Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What is 'Enlightenment'?
Dan
post May 25, 2003, 11:22 AM
Post #31


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



hey shawn

must be tough admitting to these feelings of personal wisdom, but perhaps tougher not admitting to them?   ;D

I personally think it's great that you are a 'chosen one' so long as you do good things.  I can't wait for you brain-boys to put mind in a position to evolve significantly, although I do think that we are quite a ways off yet.

I also am getting a kick out of your and Joe's conversation, as I am sure many are.  wink.gif

party on
8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 25, 2003, 11:45 AM
Post #32


God
******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



hi Dan,

I'm sure you grasp my predicament to some extent.  I am not saying I'm 'The Chosen One', for such a claim should rightfully be considered ludicrous, at least if 'I' is interpreted in terms of personal ego.   There's a certain truth to the saying that we're all chosen to do certain things.  My reference to the 'chosen one' was just within the context of my interpretation of the biblical statement, 'Ye shall know them by their works'.  I was not trying to imply I was 'The Chosen One', nor do I privately think of my myself in those terms, at least not in the personal sense.   If anything, I think of my body as mere instrument, and my consciousness as of the divine.

I hope people aren't getting too much of a kick out the conversation at the expense of understanding the arguments on both sides.  If anything, I hope our exchange serves to highlight key differences in our modes of consciousness, belief systems, and ways of thinking.

The key point I maintain, of course, is that states of consciousness and enlightenment are all relative, and that there is no 'absolute', 'highest', or 'most privileged' state of consciousness or enlightenment.  Whatever people regard as the 'highest' and most transcendent state of consciousness (call it Nirvana, Satori, whatever you like) can always be surpassed and transcended.   It's all relative.

To remain fixated on one state of consciousness as the 'highest' is to vastly underestimate the power and vastness of conscious states, as well as the power and ability of us humans (and in particular, us brain-boys!) to be able to decipher this puzzle and open the doorways unto higher modes of consciousness and enlightenment than anyone has ever experienced before.

take care,
Shawn
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 25, 2003, 12:04 PM
Post #33


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



'sup Shawn

QUOTE
I'm sure you grasp my predicament to some extent.

you betcha!   ;D


QUOTE
I am not saying I'm 'The Chosen One', for such a claim would rightfully be ludicrous.   There's a certain truth to the saying that we're all chosen to do certain things.  My reference to the 'chosen one' was just within the context of my interpretation of the biblical statement, 'Ye shall know them by their works'.  I was not trying to imply I was 'The Chosen One', nor do I privately think of my myself in those terms.  

not 'the' chosen one, just 'a' chosen one.  I decided on this title on my own, as for me it best captures the essence of the feeling of high potential.  we could call you 'smartypants' if you prefer  wink.gif

QUOTE
I hope people aren't getting too much of a kick out the conversation at the expense of understanding the arguments on both sides.  If anything, I hope our exchange serves to highlight key differences in our modes of consciousness, belief systems, and ways of thinking.  

I am getting a kick out of this because I believe I do understand both sides.  maybe you guys will get a kick out of that?  :smile.gif


QUOTE
The key point I maintain, of course, is that states of consciousness and enlightenment are all relative, and that there is no 'absolute', 'highest', or 'most priveleged' state of consciousness or enlightenment.  Whatever people regard as the 'highest' and most transcendent state of consciousness (call it Nirvana, Satori, whatever you like) can always be surpassed and transcended.   It's all relative.

my question is then, are states of consciousness comparable as more or less desirable?  If so, then we can imagine a 'well-ordering' of known states which implies a 'least desirable' known state.  It also may imply a 'least desirable' possible state if one assumes any particular state to consist of a finite number of elements (and that the variety of possible elements is also finite).  The 'highest' state is also be like the infinite cardinal number, something that is manifest in idea alone


I personally believe that the 'perfect' state is unattainable, and that rate of approaching the 'perfect' state goes to zero at the future limit.  However, the achievement of better states is not a continuous function , but a discrete function therefore there will come a time when we feel that we can go no further.  this is the end/beginning, when we hit the 'reset' button on structure.  Just like last time(s) perhaps?  ???  tongue.gif

8)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 25, 2003, 12:25 PM
Post #34


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



Shawn

Yes, evolution from the perspective of self-replicating genes is a concept introduced by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene.  You suggest that a negative correlation exists between 'enlightenment' and 'reproductive fitness' and from the framework of an individual gene, you are quite correct.  However, 'reproductive fitness' is a composite measurement involving the indivisible relationship between replicator and environment.  Genes exist in environments and their reproductive fitness is relative to that environment.  Because genes exist in the context of other genes, those that evolve altruistic capacities are often more fit than those that don't.  Conciousness enables cooperation and consequently increased adaptivity.  If consciousness is viewed as an adaptive mechanism then would not 'enlightenment' function similarly, a fortiori.

As far as illusion is concerned, I am not sure I follow your reasoning that enlightenment is less illusory.  A dream, no matter how real, is still a dream.  Delusional resolution is not a measurement of objective reality, supposing you subscribe to that notion.  smile.gif

Have you read Howard Bloom's, Global Brain?  His thesis is something like - societies, via the mechanism of memes, function as global parallel networks, similar to the neural networks of the brain, enabling a collective conciousness (which is quite disctint from the Jungian concept if I'm not mistaken.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 25, 2003, 12:56 PM
Post #35


God
******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



hello Timothy, Dan,

this is great conversation!

Dan,

What you say about being 'a chosen one' best capturing the essence of the feeling of high potential, I agree with entirely.  It's a very positive way of regarding one's mission, one's fate, one's life.    I do regard mine in this manner, as my fulfilling an inevitability of sorts.  I think it's a very meaningful way to regard oneself.

QUOTE

I am getting a kick out of this because I believe I do understand both sides.  maybe you guys will get a kick out of that?  :smile.gif


I think this is great.  It's always to one's advantage to understand both sides of an argument.   I believe you when you say that you understand both sides, and believe myself that I also understand Joe's viewpoint.  I respect his viewpoint, and am glad he's chosen to share it with all of us.  In the final analysis, I do not agree with him, but it's all good, right?  We don't have to agree about everything.   At the very least, though, we should make an effort to fully understand the other person's viewpoint.

QUOTE

my question is then, are states of consciousness comparable as more or less desirable?  If so, then we can imagine a 'well-ordering' of known states which implies a 'least desirable' known state.  It also may imply a 'least desirable' possible state if one assumes any particular state to consist of a finite number of elements (and that the variety of possible elements is also finite).  The 'highest' state is also be like the infinite cardinal number, something that is manifest in idea alone


This is quite a brilliant little gem.  Just curious, how old are you, Dan?

I think it certainly possible to envision a 'well-ordering' of known states of consciousness, though this would necessarily leave out the 'unknown' or unexperienced ones, ones that are more transcendent.   And also, such a 'well-ordering' would no doubt be peculiar to each individual, depending on what they regard as 'desirable'.

The thing I have against a 'well-ordering' is that it would be trying to 'serialize' or 'linearize' states of consciousness, which of necessity, are multi-dimensional in character.   For example, states of consciousness can be classified in terms of 'activation' (or level of intensity and degree of Being), modality (visual, auditory, tactile, proprioceptive, or some combination, or even altogether novel modalities like the experience of echolocation in bats and dolphins), and no doubt others.  This notion of 'linearizing' states of consciousness, of 'well-ordering' them, will no doubt result in loss of information regarding their multi-dimensional nature.  It's just like in multivariate statistics, where you have N points distributed in some M-dimensional space and you try to project the points onto a single dimension; you're going to lose information in the process of 'linearizing' and projecting to one dimension, which seems to me is what your well-ordering principle is about (though, as you mentioned, the dimension corresponds to desirability of the state of consciousness).

QUOTE
 when we hit the 'reset' button on structure.  Just like last time(s) perhaps?  ???  :P


I didn't follow this.  What do you mean by hitting the reset button, and what is last time?


You know, when I think about what mind-brain.com is, and what it 'could' be, I'm disappointed.  There's so much more that mind-brain.com could be.   There's so much more useful information that could, and should, be available on this site.  For example, the discussion in this thread, if the different viewpoints and perspectives were written up nicely in an essay, I think a lot of people would get a lot of use out of that.   The essays I have posted, like the one on expanding consciousness, could and should be rewritten and made much, much better, clearer, and more informative.  

We are in the midst of a revolution.  The wisdom of the Upanishads, Gita, and Buddhism is not the be all and end all of wisdom, but is merely the beginning;  at best, the ancient wisdom is but a few sparks of a vast inferno of wisdom just waiting to be uncovered by expanding our consciousness beyond what these sages ever experienced and beyond their wildest imaginations.

We can do this.  We will do this.  It's inevitable.


Timothy, another interesting post.  Here are my thoughts:  since individuals can consciously suppress their reproductive instincts, and in fact, many 'enlightened' people actually do this, does this not argue against the notion that enlightenment is merely a convenient parlor trick for reproduction?  I understand what you say about conciousness enabling cooperation and consequently increased adaptivity, which would lead to increased reproductive success, and so yes, this fact suggests that 'enlightenment' may be merely a parlor trick or pawn for reproduction.   But if consciousness is experienced as transpersonal, as the Universe conscious of Itself, why would this increase the reproductive fitness of the individual (i.e., if the consciousness of the individual is no longer confined to the individual, or if the consciousness is experienced as dis-embodied)?

I'm not familiar with Howard Bloom's, Global Brain, but will see if I can obtain a pdf version of it through a file-sharing program so I can read more about this thesis of his.  I should point out, though, that social networks are nothing like networks in the brain.  There is much more connectivity between individual neurons than between individual people.   For example, your typical neuron receives inputs from at least 10,000 other neurons and projects to at least as many.    While the internet and other modes of communication may facilitate this sort of global consciousness, societies are not really organized like brains.   I know it's easy to make the analogy, but when you examine them both more closely, you see the analogy doesn't hold.

take care,
Shawn
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 25, 2003, 01:24 PM
Post #36


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



Shawn

Sometimes an adaptation can result in decreased reproductivity in individuals, but the critical determinant is the average reproductive fitness of the species.  For example, if you view emotions as a reproductive adaptation, you have a vast collection of diverse behaviors.  In some cases, you have individuals jumping in front of cars to save a stranger and in other cases, you have mothers devoting time and resource in childraising.  For any complex adaptive mechanism, there will be a diverse manifestation of behavior patterns, but the existence of emotive behavior that results in a localized decrease in reproductivity does not imply a negative correlation.  I would argue that consciousness on average results in greater adaptivity, and so too enlightenment, although it might become necessary to redefine what we mean by organism if consciousness can become increasingly transpersonal, although I'm not yet convinced that it can.

Yes, Bloom's analogy is of course limited, as all analogies used to simplify complex ideas.  I'm not convinced of Bloom's thesis either, and have not yet read Global Brain.  I was firsted introduced to the idea in another of his books, The Lucifer Principle, which only dealt cursorily with the idea.  Nevertheless, memetics is a fascinating theory and I really need to get around to reading Blackmore's seminal work.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 25, 2003, 02:58 PM
Post #37


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



shawn

QUOTE
Just curious, how old are you, Dan?

born 7/6/73  8)






QUOTE
I didn't follow this.  What do you mean by hitting the reset button, and what is last time?

this is pure conjecture, based on 'vision'.  I say that the universe goes through a 'master cycle', where the progression of structure inevitably reaches a point of maximal development, and that this point cannot be utopia.  At some point in a controlled progression, the best way to go should be total universal 'amnesia', where Being is best served by total release of structure.

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 25, 2003, 08:59 PM
Post #38


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



So how does one become a chosen one?  Providence?  Anomalie?  Self-actualization?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 25, 2003, 09:15 PM
Post #39


Unregistered









QUOTE
What we're talking about is how to interpret 'Ye shall know them by their works'.  To me, the interpretation is rather obvious, that you shall know the Chosen by their words and actions.  The interpretation you offered, however, 'that you shall know God as operating thru people', I haven't found any support for.  Maybe if you could provide some support for this interpretation, it would be helpful.

In any event, I do not take most of the Bible literally.  The passage above, that 'Ye shall know them by their works', is the exception.  It would be incorrect to infer, and over-generalize, that I take the entire Bible literally.


Its a choice as to what you do with interpretation, you base it on experiences of the past and correlate them with the new information and then project the outcome out of this repetative process which becomes habit, or you let a higher awareness Guide you through each new experience that is not out of habit and projection but innocence, or presence that is present in the now,   that is not jaded by any kind of prejudice or expectation.

The Particular quote you make reference to has to be taken into experience or surrendered to in form. Who is in charge of determining the form. Ego and past impressions that can color the information based on subtle judgments and feelings or Self free from judgment and attachment?

All people have the best intentions to carry out each phase in their lives to the best of their abilities. Depending on the levels of self worth, or projected failure or success how would you determine if they were 100% behind the effort or only partially invested in the action and outcome, how would you know or with what would you use to gage the effort? A relative standard or intuition? Would you be able to tell if a handicapped person who might not achieve the same success in completing a certain manual task as say someone who flies through it and achives success in a short time is behind it 100% and would you judge the effort as being less than the non handicapped person based on a disability? Would the form matter?
Similarly what would you base the form of the person behind the effort or works as worth knowing?
Lets say you are great at your intelectual job but you suck at carpentry, depending on what one person values over anothers ideas of value the references mean nothing. someone who values manual dexterity  but not intellectual may value the builder but not the intellectual. Who then sets the standards for what is known by the actions or works?

All actions and experiences that you do have a reference point to you. They all come back to you for final judgment and interpretation. No matter where you go in any reality or experience there you are.

Similarly with any person, you me or the 6 billion people that are on this planet there is a common reference point. It is bigger than the individual self and it is within each person, their thoughts and their actions. This One thing can be known and this one thing shines through the many layers of ego and stress. Depending on how clear a person is, how free from stress or ego would determine the amount of light emanating without relative filtering.
This light is the light of God. IT shines through everything. Just as you said you would call 99% of the population that would say they were above jesus liars, you would have to have a point of reference. If this point is within you and this point is not recognised as being in others than it could only be based on your expereinces which have no other reference point but what you have determined to be relative only to you, and not relative to all things. Were you to separate yourself from all things is where you would fail to fully expereince all parts of yourself.

QUOTE
But it's not just generalizations and other people's interpretations that I base my inferences on regarding what sort of enlightenment Jesus and Buddha experienced and what sort of transcendent experiences they had.  It's based on words attributed to them.  Granted, some meaning may get lost in the translation, and of course, teachings can get corrupted and misrepresented, but nonetheless, I base my inferences based on the material available to me.  To do otherwise would be to dishonestly attribute teachings, ideas, and experiences to other people without any basis to do so.    What's your basis for attributing such teachings to Jesus?  Do you believe you have a direct connection to him?  Is your claim of omniscience relevant to clearing up this disagrrement we have over how to interpret Jesus' teachings?


I am saying to you that you can't base anything that could be beyond the relative in any relative experience or teaching. Jesus only pointed the way towards the one thing that is common to all relative experiences in all levels of consciousness. It is the one thing that remains even when the relative is gone. Like the person who when in body attributes all experiences to the sensory nervous system the one infinite unbounded Self has an anchor to the ifninite stillness that ends all thought feeling and action. This is what Jesus taught. This awareness relative to the mutidimensional states of consciousness never goes away in and beyond the relative states.
Of course talking to the relative mind and nervous system is relative to the interpretive abilites and the different levels of consciousness. Beyond the relative awareness the words become pure energy but the energy has a source and the source is relative and also pure.

QUOTE
As I've discussed above in my reply to River, Jesus and Buddha were both limited by their states of consciousness.  This is an undeniable fact.  They never reached a 'highest' or 'absolute' state of consciousness because such things don't exist.


You have misinterpreted what you have read and heard for they never made any reference to themselves being in a highest state of awareness that can be describe in relative terms. The discussion would have been pointless to describe something that is not relative to someone who has a hard time dealing with just the relative world. They taught that anyone can reach pure stillness in any relative state of consciousness and that pure isness pure state of consciousness is within all experiences and levels if consciousness, multidimensional and beyond. His message was clear and simple for the folk that suffered with attachment to feelings and things, to free ones self from suffering born of attachment, prejudice and judgment one need only turn the mind inward towards the source of all things to experience heaven on earth. This is what the Upanishads point the finger towards, what jesus pointed the minds of the people towards and what every branch of religion ever described or written is based on. The one thing that all is connected to. Immerse the awareness in that one thing and make it the anchor and all realities are freed to experience naturally, as the ego is freed from its singular identity and relationship with just the one body and one reality.


 
QUOTE
I've known for some time that the main difference between us is that you maintain some 'absolute' state of consciousness, which I reject as an empty fiction.  It's dangerous to postulate such things because then the mind becomes complacent at having arrived at the 'absolute' or 'highest' state of consciousness, but I see this as irresponsible, lazy, and delusional.  And further, to subscribe to such notions is to be a pessimist.   I mean, do you honestly think you've attained the 'absolute' state of consciousness??   Don't you have the nagging doubt that you're simply kidding yourself and pulling the veil over your eyes?    I mean, is it really true that you've convinced yourself that you've attained some state of 'absolute' enlightenment?   It's fine for you to believe in such things, I suppose, even though I'll reject them.


You reject what you have not understood.
I experience the One infinte reality and that frees me to expereince my Self which I also experience in everything else and everyone else. You are the one that made the interpretation that I have reached the ultimate place and you are the one who is fighting to keep the idea of the ultimate from reaching any kind of possible reality. You limit the infinite in its posiblities due to your relative experiences. God is foreign to you and the idea seems to leave a bad tast in your mouth due to what you say is available to you. Anything that is limited to the relative is not going to fulfill the infinte part of yourself, nor can you limit what comes from the infinite and into form to its form.

QUOTE
Granted, this is merely my judgement, and I'm well aware that you don't believe people can judge other people's state of enlightenment or infer their transcendent states of consciousness.  As discussed above, I dispute this, but as always, I try to maintain an open-mind about things.


You will become even more open when you release yourself from the limitations of what the mind is relative to and to include the infinite into the relative.


QUOTE
I reject this claim.  You are experiencing but ONE state of consciousness, and it certainly isn't a priveleged state, but merely one of an infinite number, with infinitely more transcendent states than the one you've experienced.


No I experience many multidimensional realities and they all have the same point of reference. I have not expereinced all of the many different realities nor do I need to in order to experience the one constant that is still there, like the self that experiences.

QUOTE
can you please explain this a bit more?   We agree that ego = jiva?


In simple relative terms the Ego is born the moment consciousness becomes active or self aware. In pure stillness there is no activity and no awareness just the absolute one. Where the transcendant One is perfectly still God is the activity, it pulls the inactive potential into form and experience. Depending on the level of filters or how immersed the experience is in form and how lost and separated from its multidimensional aspects is where relative Ego comes into being. Where different levels of consciousness come into play is where the ego is in different phases of being self aware. Most humans are living in the waking state where the only thing tangible is what is seen felt tasted and heard. Beyond that are more subtle aspects of the self that are present in sleeping dreaming and beyond waking into exalted, unified states and even physical immortality.
Ego in its present waking state limits reality to beliefs based on physical laws, mortality fear and death. The body mirrors what the mind believes and as long as the mind believes in the limitations of the body it will keep the body and mind trapped in relative realities and experiences.
You inference to pure stillness in the egoless state is total and extreme yet to be egoless is not necessarily to be completely out of existence. The originless awareness of pure consciousness experiencing its self is not pure stillness for there is no bringing back expereince of no experience or pure nothing. The mind is born of the infinite and it is infinite in its capacity and this can be experienced. This experience can permeate the being of one in any state of consciousness, one need only invite it into awareness. Waking ego is the master, in higher states of awareness it becomes the servant. Jusus and Bhudda were egoless in the sense they were not limited to the physical experience even though they played in it. They did nothing of themselves as the person or body. Where Jesus said I am the way what he meant was I as the embodiment of the One totality of all things, am representative of the potential that lies within all things. Dogma, fear and control would leave the idol in front of the weak and worthless selves that are commited to being victim to the relative world and the body.
They commited themselves to service of the desire that rises in all of humanity to know themselves and through that desire became the manifestation of that desire into form.
What you limit Christ and Bhudda to is the relative idea of person and separation of consciousness into lesser forms. This is what limits you from experiencing the greater ideas you have in the intellect of creating something beyond what you have experienced.
You have experienced many things but have yet to understand the subtle or unite it with the more mundane aspects of reality to see the totality of God.









Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 25, 2003, 10:33 PM
Post #40


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Joe,

I am going to jump back in the picture.
I can only tell you of my impressions.  These are my feelings, therefore I am an expert in this area.  You are not, so keep your commentary to an expression of your feelings, not mine.
I believe from what I can deduce from you long winded discussions that you are inflated.  Sweeping generalities, condemnation, distortions of other opinions, accusations and guilting are a stock in trade of your viewpoint.  (Otherwise your probably a sweet guy)
From what I can see and hear, I think you have come into contact with a very powerful drive in the unconscious while meditating and have been overtaken by that drive.  Many preachers have encountered the same energy.
I would ask some questions.  How are you conducting your life?  Are you putting anything in this world beside instruction to the general public on how great your God is?  I detect a selling mode in every thing you say.
Do you have any specifics that would improve life on this planet rather than give up ego?  To pick up what?  To do what?  Sit and meditate?
Other than some specific instruction to Numinoso on food, I find your whole presentation gaseous, filled with puffery, trickery and condescension.  If you have a direct linkage with God, prove it and give me some useable wisdom.
Otherwise, I consider you another mortal with a different scheme to fold up your tent and ignore the world we were all born into.
You are speaking in a way typical of those possessed by archetype, humorless, repetitive, unconscious and single-minded-devoid of consciousness and awareness of other points of view.
Give me a scolding and guilting reply about how I don't see things and you will prove my case.  It is time to put up or shut up in my opinion and I speak not for the board but only for myself.  
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 26, 2003, 08:05 AM
Post #41


Unregistered









I had a feeling once.

Seriously though I'm sure with all the Ideas you have about what God and a representative of God should look like I will fail to meet your expectations.

What do I do besides teach?
For one I don't teach  the general public, I teach those that find me and I teach those that come to me. That is all that is needed.
The rest of the time I mow the lawn remodel the 80 year old building we live in, Fix the cars and help the wife with her projects and her students. I live a simple life, I don't work for anyone and I haven't for 8 years. All my needs are met, I always have what I need and I give to anyone who asks. Simple easy and free.

My job is not to satisfy anyone. Humanity doesn't really know what they want but I can help them get in touch with what they want, even though they don't know what it is.

You will just have to get over your feelings that seem to torment you and frustrate you with the weight of judgment and prejudice you carry in what you would like to feel as opposed to what you seem to have no control over.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 26, 2003, 10:26 AM
Post #42


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Joe,

Thank you.  For the first time we had a communication together instead of you instructing me.  That is except for the last paragraph which I shall get to.

I shall not bore you with my endeavors in the attempt to reach the same place you have touched.  I am an individual that has to reach my pinnacle on my path.  If you have something to offer I am always appreciative of your offering.  However, I have to fit it into my scheme of my path.  I can not adopt anyone else's way without giving up my own individuality.  You see, my belief is we decontaminate our components in order to reconfigure them into another, higher and more complex rearrangement of our psyche.  That is the way of the progression of our evolution in consciousness.  Any stage I have reached is just right for me and no one should tell me different, I live in this skin bag.

Now for the last paragraph.
Joe:  " You will just have to get over your feelings....."

John:  No, I don't.  My feelings are genuine.  They instruct me.  They are analog value tones that tell me the importance of whatever I am observing.  There are 156 emotional tones on my keyboard.  To disregard them is to suppress a very valuable commodity that I possess.
Joe:   "....that seem to torment you and frustrate you...."

John:  I am not tormented nor frustrated.  Whatever gave you this idea?  I would guess this is projection on your part.  I did experience a minor frustration from what I thought was your preachy attitude.

Joe:  "... with the weight of judgment and prejudice..."

John:  I was complaining about your judgemental and prejudicial attitude and here you turn the tables on me in a tricky fashion.

Joe:  "... you carry in what you would like to feel as opposed to what you seem to have no control over. "

John:  But, I have full control over what I am feeling and saying as I think I have demonstrated here.

I am interested in your response.
Yours in discovery,
John
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 26, 2003, 10:49 AM
Post #43


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



Well, I'm confused.  I don't understand what you guys are talking about.  Could someone, perhaps, give me a condensed crash course in 'Enlightenment?'
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
river
post May 26, 2003, 11:17 AM
Post #44


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sep 19, 2003
From: Rabbit Hills
Member No.: 570



Thank you Shawn, for answering my questions.

Is meditating like being in that state that your in right before you go to sleep?

If not than could someone tell me how to do it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 26, 2003, 01:34 PM
Post #45


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Timothy,

I could not give you a crash course in enlightenment.
This because I am not yet enlightened, only on my path toward that goal.  I can give you some experiences that I have been through just to point out some sign posts along the way.  I am sure that you have a great deal to contribute into the pot, as well.

This is a complex field because we are very complex beings, futher confused by people taking stances that they believe in.  As if to say, I have found the way over here, but finding that a number of people shouting the same thing from different stations along the tracks.  It is a matter of perspective.  If you adopt any other perspective other than one that says I am a fluid individual on a path of enlightment is to set up a station along the route and start shouting with the rest.

That attitude is the first step to enlightenment.

Everything is my opinion and belief so I will dispense with the habit of declaration of that condition before any pronouncement.  (making sure, of course, to warn you in advance about any utturance being from the mouth of God).

We are divided beings with a full range of unintegrated equipment in our 'kit bag'.  Each with a slightly different configuration.  To name a few components is to name our four functions: sensate, feelings intuition and thinking.  Each having a host area in our brain.  We also possess the ability to be outward or inward directed-introverted or extroverted.  Add to this mix the further differentiation of our sensate; our five senses.
With a full range of feelings which by my count is 156 emotional tones.  Add different types of thinking, some would be deductive, inductive, algerbraic, intuitive flovored, sensate flavored, etc.
Further, we have two sexual orientations, the left hemisphere representing the masculine, thinking, logical, linear, digital, focused and word oriented:
the right hemisphere the femenine. symbol oriented, analog, visionary, diffused attention.  One the regulator of the physical world, the other the contact of the outside psychoidal realm and world.  One representing the organization of the region of the brain, the other the region of the mind.  One aware, the other as yet unconscious and needing exploration.
Now on top of this is to add the serial processing services of the ego which is driven by hidden survival programs ( a collection of many different archetypes to select from) that are different personalities triggered by outside events that shine through the 'lens' system of the ego so that everyone has multiple personalities.
The major failure of the Meyers Briggs test is to not discriminate which personality is taking the test, BTW.
A relatively unexplored avenue is our ability to create visions.  In it's natural unconscious state it produces imaginations, phantasies, frightening images, relfections of what lies on the other side.  When regulated, it produces, gedanken experiments, intuitive flashes that  are the seeds of all new disconery and a search lamp of the exploration of the unconscious.
I could not even begin to explain the contents of the unconscious that I suspect. This vixionary capability alone will pull all the components together.  One the other side is a genius if we just will look for him that guides us/me in putting all these components together.  I have devceloped a method started by using Jungian techniques to explore this territory  The techniques build the next structure of our psyche.

We are all lopsided,  In this civiliation of patriarchal dominance, masculine, extroverted, sensate thinking is taught to be honored.
Enlightenment is to fashion all these 'tools' into a creative wholeness-without dominance by any single part.  The middle course way.
Differentiation and then integration is the order of the day; one by one.

Thank you for asking, it made me articulate in one small place what some of the rudiments are about.
Once seen, it becomes an adventure of epic proportions.
One final caution:  Don't allow reality to distort your perceptions.  (Said in a playful jesting way)

John
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 26, 2003, 02:32 PM
Post #46


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



How do you know that you're not crazy?  Hehe smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 26, 2003, 06:42 PM
Post #47


Unregistered









QUOTE
Joe:  " You will just have to get over your feelings....."

John:  No, I don't.  My feelings are genuine.  They instruct me.  They are analog value tones that tell me the importance of whatever I am observing.  There are 156 emotional tones on my keyboard.  To disregard them is to suppress a very valuable commodity that I possess.


Feelings can be biased, they can be influenced by stress, where one is objective and another subjective they are not a true indicator of anything unless the nervous system has been cleared of all stress and judgment.
In the most basic feelings of love, hate, exhileration, depression, happiness and sadness etc. The feelings follow moods and reactions to things that are judged as good better best, bad, worse and worst.
If one frees the mind from attachments to the ideas that bind it to the duality of opposites then what is left is the pure being that is the light of God. Learning the process that leads to greater understanding and freedom from duality will include old and habitual processes so that they can be recognized and unwoven from the nervous system and released from habit.

No one is asking you to give up your feelings, just the attachments you may have to the way things look so that you may see something greater than the judgment that may precede certain emotions. As long as you are in a physical body you will feel. What you feel will evolve in respect to what you understand. Reaction is a by product of past impressions, they are usually associated with feelings. If you are feeling something because the event triggers a past memory or association to some attachment or stress how objective could you be?

Any process that moves you towards greater understanding and expands the mind beyond its limitations and reactionary habits is helpful. You will do what you need to do. You will follow your heart to get there. Some roads are short some longer, just don't forget to include everything around you as part of the process. What you as the creator will create will be the process and the ability to recognize the habits and where they still exist and when to let them go.
This place, this board and I am part of your process. Your irritation to me and anything else is part of your growth towards a freedom that will release you from being influenced by outward distractions. Bringing heaven on earth into the awareness involves any process which will expand the awareness and the mind permanently, not just in inspiring experiences but permanently into seeing the Self and recognizing it in all things. This is what true prayer is what meditation is, to focus on what is greater than the relative to move the awareness beyond limited relative boundaries.
There is no limitation to the human condition other than what we self impose.

QUOTE
Joe:   "....that seem to torment you and frustrate you...."

John:  I am not tormented nor frustrated.  Whatever gave you this idea?  I would guess this is projection on your part.  I did experience a minor frustration from what I thought was your preachy attitude.


Any frustration is a weight to the nervous system, it is a distraction to the light of being that exists in you and any other person, thought, feeling and action.
Its like saying I'm only a little bit pregnant.
The repercussions of anything that can drive a nail into the box that limits you to a subjective life is not freedom. Any thing that limits you is not worth accepting as normal.

QUOTE
Joe:  "... with the weight of judgment and prejudice..."

John:  I was complaining about your judgemental and prejudicial attitude and here you turn the tables on me in a tricky fashion.


Life is never about the other person, if you are truly to be free from complaint then look inside you to see what judments you have that you have let weigh you down in acceptance into what is normal and release it from you so that there will be nothing that binds you to the sight of judgment.
I'm sure you know the difference. If you are not invested in an argument between two people and see no winner in either side it is easy to see from an objective point of view where the ones involved in the argument may hold a position that may keep either one from seeing the others point of view. It takes two to argue but 2 can have an objective discussion if one or the other is not attached to what they are saying and whether the other person sees their point of view. Frustration is just a road that lies within hell.

QUOTE
Joe:  "... you carry in you what you would like to feel as opposed to what you seem to have no control over. "

John:  But, I have full control over what I am feeling and saying as I think I have demonstrated here.


You certainly do, you have the control or choice to feel frustrated and you have chosen to exercise and demonstrate that control. Are you satisfied with the choice and would you willingly make the same choice again?






Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 26, 2003, 08:45 PM
Post #48


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Joe,

Time to call a winner in tar-baby football.   And the winner is:    Joe!  I now relinquish the field to the victor, the man without peer.  The man that can keep going without stop.  That man that exhorts and exhausts.

Timothy:  Better to be crazy than to live in this confusion.
I leave you to critically examine the field and come to your own conclusions, as you apparently have with me.
Wink, wink. and oink, oink.  Please explain what the relationship is between a crushed asian and a crustacean is if you say it fast?  The answer is nothing.  Try it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 26, 2003, 11:06 PM
Post #49


Unregistered









QUOTE
I am responsible for his appearance in my life.


Different topic same creation. Don't be so dramatic John.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 27, 2003, 01:37 AM
Post #50


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Joe,
Why would you want to suck who I am away from me to be some amorphorus god worshipping lump of salesmanship pontificating on the internet?  I love my life, I love trying to figure out this puzzle.  Why should I want to exit to a guy like your selling vague tickets to the universe that does not have any wisdom to dispense?  Whose stock in trade is to obfuscate?  If you are in touch, beam up and go away, you have found no recruits here.  I do not see anyone swamping your buggy with accolades.  Please , please, just one little crumb.  Ask God to give these nice people here some wisdom instead of these boiler room sales pitches.  The only thing you have going for you is your archetypal persistance.  It appears to me you are one big god feeling.  Is that the answer, to get a feeling and then dispense the feeling?  What else?  At least the local bank gives out toasters.  Your stock in trade is to wear people down and then say why are you so frustrated?  I would like to have seen the frustrations of your childhood to drive you into this position.  Is this how you win in life?  I am not supposed to be angry with your presentation?  You don't listen and you think your way is right.  I am getting dramatic and that makes you the winner?  Frustrate someone and then accuse them of emotional outburst?  Sounds like a family stategy to me.  How close am I?  Who really pissed you off for you to do this insulation to yourself?
Meantime, your power overwhelms me and I need to get away from this party to go cry in the corner.
Bye.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 27, 2003, 05:35 AM
Post #51


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



John,
I think Joe knows something that you don't, as you know some things that he don't. You can't blame the failure in communicating his knowledge to you on him alone.

Neither can he blame it on you alone. It seems that his way of talking is too different for you to understand him.

I, on the other hand, get along with it well. I would say there's not much in his words which I wouldn't label as true. (That doesn't mean I would label the opposite of his words as false. As you know there's a saying: The opposite of a great truth is a great truth also.)

That means neither that I really get a kick out of his teachings. Perhaps in the beginning, when I met concepts I haven't thought about for long, but in the meantime it degenerated into repetition. (And I'm not really fond of reading long texts. Less words, more meaning, that's my motto.)

After all, the main thing is to perceive the absolute, the nagual, as I would call it. And if you already know it then you understand when they talk about it, but if you've never seen it they can talk endlessly and you won't get it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 27, 2003, 06:57 AM
Post #52


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



What do you guys think about the position of secular biblical scholars that claim only about 12% of the words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him--the rest being posthumously imposed upon him by the ambitious proponents of the early Christian church?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 27, 2003, 07:56 AM
Post #53


Unregistered










John, what you are saying is impossible. No one can take or give anything to you. Everything that can be known is in front of you and you are responsible for the interpretation of it. Again you choose to feel frustrated instead of looking into what is happening, into the choices you make and asking who you are rather than what and who I am. This distraction is your choice alone.

Num: Size matters? Instant gratification is still one of the pitfalls of life. people have less and less tolerance to be with the situation and would rather get what they want and move on to the next great thing. Even boredom is a choice.

Tim, My reply to your question is that there are truths that are truths, regardless of who says them. Thinking is not part of the process of recognition. Even the average Joe can speak for God as God it doesn't take anyone special. All are equal in the infinite and it only takes the ability to get ones self out of the way to hear and speak as the infinite Self/One.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 27, 2003, 08:31 AM
Post #54


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



Joe

I find it hard to believe that the only way to discover objective knowledge is by embracing the subjective experience of self.  Not only is it self-repudiating, but it is the total erosion of authority and the loss of meaning within the bottomless pit of relativity.  Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't see any reliable method of differentiating between real transcendence and say, the euphoria experienced by Christain snake handers, that doesn't involve serious contradiction.

I just don't see the benefit of a system which discourages thinking.  There may be some previously marginalized human faculty that increases the value of living, but to be sure, it will not exclude critical thought.  The most heinous atrocities among the history of humanity were perpetrated by individuals who felt no compunction about shirking the responsibilities of critical thought.  When someone implies that thinking gets in the way, it is almost always a sure sign of the incredibility of their argument.

If I have misrepresented your views (or anyone else's), please feel free to, in brevity and clarity, vindicate yourself.  I value diversity of opinion.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 27, 2003, 10:13 AM
Post #55


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Numinoso,

Your putting yourself in the referee position gives you a unique opportunity to tell me what I am missing in Joe's presentation.
Please note I am not in disagreement with his platitudes, only his monochromatic presentation and his distorted responses that are pieces of legal technique that lead to "How to win arguments and alienate people"  India is filled with people with similar attitude, listening to the word of god whilst people starve next to them.  A very profound injustice.  The difference between what people say and what they do.

Timothy:  A statistic that would be very hard to verify.
12% measured against what yardstick?
Don't get me wrong, a secular review of what is available would indicate something like this, but someone would have had to discover the foundation of the original sayings to get this number.  A review of the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi find. might give a general approximation, but an unknown amount of both finds are missing so nothing to my knowledge would be available to give such an accurate portrayal of percentage.

Joe:  Read what I actually said, not what your clever mind leads you to believe.  I was talking about your desire not your ability to change me.  In the future, I will stop responding to this child like way you have of distorting what I have said to you.  You are only interested in your own music.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 27, 2003, 10:51 AM
Post #56


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



Joe: Size matters not? Then where's the limit? Why don't you write fifteen times as much? Or two hundred times as much?

John: Since you said that you don't disagree with Joe there's no need to point out what you might be missing. I hope that doesn't sound weird, but I think if you don't disagree then you agree, and when you agree then you understand it all. I already stated that the difference between you is in the way of communication. I would be at ease with both ways, so I have a problem in seeing why you have a problem with Joe, or why Joe has a problem with you.
I also don't know what the hunger in the world has to do with spiritual teachings. (Perhaps it had once, when the priests were not working and stealing the food from the rest of the country.) I think that's the task of the UN or some other organization. Or do you think people like Joe are generally unable to take care for the physical part of them?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 27, 2003, 10:53 AM
Post #57


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



I think 12% is an extreme figure and has certainly not been recieved without serious contention.  The number was derived, I believe, by using certain literary techniques on the synoptic texts and discounting various discrepencies.  Whether or not the method or its derivative are accurate or to what degree they are accurate was not my motive for introducing the position, but rather to cast doubt upon 1) the authoritivity of scripture and 2) upon any given interpretation of scripture.  If you are familiar with deconstructive literary criticism, you know that meaning is not an inherent within a text, but is producted (constructed) through the act of interpretation.  Moreover, texts in this sense are not simply limited to systems of inscription and demarkation, but exists as any context involving symbolic representation.  In other words awareness is inveteratelly contextualized and cannot exist otherwise.  Of course not everyone subscribes to these theories, but it is beneficial to be aware of them.

Let me know you all think, and please continue to help me understand what you believe.

Also, I would like to know why many people here use language that is shrouded in terms of mysticism.  It seems to me that what you are stating could be described scientifically, and that as such it would be less conducive to hostilities.  To wit, I am very uncomfortable with language that describes individuals as divine or as God.  It is not that I offended by blasphemy, as it were, but that I have a materialistic conception of reality.

-Timothy
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 27, 2003, 12:53 PM
Post #58


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Timothy,

My comments were, of course, in line with your question of the opinion of scholars, I did not take the meaning out of context by attributing you with this position.

What you say is very pointed and well reasoned.  In fact, some may suffer from a decoding of your elegant style of presentation.  I rather enjoy it, you have a gift of language.
Yoo said:
"If you are familiar with deconstructive literary criticism, you know that meaning is not an inherent within a text, but is producted (constructed) through the act of interpretation.  Moreover, texts in this sense are not simply limited to systems of inscription and demarkation, but exists as any context involving symbolic representation.  In other words awareness is inveteratelly contextualized and cannot exist otherwise.  Of course not everyone subscribes to these theories, but it is beneficial to be aware of them. "

But, of course, however, it is difficult to maintain the style of Jacques Diardre and keep the attention of your audience.  People might think 'inveteratelly contextualization', a moire pattern made by invertabrates.  I concur with the idea that the uncovering of truth is really a self referenced system requiring knowing what the perceiver's ability to perceive is in relationship with what is perceived.  I have been attempting to state that here in simple metaphor.

Next,
"Also, I would like to know why many people here use language that is shrouded in terms of mysticism.  It seems to me that what you are stating could be described scientifically, and that as such it would be less conducive to hostilities.  To wit, I am very uncomfortable with language that describes individuals as divine or as God.  It is not that I offended by blasphemy, as it were, but that I have a materialistic conception of reality."

I find myself unwittingly on the side of the mystics, shamans and priests due to the world being lopsidedly scientific.  Trying to invent language to bridge the gap 'twix making the subjective objective and the objective subjective.  Since I perceive our best course a middle course way, it is necessary to form a 'bridge' language.  This dictates refuting the ones that are lopsidedly leaning in the direction you are uncomfortable, speaking in terms of an elusive God, and also the ones that take a very clinical materialistic conception of reality.  Both distort what is happening in this world of ours.  This world is filled both with the mystery of the physical and the mystery of the energetic fields that drive it.  I have seperated them into two worlds prior to an attempt at integrating them back together into a more artistic and less devisive and devided structure.  I for one would appreciate your skills in this direction, if you were so inclined.

John

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 27, 2003, 01:18 PM
Post #59


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Numinoso,

I agree with Joe as I would agree with a subset of a master formula.  His generalizations are correct as far as I can intuit.  But, He thinks that the feeling is enough and carves away all of the remainder in a simplistic way.
If his yogic brethern in India would just see it is not an attitude that solves the dilemma of this world, but its energetic application, then India would be in a lot better place than it is now.  Relieving of suffering is not accomplished by disregarding attachments, just ask a starving child.  Do you get what I mean?  Answer this one point.  Take the time to think about it.  I am not speaking to the wisdom of not getting rid of attachments, there is just more to the formula that that subset.  With that thought I transcend the stuck meditators and anyone else that has a theory without its companion action. My challenge to Joe is to now come up with the practical wisdom that will make this place of ours-that we live and breathe in-a better place.  Stop speaking in generalities of being in touch with a higher intelligence and give us a taste of that intelligence instead of a sales job.
And, what problem do you have with this stance?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 27, 2003, 02:27 PM
Post #60


Unregistered









QUOTE
I find it hard to believe that the only way to discover objective knowledge is by embracing the subjective experience of self.  Not only is it self-repudiating, but it is the total erosion of authority and the loss of meaning within the bottomless pit of relativity.  Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't see any reliable method of differentiating between real transcendence and say, the euphoria experienced by Christain snake handers, that doesn't involve serious contradiction.


You wouldn't see any difference, how could you if it has been something inside you and you have been taught to ignore it. As children we are taught that expression is subject to a time and a place and that sometimes it is inappropriate to say or express our feelings at all. Then the subtle realities we experience as children are stuffed along with the ability to use our nervous system freely as we are guided by our parents who have been guided by theirs and society into beliefs that this or that is real and this isn't.
Our level of awareness is reduced to basic gross interpretations of what is known through the trained senses and judgment of the input and output of the senses abilties.
It usually takes the frustration of the individuals sense that what the heart knows and what the mind has been taught "don't match up" to start the process of change. Being that we have been taught to be anal-ytical about what is seen and heard and the anal-isation being critical and biased in the ideas of what is good/real and bad/unreal the innocense of the child has to be relearned. I'm not talking about the learned limitations of stickning your hand in a fire and getting burned but the innocense of approach that is lost and clouded by past impressions. Tell someone enough that they need to watch out for the dangers in life and the mind will be ever focused on finding the things that may threaten ones safety and physical well being. What room is there left then to be open to see the subtler aspects of creation when the thinking process is on danger alert or paranoia processing?

You will need to relearn innocense to experience the more subtle aspects of yourself and the greater Self that is in you. If you are not at the point of that realisation then it would be like trying to teach mice table manners. It is not within the scope of ones attention span or awareness. You will see what you are willing or want to see. The universe exists to serve you in that capacity, it always gives you what you want. Trouble is that with the mind locked in the repetative cycle of thought, with some 100,000 thoughts per day the thoughts are not usually of new perspectives but the wielding of old habitual thought patterns in what am I going to do today, what will I eat for dinner, why did I ever get involved with that person etc. Some thoughts and desires get canceled out by other thoughts based on limited self worth or lack of beliefs and abilities. This process does nothing to expand the mind but to anchor it into repetative processes that keep one foot nailed to the floor so you circle the same spot over and over again until your body and mind gives up.
What the mind needs is something to free its self from repetative process in cycling the same old thoughts that keep a person limited to one basic reality shrouded by fear and mortality.
When your heart gets to be stronger than your intellect it will lead you towards the process that will guide you back towards your true nature. Until then you will think your way around your reality and stay within what you believe to be the relative boundaries of sensibility, safety and mortality.

QUOTE
Read what I actually said, not what your clever mind leads you to believe.  I was talking about your desire not your ability to change me.  In the future, I will stop responding to this child like way you have of distorting what I have said to you.  You are only interested in your own music.


All music is my music. Shall I let your limitations be my limitations as well? What are you really interested in on your journey to know yourself? Are you wanting a friend to support you in your limited beliefs that are not helping you to see more, or are you interested in someone who might challenge you in what you see so that you might see something more? What do you want John a new friend?
I see exactly what you want me to see, your vulnerability and your intense desire to rise above any limitations within yourself and to spread that throughout all that you see. I want that too it is my only desire. What I have gone through in the process has changed my desires in the way they look and feel to see more of the infinte Self and live from that, so that I no longer suffer in the world of duality fear and mortality.
What seems heartless and sterile in your perceptions of me is that part that you fear in "detachment" meaning the loss of individuality and person. I see the world a little differently than you, is that so bad? Do you have such a hard time with something that is different that you feel threatened that it is trying to change you, or are you able to see the process of change that is happening within you? The things that inspire fear are being exposed so you can make different choices and find a different anchor to associate with. God doesn't want to take anything away from you but you seem pretty much afraid that something can be taken away. Why is that?
You may do something you think to be noble to change the outside of ones environment but if the subtle self defeating programs that created the environment in the first place are not changed then the poor self deluded person that has not the will to stand up for himself or try, will suck off of the person or persons who feel sorry for their disposition and expect more from the world and do less for themselves. You use India as an example and you have overgeneralized the spiritual process of meditation and religions and applied your lack of knowledge and interpretation to what I am. How could you hope to help anyone from a position of extreme prejudice and ignorance.
Have you ever studied the process of meditation from anyone? Ever made any comparisons of the different methods? Do you know of the different processes, like the hair shirt approach, the sitting in a cave approach or the natural process of the inward movement of the mind that expands consciousness in the self and everyone around you?
Would you give the hungry man a meal and leave with him no hope or would you give him hope so that he may get up and try to create his life anew? What would you think to be the most enlightened approach?
Giving things away to the undeserving ungreatful will do nothing to help them rise above self defeating thoughts. The American welfare system is full of underachieving coniving people that will milk the system for all its worth so they will not have to do anything.
You will have to do better than try and use the Indian people and your interpretations of what you think they represent in your comparisons to religions, meditation and you own frustration with me and you inability to take the time to really understand what is happening here for you.

QUOTE
Joe: Size matters not? Then where's the limit? Why don't you write fifteen times as much? Or two hundred times as much


There is no limit. Only what is needed in the moment, only what is asked for.
Do you let your preferences sway your perceptions of what is in form?


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th July 2019 - 07:53 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

BrainMeta is supported by:

The Neurological Foundation & CerebralHealth.com

BrainMeta is enhanced by:

UVISI: Universal Virtual Intelligence Singularity Infinity
info@uvisi.com