GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth wrote:

DQ: If you need an external source to advance your spiritual development, then it indicates there is something lacking inside you.

E: But we are all one Being. What is outside ourselves is also ourselves. Whether we enter Reality through the front door or the back door is irrelevant, just so long as one gets entirely inside.

None of this makes any sense. If we are all one Being, and if what is outside ourselves is also ourselves, then how can we enter into Reality through any kind of door, front or back?

DQ: The will and means to enlightenment can only come from inside yourself.

E: It must come from inside one's self, but it can't come exclusivly from inside one's self.

If we are all one Being, how can anything come from outside of ourselves?

I find it likely that the sentiment of what he perceived was true, but the external events merely triggered the opening of the gate of internal truth, which arrived to him symbolically, as in a waking dream.

Unwise wouldn't recognize the gate of internal truth if he fell over it. He is still deludedly scratching around in the realm of form.

Possibly similar to Kevin's experience of "hearing" a voice with an American accent. It's just that for unwise, an external event triggered the floodgates in his mind, and he did a waking dream-like association.

External events can certainly trigger altered states of consciousness and can even change one's life, but this only applies to beginners and people who are still scratching around in the realm of form.

-

It must come from inside one's self, but it can't come exclusively from inside one's self.

I find it likely that the sentiment of what he perceived was true, but the external events merely triggered the opening of the gate of internal truth, which arrived to him symbolically, as in a waking dream.

This is almost correct. Noam Chomsky proved that language and syntax programs were already present in the brain of a child. A human is programmed to learn language, but the exposure and learning also has to take place from outside. This is the way of spiritual evolvement, and especially a radical change such as enlightenment. The catalyst is outside the person. Of course, all that is learned is already in the person. Everything is already inside. Of course.

But, as Carl Jung would tell you, synchronicity is not only symbolic but actually real in the material world. The psychological world and the external world are connected and equally real. My encounter was both symbolic and actual. They were real beings. "When the student is ready, the teacher will come."

The point of my post is that this event began a series of cascading experiences and realizations that ended in complete enlightenment. Just as the enlightened one discovers unknown realms within, he also finds gods and realms without. Buddha spoke of billions of worlds. Yes. So it is.

How can one discover inner realms without also discovering outer realms? It is not possible.

David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth wrote:

DQ: If you need an external source to advance your spiritual development, then it indicates there is something lacking inside you.

E: But we are all one Being. What is outside ourselves is also ourselves. Whether we enter Reality through the front door or the back door is irrelevant, just so long as one gets entirely inside.

None of this makes any sense. If we are all one Being, and if what is outside ourselves is also ourselves, then how can we enter into Reality through any kind of door, front or back?

The front door of Reality is the path of understanding like the stepping stones that you and Dan said must be taken one stone at a time. It might even be thought of as the left-brain approach. The back door is the employment of the delusionary state that people are born into, or could be thought of as the right-brain approach. The "house" of Reality would be the wisdom, and the "yard" of Reality would be delusiion. that is how we have "doors" to go through.

The house, the doors, the yard, and ourselves are just constructs of language to represent the concept. Nothing is "real" but Reality.

DQ: The will and means to enlightenment can only come from inside yourself.

E: It must come from inside one's self, but it can't come exclusivly from inside one's self.

DQ: If we are all one Being, how can anything come from outside of ourselves?

I was referring to the convenient construct called "self" meaning the "individual" when I was referring to inside ourselves and outside ourselves. I expected you would understand that, and I wonder if you are trying to use some kind of "method" to "test" me with your proposition that this makes no sense. (either that or something else is going on, as you seem like a totally different "David" from who you were before your recent sabattical). Nevertheless, I will "play along" just to see where you are going with this.

I find it likely that the sentiment of what he perceived was true, but the external events merely triggered the opening of the gate of internal truth, which arrived to him symbolically, as in a waking dream.

Unwise wouldn't recognize the gate of internal truth if he fell over it. He is still deludedly scratching around in the realm of form.

He got a data dump - that happens from going in with the right-brain approach. He still has to sort out some of the symbolism. You walked to where you are. He actually did fall over it. Your path (and Dan's path) isn't the only path. The destination is what is important. If you can't tell the path from the destination, you're just hanging out on the front porch.

Where's the David that recognized that people can grow?

Possibly similar to Kevin's experience of "hearing" a voice with an American accent. It's just that for unwise, an external event triggered the floodgates in his mind, and he did a waking dream-like association.

External events can certainly trigger altered states of consciousness and can even change one's life, but this only applies to beginners and people who are still scratching around in the realm of form.

unwise was scratching around in the realm of form, then he had this experience which you just said can only happen to those scratching around in the realm of form (I think similar but not exactly the same altered-state-of-conciusness thing can happen again, but not nearly to the intensity nor impact of this sort of experience, and it is far more controlled after that). Now that he has had the conciousness changing experience, is it (in your opinion) not even possible that he has changed?

unwise wrote:as Carl Jung would tell you, synchronicity is not only symbolic but actually real in the material world.

You mean like Carl Jung's description of the collective unconcious?

David,

Didn't you have a mystical period? What was that like?

You mean like Carl Jung's description of the collective unconcious?

No. I mean Carl Jung's description of SYNCHRONICITY. This is perhaps the most important concept of the 20th century. A real gift form the gods. Go back and read what he says about it. It is a key into reality.

ALL that we see and experience, all the people we meet, all the conversations here and elsewhere, all of your circumstances, the world you look at, George Bush and Saddam.....all of that is a projection of YOU. Do you realize this?

The first step in experiencing 'growth' and 'magic' (as in getting some control over your 'self' and the 'world') is to ACCEPT and FORGIVE. That is your only option.

When you experience wishing things into and out of existence, you are on the right track. Siddhis or spiritual powers and control over the material world are natural consequences of 'enlightenment' and seeking the Self. I never sought them, but I have them. They were not what I was looking for. A person with real knowledge has them, however, as a side effect. The Self is this and also not this.

You must find and worshop your deity; and you must also realize that you are greater than your deity.

How in the world do you expect to understand trapped in the limited realms of your so-called logic?

unwise, did you also find the Carlos Castaneda books enlightening?

The Carlos books demonstate the power of the mind to create a world and inhabit it. That world is quite real for those who inhabit it.

unwise wrote:The Carlos books demonstate the power of the mind to create a world and inhabit it. That world is quite real for those who inhabit it.

I think maybe you're having trouble with the concept of "real"

What is real to one person may not be real. To a schizophrenic, the serial killer in the trunk of the car may be real - at least real in that it prevents them from getting in the car and driving it... but that doesn't mean it is objectively real.

-Rory

Elizabeth wrote:

DQ: If you need an external source to advance your spiritual development, then it indicates there is something lacking inside you.

E: But we are all one Being. What is outside ourselves is also ourselves. Whether we enter Reality through the front door or the back door is irrelevant, just so long as one gets entirely inside.

DQ: None of this makes any sense. If we are all one Being, and if what is outside ourselves is also ourselves, then how can we enter into Reality through any kind of door, front or back?

E: The front door of Reality is the path of understanding like the stepping stones that you and Dan said must be taken one stone at a time. It might even be thought of as the left-brain approach. The back door is the employment of the delusionary state that people are born into, or could be thought of as the right-brain approach. The "house" of Reality would be the wisdom, and the "yard" of Reality would be delusiion. that is how we have "doors" to go through.

I don't go for this left-brain/right-brain stuff. It's a trendy theory, but in reality things are not that black and-white.

Given that enlightenment is defined to be the absence of delusions and that reason is what fundamentally breaks down delusions, there can only ever be one path to enlightenment - namely, the path of reason. Intuitions, altered states, mystical reveries, symbolic associations, etc, can certainly help stimulate the mind and expand its horizons, but nonetheless, it is reason which ultimately determines what is true and what isn't. Every step towards enlightenment is a step of increasing rationality (and with it, increasing insight and intuition), and a deepening of one's grasp of truth.

If a person decides to ditch reason in the early stages, then he no longer has the means to travel along the path of truth. He can have all the whizz-bang intuitions and altered states he likes, and he can be visited by every god under the sun, but without reason he will still be as ignorant and aimless as ever.

The house, the doors, the yard, and ourselves are just constructs of language to represent the concept. Nothing is "real" but Reality.

If the house, doors and yard aren't real, then why are you talking about them? Why are you misleading people with your empty mirages?

E: I find it likely that the sentiment of what he perceived was true, but the external events merely triggered the opening of the gate of internal truth, which arrived to him symbolically, as in a waking dream.

DQ: Unwise wouldn't recognize the gate of internal truth if he fell over it. He is still deludedly scratching around in the realm of form.

E: He got a data dump - that happens from going in with the right-brain approach. He still has to sort out some of the symbolism.

First, before anything else, he needs to humble himself and realize that his understanding of things is still very weak. He is like a full glass bubbling away with his own pomposity and naive assertions. There is no room for anything else to enter. He needs to empty himself before he can become receptive to wisdom and truth.

But I can't see this happening because he is too much in love with his toys and too scared to properly examine the roots of his understanding. There is only one reason why he derides logic so much and that is because he is intuitive enough to know that his philosophical understanding is fundamentally irrational. In this, he is no different to the fundamentalist Christian, who also derides logic.

Where's the David that recognized that people can grow?

Not many people can truly grow in the direction of wisdom. It is a very rare accomplishment. "The gate is narrow and few find it", as Jesus once observed.

By the time most people reach their thirties, they have hardened into their attachments and more or less ceased their development. It's really only the lucky few who, having recognized the power of reason from an early age and therefore accumulated relatively few attachments, are in a position to continue developing. I don't consider Unwise to be in that category.

Can you imagine him ever giving up his toys? It would require a major shift in identity. I doubt that he has either the will or the capacity.

-

David Quinn wrote: I don't go for this left-brain/right-brain stuff. It's a trendy theory, but in reality things are not that black and-white.

From what I understand speaking to psychologists and biologists, this theory has been disproven at this point. It remains popular only because most people ignore new science in favor of something that "sounds cool," or makes the world easier to understand, such as religion.

The human mind inherently wants to sort things into convenient categories and "left brain/right brain" provides wonderful pseudoscientific boxes for categorization.

-Rory

I think maybe you're having trouble with the concept of "real"

I am very clear about what is real. Are you?

This world of yours and everything in it is dreamstuff. You are unreal. I am unreal. It is impossible for objects to even exist let alone you and your logic and wisdom. Give it up. Who is wise? Where is he? Show me. It is only your ego who thinks he exists. How can 1 + 1 equal anything if there is no 1? Do you think ghosts and aliens are any different from your breakfast granola? How?

It is all in the mind. Anything can happen in the mind.

unwise,

Who is wise? Where is he? Show me.

Nobody by that alias is registered at this forum. Are you looking to form a partnership?

How can 1 + 1 equal anything if there is no 1?

Good point; however, why would anyone refuse to define the number 1?

Since I can only think of one reason, here is a resource that you should find useful:

Coping With Math Phobia

Do you think ghosts and aliens are any different from your breakfast granola? How?

I've had several close encounters with breakfast cereals.

I am begining to think that Unwise is a doppleganger attempting to make a point.

You're right Rory, nothing is anything until you DEFINE it - including Rory.

Unwise, it looks like a flying turtle.