It has been increasingly clear to me on my quest for inner understanding, that ego based thinking and the feeding of our own egos ties and binds us to the world.  Much grief comes about when we indulge our egos and explore our individuality, as a thingseparate from the rest of creation. 

Yet I was thinking about this the other day, when I had to face the potential great personal loss of one I loved dearly.  How many of us can transcend this ego-driven thinking, and let it go?  We all create our own "normalcy" in our daily routines.  We go to work, play, indulge ourselves, build up our earthly roles in society.  Yet how many of us can leave, and transition to the afterlife and are ready for it?  Is it not more likely that the vast majority of people will feel profound loss and grief after they cross over?  How many will say "I never got a chance to do......?" 

Yet this individual mode of thinking, this self-absorbed ego wishes to continue on earth, and feels hurt or wounded if  it loses the false sense of eternity we build up-around ourselves while incarnate.

It is easy enough to say that we should put our thoughts toward love and acting lovingly toward others, and that if we practice what we preach, we will have an easier transition when we do die.  Yet, for me, this recent episode let me know how vulnerable I was - how unready I currently am to pass on or to have others pass away - how even as I try to rid myself of ego based or selfish thoughts, I can't seem to let go of a loved one without experiencing profound grief and longing.

Sometimes, I think that individual lives lived on earth are part of a grand experiment in consciousness, but I am just not sure how the "volunteers" in this experiment can free themselves from thinking via their egos in order to transcend in spirit to another level of love.  Clearly those unable to leave things behind (or integrate their loved ones and things into a different level of thought), are destined to be bound to the earth plane, perhaps through reincarnation, until they are ready to move on.

Thoughts?

Matthew

Mathew,
Is feeling loss, and fearing the desolation it creates in us, really an ego-based reaction? It seems to me that it is a reaction built into the unit we inhabit here on earth. A process which includes the inevitable separation from one we love, but that does not necessarily indicate self-indulgance.  The deep suffering is part of the process of separation, but surely a more transcendant sense of our place in the cosmos and connection to it, can be the result, or a result of the process?  Here's hoping things work out okay for you and yours.
Bardo-

DocM,

"[...]
Thoughts?"

Yes, first up, ego and individuality are different matters. Ego can be like quicksand if not somewhat balanced; survival mode in overdrive really. It's a trait that I believe has a root in body consciousness, the picture that bob monroe did great in expanding. Individuality is a magnificent chance to learn to respect difference, and it's certainly not a once in a lifetime opportunity with all the projections from a disc. To put it in american terms, the geek and the jock finally learns to get along. If individuality is perceived as ego based and selfish, I do wonder who's path one is to follow? My way? Hah. Yes, selfish agreed, but.. your way then? An astral hero with an adress that spells belief system territory?

About love and acting lovingly, I don't see the big road block here. If that's the prime directive of one's being, I'd urge to get the sofa out of the asses and do it, like nike! How long will you and others TALK about it before you DO something about it? Sell your house and give the money to the poor, walk the across the country and feed the bottomless pit. Go on! I dare you and others who wear love/pul like medals next to your names like imaginary rewards, for the bravery of talking about it.

If the above advice and the friendly kick at the highest point when picking berries isn't heeded, ok, I can live with that as you've got your individual road. While talk of love and pul is cheap, I guess it's a start, though the perpetual talk looks like a grounded rocket; when are you going to get started on your journeys into what seems to be your bliss?

Now is the time.

Hi Volu,

Glad to see you in a good mood this morning.  I don't really feel like answering your attack in full, other than to say that I "walk the walk" of my convictions.  If I told you about the charitable work I do, etc., then I'd be blowing my own horn and indulging my own ego.  Not today, at least. 

I do disagree with you on a number of points.  The notion that those who believe that love is the answer or in PUL have to "get up" and give away their possessions, and hike across the nation doing selfless works is nonsense.  That path may appeal to some, but for me, the answer has been to apply it in everyday situations in the real world.  As such, I see nothing wrong with having a family, a house, etc. and trying to act/be more loving.  Just because you hear us speak of love or PUL on this board, does not mean we are sitting around waiting to start incorporating it into our minds and lives.  If you get tired of hearing about it - pick another thread. 

While I don't disagree that my individual perceptive consciousness is not the same as my ego, I think that the idea of separateness and isolation that comes from being incarnate is in fact an illusion that binds solidly with our egos.  So in some ways, the grand experiment of individuality necessarily feeds the egos and ego based action of we earthly beings.

With love,

Matthew

Hi Bardo,

I think that the feeling of loss and longing may be our misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness, as here on earth we see life as finite, and death as a permanent end of things.  I think that possibly, as we mull over our "loss," we may be the better for it, but there are some who will be the worse, and not transcend what they perceive.  Hence, the notion that the grand experiment in incarnation may inadvertently draw some in deeper and deeper into the isolation of an incarnated being (who believes himself/herself to be separate from everything else).

Matthew

DocM,

"Glad to see you in a good mood this morning.  I don't really feel like answering your attack in full, other than to say that I "walk the walk" of my convictions."

Haha. A little touch of emotion and the knees start to buckle. How is love going to grow beyond exchanging digital kisses and hugs, evolving to the revered point of being unconditional, if that's all it takes to erect and fearfully hide behind a shield? You don't have to like the clarity in which I paint my pictures, but to dismiss the response as an attack very much looks like drowning in shallow waters.

I'm proposing that the majority who hearts unconditional can't handle being unconditional. In this case, mere words, removed from the intensity of the "real world", was way too big a challenge. And for that you're rewarded a double facepalm. You know, when one just doesn't cut it. Congrats.

"If I told you about the charitable work I do, etc., then I'd be blowing my own horn and indulging my own ego.  Not today, at least."

You just told me and everybody. Having money and being treated like a king by those who haven't sounds dull. Sure is an individual choice to do so though.

"I do disagree with you on a number of points.  The notion that those who believe that love is the answer or in PUL have to "get up" and give away their possessions, and hike across the nation doing selfless works is nonsense." 

Hehe. It's just a figure of speech. Doesn't it deserve to be loved, no strings attached? No puppy eyes means no love?

"That path may appeal to some, but for me the answer has been to apply it in everyday situations in the real world. "

Agreed. Individuality isn't just about ego.

"If you get tired of hearing about it - pick another thread."

Oh, I'm not tired, if you get tired from seeing the talking/walking angle - pick another topic. Or perhaps don't ask 'thoughts?' Or 'selected thoughts only'.

"So in some ways, the grand experiment of individuality necessarily feeds the egos and ego based action of we earthly beings."

Well, primary education before secondary education, but damn primary education, huh? :)

Volu:
"Haha. A little touch of emotion and the knees start to buckle. How is love going to grow beyond exchanging digital kisses and hugs, evolving to the revered point of being unconditional, if that's all it takes to erect and fearfully hide behind a shield? You don't have to like the clarity in which I paint my pictures, but to dismiss the response as an attack very much looks like drowning in shallow waters.

I'm proposing that the majority who hearts unconditional can't handle being unconditional. In this case, mere words, removed from the intensity of the "real world", was way too big a challenge. And for that you're rewarded a double facepalm. You know, when one just doesn't cut it. Congrats."

Volu, I can certainly handle the conversation, and do attempt to incorporate love into my life.  If you don't think your initial post sounded like a bit of an attack on those on the board who talk about love, then one of us may have a misunderstanding here.  Acting in a loving way does not mean that we necessarily sit idly by if we are in a conversation and are confronted.  I guess that is called "tough love."

For myself, I never claimed to have ascended to such a state that I love all things unconditionally yet.  I do recognize, at least on an instinctive gut level that whether we choose to follow it or not, love is the foundation of our being.   

As to your point that "Having money and being treated like a king by those who haven't sounds dull," I would again say that I see no innate nobility in poverty as a way to spiritual growth.  Nor do I see any nobility in amassing wealth as some sort of prize.  I suppose it is all how you see it, and for you, it sounds like giving up your material things and serving the poor gives you a sense that your are acting more in line with love.  I don't believe it is necessary though - as I said, we can take common day-to-day situations, and apply our intent/convictions in any situation. 

I always appreciate a good double palm slap though, but really preferred that we stick to the topic and not make this a personal discussion...

[quote author=614A4668250 link=1300722660/4#4 date=1300730984]Hi Bardo,

I think that the feeling of loss and longing may be our misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness, as here on earth we see life as finite, and death as a permanent end of things. 

Mathew,
Surely we don't all see life as finite? Isn't that the "path" that we all follow in our cycle, if you believe in that model? True, that if we believe that life is finite, then the death of a loved-one creates a decision point.  Either we continue to believe that, and our trajectory bends toward the earth, or we pass through the grief and loss, embrace the "light", and our path bends further toward "enlightenment". At some point in the cycle, we will break the orbit and begin to move beyond the gravitational pull and toward the higher planes. Pardon the over-use of the space shuttle metaphor.

Hi Bardo,

I for one agree with you, and don't believe that death is the end of our existence.  That being said, I can't say for certain what will happen at the end of my earthly body.  And that is the point.  Bruce once likened it to spoiling the ending of a movie - if we knew with certainty that we didn't die "forever," how would that change what we do here on earth?

I do think that many people can grow past the grief and longing, but I feel others, who feel they are missing out on earth life get sucked back in or stuck.  That was one of my main points in posting aside from having a wonderful discussion with Volu.

DocM,

"If you don't think your initial post sounded like a bit of an attack on those on the board who talk about love, then one of us may have a misunderstanding here."

Very straightforward with the added spice of using emotion to convey the point. Kind of makes the concepts come to life, in a way quite the opposite of being misty, hmmm? Not an attack and no teeth were grinded in the making of the posts, so please don't alarm the dental association. The misunderstanding might be an expectation of how somebody with a spiritual interest should interact. I just don't like straight jackets regardless of the owners. Is that hard to love? The observations are perhaps uncomfortable?

"Acting in a loving way does not mean that we necessarily sit idly by if we are in a conversation and are confronted.  I guess that is called 'tough love.'"

I find the ones most vocal about the joys of unconditional here are the ones not at all bending over when push comes to shove. It doesn't seem like tough love, more like a conflict, choosing what sounds good, but having a hard time justifying it when logic is injected into the mix of good intentions, then stop waving the love flag, but not really, as it's really the love flag but love's suddenly a cousin of jolly roger. Yarr Love. The humor might be hard to love too, but here's to a hearty challenge.

"I suppose it is all how you see it, and for you, it sounds like giving up your material things and serving the poor gives you a sense that your are acting more in line with love."

Nope, it was a point about charity and the elevated feeling somebody down can bring the big hearted. It's not charity for dummies but an example I think flies under the radar.

"I always appreciate a good double palm slap though, but really preferred that we stick to the topic and not make this a personal discussion..."

Good advice, please don't be american about it though - do as I say, not as I do.

Volu,

I know from your old posts that you are very much an independent, who expresses distaste for anyone who tries to tell you "this is how it is."  I respect that. You are a non-conformist, and I empathize with that.  I understand with the "don't trust authority" view (it usually goes along with the "live and let live" and "there is no right or wrong, only different approaches" view). 

However, just for communication purposes, people on this forum are going to give you their take on things.  And yes, people will talk of love, PUL and other varieties.  Those conversations, don't necessarily mean that the posters are wearing giant PUL buttons and walking around with smug smiles on their faces, thinking they have the market cornered on love. 

We are all just seekers, trying to make sense of things.  Most of the forum members don't pretend to have it all figured out.  Isn't that the purpose of this forum?  When I posted this thread, it was just to share my thoughts. 


M

Yay Individuality! 
It's inspiring to read different individuals' thoughts revolving around this topic. Getting to know each others' opinions will --eventually  ;) --help us to accept our differences. After all, we all come from the same source/Source.

How much we can extend our caring/PUL is an interesting problem. One spiritual leader said to love our neighbor as ourselves. For me that takes care of the need to sell all to give all away. I think we rub shoulders along the way with those ('neighbors') who have a specific role in our lives. Others remain anonymous.

You all on this thread and on this site have become my neighbors by  making me aware of your ideas.  Keep em coming!

Bets

DocM wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 11:51am:

It has been increasingly clear to me on my quest for inner understanding, that ego based thinking and the feeding of our own egos ties and binds us to the world.  Much grief comes about when we indulge our egos and explore our individuality, as a thing separate from the rest of creation.  Yet I was thinking about this the other day, when I had to face the potential great personal loss of one I loved dearly.  How many of us can transcend this ego-driven thinking, and let it go?  We all create our own "normalcy" in our daily routines.  We go to work, play, indulge ourselves, build up our earthly roles in society.  Yet how many of us can leave, and transition to the afterlife and are ready for it?  Is it not more likely that the vast majority of people will feel profound loss and grief after they cross over?  How many will say "I never got a chance to do......?"  Yet this individual mode of thinking, this self-absorbed ego wishes to continue on earth, and feels hurt or wounded if  it loses the false sense of eternity we build up-around ourselves while incarnate. It is easy enough to say that we should put our thoughts toward love and acting lovingly toward others, and that if we practice what we preach, we will have an easier transition when we do die.  Yet, for me, this recent episode let me know how vulnerable I was - how unready I currently am to pass on or to have others pass away - how even as I try to rid myself of ego based or selfish thoughts, I can't seem to let go of a loved one without experiencing profound grief and longing. Sometimes, I think that individual lives lived on earth are part of a grand experiment in consciousness, but I am just not sure how the "volunteers" in this experiment can free themselves from thinking via their egos in order to transcend in spirit to another level of love.  Clearly those unable to leave things behind (or integrate their loved ones and things into a different level of thought), are destined to be bound to the earth plane, perhaps through reincarnation, until they are ready to move on. Thoughts? Matthew

Hi Matthew-

I'm reminded of cases where someone willingly sacrifices their life in order to save the lives of others.  Typically they do it with no consideration or forethought, and probably with no ego-based thought process.  You hear about this in times of war and I imagine most parents would take a bullet meant for their child, again with no ego driven fears or concerns.

However, the emotion of grief when a loved one dies is not, at least to me, an ego problem.  In fact I would be more concerned if grief were not present in such cases.

Also I think PUL is highly misunderstood.  It's not something that we "have" or something we can "send."  Most folks confuse PUL with an emotion.

Genuine PUL is a state of being, something that IS.  It may even be God.  But it is definitely not a commodity like a can of beans that can be sent back and forth.

In fact, PUL is not possible for any human.  Yes, a mother might feel an emotion similar to that when she holds her newborn infant, but that emotion doesn't last forever.  It is, in fact, highly conditional.  That same mother would quickly feel anger and perhaps hatred in the event anyone tried to harm her child.  Therefore, her love by definition cannot be unconditional.  If it were, it would be there 24/7/365.  It would not be conditioned by time, place, person, or circumstance.

Not humanly possible.

R

@rondele,
I agree vis-a-vis PUL. The best I can do is to attempt to generate an approximation (my interpreter's version) of PUL.  I understand your description of it, but cannot relate in any experiential way. I can and do, however, muster my best effort and direct it toward others. My version of prayer. Knowing that there is an ideal, or universal force binding the multiverse is both humbling and encouraging. I hope to experience it.

DocM,
"[...] We are all just seekers, trying to make sense of things.  Most of the forum members don't pretend to have it all figured out.  Isn't that the purpose of this forum?  When I posted this thread, it was just to share my thoughts." 

Yes, what you write is obvious, and if my emotions caught you off guard and made the point less obvious - I just challenged your thoughts. And that's all there is to it - hasn't got anything to do with, or will not by any means alter your or others' statuses as seekers. I could use the same argument, I'm just a seeker, but it's not about that.

And now I'm not addressing anybody specific. Sort of. When you, that's right, YOU, even if just by paying lip service to anything unconditional, this is an uncomfortable part of what you're praising like the second coming of sliced bread. I'm going to be crystal clear about this, so CAUTION, don't read on if your heart easily skips a beat.

Unconditional means no matter what, not restricted by reservations. Without conditions, limitations, reservations or qualifications. Unconditional sleeping, sleep no matter what, even if logic pokes it's grimy finger at the sleeping heart. Unconditional love. Your best friend facerapes your daughter, love him no matter what. Her sister, your dog, and the beheading of sweet ol' granny - love, without restrictions. Say no and be all about tough love, but not really as no is a condition.

Your friend gives you a hug, and you share unconditional love? Come on. That's not unconditional. It's a walk in the park, albeit an excellent walk in the park.

DocM wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 11:51am:

It is easy enough to say that we should put our thoughts toward love and acting lovingly toward others, and that if we practice what we preach, we will have an easier transition when we do die.  Yet, for me, this recent episode let me know how vulnerable I was - how unready I currently am to pass on or to have others pass away - how even as I try to rid myself of ego based or selfish thoughts, I can't seem to let go of a loved one without experiencing profound grief and longing. Matthew

Hi Matthew,

I have thought along the above lines alot recently.  I have always noticed a disjunct between the academic lesson and the practical application, and just how will pondering, discussing and choosing to live through love prepare us for the ultimate test.  While I have yet to be tested "I like to think that if I was I would pass" (sorry, a line from a song by the mighty mighty boss tones).  My grief for deceased inlaws was real although I sensed a strong and pervasive feeling of the natural physical cycle..."it was their time", (and indeed it was) kept rolling through my mind and brought me back from the brink of despair.  I am extremely close to both my parents and I hope my equanimity experienced with the inlaws finds a correlation with their ultimate passing...for some reason I sense that it will (although I am in no hurry to test my senses). 

As for an easier transition through love, naturally I have no true sense of what to expect, but if I have any say at all, and I think I do, I choose to step from my dead body into my disincarnate existence looking forward to a sense of love the like of which we cannot even imagine while incarnate, to see those I love who've passed before me and to instantly know all is well with them, to instantly have all the answers for which I had questions while incarnate, and to feel the wondrous sense of being an eternal, limitless soul no longer encumbered with a physical body.  (Once as a child and once during meditation I had extremely clear visions of pure love for and from everything and everyone, limitless understanding and knowledge, and surprisingly, absolute and instantaneous speed(!?...I don't know, but it felt important to say)).  To me that is heaven and the afterlife, and thinking and being lovingly toward others cannot but make that transition easier.  With looking forward through love, any thoughts of fear diminish and go away...I love them, I do not fear their departure as I will see them all again.  (Funny, my guidance just chimed in "...and all too soon!"; these guys keep me thinking its all such a wonderful game and I am doing my best to believe them.)   

 

Ustawuz,
I agree with all that you say, but in my case I cannot go willingly yet.  My children are still young, and I know that I could not leave them now without a grievous sense of loss and anguish for their pain. So I have to hang around for a while!

Bardo wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 2:53pm:

Ustawuz, I agree with all that you say, but in my case I cannot go willingly yet.  My children are still young, and I know that I could not leave them now without a grievous sense of loss and anguish for their pain. So I have to hang around for a while!

I'm sorry...I didn't mean I am looking forward to going anytime soon...I also have young children and I cherish all the time I have with them.  However if tragedy were to strike and I lose an opportunity to experience humanity and the earth with them...I will still have the love and connection with them in the afterlife.  In the event of a human fear-inducing loss, my goal is to focus on the perspective to be gained from the spiritual side, the love and the understanding of a purpose behind those events.  My intent is to not fear the human repercussions as they are a part of the game...with love, it will work.

Matthew,

From my Christian perspective, the emotionally detached life is an unenlightened life.  Pure unconditional Love seeks to tune in to the devastation of others and empathize with them.  It is no accident that Mother Teresa became clinically depressed and thereby often full of doubt.  Her moodswings were the inevitable result of a saint who was fully present to the pain of countless numbers of the poorest of the  poor.  For this reason, Jesus' prayer vigils were often full of loud crying, tears, and emotional devastation. 

When ministers want to comfort people afflicted by tragedy, they often wisely seek to bring them together with those who have suffered an analogous event: e. g. parents whose child committed suicide with others who experienced this  horror, parents who lost a child to catatrophic illness with others whose child died in a similar manner.  Healing encounters based on like attracts like are the most powerful way victims can experience love.  We too often say, "I know how you feel," when in fact we have no clue. 

But Matthew, I don't think your brand of monism is in any way inconsistent with the right kind of ego attachment.  Love is by nature relational; and God's creation is designed to generate an endless variety of unique egos, each with their strengths and each with different buttions, which, if pushed, can cause them to unravel emotionally.  I see no reason why an increased sense of oneness with God decreases one's sense of egocentrism or individuality.  On the contrary, it enhances it!

Don

rondele wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 12:07pm:

Also I think PUL is highly misunderstood.  It's not something that we "have" or something we can "send."  Most folks confuse PUL with an emotion. Genuine PUL is a state of being, something that IS.

Very much agree.  Yet, PUL is something we primarily experience and perceive via our emotions and feelings.  Without that kind of experience and perception, PUL doesn't have much impact and wouldn't seem all that important of an ideal.


Quote:

In fact, PUL is not possible for any human.  Yes, a mother might feel an emotion similar to that when she holds her newborn infant, but that emotion doesn't last forever.  It is, in fact, highly conditional.  That same mother would quickly feel anger and perhaps hatred in the event anyone tried to harm her child.  Therefore, her love by definition cannot be unconditional.  If it were, it would be there 24/7/365.  It would not be conditioned by time, place, person, or circumstance. Not humanly possible.

  While i could agree that such attunement to and livingness of PUL is extremely, extremely rare in it's truly "pure" expression amongst humans, i'm aware of at least one human who very much did eventually live such a life that you so strongly and absolutely deny is possible for "any" human. 

  Now, if he could do it, why can't we?  We can, and if we are to get anywhere with this, first an openness to the possibility must be there.  Beliefs can have a strong influence. 

Think of how dogs act when somebody walks by their house. Their self-defense comes alive and they bark.

Because we are incarnated into animal bodies referred to as humans, we also have a self-defense instinct, sex-drive, etc.

These drives and other factors make it difficult to live according to PUL.  In a way this is good because the competition between our body-based drives and a higher way of knowing provide us with an opportunity to find what love is all about. How could a soul develop the ability to completely live according to  PUL if it hadn't dealt with situations that challenged its  ability to do so? Plus, love is best when chosen, and a way is needed where we can fully understand what we are choosing and why we are choosing it.

I don't believe it is an all or nothing affair. Some people live according to PUL much better than others. If you consider what takes place in this world this is obvious.

Regarding Don's (Berserks) comments about being aware of the suffering that goes on for others, I believe living according to love is greatly about being aware of such suffering, rather than becoming indifferent as some nihilistic life denying philosophies suggest.

One night while in contact with my spirit guidance I was shown an image of Jesus on the cross. He was leaning forward as much as the stakes in his hands and feet would allow him. This image was crafted so perfectly that I could sense the great pain he feels for what goes on this world. He is not indifferent and doesn't say things such as "nothing you see is real."

Yet, I don't believe he feels bummed out all the time. There have been times when I've really felt concern for others. I don't believe it is good to wallow in such grief because it doesn't help anybody including those you grieve for. However, we need to stay aware of the needs of others, partly because their needs will motivate us to try to improve our consciousness level not only for ourselves, but for the benefit of others. In fact, often I find that my yearning to grow is more about helping others than helping myself. I say this with the thought that change starts from the inside and the world won't become a better place until enough people change for the better inwardly.

Hi All: I am sorry to burst your bubbles, but, something had to be said to at least put into the discussion something that comes closer to the truth.

There is no individuality outside your own personal belief system constructs. If you eventually realize yourself...i.e... become one with the Eternal Self... you will discover that Oneness is everywhere all at once and there is no individuality... but, then that is the Absolute in altitude and takes quite a lot of spiritual evolution to experience it... but, it is intellectually graspable... just some food for thought... lads and lass...  8-)

S.

Seraphis1,

Not sorry (heay, at least it's not dishonest cliche) to make new bubbles, but the eternal selves have many different possible routes becoming available after this experience. So an eternity left to play and grow before merging. Just some thoughts for food and kool aid for the smiley with sunglasses. No worries though, he's now a happy camper in The Park.

Seraphis:

I have to say, I disagree with you so much about the below. I used to be into nondual teachings (which includes Advaita Vedanta and Chan Buddhism), and such teachings are really into this nihilistic no-self business.

Eventually I reached the point where I allowed myself to "seriously" question what the so-called ego lacking enlightened people have to say, and found that they are wrong.

God, the Creator, Source Being, whatever name you prefer, found a way to use the creative aspect of his being so many souls that have a substantial reality can exist.

I once had this experience while pondering what it means to be "One Self." Suddenly I found myself walking down a city street (non-physically). I was very happy and excited because I understood that everything is one self. I walked up to strangers and hugged them and they hugged me back, because they too understood that everything is one self. Then I hugged my mother and we didn't experience each other as one self, because our mother/son ideas prevented us from doing so. Then I hugged a lady I found physically attractive (she also found me attractive) and we couldn't experience each other as one self, because we viewed each other according to sex-based concepts.

It isn't our sense of self that keeps us separate from each other, it is our self-centered viewpoints that do so.  If it wasn't for the fact that each of us exists in a "very" substantial way we couldn't share love in a substantial way, because there wouldn't be anybody to share it.

The goal is to develop ourselves and find what is possible, rather than negating ourselves. Eventually we become souls who know how to make use of the knowledge we've gained in a very wise and loving way.

Going by what I've experienced and figured out we are headed for a state of being where we are one and many at the same time.

An added note, one might ask one self why so many supposed "I" lacking people have allowed themselves to be treated in a worshipful way?

I've feel so blessed to be free of the no-self "belief system" I used to be caught up in. I now know that my individuality is a precious gift that won't prevent me from experiencing love and oneness with others. We'll wholeheartedly share our precious gifts with each other.

P.S. It isn't a matter of some illusory thoughts forming the illusion of an individual until the thoughts along with the individual dissapear. Rather,  belief system constructs belong to entities (souls) that have a definite existence. Some entities find a way to believe that they don't exist. Of course they couldn't have such a belief if they didn't exist.




Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 3:09pm:

Hi All: I am sorry to burst your bubbles, but, something had to be said to at least put into the discussion something that comes closer to the truth. There is no individuality outside your own personal belief system constructs. If you eventually realize yourself...i.e... become one with the Eternal Self... you will discover that Oneness is everywhere all at once and there is no individuality... but, then that is the Absolute in altitude and takes quite a lot of spiritual evolution to experience it... but, it is intellectually graspable... just some food for thought... lads and lass...  8-) S.

Hi R: I have to say I admire your elaborate exercise in weaving your illusion so picturesquely around yourself. Is there a backdoor you can stroll through. LOL!!!

Mirror mirror on the wall who is the fairest of them all??
S.


recoverer wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 4:11pm:

Seraphis: I have to say, I disagree with you so much about the below. I used to be into nondual teachings (which includes Advaita Vedanta and Chan Buddhism), and such teachings are really into this nihilistic no-self business. Eventually I reached the point where I allowed myself to "seriously" question what the so-called ego lacking enlightened people have to say, and found that they are wrong. God, the Creator, Source Being, whatever name you prefer, found a way to use the creative aspect of his being so many souls that have a substantial reality can exist. I once had this experience while pondering what it means to be "One Self." Suddenly I found myself walking down a city street (non-physically). I was very happy and excited because I understood that everything is one self. I walked up to strangers and hugged them and they hugged me back, because they too understood that everything is one self. Then I hugged my mother and we didn't experience each other as one self, because our mother/son ideas prevented us from doing so. Then I hugged a lady I found physically attractive (she also found me attractive) and we couldn't experience each other as one self, because we viewed each other according to sex-based concepts. It isn't our sense of self that keeps us separate from each other, it is our self-centered viewpoints that do so.  If it wasn't for the fact that each of us exists in a "very" substantial way we couldn't share love in a substantial way, because there wouldn't be anybody to share it. The goal is to develop ourselves and find what is possible, rather than negating ourselves. Eventually we become souls who know how to make use of the knowledge we've gained in a very wise and loving way. Going by what I've experienced and figured out we are headed for a state of being where we are one and many at the same time. An added note, one might ask one self why so many supposed "I" lacking people have allowed themselves to be treated in a worshipful way? I've feel so blessed to be free of the no-self "belief system" I used to be caught up in. I now know that my individuality is a precious gift that won't prevent me from experiencing love and oneness with others. We'll wholeheartedly share our precious gifts with each other. P.S. It isn't a matter of some illusory thoughts forming the illusion of an individual until the thoughts along with the individual dissapear. Rather,  belief system constructs belong to entities (souls) that have a definite existence. Some entities find a way to believe that they don't exist. Of course they couldn't have such a belief if they didn't exist. Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2011 at 3:09pm: Hi All: I am sorry to burst your bubbles, but, something had to be said to at least put into the discussion something that comes closer to the truth. There is no individuality outside your own personal belief system constructs. If you eventually realize yourself...i.e... become one with the Eternal Self... you will discover that Oneness is everywhere all at once and there is no individuality... but, then that is the Absolute in altitude and takes quite a lot of spiritual evolution to experience it... but, it is intellectually graspable... just some food for thought... lads and lass...  8-) S.

Seraphis:

Put it this way. You share a day with a friend you really love. Is there a conscious being beyond illusion that you share love with? Does this being's happiness, welfare and existence matter?

If our individuality is just an illusion, then what happens when all of our illusions come to an end? Does just one being exist all by its lonesome for the rest of eternity? Do many beings, perhaps an infinite number, lose the gift of existence?

It is important to understand that having an understanding of our uniqueness doesn't prevent us from sharing love and oneness with each other.

The love-based wisdom that each of us eventually gains is what enables us to truly love each other and knock down the bounderies that make us seem separate.  Beings who are nothing more than mere illusions couldn't have such a wonderful and meaningful ability.

If the love we experience and share is substantial, then perhaps we are substantial.

It is important to listen to our hearts when trying to figure this sort of thing out, rather than a supposedly sophisticated way of thinking.

It is also important to remember that sometimes we experience according to what we believe. We can even experience ourselves in a way where it seems as if we are non-existent as an individual. When this is the case we don't allow ourselves to use the part of our being that enables us to understand that we do exist as individuals.

Understanding that we are one with others doesn't mean we have to disappear to the extent some people believe is necessary.

Despite what some people say, it isn't noble to want to negate ourselves. Rather, it is noble to have the courage and fortitude to work on ourselves so we can live according to a more positive way of being. I know people that try to negate themselves rather than improve themselves. Sometimes they take such an approach because they don't want to look at themselves honestly and they don't want to put in the effort that is required if one wants to grow. Eventually they'll have to deal with the fact that they can't get away from themselves, no matter what some so-called sage claims.

recoverer wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 7:27pm:

Seraphis: Put it this way. You share a day with a friend you really love. Is there a conscious being beyond illusion that you share love with? Does this being's happiness, welfare and existence matter? If our individuality is just an illusion, then what happens when all of our illusions come to an end? Does just one being exist all by its lonesome for the rest of eternity? Do many beings, perhaps an infinite number, lose the gift of existence? It is important to understand that having an understanding of our uniqueness doesn't prevent us from sharing love and oneness with each other. The love-based wisdom that each of us eventually gains is what enables us to truly love each other and knock down the bounderies that make us seem separate.  Beings who are nothing more than mere illusions couldn't have such a wonderful and meaningful ability. If the love we experience and share is substantial, then perhaps we are substantial. It is important to listen to our hearts when trying to figure this sort of thing out, rather than a supposedly sophisticated way of thinking. It is also important to remember that sometimes we experience according to what we believe. We can even experience ourselves in a way where it seems as if we are non-existent as an individual. When this is the case we don't allow ourselves to use the part of our being that enables us to understand that we do exist as individuals. Understanding that we are one with others doesn't mean we have to disappear to the extent some people believe is necessary. Despite what some people say, it isn't noble to want to negate ourselves. Rather, it is noble to have the courage and fortitude to work on ourselves so we can live according to a more positive way of being. I know people that try to negate themselves rather than improve themselves. Sometimes they take such an approach because they don't want to look at themselves honestly and they don't want to put in the effort that is required if one wants to grow. Eventually they'll have to deal with the fact that they can't get away from themselves, no matter what some so-called sage claims.

Dr. David Hawkins claims to have achieved ‘Self-realization’ and describes it thus:

‘The Presence is a continuum that completely occupies what had appeared previously to ordinary perception as vacant, empty space. That inner awareness is not different from the Self; it pervades the essence of everything. Awareness is awake of its own awareness and omnipresence. Existence and its expression as both form and formlessness is God and prevails equally in all objects, persons, plants, and animals. Everything is united by the divinity of existence.’

Exerpted from ‘The Eye of the I’

In the Tibetan Book of the Dead, if you would free yourself from the Karmic Wheel and of course achieve the ultimate enlightment… at the moment of death you will have the time it takes to drink a cup of tea to…

…look into your own mind and become the Buddha mind…

S.

I am of the opinion that we can and do experience a unique or individual perspective while we grow in spirit.  I don't believe that we dissolve into a great mind, like a drop of water in the ocean, never to perceive again.

Seraphis mentions a man named Hawkins who was "self-realized" (i.e. Buddha on earth?).  First off, it always stuck me that those who are highly evolved in love or spirit would rarely claim to be so - but I digress.

That  person, the man who has attained buddahood or christ-realization, is still, while incarnate, a man.  He can state Descartes' great line "cogito ergo sum,"  (I think therefore I am), and it would apply to him no less than to myself.  If you asked him how he  felt, he should be able to answer; if you asked him whether the tragedies of the world were keenly felt, he would likely still say "yes."

Emanuel Swedenborg spoke with deceased human beings who had ascended to some of the "higher" levels of heaven.  They spoke of acting out of love and selflessness.  Following the two main tenets of spirituality (love of God and love of others).   Yet it seemed, from the description of Swedenborg and many other mystics that these "individuals" persisted in their individuality as they moved on in heaven.  They had tasks to do, and indeed a type of service and spiritual path.  Heaven was not a static place.

I originally started this thread while thinking about loss, and wondering how many of us could, at any moment be ripped away from our lives in the earth plane and accept our fates to move on?  How many of us would grieve, rage against the situation, or try to come back (via reincarnation, haunting/getting stuck, etc.)?  It is an unknown to me.  I only know that now is not yet my time.  I found it quite humbling, when, with some soul searching it seemed that I was more attached to the earth plane than I thought I would be. 

Volu is correct in assuming that sometimes if we think we "get" the spiritual message about love, there is a certain smugness about it, and an inner confidence that we are then safe and on the right path.  If we make changes in our lives based on acting more lovingly,  it can't help but move us in a good direction.  But many of us still may be caught up in the ego-centric activities and thoughts that go along with our earthly lives.  Although pure selfishness is easy to spot, subtle ego-driven mind sets and belief systems are not always obvious.

Must we give up on our individual perspective to move on?  I would say, (imho) "no."  But when we do realize we are dead, we must let go of certain earthly attachments.  We can still love those we love, but we must then adapt.  Contemplating this great change that awaits us all was a bit overwhelming.

Matthew

Matthew

re:

Quote:

how many of us can leave, and transition to the afterlife and are ready for it?  Is it not more likely that the vast majority of people will feel profound loss and grief after they cross over?  How many will say "I never got a chance to do......?"

Your comments coincided with my viewing some old Bob Monroe videos posted beginning here (I think there are 9 and they run for ~10 minutes each), called Wednesday with Bob (a take-off on Tuesdays with Morris?):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSBM7Qeo5bg

Bob tied that thing about "How many will say I never got a chance to do..." to what he called being human junkies, meaning that we become addicted to being human. It just ties in so well to your comment.

I do wonder if out discs are not all-wise and out discs are what is addicted...but that is just me. There are so many layers inside layers in all descriptions of REALITY.

The part about "Is it not more likely that the vast majority of people will feel profound loss and grief after they cross over?" made me think of something Ihave often noticed: that mmost folks who report NDEs report how good it feels on the other side and how hard it can be to have made that decision to return to the body. I always feel like there is something we know when on the other side that changes how we feel about dying, and that something is gone with the amnesia we reportedly have to accept when we come here. So you may grieve for the epson who passes over, but that person is not necessarily grieving about passing.

That is different from the impulse to come back and experience one more thing as a human, which Bob ties to being addicted.

How the ego fits in to all this, I don't know. I've never been sure what an ego is. Yeah recognizing 'egotistical' is easy, but I think we cannot function without an ego, so it is something that is necessary for focusing conciousness here, but it can get in the way if it is too strong.

Lucy wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 2:00am:

Matthew re: Quote: how many of us can leave, and transition to the afterlife and are ready for it?  Is it not more likely that the vast majority of people will feel profound loss and grief after they cross over?  How many will say "I never got a chance to do......?"  ... Your comments coincided with my viewing some old Bob Monroe videos posted beginning here (I think there are 9 and they run for ~10 minutes each), called Wednesday with Bob (a take-off on Tuesdays with Morris?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSBM7Qeo5bg Bob tied that thing about "How many will say I never got a chance to do..." to what he called being human junkies, meaning that we become addicted to being human. It just ties in so well to your comment. I do wonder if out discs are not all-wise and out discs are what is addicted...but that is just me. There are so many layers inside layers in all descriptions of REALITY. The part about "Is it not more likely that the vast majority of people will feel profound loss and grief after they cross over?" made me think of something Ihave often noticed: that mmost folks who report NDEs report how good it feels on the other side and how hard it can be to have made that decision to return to the body. I always feel like there is something we know when on the other side that changes how we feel about dying, and that something is gone with the amnesia we reportedly have to accept when we come here. So you may grieve for the epson who passes over, but that person is not necessarily grieving about passing. That is different from the impulse to come back and experience one more thing as a human, which Bob ties to being addicted. How the ego fits in to all this, I don't know. I've never been sure what an ego is. Yeah recognizing 'egotistical' is easy, but I think we cannot function without an ego, so it is something that is necessary for focusing conciousness here, but it can get in the way if it is too strong.

Hi Lucy: This is why The Tibetan Book of the Dead is such an important document and why you should clearly understant the first Bardo which you will encounter at the moment of death:

paraphased: At the moment of death you will have the time it takes to drink a cup of tea to accept the first bardo... which leads to freedom from the Wheel

S.

Lucy wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 2:00am:

Matthew re: Quote: how many of us can leave, and transition to the afterlife and are ready for it?  Is it not more likely that the vast majority of people will feel profound loss and grief after they cross over?  How many will say "I never got a chance to do......?"  Your comments coincided with my viewing some old Bob Monroe videos posted beginning here (I think there are 9 and they run for ~10 minutes each), called Wednesday with Bob (a take-off on Tuesdays with Morris?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSBM7Qeo5bg Bob tied that thing about "How many will say I never got a chance to do..." to what he called being human junkies, meaning that we become addicted to being human. It just ties in so well to your comment. I do wonder if out discs are not all-wise and out discs are what is addicted...but that is just me. There are so many layers inside layers in all descriptions of REALITY. The part about "Is it not more likely that the vast majority of people will feel profound loss and grief after they cross over?" made me think of something Ihave often noticed: that mmost folks who report NDEs report how good it feels on the other side and how hard it can be to have made that decision to return to the body. I always feel like there is something we know when on the other side that changes how we feel about dying, and that something is gone with the amnesia we reportedly have to accept when we come here. So you may grieve for the epson who passes over, but that person is not necessarily grieving about passing. That is different from the impulse to come back and experience one more thing as a human, which Bob ties to being addicted. How the ego fits in to all this, I don't know. I've never been sure what an ego is. Yeah recognizing 'egotistical' is easy, but I think we cannot function without an ego, so it is something that is necessary for focusing conciousness here, but it can get in the way if it is too strong.

Hi Lucy: Do you have an exit strategy?

S.

Doc:

You said: "Seraphis mentions a man named Hawkins who was "self-realized" (i.e. Buddha on earth?).  First off, it always stuck me that those who are highly evolved in love or spirit would rarely claim to be so - but I digress."

I believe that you make a key point.  My feeling is that if a person really had spiritual wisdom he wouldn't claim to be enlightened for two main reasons:

1. He would be well aware than many people end up following supposed enlightened ones like mindless sheep, and wouldn't want to contribute to such spiritual error.
2. Related to what you said about Swedenborg, he would understand that when souls rejoin the spirit world levels of being become available in a way where it isn't reasonable to conclude that there are some so-called enlightened people who know the totality of truth.

David Hawkins has this calibration system set up where he measures how enlightened different people are (supposedly). Below is some of the people he has graded. I am familiar with many of them and they are  not masters of spiritual wisdom. Some of them are quite unethical, yet Hawkins rates them as being more enlightened than Mother Theressa. He's also a big supporter of ACIM.


Huang Po                   960
Gandhi                       760
Mother Theresa           710
Meister Eckhart          700
Chief Detroit               650
Karmapa                    630
Muktananda               750
(Had young female disciples housed in his ashram close to his room so he could have sex with them.)
Vivekananda               610
(visited brothels)
Ramakrishna              620
Rabbi Moses de Leon  720
Nisargadatta Maharaj  720
Ramana Maharshi      720
Ramesh Balsekar       760
(Used his position as a guru to make sexual advances towards his disciples)
Confucius                   590
St. Patrick                 590
Wallace Black Elk      499
John Calvin                580
John Wesley             360
Martin Luther             580
Dalai Lama                570
Maharishi                  410
Robert Powell            575
Joel Goldsmith          455
HWL Ponnja             370
(Claimed that he had enlightened a number of his students, and later came up with differing versions of who is enlightened. Some of his students that he labeled as enlightened ended up being very unethical people.)
Wei Wu Wei             475
Charles Filmore         485
Padmasambava          595
Satchitananda           605
Meher Baba              240
Sri Karumay              221
Tenzin Gyaltsen         599
Alice Bailey               445
Vernon Howard          660
Peter Ousepensky     335
Robert Schuller          405
Thich Naht Hahn        460
Nostradamus             220
Yogananda                540
(Had affairs with his married disciples and claimed they were lovers in past lives.)
Lao Tzu                     520
Alan Watts                485
John Blofield              465
Poonjaji                     520
(This is the same person as HWL Poonja, yet a different rating.)
Bernadette Roberts    445
Ram Das                   420
Chungliang Al Huang  405
C.W. Leadbetter         485
John Bradshaw          460
M Scott Peck            475
Gangaji                     475
(Her husband was supposedly an enlightened disciple of HWL Poonja just as she was, yet he had an affair with a young disciple for several years.)
Joseph Smith            520
Emmett Fox              470
Thomas Merton          520
Hazrat Khan              499
Sant Thahar Singh     315
C.S. Lewis                390
Sri Siva (Sri Guruji)    220
Joseph Campbell       410

I could  say more about some of the above people, but you probably get the point.

P.S. Hawkins calibrates Jesus at 1,000 and himself at 990.

Fascinating, Albert

That settles it for me.  Anyone who sets up an "enlightenment rating system" with points, is a wackadoodle of the first order and should not be taken seriously when proclaiming their enlightenment.  End of discussion. 

With this exception; you are right Albert, in that some seekers, may buy into such nonsense.  As such, take TMI and Bruce's motto of "go out and investigate for yourself" and don't mindlessly follow self-proclaimed enlightened people.


Matthew

Just a note of caution:

Unless you read Hawkins work and it is best to start with 'The Eye of the I" and evaluate his description of his enlightenment experience on the basis of the three works in which he explains his life experience which ends up with self-realization you won't be able to evaluate his claim... which is all it is a claim... one thing that is interesting he seems not to have made this claim until 30 years after the fact and after many years in seclusion... but, as with Ramakrishna and others there is no way to know for sure if they say the did what the say they did... but the work and teaching does give one a clue if one knows what one is looking at... there is a consistency that is more than coincidence... but 'self-realization' is a tricky thing to identify... it is personal, experiencial and not transferable... it is a matter of grace that it occurs at all... so no amount of intellectualizing about it will advance the issue... it is immutable... you either believe or you don't... what they say is instructive as to what the absolute experience is all about... but, YOU... still have to cross that Rubicon yourself... you come alone and you go alone...

As far as the teachings of these beings are concerned they can be very problematic because there are no absolutes in the physical plane... every system developed breaks down under picyune analysis and every concept can be twist out of all proportion to its original intent...

But it still remains incumbant on YOU to find the truth... luckily you have ETERNITY to do it.

S.





recoverer wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

Doc: You said: "Seraphis mentions a man named Hawkins who was "self-realized" (i.e. Buddha on earth?).  First off, it always stuck me that those who are highly evolved in love or spirit would rarely claim to be so - but I digress." I believe that you make a key point.  My feeling is that if a person really had spiritual wisdom he wouldn't claim to be enlightened for two main reasons: 1. He would be well aware than many people end up following supposed enlightened ones like mindless sheep, and wouldn't want to contribute to such spiritual error. 2. Related to what you said about Swedenborg, he would understand that when souls rejoin the spirit world levels of being become available in a way where it isn't reasonable to conclude that there are some so-called enlightened people who know the totality of truth. David Hawkins has this calibration system set up where he measures how enlightened different people are (supposedly). Below is some of the people he has graded. I am familiar with many of them and they are  not masters of spiritual wisdom. Some of them are quite unethical, yet Hawkins rates them as being more enlightened than Mother Theressa. He's also a big supporter of ACIM. Huang Po                   960 Gandhi                       760 Mother Theresa           710 Meister Eckhart          700 Chief Detroit               650 Karmapa                    630 Muktananda               750 (Had young female disciples housed in his ashram close to his room so he could have sex with them.) Vivekananda               610 (visited brothels) Ramakrishna              620 Rabbi Moses de Leon  720 Nisargadatta Maharaj  720 Ramana Maharshi      720 Ramesh Balsekar       760 (Used his position as a guru to make sexual advances towards his disciples) Confucius                   590 St. Patrick                 590 Wallace Black Elk      499 John Calvin                580 John Wesley             360 Martin Luther             580 Dalai Lama                570 Maharishi                  410 Robert Powell            575 Joel Goldsmith          455 HWL Ponnja             370 (Claimed that he had enlightened a number of his students, and later came up with differing versions of who is enlightened. Some of his students that he labeled as enlightened ended up being very unethical people.) Wei Wu Wei             475 Charles Filmore         485 Padmasambava          595 Satchitananda           605 Meher Baba              240 Sri Karumay              221 Tenzin Gyaltsen         599 Alice Bailey               445 Vernon Howard          660 Peter Ousepensky     335 Robert Schuller          405 Thich Naht Hahn        460 Nostradamus             220 Yogananda                540 (Had affairs with his married disciples and claimed they were lovers in past lives.) Lao Tzu                     520 Alan Watts                485 John Blofield              465 Poonjaji                     520 (This is the same person as HWL Poonja, yet a different rating.) Bernadette Roberts    445 Ram Das                   420 Chungliang Al Huang  405 C.W. Leadbetter         485 John Bradshaw          460 M Scott Peck            475 Gangaji                     475 (Her husband was supposedly an enlightened disciple of HWL Poonja just as she was, yet he had an affair with a young disciple for several years.) Joseph Smith            520 Emmett Fox              470 Thomas Merton          520 Hazrat Khan              499 Sant Thahar Singh     315 C.S. Lewis                390 Sri Siva (Sri Guruji)    220 Joseph Campbell       410 I could  say more about some of the above people, but you probably get the point. P.S. Hawkins calibrates Jesus at 1,000 and himself at 990.

Quote:

Hi Lucy: Do you have an exit strategy?

Hmmmm...

according to some, we all come here with an exit strategy. We just forget what it might be.

If I remember my exit strategy, would I share it? (especially if I thought my child might ever find it written down....)

ps I plan on having a New Orleans jazz style funeral; anyone who reads this and is left standing longer than I am is invited.
_________

Oh you probably meant exit from addiction to being human. One step at a time. I guess I was thinking that any spiritual growth takes one on that path. I just keep refining my definition of "spiritual growth." I do recall a moment when Bob Monroe's comment that last-timers he met said that, whatever happened (in life on earth), it was worth it for the effects it produced. I didn't really believe that based on what I experienced, but it was something that gave me a glimmer of hope or peace. I certainly didn't believe it was worth it at that moment. Hmm, maybe that was the start of developing an exit strategy.

Seraphis:

Perhaps some people will listen to their inner master and understand that a genuine person of wisdom wouldn't come up with such a rating system.

Regarding reading his books, there have been many fraudulent gurus that have been able to come up with words that impress people.

Also, once a person has developed some discrimination and has learned to listen to his intuition, in many cases it isn't necessary for him to read many of the words a person said (or wrote) in order to get an accurate feeling for what that person is about.

If a person has changed from the inside to an extent where he is able to live according to qualities such as love, honesty and integrity,  it is rather meaningless how good he is at discoursing in a supposed profound manner.

Perhaps the most insidious deceivers are those who seem profound as they deceive. Some are so clever that they mislead people in a way where the misled believe they are being benefited.

Sometimes information is presented in a way where it is partly true, yet its overall effect is limiting. I believe it is worthwhile to post the below again (from the  Robert Bruce thread).

----

The  below is from J.M. Pardy’s book “Awakening to the Reconnection” (pages 184-185). Balance recommended it at the below thread. I believe it relates to some of what we discussed.

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1287573466

-When I first saw this man, I could see as he stood in front of me that behind him were hundreds of  souls, followers of his. They were all asleep. They looked like zombies. They were awake, yet they were asleep. This man had taken a position of leadership, yet he himself didn’t have the answers to help them awaken. It was like the blind leading the blind, so to speak.

Actually, I had another dream along the same lines as this one where I was taken to another well-known leader in the spiritual community. This was a much nicer encounter, but the same message was in it. In the dream I was taken to this man. He was holding meditation classes. I do use his meditation CDs; I love them and have ever since I started using them.
He walked up to me, and we were facing each other. Once again I noticed that the souls he was training were all walking around as if they were asleep, just wandering aimlessly.

He asked me, “How did you get the code?”

I said I couldn’t tell him.

“But how did you get it? I need that code,” he said.

I said, “I’m sorry, I just can’t tell you.”

He then handed me his meditation CD, saying, “You have changed it.”

“Yes,” I said, “I have changed a few things.”
He said, “That’s fine.”

With that, the dream ended. The code they were looking for was the one to awaken the soul to the dream world. I don’t know why during this encounter my higher self would pass it on, but I know there must have been a reason and I will leave it at that for now.
 

A late P.S.

My feeling is that if David Hawkins truly wanted to help people, he wouldn't puff up his reputation as a 990 right under Jesus, but above everybody else. Give me a break.

Albert, it is not even worth talking about further.  Anyone who looks at that list knows he is not truly enlightened.  It is basically a guarantee.  None of the earnest explorers I've met or conversed with would rate the state of enlightenment with a point system, give Jesus 1000 points and themselves 990.  It is so far fetched and so ridiculous that, as I said in my first post about it, there is nothing more to say.  Who could ever take anything this person says seriously?

Yes Doc, I think you're correct.


DocM wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Albert, it is not even worth talking about further.  Anyone who looks at that list knows he is not truly enlightened.  It is basically a guarantee.  None of the earnest explorers I've met or conversed with would rate the state of enlightenment with a point system, give Jesus 1000 points and themselves 990.  It is so far fetched and so ridiculous that, as I said in my first post about it, there is nothing more to say.  Who could ever take anything this person says seriously?

recoverer wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 2:46pm:

A late P.S. My feeling is that if David Hawkins truly wanted to help people, he wouldn't puff up his reputation as a 990 right under Jesus, but above everybody else. Give me a break.

Give me a break. Your suggestion of what a true measure of one who would help humanity is ludicrous and amazingly dimwitted from some one who knows all the answers like yourself.

S.

Seraphis1,

"Give me a break. Your suggestion of what a true measure of one who would help humanity is ludicrous and amazingly dimwitted from some one who knows all the answers like yourself."

A break for you could be that a post isn't about you, though it's about something you like? I know I from time to time got my share of ludicrous and amazingly dimwitted, and yet life goes on with and without answers.

Compared to what there is to know, yes, I am quite dimwitted. It'll be quite a while before I can claim I'm a 990. This being the case, I certainly don't have all of the answers. I do feel a little wackadoodle now and then. :D



Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

recoverer wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 2:46pm: A late P.S. My feeling is that if David Hawkins truly wanted to help people, he wouldn't puff up his reputation as a 990 right under Jesus, but above everybody else. Give me a break. Give me a break. Your suggestion of what a true measure of one who would help humanity is ludicrous and amazingly dimwitted from some one who knows all the answers like yourself. S.

Hi All: This is important enough to post again... I think I posted it in another thread... but it is really for those who don't already know everything:

What is Transcendence? Transcendence is simply the state in which one becomes one with the Manifest/Unmanifest…i.e… Yoga… union with God.

The reason this state is so unknown lies in the fact that statistically only 1 in 10,000,000 human beings achieve the state. When the state is achieved it is so profound the tendency is to withdraw from the world, so no footprint is left behind.   

The current population of the planet is +/- 6,812,200,000 which means that at this instant there are 6812 Transcended beings living on the planet. The state generally leaves a being disconnected from ‘objective reality’ and there is nothing to say or communicate. So that only 50% of them remain in contact with physical reality (their bodies). Of the remaining 3406 close to 75% of them are unable to communicate believably and coherently some actually fall from grace…

The literature says that Ralph Waldo Emerson had either alzheimers or dimentia... I believe he Transcended and was unable to communicate... this is an unfortunate masking of some Transcendent beings... they loose contact with the physical world and it looks like a mental illness of some sort... it is quite rare... but a fact of the state. This is the reason Hawkins withdrew from the world for some 20 years... it took that long to re-establish contact with his physical body and learn how to communicate through it again... read his books you may get some interesting points about the state and the run up to the state.

S.

Seraphis:

When you say people become one with God, do you mean that they still exist in some way?

If so, in what way do they exist?

Seraphis,

Hello.  Part of me is tempted not to respond to your post about the numbers of transcended beings, etc. because I sense a conflict that can be avoided.

On the other hand, with the newbies and other readers on the board, the scientist in me can't let these numbers float by, as if they were factual.  Sorry.  Please understand, that this is not directed at you personally, but at the statement.

This calculation, 1 in 10,000,000 is just pulled out of a hat.  As such so is the total calculation of 6000 some odd transcended human beings incarnate. If you have some data to back it up, as fact, please share.  Otherwise, let us call it someone's guess...

As to the idea that mental illness can be a form of transcendence, that may be possible.  It would be too hard to know for certain.  But really, when a transcended being is ready to move on, why leave a vegetative body behind to care for?  That body would be like a worn out coat, which never really mattered in the first place and could be discarded. 

If you do not see the lunacy of the number system given by Hawkins to rate the enlightenement of famous people, I.........I don't know what to say.  It is, simply put, utter nonsense.  One of those rare situations where the ridiculous nature of the rating system then negates most any other thing the author could possible say....



Matthew

recoverer wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

Confucius                   590 St. Patrick                 590 Wallace Black Elk      499 John Calvin                580 John Wesley             360

I really have to disagree on this point. Wallace Black Elk is no worthy anymore than 498.

Some people who buy into the enlightenment viewpoint in the way that Seraphis seems to speak of it, believe that we keep recarnating over and over again without a break until we become a supposed enlightened being.  Therefore, if you figure an average lifetime is 60 years (just an example number), and each of us has to reincarnate 10 million times until we become one of the 1 in 10 million, that means we have to be in this world almost continuosly for 600 million years before we get a break.

I believe that spiritual growth is necessary, but people who have made contact with the spirit world have found that the growth process isn't limited to reincarnating in this world (or one like it) an incredible number of times.

I don't know if these figures come from Hawkins, but below is something he claimed (from this forum).

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,13156,page=2

"He also believes that he had a temptation from Lucifer similar to Jesus Christ in which he was offered the power to control worlds, though he states that he rejected this temptation. He claims to experience the classical attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. He teaches that he, as God or the Self, existed prior to the beginning of the universe, and will continue to exist after it ends. An archangel is said to have brought about Hawkins' enlightenment. He further claims to have been to the lowest depths of Hell, which lasted for an "eternity" and resembled the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and the description of Dante's Inferno."

I guess Mr. 990 doesn't realize that the Bible's history doesn't support the concept of a fallen angel named Lucifer.



DocM wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 6:03pm:

Seraphis, Hello.  Part of me is tempted not to respond to your post about the numbers of transcended beings, etc. because I sense a conflict that can be avoided. On the other hand, with the newbies and other readers on the board, the scientist in me can't let these numbers float by, as if they were factual.  Sorry.  Please understand, that this is not directed at you personally, but at the statement. This calculation, 1 in 10,000,000 is just pulled out of a hat.  As such so is the total calculation of 6000 some odd transcended human beings incarnate. If you have some data to back it up, as fact, please share.  Otherwise, let us call it someone's guess... As to the idea that mental illness can be a form of transcendence, that may be possible.  It would be too hard to know for certain.  But really, when a transcended being is ready to move on, why leave a vegetative body behind to care for?  That body would be like a worn out coat, which never really mattered in the first place and could be discarded.  If you do not see the lunacy of the number system given by Hawkins to rate the enlightenement of famous people, I.........I don't know what to say.  It is, simply put, utter nonsense.  One of those rare situations where the ridiculous nature of the rating system then negates most any other thing the author could possible say.... Matthew

I didn't write that, a man who rates himself 990 wrote it. He's worth almost two Black Elks.


PauliEffectt wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 6:17pm:

recoverer wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 1:24pm: Confucius                   590 St. Patrick                 590 Wallace Black Elk      499 John Calvin                580 John Wesley             360 I really have to disagree on this point. Wallace Black Elk is no worthy anymore than 498.

Doc,
The calculated number of enlightened beings quoted by Seraphis was not pulled from a hat, but I suspect from another location, as is much of this thread, which you so innocently started with the best of intentions. 

R: If you believe the below you are on the wrong board. The founder Bruce Moen wrote: Curiosities Father... what do you thing the return of the probe was all about... chopped liver???

What do you think the Aperture and the Emitter are... chicken legs???

S.


recoverer wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

Some people who buy into the enlightenment viewpoint in the way that Seraphis seems to speak of it, believe that we keep recarnating over and over again without a break until we become a supposed enlightened being.  Therefore, if you figure an average lifetime is 60 years (just an example number), and each of us has to reincarnate 10 million times until we become one of the 1 in 10 million, that means we have to be in this world almost continuosly for 600 million years before we get a break. I believe that spiritual growth is necessary, but people who have made contact with the spirit world have found that the growth process isn't limited to reincarnating in this world (or one like it) an incredible number of times. I don't know if these figures come from Hawkins, but below is something he claimed (from this forum). http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,13156,page=2 "He also believes that he had a temptation from Lucifer similar to Jesus Christ in which he was offered the power to control worlds, though he states that he rejected this temptation. He claims to experience the classical attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. He teaches that he, as God or the Self, existed prior to the beginning of the universe, and will continue to exist after it ends. An archangel is said to have brought about Hawkins' enlightenment. He further claims to have been to the lowest depths of Hell, which lasted for an "eternity" and resembled the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and the description of Dante's Inferno." I guess Mr. 990 doesn't realize that the Bible's history doesn't support the concept of a fallen angel named Lucifer. DocM wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 6:03pm: Seraphis, Hello.  Part of me is tempted not to respond to your post about the numbers of transcended beings, etc. because I sense a conflict that can be avoided. On the other hand, with the newbies and other readers on the board, the scientist in me can't let these numbers float by, as if they were factual.  Sorry.  Please understand, that this is not directed at you personally, but at the statement. This calculation, 1 in 10,000,000 is just pulled out of a hat.  As such so is the total calculation of 6000 some odd transcended human beings incarnate. If you have some data to back it up, as fact, please share.  Otherwise, let us call it someone's guess... As to the idea that mental illness can be a form of transcendence, that may be possible.  It would be too hard to know for certain.  But really, when a transcended being is ready to move on, why leave a vegetative body behind to care for?  That body would be like a worn out coat, which never really mattered in the first place and could be discarded.  If you do not see the lunacy of the number system given by Hawkins to rate the enlightenement of famous people, I.........I don't know what to say.  It is, simply put, utter nonsense.  One of those rare situations where the ridiculous nature of the rating system then negates most any other thing the author could possible say.... Matthew

What? Regarding Dawkin's claims about being tested by Lucifer and such, even though I found this today, I first read about his claims several years ago.

Regarding Bruce's "Curiosity's father," if you go by that, we are parts of a disk, and a disk sends out numerous probes so numerous incarnations can take place. Therefore, it isn't necessary for individual probes to have to incarnate 10 million times.



Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 8:18pm:

R: If you believe the below you are on the wrong board. The founder Bruce Moen wrote: Curiosities Father... what do you thing the return of the probe was all about... chopped liver??? What do you think the Aperture and the Emitter are... chicken legs??? S. recoverer wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 6:18pm: Some people who buy into the enlightenment viewpoint in the way that Seraphis seems to speak of it, believe that we keep recarnating over and over again without a break until we become a supposed enlightened being.  Therefore, if you figure an average lifetime is 60 years (just an example number), and each of us has to reincarnate 10 million times until we become one of the 1 in 10 million, that means we have to be in this world almost continuosly for 600 million years before we get a break. I believe that spiritual growth is necessary, but people who have made contact with the spirit world have found that the growth process isn't limited to reincarnating in this world (or one like it) an incredible number of times. I don't know if these figures come from Hawkins, but below is something he claimed (from this forum). http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,13156,page=2 "He also believes that he had a temptation from Lucifer similar to Jesus Christ in which he was offered the power to control worlds, though he states that he rejected this temptation. He claims to experience the classical attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. He teaches that he, as God or the Self, existed prior to the beginning of the universe, and will continue to exist after it ends. An archangel is said to have brought about Hawkins' enlightenment. He further claims to have been to the lowest depths of Hell, which lasted for an "eternity" and resembled the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and the description of Dante's Inferno." I guess Mr. 990 doesn't realize that the Bible's history doesn't support the concept of a fallen angel named Lucifer. DocM wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 6:03pm: Seraphis, Hello.  Part of me is tempted not to respond to your post about the numbers of transcended beings, etc. because I sense a conflict that can be avoided. On the other hand, with the newbies and other readers on the board, the scientist in me can't let these numbers float by, as if they were factual.  Sorry.  Please understand, that this is not directed at you personally, but at the statement. This calculation, 1 in 10,000,000 is just pulled out of a hat.  As such so is the total calculation of 6000 some odd transcended human beings incarnate. If you have some data to back it up, as fact, please share.  Otherwise, let us call it someone's guess... As to the idea that mental illness can be a form of transcendence, that may be possible.  It would be too hard to know for certain.  But really, when a transcended being is ready to move on, why leave a vegetative body behind to care for?  That body would be like a worn out coat, which never really mattered in the first place and could be discarded.  If you do not see the lunacy of the number system given by Hawkins to rate the enlightenement of famous people, I.........I don't know what to say.  It is, simply put, utter nonsense.  One of those rare situations where the ridiculous nature of the rating system then negates most any other thing the author could possible say.... Matthew

Yeah R: And that disc is part of a larger disc... they all strive to return home... until there is only one disc when they all return to the greater Father of them all in some fullness of time... You project so smart... and yet you didn't figure that out yet. LOL!!! There WAS a big bang!!!

S.


recoverer wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 8:42pm:

What? Regarding Dawkin's claims about being tested by Lucifer and such, even though I found this today, I first read about his claims several years ago. Regarding Bruce's "Curiosity's father," if you go by that, we are parts of a disk, and a disk sends out numerous probes so numerous incarnations can take place. Therefore, it isn't necessary for individual probes to have to incarnate 10 million times. Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 8:18pm: R: If you believe the below you are on the wrong board. The founder Bruce Moen wrote: Curiosities Father... what do you thing the return of the probe was all about... chopped liver??? What do you think the Aperture and the Emitter are... chicken legs??? S. recoverer wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 6:18pm: Some people who buy into the enlightenment viewpoint in the way that Seraphis seems to speak of it, believe that we keep recarnating over and over again without a break until we become a supposed enlightened being.  Therefore, if you figure an average lifetime is 60 years (just an example number), and each of us has to reincarnate 10 million times until we become one of the 1 in 10 million, that means we have to be in this world almost continuosly for 600 million years before we get a break. I believe that spiritual growth is necessary, but people who have made contact with the spirit world have found that the growth process isn't limited to reincarnating in this world (or one like it) an incredible number of times. I don't know if these figures come from Hawkins, but below is something he claimed (from this forum). http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,13156,page=2 "He also believes that he had a temptation from Lucifer similar to Jesus Christ in which he was offered the power to control worlds, though he states that he rejected this temptation. He claims to experience the classical attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. He teaches that he, as God or the Self, existed prior to the beginning of the universe, and will continue to exist after it ends. An archangel is said to have brought about Hawkins' enlightenment. He further claims to have been to the lowest depths of Hell, which lasted for an "eternity" and resembled the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and the description of Dante's Inferno." I guess Mr. 990 doesn't realize that the Bible's history doesn't support the concept of a fallen angel named Lucifer. DocM wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 6:03pm: Seraphis, Hello.  Part of me is tempted not to respond to your post about the numbers of transcended beings, etc. because I sense a conflict that can be avoided. On the other hand, with the newbies and other readers on the board, the scientist in me can't let these numbers float by, as if they were factual.  Sorry.  Please understand, that this is not directed at you personally, but at the statement. This calculation, 1 in 10,000,000 is just pulled out of a hat.  As such so is the total calculation of 6000 some odd transcended human beings incarnate. If you have some data to back it up, as fact, please share.  Otherwise, let us call it someone's guess... As to the idea that mental illness can be a form of transcendence, that may be possible.  It would be too hard to know for certain.  But really, when a transcended being is ready to move on, why leave a vegetative body behind to care for?  That body would be like a worn out coat, which never really mattered in the first place and could be discarded.  If you do not see the lunacy of the number system given by Hawkins to rate the enlightenement of famous people, I.........I don't know what to say.  It is, simply put, utter nonsense.  One of those rare situations where the ridiculous nature of the rating system then negates most any other thing the author could possible say.... Matthew

  Regarding the notion that individuality is just an illusion, none of the high level psychic sources that i have researched--many of which have multiple verifications in connection with their work--support such a notion.  Also, most of the NDE's i've read, as well, don't support such a notion.

  All of these high level psychic sources support rather the concept that both Oneness and Individuality are both eternal and simultaneously true and equally important truths.  Such sources are Rosiland McKnight's work with her guidance and with Bob Monroe, Edgar Cayce's vast work which contains MANY verifications in many various areas, Bruce Moen's work, and certainly Bob Monroe's work does not contradict it whatsoever. 

   In Bob's last book, he awakens from the dream and into the ultimate reality and there he communicates with some "completed" Beings.  He still had a sense of unique self, and the completed Beings did not say that individuality and a sense of self was an illusion. 

  Because we're focused in the physical Earth, and separation seems to be such a built up collective perception here, sometimes it's more helpful to shift the balance and focus on Oneness more so to counter balance the strong collective tendency and perceptions towards that which emphasizes separation.   Because surely it is over emphasized here to a detrimental and non constructive effect.

  But to say that individuality is really just an illusion seems to miss the mark in all of this.

  One of my guidance messages went something like this when wondering about how this creative process all began. 

  Source was a vast undifferentiated Consciousness all alone, and in that aloneness was deep dissatisfaction and perhaps even aching longing for companionship.  These were stressed more to me than Bruce's concept of curiosity, but i'm sure curiosity was part of the motivation as well.

So Source moved within itself and created from within itself unique, "freewilled", self aware parts of itself as both companions to and co-creators with it's original Core self.  A part of Source remained independent & self aware in this creation, so that Total is greater than the sum of it's parts.   

  My feeling when connected to guidance is that Source doesn't ever want to go back to that original state it was initially in, in that deep and aching loneliness. 

  The Creator has insured that it wouldn't happen, by creating our individuality as an eternal process.  Whether or not we choose to keep it eternal is up to us for we have the ability to choose independent of Source/The original Creator. 

Justin:

You said it well.

I'd like to add that when it comes to the light beings I communicate with, they certainly don't have a body-based existence. They hardly ever present themselves with a body-based image because the love, peace and vastness I feel from them is what their nature is about.

Nevertheless, they certainly aren't beings who exist only in an illusory way. They are beings who took responsibility for their existence rather than trying to see themselves as non-existent, and therefore they are able to use their knowledge and creative aspect of being in very capable ways.

I believe what happens with some people is they become aware of the more formless part of themselves and because they are intriqued by it they try to push the manifested part of existence away. Eventually they'll find that they need to find a balance.

Consider my case. About 30 years ago my kundalini awakened. For a while I would meditate as my kundalini was active. Then I  got involved with non-dual teachings for a while, and because experiencing pure awareness is one of the goals of such teachings, I suppressed my kundalini for a while.

After I found that non-dual teachings are incomplete and inaccurate, I allowed my kundalini to awaken again. It has definitely benefited me spiritually to not deny parts of myself.  Horizons have become available that never would've become available if I limited myself to non-dual teachings such as Advaita Vedanta and Chan Buddhism.

By the way, Hawkins ranks Huang Po really high (960), and he was a Chan Buddhist. The Zen Teachings of Huang Po "used" to be one of my favorite books.

Albert,

What I can't figure out, is that with the three stooges, Hawkins rated Moe a 490, Larry a 360 and Curly a 420.  Now any fan of the stooges would know, clearly that Curly was at least a 500 in terms of enlightenment - so it makes one wonder....


:)

Justin - an excellent post.  Really resonated.

Doc! >:(

What about Shemp? Don't leave him out. He's a part of the oneness too.


DocM wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

Albert, What I can't figure out, is that with the three stooges, Hawkins rated Moe a 490, Larry a 360 and Curly a 420.  Now any fan of the stooges would know, clearly that Curly was at least a 500 in terms of enlightenment - so it makes one wonder.... :)

  Thank you for sharing that Calypso.

Justin, your post strongly reminds me of Tom Campbell's theories of how it all came to be in "My Big TOE".  Of course, Tom elaborates on those theories at considerably more length than you have done.  Yours was a nice summary.

  Thanks Pat.  That's interesting because "My Big TOE" is one of those books i've been somewhat interested in reading but i haven't gotten yet.

Hi All: In the interest of fair and balanced... what the debunkers of ACIM are leaving out and it is the most important thing... is that it is based on the theory that 'truth' is inherently know by the body. The system was developed to tap that profound fact about the human body which is God's creation and a reflection of God... the ultimate truth... I have provened personally to myself that all memory resides within the muscular structure of the body... I experienced a release of an experience in the musculature in one of my sessions... but, that is a personal known and has to be experienced to be understood... but ACIM has a number of subtle problems not the least of which is the framing of the question itself... more importantly it was discovered that the intergrity of the practicianers is also important simply because personal biase affects the answer... this is just food for thought.

S.

Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:03am:

Hi All: In the interest of fair and balanced... what the debunkers of ACIM are leaving out and it is the most important thing... is that it is based on the theory that 'truth' is inherently know by the body. The system was developed to tap that profound fact about the human body which is God's creation and a reflection of God... the ultimate truth... I have provened personally to myself that all memory resides within the muscular structure of the body... I experienced a release of an experience in the musculature in one of my sessions... but, that is a personal known and has to be experienced to be understood... but ACIM has a number of subtle problems not the least of which is the framing of the question itself... more importantly it was discovered that the intergrity of the practicianers is also important simply because personal biase affects the answer... this is just food for thought. S.

Opps... I made a mistake... it is not ACIM (which is A course in miracles) but kinesiology that the muscle testing is based on... sorry.. I got them mixed up because Hawkins was associated with the ACIM work and kinesiology... it has been a long time since I read his material... sorry...

S.

Hummm recoverer you remind me of the 15th century fanatic Savonarola always up in other peoples business..


recoverer wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

Muktananda               750 (Had young female disciples housed in his ashram close to his room so he could have sex with them.) IF this is true… and I am not sure it necessarily is because you say it is… do you have an investigative profile as to whether these were consenting adults???!!! Vivekananda               610 (visited brothels) Was this before or after his conversion… I don’t know much about Vivekananda’s teaching but was he preaching that sex was ugly and to be avoided??? Did he visit these brothels in India where they are legal or did he visit brothels in countries where they are illegal??? Saying that these allegations are true… The other question is this does engaging in sex somehow make you stupid?? Does it erase all of your evolutionary and spiritual advancement to date… Just curious. S.

Hi Matthew,
"ego", "I", "individuality", "here" versus "the whole", "the void", "nirvana" for sure are key issues of our human life adventure; and it seems to me, the one who is called the Buddha has touched this, at least as far we know from the scripture; and once I read Buddhistic scripture, the Christian Gospels appeared in a new light to me.

But, for us Westerners these scriptures of the East may appear as somewhat foreign, old-fashioned. I recommend to read the essays of Melvyn Wartella, he tells about the vanishing of the ego in a way which seems most credible, comparing it to other writings about no-ego, I-lessness, nonduality etc.

It's here:
http://friendsofreality.org/friendsofreality.org_index.html/home.html

click on "essays".

Spooky

Within brackets below is my commentary of some of the things Wartella wrote. It is important to understand that I didn’t write it because I’m too attached to my ego to consider and understand what he says. I strove hard for a number of years to get over the supposed illusion of my individuality, until I finally reached the point where I was able to think for myself rather than listen to what some supposed enlightened people have to say.

Wartella: “According to some teachers, there is no such thing as Enlightenment. If by that they mean that there is no separate person who becomes Enlightened, then I agree. But I do not think that is what they mean. If they truly believe there is no such thing, then all I can say is they just have not awakened yet. It is fairly easy for someone to listen to all that has been said by some teachers on the subject and have no direct experience themselves, to come to a conclusion that it does not exist. They are Conclusionists. They are still just in the thinking mind and have not seen beyond it, or prior to it.”

[Recoverer: I first experienced myself as not being a person about 31 years ago. For a number of years I tried to make this no-self business permanent. Eventually I realized that what happens when a person experiences his existence as if he has no individuality, is that he stops making use of the part of himself that enables him to understand who he is as a particular individual.

If a person gets carried away with his attempts to not exist as an individual, he’ll create a dissociative order that makes it seem as if he doesn’t exist. Read the story of Suzane Seagal. For ten years she felt as if she wasn’t her body and mind. Some big name gurus verified her supposed enlightenment. For a while she had a group of followers. Eventually she found that she had a repressed memory of being molested as a child, understood that she had developed dissociative disorder, and understood that “She did in fact exist as an individual.”

In the afterword of her book “Collision with the Infinite,” Stephan Bodian wrote:

“At one point she [Suzanne] excitedly called me to describe her recent discovery that she did in fact exist—and insisted that all spiritual teachers who taught the non-existence of an abiding self were mistaken.”

Even if enlightenment exists, and as Wartella and others say there is nobody to possess enlightenment, then what precisely is he claiming? That there is the vast being of the absolute, and within this being  at various places the activity of enlightenment takes place, without there being anybody for who it takes place? If the answer is “yes,” does this seem reasonable? If one allows oneself to separate from this way of thinking for even a short period of time, perhaps one will see how it doesn’t make sense. It isn’t a matter of some people not being clever enough to see beyond the supposed paradox. It is a matter of not being taken in by the supposedly sophisticated words of somebody who claims to be “an enlightened person,” while at the same time he claims that he doesn’t exist. Utter contradictory nonsense that unfortunately numerous intelligent people get caught up in.]

Wartella: “Many people who have spent many years of frustration looking for Enlightenment become so disillusioned that they just need something to satisfy their lack of direct seeing. The mind can see intellectually how there can be an understanding that Enlightenment is a dream. However, for those who have seen directly what it is and deeply understood it beyond the limited thinking surface mind, it is real.
Now, when I say it is real that needs to be clarified. True, no one awakens but there is an awakening. It is a direct living experience of what is real beyond the dream of a 'Me' who experiences it. It is the most direct insight of what we truly are. Those who have been fortunate enough to have this state of insight Know it is the only real experience they have had.”

[Recoverer: “Many people,” “they,” “their,” those,”  “I,” “we.” That’s a lot of words that point to people who supposedly don’t exist.  What does he mean by “what we truly are”?  In order for us to have an understanding of what we truly are, we have to exist.  Could such a profound understanding be had by beings who don’t exist? ]

Wartella: “When one awakens, it is seen that the whole process of ego mind has blinded them from seeing what has always been before us, as us. All the words drop away, the “me” is seen through, and it is not a matter of "I am one with reality", there is just This. It cannot be named because it is seen beyond the abstraction of language, concepts, such as something or nothing, living or dying, being or not being, which are all just ideas. No idea is real.”

[Recoverer: What does he mean by “us?” How can there be an “us” if individuality has no reality whatsoever?  How about a race of telepathic beings that communicates as one being? Doesn’t each of member of this race have to exist in some substantial way in order for telepathic communication to take place?   After all, the telepathic communication has to take place amongst at least two conscious beings that exist substantially enough so the word “communication” has a meaning. Regarding the statement “there is just this,” if this is true, then there is no us. Rather, instead of there being many beings who get to share the joy and gift of existence, there is just one being all by itself.  How can this be a good thing? For “I” and anybody else who loves existing (nothing wrong with that), such a though is repugnant.

Our minds can be used in just about anyway. That’s why some people, after they die, get stuck in a state of being where they can’t perceive that which isn’t in accord with the dream world they create.  It is also possible for a person to use his mind in a way where he isn’t able to understand how individual beings can exist. If he truly had an experience of oneness, he would be able to comprehend the substantial reality of the beings who make up this oneness.

Regarding this business of having no idea, conceptual thought based on personal opinions is one thing, while having a direct experience of how the creative part of being made it so many souls can exist is quite another thing. Souls don’t become non-existent because somebody like Wartella chooses to not be aware of them.]

Wartella: “Enlightenment is never a conclusion. To come to a conclusion one must see it in regard to the past as ideas about how all this works and comes together. Enlightenment has no past. Nor does it have a future. It is what Is, the Suchness of Life Itself. Now, for one to conclude this is true, it is not worth the empty thoughts we have about anything.”

[Recoverer: “It is possible to become aware of what source being was like before it got around to creating everything including souls; however, it is a big mistake to get so caught up in such awareness that one fails to acknowledge what source being has created.  The creative aspect of being is just as much a part of source as awareness is. It is a shame that some people are so resistant to acknowledge what the creative aspect of being is capable of and has to offer.  Because it got around to making it so all of us “can” exist as unique individuals even though we have the same source, we are able to share love with each other. How can this be a problem? How could we share something as meaningful as love if we didn’t actually exist?]

Wartella: “I was so fortunate that my first awakening came before I 'knew' anything about Enlightenment. I never had to question its reality. I just wanted to go deeper to understand what happened. The idea of turning to a teacher to tell me where it was at rarely came up at all. It was clear that only by direct seeing could it be of any use to anyone or me. Of course, Enlightenment is useless to the ego mind. Why would one want to knowingly end their existence? Suffering is why. The deep-seated need to know the truth is why. The feeling of being empty and hollow is why.”

[Recoverer:  He said “Suffering is why.” That’s why a lot of people get involved with individuality negating non-dual teachings. Because they believe life is suffering and they want to escape it.  They often get into this thing where they believe that they don’t have to worry about the state of their mind because supposedly they aren’t their mind. Or they’ll think, “I don’t exist as an individual, so I don’t have to worry about the state of this body-based existence.”  No matter how good they get at pretending that they don’t have a mind or individuality to be concerned about, eventually they will have to take responsibility for their soul. They’ll eventually find that truly wise people find escape from suffering by taking responsibility for their existence and growing, rather than denying it.]

Wartella: “Most people will not come to a profound awakening. Few even look for or care about becoming awake. Or, of course, even know there is such a thing. But, even if one does not become deeply Enlightened they can benefit greatly by understanding what is wrong with humans, why Enlightenment is of such profound value.
If you come to understand the ego process and see how it functions in you and all of those around you, you will be far closer to awakening than by merely going to some teacher who may or may not know what is true. Not only that, you will become far freer in your day to day living. All your relationships will be understood more clearly. You will understand when things fall apart what the basic cause is. Every day becomes many lessons on what is not real, what causes you to suffer, what keeps you from letting go and truly loving the people, animals, and all of life.”

[Recoverer: Regarding the above, I guess it is a matter of what is meant by “ego.” If individuality is meant, will certainly if you are going to truly love people, animals and all of life, you have to exist in order to do so.  If love does anything, it acknowledges the reality of each of us because anyone who truly lives according to love cherishes others too much to want to see their individuality come to an end. This doesn’t mean that they have to remain separate from others. Rather, they simply need to open their hearts and minds so they can share their existence with others.  When merger takes place, at least two conscious being who choose to merge have to exist.  Also, love is something each of us learns about in our own time. Each of exists so substantially that we can learn about love in our own way.

If by “ego” he means what is referred to as our lower self, shadow self, etc., well certainly the more we become self aware the more we’ll be able to live according to a higher way of being. However, it is important that a person doesn’t make the mistake of placing too much emphasis on the ego. If one does so, one might end up creating an entity that is more the result of his beliefs about ego, than a matter of what actually exists.]

Wartella: “Do not get lost in feeling hopeless because you think Enlightenment is so far beyond you. Right this very moment you are truly awake, you just do not realize it. And do not let those who have not awakened tell you there is no such thing. Enlightenment is real; it is the ego process that is not.”

[Recoverer: In a way, the above is dualistic. It speaks as if the ego is one thing and our true selves are another. I believe that our bodies have a self-defense instinct, but otherwise it is a matter of our souls learning to live according to love and other positive qualities. As we learn we have some aspects of mind that are negative and some that are positive. Our souls need to go through some sort of learning process in order learn what is possible and available. It is only natural that for a while we get caught up in modes of thinking that aren’t completely favorable. For example, we might use a part of our existences to deny that we exist.]

Bardo,
"The calculated number of enlightened beings quoted by Seraphis was not pulled from a hat, but I suspect from another location, as is much of this thread, which you so innocently started with the best of intentions."

As DocM said to me using different words, sometimes there will be funny stuff pulled from the asshats. And the innocent thread may contribute to a deeper understanding of several elements, especially when the holiness of the fake smile is wiped away.

Seraphis1,
"Hummm recoverer you remind me of the 15th century fanatic Savonarola always up in other peoples business.."

If that is so for you, isn't this but a very real opportunity to crucify the ego by turning the other cheek?

On a side note to the both of you: the hawking (freudian slip) rating system is real, but not quite accurate, as I happen to be a 1001. But please suspend the bowing and scraping, and do get my elvis costume, find the favourite sideburn on your new Lord, which you are to support and tend to as your own life throughout the show that is this thread. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Very cheeky of you, Volu.  But how are we to distinguish our lord from the many Elvis impersonators?

Volu wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 5:33am:

Bardo, "The calculated number of enlightened beings quoted by Seraphis was not pulled from a hat, but I suspect from another location, as is much of this thread, which you so innocently started with the best of intentions." As DocM said to me using different words, sometimes there will be funny stuff pulled from the asshats. And the innocent thread may contribute to a deeper understanding of several elements, especially when the holiness of the fake smile is wiped away. Seraphis1, "Hummm recoverer you remind me of the 15th century fanatic Savonarola always up in other peoples business.." If that is so for you, isn't this but a very real opportunity to crucify the ego by turning the other cheek? On a side note to the both of you: the hawking (freudian slip) rating system is real, but not quite accurate, as I happen to be a 1001. But please suspend the bowing and scraping, and do get my elvis costume, find the favourite sideburn on your new Lord, which you are to support and tend to as your own life throughout the show that is this thread. Thank you. Thank you very much.

LOL!! My goal is just to attempt to balance the discussion. I really don't have an axe to grind... when an arguement gets reduced to character assassination and backstabbing whether deserved or otherwise I don't consider that good research or good science... that is best left to... the gutter crawlers... there are real issues and real lessons on the road to enlightenment... I am hoping that the silent majority who read the threads have enough variety of points of view and information to decide for themselves... I am glad there is a 1001 person... are you going for 2000... that is a worthy goal.

S.

DocM,
"But how are we to distinguish our lord from the many Elvis impersonators?"

http://tiny.cc/0vvkq

As individuals 'our lord' only applies when we both think like that. As an individual one should be free to choose a lord, or not. Unlike elvis, somebody might be entertaining but primarily viewed as teachers, but I still like friendship instead of lordship.

So for 'we' I don't know. Even when in a physical group, still individuals, so with temporarily melding with a non-physical, becoming one, but still individuals.

Seraphis1,
"when an arguement gets reduced to character assassination and backstabbing whether deserved or otherwise I don't consider that good research or good science... that is best left to... the gutter crawlers..."

Hehe, but isn't this the dreaded ego in re-action, which is best left to the ones soaking up sunshine in the gutters?

"I am hoping that the silent majority who read the threads have enough variety of points of view and information to decide for themselves..."

If not enough variety it's their responsibilities to get their hands out of their pockets and onto the keyboards. Same goes for decisions. Decide for yourselves or others will. I will gladly decide that one of them is to be taking my dictations for afterlife knowledge, that is, when their egos are so well massaged for knots of issues like taking care of themselves are out of their systems.

"I am glad there is a 1001 person... are you going for 2000... that is a worthy goal."

Too much work, keeping up with the joneses of spiritual fame by making revisions are much easier. Always on the top and others got something to aspire to. Win win. ;)

Volu,
I assume you will be here all week, and that we should be sure to tip our wait staff as well?

Volu wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 5:33am:

Bardo, "The calculated number of enlightened beings quoted by Seraphis was not pulled from a hat, but I suspect from another location, as is much of this thread, which you so innocently started with the best of intentions."

The 1/10,000,000 stat has been around the Transcendence community for many centuries... I first encountered it in the work of Ramakrishna who is by consensus of the Transcendence community an Avatar... I don't know if he could actually can back it up (if he were alive)... but, it is a good thumbnail stat which highlights the rarity of the achievement of the State... it is possible that it is even rarer than 1/10,000,00... Hawkins suggests that there actually are only three practicing Transcendent Guru's on the planet at this time and he does not suggest he is one of them... and he does not identify them... I heard Hawkins is no longer doing outreach... in the world of spiritual unfoldment the by word is ...caveat emptor... only a pure heart will succeed... Lancelot was a pure heart and look what happened to him when he met his first test in his encounter with Genevieve... this is not an easy road... many are called and few succeed...

Read and re-read: Moen's - Cosmograph: Curiousities Father... it is very instructive.

S.

Bardo,
"I assume you will be here all week, and that we should be sure to tip our wait staff as well?"

Hello, my name is Slavo, and I put forth the following dictation, transcribed by my servant Roboto, which in turn.. ok, so here it goes:

Being very happy with the service of carrying the divine sideburn and the occasional grooming; you are promoted to put your life on hold until further notice, and fill the days with prayers to the Lord, praised be. When your care for self has diminished to that of a dry pea, you will be called to pursue a life of service-to-other (Him). As for the staff, pay as little as you can get away with, and remind them that they shouldn't let their egos get in the way of 24/7 bright white smiles when dancing to the snaps and whims of the Lord's snappy fingers.

Update: the last phrase is now part of the Old Talk (OT). In the New Talk (NT) this reads: your service and assistance will greatly enhance the dissipation of ego, and your hearts will be filled with the sunny rays of joy, whose warmth replenishes the knowing that you are helping your fellow seekers attain pure and balanced closeness with the father, your Lord and everlasting Master.

About Recoverer's comments on Wartella:

That there is enlightenment, but no person who is enlightened, only is a contradiction when it is assumed that a person is needed to let enlightenment take place. And this very assumption is what is denied by Wartella. This may sound strange to many, but it's not a contradiction.

Wartella uses personal pronomina, but he wrote about the difficulties of language in this regard.

Wartella does not claim that he, including his body, has vanished, as obviously he couldn't have written those essays then. What's remaining is the body, memories, talents and such, we can call this individuality; what isn't there anymore is the imagination of a thing which "has" the above qualities as properties. So, in a way much stays the same, but at the same time everything is different. It's foreign, sure, but not contradictive.

I've read Suzanne Segals book. It's very interesting. It's quite sad that she seemingly found no peace in that life. However, it illustrates that such a state is possible. Wartella's case obviously is in partly similar, partly different, as he seemingly has no problems at all with this state. So, it's not a very satisfying comment when Wartella spoke of a "partial enlightenment" (or so), but we simply don't know what exactly took place.

Spooky

I don't believe I'm my body. I'm a spirit being who is making use of a body.

As souls make use of bodies they create all kinds of body-based ideas about themselves. For each person a "different" soul has these body-based ideas.

Eventually each soul realizes it is not a body, rather it is a spirit being who gains wisdom as it incarnates in various ways. Each soul exists in a way that is beyond what Wartella and others deny the reality of.

This morning I was shown an image by my spirit guidance. It made the point that as a soul becomes wiser and freer from that which limits, the more it is able to live according to positive spirit qualities such as love and universal wisdom. A soul becomes more, rather than less, as it lets go of false definitions.

Say you have a self-conscious painting that can paint itself. At first it is an empty canvas. At first it paints itself in ways that aren't beautiful. Eventually it learns to paint itself in a very beautiful way. This is how it is for our souls.

Just because individuality denying non-dualists haven't figured out how souls could be created, this doesn't  mean that they don't exist.

One time I did a retrievel of a lady who was a nihilist. First I experienced some of her life. Then I saw her, and the dark and empty feeling I perceived stunned me because it was quite strong. She was in such a state because by denying her spiritual reality she cut herself off from it. Then her energy was run through my energy with the assistance of cleansing spirit energy that is channeled through me, so she could be cleansed of some of her negative thought patterns.

There are gurus who say that when you die your awareness merges with source being completely and that's it. You no longer exist. It must be quite difficult to retreive souls who have been led to believe that they don't have a soul that survives the death of their body.

A person who doesn't believe in an eternal self might be even harder to retrieve than an atheist, because such a person's belief system might be structured in a way that is more limiting than an athiest.

Regarding Suzanne Seagal, perhaps it is significant that she could experience intense fear as she did for about 10 years, even though she was in a supposed transcendent state beyond her body and mind.

If she had actually transcended her mind, why did she experience fear?


spooky2 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 5:20pm:

About Recoverer's comments on Wartella: That there is enlightenment, but no person who is enlightened, only is a contradiction when it is assumed that a person is needed to let enlightenment take place. And this very assumption is what is denied by Wartella. This may sound strange to many, but it's not a contradiction. Wartella uses personal pronomina, but he wrote about the difficulties of language in this regard. Wartella does not claim that he, including his body, has vanished, as obviously he couldn't have written those essays then. What's remaining is the body, memories, talents and such, we can call this individuality; what isn't there anymore is the imagination of a thing which "has" the above qualities as properties. So, in a way much stays the same, but at the same time everything is different. It's foreign, sure, but not contradictive. I've read Suzanne Segals book. It's very interesting. It's quite sad that she seemingly found no peace in that life. However, it illustrates that such a state is possible. Wartella's case obviously is in partly similar, partly different, as he seemingly has no problems at all with this state. So, it's not a very satisfying comment when Wartella spoke of a "partial enlightenment" (or so), but we simply don't know what exactly took place. Spooky

recoverer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 5:51pm:

Regarding Suzanne Seagal, perhaps it is significant that she could experience intense fear as she did for about 10 years, even though she was in a supposed transcendent state beyond her body and mind. If she had actually transcended her mind, why did she experience fear?

The reason for this as Hawkins points out in one of trilogy books... there are at least four levels of enlightenment. Every time you reach one of these levels if you have 'belief system baggage' that was unresolve at a lower level you won't be able to progress to the next level until you dissolve the lower belief system matrix that created the illusion you created at that level... when a spiritual being progresses on the path without an enlighted guru who is above their level of spiritual evolution and can see the areas that will snag the aspirant... the aspirant (tho fully capable of dissolving the offending issues eventually if they persist...) will be snag for sometime simply because one does not see one's own 'stuff' easily...

This insight is one of the reasons I know Hawkins is the real deal.

S.

And according to what Hawkins reported, he (supposedly) reached the highest level after resisting Lucifer's temptations. Supposedly he turned down the offer to control worlds.

Is this a reasonable thing to believe? Does it make sense to ignore the fact that such claims were made by him?

And I still can't get over the fact that a person who is as enlightened as Hawkins claims, can't see through ACIM.



Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

recoverer wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 5:51pm: Regarding Suzanne Seagal, perhaps it is significant that she could experience intense fear as she did for about 10 years, even though she was in a supposed transcendent state beyond her body and mind. If she had actually transcended her mind, why did she experience fear? The reason for this as Hawkins points out in one of trilogy books... there are at least four levels of enlightenment. Every time you reach one of these levels if you have 'belief system baggage' that was unresolve at a lower level you won't be able to progress to the next level until you dissolve the lower belief system matrix that created the illusion you created at that level... when a spiritual being progresses on the path without an enlighted guru who is above their level of spiritual evolution and can see the areas that will snag the aspirant... the aspirant (tho fully capable of dissolving the offending issues eventually if they persist...) will be snag for sometime simply because one does not see one's own 'stuff' easily... This insight is one of the reasons I know Hawkins is the real deal. S.

recoverer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:09pm:

And according to what Hawkins reported, he (supposedly) reached the highest level after resisting Lucifer's temptations. Supposedly he turned down the offer to control worlds. Is this a reasonable thing to believe? Does it make sense to ignore the fact that such claims were made by him? And I still can't get over the fact that a person who is as enlightened as Hawkins claims, can't see through ACIM.

I have said it before and I will say it again there is no way to know for sure the validity of any of the claims of beings who have reportedly reached these high levels of attainment. There generally is no footprint. It is a matter of personal judgment. The final temptation is quite valid... it is usually referred to as the dark night of the soul in which you make a final decision about choosing between God and Mammon... you can't do both... you either hate the one and love the other... it must be complete surrender... one way or the other...

As to ACIM (A course in miracles) this is nothing more that 'A' system of positive thinking... you could choose The Secret system... Napoleon Hill's positive thinking system and the like... they all work up to a point.

S.

Seraphis1,
"[...] a final decision about choosing between God and Mammon... you can't do both... you either hate the one and love the other... it must be complete surrender... one way or the other..."

I choose my disc, and god and mammon can do their tango. That's the way of the polarities, to present two choices, sort of like american politics with the light and dark party. Both parties' proposed changes pretty much end up being same old, same old. Keeps the show going though. Sometimes I wonder how "old people" still manage do the same repeating dull earth stuff over and over and over again. Maybe it's like that if one thinks this is all there is.

Recoverer,
yes, I met similar people in my retrievals. A guy who was focused on his thought-loop which was about that he doesn't exist because he had died. And I came along a region which was really dark, I mean it actually was hard for me to stay there, and what I got was that there "dwell" those who are really convinced about their nothingness in death. So, you are right in your warning to not get caught up in delusions.

   This though cannot be used against Wartella or anyone else who reports about states of I-lessness. It is all about being honest with yourself (as long as you have a self  ;) ). Zen teachers warn about how easy it is to betray ourself. And in Buddhist scripture we often find the note that we don't become enlightened because we're so educated in the scripture, but only through (or better: in) personal experience, meaning, don't talk yourself into a ego-less state, as this is nonsense, but experience it. You either do, or do not, and you have to be honest on that with yourself. Wartella actually is pessimistic about any method which would make enlightenment happen. The only one we may try is self-observance, so that one day the "I" might be seen through as a concept.

May everyone take from this and Wartella what's beneficial for him/her/life/the whole.

Spooky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyuQbIb0Xs