On Women, by Artur Schopenhauer

[Pam Seeback]

When he had finished this speech, the good priest said: "Dear Meister Eckhart, I have said too much and talked too long to you, forgive me. It is time now for me to go home." Meister Eckhart turned around to him, gave him a kiss of peace, and said: "Dear sir, I tell you that for many a year I have enjoyed hearing no discourse as much as this - which I have suddenly had to listen to from you. May God be your everlasting reward! And with divine love and Christian brotherliness, I bid you and exhort you for God's sake - as I may so exhort you - to tell me plainly about your life. For by the grace of God, I plainly see that you have spoken from the core of your life."

(From 'Meister Eckhart' - A Modern Translation by Raymond B. Blakney, 1941)

"In the flame of love - all fear is consumed." (J. Krishnamurti)

The translation of Eckhart's words above tell me that like Jesus, Eckhart was able to teach and reach men at the point of their understanding of the spirit of transcendence. Although the priest could not understand the point at which Eckhart stood [no more than anyone understood the point at which Jesus stood, the reason for his crucifixion], Eckhart understood the point at which the priest stood and could speak to him from this awareness, and of this awareness. As Jesus did not condemn his accusers, instead extending compassion to their core truth of the God of materialism, to lift them up to the higher truth of the Father of spirit, Eckhart, in his communicating with the priest, did likewise. Eckhart's truth as expressed in Sermon 87

If anyone cannot understand this sermon, he need not worry. For so long as man is not equal to this truth, he cannot understand my words, for this is a naked truth which has come direct from the heart of God.

allowed him to descend into the man's truth of his idea of Christian love, as he was once equal to that truth, and touch him of this equality. And at the same time, touch him of the seed of the truth of pure spirit, of which the man was not equal.

The highest truth a man can have, and give, is that of his awareness of his invisibility of his conscience of infinity. In doing so, even the circle of the flame of the love that consumes fear is transcended. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." To be made perfect in love is to love as spirit loves, which is of the conscience of knowing that every form is of equal worth to the Thinker of all forms, even the forms of love and fear. And in the knowing of this truth of the perfect equality of every form, belief in a form called 'love' and a form called 'fear', a form called 'man' and a form called 'woman', begins its journey of "mortality being swallowed up of Life."

To live of one's conscience of "Before Abraham was, I am": what truth can be higher than this?

[Bob Michael]

I find that often the unenlightened or those who may not be fully enlightened can often see the 'self' (or remnants thereof), errors, defects of character, or the wrong action or direction in others, including those who are enlightened, or are on the path to enlightenment. Which is how people can be helpful to the spiritual or human development and perfection of others, even when they're incapable of ever attaining their own spiritual or human perfection. But ultimately the self-overcomer must eventually come to see his own flaws, and especially as he approaches perfection. Though generally people who are enlightened will sooner or later come to realize that it's useless in pointing out flaws in most others for two reasons. One, they lack ears to hear, and two, even if they do hear they're incapable of putting the advice or direction to use. Since there's no possibility of them overcoming the conditioned 'self' under any circumstances. Often too they will turn and attack the reprover. Yet, more often than not, genuinely enlightened men tend to get off track and get lop-sided in their development. Meister Eckhart in my opinion was a lot like J. Krishnamurti, both of whom got far off track. They both spoke to others from their own high level of understanding (which was largely on an intellectual, rational, analytical, and logical level) rather than coming down to the level of their listeners. Also a lot of enlightened men were not really sinners, nor were they genuinely twice-born souls. Nor did they suffer all that much on their journey to the Godhead. Hence their inability to develop a message or a 'sermon' that was truly effective in the transformation and enlightenment of others, and again largely those who were sinners. Many of which are the truly favorite (at least potentially) sons and daughters of the Infinite. Which is surely not the case with the blind, conforming, mediocre, safe-playing, security-seeking, 'good' and sheeplike multitude. Finally one could say, Eckhart and Krishnamurti (and many others), were so linguistically, theoretically, and metaphysically heaven-bound that they were of no down-to-earth value whatsoever to their fellows or the evolutionary scheme of things. Nor were they sufficiently self-knowing to be of any real value in the liberation of any of their fellows.

[Pam Seeback]

They both spoke to others from their own high level of understanding (which was largely on an intellectual, rational, analytical, and logical level)

When I read Krishnamurti and Eckhart, Eckhart especially, I do not hear the rational intellect speaking. Instead, I hear words of spirit integrity. It was probably the rule rather than the exception that 'the others' did not have ears to hear the spirit of either Krishnamurti's or Eckhart's words, and instead, heard them via their intellect of the earth, but this does not discount the truth that they came to hear, nor does it discount the truth that there were some who came to hear and heard.

Can you define for me, why you used the world "largely" to describe the "amount" of the rational intellect used by both Krishnamurti and Eckhart?

Finally one could say, Eckhart and Krishnamurti (and many others), were so linguistically, theoretically, and metaphysically heaven-bound that they were of no down-to-earth value whatsoever to their fellows or the evolutionary scheme of things. Nor were they sufficiently self-knowing to be of any real value in the liberation of any of their fellows.

Bob, is it is it not a contradiction to identify Krishnamurti and Eckhart as being 'heaven-bound' and also to identify both as speaking largely from the rational, logical intellect? Is not the rational intellect's very survival dependent on its ongoing interpretation of the five senses of the earth?

Also, how can you, unless you have the omnipresent mind of God Him/Itself, know the value of a thought in the 'evolutionary scheme of things?'

[Bob Michael]

When I read Krishnamurti and Eckhart, Eckhart especially, I do not hear the rational intellect speaking. Instead, I hear words of spirit integrity. It was probably the rule rather than the exception that 'the others' did not have ears to hear the spirit of either Krishnamurti's or Eckhart's words, and instead, heard them via their intellect of the earth, but this does not discount the truth that they came to hear, nor does it discount the truth that there were some who came to hear and heard.

Perhaps you hear words of "spirit integrity" from Eckhart due to the spiritual level (real or imagined) that you are at. Yet, similarly with the priest, I maintain that the words (flowery God talk and sermons) of Eckhart were not and will not be of any real value in the radical transformation of the potential free-spirit who is not yet awakened or enlightened and at least reasonably well along the journey of self-discovery/self-realization/self-overcoming.

Can you define for me, why you used the world "largely" to describe the "amount" of the rational intellect used by both Krishnamurti and Eckhart?

Simply because they both failed to reach deep into men's hearts, where the change must take place, and then produce any disciples their equal or who were greater than themselves.

Bob, is it is it not a contradiction to identify Krishnamurti and Eckhart as being 'heaven-bound' and also to identify both as speaking largely from the rational, logical intellect? Is not the rational intellect's very survival dependent on its ongoing interpretation of the five senses of the earth?

What needs to be awakened and re-cultivated in people is their vital sixth-sense or intuitive mechanism (which in most people has been permanently destroyed by their conditioning or enculturation), which Krishnamurti and Eckhart have both failed to do. Krishnamurti by his own admission. Nor did either of them fully realize the irreparably "human, all-too-human" nature of the huge bulk of the species due to the 'fall of man'.

Also, how can you, unless you have the omnipresent mind of God Him/Itself, know the value of a thought in the 'evolutionary scheme of things?'

I feel have such a mind, or mind-heart. And that such a mind-heart is what will be necessary to bring the light of truth, love, and understanding into our dark and decaying world.

[Dennis Mahar]

Are you willing to look from the possibility, that anything you think you know or assume about Krishnamurti and/or Eckhart- their attitudes, their feelings, their raison d'etre, their strategies etc - is really nothing more than your own personal assessment of them which may not even be real, which may be nothing more than just your own subjective evaluation of what was going on with them, which may have little bearing at all on what was really going on with them?

[Bob Michael]

Are you willing to look from the possibility, that anything you think you know or assume about Krishnamurti and/or Eckhart- their attitudes, their feelings, their raison d'etre, their strategies etc - is really nothing more than your own personal assessment of them which may not even be real, which may be nothing more than just your own subjective evaluation of what was going on with them, which may have little bearing at all on what was really going on with them?

In my heart of hearts I know without any doubt whatsoever that I'm beyond both of these men. Just as I too know without any doubt whatsoever that the darkness hateth the light, and that this has been so since the beginning of time.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Bob, regarding one of your last posts. I'll split it up to order my own thoughts a bit.

I find that often the unenlightened or those who may not be fully enlightened can often see the 'self' (or remnants thereof), errors, defects of character, or the wrong action or direction in others, including those who are enlightened, or are on the path to enlightenment.

The mirror is never clear or perfect for a perfectly good reason. However, a great deal can be accomplished along the way; hence wisdom.

They both [Eckhart, J. Krishnamurti,] spoke to others from their own high level of understanding (which was largely on an intellectual, rational, analytical, and logical level) rather than coming down to the level of their listeners.

There's only one way to speak and write properly and wise: in a rational, logical, calm, intelligent manner. This could only be called lopsided if this activity would sum up their total being. And my impression is that this wasn't the case. In any case it seems impossible to assess: most people would know these folks only through their writings: that doesn't mean writing is all they did!

Also a lot of enlightened men were not really sinners, nor were they genuinely twice-born souls. Nor did they suffer all that much on their journey to the Godhead.

It occurred to me that undergoing serious suffering during the formative years will create serious challenges, blocks, nearly impossible to overcome, even when being utmost sincere. All ones efforts would be geared to somehow repeat or heal the perceived damage. That quest will probably never end. Perhaps one has to have more hopes for the folks with blessed childhoods and reasonably unmarred souls and minds which might have enough goodwill left to face God unfazed at some point on the road. The suffering becomes then being able to embrace "All" the suffering, delving deep into the existential and know the twist of pain and pleasure, as well as the complete violent rupture of what's happening in and outside us.

Finally one could say, Eckhart and Krishnamurti (and many others), were so linguistically, theoretically, and metaphysically heaven-bound that they were of no down-to-earth value whatsoever to their fellows or the evolutionary scheme of things. Nor were they sufficiently self-knowing to be of any real value in the liberation of any of their fellows.

There is no down-to-earth value, apart from the ones coming and going in every age and season. This is the liberation the heaven-bound soul knows. Actually you sound rather conflicted here. You're looking for implementation while at the same time you very clearly seem to realize there isn't any to point out now or in the past. Who is the heaven-bound visionary now, I wonder?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Just as I too know without any doubt whatsoever that the darkness hateth the light, and that this has been so since the beginning of time.

All knowledge needs to be challenged, mostly by oneself. This is a very important element when progressing: to prevent paranoia and other delusions to take over, as they can suck up most of the light just let into the room. You cannot fight it without properly challenging every concept, every idea, every certainty picked up along the way. The devil is most often in the details, you know. Rationality is the perfect match to flush him out.

[Bob Michael]

All knowledge needs to be challenged, mostly by oneself. This is a very important element when progressing: to prevent paranoia and other delusions to take over, as they can suck up most of the light just let into the room. You cannot fight it without properly challenging every concept, every idea, every certainty picked up along the way. The devil is most often in the details, you know. Rationality is the perfect match to flush him out.

Yes this is indeed true, Diebert. Though I find it's also very important to awaken to and then critically examine and "challenge" all of our 'actions' (our every word, thought, and deed) in order to test and prove their rightness or purity. And that this must be done in 'relationship' in real life. Hence, while this sort of dialogue or intercourse can certainly be helpful to our spiritual growth and development, it is out on the firing line of life in the real world where true progress towards spiritual perfection is to be made. While also remembering here that growth towards oneness with the Infinite is a process of the total renewing of the mind or the brain. Which is a radical shift from its functioning largely in a learned or conditioned carnal manner to its functioning in a purely spiritual or divine manner. Which brings to mind here (again) the following wonderfully simple but very vital line of Paul:

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the 'renewing of your mind', that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

in order to test and prove their rightness or purity.... this must be done in 'relationship' in real life. ...it is out on the firing line of life in the real world where true progress towards spiritual perfection is to be made.

Testing and proving implies certain criteria beyond feeling. Which criteria would you name when it comes to testing actions in relationship to "real" life, world and relationship? And what if certain actions or non-actions would take decades to lead to fruition, for example while passing a "dark night" or disintegration period?

[Bob Michael]

The mirror is never clear or perfect for a perfectly good reason. However, a great deal can be accomplished along the way; hence wisdom.

My experience continues to be that one must be constantly moving towards perfection or he'll lose the joy, ecstacy, and the sense of true purposefulness of living while retaining at best but a dull and complacent intellectual understanding of the spiritual world. Nor will there be much 'life' and 'love' in his "wisdom".

There's only one way to speak and write properly and wise: in a rational, logical, calm, intelligent manner. This could only be called lopsided if this activity would sum up their total being. And my impression is that this wasn't the case. In any case it seems impossible to assess: most people would know these folks only through their writings: that doesn't mean writing is all they did!

I find the most productive way to speak (sermonize) and write is to share one's very own experiences of radical transformation (which must include a genuine rebirth or complete psychic change experience[s]), change, and then the climbing up the ladder of spiritual perfection, which both Eckhart and J. Krishnamurti (and many others including Christ) failed to keep the focus on.

It occurred to me that undergoing serious suffering during the formative years will create serious challenges, blocks, nearly impossible to overcome, even when being utmost sincere. All ones efforts would be geared to somehow repeat or heal the perceived damage. That quest will probably never end.

Yes, unfortunately, and for the reason you suggest, for 'most' people there's no hope of them overcoming the conditioned self. Hence the human species is most definitely headed for mass self-destruction.

Perhaps one has to have more hopes for the folks with blessed childhoods and reasonably unmarred souls and minds which might have enough goodwill left to face God unfazed at some point on the road. The suffering becomes then being able to embrace "All" the suffering, delving deep into the existential and know the twist of pain and pleasure, as well as the complete violent rupture of what's happening in and outside us.

Yes, with surrender, transformation, and a complete rebuilding of one's foundation, there's definitely hope for some of the 'elect' or the 'chosen few'. Those who were "blessed" with favorable childhoods and as a result possess finely-formed and highly-sensitive consciences and tenacity of spirit. And thereby, as Nietzsche put it: "having an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the courage for; courage for the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that hitherto remained unheard. And the will to economize in the grand manner - to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm. Reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self."

There is no down-to-earth value, apart from the ones coming and going in every age and season. This is the liberation the heaven-bound soul knows. Actually you sound rather conflicted here. You're looking for implementation while at the same time you very clearly seem to realize there isn't any to point out now or in the past. Who is the heaven-bound visionary now, I wonder?

I'm not so sure about Eckhart, but J. Krishnamurti never lived, struggled, or suffered for even a single day of his life with the pressures of daily, self-responsible living in the real world. As was surely the case with his listeners and readers. Though I suspect the same thing was largely true of Eckhart. Therefore, how could they possibly have been of any real and lasting value in the spiritual transformation of others? Likewise they were both celibate and therefore weak and cowardly men in my view, which also helped render them of no real value to the spiritual development of others. Hence, in this light they were both so heavenly-bound that they were of no real down-to-earth value to others or to the evolutionary scheme of things. He who is nearest the Infinite is he who is the most down-to-earth and practical or has been deeply-immersed and well-experienced in all of the many facets of life. Contrary to those all-too-many lame, holier-than-thou, flowery wordsmiths who put on airs of being pious, saintly, wise, geniuses, etc., and have succeeded in fooling a hell of a lot of people in the doing. Though ultimately the Infinite is never fooled. Yet the bottom line here remains that both these men are dead and gone and for all practical purposes so are their teachings and anything else they left behind them. So what will be necessary in order to bring the light of love, truth, and understanding into our dark and decaying world in a truly effective manner is a 'living' "self-surmounter" who is totally void of the falsely-conditioned ("human, all-too-human") self and is thereby perfectly and overflowingly filled with life's Holy Spirit.

Eckhart once said that God only exists for those who are thoroughly dead. And J. Krishnamurti said similarly that where there is no self there is the 'sacred' (meaning God). And while I find it is quite easy for one who is awakened or enlightened to make such a statement, there's still no guarantee that he himself is "thoroughly dead" or totally void or free of the "self."

We presently have on hand a second generation of Meister Eckhart and an imitator of J. Krishnamurti by the name of Eckhart Tolle. Who's but another flash-in-the-pan, new-age type guru who'll accomplish nothing except to fill his own pockets while his soul becomes emptier and emptier and the world, spiritually and morally speaking, continues to become darker and darker.

So finally, as St. Augustine once said: "God provides the wind, but we must raise the sails." But just as importantly we must also properly and perfectly arrange them. Lest we become shipwrecked as time goes on.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Bob, it's not clear to me what you mean with words like "real down-to-earth value to others" or "to the evolutionary scheme of things". Perhaps it's obvious to you but establishing or debating value or "the scheme of things" seems exactly the subject of all philosophy, as well as its subclass science, good or bad. To repeat my last post you might have missed:

in order to test and prove their rightness or purity.... this must be done in 'relationship' in real life. ...it is out on the firing line of life in the real world where true progress towards spiritual perfection is to be made.

Testing and proving implies certain criteria beyond feeling. Which criteria would you name when it comes to testing actions in relationship to "real" life, world and relationship? And what if certain actions or non-actions would take decades to lead to fruition, for example while passing a "dark night" or disintegration period?

[Bob Michael]

Bob, it's not clear to me what you mean with words like "real down-to-earth value to others" or "to the evolutionary scheme of things".

By "real down-to-earth value to others" I mean sharing with others one's life's thoughts, feelings, changes, and experiences that were encountered on one's lifelong journey or return to oneness with the Infinite, oneself, and life.

Perhaps it's obvious to you but establishing or debating value or "the scheme of things" seems exactly the subject of all philosophy, as well as its subclass science, good or bad.

By the "evolutionary scheme of things" I mean 'actively' flowing fully, productively, and harmoniously with the totality of human life and living as it eternally continues on. One might also say to be pure Spirit.

Testing and proving implies certain criteria beyond feeling. Which criteria would you name when it comes to testing actions in relationship to "real" life, world and relationship?

The key here is having first experienced the shift of consciousness (rebirth or kundalini awakening, etc. - see quotes below) along with the awakening or re-enlivenment of the senses, whereupon one will then begin to correctly determine what are right-actions, which can only be discovered for and by oneself.

And what if certain actions or non-actions would take decades to lead to fruition, for example while passing a "dark night" or disintegration period?

Actually I think most enlightened men ran out of life before they ever saw the big picture and as a result they were ineffective in being of any real value in the awakening and liberation of others. Not to mention them also becoming self-satisfied and complacent in many cases. Due often to the lack of keen organismal sensitivity along with its atrophying due to complacency, cowardice, time, and age.
_______________________________________________

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (J. C.)

"Unless a person is born again his life will remain like a blank sheet in the book of existence." (Kahlil Gibran)

"And so long as you haven't experienced this: to die and so to grow, you are only a troubled guest on this dark earth." (J. W. Goethe)

[Ryan Rudolph]

Bluerap,

Why would a rational man pair up with an irrational woman?

There are many reasons for such a compromise, and there are degrees of irrationality and rationality with both men and women. I do not see it as either/or. It is more of a spectrum. The first is because survival is easier if one cooperates with others, and some selective women are much easier to cooperate with because they have less ego, and they are more emotionally flexible. The second reason is to prevent pathology and alienation with the world. Many philosophers who had strong biological conditioning ended up going insane, which I would argue was ultimately caused by lack of social contact, and an attempt to deny ones hierarchy of biological needs and all the rest of it. Intermittent Solitude is great, but for most, indefinite solitude is tragic.

I say this because it seems you are suggesting that it's "ok" to occasionally to seep into unconsciousness.

You misunderstand me, being around unconsciousness does not cause a conscious person to become unconscious.

The middle paragraph has valid points, but we shouldn't neglect that any sort of unconscious, emotional bonding, no matter how "distanced," still often leads to the pathology you describe, and always leads to an inaccurate perception of reality.

I was actually arguing that your attitude towards an attachment effects the mental relationship the mind has to that attachment. For instance: if I see a coffee, a woman, a cloud, a car, a house, as all fleeting experiences that shouldn’t be cleaved to, I can still enjoy them, and not avoid them, and live in isolation. The biological organism has certain preprogrammed desires, we have an innate hierarchy of needs. If you deny it, pathology results most of the time for most people, which is why philosophical extremism can more dangerous then living a conventional life, as far as keeping sanity is concerned.

If you have the physiological deposition to live as solitary person most of the time, without pathology, that is great. However, not everyone can walk that road, but they can still live a very logical and sane existence.

A person basically needs to access their own limitations and live accordingly. I do not believe the mind can overcome strong hardwired biology, that is all bunk. That is why the whole path to perfection model for enlightenment is rather problematic. It gives logic far too much power. From my experience, logic can take the organism quite far, but eventually the logic comes head to head with ones biology, and depending on the degree of conditioning, biology usually comes out the victor.

Another way to put it is there is realism and idealism, and if you are strongly conditioned, you will find yourself on a daily basis, cognitively fighting the biological realism with your philosophical idealism, and if this conflict persists for a very long time, it wears down the individual, and a threat of total pathology results. And there are many philosophers throughout history that I believed this happened to.

[Anders Schlander]

About solitarity; A wise man is at home alone, and in a crowd; it does not effect him to the degree that god is with him. Those who went mad with pathology certainly never really became wise.

All the people who have supposedly gone crazy in periods of extended solitude went to one egotistical extreme as opposed to the other, and ended up mad in solitude, whereas most people simply end up mad in company. That is the only difference. Really. a "Philosopher" going mad goes an unusual route, taking action, but in many cases, without finding wisdom. But the few ones who make it become wise and transcends both the need of solitude and the need for company.

I reckon that most philosophers who have not become wise see enough to be disturbed by humanity. I reckon they become insane because it is impossible to know the things that they come to know, and take life serious. But at the same time, they don't see enough to become wise.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

By "real down-to-earth value to others" I mean sharing with others one's life's thoughts, feelings, changes, and experiences that were encountered on one's lifelong journey or return to oneness with the Infinite, oneself, and life.

Understood. But the problem one could face here is that the basic experience of the plain relativity of these things makes such sharing something ultimately brief, uncertain, open to misinterpretation, depending on shared culture, general disposition and so on.

One could make a bold move and define all sharing between people recounting of encounters on their lifelong journey and return. One does not need to realize while doing it, the deep symbols of all language don't have to be known fully to work their way.

By the "evolutionary scheme of things" I mean 'actively' flowing fully, productively, and harmoniously with the totality of human life and living as it eternally continues on.

But drainage, bareness and disharmony appear to be just as well part of the totality of (human) life - the seasonal.

The key here is having first experienced the shift of consciousness (rebirth or kundalini awakening, etc. - see quotes below) along with the awakening or re-enlivenment of the senses, whereupon one will then begin to correctly determine what are right-actions, which can only be discovered for and by oneself.

While I do not disagree, one has to wonder about the things which seem inherently indeterminable. Knowing limits is part of determining correctly. It's possible mistakes can and will be made on each possible level one imagines oneself to be. Part of the development of life seems to be also this: the ability to err and to correct and advance some way; the whole prodigal son idea.

Actually I think most enlightened men ran out of life before they ever saw the big picture and as a result they were ineffective in being of any real value in the awakening and liberation of others. Not to mention them also becoming self-satisfied and complacent in many cases. Due often to the lack of keen organismal sensitivity along with its atrophying due to complacency, cowardice, time, and age.

I find it increasingly hard to think about "enlightened men" as realities in any historical sense. Perhaps there can be only "one".

[Bob Michael]

But the problem one could face here is that the basic experience of the plain relativity of these things makes such sharing something ultimately brief, uncertain, open to misinterpretation, depending on shared culture, general disposition and so on.

Yes, and there are also the overwhelming number of ears who are totally incapable of hearing. Just as there are many, many hearts that are totally incapable of feeling. Which is why a body of finely-formed and highly-sensitive people must be created who are capable of both undergoing a radical transformation and are then willing to go to 'any lengths' to develop and grow towards a perfect oneness with God or the Infinite. Or more likely an esoteric school or institute (re: for the "harmonious development of man") such as Gurdjieff tried and failed to successfully create. Something which Nietzsche also envisioned doing and likewise failed to develop.

One could make a bold move and define all sharing between people recounting of encounters on their lifelong journey and return. One does not need to realize while doing it, the deep symbols of all language don't have to be known fully to work their way.

Yes, though if there's no radical psychic transformation and thereby clear signs of wakefulness or genuine aliveness or spiritedness apparent in the sharer, all the sharing in the world will have no real effect in the awakening of others. Actually it will only serve to put others more deeply asleep. Genuine wakefulness and 'conscious efforts' are absolutely necessary in order for genuine spiritual growth and development to take place in both oneself and others.

But drainage, bareness and disharmony appear to be just as well part of the totality of (human) life - the seasonal.

Yes, and these things ("drainage", "bareness", "disharmony", or Satan or the darkness) overwhelmingly prevail 'everywhere', including in all existing religious and spiritual organizations, barring none. And I would add sympathy and pity to the list. Which is why no one anywhere is not only unable to fully break-though their conditioning and the darkness of the world but to then not fall back asleep again into the ways of the falsely-conditioned self and the insane and dehumanized world (which was and continues to be the conditioner).

While I do not disagree, one has to wonder about the things which seem inherently indeterminable. Knowing limits is part of determining correctly. It's possible mistakes can and will be made on each possible level one imagines oneself to be. Part of the development of life seems to be also this: the ability to err and to correct and advance some way; the whole prodigal son idea.

Indeed mistakes must and will be made along the way, though if one was surrounded by geniunely understanding, like-minded, and thereby truly supportive people those mistakes could be minimized. As would be the time it would take someone to attain to spiritual perfection. The all-prevailing, spirit-suffocating herd mentality must be fully surmounted. A task which cannot be successfully accomplished if one is fully entrenched in it, which most people are.

I find it increasingly hard to think about "enlightened men" as realities in any historical sense. Perhaps there can be only "one".

I don't quite understand what you trying to say here, Diebert, although I do envision a body of people who would be totally free of all of the conditioned "human, all-too-human" in themselves and would consequently take on the qualities of angelic beings or genuine free spirits. Making the term "enlightened" a thing of the past, along with "genius" and a whole lot of other misunderstood and misused man-made labels.[/quote]
______________________________________________________

What is good? - Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil? - Whatever springs from weakness.
What is happiness? - The feeling that power 'increases' - that resistence is overcome.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; 'not' virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, 'virtu', virtue free of moral acid).
The weak and the botched should perish: first principle of 'our' charity. And one should help them do it.
What is more harmful than any vice - Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak - Christianity.....

(Nietzsche - 'The Anti-Christ')
______________________________________________________

"No well-established government, institution, or organization has ever departed from existing patterns - the well springs of a new life burst forth from the heart of the solitary man who knows how to dream and dares to act." (Radha Burnier)
______________________________________________________

"In evolutionary terms, it is necessary to have deviations or mutations in order for the species to advance. These experimenters are exceptional individuals whose life-patterns differ from the life patterns of the herd. They are attempts. They are spiritual pioneers. But Nietzsche fears that society is becoming so deeply herd-like that it will stamp out anyone with a different way of living, so that the experimenters will disappear." ('Nietzsche' by Erich Steiner)
______________________________________________________

"Nietzsche was interested in individuals and their self-realization, and he is concerned with great states, as he puts it, only insofar as they are capable of producing (a few) great individuals. ('What Nietzsche Really Said' - Solomon & Higgins)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Which is why a body of finely-formed and highly-sensitive people must be created who are capable of both undergoing a radical transformation and are then willing to go to 'any lengths' to develop and grow ..... Or more likely an esoteric school or institute

When forming a body of people, organizing into schools, institute, cult or family, the same phenomenon keeps on happening: the body will start to prioritize its own survival over the heads of the ideals or visions of the members or its founder. "The rock must stand alone". It's important to understand this for past mistakes not to repeat. Nietzsche knew this as well but suffered from the realization: man cannot function alone on the mountain top but when he descends he goes under. The insight here is into the notion of the proper direction: and idea of development and growth towards anything at all has be turned completely upside down at some point.

Yes, and these things ("drainage", "bareness", "disharmony", or Satan or the darkness) overwhelmingly prevail 'everywhere', including in all existing religious and spiritual organizations, barring none.

They prevail because they are inherent to them. Aren't you demanding summer without winter somehow?

if one was surrounded by geniunely understanding, like-minded, and thereby truly supportive people those mistakes could be minimized. .... The all-prevailing, spirit-suffocating herd mentality must be fully surmounted.

That damned herd mentality always kicks in the moment "supportive" people start surrounding each other. But it's not good to grow up with loneliness either as it creates a certain unfulfilled craving which might not leave again. The road is called narrow for a reason: circumstances have to be exactly right.

I do envision a body of people who would be totally free of all of the conditioned "human, all-too-human" in themselves and would consequently take on the qualities of angelic beings or genuine free spirits. Making the term "enlightened" a thing of the past, along with "genius" and a whole lot of other misunderstood and misused man-made labels.

But you just created some other labels in the same breath. In other words we cannot stop envisioning future and naming it, working towards it as we do. This is essentially "the son".

[Bob Michael]

When forming a body of people, organizing into schools, institute, cult or family, the same phenomenon keeps on happening: the body will start to prioritize its own survival over the heads of the ideals or visions of the members or its founder. "The rock must stand alone". It's important to understand this for past mistakes not to repeat. Nietzsche knew this as well but suffered from the realization: man cannot function alone on the mountain top but when he descends he goes under. The insight here is into the notion of the proper direction: and idea of development and growth towards anything at all has be turned completely upside down at some point.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (J. C.)

Yes, and I must carry on where he and many others have failed.

They (the darkness in many forms) prevail because they are inherent to them. Aren't you demanding summer without winter somehow?

No, I continue to feel the heretofore impossible is now possible.

That damned herd mentality always kicks in the moment "supportive" people start surrounding each other.

Yes, this is so in our hopelessly co-dependant world. Where 'support' lacks wisdom and understanding and is bringing the human species to ruin. Though this is all simply a necessary part of the master plan.

But it's not good to grow up with loneliness either as it creates a certain unfulfilled craving which might not leave again. The road is called narrow for a reason: circumstances have to be exactly right.

The 'road is narrow' because only a very few people have the sort of neurological makeup that is necessary in order to successfully walk it. Which was heretofore unknown. Hence all the previous and present teachers, sermons, or teachings have lacked having the right approach for the liberation of some of the 'elect'.

But you just created some other labels in the same breath. In other words we cannot stop envisioning future and naming it, working towards it as we do. This is essentially "the son".

Any labels I may happen to use or create will have with them true understanding and timing. Which is not the case with all man's existing labels and projections, as they've all been corrupted by 'fallen' or grossly self-centered man. I think here of Nietzsche's cry for the need of the "transvaluation of all values".

[Pam Seeback]

Yes, and there are also the overwhelming number of ears who are totally incapable of hearing. Just as there are many, many hearts that are totally incapable of feeling. Which is why a body of finely-formed and highly-sensitive people must be created who are capable of both undergoing a radical transformation and are then willing to go to 'any lengths' to develop and grow towards a perfect oneness with God or the Infinite. Or more likely an esoteric school or institute (re: for the "harmonious development of man") such as Gurdjieff tried and failed to successfully create.

Bob, when you make absolute statements such as "there are also the overwhelming number of ears who are totally incapable of hearing" and "many, many hearts that are totally incapable of feeling" can you not see that there is no way you can know this? It is ironic, is it not, that you portray yourself to be a man of high sensitivity, of being a vehicle of impersonal love, and yet, you can, with a quick sweep of your hand of absolute judgment, dismiss most of Infinity's children as being totally incapable of hearing and feeling what you believe you have heard and felt?

Accept what I have to say or not, but your understanding of the Infinite is no different than of most men who erroneously apply their sense-interpreted absolutes to That which is not of sense awareness. This is the wisdom you lack, which is also the wisdom the priest who criticized Eckhart lacked. It is the mentality of all who believe they know, by way of their sense intellect, the way God's house is to be collectively managed here on earth.

You asked me once how the transcendent wisdom of the law of the Spirit of life can help the "everyday man", and I will tell you how. How this wisdom helps everyone is that when they catch the vision of not being separate in any way from the breathless law of the Spirit of life, Infinity thinking of Infinity, they are awakened to their individual conscious relationship with this law. Individual - that is the key word. This is why Jesus speaks of being the Son of man and the Son of God. The relationship between Father and Son never leaves the realm of individual, infinite, I am revelation. Which means that to the one who knows this truth of being one with the Spirit of the Infinite God NOW of His revelations of what NOW is via his Son, all need for human validation of what is right or what is wrong falls away.

This is why the enlightened man has no need for an organization, either secular or religious, for he is tapped directly into his Source, his Source that will answer every question he has of what is true and what is false. I am not excluding gatherings of such individuals for the sake of "being in the world, but not of the world", for the sake of friendship, companionship and transcendence encouragement, but at no time would these individuals make an absolute statement about the being of another Son as you made above. Absolutes from sense-guided, breath-attached men are meaningless to the one who knows that he is lived of the infinite in every moment of his being, breath filled or not.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thanks for the conversation Bob. You've a great youthful ambition and wonderful arrogance and who knows where it might bring you over time. A bit more careful listening, reading and reasoning is needed but might happen when your engines cool a bit in the future. Good luck with the project.

[Bob Michael]

Thanks for the conversation Bob. You've a great youthful ambition and wonderful arrogance and who knows where it might bring you over time. A bit more careful listening, reading and reasoning is needed but might happen when your engines cool a bit in the future. Good luck with the project.

Thank you too, Diebert. And for your assessment which I find fair and quite encouraging. And trust me, I do continue to do a lot of "careful listening, reading, and reasoning" and the right-direction definitely seems to be coming. I feel that I'm also becoming quite adept at sensing on sight who's capable of undergoing the necessary rebirth and rebuilding experience and who's not. Contrary to so often blindly giving people the benefit of the doubt, as I have in the past. Today I've been re-examining some of Gopi Krishna's views and experiences. I think he was surely on to something very important but never came up with a effectively working plan for the salvaging of others. Though at 70 (on Monday), there are times I fear that I too may run out of life, as was the case with so many others, before I accomplish anything of any real value, spiritually or humanly speaking. But in any case I'll shall go to the end of my days trying my best to bring the Light of love, truth, and understanding into our dark and decaying world. There's certainly no other more genuinely rewarding show in town for me. And my been there, done that list in life is quite long and wide. Take care, thanks again, and enjoy the rest of your allotted days, Diebert.

[Bob Michael]

Bob, when you make absolute statements such as "there are also the overwhelming number of ears who are totally incapable of hearing" and "many, many hearts that are totally incapable of feeling" can you not see that there is no way you can know this? It is ironic, is it not, that you portray yourself to be a man of high sensitivity, of being a vehicle of impersonal love, and yet, you can, with a quick sweep of your hand of absolute judgment, dismiss most of Infinity's children as being totally incapable of hearing and feeling what you believe you have heard and felt?

I find that having a recultivated and finely-honed high or even extreme organismal sensitivity is very necessary in order to correctly evaluate and judge the fallen human dilemma and even more importantly to also find the right approach for helping to right the grave situation. Without which the human species will have no worthwhile future. And love must always contain the Truth, or be earnestly and fearlessly ascending towards the Truth, or it ceases to be love. And the Truth is also very often not a very pleasant thing, individually or collectively. Actually it can be quite dangerous. Or even fatal. But it must be fully faced if one is to find genuine spiritual liberation.

"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall *know the Truth* and *the Truth shall make you free*." (J. K.)

And we must remember here that Christ didn't want us to remain mere disciples, but to attain to his level of perfection or ideally go even beyond him.

"He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and *greater works than these shall he do*; because I go unto my Father." (J. C.)

And I happen to feel that I've done just that. While remembering here too that to place 'anyone's' head above one's own is to fall short of the full glory of the "Father" or the "Infinite".

Accept what I have to say or not, but your understanding of the Infinite is no different than of most men who erroneously apply their sense-interpreted absolutes to That which is not of sense awareness. This is the wisdom you lack, which is also the wisdom the priest who criticized Eckhart lacked. It is the mentality of all who believe they know, by way of their sense intellect, the way God's house is to be collectively managed here on earth.

I feel my understanding of the Infinite is not at all like that of most men or as you attempt to describe it either. Rather it is an understanding of the heart (the total organism). Nor do I think a woman can ever have a true and fully comprehensive understanding of the Infinite, as it's simply not her place nor her duty to do so. And if she does, or thinks she does, she's not a true woman. But instead she'll be the sort of woman that a good or Godly man should definitely avoid entering into a relationship with. And I say this from my own painful personal experiences. Nor do I think a woman will ever be truly instrumental in righting the fallen human condition, save for one who's standing relatively silently by the side of a capable man. I too stand firm on my views of Eckhart and the priest and I'm not at all interested in further discussing it. You may gladly have the 'victory' over the matter, or any matter, if you'd like, m/a.

You asked me once how the transcendent wisdom of the law of the Spirit of life can help the "everyday man", and I will tell you how. How this wisdom helps everyone is that when they catch the vision of not being separate in any way from the breathless law of the Spirit of life, Infinity thinking of Infinity, they are awakened to their individual conscious relationship with this law. Individual - that is the key word. This is why Jesus speaks of being the Son of man and the Son of God. The relationship between Father and Son never leaves the realm of individual, infinite, I am revelation. Which means that to the one who knows this truth of being one with the Spirit of the Infinite God NOW of His revelations of what NOW is via his Son, all need for human validation of what is right or what is wrong falls away.

I don't recall, but in any case I find this kind of high-minded wordsmithing too abstract, theoretical, impractical, and empty-hearted to be of any value whatsoever in the liberation of some of the 'elect'.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very *elect*. (J. C.)

I find the way to help ('some') of the "everyday man" (the few 'elect' among them) is to drive him to completely yield to his repentant heart. And then encourage him onward and upward in the development of the ways of righteousness. These things being best accomplished by one's own personal example, one's own 'personal testimony'.

This is why the enlightened man has no need for an organization, either secular or religious, for he is tapped directly into his Source, his Source that will answer every question he has of what is true and what is false. I am not excluding gatherings of such individuals for the sake of "being in the world, but not of the world", for the sake of friendship, companionship and transcendence encouragement, but at no time would these individuals make an absolute statement about the being of another Son as you made above. Absolutes from sense-guided, breath-attached men are meaningless to the one who knows that he is lived of the infinite in every moment of his being, breath filled or not.

There's really no such thing as simply tapping directly into the "Source", m/a. Granted one may fall into relationship with the Source at anytime, but in order to gain permanent and perfect relationship with that Source much work, change, and conscious efforts are required. Which can't be successfully accomplished in the world, as it's too cold, calculating, and brutal and thereby totally non-understanding of things of a spiritual nature. Making an organization, school, church, monastic setting, etc., which focuses solely on surrender, rebirth, and total transformation, an absolute necessity. Again for some of the 'elect'. Another reason for the creation of a group or organization of people is to preserve and perpetuate a body of the finished and perfected human species forward after the necessary grand-cleansing of the planet of the huge multitude of evolutionarily-botched souls takes place.

"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his *elect* from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. " (J. C.)

[Pam Seeback]

Bob Michael: Nor do I think a woman can ever have a true and fully comprehensive understanding of the Infinite, as it's simply not her place nor her duty to do so. And if she does, or thinks she does, she's not a true woman. But instead she'll be the sort of woman that a good or Godly man should definitely avoid entering into a relationship with. And I say this from my own painful personal experiences. Nor do I think a woman will ever be truly instrumental in righting the fallen human condition, save for one who's standing relatively silently by the side of a capable man.

Grow breasts and a vagina, experience all that being aware of these things entails, and then we'll talk truthfully about what a woman can and cannot know of her infinite being. Until then, stop lying to yourself and the world. You no more know about the truth of "woman" than I know about the "truth" of "man" or the truth of "elephant." Can you not see the difference between projection of what you believe represents the infinite and the individual experience of being touched and transformed of the silent fullness of infinity of oneself, regardless of the appearance of form?

The awakened woman and the awakened man accept the ignorance and arrogance of either gender that claims exclusive rights to infinite awareness. Why? Because such thinking exists, and being that is exists, it is also purposed to no longer exist. The infinity of every man and of every woman don't stand still for nobody!