I agree only in part about detachment.  I think that is what Bruce described when he said he had difficulty with the idea of dissolving into a whole.

See, Dude, there is a reason not to let go of your love as an individual for others.  Yet, if your goal is complete detachment from worldly things/events/etc. then you are a senseless bystander.  This is what one of the great Indian Epics, The Bhagavad Gita, discusses when the god Krishna comes down from heaven to talk with the warrior Arjuna.  Arjuna is the greatest warrior on earth, and he is about to go into battle with his army against an opposing army composed of his tyrant cousins.  He sees all of the death about to occur - his kinsmen who will surely die, the oprhans who will be made, etc. and he wants no part of it. 

Krishna reminds him that he is who he is, and that this is all a play in some ways, and that his position of great warrior is to neither be feared nor loved, but he must do his duty.  The immortal souls of those involved are on their own paths.  Krishna argues that a greater understanding should lead Arjuna to fight - play the part, and not be attached to the outcome.

From Wikipedia:   "Fundamentally, the Bhagavad Gita proposes that true enlightenment comes from growing beyond identification with the temporal ego, the 'False Self', the ephemeral world, so that one identifies with the truth of the immortal self, the absolute soul or Atman. Through detachment from the material sense of ego, the Yogi, or follower of a particular path of Yoga, is able to transcend his/her illusory mortality and attachment to the material world and enter the realm of the Supreme."

Krishna does not propose that the physical world must be forgotten or neglected. Rather, one's life on Earth must be lived in accordance with greater laws and truths, one must embrace one's temporal duties whilst remaining mindful of timeless reality, acting for the sake of service without consideration for the results thereof. Such a life would naturally lead towards stability, happiness and, ultimately, enlightenment."

I think it would be a mistake for one to think, even for a moment, that detachment should lead to a lack of caring or action for our loved ones.  There is a horrible video from China that went viral on the web, of a toddler running out into traffic, who was killed after being repeatedly struck by several cars on a street lined with people, who went about their business.  Not one person rushed out to save the child, although clearly he was seen.  This image is repulsive to my very core  - to me it is obvious why, but in light of our conversation, some who are "detached" might ask "why should they have acted?"

The answer is that a greater understanding of our divine nature only strengthens our ability to love and care for others.  Action is necessary, as is fulfilling our earthly duties in the physical shell we are in.  Love for others and the need to act while alive are part of who we are.  Detachment means not acting out of ego-interests, not giving up on love and our loved ones.


Matthew

Dude,

I was trying to clarify my own point, not implying you felt we should give up on loved ones.

But yes, I do mean that to seek spiritual awareness we should hold onto love for each other, and not become passive.  See, if you realize in the big picture, that ego-based actions stem from false separation and thought, then some people may say "I am part of a great whole, and just a character in this play of life - so action doesn't really matter."

By that same attitude, those people could watch the car hit the toddler, thinking -  "well, he is an immortal part of the whole, and he will come out ok on the other side."  It seems from the video that no one cared.  Not necessarily out of fear, but because it wasn't their "business" to care.

I like the notion of "right thought" and "right action" from buddhism.  That is, whether you have deeper spiritual goals or not, it is your obligation through love to act lovingly toward others and help when you can.  That thinking transcendentally is meaningless if not coupled to loving action, here in the "real" world. 

So it is a slippery slope to say we will not be emotionally tied to the outcomes of events, yet we will not be so detached that we take no action at all. 

I think we agree on this.


Matthew

Dude:

Regarding your comment about Eckart Tolle, do you have any openess at all to what the person who knows him wrote (the link I provided)?

One thing Eckart does that bugs me is promote ACIM.  Because he also claims to be enlightened, some people will make the mistake of believing he is infallible and assume that ACIM is a valid source of spiritual information, rather than the brainwashing vehicle it is. It can lead to indifference. If you adjust some its words it would say, "Don't worry about that kid who is being run over by cars because nothing you see is real."

Another thing that bugs me about Tolle is his claim that he had his life changing experience after becoming suicidal. When people claim that they gained transcendence over their egoic nature after one experience, I tend to become really skeptical. Partly, because I have found through experience that such people tend to be frauds.

I first deeply saw that I'm more than my body-based personality more than 30 years ago, yet I still haven't overcome all of my negative tendencies. I've found that spiritual growth can take a lot of time and all negative tendencies don't drop away just like that because of one experience. It is important to factor in that 30 years isn't long when compared to the eternal nature of our soul.

Otherwise, I like much of what you wrote; however, I believe it can be a mistake to go too far when it comes to seperating ourselves from what we have become. This is so because we develop traits that are extremely worth having such as unconditional love, humility, respect for others, grattitude, an understanding of where true fullfillment comes from, endurance and discrimination. We couldn't even tell the difference between light and darkness if there wasn't a part of ourselves that knew the difference.

When it comes to consciously being a part of the oneness, I believe a key ingredient is opening up to what is needed in order to help it as much as possible. One thing that needs to be accomplished is dealing with all of the misleading sources of information that to varying degrees interfere with the perfection the oneness is striving for. If we constantly make excuses for the sources that mislead, even when people point out the faults, do we help the oneness as much as we can? Perhaps some  people need to stop being naive and acknowledge how much insidious and deceptive forces take part in this World, sometimes through people that many people unwisely put on a pedestal.

recoverer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2011 at 1:49pm:


I agree with this, and here's my simple way of stating this concept...

I still believe that intention is everything.  And we are not always aware of our intentions, even if we think we are consciously aware of all that we intend.  The truth is, intention creates energy, and that energy is created in everything we think, feel, and do.  So, even if we are thinking, feeling, or doing something and in the back of our mind we aren't consciously, intentionally intending to create or not create...the fact remains that the energy of intentions is sometimes created even without our awareness of it.

That's the whole point in leading a good life, following beliefs and practices that we believe have a good purpose.  It's the whole point in knowing, trusting, and having faith in one's own truth. 

So to say one thing but then do another doesn't change the process of some energy being created.  And it is within that energy that an intention exists, thus having a chain reaction.  In other words, once created, it can't be uncreated.  I believe it can be over-ridden, but then again that requires intention to do so....through thought, feeling, or action, whether consciously or unconsciously. 

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you word it, we are beings in constant creation of energy of intentions, even when we don't have a clue what we're causing.  It is only by being able to completely open oneself up to facing his own truth that we ever get to the real, raw "stuff" of our own existence, meaning, and purpose. 

In my opinion, no need to quibble about separating the physical from the spiritual, or the body from the mind.  That's nonsense.  We are always, constantly, conscious beings.  We are only fooled by what we allow ourselves to be fooled by.  There's not even a need to say "this is what being enlightened means to me, and this is what I think it will feel like, and this is what I have to lose or gain in order to have it." 

There don't have to be rules other than the only rule being truly loving and opening oneself up to your own truth.  And I think that at any point you think "Now I really know my real self, now I know how I need to be and what I need to do"  watch out, because you're beginning to limit your own growth right there.  It's ok to feel that you're on the right path and doing great, but don't forget that you still have a long way to go.  The more we learn, the more we realize that there's still a lot more to learn.  We are always growing as conscious beings.  I don't think there's a final answer that we're seeking.  I think while on the path of our own seeking, we're still continually creating and growing.  So if that's true, why try to put definitions as to what it is we're actually seeking to find? 

Vicky,

"And I think that at any point you think "Now I really know my real self, now I know how I need to be and what I need to do" watch out, because you're beginning to limit your own growth right there.  It's ok to feel that you're on the right path and doing great, but don't forget that you still have a long way to go.  The more we learn, the more we realize that there's still a lot more to learn.  We are always growing as conscious beings.  I don't think there's a final answer that we're seeking.  I think while on the path of our own seeking, we're still continually creating and growing.  So if that's true, why try to put definitions as to what it is we're actually seeking to find?"

Constantly and continually creating and growing, skipping the comfortable nights with complacency nested in the arms. Moving in a direction that is unheard of to the ones denying there are other paths than those leading to the shores of the daily grind - sisyphus and generations of copies, pushing the rocks up the mountain. No, going in a direction captain kirk wouldn't dream of because his pursuing of physical matters outweighs the possible spiritual quest. There is a distiction, quibble me softly or not. The more learnt, the bigger picture opens, and sure is bigger than breathtakingly vast; still learning indeed. Continually creating and growing in this one playground of many, many playgrounds, until there are bigger experiences to fry. If there are no definitions/final answers pertaining to life on earth being sought, why write a book? Why read books, posts, and listen to what people and guides have to say? What's been found so far, as to what one's been looking for, for so long. Gucci handbags. Pants that make the bum look swell. Tasty treats and kids that tread the safe road to cultural normality. Slick husbands with huge hands that grab money into the pockest of the mighty big household.

Vicky,

The wordiness is letting the right brain out of the cage to have a little dance with lefty. Yes, I catch and you clarify well, and agree and see that the perceived end-goal may be different than thought. The perceived end-goal may make one blind to that which may be the actual stepping stones forward, thinking it didn't show up.

I thank you all for your posts (yes, I mean it) and I have to state: There still is a certain difference in what is worthwile, so to say, to live like; if it is to keep on to be a person (maybe with the history/burden of former incarnations) or to dissolve into the all-that-is. Why is this thing-ness and me-ness at all? No one can explain this to me.

I appriciate Bruce's answer to my post, as it showed a relaxation and, well, knowingness or wiseness, as there's something shimmering through what is the ultimate must-be-truth. It's the "let's see truth".

I for myself feel most familiar with Dudes'  comments here. It is commendable to present statements about certain prominent, or "guru-type" people, but this is not what we should focus on, as otherwise we would focus on the wrong thing, and we won't want that, do we.

Spooky

Every thought comes from someone, and it is up to each of us to call them "guru" or not.

Spooky