particles released from a volcano in the Philippines. Business practices in Japan affect the global community. Individual elements that have little effect in themselves, such as a molecule of carbon monoxide, are often greatly effective in large numbers, as ecological effects of large amounts of carbon monoxide pollution attest. Relativity is descriptive of sub-atomic particles, social groups, as well as planetary systems.

Whitehead's philosophy is grand in scope. It provides a metaphysical system applicable to all aspects of our lives. It has been utilized to provide insights into aesthetics, biology, economics, education, interpersonal relations, physics, physiology, political theory, psychology, the relationship among the world's religions, and theology. As a comprehensive metaphysical system, process thought is intrinsically trans-disciplinary.

American philosopher Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000) developed and systematized Whitehead's way of thinking about the Divine. Just as the systems of the human body are guided by the human mind, Hartshorne conceived of the Divine as the guiding principle of the cosmos. Thus, the cosmos is the very body of the Divine. As the human mind is something more than the human body, the Divine is not simply equal to the sum of the ingredients of the universe.
God is affected by the elements of the universe, living the joys and sorrows of every created entity, yet God is not overcome by this multitude of feeling. God's vision of the perfection of the creative universe functions as an eternal vision of hope. God gently persuades all entities towards this perfection by providing each of them with a glimpse of the divine vision of a better future. And yet all entities retain the freedom to depart from that vision.

Process thought, then, offers a vision of hope. As a relational rather than mechanistic cosmology, process thought addresses questions of social, political, economic, and ecological justice. Process thinkers work toward changing harmful and restrictive social structures to reflect the interrelational reality. Process thought advocates personal, global, and environmental responsibility; community-based economics; participatory, grassroots democracy; an end to patriarchal structures; respect for gender, ethnic, cultural, and racial diversity; non-violence; and ecological and economic sustainability.




Posted by: Neural Apr 20, 2006, 04:16 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 20, 09:32 AM) *

No one can define God!


Well we agree on something!

Posted by: Neural Apr 20, 2006, 04:18 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 20, 02:03 PM) *

How can you claim to not define god if he is exsistant?


I would start by questioning your assumption that anything that is existant can be defined, or at any rate, adequately described by words.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 20, 2006, 04:22 PM

Okay ask yourself this.. if you can interact with something then it means your brain has a defininition of what it is or else to interact would be impossibility. Even the wind has a definition, through your five senses you have a definition even theories and physics have definitions to them. To define is almost to create, for if something has no definition then how would it exist?

Posted by: Neural Apr 20, 2006, 04:24 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 20, 02:22 PM) *

Okay ask yourself this.. if you can interact with something then it means your brain has a defininition of what it is or else to interact would be impossibility. Even the wind has a definition, through your five senses you have a definition even theories and physics have definitions to them. To define is almost to create, for if something has no definition then how would it exist?


Can you make more clear what you mean by 'define'? I mean, I experience sense impressions continuously, but do not necessarily consciously associate words with them.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 20, 2006, 04:33 PM

Words are not needed to define something, you have five senses and hearing is only one of them. To define something I am talking about mostly internal representation, because think about it this way, if their is a red cube right in front of you but from some reason you cannot see anything that is red does it actually exist? We are stepping into quesitoning reality. If you look at a sign and read got milk? but someone reads it as got monkeys? then who is right? It is within defining things in anyway that we have our reality. If you cannot define something through some means, (this does not nessecarily need words) then how can you know it exists? Things can be represented in a huge mass of ways and it is really picking the one that best suits what you wish to define. Think of it this way, when you think about god - what do you think? - what emotions, feelings, images or sounds come to mind?

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 20, 2006, 05:08 PM

Nice, if I read correctly you are bringing forth the ideology that God is in fact a non external being, rather part of ones self, possibly even the self.

Posted by: Neural Apr 20, 2006, 05:53 PM

but we've had this ideology around for three thousand years! Why do we need to rehash this stuff?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 20, 2006, 06:15 PM

QUOTE(Dianah @ Apr 20, 10:03 PM) *

Psyche as in soul…the intangible life force of being

Self ‘anal-yzation’ is of the mind making rational deductions of its feeling/thoughts.

Pondering upon the SOURCE of ones feelings and thoughts is through the psyche.

You cannot separate the intellect from the Soul in reality but you can in your own mind to create the illusion of this belief.
QUOTE

If one moves into the psyche… the vital force of their being, one realizes that God is not a separate force from their being…and they no longer look outward into the relative word but into the intangible nature of their being. They no longer perceive God as separate from themselves but as God in expression. Innocence is simply experiencing Joy…the joy of being.

Yes this is what has been said, it is by focusing on the absolute rather than the surface thoughts and beliefs that one comes to this realization.The intellect is raised above the perceptions of the ego and its idea of separation.

QUOTE

“You have a choice. You always have a choice, to move into the manifest consciously or unconsciously.”

Choice is of the mind…the intellect alone…it is that which defines, separates and judges.
Trust and faith…is of the heart…which is to realize that the ego is not the ‘doer’, but only that which ‘does’.

The mind and the intellect is expanded through choice inspired by the recognition of resonant truth. That which recognizes is the intellect, It is the intellect which gives that heart a place within the mind and experience. It is the intellect which decides to ignore the heart or listen to it according to its point of reference.


QUOTE

Everyone at every instant manifests unconsciously…through the illusion of perceiving they are conscious…or that of having choice…which is a grand illusion of the ego that stands separate from the God it IS.

Everyone that is led by the perceptions of the ego.
It is possible, regardless of your beliefs and experience to manifest consciously. There have been many Teachers on this planet who have taught this. The choice to recognize this fact is only due to the lack of faith and knowing by the lesser choices that are made to follow beliefs bound in the illusions of the ego.

QUOTE

The little wave of the ocean thinks it has choice…it thinks it is that which moves…but it is the depth of the cosmic waters that moves it…for that is what it IS. If the waves settles, then peers into its depth, then it awakens to that which it truly IS…
There is no separation in consciousness. That which is the ocean is the wave and The ocean is not without choice. That which moves something does so by its nature to act and be through the awareness of itself. By choosing to believe/recognize/experience itself it moves, otherwise sits in stillness. Choice is created within the manifest by the creator. You have choice.

Posted by: Plato Apr 20, 2006, 11:52 PM

Well I'm going to put some thoughts out there. smile.gif


_
After discovering that the four lower centers are perfecting to an apex of possibilties from (Four square-earth), to the heart once accomplished, can be transformed into the potential of the mind /\.

The Intellect(yellow) is further out from it body/earth. Spirituality even further. Yet is is a potential resource, that all possibilies be within reach of each of us. We will use the dynamics in varying ways within /\.

Yet, if the "emotive struggle is never realized, then the potential rests very close to the body/earth.

Developing the intellect with such tinges of the "off colors of emotions," are less then the ideal of what the true colors offer of themselves(understanding possibly, about what the negative emotions do to the body, and hold mind close to earth, while there exists the http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/heavens-ephemeral-qualities.html).

Any deviation from the purity of colors is like the fog induced state. A good tibetan priest in the efforts, can talk the soul who is caught in such struggles, help make their way to the clear light?

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/paul-dirac-and-geometrical-thinking.html

Language is not the first expression? To me, it would be of a geometrical nature, yet ,it arises from a point?

The point, although considered as a point of energy, it contains the schematics of the expression. Add what ever ambiguities you like with language? smile.gif

Posted by: Joesus Apr 20, 2006, 11:53 PM

QUOTE
I understand what you are saying…however, through this action of focus, that which is believed…or thought…that are viable 'entities'…are ignored

This is an assumption. Nothing is ignored, every sense is expanded.

QUOTE
the intellect may be raised above…but this is not the same as union and neutrality…to raise above implies…separation…

It implies a mechanical process of recognition thru the expansion awareness.

QUOTE
the ego is not separate from the heart or intellect…

It is manifest as such when it has a mind of its own and believes it is for the choices being made are to act in separation.
QUOTE
it is the vessel of expression for both…with the potential of uniting the heart and mind…within the ego vessel…some call this union, enlightenment.

Yes some call it Union or enlightenment and it is not realised without making the choice to be that.

QUOTE
The intellect IS the heart…in the reflection of itself…it is that which recognizes/defines the silent impulse of the heart, thus manifesting it into experience. Nothing is truly decided upon…it just IS. The intellect is that which senses and defines the silent impulse of the heart, creating…manifesting…image/form….in which to experience…and to bring forth conscious understanding…the intellect is as the light (consciousness)…the heart as the dark (unconscious)…light springs from the dark…mind springs from the heart…to make itSelf realized…

In the experience of Union this is so.
In the experience of the waking state the intellect is clouded and anything but still.

QUOTE
This is a blanket statement…of blame or excuse…there are no victims…including one being victim to its ego.

It is a response to your direction or line of thought and specific to your statement. Don't make it what it isn't

QUOTE

This is true…one can use the intellectual vehicle and send forth intellectual desire, and manifest it…however, everyone at every instant is unconsciously manifesting.

Really.... You know everybody? What you are really saying is you are making unconscious choices in manifesting.

QUOTE
This is of the power of the intellect…becoming conscious of its creative forces…directing thought to create what it desires. One governed by the heart/mind in union…knows of this potential…yet applies it not…allowing what is to be…BE…for one realizes that it already IS, for the heart and mind, through union realizes the NOW/instant of beingness.

This is the power of choice

QUOTE
Then why do you separate the ego from God?

You are making an assumption.

QUOTE


We simply ARE being free choice…endless potential of expression… of the unbounded…through percieving form.

Now you're beginning to see the light.




On another note: Nice post Plato

Posted by: Neural Apr 21, 2006, 12:35 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 20, 09:53 PM) *

QUOTE


We simply ARE being free choice…endless potential of expression… of the unbounded…through percieving form.

Now you're beginning to see the light.


Wish I could say the same for you, Joesus.

Posted by: code buttons Apr 21, 2006, 07:34 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 20, 09:35 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 20, 09:53 PM) *

QUOTE


We simply ARE being free choice…endless potential of expression… of the unbounded…through percieving form.

Now you're beginning to see the light.


Wish I could say the same for you, Joesus.

HA! HA! LOL! OH MY god! THIS is why I love Brain Meta. So damm entertaining!

Posted by: Joesus Apr 21, 2006, 10:48 AM

QUOTE
Then why do you state the old dogma of ‘slaying the ego’? Isn’t the ego the vessel that senses…thus, that which is expanded? To ‘kill’ the ego is an act of separation…in which nothing is separate…nothing dies…what happens to that which is ‘killed off’?

I already answered this question.
QUOTE
Mechanical processes, and recognition are tools of the intellect…so the intellect rises above itself and ‘sees/knows’ what?

Mechanical processes are built into the nature of reality. The intellect can recognize this by realizing the source of all things, rising above beliefs of separation
QUOTE
Each ego also has a heart…feelings…the mind is that which creates form, through not understanding what it senses/feels. The mind can direct its focus, in so doing it can ignore what it feels, and create into experience what it believes to be ‘true’. The mind cannot stabilize or be still as long as what it feels/senses remains unknown. The mind that rises above, through the tools of the intellect, wobbles, for it is not stabilized, or in union with the heart.

This is called awakening.

QUOTE
Union or enlightenment can only be realized through harmony. Harmony just IS, it flows knowingly…thus there are no choices to make…just all to BE.

Chice become more important as one stills the mind in activity to maintain the appearances of being in the world but not of it. This stabilizes the awareness and as one lets go of attachments develops Brahman

QUOTE
The waking state is that of ‘action’…it is that which perceives what it senses/feels, and creates it into experience…in which to understand what it senses/feels. What is perceived and experienced depends of the level of consciousness one is in…each level of consciousness is like a rung of a ladder…each rung is as a step in which to realize…all is but the ladder…the mind is ‘action’ or that of perceiving…it is the perceiving that is ‘stilled’ through understanding what is perceived…thus the mind become the observer of itself…action does not cease, it is just understood.
Action is understood through making choices while the mind is still. This "making choices" is how you climb the ladder.

QUOTE
To know oneself is to know all, there is only one in the reflection of its oneness. The unconscious mind…is as the depth of the Cosmic water…it is the little wave, in movement of its thinking that its a wave…that separates itself from what IS.

Then know thyself in the fact that you are placing your present experience of making unconscious choices in the now when the other parts of yourself in this moment are being ignored in their ability to make conscious choices. This in turn separates yourself from the reality that you, the Self are making conscious choices.
It's just a choice.

The union of heart and mind is a reality that is ignored in the lesser staes of consciousness. This does not negate the fact that it makes choices even after Union is realized. You are making an assumption that there is nothing to do or choose for in Union. There are 4 levels of awareness in Union, similar to the 4 states of known conscious awareness in the waking state.
Choices are made in this universe and as one transcends this universe in the physical.
The Self is layered in non-physical realities that are ignored in the physical life.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 21, 2006, 12:55 PM

QUOTE
choice is not silent...it is the mind listening to the 'chatter' of itelf.

When one looks into the Stillness there is infinte love and potential. This first impression of stillness and inactivity is but a first glimpse at the surface of the stillness. The reflection is of the surface activity of the physical reality stilled.
The depths of the infinite are full of that which is not perceived in the physical.
Choices and the following experiences of the evolving soul reach far beyond the limits of expression and finite definitions of isness being without choice from the perspective of the physical mind and its physical laws to exist while connected to the infinite. To fully dive in and leave the physical behind opens up more. More of what is, in terms of what is isn't.
You are choice.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 22, 2006, 12:59 AM

QUOTE


Interesting change in your vibration of Intent Joesus…

Since you don't believe in choices it couldn't have been anything I've done.....

Posted by: Lao_Tzu Apr 22, 2006, 09:41 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 22, 07:59 AM) *

QUOTE


Interesting change in your vibration of Intent Joesus…

Since you don't believe in choices it couldn't have been anything I've done.....


Why do you defend yourself? There is no need.

Accurate conceptual description of the Truth regarding the nature of being and consciousness is impossible, so language and concepts cannot accurately point the way there.

Everyone has their own path to the divine, and very few can refrain from conceptualising it in some way.

Dianah, I think your descriptions are superb.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 22, 2006, 12:02 PM

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Apr 22, 02:41 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 22, 07:59 AM) *

QUOTE


Interesting change in your vibration of Intent Joesus…

Since you don't believe in choices it couldn't have been anything I've done.....


Why do you defend yourself? There is no need.

There is no defense in stating the Truth
QUOTE

Accurate conceptual description of the Truth regarding the nature of being and consciousness is impossible, so language and concepts cannot accurately point the way there.

Everyone has their own path to the divine, and very few can refrain from conceptualising it in some way.

The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual.
Everyone follows THE path and very few refrain from sharing that experience due to the Union of God and Man.
All of the Great masters experienced this. It was demonstrated by Jesus and his teachings, in the crucifixion. Buddha spoke of the middle way which is right thinking or true judgement, using Truth as knowledge to separate illusion from reality. It was also surmized that Buddha described the path and Jesus was the expression of the result of right thinking.

The sixth century before Christ. Many men arose to proclaim truth in this, one of the greatest centuries of religious awakening ever witnessed on Earth. Gautama, Confucius, Lao-tse, Zoroaster, and the Jainist teachers. The teachings of Gautama have become widespread in Asia, and revered by millions. Confucius was to Chinese morality what Plato was to Greek philosophy, and while there were religious repercussions to the teachings of both, strictly speaking, neither was a religious teacher; Lao-tse envisioned more of God in Tao than did Confucius in humanity or Plato in idealism.

You are mistaken if you think that expression of the truth is limited in it's ability to lead or point the way.
The limitation is in ignorance of the truth and recognition of it because of intellectual judgments based on beliefs that language and expression have no power or purpose.

There is a saying,"When the student is ready the Teacher appears" Not only is this true, it is a living breathing reality that every question is answered on the level that it can be comprehended.
If you believe you have to crawl before you can walk then what comes to you falls within that belief by your own choice to see it that way.
You draw to you that which you want to see and experience. But, That, does not limiit the Reality of greater things which are everpresent within your personal universe.

QUOTE
Dianah, I think your descriptions are superb.

I told her she should write a book but she believes no one would be interested in reading it, probably because like you she believes that expressing the truth is a waste of time, so she peeks out and expresses herself on forums. Also she has a shitload of excuses for not finding the time.

Posted by: Plato Apr 22, 2006, 12:59 PM



http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/arthur-koestler-and-creativity.html


QUOTE
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-good-string-theorist-should-know.html, as far back as 1947, people were trying to quantize spacetime so that the coordinates would not be ordinary real numbers, but somehow elevated to quantum operators obeying some nontrivial quantum commutation relations. Hence the term "noncommutative geometry," or NCG for short.

The current interest in NCG among physicists of the 21st century has been stimulated by work by French mathematician Alain Connes.



http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/04/time-variable-gravity-measurements.html


Posted by: Neural Apr 22, 2006, 06:15 PM

Beware of false prophets and teachers.

A real master does not need to announce himself as such, either overtly or covertly. A real master does not need to talk down when exchanging ideas.

A real master has the power to be selfless and many other things, as they wish. A real master does not put on false pretenses and facades.

Is there a real master present in this forum?


Posted by: jobe Apr 22, 2006, 07:22 PM

A real master does not declare!!

No more than a person with millions of pounds declares.

The requests become abominable!!


Develop your own powers to either fortune or knowledge and then keep it to yourSelf (you will realise This when you find It).

One who knows and keeps It to Itself

Posted by: Joesus Apr 22, 2006, 07:36 PM

QUOTE(jobe @ Apr 23, 12:22 AM) *

A real master does not declare!!

No more than a person with millions of pounds declares.

The requests become abominable!!


Develop your own powers to either fortune or knowledge and then keep it to yourSelf (you will realise This when you find It).

One who knows and keeps It to Itself


Horse pucky....

Posted by: Lindsay Apr 22, 2006, 11:36 PM

Masters? Would it arrogant for me to suggest we all take a look at Luke 22:24-27?

Posted by: Lao_Tzu Apr 23, 2006, 04:17 AM

24. And when the ten heard it, 1 they were displeased with the two brethren. 25. And Jesus called them to him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles rule over them, and they who are great exercise authority over them. 26. It shall not be so among you: but whoever wishes to be great among you, let him be your minister; 27. And he that wishes to be chief among you, let him be your servant.

Damn. The Bible always seemed way too cryptic for me.

"The best leaders are reluctant leaders." - some wise guy

Posted by: Joesus Apr 23, 2006, 11:53 AM

QUOTE
Damn. The Bible always seemed way too cryptic for me.

Spend some time with it. You don't get to know someone or something without actually spending time and becoming fimailiar with them/it.
Then spend some time learning about what it was that was being taught. Seek other sources regarding the subject and then, find your own experience.

Its great finding your own experience and all, that is what it's all about, but if you are going to jump on that band wagon then know what it is that you are going to have the experience of.
Defensive/judgmental individuals are quick to determine their own independance but they rarely understand the relationship they have with their world and are always seeking to defend themselves from everything they see as separate from them.
Once you learn that you have initiated the reality that you are living, its difficult to be victimized by anything or anyone.
Then those who lead are simply those who you have created to speak to you in a form, of matters you have not yet understood. They are manifestations of the subtle voices you choose to ignore inside of you because you choose to give more attention to that which you have trained yourself to pay attention to because you beleive it to be more real than the other.

The Teacher appears to meet your readiness/understanding.

When you surround yourself with independance due to mistrust, then you try to protect yourself from the very world you created. This is ignoring the Truth, aka. ignorance.

Posted by: code buttons Apr 23, 2006, 01:46 PM

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Apr 22, 08:36 PM) *

Masters? Would it arrogant for me to suggest we all take a look at Luke 22:24-27?


Or of me to suggest watching "Kung Fu", the famous tv series from the 70's with David Carradine? There could be a thing or two to be learned from "Little Grass-hopper" and his all-knowing, yet humble master!

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 23, 2006, 02:54 PM

Why on earth are you all arguing over what a 'real' master is, their is no true master because the more you learn about a subject, the more you realize how little you know. The 'masters' become the students as they learn that they are not masters but simply students, ever learning, ever trying to improve. So lets stop the needless argument over who these 'real' masters are supposed to be, because we are all infact students.

Posted by: jobe Apr 23, 2006, 03:41 PM

..you are right maximus.
But we do not all proclaim to be teachers!

Posted by: rhymer Apr 23, 2006, 05:58 PM

gobe,
Are you trying to teach us something?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 23, 2006, 06:18 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 23, 07:54 PM) *

Why on earth are you all arguing over what a 'real' master is, their is no true master because the more you learn about a subject, the more you realize how little you know.


You are arguing now for your point of view...

QUOTE
The 'masters' become the students as they learn that they are not masters but simply students, ever learning, ever trying to improve.


So they are masters at being students cool.gif and can lead by example to help others to be master students.. biggrin.gif
QUOTE

So lets stop the needless argument over who these 'real' masters are supposed to be, because we are all infact students.
But you're not a master student! ..

When the student is ready the master student will appear..

QUOTE
..you are right maximus.
But we do not all proclaim to be teachers!


I like where Rhymer is going with this... If you are not being a teacher then what is your opinion worth?
Is it worth matching against another that differs?

If two or more people state their opinions and they differ, when does it become an argument?

Posted by: mayonaise Apr 23, 2006, 08:56 PM

Hello all!

I really enjoyed reading this conversation this time (because of myself : )), and special thanks to Joesus for his time and effort. Really got me thinking.

Now, I do still have one major axe to grind...

I can understand, intellectually, that in the Union state of mind there are no needs. And even though there can be pain, there is no pain (right?) because you are not concentrating on it, but the Source.

If I had been following my heart only, I would not be here engaging you in a conversation. I would be screaming in agony on a bed, struggling to find some peace of mind. I would have also been too crippled to be of service to anybody (this is theoretical).

Yet I listened to my mind and found a way to heal myself.

My room mate, who shared the same type of problems I have, killed himself because he did not believe there could be a way out, even after talking to him about it.

Now, maybe, if the karmic law is a reality, then maybe I'm just bypassing my lessons and they await me in the next life. I'm afraid of this.

But if the karmic law is not a reality and the only constant is the heart, it would seem "logical", heartwise, that I learned to heal myself.

I can also see no reason why this should not be extended to others - sharing healing through technology or other means - unless removal of suffering contradicts some higher purpose not understandable but only the few who reach that understanding.

Does Truth has to make sense? You said that the intellect and heart can be united.

Posted by: Plato Apr 23, 2006, 09:04 PM


http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/concepts-of-fifth-dimension.html


Einstein:

QUOTE
Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.



Posted by: Joesus Apr 23, 2006, 10:46 PM

QUOTE


I can understand, intellectually, that in the Union state of mind there are no needs. And even though there can be pain, there is no pain (right?) because you are not concentrating on it, but the Source.

Point of reference. There are 4 stages of Union. The first step is seeing and experiencing yourself as the absolute as it rises from a place inside of you to being you and then moving into an object of perception that was before outside of you and is now you. This stabilizes, expands into Brahman where it is described as the awareness being in a thousand places at the same time, also symbolised by the thousand petaled lotus in the crown chakra opening. Then there is the miracle power, immortality of the physical body and Krishna conscious, all stages of Union.
Did Jesus feel pain?
The answer is yes. Did he suffer?
The answer is no!
Suffering is a choice, a lack of intellectual knowing in the focus and experience of duality in conscious awareness. Unconscious creating.
Now, a master can shift the attention of the mind at will when he/she has moved the mind from conditioning in relative association to the body and the world. This takes practice when moving from the relative beliefs of the ego and into the Truth of Union of spirit and the manifest.
It takes time only because to understand it you have to experience it.
The knowledge is in the Self and readily available to anyone, but not many are able to instantaneously deprogram themselves in order to sever the bridges built to experience by Karmic desire.
It can be done, just aren't many tales of it being so.

So, as long as you carry a body and it vibrates at the level of the physical laws created around the physical senses you have working tools to experience feelings. How you focus your attention can have a direct effect on the feelings regardless of your stable experience of higher states of consciousness.
You can break up with your girl friend then cut your finger off and for a while you probably won't be too concerned with whats her name.
I'm sure most have experienced these simple experiences, especially around fear when the mind is distracted from something, it leaves the experience behind as the attention is given to something new.
By bringing the experience of the absolute into the physical senses the weaker illusory beliefs in fear begin to fade from the attention of the mind just as the boogyman fades from the childs awareness when it expands into adolescence and adulthood.

QUOTE

If I had been following my heart only, I would not be here engaging you in a conversation. I would be screaming in agony on a bed, struggling to find some peace of mind. I would have also been too crippled to be of service to anybody (this is theoretical).

I'm not following you here. You seem to be pointing to the idea that the heart wishes you to feel pain...??
QUOTE

Yet I listened to my mind and found a way to heal myself.

The mind is sufficiently flexible to hear the truth as it comes from the Self through the intellect.
Generally speaking the smaller voice less listened to, is usually the voice of the Self, and the louder voice is that of the ego. Kinda like the cartoon devil and angel sitting on the shoulder of the person about to make a decision. The heart leads to love and expansion, it does not judge experiences or scenarios as being good or bad. There is value in any experience but there is no rule that you must experience everything.
People that are dramatic have a tendency to drag things out according to their belief in suffering.
QUOTE

My room mate, who shared the same type of problems I have, killed himself because he did not believe there could be a way out, even after talking to him about it.

Now, maybe, if the karmic law is a reality, then maybe I'm just bypassing my lessons and they await me in the next life. I'm afraid of this.

Setting aside your roommates karma what did you get out of the experience? Did you come to the realization that you have a choice? Did he have a choice?
Fear of karmic debt is the fear of suffering, it is the belief that something is going to happen that is not wanted. Elevating the mind and the awareness into union takes this fear and crushes it. Poof! Gone!
QUOTE

But if the karmic law is not a reality and the only constant is the heart, it would seem "logical", heartwise, that I learned to heal myself.

You have a choice..
QUOTE

I can also see no reason why this should not be extended to others - sharing healing through technology or other means - unless removal of suffering contradicts some higher purpose not understandable but only the few who reach that understanding.

Once the truth is understood then there is no reason to create the lessons to explain Truth.

There is a saying.. "Heal the self and you heal the world"
All lesser understandings of sufering and victimization dissappear in the light of greater truth.
The Soul simply changes clothes to greet another moment in experience. From greater awareness there is no thing that is out of line or un-necessary. The desireless state of Union is a state where the manifest is created consciously rather than ignorantly to fill perceived holes in the Self. Where need is relative to fear and misunderstanding.
You want to experience something you do.
When the mind distances itself from the manifest reality it begins to contradict itself in thought. The universe exists to fulfill desire like a wish fulfilling tree. You drop a single thought into the still pond of the absolute and ripples move outward and meet the shore with perfect coherence in experience and awareness of origin. You drop 100,000 thoughts into that same pond and you create chop, where some thoughts/desires cancel each other out.
100,000 thoughts per day.. That's about what each human thinks each day, day after day, wearing out the nervous system, creating stress, disease and premature aging. It just doesn't have to happen that way. The human race has been doing it that way for a long long time, and it doesn't have to continue.
QUOTE

Does Truth has to make sense? You said that the intellect and heart can be united.

The Truth makes perfect sense. It just doesn't to the ego in the waking state, when fear and separation seem so real, and you can change your experience by making different choices.

Posted by: OnlyNow Apr 24, 2006, 01:43 AM

QUOTE(code buttons @ Apr 23, 01:46 PM) *

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Apr 22, 08:36 PM) *

Masters? Would it arrogant for me to suggest we all take a look at Luke 22:24-27?


Or of me to suggest watching "Kung Fu", the famous tv series from the 70's with David Carradine? There could be a thing or two to be learned from "Little Grass-hopper" and his all-knowing, yet humble master!

LOL--Yes indeed. LOTS to be learned, starting with the art of tricking yourself into believing that David Carradine is Chinese.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 24, 2006, 02:27 PM

Ahem.. -.O master students? where do you come up with this crap? Master is defined only by which it is compared to, to an ant I am a giant, to the universe we are insignificant, master is only relative to that which it is compared to, God is only god because we compare it to ourselves, if we compare God to a more powerful being then it is also as insignificant as we are. To a child and drawings some hack artist is the most incredible artwork they have ever seen, but when you compare the hack artist to a real artist the hack seems like a shadowy reflection of the real artists skill. If you compare the real artist to the "master" artist, the real artists drawings look like cartoons. Master and even the value of things is based on what we compare them to, although Michaelangelo was a great artist, but he is only as good as the one whom he is compared to. If everyone could draw extremly well then the works of the "masters" would seem ordinary and they would no longer be masters but regular joes. The point is, if everyone was a terrible artist, then a less terrible one would have someone be considered a master artist, if everyone was a master, then the masterpieces would be ordinary. Change your perspective from linear to non-linear and you can begin to understand and trip, like trip does haha. Now im sure someone is going to point out "but everyone isnt a master artist" so I might as well address that now. The point is that master is only defined by ones perspective, the larger the perspective the less a person appears to be a master. To a child their father or mother may be the most important, powerful and wonderful person in the world. But as the child grows they begin to understand that the world has many ideas and people and so the childs perspective changes. This is what those who believe in masters need to do, open your minds!! enough of your thoughts that we need to bow to the all powerful, or that light is the fastest thing and there is no possiblity of anything faster or anyone more powerful. As Thomas Dewar once said; Minds are like parachuts - they only function when open.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 24, 2006, 10:47 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 24, 07:27 PM) *

Ahem.. -.O master students? where do you come up with this crap? Master is defined only by which it is compared to, to an ant I am a giant, to the universe we are insignificant, master is only relative to that which it is compared to, God is only god because we compare it to ourselves, if we compare God to a more powerful being then it is also as insignificant as we are. To a child and drawings some hack artist is the most incredible artwork they have ever seen, but when you compare the hack artist to a real artist the hack seems like a shadowy reflection of the real artists skill. If you compare the real artist to the "master" artist, the real artists drawings look like cartoons. Master and even the value of things is based on what we compare them to, although Michaelangelo was a great artist, but he is only as good as the one whom he is compared to. If everyone could draw extremly well then the works of the "masters" would seem ordinary and they would no longer be masters but regular joes. The point is, if everyone was a terrible artist, then a less terrible one would have someone be considered a master artist, if everyone was a master, then the masterpieces would be ordinary. Change your perspective from linear to non-linear and you can begin to understand and trip, like trip does haha. Now im sure someone is going to point out "but everyone isnt a master artist" so I might as well address that now. The point is that master is only defined by ones perspective, the larger the perspective the less a person appears to be a master. To a child their father or mother may be the most important, powerful and wonderful person in the world. But as the child grows they begin to understand that the world has many ideas and people and so the childs perspective changes. This is what those who believe in masters need to do, open your minds!! enough of your thoughts that we need to bow to the all powerful, or that light is the fastest thing and there is no possiblity of anything faster or anyone more powerful. As Thomas Dewar once said; Minds are like parachuts - they only function when open.

Sooo.. what you are saying is you don't like the term "master."

I kinda like it myself. I think it serves a useful purpose. In fact I'd say you were a bit close minded about the term.

Posted by: Rick Apr 25, 2006, 02:08 PM

Time for a little levity here...

I am reminded of the job opportunity on a fishing boat baiting hooks. One starts out as an apprentice baiter, then becomes a journeyman baiter, and finally he is qualified as master baiter.

Posted by: OnlyNow Apr 25, 2006, 02:19 PM

QUOTE(Rick @ Apr 25, 02:08 PM) *

Time for a little levity here...

I am reminded of the job opportunity on a fishing boat baiting hooks. One starts out as an apprentice baiter, then becomes a journeyman baiter, and finally he is qualified as master baiter.

I once was talked into joining a co-ed softball team called the Master Batters. It was embarrassing. Not the team name, but that fact that I was completely and utterly inept at that game.

Posted by: Rick Apr 25, 2006, 02:22 PM

But didn't you at least have fun as a Master Batter? It's not whether you win or lose...

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 25, 2006, 04:24 PM

tongue.gif tell you what Joesus, im open minded enough to think about the notion that I am close minded about the term master. I dont claim to be perfect, im more trying to throw in multiple perspectives instead of getting the tunnel vision, we all seem to fall into at times.

Rick, although im sure that the master baiter is considered more talented then the apprentice baiter. We are more discussing the ideas behind the term, instead of the face value of it. Think of it this way, if you are a master baiter does this mean that you are better than a apprentice and before you answer id like to give a short history. Leonardo da Vinci apprenticed at 15 under italys finest painter, Verrichio, he quickly surpassed his master and became famous as a painter by 20 years old, Leonardo was however not considered a 'master' until about 29. So.. what have we learnt? The master is not nessecarily the best because he is called a master. And if their are two bait masters, which one is better? and if one is then does the lesser still remain a master? I think you get the point tongue.gif

Posted by: Rick Apr 25, 2006, 04:44 PM

The term "master" is somewhat controversial in my bonsai club, too. Some of the local bonsai masters come to demonstrate to the club, and there seems to be no agreement as to what the criteria for being called "bonsai master" are. Generally, I consider the masters to be all over 80 years old and to have been life long practitioners of the art.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 25, 2006, 06:51 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 25, 09:24 PM) *

tongue.gif tell you what Joesus, im open minded enough to think about the notion that I am close minded about the term master. I dont claim to be perfect, im more trying to throw in multiple perspectives instead of getting the tunnel vision, we all seem to fall into at times.

Well theres a saying that goes, "if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything."
I think that the term fits the need. If you are seeking to know something and someone has had greater experience in whatever it is that you seek to learn then you may learn from that person and might even stretch yourself to allow the term Teacher to enter your thought streams.
Now if you aren't so anal as to avoid all terminology that may be stretched into multiple meanings you may just flow with whatever the river brings you rather than trying to steer the river in a particular direction based on what you don't agree with.
If you think that tunnel vision is a chronic disease and one that you are prone to then I could see where paranoia would strike deep into the mind and create a defensive position stripping apart every thought and expression anyone has so that you don't get too complacent in your thoughts.
But I'll tell you what.. what you focus on grows. Do you want to be part of the problem or expand beyond the fear and the illusions that create paranoid perspectives in your relationship of mind and the manifest?

You could just allow whatever comes to you to be what it is or challenge it to try and manipulate it into being what you think it should be. You don't really have to be responsible for anyone but yourself.
Also the relative terms stimulate each person according to what they desire to expand upon.
The word master serves as a term that leads the mind to the thought of mastery. Comparisons are not the criteria for the desire to manifest in the heart to expand, they are simply manifestations of reflections that point to the thoughts one has of not being good enough. When one can rise above all need to compare, so that one can determin their own worth then I would say that was a level of mastery. The word paints a picture, accuracy is self proclaimed, its not up to you to judge the direction of anyones choices but it is up to you to make your own regarding how you wish to see the world.
An open mind receives all and moves within the relative field of what is being created without being too cautious out of judgement that something is amiss.

Union does not prevail in the mind and in experience when judgment based on duality exists.


Posted by: maximus242 Apr 25, 2006, 07:18 PM

-.- Ahem.. before you go around acussing me of things, prehaps take a look at your own life? How exactly am I cautious? if I remember correctly someone whos name is unusually close to Jesus, happens to have this fear that if he doesnt follow God he will go to hell.. so prehaps he is the cautious one when it comes to life? By the way I will point this out for the third time now, we are talking about the notion behind the word!! the word is not being taken for face value, it could be anything, it is the idea that one is a master, I am relating to it through multiple perspectives. You however completly ignored this concept and started talking about me being all anal like, through talking about a word, when I was in fact relating to an IDEA!

Posted by: Joesus Apr 25, 2006, 07:52 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 26, 12:18 AM) *

-.- Ahem.. before you go around acussing me of things, prehaps take a look at your own life? How exactly am I cautious? if I remember correctly someone whos name is unusually close to Jesus, happens to have this fear that if he doesnt follow God he will go to hell.. so prehaps he is the cautious one when it comes to life?

Sorry, but I don't follow you on that one.
QUOTE
By the way I will point this out for the third time now, we are talking about the notion behind the word!! the word is not being taken for face value, it could be anything, it is the idea that one is a master, I am relating to it through multiple perspectives. You however completly ignored this concept and started talking about me being all anal like, through talking about a word, when I was in fact relating to an IDEA!


No you are implying the word means something according to what you think others are projecting. This is in fact the idea that you maintain about the word, you didn't ask anyone what they thought of it you just assumed everyone has tunnel vision and can't fit the word to a scenario giving it multidimensional purpose and the capability to evolve.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 25, 2006, 11:45 PM

No im talking about the idea, last time I checked you werent a psychic so dont act like you know what im thinking. I did make some assumptions but it was more of a disscussion about the idea of what a master is. By the way why are you so pissed off about this? The tunnel vision by the way is my way of conveying that you were all in a disscussion with a black vs white argument, I tried to give an outside opinion and add some gray, and well.. ever hear of free speech? tongue.gif

Posted by: Joesus Apr 26, 2006, 03:08 AM

QUOTE
last time I checked you werent a psychic

That's funny, how'd you do that, You psychic?
QUOTE
I did make some assumptions but it was more of a disscussion about the idea of what a master is.


Yeah I know, it was a discussion based on your assumptions. I was seeing how far you wanted to go with your assumptions
QUOTE
By the way why are you so pissed off about this?

Now now, don't project your feelings on others, isn't it enough you make assumptions about others thoughts and definitions?
QUOTE
The tunnel vision by the way is my way of conveying that you were all in a disscussion with a black vs white argument,

yes now were back to the assumption part again.....
QUOTE
I tried to give an outside opinion and add some gray, and well.. ever hear of free speech?

Yah sure you betcha. Speech is free, just clarifying where you were going with this. Opinions are like... well their certainly entertaining. wink.gif

Posted by: Neural Apr 26, 2006, 01:34 PM

Joesus, who was/is your spiritual teacher?

Posted by: Guest Apr 26, 2006, 07:11 PM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 26, 10:34 AM) *

Joesus, who was/is your spiritual teacher?

Was, in the form of a man who called himself MSI.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 26, 2006, 09:27 PM

hmm? Are you supposed to be Joesus? if so then log on and post so we know your not just a guest causing mischief.. who's MSI??

Posted by: Neural Apr 26, 2006, 09:58 PM

MSI = Maharishi Sadasiva Isham

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=spiritinthesmokies.com/interviews/msimemorial.html

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 26, 2006, 10:09 PM

eh.. not a fan of TM but cool story

Posted by: Neural Apr 26, 2006, 10:16 PM

Joesus, you were taught by MSI personally? For how many years?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 26, 2006, 10:48 PM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 27, 03:16 AM) *

Joesus, you were taught by MSI personally? For how many years?

Yes, from the time that I met him in '95 till the year he died in '98 he was my physical Teacher.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 26, 2006, 10:52 PM

thats cool. Still not a fan of TM but I can respect the other areas he studied in.

Posted by: Neural Apr 26, 2006, 10:53 PM

Do you teach now? What is required to learn Ascension?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 27, 2006, 01:24 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 27, 03:53 AM) *

Do you teach now? What is required to learn Ascension?

Yes to the first question.
Desire and commitment is the answer to the second question.

Posted by: Neural Apr 27, 2006, 02:23 AM

how much committment? several months? a year? longer? We're talking about a retreat, right? Are working people expected to put their lives on hold while they learn Ascension?

How did you support yourself and where did you live while you were being taught by MSI?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 27, 2006, 11:06 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 27, 07:23 AM) *

how much committment? several months? a year? longer? We're talking about a retreat, right? Are working people expected to put their lives on hold while they learn Ascension?

How did you support yourself and where did you live while you were being taught by MSI?

I went through all this once before and some thought I was using this board to sell Ascension, sooo.. rather than do this again I suggest you p.m. me or look through the various websites that are available for Ascension. They are pretty detailed in their description of the various courses.

I learned from a teacher taught by MSI, met him, learned more, asked him to be my Teacher and went to Fiji for 6 months for my Training to become a Teacher.
I then moved to North Carolina with MSI to establish the center and lived there until 1999.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 28, 2006, 04:26 PM

Hmm so do you do the long ass meditating like the buddhists and meditate for months or years without end? tongue.gif

Posted by: Joesus Apr 28, 2006, 04:34 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 28, 09:26 PM) *

Hmm so do you do the long ass meditating like the buddhists and meditate for months or years without end? tongue.gif

No, the short ass meditation where you mix activity in with the process of meditation establishing a relationship with the absolute, sometimes called praying without ceasing which could be misinterpreted as long ass meditation.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 28, 2006, 04:40 PM

Oh okay, I was just reading up on some meditation last night and just curious about how they do the meditation for years. eg, Buddah meditated for 6 years under a tree. To go six years without food, water or sleep must be a strange thing to undergo. Obviously the sleep can be regenerated in the relaxed state you are in, but still no food or water, it must require deep concentration?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 28, 2006, 04:47 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 28, 09:40 PM) *

Oh okay, I was just reading up on some meditation last night and just curious about how they do the meditation for years. eg, Buddah meditated for 6 years under a tree. To go six years without food, water or sleep must be a strange thing to undergo. Obviously the sleep can be regenerated in the relaxed state you are in, but still no food or water, it must require deep concentration?

dry.gif

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 28, 2006, 04:48 PM

haha have i misunderstood then, I assumed one goes into a form of stasis?.. or is it all BS?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 28, 2006, 07:44 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 28, 09:48 PM) *

haha have i misunderstood then, I assumed one goes into a form of stasis?.. or is it all BS?

It is possible to achieve such a state, however discipline is the repetative approach to that state, and is not always achieved in the approach.
Buddha spent many years contemplating in his self discipline or meditative approach but he still drank water and ate what he considered was given to him by God.
The idea that one should not struggle to live was taught to him by other adepts and he like the others took the meaning literally thinking that if it did not come effortlessly then it does not come from the effortless union that is the union of God and Man. So he ate leaves, bark, and if someone dropped bits of food in his bowl he would eat that.

Posted by: Guest_Dianah_* Apr 28, 2006, 08:54 PM

joesus,

"The idea that one should not struggle to live was taught to him by other adepts and he like the others took the meaning literally thinking that if it did not come effortlessly then it does not come from the effortless union that is the union of God and Man. So he ate leaves, bark, and if someone dropped bits of food in his bowl he would eat that."


how do you know this?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 29, 2006, 02:34 AM

QUOTE(Guest_Dianah_* @ Apr 29, 01:54 AM) *

joesus,

"The idea that one should not struggle to live was taught to him by other adepts and he like the others took the meaning literally thinking that if it did not come effortlessly then it does not come from the effortless union that is the union of God and Man. So he ate leaves, bark, and if someone dropped bits of food in his bowl he would eat that."


how do you know this?

Why do you ask?

Posted by: Neural Apr 29, 2006, 07:16 PM

Joesus, why don't you write a book about your insights? If you think you have something to teach, then what are you doing about it?

Posted by: Joesus Apr 30, 2006, 01:27 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 30, 12:16 AM) *

Joesus, why don't you write a book about your insights? If you think you have something to teach, then what are you doing about it?

I teach, but am not inclined to write a book just yet.

Posted by: maximus242 Apr 30, 2006, 01:36 PM

After some research it appears even Buddha ate when meditating, so I guess that, thats that lol. Their was something about a Nepal boy who allegedly meditated for 6 months without food, but it seems like BS to me.

Posted by: Joesus Apr 30, 2006, 01:56 PM

QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 30, 06:36 PM) *

After some research it appears even Buddha ate when meditating, so I guess that, thats that lol. Their was something about a Nepal boy who allegedly meditated for 6 months without food, but it seems like BS to me.

There were also some alleged photographs taken of his disciples taking food to him at night, but this still does not disprove the idea that one can attain a pure state of being where the body does not need food.

Posted by: Plato May 01, 2006, 12:25 AM

Joesus,

Have you ever read these books linked in commentary behind picture?

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/path-with-heart.html

Posted by: Joesus May 01, 2006, 12:44 AM


No I haven't, but I have heard nothing but good comments by those who have.

Posted by: Plato May 01, 2006, 02:09 AM

Please comment if you will on anything that you feel runs contrary to your views. It would be appreciated.

When you accumlate a lot of information one cannot help adapt some of these things to models on which we can create. Now I would rather understand the expeirence and what is under it. Try and get to the center. Is this not appropriate?

I understand that removing "these layers" might of been of interest to somebody who sits and watches, yet, it would not be without effort to undertsand that this same process can be used to follow back the day's experience in events and to see what reactions you had surfaced in your reaction. You can't help but learn of the emotions that manifest, and the deeper places these can reside?

Now the reason I brought it up is the way in which Don Juan would get Carlos to shift his attention. If you thought for a instant that the person was designed and colored a certain way, it was fruitful for Don Juan to shift his Tonal.
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-door-open-to-eruption-of-sociology.html.

Now of course I am not suggesting you follow what I am saying, just that you experience life a new. Change the way you have always seen life, by adding some new thought(color), and see how it works in your life?


Posted by: Neural May 01, 2006, 08:31 AM

Re: Don Juan: shifting attention, like focusing on shadows? Doesn't that miss the point, the bigger picture?

Posted by: Plato May 01, 2006, 11:50 AM

I think amost every student has heard of http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/01/shadows-in-platos-cave.html?

Some might heard of comparative uses of this analogy in a lot of different ways in science. Holographical in Hooft's case. Heisenberg had a opinion.

Isn't it about loosening the chains that bind? So what "is" the bigger picture in this case?

Posted by: Joesus May 01, 2006, 12:34 PM

QUOTE(Plato @ May 01, 07:09 AM) *

Please comment if you will on anything that you feel runs contrary to your views. It would be appreciated.

When you accumlate a lot of information one cannot help adapt some of these things to models on which we can create. Now I would rather understand the expeirence and what is under it. Try and get to the center. Is this not appropriate?

What do you mean by center? How would you get there?
I would say, based on ones own information of relative boundaries and experiences of reality one builds their point of reference.
There was a paper I read where it was explained how we in our universe would perceive reality according to the way we experience ourselves and assume the same for any other relative universe. Then the idea was introduced that time and space is not the same in all parts of the cosmic universe.
Curved space time dfferences, gravitational variances bending light and shaping experiences differently like putting someone in a cave for their entire life and another in an open desert. Each evolves differently according to their experiences. We have similar examples here on earth. If you were to put a desert nomad in the middle of Los Angeles he and his camel might possibly be run over not knowing how to survive in the city whereas a city dweller might not know how to find water in the desert and die of dehydration.
Our various cultures separate themselves by beliefs. We pray to our gods that have been described to us by our parents and those we believe to be the authority, and are quick to dismiss anything that does not agree with the foundations of our own beliefs and experiences.
Theres a story of three blind men who had never seen an elephant and are led by some mischevious boys to different parts of the elephant.
One touches the ear and says the elephant is like a giant living carpet.
Another is led to the trunk and he says its like a giant wild snake.
The third is led to a leg and he says it is like a large living tree.
The three argue with each other until a sage suggests they are all right but can know more if they combine their experiences to expand their own and so the for a moment set aside their personal experience to allow a bigger one by including the others rather than rejecting them and isolating the elephant to their own personal experience.

Sages have been leading humanity to expand their own experiences since the beginning of humanity to the source of all things so that they do not stand still in a cave or a desert or any relative point of reference blinding themselves to the greater picture.
It's normal to want to uderstand the universe so that one can measure themselves in it, against it and project the possible or probable futures but this is the ego and it moves from limited points of reference when it is shaped to do so in such a limited way.
When one fully understands the reality of creation and where it all comes from then one begins to witness from a place that is in the world but not of it.
You can understand how the man who touched the trunk believed the elephant to be a wild snake and understand how the man who touched the ear thought it to be a living carpet and begin to see how one experiences life and the universe according to the senses. When the senses become gross or blind then the universe is not seen for what it is. When one lets in more light then it becomes increasingly clear.
QUOTE

I understand that removing "these layers" might of been of interest to somebody who sits and watches, yet, it would not be without effort to undertsand that this same process can be used to follow back the day's experience in events and to see what reactions you had surfaced in your reaction. You can't help but learn of the emotions that manifest, and the deeper places these can reside?

Emotions are relative to understanding. For thousands of years humanity has prayed to God to relieve them of suffering but suffering is only a misunderstanding of reality. If you believe you are a victim to a great God who insists you live life a certain way or be subject to punishment and eternal damnation then you will believe you have no choice. Any impulse to follow a desire my be squashed by fear.
When fear rules the way we live there is no life only suffering due to ignorance.

Once one begins to see how they limit themselves by feelings then one might wish to find where the feelings come from but eventually one rises above the need to follow the feeling and one begins to witness themselves having the feelings realizing they themselves are not the feelings. This then leads one to expand the point of reference beyond the relative.
QUOTE

Now the reason I brought it up is the way in which Don Juan would get Carlos to shift his attention. If you thought for a instant that the person was designed and colored a certain way, it was fruitful for Don Juan to shift his Tonal.
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-door-open-to-eruption-of-sociology.html.

Now of course I am not suggesting you follow what I am saying, just that you experience life a new. Change the way you have always seen life, by adding some new thought(color), and see how it works in your life?

This is exactly how one uses useful boundaries to break boundaries. You use a tool to lead the mind to where it naturally wants to be rather than continuing to restrict it according to beliefs.
It's like having a dog. If you chain it to the porch and beat it into behaving a certain way it will resent you and bite you if it gets the chance, but if you feed it it's favorite food and let it grow naturally it would stay and be your best friend without the need to chain it through lesser subjective beliefs in how it should be or behave. It will naturally behave and act in the best way it could to please you in every way.

The minds favorite food is the stillness of the absolute. Fom this point of reference there is no one way, and it cannot be bound by any one way.

The word 'Repent" actually means to change your mind, to see life differently.

Posted by: Plato May 01, 2006, 01:19 PM

I am responding to the first part of your post by presenting what was triggered in my mind.

In my mind the "big picture was the Sun," and as long as that is behind us, it projects forward the shadows. But to know it is behind us and reveals a purer source of information, what basis of reality can we draw to all the Sun's emanantions? A complete standard model and "new physics" beyond it?

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2004/11/six-men-and-elephant.html

All pictures are links.

Abbott and Flatland are much more spoken too, in regards to the picture linked throughout that site I developed. Why I refer to Banchoff. His thoughts on Abbott.

The center of the circle? Medicine Wheel? A circle in string theory? KK tower, and what is the relation to the energy?

Just some links to look at if your interested.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2004/12/quantum-geometry.html?
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/12/laughlin-reductionism-emergenence.html

It is not so far disconnected, that Harvard could have it's branches very close together, in terms of it's research and developement?smile.gif How is mathematcs borne, and from where? If it was in a cognitive realization, then you would have to trace it back to where it began? How did this foundation of mathematics begin?

Joesus:

QUOTE
Once one begins to see how they limit themselves by feelings then one might wish to find where the feelings come from but eventually one rises above the need to follow the feeling and one begins to witness themselves having the feelings realizing they themselves are not the feelings. This then leads one to expand the point of reference beyond the relative.


While it would be difficult to see within this context as being separate from the feelings, to be separated from, is again one of those hard things to do in observation at the time. It is really hard to distance oneself emotionally in our reactions, but if the whole evolvement of consciousness was to see this within a wider perspective? Then, I would say one had progressed from a point of such involvement, to the observation as you suggest.

Foursquare, was relayed in a earlier post. As abstractual mind then becomes, the next phase, although we had been dealling with it emotively, has been raised in consciousness to a hierarchial triangulation. We had been dealing with foursquare but we had also been evolving in that pyramidial form to a apex in thinking/mind?

Joesus:
QUOTE
It's like having a dog. If you chain it to the porch and beat it into behaving a certain way it will resent you and bite you if it gets the chance, but if you feed it it's favorite food and let it grow naturally it would stay and be your best friend without the need to chain it through lesser subjective beliefs in how it should be or behave. It will naturally behave and act in the best way it could to please you in every way.


While the educated might have referred to Pavlov dogs and the conditioning factors we could take hold of, I am more inclined to see nature as it demonstrates itself in the animal world. I couldn't help but see the unique characterizations having raised dogs and horses for the last thirty years. While being older then that, such observations had revealled certain interetsing perspectives as well.

While some might have referred to the evolution of our brains, they would have seen correlative functions in these instinctual areas, emotive ones, as to fight or flight responses, as the evolution of the human being along side of that brain developement?

How did we become so perfect? smile.gif These body parts are all still evidentry, are they not?

These are matter states, yet mind is something else, while we use this body?

Joesus:
QUOTE
The minds favorite food is the stillness of the absolute. Fom this point of reference there is no one way, and it cannot be bound by any one way.


Yes how did you get there. I gave a paradigmal phrasing of Greene's that was related in terms of http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=search.blogger.com/?as_q=liminocentric&ie=UTF-8&ui=blg&bl_url=eskesthai.blogspot.com&x=25&y=5.

This is not ill concieved, to thwart the mind and it's develping ego, but to help one realize that this potential could be expressed as you say in many possibilites. How many times could one have connected with the source/center, to know, that we work the world, and return back to the source. That it is constructively a potential within the theoretical defintions of science now? How it all began?

Here there might have been a supersymmetrical realization, an entropic one, as to the source, and any universe created from it, how so? It would have to be a theory of everything not just of the universe in operation.

As you know, such subjectivity of opinion even rests with good developed scientists, yet, they do not like the psychology?smile.gif

Posted by: Joesus May 01, 2006, 08:37 PM

QUOTE


To understand…nothing is raised above……all is absorbed, bringing forth unity…inclusiveness…transcending through harmony, as harmony…

To discard, is to separate through judgment.

Beyond can only be attained through understanding the ‘now’… there is no ‘beyond’….and the ‘now’…is the dream…dreaming…through a dreamer.

In the absolute there is no separation of any thought or idea, however expansion is shifting of awareness, Fear and stagnation is dropped for expansion. True Judgment then is the separation of illusion from reality. This is wisdom in action.

Lev 18:4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
This represents wisdom in action. Choice to separate illusion from Truth.

Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.
This represents ascending or rising above the illusions of beliefs so that one may see one for who he is, the manifestation of ones own beliefs to unite the self with the self in all of its manifestations.

Deut 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
To rise above the illusions of the ego and unite with the Self one begins to unite all aspects of reality with the Self rather than separate the individuals of perception in That Self and That Self. This represents surrender to Wisdom and Truth in the voice and communion of God through the Holy Spirit.


There is no separation in right judgement there is choice to unite rather than separate, to discard separation in the expanding awareness of Union, in the evolution of expanding awareness.
All action when understood from union in right judgment rather than judged from ego and separation unites rather than separates.

QUOTE

Joesus:
QUOTE
The minds favorite food is the stillness of the absolute. Fom this point of reference there is no one way, and it cannot be bound by any one way.


Yes how did you get there.

Using a set of tools, and guidance from someone who had got there the same way.

Posted by: Plato May 01, 2006, 09:05 PM

Dianah:

QUOTE
Beyond can only be attained through understanding the ‘now’… there is no ‘beyond’….and the ‘now’…is the dream…dreaming…through a dreamer.



The standard model is a real. They are trying to define things beyond this. Experiments.

While I may look at your statement and say, "this schematic drawing is very real to me," how would it have been drawn for science? So in context of Einsteins view, things are always becoming?

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2004/11/physical-reality-as-four-dimensional.html

QUOTE
Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.


"Now," is reduced from other potentials and GR is a result of quantum realities? You see?

QUOTE
Joesus:

The minds favorite food is the stillness of the absolute. Fom this point of reference there is no one way, and it cannot be bound by any one way.


QUOTE
Plato: Yes how did you get there. I gave a paradigmal phrasing of Greene's that was related in terms of liminocentric structures.
QUOTE
Joesus:Using a set of tools, and guidance from someone who had got there the same way


So by adding things the way they are, it takes on it's own connotations, as to what enlightenment might be? I raise that point. That's why I bring the idea of Liminocentric structure up, because while it is not I who formed this term, I rightly saw it's application. Seen it''s schematic drawing before I ever came across the term.

Do you understand the term Liminocentric, Joesus? Do you see how it is being used in my demonstration here, to that end, to explain the possibility of what enlightenment "might be" in relation to other potential realizations in the tools you use?

Mind you, I do not know what enlightenment is, and you are saying, that you do? Is that correct?

Resonances can change perspective as well, just by changing the spelling in a name?

Posted by: Plato May 01, 2006, 09:48 PM

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/05/mathematical-enlightenment.html

The Structure of Consciousness - by John Fudjack

QUOTE
In the West we tend to think of 'enlightenment' itself as an exceptional mental state, outside of (or separate from) ordinary states. But in many of the spiritual traditions of the East, enlightenment is described as, in essence, a 'realization' 9 about the ultimate nature of the mind. Enlightenment is really nothing but the 'ordinary' state, as seen (and experienced) from a somewhat wider perspective, as it were. This is not unlike how the Newtonian frame which describes events in the material world at a HUMAN scale can be conceived as enclosed within a wider frame of explanation that is Einsteinian.


Imagine that Einsteinian is encased in another wider frame? smile.gif How would you learn to see this?

If the probability of the quantum realities are reduced to GR, then what said Greene's statement might not of help me realize that such ordinary states, are quite capable in human beings presently? That the method taught might have been and had shown results usng the specific tools, but, that more work was still possible in understanding how the universe really began? How conscousness might have emerged? That it was cyclical.

Induction/deduction

Posted by: Guest May 01, 2006, 10:16 PM

plato,

QUOTE
“The standard model is a real. They are trying to define things beyond this. Experiments.”


Any reality…is relative…what is standard today…was not the standard of yesterday, nor will it be the standard of tomorrow…understanding the essence and nature of reality…comes through experiment…which is nothing other then experience…which is just the projection of the perceiver…

QUOTE
“So in context of Einsteins view, things are always becoming?”


I have to say that this is my understanding as well, that all is becoming, without truly becoming……nothing is as it appears to be…is this not that, which science seeks…that which lays hidden behind appearances…the becoming?

QUOTE
“Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

"Now," is reduced from other potentials and GR is a result of quantum realities? You see?”


It’ all relative…reducing potential from other potential. The only thing that appears relative, yet produces an intangible knowing…is experience…once something has been experienced…then it is known, knowingly by the experiencer…which is in itself …relative…

The concept of now implies or hints at the source of becoming…time and space are concepts of the becoming, becoming relative. The concept of now is an abstraction, and ideation of potentiality, demonstrating its potentiality, through potential.




Posted by: Plato May 01, 2006, 11:24 PM

Dianah

QUOTE
which is just the projection of the perceiver


....and all percievers?

Which what makes experimental validation important, as well as to the reason why theoreitcal models are introduced, to push perception beyond what it knew before.

Once a model is internalized, how is perception changed? The resulting reality comes when it can be verified. Can all our subjective states of experience? Enlightenment? This avenue is individual, and presents the opportunity, regardless? Is it the same for all?

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html#8

QUOTE
What he is describing here seems to be nothing short of a liminocentrically structured universe. As Greene recognizes, this leads to rather curious conclusions indeed! 8 But they are not unlike the conclusions that mystics have offered for ages. Compare Greene's speck, for instance, which is 'physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above' to Blake's 'world in a grain of sand'. The difference between the two, of course, is that we normally hasten to explain away the proclamations of mystics as poetic hyperbole, whereas we expect the physicist to be LITERALLY describing the physical world!


Some things to ponder.

Posted by: Joesus May 02, 2006, 01:39 AM

QUOTE


So by adding things the way they are, it takes on it's own connotations, as to what enlightenment might be? I raise that point. That's why I bring the idea of Liminocentric structure up, because while it is not I who formed this term, I rightly saw it's application. Seen it''s schematic drawing before I ever came across the term.

Do you understand the term Liminocentric, Joesus? Do you see how it is being used in my demonstration here, to that end, to explain the possibility of what enlightenment "might be" in relation to other potential realizations in the tools you use?

Mind you, I do not know what enlightenment is, and you are saying, that you do? Is that correct?

Resonances can change perspective as well, just by changing the spelling in a name?

If I understand what you are pointing to it is the re-cognizing of what is already there underlying the structure of the personal, the natural laws of the manifest which supports not only your personal experiences but all of them.

In regard to enlightenment itself. The reality of its being is present in the natural laws that support the evolution of expanding awareness. I have experienced expanding awareness and also have an experience of the absolute and I witness my self. There is no end to the experience of the Self and as such no definite end to enlightenment but the nature of it is relative to certain qualities of experience such as those that have been described by authors such as Govindra Yogindra (Patanjali) in the Yoga Sutras.

QUOTE
Dropping…is an action of separation…true judgment? Illusion is reality, and reality is illusion…understanding this…is wisdom acrued through the experience of harmonizing any form/action of judgment.

True judgment comes from the stability of being harmonized in Union. It requires action, choice to acrue wisdom.
QUOTE
This is YOUR perception of this statement…and I have no problems with that…it can however be perceived differently…to my understanding only…it is only saying that…what you ‘think’ defines your actions…and it hints at that which ‘thinks’ and to that which think it thinks…

You simply put what I said into different words, further demonstrating what is true for one is true for all within the natural laws that support the action of expanding awareness. Where a person may want to individualize experience it cannot remain individual but of the One Consciousness.

QUOTE
Again…it is just a matter of interpretation…I understand this to be saying; do not judge, for all is innately equal…and that which appears to be as your neighbor…is but oneself…the ‘outer’ is only the projection of the perceivers inner realties.

Again your ego is seeking to make your statement personal but you have simply rearranged the words to say the same thing.

QUOTE
There is no choice that can be made without a judgment…to understand that all are one, in the reflection of oneness…one realizes…that separation is a mere perception…and thus…there are no real choices to make…all just IS.

To play in your sandbox: This is just the mind…chattering…and listening to its chatter.

But then the accruing of the accruable is the action of experience surrendered back to its source. This involves surrender, which is a choice.





Posted by: Plato May 02, 2006, 03:02 PM

Joesus:

QUOTE
If I understand what you are pointing to it is the re-cognizing of what is already there underlying the structure of the personal, the natural laws of the manifest which supports not only your personal experiences but all of them.


Yes.

I relay some of my work and indications that I am discovering by understanding the schematic drawings underneath societies, cultures. You had refered to "historical signifiance once," which caught me off guard.

Model construction is used quite vigorously used by the ingenuity of mind there is no doubt, and similarily many philosophies have been presented for our observations and understanding.

I believe consciousness in individuality is seeking wholeness, all the time. Or is it just me? smile.gif

So you learn to identify these structures not only within your own consicosuness, but what is out there in the history of societies. Easteern, western,etc. Coins, temples and many other things which represent things to people. Solomans temple? Walking a gaelic pathway meditation?

Jung's comments on mandalas are a very important feature of my thought process.

Like energy packets, they are really quite revealling, about when the soul might have understood something previously? Experienced a time, when such a journey was frutiful to such end of identifyng the source as well?

Psychologically, medicine wheels might represent a wholeness for a society to gather, individually, to unite. Melvin Konner might have called the resulting experience a seizure, when such ancient tribes danced around the fires?smile.gif But if such a source is touched, how would it manifest in the language of the time, and be brought forward for our consideration today? A gentle reminder and energy released?

There is still science to consider here. What Lies Beneath, is a thought about Robert Laughlin and the condense matter theorist point of view. What are the building blocks of nature?

Posted by: Plato May 02, 2006, 08:48 PM

I think thought is a good answer.

Having read all of Jane Roberts books, she would have answer a little different, but in essence, thought. I'll try and find her definition of the building blocks.

Robert Laughlin, does not care if they are Lego bricks or Drunk Sargeant majors:)

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=large.stanford.edu/rbl/lectures/index.htm

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/beneath.html

QUOTE
Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

Posted by: lucid_dream May 06, 2006, 02:29 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 25, 04:51 PM) *
But I'll tell you what.. what you focus on grows.


This is lame, Joesus. We all know you can create whatever delusions you want for your own personal enjoyment. What would be more impressive, though I doubt you can do it, is if you said that what you focus on (something other than certain of your body parts), others will perceive to grow. Otherwise, your statement of "what you focus on grows" is utterly vacuous!

Posted by: Joesus May 06, 2006, 10:30 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ May 06, 07:29 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Apr 25, 04:51 PM) *
But I'll tell you what.. what you focus on grows.


This is lame, Joesus. We all know you can create whatever delusions you want for your own personal enjoyment. What would be more impressive, though I doubt you can do it, is if you said that what you focus on (something other than certain of your body parts), others will perceive to grow. Otherwise, your statement of "what you focus on grows" is utterly vacuous!

You can put your attention on the Truth or illusion. Either will give you an experience but not necessarily expand conscious awareness.

I just don't get where you are going with the focusing on others so they will grow thing. Do you think you can do that with me? If you project your doubt in my abilities, do you believe you can change me by projecting something else?

Your post doesn't seem to come from a stable point of reference, it feels more like you need to vent some frustrations and you picked me to try and make yourself feel better.
Is it working?

Posted by: Lindsay May 06, 2006, 11:12 PM

Due to computer problems, I have been MIA for awhile. Good to see all of you have been having fun.

Posted by: lucid_dream May 07, 2006, 01:48 AM

Joesus, the problem I have is that your advice is self-centered and does not take into account other people's experiences. Your statement that "What we focus on grows" is vacuous because it's a statement that we can imagine whatever we want, we can delude ourselves however we want, and I have a problem with it on ethical grounds because it discounts other people's experiences and comes across as narcissistic or overly self-centered. If your powers of mind enabled you to change what I experience, or what others experience, instead of what you experience, then that would be interesting. But to say that your powers of mind enable you to change just what you experience is trivial.

I would call into question your powers of mind, since true power to me means bringing changes to others and not just ones own personal experience. True powers of mind are world-changing and effect everyone, not just one person. Have your powers of mind changed the world for everyone, or just for you? If just for you, then that does not reflect the true power of mind.

Posted by: Joesus May 07, 2006, 03:36 AM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ May 07, 06:48 AM) *

Joesus, the problem I have is that your advice is self-centered and does not take into account other people's experiences. Your statement that "What we focus on grows" is vacuous because it's a statement that we can imagine whatever we want, we can delude ourselves however we want, and I have a problem with it on ethical grounds because it discounts other people's experiences and comes across as narcissistic or overly self-centered. If your powers of mind enabled you to change what I experience, or what others experience, instead of what you experience, then that would be interesting. But to say that your powers of mind enable you to change just what you experience is trivial.

I would call into question your powers of mind, since true power to me means bringing changes to others and not just ones own personal experience. True powers of mind are world-changing and effect everyone, not just one person. Have your powers of mind changed the world for everyone, or just for you? If just for you, then that does not reflect the true power of mind.

The true power of the mind lies in the knowledge of who you are. This affects everything that you have a relationship with automatically.
The statement what you focus on grows is directed toward the relationship one has with the manifest based on the Truth of who you are. IF you can align yourself with the Truth and gain Unity with all things you will by the virtue of expanded awareness, surrender in service to the whole, to all of humanity.
This means that if you are to help a child learn to differentiate the choice between fear and love you will do everything necessary that will enhance the experience.

There's a great story about this called the Bagavadghita. It's a story where God incarnate appears before a waking disciple to explain that all things are not as they might appear. The struggle between light and dark, or evil and good are examples of the mind finding choices that lead to expanding consciousness and self awareness through expression of desires and thought.

Perhaps you are familiar with this prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will direct your paths.

Depending on your background of beliefs about God, your personal relationship with the manifest and the unmanifest, I'd be interested to know what you think about the above.

Christ was an example of surrender in action. Where the Pharisees sought to maintain their control over religion and to elimiate Jesus by killing him, he (Jesus) knew there were limits to what he could do to influence humans that chose to see it their own way, even if their way was to take away peoples freedom of choice by creating laws to manipulate the way they thought and lived.
The majority of Christs followers wanted Jesus with all his miracle power to kill the oppressors of the people, but Jesus knew they represented the fear in the people of ignorance who had no clue of their own ability to change themselves and their world. He showed them that the body is not without the influence of the mind and could overcome beliefs of sickness and even death, but he also knew that you can lead one to spirit but you cannot make one unite with it though the mind and in body and soul.

So now your anger towards God, for not changing the world according to everything that you believe is wrong, is being projected onto anyone who does not meet your expectations of how a righteous/right-minded person should live and act. Anyone who might rise above the need to avail themselves to the choices of others to persue a path of ignorance is narcissistic and uncaring.... Blah!

The Statement is hardly vacuous. It is symbolic of the Truth that is available to one and all. No one suffers by being a victim other than in the mind. Some do everything they can to avoid the truth through beleifs and ignorance and there isn't a damn thing you can do to change the path of one destined to walk that road. You can only make that choice for yourself, and if by your own example, you happen to be an influence to someone who is ready to do the same then by virtue of your own lack of compromise you have played a part in service to humanity.

I wouldn't suggest you measure your self worth by who you influence, unless you want to achieve a higher state of arrogance.

Posted by: Plato May 07, 2006, 12:29 PM

QUOTE
Joesus:
QUOTE
lucid_dream: True powers of mind are world-changing and effect everyone, not just one person.
The true power of the mind lies in the knowledge of who you are.


I do not believe these statements are inconsistant with each other.

While it might have appeared that Einstein had indeed given us a paradigm which was indeed world-changing and affected everyone, how well he might have known himself?

He was driven as to the" focus and outcome" of that growth? Yet being Jewish, and the meaning he might have had for God(Old ONe) had a perspective about nature, that was embued with a certain terminology?

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Torrance
QUOTE
In 1978, he won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion for his contributions to theology and the relationship between it and science.


You must understand there is a current struggle in topday's world with those who support the Templeton Foundation, it's scientists, and those who believe science should remain free of such influences, so they propagate any information forthcoming as tainted.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm By Thomas Torrance

"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" was asked of Einstein.


QUOTE
I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

Posted by: Joesus May 07, 2006, 07:29 PM

QUOTE
I do not believe these statements are inconsistant with each other.


But they were delivered from different points of reference in understanding of the meaning.
Lucid dream has created this thread with a desire to change the world or the people in it.
This desire is not a bad desire in fact the desire is in alignment with the process of change in experience and evolution.
The problem is in his judgment. You can try to idealize what a person should think and believe in a perfect world but then who creates the standard?
Who does not affect the people around them, and is the quality of ones own evolution comparable to another if individual expression and experience are to exist in manifestation of thought or desire?
No one said his desire cannot be fulfilled but there might be someone else with a desire to let the individual experience develop in perfect cooperation so that everyone can have their desires fulfilled without dividing desire into good, better, best, or bad.
I would say Lucid dreams of being right, so that his choices are not judged in the same way as he judges others. Generally speaking those with the biggest self worth issues are usually the first to condemn others for being off so that they can try to convince themselves that they are not totally worthless. Those people of low self esteem also feel threatened by others who would speak their own mind without bending to anothers will or belief systems.
Humility is not in lowering ones self to anothers level but to absorb all at the same level, to live free of judgment because all are seen and experienced as equal. That is true freedom, to live without fear of being absorbed by a lesser quality of life and experience, to live without a threat to ones own ability to make choices and to expand into creation gracefully and effortlessly.

When one begins to measure the worth of ones self, the scale changes according to ones beliefs and understanding.

How would you begin to set a standard when you know it will necessarily change?

I think everyone tries to do the best that they can. I don't think anyone says to themselves I am going to deliberately sabotage myself and my relationship with humanity unless they are so stressed out that they cannot face themselves.
Ignorance is not exactly bliss but if you don't have an experience of something does it mean you are stupid, or lazy, or gullible or a sheep that cannot think for yourself?

I think Not! dry.gif

Posted by: Lindsay May 07, 2006, 07:31 PM

Plato, excellent material. We owe you much thanks for the following link:

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

Yes, indeed, I agree: In my humble opinion, GØD--not to be confused with God, or god--is, as Einstein said, "cosmic intelligence".smile.gif

However, the practical question is: What is the practical value of this concept? What difference does it make for each and everyone of us, today and tomorrow?

Posted by: Neural May 07, 2006, 08:27 PM

where does Einstein say God is cosmic consciousness? He referred to God as "cosmic intelligence" and "the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence" but this is not the same as "cosmic consciousness".

Posted by: lucid_dream May 07, 2006, 08:34 PM

Joesus, you would make a terrible psychologist since you would undoubtedly interpret everyone in the worst possible way since this is precisely what you just did with me by implying I have self worth issues. But really, your response is a rather obvious ad hominem by you in order to side-step my point that your advice that "What you focus on grows" is vacuous and is a product of narcissism or self-centeredness because it does not take into account changing other people's experiences.

If you want to believe that a calm docile unquestioning thoughtlessly dull mind is the ideal state, then that's your prerogative. If you want to crawl up in your little shell and hide from the world, living the life of delusion, then that's also your prerogative; and if you want to preach to others to do likewise, then I guess that's your prerogative too, but don't think I won't be critical of you for it and try to point others towards a better path.

Maybe your real mantra is "Fake it til you make it"? Is it your dream to become a carbon copy of your teachers, as if that were some great feat in life?

Ok, enough with the ad hominems! I sincerely believe your POV is deficient and the proof is in the fruit (or lack thereof) of the tree.

About who sets the standards, this is a moot point. Nature is a wonderful play of power. Those standards with power will prevail, as can be seen today. I am just doing my part.

And btw, we would all do good to read more of Einstein's views, directly from his own words. I recommend his autobiography.

Posted by: Joesus May 07, 2006, 10:10 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ May 08, 01:34 AM) *

Joesus, you would make a terrible psychologist since you would undoubtedly interpret everyone in the worst possible way since this is precisely what you just did with me by implying I have self worth issues. But really, your response is a rather obvious ad hominem by you in order to side-step my point that your advice that "What you focus on grows" is vacuous and is a product of narcissism or self-centeredness because it does not take into account changing other people's experiences.

I don't take it seriously, (your point that is) because I don't share your limited experience of people.
QUOTE

If you want to believe that a calm docile unquestioning thoughtlessly dull mind is the ideal state, then that's your prerogative.

Actually I think were back to exposing your thoughts about humanity based on your projections. If you actually want to help humanity you would have to give them more credibility for their potential than make blanket statements about them without actually getting to know them.
More to the point, What you focus on grows; the more you project judgments into humanity and are looking at the glass half empty, the more you project the problems you believe to be real into your own experience.
Your thoughts actually have an affect on reality.

QUOTE
If you want to crawl up in your little shell and hide from the world, living the life of delusion, then that's also your prerogative; and if you want to preach to others to do likewise, then I guess that's your prerogative too, but don't think I won't be critical of you for it and try to point others towards a better path.

You've made an open point of being critical without actually having all the facts.
QUOTE

Maybe your real mantra is "Fake it til you make it"? Is it your dream to become a carbon copy of your teachers, as if that were some great feat in life?

Ok, enough with the ad hominems! I sincerely believe your POV is deficient and the proof is in the fruit (or lack thereof) of the tree.

I still don't know what it is you are comparing me to. My Teachers? The Tree?
What do you really know of me and what I do other than what you have interpreted through your beliefs of what I have written here? Are you satisfied with what you have experienced as being the totality of me and who I am? Are you satisfied with your present experience of life and the knowledge you have to make a judgment against humanity and to elevate yourself above all who you have judged as being lazy and unproductive?
QUOTE

About who sets the standards, this is a moot point.
Not as long as you want to pass judment on others
QUOTE
Nature is a wonderful play of power. Those standards with power will prevail, as can be seen today.
Sorry you lost me there. If you are referring to the strong surpassing the weak, I'm afraid you haven't been comprehending the bigger picture.
QUOTE
I am just doing my part.

And who isn't? You just want to justify yours.
QUOTE

And btw, we would all do good to read more of Einstein's views, directly from his own words. I recommend his autobiography.

I think you might benefit from your own advice....

Posted by: lucid_dream May 08, 2006, 12:02 AM

The problem, Joesus, is that you preach a philosophy for the lazy who would rather not bother with the beautiful and mysterious complexities of life and who are content with experience of the "One". It is a lazy person's philosophy, and I'm sure you know this but won't ever publicly admit it.

But you will probably admit that behavior and outward actions are trivial for you since all you care about is your self-centered and narcissistic experience of the "One". Do you sympathize with your fellow beings or is sympathy a foreign concept to you? Don't you have a moral voice in your head that says outward actions and behavior are important, and the willpower to manifest your thoughts (if you have any)? Are you really content just sitting around all day meditating on the "One"?

Out of curiousity, were you ever a hippy? Are you autistic or ever diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome?

The powers of mind are great, Joesus, and what you preach is that it's a good thing to handicap the mind and debilitate it, and to put a leash on its powers. On the contrary, we should be unleashing the powers of mind, not trying to overemphasize some consciousness of One or other meditative state that is but a tiny fraction of the mind's powers. You may fear the powers of mind, which is why you preach hiding in one's shell and focusing on the One since, god forbid, we realize states of mind where the One is meaningless. You preach this backwater state of mind you call the One as the sole good in life, and I scoff at it. There is much more to life than what you preach, and to preach handicapping one's mind in order to reside in the state of mind of the One would be foolish indeed since this may be accomplished through lobotomy. But why destroy our brains and our minds according to your principles when we can realize the full complexity and power of what our brains were designed for.

You do not know the answer to the riddle of life, Joesus, and so to compensate, you settle on the philosophy of the lazy in order not to ask the question in the first place. This is why you're content. It is a pitiful state, to be content with a lie; it is better to be discontent and to continue questioning life while still living life as it was meant to be lived. Anything less is filth and lies.

Posted by: Plato May 08, 2006, 01:25 AM

Lindsay:

QUOTE
What is the practical value of this concept? What difference does it make for each and everyone of us, today and tomorrow?


That the potential exists within each of us to understand we are partaking of a quest to percieve where this point in existance might be revealled. If not at the basis of reality, then what use the math? While I generalize becuase of my inefficieny of these interpretations, the vastness of the world of math, there was some undertanding geometrically inclined, that is revealled as we followed the logic leading to GR.

Did it mean we should be devoid of our belief in a God, if we held to science principles, while, we engaged in the subjectivity of our opinions?

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2004/11/man-who-knew-infinity.html

QUOTE
An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.
Srinivasa Ramanujan


So to me, it is still all out there for us to look? How we might entertain that awe and beauty in nature?


"God does not play dice" by Thomas Torrance

QUOTE
Einstein was not a determinist but a realist, with the conviction that, in line with Clerk Maxwellian field theory and general relativity theory, nature is governed by profound levels of intelligible connection that cannot be expressed in the crude terms of classical causality and traditional mathematics. He was convinced that the deeper forms of intelligibility being brought to light in relativity and quantum theory cannot be understood in terms of the classical notions of causality–they required what he called Übercausalität–supercausality. And this called for "an entirely new kind of mathematical thinking", not least in unified field theory–that was a kind of mathematics he did not even know, but which someone must find. 48


Posted by: Joesus May 08, 2006, 01:31 AM

All mental masturbation lucid. If you really want to have an intelligent conversation it requires being real with yourself and your world. Once you rise above the fear of the boogeyman to see it for what it is and quit projecting from limited assumptions there is so much more to experience.

I can wait.

Posted by: Neural May 08, 2006, 01:32 AM

note that Übercausalität can also be translated "overcausality", in addition to "supercausality". Do you know anything more about this Übercausalität? I'm going to google around a bit for more info.

Posted by: lucid_dream May 08, 2006, 01:50 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ May 07, 11:31 PM) *
All mental masturbation lucid. If you really want to have an intelligent conversation it requires being real with yourself and your world. Once you rise above the fear of the boogeyman to see it for what it is and quit projecting from limited assumptions there is so much more to experience.



your assumptions are wrong and you haven't the faintest idea what I've experienced. Hence your inability to relate to my POV and your misplaced desire to paint me as something else.

Understand that your cherished beliefs I see as crutches for the mentally and spiritually handicapped. I say to you, throw down your crutches!


In rereading this thread just now, I noticed you made a few interesting speculations here and there, such as your analogy of humans as individual cells in a larger body. I would like to hear more of your imaginative speculations, and less of your dogmatism.


Posted by: Joesus May 08, 2006, 10:37 AM

QUOTE
In rereading this thread just now, I noticed you made a few interesting speculations here and there, such as your analogy of humans as individual cells in a larger body. I would like to hear more of your imaginative speculations, and less of your dogmatism.


Ah, so you can actually go beyond the surface appearances and first impressions. I suggest you apply this new found talent to your view of the world. You might find something more interesting about your gullible christians, Islamic sheep, Buddhists and others who cannot think for themselves.
Like most cells in any organism they all work together towards the goal of the whole.

You might have high Ideals but there might also be a higher chain of command that you have yet to unite with.

Keep rereading and integrating. There is hope for you yet.

Posted by: Neural May 08, 2006, 03:58 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ May 08, 08:37 AM) *
There is hope for you yet.

Wish I could say the same for you, Joesus.

Posted by: maximus242 May 08, 2006, 04:06 PM

lol this will be intresting tongue.gif

Posted by: Joesus May 08, 2006, 06:46 PM

QUOTE(Neural @ May 08, 08:58 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ May 08, 08:37 AM) *
There is hope for you yet.

Wish I could say the same for you, Joesus.

I wish you could say that of everyone

Posted by: Neural May 08, 2006, 09:02 PM

QUOTE(Dianah @ May 08, 06:29 PM) *

quoting Joesus

QUOTE
I wish you could say that of everyone


why can't you?...if you are aligned to source...then wouldn't one realize...that none are lost, and all eyes shall see?

my thoughts exactly


Posted by: Guest May 08, 2006, 09:22 PM

Neural:

QUOTE
note that Übercausalität can also be translated "overcausality", in addition to "supercausality". Do you know anything more about this Übercausalität?


No I don't really, although, I have some thoughts about it. Whether they are right or not is another story.

I notice your other posts and wanted to have a look. Not much time today or tomorrow. But I want to follow up to understand. Historical perspectve, is always quite nice when it comes to Einstein's work.

Posted by: Plato May 08, 2006, 09:27 PM

That guest above would be me, Plato. smile.gif

Posted by: Joesus May 09, 2006, 12:27 AM

QUOTE(Dianah @ May 09, 01:29 AM) *

quoting Joesus

QUOTE
I wish you could say that of everyone


why can't you?...if you are aligned to source...then wouldn't one realize...that none are lost, and all eyes shall see?

Why can't I what?

Posted by: Neural May 09, 2006, 12:49 AM

You said "I wish you could say that of everyone" and Dianah asked why don't you make it so? After all, you're aligned to the source.

Posted by: Joesus May 09, 2006, 01:06 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ May 09, 05:49 AM) *

You said "I wish you could say that of everyone" and Dianah asked why don't you make it so? After all, you're aligned to the source.

It will be so, once your awareness returns to the source.
QUOTE

What else do you wish for?
Depends on the moment, when I'm hungry I might wish for a particular type of food.
QUOTE
I thought desire was anathema to your kind.

I see you have a way to go before the aformentioned wish comes into manifestion.

Posted by: Neural May 09, 2006, 01:22 PM


*yawn* @ Joesus

Posted by: Plato May 10, 2006, 10:21 AM

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/05/intuitively-compelling.html, the information piece mealled is brought together for consideration?

Call it mental masturabation if you like, but the questions are built on a solid foundation.

Some comprehension of early understanding of the universal questions, which may have been given about the nature of reality, are important from cognitive realization stand point. Which can ensue, from any mind?

What construct or model is it that can help us to define reality in this way or that. Pick one?

Meditation? Okay. How will this lead to our understanding of what thought constructs will issue from that beginning? Whie I ask, Ihave already entetain this question and always refer tot he qquestion of the nature of the relaity as it may have issue from the deepr parts of our psyche. Liminocentric strutures and as mandalas are revealling.

What whole "thought package" is included in that emerging reality from the dream world? smile.gif

Posted by: Guest May 10, 2006, 11:15 AM

QUOTE(Plato @ May 10, 07:21 AM) *

Call it mental masturabation if you like, but the questions are built on a solid foundation.


Are you addressing this to anyone in particular or are you just starting out in a defensive mode?

Posted by: Plato May 10, 2006, 11:41 AM

QUOTE
Are you addressing this to anyone in particular or are you just starting out in a defensive mode?


The context and the origination of the wording was derived from someone else. So by using it, and by stating the obvious (Linked title in regards to Intuitive Compelling), it might have have appeared defensive, while it still relates to the source.

Conclusively, any derivation and concreteness in our thinking, has to be set up for the next to come. You see?

The real world, and what issues from such a source? Are you speaking for that person? And yet, to leave it open for others to interject. Multiple views of reality?

They are a lot of young inexperienced here. I have been listening to the information on meditation for years.

I would like to help progress it some, even though am not a consistant practionering, I can focus and grow just as easy. Where did it begin?

That's important feature of correlation cognition, as well as seeing models in their perspective design in expression. So what what about the Gap?

While some would see the quark to quark measure, the metric, there is a process in thinking that helps stretch the mind in terms of the energy and space created, between constituent realities? They are testing that. The dimensional relation.

How far do our constructs go in relation? We can spout a nice philosophy, while the feather holds enormous realization towards the truth and what is heart felt. Intuitive compelling about htose measures.


Posted by: Neural May 10, 2006, 12:26 PM

we should be talking more about ego constructs and if this is really what meditation is reinforcing (an example of 'what you focus on grows' applied to the ego). If meditation leads to self-aggrandizement (a la Joesus), then this is not the complete road to enlightenment but merely leads those practitioners to confuse self with Self and with selfless.

Posted by: Guest May 10, 2006, 03:22 PM

Let's apply "What you focus on grows" to meditation.

What is the application of meditation?

If we refer to the 8 limbs of Yoga

1.Yama The yamas refer to an individual’s ethical standards and way of behaving. The yamas have five areas of focus:
Ahimsa: nonviolence against oneself or others, in actions or thoughts.
Aparigraha: noncovetousness, non-grasping, taking only what is necessary.
Asteya: nonstealing, thoughtful in what is yours, not taking advantage of one’s trust.
Brahmacharya: continence, abstinence, self-restraint, conscious awareness.
Satya: truthfulness in all dealings with the self and others.

2. Niyama The niyamas refer to a more internal view of ourselves; to behaviors and observances. The niyamas have five areas of focus:
Isvara Pranidhana: surrender to God, realizing ego is not in control of one’s existence.
Samtosa: contentment and modesty, accepting what happens through expansion of consciousness.
Saucha: purity of the body and thoughts.
Svadhyaya: the study of sacred texts, to study oneself through reflection.
Tapas: literally translated as heat; the fire tha burns away all that is not real, spiritual austerities, which means useful boundaries or focus and discipline.

3.Asana The most common discipline taught in contemporary yoga classes are the postures and movement between postures. Practicing asana helps prepare us for deeper meditation. By maintaining a healthy and open physical body, we are able to come to deeper meditation, enabling us to experience samadhi. From a yoga perspective, this is the primary reason for practicing asana.

4.Pranayama Prana translates as breath or life force. Yama translates as control. Thus pranayama means control of the breath. Through pranayama practice, we learn to control the body and mind by controlling the breath. We can strengthen the energy within as well as making the energy more peaceful. Pranayama increases our lung capacity, decreases stress, helps us focus, and brings a sense of balance of the inner self with the world around us. If practiced correctly, the body and mind become healthier. Practicing the first four limbs of yoga, Yama, Niyama, Asana and Pranayama help us to more thoroughly experience the next four limbs, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi, which focus more on the spiritual self.

5.Pratyahara Pratyahara means withdrawing from the senses. More accurately, it means to transcend the senses so they don’t influence us in a way that prevents us from reaching Samadhi, or enlightenment. By transcending the senses, we move our awareness away from the outer world and toward the inner self. Here, without outside influence, we are able to view our selves in a deeper, more intimate way, ultimately finding the true self.

6.Dharana With the help of Pratyahara, Dharana enables us to concentrate more fully, bringing a richer awareness of the mind. This step is essential to meditation. Here, we use all the previously mentioned limbs to bring our selves to a place of such peacefulness and balance, every thought or influence is met with a totally open mind, body and spirit. There is no preconception, prejudgment, conditioning, fear, anxiety, joy or sorrow to influence our meeting with each event. We meet every moment with our true selves.

7.Dhyana Dhyana is meditation. In Dhyana, or meditation, we move beyond Dharana (concentration) into a state of total awareness. We are able to concentrate on a focus point, while still being aware of everything else around and within us. This is a much more difficult task than might be thought. All the previously mentioned limbs are engaged when we come to this state. The mind and body must be totally quiet and open.

8.Samadhi Samadhi is the state of transcendence of the self, a state of ecstasy. It is the joining or union (the meaning of yoga) with all living things, with the universe, with the Devine. Here, we are in a state of bliss, beyond the place of knowledge, beyond the place of worldly things, to a realization that everything is of the same substance and that all is connected – yoga!


(Here are 8 terms given to types of yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, Hatha Yoga, Dhyana Yoga, Ashtanga Yoga)


Then the application of meditation is directed toward something, meaning the desire to meditate follows a deeper desire to accomplish something from the action of meditation, with the assisting information of what meditation accompanies, which is the internal changing thoughts, and a stable point of reference that does not change, a constant.

Ultimately the heart desires to bring all stray thoughts and feelings of separation back to union, to expand all thought feeling and desire.
The mind often translates through platforms of belief what that should look like.
Which is why so many have their own opinions of what enlightenment is, or what people who meditate are like, or what people who live their life in Self reflection are.

The Ego seeks to define behavior so that it can protect itself against its own fear of failure or thoughts of measuring self worth. The ego lives by looking over its shoulder to make sure there is nothing that is going to sneak up on it and bust its bubble.
Mental masurbation is the constant mind chatter of establishing viewpoints in changing patterns of beliefs. There is no peace of mind only a constant need to re-establish ones point of reference and level of being according to the shifting sands of beliefs.

Finding peace in Union is hardly unproductive or slothlike. It re-establishes the mind in reality so that all thought feeling and action fits precisely within the creative reality of the manifest without doubt or fear of ones worth or action being out of alignment with all thought and action.

Because of the illusion of individuality the mind tries to align itself with others so that there is no conflict but then not everyone was meant to look the same, act the same or feel the same feelings in response to action. So rather than imagining that the ideal reality would be to get everyone to be the same to create the illusion of Union, Union has to be found in diversity.
Unfortunately this thought scares the hell out of the ego and leads it to believe that this requires that you do nothing in the face of self destruction, or action that is directed through thought and feeling of separation towards separation and manipulation of.

Meditation is a tool, and one can be educated to use a tool with greater efficiency than if one is or was to assume from lack of experience that they can apply something they know nothing about to their lives to solve issues that are self created.

Meditation is like any other tool. In the hands of a skilled surgeon a kife can cut away diseased tissue leaving only healthy tissue.
In the use of meditation that which is retained in beliefs of separation and illusion can be let go so that thought and awareness which is directed toward expansion of awareness and experience of oneness is expanded upon within the foundation of the constant absolute rather than the limitations and changing patterns of the ego and its beliefs of separation.

Someone once wrote fear is the absence of love, and separation is the absence of God in awareness. Love does not dissapear in the presence of fear but one has a choice to focus on what is real. Love is a constant, fear lives only through ignorance and belief. God is present always but dissappears from the awareness when the mind is focussed in duality and division through fear.

If you want to construct the perfect building then you must have the tools and the experience to do so.
Being effective in life requires the awareness to know the difference between illusion and reality.
Meditation requires a bit of knowledge to be able to recognise the difference between reality and illusion.

In the Upanishads it is written. "To Achieve harmony within and in the world surround yourself with enlightened company, meditate, read and study the words and writings (scripture) of the enlightened."

Many practitioners of Astanga Yoga believe one must master each limb individually to achieve enlightenment, but the limbs develop equally when the awareness of the absolute is experienced and then experienced as a constant. This perpetual awarenessof the absolute then, is the foundation for building perpetual awareness of Union.
All right thinking and right action as stated in the Vedic scripture is the same as True judgment that is mentioned in the Bible. Both of these terms refer to the thought feeling and action that is made and experienced through the stable platform of Perpetual Unity awareness.

What you focus on grows

Posted by: maximus242 May 10, 2006, 04:24 PM

Are we still fighting over "what you focus on grows"? geesh I thought that debate finally ended.. Anyways North American meditation == crap. Plain and simple, most North American meditation is a corperate money maker, one should study more real meditation along the lines of asian and hindu meditation. Traditional Meditational methods like Buddhism are much more reliable then the local gym which has some hack meditation teacher tongue.gif Their is a number of diffrent ways to meditate, id suggest going for the old rather that the new ohmy.gif

Posted by: Guest May 10, 2006, 08:21 PM

QUOTE
I found these five areas of focus interesting.
How does the ego come to this realization?

QUOTE
From my understanding,
obviously you have come to realize something and found an interest in what you experience. Why would you find any interest unless it resonated somewhere?
QUOTE
the ego is a vessel of expression, it is not the ‘doer’ but that which does…so I guess, if the ego realizes this, through focus of course…then the ego would also realize that it does not truly make choices…free will or free choice would not exist within the mind set of an ego that has surrendered its sense of control, for it would realize that it is not in control of its existence…so I guess the surrendered ego would realize that it makes choices, but its not the source of these choices…hmmm


Who's understanding and how do you understand anything?
When the ego comes into awareness of itself in alignment with Its Self there is only the Self. You come to this realization by surrendering the ego back to its source rather than holding it from returning to source through belief and intention to separate and divide.
Also note that scripture expands on this by defining the difference between the ego of illusion and the cosmic Ego in many pages of intellectul example.
The inward outward movement of consciousness from the unmanifest to the manifest is symbolized by the infinity symbol, the junction between the manifest and unmanifest is called the bindu point. Consciousness by its nature is active and what is manifest in the experience of the ego is by design reflected in the action of choice to experience surrender of flow, and or the beliefs of separation and the experience of reduction of flow, in conflict. Expansion and contraction are experienced by alignment and separation of thought in flow.
Thought moves outward into manifestation and is absorbed back into the source. Intelligence and surrender is experienced and expressed through choice that follows recognition, to stop holding thought and projecting it into individuality and separation.

QUOTE
Samtosa: contentment and modesty, accepting what happens through expansion of consciousness.



How does the ego come to this realization?

From my understanding, it is simply saying…what is to be, will be for it all ready is, thus the surrendered ego would be able to accept, embrace and allow…acceptance…hmmm

That'd be a choice

QUOTE
Saucha: purity of the body and thoughts.


How is the ego to achieve this?

From my understanding, purity of the body and thoughts simply implies…a surrendered ego that has aligned and brought into conscious harmony the essence of source through understanding and balancing his dual nature. Purity simply denotes inner harmony/balance of feeling/thought.

How did you come to this understanding? Is it complete? What is the extent of balance.
It is said Jesus could wake the dead, walk through walls and on water, bifurcate and move through time in any direction.
From your understanding is there room for more understanding or are you staying where you are?

QUOTE
What sacred texts are they referring too and how is one to study self through reflection?

Those texts which have influenced humanity and stood the tests of time. The Bible, the Quran, The Vedic Texts. Scripture which is written or dictated by the enlightened.

QUOTE
From my understanding, all can be known through the calmed mind that is aligned to the heart. …to study oneself through reflection denotes peering into the outer world of appearances and to ponder upon what is being reflected, in which to bring forth self understanding and knowing. One has to have the courage to look at themselves…within all things, and as all things in which to reflect on the essence of their being.
Study of the Self includes intelligent thinking. Returning reflection to the source or surrendering meanings and understandings to exchange them for greater understandings is the process of study of the Self. Experience always follows intellectual understanding. You yourself heard, read the word and experience thus follows.
The heart is translated into meanings and understanding begins with "Well I understand this to be...etc.etc.
Then the the heart begins to express itself through others and rather than divide ones self into my understanding and your understanding it accepts that any understanding is limited to a physical point of reference. Once one begins to let go of their grip on personal understanding to find union in all understandings at the level of the absolute then there is no need to attach ones self to their understanding.

QUOTE

Tapas: literally translated as heat; the fire tha burns away all that is not real, spiritual austerities, which means useful boundaries or focus and discipline.


From my understanding, heat represents consciousness, fire transforms the objective, releasing the subjective…the key word here is ‘spiritual’…it is simply the transformation of ones perspectives, their thoughts…rigid physical discipline does not bring this about…for ones focus would then be on the physical…on the effect and not the cause…

Focusing only brings what you focus on…into focus…once in focus…the five attributes listed above must be applied…then what is seen can be understood, and this is through experience…through living… breathing into consciousness… ones potential for SELF UNDERSTANDING…

A simple choice to direct thought through a discipline that expands awareness, to evolve into spirituality rather than through the limited beliefs of the physical.
As you have said over and over. It is your understanding.... This is what separates your thoughts of reality from anothers thought of reality. If you take a position that your understanding is the point of reference that is never changing then you will base your future experience on what you know in this moment and the next and the next. If there is more then there will be no room for more until you surrender your present experience and your present understanding. That is a choice you will make in every moment. Discpline is transferring laziness in acceptance of outside authority based on beleifs and preferences to discernment of focus.
The description of waking state mentality is repetative action based on programming that begins with what is passed from the parents and society to the child.
An example:
If you go outside in the cold you will catch a cold.
Fall and winter is Flu season; added to fall winter, spring and summer, the mind will easily accept its fate and get sick if it accepts this reality.
The world is flat: a known belief that had its time and died as the thought was let go in the light of a greater experience and Truth.

Posted by: Joesus May 10, 2006, 10:53 PM

QUOTE(Dianah @ May 11, 02:36 AM) *

So Joesus...is all that you stated... your understanding...derived from your own experiences...or just the parroting of understanding gleamed from reading the words of others beliefs/understandings?

What do you think?

Posted by: Plato May 10, 2006, 10:58 PM

Justa quick summary of points in that Chapter 10 and jumping ahead to number four

How to Meditate, by Lawrence LeShan, Bantam book, 1974

Is a Teacher Necessary for Meditation?

QUOTE
The fourth group says that the technique of mediation were worked out empirically over long periods of time and that it takes too long for any one individual to be able to repeat their work. This answer to the question is, I believe, an intelligent and serious one even if I do not completely agree with it.


Within one lifetime, maybe not?smile.gif

Posted by: lucid_dream May 11, 2006, 01:44 AM

Joesus, your belief system is incomplete. In antiquity, when primitive humans didn't know the answer for some natural phenomena, they would say it was 'God', thereby replacing every question mark they had with 'God' as an answer, which is nothing more than admitting ignorance. In a similar manner, you bandy the 'One' around endlessly, and so what other conclusion can any reasonable person reach except that you as ignorant as primitive humans? How is the 'One' anything more than a statement of ignorance?

Newsflash! In the last 350 years, primitive humans developed their intellectual capabilities which gave birth to this wonderful thing called 'Science' which explains most natural phenomena, thereby replacing 'God' and the 'One' with detailed and pragmatic explanations and descriptions which gave rise to the technologies we enjoy today.

Without Science, Joesus, you would not be able to hop on the internet to preach your antiquated beliefs. Some things are better left dead in the past. Why are you trying to revive a dead horse?

Posted by: Joesus May 11, 2006, 02:24 AM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ May 11, 06:44 AM) *

Joesus, your belief system is incomplete. In antiquity, when primitive humans didn't know the answer for some natural phenomena, they would say it was 'God', thereby replacing every question mark they had with 'God' as an answer, which is nothing more than admitting ignorance. In a similar manner, you bandy the 'One' around endlessly, and so what other conclusion can any reasonable person reach except that you as ignorant as primitive humans? How is the 'One' anything more than a statement of ignorance?

Truth is timeless. Granted there are ignorant people who make statements without experience such as yourself but nonetheless this does not make it any less real.
QUOTE

Newsflash! In the last 350 years, primitive humans developed their intellectual capabilities which gave birth to this wonderful thing called 'Science' which explains most natural phenomena, thereby replacing 'God' and the 'One' with detailed and pragmatic explanations and descriptions which gave rise to the technologies we enjoy today.

This is simply a ridiculous statement. God has not been replaced by Science, in fact the debate concering the existence of God within the scientific community is still ongoing. For all its attempts Science has not proven or disproven the existence of God
QUOTE


Without Science, Joesus, you would not be able to hop on the internet to preach your antiquated beliefs. Some things are better left dead in the past. Why are you trying to revive a dead horse?

Without God there would be no science, nor inspiration to create. The horse is very much alive in the hearts of the world. In fact you are in the minority in your beliefs and assumptions

Posted by: lucid_dream May 11, 2006, 02:39 AM

Joesus, you are not timeless, nor of this time, but rather are of 2000+ years ago. Your 'timeless' is a false assumption, or at any rate, unconvincing.

You believe in the timeless because you choose not to see the changes around you, like the turtle hiding in his shell.

Have you ever considered that your timeless is an illusion?

Since you do not comprehend the nature of time, you are not in a position to say that Truth is timeless.

And 'God', insofar as this concept serves as an admission of ignorance, has been largely replaced by Science. It's just a matter of time before it is completely replaced.

I see you clinging to your cherished belief in the One and the timeless, but ask yourself if you could survive without these beliefs? They are crutches; surely you know this.

Posted by: Lao_Tzu May 11, 2006, 02:56 AM

Just a brief note on the matter of time:

We ordinarily perceive time in three ways: times past, present time, and future times. It is evident that these three ideas are mutually interdependent; we can only conceive of the past in relation to the present and the future, the present in relation the the past and the future, and the future in relation to the present and the past.

Now, what is the present? As soon as we say it is 'now', no sooner have we finished saying the word than the moment we are talking about is actually in the past. A millisecond before the present is the future, and a millisecond after it is the past; the present is somewhere between them. But we never experience the times past and future; the past exists only in our memory, and the future only in our imagination. Both are mere constructs of our imagination, and do not refer to anything real.

We have already seen that we can only understand the present in relation to the past and the future. The present is dependent, for whatever substance it may have, on the past and the future. But neither the past nor the future are real; they are false constructs of our imagination. It follows that the present, as we name it, is not real either.

None of the three aspects of time, therefore, are actually real. 'Time' itself is perhaps an illusion. Therefore, to say that something is timeless is perhaps not such a misstatement of the case.

Posted by: Joesus May 11, 2006, 03:08 AM

There is only now.

Posted by: Lao_Tzu May 11, 2006, 07:30 AM

Lucid, both you and Joesus are loud proponents of extreme views that are located different ends of a philosophical spectrum. You are both intolerant, refusing to surrender to the other any more than the most insignificant inch of whatever intellectual territory you claim to occupy. While you remain intransigent, you are unlikely ever to reach a useful conclusion; you will merely inflame one another. This will serve only to entrench both of you in the attitude of proud condescension with which you hold and expound your views. It will almost certainly not make either of you happier.

I don't sympathise with Joesus. I'm addressing this to you because Joesus seems less able than you to deal rationally with criticism (I think Joesus's reply would be something along the lines of: "the One the One the One... .... the One, so there."). But I think you should revise your habit of peremptorily dismissing 'spiritual' perspectives. I want to try and answer some of the questions that you have asked with a view to challenging (and, I think, burying) such perspectives.

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ May 11, 08:44 AM) *

How is the 'One' anything more than a statement of ignorance?

Joesus has resorted to using the term of 'the One' as a kind of impenetrable conceptual stronghold, residing in which he can never be attacked or proven wrong, since he can integrate all views as well as all the opposites of those views into the One. This is not useful, but it does not mean that the One is not a valid concept, just that it's being used unskilfully.

Just as every whole is divisible into parts, so the idea of parts makes no sense if there is no whole. All the things that we view as being separate parts are in fact parts of a whole. Just as a whole implies parts (nothing is indivisible; the search for a genuinely fundamental constituent of matter has thusfar been fruitless) so the existence of parts implies a whole. This is why the "One" is not a statement of ignorance (unless, as it may have been, it is unskilfully used) but a philosophically logical proposition.

It has been suggested that the ways in which we conceptualise each part is somewhat arbitrary, and bears no necessary relation to the true state of things. Why do we distinguish between a mountain and a hill, for example? Height and mass, for example, are thoroughly anthropomorphic qualities, and the things we differentiate by such measures are anthropomorphically distinguished. By extension, any distinction is an athropomorphic one and has no roots in the ground of things. In a very accessible sense, the whole makes more philosophical sense than any part we could point to.

Spiritual perspectives, I think, are founded in the philosophical idea that each 'part' implies the whole. Since the separation of each part from all other parts, and thus from the whole, has no ground in the true state of things, each part carries within itself the essence of the whole. We conceive of ourselves as separate individuals, but the sharp distinction we habitually make between ourselves and others is perhaps not so justified. Realising the illusion of separation, and the truth of one's own unity with the whole - the source, the one, the ground of all being, Allah, the Tao, Buddha-nature, or God - is the spiritual quest, and one that has great philosophical integrity.

Of course, most of us are still questers. I wake up every morning and immediately I experience myself as a separate individual. There are techniques we can employ to reveal the illusion of separation, and these are arrived at through empirical investigation. This is only one of the ways in which science has an indispensible part to play in the spiritual quest.

To quote Albert Einstein: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science." (emphasis my own)

Einstein went on to say: "He to whom this emotion is a stranger ... is as good as dead."

Posted by: Plato May 11, 2006, 10:43 AM

QUOTE
But we never experience the times past and future; the past exists only in our memory, and the future only in our imagination.


Maybe it's a supercasualty thingy? smile.gif

How can you say the future is not real when any next moment(implying separation?) is indeed new? Exists, simultaneously alongside(again, implying separation?) of(as part[bad distiction to be separate again] of is much better) the present and past. The past is very much *of* you in the moment. The Future is very much *of* you?

You had to know how this "Plectics" of Gellman is applied? How this technology is currently being exploited from what was once spooky.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=eskesthai.blogspot.com/2004/11/physical-reality-as-four-dimensional.html

"Becoming," we talked about this earlier. Einstein's view.

QUOTE
Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.


Folllowing that history, you will wonder about Penrose's statement, in terms of the need for a "new" quantum world view. You had to know how this question in mind exists, and how far current technology has gone, and with it, who has done what.

Neural did some quick research and asked the question around around the term above. I said I may not be right, but I have some ideas. They are backup by science. If one looks at what I just wrote now and finds Gellman's little expose' on what he was infuring then you will understand the complexity of the problem.

How far it is being taken today. As well, covers the internet remark.

Posted by: lucid_dream May 11, 2006, 11:12 AM

I would like to make clear that I am not downplaying spiritual insights or perspectives. They are very important and meaningful and enrich the life experience. However, I am vehemently against dogma which is unnaturally attached or associated with spiritual experiences. Unless he is being dishonest about his experiences (which he is very vague about), I grant Joesus whatever experiences he claims to have, but I deny his simpleton interpretation as valid, or at least, as pragmatic. There is no reason to associate his dogmatism of the One with his experience or any experience for that matter. The fact that everything has both a Whole and Parts is a trivial observation, making the philosophy of the One vacuous and trivial, just like his egotistical and narcissistic statement about "what you focus on grows".

I am all for diversity of experience and adopting different perspectives, but do me a favor and drop the dogma. You can speculate all you want and use your imagination to the full extent, but do not try to pass over some rigid dogma as the Truth, since this is only what buffoons do.

We must become open-minded like children; spouting dogmas as Truth is a symptom of a closed-mind.

Re: Albert Einstein
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice."

The same can be said of religious zealots who rigidly maintain overly-simplistic worldviews and who try to dumb down life as much as possible!

Posted by: code buttons May 11, 2006, 11:27 AM

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ May 11, 04:30 AM) *

Lucid, both you and Joesus are loud proponents of extreme views that are located different ends of a philosophical spectrum.

So much to talk about within the subject and so little time. I am following this thread with interest and your post with curiosity. But time constrains limit my post lengths.
Lao, there is nothing wrong with basing your views on empirical evidence, is it? Suggesting spirituality as a means of a quest for understanding the nature of things and of reality is quite a tricky proposition in itself. And that's the whole basis for my disagreement (and that of Lucid, I presume) with Joesus' perspective. It is not that his views may not have validity within a specific context. But that his views and/or beliefs are subjective. He is trying to explain reality from a subjective perspective: untestable and unscientific, therefore. How do you suggest that his rethoric can be constructive toward the path of understanding? Especially when he quotes books and manuals based of ancient astrology and organized religion? It is true that there is two sides to the human brain and the mystical is very much part of the escence of being human. But reason dictates that objectivity rules over speculation. If you ever were to be in need of taking an antidote for a poison you've swallowed by mistake, and this antidote is only found at a certain location in downton Capetown, would you rather there via a detailed map on white paper (address and directions included), or would you be happy just with the notion that there is an antidote and it is somewher in downtown Capetown but good luck finding it? I would take the first choice, wouldn't you? I realize this is a poor analogy, but my time is up and, you get the idea, I think...

Powered by
© Invision Power Services