GENIUS FORUMS

It is not possible to transcend one's dualities by using their dual mind. Round and round the circle of human relativity we go when we attempt to use 'love' to transcend 'hate' or 'good' to transcend 'evil' or 'positive' to transcend 'negative' or 'male' to transcend 'female.' [The vice versa principle, of course, applies to all dualities identified.] The entire history of man is his demonstration of his mind of dualities battling his mind of dualities because the moment he engages his subjective-objective attachment to one of the dualities, he cannot help but bring the other one along for the ride.

There are very few philosophers or scientists who have not come to the realization that man is caught in a double-bind predicament; he longs to know his non-dual nature, and yet, how does he accomplish such a thing when he remains interpreting himself via his dual nature? What is there then, about the mind's of most philosopher's or scientists that prevent them from using their mind to go beyond their mind? Vanity. Plain and simple. What they cannot accept, as most men cannot accept, is that man is no more special a conscious being to the Thinker of conscious beings than is any other conscious being. Man is smarter than any other being, therefore, logically, he is 'special' so says the ego of man. Man is higher, more special than woman, he thinks. Woman is higher or more special than man, he thinks. Man is life's ultimate achievement, he thinks. Never does he stop to ask himself, who told him this, but his own vain self?

Only the pure of heart who see no dual line drawn in the sand of themselves, see God face to face. Only the pure of heart can objectify God into an empty form in their mind and come to see their own vision of His/Its empty form. Their subjectivity-objectivity of bias and prejudice silenced, with only the perfect equality of form as the foundation of their seeking, they ask for answers to their questions of why, how, what and when of not just their existence, but of all existence.

Man is born to understand both his natures. How can that which he is, not be known to him? The principle, however, of knowing both natures is clear and cannot be bypassed or destroyed: if one's dual interpretations of their I am is active, they will not be able to hear their singular interpretation of I am.

A = A of the non-dual mind of God: man = cockroach; man = worm; man = tree; man = woman; man = strawberry plant. If you cannot see this equation of the wholeness of non-dual awareness, then you are not seeing emptiness of form, you are experiencing your own ego's lust for illusory specialness.

You sure do protesteth and preacheth a lot.

prince wrote:You sure do protesteth and preacheth a lot.

When someone enters another's thought world, as you do mine, with retorts and curses, it is not because he is wise, but because he is unable to challenge what is being said with his logic or his spirit discernment or lack thereof. 2,000 years ago, you would have been in the crowd with the rest of those who thought they knew why Jesus had come into flesh, and when they couldn't understand what it was he was saying about the flesh, cried "crucify him, crucify him!"

And in preparation for another curse or retort in the place of wisdom of spirit and of flesh, I challenge you to tell me what the message of the crucifixion is, according to the wisdom of prince.

Put your wisdom where your mouth is.

2000 years is nothing in the broad scheme of things, bucko.

Jesus was a schizophrenic, who lived in a little semi-literate area of primitive Palestine, so got torn to shreds. End of Story.

...both [duality and non-duality] are false and true. Non-dualism is false because its very conception is an illusion; it remains as the unmanifest. And dualism is false because it isn't able to describe itself; with what can you contrast it? It remains singular, the 'first born', or immaculate conception, as other traditions named it.

2000 years is nothing in the broad scheme of things, bucko.

Revelation of the I am has nothing to do with man's assignment of time. Jesus used his I am exclusively when he taught the things of I am, manifesting nothing of time, distance, space and matter of these teachings.

Jesus was a schizophrenic, who lived in a little semi-literate area of primitive Palestine, so got torn to shreds. End of Story.

Saying Jesus was a schizophrenic is a demonstration of an application of one's unconditional I to one's subjective-objective world of "I think" matter, which is neither a logical application of thought nor one of integrity of word.

An example of a logical statement related to Jesus' words would be: Based on so-and-so's assessment of schizophrenic behavior, it is logical to assume that Jesus demonstrated the behavior of a schizophrenic. Note the word "assume." Logic cannot help but bear the BUT of that word "assume", for no sense interpretation based on the dualities, is ever absolute. An example of an unconditional I am statement related to schizophrenia would be "I am diagnosed with schizophrenia because I demonstrate these behaviours according to man's collective subjective-objective assessment of what these behaviors mean." Jesus would not be included in your I am statement, because you are not the I am of the thought continuum of Jesus.

Well Ok... I have no interest in having a dialogue with someone who's clearly brainwashed to the eyeballs.

So "I Am" that.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:...both [duality and non-duality] are false and true. Non-dualism is false because its very conception is an illusion; it remains as the unmanifest. And dualism is false because it isn't able to describe itself; with what can you contrast it? It remains singular, the 'first born', or immaculate conception, as other traditions named it.

All human words are metaphors of the myth of 'self, itself a myth of the Metaphor God. ' Metaphors and myths are not real. However, metaphors and myths are necessary. Why? Because man cannot know what he is, he can only narrate a story of what he thinks he is. If logic is to be applied to my above statements, it is logical that the suggested nature of the thinker, that is, being that of a myth of a Metaphor, would also be the suggested nature of his activity of thinking of himself, that is, in a mythical and metaphorical way. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father, except by me.” The metaphorical thought continuum of God, in Christ, reconciling the world [the myth of self] unto Himself.”

In relation to the subject matter of this thread, it is necessary to objectify one's metaphor of That which is unmanifest or unborn so that one can abide in this metaphor of the unborn of themselves, and ask of it, questions of why, how, when, where and what of being unborn and of being born. To do this, one must be willing to accept that he can never conclude anything of his I am. Which means that although logic brought him to the ceiling of his intellect so that he could see that a) there is no logic for his existence to be, and b) it is logical for the unborn to be absent of the qualities of the born, logic itself now must be abandoned to that the mind can be opened so as to receive revelations of the I am of these pointers of logic. There is no way for one to be expanded beyond their Singularity of the 'first born' and into the Singularity of the unborn, unless the unborn I is objectified of the transcendent, metaphorical qualities of being unborn, such as “every thought of the unborn is equal in width, height, depth and circumference.”

prince wrote:Well Ok... I have no interest in having a dialogue with someone who's clearly brainwashed to the eyeballs.

So "I Am" that.

And you are not brainwashed to the eyeballs? Nonsense! If this is not so, where did you hear of schizophrenia? Of Palestine? Of your name, prince? Of you views on pure awareness? Are you saying these thoughts are wholly original to you?

No man is an island. We all ride the thought waves of another. Where wisdom comes in is in the answering of the question: are the thoughts I am riding making me think [expanding my awareness of me]? Thoughts such as your opinion of Jesus' mental health cannot expand my awareness of me, for they point not to the pure awareness that is the same pure awareness of all, but rather, to your pure awareness of your opinion, and only of your pure awareness of your opinion. Opinions help no one expand beyond opinions.

movingalways wrote:

prince wrote:You sure do protesteth and preacheth a lot.

When someone enters another's thought world, as you do mine, with retorts and curses, it is not because he is wise, but because he is unable to challenge what is being said with his logic or his spirit discernment or lack thereof. 2,000 years ago, you would have been in the crowd with the rest of those who thought they knew why Jesus had come into flesh, and when they couldn't understand what it was he was saying about the flesh, cried "crucify him, crucify him!"

And in preparation for another curse or retort in the place of wisdom of spirit and of flesh, I challenge you to tell me what the message of the crucifixion is, according to the wisdom of prince.

Put your wisdom where your mouth is.

jesus!! (was paranoid)

pegasus wrote: jesus!! (was paranoid)

How do you know this? Explain please!

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

jufa wrote:

pegasus wrote: jesus!! (was paranoid)

How do you know this? Explain please!

because he said: do not cast your pearls before swine or something like this and yet he is throwing his own pearls. This sounds paranoïd to me even if he claims to be simply a reflection.

Non-dual objectification is paranoïd but there exists some integral which is subjective.

pegasus wrote:

jufa wrote:

pegasus wrote: jesus!! (was paranoid)

How do you know this? Explain please!

because he said: do not cast your pearls before swine or something like this and yet he is throwing his own pearls. This sounds paranoïd to me even if he claims to be simply a reflection.

Non-dual objectification is paranoïd but there exists some integral which is subjective.

Asked you to explain how you knew Jesus was paranoid, you did not explain HOW you knew what you claimed, you gave a

This sounds paranoïd to me

which is an assumption, not a knowing. So I ask you again:

How do you know this? Explain please!

Please explain also how non-dual objectification is paranoid. Please don't give me what you think, or assume, give solid evidence,

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

http://theillusionofgod.com

http://myspace.com/theoriginaljufa

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OpenUp_Yourmind

non-dual objectification just does not make any sense. One can feel the propensity for expression, but it goes no further than this if it has to have any meaning. The pure idea stays in the mind. If you want solid evidence, i cannot give the solid words of somebody else. I'm usually trying to think for myself if i understand you correctly.

non-dual objectification just does not make any sense. One can feel the propensity for expression, but it goes no further than this if it has to have any meaning.

If you can feel the propensity for expression, then you have objectified a shape of a thought that awaits your aha of a revelation, have you not?

movingalways wrote:If you can feel the propensity for expression, then you have objectified a shape of a thought that awaits your aha of a revelation, have you not?

I have no memory of it.
I know i can lift a rope on the other hand in the other hand.

pegasus wrote:

movingalways wrote:If you can feel the propensity for expression, then you have objectified a shape of a thought that awaits your aha of a revelation, have you not?

I have no memory of it.

That is precisely the point. Be still and know I am God. Which means that any revelations that appear in this empty form you have objectified for your becoming expanded into the living of your emptiness, will be I am statements of you and only you.

Allow me to explain using your previous assumption that Jesus was paranoid. Had you been standing in this empty form of yourself that you knew was non-dual in nature, you would not have made this assumption. Why? Because it is not an unconditional I am statement of you. It is because man makes these assumptions of the thought continuum of others and calls them 'my truth' that man lives a life of debate and conflict rather than of his own reality of his own thought continuum expansion.

Had you said "I am paranoid", different ball game entirely. Saying "I am paranoid" brings your attention to yourself, causing you to look into the condition of memory you have placed upon your being, such as paranoia, so that you can either accept this condition of memory and continue living of your definition of it, or you can not accept this condition of memory, and transcend this memory you have put upon your being.

Stepping into your non-dual invisible light of your pure awareness of you allows you to examine all your prejudicial memories you have of yourself [and only of yourself], such as being paranoid or stupid or wise or clever or old or young or ..... The light you shine on you is your integrity of transcending only your memories of you, and no one elses, for you have no memories but your own. How else will you purge your memories, your dualism, if you do not form an empty space of you with which this can be accomplished?

I know i can lift a rope on the other hand in the other hand.

And how will this expand you beyond the lifting of the rope? Or, is it your plan to lift rope for the eternity of your conscious awareness of you?

movingalways wrote: ...or you can not accept this condition of memory, and transcend this memory you have put upon your being.

I cannot accept it being paranoïd, but i can neither transcend it, or are you identifying transcendentalism with acceptance ?

pegasus wrote:non-dual objectification just does not make any sense. One can feel the propensity for expression, but it goes no further than this if it has to have any meaning. The pure idea stays in the mind. If you want solid evidence, i cannot give the solid words of somebody else. I'm usually trying to think for myself if i understand you correctly.

Hi pegasus, Non-duality does not make sense, to most people, because they themselves are the dualistic source of their split personalities. It isn't something of their making or forming in the beginning, it is an inheritance from a system of eons of indoctrinations of ancient beliefs which all people of today have incorporated into their human consciousness, thus separatiing their outer objective visions from their inner subjective feelings.

I do appreciate your honesty:

If you want solid evidence, i cannot give the solid words of somebody else.

. No one can give such evidence. Why? Because all people are dependent on their outer objective visions, and inner subjective feelings for their logic or reasoning to justify the activity of their living. This is why an objectification can become the identity of subjectivity, and subjectivity can become the identity for objectification.

What is not comprehended with the floating back and forth of these entities is that the outer objective visions and inner subjective feelings are the source of one another's existence. That neither could exist without the life of the other. That the life of each exist because of "the law of the Spirit of life," which is the source of all life, and blankets even dualism in the singularity of Itself, making the two one. Spirit does not differentiate.

So what it all comes down to is " it is not what one is aware of that matters, but how one interpret that which they are aware of." What is any man aware of of his own existence that clarify his judgment and labeling of anything beyond what he was told by another man if he has not went through this inherited human mindset of repetitive indoctrination, to get beyond it?

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

I cannot accept it being paranoïd, but i can neither transcend it, or are you identifying transcendentalism with acceptance ?

Transcending is not an ism, it is the activity of quitting or leaving behind, a pattern of thinking. For example, when one quits smoking, one has left that pattern of thinking about smoking behind. Same with sex. When one quits thinking of sex, one has left that pattern of thinking behind. If one desires to transcend a pattern of thinking, they are rejecting it, not accepting it. The more patterns of thinking that are rejected, then transcended, the emptier becomes one's mind or soul, preparing one for the final quitting or leaving behind, which is the 'original' dual thought, self.

With regards to being paranoid, if you cannot accept being paranoid, then it is upon you to quit that pattern of thinking of 'being paranoid.' You can go to a psychiatrist and be treated for this condition of paranoia you have accepted, but no longer want to accept, but he cannot eliminate the thought 'paranoia' in your consciousness. That can only be done by the one who is caught in the pattern of belief in paranoia, who knows, unconditionally, that paranoia is a human belief that has no substance in and of itself, and being that it has no substance in and of itself, can be transcended by virtue of this, its empty nature.

jufa wrote: What is not comprehended with the floating back and forth of these entities is that the outer objective visions and inner subjective feelings are the source of one another's existence.

I don't understand this. what entities ?

movingalways wrote: Transcending is not an ism, it is the activity of quitting or leaving behind, a pattern of thinking. For example, when one quits smoking, one has left that pattern of thinking about smoking behind. Same with sex. When one quits thinking of sex, one has left that pattern of thinking behind. If one desires to transcend a pattern of thinking, they are rejecting it, not accepting it. The more patterns of thinking that are rejected, then transcended, the emptier becomes one's mind or soul, preparing one for the final quitting or leaving behind, which is the 'original' dual thought, self.

This sounds strange to me. I think transcending has something to do with emergence. After a system reaches complexity, a ghost appears; a new harmonic of consciousness controlling its own past.

pegasus wrote:

jufa wrote: What is not comprehended with the floating back and forth of these entities is that the outer objective visions and inner subjective feelings are the source of one another's existence.

I don't understand this. what entities ?

Hi pegasus, your Dr. Jekyll [object/subject] Mr. Hyde [subject/object] personalities.

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