GENIUS FORUMS

Alex Jacob wrote:MA, your sig reminds me of this song by Julie Snow (too bad it has not been posted on Youtube).

I had never heard that song, but indeed, it relates, in essence, to my signature. What I like about songs such as these is that speak of 'the rising Christ or Pure Self' is that they connect one viscerally to their vision of ascension. Songs are of the illusion that matter is real, but used righteously, such as is happening in Snow's song, help one realize they are not alone on this journey of going through to go beyond. Thank you for posting the lyrics; I will save them, and pass them on to those I believe understand their wisdom.

Even better, listen to the song performed by Lui Collins. I don't know how it happens but some popular songwriters get some very high material into their songs. Another song Lui Collins sings on that album is The Tinker's Coin by Jack Hardy. [the sidhe is Gaelic for 'spirit world'].

Alex Jacob wrote:Heathen is from an old English word that may have meant 'not Christian or Jewish', and came from a word indicating simply those who dwelled on the heath.

But since most teachings revolved around the scriptures, it's more linked with the Jewish concept of gentiles and many translations went with heathen. Of course Christianity has always seen themselves theologically as the chosen people of the new covenant.

'Pagan' was equated with a Christianized sense of 'epicurian' to signify a person who is sensual, materialistic, self-indulgent, unconcerned with the future and uninterested in sophisticated religion.

Lets restrict us to the dinstinct way you introduced the term: as Frankish and German paganism, with their polytheism, sacred places in nature, particular mythology, festivals, etc. The Roman Catholic dogma replaced many of these elements of paganism with comparable items: sacred places of worship (churches), deities (trinity, saints), mythology (miracle stories, bible), festivals (Roman calendar), etc. This was all about asserting control, like the old tribes used to do: plunder the village, kill the men and fertilise (rape) the women. This way one replaces instead of wiping out.

G. K. Chesterton wrote: "The pagan set out, with admirable sense, to enjoy himself. By the end of his civilization he had discovered that a man cannot enjoy himself and continue to enjoy anything else." (Chesterton as one defending the Christianizing mission and seeing in paganism a sort of dead-end).

Funny how people after having embraced a certain idea, look so down on all that was predecessor or even competition. I guess one could call it natural. At the time of Frankish and German paganism, Christianity represented certainly new ways to enjoy oneself and assert some (idea of ) power. Like centuries before most tribes embraced the Romans and their blessings too.

tI simply cannot get away from the early Christian sensibility of loving-kindness, community, sharing, and worship, as describing essentially 'the pap' that David so much hates and resists...in favor of some other, indefined 'masculinity'.

It seems clear to me the remark was more about the teachings on the topic God, purity, poverty, being which became pap in the hands of priests and monks who didn't understand their own material - barely could read it. But a kind of pap which really goes down well with the vulgar hoi polloi, as always. And after a few centuries, the dogma as aura even supplies more grease.

... a neo-Romantic longing for the former, 'pagan' relationship to Life. Yet, it is a conflicted longing because it is also a position of detesting 'the world'. (That is why I sometimes see it as essentially Christian). So, the manouvre is one where 'Buddhism' is privelaged as a sort of exalted paganism, which also receives support from extremely advanced intellectualism a la Nietzsche, Weininger, etc.

Aren't you just babbling here now? But yes, even paganism has its interesting roots: the more pantheist, naturalist, decentralised approach to life. They of course had their shamans too.

Still, it IS hard to envision a 'real man' within the Christian/Catholic worldview. Everyone in a certain sense becomes womanly in laying their life and masculinity at the feet of the Savior.

The idea of salvation lies here in a guarantee (if ones beliefs so) that there will be no punishment from the gods, now or in the afterlife. This was a big deal at the time, especially for the worrying pagans! The one wise thing which survived more or less intact in the Church is the issue of forgiveness, which means: obliteration of sin. Such a powerful thought begged for a large control structure to impose again. Like the dome of a nuclear power station.

Diebert van Rhijn The idea of salvation lies here in a guarantee (if ones beliefs so) that there will be no punishment from the gods, now or in the afterlife. This was a big deal at the time, especially for the worrying pagans! The one wise thing which survived more or less intact in the Church is the issue of forgiveness, which means: obliteration of sin. Such a powerful thought begged for a large control structure to impose again. Like the dome of a nuclear power station.

Lets get real hear!!! All religions rely on beliefs, but beliefs of what one has humanly interpreted for the mass of collective followers trickled down to individuals who refused to study to shown themselves approved, which is different than an empty guarantee which takes away from the collective and individual responsibility to get it for themselves, as they get material love, security, family, friends, etc, etc.

The principle of salvation is not based in words interpreted by the so-called 'men of the cloth'. Those who accept words without personal knowledge or experience are just as pagan as those who speak them, for to accept ones words without knowledge is the acceptance of that which is not of the gist of wisdom personafied unto salvation.

Acceptance and interpretation does not apply to religion alone, it applied to all form of message communication secular and spiritual. And to set one out and apart from the life and times of any man thinking, as if it is not a part of man's daily living even, if one is unaware of the activity of the conscious which keeps things, situations, circumstances and conditions actives in the lives of those whom participate, is blasphemous to intellectual, soul, conscience, moral and Spiritual integrity.

Forgiveness has not had any more impact of survival in the church or secular life than faith, or pray, or rituals. All have been standardized in condemnation of you must do this in order for God to do that. The man who lives from intellectual bending is damned if he does for he is looking for results that exist in artificial hope. He is also damed if he doesn't, for he does not looke for results of salvation or forgiveness as a reward.

Myth, metaphors, religion, philosoply, psychology, following and interpretating others beliefs leave on in the same environment of the black and poor white of the old southern ways - domanated by fear of "The Lynching Tree."

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

movingalways wrote:

Kelly: Actually, one's already and inescapably the Infinite. There is no gaining of Infinite-mindedness. It is more like dropping the mental draperies, and being one's original naked self.

From what I can discern from this statement, you and I are in complete agreement as to what must be done to realize one's original naked self [I would use the metaphor "I am"].

What I do not understand is how you do not see that to divide the [nondual] Infinite, of which you already are, into male and female dualities, and then, to expand upon this division as being one of "better" and "worse" is not a mental drapery that needs to be dropped? How do you reconcile the attachment to a duality to be a realization of a nondual "I?"

Simple enough. One cannot put aside the tools for dropping draperies if one hasn't yet used them.

A person could have a fair intellectual grasp that all dualities are the nondual, but still be unable to live in the midst of dualities. What's the problem? Probably psychological, so certain psychological tools are needed.

Wise misogyny contains the most powerful tools for identifying the "chocks and wedges", the psychological blockages to the vital flow, that are available to the human mind.


.

jufa wrote:Acceptance and interpretation does not apply to religion alone, it applied to all form of message communication secular and spiritual.

But you're speaking here from a position of someone being birthed and raised in an age where not only there is some form of separation between the secular and spiritual - one that might not have been in earlier times - but you're also underestimating how much you could be infused with Christian morality to the extend you cannot separate it anymore from what you consider to be universal.

Wise misogyny contains the most powerful tools for identifying the "chocks and wedges", the psychological blockages to the vital flow, that are available to the human mind.

Buddha is known as a master of conditions. An expert in know-how.
When he decided to step out in a Wisdom Project.
He put the boys up one end of town and the girls up the other end.
Why?
He knew the seekers were identified as bodymind.
His ambition was to have the seekers detached from bodymind and identified as Infinite.
If he put the sexes together the proliferating practice would be flirting and rooting.
Wisdom Project lost.

Is it misogyny or best practice?

Today, young females pursuing Buddhistic aspirations are stormed upon by feminists for supporting a patriarchal, misogynistic 'empire'.

WTF?

I went out in the worldhood a few years back to a shiny new Zen Centre.
The seekers were beautifully adorned in the latest designer ashram gear from the House of High Fashion or somewhere..
A homily was given and the seekers were then instructed to meditate..
It was impressive how they perched so daintily on the cushions and with a half eye open checked the passage of time with regular glances at their tiffany wristwatches.
After the meeting there was a gathering around the coffee machine, where, with diary and pencil poised the seekers were arranging 'date nights' with each other...

I 'got' Kierkergaard's plastic christian.
As I'd just 'got' plastic zen.

Didn't Jesus say something like he came to cleave Ma from Son, Pa from Daughter...implying detachment...in his wisdom project.

It's important this touchy subject be confronted and a cover-up not run on it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jufa wrote:Acceptance and interpretation does not apply to religion alone, it applied to all form of message communication secular and spiritual.

But you're speaking here from a position of someone being birthed and raised in an age where not only there is some form of separation between the secular and spiritual - one that might not have been in earlier times - but you're also underestimating how much you could be infused with Christian morality to the extend you cannot separate it anymore from what you consider to be universal.

What you have overlooked Diebert, you are also speaking from the same position. You also overlook the reality of regardless of the physical and mental separation imposed upon the mass, we are all the same in our outer objectiive visions, and inner subjective feeling.

Every man, woman or child have the same hopes, fears, faith, longsuffering, beliefs which does not separate the reality of being equally tied together regardless of the heights and lows of physical acheivements, and intellectual expansion.

Most people are in denial of the low-down suffering, fears, and aloneness they live within, and so they gather themselves in some form of ostrich living, or peacock strutting and find, after living their lives in such manner, their body become frail and weak, their children begin to abandon them, sickness, nurse homes, and finally the grave calls for them as it does all men.

Death has a warrant for everyone. The intellectuals, the fools, the mothers, fathers, the popes, gurus, the heathens, all come and go the same way regardless. All men are ignorant fools to think they are something, or have found enlightenment intellectually or spiritually when enlightenment is dependent upon - WHAT MARK WILL YOU LEAVE? Who will remember you beyond the grave of those you have touched in your lifetime?

Let's talk about it.

Comparing man born of a woman to the infinity of what has been, what shall be, and what now is, I find man is only a wink of memories to those who remember. That the trail a man leaves behind him is a continuum of the trail others who have refused to believe it is their
responsibility not to recycle the steps of the living, the dead, the unborn, nor their own in this continuous human intellectual repetitive maze with no hope that those who come behind them, as those who are living now, will not be entrappen in the continuing ways of man.

Man is remembered not as who he is, or was, he is remembered by the memories he has imprinted within the minds of others. And in acting out the roles which imprinted those memories within the minds of others, those actions of imprint do not depict the reality of who any individual truly is, and have always been.

Why is this? Those memories issued forth to be remembered were man's protective clothing he wore to cover the tenderness of his reality. When man could not display that tenederness outwardly yesterday nor today, it was because he knew should he reveal his true self to the world, as the world crucified the Son of Man two thousand years ago, so it would crucify him today should he not take that tenderness of his reality out of harms way. It is
within him "a child is born; within him a child is given," and it is his responsibiity to take this child given down to Egypt for the safety of his purpose to be performed. "Many are called, few chosen" to carry out their responsibility to life and the gift of living it in the awareness they can make a change, one step at a time, one individual at a time.

One day, though, out of the few; for many are indeed called, when that day arrives for the tender One to be about his Father's business [when we have"travailed in birth again, till
Christ was formed in us], one will come forth out of Egypt to find the waters of Jordan for his baptism of death of the Son of Man.

The mission of this Tendren One is to go now into the world to see if he is truly sanctified in the "word of his power." Should sanctification be his worth, no longer will he be led by the Spirit, he will come forth "in the power of the Spirit." Therefrom, his footsteps will leave a trail of justice, mercy, grace, healing, and the love of God upon all he touch, and who touch him.

Today is the first and last day of our life. And the questions which should be utmost in the atmosphere of our living is, what is the trail I have left for others to follow? Did I live my life in
such a way as to stop being irresponsibe to my generation, and the ensuing generation? Did I stop the buck of human reciprocity, of recycling the illusion that temporary fulfillment is the answer to become whole in mind, body, soul and deeds? Have I brought to the attention of mankind "mortality must be swallowed up in life," in order to prove the last enemy death can become nullified in this world when the thoughts is no longer viable`?

In the twilight of the coming eveniing and dawn of the day one will perpetually let their light shine, consuming the total illusions of those things which did hinder thee. Being born only to die will no longer be the reality of enslavement to mankind. For in order for something to be real in the life of any man, that something must find life through the thought substance and essence of man beyond his eternal moment on into the infinity of the Consciousness of Life Itself.

You are never alone!!!

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

Kelly: Actually, one's already and inescapably the Infinite. There is no gaining of Infinite-mindedness. It is more like dropping the mental draperies, and being one's original naked self.

movingalways: From what I can discern from this statement, you and I are in complete agreement as to what must be done to realize one's original naked self [I would use the metaphor "I am"].

What I do not understand is how you do not see that to divide the [nondual] Infinite, of which you already are, into male and female dualities, and then, to expand upon this division as being one of "better" and "worse" is not a mental drapery that needs to be dropped? How do you reconcile the attachment to a duality to be a realization of a nondual "I?"

Kelly: Simple enough. One cannot put aside the tools for dropping draperies if one hasn't yet used them.

Do you mean by this that you are not yet finished with your wise misogyny, and when you are, you will put it aside?

Kelly: A person could have a fair intellectual grasp that all dualities are the nondual, but still be unable to live in the midst of dualities. What's the problem? Probably psychological, so certain psychological tools are needed.

To say that all dualities are the nondual is illogical to me. Not only illogical, but a recipe for man's eternal entrapment in his dual mindset of divide and conquer. I can envision that all dualities emanate from the nondual by way of a law or principle of 'appearance' or 'flesh' or 'matter' or 'birth and death', the very emanation Eckhart tells us must be broken through if one is to be, as you say, our orginal naked self, but I cannot envision a Reality where the nondual and the dual are the same 'thing.' Allow me to use the Big Bang to expand upon what I mean. Before there was an 'explosion' into time, space and matter 14 or so billion years ago, there were no dualities. I suggest that the principle or law of dualism was present before the appearance of dualities was, but the presence of this principle or law of dualism did not make That which created the principle or law, Itself, of dualism.

I do understand that while dualities exist, we must live in their midst. However, there is a difference between how you reference dualities, and how I reference dualities, which may be tied into the different visions we have of the relationship between the nondual and dual. From what I can discern of your vision of the nondual being the same as the dual, you believe that dualities are psychological tools and that the desired duality, that of male logic, can be used to subdue its undesired pair, that of female illogic? Am I on track?

Wise misogyny contains the most powerful tools for identifying the "chocks and wedges", the psychological blockages to the vital flow, that are available to the human mind.

I believe I understand what you are suggesting here, but is not the duality of the shadow of acceptance/rejection, attraction/repulsion that is inherent in wise misogyny not itself a psychological blockage to the flow of thought?

Dennis Mahar wrote:I went out in the worldhood a few years back to a shiny new Zen Centre.
The seekers were beautifully adorned in the latest designer ashram gear from the House of High Fashion or somewhere..
A homily was given and the seekers were then instructed to meditate..
It was impressive how they perched so daintily on the cushions and with a half eye open checked the passage of time with regular glances at their tiffany wristwatches.
After the meeting there was a gathering around the coffee machine, where, with diary and pencil poised the seekers were arranging 'date nights' with each other...

The seekers don't have to be examplary models of the latest expensive fashions, either. I've been to Buddhist retreats with very ordinary looking women, and feral types, and the same dynamic of matchmaking is there. While the monks, priests, and nuns don't actively engage in sex (or probably most wouldn't be open about it), they're cultivating the couplings-up of their devotees. None of them speak of the delusion of love and attachment. They'll speak of the wrong views of the mind of attachment, and the need to abandon samsara, but then dribble off saying, "Ahh, we poor wretches will never reach enlightenment in this life." Then they turn to talk of seeking happiness. If you don't challenge them, they won't own up that happiness has nothing to do with nirvana.

No wonder there's a movement towards men's only retreats. But probably they're made up of fathers, and the theme is how to love your family, and how to be happy.

Didn't Jesus say something like he came to cleave Ma from Son, Pa from Daughter...implying detachment...in his wisdom project.

It's important this touchy subject be confronted and a cover-up not run on it.

It goes a little deeper than simply segregation, but I'm all for segregation. If a woman thinks she ought to be permitted to listen in, then let her earn that right.

A foolish man will at least shut up for a while, when he is shown to be a fool.


.

movingalways wrote:Pam: What I do not understand is how you do not see that to divide the [nondual] Infinite, of which you already are, into male and female dualities, and then, to expand upon this division as being one of "better" and "worse" is not a mental drapery that needs to be dropped? How do you reconcile the attachment to a duality to be a realization of a nondual "I?"

Kelly: Simple enough. One cannot put aside the tools for dropping draperies if one hasn't yet used them.

Pam: Do you mean by this that you are not yet finished with your wise misogyny, and when you are, you will put it aside?

I'm not finished using it for my own sake, and for the sake of others.

Kelly: A person could have a fair intellectual grasp that all dualities are the nondual, but still be unable to live in the midst of dualities. What's the problem? Probably psychological, so certain psychological tools are needed.

Pam: To say that all dualities are the nondual is illogical to me. Not only illogical, but a recipe for man's eternal entrapment in his dual mindset of divide and conquer. I can envision that all dualities emanate from the nondual by way of a law or principle of 'appearance' or 'flesh' or 'matter' or 'birth and death', the very emanation Eckhart tells us must be broken through if one is to be, as you say, our orginal naked self, but I cannot envision a Reality where the nondual and the dual are the same 'thing.'

They're not the same thing. I'll explain. All things are finite (dualistic in nature, bounded by what they are not). The totality of all things is made up of all things. Therefore, the totality is made up of all dualities. Does this make sense?

The next step is to understand that the totality is nondual in nature. I take it you understand why, and can see what I mean by all dualities being the nondual.

Allow me to use the Big Bang to expand upon what I mean. Before there was an 'explosion' into time, space and matter 14 or so billion years ago, there were no dualities.

I get what you're trying to explain, but aside from the truth that whatever existed prior to the Big Bang existed dualistically (in contrast to other things), the point is moot. Dualism doesn't exist separate to nonduality. Do you see how that concept of nonduality being separate from duality must automatically make nonduality bounded and therefore dualistic?

I do understand that while dualities exist, we must live in their midst. However, there is a difference between how you reference dualities, and how I reference dualities, which may be tied into the different visions we have of the relationship between the nondual and dual. From what I can discern of your vision of the nondual being the same as the dual, you believe that dualities are psychological tools and that the desired duality, that of male logic, can be used to subdue its undesired pair, that of female illogic? Am I on track?

As explained above, the dual and nondual are not identical.

The purpose for "desecrating" the tenets of philogyny are to heighten consciousness of dualities. The feminine bog-mind blurs everything in its vagueness, and is prone to concept- hashing, equivocation, emotional outbursts, and an inability to discern logical truths. By heightening consciousness of dualities, one ought to be able to think clearly enough to see the relationship between the dual and nondual. It is not about male fighting female, but mind using the appropriate tools to think as logically as possible to understand the true nature of things.

Kelly: Wise misogyny contains the most powerful tools for identifying the "chocks and wedges", the psychological blockages to the vital flow, that are available to the human mind.

Pam: I believe I understand what you are suggesting here, but is not the duality of the shadow of acceptance/rejection, attraction/repulsion that is inherent in wise misogyny not itself a psychological blockage to the flow of thought?

Not necessarily. Think about the totality of all things, and how all things are dualistic. Is the totality nondual or dual?

Is one fully immersed in the totality or not?


.

The Buddha set up his wisdom project in such and such a way, with respect to conditions in order to effect the arising of enlightenment, the arising of which is subject to conditions.

He was practical.

The worldhood is composed of practices and conventions that could be said are survival techniques to get thru' this life.
The worldhood is identified with bodymind.

A wisdom project is practices wrought to detach from bodymind and discover Infinite.

They are getting after different, is values the right word?

It's not for worldhood to gatecrash a wisdom project and insist on it's values to be cherished in that very wisdom project.

It's the discoveries of a wisdom project that worldhood ought to take on to restore it to sanity.

As prince has said several times in the way prince says things.

Dennis Mahar wrote:The worldhood is composed of practices and conventions that could be said are survival techniques to get thru' this life.
The worldhood is identified with bodymind.

A wisdom project is practices wrought to detach from bodymind and discover Infinite.

They are getting after different, is values the right word?

Values would probably be the right word, but I don't agree they're divorced values. Everything is the Buddha, right here and now. Eating, drinking, shitting, walking or sitting down, sleeping or awake, getting groceries, going for a drive; they are all expressions of the Buddha.

Where is the Buddha?


.

Hang on, you got to where you got by saying that, ie. seeking's done.

I'm talking about Buddha setting it up for the seeker in such and such a way that gets the seeker to where you got, ie. seeking's done.

first things first.

Okay, I take your point. Sorry. I agree that celibacy of mind (and therefore body), living simply, and a minimum of dalliance with the demon of the earth is productive. Mainly because these help with thinking, and the brain's chemical processes are slow already. More distractions aren't helpful.

That said, one should keep from creating rituals. The learner is so quick to cling to characteristics. One has to express ideas that carry the essential truth existentially. The more pure the teaching, the faster the good learner learns.


.

That said, one should keep from creating rituals. The learner is so quick to cling to characteristics. One has to express ideas that carry the essential truth existentially. The more pure the teaching, the faster the good learner learns.

Yes, that would constitute skilful means.
When the pure teaching is fired at the seeker.
What happens?

Do you think ignorance is an effect of the act of forgetting.
And enlightenment is remembering.

Dennis Mahar wrote: Do you think ignorance is an effect of the act of forgetting.
And enlightenment is remembering.

I would say "habit of thought" is a better way to describe it. Becoming enlightened means removing all the mental habits based in deluded thought.

Kelly Jones wrote:I see the purification process of abandoning delusions as entering an abattoir, where bit by bit, chunk by chunk, attachments are cut away by the sharp sword of reason. Self-enhancing virtues and ulterior motives like the desire for a noble reputation, pride in one's knowledge or intellect or various talents, a love of dignity and moral well-being, satisfaction at fulfilling ideal actions and plans, contentment at being understood or respected by others, happiness at finding spiritual communion with Nature, and so forth, are systematically and undauntingly cut away, piece by piece, until there is just one virtue left.

This may be all well and good, Kelly, but I think you should try to learn to listen to others (everywhere in life) more with your heart than with your head. And also with the view in mind that you may not have all the answers to life's puzzle.

The spiritual life, or any life for that matter, is not a theory, an intellectual adventure, nor solely a thing of logic or reason either - it has to be LIVED. Or like dear old mom often told me as a child, "talk is cheap, actions speak far louder than words."

"We must strive to live our way into right thinking, not try to think our way into right living." (A. U.)

I'm not finished using it for my own sake, and for the sake of others.

Then you do acknowledge that there will be a moment within your consciousness when you will be finished with using the imposed boundary of "wise misogyny." And when this duality/boundary of "wise misogyny" is finished within you, do you see yourself as attaching yourself to another duality/boundary, ad infinitum, or of breaking through your need for any and all dualities/boundaries?

They're not the same thing. I'll explain. All things are finite (dualistic in nature, bounded by what they are not). The totality of all things is made up of all things. Therefore, the totality is made up of all dualities. Does this make sense?

The next step is to understand that the totality is nondual in nature. I take it you understand why, and can see what I mean by all dualities being the nondual.

Boundaries are not real. They arise of sense awareness, of you being born of your thoughts of the earth, of matter, and they disappear when your senses are no longer engaged, when your earth body 'is finished.' To break through the emanation of matter, while still of the breath, is to see this Total vision of you, the you of you that is unbound and the you of you that believes in the truth of boundaries. To see this vision of your naked, unbound self, and to be true to this vision, is the wisdom you carry with you when your breath is no more. The wisdom that will hold you in on your spot of your "original naked [unbound, nondual] self." From my comprehension of the Totality of me, if I were attached to my belief in a boundary between male and female, regardless of the reason for this attachment, and I had not yet caught the vision of 'being without [the distinction/boundary/duality of] breath', I would return again and again to this mentality, until I did catch the spirit or invisible vision of being my original, naked, [unbound, nondual] Self.

Which means that I do not see that all dualities are the nondual. Dualities are emanated of the nondual, and when this emanation is broken through [see Eckhart's doctrine], this emanation is gradually absorbed into Its Source, that is, the nondual. Liberation, salvation - by whatever name one wants to give the being free of their belief in the reality of boundaries.

Not necessarily. Think about the totality of all things, and how all things are dualistic. Is the totality nondual or dual?

Is one fully immersed in the totality or not?

I believe I answered your question above. To summarize: one is immersed in the totality, and however they interpret this immersion, is the reality of their Totality, to them. The spirit of relativity of inquiry. I interpret my belief in boundaries as being a temporal-spatial emanation of the Totality of Me, one that is purposed to come, and is purposed to go. I have come to realize that I cannot know what this purpose is, and that it is this very realization that I cannot know, that is the 'catalyst' of my continuum of boundary-dissolution.

Bob Michael wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:I see the purification process of abandoning delusions as entering an abattoir, where bit by bit, chunk by chunk, attachments are cut away by the sharp sword of reason. Self-enhancing virtues and ulterior motives like the desire for a noble reputation, pride in one's knowledge or intellect or various talents, a love of dignity and moral well-being, satisfaction at fulfilling ideal actions and plans, contentment at being understood or respected by others, happiness at finding spiritual communion with Nature, and so forth, are systematically and undauntingly cut away, piece by piece, until there is just one virtue left.

This may be all well and good, Kelly, but I think you should try to learn to listen to others (everywhere in life) more with your heart than with your head. And also with the view in mind that you may not have all the answers to life's puzzle.

I'm open to learning new skills with dealing with delusions, since I don't know all the ways delusion manifests. However, I'm not changing my priorities, and the direct, plain way I approach communication. It's a matter of urgency.

The spiritual life, or any life for that matter, is not a theory, an intellectual adventure, nor solely a thing of logic or reason either - it has to be LIVED. Or like dear old mom often told me as a child, "talk is cheap, actions speak far louder than words."

"We must strive to live our way into right thinking, not try to think our way into right living." (A. U.)

This is all fine, except that it's out of place in this particular discussion - by which I mean your and my interaction - which is about how to generate wisdom in individuals who are part of a society that is driven by a repulsion from thought. Nothing can be achieved on the spiritual path without the intellectual understanding being perfected first.

So speaking against thought in this context isn't what I call skillful means. The coarse delusions are dismantled by thinking.


.

movingalways wrote:when this duality/boundary of "wise misogyny" is finished within you, do you see yourself as attaching yourself to another duality/boundary, ad infinitum, or of breaking through your need for any and all dualities/boundaries?

Wise misogyny are the tools that enable the latter.

Boundaries are not real. They arise of sense awareness, of you being born of your thoughts of the earth, of matter, and they disappear when your senses are no longer engaged, when your earth body 'is finished.'

Boundaries are conceptual only. As long as one is conscious, concepts will arise. This doesn't necessarily entail delusion, namely, the belief that boundaries are intrinsically real.

To break through the emanation of matter, while still of the breath, is to see this Total vision of you, the you of you that is unbound and the you of you that believes in the truth of boundaries. To see this vision of your naked, unbound self, and to be true to this vision, is the wisdom you carry with you when your breath is no more.

I see my naked original self right now, breathing or holding my breath. ;-)

Which means that I do not see that all dualities are the nondual. Dualities are emanated of the nondual, and when this emanation is broken through

See, that's a problem. If you have to break through something, you're stuck in a dualism.

Liberation, salvation - by whatever name one wants to give the being free of their belief in the reality of boundaries.

Yes, right now, one uses the mind to understand that all is one, and boundaries are constructs of mind. The belief drops out of play. All continues in the flow of causation. It's still the Infinite.

Kelly: Think about the totality of all things, and how all things are dualistic. Is the totality nondual or dual?

Is one fully immersed in the totality or not?

I believe I answered your question above. To summarize: one is immersed in the totality, and however they interpret this immersion, is the reality of their Totality, to them.

Since one is fully immersed in the Totality, and the Totality is nondual, one is already nondual as well. No breaking in or out of any matter or emanations needed. Just dropping of a belief, this instant. All done and dusted.


.

Blessed are the poor; for, they shall inheret the earth...

Jesus

movingalways wrote:
when this duality/boundary of "wise misogyny" is finished within you, do you see yourself as attaching yourself to another duality/boundary, ad infinitum, or of breaking through your need for any and all dualities/boundaries?

Kelly: Wise misogyny are the tools that enable the latter.

Why not see the wisdom of ending your misogyny wisdom this very moment so that you can drop your belief in boundaries? What is it that keeps you spellbound to this duality that you cannot let it go?

Quote:
Boundaries are not real. They arise of sense awareness, of you being born of your thoughts of the earth, of matter, and they disappear when your senses are no longer engaged, when your earth body 'is finished.'

Boundaries are conceptual only. As long as one is conscious, concepts will arise. This doesn't necessarily entail delusion, namely, the belief that boundaries are intrinsically real.

You are making the assumption here that all forms of conscious awareness include concepts. Before you were born into your conceptual world, you were conscious, or you could not have realized, begun to interpret, your concepts.

Quote:
To break through the emanation of matter, while still of the breath, is to see this Total vision of you, the you of you that is unbound and the you of you that believes in the truth of boundaries. To see this vision of your naked, unbound self, and to be true to this vision, is the wisdom you carry with you when your breath is no more.

I see my naked original self right now, breathing or holding my breath. ;-)

:-)

If you truly did see your naked, original self right now, you would not be clothing yourself in wise misogyny.

Quote:
Which means that I do not see that all dualities are the nondual. Dualities are emanated of the nondual, and when this emanation is broken through

See, that's a problem. If you have to break through something, you're stuck in a dualism.

Hallelujah! Agreement between Kelly and Pam! :-)

Of course it is a problem to be stuck in dualism, in a duality! I am stuck, you are stuck. Everyone is stuck. Is this not why you are employing the tool of wise misogyny, to become unstuck [please refer to your first response to me in this post], and why I am committed to speaking only of the way of becoming unstuck, which is to consciously detach myself from my thoughts of dualism?

Quote:
Liberation, salvation - by whatever name one wants to give the being free of their belief in the reality of boundaries.

Yes, right now, one uses the mind to understand that all is one, and boundaries are constructs of mind. The belief drops out of play. All continues in the flow of causation. It's still the Infinite.

No, play perpetuates the belief. Play is needed, helping to loosen one of their tension of belief in dualism [thank God for laughter] but play is not the liberator. Wisdom of the Infinite is the liberator, and that Wisdom is one of complete and utter poverty of spirit, of dropping all notions, ideas, opinions and beliefs of what the Infinite is, and of being obedient to this Wisdom. Including the idea of causality.

Since one is fully immersed in the Totality, and the Totality is nondual, one is already nondual as well. No breaking in or out of any matter or emanations needed. Just dropping of a belief, this instant. All done and dusted.

Yes, one is already nondual, and yes, there must be a dropping of a belief, this instant, but no, all is not done and dusted. It is this belief that "all is done and dusted" that perpetuates the mixing of nondualism with dualism, keeping one imprisoned in dualism, believing they are free of dualism. Again, you cannot say you have transcended distinctions, and that all is done and dusted, as long as you admit you remain needing the tool of wise misogyny.

Pam, just as you use words and descriptions, which are dualistic, to make a point, Kelly does just the same in her use of Wise Misogyny.

To demonstrate and explain non-dualism (which ultimately cannot be done), we have no choice but to use concepts and words which are dualistic in nature. "Wise Misogyny" is a concept. At best, our words can only hint to us what reality really is, but it is up to our own strength of logic and understanding to discover the Ultimate Truth.

Once enlightened, an individual is fully aware that one is immersed in the observable dualistic realm of reality (in which concepts and boundaries exist), while at the same time completely understanding the fundamental non-dualistic nature of reality. "Seeing the forest for the trees" doesn't mean that the trees cease to exist in a practical sense. Nor does your understanding cause you to transcend the realm in which trees exist. That would imply dualism. To be enlightened is to know that a tree is still a tree, yet you understand the purest nature which underlies it's existence.

"We must strive to live our way into right thinking, not try to think our way into right living." (A. U.)

Drawing a blank - who is "A. U."?