GENIUS FORUMS

Hiya Alex! Some comments back to you as usual. Some praise and some hurt, you know, the age old game.

Nietzsche is one of the best things that ever happened to Christianity of all its different stripes.

Indeed a reformer and prophet - and as usual not even recognized by those scrambled under the old worn banner. His church is yet to come, it took a few centuries for Also Sprach Christ to develop into something serious too.

But the idea or 'fact' of Exodus has not 'always' functioned that way. If Exodus is a horizontal movement from a bad place to a better place, I can think of no more realistic and valuable idea for the Earth-dweller.

While I naturally agree with this most obvious thing I do want to stress that the idea is an illustration of bad-mouthing, in this case of Egypt. Even the slightest study of history would show that leaving Egypt was actually a move from a brilliant place (even as supposed slaves) to a much harder place with no end to hardship. Even the 'better' place, Zion, might have been realized to a (dubious) degree after a long struggle but it was not an idea even present in Egypt or hardly at the times of the desert. It was an utter case of reverse engineering ones own myths. As justification, what else. Ach, so allzumenschlich.

The concept or myth of Exodus has been a powerful motivating idea in Western culture (with notable effects outside of the West) for a long time.

Yeah, well, it's the story of ego forming after all. Desert boredom setting in? Why do desert and dessert are spelled so alike I always wondered? It must have something to do with being served up last.

As above so below, one could think while lingering for a moment in the last deep pinkish glow of a setting sun. Such heavy sweetness, so near perfection that heavy late summer air with a touch of coldness setting in.

[quote="elderwoodxxx"]How can one demand an annulment when by your own admission it hasnt been consumated lol!! haha And by your own words also anulment and consumation.. they are christian beliefs.
I was once a Melchizedek priest. (Hope you know what that means.) Annulment is the cancelling of the sacrament of marriage on the condition that sexual intercourse has not yet happened. Once the couple become "one flesh", traditionally, annulment is not allowed by the church. But then, neither is divorce afterwards. They can both roast in hell.

Ok.. my religious understanding is not dogmatic.. theology is the scientific study of religion and as such scientifically speaking i do have genuine understanding of the confusion perceived within religion.
My "minor" in college was in philosophy with a focus on theology. You can not bullshit me on this subject. There is nothing "scientific" about theology. It is the study of religious *belief systems.* Science (real science) is objective observation of "the world" in the largest sense. Beliefs, in science are all contaminants of the true and objective dedication to reporting, beyond all personal bias, the empirical facts discovered by the pure "scientific method."

Now if we understand that Jesus is the first born of the dead and has become one with all that is then we can also understand that he has joined man to god once more. Man was from mans world and did not know god in gods world.

"We" do not "understand" that "Jesus is the first born of the dead" (WTF!... He was one embodiment of conscious enlightenment, eternal life as consciousness itself, transcending the individual manifest form! Man and God have always been one. The ignorance of that... the illusion of persoanl self identity... is the history of the drama of suffering... man's inhumanity against man.

I do not deny jesus as gods son and neither will he deny me. If i were to deny him i would be denying my Self. I do hear you but do you HEAR me.
I hear you speaking ignorance in duality. ...I... Him ... big gap between... this is not enlightenment... or "Christ consciousness" if you prefer... or "Buddha Nature" if you expanded your system... or... never mind. You get my drift.

We are all gods children.
I am an adult God. You are still in sunday school. ("Jesus loves me... this I know... For the bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong, for they are weak and he is strong"... It is believed that jesus joined our consciousness back to the universal consiousness.. as humanitys hearts were becoming too hardened in perceiving all that IS. "It is believed" by you and the other Sunday school children... We became lost within dense illusion and fear.. or devil..as we turned towards selfish attitudes and iniquity. Jesus was our new covenent with the almighty in forgiveness of our ego desires/sin so yes he IS the son of god. Many pharises/jews could not perceive him just as today many cannot perceive. As jesus him self said.. you pay me lip service but your hearts are far from god. Jesus freed the church.. by making a new temple.. that of our bodies. Hey how long do you want me to go on for??? i do not know what you want from me all i have is understanding but again, you can only HEAR me if you can perceive me.. and as you are aware of consciousness then one summises that you do.
Standard church dogma. Don't fool yourself into believing you are an inspired prophet. You are merely regurgitating what was shoved down your throat in sunday school and church. I sincerely hope your drivel does not get published. Honestly!

Do you want to persecute me for my understanding, wisdom, knowledge and truth???
No! I want to tell you the Truth and wake you up out of your brainwashed Christian indoctrination!

Males have logic, women intuition/knowing,understanding, I have both. I have met my Self.
There is only one Universal Self. Your "personal self" is an illusion... a dream from which you have not yet awakened.

The rest is superfluous drivel which I will not address.

This is the end of my conversation with you. I do not believe you can hear the wisdom of enlightenment from your present state of indoctination, so I will not waste further time with you...
unless... well... miracles do happen!
mikiel

There is only one Universal Self. Your "personal self" is an illusion... a dream from which you have not yet awakened.

Mikiel, I don't mind you lambasting Amanda for writing New Age or Christian platitudes, but god, man, no need to lie.

Well im glad that you have chosen to be rude and that is ok i am not interested in your opinion derived from yourself.. never once have i tried to contadict what you have said.. never once have i made a conceited effort to be right over any one and i did not go to sunday school either.. you assume far too much about me and do not know me for if you did you would not say what you do.
I do not take offense in your views if i did i would be doubting myself and i do not. You anger quickly.. and so therefore only you know what that portrays about yourself.

I have never professed any thing other than my own understanding but you have been quick to judge me. again you know why. Where is kindness in your words for all i see is arrogance.
amandaxxx

I wasnt bullsh*** any one. If you are what you say.. then you would know we are all one.. and oh mr rightiousness.. where has your humility gone????
amandaxxx

Theology

The*ol"o*gy\, n.; pl. Theologies. [L. theologia, Gr. ?; ? God + ? discourse: cf. F. th['e]ologie. See Theism, and Logic.] The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice; divinity; (as more commonly understood) "the knowledge derivable from the Scriptures, the systematic exhibition of revealed truth, the science of Christian faith and life."

Many speak of theology as a science of religion [instead of "science of God"] because they disbelieve that there is any knowledge of God to be attained. --Prof. R. Flint (Enc. Brit.).

Theology is ordered knowledge; representing in the region of the intellect what religion represents in the heart and life of man. --Gladstone.

Ascetic theology, Natural theology. See Ascetic, Natural.

Moral theology, that phase of theology which is concerned with moral character and conduct.

Revealed theology, theology which is to be learned only from revelation.

Scholastic theology, theology as taught by the scholastics, or as prosecuted after their principles and methods.

Speculative theology, theology as founded upon, or influenced by, speculation or metaphysical philosophy.

Systematic theology, that branch of theology of which the aim is to reduce all revealed truth to a series of statements that together shall constitute an organized whole. --E. G. Robinson (Johnson's

Amanda,
You "assume" to be true what is actually false about "me"... this individual locus of God.
God in/as mikiel is not "angry." I know that radically honest confrontation of your egocentricity sounds, to you (not yet "Christed" or fully anointed into Unity) like anger. Don't feel alone. Most folks, still living in the "dream" of egoic identity feel the same about all awakenened teachers, an d I am no exception, as is obvious through the majority of replies to my posts in this forum.

mikiel

Carl G wrote:

There is only one Universal Self. Your "personal self" is an illusion... a dream from which you have not yet awakened.

Mikiel, I don't mind you lambasting Amanda for writing New Age or Christian platitudes, but god, man, no need to lie.

Carl,
I am not a mind reader. Are you that out of touch with reality?
I have no idea of the "lie" to which you are ever so cryptically referring.
I know... too cool to speak plainly... I get that this is a persona you cultivate. It doesn't serve clear communication here.
m

Hey, all's you got to do is ask.

There is only one Universal Self. Your "personal self" is an illusion... a dream from which you have not yet awakened.

There is obviously not only one Universal Self. Witness me! There are many selves within the one. The personal self is not an illusion. It is real. It is not a dream. When one awakens, it is to that self, not away from it. True there then becomes cognizance of the Great Overarching One, but, dude, the personal self is not then eliminated. If anything it is heightened, as its consciousness merges upward into the one, conscious of its inborn connection, heightened because of its now consciousness of it.

Well, talking to Mikiels consciousness now.. I do not need teaching i am my own master and i have no ego. Amanda the person whose body i inhabit disappeared a long time ago in a sense...
A wise teacher will know that they learn as much from their pupil as they themselves imbue... when both are ready the master will appear... i thought you knew that.
I have never professed to be anything other than 'me' and my favourite pastime is formulating new truths with wisdom, the word of creation. It is in brief debate hard to capture ones soul with words in a way that would inbue universal understanding when one seems so intent in proving me wrong. There is no right or wrong, just different understanding. perceptions are infinite in truth, in the now.. fear and time are illusions. I am always willing to learn new understanding through gaining experience and knowledge and that is why i came to this forum. To be treated as an equal is what all deserve even if one perceives them more lowly than themselves.. what i am not is stupid , i am no fool. What i am is a woman.

It is my understanding that there have been both left and right brain seekers on this planet.. one deals with logic, usually male gods and the other is femenine intuition or godess.. Man has sought forever to feel complete within a partner... they seek their twin flame..or soul mate. For many years i sought that which i 'thought' i needed, but after university and research i discovered my logical reasoning and my writing now focuses on bridging male logic with that of intuition.

I write from an aware objective viewpoint in relation to subjective density.... or I write from the dimension beyond our perceived physical illusory reality. Or one could say i write interdimensionally. Obviously my writing will not appeal to all.. but i focus on one being able to understand their emotion through self realisation and self belief within a perceived illusion. Through understanding one is able to transcend karmic cycles by learning to address all emotional/phycological issues trapped within the lower vibration of density and thus can release years of karma. One is therefore able to learn emmidiately from their emotion to enable spiritual growth for that individual. One may otherwise be trapped within cycle after cycle of repetitive reenactments in order to learn what they need to understand.
I am not with the above trying to enforce an opinion on yourself, i am merely explaining a little of what i am about. I always acknowledge limitation in myself for in doing so one may learn. Our perceived limitations often turn out to be our virtues and grace. Endurance and patience exercised in kindness for all do help others.

I have always listened and accepted that i know nothing.... it is wise to know nothing... and nothing teachers its learners humility and honour and respect.

I hope that one may understand a little more of me.. i do not judge, i do not fear, and as i mentioned yesterday i am not 100% so therefore my head is not as clear as it should be.

Amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote:The temple of God is inside your heart

Amanda, you sound young. Never forget the quote above.

Well, as y'all might have guessed, I have been shamanically voyaging like a madman these last few days. On my last inner-world plunge into the mechanisms that drive man, I met this startling Inner Teacher:

Inner Dragon

Whoa! Just imagine if that were your 'power animal'!

Anyway, to make a long story short, he opened his yaw and motioned me to look deeeeeeeep within, and there in the very guts of this awesome lizard-creature I came across a scrap of paper with the following url on it, and which I have included here for your (plural) perusal.

I have no idea what it means or why it must appear here, on this thread, at this time...

NPD

Carl G wrote:Hey, all's you got to do is ask.

There is only one Universal Self. Your "personal self" is an illusion... a dream from which you have not yet awakened.

There is obviously not only one Universal Self. Witness me! There are many selves within the one. The personal self is not an illusion. It is real. It is not a dream. When one awakens, it is to that self, not away from it. True there then becomes cognizance of the Great Overarching One, but, dude, the personal self is not then eliminated. If anything it is heightened, as its consciousness merges upward into the one, conscious of its inborn connection, heightened because of its now consciousness of it.

Well, it's quite a leap from your accusation that I am lying to your obvious (to the enlightened) misconception about what enlightenment is.

You have obviously not yet awakened. I know that there is but one universal identity. Manifest forms (individuals) do not "have" separate identities. Egocentric, unawakened humans only "believe" that they "have seperate identities."
*ALL* enlightened beings *know* unity of identity in the One Cosmic Being. This is what enlightenment means.

I have said dozens of time here that the uniqueness of the individual is totally enhanced by conscious union with cosmic consciousness, the one Identity in all individuals. You consistently miss this point.
I am tired of repeating it for the sake of you died in the wool egocentrics. My whole community at the Center for Conscious Unity, already "gets" this point, at least intellectually, tho not all yet shed of the illusion of personal identity.
I hope my replies such as this will discourage further debate with people like you who are yet far from the awakening into Unity.

My hope is that, after all of you have tired of slinging shit, the only ones left who reply to me are those with a real interest in enlightenment in conversation with "this one" who has no "personal identity"... as with all in the quotes cited above.

mikiel

Alex Jacob wrote: NPD

The Narcissus myth is interesting:

... a less known variant in which Narcissus had a twin sister. Both dressed similarly and hunted together. Narcissus fell in love with her. When she died, Narcissus pined after her and pretended that the reflection he saw in the water was his sister.

Now there you have your exodus, the pining for lost para-dise.

Carl,

There is obviously not only one Universal Self. Witness me! There are many selves within the one. The personal self is not an illusion. It is real. It is not a dream. When one awakens, it is to that self, not away from it. True there then becomes cognizance of the Great Overarching One, but, dude, the personal self is not then eliminated. If anything it is heightened, as its consciousness merges upward into the one, conscious of its inborn connection, heightened because of its now consciousness of it.

I, too, dare to think along these lines. I duly take note of all the enlightened ones who say otherwise...but there was this guy with a great website with reams of good stuff that he took down so as to promote his book. His name was Shankara, a kind of Yogananda derivative guy, and he referred to it, instead of 'no-self' as the expanded self. Now, that makes a lot more sense. Something just ain't right with this no-self thingie, and I suspect there are quite a few parrots.

You know, it kinda reminds me of that little mountain thing. First there was a mountain, then there was no mountain, and then there is a mountain again.

First there was a separate self, and there there was no self at all, and then there was an (improved, expanded) self again.

But to argue against myself here, we have to ask, is the nature of our self, one of the many within the one, is it really permanent and absolute the way the Absolute is? Could we merge back into the One in a few million years? Is it perhaps even inevitable?

Back on the first hand, in my mystical semi-Christian revelations I have realized that we are good and pure only to the extent that we have utterly emptied ourselves and allowed ourselves to be filled with the divine, a kind of surrender. There IS no good but the divine. Jesus spoke truly when he said,

"But why do you call me good? There is but one who is good, the Father in heaven."

So I tend to think our selves are real, but the best kind of self to be is a rather empty one.

I do not doubt that Mikiel has his own understanding of conscious unity.. but what he fails to understand is the fact that others experiences are unique to themselves.. He does not appear open in mind enough to nurture anothers genuine understanding instead he is short and derrogatory in anothers opinions and beliefs which are equally as valid as his own.
He makes assumption in unity which evidentially then only de unifies him and anothers perceptions of him!! He knows we are all One yet continually slanders others to exhalt himself in relation to anothers worth, belief and understanding.. I suggest that he comes to term with the fact that we are unique in individuality, yet unified in conscious understanding. Where would the sense be in 'little' michiels ruunning around!! While he obviously 'teaches' others under him... maybe he should take a leaf out of the Mystic Almines book and make other masters in their own rights.... everyone can understand if given the chance to be listened to, and no one deserves his accusing slanderous assuming remarks of conceited arrogance. Hey I just tell it as is quite plainly obvious.. and that is truth born from ones present perceived observation here. But remember in Mickiels understanding and awareness of myself i am still lost within an illusion so therefore my words will mean nothing to him!
One portrays 'fears' and frustrations in speaking against another..when really he is just showing us all what is going on inside himself.

Iolaus, I perceive your analogy of 'divine consciousness' as an understanding which we ALL can relate to..We do need universal understanding in these issues It is a kind of surrender.. for in the will of all that IS we need to surrender all that is NOT... all that IS NOT comes from misunderstanding, confusion and doubts. We can only see all that IS when we know ALL that we are not.. We can then learn that both form the whole.. We become master of ourselves in relation to 'divine will' as perceived misunderstandings can easily be seen through in truth. For truth entails ALL. Yet within illusion we cannot distinguish between the two!!! leading to yet more confusion within perception. Perceptions are infinite in TRUTH and to understand HOW to perceive that truth we know that confusion shows us a darkness which we can then transmute into more wisdom, more light and understanding for all. We become masters of the darkness by owning it rather than being lost within it.

amandaxxx

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:First there was a separate self, and there there was no self at all, and then there was an (improved, expanded) self again.

When one first transcends the illusion the 'old' self seemingly disappears.. Enlightenment IS the mind at rest. There is no growth here.. for consciousness then to expand we have to then transmute our experiences into new understanding of truth through gaining knowledge and yet more understanding. One has to integrate themselves into their now perceived reality of all that IS. This takes much energy because within illusion we have to relearn to perceive what is in relation to what we now know is not. Imagine consciousness as an empty sea.. to fill that with new understanding we use energy transmutation of darkness to light, as i mentioned in the above post. We form perceptions and then raise energy and vibration by re-clustering perceptions, we ascend. This is my personal experience and is also described by the mystic Almine. Above as below... and now below as above.. She describes this process quite clearly as alchemy in one of her radio interviews and web broadcasts. http://www.spiritualjourneys.com/about.php

so in relation to 'the improved expanded self' we can clearly see that a mind at rest is going no where. We must understand how to transmute and apply our understanding to formulating new truths in an ever expanding infinite ocean of consciousness. That of ‘god’ consciousness. Masters of ourselves.

Amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:First there was a separate self, and there there was no self at all, and then there was an (improved, expanded) self again.

That was Iolaus who said that. Don't confuse us anymore than we're already are :)

Iolaus wrote: So I tend to think our selves are real, but the best kind of self to be is a rather empty one.

The self is real as far as it's reflected through activity; in a way it emerges from the dialectic relationship contained in every process. Contained as a result of perceiving or perceived as a result of containing?

It doesn't seem right to talk about empty of expanded selves. Understanding can be expanded, emptiness can be realized through seeing causality. Our sense of, our view on our selves might change and with it the whole world. The self might reflect that change or not much at all.

You are right i do apologise ;-)... one is grappling with these quote thingys.. a mistake made from pressing a button lol
amandaxxx


Contained as a result of perceiving or perceived as a result of containing?

It is both ;-) it is the alpha and omega.. the beginning and the end ;-) We perceive as we experience and experience as we perceive ;-)
amandaxxx

Diebert,

The self is real as far as it's reflected through activity; in a way it emerges from the dialectic relationship contained in every process. Contained as a result of perceiving or perceived as a result of containing?

Definitely the latter. I see what I see out of my two eyes because of containment.

It doesn't seem right to talk about empty expanded selves. Understanding can be expanded, emptiness can be realized through seeing causality. Our sense of, our view on our selves might change and with it the whole world. The self might reflect that change or not much at all.

I'm not referring here to the realization of emptiness, nor a greater understanding. Instead, I am referring to a process whereby you jettison large chunks of your baggage, concepts, false identity and so on. In order to gain spiritually, in this sense, it's more a matter of dropping what is not needed, rather than acquiring more. When someone is full of false ideas, it's hard to teach them. Or, "You can't put old wine into new wine skins."

As to an expanded self, I mean that quite literally. I think of the ego as a kind of container, like a cell membrane. It should be a semipermeable membrane like healthy biologic membranes are, but for most of us it is all but impervious, thus our sense of separation and inability to intuit subtle energies.

A spiritual atherosclerosis.

Things expand and contract, just ask JamesH, and I see no reason why an ego membrane cannot expand greatly, giving a wider view, relief from intensity and pressure, and a sense of such freedom from narrow confines as to give the impression of no self at all.

Iolaus wrote: As to an expanded self, I mean that quite literally. I think of the ego as a kind of container, like a cell membrane. It should be a semipermeable membrane like healthy biologic membranes are, but for most of us it is all but impervious, thus our sense of separation and inability to intuit subtle energies.

The self is born through identification processes and this identification can indeed involve small things (head, body, house) or greater things (tribe, country, planet, cosmos). It's like our level of participation: we can be aware of the role of our actions in regards to our body, personal functioning or family and we can become aware to some extend how they relate to larger contexts.

But it's not like we suddenly would literally expand. It's only our awareness that realizes what was already there - no separation. Understanding being just a basic form of this awareness.

A belief in a false self located in our heart, head or believing it to be the size of a planet or universe. The same danger is still present in that it might be a false belief, a wrong image that is given too much reality.

And actually I would wonder if limitless expansion wouldn't make things more blurry, less to the point by definition. One 'hides' into these large containers, so many hiding places for smaller critters to go unnoticed.

With this in mind I'd say that expansion and contraction is native to attention and as such awareness. It's slowly formed and through diffusion it withers away. A self is what appears to happen in between, almost as a shadow forming: short and contrasting with the light overhead, long and faded when it's at the horizon.

"One 'hides' into these large containers, so many hiding places for smaller critters to go unnoticed."

...like rats and vermin and other critters of our narcissism. And in the end it all seems to require only more extermination. Well, the upshot is that it keeps some of us employed...

Rat hunter par excellence

Diebert,

The self is born through identification processes and this identification can indeed involve small things (head, body, house) or greater things (tribe, country, planet, cosmos). It's like our level of participation: we can be aware of the role of our actions in regards to our body, personal functioning or family and we can become aware to some extend how they relate to larger contexts.

Well, a lot of this is just concepts, beliefs, memories and such, the sort of thing I think we can work on to eliminate. But is that all there is to the self? Many seem to think so, but I am unconvinced. They are additions, they are an identity, they may help answer the question, who am I? Or answer it falsely. But do they answer the question, What am I?

I think not.

But it's not like we suddenly would literally expand. It's only our awareness that realizes what was already there - no separation. Understanding being just a basic form of this awareness.

Why not?? It might be that understandings could be the tool that causes an expansion. What I am looking for is not an acceptance of an idea that one intellectually fathoms, but a way for real change. An alteration in the way reality is perceived. People are claiming to have no ego or self, yet they go about their lives quite as if they have an awareness bubble that answers to a particular name, and runs a particular body, and when it looks out of its particular eyes, it sees from a particular angle. In what way do they not have a self?

And actually I would wonder if limitless expansion wouldn't make things more blurry,

Well, there's a good reason to hold onto a membrane.

This is a copy of a mail but i 'felt' that i should post it here.. When one is able to understand emotion and use feeling to guide them with infinite perception in god consciousness then what ever you conceive and create in awareness fuels the whole as a manifestation of conscious creation. :-)

When one meets any perceived negativity, it is easy to transmute that into light with understanding, for shadows are dissolved with the mind….if one looks for misunderstanding it is easy to perceive how it IS.
We can only see all that IS when we know ALL that we are not.. We can then learn that both form the whole.. We become master of ourselves in relation to 'divine will' as perceived misunderstandings can easily be seen through in truth. For truth entails ALL. Yet within illusion we cannot distinguish between the two!!! leading to yet more confusion within perception. Perceptions are infinite in TRUTH and to understand HOW to perceive that truth we know that confusion shows us a darkness which we can then transmute into more wisdom, more light and understanding for all. We become masters of the darkness by owning it rather than being lost within it.
We form new perceptions and then raise energy and vibration by re-clustering perceptions into new awareness; we ascend, while grounded in physicality. I have learnt to integrate my feelings or intuition into my words.. so that I automatically write by accessing god consciousness when ever I desire. I am currently understanding this in relation to mysticism as I believe that is what it is? When I listen to Almine I relate perfectly to her words on perceptions and the infinite sea of consciousness which we are now beginning to fill with new awareness. Nothing is impossible, if you can imagine and conceive it to be then as you know it IS.
Enlightenment is the mind at rest within the ocean. But here there is no growth, we fill the ocean with new awareness and understanding from the word of creation that IS truth, in occordance with all that IS..divine will. I am all that IS in relation to understanding ALL that is NOT, so in effect I am consciousness now alive in physical form, within this density, this realm, this dimension. This is mans destiny of realisation of creation, to become aware of his own consciousness in the infinite ocean beyond time and space, the illusion which creates our physical manifestation.

amandaxxx

Iolaus wrote:Carl,

There is obviously not only one Universal Self. Witness me! There are many selves within the one. The personal self is not an illusion. It is real. It is not a dream. When one awakens, it is to that self, not away from it. True there then becomes cognizance of the Great Overarching One, but, dude, the personal self is not then eliminated. If anything it is heightened, as its consciousness merges upward into the one, conscious of its inborn connection, heightened because of its now consciousness of it.

I, too, dare to think along these lines. I duly take note of all the enlightened ones who say otherwise...but there was this guy with a great website with reams of good stuff that he took down so as to promote his book. His name was Shankara, a kind of Yogananda derivative guy,

Not familiar with Shankara, and a Google search was inconclusive...

and he referred to it, instead of 'no-self' as the expanded self. Now, that makes a lot more sense. Something just ain't right with this no-self thingie, and I suspect there are quite a few parrots.

Ultimately there may be no self, being as all is one, but on the local level there is a self. It is ludicrous and naive to the possibilities of life to think otherwise.

You know, it kinda reminds me of that little mountain thing. First there was a mountain, then there was no mountain, and then there is a mountain again.

Yeah. Oone of my favorite old Donovan songs, too.

First there was a separate self, and there there was no self at all, and then there was an (improved, expanded) self again.

Yes, matters of perception and understanding.

But to argue against myself here, we have to ask, is the nature of our self, one of the many within the one, is it really permanent and absolute the way the Absolute is?

Does it matter, really? By 'permanent' one need not mean eternal. One may simply mean something which can transcend this particular body. How long we may live and in what form is probably not knowable. Transcendence of the self in this life is what is important.

Could we merge back into the One in a few million years? Is it perhaps even inevitable?

Merging self into Self is inevitable, logically, as all is One. Merging consciously is quite another matter. Growing into awareness of self and of IT, and perfecting oneself according to that knowledge is what transcends us this.

Back on the first hand, in my mystical semi-Christian revelations I have realized that we are good and pure only to the extent that we have utterly emptied ourselves and allowed ourselves to be filled with the divine, a kind of surrender.

Emptying ourselves of ego and delusion and the negative will that manifests with those, certainly. Surrendering ourselves to the Path, to the Process, to the Divine, yes. Are we good and pure only to the extent we have done this? I believe there is more, which has to do with developing the ability to do -- developing freedom of action -- allowing response where before there is only reaction -- which requires self evolution from sleep and automation -- and then to serve.

Emptying ourselves of ego and delusion and the negative will that manifests with those, certainly. Surrendering ourselves to the Path, to the Process, to the Divine, yes. Are we good and pure only to the extent we have done this? I believe there is more, which has to do with developing the ability to do -- developing freedom of action -- allowing response where before there is only reaction -- which requires self evolution from sleep and automation -- and then to serve.

Excellent! Is this what Gurdjieff teaches?