The Evolving Role of the Artist

[Molly]

Rupert Spira, twenty first century mystic and teacher of nonduality,
sees the “mystic’s job is to explore the nature of reality, but more
is required of the artist. He or she has to simultaneously make
manifest the ongoing results of this enquiry in form. So the role of
the artist is to provide a way that this presence can be approached
and experienced through the senses. The artist has to re-present our
world of conceptualised objects, separated and extended in space and
time, as it really is. He has to reinterpret our model of reality in
line with direct experience and to convey this ‘taste of eternity’. We
could call this twofold activity contemplation and creativity.
Contemplation is the passive aspect; creativity is the dynamic aspect.
These are two inseparable aspects of consciousness.”

The fourteenth century German mystic, Meister Eckhart, believed that
“God dwells within you - as you,” or “I can only be fully known by
becoming God.” Eckhart wrote prolifically on the subject and was
charged but never convicted of heresy for his writings. His direct
identification with the divine can also be seen in the works of
Shankara, James, Blake Rumi and many great saints and sages of the
wisdom traditions. Author Aldous Huxley believed that most
enlightened beings also practice this philosophy. Within the God space
in us peace can be found, and here, mystical and aesthetic experiences
and transformational events can unfold.

The nineteenth century artist and philosopher, Benedetto Croce,
believed this peaceful God space to be the spirit within us from which
we draw our inspiration. He tells us that the externalization of
intuition is secondary to its appearance in the consciousness of the
artist, and that the expression of intuition is meaningful apart from
the projection or form it takes in a work of art. With art as the
embodiment of spirit through intuition, we symbolize feelings, Nature,
soul, God.

The role of the artist, then, is to bring the other, or viewer, to
that place in consciousness through the form presented – into Nature,
soul, feelings, God, where we can be, ourselves, inspired, and feel
ourselves a complete microcosm of life’s macrocosm. In this way, we
connect with and become our own esthetic holon, nesting with all
others in unity consciousness.

What do YOU think?

[ashok tewari]

* ditto *

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[Ash]

Yes I second that, and awesomely relevant! Does Molly write all this stuff?

On 10/13/2010 11:51 AM, ashok tewari wrote:

* ditto *

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Molly <moll...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rupert Spira, twenty first century mystic and teacher of nonduality,

sees the �mystic�s job is to explore the nature of reality, but more

is required of the artist. He or she has to simultaneously make
manifest the ongoing results of this enquiry in form. So the role of
the artist is to provide a way that this presence can be approached
and experienced through the senses. The artist has to re-present our
world of conceptualised objects, separated and extended in space and
time, as it really is. He has to reinterpret our model of reality in

line with direct experience and to convey this �taste of eternity�. We

could call this twofold activity contemplation and creativity.
Contemplation is the passive aspect; creativity is the dynamic aspect.

These are two inseparable aspects of consciousness.�

The fourteenth century German mystic, Meister Eckhart, believed that

�God dwells within you - as you,� or �I can only be fully known by
becoming God.� �Eckhart wrote prolifically on the subject and was
charged but never convicted of heresy for his writings. �His direct

identification with the divine can also be seen in the works of
Shankara, James, Blake Rumi and many great saints and sages of the

wisdom traditions. �Author Aldous Huxley �believed that most

enlightened beings also practice this philosophy. Within the God space
in us peace can be found, and here, mystical and aesthetic experiences
and transformational events can unfold.

The nineteenth century artist and philosopher, Benedetto Croce,
believed this peaceful God space to be the spirit within us from which

we draw our inspiration. �He tells us that the externalization of

intuition is secondary to its appearance in the consciousness of the
artist, and that the expression of intuition is meaningful apart from

the projection or form it takes in a work of art. �With art as the

embodiment of spirit through intuition, we symbolize feelings, Nature,
soul, God.

The role of the artist, then, is to bring the other, or viewer, to

that place in consciousness through the form presented � into Nature,

soul, feelings, God, where we can be, ourselves, inspired, and feel

ourselves a complete microcosm of life�s macrocosm. �In this way, we

connect with and become our own esthetic holon, nesting with all
others in unity consciousness.

What do YOU think?

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Heh perhaps unsupprisingly I have a bone of contention with this.

Does an artist have a role?

In my experiance those who produce art in it's myriad forms do so
without conciouse thought as to the role they play, and in fact
produce their art simply because they feel they must. All artists in
my experiance feel the need to say something, to show something of
themselves to their audiance.

So I think it is more a matter of their personal need than any role.

On 13 Oct, 23:34, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Yes I second that, and awesomely relevant! Does Molly write all this
> stuff?
>
> On 10/13/2010 11:51 AM, ashok tewari wrote:
>
>
>
> > * ditto *
>

> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:mollyb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >     Rupert Spira, twenty first century mystic and teacher of nonduality,
> >     sees the �mystic�s job is to explore the nature of reality, but more
> >     is required of the artist. He or she has to simultaneously make
> >     manifest the ongoing results of this enquiry in form. So the role of
> >     the artist is to provide a way that this presence can be approached
> >     and experienced through the senses. The artist has to re-present our
> >     world of conceptualised objects, separated and extended in space and
> >     time, as it really is. He has to reinterpret our model of reality in
> >     line with direct experience and to convey this �taste of eternity�. We
> >     could call this twofold activity contemplation and creativity.
> >     Contemplation is the passive aspect; creativity is the dynamic aspect.
> >     These are two inseparable aspects of consciousness.�
>
> >     The fourteenth century German mystic, Meister Eckhart, believed that
> >     �God dwells within you - as you,� or �I can only be fully known by

> >     becoming God.�  Eckhart wrote prolifically on the subject and was
> >     charged but never convicted of heresy for his writings.  His direct

> >     identification with the divine can also be seen in the works of
> >     Shankara, James, Blake Rumi and many great saints and sages of the

> >     wisdom traditions.  Author Aldous Huxley  believed that most

> >     enlightened beings also practice this philosophy. Within the God space
> >     in us peace can be found, and here, mystical and aesthetic experiences
> >     and transformational events can unfold.
>
> >     The nineteenth century artist and philosopher, Benedetto Croce,
> >     believed this peaceful God space to be the spirit within us from which

> >     we draw our inspiration.  He tells us that the externalization of

> >     intuition is secondary to its appearance in the consciousness of the
> >     artist, and that the expression of intuition is meaningful apart from

> >     the projection or form it takes in a work of art.  With art as the

> >     embodiment of spirit through intuition, we symbolize feelings, Nature,
> >     soul, God.
>
> >     The role of the artist, then, is to bring the other, or viewer, to
> >     that place in consciousness through the form presented � into Nature,
> >     soul, feelings, God, where we can be, ourselves, inspired, and feel

> >     ourselves a complete microcosm of life�s macrocosm.  In this way, we

> >     connect with and become our own esthetic holon, nesting with all
> >     others in unity consciousness.
>
> >     What do YOU think?
>
> > --

> > ASHOK TEWARI- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Molly]

We all play roles, whether acknowledged or not, and we fall into them
based on our daily and continued actions: mother, wife, sister,
friend, artist, clerk etc. The artist, by the very act of presenting
artwork to the world in any form, takes on the role of artist as soon
as another views and is moved by the artwork. The role is defined by
the nature of the artwork and whether it provokes, incites, inspires,
repels...if it moves us to the state of consciousness where we can
contemplate life's mysteries...the role of the artist is fulfilled.
The role requires other. The inspiration and creation of the artwork
does not necessarily require other, but can. If a tree falls in the
woods and no one hears it did it happen? Is there expression without
reception? The evolution of that role is also something you will
probably question, Lee. Is the role of the artist changing as we as
humanity changes?

On Oct 14, 7:57 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[Molly]

Yes, thanks. I spend quite a bit of time coming up with a few
paragraphs for the posts.

On Oct 13, 6:34 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Yes I second that, and awesomely relevant! Does Molly write all this
> stuff?
>
> On 10/13/2010 11:51 AM, ashok tewari wrote:
>
>
>
> > * ditto *
>

> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:mollyb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >     Rupert Spira, twenty first century mystic and teacher of nonduality,
> >     sees the �mystic�s job is to explore the nature of reality, but more
> >     is required of the artist. He or she has to simultaneously make
> >     manifest the ongoing results of this enquiry in form. So the role of
> >     the artist is to provide a way that this presence can be approached
> >     and experienced through the senses. The artist has to re-present our
> >     world of conceptualised objects, separated and extended in space and
> >     time, as it really is. He has to reinterpret our model of reality in
> >     line with direct experience and to convey this �taste of eternity�. We
> >     could call this twofold activity contemplation and creativity.
> >     Contemplation is the passive aspect; creativity is the dynamic aspect.
> >     These are two inseparable aspects of consciousness.�
>
> >     The fourteenth century German mystic, Meister Eckhart, believed that
> >     �God dwells within you - as you,� or �I can only be fully known by

> >     becoming God.�  Eckhart wrote prolifically on the subject and was
> >     charged but never convicted of heresy for his writings.  His direct

> >     identification with the divine can also be seen in the works of
> >     Shankara, James, Blake Rumi and many great saints and sages of the

> >     wisdom traditions.  Author Aldous Huxley  believed that most

> >     enlightened beings also practice this philosophy. Within the God space
> >     in us peace can be found, and here, mystical and aesthetic experiences
> >     and transformational events can unfold.
>
> >     The nineteenth century artist and philosopher, Benedetto Croce,
> >     believed this peaceful God space to be the spirit within us from which

> >     we draw our inspiration.  He tells us that the externalization of

> >     intuition is secondary to its appearance in the consciousness of the
> >     artist, and that the expression of intuition is meaningful apart from

> >     the projection or form it takes in a work of art.  With art as the

> >     embodiment of spirit through intuition, we symbolize feelings, Nature,
> >     soul, God.
>
> >     The role of the artist, then, is to bring the other, or viewer, to
> >     that place in consciousness through the form presented � into Nature,
> >     soul, feelings, God, where we can be, ourselves, inspired, and feel

> >     ourselves a complete microcosm of life�s macrocosm.  In this way, we

[frantheman]

On Oct 13, 4:08 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
We
> could call this twofold activity contemplation and creativity.
> Contemplation is the passive aspect; creativity is the dynamic aspect.
> These are two inseparable aspects of consciousness.”
>

I love this idea, Molly! For me, it also implies that we are all
artists, for, as conscious beings, we all have this dynamic aspect,
creativity.

It srikes me that its expression and unfolding is necessary for us all
(as is the freeing of our contemplative aspect). In a healthy
counsciousness this can take all sorts of forms, creating and
maintaining a cherishing family atmosphere, the gift of catalysing
friendship, cooking, taking joy in repairing something well, growing
something, etc.

The creative urge will out. In many cases, due to pain and injury or
structural societal dysfunctionality, its expression can become
negative, hurtful, pathological ... narcissism, exploitation,
cruelty.

Creative paths may become blocked and twisted. But, freed and cleaned,
they can then become channels of healing ...

Francis

[ashok tewari]

" ...  we are all artists ..."

This is indeed what I understand too ... i.e. anybody with the sense of choice, something to do or express. How well or poorly we do whatever speaks of how good or bad an artist we are !

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[Molly]

In that we spontaneously create our experience, I think we are all
artists of life. Whether or not we are objectifying our creation to
share as a communion with other, we all do symbolize, laying the
foundation for our experience to unfold. And, as you say, even if we
are not cognizant of the the dynamic, our artistic medium - thoughts
and feelings as symbols - if destructive, will reflect that in our
actions and experience.

I like what you say about healing Francis, and think that when we
realize health and healing as the same dynamic, our experience as it
unfolds is all good (non dual). In other words, faith that a crisis
in healing (which can present symptoms that we have been taught
represent illness ) will have the outcome of health, or even life
through death, becomes acceptance of the more encompassing view of
health. Much like the inseparable aspects of consciousness,
contemplation and creativity - our healing is an inseparable part of
our health.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Molly yes you are correct, we all have roles that we are concioues of
and some that we are not. But then in light of this, the role of an
artists is merely to produce art.

Would an Atheist artist agree that her role is:

'to bring the other, or viewer, to that place in consciousness through

the form presented – into Nature, soul, feelings, God, where we can

be, ourselves, inspired, and feel ourselves a complete microcosm of

life’s macrocosm. In this way, we connect with and become our own
esthetic holon, nesting with all others in unity consciousness.'?

If such an artist says yes this is indeed my role then yes, that is
indeed her role. However as I have said in my experiance the need
that an artist feels is to communicate somethign to their audiance,
mostly (it seems) the artist is convaying something about themselves,
or their views on a a given subject. Sometimes though the artists
simply wants to tell a story.

The role of an artist then must be as veried as there are artists out
there, and ultimatly this role is whatever the artists says it is,
surly?

We all know that a pice of art may mean differant things to differant
people, and really only the artist can ever say for sure what her
intent was.

Lets take a water colour of a bowl of rotting fruit. We can look at
it and perhaps decide that the artist is comentating on the rotton
core of humanity, but then she may just have been struck by the odd
beauty of a bowl of rotting fruit and wished to record it.

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

[Molly]

I see intention and definition as secondary, part of the endless
abstraction and analyzation in that we do or do not engage our minds.
As such, it is valuable and meaningful. I contend, like Croce, that
inspiration and communion associated with art is beyond mind. The
role of the artist, also, is secondary. But I think it is evolving,
just as humanity is evolving. The artist and his art bringing us to
and inspiring us to the beautiful is evolving to include bringing us
into the unity of that God space, or pure consciousness, that allows
our inspirations.

On Oct 14, 12:04 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com"

[frantheman]

On Oct 14, 6:04 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

 Sometimes though the artists
> simply wants to tell a story.
>

In the end, Lee, it's all always about telling stories, isn't it? It's
just that we all use different languages and words, either literally
or the languages of music, dance, film, the words of paint or stone or
mixtures of all of these.

In the end, it's the beauty that communicates, the expression of the
truth of the message, "this, too, is what it is to be human; to live,
to feel, to suffer, to love, to be in our world." Some feel a need to
use God-talk to express it, some don't. In the end, I don't think it
really matters; I can be amazed and moved by the beauty of
Michelangelo's Pieta or Handel's Messiah without sharing the faith of
the artists - even when that faith was, for them, a central part of
their inspiration of creating the works.

Francis

[DarkwaterBlight]

180 degree phase cancellation RP? If awareness cannot be aware of
awareness it is not "AWARE" and like wise... well you know...

On Oct 14, 1:48 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is God space? What is pure consciousness? Can you tell us how it
> differs from ordinary consciousness. As far as I know consciousness is
> simply a state of awareness of something or the other. Awareness cannot be
> aware of awareness , it is foolish to say so. In other words consciousness
> cannot be conscious of consciousness. So , again what is pure consciousness
> ? Can you explain it in simple language , Molly ?

[Molly]

If you have experienced or can imagine awareness without form, thought
or feeling - you have it.

On Oct 14, 1:48 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is God space? What is pure consciousness? Can you tell us how it
> differs from ordinary consciousness. As far as I know consciousness is
> simply a state of awareness of something or the other. Awareness cannot be
> aware of awareness , it is foolish to say so. In other words consciousness
> cannot be conscious of consciousness. So , again what is pure consciousness
> ? Can you explain it in simple language , Molly ?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:

[iam deheretic]

then you are saying RP God is separate from us and the entirty of the universe as that is the only way he can see himself?
Allan

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:07 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

Awareness is aware of something separate from itself , the eye cannot see itself. If you are talking of a state of bliss , where there is only the consciousness of bliss and nothing else , no thought , form but only bliss , that also is just an awareness of a feeling and cannot be said to be God state.  God is above all feelings and forms and transcends consciousness and as such is totally abstract and to be understood only in an abstract manner.

--
 (   
  )   
I_D Allan

Be Paranoid.
God is always building a better idiot!!!

[Ash]

Crikey, analytization, okay Pat it's your turn!

Reminds me of an idea I ran across in The Atheist's Way: that
revolutions are empowered by language, we find ways to express what it
is we are experiencing and the meme spreads. In that way someone
pointing to a vague area like 'pure consciousness' or 'god space' and
providing various descriptors is contributing to the cultural dialogue,
as an artist, poet, or 'marginal man'. Could you come up with some more
'descriptors'? This would broaden the receptive audience think.

"The artist and his art bringing us to and inspiring us to the beautiful
is evolving to include bringing us into the unity of that God space, or
pure consciousness, that allows our inspirations."

What I see of this is that the vine is ripe, never before have so many
doors led to such vibrant potential for mankind and the consequences so
dire for our folly. Out of that and our choices tomorrow comes and will
bring the artisans of tomorrow seeking meaning, an appreciation of life
most of all. So with our contributions the world of potential we bring
is expanding greater than ever before leading us to truth and a place in
it, for this world reciprocity of man and nature is less a paradox and
more complementary. Old wisdom is being rediscovered too.

[ashok tewari]

Ash,

Even as you were writing the post, I was penning mine : http://www.convo.io/americanpolitics/12812/nobel-winning-economist-still-unqualified-for-the-federal-reserve-#56602  !

the form presented – into Nature, soul, feelings, God, where we can

be, ourselves, inspired, and feel ourselves a complete microcosm of

life’s macrocosm.  In this way, we connect with and become our own

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Thats quite a mouthfull to digest right there Molly.

I think all things evolve, art and artists must evolove as humanity
does, art mirrioring humanity as it does. I would like to hear more
on why you think any human endevour is beyond mind, let alone art.
All that we do and think takes place in the mind, perhaps your use of
the word implies something other than what I think of as mind?

I dare say that some art is capable of bringing us into the untiy of
God(heh despite that no such disuntity exists) but not all surely?
Banksy's work for example, what have you to say on it?

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Conciousness cannot be aware of conciousness? That seems a little odd
to me inlight of Descatre?

On 14 Oct, 18:48, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is God space? What is pure consciousness? Can you tell us how it
> differs from ordinary consciousness. As far as I know consciousness is
> simply a state of awareness of something or the other. Awareness cannot be
> aware of awareness , it is foolish to say so. In other words consciousness
> cannot be conscious of consciousness. So , again what is pure consciousness
> ? Can you explain it in simple language , Molly ?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Yo Franics,

The thing that keeps coming back to my mind is what about the ugly
things? Art surly cannot be all about beauty, what about the things
that are rotton about humanity?

[gabbydott]

The state of bliss and its linkage to God is just another way of
explaining what one experiences. The total absence of anything else
might as well be experienced as the horror vacui.

Therefore you should have finished your paragraph after "a person
accepts the view that to his logic appears correct." Drop the artsy be-
it-so.


On 15 Okt., 09:54, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The universe springs from God but that doesn't mean that the universe is a
> part of God , rather it is an emanation or a reflection of God. The infinite
> individualities of consciousness are a manifestation or a proof of God. If
> God is the universe it is only in the manner that a reflection of the Sun is
> the Sun. God doesn't have to be aware like us to be responsible for the
> universe , rather the universe comes out naturally as it is the very nature
> of God.
> There are so many philosophies and viewpoints about Reality and God  that it
> becomes a little confusing ; If a state of bliss , where there is a total absence of
> anything else , appears to you to be a God state , then so be it.

>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > then you are saying RP God is separate from us and the entirty of the
> > universe as that is the only way he can see himself?
> > Allan
>
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:07 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Awareness is aware of something separate from itself , the eye cannot see
> >> itself. If you are talking of a state of bliss , where there is only the
> >> consciousness of bliss and nothing else , no thought , form but only bliss ,
> >> that also is just an awareness of a feeling and cannot be said to be God
> >> state.  God is above all feelings and forms and transcends consciousness and
> >> as such is totally abstract and to be understood only in an abstract manner.
>

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[Molly]

You can see the paradox. When you can experience the paradox, you
will know it.

On Oct 15, 12:07 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Awareness is aware of something separate from itself , the eye cannot see
> itself. If you are talking of a state of bliss , where there is only the
> consciousness of bliss and nothing else , no thought , form but only bliss ,
> that also is just an awareness of a feeling and cannot be said to be God
> state.  God is above all feelings and forms and transcends consciousness and
> as such is totally abstract and to be understood only in an abstract manner.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Molly]

I spend a good deal of time, or no time, beyond mind, and do not see
mind as all encompassing. My mind does not need to always be
presenting form, thought and feeling to my awareness, but runs more in
the background to be tapped when needed. For me, it is needed less
and less. I know that I am stressed when it those thoughts and
feelings are streaming like a video on a computer, using up the
broadband. There are times, especially in group settings, when mind
is essential to shared experience. Yet even in groups, a mind that is
silent allows you to better experience the subtlety of what is
happening around you. How often do we not hear what is being said to
us because our own thoughts are too loud?

If you can move beyond identification, ego, attachment and the other
thought/feeling forms we construct to create our self image, and move
into a silent state without thoughts and feelings, there is only
awareness. Awareness does not require an object, or us to be "aware
of." This is difficult to grasp if this state has not been
experienced, as we tend to think in dualistic terms, cause and effect
etc. A silent mind gives us a non dual state, where we are not
separate from other, or God. Because the universe is holographic in
nature, and so, we are holographic in nature, once we have experience
this state it is a part of who we are, like adding a program that runs
in the background and can always be accessed to the computer. We are
that, and everything else that we are, including dualistic, thinking,
feeling, mindful, individual etc. Each state includes (not excludes)
the others. We see the individual states as our "analyzation" allows
us to contemplate our experience. Contemplating our experience is an
important part of integrating all systems of self, aligning all
aspects for more efficient access and greater inclusion of higher
states.

What is art? Art is all around us if we are open to the experience
that shatters our forms and opens us to possibility. Our own
"analyzation" determines, for us, what leads us there.

On Oct 15, 4:23 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[Ash]

Mind's Eye is taking over the world one social network at a time! :)

> <mailto:123...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> What is God space? What is pure consciousness? Can you
> tell us how it
> differs from ordinary consciousness. As far as I know
> consciousness is
> simply a state of awareness of something or the other.
> Awareness cannot be
> aware of awareness , it is foolish to say so. In other
> words consciousness
> cannot be conscious of consciousness. So , again what is
> pure consciousness
> ? Can you explain it in simple language , Molly ?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:01 PM,

> Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com <mailto:mollyb...@gmail.com>>

> wrote:
>
> I see intention and definition as secondary, part of
> the endless
> abstraction and analyzation in that we do or do not
> engage our minds.
> As such, it is valuable and meaningful. I contend,
> like Croce, that
> inspiration and communion associated with art is
> beyond mind. The
> role of the artist, also, is secondary. But I think
> it is evolving,
> just as humanity is evolving. The artist and his art
> bringing us to
> and inspiring us to the beautiful is evolving to
> include bringing us
> into the unity of that God space, or pure
> consciousness, that allows
> our inspirations.
> On Oct 14, 12:04 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com

> <mailto:leerevdoug...@googlemail.com>"

> <l...@rdfmedia.com <mailto:l...@rdfmedia.com>> wrote:
>
> Molly yes you are correct, we all have roles that
> we are concioues of
> and some that we are not. But then in light of
> this, the role of an
> artists is merely to produce art.
> Would an Atheist artist agree that her role is:
> 'to bring the other, or viewer, to that place in
> consciousness through

> the form presented � into Nature, soul, feelings,
> God, where we can
> be, ourselves, inspired, and feel ourselves a
> complete microcosm of
> life�s macrocosm. In this way, we connect with
> and become our own
> esthetic holon, nesting with all others in unity

> <mailto:leerevdoug...@googlemail.com>"<l...@rdfmedia.com
> <mailto:l...@rdfmedia.com>>

> wrote:
>
> Heh perhaps unsupprisingly I have a bone
> of contention with this.
> Does an artist have a role?
> In my experiance those who produce art in
> it's myriad forms do so
> without conciouse thought as to the role
> they play, and in fact
> produce their art simply because they feel
> they must. All artists in
> my experiance feel the need to say
> something, to show something of
> themselves to their audiance.
> So I think it is more a matter of their
> personal need than any role.
> On 13 Oct, 23:34, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com

> <mailto:ashkas...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Yes I second that, and awesomely
> relevant! Does Molly write all
>
> this
>
> stuff?
> On 10/13/2010 11:51 AM, ashok tewari
> wrote:
>
> * ditto *
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:38 PM,
> Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com
> <mailto:mollyb...@gmail.com>

> <mailto:mollyb...@gmail.com

[gabbydott]

I cannot see any paradox in what RP says. He sounds very sane to me. I
find it very manipulative though, that you are telling him what he
sees and what he does not know yet. Where did RP leave the impression
that he is asking for this kind of analysis? Are you creating a
deficiency gap in others to be filled with your content? Is that where
you draw the parallel to the artist's role?

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[Mardi]

I am a visual artist and yes, I create because I have to do it. I
create sometimes from a thought that comes to me that I want to
express in visual form. Other times the image comes to mind and as I
create it the image expands and takes on new form and thoughts come to
me as I create. And then later I look at my work and other new
thoughts come to me. And when I display them, the thoughts of all
sorts of other people become attached to the work and invest it with
new meanings. All of this is part of the artwork.

I do not see beauty as something inherent in an object, idea, event,
location, but something that the human mind brings to it. It is a way
of seeing, not something that is seen. In visual art, Rembrant created
incredible beauty from the worn old weathered faces of human beings.
Cage and other 20th century musicians created music that to the ears
of their contemporaries often sounded discordant, "ugly". Artists see
something even in the "ugly" that attracts them, something they love.
And when they create art from love of that "ugly", thing they teach
the rest of us to love also. And from that love we discover a
different level of beauty.

Artists may not intend to do anything more than create from their
inner vision, passion, need. But they are speaking something of our
shared humanity. But there are many different ways of being human and
every vision of every artist is not going to speak to the soul of
every person. So you just write off the things that don't speak to you
as "not on your wavelength". But sometimes a work you have written off
begins to come back to you again and again in moments of quiet non-
thinking and then that work begins to transform you until one day you
think of it with love and you have been changed.

On Oct 15, 4:38 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Mardi,

Thanks for that enlighending post. Yes indeed beauty is in th eye of
the beholder.

> > > Francis- Hide quoted text -

[Molly]

"As far as I know consciousness is
simply a state of awareness of something or the other. Awareness
cannot be
aware of awareness , it is foolish to say so. In other words
consciousness
cannot be conscious of consciousness. So , again what is pure
consciousness
? Can you explain it in simple language , Molly ?"

> ...
>
> read more »

[Molly]

I do agree with Lee, this is a wonderful expression of the communion
that art lends, Mardi.

[rigsy03]

Then Beauty is relative and there is no longer any universal standard
to apply to the arts. Truth is Beauty? No- it is now an opinion. This
results in "Piss Christ" being considered art and Lady Gaga= the new
American beauty dressed as a "piece of meat". Part of the problem is
that the arts were associated with aristocratic patrons and now go to
the highest commercial bidder/profit plus the jaded and weary public
applauds shock value.

On Oct 18, 4:44 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

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

[Molly]

shock value shatters forms. Does it speak to our deepest humanity?
That might be individual. Art speaks to the individual, and this does
not mean that it cannot bring us to the state where unity with
humanity can be realized. The one does not obliterate the many, it
includes us all, whether we individually realize it or not. As Orn
points out, it is not an either/or proposition, unless we make it so.

[gabbydott]

Ah, you're right, Molly! He asked for a foolish answer. *laughing*

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Hah yes I would say absolutly right, and indeed would question that
there ever was a universal standard of beauty.

[Molly]

There might not be an agreed standard for beauty, but don't you think
that every person recognizes what is beautiful for them or in
themselves? Beauty is, who can deny that?

On Oct 18, 12:31 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com"

[Molly]

projecting foolishness, or ridicule - esness - humorous indeed. The
ability to laugh at one's own folly - priceless.

> ...
>
> read more »

[gabbydott]

I can, my romantic friend. :-)

Beauty is a means to relate to the world that you acquire the way you
acquire languages - or you don't, or only to a lesser degree. Speaking
of projections, that is.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Ohh yes of course.

[rigsy03]

I agree and thank you for your perspective. I am "under the influence"
of the Tolstoys- Leo and Sonya- and am tipsy with their struggles via
a biography I am reading as it relates to many of my own.//I did take
a lofty, difficult course in literary critical theory and am not sure
to this day how I passed! :-) There is a sheet of notebook paper
somewhere in a folder that I have longed to find that listed the
characteristics of superior works of art but that was from a Catholic
college and I am sure "shock" was not on the list back in the 1950's!
The arts have been controlled- by whom and for what purpose? That is a
relevant question through the ages. What does the Nobel prize for
literature really mean to most? At any rate, shock can inform us of
what we do not accept and want so in that respect it is part of the
experience of judgement.

[rigsy03]

Not from want of trying for I think culture has been/is intent on the
definition/example. The same would hold for other qualities, as well.
The struggle comes between the external-let's say beauty- and the
internal.

On Oct 18, 11:31 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com"

[Molly]

Let those with ears, hear! I've given you my answer RP. Asking the
same question again won't alter it. Perhaps we have reached an
impasse. I can appreciate the attempt.

On Oct 19, 11:33 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is God space? What is pure consciousness? I see no paradox in all this
> , I would like a clear description of these terms in your words , Molly, and
> not in mine?

> ...
>
> read more »

[gabbydott]

Oh come on Molly! He clearly dropped the foolishness implications from
last time! And as I said, I can't see the paradox either. Help us!

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[Molly]

“What is pure consciousness?” RP

Pure consciousness in simple language: “If you have experienced or

can imagine awareness without form, thought or feeling - you have

it.”

“The infinite individualities of consciousness are a manifestation or

a proof of God. If
God is the universe it is only in the manner that a reflection of the
Sun is
the Sun. God doesn't have to be aware like us to be responsible for
the
universe , rather the universe comes out naturally as it is the very
nature

of God.” RP

The paradox here is that the One is the Many and the Many, One. We
are, each of us, individual, and yet, we are unified in the One. As I
have said, understanding this as a concept is not the same as the
experience of unity/individuality. The paradox in this instance is
that we are dynamically both. The experience of the paradox includes
pure consciousness, and the concept is simply a thought in our mind
that refers to the idea of it. The experience of God as something
outside of our self, precludes us from experiencing unity as BEING
everyone and all that is in God (God space.) Paradoxically, even
these forms fall away in pure consciousness, with all others.

“Awareness is aware of something separate from itself , the eye cannot

see
itself. If you are talking of a state of bliss , where there is only
the
consciousness of bliss and nothing else , no thought , form but only
bliss ,
that also is just an awareness of a feeling and cannot be said to be
God

state.” RP

As I have stated, from my view, awareness is, and need not (but can)
include an object, attachment or identification of self. I did not
say anything about bliss, but did and do categorize feeling with
thought and form as mental objects. I do agree with Croce’s notion
that we embody spirit through intuition as we symbolize (objectify)
our feelings, Nature, soul and God. I think we do this so that we can
commune together, share what we internalize and symbolize – an act of
love. Art, as such, allows us to share not only our symbols,
feelings, thoughts etc., but that part of us that is pure
consciousness, that part that we share as the One or God.

I can only hope that this clarifies my view for you. I do understand,
RP, that you do not share my view and I don’t expect that. I
appreciate your desire to understand my view, but have no desire of my
own to argue the value of anyone’s view, or respond to any call to
confrontation. You seem to have very concrete and personal ideas
about God, and I respect that, although I do not share them. This
brief exchange is a good demonstration of that.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Molly]

"The struggle comes between the external-let's say beauty- and the

internal." Rigsy

Very astute! However, I think that Croce's aesthetic reaches for a
synthesis of the two for both the artist and viewer.

[Molly]

Maybe Jean Klein can say it better than I can: "The timeless nonstate
cannot be achieved because 
the mind cannot evolve towards it. The
mind can only 
bring you to the threshold. Awakening comes
unexpectedly when you do not wait for it, when you 
live in not-
knowing. Only then are you available." 

~Jean Klein

http://stillnessspeaks.com/videos/27/

On Oct 19, 11:33 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is God space? What is pure consciousness? I see no paradox in all this
> , I would like a clear description of these terms in your words , Molly, and
> not in mine?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Molly]

I do not follow your line of logic (your it follows statements) but
will say that my experience is that I am, simultaneously, everyone in
all time. With the application of linear time, the concept of rebirth
and the experience of past lives is a mental exercise, like
psychotherapy. I do agree that individually, we realize God by his
divine grace, as we realize all by His divine grace. I also agree
with Jean Klein that we cannot achieve or try or seek these states,
yet these efforts get us to the threshold where, if we are open and
silent, they can occur.

On Oct 20, 11:38 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I can achieve God-state it is logical to assume that God would want all
> conscious individualities to achieve that state , but as all are not that
> capable in this life it follows that there are innumerable re-births i.e. my
> dog would also after innumerable births be born as a human being capable of
> achieving God-state.
> This idea is accepted by millions but frankly it doesn't appeal to me. To my
> thinking there are no re-births and after death all conscious
> individualities achieve to the state of God by his divine grace. It follows
> that in God's eyes all are equal irrespective of birth , status and actions.

> ...
>
> read more »

[gabbydott]

Thank you very much for helping me to understand you better, Molly.

You say you "have no desire of my own to argue the value of anyone’s
view, or respond to any call to confrontation." May I ask how else you
find out the value of your own view? How else do you not get stuck in
your own very concrete and personal ideas about God? How do you make
sure you're not hunting after some sweet feeling you named God, love,
the One, or pure consciousness because they told you so? There is no
paradox in experiencing the unity/individuality dynamics, that's the
"normal duality", so to speak, of being observer and the observed. Can
you see that too?

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[Molly]

"You say you are , simultaneously , everyone in all time; but that
reduces
all of us individuals to be merely your imagination and make you God
and
the rest of us just figments of your imagination. The truth is we are
all
separate individuals and are dualistic in nature and all talk of non-
duality
is for God or the Truth and not for us."

It is not either/or. Each is included in the other. From my view we
are dual and non dual, One and Many, finite and infinite.

On Oct 20, 1:32 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Though in essence you are the one but you must not forget that you are more
> the individual. Your individuality is a fact of life whereas the One is a
> subjective thing more to be understood then to be experienced. You , I , and
> all others are individuals first and it is only by assumption that you are
> all. I don't know about your linear time but I do know that long ago I was a
> toddler and now am a middle-aged man. This is a fact and so also to my mind
> the past and present is a fact. So if we talk of re-birth it is just as much
> fact as is old age and death.
> You say you are , simultaneously , everyone in all time; but that reduces
> all of us individuals to  be merely your imagination and make you God and
> the rest of us just figments of your imagination. The truth is we are all
> separate individuals and are dualistic in nature and all talk of non-duality
> is for God or the Truth and not for us.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Molly]

"May I ask how else you

find out the value of your own view?" - g

I don't put a value on my view. If you do on yours (or mine) that is
up to you.

"How do you make
sure you're not hunting after some sweet feeling you named God, love,

the One, or pure consciousness because they told you so?" g

Through my own experience.

"There is no
paradox in experiencing the unity/individuality dynamics, that's the
"normal duality", so to speak, of being observer and the observed."

I reference the Merriam Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. The
definition of paradox applies to my statement. Ultimately, when
discussing pure consciousness, I am using words to point to concepts
that come close to illustrating my experience. This is the best I can
do. I have had my experience, and can use concepts to point you to an
experience of your own, but your experience is yours. In spirit, I
can give you, and everyone, my experience (archetype.) Maybe this Osho
statement will be more clear for you: "Remember: whatsoever I am
saying is not the thing that I want to say to you. Whatsoever I am
saying has nothing to do with truth, because truth cannot be said.
Whatsoever I am saying is nothing but a hammering. If you become
awake, you will see the truth." Osho

In terms of the artist's role, the same applies. The artist creates
through his medium as inspired. The viewer is led to their own
inspiration. Transformation complete. I agree with Croce's idea that
the transformation, artwork and communication are secondary to the
inspiration. Although secondary, from my view, they are a beautiful
communion.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Molly]

RP, again I will say to you that you continue to ask the same question
over and over. What you expect is not my concern, as we are each
bound to fulfill our own expectations. This, is where I will part
ways with you, as I cannot put more effort into telling you the same
answer again and again. You are entitled to your experience. God
bless you.

On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If a few experience the infinite what about the rest , will they just die
> and be just one in your unity. If you experience the One , you are the
> finite and the infinite ; but the majority have to be satisfied  in being
> One in your experience.  Such talk just doesn't go down my throat , I like
> the idea of separate individuals who can , if they want , understand their
> duality and the non-duality of our father who is also our innermost being
> but to be experienced and entered into after death. If you say ' I am the
> one and the many ' it is simply a verbal statement and any such experience
> has not been clearly  illustrated by anyone. When someone tries to explain
> such an experience he starts talking in abstractions , which is normal when
> talking about an idea but not normal in talking of an experience.
> You say in God-state there are no thoughts nor feelings, but I ask you ,
> Molly , what exactly is there in God-state? You have experienced such a
> state , by your own admission , so it is very natural for me to inquire of
> you what you are conscious of in such a state? I expect a positive answer ,
> i.e. you must delineate all that you experience and not that which you
> don't.

> ...
>
> read more »

[iam deheretic]

RP why some reach enlightenment and others don't is a $65.000.oo question. there are many who strive for enlightenment. and othere who walk through the gate less gate unknowingly. I do feel it is avaliable to everyone why they do not reach the state of enlightenment, I do not know  and I know too many want to take short cuts and rely on drugs to achieve what they think is the state,

I some times wonder RP if youi really are looking for answers or just spreading your personal dogma and doctine?
Allan

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

If a few experience the infinite what about the rest , will they just die and be just one in your unity. If you experience the One , you are the finite and the infinite ; but the majority have to be satisfied  in being One in your experience.  Such talk just doesn't go down my throat , I like the idea of separate individuals who can , if they want , understand their duality and the non-duality of our father who is also our innermost being but to be experienced and entered into after death. If you say ' I am the one and the many ' it is simply a verbal statement and any such experience has not been clearly  illustrated by anyone. When someone tries to explain such an experience he starts talking in abstractions , which is normal when talking about an idea but not normal in talking of an experience.

You say in God-state there are no thoughts nor feelings, but I ask you , Molly , what exactly is there in God-state? You have experienced such a state , by your own admission , so it is very natural for me to inquire of you what you are conscious of in such a state? I expect a positive answer , i.e. you must delineate all that you experience and not that which you don't.

--
 (   
  )   
I_D Allan

Be Paranoid.
God is always building a better idiot!!!

[iam deheretic]

Then RP the question becomes is your you dogma and doctrine correct   and what proof do you personally have other than the experience and word of others?
Allan

[Molly]

Our mind imposes limitations on our experience. If we are continually
trying to understand consciousness with our mental processes, we will
continue to struggle. When we can be open to experiencing the
creative process beyond mind, we are open to the experience of the
infinite. As you say, Alan, this is available to everyone who can see
beyond limitation.

Francis Lucille may explain it better than I can, in his Audio answer
007, How Can We Stand As Universal Consciousness:

http://www.francislucille.com/excerpt.html

Interestingly enough, this audio file was waiting for me this morning
in one of my groups. And this has been a noticeable process for me in
my life: I have a transformational experience that includes greater
states of consciousness, and then information about it begins to
stream to me from all different sources, some very unlikely! Like a
validation. Now this may be a twofold process, because while much of
this information is new to me, some of it I have seen before, but now
understand better, in light of my better understanding. This may be
why I can explain myself over and over to you RP, yet you do not see
my explanation and repeat your questions. A natural human state in
light of our developmental stages. Not that one is better than the
other, indeed, the "value" of each is something we each personally
assign (or not.) This is where being open to others viewpoints is
important, as they can lead us to new insights.

This from the Dali Lama was also waiting for me this morning, "By
studying others’ viewpoints, it is possible for us to discover new and
refreshing perspectives on the world – including our own life."

In terms of the artistic process being a communicative process as well
as creative process, I ran across an article by the artist Alex Grey
that includes a dialogue with Ken Wilber on the role of the artist:

http://www.alexgrey.com/essay/kenwilber.html

I enjoyed (and thought relevant to the post) the following points:

A spiritual art must transform the artist and the viewer. In order for
art to be transformative, it has to undo you.

Most artists agree, their dissatisfaction drives them toward something
deeper and better, and keeps them making art. Even a "happy" artist
like Matisse agreed with this. I think Krishnamurti called it creative
discontent.

Transcendental Art expresses something that you are not yet but that
you can become..

As Emerson said, "It all begins when the soul would have its way with
you." Certain artists become channels of the Zeitgeist, the spirit of
the times. They are the chosen who the World Soul reaches down and
grabs by the butt. The best they could do was have a sense of grace
while being the puppet of the Zeitgeist. Some artists, like Pollock,
wind up sedating themselves for the ride. A metal bar will bend until
it cracks and pops apart. Artists are positioned at the crack of the
Zeitgeist. When a force beyond the individual grabs you, you are not
choiced. The onset of social psychopathology or transformative growth
is signalled by the artists.

The full article also gives several references to the Wilber work that
may speak to the subject of "sacred artist" (we all have this
available to us also.)

On Oct 20, 3:56 pm, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RP why some reach enlightenment and others don't is a $65.000.*oo* question.

> ...
>
> read more »

[ashok tewari]

I am intervening to to effect a breakoff. There are are things that are possible and others that are not. No one need to feel hard about it.

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[Molly]

An apple cannot be an orange. Or can it?

> ...
>
> read more »

[ashok tewari]

To you, there are no apples and oranges. To RP, there are !

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[DarkwaterBlight]

I'm starting to feel like some marmalade on whole grain toast!

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Molly]

I was going for the good pun (can it.) Many subtle levels can be
lost. I do concur, we are not understanding each other.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Molly]

I suggest you re-read my posts to see if you cannot find my answers.
Other than that, I agree with Vam, you and I have gone as far as we
can go with this conversation between us.

On Oct 21, 12:41 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Molly , I have been asking you for a description of the state of pure
> consciousness which you say you have experienced , but you have been
> skirting the issue. You say you have explained it again and again but you
> have just been making evasive abstract statements and quoting others , I
> don't see the necessity of referring to others when you have a first hand
> experience. Since you have experienced God-state you could easily describe
> what you feel , or of what you are aware; if you are not aware of anything
> or feel anything what is your state of consciousness , is it oblivion? is it
> bliss? You could elaborate.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[gabbydott]

> "May I ask how else you

> find out the value of your own view?" - gabby

>
> I don't put a value on my view.  If you do on yours (or mine) that is

> up to you. - Molly

Yes, I find it necessary to evaluate the results of my view, for that
helps me to correct my view. I assume that you are doing the same but
choose to use opposing words for the artistic effect.

> "How do you make
> sure you're not hunting after some sweet feeling you named God, love,

> the One, or pure consciousness because they told you so?" gabby
>
> Through my own experience. - Molly


My experience is that I experience/ did experience / have
experienced / will experience everything you are telling me or that I
am reading, may it be fiction, truth, science or the bill in the
restaurant. Therefore your argument has no explanatory value in my
value system, which understands itself a learning system, not a
perfect system.

>  "There is no
> paradox in experiencing the unity/individuality dynamics, that's the

> "normal duality", so to speak, of being observer and the observed." gabby

>
>  I reference the Merriam Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.  The
> definition of paradox applies to my statement.  Ultimately, when
> discussing pure consciousness, I am using words to point to concepts
> that come close to illustrating my experience.  This is the best I can
> do. I have had my experience, and can use concepts to point you to an
> experience of your own, but your experience is yours.  In spirit, I
> can give you, and everyone, my experience (archetype.) Maybe this Osho
> statement will be more clear for you: "Remember: whatsoever I am
> saying is not the thing that I want to say to you. Whatsoever I am
> saying has nothing to do with truth, because truth cannot be said.
> Whatsoever I am saying is nothing but a hammering. If you become
> awake, you will see the truth." Osho
>
> In terms of the artist's role, the same applies.  The artist creates
> through his medium as inspired.  The viewer is led to their own
> inspiration.  Transformation complete.  I agree with Croce's idea that
> the transformation, artwork and communication are secondary to the
> inspiration.  Although secondary, from my view, they are a beautiful

> communion. - Molly

I have been discussing this paradox matter just recently with Francis.
Politicians and especially our chancellor Angela Merkel is a master in
applying this rhetoric device of saying nothing, meaning anything you
want or fear, and thereby securing their own power. To then do what
their inspiration is telling them and not what they have been elected
for. Transformation complete. *laughing*

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[ashok tewari]

"... you could easily describe what you feel..."

  RP, you've had an icecream, a sweet dish, a rasogulla ....

You've tasted the sweet. Would you describe the sweetness you've experienced ? Easily ...  kindly do so for our benefit !

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:11 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

Molly , I have been asking you for a description of the state of pure consciousness which you say you have experienced , but you have been skirting the issue. You say you have explained it again and again but you have just been making evasive abstract statements and quoting others , I don't see the necessity of referring to others when you have a first hand experience. Since you have experienced God-state you could easily describe what you feel , or of what you are aware; if you are not aware of anything or feel anything what is your state of consciousness , is it oblivion? is it bliss? You could elaborate.

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[ashok tewari]

I find you've skirted the issue - what is sweetness and the particular feel of it ? - and have spoken volumes about every other thing ... generic and about yourself !

Try again. What is sweetness and the particular feel of it ? Taste ( what ? ) !? Pleasant ( what ? ) nature !? 

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is an awareness of taste of a pleasant nature and awareness of all other sensory objects is also present; in other words thoughts , feelings ,and consciousness of all other sensory objects is there. In other words concentration is not fixed at a point whereas when you talk of Self-realization you say concentration is fixed. What I want to know is that when you are Self-realized are you aware of your body , your surroundings , thoughts,  feelings etc. Is there a consciousness of ' I ' and is there some sensation of whatever nature.

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[ashok tewari]

That's what people have been telling you, after repeated explanations and descriptions !  Now, you should understand and take your own advice.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:31 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why don't you go and sleep on my answer , maybe , you will understand it. I know you have been educated enough to understand about taste and what it is.

--
ASHOK TEWARI

[Molly]

Alan Watt's explanation may (or may not) be of interest here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzppewk9a7I

On Oct 22, 8:08 am, ashok tewari <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's what people have been telling you, after repeated explanations and
> descriptions !  Now, you should understand and take your own advice.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:31 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why don't you go and sleep on my answer , maybe , you will understand it. I
> > know you have been educated enough to understand about taste and what it is.
>

> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM, ashok tewari <atewari2...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> I find you've skirted the issue - what is sweetness and the particular
> >> feel of it ? - and have spoken volumes about every other thing ... generic
> >> and about yourself !
>
> >> Try again. What is sweetness and the particular feel of it ? Taste ( what
> >> ? ) !? Pleasant ( what ? ) nature !?
>
> >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> It is an awareness of taste of a pleasant nature and awareness of all
> >>> other sensory objects is also present; in other words thoughts , feelings
> >>> ,and consciousness of all other sensory objects is there. In other words
> >>> concentration is not fixed at a point whereas when you talk of
> >>> Self-realization you say concentration is fixed. What I want to know is that
> >>> when you are Self-realized are you aware of your body , your surroundings ,
> >>> thoughts,  feelings etc. Is there a consciousness of ' I ' and is there some
> >>> sensation of whatever nature.
>

> >>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:11 AM, ashok tewari <atewari2...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> "... you could easily describe what you feel..."
>
> >>>>   RP, you've had an icecream, a sweet dish, a rasogulla ....
>
> >>>> You've tasted the sweet. Would you describe the sweetness you've
> >>>> experienced ? Easily ...  kindly do so for our benefit !
>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:11 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Molly , I have been asking you for a description of the state of pure
> >>>>> consciousness which you say you have experienced , but you have been
> >>>>> skirting the issue. You say you have explained it again and again but you
> >>>>> have just been making evasive abstract statements and quoting others , I
> >>>>> don't see the necessity of referring to others when you have a first hand
> >>>>> experience. Since you have experienced God-state you could easily describe
> >>>>> what you feel , or of what you are aware; if you are not aware of anything
> >>>>> or feel anything what is your state of consciousness , is it oblivion? is it
> >>>>> bliss? You could elaborate.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Mardi]

On Oct 18, 11:25 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then Beauty is relative and there is no longer any universal standard
> to apply to the arts. Truth is Beauty? No- it is now an opinion. This
> results in "Piss Christ" being considered art

The conversation seems to have migrated to a discussion of the
definition/experience of "god space", the ineffable, and such.

Although this is also a conversation which interests me, may I
return, concurrently, for a moment, for those interested, to the ideas
of the "role" of the artist, the question of the "ugly", and what
artists may or may not do for a person's soul, or the soul of a
community, society or our shared humanity.

Whether or not artists have a "role" as such, we do have an influence,
whether intentional or unintentional, we play a part in the
construction of our humanity.

Art speaks to us, speaks for us, offers us words, music, images that
express those things within us we often cannot even name or express
ourselves. Goya speaks to us of the demons of our soul and shows us
what they do; Picasso shows us the horror of war in his painting of
the bombing of Guernica; Munch shows us our deepest grief and
despair.

Yet artists do more than this. They externalize our interior states,
they make visible, audible, perceptible and concrete that which lies
unrealized within us. And in doing so they create talismans for us to
hold in the extremities of our own lives. These works of art express
our rage for us and we hold to that art and in some way that art holds
our rage, confines it while expressing it. Works of art are like
sacred vessels that both exemplify and contain our deepest emotions of
anger, disgust, hope, hopelessness, joy, repulsion, ecstasy,
transcendance.

Through many dark days from my teens onward, I held onto Edward
Munch's "the scream" like a life-line holding me together, keeping me
above the darkness within. For some it is a particular piece of music,
or a novel, or a poem that holds them together when they're falling
apart. It's not because the art is pretty, not because it gives hope,
but specifically because it expresses the depths of our hopelessness,
it grasps our soul with a truth that is more real than anything else
in our life.

Art isn't about being pretty or sweet or attractive. It's about being
human and expressing the full range of our entire humanity in ways
that lay hold of our spirit, demand our attention, take our breath
away.

I can see the "piss Jesus" piece as a powerful talisman connecting in
a profoundly visceral way with the deep hurt and anger of those who
have been alienated, disenfranchised, dehumanized, by the church in
the name of God.

Art has the capacity to give voice to our multifarious inner states
and experiences, to increase our joy and delight, to hold our grief
and rage, to reflect back to us the kaleidoscopic variety of our
humanity.

[Molly]

Welcome, Mardi and thanks for picking this up so comprehensively. I
especially like your statement "it grasps our soul with a truth that
is more real than anything else in our life" as it gets to my point of
the artist expressing what may be, currently, inexpressible for us,
giving form to our formlessness, making what we know to be true
tangible. Expressing our deepest emotion, this may speak to the
individual experience, as our emotional bodies are individual. Not
all of us hold on to rage or grief, and so, might not relate. But
many of us do, it is true, and these powerful emotions can break us
down to the state where forms are shattered. This can even become an
instrument of our letting go of these emotions, and so the artists
role becomes one of service, and this may be a role handed to him or
her, not an original intent.

I like your blogs. Thanks for participating.

[frantheman]

On 28 Okt., 17:52, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When life departs from a body duality ceases to be as the distinction of the
> observer and the observed is no more. Consciousness then attains to
> non-duality.
>
How do you know?

[iam deheretic]

'cause his bible told him so..
Allan

[iam deheretic]

That is closed minded RP, If you have meet your self in essence you have meet God as you are mad up of his essence so you cannot say you have not  meet God.  He is so close to you he is invisible. Because of this that would make you both a fraud and a madman
Allan

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:49 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:

Viewpoints about God are a matter of faith or logic , no one has gone and met God personally , at least I haven't and those who profess to have done so are in my view just frauds or madmen.

[Molly]

“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn,
burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders
across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop
and everybody goes 'Awww!'' - Jack Kerouac from On The Road, 1957

On Oct 29, 2:35 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is closed minded RP, If you have meet your self in essence you have
> meet God as you are mad up of his essence so you cannot say you have not
> meet God.  He is so close to you he is invisible. Because of this that would
> make you both a fraud and a madman
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:49 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Viewpoints about God are a matter of faith or logic , no one has gone and
> > met God personally , at least I haven't and those who profess to have done
> > so are in my view just frauds or madmen.
>

[rigsy03]

This is a powerful statement. Thank you, Mardi. Yes- there is a role
for the vulgar and shocking because these are human states, as well.
There is a soul-price to paid for art that is pleasant- like buying
art to go with furniture, etc. I was offered a job way back to turn
out this crap for a high end furniture store and am laughing now at
the thought of it. We cannot avoid ourselves and the world as it is.
Why do you think people seek serenity if possible? Is it a form of
escapism? Or is too much intensity difficult to manage- too much
truth...

[rigsy03]

Maybe the architects are the sane ones? Gothic cathedrals, for
instance. I weary of the artist that is so self-absorbed and
narcissistic- or that suffering equals talent/genius. Art has also
been said to be something like 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration
which is probably closer to the mark. Picasso played the game
brilliantly and was quite open about the celebrity/high prices, etc.
"Good artists copy. Great artists steal."-Picasso

> > God is always building a better idiot!!!- Hide quoted text -

[Mardi]

I see our human experience as not so much a solid state but more like
an ever-changing, dynamic, evolving, mystery. It includes the sublime,
pleasure, delight, joy, laughter as well as grief, rage, abandonment,
debasement. Art is all of these things. There is arrogance and self-
serving presumption as much in art as there is in medicine, law,
business, teaching, plumbing, farming, housekeeping - ad infinitum
through all the things we humans do. We live our lives partly in
honesty and magnanimity and partly in delusion and feelings of self-
importance; partly in generosity and partly in selfishness. We're a
mix of every possibility. Different art speaks to me at different
times. I think a diet of either too much sweetness or too much
bitterness is just as unhealthy for our souls as it is for our bodies.
I select the art I put around myself for it's capacity to repeatedly
delight my personal sense of aesthetic. I go to galleries, museums,
and online to find art that challenges and disturbs, because it starts
my mind working in new directions, opens up new ideas. Be careful of
the jobs, or any other long-term relationships that kill your spirit.
Glad you got out of that one!

[rigsy03]

I'm a regular Houdini! :-) Seriously, this angst must be attached to
my age as if I hope to tidy up the world before I croak since I have
been exposed to a variety of the arts and really do know better.
Somehow, your post relieved me of needing to meddle. Why die of a
gasp?//I had a lot of trouble with the money angle so I gave my stuff
away- usually as a farewell gift unbeknownst to the recipient. I may
get back to painting but it's been years and it would be simply be an
exercise, of sorts.// I do think the money angle drives many of the
categories you mentioned. Modigliani's nude brought in a good sum-
often the artist does not live to realize his/her success.// Yes- I
will ponder your post for a while. My son is coming in today for a
week's visit rather than at Thanksgiving so hopefully out of sight is
not out of mind, in this case.// I remembered a quote of Simone Weil:
"Life does not need to mutilate itself in order to be pure" then I put
on the Eagles album- "Hell Freezes Over". On, we dance!

> > > humanity.- Hide quoted text -

[Mardi]

I have never been able to sell my work. I sat down and decided that I
have to create it, my soul requires it; I have to put it out for
others to see and respond to; and I want to send it out into the world
to have it's own life among other minds. Selling would accomplish all
of these things; but selling did not seem to be an option. So I
decided that giving my work as Christmas gifts every year to about
20-30 family and friends would also accomplish the same thing and give
my mind a motivation to allow my heart to create the art. For an
artist, our soul needs to create art. We need to give it a reason to
work on its art - even if no one is buying. We just have to let our
heart drive the decision rather than the mind. It is the mind that
tells us the money gives the work value. It doesn't, not even the
response of viewers gives the work value. The experience of creating
and showing and getting the responses both good and bad, the whole
experience both expresses and shapes our soul. That shaping and
struggling and creating, that is what has value, real ultimate value
as we each scramble and flounder through our crazy lives each creating
our own unique take on what it means to be human. Rigs, back to your
art - change the reasons you're doing it!!

[Molly]

Your life isn't over, Mardi, and at some point, with your purity of
spirit in art, you may find the opportunity before you to distribute
your work to a wider audience. As I look at the art that is on the
market, and the art coming from artists in your position, it seems to
me there is a spark of the divine to the timing of what is widely
shared. Your time will come, if, this is what you truly want.

[gabbydott]

I did not receive the impression that Mardi has finished with his
life, Molly. I hope you are doing fine in the momentary economic
situation though. How is your services serving its own evolution, if
that is allowed to ask? I am worried.

[rigsy03]

In a few cases it would have been wiser to give scented candles, cut
flowers or fruit cake rather than a painting as the relationships did
not last and it is distressing to think that my work is hanging in a
couple of homes I no longer care to enter...maybe they tossed the
stuff or use them as dart boards! Who knows? One family has eight
items so it played out over time. I was offered money, encouragement
and acceptance but it got to be a tangle plus I had other interests
and outlets for creativity- I think some of the energy was connected
with my motherhood days/years. I do think money acts as a distancing
and depersonalization of the creation- art is done in love for profit
or acclaim- or both. I can be over-generous though it might not seem
that way by my tone- I suppose sarcasm is a way of hiding hurt or
bamboozlement- it might be tied to that only-child thing, as well,
that was not a good start to the art of territory, etc.// Later, after
thinking about this I thought it was a great theme for inter-related
short stories- following the life-span of a painting. You know, we
were taught it was unladylike and lacking in charity to expect money
for anything- even the ending of a marriage- so I did see others
behave in a similar fashion. There was a sea-change of many ideas in
the women I later went around with who were about ten years younger as
a result of women's lib.//Anyway- I enjoy your thoughts and attitude
and hope to wet a few brushes and clack a few knitting needles this
winter. An old friend popped up last week- we tiffed a dozen years ago
but hugged and made up :-), unfortunately he said he has Parkinsons so
I don't know yet how this will affect us but we certainly used to have
a great time together so I'm hopeful there are many good times left.
We'll see...

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

[Molly]

I live the life I love and I love the life I live...

[Molly]

I sometimes wonder about the gifts given, poems paintings etc. I
admire Mardi's technical extension, printing books with the paintings
so as to extend the giving to so many more. Self publishing makes
this available in ways that were not before. I have probably
forgotten many of the gifts and recipients, but every so often, a word
of appreciation comes back to me unexpectedly, a connection
revisited. My online presence allows my words to effect readers in
ways I never dreamed possible. This Thanksgiving I will be visiting a
reader and his family who tells me that one of my poems convinced him
to become a father. The beautiful child is now one going on two and I
have been invited into the lives of this family with incredible depth
of intimacy. As I was a child myself writing poems, I never imagined
this kind of love through work.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Mardi]

Not sure if you are asking Molly or me about economic situation in our
crazy falling apart world these days, but I've always worked for a
living - the regular 9-5 kind of thing (though most of my jobs have
been odd hours actually - 5pm-1am or midnight to 8am! Now it's 8am-6pm
4 days a week) I have to fit my art into the cracks and around the
edges of my life.

On Nov 6, 12:49 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Mardi]

Yes, the internet has opened up such an incredible world-wide audience
for artists! You can display your artwork with the minimal cost of a
website. Or you can display it in a blog and invite comments from
viewers. Or on Flikr - a great image sharing site. For visual artists
I strongly recommend using the internet to display your work! You get
all the satisfaction of sharing without the trauma of giving away the
originals!! I've worked in drawings, woodblock printing, and now
mostly in digital art (creating images through digital construction).
We artists always keep slides of all our work (for sending off to
those juried exhibits! which I no longer do either). At one point I
converted slides of my work to digital. So my books incorporate prints
of my work along with the text. And I create and bind my own books -
so only have the cost of materials. Giving away prints of your
paintings would make it a whole lot less personal - who cares if they
throw away a print!

[rigsy03]

That is a wonderful result of a poem, Molly! It is true we may have an
influence we don't realize and I should remember the positive outcomes
rather than only the negatives. It really is hard to think of myself
as a professional anything because I worked on projects when children
were in school, etc. I do have a friend who has used the internet,
created prints and staionery and is in a very different category. I
just got entangled. :-) Anyway, I just read up on Parkinson's as I
didn't know much about it and am shocked as my friend has led a
healthy life and is eight years younger. It sounds like he is at the
start of this. He lives close by so maybe I can help some way although
I am sure his brother and sister-in-law will be major support.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Molly]

I found a dialogue between artist Alex Grey and Ken Wilber that speaks
to Wilber's notion of the sacred artist:

http://www.alexgrey.com/essay/kenwilber.html

I enjoyed (and thought relevant to the post) the following points:

A spiritual art must transform the artist and the viewer. In order for
art to be transformative, it has to undo you.

Most artists agree, their dissatisfaction drives them toward something
deeper and better, and keeps them making art. Even a "happy" artist
like Matisse agreed with this. I think Krishnamurti called it creative
discontent.

Transcendental Art expresses something that you are not yet but that
you can become..

As Emerson said, "It all begins when the soul would have its way with
you." Certain artists become channels of the Zeitgeist, the spirit of
the times. They are the chosen who the World Soul reaches down and
grabs by the butt. The best they could do was have a sense of grace
while being the puppet of the Zeitgeist. Some artists, like Pollock,
wind up sedating themselves for the ride. A metal bar will bend until
it cracks and pops apart. Artists are positioned at the crack of the
Zeitgeist. When a force beyond the individual grabs you, you are not
choiced. The onset of social psychopathology or transformative growth
is signalled by the artists.

The full article also gives several references to the Wilber work that

may speak to the subject of sacred artist.

On a side note rigs, I watched "The Last Station" with Christoper
Plummer and Helen Miren the other night, an account of the segment of
the life of Tolstoy proceeding his death. I thought it beautifully
depicted the tumultuous relationship between Tolstoy and his wife, the
Countess, and the agony of Tolstoy as he strives to reconcile his
philosophy, which was very pure and included giving everything over to
the collective, and his private life, one of ownership and privilege.
It also portrayed the corruption of his movement of followers, even in
his own time, and how the head organizer, while at odds with the
Countess, manipulated Tolstoy into signing his copyrights over to the
organization (telling Tolstoy it was giving his work directly to the
people.) After his death, the Countess had her day in court and got
them back. They had thirteen children, five were deceased at the time
of Tolstoy's death. I thought it was a very well done snapshot.

> ...
>
> read more »

[rigsy03]

Yes- have heard very good comments about this film and will rent it,
Molly. Thanks. The biography I read had many letters and diary entries
so the final chapters were vivid. What lives!!! (Note to self: do NOT
keep a diary!)

Was also thinking of the topic through the hours and had some more
thoughts. Some have a creative burst and burn out or drown in shallow
waters. This is true of many fields- like athletes, lovers,
celebrities, etc. Matisse is a great example of endurance and there
are others. Persistence is key- like the writer who demands a blank
page each day, perhaps. Or maybe the gods move on to other souls? I
worked briefly at an art supply store and can't forget the man who
returned an expensive gift from his children when he retired from
business- an art kit and some other supplies to reignite a youthful
pursuit and talent. He had tears in his eyes and told me of his
depression and aimlessness at this point- the gift made him feel
worse! And some people feel you can churn out art like a printing
press which degrades the artist and process. And the result! Some
artists are just lucky dilitantes and dabble in the arts and crafts
like a buffet but have no ambition beyond the momentary pleasure or
sense of mastery.

[rigsy03]

As an afterthought- reading Tolstoy's biography had a negative effect
as he was often a narcisistic ass and rake plus most of his plots were
rewrites of real events and characters. I did veer off to Stendhal's
"The Charterhouse of Parma" to check out the influence it had on
Tolstoy and Hemingway (battle scenes) but it is such a buffoonery, it
is "done" halfway through and Stendhal was undoubtedly influenced by
Fielding's "Tom Jones" who was influenced by...on it goes! Picasso was
correct! :-)