GENIUS FORUMS

What I am coming to understand, and correct me if I off target, is that the house philosophy is based on the premise that it is possible for the female principle [emotion/feeling/sense] to be separated or severed from the male principle [identified as being that of emptiness or logic], leaving the male principle as a 'stand-alone' interpreter of form.

If this indeed the house philosophy, then I say it is based on an ignorance of the law of principled order of the realm of sense interpretation, which is the law of the appearance of the opposites. Which is, that as long as one of the opposites, in this case 'male principle' remains as an Identifier, one is bound by 'divine' law to its opposite, in this case, the 'female principle.' Up cannot be separated or severed from down, east cannot be separated or severed from west, joy cannot be separated or severed from sorrow. If up is transcended, down is also transcended. If east is transcended, west is also transcended. If joy is transcended, sorrow is also transcended. Which means that dualities are conjoined twins, and being conjoined twins, can only be divorced from one's awareness as a unified pair.

To use the house philosophy of logic to expand upon my argument, I say that it is illogical to believe that when the female principle disappears, that the male principle does not disappear as well. Which leads to the question, what is the activity of conscience within man's conscious when both the male principle and the female principle are realized to be interdependent twins? When belief in one goes, so goes the belief in the other: now what?

movingalways wrote:What I am coming to understand, and correct me if I off target, is that the house philosophy is based on the premise that it is possible for the female principle [emotion/feeling/sense] to be separated or severed from the male principle [identified as being that of emptiness or logic], leaving the male principle as a 'stand-alone' interpreter of form.

Good challenge Pam!

What this "house philosophy" would be; I'm hesitant to say. In my experience it are the herdish people who see herds everywhere else. The only things unchallenged around here are the things no human being is able to challenge because of the very nature of the logic presented, rooted in causality giving birth to our very minds and senses. Although one is always encouraged to try...

One of the problems I have with the understanding you are presenting is the ease with which you equal the feminine with feeling and sense. Does this idea lie in any experience, tradition or science, or is it just a very contemporary notion floating around in modernity? To me it seems like an attempt to usurp and claim which seem to be very general human attributes: to feel and to sense. Demonstrated by all the great literature and biographies in existence. The male dominated history of our societes would give actually the impression it are the men who are feeling and sensing way more vivid and intense. It's not important right now if that's true or not, but it does question why this sudden claim of feminine nature of feeling and sense after all these centuries of invisible women?

The goal is indeed to transcend both the male and the female. But only the male part of us can drive us to do it.

-

Diebert wrote: Good challenge Pam!

What this "house philosophy" would be; I'm hesitant to say. In my experience it are the herdish people who see herds everywhere else. The only things unchallenged around here are the things no human being is able to challenge because of the very nature of the logic presented, rooted in causality giving birth to our very minds and senses. Although one is always encouraged to try...

As the time not come, then, to challenge these things? How else will man be expanded into the infinity of his thought continuum, if he does not question the very insanity of the repetition of “the production line” [Dennis' metaphor]? Stop my world of dualism-relativity, I want to get off! must be more than a fanciful wish based on one's conditioned belief that they cannot get off, rather, it must be born of an all-consuming desire to get to the core of the cause of one's dream of themselves. For the one who has arrived at this critical point in their awakening, nothing or no one can dissuade them from this mission to discover why they continue recycling their earth dream thoughts, and how to be liberated from this treadmill of recycling.

One of the problems I have with the understanding you are presenting is the ease with which you equal the feminine with feeling and sense. Does this idea lie in any experience, tradition or science, or is it just a very contemporary notion floating around in modernity?

Feeling and sense is the principle of attachment. If you disagree, I am open to considering your discovery.

By going within the depth of my silence, I came to realize that when my feeling for form, or my sense of form, was not present in my concsious, images of the earth, of my physicality, did not arise on the screen of my mind. Upon experiencing the origin or root of the appearance of my belief in dualism with myself, I was both elated and terrified. Hallelujah, now I know the why, but yegads, now what?? Neither my elation or my terror, however, could move me from the discovery of the revelation that the moment I take thought of me, I am lost to the whole of me. And, just as I had become all-consumed with wanting the answer to the question, “can I exit my subjective-objective dream of me?”, I now became all-consumed to discover the answer to the question “now what??"

To me it seems like an attempt to usurp and claim which seem to be very general human attributes: to feel and to sense.

I am attempting nothing, I am living my vision/wisdom of "now what??" Your interpretation of my wisdom, however, is, in relativity of experiencing my intellectual 'wall' or 'veil', bang on. I would not use the words 'usurp' or 'claim', for they suggest that it is possible for the mind to usurp or claim the mind, which is akin to suggesting that the hand can remove itself from the arm, but yes, the path of thought I have discovered pulls no bones about what must die so that what IS can [unconditionally] be lived: that is, the human mind itself. As I stated in a previous post, the last thing the human mind wants to hear, is the bell tolling for thee. The tradition that lights my path of the death of my human mind or ego is the path of “bearing one's own cross.” Of being obedient to my discovery of the root origin of my belief in dualism, and what I must do to be liberated of this belief. I had touched on many, many paths along the way to my discovery, but it was the wisdom of the bible [rediscovered] that 'grabbed' the spirit of the teacher/student of me. I and the Father, who thought of the Lord God, who thought of Adam, who thought of Eve, but did not become the Lord God or Adam or Eve, are One.

Demonstrated by all the great literature and biographies in existence. The male dominated history of our societes would give actually the impression it are the men who are feeling and sensing way more vivid and intense. It's not important right now if that's true or not, but it does question why this sudden claim of feminine nature of feeling and sense after all these centuries of invisible women?

Diebert, I have lost all desire to debate 'ism' interpretations, and by ism, I am referring to everything of 'they say' humanism. What this or that book or philosophy says about men and women is no longer a concern of mine. I am on a mission to be the living metaphor of my duality-attachment-absorption/consumption [Self transcendence]. After a decade of conscious seeking, I have found the vision or path that works for me. I have laid it out in many of my posts, as I will continue to lay it out in subsequent posts, to be accepted or rejected by those who are touched of the world of me.

I will end this post where it began – good challenge, Pam! It is only because Pam would not buy into 'they say' in any aspect of her living, up until the countless voices of the naysayers who tried to tell her that once attached to form, always attached to form, that she now knows that 'they say' are full of [their own] BS.

David Quinn wrote:The goal is indeed to transcend both the male and the female. But only the male part of us can drive us to do it.

-

David, to me, this is double-minded thinking. Show me how the male principle of emptiness can drive us to do it, when the female principle of attachment cannot be separated from its twin? What you present above explains, to me, why you have 'a passion' for the infinite, and why you fill the emptiness of the Infinite of your passion.

Have you experienced [for lack of a 'better word'] the transcendence of the opposites in your conscious? I don't mean completely, for this is the journey fulfilled, of which no one here can lay claim, but have you entered the silence of you wherein you know, without a shadow of doubt, that male and female exist only in the human mind and not in Reality Itself? Know so that you can stand on this spot and speak from this spot, this still spot of being consumed of the human mind of all its duality attachments, of which male/female is but one?

movingalways wrote:[As the time not come, then, to challenge these things?

There's a time to challenge and there's a time to burn up.

Stop my world of dualism-relativity, I want to get off!

You really can't. Only when you know that for certain and understand the why, true peace and peaceful truth can be said to be achieved. There are many emotion-based religious-like counterparts which at most poorly reflect this truth. I guess these have their place.

Feeling and sense is the principle of attachment. If you disagree, I am open to considering your discovery.

But saying it like that would mean one cannot live without attachments. Having a body and mind - which arises out of the senses, would have us mired in attachments. The only escape left would be to create a fantasy world to hide in. But any world or state would be still part of our sense being - or do you know of a separate state outside the body? Perhaps you do because you continue:

By going within the depth of my silence, I came to realize that when my feeling for form, or my sense of form, was not present in my concsious, images of the earth, of my physicality, did not arise on the screen of my mind.

Physical forms are already advanced types of sensing. There are way more levels of subtle movements from there. The mind could be imagined as "screen" for that and the sense of "my" is created in the same stroke.

“can I exit my subjective-objective dream of me?”, I now became all-consumed to discover the answer to the question “now what??"

Haha, "now what" seems the basic question of all mind processing. There's no exit for "i", and after all, if it would somehow leave, we would be left with the letters "ext'.... exit gone!

but it was the wisdom of the bible [rediscovered] that 'grabbed' the spirit of the teacher/student of me. I and the Father, who thought of the Lord God, who thought of Adam, who thought of Eve, but did not become the Lord God or Adam or Eve, are One.

Well, in my case I really needed some Nietzsche (amongst other events and people) to burn down and destroy the ugly parts of the bible before I could rejoice again in its wisdom. In your life, which experiences or influences provided a bit of fire to test and groom some of the weed?

Diebert, I have lost all desire to debate 'ism' interpretations, and by ism, I am referring to everything of 'they say' humanism. What this or that book or philosophy says about men and women is no longer a concern of mine.

Fair enough. I was only asking if there was anything else than "I say it is so" behind your claim. Nothing wrong with having your own definition but I do notice a problem in it. As a service to you or like-minded I point them out. I cannot help it, I'm born that way :)

I am on a mission to be the living metaphor of my duality-attachment-absorption/consumption [Self transcendence]. After a decade of conscious seeking, I have found the vision or path that works for me. I have laid it out in many of my posts, as I will continue to lay it out in subsequent posts, to be accepted or rejected by those who are touched of the world of me.

That was already obvious. But a true dialog between living breathing people needs a little bit more perhaps? What's the difference between that living metaphor and some advertisement slogan: they lay out their vision in repetitive points and don't care of any debate, any sincere questioning or dialectic. It always ends up becoming over time intrusive or obnoxious though.

Hi Diebert,

There's a time to challenge and there's a time to burn up.

Not sure what you mean by this. :-)

Stop my world of dualism-relativity, I want to get off!

You really can't. Only when you know that for certain and understand the why, true peace and peaceful truth can be said to be achieved.

How can one find true [permanent] peace when they are living by way of projecting the self into an image that is not permanent, that must be resurrected, again and again?

There are many emotion-based religious-like counterparts which at most poorly reflect this truth. I guess these have their place.

You may not be suggesting that that is what I am reflecting with my words, but if you are, it is not so. I realize that saying this does not make it so for you, or for anyone else. My words will have to speak for themselves.

Feeling and sense is the principle of attachment. If you disagree, I am open to considering your discovery.

But saying it like that would mean one cannot live without attachments. Having a body and mind - which arises out of the senses, would have us mired in attachments.

Having a body of mind does manifest our attachments, be they our quagmire, or be they of our subtle projections, such as the male-female principle that is discussed ad infinitum on this board.

The only escape left would be to create a fantasy world to hide in.

How can you say this with any authority if you have not yet gone through the mind to go beyond the mind? Here, you are projecting or fantasizing what you believe would happen if you were to 'escape' your attachments.

But any world or state would be still part of our sense being - or do you know of a separate state outside the body?

In a sense :-), what you are saying about any world or state still being of our sense being is true, but what you are saying of this world or state as being of a separate state outside the body is not true, because we cannot leave our awareness of who we believe ourselves to be so that we can go anywhere or 'anywhen' outside of I am [me]. The silence of which I speak, is just that, my/our silence. No more, no less. The world of thought that is unknown to us, but that we seek to know. No magic, no altered state of consciousness, just a simple encounter with the silence of Me. I cannot leave Me, even if I wanted to. :-)

Perhaps you do because you continue:
By going within the depth of my silence, I came to realize that when my feeling for form, or my sense of form, was not present in my conscious, images of the earth, of my physicality, did not arise on the screen of my mind.

I hope I laid to rest any notion that I am 'travelling somewhere' when I am being obedient to "be still and know that I am God."

Physical forms are already advanced types of sensing. There are way more levels of subtle movements from there. The mind could be imagined as "screen" for that and the sense of "my" is created in the same stroke.

Unclear as to where you are pointing with these words. Physical forms are neither advanced or not advanced as if there can be an absolute, universal definition of 'advanced'; they are what they are: physical forms. Any interpretation we give form, is ours, and ours alone.

“can I exit my subjective-objective dream of me?”, I now became all-consumed to discover the answer to the question “now what??"

Haha, "now what" seems the basic question of all mind processing.

Indeed. :-)

There's no exit for "i", and after all, if it would somehow leave, we would be left with the letters "ext'.... exit gone!

Hehe...:-)

At no time did I suggest that there is an exit for I, for we cannot ever go out of our I, even when it is silent, as it is of our unknown, infinite awareness. What I stated that can be exited, is not the I Itself, but rather, our I's belief that it is split in two!

but it was the wisdom of the bible [rediscovered] that 'grabbed' the spirit of the teacher/student of me. I and the Father, who thought of the Lord God, who thought of Adam, who thought of Eve, but did not become the Lord God or Adam or Eve, are One.

Well, in my case I really needed some Nietzsche (amongst other events and people) to burn down and destroy the ugly parts of the bible before I could rejoice again in its wisdom.

As did I.

In your life, which experiences or influences provided a bit of fire to test and groom some of the weed?

My earliest experience of questioning 'they say' was the event of my being sexually molested by my beloved uncle when I was 8 years old. I knew what society had to say about what 'had happened', but it didn't seem to jibe with the thoughts I was having of the experience. That singular event brought me to begin questioning, within myself, the meaning of good and evil. There were many other experiences that followed that mirrored this original experience of what is good? what is evil?, but all were but extensions of this original event.

As for influences that were related to my rediscovery of the bible, the first was my discovery of the writings of St. John of the Cross, who spoke of union with God in a way I had not encountered before, the way of negation of one's senses. His language of reaching in the dark night for the light of his Unknowable God touched me and stirred me as I had not been touched or stirred before. It was not an emotional touching or stirring, but one of awakening, of coming to life. Which, in concert with my encounters with Kierkegaard, Edgar Allan Poe, Carl Jung, Ken Wilber, Evelyn Underhill and Nietzsche [among others], brought me to my discovery of the writings of Julius Fann, aka jufa, who is also a member on this board. Jufa's revelations of the illusion of God [the projection of the human imagination of the God or goddess of the earth] were written from the perspective of biblical wisdom, but clearly, were not religious in nature. I was intrigued by this seeming paradox, and was caught.... :-)

Diebert, I have lost all desire to debate 'ism' interpretations, and by ism, I am referring to everything of 'they say' humanism. What this or that book or philosophy says about men and women is no longer a concern of mine.

Fair enough. I was only asking if there was anything else than "I say it is so" behind your claim. Nothing wrong with having your own definition but I do notice a problem in it. As a service to you or like-minded I point them out. I cannot help it, I'm born that way :)

I love being challenged! This is the only way I can be expanded beyond the me that I am now, and perhaps, touch another of my expansion. No challenge = stagnation.

I am on a mission to be the living metaphor of my duality-attachment-absorption/consumption [Self transcendence]. After a decade of conscious seeking, I have found the vision or path that works for me. I have laid it out in many of my posts, as I will continue to lay it out in subsequent posts, to be accepted or rejected by those who are touched of the world of me.

That was already obvious. But a true dialog between living breathing people needs a little bit more perhaps?

Are we not living, breathing people having a 'true' dialogue? :-)

What's the difference between that living metaphor and some advertisement slogan: they lay out their vision in repetitive points and don't care of any debate, any sincere questioning or dialectic. It always ends up becoming over time intrusive or obnoxious though.

A living metaphor of I am can never be a slogan, for it is one's moment by moment experience of the Word as an activity of being, or of consciousness, whereas a slogan is an image that is interpreted from one's comparative, relative intellect. I cannot speak for all who are living their metaphors of transcendence, but I most heartily welcome debate. After all, I come stating that man can begin the journey of transcending his belief in dualism, right here, right now, which for most, seems an outrageous claim.

How can I expect my wisdom, which overturns all that we have been told of dualism, not to be challenged? Bring it on! :-)

How can one find true [permanent] peace when they are living by way of projecting the self into an image that is not permanent, that must be resurrected, again and again?

Only when one can make peace with impermanence. And the image keeps being resurrected through the image.

Having a body of mind does manifest our attachments, be they our quagmire, or be they of our subtle projections, such as the male-female principle that is discussed ad infinitum on this board.

It depends on how you have defined attachment. By the sound of it you mean there's already attachment if there's anything manifest at all? My question would be if there's attachment in all cases where consciousness rises too?

How can you say this with any authority if you have not yet gone through the mind to go beyond the mind? Here, you are projecting or fantasizing what you believe ....

To quote PAM: "I realize that saying this does not make it so for you, or for anyone else. My words will have to speak for themselves.... be accepted or rejected by those who are touched of the world of me."

The silence of which I speak, is just that, my/our silence. No more, no less. The world of thought that is unknown to us, but that we seek to know. No magic, no altered state of consciousness, just a simple encounter with the silence of Me. I cannot leave Me, even if I wanted to.

It sounds like some forms of advanced meditative silence. Do you think it can be encountered through meditation or is it a simple 'random' encounter? There are still problems to my mind with how you're presenting: is it silent or world of thought. And why is it my/our? What can you really know in true silence? What is there to remember, to cling on to?

One image for illustration: someone afloat on the water can see thoughts, feelings and concerns as waves and the calm sea as peace. But what if one falls in? The calm appears relative, the water, the whole world of thought consists of streams, tides, creatures, bubbles and now where were we again?

Any interpretation we give form, is ours, and ours alone.

Anything what is not formlessness (emptyness) has form. But not all forms we see, some we sense, some forms appear boundless to limited senses, some can only be concluded (like magnetic waves).

I is .. of our unknown, infinite awareness.

To me "infinite awareness" or "unlimited consciousness" serve at most as steps on a road which really winds way further. They appear to me as subtle constructs to vacate in and I know very well we all need a place to rest, we all carve something like that out, one way or another. And yes, these "words will have to speak for themselves".

Diebert wrote: And why is it my/our? What can you really know in true silence? What is there to remember, to cling on to?

Clinging implies attaching. I can say from my own experience that you can remember from this place, but you have surrendered understanding in terms of words as the price of admission when you got there, and it is a surrender. Surrender implies not clinging. This must be understood clearly, because it is answering your question in this quote directly. Words become so much a part of us that even much subconscious mind activity occurs in verbal form - we are aware of this fact when we go to speak. To silence all that takes practice and/or drugs. I have tried both, and they both work, the latter if used correctly, of course. There, in that place, there are neither words nor the things that give rise to words.

Only when one can make peace with impermanence. And the image keeps being resurrected through the image.

Which keeps us bound to remembrance of the image. Enlightenment, by every tradition of which I am aware, is about being liberated or saved from one's having to 'remember themselves' into existence.

It depends on how you have defined attachment. By the sound of it you mean there's already attachment if there's anything manifest at all?

I define attachment as remembrance of form, be it seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled. What we experience with our senses may appear new [not connected to a previous event], but this is an illusion. For example, one can manifest a car they believe has never been sensually appreciated or experienced before, but, as I already stated, this is not so. Why? Because every aspect of the 'new' car is but a manipulation of colors and shapes that have already been learned by the designer of the car, and are now being reformatted to appear new. “There is nothing new under the sun.” Every color is but a blend of three. Every shape is but the manipulation of a single line. The mind is a slave to what it believes is 'exciting and new.' From the Gospel of Thomas: Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.

But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."

My question would be if there's attachment in all cases where consciousness rises too?

How can there be a moment when consciousness is not present?

It sounds like some forms of advanced meditative silence.

Silence is silence.

Do you think it can be encountered through meditation or is it a simple 'random' encounter?

In a single moment you can encounter the silence of you. Stop naming, and lo and behold....

There are still problems to my mind with how you're presenting: is it silent or world of thought. And why is it my/our? What can you really know in true silence? What is there to remember, to cling on to?

When the voice of naming is stilled and we are silent and still, what is realized is that we know nothing. We compare things, we analyze things, but we know nothing of these things of which we compare and analyze. And yet, we speak and act as if we do.

There is no memory in the silence of what can be called 'original creation.' Original Creation is the Spirit of God moving across the face of the waters - every moment is a living expression of this movement. God has no need for memory; only man, who loves to play God, has need for what he calls time and space and matter. Clinging comes from remembering, therefore, there is no clinging in silence. However, to the obedient seeker, wisdom does come, not in the form of clinging to form, but of revelation touching revelation touching revelation....the walk of being 'undone' of one's remembered history.

One image for illustration: someone afloat on the water can see thoughts, feelings and concerns as waves and the calm sea as peace. But what if one falls in? The calm appears relative, the water, the whole world of thought consists of streams, tides, creatures, bubbles and now where were we again?

Exactly. Where were we again? Right back to the silence of form from whence your water, your waves, your sea and your falling arose.

Anything what is not formlessness (emptyness) has form. But not all forms we see, some we sense, some forms appear boundless to limited senses, some can only be concluded (like magnetic waves).

There is no awareness of form until we give it a name.

To me "infinite awareness" or "unlimited consciousness" serve at most as steps on a road which really winds way further.

You cannot leave your awareness of you, so where is this 'further' of which you speak?

They appear to me as subtle constructs to vacate in and I know very well we all need a place to rest, we all carve something like that out, one way or another. And yes, these "words will have to speak for themselves".

:-)

cousinbasil wrote: Words become so much a part of us that even much subconscious mind activity occurs in verbal form - we are aware of this fact when we go to speak. To silence all that takes practice and/or drugs. I have tried both, and they both work, the latter if used correctly, of course. There, in that place, there are neither words nor the things that give rise to words.

Words, wow man, they are just the tip of the iceberg. To me 99,99% what goes around in my mind are not words at all, neither something convertable to words or word parts or origins. Silencing the word surface seems like a big thing if that's the only corner you happen to inhabit. Ultimately that cool trick rises a bit out of a misunderstanding.

Diebert wrote:Words, wow man, they are just the tip of the iceberg. To me 99,99% what goes around in my mind are not words at all, neither something convertable to words or word parts or origins. Silencing the word surface seems like a big thing if that's the only corner you happen to inhabit. Ultimately that cool trick rises a bit out of a misunderstanding.

Then you silence that 99.99% as well. The point is not to cling.

movingalways wrote: I define attachment as remembrance of form, be it seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled. What we experience with our senses may appear new [not connected to a previous event], but this is an illusion.

But each experience is born out of those very connections with previous events. In fact, we experience through our memory, through remembrance. A truly new event wouldn't be recognized, it wouldn't even register probably. This can be seen in nature with creatures having specific neurological damage or underdevelopment by certain lack of exposure from birth. A specific subset of the surrounding is now just being ignored.

My question would be if there's attachment in all cases where consciousness rises too?

How can there be a moment when consciousness is not present?

What's the difference between this silence, the non-moment and lets say unconsiousness?

Silence is silence.

But you remember it as silence, so something did leave an impression. The lack of something is not fundamentally different from its abundance. One registers a positive or a negative, but one is still registering! So from one perspective it's silence, from another one there's still movement, still some part of the wave. And we couldn't even know through memory alone if there was silence or that we just forgot quickly everything. And all experiencing is through some level of memory or forgetfulness.

In a single moment you can encounter the silence of you. Stop naming, and lo and behold....

The mind never stops, the identifying, the consciousness still goes on, no matter which attention we're giving it or which listening room we step into.

When the voice of naming is stilled and we are silent and still, what is realized is that we know nothing. We compare things, we analyze things, but we know nothing of these things of which we compare and analyze. And yet, we speak and act as if we do.

Yes, our knowing is our speaking and acting as if. Knowing, speaking and acting arise naturally with the things and the consciousness of the things. This can be understood by giving great attention to the process, and the less screaming the better.

There is no awareness of form until we give it a name.

The awareness of a form is that very "first' name. The words we read and write are expressions of that initial naming.

To me "infinite awareness" or "unlimited consciousness" serve at most as steps on a road which really winds way further.

You cannot leave your awareness of you, so where is this 'further' of which you speak?

But one could leave easily the notions you gave since it's impossible for awareness to be infinite or consciousness to be unlimited. Those are just further appearances but it needs some logic to undermine the illusion they cast.

Pam:
I define attachment as remembrance of form, be it seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled. What we experience with our senses may appear new [not connected to a previous event], but this is an illusion.

Diebert: But each experience is born out of those very connections with previous events. In fact, we experience through our memory, through remembrance.

How is this enlightenment of the infinite, this reformatting of ourselves, again and again according to our finite thoughts?

Diebert: A truly new event wouldn't be recognized, it wouldn't even register probably.

There is no such thing as new event. Events are always of the past, of memory.

Diebert: This can be seen in nature with creatures having specific neurological damage or underdevelopment by certain lack of exposure from birth. A specific subset of the surrounding is now just being ignored.

What we call 'nature' is a manifestation of the law of opposites, the appearance of what man has named 'animal, vegetable and mineral', each one interpreting, according to its individual conscious, what this appearance 'is'. Some minds interpret for what man identifies for their 'fully allotted time span on earth', some do not.

Diebert: My question would be if there's attachment in all cases where consciousness rises too?

Pam: How can there be a moment when consciousness is not present?

Diebert: What's the difference between this silence, the non-moment and lets say unconsiousness?

This silence, of my discovery, is the silence of man's conscience. It is the voice of man's conscience that reveals to him that of the Infinite Mind of God or of the Infinite Way of the Tao, there is no differentiation of thought. Right here, of this discovery, man has the opportunity to become consciously one with his non-differentiated, infinite, I Am. This means, however, that he must be obedient, unto death, to this discovery of his conscience of God's voice. The voice that uses human words of the Son of man's understanding, yes, but every one realized to be but a metaphor for his vertical walk of being purged of his prejudices, his biases, his attachments, his preferences – until no 'what matters to me' is left standing.

In relating this to the subject matter of this thread, belief in the 'godliness' of the male principle is a prejudice, not of the human world of morals, but of the spirit world of arbitrarily separating the male/female pair of opposites, and naming one as being 'better' than or 'higher' than the other. Male-female cannot be separated. Period. Since the union of both is what brings the flesh world of matter into existence, including the flesh thought 'logic', both then must be transcended of the same moment if one is to go beyond the confines of their matter-making world.

Pam: Silence is silence.

Diebert: But you remember it as silence, so something did leave an impression.

Indeed, that is why I said that once one encounters the silence of themselves, and defines it for themselves, they must return to the world of themselves and express what they have discovered. I discovered my conscience of every thought of God's is equal in width, height, depth and circumference. The Singular-Plural I Am. Here I am, returning to the world, expressing this, my discovery.

Diebert: The lack of something is not fundamentally different from its abundance. One registers a positive or a negative, but one is still registering! So from one perspective it's silence, from another one there's still movement, still some part of the wave. And we couldn't even know through memory alone if there was silence or that we just forgot quickly everything. And all experiencing is through some level of memory or forgetfulness.

From my view, what you are saying above is wholly from the intellect, which is not the voice of the conscience of God's Mind, but of the collective human mind of belief in dualism. God has no need of positive thoughts or negative thoughts, God IS God. God has no need to experience God, God IS God.

Pam: In a single moment you can encounter the silence of you. Stop naming, and lo and behold....

Diebert: The mind never stops, the identifying, the consciousness still goes on, no matter which attention we're giving it or which listening room we step into.

When I spoke of encountering the silence of you in a single moment, and lo and behold...I was referring to that aha moment of recognition of "My thoughts are not your thoughts, saith the Lord." This is the critical moment of reckoning, of discernment, for what must be realized of the seeker of himself, is which voice is doing the interpreting? The one that believe he is 'stuck in dualism' or the one that knows that dualism is a lie? A deeply entrenched lie, to be sure, but a lie all the same.

Diebert: Yes, our knowing is our speaking and acting as if. Knowing, speaking and acting arise naturally with the things and the consciousness of the things. This can be understood by giving great attention to the process, and the less screaming the better.

Can you identify for me, the law, principle or pattern of thought of which one gives attention to when they are 'giving great attention to the process?' As for the screaming, it is man's folly that he believes thought was created for the sake of his me, my, mine 'personality.'

Pam: There is no awareness of form until we give it a name.

Diebert: The awareness of a form is that very "first' name. The words we read and write are expressions of that initial naming.

Here, you have identified the law by which the man 'who peers through the glass darkly' lives, that is, of the law of the opposites. Female/male, good/evil, etc. The flesh thought of appearance being manifested. It is here that most seekers cannot go beyond. They believe that this is all there is, and of their ignorance of believing this to be 'all there is', place God in the same mindset as them. For example, my mindset is of logic, therefore, God's mindset must also be of logic. A slice of related, biblical wisdom: "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent; has he not said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?"

Pam: You cannot leave your awareness of you, so where is this 'further' of which you speak?

Diebert: But one could leave easily the notions you gave since it's impossible for awareness to be infinite or consciousness to be unlimited. Those are just further appearances but it needs some logic to undermine the illusion they cast.

Who told you these things that you believed them to be so? God? The Tao? Life?

Of what use has Infinite Consciousness or God of logic? Think upon the insanity of this notion for a moment. Should God think as man thinks, that is, through the glass darkly, would creation not cease to be?

Logic is a tool for understanding the infinite, a bridge, if you will. But it must be recognized as such, or man will remain stuck looking for the logic of his existence, an existence which has no logic to BE. A = A is a good pointer to the undifferentiated nature of God's mind, but since man's mind is one of differentiation, and God's is not, A = A cannot be used to compare God's Mind to man's mind.

moving wrote:Should God think as man thinks, that is, through the glass darkly, would creation not cease to be? Was the concept of logic present in the days of the dinosaur? Man believes God is divided into logical opposites as he believes himself to be divided into logical opposites. Hogwash, says my conscience of One I Am, infinitely expressing Itself. :-)

Logic is a tool for understanding the infinite, a bridge, if you will. But it must be recognized as such, or man will remain stuck looking for the logic of his existence, an existence which has no logic to BE.

You may be missing a fundamental assumption shared by many here. To exalt logic, first one has to deny the existence of a personal God, i.e., to assume that mankind possesses the ultimate in consciousness in the cosmos.

Yet all the sages here use the term God quite freely, and define God in their own quasi-mystical ways. To wit: "utterly everything"; "the Totality"; "the Tao," etc. You see, in order to be consistent, logic must have a navel, in that "utterly everything" neither exists and nor does it not exist.

For me, it all falls into place when I abandon the assumption that there is no personal God - One after whom our capacities were formed, that is to be aware. I cannot prove there is, and more often than not, there seems to be no personal God. Yet I cannot prove there is not, and no one has proved it to me. When I assume there is not, I feel the impossible is then expected of me. I can't explain this feeling, and I cannot elucidate upon it. All I know is that it is somehow incumbent upon me to explain the inexplicable, to arrogate unto myself that which is not only not mine, but belongs to no man.

I gladly leave that for the sages - I have enough to do to make it through each day with the sole reward of having to face yet another.

For one to say there is a personal God, and that God is personal to them is to say Life is personal, and personal to them, when Life is omniet. But more than this, if one has a personal God, then what need is there for Faith? Just whip out your old genie bottle, pop the cork, and presto, out comes your personal God to do you bidding.

Don't know of any gurus, sages, popes, preachers, philosophers, psychologist, geninuses or the like who has one of these bottles, and has a Personal God to do whatsoever they say.

Am I the only one here, besides Cousinbasil who cannot pin down a personal God?

Can someone give me evidence beyond what they have read, who need not faith, because they have a God to do their bidding?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

moving wrote:
Should God think as man thinks, that is, through the glass darkly, would creation not cease to be? Was the concept of logic present in the days of the dinosaur? Man believes God is divided into logical opposites as he believes himself to be divided into logical opposites. Hogwash, says my conscience of One I Am, infinitely expressing Itself. :-)

Logic is a tool for understanding the infinite, a bridge, if you will. But it must be recognized as such, or man will remain stuck looking for the logic of his existence, an existence which has no logic to BE.

cousinball: You may be missing a fundamental assumption shared by many here. To exalt logic, first one has to deny the existence of a personal God, i.e., to assume that mankind possesses the ultimate in consciousness in the cosmos.

It is my understanding that most here assume that mankind possesses the ultimate in consciousness, which is the belief of most 'sages' and 'gurus' and the like. The arrogance of man knows no bounds. It is the outrageousness of man that he believes that his belief in dualism is THE pattern of The Thinker of Life. It is not only on this forum that man believes he can whitewash the universe with his biases, prejudices and preferences based on his "I think." Most every forum of 'wisdom' you find on the internet, be it 'secular' or be it 'spiritual', espouse this God of dualism that both loves and hates Him/Itself.

Yet all the sages here use the term God quite freely, and define God in their own quasi-mystical ways. To wit: "utterly everything"; "the Totality"; "the Tao," etc. You see, in order to be consistent, logic must have a navel, in that "utterly everything" neither exists and nor does it not exist.

As I stated above, for me, logic is a bridge that must be eventually burned away of the humbleness of the realization that man is not the ultimate consciousness in the universe. A = A, to me, is a statement that suggests that every thought of God's, be it tree or man or rock or cockroach, is equal of one another. To God, rock = man = tree = cockroach. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest a partial or biased God. Man has the unique capacity to think of God, but this is not an indicator of 'higher' or 'lower' in God's eyes.

For me, it all falls into place when I abandon the assumption that there is no personal God - One after whom our capacities were formed, that is to be aware. I cannot prove there is, and more often than not, there seems to be no personal God. Yet I cannot prove there is not, and no one has proved it to me. When I assume there is not, I feel the impossible is then expected of me. I can't explain this feeling, and I cannot elucidate upon it. All I know is that it is somehow incumbent upon me to explain the inexplicable, to arrogate unto myself that which is not only not mine, but belongs to no man.

I relate deeply to what I believe you are trying to express to me. For me, it was only when I came to the realization that the God of every conscious being is an impersonal God, that I was able to step outside of my human mentality and understand what the bible meant by the scripture "God is no respecter of persons." I too, as perhaps all here do, believe it is incumbent upon me to explain the unexplainable; it is not easy, yes? :-)

I gladly leave that for the sages - I have enough to do to make it through each day with the sole reward of having to face yet another.

What you have expressed above is exactly why it is incumbent upon man to take responsibility to know God aright, which is the God who knows not of "making through each day." This is more evidence that man is not the ultimate consciousness, for surely the ultimate consciousness thinks not upon a thing of time, such as 'day.'

jufa wrote:For one to say there is a personal God, and that God is personal to them is to say Life is personal, and personal to them, when Life is omniet. But more than this, if one has a personal God, then what need is there for Faith? Just whip out your old genie bottle, pop the cork, and presto, out comes your personal God to do you bidding.

I am not confusing God with genies. Perhaps the term "personal" God is misleading. Let me try to clarify. I mean a God who possesses the property of personhood, the same way you or I possess that property. This use of the word personal has to be agreed upon, otherwise one might infer all sorts of nonsense, such as the existence of a God who will do one's bidding. You know: "God is my personal secretary."

jufa wrote:For one to say there is a personal God, and that God is personal to them is to say Life is personal, and personal to them, when Life is omniet. But more than this, if one has a personal God, then what need is there for Faith? Just whip out your old genie bottle, pop the cork, and presto, out comes your personal God to do you bidding.

Perhaps you misinterpreted what certain Christians mean with this personal aspect. It's meant as personal experience which may or not be shared with a community. It's meant to contrast with a relationship through priesthood or group based liturgy or ritual.

Furthermore, why would "personal" mean the God would be like a servant? The whole Christian personal experience is without doubt about being his servant and trying to find out the plans God has for one personally. Although most still turn to preachers, community and books to help them with the understanding (and there lies the catch...)

Hope this clears it up and yes, this is all from personal experience as well as from any other authority you might require.

movingalways wrote:How is this enlightenment of the infinite, this reformatting of ourselves, again and again according to our finite thoughts?

It depends what "enlightenment" is for you, I guess. For the moment, formulating and wrestling with a proper understanding should be at the forefront. See where it leads over time, that's all.

The voice that uses human words of the Son of man's understanding, yes, but every one realized to be but a metaphor for his vertical walk of being purged of his prejudices, his biases, his attachments, his preferences – until no 'what matters to me' is left standing.

What's left when we remove our sense of worth or value, the morality, the will? A deeper understanding is possible if you remove the thinking based on some personal time scale. Birth, teaching, dividing by sword and word, transformation and ascension are recurring processes. One better not take one stage, like ascension into heavens where we live as passion-less, thought-less angels, and somehow project our whole human existence there. It's the other way around: one needs to incorporate transcendence in our judgments, biases, sensing and preferences. Incarnation, epiphany: it remains an individual walk.

belief in the 'godliness' of the male principle is a prejudice

It's a creative principle so when looking for creators or trying to understand creation, even if the aim is to go beyond it, some names and definitions do help.

naming one as being 'better' than or 'higher' than the other.

A hammer might not be better or higher than an egg but if you need to do some DIY around the house, I'd prefer the hammer! At that job, they probably never have to meet.

Male-female cannot be separated.

Nothing can be separated, really. Perpetrator and victim are parts of the same crime but the roles do differ and the courts will "elevate" one in the context of law or tradition. Not always the victim by the way.

I discovered my conscience of every thought of God's is equal in width, height, depth and circumference. The Singular-Plural I Am.

It's a very religious, iconographic language you're wielding there. Its ambiguity makes it mostly impossible to argue with. At least try to gain more awareness how it comes across to others!

From my view, what you are saying above is wholly from the intellect, which is not the voice of the conscience of God's Mind, but of the collective human mind of belief in dualism.

Words are intellectual vessels, it's dualism at its finest hour. So when we start using them, better make them excel. Criticizing them for what they are and must be seems very unreasonable. You cannot know from which "conscience" they're coming unless you have a prejudice ready!

Ow wait, if my name was Pam I might have said: "Here I am, returning to the world, expressing this, my discovery." And that expression is magically not from the intellect, using language, steeped in dualism, edited, spell checked, tested on logical error? How self-reflective do you allow yourself to be, I wonder at times? I notice you see easy the mote limitations with the "intellectual" expressions of others but wave away any challenge to your own beaming words, as if they somehow bypassed the intellect during your interpretation, translation and dialog?

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, saith the Lord." This is the critical moment of reckoning, of discernment, for what must be realized of the seeker of himself, is which voice is doing the interpreting?

There are many types and modes of thoughts, some are larger than single humans I'm sure. One can also define the mind as larger than a person, like a 'group mind' or like in theosophy a whole hierarchy of overminds one can ascend to. But we're still not talking the absolute here.

The one that believe he is 'stuck in dualism' or the one that knows that dualism is a lie? A deeply entrenched lie, to be sure, but a lie all the same.

It's only a lie if awareness of it is still stained.

Can you identify for me, the law, principle or pattern of thought of which one gives attention to when they are 'giving great attention to the process?'

Anything which arises really. Any state we feel or sense we are of have been in. And how they pass. Nothing of it is "real" in the absolute sense (only "God" is).

For example, my mindset is of logic, therefore, God's mindset must also be of logic. A slice of related, biblical wisdom: "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent; has he not said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?"

"I and the Father are one. The Father is in me, and I in the Father". Therefore Gods mindset is in my mind and my mind is in God's mindset.

man will remain stuck looking for the logic of his existence

I remember this from Jufa! He couldn't answer my simple challenge: why do you think anyone is looking for it? Logic arises like so many other things with existence: our awareness, our reason, our sense interpreting. One doesn't have to look for what's already there, whatever we decide to do with it. It can be deluded of course, like everything else which is in the same boat.

Quote:
Pam: belief in the 'godliness' of the male principle is a prejudice

Diebert: It's a creative principle so when looking for creators or trying to understand creation, even if the aim is to go beyond it, some names and definitions do help.

I've selected these two thoughts for my response, as I believe them to express the very heart of our ongoing dialogue.

If your use of the world creation is a metaphor for man's interpretative living within his dualities, then yes, the aim is indeed to go beyond it. If you are not using the world creation in this way, then I will need an expanded explanation as to your understanding of 'creation.'

Going on my assumption that your use of the word creation does indeed imply man's belief in the dualities, is it not then upon man to discover a pattern of thought that can lead him beyond his dualities? Beyond the male principle, which cannot be separated from the female principle, which as a pair, are the very activity of human [earthly] bias and prejudice? To name a form is a biased or prejudiced act because it requires that one form be singled out from every other form: the male-female principle being manifested.

Having said this, I do relate to the analysis of the male principle as being instrumental in the 'gathering up of the dualities.' I explained this in a previous post, using Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as the metaphors for this activity. To recount: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, up until verse 6, is the wisdom that suggests the non-dual Infinite. Genesis 2, after verse 6, is the wisdom of the appearance of the 'big bang' of time, distance, space and matter, expressed by the metaphor of BUT, which is also the appearance of the myth of 'self', called the Lord God. Not the spirit of God, as in Genesis 1 of the non-dual Infinite, but the Lord [law] God of the appearance of the opposites, of the senses. Adam is the imagined or formed male principle. Eve is the imagined or formed female principle. They are united in their belief in dualism. However, when one is immersed most deeply in their Eve principle, that is, living within their world of projected, fragmented emotions of their senses, they are veiled to the wisdom of the union of the male and female principles.

Should the seeker awaken wholly to the union of the metaphorical pair of Adam and Eve, the objective and the subjective dual thought world of themselves, they would realize that the way of transcending both is the path of returning the rib of subjectivity unto Adam, which now leaves Adam without a pathway or means to attach himself to form, and being without this pathway or means of attachment, is himself drawn up into Lord God who imagined both Adam and Eve into existence, who, now is left without a form to name, is himself drawn into the non-dual Infinite from whence he came?

The biblical vision of the Metaphor of the Father gathering up the Myth of the divided self, which is further fragmented into two selves of man and/vs. woman, is but one of many, but it is the one most widely understood in the western world. This is the value of scriptures of myth and of metaphor, they provide a common ground of thought that can be used to express the universal thought continuum of man. Who in the western world beyond early childhood who has full use of their mental faculties has not heard of Adam and Eve and the garden and the serpent? I cannot imagine a one.

So yes, we do need definitions and descriptors to light our way out of our darkness of our dependence on dualities. They are called myths and metaphors, and when they become alive to us in this our journey of transcending all the dualities, we become the LIVING thought continuum of Eve unto Adam unto the Lord God unto the Father. Or female unto the male unto the Imagination unto the Infinite.