GENIUS FORUMS

I bring this post over from another board to present the genius of the spiritual metaphor to present a vision of the nature of man himself, a vision that allows man to see himself as both caught in the struggle of his belief in dualism, and of how he can be liberated of this struggle by being disciplined to his growing awareness of himself as being the observer of the complete vision of himself as being both non-dual and of dualism. I use biblical metaphors to represent the cosmogony of this awareness, however, every religious tradition has its own vision of Conscious Being and Conscious Becoming.

I present this cosmogony using my intellect, for one must use the mind to go beyond the mind, but it is not of identification with my intellect that these words come forth. What I present below is of my absorbed understanding of being both the traveler, the traveling and the traveled of this unfolding awareness of the universe of myself. A journey which includes being of a logical, conditioned mind of ethics, morals [soul integrity] and one of being liberated of these things of my 'they say' history of 'being only human' [spirit integrity]. I request that those who enter this post do so in the spirit of its intent, which is to dialogue purely on the content presented.

Dalton wrote:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Mat 10:36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household.

Why would Jesus do such things?

Answer: Because struggle is the essence of life, and Jesus brings life.

Dalton, you are quoting the words of Jesus of his awareness of conditioned thought only. Also from Matthew 10, to place your taking of scriptures in context of the spirit of unconditioned thought, which, by its very definition, is without struggle:

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Jesus is clear that he comes to sever one's earth [conditioned] thoughts from their thoughts of the Father, which is of [unconditioned] heaven. This severing, which is the taking up of one's own cross of their conditioned earth thoughts [mother, father, son, daughter] is indeed experienced as a struggle, but once the severing is complete, the struggle is no more. From Genesis 2, which speaks of the Father of unconditioned thought of which Jesus referred:

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

And then appeared the law of the opposites, of the Father who is the law of the Spirit of life, who gives life to all laws, to all principles, to all patterns, the law of the opposites being but one of infinite laws [in my house are many mansions], this law of the belief in dualism or a duplicate creation being that of the LORD [law] God, the law of which, of itself, is at rest, but when put in motion by the Spirit moving over the face of the waters [the principles and patterns of the law of flesh] sets in motion the interpretation of the opposites [the tree of life], the LORD God, which man, who is formed of the LORD God, further divides into good and evil [the tree of knowledge of good and evil]. Which means it is the LORD God who is the former of both:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The but in verse 6 is indeed the struggle of man who is under the spell of the LORD God of the earth and the heavens, the divided mind of belief in being separate from the heavens and the earth. But there is no but in the life of the Father, who is at rest. Jesus said "I and the Father are one." Not "the LORD God of struggle and I are one," but the Father of rest and I are one. Notice, though, that Jesus said that one must bear one's own cross of being under the influence of the but of struggle of the LORD God.

Which means man realizes his inherent innocence of all his good and evil thoughts and is then liberated of all his good and evil thoughts, when, as the Christ, he realizes the complete and whole vision of Consciousness that is the Father, who is at rest, who sets in motion of his Spirit of life, the LORD God/Adam/Eve, who is not at rest. There is no separation anywhere in this vision, of being at rest, and of not being at rest, but one cannot be at consciously at rest, as long as they are consciously aware of not being at rest. Which brings us back to bearing one's own cross of transcending the myth of self that is the LORD God of the appearance of struggle.

The nature of thought in man is one of unconscious awareness of the Father [the Lord God/Adam was put to sleep], of awakening consciously [revelation] to one's awareness of the Father [the awakening of the Christ], and then of becoming wholly conscious of transcending the LORD God and of becoming wholly conscious of one's original nature, I and the Father are One.

Struggle is of the flesh, this is true, but flesh is not permanent, therefore, struggle is not permanent. Transcend your belief that struggle is permanent, and struggle is no more. I and the Father of rest are one.

Both the Buddha and Jesus knew that being liberated from thinking could only happen by way of analyzing one's being liberated from thinking. Ergo, the genius of the metaphor that speaks only of this journey of being liberated of Metaphor.

Pam,

Which means man realizes his inherent innocence of all his good and evil thoughts and is then liberated of all his good and evil thoughts, when, as the Christ, he realizes the complete and whole vision of Consciousness that is the Father, who is at rest, who sets in motion of his Spirit of life, the LORD God/Adam/Eve, who is not at rest. There is no separation anywhere in this vision, of being at rest, and of not being at rest, but one cannot be at consciously at rest, as long as they are consciously aware of not being at rest. Which brings us back to bearing one's own cross of transcending the myth of self that is the LORD God of the appearance of struggle.

All of this assumes there's a horizontal involvement of a 'me' in 'time'.

It's about a future attainment.

What's wrong with right now unless you think up some concepts that turn it into a struggle.

movingalways wrote:Both the Buddha and Jesus knew that being liberated from thinking could only happen by way of analyzing one's being liberated from thinking. Ergo, the genius of the metaphor that speaks only of this journey of being liberated of Metaphor.

This last paragraph doesn't appear in your post at that 'godsaveall' forum at Yuku. By the way, why not just mention Course in Miracles and 'the Secret" type thinking more openly as a background to which your thought system is operating? It would also be interesting to understand your take on materialism and possessions, or health. How your beliefs or position is actually effecting your place in the world.

By the way, I think you should invite Dalton to come over to this forum!

Pam:
I request that those who enter this post do so in the spirit of its intent, which is to dialogue purely on the content presented.

Carmel:
Translation: I request that I, Pam, be permitted to preach my dogma unfettered by challenges to said dogma. I will use Genius Forums as a platform to preach, taking it over much like a hermit crab inhabits the shell of its former host. Furthermore, although the stated goals of Genius Forum clearly indicate a strong emphasis on logic and reasoning, I will demonstrate a total disregard for such goals by continuing to preach and rehash the same repetitive concepts over and over...
--
no can do, Pam. This is a discussion forum, not your own personal pulpit.

movingalways: Which means man realizes his inherent innocence of all his good and evil thoughts and is then liberated of all his good and evil thoughts, when, as the Christ, he realizes the complete and whole vision of Consciousness that is the Father, who is at rest, who sets in motion of his Spirit of life, the LORD God/Adam/Eve, who is not at rest. There is no separation anywhere in this vision, of being at rest, and of not being at rest, but one cannot be at consciously at rest, as long as they are consciously aware of not being at rest. Which brings us back to bearing one's own cross of transcending the myth of self that is the LORD God of the appearance of struggle.

Dennis: All of this assumes there's a horizontal involvement of a 'me' in 'time'.

It is not you who is moving, for you are the awareness of all that you see, touch, taste, smell and hear and that which you do not see, touch, taste, smell and hear, and awareness does not move. What is moving are your thoughts between the imaginary poles of the opposites. This is what causes the need for logic, which keeps you enslaved to the poles of the opposites.

Dennis: It's about a future attainment.

What I address above has nothing to do with the future or an attainment. It is an ongoing flow of a continuum of realization. 'Future' and 'attainment' are concepts of the logic-seeking mind.

Dennis: What's wrong with right now unless you think up some concepts that turn it into a struggle.

Dennis, every thought man thinks is not of 'now.' Not a one. Every thought he thinks is from something he has heard or read before. This is why he must use logic and opinion, and why it is man of his logical-emotional mind that struggles, not the man who stands still on his awareness of his non-dual nature and speaks from this 'spot.' As I am doing in this thread. Which is not to say that I am always on this 'spot.' But it is to this moment that my continuum is being expanded. Not in some imagined future time, but as an unfolding of my conscious awareness of what was, and what is.

Are not all your speculations about who I am and what I am about not evidence that your mind is fighting the battle of comparing your subjective-objective past [experience] with your subjective-objective projections into 'now?'

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

movingalways wrote:Both the Buddha and Jesus knew that being liberated from thinking could only happen by way of analyzing one's being liberated from thinking. Ergo, the genius of the metaphor that speaks only of this journey of being liberated of Metaphor.

This last paragraph doesn't appear in your post at that 'godsaveall' forum at Yuku. By the way, why not just mention Course in Miracles and 'the Secret" type thinking more openly as a background to which your thought system is operating? It would also be interesting to understand your take on materialism and possessions, or health. How your beliefs or position is actually effecting your place in the world.

By the way, I think you should invite Dalton to come over to this forum!

Diebert, I am free to word my posts according to the venue. This is a matter of my discernment.

It is interesting to me that those who claim logic are masters of assumption. You assume allegiance to two books that does not exist in my conscience. You could have simply asked me if either of those books influenced me, but no, instead, you make an assumption and read my words based on that assumption. Everything I am about is toward the elimination of such presumptuous activity.

As for how my beliefs effect my place in the world, it is simple. The world is the effects of my invisible cause. I live by this awareness.

If you think Dalton should be invited to come over to this forum, then why don't you join STS and invite him yourself?

Carmel wrote:Pam:
I request that those who enter this post do so in the spirit of its intent, which is to dialogue purely on the content presented.

Carmel:
Translation: I request that I, Pam, be permitted to preach my dogma unfettered by challenges to said dogma. I will use Genius Forums as a platform to preach, taking it over much like a hermit crab inhabits the shell of its former host. Furthermore, although the stated goals of Genius Forum clearly indicate a strong emphasis on logic and reasoning, I will demonstrate a total disregard for such goals by continuing to preach and rehash the same repetitive concepts over and over...
--
no can do, Pam. This is a discussion forum, not your own personal pulpit.

Carmel, every post on this board is evidence of one's personal pulpit. Give me one example where this is not so. I see no problem whatsoever with making a request that the subject matter be adhered to. Is this not a logical approach to the expansion of understanding?

Whether you can see it or not in my words, what I put forward is pure logic and pure reason. It is not logical to apply logic to the universe, which is the logic I bring to the Genius board. It is logical to use language that is not of logic so as to transcend logic; this is the logic I bring to Genius board.

Pam:
Whether you can see it or not in my words, what I put forward is pure logic and pure reason. It is not logical to apply logic to the universe, which is the logic I bring to the Genius board.

Carmel:
No, you are not relying on logic because you have no idea what the word means. Have you ever researched the meaning of the word "logic". All you're doing is redefining the word to suit your agenda.

Pam:
It is logical to use language that is not of logic so as to transcend logic; this is the logic I bring to Genius board.

Carmel:
That statement is inherently contradictory and therefore, illogical, but at least you admit here that your words are "not of logic" which alludes to the point I was trying to make.

Pam,
You have said things along the lines of you dismantling all memories and of having faith that will deliver transcendance.
Wouldn't that be a horizontal movement of a 'me' in 'time'?

It is an ongoing flow of a continuum of realization.

That certainly suggests time and who does the realisation happen to if not a me.

Dennis, every thought man thinks is not of 'now.' Not a one. Every thought he thinks is from something he has heard or read before. This is why he must use logic and opinion, and why it is man of his logical-emotional mind that struggles, not the man who stands still on his awareness of his non-dual nature and speaks from this 'spot.' As I am doing in this thread. Which is not to say that I am always on this 'spot.' But it is to this moment that my continuum is being expanded. Not in some imagined future time, but as an unfolding of my conscious awareness of what was, and what is.

Yes.
We embark logically to get a map of the territory and at some point grok our way out of the conundrum.

Are not all your speculations about who I am and what I am about not evidence that your mind is fighting the battle of comparing your subjective-objective past [experience] with your subjective-objective projections into 'now?'

Basically, I've been saying your languaging has been complex, even dense and difficult to get a sense of against a background of you might have something great to impart. It is frustrating.
I've been cajoling you, in a way, to perhaps influence you to come at things in a way that can be more readily understood.
I sense you've accepted the challenge and are toning it down for us for which I'm grateful.

Is the step into a vision based on the me,you,it experience.
Stepping out of me into a vision of it.
It meaning impersonal God.
As the voice of God booming at us down thru' the ages.

movingalways wrote: You assume allegiance to two books that does not exist in my conscience.

It's somehow not hard to believe they left your conscience :)

You could have simply asked me if either of those books influenced me, but no, instead, you make an assumption and read my words based on that assumption.

Why play these games? It's a whole scene of books and studies based on the same basic idea and position, one I understand and recognize pretty well. The question is: do you? My view is that if you really did, your belief in your cause could not be so effective anymore. It seems your liberation lies in complete obscuring, not by addressing anything at all.

As for how my beliefs effect my place in the world, it is simple. The world is the effects of my invisible cause. I live by this awareness.

But did it change anything, this believing your personal cause is creating everything that happens in your world? Apart from feeling way better? Which by the way is not something I want to dispute, or the effects of feeling better about oneself or life.

Carmel, Dennis, Diebert:

Not one of you addressed the subject matter of this thread in the spirit of its contents. Which leads to me assume that you are unable to address the subject matter in the spirit of its contents. The core message of this thread was about the genius of spiritual metaphor to expand one beyond their belief that life is a struggle; not one person addressed this core message. I will not allow this thread to continue to be railroaded beyond its original intent.

movingalways:
Not one of you addressed the subject matter of this thread in the spirit of its contents. Which leads to me assume that you are unable to address the subject matter in the spirit of its contents. The core message of this thread was about the genius of spiritual metaphor to expand one beyond their belief that life is a struggle; not one person addressed this core message.

Carmel:
Since you like Joseph Campbell here's a passage from him that I thought to be appropriate at this juncture:

"The Power of Myth" p. 4
Campbell quoting/speaking of Thomas Mann:

"The writer must be true to truth." And that's a killer, because the only way you can describe a human being truly is by describing his imperfections. The perfect human being is uninteresting - the Buddha who leaves the world, you know. It is the imperfections of life that are lovable. And when the writer sends a dart of the true word, it hurts. But it goes with love. This is Mann calls "erotic irony", the love for that which you are killing with your cruel, analytical word."
--
This alludes to the reason I find your posts uninteresting. It's as though you're are trying to present a facade of perfection to the world, but when you are challenged you quickly become self righteous, indignant and your mask begins to slip away revealing an imperfect human being. I don't think you're being real.

I've noticed this same tendency with many religionists. I've observed this at Buddhists forums as well. Many of the participants try to present this same mask of perfection, yet when challenged by other Buddhists, they become indignant and respond in a passive aggressive manner, like you're doing.

movingalways:
I will not allow this thread to continue to be railroaded beyond its original intent.

Carmel:
You really have no choice in the matter, except to stop posting...or else accept the challenges presented to you as per the stated goals of this forum.

movingalways:
Not one of you addressed the subject matter of this thread in the spirit of its contents. Which leads to me assume that you are unable to address the subject matter in the spirit of its contents. The core message of this thread was about the genius of spiritual metaphor to expand one beyond their belief that life is a struggle; not one person addressed this core message.

Carmel:
Since you like Joseph Campbell here's a passage from him that I thought to be appropriate at this juncture:

"The Power of Myth" p. 4
Campbell quoting/speaking of Thomas Mann:

"The writer must be true to truth." And that's a killer, because the only way you can describe a human being truly is by describing his imperfections. The perfect human being is uninteresting - the Buddha who leaves the world, you know. It is the imperfections of life that are lovable. And when the writer sends a dart of the true word, it hurts. But it goes with love. This is Mann calls "erotic irony", the love for that which you are killing with your cruel, analytical word."

Two can play the game of quotation 'flinging.' Also spoken by Joseph Campbell: "God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being - those are categories of thought. It's as simple as that."

It is to the living of this awareness unconditionally that I aspire. Whether Joseph Campbell himself was able to live of the impersonal I am of which he had become aware is no concern of mine.

Carmel: This alludes to the reason I find your posts uninteresting. It's as though you're are trying to present a facade of perfection to the world, but when you are challenged you quickly become self righteous, indignant and your mask begins to slip away revealing an imperfect human being. I don't think you're being real.

Why should I care what you think? I do not say this out of disrespect, but to be true to who I am, which has nothing to do with your opinion of me. If you find my posts uninteresting, why are you responding to them?

Carmel: I've noticed this same tendency with many religionists. I've observed this at Buddhists forums as well. Many of the participants try to present this same mask of perfection, yet when challenged by other Buddhists, they become indignant and respond in a passive aggressive manner, like you're doing.

Your psychological profile of me is meaningless to anyone but you. Since you are not inside my mind, you know nothing of what I know or believe.

movingalways:
I will not allow this thread to continue to be railroaded beyond its original intent.

Carmel:
You really have no choice in the matter, except to stop posting...or else accept the challenges presented to you as per the stated goals of this forum.

I do have a choice in the matter, for I can continue writing in this thread of its original subject matter and ignore all posts that do not address this original subject matter. As for the stated goals of this forum, I am being true to these goals according to what I know to be true of that of which I have become aware. Is not the goal of this forum "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment?" Every fibre of my being is directed toward this goal. If the owners/adminstrators believe I am not honoring this goal and they desire me to leave this forum, then they can advise me thusly and I will leave. Until then, I will be true to who I am and will post according to this truth.

movingalways wrote:Not one of you addressed the subject matter of this thread in the spirit of its contents. ... I will not allow this thread to continue to be railroaded beyond its original intent.

It was about growing awareness of oneself, not? And that's exactly where the questions put to you are about! Like with Jufa, the moment anyone tries to push the language toward anything outside where you think it needs to be, like a porcupine the spikes come out and it's made clear it's not even allowed! What a remarkable and telling language, metaphor even. Wouldn't it be interesting for you to contemplate the fact other people are witnessing this in your behavior? Or is your belief based on shutting out more than it's about including?

movingalways wrote:To Carmel: Your psychological profile of me is meaningless to anyone but you. Since you are not inside my mind, you know nothing of what I know or believe.

But language is all about mind entering inside another mind through an abstraction layer, with the possibilities of likewise response. What's the point of communication if we cannot learn what other people seem to know or believe? Are your words not meant to relay, indirectly, what you know and believe to be true? Actually, one cannot help but radiating relevant parts of ones psychology in a debate, although it doesn't have to mean all interpretations are always correct or complete.

movingalways:
Two can play the game of quotation 'flinging.'

Carmel:
game? The fact that you think this is a game is very revealing. It's a discussion, not a "game".

movingalways:
Why should I care what you think? I do not say this out of disrespect, but to be true to who I am, which has nothing to do with your opinion of me. If you find my posts uninteresting, why are you responding to them?

Carmel:
Again, you don't seem to understand that this a discussion forum, not your own personal blog or pulpit, if you don't want people to respond to your posts, then you could simply post a link the forum where you are active and invite people to join. I'd venture to guess that nobody from this forum would join.

movingalways:
I do have a choice in the matter, for I can continue writing in this thread of its original subject matter and ignore all posts that do not address this original subject matter.

Carmel:
starting...now?

...and we are free to respond to your posts as we see fit. It makes no difference to me whether you ignore them or not.

movingalways:
Is not the goal of this forum "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment?" Every fibre of my being is directed toward this goal. If the owners/adminstrators believe I am not honoring this goal and they desire me to leave this forum, then they can advise me thusly and I will leave. Until then, I will be true to who I am and will post according to this truth.

Carmel:
I already explained to you that there is a strong emphasis on logic and reasoning, and like a typical devout religionist, you put your hands over your ears ignore this. Have you actually ever read the goals of this forum you would know that you are showing a complete lack of respect for them, but like a petulant spoiled child, Pam doesn't care, Pam is going to do what Pam wants to do.

You haven't made a single effort to understand what the philosophy here is about. It demonstrates an extraordinary level of arrogance on your part.

At the heart of every desire to be liberated of one's human thinking, there resides, in most, in concert with this desire, a fear of this very liberation. Which is a natural fear, for the conditioning of one's humanism runs deeper than any individual could possibly fathom in this parenthesis of their living in the flesh. No matter how strong is one's will to be liberated from their human conditioning, this liberation must be a gradual process, one of a thought by thought release or absorption.

Metaphors of spirit [not of spirituality, which is of the church or religion mentality] are just such words that serve as an agent of gradual liberation of one's conditioning to being of the dual, human mentality of 'they say.' One such word is the word 'faith', which when released from its human conditioned definition of having faith in a God of human design and applied purely to the activity of consciousness that is the stepping beyond all that is believed to be known of the memory of oneself and trusting wholly in this stepping beyond the conditions of time, the metaphor Faith takes on a whole new understanding.

For those who carry the baggage of religious indoctrination on their backs, even the word 'spirit' can arouse feelings of negativity toward metaphors purposed to support the growing awareness of one's unconditioned I am. Without these words, however, there can be no expansion beyond one's desire to be released from their dependency on, or attachment to, the visible effects of their invisible cause. Man cannot be revealed of himself in a void of thought; without a vision of word, he stagnates on the spot on which he stands.

We get that Pam realises a 'me' and a 'world' is a projection Pam, that arises in impersonal awareness.
We get Pam desires the withdrawal of projections Pam, to again relax in impersonal awareness.
Nevertheless Pam, you hold that as image and project it out here along with the projection of Pam as non-duality teacher.
It's that projection we look at as performance.
As Art.
As Art Critic we engage.
You wanna project you get Reflect.

What is being missed by the posters in this thread is that when one is being obedient to their nondual or spirit awareness, they do not step away from this obedience to debate the human world of dual interpretations. A stand is taken to not identify oneself with the illusion that is dualism, and nothing anyone can do or say will cause that individual to move from that obedient position. For those who cannot conceive of such a stand being taken, the intent of the one taking the stand will be interpreted in all manner of human ways, such as what is happening here to the degree of beginning a thread dedicated wholly to this end.

Those who see no exit for dualism, or have no desire no exit for dualism remain of this awareness with the outcome being that the genius of spiritual metaphor that transform one's conscious awareness beyond their belief in dualism so that they can step outside of their struggling mind of logic, will be missed.

movingalways:
Those who see no exit for dualism, or have no desire no exit for dualism remain of this awareness with the outcome being that the genius of spiritual metaphor that transform one's conscious awareness beyond their belief in dualism so that they can step outside of their struggling mind of logic, will be missed.[/quote]

Carmel:
What is being missed by Pam is that non dualism is one of the core aspects to the philosophy of this forum. The majority of members here have a firm grasp on the concept of non dualism. It is presumptuous for you to presume otherwise. What Pam also doesn't seem to acknowledge is that all language is inherently dual in nature. Words can only allude to the concept of nondualism and are not nonduality itself. Every time you type here you are engaging in a dualistic activity, there is no escaping this.

Logic is the grounding force which allows concepts to be relayed from one individual to another. Your posts are lacking of this force. It reads as disembodied gibberish much of the time. Vague, loose ideas drifting about in a nonsensical way. Many of your posts appear to those of us who understand the importance of logic as a display of illogical, incoherent blobs of self indulgent rambling.

If you would actually bother yourself to learn anything about the real meaning and purpose of logic, you would understand this, but no, like most devout religionists, you know best, you have shut yourself off from learning anything new.

Myths and metaphors serve a purpose, but it's childs play. Any child can understand the symbolic value of myth, it's not that difficult. It would benefit you to step out of your comfort zone and make an effort to understand why and how logic functions to expand ones understanding of spiritual and philosophical concepts, including nonduality. As it stands right now, you are like a child, sleepwalking in some sort of magical, religious disneyland. Your efforts to try force feed us your fluffy cottoncandy won't work here, as most of us here are looking for something more substantial.

movingalways:
Those who see no exit for dualism, or have no desire no exit for dualism remain of this awareness with the outcome being that the genius of spiritual metaphor that transform one's conscious awareness beyond their belief in dualism so that they can step outside of their struggling mind of logic, will be missed.

Carmel:
What is being missed by Pam is that non dualism is one of the core aspects to the philosophy of this forum. The majority of members here have a firm grasp on the concept of non dualism. It is presumptuous for you to presume otherwise. What Pam also doesn't seem to acknowledge is that all language is inherently dual in nature. Words can only allude to the concept of nondualism and are not nonduality itself. Every time you type here you are engaging in a dualistic activity, there is no escaping this.

Carmel, it is not possible to have a firm grasp on non dualism, for to grasp is to be of dualism. And it is not so that I do not acknowledge that all language is inherently dual in nature; read any or all of my posts and you will see that at all times do I acknowledge the inherent dual nature of human language. What you are missing is that human language suggests two directions of thought, one of being projected outward, as if away from the Father or non dual reality or one of being gathered inward, as if toward the Father or non dual reality. The first consciously divides reality into dualities, such as the many discussions here on man and woman, and the second does not consciously divide reality, and addresses dualism from the perspective of overcoming the dualities, and only from this perspective.

Carmel: Logic is the grounding force which allows concepts to be relayed from one individual to another. Your posts are lacking of this force. It reads as disembodied gibberish much of the time. Vague, loose ideas drifting about in a nonsensical way. Many of your posts appear to those of us who understand the importance of logic as a display of illogical, incoherent blobs of self indulgent rambling.

Tell me of this grounding force that is logic, when logic is based on the dualities, which is the ever shifting ground of movement between the opposites. There is no ground of logic, this is the wisdom of which I write. So, yes, my posts are lacking of this imaginary force of the ground of logic of which you speak, for it does not exist.

If you would actually bother yourself to learn anything about the real meaning and purpose of logic, you would understand this, but no, like most devout religionists, you know best, you have shut yourself off from learning anything new.

Carmel, you're calling me a devout religionist does not make it so. You want to believe this and I have no control over what you want to believe. And I could say the same of you, that your dependence on logic, which is the conscious dividing of your life into dualities has shut you off from learning anything new, that is, of renouncing such activity, and of turning your thoughts only toward this renunciation of dividing your life into dualities.

Myths and metaphors serve a purpose, but it's childs play. Any child can understand the symbolic value of myth, it's not that difficult. It would benefit you to step out of your comfort zone and make an effort to understand why and how logic functions to expand ones understanding of spiritual and philosophical concepts, including nonduality. As it stands right now, you are like a child, sleepwalking in some sort of magical, religious disneyland. Your efforts to try force feed us your fluffy cottoncandy won't work here, as most of us here are looking for something more substantial.

For you to say that myths and metaphors are child's play, you have nullified, for me, your quotation from Joseph Campbell, for in no way did he express that opinion of myth and of metaphor. Myth and metaphor are all man is and has; there is no absolute concept anywhere in man's world. If you can think of one, then, please, reveal it to me. Give me one concept that is the absolute truth of all men. The self is a myth, for it is not real. Life is a metaphor, for no one can say, in absoluteness, what life is.

You can look all you want for something 'more substantial', but what you cannot see yet is that you are the substance of what you seek elsewhere. Logic is a tool, no more, no less. It helps bring some order to a confusing world of dualities, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of you/life/reality. Nothing.

Your interpretations of my writings as being of a magical candyland/disneyland/comfortable is so far off the mark that it reveals to me how little you understand of how difficult it is to keep one's attention solely on their awareness of the non dual spirit nature of life, of the Father, of reality. By this, I do not mean discussing non duality as a concept, but of turning one's entire being toward being transformed into their conscious awareness of their non dual I am. I write of being transformed beyond the illusion that a logical cause of thought can be found anywhere, by anyone. Being transformed of one's consciousness is anything but a trip to candyland, but nothing I can say to you will convince you of this truth. So be it.

movingalways:
Tell me of this grounding force that is logic, when logic is based on the dualities, which is the ever shifting ground of movement between the opposites. There is no ground of logic, this is the wisdom of which I write. So, yes, my posts are lacking of this imaginary force of the ground of logic of which you speak, for it does not exist.

Carmel:
Logic does exists, for you to claim otherwise is the utmost in delusion. The fact that you have no aptitude, interest or understanding of it, does not negate its existence or value.

movingalways:
Carmel, you're calling me a devout religionist does not make it so. You want to believe this and I have no control over what you want to believe. And I could say the same of you, that your dependence on logic, which is the conscious dividing of your life into dualities has shut you off from learning anything new, that is, of renouncing such activity, and of turning your thoughts only toward this renunciation of dividing your life into dualities.

Carmel:
I'm not dependant on logic, it's a tool as you mention later in your post.

Your behaviour is that of a devout religionist, regurgitating the same stagnant concepts repeatedly. This is not your first appearance here at this forum. You and jufa have been here before repeating the same dogma. We've seen all this before. Why do you feel the need to constantly repeat yourself? We either accept or reject your message or portions, thereof. Repeating it won't change this.

movingalways:
For you to say that myths and metaphors are child's play, you have nullified, for me, your quotation from Joseph Campbell, for in no way did he express that opinion of myth and of metaphor.

Carmel:
Campbell is an intelligent and insightful man, but I outgrew him a long time ago. Myths can and do serve a pupose, but are far more powerful when combined with logic.

movingalways:
Myth and metaphor are all man is and has; there is no absolute concept anywhere in man's world.

Carmel:
Is that an absolute statement?

movingalways:
You can look all you want for something 'more substantial', but what you cannot see yet is that you are the substance of what you seek elsewhere.

Carmel:
This statement is incoherent. You need to rephrase this in a logically cohesive way for it to make sense to anyone other than yourself.

movingalways:
Logic is a tool, no more, no less. It helps bring some order to a confusing world of dualities, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of you/life/reality. Nothing.

Carmel:
It is a tool, a very powerful tool when employed correctly. You wouldn't know this because you have wiped it off the table. First you deny it's existence, then say it's a tool. Do you even have the first clue as to what logic actually is or how it's applied to the philosophical concepts of this forum?

movingalways:
Your interpretations of my writings as being of a magical candyland/disneyland/comfortable is so far off the mark that it reveals to me how little you understand of how difficult it is to keep one's attention solely on their awareness of the non dual spirit nature of life, of the Father, of reality. By this, I do not mean discussing non duality as a concept, but of turning one's entire being toward being transformed into their conscious awareness of their non dual I am. I write of being transformed beyond the illusion that a logical cause of thought can be found anywhere, by anyone. Being transformed of one's consciousness is anything but a trip to candyland, but nothing I can say to you will convince you of this truth. So be it.

Carmel:
You said that already, a dozen times or more. You'll probably say it again, then, end your posts with phrases like "so be it" or "nuff said", but obviously it's not enough as is evidenced by the fact that you keep preaching the same few ideas over and over and...

movingalways:
Tell me of this grounding force that is logic, when logic is based on the dualities, which is the ever shifting ground of movement between the opposites. There is no ground of logic, this is the wisdom of which I write. So, yes, my posts are lacking of this imaginary force of the ground of logic of which you speak, for it does not exist.

Carmel:
Logic does exists, for you to claim otherwise is the utmost in delusion. The fact that you have no aptitude, interest or understanding of it, does not negate its existence or value.

You are demonstrating your lack of mental clarity in the above statement, for I did not say logic does not exist, I said that a ground of logic does not exist, which is a ground you claim exists. You completely avoided my statement that the application of logic depends on a movement between the opposites, which exposes your erroneous belief that there is a 'ground' of logic.

movingalways:
Carmel, you're calling me a devout religionist does not make it so. You want to believe this and I have no control over what you want to believe. And I could say the same of you, that your dependence on logic, which is the conscious dividing of your life into dualities has shut you off from learning anything new, that is, of renouncing such activity, and of turning your thoughts only toward this renunciation of dividing your life into dualities.

Carmel:
I'm not dependant on logic, it's a tool as you mention later in your post.

Your behaviour is that of a devout religionist, regurgitating the same stagnant concepts repeatedly. This is not your first appearance here at this forum. You and jufa have been here before repeating the same dogma. We've seen all this before. Why do you feel the need to constantly repeat yourself? We either accept or reject your message or portions, thereof. Repeating it won't change this.

So if logic is a tool, then what is that 'something' of you that is using the tool? If you can answer this question, then you will receive a touch of your enlightenment, which is the light of your very Being.

You have stated that my posts are uninteresting, and yet, you return again and again to debate my words. You say my words are dogma, and yet, cannot see that yours are as much dogma as are mine. The difference between us is that I admit the repetitive nature of human language, including mine. All the colorful adverbs and adjectives in the universe cannot change this fact. If you read my words, you will see that I use very few human adverbs or adjectives. This is a purposeful activity, for these are the words of enchantment that seduce the human mind into believing that what they are experiencing via these words is the creation of 'new' life. Ironically, this is one of the ways one overcomes their 'woman' mentality, the gathering of Eve unto Adam, Eve who believes in the reality of time, distance [adverbs], space and matter [adjectives] so that Adam [who projects Eve from his pure sense awareness] may be gathered unto the Father [who is infinite, without belief in time, distance, space and matter.] And yes, I am using 'religious' language to make my point. Same old, same old, indeed!

movingalways:
For you to say that myths and metaphors are child's play, you have nullified, for me, your quotation from Joseph Campbell, for in no way did he express that opinion of myth and of metaphor.

Carmel:
Campbell is an intelligent and insightful man, but I outgrew him a long time ago. Myths can and do serve a pupose, but are far more powerful when combined with logic.

Give me evidence that myths are far more powerful when combined with logic.

movingalways:
Myth and metaphor are all man is and has; there is no absolute concept anywhere in man's world.

Carmel:
Is that an absolute statement?

Such a petty avoidance tactic was that response. Again, let me explain that words must be used to express one's understanding of who and what they are or are not. But none of these words are absolute, none of these statements are absolute, every one suggests a direction of thinking. The word 'myth' has no absolute meaning. Nor does the world 'metaphor.' But they are words that collectively, are understood to suggest 'something' that is beyond the senses. So when I say that the self is a myth and that life is a metaphor, I am communicating 'something' that points away from the grasping intellect of the senses to something that suggests invisibility or infinity. The self is not permanent, logic is not permanent, and yet, that which is you that is aware both of the self and of logic, is. What is this 'you' that is aware of both the self and of logic? No word can say, but the metaphor "pure awareness" is an agreed upon metaphor that suggests this 'you' beyond your self that uses logic.

movingalways:
You can look all you want for something 'more substantial', but what you cannot see yet is that you are the substance of what you seek elsewhere.

Carmel:
This statement is incoherent. You need to rephrase this in a logically cohesive way for it to make sense to anyone other than yourself.

If I use logic to rephrase this statement, to make sense, then I will bring your awareness back to your senses, which will negate entirely my intent for saying it. I do believe that I expressed it in a different way in my statements above about 'pure awareness.' Which I will attempt to express further by saying that the pure awareness of you that is aware of your senses and of your need for cohesion is the substance of life itself. You are more than you humanity, you are more than your senses, these things are temporal appearances of your pure awareness of you, which is not temporal, which is not born, which cannot die. Your senses are born, your senses die, but the you of you that brings your senses into your awareness, is not born and does not die.

movingalways:
Logic is a tool, no more, no less. It helps bring some order to a confusing world of dualities, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of you/life/reality. Nothing.

Carmel:
It is a tool, a very powerful tool when employed correctly. You wouldn't know this because you have wiped it off the table. First you deny it's existence, then say it's a tool. Do you even have the first clue as to what logic actually is or how it's applied to the philosophical concepts of this forum?

I have not wiped logic off the table nor have I denied its existence, as per my answer to you above. Logic is a temporary faculty of That which is beyond the need of logic to BE. As for how logic is used on this forum, I witness the effects, and respond to that which I witness. I witness the battle of the dualities, which, again, are temporal expressions of man, meant to be used, to be expressed, and then, to be transcended. Thought, in its pure form, knows nothing of man or of woman, these are human ideas or ideals. If one desires to continue being 'only human', then to the effects of the dualities will he turn his attention. If one desires to know himself beyond his 'being only human', then to the invisible cause of the dualities will he turn his attention. Yeah, I know, I'm saying the same thing again and again, but check out all the posts on this forum and tell me that the same things are not being said again and again? Take away the enchanting, seducing, Eve deceiving Adam adverbs and adjectives and what is the substance that is left?

So much for "ignoring" my posts, eh, Pam? I knew when you originally said that, that you would never follow through on it...such is the nature of preachers. There's really nothing new being said here and I see no hope for any genuine dialogue to occur. So be it. ;)

Carry on with your preaching then...

Carmel: So much for "ignoring" my posts, eh, Pam? I knew when you originally said that, that you would never follow through on it...such is the nature of preachers. There's really nothing new being said here and I see no hope for any genuine dialogue to occur. So be it. ;)

Carry on with your preaching then...

Again, Carmel, you are not demonstrating clarity of mind, for I did not say I would ignore you, I said I would ignore any who did not address the subject matter of my thread. Quoting myself:

I do have a choice in the matter, for I can continue writing in this thread of its original subject matter and ignore all posts that do not address this original subject matter

Since that comment, your posts have addressed the subject matter, which addresses the genius [or lack thereof, which I assume, is your position] of spiritual metaphor.

As you shall continue your preaching about what is important to Carmel, saying nothing new under the sun, I shall continue preaching about what is important to Pam, saying nothing new under the sun. We are no different, you and I in having to use thought that is but a manipulation of that which exists in its pure form. Again and again, over and over, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. We may use it differently, but the principle of "same old, same old" is the same.

In the spirit of "same old, same old", I salute you and thank you for the dialogue, by whatever name you want to give to our sharing of words.

...you forgot to say "So be it".

Relax, I'm just teasing you a little! ;)

Thank you for the discussion, as well, Pam.