In a number of important threads on the board, there is an implied premise that our own thoughts and actions are on their own track, somehow separate from God and for want of a better phrase "the divine plan."  
Thus, it is said, our lucid dreams are mere fanciful wanderings.  Our OOBEs are hallucinations (unless backed up by nonfalsifiable proof in the physical world).  To follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, implies that the mind of man operates separated from heaven and God, unless we are given the gift of grace, where our mind is open to divine revelation and intervention.

Yet many traditions teach that we are made in God's image, indeed with the divine spark in each of us.  So the question arises, is there a true separation between our thoughts and God and the divine plan, or is it we, who create a separation by dividing our actions arbitrarily and separating ourselves?  One answer may be that the more we connect with love of God and the love of other people, the more in sync we are with the divine plan.  The converse of that statement would also be true; the more we indulge in thoughts that lead us away from love of God and of other people, the further the separation from the mind and plan of God.

As we go about our lives, when are our thoughts and actions in line with divinity?  If we are truly inseparable from God in our truest nature, would it not be fair to think that our thoughts, dreams, and aspirations - including OOBEs and lucid dreams are part of the whole, and thus not separate from divine guidance?  Is this just wishful thinking, or is the separation hypothesis pessimistic musing?

Matthew

Matthew,

I sympathize with the core issues you are struggling to articulate.  Your issues are elusive but so profound that it is worth playing the academic game to explore them.  Perhaps you might find one or more of the ensuing questions a useful way of accessing your questions:

(1) Is PUL ultimately just Self-love?  If God is All That Is, cannot our love ultimately be reduced to God loving "Himself?"   Or must PUL imply a relationship with "the wholly other?"  In other words, is dualism a necessary condition for PUL?

(2) Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God create anything at all?  From God's timeless perspective, He presumably foreknew how each of His unique creatures would choose and develop.  So what would God gain by translating His theoretical knowledge into a reality that brought Him no surprises?  On a monistic model. what is the point of creation?

(3) Suppose that PUL has no value unless it is freely and independently expressed?  Is an all-powerful God capable of creating self-determined units of consciousness who operate freely and independently of divine micro-management snd predestination?  If so, can God permit these units of consciousness to chronically make choices that defy His "will?"  Can God permit free units of consciousness to be permanently separated from mystical union with His loving nature?  Or must God eventually either deprive them of their freedom to resist or annihilate their identies so that their soul substance can be returned unpolluted to the Source?    

(4) Is God "curious?"  Can an all-power God create a universe whose laws and evolution operate independently of "His" micro-management?  Can God permit uncontrolled and unplanned chaos?

Don

Berserk2 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2008 at 12:35am:

Matthew, I sympathize with the core issues you are struggling to articulate.  Your issues are elusive but so profound that it is worth playing the academic game to explore them.  Perhaps you might find one or more of the ensuing questions a useful way of accessing your questions: (1) Is PUL ultimately just Self-love?  If God is All That Is, cannot our love ultimately be reduced to God loving "Himself?"   Or must PUL imply a relationship with "the wholly other?"  In other words, is dualism a necessary condition for PUL? (2) Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God create anything at all?  From God's timeless perspective, He presumably foreknew how each of His unique creatures would choose and develop.  So what would God gain by translating His theoretical knowledge into a reality that brought Him no surprises?  On a monistic model. what is the point of creation? (3) Suppose that PUL has no value unless it is freely and independently expressed?  Is an all-powerful God capable of creating self-determined units of consciousness who operate freely and independently of divine micro-management snd predestination?  If so, can God permit these units of consciousness to chronically make choices that defy His "will?"  Can God permit free units of consciousness to be permanently separated from mystical union with His loving nature?  Or must God eventually either deprive them of their freedom to resist or annihilate their identies so that their soul substance can be returned unpolluted to the Source?     (4) Is God "curious?"  Can an all-power God create a universe whose laws and evolution operate independently of "His" micro-management?  Can God permit uncontrolled and unplanned chaos? Don

1.  I believe that PUL transcends dualistic thought in that it is a state of consciousness/feeling where only love exists.  I believe that those who express PUL are not concerned with the I/thou relationship, but express PUL toward all consciousness, realizing that we are all part of God.  This question about dualism implies that PUL only has meaning in an I/Thou relationship.  

2.  I am not sure if human logic can rationalize on the cosmic purpose behind the creation of the universe.  In the New Age model, the idea is that we are all unique probes of God, sent to bring back unique experiences, which, upon merging with God as we evolve somehow expands the overall consciousness.  I don't know how much I believe in this model, however, I don't envision God as a human like entity creating us out of clay.  Because the totality of God is more than my ken, I believe that speculating on the purpose of his creation may be beyond me.  I would, in general say that if we bring our unique experiences as conscious beings back to God, we may somehow continue to enrich and expand the consciousness of heaven.

3.  The answer, in my humble opinion is - yes.  Numerous sources state that free will appears to reign, despite our being created by God, and that we can keep ourselves distanced from the divine if that is where our free will takes us.

4.  Chaos and random variables appear to affect us all in the physical plane; we see this everyday.  There may be a grand purpose behind it all.  I see no inconsistency, however in a divinity allowing things to run around general cosmic laws and principles but with an element of randomness or chaos thrown in to make the experience of his creations more "real" or meaningful.


Matthew

Another perspective which in the end is maybe different more in language than substance might hold that life (both internal and external), and indeed the totality of existence proceeds to a natural 'flow'  informed by 'basic goodness', or you as you might say PUL.

Free will means we are not bound to adhere to this, although it implies that there is an optimum behaviour for every situation. The realised person may by intuitive means to varying degrees be hooked into this flow to the point where the more realised they are, the closer their behaviour comes to perfectly playing their part in it -  to realising it.

The mistaken sense that we cannot trust in this basic goodness and flow together the with the  consequent mistaken sense of isolation (leading to the delusion of presuming the existence of an independent and disconnected self) leads to fear - the whole leading to selfish behaviours at variance with flow by which the individual attempts to get ahead at the expense of others, the environment, and whatever.

Which can become wholly delusional and imagination driven - we suffer all sorts of paranoia.

The difficulty it can be argued is that this fear leads to such an level of intellectual chatter (judging people and things, obsessing about the past, worrying about the future, figuring out how to get ahead) that it comes to drown out the still small voice - our higher intuition if you like.

Which channel can be seen as the source of PUL, of compassion and wise knowing, the link to basic goodness or to God - this includes creativity, joyfulness, equanimity, loving kindness, joy in others' well being, ability to appreciate the beauty that surrounds us and so on.

Most spiritual paths entail quieting the chatter so we can come back to hearing the still small voice again. With this quieting and stillness comes an open awareness that is less inclined to by preconception limit the extent of our awareness, and in doing so it opens the way to extra normal experience.

Do most of us live according to flow (or in accordance with the Divine plan)? Definitely some of the time, but for much of it probably not. We've only got to listen to our own internal dialogue, emotions  and their intensity, and the problems we have connecting with our hearts and loving to realise this. Although it's a very deeply buried fact in the average person.

This is why practices like meditation, contemplation, right living and prayer can bring us back to God, or to our true nature - they still the chatter and allow us access to our basic goodness. (which at its deepest level you could argue contains a part of God - deep down we all know what's good for us, and for others, even if we don't live that way)

Our internal and external experience and behaviours consequently and depending on the situation we perceive mix what's down to flow, PUL and true 'seeing', and what's delusional and the product of egotistical mind.

Pulling it off entails blending and balancing the feeling heart (right brain) and the thinking head (left brain) for the greatest good - with the possibility over the horizon that this entire dualistic reality and existence may ultimately prove a manifestation of collective ego mind - one in which it's possible to live in accordance with flow or the Divine plan, but which ultimately be wholly transcended.

By this measure our life task is to move ourselves as far in the direction of PUL as we can manage. It's not a given, a life spent giving in to all of our selfish urges to pleasure is normally deeply painful, but more importantly gets us locked deeper into ego mind and further removed from the heart.

I'm not sure if that's going to be much help Doc, as it's not written to academic standards and is in  more Buddhist inspired than Christian language, but that's roughly the sort of model taught by the Eastern traditions....

Well, sometimes I wonder if maybe at least parts of ACIM might be true, just as I think maybe parts of Seth are true also.  I am suspicious of channeled material but nonetheless there may be just enough true info in order to lure us in.  Somewhat like a fisherman who uses a tasty morsel at the end of his hook.

For instance, Seth describes God as "All There Is".  That seems to me to be about as good as any other description.  For whatever reason it seems to ring true for me.

ACIM says that we separated from God and the rest of the book tells us how to repair the separation.  It says that we created our bodies and the world, arguing that since God is Perfect, He couldn't possibly create anything that is less than perfect.  Our bodies deteriorate and decay, just as the planet will at some point, so therefore God didn't create them.  Again, seems persuasive.

So, maybe we did separate altho ACIM never explains why.  And of course the biggest problem in my mind is how could we, having been created by a Perfect God, have made such a totally imperfect decision to separate in the first place?  

That conundrum aside, suppose for a moment that our earthly selves may be removed in a profound way from our spiritual identity.  We are motivated by a physical brain and inherited characteristics, and influenced from birth by our environment.

Did God create a Charlie Manson in the same sense as we think of him?  Did God create a Pol Pot and the culture that made him possible?  

If He did, God therefore made a pretty big mistake.  If He didn't, that means that somehow Charlie's spiritual self transformed itself into a murderous monster.

I am reminded of a true story involving a soldier in Iraq.  He sustained a serious head wound, and was transformed from a loving husband and father into a violent, out of control person. Tried to strangle his wife in a fit of rage.  

So who or what is the soldier?  The person before he was injured or after?  Or maybe both, since his brain obviously motivated his behavior both before and after.

ACIM says the soldier created his body (and of course his brain), not God.  And having done so, he then assumes the consequences.  Just as did Manson.  

Maybe that's true for all of us.  There are consequences for having a body and a brain, both good and bad.  Maybe the best God will do...or can do...is to be there for us when we reach out to Him.  

Ahhh but we all know of cases where divine intervention interceded in human lives.  So is that an exception to the rule?  It seems so, UNLESS the intervention is not divine, but from helpers or guides, following whatever protocol they have on the other side.

Time for lunch.

I figure that when something such as a lucid dream takes place, the creative aspect of being is engaged. If we have it in mind to live according to divine will, our creative processes will connect to how divine will creates. If we have something else in mind, we'll create accordingly.  If one wants to make certain that they create according to divine will, then one should be certain that one is committed to divine will. A part of being committed to divine will is being willing to question all of one's assumptions, so divine will and truth can be revealed. Divine will will not force itself upon us.

It is true that we all take part in the process of creation. However, in order for things to eventually work out in a harmonious and wonderful manner, some sort of plan needs to be in place. Such a plan would need to be guided by an intelligence that has an unfettered comprehensive view of all that takes place, and that lives completely according to love.

Since the spirit of love is involved,  the freedom for each soul to decide for itself would be involved. Similar to how a loving parent will allow his or her child to decide for his or her self. I've had some experiences which really emphasized the factor of choice. It was like, "Okay Albert, it is up to you. Do you want to live according to divine will, love and truth, or do you want to go the other way?"

Sometimes people speak in terms of how we are all pieces of God, and I believe this is true. However, this doesn't mean we should over inflate our role in the grand scheme of things. I figure that God existed to an infinite extent before he got around to creating us. Therefore, no matter how large one of us might become, we are quite small compared to God.

If one thinks in terms of who/what makes the choice to live according to either divine will or the other direction, one is liable to think in terms of "Is there such a thing as an infinite soul, or is our individuality nothing but an illusion?"  If one considers how complex the physical universe is, how incredibly complex biological life forms are, and how complex spirit levels of organization are, it is hard to imagine that the intelligence that found a way to make all of these things possible, wouldn't be capable of finding a way to create distinctive souls.

The issue of choice also shows how a being who started as "one," became many.  Once a being gets to the point where it experiences life according to the decisions it makes, and no one else has to experience the results to the same extent, this being has become a unique and particular being. It would be quite unwise and unloving to create such a being in a manner where after it makes the right choices and chooses to live according to love and divine will, it doesn't get to exist eternally. What is the point of spiritually evolving to a perfected way of being, if you don't get to exist eternally?

I've had a few experiences which enabled me to ponder what it would be like to be the only being who existed, for all of eternity. This possibility felt really creepy. Life would be quite empty without having another being I could share love with. I figure God might've had the same dilemma, until he got around to creating us. As explained in the preceeding paragraph, the point where each of us obtained the ability to determine our own fate, is the point where each of us became a distinctive unique being, even though we all come from the same oneness, and have the same basic nature.

Rondelle:

Bin Laden says "God is great," and then has people fly airplanes filled with people into buildings filled with people. Just goes to show you that sometimes people say things that sound really nice, when they have something else in mind.

If as ACIM suggests, everything God creates is perfect, where did that which supposedly creates imperfectly, come from? Perhaps in order for God to create perfectly, he had to enable each of us to have free choice. He doesn't become absent from all that is created as ACIM suggests, because some of us use our free will in a bad way. What about the people who do wonderful things in this World? Are they separated from God as ACIM suggests? When it comes to our bodies being imperfect, we aren't our bodies, so why measure ourselves accordingly? We might as well say that God has nothing to do with the creation of this World, because our cars, which we inhabit for short periods of time, eventually break down. Or perhaps we should say that this World is imperfect and therefore seperate from God, because eventually our sneakers wear out.

recoverer-

Pls don't misunderstand, I don't buy into ACIM.  I was just repeating some of its main concepts.

For what it's worth, I personally think the agenda of ACIM is to make us think that guilt and sin are just illusions in order to remove accountability for our actions.  

And, when we don't feel accountable for what we do or say, the injunctions of the Bible and Jesus become essentially irrelevant.

Which, I think, is where ACIM wants to steer us.  Away from the Bible.

R

<<I am not sure if human logic can rationalize on the cosmic purpose behind the creation of the universe.  In the New Age model, the idea is that we are all unique probes of God, sent to bring back unique experiences, which, upon merging with God as we evolve somehow expands the overall consciousness.>>

Doc-

To point up the truth of your first sentence, many folks who have NDEs tell us that it's hard or impossible to put into words what their experiences were like.  And, when they had them, they seemed to "know" everything.  All the secrets of the universe were revealed, but all the can say now is that, at the time, they understood perfectly.

So yes, human logic cannot possible unzip the cosmic purpose.  Intellect just won't cut it.  Which is why we can engage in these conversation boards till the cows come home with no avail.

And re your second point, as far as I know, this business about "probes" is something Bruce wrote about, but I have never seen it used elsewhere in the new age literature.  I never bought into the probe thing, because how many times would probes be needed to be sent out in order to give our disks information?

Sort of reminds me of people who say aliens probe our bodies (and farm animals) in order to learn things about us.  If these aliens are so advanced as to even get to our planet, how many probes would they need??  

Gets sort of funny when you think about it.

Albert and Roger,

Consider the biblcal teaching that human are create "in the image of God (Genesis 1;26-27)."
In John 10:33-36, Jesus links His unique role as God incarnate with the status of humans as "gods."  The Hebrew terms used for "image and likeness" are normally applied to Ancient Near Eastern statues.  Powerful kings and Egyptian Pharaohs would order statues of themselves to be set up in conquered territories to assert their symbolic presence and authority there, despite their physical absence.  So the phrase "image of God" means that we represent God's presence and authority in the world despite God's perceived absence.  In other words, we are created to be mini-creators or gods in the making and are tasked with the role of stewards or conservation officers of the earth (Genesis 2:15).  This role involves both the joy of constant discovery and the freedom to both upgrade or abuse creation.  The role also fits nicely with the biblical teaching that God graciously declines to micro-manage the forces of chaos so that the universe itself can surprise Him and function to an indefinite extent independently of His active will.  

Peter supplements the concept of God's image by informing us that we are destined "to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)."  Thus, Peter links our role as apprentice gods in the making to our ultimate restoration to a unity with God that allows us in some sense to retain our individuality and uniqueness.  This model of God also hints at the possibility that the essence of God includes free creativity and hence the opposite of monism.  In my view, PUL is a meaningless concept without relationships with the genuinely wholly other.  There is no way to formulate an all-encompassing cosmology without coming to terms with the purpose of creation.

Don  

  In a sense, i don't think we are ever really truly separated from the Divine, but meanwhile there seems to be varying degrees of resonation with same as applied to individuals with freewill.  When we create in the manner of our Maker, we resonate more with the Source Consciousness (and pure Light), when we create in unlike manner of our Creator, the resonation and connection gets more static filled, less harmonious and flowing, the info and energy exchange gets more distorted.  

 This varying degree of perfect resonation or lack of same, can be measured in a more objective sense by the radiation or emanation of a particular consciousness.   The more radiant, bright, clear, pure, and towards the pure White Light, the more perfectly it is resonating with the Creator's Consciousness.  

  Perception of colors are related to this as well.  These show different frequency rates, which is an indication of the above perfect resonation or relative lack of same to the Creator Consciousness.  

 If a person, or a nonphysical consciousness came to a person and said that they were a guide type, listen to me, etc., but you sensed a lot of dark reds, burnt oranges, blacks, dark olive greens, etc., in relation to that person or consciousness, well chances are they are not really a "guide" type at all, but someone looking for power and control over you, or to mislead you.   These emanations/radiations are an outer indication that this consciousness is not resonating harmoniously or strongly with the Divine...they have really muddied up their connections to same (hopefully only temporarily).      

But, they, as we all are, are always connected to Source.  

 Now, if an unbelievably bright and radiant White Light, Golden Light, or even to a lesser degree Violet Light seeks to communicate, it would be well worth one's while to listen more deeply to them, whether they are in human guise or not.  

 The outer form may lie, but the radiation and frequency quality does not.    

I guess I don't see us as separate from the Divine, Matthew. I think we are Divine.

But, perhaps Our Divinity is very polite, very gracious, and, therefore, happy for each of us to wear "any old thing" in It's Presence.

love, blink :)

What is the real difference between monism and dualism?  Dualism implies that everything comes from God and in THAT sense is God.  But the issue is this: if God's essence is free creativity and if God can separate off individual units of consciousness (i. .e. of Himself) with the freedom and inclination to choose both good and evil, then our divinity is irrelevant to the problem of evil.

Don

I think Don the problem is that both good and evil are of our own creation, inasmuch as they are attributes of this relativistic reality and an artefact of the situation we find ourselves in.

Because the delusion of selfhood ensures that we view all events from  a purely personal perspective - we judge everything, and decide from our very narrow viewpoint if it's good, or if it's 'evil'.

At the most prosaic level: say an individual dies to save the many.

Bad for the individual, but good overall. And even the 'bad' probably (definitely if you hold with basic goodness) contained an important lesson for the person who died, and anyway death itself is only a local concept if its the case that we can't die.

I guess that while it seems the higher view eventually becomes a genuinely experienced reality for us you're right inasmuch as when we're in the mire and seeing things through a personal and ultimately selfish lens then it's you could say moot whether or not the above perspective is the reality.

But I'd say the bit that truly matters is how we respond to so called evil. (and I don't mean to come across as blase  by saying that, because there's so much prodigiously horrible that goes on in the world)  Because if we lash out out of fear and find ourselves unable to respond from love then that can only lead to escalation and even more evil and hence more suffering.

And while that suffering too is only a relative phenomenon, it feels bloody real. Although interestingly enough the thought of it is often worse  than the reality.....

Hi matthew don  recoverer rondale, vajra, blink and all,  dont know who wrote this but it says a lot about what some of Gods love is




Judge Gently



Pray, don't find fault with the man that limps
Or stumbles along the road.
Unless you have worn the shoes he wears
Or struggled beneath his load.

There may be tacks in his shoes that hurt
Though hidden away from view.
Or the burden he bears placed on your back
Might cause you to stumble too.

Don't sneer at the man who's down today
Unless you have felt the blow
That caused his fall or felt the shame
That only the fallen know.

You may be strong but still the blow
That was his if dealt to you
In the selfsame way, at the selfsame time
Might cause you to stagger too.

Don't be too harsh with the man that sins
Or pelt him with word or stone
Unless you are sure - yea, doubly sure -
That you have no sins of your own.

For you know, perhaps,
If the tempter's voice should whisper as soft to you
As it did to him when he went astray
It might cause you to falter too.



Let's all try to be a little bit more sympathetic to others.

Let's try to live life with a clear conscience.

Let's not judge others.

Let's treat everyone like we want to be treated.

Let's act as Jesus would want us to act.

Let's not just talk about it.

Let's really do it!

Starting right now!!

Love and God bless      love juditha

:) That's nice Juditha, and captures the essence. We don't need big a fancy rationale for what we do, just a big heart...

Dualism creates polar opposites of thought, it pigeon-holes everything into us vs. them, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong.  The strentgh of dualism is its seeming certainty; the weakness is that nothing follows dualistic rules when examined closely.  I rather liken dualistic thinking to pure Newtonion mechanics, and monism to quantum mechanics.  In Newton's model's there were laws of motion and matter, which behaved in certain preset reproducible ways (I've always thought of them early on as billiard balls).  There were laws of motion, many principles which for the most part were shown to be reproducibly present in the physical world.  Yet when experiments revealed that matter displayed wave-like properties, or quantum events could occur that seemed impossible in conventional thinking (i.e. an electron being in two diferent locations at the same time), Newton's mechanics failed to suffice in describing reality.

To complicate things, I do not believe that dualistic and monistic thinking are mutually exclusive.  In my own monistic model, I believe that as we all move toward love of God and one's fellow man, we get closer to feeling that we are a unity.  Yet, we retain our sentience, our perspective of awareness, and thus feel a slight separation.  We are, then inherently dualistic, but we may look to the unifying principle of love and brotherhood.  As such, I as an individual may worship and revere God and creation; in doing so, I am not worshipping myself - I am paying homage to something I know I am part of, but bigger than myself.  I agree with Don that expressing PUL usually means expressing it to something else; but in the monistic model, that expression can apply to the unity of everything while maintaining our individual perspective.

I find evidence to support that our ultimate reality lies in a monistic view of the universe in many places.  Emanuel Swedenborg who reports visiting Heaven and frequently conversing with angels, stated hundreds of years ago that in Heaven, those who believe in the holy trinity as being separate beings (God the father, the son and the holy spirit) are missing the point, and are either re-educated or their thoughts send them to a belief system territory.  He said all of the angels realize that God is a unity.  This is in line with Judaism and is found in the main daily prayer called the Sh'ma:  "Here O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."  If that is not a call to monism, what is?!

The symbol for yin/yang best encapsulates the trouble of choosing between polar opposites (dualism) and unity.  In the familiar symbol, there is a circle formed by two fish; a black fish with a white circle for an eye, and a white fish with a black circle for an eye.  The head of one and the tail of the other follow.  When viewed from a distance they are part of one circle; each contains the beginnings of the other.  When followed from head to tail, they flow around and around. Good/Evil, Masculine/feminine, light/dark, black/white - these concepts seem absolute when analyzed that way.  Until the unity between polar opposites is recognized.

And what of evil?  Does a monistic view of reality somehow deny the importance of choosing to harm or hurt another?  No.  There is a misconception that those who believe that we are all part of a greater whole must assign an equality or equivalence between good and evil actions.  I have heard some on this board espouse this Sethian sort of belief (that no action is truly good or evil, but that we are indulging ourselves in one process or another for a time).  However, I have never supported that view.  Those who believe in our common unity with God and the rest of humanity must consider right action and ethics, and therefore choose while incarnate to act for the good.  To do otherwise inflicts misery on others and ourselves, for those engaged in deliberate harm separate themselves from God further (in effect push the dualism to its extreme end).

Matthew

 Hi Matthew, i'm not so sure that the Yin/Yang symbol represents good and evil in the moral sense.   It does seem to contain other attributes you mentioned, like Feminine/Masculine, etc., but when you boil these down to their most core attributes, it represents the eternal balance of Stillness/Receptivity/Passiveness and Movement/active Creation, which are both attriubes of and states within of the Creator itself, and also imbued in Creation and in us.  

 Both of these can become constructive (good) or non constructive (evil), depending.   If anything, the "evil" is in the imbalance of these which originally in us was in perfect balance.   This was when our full consciousness was still fully intune with and aware of the Creator's consciousness and of the Whole.  

  When we started to create and choose in an unSource like way, then imbalance between the perfect Yin-Yang wholeness/merger, became known and started to get projected more and more.  

  This is why in the physical, with humans for example, we have two genders, male and female.   This is the patterned reflection/projection of our spiritual imbalance within our very consciousness.  

 There are other, God realized beings or races, whose projected forms/images, their "physical", is androgynous in nature.   Perfect balance and wholeness.  

 Or, as above (nonphysically, consciousness, Spirit wise) so below (the projected image, the physical).    This is why it is so hard to "ascend" while concentrating one's consciousness in physical, and yet is also necessary for some Disk's (the ones who partook in the original need for and creation of physicality as we know it).  

Think you are basically right on D and J, and especially like the point that dualism and monism and not mutually exclusive.

You can illustrate it with this example. We live in the everyday sense in a physical reality that requires us to form a clear working view of what is 'me', and what is 'other' or the environment we live in so that we can function. Much of what we regard as 'me' is configured around this practical requirement - the body, and an intellect that tends to by default adopt this view or see itself as the centre of existence. We on the other hand in higher states of consciousness can experience the unity of all, as a result of the falling away of this intellect and of any sense of self.

Where as ever we come unstuck is that out of ego and fear we start grasping after or become attached to one view or the other. We get hung up on the belief that self is all that matters, or much less typically we can get addicted to selfless states. Depending on  our particular addiction we end up with a tunnel vision that sees only from the perspective of our preferred viewpoint.

Which has to lead to suffering for ourselves and others. We become selfish (unable to empathise with others), or we become unable to effectively function as a 'self' in the world, both of which cause problems although the first seems in practical terms far worse.

It's not original, but you could say that the journey of life is in fact about optimising the balance of these perspectives and integrating them within a single view so that our behaviour comes to be for the greatest good....

Hi, Matthew

I found this interesting quote. Thought you'd like this.   Bryn   ;)

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.    Bertrand Russell

Yes  :)

and surely there's a time for both !

Bets

Bryn wrote on Feb 24^th, 2008 at 10:49am:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.    Bertrand Russell

 Then Yeshua must have been the most foolish of the fools, except that he was more certain of Source and Light and his channeling of same.  

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2008 at 12:25pm:

Bryn wrote on Feb 24th, 2008 at 10:49am: The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.    Bertrand Russell  Then Yeshua must have been the most foolish of the fools, except that he was more certain of Source and Light and his channeling of same.

Didn't he say ... "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"   :o

Very nice, Juditha, and very much to the point.  

You are taking a posture of positive action, which is one of the least popular approaches to metaphysical or psychic phenomena, but one that we need the most. The PUL posture is also unquestionably valid, and additionally I'm one of the types that wants to use the "figure it out" approach. That sort of sums up reality - actions involving emotional states and understanding, the three basic aspects of yoga.

Looking at the discussion, I notice that there is a tendency toward dualism. This is not uncommon in life, as we often speak differently of the roots of a plant, than we do of its flowers and fruit. My hippie days are an example, being mostly occupied by ME-vs-the world, and how does something affect ME, and MY opinion, and MY feelings, and so on. That's pretty dualistic, and not very PUL in nature. I can't really say that it was maturity that led me to include others in my thinking, but it certainly was recognition that if I didn't, nothing works. That is, both the roots and the flowers have to be considered - and while we're doing that, we get stuck with the need to add the earth that the roots grasp, and then the rest of the universe sort of comes along too.

The "soft dualism" that comes from failing to bring the entire cosmos into the discussion, as well as all the ways to interact with others, and all the modes of integration and unity, isn't really "wrong". And, in actual fact, it is incomplete only if we wish to look at a "bigger picture", but any specific perspective, honestly presented, is certainly valid in itself. However, as we add levels of more and more universality, we also seem to get different perspectives.

Using the flower analogy, the Gardner is likely to tolerate misshapen plants, and maybe even a few weeds. One the level of the plants, there is a conflict, which to the Gardner might be a beautiful arrangement of multiple colors of the blooms clustered into a small region. And, of course, there is one Sun that shines universally on the sinners as well as saints. My point is that as we generalize toward the Origin, we lose sight of the locally discrepant states. And as we specify more and more locally, we lose sight of the universality of it all. From this we seem to generate a great deal of controversy.

There's also a lot to be said for Doc's comparison of monism to quantum indeterminacy, as noone can know the will of God. However, I'm inclined to suggest that we can occasionally identify a few properties that seem pervasive. Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I suspect that God must have an immense sense of humor, as well as PUL, omniscience and omnipotence. Given that, all the rest seems to become a bit blurred around the edges, not quite so cut and dried. - Reminds me of one of the old Zen masters who said that after enlightenment, there's nothng left but to have a good laugh.  ;-)

dave

Bryn wrote on Feb 24^th, 2008 at 8:15pm:

Didn't he say ... "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"   :o

 
 Bryn, the body has its own consciousness.   Here his body was nailed to a cross, knowing it would die and in the throws of same, and while the World was being trancended within his consicousness, the body still rebelled.    The body does not want to die, everything in its consciousness says "keep me alive in a physical way!"  

  Otherwise, he lived his life in certainty with very little doubt in Source and Light (and his connections to same), otherwise he wouldn't have went to his death to begin with, because he knew well in advance that this was his path and could have avoided it.   No, he was one of those very certain "fools".  

Hello All,

God simply cannot be a duality, he has, however created a duality in our universe allowing light/dark/good/evil/lie/truth to exist for some higher purpose beyond our finite mind, LIKE IT OR NOT!

Isaiah 45, i create the light and make the darkness, i create peace and make evil

LOVE
ALAN

Hello All,

Last night I had a terrifying vision relating to God and his perspective on us”-

1) God is a separate mind, we are his creations
2) God is not how we want him to be He is how he is
3) We can have access to the Divine mind but on his terms and conditions
4) Every action and reaction of ours have eternal consequences
5) Evil is a reality
6) God Is not some sort of an all forgiving white haired granddaddy but has two sides to his character, yes love but also justice.
7) There is many dimensions of hell as well as many heavenly dimensions
8) The movie that is human history is almost played out
8) God is not a human concept.

Added by me

Quote:

9) We will exist somewhere forever 10 God can remember one forever in the light or forget one foeever in the darkness

Many many more for those interested

It was frightening how little we understand this infinite BEING

Love

Alan, you did not have this vision last night because this is a repeated post of yours from a couple of weeks ago taken from a separate thread, and to which you have added a couple of items. I think it is important to document things as specifically as we can do so on this site.

Noted, blink

Blink no I did not have this vision last night , but felt it applicable here as well with the added
points

alan


Quote:

Alan, you did not have this vision last night because this is a repeated post of yours from a couple of weeks ago taken from a separate thread, and to which you have added a couple of items. I think it is important to document things as specifically as we can do so on this site.   Noted, blink

Hello DocM, members,

Below, links to a couple of good essays by a well known sage, both of which touch on relevant issues brought up in this thread but believe the first one moreso.  

Hope this is helpful.

:)

- u

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_2/Jnana-Yoga/The_Atman

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_2/Practical_Vedanta_and_other_lectures/The_Goal

Quote:

Is this your God Man's eternal question is: "Who is God?" God's immediate answer is: "My child, who else is God, if not yo I am never alone. When I am absolutely helpless, God is for me. When I am absolutely powerful, humanity is for me I knew God in Heaven. God knows me on earth. I knew Him there by seeing Him repeatedly. He knows me here by giving me constantly I think of God because I want Him and need Him. God thinks of me because He loves me and cherishes me O God, where are You?" "My child, I am in between your desire and your aspiration." "My God, do You have anything special to do with my desire and my aspiration?" "Yes, My son, with your desire I bind My outer Body, and with your aspiration I free My inner Breath The God of a child is his pure imagination. The God of an adolescent is his sure creation. The God of a youth is his fatal frustration. The God of an old man is his dying and crying aspiration My Lord, what is the difference between human love and divine love?" "My child, the difference between human love and divine love is very simple: Human love desperately needs. Divine love abundantly feeds." My sweet Lord, I have only one desire, one prayer, one aspiration: Please show me only once the face of unconditional surrender on earth In Heaven I used to get endless Delight from God for the asking. On earth I get endless Compassion from God for the asking. God is anxiously and eagerly waiting to be claimed by you. What you need is the right way, and what you will need is the right moment, to claim Him as your very own "My sweet Lord, please tell me the difference between You and me." "My child, the difference is very small: you are possessed by your little possessions and I am released by My Infinite Possessions." My question is: "How can I leave the world better than I found it?" God's answer is: "Give the world a moment of your concern, and give Me your endless night of ignorance. Lo, you have achieved your noble goal." My Lord tells me that I need both science and spirituality. In my life of desire, I need science in order to relay my thoughts outwardly to the furthest end of the globe. In my life of aspiration, I need spirituality to bring me the message of the Unknown, the Ultimate Beyond This morning I accused God of making Heaven superior to earth. He denied my accusation. He said: "I offer My Blessings equally to both Heaven and earth. Heaven is with Me and in Me. That is why Heaven is eternally divine. Earth is of Me and for Me. That is why earth is eternally evolving towards My Transcendental Perfection My Lord, do I need both Consolation and Compassion, or is one of the two enough?" "My son, you need both Consolation and Compassion. You need Consolation from Me because you are defeated in the battlefield of life. You need Compassion to act as a divine hero in the battlefield of life. Also you need Compassion to act as a victor over the forces of failure Yesterday the name of my Lord was Doubt. Today the name of my Lord is Fear. Tomorrow the name of my Lord will be Joy Yesterday I got my first lesson from God on Divinity. Today I am getting my second lesson from God on Eternity and Infinity. Tomorrow I shall get my third lesson from God on Immortality. The day after tomorrow I shall get my fourth and last lesson from God on Reality "My Lord, I have millions of desires. Do You have any?" "Yes, My child, I have." "You have? Please tell me what they are!" "My only desire is to see you eternally happy. Can you fulfil My desire?" "I shall try, my Lord." "Try, My child, try." When I am without God, I cry. I cry because there is no other way to realise God than to cry silently and incessantly. When I am with God, I shed tears. I shed tears because there is no other way to express my eternal gratitude to God than to shed tears soulfully and unreservedly "My Lord, Your Knowledge-sun is unimaginably expensive." "My son, your ignorance-night is unbelievably explosive "Please tell me, my real Lord, how I can live without trouble and without pleasure." "My son, to live without trouble, what you need is your soul's light. To live without pleasure, what you need is your soul's joy "At times I achieve according to what I believe. At times I believe according to what I achieve. Am I doing the right thing, my Lord?" "My son, the right thing will be for you to achieve only what I want you to achieve and to believe only what I want you to believe. What I want you to achieve is perfect Perfection. What I want you to believe is the immortality of your aspiration."

Alan,

With all due respect, it might be somewhat disingenuous to present unattributed quotations, actually rather substantial passages, that have the appearance of being authored by yourself -
ie: as your own words.

I am only calling this to your attention since I recognize the particular author -
Sri Chinmoy ("My Lord's Secrets Revealed") -  as being someone other than yourself (and myself),
in the dualistic relative sense, of course.

I am sure that this is an inadvertant ommision on your part.

Hope this is helpful,

:)

- u

I said is this God yours? so I obviously did not write it or put my name to it I could not remember how to spell Sri Chinmoy and my question was posed due to the fact i dont agree with all he states!! If it were my god i would obviously not have posed the question just made a statement.

Sorry!

alan

substantial passages, that have the appearance of being authored by yourself -
ie: as your own words.
 your quote

Quote:

I am only calling this to your attention since I recognize the particular author -   Sri Chinmoy ("My Lord's Secrets Revealed") -  as being someone other than yourself (and myself),   in the dualistic relative sense, of course. I am sure that this is an inadvertant ommision on your part. Hope this is helpful