Is the price to be paid too high?

[Dana Lomas]

Interesting chat with Rupert Spira, on how the price to be paid for the apparency of a dichotomy of one's essential nature, for the sake of relational subject/object experience, is seen by some to be too high. Having suffered at the hands of a violent parent, now forgiven, I'm still not sure I agree, having also experienced the exquisite beauty of this world of wonder.

[Ben Iscatus]

He says: the separate self will be cruel "as long as those activities make it feel better about itself." 

Hmm! I agree with your uncertainty. 

The only excuse for such a huge lack of empathy towards innocent children is if one is seriously compromised by mental illness.

PS. Your link failed for me, Dana; I think it's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6id-iLt5eE

[Dana Lomas]

Thanks for the heads up Ben. I usually double check those links before posting, but forgot. Should be working now.

As I mentioned, I've forgiven the violent parent, for that is part of the healing, and because I realized that there had been a pattern of such abuse in the family history, which had problematic epigenetic, and PTSD implications for each generation. That may be construed as a mental illness, but the body-mind is such an inextricably complex and difficult thing to come to terms with, once the imprinting has been established, for some it seems just too much to overcome. In my own case, I did a lot of very painful inquiry, that was helped by some grace-given Revelation, before I could reconcile with that karmic shadow. Alas, the parent didn't seem to find that grace and deliverance ... unless it was on the deathbed, and invisible to me.

[Lou Gold]

Here's another heads-up from me Dana. I had it pretty good as a child (except for the birth experience I reported). I see no justification for child abuse (including much of domestication). And, I've seen how a violent childhood can really block people in dealing with the repressed feelings they must face to get free. I feel happy that some like yourself manage to transcend it.

BUT, most of all, Rupert's view ends up promoting "blaming the victims" or placing the burden on them for making the leap from self to Self. I don't buy it.

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 3:51:53 PM UTC-5, Dana Lomas wrote:

Thanks for the heads up Ben. I usually double check those links before posting, but forgot. Should to be working now.

[Dana Lomas]

Lou ... I didn't get the impression that Rupert was blaming the victim. I feel that he would concede that the'Revelation' part is not ultimately within anyone's control. It certainly wasn't in my case. I also suspect that he would also concede that not everyone is ready and able to inquire into the root of the problem and the suffering, and that they are so caught up in the cycle of conditioning, so deeply imprinted, it takes some crisis of epic proportions before they are forced into acknowledging and confronting the shadow. Frankly, I've no understanding of how and when the cycle is initially broken, such that one is compelled to begin the journey of exploration, inquiry and healing.  And if Rupert does, then I've never heard him make that claim. He just offers a process whereby one who has begun that journey may somehow expedite it as effectively as possible, insofar as one believes that is possible.

[Lou Gold]

I get your point Dana. I didn't mean that he is promoting blaming the victim, just that overall view plays into it without explaining the the victim is going to need a lot of loving support and/or grace to get free. Perhaps I've got a bodhisattva bias.

[Dana Lomas]

Lou ... You've prompted me to look into what Rupert has to say about shadow work, and if his youtube excerpts are any indication, it doesn't appear to be a topic that he addresses in any detail. I can only suppose that he doesn't see it as his speciality, and so doesn't focus on it, leaving it to others to address. Whether or not he goes into it in his books, I can't say. But I'd be surprised that he'd deny its vital role in the process, or the loving support that would also be crucial to going through it. He strikes me as being a deeply compassionate being.

[Lou Gold]

Yup, I don't know either because I'm not very familiar with Spira. I'm hypersensitive now to how much suffering is out there and how much love and compassion is needed to deal with it.   

[Dana Lomas]

Yes, I must admit that I waver between resilience and resignation, recalling this bit of prophecy by Dickens ... "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ... "

For sure, it does seem that there are some, for whom within 'the unbearable lightness of being' (as Kundera put it), there is no deliverance in the offing. And to that tormented parent who both terrified and loved me deeply, toward the end of the deathwatch, I could only offer this ...

As I sat in that cathedral of life and death,
how many lives were born and lost
within the rooms of its labyrinth halls?
And where was god watching from?
As I gazed into the dazzling geometry
of its crystalline ceiling, did I see
the myriad crosses of Flanders repeated
there? During the countless hours
I waited, I tried in vain to count them,
until I could not bear them any more.
Strange, how one skin-cloaked skeleton
could radiate such beauty and light,
while yours, that shell of your being,
housed only darkness and despair.
And so I brought those fading photos
to remember your lost beauty and light,
to mask the pain and fear in your eyes.
And yet they too became unbearable,
as I sat helplessly by your side,
while some irrevocable karmic will
pulled your hand from mine. I tried
my love to read the failing words
upon your lips, believe me I tried,
but they also became too hard to bear.
And where was god listening from?
While everywhere around us, others
shared our grief, the angels of our ward
went about their gracious business,
as they warded over us. So I borrowed
their dauntless spirit, as they bravely bore
the growing weight of our untold tears.
And I prayed that perhaps deliverance
might find a way into the darkest depths
of your sleeping soul, and prayed somehow,
somewhere, an angel was waiting to do
what I could bear to do no longer …
and that some god was waiting too.

[RHC]

very powerful Dana!

[Ben Iscatus]

Almost too poignant....phew.

[Lou Gold]

@Dana

Thanks for your powerful poem. I understand, meaning that I embrace its beauty and sadness. 

[Lou Gold]

@Dana...

This video is my first encounter with Rupert Spira. It surely got me thinking (and dreaming). 

I recalled an earlier conversation with a very aware and compassionate woman friend. Our topic was non-dualism but, mistakenly, she thought I was referencing Sipra. Her response was, "may he roast in a non-dual hell with no women." Now, after seeing this video, I understand her words much better and I return to the blaming the victim theme.

First, let me focus on the video. He begins with the postulates that the infinite can only be known by the infinite and the finite can only be known by the finite. He proceeds with an incredible head-trip, a thought experiment if you prefer, to demonstrate that the infinite consciousness, once contracted to finite status, cannot remember its loving nature. Then, challenged by "but the price is too high," he responds, "Our first duty above all other duties is to realize the non-separate nature of our being with all others and things, and to live the implications." However, there are all kinds of others and things, both good and evil. For his remedy to work, one would have to know the All Loving Infinite (God, Consciousness, M@L, Essence, or Supreme Whatever) which, according to his starting postulates, is impossible. Thus, he places an impossible burden on finite beings like ourselves. I call this blaming the victims. 

Second, the great exemplars on their way to full realization had to say "NO!" to some of the Infinite's possibilities; Jesus saying "no" to the Devil and Buddha saying "no" to Mara. I know some might cleverly argue that they were only saying "no" to the illusion of separation but illusion itself is among the Infinite's possibilities. Perhaps, one might argue that the Infinite as perceived by the Finite Mind is Itself an Illusion? So where does this get us in being able to understand why there is Evil? 

Third, what about Grace? Presumably, Realization or Revelation received via Grace comes from something other than the Finite. How does the Finite grok its Loving Nature?

Finally, and for myself, the most important question: Where or how does the Divine Mother fit into the picture?

[Dana Lomas]

"How does the Finite grok its Loving Nature?" ~ Lou

Perhaps Rupert answers that here ... Love Turns Attention Toward Home

[Lou Gold]

@Dana

WHEW! I disagree.

At about 5:00 he says, "The moon only points toward the earth ... it can't see the sun where its light comes from." Really? I thought the moon reflects the sun's light when it can "see" both the earth and sun, a lunar eclipse occurring when the earth gets between the two blocking the moons ability to "see" the sun. 

The problem he is describing is the narcissistic ego's desire for a pleasing reflection instead of realizing that love is something to give rather than to get. “If you light a lantern for another, it will also brighten your way” -Buddha  

The so-called prayer of Saint Francis deals with this precisely:

Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred let me sow love
Where there is injury, pardon
Where there is doubt, faith
Where there is despair, hope
Where there is darkness, light
And where there is sadness, joy

O divine master grant that I may
not so much seek to be consoled as to console
to be understood as to understand
To be loved as to love
For it is in giving that we receive
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned
And it's in dying that we are born to eternal life
Amen

In brief, be a creator rather than a consumer.

[Dana Lomas]

Well, as I've mentioned, I don't tend to stretch these analogies too far beyond the basic point they are intended to convey, as inevitably they must break down -- Bernardo's being no exception. I'm just not reading into the message what you appear to reading into it. But hey, if it doesn't resonate with you, that's fine by me. No doubt his teaching doesn't resonate with everyone -- although going by the remarkable number of views his videos garner, it's clearly speaking to many hearts and minds -- but I've yet to find one that someone doesn't find fault with.

[Lou Gold]

@Dana

although going by the remarkable number of views his videos garner, it's clearly speaking to many hearts and minds 

I guess but the same might be said for Jordan Peterson. I was not set on disliking Spira but, given his reputation here, I was expecting much better arguments. Surprising to me, his logic seemed rather shabby. BTW my friend who really disliked Spira had a much more favorable response to BK.

[Dana Lomas]

Well, I happen to think that Peterson makes a lot of valid points as well, though I don't agree with everything he believes. In any case, you've found a path that calls out to your heart, which is great. No need to focus on paths that call out to the hearts of others ... they will do what they feel compelled to do regardless. 

[Lou Gold]

@Dana...

I watched some of Peterson and found him so rambling that I couldn't stay with it. Is there an especially good video that you would recommend? 

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:26:07 PM UTC-5, Dana Lomas wrote:

Well, I happen to think that Peterson makes a lot of valid points as well, though I don't agree with everything he believes. In any case, you've found a path that calls out to your heart, which is great. No need to focus on paths that cal out to the hearts of others ... they will do what they feel compelled to do regardless. 

[Dana Lomas]

Lou ... I would recommend the ones where JP focuses on his real speciality, Jungian psychology, archetypal mythology, religious symbolism, etc. I mainly steer clear of his politics, but then I tend to steer clear of politics in general, which I find to be mired in a dysfunctional mess of polarized us-vs- them dualism, so much at the core of what the human condition has fallen into.

For the record, not sure if you know that Rupert and BK are quite well acquainted, have met in person, and would seem to have a significant affinity for each others views. Both have spoken fondly of a stroll they took through the streets of Amsterdam, discussing the nature of consciousness, and how it manifests as this world of unconditional experience. If I can find a link to that account, I'll share it here.

[Lou Gold]

Dana...

Perhaps you might pick a good "teaser" that you think might pull me into Peterson?

About Spira, I'm not surprised that he and BK are simpatico and I'm not opposed to the bottom-line positions on non-dualism, idealism and love. I was just shocked by what I perceived to be his weak arguments and flawed logic. But nice if you could find the link. It might offer him in a different light.

[Lou Gold]

Dana,

OK, I watched Peterson on Adam and Eve because I'm greatly intrigued by the story and how pregnant it is with possible interpretations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi5KkXig3s&t=4506s

Please compare with the way Joseph Campbell treats the story. 

My take is that the story rationalizes the very painful and fast transition from hunter-gather life to the city-state of cereal grain agriculture.

[Dana Lomas]

I actually came across Peterson many years ago, long before he became the politicized cause célèbre he is nowadays, due to his run-in with his U of T employers over not being politically correct enough. Back then he was an occasional guest on TVO, who intrigued me with his interpretations of the biblical mythos, some of which I agree with, some not so much, as my own ideas have evolved. So for sure it can have a much different spin put on it, depending on where one is approaching it from. And I'm sure that JP is well aware of Joseph Campbell's ideas, given his reference to the hero's journey, and how they were both deeply influenced by Jung's ideas. And who knows, If one could actually have a involved discussion with JP, he might actually concur with other interpretations.

However, it's not really my aim to promote any given thinker, or teacher. I assume that most followers of a forum created by Bernardo, have likely been attracted here due to having been already intrigued by his ideas -- albeit there are clearly some exceptions, for whom his ideas seem to be foreign territory. But as for any thinkers or teachers I may refer to, I would suggest that one take from them whatever they may find useful, and leave the rest, as I've no expectations that what I may find useful, should necessarily be useful to all. As the old song goes ... ♬ It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing ♬ ... And not everyone dances to the same tunes. :)

[Dana Lomas]

After watching again Peterson's 'Hero's Journey' lecture l linked to previously, I'm reminded of just how rambling and digressive he can be. One just wants to shout out: "Jordan, get to the friggin' point, will ya!?"  :)  As such, I tend to find him more engaging and accessible when he's chatting in a one-on-one interview context, with an interviewer who can maintain some semblance of focus and continuity. In which case, others may also find this interview, regarding 'The Bible, Symbol and Identity', a better introduction to his ideas -- and for Lou, they also get into some brief analysis of the effects of the shift to city-state culture on the evolution of the human psyche, for better or for worse.

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 6:37:47 AM UTC-4, Dana Lomas wrote:

I actually came across Peterson many years ago, long before he became the politicized cause célèbre he is nowadays, after his run in with his U of T employers over not being politically correct enough. Back then he was an occasional guest on TVO, who intrigued me with his interpretations of the biblical mythos, some of which I agree with, some not so much, as my own ideas have evolved. So for sure it can have a much different spin put on it, depending on where one is approaching it from. And I'm sure that JP is well aware of Joseph Campbell's ideas, given his reference to the hero's journey, and how they were both deeply influenced by Jung's ideas. And who knows, If one could actually have a involved discussion with JP, he might actually concur with other interpretations.

[Lou Gold]

Dana and all,

Yup, listening to Peterson ramble through the bramble of his free associations is a chore I may not care to repeat. However, I'm glad I got led to his Adam and Eve piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi5KkXig3s&t=8306s Mostly, I felt not aligned with his spin even though I can grok its popular appeal. It's not completely wrong but there are critical errors. A bunch of stuff came together for me at the end when Peterson associated the snake with evil. I disagree, especially with his assertion of a seemingly universal human fear of snakes and thus with evil. NOT TRUE! Across Amazônia the constrictor or jiboia is celebrated as sacred, there are even dances named for it. Sure, snakes and jaguars are feared but they are not associated with evil, indeed they can be revered. In many cultures, the snake is a symbol of transformation because it sheds it's skin. In Hinduism it is often depicted as representing transformational shakti and kundalini energy (see photo). Jeremy Narby in his "Cosmic Serpent" about the insights offered by ayahuasca visions (often full of snakes) is that snakes may be a symbol for the twisted or braided cords of DNA. Finally, both the single twisted snake of the Rod of Asclepius and the double-braided snakes of the Caduceus are common Western symbols of healing and medicine. So, I say, "NO!" there's not an inherent symbolism of evil associated with snakes.

Surely, a smart guy like Peterson is well aware of this. So why the peculiar association of snakes and evil in the Garden of Eden story? I believe that this mythic spin is an attempt to rationalize and place the burden on the victims for the fantastically fast changes and incredible pain and suffering that occurred with the shift from hunter-gather life to broadcast mono-crop agriculture and domesticated animals. The emergence and dominance of cereal grain agriculture, the city state and central granary, abstract (separate from nature) thinking associated with alphabetic language and arithmetic, and the extensive powers of hierarchical organization, were among the innovations. I can go on and on with this list but the important point is that they were concentrated and magnified in the few centuries surrounding a brief Axial Age. The only way I can figure that part of the fault might lay with the victims is perhaps they made too many babies to be supported as gatherers in the Fertile Crescent. 

Whatever the cause, it was during the millennia surrounding these massive changes of Axial Age that the religions of so-called 'civilization' began to focus on the problem of reducing suffering. It was also during this period that snakes became peculiarly associated with evil and fear (at least in the Middle East). Why? Because people were being forced to work in the fields where snakes would indeed be the greatest threat because snakes like to eat rodents and rodents like to eat grains. Unlike, Peterson's assertion of a special link between snakes and trees, it was the link between snakes and crop fields of grains that gave meaning to this myth.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a youtube video of the way that Joseph Campbell retells the Garden of Eden story. I'm just recalling it from the audio tapes I listened to years ago. I may not be 100% accurate but let me give it a try. Campbell asserts that God tricked the innocent kids into eating the apple. How? The way any parent can guarantee the kids will do something. Just say there is one simple innocuous thing they must never do, like, "you must never taste the special jelly stored in the jar in the pantry." No curious, growing and learning child can resist this. It doesn't take a snake, just a child's curiosity. So why the snake? Because the snake represents, in the garden before the fall into the fields, the transformations of growth, knowledge, experimentation and evolution, which the kids were tricked into the burden of unraveling. How? By sin, meaning to error or miss the mark, in aiming for good rather than evil. Thus, God gives the knowledge of good and evil and free will. This is the way of reason, rationality and the scientific method. It's called "trial and error." To use a scientific method requires "fallibility" or "falsity." Indeed, most experiments like most mutations, are "sins" demonstrated by their failure. And, in order for the kids, to take on this awesome burden, they had to be given "free will." No wonder BK uses a mental illness-like term to describe us as "dissociated alters." It's crazy to have to "play God," even as a fragment, but we do. Nowadays, for better AND for worse, we live the consequences.

And, thus, we return to the terrible question posed by Spira, which started this thread. Why good and evil? Because that's how a continuing evolving creativity works. Is there a price? Yes, indeed! Do you prefer to stop it? See if you can. The best that God can offer, so far as our puny understanding allows, is guaranteed forgiveness for our sins.

OK. I'm not a scholar or philosopher or scientist. I'm just a storyteller and this is the crazy story, which came to me this morning during the dream state between deep sleep and being fully awake. It is what it is.

 

After watching again Peterson's 'Hero's Journey' lecture l linked to previously, I'm reminded of just how rambling and digressive he can be. One just wants to shout out: "Jordan, get to the friggin' point, will ya!?"  :)  As such, I tend to find him more engaging and accessible when he's chatting in a one-on-one interview context, with an interviewer who can maintain some semblance of focus and continuity. In which case, others may also find this interview, regarding 'The Bible, Symbol and Identity', a better introduction to his ideas -- and for Lou, they also get into some brief analysis of the effects of the shift to city-state culture on the evolution of the human psyche, for better or for worse.

[Lou Gold]

And here's another take from Campbell:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1KbDP--34M

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, Lou Gold wrote:

Dana and all,

Yup, listening to Peterson ramble through the bramble of his free associations is a chore I may not care to repeat. However, I'm glad I got led to his Adam and Eve piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi5KkXig3s&t=8306s Mostly, I felt not aligned with his spin even though I can grok its popular appeal. It's not completely wrong but there are critical errors. A bunch of stuff came together for me at the end when Peterson associated the snake with evil. I disagree, especially with his assertion of a seemingly universal human fear of snakes and thus with evil. NOT TRUE! Across Amazônia the constrictor or jiboia is celebrated as sacred, there are even dances named for it. Sure, snakes and jaguars are feared but they are not associated with evil, indeed they can be revered. In many cultures, the snake is a symbol of transformation because it sheds it's skin. In Hinduism it is often depicted as representing transformational shakti and kundalini energy (see photo). Jeremy Narby in his "Cosmic Serpent" about the insights offered by ayahuasca visions (often full of snakes) is that snakes may be a symbol for the twisted or braided cords of DNA. Finally, both the single twisted snake of the Rod of Asclepius and the double-braided snakes of the Caduceus are common Western symbols of healing and medicine. So, I say, "NO!" there's not an inherent symbolism of evil associated with snakes.

Surely, a smart guy like Peterson is well aware of this. So why the peculiar association of snakes and evil in the Garden of Eden story? I believe that this mythic spin is an attempt to rationalize and place the burden on the victims for the fantastically fast changes and incredible pain and suffering that occurred with the shift from hunter-gather life to broadcast mono-crop agriculture and domesticated animals. The emergence and dominance of cereal grain agriculture, the city state and central granary, abstract (separate from nature) thinking associated with alphabetic language and arithmetic, and the extensive powers of hierarchical organization, were among the innovations. I can go on and on with this list but the important point is that they were concentrated and magnified in the few centuries surrounding a brief Axial Age. The only way I can figure that part of the fault might lay with the victims is perhaps they made too many babies to be supported as gatherers in the Fertile Crescent. 

Whatever the cause, it was during the millennia surrounding these massive changes of Axial Age that the religions of so-called 'civilization' began to focus on the problem of reducing suffering. It was also during this period that snakes became peculiarly associated with evil and fear (at least in the Middle East). Why? Because people were being forced to work in the fields where snakes would indeed be the greatest threat because snakes like to eat rodents and rodents like to eat grains. Unlike, Peterson's assertion of a special link between snakes and trees, it was the link between snakes and crop fields of grains that gave meaning to this myth.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a youtube video of the way that Joseph Campbell retells the Garden of Eden story. I'm just recalling it from the audio tapes I listened to years ago. I may not be 100% accurate but let me give it a try. Campbell asserts that God tricked the innocent kids into eating the apple. How? The way any parent can guarantee the kids will do something. Just say there is one simple innocuous thing they must never do, like, "you must never taste the special jelly stored in the jar in the pantry." No curious, growing and learning child can resist this. It doesn't take a snake, just a child's curiosity. So why the snake? Because the snake represents, in the garden before the fall into the fields, the transformations of growth, knowledge, experimentation and evolution, which the kids were tricked into the burden of unraveling. How? By sin, meaning to error or miss the mark, in aiming for good rather than evil. Thus, God gives the knowledge of good and evil and free will. This is the way of reason, rationality and the scientific method. It's called "trial and error." To use a scientific method requires "fallibility" or "falsity." Indeed, most experiments like most mutations, are "sins" demonstrated by their failure. And, in order for the kids, to take on this awesome burden, they had to be given "free will." No wonder BK uses a mental illness-like term to describe us as "dissociated alters." It's crazy to have to "play God" in a separatist way, even as a fragment, but we do. Nowadays, for better AND for worse, we live the consequences.

[Dana Lomas]

Yup, true enough under the circumstances :)

[benjayk]

Rupert doesn't make much sense to me here.

First off: Of course the finite can exist within the infinite. How could a small dot make infinite "less infinite"?

It also contradicts human experience. We can feel going from (self-perceived) finite to infinite, or experience both.

As I see it finite and infinite itself are relative. There is no absolute finite or infinite thing. It's reflected in math as well, however tiny the quanity you can still find infinity inbetween, and no matter how infinitely vast the quantity, you can still go beyond...

Regarding the "price": Given that I don't believe in a model with a "perfect oneness" nor a human-like choice to "enter" manifestation (with blissfull perfection as the alternative) I don't believe there is a price.

I think it's more simple and realistic that there are simply aspect of reality that are profoundly beyond good and bad, beyond feelings - yet affect human life (including human evolution itself) in a very bad way.

The infinite is not just love. It's nature is also embodied by what we can observe in our world: The stars floating in the skies, profound and powerful, but utterly uncaring regarding humanity - indeed not even capable of caring about human endeavours, even in principle.

It's one thing to reduce the universe to a cold, uncaring place - I don't think that's correct. But I also believe it's a mistake to try to deny those aspects. It seems quite apparent to me...

[Dana Lomas]

benjayk ... The point that I derived from the basic pointer -- again not to be stretched too far -- is that once there is a given finite point of view, assumed for the sake of a relational experience, by definition, there can't be an infinite perspective, from that point of view. Yet without that apparent point of view, there can't be a relational experience, because there is nothing outside of the Infinite to be in relation with. As I see it, this apparency of a relational subject/object duality -- aka being an 'alter' -- is not inherently problematic. The so-called 'price' to be paid within the relational experience, is in the exclusive egoic identification as a segregated point of view, fraught with all of its potential for a dichotomous sense of disconnectedness and vulnerability, now felt as self against other-than-self, us against them, this story against that story, etc, and its attendant woe-is-me suffering. This is essentially what the Eden mythos, and the 'fall' into sin/maya is about. However, the question of: "is this price to be paid too high", seems to become a moot point, for I'm not sure that one actually makes a choice to buy into the maya spell ... or that one gets to electively opt out. At best there is a Revelation in the offing, such that the spell is somehow dispelled. In any case, it may all be quite integral to whatever it is the Dreamer's journey may be all about.

[Lou Gold]

@Dana...

However, the question of: "is this price to be paid too high", seems to become a moot point, for I'm not sure that one actually makes a choice to buy into the maya spell ... or that one gets to electively opt out. At best there is a Revelation in the offing, such that the spell is somehow dispelled. In any case, it may all be quite integral to whatever it is the Dreamer's journey may be all about.

Indeed! And the Revelation is "You are forgiven." What else can Love say? Christianity built a religion around this profound Revelation performed on earth through the life of Jesus but it may arrive by Grace for one with no religion at all. Love in its Supreme Mysteriousness, and not in a particular exclusive form, is the Salvation. Anyone who receives this Revelation by reading scriptures or philosophy, or by NDE or OBE, or by psychedelics, or by hitting the wall, or by the Grace sometimes referred to as "only God knows why" will feel liberated and profoundly freed. Please forgive my descent into words but Love is Essence. 

[Dana Lomas]

And the Revelation is "You are forgiven." ~ Lou

Perhaps in your case, and others, which is fine ... As mentioned, I didn't have any formal framework through which to interpret it. In this case, in retrospect, it was more like "WTF !! You are not actually who you think you are."  I'm not even sure of what in that eternal moment remained to be forgiven.  The Dreamer forgiving its self-perpetuating Dreaminess?

But hey, this isn't really about my story against your story, or Rupert's or Jordan's story, which all can seem true enough under the circumstances.  Perhaps somehow, somewhen, they'll all become one story. Then again, how boring would that be?!!  :))

[Lou Gold]

I agree Dana and I'm not insisting on a single interpretation. My revelation, like yours, was completely beyond words. My comment was referencing your phrase "the spell is somehow dispelled", which I find as "forgiven" or "freed from" but, as I said, I hope you can forgive my descent into words.

[Dana Lomas]

Oh great mysterious Forgiving One, forgive Thyself  :)

[Lou Gold]

Dana,

Or, better still, realize there is nothing to forgive. No guilt. No shame. No blame. BINGO! The only problem is that duality does not work like this. As BK and others are saying, we are stuck in dissociative identity disorder.

[Larry Schultz]

There just isn't an answer to the question of evil that will be satisfying to all persons in all circumstances.  You really can't tell a starving kid in Africa that All is Consciousness, or that God is a loving God (for example).

And so I think that Rupert is correct when he suggests that all we can do, our first responsibility is to alleviate suffering in others - by offering others whatever we can.

Intellectually, I agree his answer ultimately 'begs the question' - but again, for his audience I thought it was a decent answer.

And I appreciate his courage for giving it a shot.

[Dana Lomas]

we are stuck in dissociative identity disorder. ~ Lou

Perhaps, though I suppose the difference may be in being fully aware of that state, and consciously responding accordingly, or being unaware of that state, and unconsciously reacting accordingly, which therein may be the cause of a great deal of existential woe-is-me suffering. If I am indeed a manifestation of M@L's DID, it now somehow feels a lot more like the thrill of playing a role in a play, while willingly allowing for some suspension of disbelief.

[Lou Gold]

@Larry...

I think that Rupert is correct when he suggests that all we can do, our first responsibility is to alleviate suffering in others - by offering others whatever we can.

Of course, I agree as a matter of personal ethics and behavior. BUT this places the primary burden on the fragments or what BK call the "dissociated alters" and I recognize this as an unintended blaming of the victims by virtue of focusing the remedy on their wounded sense of connectivity or altruism. Some will in fact act as true bodhisattvas but most will not because of their dissociated existence. 

So what's the solution? I think it is to focus much more attention on the socio-cultural institutions, practices, beliefs, myths, fictions or whatever, which promote either separation or connection. Out-of-balance individualism (fragmentation and DID) is the problem. The way dissociated fragments can overcome this is by combining, generally under the guidance of a new myth or fiction or story. I believe that modern Idealism in the hands of BK, et al is attempting to do this and I applaud the effort. But there will follow the problem of institutionalizing the insights so that the burden will not longer fall so heavily on individuals, or so that the victims will no longer be blamed. Caution, the attempts to institutionalize can go in many directions, some not so nice.

Here is a recent social-political commentary that reveals what I mean: https://eand.co/beating-authoritarianism-isnt-as-simple-as-you-think-it-s-even-simpler-6800b8dfc119

[Dana Lomas]

Lou ... Good article. While I don't identify as a victim, despite knowing significant suffering at the hands of an 'authoritarian', I suppose I can still relate to the 'let's not blame the victim' narrative, insofar as that 'authoritarian' was no less a victim of the same circumstances. So yeah, we need a new paradigmatic story. One where we don't have to identify either victims, or those who victimize, as blameworthy, both being a function of the same 'brokenness' -- which we can only trust can be rectified. And yet, on whose onus is it to change the dysfunctional narrative, and offer a new one, if not those who have for whatever reason been able to transcend the old one. And really, that's all I see that Rupert is attempting to do, in his attempts to point others toward one's essential nature -- however efficacious the attempts may or may not be. And I'd make the case that is what most in this forum are also attempting to do, each in their own unique, if not quite perfect way. :)

Y'all sing along now ... Everything is broken (or so it may seem)

[Lou Gold]

Dana... Yup, I know for sure that everyone here wants a better world and that you and I are often on exactly the same page. However, here I wonder if we are using the word "victim" in the same sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I sense that you are speaking of abuse such as "significant suffering at the hands of an 'authoritarian'" while I'm including the more subtle abuse of a caring supportive parent who teaches a child that individual high achievement is needed to attain love and happiness. The victims I am speaking of are the products of a culture that stresses individualism or separate identity in a highly competitive and out-of-balance way. I feel that teaching any child that love and happiness must be attained rather than simply shared is a form of victimization. Thus, I'm hoping there might be more discussion of the socio-cultural structural conditions, which promote either dissociation or connection among the alters. I believe this to be more than an ideological question. Structural rules-of-the-game determine paths of survival and chart likely directions of future evolutionary adaptation just as agriculture (etc) of the Axial Age charted the future direction of Homo sapiens. For example, should we blame (penalize) the students for poor performance or the school system and achievement culture?

[Dana Lomas]

Lou ... I don't blame anyone for M@L's seeming miscalculations, which has apparently resulted in its alter-mode alienation and victimization that we experience as the human condition. :))  Or perhaps it's not really a miscalculation at all, but rather it's all somehow inexplicably integral to some greater telos. I can't pretend to know.

Again, I'm just saying that it's incumbent upon all of us to help shift the paradigmatic narrative, insofar as we are aware that it needs to be shifted, and are aware that there is a viable alternative, and can come to some consensus on what that is. Clearly the challenge is great, and again, one can only trust that it can be rectified. Not sure though how lamenting victimhood really helps in that regard, however tragic it may feel.

[lou gold]

Dana... Yikes! I'm not lamenting victimhood. Just encouraging more discussion of how to see and alter the structural conditions that promote it. Part of the challenge, in my view, is to figure out how to approach the questions of consciousness with a less individualistic focus. Does this seem unfair or out-of-line to you?

[lou gold]

Dana...

Here is an example of the kind of discussion I believe we need more of: http://evonomics.com/ecological-economics-superorganism-lisi-krall/ Does it feel inappropriate for this kind of forum?

[Dana Lomas]

Lou ... I'm going to be busy visiting for the evening, so will take the time to read the link tomorrow. Hope the dreamtime is again creatively revealing tonight.

[Dana Lomas]

Lou ... Another interesting article, with an excellent final comment by Lisi. Thanks for sharing. It is surely a worthwhile discussion to be having, though not sure how much traction it will get within the esoteric focus of this forum. There is a lot to unpack, but certainly I agree that changing the mindset of a few individuals here and there isn't likely to have that broader impact that we seek. And yet how does it begin, if not with one mindset at a time? And again, the challenge seems huge. However, I wouldn't underestimate the power of an idea whose time has come, keeping in mind that there were not more than a few converts to the idea of heliocentrism either, until at least a half century after Copernicus first proposed it. The intellectual mindset of the time was still largely dominated by Aristotelian philosophy and its 'scientific' counterpart Ptolemaic astronomy, and there was little inclination to accept the Copernican theory, other than for its elegant simplicity. And still it started a revolution that changed our world profoundly. Let's trust that so it will be with the supplanting of materialism with the primacy of Consciousness, and the profound implications that will eventually have, socially, ecologically and scientifically.

[Lou Gold]

Dana...

We are on the same page but we've probably pushed this thread as far as it should go. 

For a future thread, I would like to consider the impact of Idealism's primacy of consciousness not only in terms of materialism but also its implications for individualism and evolution. I welcome suggestions as to how best to accomplish this in this form.