bee
Administrator
Posts: 117 
|
Post by bee on Jul 4, 2015 20:37:27 GMT
Once one can see, know, understand, conceptualise, be aware of, ( no language describes this awakeness) that we all are Totality experiencing Itself through myriads of apparently different structures and forms and happenings, then everything falls perfectly into place.
But it doesn't, at least not for the mind though, as it seems the mind just has to let be to do what it does, but at the back the awareness knows.
I suppose even though the mind is out and about doing what it does in this Now, what it is that knows is no mind.
So in this Now the knower knows while the mind knows not.
To just allow this state to be requires then something of the mind, and that something is called trust.
It is not faith as faith usually gets one tied into a rigid dogma.
It is however quite simply put, just trusting Life, which is What Is ... Now,
(or using more unsuitable language) which is God ... Totality.
Alan maybe best describes trust as - you become one with the Universe by trusting It.
These two short clips may illuminate what I am trying to say -
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jul 7, 2015 0:10:06 GMT
It’s important to recognize and bear in mind that “there is no way to put into words the non-conceptual inkling or sense of the reality of just what is” in Kolomo’s post. It applies to everything we are endeavouring to express, explain and share on this Forum and in our own inquiries. Having said that, we need to still address the challenge of expressing what we know. The proviso is to appreciate that the content of our discussions is not the truth, but 'doing our best' pointers to It. In that spirit (based on the Perennial Philosophy, direct experience, expressed in a Buddhist framework), confirming many of Kolomo’s insights and a long-ish response to his question: the end of the story comes when there is no separate 'one' to do the accepting [that everything just is as it is]. As long as there is a belief that some 'one' needs to accept or reject anything, then Acceptance [of everything being just as it is] has not happened. That's because 'everything just is as it is' includes what is happening: my current experience, the blue sky, the red rose, breathing, thinking, loving and hating. All of it. That is why there is nothing wrong with this and every moment, until it is interpreted, stepped down, through the thinking/conceptual/ego lens. When that phenomenon happens, a belief born from perception as part of the human condition, it gives rise to the inverted view that I am an object separate from other objects. Objects and forms (including mental ones) appear to be 'out there' with an independent existence, separate from each other and my experiencing them. Through investigation and analysis, it can be seen, as it says in the Heart Sutra, that they are none other than Emptiness, the Source of all things. That means they are ‘empty’ of self-existence. In the Christian-Judaic tradition, they are God- created. Those objects/forms do exist but none of them can exist unless the others exist; they are interdependent.
In regard to “I”, the symbol denotes What I AM as against ‘I’, the personal pronoun, which denotes my physical and mental manifestation. “I” as in “Before Abraham, I am”; in “Be still and know that I am God”, in “I am that I am” and in “I and my Father are one” of the Bible. It’s “I am That” of the Upanishads and the “I” that shines in the Heart, as described by Ramana Maharshi.
That “I” manifests as all things, as a one day old baby and a 100 year old man. It also manifests as a thinking human being, as the I/me thought, with the belief that he/she is separate from the rest of the Manifest. When “I” acts or manifests at the level of consciousness of an ego-self, the world is perceived as real, self-existing and substantial, unfolding sequentially in time and space. When It acts at the level of consciousness of Awareness (beyond thought and concepts), the world is perceived as being made of the One No-Thing, Emptiness, which is all forms. In Non-duality terms, there is only “I” acting, manifesting, thinking, feeling, conceptualizing and seemingly mistaking appearances for reality through an individual unit. It’s not the unit that realizes that mistake, it’s “I” that wakes up to it through the units. "I am That" can be known in Meditation, but not through conceptual knowledge.
As the Heart Sutra describes, “…there is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance; neither old age and death nor extinction of old age and death; no suffering, no cause, no cessation, no path; no knowledge and no attainment.” Everything just is as it is.
|
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Jul 22, 2015 13:02:14 GMT
It's interesting you quoted from the Bible "I am that I am", and then this from the Upanishads, "I am That".
Does anyone else sense a difference between:
I Am That, I Am?
and
I Am, That I Am?
Everything here, including language, is
but a pointing to Reality, therefore is one of these more like the tip of a well directed arrow?
(Or is it just a twisted noticing that one of these two can lead awareness down a different path to another view of the same lake... or is it really a different lake... or is it a shorter path to the same lake?)
"I and the Father are One"
(taken out of context, yes, but the whole me is able to know the message).
All separation of any kind is perceived by a believed-in separate self. The awareness believing it is a mind-thought-body creates that separate self, that's why once there is a sustained loss of belief in the thought commentary, that's either emanating from oneself, from others, or from existence, there is what is there always...Now, the one connection that is there all along.
When it occurs which is not imagination and requires no drugs or substance of any kind, it's more of a 'when allowed', there is a merging of this me, which is now not an isolated me but a field of noticing where everything becomes more and more blended, not dissimilar to using watercolours where colours run into each other. An awareness of a separate ego is missing, it's just absent from the class, for if ego holds the stage even a little this blending does not occur, so it's not brought about by a dropping of ego but more of an allowance of trust of simply being. The self I know all too well has vanished and the experience is a wonderful and comfortable blending of form, colours, no strict identification, but a knowing "I am, I am that", and the self form has lost its once demanding presence if the continuation is allowed.
I have had senses that others are in this expanded field and they may not know what it is but are using it anyway. As an example it's how some get really close with animals, it's what horse whisperers do, they are one with all in the perceived vicinity including the ground, the fences, the air and trees, they become merged with the horse and that which the horse is experiencing.
People believing in their separation from all others and nature encourages humanity thinking and dwelling on those thoughts, and includes the evolving and ever-expanding pre-frontal lobe which is becoming more and more powerful, and so the ensuing indulgence in the continuation of the secondary effects of greed, hatred, and delusion lead to the detriment of inner peace and therefore peace with all. Unfortunately the integral karmic conditions don't teach too many.
We can see oneness in a large flock of birds and also in schools of fish where hundreds of thousands move as one, magically in a symphony of enchanting grace with their multiple and instant changes of direction.
I cannot mistake the lesson, for all are included in the evolving karmic conditions that are intrinsic in and the result of believing in any degree of separation:
Is the intensity of suffering proportional to the degree of separation?
Yes! I sense it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Aug 10, 2015 11:56:47 GMT
Hi again,
"I AM," encompasses all creation; all time.
I think there's a difference from, "I AM THAT" and, "I AM WHO I AM."
Bee: Your comment, "I and the Father are one," is not taken out of context. That's exactly what Jesus said and I don't know of any other prophet who made this claim, do you? |
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Aug 13, 2015 23:11:02 GMT
I was talking about there are those who are in the expanded field of Presence and that is how the horse whispers do the magic with those lovely creatures, well here is a dog whisperer at the finals of Britain's Got Talent showing the world there is no separation. Clouddust what I mean by taken out of context is there was more that Christ was reported to have said that included that quote, so the meaning of the quote may be a touch different when looking at the whole.  |
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Aug 14, 2015 13:10:24 GMT
Hi Bee,
I know what you meant. Why don't you see the text in full, then you will know it's not taken out of context. It means what it says., thanks for commenting. |
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Aug 16, 2015 11:58:00 GMT
"Bee: Your comment, "I and the Father are one," is not taken out of context. That's exactly what Jesus said and I don't know of any other prophet who made this claim, do you? Clouddust what I mean by taken out of context is there was more that Christ was reported to have said that included that quote, so the meaning of the quote may be a touch different when looking at the whole. Hi Bee, I know what you meant. Why don't you see the text in full, then you will know it's not taken out of context. It means what it says., thanks for commenting." Firstly I'll ask you this as I do in no way profess to be a knower of the truth of words or their meanings contained in any of the many bible's quotes: Didn't Jesus speak what was quoted in Aramaic, and has not the original Aramaic been lost? Also isn't what is available today Greek translations that are in fact in place of the original? Also do you know without doubt if the following are either true or false- The text of the Bible therefore not being the original, and also according to the translators and theologians, were written by an unknown number of mysterious men in unknown places and dates? re: John 10:30 what I did mean is everything said by Christ in relation to the words "I and my father are one" is that I simply did not refer to, he said a lot more than what I quoted. I feel this to be an OK explanation that starts around the 4:50 minute point in the video, and includes - "You want to make sure you understand the context ... & ... You never want to be in a position where you are pulling something out of context..." www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/understanding-john-10-30 |
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Aug 16, 2015 14:46:49 GMT
Hi Bee,
Aramaic is still the language for many small groups within the Middle East area and it's the language used in religion for many devout Jews and Christians. Speaking historically the Bible was written by approx. 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. There will be some differences among the translations since each author, (66 books), wrote with a different style to different audiences, but each translation is taken from the original, not the previous translation to preserve the consistency of the message. Not so mysterious: most were simple living people who worked for a living. Though today, more than ever, there is much twisting of the bible message for one's own advantage, a careful ear can detect this.
The Video: Yes, I agree, to take out of context is to edit the meaning. I Agree with the unified; one purpose thought. Absolutely! But I would have to ask, what is this unified purpose that's not discussed in the video Also not discussed in the video discussion of John 17:23, is the phrase, .."that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me.." I would have to ask, because it is isn't answered in the video, Sent?, by whom and why?
CD
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Sept 6, 2015 17:31:26 GMT
Is there no answer to the question about the video? |
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Sept 6, 2015 23:48:45 GMT
Clouddust I see the parables in the bible as that- stories verballed for the time period of the day. How could an enlightened being simply say that you are all deluded, and that each and every one of you is the totality of all life, and that there is no separate God without provoking their own eventual death at the hands of those he was endeavoring to help see through the falseness of their own believed sense of a separate self, and all the misery and pain so caused?
Even today these mild to extreme patterns of behaviour cause many to hurt themselves and others, and to even kill in the name of their own idealogical and religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by angelssix on Sept 7, 2015 19:08:45 GMT
bee,, your comment makes no sense....who is the enlightened being your talking about? Etc etc, makes no sense to me.
Why discuss with interest, like the guy in the video, if they're just stories
|
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Sept 8, 2015 11:38:41 GMT
The being I was referring to was Jesus, he was not able to pass his knowingness on to the public even in the time period he was in, let alone to our society if he was here in this present day. Hard to understand an enlightened beingness as the majority population are caught in their own web of belief.
The disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
"And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Why refer to a little child?
Is it that a young child has not as yet quite taken on and reinforced the teachings of family and society?
When new life enters our domain what exactly does it know about separatism, it just spent nine months as a part of the mother?
It was the epitome of Oneness you would have to agree as it was wholly dependent on 'Life', or from a different perspective... 'Totality'. I will call this God as many know the term.
So being born, entering into the web of the limitless stories about what it and this life is, the baby gradually takes on and believes the deception about what it is not.
A child brought up by wolves believes it is a wolf.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Sept 8, 2015 15:18:01 GMT
Hi Bee,
The right of personal interpretation carries with it the responsibility of correct interpretation.
If you are referring to Jesus, you must also consider, "The last shall be first and the first shall be last."
Children are dependent; adults depend on their own intellect, strength and successes in life.
|
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Sept 8, 2015 21:07:28 GMT
OK consider then this - "The last in this world (the disciples in their poverty) would be the first in the kingdom of heaven".
"...adults depend on their own intellect, strength and successes in life."
Yes, your observation there is correct as generally the majority do, and isn't that from where problems arise?
For want of a better word to describe this I will call it separatism, a fracturing of the Whole.
How else could I ever believe that I have the right to fight with and kill another, other than by following my 'own' intellect?
We all know many do this but why?
Is it because they cannot sense the connected-ness of, not only all life, but everything in existence with what they believe is their own independent and separated self? Cannot they see that they are the common field encompassing all, but with a unique perspective?
The misguided belief that one has a right to inflict harm to any living creature or person, isn't it none other than that of following their 'own' intellect?
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Sept 13, 2015 23:56:05 GMT
Yes, it is where all problems come from. I like to consider two opposites for this example: George Soros and Mother Theresa Obviously Soros follows his own intellect and is harmful. But I would have to consider who Mother Theresa is following, since she was a servant. Who is adult-like and who is child-like?
|
|
