Mystery

[puppy]

"The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exist at all. What breathes
life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos. Such
questions lie beyond science, however: They are the province of
Philosophers and theologians." What say you?

[Tinker]

I'll give you the pre-eminent mystery to the why of the initial 'ping'
of our creation. Ping/pong, yin/yang progress answers all the
questions after that initial pulse of energy.

peace & Love

[Ruth Browning]

Some good questions.The reality seems to be in the mind a lot.Do we want to believe in a better world?Do we find purpose in this one ?Is there a reason we can have ourselves to live in this world ? It is a beautiful planet --- does it matter why ?
 
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:01:42 -0700
> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Mystery
> From: tin...@hotmail.com
> To: Mind...@googlegroups.com

[ornamentalmind]

Hi again Ruth/Rabbit!
Yes, many do ruminate about such topics. Such searching occurs until
one knows. What we want is of little to no importance unless to be
used as an observational method to transcend our own appetites. And, a
better world? How could that be? It is perfect as it is. The issue is
with the observer, looking through numerous veils. Purpose? Again, not
our will to be dealt with unless one remains in blind subjectivity.
And, reasons...yet another theory in a failed attempt at knowing
reality as it is. Yes, there is the beautiful...and not only a planet.
And, matter? Simple, all is divine!

On Jun 14, 12:39 am, Ruth Browning <witchr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Some good questions.The reality seems to be in the mind a lot.Do we want to believe in a better world?Do we find purpose in this one ?Is there a reason we can have ourselves to live in this world ? It is a beautiful planet --- does it matter why ?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:01:42 -0700
> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Mystery

> > From: tink...@hotmail.com

> > To: Mind...@googlegroups.com
>
> > I'll give you the pre-eminent mystery to the why of the initial 'ping'
> > of our creation. Ping/pong, yin/yang progress answers all the
> > questions after that initial pulse of energy.
>
> > peace & Love
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:54 pm, puppy <a1234p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >  "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exist at all.  What breathes
> > > life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos.  Such
> > > questions lie beyond science, however: They are the province of
> > > Philosophers and theologians."   What say you?
>

> _________________________________________________________________
> Get the best of MSN on your mobilehttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Tinker]

The mind is a product of reality. Reality is here and now existence.
The belief that we do have of a better world is in the archetypal
'dream of utopia'. Many who don't/won't believe in reality 'want' to
believe in some 'other' better world.
I find the purpose of reality to be progress towards realizing the
'dream of utopia'.
The reason we have Life in this world is simple, we are a part of the
progress.
Yes it does matter why we are on this beautiful planet. Because we to
to progress towards our utopian potential instead of destroying it.

peace & Love

On Jun 14, 2:39 am, Ruth Browning <witchr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Some good questions.The reality seems to be in the mind a lot.Do we want to believe in a better world?Do we find purpose in this one ?Is there a reason we can have ourselves to live in this world ? It is a beautiful planet --- does it matter why ?
>
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:01:42 -0700
> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Mystery

> > From: tink...@hotmail.com

> > To: Mind...@googlegroups.com
>
> > I'll give you the pre-eminent mystery to the why of the initial 'ping'
> > of our creation. Ping/pong, yin/yang progress answers all the
> > questions after that initial pulse of energy.
>
> > peace & Love
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:54 pm, puppy <a1234p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >  "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exist at all.  What breathes
> > > life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos.  Such
> > > questions lie beyond science, however: They are the province of
> > > Philosophers and theologians."   What say you?
>

[Tinker]

Orn, should we transcend our appetite for Love and beauty?

"And, a better world? How could that be? It is perfect as it is." -
Orn

Our world is perfectly balanced. For every hoarding their is denial of
need. I dare say that you would not be so supportive of the perfection
if you were at the other end of the balance.

"not our will to be dealt with unless one remains in blind

subjectivity" - Orn

Whether or not this is the wavering line of definition between Life
and gnosis, it is apathetic.

peace & Love

> > Get the best of MSN on your mobilehttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/-Hide quoted text -

[puppy]

We humans are the limb of the same body, flowers of the same
plant, thoughts of the same mind, words from the same song. A limb
cannot function without being part of the body. A flower cannot grow
without the plant. Understanding is not found in one thought alone,
but through the harmonious gathering of many thought. And a word will
never make a song. (Maya Sarada Devi)

On Jun 14, 12:39 am, Ruth Browning <witchr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Some good questions.The reality seems to be in the mind a lot.Do we want to believe in a better world?Do we find purpose in this one ?Is there a reason we can have ourselves to live in this world ? It is a beautiful planet --- does it matter why ?
>
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:01:42 -0700
> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Mystery

> > From: tink...@hotmail.com

> > To: Mind...@googlegroups.com
>
> > I'll give you the pre-eminent mystery to the why of the initial 'ping'
> > of our creation. Ping/pong, yin/yang progress answers all the
> > questions after that initial pulse of energy.
>
> > peace & Love
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:54 pm, puppy <a1234p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >  "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exist at all.  What breathes
> > > life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos.  Such
> > > questions lie beyond science, however: They are the province of
> > > Philosophers and theologians."   What say you?
>

[ornamentalmind]

“Orn, should we transcend our appetite for Love and beauty?” – tink

Yes…appetite as in hunger…for sure.

“Our world is perfectly balanced. For every hoarding their is denial

of
need. I dare say that you would not be so supportive of the
perfection

if you were at the other end of the balance.” – tink

Yes, you dared. You are incorrect, but that is fine too.

“Whether or not this is the wavering line of definition between Life
and gnosis, it is apathetic.” – tink

Yes, I have seen this theme in your posts often. From this point of
view, there is something that can be seen as apathetic; however not
quite in the clinical sense. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathetic )
There is a balancing of emotions. One is not nearly as run by past
events. This does not imply non-interest though regardless of whatever
your karma is on the topic.
we are one

> > > Get the best of MSN on your mobilehttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Tinker]

Sir, appetite, as in need for nourishment.

I dare again to maintain my opinion :-)

Yes sir, it is the theme of my Life. There is a need for and a way to
change the 'direction' of Society.
Whether one says there is no need or no way to disconnect from humane
emotions resultant of the way of Society, I do see something that I
understand as apathy.
Past events are simply information to me. When I see non-interest
masking denial it has nothing to do with my Life.

peace & Love

> > > > Get the best of MSN on your mobilehttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/-Hidequotedtext -

[ornamentalmind]

fanaticism = fanaticism ***shrug***

[gabbydott]

Sounds like your "Nothing is nothing!", remember?

[ornamentalmind]

Not in context, no...and, identity IS identity....a is a.

[iam deheretic]

no , No , NO ,,  two plus two equals five
Allan

--
(
 )
I_D Allan

[ornamentalmind]

It may well be allan...I only learned how to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

On Jun 16, 7:54 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no , No , NO ,,  two plus two equals five
> Allan
>

> I_D Allan- Hide quoted text -

[Molly Brogan]

Sorry, boys. 1+1 = 1 consult your local mystic for details.

[iam deheretic]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Molly Brogan <molly...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, boys.  1+1 = 1  consult your local mystic for details.

aaaaaaooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 
(silence ensuing )







Hmm  must take more time..
Allan
 
(did a  speel check and it told me that it was unable to check faroiniese only the english) lol

[iam deheretic]

Orn   that is the new math  "1984 "  reference.
Allan

[Chris Jenkins]

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to Mind...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Minds-Eye+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[ornamentalmind]

The mystics I know, while on occasion referencing the ‘calculus’ of a
situation, have never dealt with stuff like proving 1+1=2. This is in
the subjective realm of mathematicians. Although mystics do address
the relative (like math), they mainly point towards the absolute. It
is that which most of us have not only a difficult time calculating,
but even knowing what it is.

And, one who might appear as an exception was Pythagoras. Yet even he
had a divine math that produced what many today would call errors.
And, he held associations with numbers. All so very misunderstood.

Oh, well…..

http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/pythag/pythag.html


On Jun 16, 9:25 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Double plus good, gentlemen...
>
>
>
> [ Attached Message ]From:iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com>To:Mind...@googlegroups.comDate:Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:21:48 +0200Local:Tues, Jun 16 2009 9:21 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Mystery

>
> Orn   that is the new math  "1984 "  reference.
> Allan
>

[gabbydott]

*hex hex* and here it reappears:
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/browse_frm/thread/39aa0180aba45345/06fd98bfed74e0ba?lnk=gst&q=%22Nothing+is+nothing!#06fd98bfed74e0ba

[Tinker]

I don't mind when he can't come up with any 'wise' words :-) but did
he call me a fanatic? :-(

peace & Love

[gabbydott]

Ah well, I would subsume this under just another case of ignorance
being a bliss.

[Tinker]

I Love You.

peace & Love

[ornamentalmind]

fanaticism comes in all sizes, colors and belief
structures...including ignorance

[Tinker]

ornamentalmind = ornamental mind

peace & Love

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

I say there are many answers to this question.

[Vamadevananda]

> "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exist at all. What breathes
> life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos. Such
> questions lie beyond science, however: They are the province of
> Philosophers and theologians." What say you?

It is still not definite, to me, if the equations get actualised in
real cosmos or the cosmos has lead to actualisation of the equations
in the human mind !



On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

> > Philosophers and theologians."   What say you?- Hide quoted text -

[Molly Brogan]

paradox!

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

That sorta goes hand in glove with questions about how we percive
reality and how can we know if we percive it as it actualy is.

To that I would ask what are the evolutionary advantages in senses
that do not let us percive things as they actualy are?

On 19 June, 12:21, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exist at all.  What breathes
> > life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos.  Such
> > questions lie beyond science, however: They are the province of
> > Philosophers and theologians."   What say you?
>
> It is still not definite, to me,  if the equations get actualised in
> real cosmos or the cosmos has lead to actualisation of the equations
> in the human mind !
>
> On Jun 19, 4:12 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I say there are many answers to this question.
>
> > On 14 June, 02:54, puppy <a1234p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >  "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exist at all.  What breathes
> > > life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos.  Such
> > > questions lie beyond science, however: They are the province of
> > > Philosophers and theologians."   What say you?- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lonlaz]

Puppy is saying the mystery is WHY not HOW, entirely different
questions. One answer is a lot easier to figure out, but really tells
you nothing of personal value. Haven't you ever sat and wondered why
you can wonder anything, why can you regard a mountain, but why can it
not regard you, and what decided who had the privilege? It seems
ridiculous that something like this doesn't have a meaning.

Reality is a perception, an idea, a product of the mind.

> > Get the best of MSN on your mobilehttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/- Hide quoted text -

[Molly Brogan]

I think that our "sense" of the true nature of reality changes as we
discover and develop beyond our physical senses. We have senses of
the soul also, intuition, imagination...that allow us to delve further
into the timeless nature of reality, explore things like karma and
those parts of us that are eternal.

On Jun 19, 8:35 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[Justintruth]

The meaning of the cosmos is expressed and made specific by the
meaning of the equations and the initial conditions or states required
as the "goes into's" of the equations. Together they produce "answers"
about the future based on an idea about what is now. That they express
something about our experience is confirmed by experiment.

The question about whether the equations get actualized in the real
cosmos or the cosmos has lead to the actualization of the equations in
the human mind has the logical structure of a false dilemma. The
equations are actualized in our minds as the meaning of what we
experience. Hence they are in fact in our minds but also they mean
things about that which is. And in fact they, and the associated
science, shows that we did evolve the very neurology without which we
fail to find others or ourselves. It is therefore a real contingent
fact that the cosmos has produced the actual-ization of the equations
in the sense that it evolved organisms with brains- NOT through
execution of the equations but rather through the process of being
that occurs sometime after conception and ends sometime before or at
the death of an organism that has a neurology.

All of that is true contingent fact about what is. However the fact
that it is can never be derived from what it is. That which is, is, by
virtue of the fact that it is experience which only abstractly can be
thought of as not being experienced but instead being in itself
without being experienced. Experience itself will never be derived
from matter. We can only note that what we experience has an objective
structure that predates our experience in the sense that it has a
history that we are capable of experiencing indirectly that shows that
it extends before our birth and indeed will extend after our death and
also note that the intervening time between birth and death does not
occur without the material organization of our bodies which are "in"
and a part of the cosmos.

We must avoid however a problem that originates with a deep
equivocation due to our incarnate nature. We "are" from the "point of
view" of our bodies. Our experience is materially dependent on the
functioning of our brains in fact. Therefore it is a real aspect of
the world that when objectified the object is separated from the one
who experiences by a distance of space. This real aspect of the world
when looked at carefully does not mean the the world is either outside
of or inside of our mind. Only that the object that reflected the
light that entered our eye, is not coincident with the object that is
our eye and indeed the optical path and associated neurology. If you
identify your mind with your brain then indeed the cosmos is not in it
but rather it is in the cosmos. However, the identification of your
mind with your brain is a distortion of the meaning of experience and
of being. It misses the fact of experience at all. The universe -
including my brain - is in my mind and my mind has no reality except
that which comes from the experience of the cosmos. Both "my mind"
when thought of alone and being and "the cosmos" when thought of alone
and being are not realizable. It is only the experiencer experiencing
the experienced that is in fact experiencing experiencing experiencing
that is realizable and that is what we call being.

In other words if you conceive of what is as experience then it cannot
exist as either a "mind" or "something external to a mind". In order
to be experience it must be both. There is no such thing as an
experience that is not of something nor is there a something whose
meaning can be though of as not that of a experience. None of the
particulars of what we experience, the fact of our incarnation and the
relative size of our bodies relative to the cosmos etc do not
contradict it.

Ultimately all of our reports originate in the fact of experience
which is not divisible ontologically.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Umm what do you mean by 'the true nature of reality' there Molly?

It is clear to me that this particular thread is more about the
physical than the spirtual.

[ornamentalmind]

Many do not differentiate between the different realms..physical,
emotional, mental, spiritual etc. For some, all is one. And, in a way
this is true, especially when it comes to epistemology.

On Jun 19, 7:01 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Yes indeed, and I sorta agree. Although I like to maintain the split
in order to know and to work.

[frantheman]

On 19 Jun., 15:42, Justintruth <truth.jus...@gmail.com> wrote:
Both "my mind"
> when thought of alone and being and "the cosmos" when thought of alone
> and being are not realizable. It is only the experiencer experiencing
> the experienced that is in fact experiencing experiencing experiencing
> that is realizable and that is what we call being.
>
> In other words if you conceive of what is as experience then it cannot
> exist as either a "mind" or "something external to a mind". In order
> to be experience it must be both. There is no such thing as an
> experience that is not of something nor is there a something whose
> meaning can be though of  as not that of a experience. None of the
> particulars of what we experience, the fact of our incarnation and the
> relative size of our bodies relative to the cosmos etc do not
> contradict it.
>
> Ultimately all of our reports originate in the fact of experience
> which is not divisible ontologically.
>

Before adding a comment, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you
for your posts generally, Justin. You're not the most prolific
contributor here, but what you post is well thought out, deep and - in
the best sense - provoking. A reminder for many here (including
myself!) that quantity can never replace quality - and an example that
the frustration expressed by gruff recently (with which I can
sympathise) over the quality of much of the discussion at the moment
need not be endemic.

Back to the subject ... One of the high points of my formal study of
philosophy was encountering Kant's phenomenology, more specifically,
his insistence on the centrality of the phenomenon as the meeting
place between the thinking subject and the objects "out there." For me
as a Dominican student friar (which I was at that time), this was a
fundamental liberating experience, rooted as I was in a Thomistic-
scholastic tradition where the intellectual contortions involved in
discussions of "ens" and "esse" were making me more and more
dissatisfied. It also contributed to the growing destruction of my
Catholic vocation ... but that's another story!

"It is only the experiencer experiencing
the experienced that is in fact experiencing experiencing
experiencing

that is realizable and that is what we call being." Marvellously put!
Once we accept this, many of the questions over which people martyr
their minds, both here and in the area of metaphysics generally become
superfluous - indeed meaningless. This realisation is not, as some
might think, something constrained and limiting, but rather a
dependable starting point for an exploration of all the richness and
depth contained in our experience, including our intersubjective
experience. Do we really need anything more?

Francis

[Vamadevananda]

" It is only the experiencer experiencing the experienced that is in
fact experiencing experiencing experiencing that is realizable and
that is what we call being."

Justin, the sentence above is immersed in lucidity. The construction,
epistomologically, also tells of the herculean aspect of the task of
expressing it ! I am deeply grateful to you for having made the
attempt.

Maybe, the entire difficulty, nay, the impossibility, lies in us
looking at Being as it perceived in, from and through our wakeful
state of being. Like, IT not being the whole story ; hence,
inappropriate, both in the method of knowing and in what is known.

A clear understanding of ( the same Being perceived in, from and
through ) the dream state clarifies this matter about the "
distance," the nature of " mind," of what is in the mind and what is
external to the mind, etc. Then, as IT is in dream state, the entire
Being is the self, of us, within us. I, the self, is the dreamer, the
dream, the experiencing self in the dream, the objects experienced or
perceived in the dream ... too.

Space is collapsed, in the dream, but Time remains. Hence, the
experience(s) too remain. In the dream state, there is no " matter,"
the solidness or concreteness that characterises matter perceived and
experienced in the wakeful state. It is all " mind." The entire
Universe or Being in, of the dream state is the mind. That is the
( ontological ) truth of the Matter. It is the Mind.

But, the Mind Itself is not yet exhausted, perceived completely. Time
remains.

Our exploration guides us to examination of the deep sleep state in
which I, the self, alone remains. The Mind is non - existent, absorbed
completely by, in, the ground it arose from --- the Self.. So too is
Time set entirely, and with It all perceptions and experiences. The
Self alone remains.

That is what we, the self, are. In Truth. Without Matter and Space,
Time and Mind.

The Self --- self - evident, self - luminous, one - without - a
second.

That what we ' know ' each day, each time we lie down on the bed,
withdraw ourself from the wakeful being, that then transforms or
telescopes into the dream state, withdrawing from which we remain as
we truly are, with nothing, without Space and Time, Name and Form,
Identity and Attachment.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Interesting analogy Vam...and, yes, at some point, there is no
time...only 'present' and no 'self' in the common sense...only the
base of mind...the essence. Truth is that while sleep does have
different 'laws' than the awakened state does, such apprehensions, as
you so lucidly share, can be known from either...(and more)

[Molly Brogan]

I would agree with Vam that we may be closer to our "true nature of
reality" in sleep because the constructs of the rational mind are
lifted and space and time are redefined. But I think, from my
experience, in both waking and sleeping states, we are creating our
experience as an expression of our consciousness. Our level of
coherence or integration is expressed as - anxiety and chaos or
harmony and rapport of - our experience. This simple equation, as
Justin puts it, defines our individual experience while allowing our
concurrent experience of unity.

Unification object/subject requires a new level of understanding of
all the information coming through our senses. If we can see this
information as clues to possibility of greater harmony, we can
penetrate the mystery more deeply.

If, moment to moment, we worry, hate, defend...our experience becomes
an environment that includes more of this. If we experience ourselves
as joyful, loving, whole, healthy, coherent, unified, and understand
that everything about our experience is an expression of who we are in
the moment, our experience is more harmonious. Confusion and violence
in our experience is a direct expression of our anxiety. The more
deeply we can penetrate the mystery of self, express ourselves in a
loving, coherent manner, the more our experience will reflect this to
us. When we no longer view ourselves as separate from others, God, or
our experience of life, and the longer we can maintain that viewpoint,
the more we will experience the harmony of the eternal and the
mortal. We are both. To me, grace is the allowance and understanding
and love and gratitude of this.

[rigsy03]

Men are so funny. lol I saw his name- an unusual one- a political
comment. He lives a few blocks away- a bachelor, it turns out. So I
called him- this childhood playmate. He sends me a card yesterday
where he will be performing. My daughter freaks out! lol

[Andrew U]

very interesting - this is very deterministic of you. how do you
account for chaos theory, quantum randomness, and the placebo effect?

On Jun 14, 1:01 am, Tinker <tink...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'll give you the pre-eminent mystery to the why of the initial 'ping'
> of our creation. Ping/pong, yin/yang progress answers all the
> questions after that initial pulse of energy.
>
> peace & Love
>

[rigsy03]

String theory?

> > > Philosophers and theologians." � What say you?- Hide quoted text -

[Tinker]

Lon, the mind is the product of the physical reality 'brain'. You've
got it all turned around backwards.

peace & Love

> > > Get the best of MSN on your mobilehttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/-Hide quoted text -

[Tinker]

It is very simplistic, like the 0s & 1s of computer technology
expanding to do the many diverse things that it does. Our creation has
had enough time to include the possibilities of chaos and randomness.

The placebo effect I can also explain very simply. It is the choice of
the individual to become well that does the healing.

peace & Love

On Jun 19, 2:54 pm, Andrew U <andrew.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Vamadevananda]

OM, therefore the Upanishad speaks of the fourth state, the Turiya,
which is NOT a state like the other three are. IT pervades all ( the
states of Being ).

The Supreme Truth is, but of course, Turiyateet ... beyond it all,
transcendent of even the Turiya !

[Chris Jenkins]

Vam! I love the Upanishads. Those,and the Vedas, were my introduction to non-Western theology.

[Vamadevananda]

I had a sense of that, Chris ! Lots of love.

On Jun 20, 9:09 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vam! I love the Upanishads. Those,and the Vedas, were my introduction to non-Western theology.
>
>
>

> [ Attached Message ]From:Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" <Mind...@googlegroups.com>Date:Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:37:48 -0700 (PDT)Local:Sat, Jun 20 2009 8:37 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Mystery

[ornamentalmind]

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Para Sam gate Bodhi svaha

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Para Sam gate Bodhi svaha

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Para Sam gate Bodhisvaha.

Bodhi Svaha

[Chris Jenkins]

I think the question and answer format of the Krisna and the student is probably one of the clearest spiritual texts I've seen.

[Vamadevananda]

You might be surprised to know that one of the Upanishads is titled '
Prashnopanishad.'

' Prashna ' translates ' Question !'

On Jun 20, 9:50 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the question and answer format of the Krisna and the student is probably one of the clearest spiritual texts I've seen.
>
>
>

> [ Attached Message ]From:Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" <Mind...@googlegroups.com>Date:Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:32:01 -0700 (PDT)Local:Sat, Jun 20 2009 9:32 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Mystery

>
> I had a sense of that, Chris !  Lots of love.
>
> On Jun 20, 9:09 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vam! I love the Upanishads. Those,and the Vedas, were my introduction to non-Western theology.
>
> > [ Attached Message ]From:Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" <Mind...@googlegroups.com>Date:Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:37:48 -0700 (PDT)Local:Sat, Jun 20 2009 8:37 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Mystery
>

> > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Mind...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Minds-Eye+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Justintruth]

Fine.

But I have some questions that I have been pondering and can't seem to
resolve. Perhaps someone can help me answer them.

First, my experience of Being, and other experiences that have been
reported to me are characterized by an uncanny specificity that
surpasses what I would call appropriate for a pure eternal - timeless
- meaning. To be specific I will relate an experience.

When I was a young man I was in a drama class where the teacher would
drive us to a play an then we'd have to write papers on it. Now I was
becoming aware of Being gradually. I believe I had not yet had my
moment of enlightenment but I had accomplished what Husserl calls the
phenomenological reduction and "seen" the "green" of the grass for the
first time in my life. I still however had not experienced Being
directly but I had been getting for lack of a word, "inklings", or
clues that there was "something going on" - some meaning which,
although I was not fully realizing yet, was evident in a way that
meanings often are when one first finds them. They interest one and
cause one's intellect to strain to focus to perceive what it is that
is being meant in the same way that a man squints to see. At the time
my drama teacher, who was truly a great teacher, was driving the car
and cheerfully pontificating about some aspect of art. In my mind
formed the following statement: "Now if I am right, and all of this is
really happening, meaning if the inklings I was having were real or
were not chimera or false inklings which would, as these things often
do, reveal themselves in fact to be misunderstanding, if I was right
about "all of this" - whatever that meant at the time - then Ed, my
teacher was bullshitting and what he was saying was incorrect." I
formed that statement as kind of a wondering or a question. It was
phrased something like "If I am right about all of this then Ed is
bullshitting." (I should say that "bullshitting" at the time meant
more than it does now. It was a way of avoiding an uncomfortably
personal experience as well as just not telling the truth) I did not
pose it actually as a question nor did I ask it of anyone or of the
universe. I just wondered to myself - pondered - as to whether this
other way of thinking that I was experiencing was real. I then exactly
after I posed the question or statement looked out over the highway
and there was a sign that read "Ed Art Mouth".

I laughed. The timing was exquisite. The phrase "Ed Art Mouth" was an
immediate "answer" to my question - or it was perceived by me to be
one instantly. I did not interpret an answer latter. I was answered -
at least that was my initial reaction. I asked. Boom. I was answered.
"Ed Art Mouth" was the answer and it meant it was real and it also
meant that it had a sense of humor. I then noticed as we drove by and
I strained to keep my eyes on the sign that it really was a sign that
read "Dartmouth Pharmacy" but the sign was broken in front of the "D"
in the shape of an "E" an so the first word became "Edartmouth" or to
me "Ed Art Mouth".

Now that and many more things like that have happened to me personally
and while you may doubt it or think that I was high or something I do
not have the luxury of doing that doubting because I was there and it
in fact happened and I was not intoxicated in any way and that sign
was there and it was there at that time- exactly at that time. It was
material. Also this was one of several such events.

In addition other events like this have been relayed to me by others
and in fact there are written reports and even an analysis by Carl
Jung of the phenomenon which he terms Syncrhonicity. (Jung's theory is
that there are causal chains that form a pattern across time that is
not random but are meaningful and organized around what he termed
archetypes.) My experience is that these synchronistic events are not
organized around archtypes but form statements that sometimes are the
answers to specific questions asked at a specific time by a specific
individual such as the one I just described and at other times are
messages that can in fact motivate a lifetime of service but are again
specifically directed to an individual person.

So here is my problem. Being is eternal, timeless, unchanging. I
believe that anything that is specifically at a given time is not a
being but a creature. I think this because the specific utterance at
that time is contingent and capable of having been or not having been
and is not necessary as is the existence of Being. So are there two
Gods, one timeless and unchanging and one that speaks? Is the second
God a creature of the first and capable of temporality? If so why do
we experience the utterances of the second only when becoming or being
aware of the first? What are we to make of the words of the second? Or
is Being itself alive?!! How can it be if it is the meaning of Being?
Is meaning alive? If so then isn't that an accidental property. After
all these things could have not happened. Just as my mind cannot be
reduced to the machinations of the material in my brain but constitute
an opening of being (for lack of a better term) that is me, can the
machinations of the universe itself be a mind - a temporal one - not
an eternal one - a creature of the creator (a phrase I use only to
distinguish the Being that means creation ex nihlo). Is the universe a
mind and does it speak?

I am aware of the following: In order to determine if whether what I
have experienced is statistically significant I would need to know the
total number of patterns, the number that is a subset of the former
that are the "meaningful ones" and then form the ratio which would be
the statistical probability of normal occurrence. I would then have to
know that the number of meaningful occurrences was greater than the
predicted "normally" occurring "chance" occasions. I realize that I do
not know these numbers and so scientifically speaking I cannot put the
matter on firm ground but anyone who has experienced these things
knows that the events at least seem to be out of the natural
probability - the one I described was completely specific to my exact
state of mind and involved the location of the car, the sign, that it
had been broken etc, and also their occurrence does not seem to be
random but more prevalent as one's awareness of Being grows and wanes.

So I am just unable to square this with my own ideas and just don't
know where to go with it or how to think of it. Any help or
speculations would be appreciated.

I also am having trouble with the notion of and relationship of
"meaning" and "Being". It seems that for example "red" has a "meaning"
which is not "red" but that "Being" is its own meaning. Further I am
not sure that meaning itself - or the process of it - does not change
as one's level of consciousness raises. Is my notion of "meaning"
flawed and is "meaning" itself really eternal? What is meaning? It
seems that "the Word" is not "a Word". What is the meaning or effect
of the change in article? Is meaning and Being one for Being only?
What is the relationship between Being and meaning?

I am also having trouble understanding the relationship between pride
or even arrogance to thinking. I have noticed some interesting threads
on this in this group.

Finally I have another inkling and it is very dark. I will just
outline it like this because I am convinced that I scarcely know what
I mean by it. If being can be either "being" or "Being" in the sense
that it can be interpreted to mean "a being" - something - or else is
the principle of the fact of experience does not the notion of
nothingness have its twin - the notion of "Nothingness" which has the
power to nihilate in an affective way Being.

Thank you for your patience with my dense verbiage but I want to
really understand this and I am convinced that - either I can
understand it or at else know why I can't. At any rate I know of no
reason either intellectual or - and this is more difficult but I still
believe it though I am not as sure - ethical as to why the pursuit of
these questions will not lead to further enlightenment. There is so
much confusion in the culture. We are in Eden and we are having a real
problem and we must I think understand so I am trying. Can you help? I
am sure you know what I mean.

Sorry to dump all of these questions out at once in a jumble but if
you have any insight about any of them or how to think of them I would
love to hear it. It is difficult for me as I rarely have an
opportunity other than on the internet to even pose such questions. No
one seems to be the least bit interested and it takes a while to get
to the point.

In closing I will relate to you a last image. It is from a Tom Cruise
movie of all things. Tom's character is a military lawyer and he
basically challenges a senior officer on the stand something to the
effect of "Tell the truth" and the character full of vile and evil
snaps back "You want the truth. You can't handle the truth!" I hope I
am not in that situation and will try as hard as I can to handle
whatever it turns out to be.

Sincerely Thanks in Advance,
Learning at too old an age,
JT

> ...
>
> read more »

[Justintruth]

Did I forget to say thank you? Ah yes! I did....

Thank you all for being who you are.

On Jun 20, 2:48 am, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[frantheman]

Wow!

Well, Justin, let me assure you that I at least will steadfastly
refuse any calls to do a Code Red on you ;-) (and isn't it interesting
that a pre-9/11 Gitmo was the pivotal story location in "A Few Good
Men"?).

Like most of your posts, I need some time to consider before
attempting to engage some of the issues you raise. My initial reaction
is to think that the areas you are considering may be better answered
in the area of mysticism than that of purely rational discourse. In
this sense, although I spent a long period of my life in an
environment where it was generally accepted that such ways of thinking
were fundamental, I find myself a bit like the tone-deaf guy sitting
in the middle of an orchestra.

In the area of philosophy, your post reminded me a bit of Heidegger,
although much more readable, comprehensible and cogent. And I have
long considered the later Heidegger to be more properly placed in the
area of mysticism than that of philosophy.

But I hope to reply more fully later.

Francis

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[Tinker]

Simplify

peace & Love

> ...
>
> read more »

[iam deheretic]

JT you are a man after my own heart

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Justintruth <truth....@gmail.com> wrote:

Fine.

But I have some questions that I have been pondering and can't seem to
resolve. Perhaps someone can help me answer them.

First, my experience of Being, and other experiences that have been
reported to me are characterized by an uncanny specificity that
surpasses what I would call appropriate for a pure eternal - timeless
- meaning. To be specific I will relate an experience.

 

Welcome to the club.

I do not really think these types of experiences are all that uncommon.

Now that and many more things like that have happened to me personally
and while you may doubt it or think that I was high or something I do
not have the luxury of doing that doubting because I was there and it
in fact happened and I was not intoxicated in any way and that sign
was there and it was there at that time- exactly at that time. It was
material. Also this was one of several such events.

In addition other events like this have been relayed to me by others
and in fact there are written reports and even an analysis by Carl
Jung of the phenomenon which he terms Syncrhonicity. (Jung's theory is
that there are causal chains that form a pattern across time that is
not random but are meaningful and organized around what he termed
archetypes.) My experience is that these synchronistic events are not
organized around archtypes but form statements that sometimes are the
answers to specific questions asked at a specific time by a specific
individual such as the one I just described and at other times are
messages that can in fact motivate a lifetime of service but are again
specifically directed to an individual person.

Okay

So here is my problem. Being is eternal, timeless, unchanging. I
believe that anything that is specifically at a given time is not a
being but a creature. I think this because the specific utterance at
that time is contingent and capable of having been or not having been
and is not necessary as is the existence of Being. So are there two
Gods, one timeless and unchanging and one that speaks? Is the second
God a creature of the first and capable of temporality? If so why do
we experience the utterances of the second only when becoming or being
aware of the first? What are we to make of the words of the second? Or
is Being itself alive?!! How can it be if it is the meaning of Being?
Is meaning alive? If so then isn't that an accidental property. After
all these things could have not happened. Just as my mind cannot be
reduced to the machinations of the material in my brain but constitute
an opening of being (for lack of a better term) that is me, can the
machinations of the universe itself be a mind - a temporal one - not
an eternal one - a creature of the creator (a phrase I use only to
distinguish the Being that means creation ex nihlo). Is the universe a
mind and does it speak?

I think  that is similarto our speech  does what we saw make us to  differnt beings?

I am aware of the following: In order to determine if whether what I
have experienced is statistically significant I would need to know the
total number of patterns, the number that is a subset of the former
that are the "meaningful ones" and then form the ratio which would be
the statistical probability of normal occurrence. I would then have to
know that the number of meaningful occurrences was greater than the
predicted "normally" occurring "chance" occasions. I realize that I do
not know these numbers and so scientifically speaking I cannot put the
matter on firm ground but anyone who has experienced these things
knows that the events at least seem to be out of the natural
probability - the one I described was completely specific to my exact
state of mind and involved the location of the car, the sign, that it
had been broken etc, and also their occurrence does not seem to be
random but more prevalent as one's awareness of Being grows and wanes.

I think once a persons enters into this dialog with "God" it seems to continue,, probably because you are aware of the possibility of dialog so the second time  it would be easily recognised as well as the desire to interact with the creator and his world.


I know some people who take it to an extreme (which I think is false) and see everything as a sign from "God.."

So I am just unable to square this with my own ideas and just don't
know where to go with it or how to think of it. Any help or
speculations would be appreciated.

I think trying square things with my own think leads to my relly dome thoughts on the "laws of spirituality" I think these experience bring a lot of questions into ones inner being.. I think is for the good all though it can be very disturbing also.

It is nice to find I am not alone.

Sorry to dump all of these questions out at once in a jumble but if
you have any insight about any of them or how to think of them I would
love to hear it. It is difficult for me as I rarely have an
opportunity other than on the internet to even pose such questions. No
one seems to be the least bit interested and it takes a while to get
to the point.

well Like I said it is nice not to be alone and I know I personally am interested,  this is where I really think the Internet is great .. i can bring kindred souls to the point of interacting.

In closing I will relate to you a last image. It is from a Tom Cruise
movie of all things. Tom's character is a military lawyer and he
basically challenges a senior officer on the stand something to the
effect of "Tell the truth" and the character full of vile and evil
snaps back "You want the truth. You can't handle the truth!" I hope I
am not in that situation and will try as hard as I can to handle
whatever it turns out to be.

Sincerely Thanks in Advance,
Learning at too old an age,
JT

Now for my old age speciality  "To Muddy the Waters!"
(from my notes)
God is like a "Gem" with many facets and at any given awareness there can be an interaction with this being commonly known as "God" .

My personal problem with this comes from my inability to comprehend the entirety of of this creative being. I can only at best visualize segments at one time.

As I see the problem is that within "God" is contained the entirety of the universe. Now because everything is contained within "God" that makes his being greater than the universe. In the immortal words of Buss Lightyear "to infinity and beyond!"

I have also experienced these messages from time to time.  I will reach a idea or realization to have it almost instantly followed up by a reinforcement that confirms the idea and validates it.. It is kind of nerve rattling to say the least.

My evolved beliefs have taken me to the concept that because I am (physical and soul) made up of the very being of "God" as is the rest of the universe any part of the universe can be used to communicate with us. This can be very startling.

I think as a person follows a path of searching for awareness these interactions grow  in an ebb and flow manner.

Now that I have gone in and stomped around in the drinking water mudding it greatly.. I will shut up.
Allan

--
(
 )
I_D Allan

[Molly Brogan]

I felt your post in my heart also, Justin, and am mulling it over with
care.

On Jun 21, 5:02 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JT you are a man after my own heart
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Molly Brogan]

Well, I have let this percolate, Justin, and realized that I am not
sure that I can address your questions adequately. I think that you
have a much more comprehensive understanding of being, becoming and
nothingness and that structuralist foundation may make my response
seem wild and somewhat incoherent. But I will give it a shot, and
answer what I can from my perspective.

I think that yes, creation and life are responsive specifically to us
because we are all of it and none of it. If we are alive, we are the
living consciousness, and the more this is recognized in our conscious
thought, the more specifically responsive creation is to our
experience. How? I don't know that I can define that but can say
from experience that the more we can recognize this specificity,
synchronicity etc., the more it will become a meaningful part of our
experience. At some point, cause and effect as defined in the
scientific paradigm, while still applicable as a fundamental, is not
the most meaningful aspect of our experience. Once we begin to have
experiences as you describe with the pharmacy sign, we begin looking
for more of them. Our sense of being alive is heightened as we
realize that we play a significant role in the creation of our
experience by what we believe, think, feel and allow. If you did not
believe that it was possible, more of these synchronistic events would
not have occurred for you. My feeling is that this is where free will
comes into play, because we are choosing to "be" in rapport with what
IS which creates our experience in ways that reflect to us that we are
creators. We don't choose something specific with free will. We
choose harmony with the eternal, which in turn creates a harmonious
experience specific to us. Choosing limitation brings more of it
into our experience....

Are there two Gods? I think that this is like saying is there "a God"
which would imply separation between you and God. There is none. And
there is no separation between God and the expression of God which is
you. And your sign. And all of your experience. And none of your
story. I like the idea of the trinity, maybe because I am most
familiar with it. The Father creator, the Son of man or the unity of
man or every man and all man, and the holy spirit which is the womb of
creation or the holy mother. In your story, the sign was a
manifestation of your state and your question in the womb of creation
(the holy spirit in action), expressed with your connection to all men
(the Son or your feeling of possibility as a human) and supported by
the Father (timeless and unchanging Isness.) YOU are all aspects that
bring about your experience, father son and holy spirit. The more
that you can feel yourself in rapport with all aspects, the more you
can consciously live the eternal and specific with each breath.

None of this negates science, violence, politics or any other aspect
of life because all states and stages of life are expressed in the
simplicity of the moment and the complexity of the world. Where the
mystic parts ways with the scientist so far, I think, is the idea that
if we change our harmony with the unchangeable, will the world as we
have known it change? For example, will the shanty I am now living in
become a mansion because I have changed my consciousness. The answer,
I think, can only be yes for the mystic who is able to realize all
possibility in the moment. I have heard mystics allude to it, but
have not heard any claims as such. I suspect, at this point,
communication with the world changes. Or, because I have not yet
realized this consciousness, it is not in my experience to discover.
But perhaps, because we posit the possibility, it can happen for both
of us. I will race you there, my friend.

Your wonder of meaning is interesting. I think that we bring meaning
to our experience, and it is based on our level of consciousness. I
love the idea of Logos, which is the meaning that passes between you
and I...the spirit of communication. It can mean limited or
unlimited, unity or separation, love or hate, the same words or
gestures - we interpret the meaning. Life within us communicating and
coming into recognition. Because there is no separation between you
and I, our communication and the meaning we bring to it - are aspects
within us coming into recognition. Which brings up the question of
other. I think, we are all others, we are everyone and every life
that has ever been lived. Meaning in this context, becomes the
reconciliation of self and penetration into the mystery.

Arrogance is another interesting concept. I think it comes up when
someone sees their way of thinking as better than or the only "right"
way. Of course, because they are us, when this comes into our
experience we are being offered the chance to examine our own limited
thoughts and reminded that in some way, we are seeing ourselves in
separation.

Your dark concept is wonderful. What a gift we are given, our ability
to reason and compare. Yet at some point, like cause and effect, we
leave it behind. Being has a relationship to nothingness that is the
same as unity and separation. We are only nothing in that we are
everything. If we reach a point where we are realizing all
possibility, all time, all lives, all being - we are no-thing.
Objectivity and subjectivity also fall away. The paradox, I think,
is the womb of creation.

I hope that this, in some small way, answers your wonderful questions,
Justin, and is not too obscure. I do appreciate your thoughts, thanks
for sharing them.

Molly

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tinker]

Molly, I think you've got your shit together (about Life) better than
any of the many brilliant people I've encountered on the web.
Your thinking on synchronicity and tying it to free will is excellent.
I believe you must be speaking ideally when you say
"We choose harmony with the eternal,".
"Choosing limitation brings more of it into our experience....", is
the way of the world we live in.

I think that the trinity thought is a complication of the idea you
present by actually implying a separation, that you know does not
exist. The Feeling of Being needs no report with anything.
"realize all possibility in the moment." = Life IS here and now

"we bring meaning to our experience," = point of view
Our Life circumstances set the point of view of the person we have
become.
Logos or Not = are the POVs compatible?
I think you must be speaking ideally again when you say, "no
separation between you and I". If we can let go of the established
point of view there would be no separation.
Establishing an agreement with communication simply bridges the
separation of POVs.

Einstein was considered arrogant and a fool for twenty years after he
had his revelation.

The ability to reason and compare are reduced as the POV accumulates
structure. That is why I suggested that Justin "Simplify"
Being and nothingness are POV, there is only ONE.

This is my POV of the knowledge you possess.

peace & Love

> ...
>
> read more »

[Vamadevananda]

" Being is eternal, timeless, unchanging. I believe that anything that
is specifically at a given time is not a being but a creature. I think
this because the specific utterance at that time is contingent and
capable of having been or not having been and is not necessary as is
the existence of Being. So are there two Gods, one timeless and
unchanging and one that speaks ?

" Is the second God a creature of the first and capable of
temporality ?"

Ask yourself, Justin : Is the " wave " of water any different or
apart from, or other than, water ? The wave is distinct in that it
appears, has a form, has motion and capacity, cause and effect. But,
in truth, is it anything other than water itself ? However, if the
wave were to have a mind - body constitution, it is likely to think of
itself as a powerful, pouncing ' tiger ' on the move !

" If so, why do we experience the utterances of the second only when
becoming or being aware of the first ? What are we to make of the

words of the second ?"

I am not sure if I understand these two questions. I am sure though
that these are important questions. If you may elaborate ...

" Or is Being itself alive?!! "

" Alive " has variable meanings, global and individual. We each,
( forms of the same ) Being, are alive. Thomas Jefferson, ( form of
the same ) Being, is dead.

It is the form that is dead or alive.

In another perspective, the Being gives ' birth ' to life, as in IT
manifests, brings or causes trillions and trillions of processes to
cascade into and converge on.
Have we ever seen a dead being give birth to life ?

" How can it be if it is the meaning of Being ? Is meaning alive ? If

so then isn't that an accidental property. After all these things
could have not happened. Just as my mind cannot be reduced to the
machinations of the material in my brain but constitute an opening of
being (for lack of a better term) that is me, can the machinations of
the universe itself be a mind - a temporal one - not an eternal one -
a creature of the creator (a phrase I use only to distinguish the
Being that means creation ex nihlo). Is the universe a mind and does
it speak ?

Advaita posits God as the cosmic form of Being, which pervades the
cosmic form ... as pure I - Witness ( infinite ) - Consciousness.
Quite, as IT does with our own individual form(s).

And, that, just as with all forms, even the form of God destructs
itself, albeit after immeasurable but finite time. Or, for the
individual, when consciousness unifies with pure witness self
pervading the intellect. Buddha does not speak of God !

However, the form ( and the Bliss, Intellect, Mind, Life Force and
Material layers within the form ) of God is qualified with infinitude.
He is free of all desire, identity, attachment and sense of agency.

Advaita admits of the Personal God that communicates with individuated
( ego ) self, one to one, and many to one through other beings and
individuals. Raja Yoga explicitly states : He is the ancient one, the
First Teacher. He is without any impressions ( of past ). And, that,
He aids the questing soul's journey.

My own experience has been along the above lines. However, I no longer
have any religion. And, I very rarely visit temples ... been ages
since I last did.

And, no, Justin, one is never too old to awaken into the Self
( Witness ) Infinite, which is our true nature, already, only
forgotten in the mazes of mind !

Best Wishes. Warm Regards.

[ornamentalmind]

Sorry to be late in responding and even now I didn't take the time
this post deserves...here it is anyway.

“…So are there two Gods, one timeless and unchanging and one that

speaks? Is the second God a creature of the first and capable of
temporality? If so why do
we experience the utterances of the second only when becoming or being
aware of the first? What are we to make of the words of the second? Or

is Being itself alive?!!” – JIT

All is one, rest assure. And, appearances can be that the relative
(words/concepts) are as real as the absolute. Again, both,
consubstantially.

Yes, one seldom is conscious of the words one is thinking/speaking
unless one is, well …conscious. This of course requires being open to
the one.

A quick aside: There are numerous analogies here. One is the father
(the one), the mother (that which can step back and re-cognize [think
about] the one), and the son (that which is of both, the father and
the mother. In this sense, yes, we all are divine.

“…So I am just unable to square this with my own ideas and just

don't
know where to go with it or how to think of it. Any help or

speculations would be appreciated….” – JIT

So, here the overall question appears to be how to trust specific
types of experiences and what the heck are they? And, how can I know
for sure?

If I understand your points and position of question correctly, yes,
there are moments when what enters our consciousness becomes a
reflection thereof. And, yes, this can increase in apparently
frequency. And, yes, it IS accurate in the sense that ‘it’ tells us
what is true to us at the moment.

We know that Ed is not mouth however within that phrase is found the
truth of the current question.

“I also am having trouble with the notion of and relationship of

"meaning" and "Being". It seems that for example "red" has a
"meaning"
which is not "red" but that "Being" is its own meaning. Further I am
not sure that meaning itself - or the process of it - does not change
as one's level of consciousness raises. Is my notion of "meaning"
flawed and is "meaning" itself really eternal? What is meaning? It
seems that "the Word" is not "a Word". What is the meaning or effect
of the change in article? Is meaning and Being one for Being only?

What is the relationship between Being and meaning?” – JIT

I will guess that you are questioning the inner/innate understanding,
gnosis, of what these terms mean Justin. And, in that sense, ‘meaning’
and ‘being’ are eternal. Of course, the words and associated
subjectivity are not. Both ‘are’ consubstantially. Awareness itself
‘is’. And, as one clarifies consciousness, one does know…and, as you
have eloquently stated here and elsewhere, the thoughts are not the
knowing. As humans, mind can apprehend directly the connection
(‘relationship’) between being/meaning. And, having said this, as you
already know too, as one’s level changes, one does find different
levels so that that which has meant specific things to our thinking
process and/or even mind historically can indeed appear to become
other.

“I am also having trouble understanding the relationship between

pride
or even arrogance to thinking. I have noticed some interesting
threads

on this in this group.” – JIT

It (they) are blinders when it comes to thinking and in fact are an
aspect of ignorance and stupidity itself.

“…Finally I have another inkling and it is very dark. I will just

outline it like this because I am convinced that I scarcely know what
I mean by it. If being can be either "being" or "Being" in the sense
that it can be interpreted to mean "a being" - something - or else is
the principle of the fact of experience does not the notion of
nothingness have its twin - the notion of "Nothingness" which has the

power to nihilate in an affective way Being.” – JIT

It doesn’t appear to be the case Justin. Others have joked about my
‘nothing is nothing’ statement. And, we don’t actually experience it.
So, it is nothing. Sort of an attempt at negating being/self in your
context I would guess. Again, it has to do with aberrant or more
accurately, incorrect thinking. Clarity does come here in time.

“…In closing I will relate to you a last image. It is from a Tom

Cruise
movie of all things. Tom's character is a military lawyer and he
basically challenges a senior officer on the stand something to the
effect of "Tell the truth" and the character full of vile and evil
snaps back "You want the truth. You can't handle the truth!" I hope I
am not in that situation and will try as hard as I can to handle

whatever it turns out to be.” – JIT

As you most likely already know, we are protected from too much truth.
And, this is another topic.

> > > I had a sense of that,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Molly Brogan]

The mystery may be as simple as becoming a fuckiteer:

http://www.thefuckitway.com/

> ...
>
> read more »

[Kevin W.]

I'm afraid I don't have a definitive answer to WHY things exist at
all. Perhaps its subjective, so some philosophers would say, and the
only things that truly exist are the things that create our own
reality. These things, the only things we know are real, are
connected to us through a symbiotic relationship. In other words the
only things that truly exist are the things we can use and the things
that use us. Just a thought.

[Tinker]

Like all good things, one must be careful to Not overindulge :-)

peace & Love

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tinker]

That's a good thought Kevin. I believe it is true but the "symbiotic
relationship" involves the Life of Earth. "No man is an island" (I
don't know who gets the credit for that)

peace & Love

[iam deheretic]

Earnest Hemingway  for whom the bell tolls  "No man is an island" (I
don't know who gets the credit for that) unto himself as not for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee.
Allan

[iam deheretic]

ask  sorry

[rigsy03]

The line is from a sermon of John Donne- English poet and minister. A
delightful and brilliant writer.

> I_D Allan- Hide quoted text -

[frantheman]

"No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom

the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

John Donne (1572-1631)

[rigsy03]

Correction: It is from Donne's Devotions-XVII- rather than his
sermons. Too lazy to go to the living room and check last night. :-)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rigsy03]

We are finally equal in Death.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[iam deheretic]

This is one of those situations were everyone is right with different answers. My source was Hemingway and his novel "for whom the bell tolls"..  which I read when I was 15 and the quote was from memory , fantastic story loved the ending so dramatic,  and sorry the internet was not available then.
Allan

[rigsy03]

Why? What would the internet have told you about this book that you
could not decipher yourself? I read a lot of Hemingway and Fitzgerald
in my teens- during summer vacations- as they would not be offered in
Catholic schools. Actually, liked Lady Brett. Zelda, btw, was not the
jolt to Fitzgerald- it was a wealthy girl from Lake Forest that he
never really recovered from. They caught up later- by then, he was a
wreak. Along with Faulkner- they all wound up wreaks but were
harbingers. They had the guts to pierce sentimentality.

On Jul 1, 12:55�pm, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is one of those situations were everyone is right with different
> answers. My source was Hemingway and his novel "for whom the bell tolls"..
> which I read when I was 15 and the quote was from memory , fantastic story
> loved the ending so dramatic, �and sorry the internet was not available
> then.
> Allan
>

[ornamentalmind]

I greatly enjoyed the Legend of Zelda! ;-)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

Ah, one of my Renaissance friends! Btw, I read somewhere that Marx and
Weber located the origins of capitalism in the Renaissance. But that
is again after control over authorship and spelling was un-donne.

[Tinker]

Rigsy, Allan and Fran, I thank you all for contributing to my
education.

I suppose Ernest was an admirer of Mr. Donne.

peace & Love

> > > > > > "The pre-eminentmysteryis why anything exist at all. What breathes

[rigsy03]

I don't know but it is a very interesting thought as Hemingway and
Donne share many characteristics in spite of the divide of centuries!
So- thank you! I think Hemingway was probably influenced by Mark Twain
and his early career as a reporter and Gertrude Stein/Paris/
adventures. I think feminists have had trouble with Hemingway and
Fitzgerald and their treatment of women which I find silly- they were
male writers!

[rigsy03]

BTW- we all need butlers! LOL Had a great laugh today with my lawn guy
and neighbor over the subject. We fired the upstairts maid!

On Jul 1, 6:18�pm, Tinker <tink...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[rigsy03]

upstairs- was that Freudian slip meant to be upstart?

On Jul 1, 6:18�pm, Tinker <tink...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Tinker]

Wow! I feel like I've done something, stirring a literary thought in
your mind :-)
You are very much welcome.

peace & Love

[Tinker]

I don't need a butler, I need an agent or manager.

peace & Love

[gabbydott]

Dr. Donne, if you please!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donne

[rigsy03]

Wouldn't it be great if there was a holy agency like a temp employment
agency where we could fill our daily needs- without charge? There
would be geeks, plumbers, gardeners, chefs, lovers, shrinks, editors
that we could summon gracefully. Utopia!

[Tinker]

As you wish my dear :-)

peace & Love

[Tinker]

The whole world on a barter basis. We'd all have to do our time as
butler/bouncer/handyman, but it'd beat the hell out of children
starving and war.

peace & Love