GENIUS FORUMS

Of your seeking to discover the singular-plural nature of you, your infinity, you've renounced your identification with Woman and find yourself identified only with [the Son of] Man. You are being obedient to rejecting Eve's wandering ways for the sake of your enlightenment of being of one mind, of one I, you've discovered a platform of thought that supports and sustains this renunciation of Woman: now what?

Since thought is a continuum of I am interpretation, it is not possible for man to stand still on one platform of I-dentification. Man is always being nudged or pricked of his conscience of consciousness to expand beyond this moment of I am interpretation unto the next moment of I am interpretation. Which means that whatever platform of thinking man has found that supports and sustains his renouncing of his grasping-clinging Womanly ways is one of temporal-spatial necessity, as is every platform of thought he stands upon on his journey of “mortality being swallowed up of Life.”

So here you stand, on your now platform of I-dentification with [the Son of] man who has found words or symbols to suggest the righteous nature of the Mind of God that is not of your human nature of self-righteous subjectivity-objectivity – now what? What is the next step, the next walk, the next platform that will carry you from the ways of suggesting the nature of the infinite by the way of your [albeit subtle] Womanly attachment to of logic or reasoning unto being the one life of you that is the infinity of you?

Man is not meant to be left hanging between two worlds; if this is not the definition of hell, I don't know what is.

Going out for breaky; stay tuned.

As an outcome of going within the silent, invisible thought world of one's I, one must return to define, for oneself, the nature of this silent, invisible world. Once awakened to the two worlds of the one I, one of pure awareness of one's invisible creation, and one of the appearance of a divided subjective-objective awareness of form, there is no going 'back to sleep' to the old way of believing that both God and man are of the same way of thinking. Once awakened to the singular I of creation that gives life to the extension that is the I of belief in dualism, but remains unchanged of having given life to this I of belief, the die is cast: the I of belief must die so the suffering of man's that is his awareness of both worlds of thought is no more.

Assuming that A = A and/or A is A is a symbol/statement of human logic that suggests the pure awareness of the Singular I of creation, what then, is the way that this symbol or statement can be used or applied so that belief in being or having a self that is divided into male and female, good and evil, can be transcended/eliminated?

The way of being liberated of being aware of the two ways of thinking of the one I is the way of walking away from one's identification with their I of imagination and toward one's identification with their I of creation. Both worlds of thought have now been metaphorically defined. Both worlds have been realized to be of One Living Metaphor called “I Am.” One now is of the unshakeable conviction that if one is to be liberated from being identified with both worlds, that one world must be sacrificed or dissolved: a house divided cannot stand.

A = A. A is A. Thought of the I of Creation is whole, perfect, complete and pure. The intellect has, to use Dennis' metaphor, “grokked” this truth of his original, pre-conditioned nature. Now it is time to walk this “grok.” One has righteously renounced human feeling so to be able to use logic to suggest that which is beyond logic-feeling, now it is time to step into the thought world of righteousness itself and become the living Metaphor of the I Am that consumes the Myth of the logical-feeling, duplicate self. Including every subset of the Myth of the logical-feeling, duplicate self, such as the myth of man and woman, the myth of good and evil, the myth of time and space, the myth of distance and matter.

Both western and eastern traditions address this walk of the Living Metaphor of the I Am that devours or consumes the Myth of self. Jesus speaks of the way of repentance and of obedience to walking that path of Spirit, of bearing one's own cross of belief in dualism. From Luke 14: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

The Buddha speaks of the way of Nekkhamma. From the Pali canon: "There is the case where the mind of a monk, when attending to sensual pleasures, doesn't leap up at sensual pleasures, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or released in sensual pleasures. But when attending to renunciation, his mind leaps up at renunciation, grows confident, steadfast, & released in renunciation. When his mind is rightly-gone, rightly developed, has rightly risen above, gained release, and become disjoined from sensual pleasures, then whatever fermentations, torments, & fevers there are that arise in dependence on sensuality, he is released from them. He does not experience that feeling. This is expounded as the escape from sensual pleasures.”

I will never leave you or forsake you is the biblical scripture that addresses the way of thought, which is to be ever present, regardless of man's belief that this is not so. Few men are patient enough and of strong enough will to be still of their I of imagination for a long enough period of time so that a vision or Way of walking the walk of imagination-renunciation can be revealed of his inquiry of this walk.

moving wrote:Man is not meant to be left hanging between two worlds; if this is not the definition of hell, I don't know what is.

Man is exactly where he is supposed to be. This is true whether or not there was a conscious hand in his inception.

This world is the stick. Man searches fo his carrot. If there is only the stick, then this is indeed hell.

Pam,
'Now what? and 'What's Next?'

....implies there's something wrong.

'Something Wrong' can only show up as a mental projection against a background of 'Nothing Wrong'.

What's for brekky?

cousinbasil wrote:

moving wrote:Man is not meant to be left hanging between two worlds; if this is not the definition of hell, I don't know what is.

Man is exactly where he is supposed to be. This is true whether or not there was a conscious hand in his inception.

This world is the stick. Man searches fo his carrot. If there is only the stick, then this is indeed hell.

To single out one of my statements, give me your 'take' on it without giving me your experiential evidence of why what you say is true, for you, is, for me, not the demonstration of debating for the sake of expansion of both of us. I explained, in my posts, why it is hell for man to to be left hanging between two worlds; why have you not done the same for me? Tell me why man is supposed to be left hanging [left being the operative word], eternally searching for a carrot that he will never actually find.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Pam,
'Now what? and 'What's Next?'

....implies there's something wrong.

'Something Wrong' can only show up as a mental projection against a background of 'Nothing Wrong'.

Dennis, wrong is your word, not mine. However, if I can borrow your word in the spirit of 'wrongness' as pointing to the condition of man's world, I ask you this: how can you be in the world and not realize there is not something fundamentally wrong with man's thinking? Man is a wandering being of his lust for his unfilled dreams of 'where is my carrot?' Even though, in his collective heart, he has no idea what this carrot he so passionately longs for, actually is. Idea/image fills him not, yet he continues to seek to be filled of these things made of dust. How can any man claim this to be wisdom? The image I get of this wise man is of an eternal idea eating machine, never satisfied, never at ease, just eating, eating, eating of his idea of who he is or is not. Lust for dust is wisdom?

You told me once that my words brought Jesus alive for you; I notice that you did not refer to the scripture attributed to Jesus' very own words that I included in my post. To refresh your memory: From Luke 14: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” Is Jesus not implying in these words that there is something fundamentally 'wrong' with the Son of man's 'lust for dust' thinking?

Dennis, it has been my discovery that true expansion of thinking comes about when we step into one another's thought worlds, statement by statement, or paragraph by paragraph, and debate what is being said; the method of In-quiry. It would be beneficial to me, as I believe it would be for you, if we communicated in this way. :-)

moving always: Man is not meant to be left hanging between two worlds; if this is not the definition of hell, I don't know what is.

cousinbasil: Man is exactly where he is supposed to be. This is true whether or not there was a conscious hand in his inception.

This world is the stick. Man searches for his carrot. If there is only the stick, then this is indeed hell.

moving always: To single out one of my statements, give me your 'take' on it without giving me your experiential evidence of why what you say is true, for you, is, for me, not the demonstration of debating for the sake of expansion of both of us. I explained, in my posts, why it is hell for man to to be left hanging between two worlds; why have you not done the same for me? Tell me why man is supposed to be left hanging [left being the operative word], eternally searching for a carrot that he will never actually find.

Hi Pam - First of all, I have to single out one of your statements, as I obviously cannot single all of them out. Second, I have not read all of your posts. I cannot even be certain I have read all of mine.

You used the term "left hanging"; I assume you know why you used it - but you are asking me why your characterization is accurate. What I said is simply that Man is exactly where he is supposed to be. By that, I mean at this stage, he cannot be other than where he is, and given what has brought him here, that is, the ocean of Cause and Effect, neither could he have been in any other situation. If it does not seem like I am engaging in debate, it is probably because my observation can hardly be debated.

And am I not agreeing with you, Pam? I think I am, just using a different set of words.

What I didn't really make clear is my belief that there is no Hell beyond this life. There is merely extinction. What I find fascinating about the sages here is the way they do not search for the carrot. If this plane is all there is, then there is no carrot, and extinction is welcome; this is my definition of Hell. The only Hell is a living Hell, this world that ends only in extinction, the Stick without a Carrot.

Unless this is only the tip of the iceberg, the first part of and endless sojourn, then there is only Hell. You say we are left hanging between two worlds - then for you there is evidently more than just Hell. You sense there is more. You know there is a Carrot. Yet you say man is not meant to be in this position. Maybe it is this one claim I must disagree with. "Meant" by whom? If you answer that, then you will see he is exactly where he is "meant" to be. He cannot, could not be otherwise.

Yet each individual has the inalienable power and right to give to God that which is God's and thereby have our Carrot, even as we are required to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, baring our backs to receive the Stick.

Hi Pam - First of all, I have to single out one of your statements, as I obviously cannot single all of them out. Second, I have not read all of your posts. I cannot even be certain I have read all of mine.

You used the term "left hanging"; I assume you know why you used it - but you are asking me why your characterization is accurate. What I said is simply that Man is exactly where he is supposed to be. By that, I mean at this stage, he cannot be other than where he is, and given what has brought him here, that is, the ocean of Cause and Effect, neither could he have been in any other situation. If it does not seem like I am engaging in debate, it is probably because my observation can hardly be debated.

And am I not agreeing with you, Pam? I think I am, just using a different set of words.

Hi cousinball, yes we are in agreement that man is where he is supposed to be, of this moment. Perhaps I misunderstood your position, which I thought was one of 'he is here eternally, no way out.' Where we do not agree is in the nature of what brought Man here, to this spot of being between two worlds of himself. I do not understand 'what brought me here' to be the ocean of cause and effect. Cause and effect is of the earth mentality, of sense awareness. There is no sense awareness in the infinite Mind of God. It is the error of man's thinking that he can apply his sense awareness to that which is not of sense awareness.

What I didn't really make clear is my belief that there is no Hell beyond this life.

You are the life of you, be you the heaven of you, or the hell of you.

There is merely extinction. What I find fascinating about the sages here is the way they do not search for the carrot. If this plane is all there is, then there is no carrot, and extinction is welcome; this is my definition of Hell.

I agree that if this plane of sense awareness of cause and effect repetition is all there is, then this indeed is hell. But this plane is not all there is. My evidence of this? Sense awareness did not create sense awareness. The thought 'earth' did not create the earth. Which means that there is a plane of thinking that is 'prior' to sense thinking, one that brings the senses into being, but that is not dependent on the senses to be. You are not separate from either plane, but are only consciously aware, [at one with] of this moment, of the plane of your sense awareness.

The only Hell is a living Hell, this world that ends only in extinction, the Stick without a Carrot.

It is impossible to extinquish the life of you. The world of your belief in dualism, yes. You, in your totality of the infinite thought laws, principles and patterns of you? Nope, no can do. :-)

Unless this is only the tip of the iceberg, the first part of and endless sojourn, then there is only Hell. You say we are left hanging between two worlds - then for you there is evidently more than just Hell. You sense there is more. You know there is a Carrot. Yet you say man is not meant to be in this position. Maybe it is this one claim I must disagree with. "Meant" by whom? If you answer that, then you will see he is exactly where he is "meant" to be. He cannot, could not be otherwise.

Hopefully I have cleared up what I mean by "man is not meant to be left hanging between two worlds." To summarize: Man is born of his sense awareness. When he believes his sense awareness is all there is, he is stuck in this awareness. God is not stuck here, for God is without senses. Man is not separate from God. Therefore, man is, of his original nature, without senses: spirit only. Therefore, to be liberated from one's sense awareness is to be restored to one's spirit awareness.

Yet each individual has the inalienable power and right to give to God that which is God's and thereby have our Carrot, even as we are required to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, baring our backs to receive the Stick

How can we give anything to God, when God is all That Is, right here, right now? This is evidence that God has no need of anything we have to give Him/It; however, we have need of what He/It can reveal to us. That is, if we can get off our pedestal of ignorance and arrogance of belief that God is a God of cause and effect, of time and of space, as man is of cause and effect and is of time and of space.

moving always wrote:How can we give anything to God, when God is all That Is, right here, right now? This is evidence that God has no need of anything we have to give Him/It; however, we have need of what He/It can reveal to us. That is, if we can get off our pedestal of ignorance and arrogance of belief that God is a God of cause and effect, of time and of space, as man is of cause and effect and is of time and of space.

We can give God acknowledgement. God is not of time and space and has no needs.

Hi Pam,
I do step into your thoughts and join them together like beads on a string.
I get this:
abused, suffering, searching (perils of pauline)

transformation

devout Jufarian (bride of godzilla)

It's beautiful.

cousinbasil wrote:

moving always wrote:How can we give anything to God, when God is all That Is, right here, right now? This is evidence that God has no need of anything we have to give Him/It; however, we have need of what He/It can reveal to us. That is, if we can get off our pedestal of ignorance and arrogance of belief that God is a God of cause and effect, of time and of space, as man is of cause and effect and is of time and of space.

We can give God acknowledgement. God is not of time and space and has no needs.

Yes!

Dennis Mahar wrote:Hi Pam,
I do step into your thoughts and join them together like beads on a string.
I get this:
abused, suffering, searching (perils of pauline)

transformation

devout Jufarian (bride of godzilla)

It's beautiful.

Bless you for your compassion, Dennis, but your interpretation of what happened to me when I was 8 years old is not how I interpreted it all. When I was sexually molested by my uncle, which was a singular event, I did not feel abused, nor did I suffer psychologically from this event. What this event catalyzed in my thinking patterns was my ongoing inquiry as to why man behaves as he does. The events I was referring to when I spoke of subsets of this one event were those patterns of thinking that caused me to go deeper into my inquiry of man's divided nature.

As for jufa, it was his writings from beyond his divided nature that drew me to his wisdom.

looks like I've busted some kind of compassion rule=duality.

As for jufa, it was his writings from beyond his divided nature that drew me to his wisdom.

Why isn't Jufa's thesis interpretation?

In your moment you recognised all there is is awareness and interpretation.

Why not be still?
Why move from stillness to having a mind full of meaning?

Really devout Jufarianism shakes down to 'fire and brimstone' preaching.

Can we get back to where we were last week?

What is REAL and what is a CONCEPT?

Once you are able to discriminate between REALITY and abstractions or re-presentations OF Reality you can see words can never nail this down. That is why there are so many attempted descriptions, pointers at it. No matter how many words are said or unsaid, they arise in the uncloudable clarity of awareness. They and every other “thing” are only that, appearing as form.

Conceptual descriptions are often mistaken for reality but the essential is always present, even when appearing as a confused human being.

Pam:
As for jufa, it was his writings from beyond his divided nature that drew me to his wisdom.

Dennis: Why isn't Jufa's thesis interpretation?

His writings are interpretations, but from my perspective, and I speak only from my perspective, what is different about his interpretations and any others, is that he recognizes that man is not God, that man is an expression of God. Big difference from what is being put forth here on this forum, and from my twelve years of active participation on the internet, what is being put forth in most writings and on most forums.

Dennis: In your moment you recognised all there is is awareness and interpretation.

I realized that all there is is awareness and interpretation, yes, but where I differ from most, is that I do not acknowledge that the awareness and interpretation of the Infinite or God or The Tao is of the same law, principle and pattern as is that of man's interpretation of his sense awareness.

Why not be still?
Why move from stillness to having a mind full of meaning?

To be moved of dualities is not to be still. If you are claiming that you are not coming a position of meaning, why then did you interpret my thoughts thusly:

I do step into your thoughts and join them together like beads on a string.
I get this:
abused, suffering, searching (perils of pauline)

transformation

devout Jufarian (bride of godzilla)

It's beautiful.

If the above isn't full of dual meaning, I don't know what is. The man who arrives at the point of the God of dualities deludes himself when he claims he has transcended meaning. Dualities cannot be separated, therefore, the analysis that arises from any pair of opposites is always of a subjective-objective meaning to the individual doing the analysis. The moment an internal comparison between this and that has taken place, meaning is applied. Opinion = meaning.

Dennis: Really devout Jufarianism shakes down to 'fire and brimstone' preaching.

How about the above statement? Can you honestly tell me it is prejudicial to Dennis' subjective-objective meaning interpretation?

Dennis: Can we get back to where we were last week?

What is REAL and what is a CONCEPT?

Once you are able to discriminate between REALITY and abstractions or re-presentations OF Reality you can see words can never nail this down.

What do you KNOW of REALITY that allows you to discriminate between IT and what is not IT?

That is why there are so many attempted descriptions, pointers at it. No matter how many words are said or unsaid, they arise in the uncloudable clarity of awareness. They and every other “thing” are only that, appearing as form.

How can that which arises of dual awareness be 'uncloudable?' The moment one attaches oneself to form and begin to analyze according to past experiences of what this 'form is or means', a cloud of subjectivity-objectivity arises. Your psychological profiling of jufa and me is evidence of this. How is this type of profiling 'uncloudable?' Did you live every moment of my life and of his life, simultaneously, so that you can claim that your awareness of us, either individually, or as a pair, is uncloudable? To be truly the pure awareness of jufa and of Pam, this is the path of living exactness you would have had to take.

Dualism always begats a cloud, because at the heart of every man of flesh, of belief in dualism, is the tension of his having to reach into his past to address the present moment. This is not enlightenment of the infinite. It may be that the one who is relying on cause and effect of 'what went before' operates from a deeply mature wisdom of the earth and is moved to do what is best for self and all based on this wisdom of cause and of effect, but this is not the wisdom of the cloud-free Mind of God or the Tao.

Conceptual descriptions are often mistaken for reality but the essential is always present, even when appearing as a confused human being.

This is not true. Reality is not dual. How then can the essential of Reality be present in dual-conceptual descriptions?

Here comes the 'preachy' part: Man is an arrogant ass, but in his defence, he is usually ignorant of being such an arrogant ass. He has an moment of clarity of 'non-duality' and rather than going into the depth of what this really represents, he turns around from this activity of discipline, and falls into the error of trying to blend the dual with what he calls the 'non-dual' and believes this to be the wisdom of God or the Totality.

Dualism is not the nature of the infinite. It is the nature of man's mind. Man's mind is of the thought continuum, but it is not THE thought continuum. Can you see what I am pointing to here? Which means that there is some renouncing or repenting that needs to happen in the conscious or soul of the man who has been basing his living on the belief that his mind is not of THE thought continuum, but rather, is THE thought continuum.

The concept of renouncing or repenting one's direction of thinking is not a welcome message to the human mind that believes itself to be the 'kingpin' of God's thought "let there be, and there was." A hard blow to the back of his knees is what is needed before such a man can even begin his continuum walk into THE enLIGHTenment continuum. A continuum walk that will consume his arrogant ignorance of "I am God and can say and do whatever I want according to my subjective-objective memories of me" but rather, according to Its law, principles and patterns of invisible Spirit of which no man can form an image.

Pam,

His writings are interpretations

You bet they are and further are misconceptions.
No amount of your gratuitous spin can sway me otherwise.
You and Godzilla the Nazi have tried to cajole and bully me into 'stepping into a vision for myself' and declared me as living in hell for my resistance.
You have idealised and romanticised Awakening.
One does not need a battle plan, conceptual design, vision or anything upon Awakening.
There is nothing to attain for a (me).
Treat people respectfully please.

Dennis, you are making things personal between us when no such personal attitude was given you by me. Disagreement of idea, which is all I have given you, is not, in my books, a demonstration of disrespect. Surely you do not think you are above explaining why and how you can claim 'this' and then, in the next breath, contradict that which you have claimed? Which is what I was pointing out to you when you claimed that you had transcended meaning, and yet, were clearly giving your personal meaning statements with regards to jufa and I's relationship.

You have completely misunderstood my wisdom if you believe that I have romanticized Awakening or that I am saying that there is something to attain. What has repentance, renunciation, self-discipline and obedience, have to do with romanticism or attainment? I come speaking of the thought-by-thought stripping away of human attachment until there is nothing of attachment left - what is romantic about that?

Pam,
Indirectly, by implication you made things personal and then Jufa directly got personal by chiming in with something like 'you can't think for yourself.

Previously we were on the same page re the false sense of I generated by the subject/object split.
Next minute you've postulated a mission statement (vision) for a me.

repentance, renunciation, self-discipline and obedience, have to do with romanticism or attainment? I come speaking of the thought-by-thought stripping away of human attachment until there is nothing of attachment left - what is romantic about that?

How much control do you have apart from conceptualising a vision and talking about it?

It's like a fish swimming in the ocean looking for water.
Wouldn't you regard that as Quixotic...idealistic/romantic?

You are always/already perfect whole and complete but insist upon seeing yourself as an object and determinedly setting about polishing that object up to a shiny state.

How magical and miraculous that every experience and appearance since the dawn of time, to this very second has not accumulated and piled up on top of each other. Just imagine the density and dysfunctional-ity of existing in this universe with so much existential residue building up over aeons! But, this is not the case, because everything is inherently empty. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

Run on empty.

Dennis, tell me how you or I can run on empty when thought is the very substance and essence of who we are?

Do you 'think' thoughts?
Do you own them?
Do they appear?
Appear to what?
Is there a you that thinks?
Who said they are the substance and essence?...Jufa?
You get what you want every night when you fall into a deep sleep. No World.
Then you wake up and try to figure out how to get what you want. No World.
Then you get what you want every night when you fall asleep. No World.
Then you wake up and try to figure out
Then you
Then you
Then you

Dennis, you do not want to dialogue with me based on the contents of what is put before you using logic or spirit discernment, you want to dialogue based on your attitude of prejudice of what you believe is so with regards to why or how I use the words I use. If you believe that you or anyone on this board has one single original thought, that they do not ride the thoughts of those who went before them, then from my perspective, accept it or reject it, you have not even begun to explore the nature of the thought continuum of man. There is nothing new under the sun [sense awareness]. Period. Form reformatting itself according to attachment to the dualities, deepening the attachment, which is what is happening here in most every post, or form reformatting itself according to the renunciation of the dualities, releasing the attachment, which is happening here in very few of the posts. Human thought, going in different directions - attachment and detachment.

I am not here to convince you or anyone else to 'get a vision.' That's nonsense. No one can make someone 'get a vision.' I am here, telling my story of my vision, no more, no less. To be accepted or rejected. Stay or walk away. Which is why everyone is here, including you. Man's thought continuum.

Wisdom is justified of her children [thoughts], whatever is the wisdom, whatever are the thoughts.

Thoughting is an activity isn't it?
As sensing is?
Runs on automatic, like a machine?
A thought coming thru' is empty until we attach to it by giving it importance or meaning.

So far, so good?

Running on empty would be not attaching.

I met a guy the other day who had the thought 'Life sucks'..he attached, believed..got agreement from others...turned on the tv news for further confirmation. It gave him a mood (depression). He now lives inside that possibility that life sucks.

If he'd applied A=A.
life sucks= life sucks
He'd be free.

Thoughting is an activity isn't it?
As sensing is?
Runs on automatic, like a machine?
A thought coming thru' is empty until we attach to it by giving it importance or meaning.

Running on empty would be not attaching.

Thought is the only activity. If this is not so, identify for me, another activity.

Sensing and thinking are one unit of analysis in the realm of dualities. In the realm of dualities, importance or meaning is always being attached to form. You need go no further than the dialoguing on this forum with regards to any subject matter that is being discussed. How is the ongoing debate on 'woman', for example, not the demonstration of subjective-objective meaning of the law of the opposites? If you do not agree, tell me how you can be aware of an image or a sound or a smell or a taste or a touch [sense awareness] without the principle of attachment being activated?

I met a guy the other day who had the thought 'Life sucks'..he attached, believed..got agreement from others...turned on the tv news for further confirmation. It gave him a mood (depression). He now lives inside that possibility that life sucks.

If he'd applied A=A.
life sucks= life sucks
He'd be free.

The principle of attachment is here, yes. But what must always been considered, is that no dual principle can stand alone. Life cannot absolutely suck, because one's awareness that 'life sucks' is dependent on one's twin awareness that 'life doesn't suck.'

What would free your friend is if he could see how he cannot make life one absolute 'thing.' That try as he may to stand still in his belief that life sucks, he cannot. Even if he should take his life based on his belief that he can stand still in his belief that life sucks, believing he will end his sucky life, he will discover that he is of a thought continuum that does not stand still on any one thought, breath in the thought body or not. Life is thought, Thought is Life. Different laws, different principles, different patterns being expressed, but there is never a moment when thought is not.

He can however, transcend his thought continuum of his dualities that keeps him bound to the interdependence of 'suck' and 'not suck'. And here I am again, back on my yes-you-can-transcend-your-dualities soapbox! :-)

Pam,

And here I am again, back on my yes-you-can-transcend-your-dualities soapbox! :-)

Aren't you making 'duality' wrong here?

Is that the chick possibility of wanting to put a bandaid on everything?

Pam,
Quote:
And here I am again, back on my yes-you-can-transcend-your-dualities soapbox! :- )

Aren't you making 'duality' wrong here?

Is that the chick possibility of wanting to put a bandaid on everything?

Dennis, if you would deal with the contents of my post, you would not be asking these two questions. Man's journey into duality is neither right or wrong; it is a journey of the thought continuum of I Am. The law of the opposites is one law of the infinite laws of the Spirit of life of which man, as the conscience of God, is purposed to translate, and then transcend. Becoming conscious of this is to ride the wave of its transcendence. This is the wave I am riding. If you want to continue riding the wave of duality's translation, no problem.

Pam,
You've got yourself up there in the dock to be questioned, to be cross examined and in that way you are enabled to bring forth your Story.
Forgive me, but it does show up as reading the Company Prospectus at present.

What about Pam, the projected entity in the World who deals her way thru' duality by ascribing 'meaning' to things.

That Pam that has her fave shoes and coat, the little black number, a fave coffee cup, a No.1 on the speed dial,....the Pam that shows up like a force of habit in order to survive, the Pam that 'hides' in things as camouflage..

Bear witness to that.

I let the 'life sucks' guy spill his story of woe and when he finished I said 'You are good at it' and he said 'What? and I said 'Misery'.
His eyes glanced at mine and there was a glimmer of recognition there.
He offered me coffee and went and made the coffee, returned with it and we just engaged in idle chit chat as we sipped the drink.
What was obvious was an improvement in his posture, a smile on his mouth and a warmth in his being..something had shifted, maybe he'd grokked his act.

Human being seems like a hungry ghost in search of that which can satiate the meaning-hunger for the time being...any meaning will do apparently.