GENIUS FORUMS

I offer a topic for debate which one may offer also their 'own understanding' of the mind. What follows is my own understanding through experience.

The mind is often weak and does the ego’s will readily. Yet the soul or ones higher Self or consciousness can see the mind and the ego. It is a force not to be reckoned with, not even by the mind, which pales in its 'limited' logic and reasoning of which the ego all too often controls. By seeing the logical mind’s limit, that of infinite possibilities one is also aware of its limitations. Those limitations being within the mind itself and are merely different perceptions, views and understanding which are all too often derived through the ego and subjective experience. Therefore we can see that it is our minds, which have placed limits upon themselves. The complex yet simple workings of the mind throws open the shadows to the light, when the simple complexity is understood. In Truth perceptions are infinite. Logic analysis through reasoned debate will take you to a point of complete awareness. That being an OBJECTIVE awareness of Self and ALL things.. The mind is a tool, and consciousness can 'see' the mind and how it works.

I therefore ascertain that the mind has no limits other than those we place upon it. And those limits we 'think' we have offer an acknowledgement that there is always 'more' to understand within the infinite. What we 'think' will always be what we perceive. Transcend the mind and know consciousness in pure awareness.

Amanda

Yeah, your spiel is getting old, real fast.

Perhaps you should go away and think about it, for a very long time.

Maybe lightworkers.com may be more suitable.

Not at all I asked for others understanding on the perceptions of the mind.. and the capacity for logic reason.. if you want to question the validity of logic and reason then of course go ahead.. what i have found interesting is a link to a map of consciousness on another thread here which again ill post below

http://www.globalvoicesradio.com/map.html

prince wrote:Yeah, your spiel is getting old, real fast.

If you explain what you mean by old i am sure i will then be able to understand your assertions as it is they are empty and formulate no argument other than a shallow sentence. And by your own sentence beginning 'yeah' one could be led to believe that you are following some other sheep and actually not constucting thoughts of your own.

amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote:If you explain what you mean by old i am sure i will then be able to understand your assertions as it is they are empty and formulate no argument other than a shallow sentence. And by your own sentence beginning 'yeah' one could be led to believe that you are following some other sheep and actually not constucting thoughts of your own.

Not to speak for prince, but the way I see it is that you tend to pronounce a bunch of stuff as fact, with nothing to back it up. There's not really anything to discuss or debate.

http://www.globalvoicesradio.com/map.html

This is a good example; it lists all these various stages or levels as if they were real, accepted things, rather than something someone just arbitrarily made up. But there is no reason given to not see it as completely arbitrary; it's just a pronouncement. You seem to think you speak with some authority, but it looks like you are just stating your opinions.

What has authority is logical and compelling rational arguments.

DHodges wrote:You seem to think you speak with some authority, but it looks like you are just stating your opinions.

I do not think that at all. You think that in assuming and of course i am just stating my opinion when i said:

elderwoodxxx wrote:What follows is my own understanding through experience.

I also asked for others opinion of their own understanding.

It IS logical to say that the only limits upon the mind are the ones we place there and therefore; in acknowledging those limits we also acknowledge what is beyond.

Amandaxxx

Well, I'll try. I start from the point that this 'ego' has to be defined. You imply that ego takes over mind but there is something higher called 'soul'. Are you aware that you are using some terms that may or may not have any substantial connection to 'reality'? For example, 'ego' in the New Age (and in the Western coming to terms with Eastern philosophy) has a certain coinage, but it is often open-ended. It could mean many different things. In relation to other people, for example, it could just refer to things you don't like. It is pretty vague, and because it is vague, it is not very useful. Except among people who agree on the use of the term. With Freud, though, there is Id and Ego, and the terms are defined.

If you mean that most human beings have weak minds---which is likely true---and that their minds are dominated by their Id, then you'd be making some practical sense, and people could engage with you intellectually. One could then propose, as the fellows here do, that we all need to strengthen our minds to resist this demanding Id. If you were to actually read some of the different people who write here, and knew what their thinking was, you could then engage with them, or perhaps decide not to if your own ideas differed so much.

But what you do say, and the way you say it, is to imply that at some moment you had an experience where you saw the dominating power of (whatever you mean by) ego, and something shifted, but one has to guess at what you mean. You seem to state something here: "By seeing the logical mind’s limit, that of infinite possibilities one is also aware of its limitations". You need a comma after 'possibilities' for the sentence to make sense, I think. You seem to say that the mind has 'infinite possibilities', which is true in an imaginary sense, but untrue in a practical sense. If you lift a harsh control, say, off your capacity for imagination, then there will be a sort of liberation, but in truth (and practically) we all know that the mind, and we ourselves, are still extremely limited. But here's the deal: In certain forms of NewAgeSpeak the participants in that view, that language, always speak in grandiose terms, in giant terms: limitlessness, whole universes, the All, but the language, I submit, does not really refer to anything real and substantial, it is more like argot among children. It is part of sharing agreements or moods. If you imitate the lingo you gain access to the group and whatever 'meaning' they share. You only need to look critically at your web-page (where I got that 'sprinkling love in your life' creation) to get evidence of what I am talking about. There is not much content there, just people sharing a certain kind of 'warmth' or perhaps well-wishing. It is quintessentially NewAge.

But, when you had whatever experience you had, did you somehow transcend your physical body? That you no longer have physical needs and wants? Like for food, water, heat, etc? Obviously not. It is quite likely that you are not substantially different from any of the mindless masses in terms of what you consume (and we are all in that boat, for sure). But how can I know anything at all about what you as a person has practically done in limiting or altering the appetites of your Id? You have a Grand Rap, but what the heck are you talking about?

"In Truth perceptions are infinite."

Then instead of being human beings with 2 legs, in my 'infinite mind' I can rather see that we are space-octopuses, or vast angelic vortexes of energy, or whatever the heck I want to see. This sentence is actually meaningless! But not to you, I think, because you are emotionally invested in it. It is an emotional expression, and if someone takes issue with it you will need to defend yourself emotionally. It is not really true that 'perceptions are infinite', otherwise I would see you as...a grandfather clock in a golden cloud...as a three-headed salamander raking leaves on three planets simultaneously. You confuse imagination and fancy with other things, which are amenable to precise description, which need precise description. What you fail to see is that you have arrived on a list where, generally speaking, the people want precision and accurate use of language, and in that context you have literally unleashed whole waves of imprecise, vague, puffy, billowy torrents of words. (Which really irks the list-owners especially, like Kevin, David and Dan). You seem to do this because you are 'teaching a lesson' to these ego-bound minds. There is nothing at all wrong with presenting alternate ideas or contrary ideas, but to have some success I think you would need to really understand what others are saying, and why. You'd have to know what informs them.

For example, I am always teaching lessons, always. I have begun literally to remodel some of the young chaps who post here! This is not a superficial rearrangement but rather change at a cellular level! My attainments are vastly superior to yours, to theirs, and yet I humbly take my place here, day after day, as a 'fisher of men'. When you really become a 'philosopher', and when you really become Enlightened (as I have), you 'spontaneously do God's will', as I am doing, perfectly, beautifully and with tremendous Grace and Humor.

I am clearly and without any doubt the most superior being on this forum, and yet my teaching is accessible to all. While I do not ask that anyone bow down before me, I do expect them to take second tier status and not to get too uppity. (That's the reason why I keep the 2x4 handy).

Selah!

Perfect rationality

Q: Perfect rationality is not humanly impossible.

A: Why so? If reason has failed you, then you have not been rational enough.

Q: Human beings are limited, so perfection remains forever beyond our grasp.

A: In what way are we limited?

Q: It is impossible for us to know everything, because the Universe is infinitely complex, and our brains are finite.

A: I grant we cannot know everything, but clear and logical thinking is not beyond our reach. An understanding of principles and the manifestation of that understanding in our lives is not impossible: this is what I mean by rationality.

Firstly I'll open with the above quote from our beloved Kevin who offers the acknowledgenent in the form of a question "In what way are we limited?" and also acknowledges that "...our brains are finite." hence an acknowledgement that there Is a beyond.

Secondly with freuds phyco analogy of the mind with regard to the Id the ego and even the super ego he is refering to the 'mind' within subjectivity, within the mind itself. What i am refering to is consciousness itself, something beyond the constraints of mind.

"Similarly one could regard “consciousness” as referring to a component or aspect of reality that manifests itself in conscious states and creatures but is more than merely the abstract nominalization of the adjective “conscious” we apply to them. Though such strongly realist views are not very common at present, they should be included within the logical space of options."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#2.3

A whole new topic and debate could be opened up in defining 'consciousness' but I am using it in the context (and here i do differ from Kevin), together with bhuddist thought that consciousness IS alive in a 'sea of awareness' if you like. Consciousness Is thought,(and here we do agree)
And so with the word of wisdom creation manifests our reality we perceive in physicality. So one may equate consciousness with Divine thought, continually alive and becoming aware of itself.

Wisdom is learning to look at things from a larger and larger perspective. If you look at something from close-up it looks big; but get farther away, and it becomes smaller and smaller.

Remove the dust of the mind with the water of wisdom. Wisdom is when one sees the Infinite . . . and realizes its significance.

Kevin

The significance of wisdom is that the 'dust' as I interpret it is the negativity which creates the confusion and small perspective. Or that as being lost within constraints of 'fear' 'self doubts' and 'outwardly desire', which is what I do refer to as the 'ego'. From materialistic, outwardly 'seeking' we are shrouded within the dust. Look within and find Self and one may find wisdom and an objective perspective for the mind. One has a deep sense of knowing as perceptions form from understanding yourself in relation to the world, the microcosmic to the macrocosmic. With wisdom clarity and understanding come.

When you read, seek savour, not science; for in the physical world everything is symbolic. The meaning is the valuable item, not the words. Use words only as tools or instruments. They are a means of serving God, they must not become an obstacle or an impediment.

Kevin

One 'understands' the 'instruments' of the word, which are not obstacles in relation to merely serving the 'negativity' as i would call it; of the 'dust' as Kevin does.

Knowing
When you have destroyed yourself, you have not lost yourself, but found yourself. If you do not understand your own existence, how can you hope to understand the world? I am speaking of the knowledge of what your self is, not about yourself. The latter is merely psychology.

You worry about the future, but you don't even know the present! I tell you, take care of the present and the future will take care of itself.

Kevin

In 'finding' yourself and Understanding you can gain the knowledge of what your self IS, for me i understand that we are consciousness manifest in physical form within linear time, and that the same Self dwells in ALL beyond what I term the mind, or outwardly desire of the ego. I use the term 'soul' to refer to this essence of our 'be'ing or 'breath of divine' I also underdstand that linear time is an illusion created so that we can gain experience accordingly, hence there only ever IS the eternal NOW or present.

God is dead
It is said: God is dead. But if God is dead, then Man too is dead.

Kevin

I wholly agree here. I understand that because man 'doubts' himself within the 'dust' he doubts the very nature of himself and thus doubts God, Externalising and 'seeking' is false idol worship. God is you, In you.

Don't parley with the world
I beg of you, transcend! - do not spend your few days here "solving problems". What are you waiting for? I tell you, attain the Kingdom of God first, then do all the thinking you like. Only with intense Love of God will you attain a clean-clear infinite mind. Otherwise you will continue your unending dance with the demon of the earth

Kevin

As I stated perceptions are 'infinite' in truth, the mind is clear and clean, with no dust. The unending dance? that will be deception within confusion and dust or self seeking desire.

How fast!
How fast the change can be . . . from a tormented mind of tiredness and boredom, to the powerful clear mind of bliss. One has only to drop everything with a devoted love of God and in a moment you have cast off your burden and become a Buddha. Suddenly you are no longer the doer, but God is the doer, and He takes all responsibilities.

After all, who are you to take responsibility for what God does! What presumption!

[/quote]Kevin

The clear mind understands many things, and also an understanding is gained that it IS God who does do these things, for his word or truth is in accordance with what IS, perceivable beyond the 'dust' beyond illusion of fear. when one perceives it 'his' way it is easy to understand answers to questions you may seek.
One Is then free to see the mind and how it works, one is also free to USE the mind to gain understanding about anything one may desire as all things are in accordance with truth or divine will. And God IS the doer. Selfless in Love and allows you to come as close as you desire, through that exact same selflessness.

I am sure that Kevin will like this thread and thank you for in my ignorance I was not aware of his writing which i do indeed understand. If I have mis interpreted any of Kevins understanding then I am sure he will correct me and i apologise now if I have done so. I look forward to reading more of his work 'poison for the heart'

Amandaxxx

ps Is it wise to exalt your Self when in actuality we are all the SAME yet separated in UNDERSTANDING of that Self.

One who is ignorant of Truth cannot correctly interpret the words of one who is realized. So I say, don't mistake knowledge for advancement: seek only the source of knowledge.

How very true kevin, and that source is Self. I am now my own mirror, never alone. At one.

The world
Be wary never to feel at home in a house of sin! Learn never to feel at one with the people. Remain ever separate, observing, and alone. Be fearful of this world, until you learn to truly love God. A dose of disgust is necessary, lest you become foolishly enamoured of this world.

As i keep saying I was lost within 'illusion' all too aware of 'sin' and have never felt at one with any person other than when i realized i had actually met myself. I know nothing other than that we are all the same self underneath the subjective mind within the 'dust'. I hope you do not mind Kevin, me using your word 'dust' which i do acknowledge is yours. It is only in an attempt to afford UNDERSTANDING to others.

elderwoodxxx wrote: In Truth perceptions are infinite. Logic analysis through reasoned debate will take you to a point of complete awareness. That being an OBJECTIVE awareness of Self and ALL things..

There's a problem with this.

Perception, any perception is made possible by the very finite, limitation and incompleteness. It cannot be said that perceptions are 'infinite' or awareness is 'complete'. Not in any possible circumstance, real or imaginary. This is a logical necessity.

The mind is a tool, and consciousness can 'see' the mind and how it works.

I'm familiar with the practice of meditation and meditative living. It surely can give one the sensation of 'seeing' how thoughts and feelings arise and fall away. Major trip! But lets not get carried away with it, please! Sometimes it's better not to have known something, than to know it and then getting messed up because of it.

Seeing the mind at work is ultimately an illusion. The observer, no matter how 'pure', 'quiet', 'powerful' or 'vast' it might appear is at the essence the naked appearance of the illusive self, the subject-relation generator or mirror-machine. The moment I manage to look at the backside of my own head - I haven't left the head - only in the imagination.

Sea of awareness is another contradiction. Awareness is just a temporal wave crashing. For many it might appear like a sea in itself but the ocean goes way beyond it. No way you can grasp it with experiences only.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:elderwoodxxx wrote:
In Truth perceptions are infinite. Logic analysis through reasoned debate will take you to a point of complete awareness. That being an OBJECTIVE awareness of Self and ALL things..


There's a problem with this.

Perception, any perception is made possible by the very finite, limitation and incompleteness. It cannot be said that perceptions are 'infinite' or awareness is 'complete'. Not in any possible circumstance, real or imaginary. This is a logical necessity.

Perceptions are the workings of the mind, which for example in vedic hindu/sage thought can be seen by the consciousness as a clock work mechanism. In 'god' consciousness we have paradoxical explanations of the way wisdom initially works. For example, in truths of 'universal eternal validity' the Upanishads say that to 'fulfill all desires is to have all desires within fulfilled' The Self is all our desires.

Awareness is complete when one is aware of observing the mind from being beyond it. "Nothing can satisfy us but reunion with our real Self, which the Upanishads say is, Sat-Chit-Ananda: absolute reality, pure awareness, unconditional joy.

Also within the Upanishads it states that, the powers of the mind have no life of their own, mind is not conscious, it is only an instrument of consciousness. Yet when awareness is withdrawn from the mind, 'you' remain aware. When this happens you realise that you are not the mind any more than you are the physical body. Concentration is so profound that the mind process almost comes to a complete standstill. Shanti- the peace that passeth understanding.

So perceptions which are 'infinite' are within the constraints of the mind, itself limited to itself. Consciousness or awareness which 'looks' at the mind, sees the mind for what it is with all its logical workings and reason.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Sea of awareness is another contradiction. Awareness is just a temporal wave crashing. For many it might appear like a sea in itself but the ocean goes way beyond it. No way you can grasp it with experiences only.

Experiences are what form understanding. Within omnicient understanding we see our Self in All others as One. Yes we can be aware of certain aspects of our self through compassion towards another individual, but to be aware of the 'higher universal self' is something different and clarity is crystal from this vantage point, the one where we are able to perceive all others in relation to the whole, for the same Self dwells in all.

Omniscience, "all-knowing", does not mean knowing everything that is happening in the Universe. The omniscient mind is where thoughts are infinite in nature, and therefore unbound. Similarly, omnipotence does not refer to unlimited power over Nature, but to one's primal state of unbridled perfection that is beyond measure

Kevin (http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html#en)

So it is within the sea of consciousness that the Ultimate awareness resides.

True objectivity comes about only through absolute subjectivity.

Kevin

This is why I say that i can perceive ALL that IS(Object truth) in relation to all that IS NOT(Subjectivity) together they form the whole.


Amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote:Firstly I'll open with the above quote from our beloved Kevin who offers the acknowledgenent in the form of a question "In what way are we limited?" and also acknowledges that "...our brains are finite." hence an acknowledgement that there Is a beyond.

Are we talking about Kevin Solway? Do read Poison for the Heart before you start quoting our beloved Kevin all over the place.

Just remember this about Kevin: Kevin doesn't believe. He knows.

And for what it's worth, I don't believe he knows, either...

Amanda - what platform is your computer? If it's Windows or Linux, there are good, free word processors with spell-checkers in them, like Open Office. I know, I should talk, right?

brokenhead wrote:we talking about Kevin Solway? Do read Poison for the Heart before you start quoting our beloved Kevin all over the place.

Just remember this about Kevin: Kevin doesn't believe. He knows.

I have read it, and i understand what he writes and i also understand why he 'knows' as I know that he knows.. When one knows 'truth' one hears HOW to perceive it also. Kevins writing explains ways of knowing, my writing explains my own way of knowing the same thing. What IS always IS which is what I have always been saying here!! He also says that faith comes from 'belief' which is exactly what I say, I do not have Blind faith but I have understanding of my own through Self realisation and therefore utter belief and conviction within my words. I also understand Christian 'dogma' and the hippocricy of the power keeping church, and of course I understand the nature of 'Jesus' himself a master likened to that of 'Bhudda'. I have written my own doctrine, 'a priori' and It Is simple to understand ALL things in relation as a whole. Through Self belief and equality.

Ok so I may spell a few words wrong, but you can still read me ;-) My pc is in a state of denial, this IS my daughters and virtual memory is almost out. So at least I am able to get on line. We must be thankful for what we do have ;-)

amandaxxx

Couple of things: Your various references to platonism and hence 'neo-platonism'. I get the sense that because you quote from a 'philosopher' (*bows, genuflections*) that you think it is cinched. But the idea that there is a universal mind (out there or even in there) that produces our little minds (the 'mind' you talk about and suppose you transcend) is quite a little bit problematic, yet I am not sure you are aware of this problem.

Neo-platonism and Upanishadic thinking (mystical philosophy) are very, very far away from the real potency of Western traditions, and you might take heed of this. You will not get too far with your unstudied mystical pronouncements here, those that you utter as if by quoting them it validates them. I feel that Indian (Hindu) thinking is in so many ways a terrible mistake, it is all terribly unsound, and must be looked at for psychological value and not as a map or model of the universe. But you make all these unqualified assumption and then you hold up your 'sources', but those sources are all very, very problematic. Micky Eel also makes these assumptions (his 'mystical knowing') but he can't even examine the seeming fact that he operates within a thinking system, a mystical, mythological thinking system. He takes it as 'absolutely real'. And we can all see what a complete ass he makes of himself and what a disservice he does to Ideas.

I knew that you had come along for a 'divinely ordained reason'! I personally think that you and Kevin should hook up! Yes! Oh happy day! And it is still mostly Spring!

In some weird way I don't have the time to sort through and explain, your approach to knowing is oddly similar. You are on opposite poles and yet you match. You feel this 'resonance' of course. 'A crane calling in the shade' as the I-Ching says, 'is answered from afar by its young'. I suppose that is why you relate so strongly to what he writes. I on the other hand, because I really am so very far beyond all these trivialities and vulgarisms, completely detest every utterance that comes from his lips and all harsh scribbles from his pen. It seems like patent idiocy to me. I agree therefor that it is Poison for the Heart, literally, it is a sort of readable death. Dan (or was it David?) also 'writes', like some kind of 'poetry'. It was so wretched and appalling it made my spirit sick for TWO DAYS, and I ain't kidding you. These are very clever persons, I admit that, they have good mathematical minds, but they are completely dead to anything literary or artistic, and they have no background at all in the occidental literary traditions. For all that they do a terrible disservice to 'the world of ideas'.

Slowly, patiently, I have been guiding them along and I believe (don't mean to appear over-confident or haughty) they are making baby-steps toward what you might call intelligence, yet we are still far, far away. There is like 2 people here who relate to Kevin's writing, one of them Kevin himself and a miscellaneous sycophant, some youthful wanker, maybe Ryan.

"Also within the Upanishads it states that, the powers of the mind have no life of their own, mind is not conscious, it is only an instrument of consciousness. Yet when awareness is withdrawn from the mind, 'you' remain aware. When this happens you realise that you are not the mind any more than you are the physical body. Concentration is so profound that the mind process almost comes to a complete standstill. Shanti- the peace that passeth understanding."

This 'vedic thinking' and the Indian tradition is quite vast, and just to sample from it is not enough. But it has brought to the world, in the course of its existence, nothing tangible and nothing employable, just abstractions and grandiose terms. The Western traditions, the Greek traditions, have totally outstripped it. These traditions of ours have remodeled the whole world, what have these Indian traditions done? (Just try to name one, tangible thing, just one!) True, I have said that behind all manifestation it appear to me that it is all Sat-Chit-Ananda, but that is a mystical, subjective, personal speculation. One mode of 'knowing' (the intuitive or Eastern) is valid and useful in some areas, but it seems completely use-less and counter-productive in others.
__________________________________________________

PS: I throw in, from time to time, deliberately misspelled words just to keep up the facade of humanity, as in human flaws. Just thought I mention that to Iolaus...

Alex Jacob wrote: I feel that Indian (Hindu) thinking is in so many ways a terrible mistake, it is all terribly unsound, and must be looked at for psychological value and not as a map or model of the universe.

Beautiful! This has to do with the creeping up of what I call literalism somewhere halfway the age of Pisces. Much of the ancient root of religious ideas had no stake in 'figuring out' some literal physical reality unless or perhaps only in so far it was reflecting the psychological world inhabited by the complex of their inner experiencing.

Then comes the root of mono-theism, the law of one: meaning an unspeakable objective absolute principle underlying the world of divine and experiencing, giving way to defining laws, at first mostly moral or social, later evolving into more scientific ones.

An interesting mixture arises when the splintered psychological 'mystical' views are mixed with mono-theist law and technocrat approaches. One now loses the ability to deal with metaphor. By giving the image a reality beyond its initial purpose, it's basically being destroyed like a dying star collapsing; it keeps on imploding.

The moment one thinks having escaped this ballet dance....

The wild swan’s death-hymn took the soul
Of that waste place with joy

brokenhead wrote: Are we talking about Kevin Solway? Do read Poison for the Heart before you start quoting our beloved Kevin all over the place.

He always seems to get all the chicks somehow. It must be that brilliant father-child merging act he has going on.

Alex,

Neo-platonism and Upanishadic thinking (mystical philosophy) are very, very far away from the real potency of Western traditions, and you might take heed of this.
This 'vedic thinking' and the Indian tradition is quite vast, and just to sample from it is not enough. But it has brought to the world, in the course of its existence, nothing tangible and nothing employable, just abstractions and grandiose terms. The Western traditions, the Greek traditions, have totally outstripped it. These traditions of ours have remodeled the whole world, what have these Indian traditions done?

I'm pretty sure I disagree.

Please elaborate.

What are you talking about?

It's quite simple: Indian culture is informed by a dispensation of knowledge in the form of the Upanishads and other scriptures. Almost the entirety of Indian religious philosophy regards these original sutras direct dispensations from a divine source. But from these dispensations no science has arisen, they have not inspired a 'real' investigation of the real nature of this reality, and the only use they serve is in spirituality, in yoga-science, in devotional practice.

The problem is perhaps in the idea or fact of 'dispensation'. If God dispenses something to you there is no Promethean boldness, no witty originality, no reckless assault on the Fruit of Good and Evil. In Indian culture, all that you do is worship and adore the dispensation, or you mold yourself to the dispensation. The dispensation is perfect in se, and you are the imperfect on, you are the problem. This attitude toward being, knowledge, existence, discovery, is one that produces lassitude. On the other side of that you have the Greek attitude, where Nature is an open book and all you have to do is apply yourself to the right method in order to extract the riches of understanding. It is all in your hands. Everything that 'we' value in our traditions, both in science and in art (and so much in-between) has arisen because of this Oddyssian boldness, his craftiness: "Odysseus' heroic trait is his mētis, or "cunning intelligence".

Need I mention his unabashed hubris, which derailed him from timely arrival home but which experience is the stuff of adventurers and free-sprits?

From all I have seen to date, there is no place for 'cunning intelligence' in any of the Hindu traditions. There is no free-thinking, the idea is unthinkable, and there is nothing at all like our art which is individual, interpretive, exploratory and innovative. In the Hindu tradition everything has been pre-established, the rules have been set down, it is painting by the numbers.

Diebert, number One of the Quintuplets, wrote:

"An interesting mixture arises when the splintered psychological 'mystical' views are mixed with mono-theist law and technocrat approaches. One now loses the ability to deal with metaphor. By giving the image a reality beyond its initial purpose, it's basically being destroyed like a dying star collapsing; it keeps on imploding."

I understand what you are saying, mostly, it would be nice to have some examples of what you mean. I did not understand the Swan reference (*bows head in shame*).

:-(

Alex Jacob wrote:From all I have seen to date, there is no place for 'cunning intelligence' in any of the Hindu traditions.

Have you heard of Krishna or Vishnu?

Alex Jacob wrote:Couple of things: Your various references to platonism and hence 'neo-platonism'. I get the sense that because you quote from a 'philosopher' (*bows, genuflections*) that you think it is cinched. But the idea that there is a universal mind (out there or even in there) that produces our little minds (the 'mind' you talk about and suppose you transcend) is quite a little bit problematic, yet I am not sure you are aware of this problem.

With 'your' sense that because i quote from something does not make it so is correct. I merely use quotes to help others to undertand by utilizing anothers thought for comparison and metaphor, I do not simply take 'subjective' quotes from here and there and come to conclusions that therefore it must be so. I 'offer' my own understanding with examples of anothers. There Is no problematic thinking, do you not think that i have thouroughly questioned my own understanding in relation to all others? which of course I have. I do not question the fact that every ones 'thinking' is subjective to them selves and therefore equally as valid. I never question anothers understanding, as each and every one of us understands things our own way, yet amongst the myriad of seemingly confusing interpretations and assertions, we do all have 'reasons' as to why we understand what we do. These reasons to why are what I have analysed and understand in relation to the whole as one of you.

Alex Jacob wrote: You will not get too far with your unstudied mystical pronouncements here, those that you utter as if by quoting them it validates them. I feel that Indian (Hindu) thinking is in so many ways a terrible mistake, it is all terribly unsound, and must be looked at for psychological value and not as a map or model of the universe. But you make all these unqualified assumption

This Is an empty assertion, my assertions are NOT unstudied. I would not understand or 'know' what I do if I had not first studied what i understand in relation to others. I have looked at it through a psychological value and I have addessed these issues within my work as a whole. There are basic acknowledgements, which incidently make up 'doctrine' thus I am able to understand 'theology' and then 'theosophy' and of course scriptures in relation to aincient thought, with logic and reason. I have also pinpointed 'Humes' flaw in his theory of reasoning and that Is because of the subjective nature of the mind. Once An objective angle is seen, then flaws become easily apparent in what ever one studies in relation to the 'subjective' phycology of the mind.

Alex Jacob wrote:your approach to knowing is oddly similar

Well does not that tell you some thing? One cannot undo what already IS. Yet we can begin to understand what IS in relation to the whole, and this IS my work.

Alex Jacob wrote:they have good mathematical minds, but they are completely dead to anything literary or artistic,

Well of course you would have to define what Is art. Pure art, I believe Is that which is born through inspirational creativity, (Also Ghandi says this) I have not the time to discuss these ideals here again but I have done so in brief on another thread here. (The mini-me in enlightenment or something)

Alex Jacob wrote:This 'vedic thinking' and the Indian tradition is quite vast, and just to sample from it is not enough. But it has brought to the world, in the course of its existence, nothing tangible and nothing employable,

The Upanishads in particular offer beautiful analogy of 'consciousness' beyond subjectivity, I have of course analysed them in relation to my understanding. Look to any 'wise' Bhuddist quote, or piece of wisdom from any writer over any time and all refer to the same understanding of this wisdom. Wisdom forms eternally valid truths through out time as they are in accordance with what IS. This language of truth, or the language of 'God' Is the language of creation. Greek aesthetic deals with the sublime conscious depiction within the 'ideals' of sculpture etc, this I use here merely as a brief example.

Alex Jacob wrote:they have not inspired a 'real' investigation of the real nature of this reality, and the only use they serve is in spirituality, in yoga-science, in devotional practice.

Well they have inspired ME! I use logic and reason to write about the mind in relation to ones spirtual, conscious Self.

Alex Jacob wrote:no reckless assault on the Fruit of Good and Evil.

I have written a whole chapter on 'good and evil' In brief, good and evil arose within the mind, a necessay evolution (Loosly quoting from someone here) Within wisdoms truth there is no concept of how we perceive good and evil. (Thus ancient Vedic text will 'seem' set in stone as what IS can never be undone) There is of course the knowledge of it, in the form of a 'tree' I believe ;-) The 'knowledge' of good and evil may only be 'trancended' if one has the widsom and experience in UNDERSTANDING to do so. This is what we must do to understand how far we have all fallen. Within this physical manifestation, we are here to understand through experience, then to 'ascend' the negativity within the 'illusion' which for the most is our present perceived reality. The negativity is the continual mis understanding we have within 'good' and evil'. The 'keys to Hades' (See revelation) is understanding that death is only what occurs within the 'dust' and misunderstanding. This misunderstanding now forms the whole, as withought the 'subjective' we would have no basis for comparison. Indeed within 'perceived' confusion it is easy to then 'see' or 'understand' new truth to ones own understanding in accordance with it.


Amandaxxx

prince wrote:Yeah, your spiel is getting old, real fast.

If you explain what you mean by old i am sure i will then be able to understand your assertions as it is they are empty and formulate no argument other than a shallow sentence. And by your own sentence beginning 'yeah' one could be led to believe that you are following some other sheep and actually not constucting thoughts of your own.

amandaxxx

[/quote]

You will read into it how you will.

What you have been writing on this forum is emotionally/egotistically driven, wether you realize it or not. It's not revelatory or instructive in the slightest. Get over yourself, is a suggestion.

prince wrote:You will read into it how you will.

No i said: One COULD be led to believe. I am well aware HOW people perceive. I do not assume nothing.

prince wrote:Get over yourself

The very fact you write this is Suggestive that you have your own issues to get over. What exactly do you profess that i 'need' to get over? My own understanding?? I Understand my Self do you?

Amandaxxx

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The observer, no matter how 'pure', 'quiet', 'powerful' or 'vast' it might appear is at the essence the naked appearance of the illusive self

I have picked up on your definition here of this 'illusive Self' And it is this that I am talking about. For me it is not illusive. It is this Self which comprises mystical or esoteric thought.
This is why mysticism is steeped in mystery. My understanding serves to pin point exact understanding of this Self. Of course as I mentioned previously this is beyond the subjective nature of the mind. It is in complete awareness that one is able to do so if they can. The reason why I do, is because i can. So therefore many here will of course cast me off into the void of whatever perceived stereotype they have of me. But my writing never changes its focus, as this Self understands in relation to what IS and knowing. What i have learnt since i came here is the absolute complexity of the task I have placed before myself. I have stated many times that my work forms the whole of this understanding from the microcosmic of phycological imprinting and perceptions, to the macrocosmic realisation of what IS in relation to history and previous thought. Astrologically speaking we are in the age of 'awakening' and many people are waking up to their own realisations of their own unity in oneness. That of consciousness transcending our perceived 'illusion', opening up the realm of the spirit world, and phychic abilities, dormant within most at present.

Amandaxxx

Amanda,

Your arrival here, is perfect. Dead-on, absolutely perfect. I don't think you really understood what I wrote, and I really try to avoid the endless repeats and re-phrasings.

This is priceless:

"I do not question the fact that every ones 'thinking' is subjective to them selves and therefore equally as valid. I never question anothers understanding, as each and every one of us understands things our own way, yet amongst the myriad of seemingly confusing interpretations and assertions, we do all have 'reasons' as to why we understand what we do. These reasons to why are what I have analysed and understand in relation to the whole as one of you."

Would you be capable of critiquing your own formulation? Care to give it a shot? I can see some flaws in here, can you see them too? (I sound to myself like Mr Rogers...)
________________________________________

Maestro wrote:

"Have you heard of Krishna or Vishnu?"

I knew that someone was going to bring that up. When one draws a comparison between two different traditions one runs the risk of painting things in stark black and white. But the purpose (my purpose) is not to denigrate the Vedic tradition, but only to point to some pretty tremendous differences and to observe their different productions or 'fruits'.

Yes, Krishna is very, very crafty and he always wins, but there is no emulation of Krishna that is allowed. You are never allowed to 'be Krishna' which would be seen as a very offensive ideal. Krishna (or Vishnu) does all these wonderful things, yay! but you just fulfil your role, sweep the floor, serve Him (his murti, his image).

But in our tradition, there are the Odysseuses, the Parsifals, the Huckleberry Finns, the Sal Paradises (Kerouac, On The Road). They carry God with them, they see and hear God, but they get along according to their own wit and cunning, and even for their own purposes, which are unique and personal. Krishna is his only purpose, you are not a purpose for Krishna, you simply do not count. Krishna is 'supreme', he did it all, there is nothing more to do or achieve. These are very important distinctions. Even in Christianity, you are challenged to do something like in kind to what your God did, and so you set out into the world with a unique mission. Radically different.

Try to find one Vaishnava with a 'unique mission' and you will search until you expire. It is not a value for them.

Are you telling me that in the whole of Indian literature (spanning at least 5,000 years) there are no crafty or cunning heroes? I find this claim hard to believe.

But that isn't what I said, Maestro.

Are you telling me you didn't read what I wrote? I find that hard to believe.