GENIUS FORUMS

Any thinker worth his salt has comprehended that the world of thought is one of relativity. That, for a thing to be, there must be relationship between, or of, things. It is this realization of the necessity of relationship of thought that the thinker contemplates, and upon contemplating the nature of relationship of thought while of this, his realm of senses, he understandably concludes that it is a relationship of cause and of effect. Think of this, and this is manifested. Think of murder, and murder is manifested. Think of sex, and sex is manifested. Cause and effect, relationship of the I to time, space, distance and matter. It is indeed wisdom of the soul, or of the mind of the senses, to comprehend the relationship of thought that is originally invisible and becomes visible when man gives it the life of his sense attachment. In attaining this wisdom, one realizes that they are indeed the God of their sense world.

But what of those who awaken one day and ask themselves, “surely there is more to life than this eternal dream of the dualism-relativity of the cause and effect of things? Surely man is not purposed to be an eternal dreamer of things that matter in this moment, but not in the next?" I was just such a person. Grateful for the wisdom of the dualities, no doubt, but here I found myself, standing on this wisdom, asking myself "so what?" Now that I know the 'secret' of how things are manifested, and I can manipulate or control what I manifest, either for the perceived good of myself or the perceived evil of myself, “so what?” Is this to be my eternal lot, to live a life of mental masturbation, whether what I imagine is sustained exclusively on the mental plane, or, if it is my desire to touch it, to allow it entry into the physical plane as well?

When the curtain is pulled back, and the wizard of subjective-objective manifestation is exposed, does one not grieve what seems to be, the end of the yellow brick road? I grieved deeply. Intensely. Oh, my God [of cause and effect], oh my God [of matter], why have you forsaken me? This thread is my story of what happened when I entered the grief of the death of my God of 'what mattered to me.' The God of the personal ego of things. I hope it helps others who relate to my grief.

I request on the onset of this continuing thread, for the sake of the flow and expansion of thought, that if you do not relate to my words, that you show compassion and mercy and stay out of this thread. To those who do relate, I welcome most heartily your thoughts!

To be continued.

If you want to be a good thinker then you should analyse what you've written in this thread. If you can find at least one fault with it, then you have potential.

P.S - are you male or female? I'm guessing you are female - right?

Your prevailing thought I want to hear and not that you escaped some yoke. Are you someone like that, who was allowed to escape his own yoke? There are some, who dispose of their last value by disposing of their subservience.

There are feelings which want to kill the lonely; and if they do not succeed, well, then they themselves must die. But are you capable of this - to be a murderer?

• • • • • • • • • • [list][list][list][list][list][list][list][list]Nietzsche in "Also sprach Zarathustra" - Vom Wege des Schaffenden

[/list][/list] [/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list]

This thread is my story of what happened when I entered the grief of the death of my God of 'what mattered to me.' The God of the personal ego of things. I hope it helps others who relate to my grief. - movingalways

You are not so privileged to lay ownership of this story. It is my story, it is the story everyone is telling concerning themselves. Why, how could this be?

I will tell an open ongoing secret I discovered when I shed my "rose colored glasses.". There is nothing, nothing, nothing in this world of material matter more real, more important, or more powerful, which activates the Law of God in the life of all men than that which comes out of their mouths. "God is no respector of person."

God's Law assures "God will perform that given us to do," What He/She/It has purposed and intended for us in saying "Let there be." God's Law is the Law of Gravity. Gravity in the sense of "you reap what you sow. . .cast thy bread upon the water, and after many days it shall return," for It is the Spirit of the Principle Substance and Pattern Essence which governs the avenues all forms must, I repeat, must take according to the principle and pattern of the word spoken out of man's mouth. It is the Gravitational Law which holds the universe and all elements within the universe in the pattern principle of their purpose and intent of kind, The law which performs that which is purposed to do according to the order of Gravities Oracle of Obedience.

God's Law of Gravity is really "the Law of the Spirit of life." It is the Spirit of life man gives to all word thoughts he speaks which activates The Law and makes sure nothing can escape the pattern of words finalized in their kind The Law has principled Living Life, and eliminates the influence of anything that is not of its own kind from intrusion into kinds or things not of their nature. That which is of man's kind, that which man acknowledge and accept as real is relativism.

Relativism which form only objective pictures of imagined images, thoughts of fictitious forms, thinking on patterns of selfishness and manipulation, and reciprocal eternal dualism. This is the subjectiveness which relativism of man's words produce and which the Law of Gravity cannot release from the eternal world of man's relative worlds of dualism until man's repent from his pictures, images, thoughts and thinking he temporary exist within. .

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

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

jufa wrote:"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

Jufa, check this out.

The Great Cosmic Cross Part III >> http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/cosmiccross3.htm

The fruit of my grief, that I have come to see is the fruit of everyone's grief to eat when they come face to face with the God of the cause of their eternal dream of the dualities is the realization that the cause of this recycling dream is none other than themselves. That the wizard pulling the levers of what seems to be infinite sense forms producing always the same alternating dual human experience of pleasure and of pain, is none other than the God of one's personal ideology of what it means to be human, be it the god of religion, of science, of psychology, of spirituality, of philosophy or of the arts. Here, in this moment of the discovery of our idol God of self-righteous idea, we come face to face with the reason we cannot move beyond this spot of hell that is the matter God of imagined form – we are the reason.

If we make ourselves silent enough and humble enough to look deep into the wisdom of the Man behind the curtain that is our very own personal Idea of God, we discover why we are never at rest in our being, searching, searching for the holy grail of an enlightenment that always seems just one more idea away. What we discover if we make ourselves silent enough and humble enough to see and hear the wisdom of the wizard Man is that we have taken to be personal, that which is, was and always will be, impersonal. Always God or the Tao moves beyond our desire to make him/it an Ideal of our various humanisms, but of our lack of knowledge and of our self righteous dual nature, we could not, until this moment, acknowledge the truth of this his/its total transcendence of every and all human idea.

This is the discovery I made while my hanging on my idea cross of God. The fruit of which was my renunciation of my God of idea, which of the wisdom of I and the Father are One, was also my renunciation of my idea of me. The fruit of which were deepening moments of the silence of my wizard God of dualism, moments of grace and of peace and of rest, but most all, and most importantly, moments of silent inquiry of the expanding vision of the silence itself.

The fruit of one who has stepped beyond the mentality of the god(s) of the senses is the fruit of faith. The man of faith is the man of trust. All his life, he has been told that he cannot silent the dualities of himself so he can catch the vision of and hear the language of his singular nature. Don't even try, he has been told from all angles of his living. From the taking of his first breath until he wakes up to the truth of the god(s) of his sense world of dualism, he is told that man is born to die and that man is born to cry. That he is permanently veiled of his singular I am nature, never to be reconciled.

The man of his human logic renounces the ignorance of this statement, for the logic and reasoning of God or the Tao tells him that if a veil of darkness was placed upon his conscious that caused him to believe he was separate from his Singular-Plural nature, then logically, that veil is purposed to be lifted. Man is often told that faith and logic are enemies: not so. Logic comes first, questioning the conventionally held ideas of the collective human mentality of shoulds and shouldn'ts, faith comes after, testing the answer logic has given. Of what value is logic, if its conclusions are not put to the test of faith?

The fruit of faith of living of one's silenced human mind is the fruit of being totally and completely alive of one's unconditional living. I am and I will become the living activities of one's being. Guided wholly by one's conscience of One Life, One Reality, beliefs of dualism are consumed of this guidance. Precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little.

Quote:Diebert:
Your prevailing thought I want to hear and not that you escaped some yoke. Are you someone like that, who was allowed to escape his own yoke? There are some, who dispose of their last value by disposing of their subservience.

There are feelings which want to kill the lonely; and if they do not succeed, well, then they themselves must die. But are you capable of this - to be a murderer?


Nietzsche in "Also sprach Zarathustra" - Vom Wege des Schaffenden

To step beyond one's mind of dualism requires that one indeed be a murderer. A murderer of themselves. The spirit of committing suicide.

jupiviv wrote:If you want to be a good thinker then you should analyse what you've written in this thread. If you can find at least one fault with it, then you have potential.

P.S - are you male or female? I'm guessing you are female - right?

On what foundation am I basing this fault?

As for my earthly gender, my name has been provided, Pam. A no-brainer. :-)

On what foundation am I basing this fault?

That's for you to find out isn't it? That's the whole point of analysing what you wrote in the thread..

jupiviv wrote:

On what foundation am I basing this fault?

That's for you to find out isn't it? That's the whole point of analysing what you wrote in the thread..

My words are the living analysis of me. If someone questions my living analysis of me, then, of their question, they once again get the living analysis of me. The thought continuum of dualism transcendence. Where is the fault to be found in this ongoing expansion of thought-touching-thought?

movingalways wrote:The fruit of which was my renunciation of my God of idea, which of the wisdom of I and the Father are One, was also my renunciation of my idea of me. The fruit of which were deepening moments of the silence of my wizard God of dualism, moments of grace and of peace and of rest, but most all, and most importantly, moments of silent inquiry of the expanding vision of the silence itself.

Can I rephrase this as your path of discovery being: atheism, some form of Christian mysticism or perhaps pantheism, some understanding of the Buddhist notion of self, all of which led you to meditative silence, a deep sense of peace and some "vision" arising out of this silence?

What is the difference between "vision of the silence" or "understanding the nature of reality"? Because the first one is not about just another image, like the second one is not just another thought or theory.

What is the difference between "vision of the silence" or "understanding the nature of reality"? Because the first one is not about just another image, like the second one is not just another thought or theory.

The vision of the silence is the vision of ones self before words.

Understanding the nature of reality cannot be understood without words.

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

jufa wrote:

Diebert wrote:What is the difference between "vision of the silence" or "understanding the nature of reality"? Because the first one is not about just another image, like the second one is not just another thought or theory.

The vision of the silence is the vision of ones self before words.

Understanding the nature of reality cannot be understood without words.

And any vision of silence cannot be seen with images. You're making too much of the difference between images and words. That's all still on the surface of things, the world of senses and the sensual. Why not go deeper and understand there can be no true vision of ones self?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jufa wrote:

Diebert wrote:What is the difference between "vision of the silence" or "understanding the nature of reality"? Because the first one is not about just another image, like the second one is not just another thought or theory.

The vision of the silence is the vision of ones self before words.

Understanding the nature of reality cannot be understood without words.

And any vision of silence cannot be seen with images. You're making too much of the difference between images and words. That's all still on the surface of things, the world of senses and the sensual. Why not go deeper and understand there can be no true vision of ones self?

Here is the problem you have making this statement Diebert, I did not say the vision of silence produced images, I stated the vision of silence is the vision of ones self. Now being the inner Self of me is invisible, no picture, no image, nor symbols to objectify, how can there be a subjective image of matter produced to be recognized by the human intellect? Totally different then what you present about seeing an image. And where is the surface of the inner conscious man to be found? And explain how you know there can be no true vision of ones self?

This is why one has to go through the mind to see what is beyond the mind.

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

jufa wrote: I did not say the vision of silence produced images, I stated the vision of silence is the vision of ones self.

And where did I say that understanding needs to have words? I'm afraid the point I attempt to make is still flying over your head.

Now being the inner Self of me is invisible, no picture, no image, nor symbols to objectify,

If nothing is conceived, then there's no conception. There's no way to know it's "inner" or "self" since they are conceptions. One could just call it emptiness, it's a fine word.

And explain how you know there can be no true vision of ones self?

Apart from the contradiction, one should realize there is no self. Self arises out of false vision - illusion.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jufa wrote: I did not say the vision of silence produced images, I stated the vision of silence is the vision of ones self.

And where did I say that understanding needs to have words? I'm afraid the point I attempt to make is still flying over your head. And where did I say anything about understanding in my reply to you? " I stated the vision of silence is the vision of ones self." No mention of understanding. Nothing has flew over my head, and to make it plain, I present all of what I stated

Here is the problem you have making this statement Diebert, I did not say the vision of silence produced images, I stated the vision of silence is the vision of ones self. Now being the inner Self of me is invisible, no picture, no image, nor symbols to objectify, how can there be a subjective image of matter produced to be recognized by the human intellect? Totally different then what you present about seeing an image. And where is the surface of the inner conscious man to be found? And explain how you know there can be no true vision of ones self?

This is why one has to go through the mind to see what is beyond the mind.

Now being the inner Self of me is invisible, no picture, no image, nor symbols to objectify,

If nothing is conceived, then there's no conception. There's no way to know it's "inner" or "self" since they are conceptions. One could just call it emptiness, it's a fine word. Something is conceived, It is I. But I did not conceive or conceptualize myself, the vision of silence did, it is my source, it is therefore who I am. So the question you have not understood is one c annot conceptualize silence. Silence is. But what is it? Do you know what silence is beyond your concept?

And explain how you know there can be no true vision of ones self?

Apart from the contradiction, one should realize there is no self. Self arises out of false vision - illusion. If there is no self, then you do not exist. Do you exist or not. And if you do, who is it that is in contradiction of themself? If the self of you do not exist, how could you be corresponding with me?

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

p.s. I would appreciate it if you would address all the questions I put to you.

The vision of I am that is received of one's Silence is not a vision of image, it is a vision of revelation, and it comes by way of words that are absent of image. I and the Father are One is just such a revelation of the I am that produces no image. The law of the Spirit of life is just such a revelation that produces no image. Nirvana, Spirit, Nekkhamma, Kamma, repentance, purification, omnipresent - these are all revelations of the I am that suggest an activity of I am [if understood to be such] but do not produce an image in the mind.

The revelation of I am that is spoken to the man who enters his Silence is the revelation of the nature of Silence itself [the nature of the Singular-Plurality of I am] and of the thought continuum one must enter for the transformation from image-making to image-less comprehension. The words of this thought continuum of transformation are words he has gathered of his human experience, for this is all man has for his comprehension of his I am, but they are words, that at no time, point to his earth experience of the illusion of matter. Every revelation that is given the one who sacrifices his attachments to his dualities is a revelation of the ONE Life, the ONE I am, the ONE God, the ONE Tao and of how one can realize, wholly, fully and completely, his ONE I am.

jufa wrote:And where did I say anything about understanding in my reply to you?

by jufa » 15 Sep 2010 04:51 : "Understanding the nature of reality cannot be understood without words."

Something is conceived, It is I. But I did not conceive or conceptualize myself, the vision of silence did, it is my source, it is therefore who I am.

Or, maybe the devil did it! Point is that your sense of 'I' is a concept according to your own words now! Therefore the silence you relate of is not silence.

p.s. I would appreciate it if you would address all the questions I put to you.

Don't be such a nazi stasi. We haven't even begun discussing anything really, you're just not sober enough for me.

movingalways wrote:The vision of I am that is received of one's Silence is not a vision of image, it is a vision of revelation, and it comes by way of words that are absent of image.

Pam, why not just calm down and really critically analyze your own words step by step, withholding judgments or any preconceived notion you might have? You're talking about a revelation of words, but words arise out of context, not from behind the rainbow. Study the context, the relations and meanings lying therein. One possible outcome of such self-study might be that one discovers words have many functions in different contexts, but often as emotional signifier, depending on who listens, the willingness to accept, familiarity, feeling that it means something and so on. Religious imagery doubly so. One can even become mesmerized!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jufa wrote:And where did I say anything about understanding in my reply to you?

by jufa » 15 Sep 2010 04:51 : "Understanding the nature of reality cannot be understood without words." Diebert, I'm not going to let you do that. Our conversation was dealing with what took place on 18 Sep 2010 2:13 pm. It there in plain sight in red.

Something is conceived, It is I. But I did not conceive or conceptualize myself, the vision of silence did, it is my source, it is therefore who I am.

Or, maybe the devil did it! Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Point is that your sense of 'I' is a concept according to your own words now! So what is that concept if not silence, which I stated is not a concept but what I amTherefore the silence you relate of is not silence. How would you know when you have not expressed what that silence is as I asked you to do when I asked you to answer my question put to you.

p.s. I would appreciate it if you would address all the questions I put to you.

Don't be such a nazi stasi. We haven't even begun discussing anything really, you're just not sober enough for me.

Come on Diebert, discussion begins the moment ideas are explored. I demand, since I am a nazi stasi, answers to my questions or I will place you before the firing squard.

Diebert, come on man, it is not about being right or wrong, its about opening avenues of possibilities. I respect your position. I've not attempted to violate it or disrespect you. Games don't have to be played with each other. Let's just talk, okay? Forget the jocking for a position. I have mine, you have yours already, so lets discuss our position and answers the question put to each other.

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

movingalways wrote:The vision of I am that is received of one's Silence is not a vision of image, it is a vision of revelation, and it comes by way of words that are absent of image.

Diebert: Pam, why not just calm down and really critically analyze your own words step by step, withholding judgments or any preconceived notion you might have? You're talking about a revelation of words, but words arise out of context, not from behind the rainbow. Study the context, the relations and meanings lying therein. One possible outcome of such self-study might be that one discovers words have many functions in different contexts, but often as emotional signifier, depending on who listens, the willingness to accept, familiarity, feeling that it means something and so on. Religious imagery doubly so. One can even become mesmerized!

At no time did I suggest that thought comes from "behind the rainbow:" Perhaps if you had been calm when you wrote your response to me, and possibly not mesmerized by your possible house-prejudice toward women, you would have actually read the context of my words. Allow me to reintroduce you to what I actually said:

The revelation of I am that is spoken to the man who enters his Silence is the revelation of the nature of Silence itself [the nature of the Singular-Plurality of I am] and of the thought continuum one must enter for the transformation from image-making to image-less comprehension. The words of this thought continuum of transformation are words he has gathered of his human experience, for this is all man has for his comprehension of his I am, but they are words, that at no time, point to his earth experience of the illusion of matter. Every revelation that is given the one who sacrifices his attachments to his dualities is a revelation of the ONE Life, the ONE I am, the ONE God, the ONE Tao and of how one can realize, wholly, fully and completely, his ONE I am.

jufa wrote:

by jufa » 15 Sep 2010 04:51 : "Understanding the nature of reality cannot be understood without words."

Diebert, I'm not going to let you do that. Our conversation was dealing with what took place on 18 Sep 2010 2:13 pm.

It's now 20 September, I guess what you wrote on September 18 is not relevant to our conversation anymore either? [rhetorical question alert!]

jufa wrote:

Something is conceived, It is I. But I did not conceive or conceptualize myself, the vision of silence did, it is my source, it is therefore who I am.

Or, maybe the devil did it!

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

As opposed to saying your vision of silence did it! Only others assume of course.

So what is that concept if not silence, which I stated is not a concept but what I am

No, you said it was a concept, something that "is conceptualized", by "the vision of silence". Jufa: "I did not conceive or conceptualize myself, the vision of silence did". Perhaps you should consider expressing yourself more clearly? You cannot just say something and ignore the question of validity. You are not a god.

How would you know when you have not expressed what that silence is

We're still talking about you contradicting yourself with every step, thereby suggesting you don't know anything but a handful of feelings you have labeled. This is how it appears to me but unless we can agree on a logic, some reasonable way to discuss it, the conversation will not contain much meaning to either of us and will have to stop.

movingalways wrote: At no time did I suggest that thought comes from "behind the rainbow:" Perhaps if you had been calm when you wrote your response to me, and possibly not mesmerized by your possible house-prejudice toward women, you would have actually read the context of my words. Allow me to reintroduce you to what I actually said: ...

Pam, all I did was commenting on your: words that are absent of image.

To me any image is a basic sign (a signification, even when it's some unknown). Language is exchange of signs, we're signaling each other with images, in words, spaces, attitudes, illustrations and so on. The letter is not dead, it's a very specific image, one which connects with other of its kind in expanding ways.

That's why the idea of image-less words, would for me equal meaningless meaning. Now to your supplement:

The words of this thought continuum of transformation are words he has gathered of his human experience, for this is all man has for his comprehension of his "I am", but they are words, that at no time, point to his earth experience of the illusion of matter

It doesn't matter where the words originate Pam, the words still point to an experience, a memory, some meaning. Ultimately, any "earthy matter" is just as much beyond our personal experience in its fullness, majesty, interactions and infinity as any other inner transformation or space we can be part of. This is the very nature of our consciousness: that it's limited and in some ways always will appear illusive, even the moments one can feel pretty complete.

Diebert states:

It's now 20 September, I guess what you wrote on September 18 is not relevant to our conversation anymore either? [rhetorical question alert!]

You didn't find it relevent for discussion in your answers to me, why should I find it relevent now? It was there before you just as the firxt part of my question. You went into the first question with vigor. Why did you not do the same with the understanding part of my question by incorporating it into the conversation? If it is revelant to you, then speak on it, until you do, it is meaninigless. I'm on the fifty yard line, now which goal is mine?

As opposed to saying your vision of silence did it! Only others assume of course.

Hey, are you looking for answers, so am I. I'll give answers when I get answers.

No, you said it was a concept, something that "is conceptualized", by "the vision of silence". Jufa: "I did not conceive or conceptualize myself, the vision of silence did". Perhaps you should consider expressing yourself more clearly? You cannot just say something and ignore the question of validity. You are not a god.

Why should I afford you such when you do not afford me such? You do, have done, and are

ignore[ing] the question of validity

I am not the god of your figment of imagination for sure.

We're still talking about you contradicting yourself with every step, thereby suggesting you don't know anything but a handful of feelings you have labeled. This is how it appears to me but unless we can agree on a logic, some reasonable way to discuss it, the conversation will not contain much meaning to either of us and will have to stop.

Should this be true, then it would be no problem for you to dissuade me from believing as I do into agreeing with what you say, contradiction exposed and all. It is stated the best way to move a mountain is one shovel full at a time. First you came with a shovel to move this mountain, then a bull dozier, then a backhoe, and none has even begun to break the crust of the that which holds the mountain upright.

You want to keep playing intellectual games, that's okay. It is, to me, just a waste of your talent doing so with me. Hey, its all good, or bad, or maybe because the devil is involved. Don't matter to me. As Muddy Water's had his, "I got my mojo working" to.

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