The Merging of Subject-Object

Certainly, in order to maintain respectful discourse we might hesitate to "expound" against another's belief system. But it seems factual to state that each individual's belief system is value-based and the mind thus applies judgment to other beliefs based on a concordance with our own. Therefore, though we may not verbalize disagreement, we do judge belief systems according to our own beliefs and the value we have applied to our own belief system.

I do not feel it is "hubris" to state that, since I recognize that we are in an ongoing dialectic seeking a synthesis of ideas. Disagreement is expected in such a dialogue and, if it is respectful, it maintains and even further fuels continued discussion.

The original poster explains that, "Whatever consciousness is, it is most certainly a by-product of the entity we call us." I would respectfully disagree that "consciousness" is a by-product of our "self" and I hold to the inverse. We (as in our belief in 'self ' and body) are a product of consciousness. Consciousness is "intentional" and thus only knows itself through what it is conscious OF.

In separation from Source, we essentailly unfolded as a 'consciousness' for which to 'intend' a 'self' separate from Source/God. From that Consciousness we then intended a 'body' for which to contain this separate 'self' and a 'reality,' of space/time, for which to fully support this intended 'self' (this is a simplistic explanation but I think it adheres to the theme). The important point is that this resulted from conscious 'intent.'

Source/God has nothing to do with this 'intention' to separate, other then for allowing us to BE. God created our Being and we intended all manner of being as something else, then what Source Created.

Therefore, IMHO, the objects of consciousness, including the reflective 'self,' is all a product of consciousness. Only because our consciousness is a 'product' of Source/God, but I would not state in any way that Source/God is 'consciousness,' since I believe that consciousness was of our invention. It seems that one can return to Source merely by discarding all 'intention' to be conscious OF anything.

However, the method is not to transcend all thought, as some would hold, but to transform thought. We make the objects of consciousness, not simply objects, but ONE with consciousness. There is no longer a subjective and objective point of view to consciousness, only unification in our 'knowing.' Thus, I no longer 'intend' to see the "'tree' as objectively placed outside my mind but see the tree 'subjectively' rather then 'objectively.' In some weird and wacky way (in contrast to our current uses of 'consciousness') the tree is ME (and you).

I believe that experiences of enlightenment are just this kind of merging of the subjective and objective perspectives and I do believe we can 'intend' this to occur.

With that said, I hope that others will disagree (respectfully, of course) and we can continue the dialogue since we are all "truth-seekers."

The Illusion of an Illusion

Consider this paradox - part of the "story" (illusion) that the ego is "selling" you, is that you are NOT an ego and therefore you must seek to find the real "self."

You may attribute this desire to God (or anything you like) but no matter, it is the ego that is informing you that you need to NOT be an "ego." The ego speaks in "tongues" and if you want it to, it will tell you that you are God.

How could it not be selling you that story (illusion) since the need to "buy" it means you acknowledge that YOU are an ego IN an illusion or else you would not be seeking for a way out. Sadly, the way out of the illusion is just another part of the illusion.

Although you recognize that you are IN the ego illusion, you THINK there is a way out of the illusion. All you need do is simply refuse to buy into the ego's illusion.

The problem is, that not buying into the illusion (story) is simply part of the illusion. It's like an M.C. Escher painting, which staircase do you choose to ascend to God. Unfortunately, they all lead to each other. Round and round we go.

In fact, in the illusion the ego even informs that "hey we don't need to transcend, we already are transcended." The problem is that though the ego informs that I have transcended suffering, when I open my eyes I may be "looking out from my soul," yet if I am still a body, I continue to be imprisoned by the body's limitations and hence, suffer with the body. But, wait a minute I'm transcended!!!

The ego loves to conjure up dreams of dreaming that you are dreaming. Each dream seems a little more High Def., but it's a dream all the same. Yet, I will not stop seeking to transcend the ego and thus, the story within a story, the illusion of transcending illusion, continues on ad infinitum.

As krisnamurti (U.G. and Jiddu) proclaimed "truth is a pathless land." There is no path to teach and whatever is taught cannot be the way, simply because ego must teach ego how not to be ego. Kinda like the blind leading the blind, don't you think?

Nevertheless it is fun to talk about...

What You Fear, You Condemn

Essentially, what you fear you condemn, simply because in the mind what is feared cannot be included but must in some way be excluded and, make no mistake, what is seen as fearful is in some way excluded and, in fact condemned.

Fear is eventually what we will all transcend or transform since it serves no real purpose, except to perpetuate separation and dis-union (however, I would agree that at any moment you experience fear, you should probably ask yourself in what way are you excluding something from yourself). Unfortunately, fear in any measure will stifle and depress the extension of love (sorry, but it's true).

I do not believe fear is an emotion, although symptomatic emotions evolve from fear (anxiety, anger, hatred, depression, guilt, etc). I believe fear is more a paradigm or filter through which the world or parts of the world are cognitively processed. However, I would add that if you are SEEING "parts" of the world as fearful, the very fact that parts are seen points to a filter of fear through which one sees through. To be completely free of fear is essentially a rare enlightened state that many spiritual masters have reported to have briefly experienced. Such a state of mind does not perceive parts but the whole, and therefore, nothing is excluded through fear.

The other paradigm or filter is often referred to as love but may be more akin to joining, Being or inclusion. To experience fear is to experience the conflict of opposites and to remain imprisoned in dualistic representations of reality (or so they say)

Our greatest fear is the unknown and that fear is perpetuated through our belief in death since, though we conceptualize a belief about the "afterlife," we lack certainty and thus fear attaches to any conceptualization of our NOT having certainty.

Sentient Beings

Actually most teachers of non-dualism point to the transcendence of "sentience" or sentient forms of knowledge. The seeker of non-duality discards sesne perception and actually wants freedom from sentient forms of knowing.

This is because sentience is based solely on sense impressions or, as webster defines, "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions "sentient beings." The distinction is that animals respond to sense impressions from instinct, while sentient beings respond from feeling (emotion) and intellect.

Sensory perception demands dualistic presentations of reality through the experience of opposites and this, and only this (in general) is what we respond to as the "truth," or "seeing is believing."

Thus, the non-dualist is seeking freedom from the bondage of sensory perception and looks to other forms of knowledge to inform on reality, because, as we all know, sense impressions are relative to the perceiver and therefore, unreliable.

The seeker of the non-dual, in many instances, has come to believe that our seemingly absolute reliance on sensory perception as the final arbiter of all truth, is what creates our collective hell on earth (What's true for me is not for you, therefore, you must die, heathen infidel!)

Therefore, these truth seekers demand that truth only be known "outside" the parameters of sense perception. Thus, intuition and, more importantly "experience" not based on sensation, is defined as "truth." This supposedly leads to experiences such as enlightenment, revelation, conversion, awakening, samadhi, nirvana, yada, yada, yada.

Such experiences are reportedly completely UNassociated with "sentience" whatsoever.

But, I'm just saying...

Saving the World From the Inside - Out

I believe the world requires "saving" however, external actions have failed over the centuries to significantly alter the external conflicts (conflict seems never-ending).

However, I believe, "love and fear" are the only two paradigms through which we mentally filter our impressions of an external world (in fact, could we say that it is ONLY love and fear that shapes the external world at varying degres and levels). Therefore, what we believe MUST be seen, WILL be seen.

I think eventually we will come to realize the immense power we have "within" to actually "construct" even our physical world. However, for now we continue to struggle with our belief in our powerlessness.

I like the use of the word "intention" since I do believe that intention is the chief component of what fills consciousness. If we "intend" that we be conscious of conflict, because we believe conflict is necessary, then there is no doubt conflict will fill our consciousness and thus, our world. Although we may deny that our "intent" is to see conflict, that fact is, if the filter through which we experience the world is fear, then conflict will be a component of everything we SEE (at varying levels and degrees, based on our identification with fear). We will, essentially, project it out into the world through our intention that it be SEEN and our intention is clearly based on our BELIEF that it MUST be seen.

Therefore, as is apparent, I am a big believer in one's "destiny" as a conscious continuum of intention.

I believe that we fail to realize our role in shaping our "destiny" because we pay little attention to what we intend consciousness to hold (thus making it our experience) and we feel we have no choice and so receive conscious impressions of an external world in helter skelter fashion, never knowing what's around the next corner.

Although we do apply a great deal of intention to external actions and behaviors; constantly measuring the efficacy of our actions to make us happy (sadly, it seems they often fail).

Unfortunately, it seems the external world draws us ever more outward demanding external action, while real change may only be available WITHIN. (there was a great spiritual master who told us as much)

What is Your Consciousness "Filled" With?

God or Source, did not "create" hate, since hate is only a symptom of fear (and there are many others). Fear is thus the culmination of experiencing Godlessness or Sourcelessness, (NO LOVE) like being adrift without an anchor we live in default mode and who knows what...

Evil is another form of fear and I believe it is a term we use essentially to describe a "measure" of the most fear or highest form of fear one could experience or manifest (such as the holocaust).

Fear is simply the absence of God. I would add that this absence is realized within consciousness, since it is from consciousness that we define ourselves and our world - mutually and individually.

Therefore, when God is absent from consciousness, the objects of consciousness appear devoid of God as well since consciousness is the foundation or starting point of all seeing or perceiving.

However, there is a choice and this choice may be realized through what we "intend" that consciousness be aware OF. The intention to allow God into consciousness (in whatever way allows joy, since this is our way of measuring how strongly we have intended God be within consciousness) will naturally unfold upon the objects of consciousness (or world).

It really makes little difference what the outside world informs as to what is real or not real. The important point is that a consciousness that "intends" (intention is crucial) God will literally be "filled" with God (or Source/Love) and that consciousness will envelope all the other objects of consciousness within that primary 'intention." This, I believe, is often referred to as a conversion or enlightened experience and it has nothing to do with an external world, only to do with the changed consciousness that perceives that external world. The world is literally redefined by an altered God-consciousness.

Unfortunatley, I believe many fail to realize this intention due to fear of a loss of self and thus will only allow consciousness to fill with things or objects of the external world and thus attach meaning based on that which is taught by the external world as meaningful.

We can transform our world by internally transforming our consciousness to be "filled" with God. Of course, this will radically alter how we see and define our 'self' (since we fill our consciousness with our "self" and are often literally 'filled' with our 'self' and little else) and that appears to be the scary part since it points to the end of 'self.' But, in Buddhism, "self is suffering" and therefore, maybe loss of 'self' is a good thing (funny, I accidentally wrote "god thing").

The Drive-to-Question

I never proclaim myself as adhering to any specific belief system. And I probably never will...

I don't "buy" into any concept completely. My religion is non-committal.

I do tend to rely on my drive-to-question and I apply that mode of consciousness to everything. In relation to specific relgio-spiritual belief systems I am committed to NONE (although I always find something in all of them that resonates with me). However, I do believe in Source/God, but I'm not even committed to that...yet.

I feel that any committment to a system of belief will inadvertently stifle the drive-to-question that demands one go deeper (as many spiritual masters have taught..."learn what I teach and then forget it, because it's not the way")

I believe adherence to any specific codified system has a tendency to erode free-thinking and the ongoing evolution of consciousness to Source/God (oh yeah, I do believe I am conscious, but sometimes I even question that!)

I should point out that I do believe that the messages, as presented biblically, of Christ Mind tend to adhere to evolving levels of Christ Mind as exhibited through the form of "Jesus" or Yeshua, or whatever name is applied by whatever belief system we're discussing. I don't necessarily believe that "Jesus" got IT (God Consciousness?) all at once and, it seems, neither will we.

So, yes, I do agree that much of the Bible is basically worthless and even much of the historical interpretations of the Christ message, or "Jesus said..." need to be examined based on personal intuitive understanding. But that's up to each individual conscious participant. (and based on what level of conscious evolution "Jesus" was at when He said it)

And there you have it...

Pure Consciousness

Everything "known" is based on sensory perception and therefore, is not "knowledge" but simply the classifying and categorizing of the illusion (or 'science'). We fill "awareness" with the objects that we are aware OF and this is the focus that distracts from the purity of awareness ITSELF. Perfect awareness becomes imperfect as awareness of some "thing(s)."

I conceptualize ultimate freedom as movement away from consciousness OF things to consciousness ITSELF. EITHER we are pure consciousness, which is perfection OR we are identified with the "objects" of consciousness which is imperfect and in flux. I conceptualize "pure consciousness," as unfilled and untainted by identification with objects as representative of God/Source, whether that identification glorifies the parts or demonizes, it still is an awareness of parts and not the whole.

Therefore, I tend to hold that there is NO perfection in multiplicity or form, since both confer dis-unity (multiplicity) and limit (inherent in all forms). However, I will agree that these multiple forms are the parts of manifest consciousness (since all manifest reality is in parts) that may be conceptualized as SEEKING perfection.

In seeking pure consciousness (perfection?) we manifest all manner of form that tends to mimic, and possibly get closer to, unlimited formlessness as I think many of the conceptualizations presented in this group (including my own) tend to illustrate. We all desire the perfection and wholeness of God/Source and there is an intuitive, deeper understanding that we fail to "apprehend" due to our continuous attention to the forms IN pure consciousness/awareness. All manifest reality is the ultimate distraction and whether you wish to glorify or demonize the parts of reality, the parts will always distract from the wholeness and it is the perfect whole that we seek.

I am as aware of the multiplicity as anyone else. However, I do tend to see the multiplicity as manifestation of imperfection seeking perfection or God, but I neither glroify nor demonize the parts (or at least I try not to, since I believe this is our ultimate project). I sense that when I am no longer "aware of the not-twoness" this will be representative of an "enlightened" state which SEES (through an "inner-vision and not sensory perception) only unity and nothing else. I, too, believe that "when your spirit is ready, you will Realize."LOL!!

The analogy I've often hear used is that, in the bliss of pure awareness of God, a part of God separated simply by "thinking" it was a "part" of the whole, rather then the whole. Like the droplet of water in an infinite expanse of ocean, the droplet suddenly had an experience of being exclusive from the ocean and believed itself to BE the ocean. And although the ocean continued to sustain the drops existence, because in truth the drop never really separated it just deluded itself into thinking it was separate, the drop continued to premise its existence on itself as the creator of itself and conducted its "life" as if it made itself, with no awreness of that which sustains it. This is essentially our plight and it seems to be a "fear of authority" problem.

I do believe that thinking processes can take you along the way and I tend to disagree with those who negate the mind, and the thought processes of mind, entirely. I believe, at present, that there is a tranformative aspect of mind (in correspondence with inner-vision) that can alter perceptive capacities and thereby see the oneness of Being.

However, this can only occur through recognition of the manifest parts as OUR manifestation and in NO WAY related to God/Source. In separation from God we manifested a reality in which the sole purpose is to maintain separation from the perfection of God/Source and thus, our origin. How could God/Source participate or be involved in such a reality?

In fact, God is unaware of illusionary imperfection simply because IT DOES NOT EXIST. Why would perfection have any knowledge of imperfection as that "knowledge" would negate perfection? God/Source does not compromise, however, ego mind demands compromises and works diligently in holding on, for dear life, to the parts. This is simply because without the parts ego cannot exist, or so it thinks.

Thanks,
mike S

All for One and One for All

I would agree that ego/self knowledge, as continued self-perpetuation, obstructs from deeper awareness and escape from the denial of our union with Source.

However, I would disagree that Jesus or Buddha attained that union or oneness that most spiritual paths seem to point to. This aligns with my failure to grasp the validity of the idea of individual enlightenment or "awakened" episodes in which individual separate entities/minds are somehow, through years of egoic spirtual practices, joined as One Mind with Source.

It seems preposterous to me that Source would allow, or somehow grant, return to Source through separate distinct entities each returning to god "one at a time," so to speak.

It seems more likely (to my mind) that there are those who attain greater knowledge of Source, but, alas, must wait, on the periphery (if you will) until we all get IT. They are there as part of the deeper awareness that we sometimes access "within," as guides to the eternal or infinite union (they need NOT be realized as "form," but more as content to be learned, since it is only ego mind that demands form).

Although they "know the way" they must wait with "infinite patience" for our acceptance of inner guidance (which may result in our waiting WITH them for others to discover the same?). So where do they wait? Inside each and every mind as the "content" we seek to know, and gain greater clarity of, as we break from egoic beliefs.

We all return as One to the Oneness of Source together, or we all stay in the illusion of separation together. Either way, it is one for all and all for one. When we all are aware of the Christ/Buddha Mind IN EVERYONE, then it is everyones to experience as that which transcends separate experience = SOURCE/GOD.

Anything else is merely greater knowledge of this Oneness and simply conforms to our need to LEARN of it, through the guidance of those who KNOW MORE.

Ego and Sense Perception

Matthew 18:3 "...unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of God."

Why would a Creator create that which is unaware of its creation and, of course, it is only ego mind that REQUIRES complexity and complication.

For me to consider that Source would allow return to Source, or wholeness, through parts of the whole, seems to negate wholeness. Nevertheless, parts of the whole can attain greater awareness of the whole, yet return to whole is "self-negated." We are very important to Source, but as whole not part. Source is unaware of parts and knows us only as a whole One Mind, unified reality.

"Self" fights to the death to remain "self" and continue to actualize as 'self,' since return to wholeness would be the death of self. Self realizes this and the "tension" between whole and part is manifest as dualistic FORMS of a world that we believe we experience. (yet the operative word is "belief").

From fear of wholness a dualistic world IS manifest which emphasizes separate parts (cause and effect). However, we compromise with our fear by accentuating certain parts as good, beautiful, and true. Thus, our experience of "world" is always in tension between this dualistic nature of good and evil, Mother Teresa and Hitler. But it all works out well for ego/self which requires a supportive environment, or "reality" for which to continue an illusional "actualizing" of self.

How does ego relate to sensation?

It's ALL ego since ego demands 'form' in order to accentuate itself as 'Body.' All sensory perception is mind processed and we really have no certainty that what is processed is real. You don't see with your eyes but with your mind since all perception is mind processed and through "categories of thought" we make the "noumenon" of reality "phenomenon" (Kant).

Essentially sensory perception is intellectually processed and conforms to belief as to what MUST be seen. This contradicts the old adage "seeing is believing," when, in fact, if you didn't believe it, you would NOT see it (of course, belief is much deeper then simply conscious interpretations of reality. There are depths of the unconscious that will need to be plumbeed before we can begin to detach from sensory perception as our only mode of "knowing").

Nevertheless, because of our worship of sensory perceptual modes of "knowing" (science - our current god) deeper intuitive truths are essentially blocked from awareness and many ancient spiritual traditions teach that by discarding, or dis-associating, from intellectual ego knowing, we then access deeper truth that has been with us always. (an advaita vedanta perspective).

But then they say that once you get that part down you have to break free of it as well, since its only another aspect of ego pressing itself into an illusional "world." I AM that, as opposed to simply I AM.

Thanks,
mike S

Experiencing the Infinite or Seeing "Ghosts"

I tend to believe that individuals may experience the infinite frequently throughout a "lifetime," yet because that "data" or information is intuitive or experiential, the intellect then overtakes it and assumes ownership, thereby making it essentially a product of intellect or ego thought processes and thereby "rationalized."

Therefore, it is frequently, but not always, lost as an authentic experience of Source/God or the infinite. I believe this is a result of the intellect or ego fear of that which is unknown or believed to be unknowable and therefore, beyond intellectual processing.

We often do conceptualize thoughts of God, but this can be easily processed by the intellect as imagination and NOT a certainty based on intuitive fact. We have habituated ourselves to a general agreement as to the form and substance of external reality and we seem to believe in the certainty of that.

In this sense, I don't believe that there can ever be a marriage of the finite/rational with the infinite/irrational ("irrational" in that the intellect cannot define it and so must deny or somehow encompass it within the rational defining concepts. Therefore, for the intellect to be an "intellect" it MUST define everything as fact or certainty, otherwise it MUST then be fantasy or imagination or psychosis (an interesting read would be the existential psychologist R.D. Lang's work with schizophrenics and his belief that such intellectual deviance in terms of psychotic breaks with reality were essentially the battle between intellect and some other intuitive or mysterious form of knowing).

I've read theories that the reason we cannot see "ghosts" is simply due to the intellect's inability to encapsulate, through finite empirical thought categories or parameters, the conceptualization of that which is essentially immaterial and non-substance, hence, irrational. Therefore, most would NOT even consider (except in fantasy, imagination, etc) that which has no form or substance as "living" or existing. Thus, we live for the most part as if "ghosts" were imaginary. Like God, we may deeply entertain intellectual concepts of "ghosts" as categorized in imagination, but our actions and beliefs demonstrate that we do not have empirical certainty that ghosts exist or that God exists (mystery). If we did have such intellectual certainty, (since intellect is what we rely on to inform of us of our own existence) our lives would be considerably altered in a very substantial way.

Yet I do believe that through conversion, or "awakening" experiences, many do attain a loosening of the intellect allowing intuitive or non-intellectual forms of knowing to take precedence and their actions demonstrate this knolwedge as primary to them, above and beyond intellect.

But who knows...

Selfhood

Granted, all discussion of the 'non-dual" is an employment of words and meanings and conceptualizes the non-conceptual. Nevertheless, I would like to engage in a description in the spirit of discourse.

I would state that the "non-dual" rules out everything and accepts nothing, only because 'nothing' is needed since all is absolutely complete.

However, it is true that the body-mind/ego-self will struggle in all sorts of ways to assert a 'self' as real, solid, believable and demand IT BE THE TRUTH and this is its belief in its incompletion.
The ego loves to revel in itself and demands "meanings" for which to associate and live through. 'Life' for the ego is continued 'self-assertion' or the pressing itself deeper into a reality it requires as crucial to its survival. Without 'world' self is negated, therefore, 'self' devises all manner of 'worldly' projects to accentuate itself.

Beingness requires no "meanings" or 'projects' to define itself and does not need to unfold meanings into some sense of "selfhood." Christ/Buddha mind is complete and requires no 'self' to experience.

Although the wave will always be a part of the ocean's wholeness, the important part of this analogy is that the wave considers itself separate and creates its own sense of selfhood which is essentially delusional and deeply entrenched in individuated 'suffering.' The wave believes that anything other then separate 'selfness' only results in greater suffering and thus, out of the fear of a Universal Wholeness (Source/God) the wave will fight to maintain its identity as an autonomous self-sufficient SELF no matter how much suffering this entails.

To self, nothing can be worse then not being 'self.'

Self seeks out and finds all manner of compromises to maintain its identity and self-imposed protective stronghold in 'reality.' It glorifies in its 'selfhood' and asserts itself as a 'self' among many 'selves' always jockeying for greater status and renown or in other words greater and more potent self-actualization. Anything less than maximal selfhood is experienced as essentially akin to 'death' of self-identity and this is anathema to being a self, but is crucial to experience of BEING.

Yet, time can useful and one day 'self' will come to the realization that, rather then building upon itself or continuing to negotiate self-interest with the opposites of a dualistic reality, there is another way. Now the 'self' recognizes that its continuing to press itself into reality only further increases its suffering, so now the 'self' begins to step back and dis-associates with all it's previous self-aggrandizing and glorifying through attached 'meanings.' Now the 'self' merely seeks a sense of peace between the opposites of a dualistic reality.

Self need not negate itself merely step back from of all its numerous 'meanings' in gradual return to BEING which does not require "selfhood" or a meaningful individuated 'existence.' This is the freedom it has really always desired, yet the journey to that is initially very frightening and ego fears of self-annihilation continues to obstruct passage.

It is true that the logical mind cannot grasp non-dual adequately. But there is the pointing of the 'masters' that aids the 'self' in releasing from the logical mind. Nevertheless, mind will take you very far and Source/God will take care of the rest.

Hitler is Us

I must admit I'm not immune to condemnation of those who perpetrate crimes against humanity and I too feel anger. However, I think it should be noted that the current administration was placed in power by decree of the voters (in fact, twice). Therefore, should we seek out and punish those who faciltated this current fear-based administration? Hitler required a great deal of cooperative involvement (an entire nation-state) prior to implementing his "final solution."

Ideology seems to be a concealed factor in the establishment of power. Ideology is the under-current of belief in any society and these beliefs are the cultural concepts (memes) that determine a society's direction. The ideology of a culture are the beliefs as adhered to by the majority and they will determine what is made manifest as power or government. Do we punish the few so as to absolve the many?

The current administration accentuates the ideology of vengeance to a degree in which the group-think of the political power base has been corrupted beyond reason (IMHO). We can seek to extact vegeance for crimes comitted by this corrupted reason, but in our rage would not our reason be victim to the same corrupt thought (I believe vengeance has that capacity, no matter what the target).

We may need to prosecute those who commit crimes against humanity and we have in the past. Yet, this has not appeared a deterrent since such crimes continue. There must be a better way to address this ideological factor.

Fear is still the disease and the symptom is vengeance, which is clearly viral. We can't cure the disease of fear, through repeated exposure to the same virus, until we are ALL innoculated against fear. With such an immunity corrupt ideology may be wiped out forever or, at the least, it can be quickly recognized and treatment provided.

Unfortunately, fear is endemic and takes over even the most rational of populations.

We Are Our Institutions

I believe that we need radical transformation individually,primarily due to our general collective hypocrisy. It is easy to see the injustices and corruptions of governments, and their facsimile, the corporation. We rail at the ignorance and feel justified in our anger, but does this distract from our own ignorance and corruption of mind? Do we not promote the macro through the micro?

"Judge not lest ye be judged" seems to demand that love be the filter through which even the most heinous atrocities be perceived and embraced. Hard to do in a world that demands judgment, vengeance and punishment; where we must battle the forces of evil.
Maybe in our ignorance of Unified Oneness, we simply battle with our "self."

Funny how it seems as if it's always someone else...

We need to deeply examine our thoughts, because deep within the crevaces, subtly concealed, I believe we will find our deepest fears, quietly waiting to for permission to be born into acts of desperation and which often are projected outward into the "world" almost unconsciously.

I've heard somewhere that anger is a very precarious state of mind, in which, without a moments notice, can easily and effortlessly become the act of murder.

We ARE the institutions (powers and principalities) and I believe that is what Jesus meant.

Ken Wilber's Holons

It is interesting how Ken Wilber's "holographic model" seems attuned to ego self-actualization and the need for "reality" to support the body-mind organism, which we dearly believe in as "self." This way I can have my cake and eat it, too, which seems to define the incredible popularity of the "integral" model as it molds itself perfectly with an egoic attachment to "world."

Essentially, I do not necessarily believe that one will maintain any association to what was transcended in order to accelerate learning and seek union with Oneness. One will not transcend what was identified with, but will transform associations thereby making what WAS, indistinguishable from what IS NOW KNOWN (and it makes no difference what tier or stage your ego informs you that you have attained).

There is no need for leveling or 'quadrants' since past learning becomes simply transformatively obsolete (nevertheless in the ego world, levels and stages are quite complementary and useful). Wholeness requires knowing wholeness as complete and the idea that incomplete parts can in any way know completion is not valid to me. My apologies to the integralists but, regardless as to how the ego demands adherence to parts, it is either/or, complete or incomplete, whole or part.

My use of the concept of "waiting" was metaphorical since I tend to hold that any guidance one receives will most likely not be attached to "linear time.' This is because the guidance will most likely point to seeing beyond linear-based perspectives. This is "inner-vision" which does not necessarily conform to time-space belief systems.

Absolute Freedom

We all want freedom, yet have we accepted bondage? Is freedom ultimately the complete abnegation of the body and our identification with our belief in our "self"?

In our belief of separate "selfdom" the fear of such FREEDOM is all-encompassing and this is because to the "self" such an incredible freedom is unknown and incomprehensible, worse then that, it can never be known by that which believes it is separate, self-contained, autonomous unit. The moment this freedom is realized the unit is set free of mental identification with imprisoned ideas because essentially what we are constrained and imprisoned within is our own ideas of what we ARE.

This ultimate Freedom of Being (No identifications, associations or attachments- nothingness!) can NEVER be known by the separate self, but only if we define "self" (for the sake of discussion) as that which BELIEVES it is a "self."

Belief is the super glue that holds it all together (yet keeps us apart) but that also imprisons us in it. We are imprisoned within our beliefs and nothing more then that need be altered.
(unfortunately, that's a pretty tall order for the mind to handle all at once)

So we choose a 'spiritual path' to take us 'within' so that we can gradually change our beliefs of 'self' (dilute the 'glue' so to speak) and within that altering of belief we attain 'mini' realizations, or seemingly chance episodes of deep insight (the power of NOW) that evoke or spur us farther along to this absolute freedom. To my mind these moments are what we refer to as "enlightenment" or "awakening" but, as I see it, these timeless episodes-in-time are crucial to our eventual FREEDOM.

I have heard it said that "it can take a moment or a million years," but there will come a 'time' when we will BE without a 'self' and without 'time.' And it seems to me the sole purpose of our spiritual path (in a nutshell) is to change all that in one Big Bang.

Protecting the Body

Is the body a product of the mind?

Eckhart Tolle states that “In certain cases, you need to protect yourself or someone else from being harmed by another, but beware of making it your mission to “eradicate evil” as you are likely to turn into the very thing you are fighting against” (A New Earth, pdf version, pg 48).

If you believe you can be harmed, then it makes sense that you would choose protection. However, you should understand what that choice fully entails. It must mean that you ARE a body that CAN be harmed, since only bodies CAN be harmed. Make no mistake, from that one choice for “protection,” a multitude of associated choices subsequently unfold inadvertently from that one belief.

Tolle tends to easily slide by this issue as if it were non-debatable and simply a verifiable fact of existence. Yet, if you decide that the body must be protected then you have decided that you ARE a body and this will take precedence over all subsequent choices that the mind makes. In fact, this choice is essentially the choice to disenfranchise the mind as less significant then the body. How often do we consider that there are cases in which the mind must be protected?

This protection of the body is reminiscent of the childhood adage, "sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but names can never hurt me." We are often deeply attendant to our actions, yet allow the mind to perseverate on all manner of bodily suffering

Therefore, in our minimization of the mind over the body, do we thereby allow the mind to roam free in conceptualizing bodily suffering and thus, our need to "protect" from such suffering. This is because the main function of the mind is primarily in the service of protecting the body and all other functions remain subordinate to that primary function.

Does Tolle recognize that in his advocating that in "certain cases, you need to protect yourself or someone else from being harmed by another" he is essentially reinforcing the primacy of the body over and above the mind.

Does Tolle "dumb down" the message because he understands that we are so attached to the form, or bodily aspect, of our existence, that we would never even consider his teaching if he did not include our bodily existence as real? He certainly does emphasize transcending the ego. However, the main goal of the ego is reinforcing the body and thus protecting bodily existence

If we make compromises with learning, we will learn, but what we learn may NOT be what we need to learn. One wonders why Tolle, and many other teachers, ask that we detach from the ego's suffering, but still remain an ego, which we will most certainly remain if we require that the "body" be protected. In fact, what does that say about the collective "body" and the need for war as a protective measure?

Should we consider the body as needing protection?

We may consider protection as required, but then it is clear that we have considered our ‘self’ a body and this is my main point. There is no other way to “spin” this idea. It is true that currently we do consider the ‘self’ a body and therefore we do require its protection. Our incomplete learning demands conformity to the level of learning experienced as based on our attachment to a specific point in time.

For now, we believe we have no other choice, however, we have allowed a “future” through which that choice can be altered. Although such an expectation of future learning may delay what can be known NOW, our function is to facilitate movement to that future change of choice.

Does Tolle's teaching, that we are a body requiring protection, facilitate our movement to detaching from the needs of the body or does this continued need to protect our body keep us stuck in this phase of our learning?

In what way should I see the body?

The point is that we do "experience" the body and, in fact, it fills our awareness to the point of almost complete distraction of all else.

Isn't the purpose of all spiritual paths simply the teaching that we are NOT our bodies?

Therefore, it would be beneficial if we allow the body, and the functions of the body (behaviors), to recede and take up less space in our minds as many spiritual teachers do teach. This receding will always be based on our comfort level and that comfort is directly related to fear.

We need the primacy of the mind to gain in credibility. The body has monopolized our thinking for much too long. What to feed the body, how to dress the body, is the body clean and is it healthy. The mind is forever fixated on how the body can give us pleasure and bring us what we desire in our belief of ourself as body.

These factors, and many other “protective” measures, demand your constant attention and detract from the main idea that the body is a product of the mind.

However, we cannot negate the current need for a body since this would only fill the mind with fear. Fear completely obstructs the learning process and we do need to be full participants in that process.

The basic argument I will often hear is that, "if someone attacks you with a knife with the clear intent to kill you or do you harm, would you NOT protect the body"? Of course, personally speaking, I would have to protect, since I attach to a belief that I am a body.

However, could it be that my attachment to the belief of an embodied existence essentially instructed or even attracted to me the experience of being attacked?

If I did not identify myself as a body would that greatly reduce, or completely alter, my experiences of self and world to the degree that attack would be impossible. This ties in with the belief in "thought" as true cause of effect, as well as in our capacity to shape our reality. If there is no coincidence to our experiences, or that we essentially attain the experiences we must attain, does my belief in a body direct my mind to provide the specific experiences that attest to that belief?

In fact, does Tolle's teaching that there are cases in which the body of myself and others requires protection simply fuel the belief that conflict MUST be experienced and that war is inevitable to those who believe they are embodied selves?

Who knows...

The Ego Wants to Be God

Trashing th ego may not be a good thing. Ultimately, without an ego, or an "organized psyche."(Freud) you most certainly will not live long since the ego is "YOU." Therefore, any assault upon the "YOU" is a threat to the "self" you believe in and, I believe, is in many ways comparable to death of the body (this, of course, is elementary Freudian psychodynamics).

In fact we could go as far as to say that the Body is a belief of the ego as that which "contains" IT (this goes a little farther then Freudian psychodynamics). Aggrandizing the ego is our attempt to bolster it from attack, since in our world, ego's do attack.

However, the conceptualization of an evolving ego does not sit well with me. Yet, if that evolution is, in fact, a scaling or peeling away of the 'layers of fear' then I would agree. As the chief component in our belief of separation from Source/God, ego is a composite of seemingly infinite levels of fear.

I would have to disagree that the ego has anything to do with a larger self or with Source/God as my interpretation is that the ego is a mistaken interpretation of separation from Source/God. The ego, or package of beliefs (since that is concisely what the ego is composed of), exists solely for separation (from others as well as Source/God) and in this reality continues its work of "divide and separate." Historically this is clearly manifest in the world. The problem is that the ego has no real experience of love, only conceptions that mimic Source/God which IS love.

The chief function of ego is to maintain itself as a separate identity isolated from joining with other egos in any fufillment through communion (although we do try). Bodies cannot join and the illusion of mind within body maintains this failure of communion, however, the body is illusional in nature and thus realization of this will demonstrate that only minds can join in any meaningful communion.

I imagine many ego's do make such grand interpretations of being useful to Source/God and I would imagine that this type of ego glorification will result in a more fixated obsession with itself through "specialness." But my feeling is that this is doomed to failure.

Although the ego may make grand claims to some strange conception of glory, it does so clearly within the awareness of its limited status as completely contained within the limitations of the body, which, in fact, has a tendency to repulse the ego due to the body's fragile limited nature (such is our love/hate relationship with our body and other bodies). The ego does want to be God, yet it also fears that there is something greater than itself that it can never realize.

The ego fears Source/God since it does recognize that there is something much greater then itself and that "something" does not even recognize that the ego even exists, since the ego is only an amalgamated system of beliefs that it is an isolated entity separate from Source.

The ego actually has the audacity to believe that it created itself and this results in our current "authority problem" - do I worship the ego, as the world teaches, since the world is manifest to support the ego/body relationship, or do I worship Source/God? Or do I make compromises with myself in the inauthentic identification with both my known ego and an unknown Source? The world tends to attest to what choices are made and this seems to be our plight at present; too many choices.

Love Between Bodies

Not only do many believe that sex equates with love, but also that love can only be truly experienced with, and through, another specific "body."

The myth of "intimate union under God" requires that we choose one body, among many, for which to carry out our search for love through the union of bodies. Notice how fixated we are in our addiction to bodies as manifestations of "self" and therefore required objects in the attaining of the subjective love of God/Source.

Thus, in the joining of two (which religion has mythologized as some sort of fragmented Oneness), to the exclusion of the many, we seek a spiritual union, with or without sex. Even in a celibate expression of love between "partners" only two can participate (but rarely is sex detached from the union and in fact serves as some sort of Godly glue).

Does this exclusionary aspect obstructs from Oneness and the wholeness of the unconditional extension of God as integrated wholeness?

We have placed conditions onto Source/God's extension of love by seeking to correspond with that extension through another and whether we call it "marriage," or simply mutual agreement to engage in monogamous sexual relations, it must exclude.

But how can this be when the extension of Source/God is to all?

Thus the 'self" must compromise with any concept of wholeness so that it can maintain "self-interested" relations with other bodies. Therefore, unions of two are blessed under God as vehicles of transcendent love while denying the exclusionary aspect of any such "joining."

There is no inclusion in marriage since it creates a barrier to all others who might enter.

Thus, the free-love camp may be onto something momentous if only they could cease to define love through sexual joining of objective bodies and instead equate love with a psycho-emotional subjective joining of minds.

In the end I believe we will discover that the love of wholeness, and not our fragmented mythical reinforcing self-interest through a bodily units of two, requires minds engaged in nonjudgmental mutual rapture in which bodies are not invited.

It's not about mini units of love, but a world of love.

No Dues Need Be Paid

I believe Christianity's stress on "crucifixion" and thus, sacrifice, is a flawed interpretation of the message.

The resurrection was proof of eternal life and that sacrifice was NOT needed in order to partake of eternity since Christ Mind cannot die and never did. The journey to the cross was supposed to be the last "useless journey" man need make and Jesus, as Christ Mind, sacrificed 'self' to prove that sacrifice is unnecessary since you are not a "self" and there is no "death."

We have misinterpreted the message. The proof was in the rising and not the falling.

It seems as though we continue to miss the point, since we continue to glorify sacrifice and in so doing demand that death be real and so we believe we must die. And we do...

No pain, no gain is how we live our lives. But Christ, and Buddha, was informing us that there are no dues that need be paid.

In the self/ego need for sacrifice, emphasis is placed on sin, punishment and death. The concept of God' creating to destroy is absurd and leaves Christianity seeming like nonsense since the central message is that somehow God requires that you also MUST sacrifice for God.

I sense that the centered Buddhist sees through the nonsense of this premise and in taking on the suffering of other's (whatever religion) merely relieves them of the thought of suffering, while actually taking on nothing whatsoever...

The centered Buddhist cannot suffer.

Now it is time that the centered Christian realize the same.

Is 'Ego' pathological?

My question is, in relation to the ego, is not the chief perspective of ego through Buddhism (which is the origin of Zen?) that which must be transcended? Does Zen differentiate between ego and self? And if "self is suffering," how can ego have any value other then, as that to be transcended?

Therefore, in essence, does Zen NOT hold to a generally pathological view of self/ego? (although I understand that many may construct different interpretations, but I'm asking in relation solely to a Zen ideology since I have only an elementary understanding of Zen).

I agree with the Zen concept that "we are both self and non-self" but we are unaware, seeking awareness of non-self due to a complete all-encompassing distraction with "self."

Thus, the ultimate project is the detachment or dissociation from self in that process of seeking "non-selfness." Non-self is non-dual and within that is bliss and freedom. Ego-self is bondage to body, and world, since self is wholly encompassed by body-mind duality, and is thus defined exclusivley by suffering.

There are many Zen interpretations that seem (In my humble defective opinion) to compromise with ego, in some form of aggrandizing ego, as long as "mind" can continue to pursue the non-dual or non-self.

It would seem to me that this "compromising" is often a way to engage with the purity of Zen which is very attractive, yet, subdue the incredible, undeniable fear of being selfless or egoless, in other words, the fear of death, since to pursue non-self is essentially to pursue the death of self.

At present, I tend to believe that the idea of a "healthy ego" is representative of just this type of compromising. In the science of psychology (the new world religion complete with its own priesthood) a "healthy ego" is simply that ego, or self , that functions adequately within the external world, as opposed to dysfunctional engagement with accepted reality.

This functional ego accepts the collectively agreed on perspectives of the world and seeks to engage with the external world on the world's terms, based on what the world teaches as true and good and beautiful. Doesn't Zen hold that this perspective merely perpetuates suffering?

Just some ideas for folks to agree or disagree with in the ongoing discourse of God...

The Will to Consciousness

In all discussions about the nature of consciousness, I believe the concept of "will" and thus, intention, is frequently ignored. Could it be that the "subatomic" level is actually a "thought field" that we have labeled as "consciousness" in which the glue that binds the particles, thereby creating form, is simply conscious and unconscious WILL. If I will it TO BE a part of consciousness, it is a part of consciousness.

Consciousness is the the particle "field," per say, and the "will to form" creates 'reality' through what we "will" to think IT into being. Thought is essentially the building block of reality, but the will to think in specific directions(intention) binds the molecules (that we label "matter") in the creation of reality and thus we have created our 'world.'

The concept of "will" is related to God, for to "will as God" is to create as God, or Source Mind, which simply means to attain greater certainty of that creative capacity and thus join with God as Creator. However, God has provided only the "will" to create as God and the current direction for which we "will" to create reality merely represents our misunderstanding of our creative ability. This, therefore, results in an illusional world.

As our consciousness evolves we attain greater understanding of how we can "will" reality into Being and this "evolving consciousness" does mean greater freedom, since why would we continue to create "hell" when in fact we can create Heaven.

This is because "will" is not involved in space-time considerations and is free to create "at will" whatever it pleases and on a subatomic level this is what occurs - chaos. The problem is we believe our "will to create" is limited to the reality that we believe is already "manifest" and thus only through evolving consciousness of our capacity to alter the "field of thought" can we reframe what has already been "willed" into 'existing.' This may be our creative capacity on a subatomic level. We WILL to create as we BELIEVE we must and this hell that we experience can be altered, at WILL, as soon as we choose.

Is that friggin' crazy or what!!

Measuring Hell by Our Distance From the Weekend

I like to consider that only Heaven is real and hell is a merely a measuring stick in determining the distance from Heaven. In fact, could we not say that hell is merely the belief that Heaven can be attained externally?

The difficulty for many, it seems, is in the understanding of that "seeking within" of finding Heaven. What exactly does this confounded "within" really signify?

IMHO, that is the destination of all spiritual journey's and when ever greater levels of peace/joy can be realized and maintained with no "outside" involvement whatsoever, in other words a "happiness" not contingent on any external events or conditions, then you have made great progress in your exit from hell.

For instance, I meet people who maintain a level of happiness that is directly related or contingent on the distance to, or from, the weekend. This may sound silly but really, there are people whose level of happiness is contingent on the days of the week and the closer they come to the weekend the greater the increase in their level of "happiness" (with an associated decrease come sunday evening). Thereby, associating Monday morning as the deepest descent into hell with each respective day signifying a gradual ascent from that "burning pit." Such is our self-imposed suffering. This attachment to time may be a major impediment to enlightenment.

Others base heaven and hell on the state of their romantic relationship, or the figures in their bank account or any number of externalities.

Personally speaking, I believe that when we have found the simple "Joy of Being" then we can feel confident in knowing we have found the Kingdom Within (maybe the hard part is in staying "there").

Sex and Celibacy

Sex and celibacy continues to maintain focus on bodily existence as opposed to focus on Being. But then, so does breathing, eating, sleeping, etc...

Sex and celibacy only further presses one into the illusion since by resisting, we make REAL.

Want and need are equivalent and are desire-based associations and are merely attempts to make compromises with the illusion. The "need" to breathe is as much a desire since it is intricately related to the desire to be a 'self' needing a body. Both sex and celibacy serve that same purpose.

There is no unatural or natural and this perspective merely makes compromises with the UNreal. It makes no difference what you DO since on your path eventually you understand that your qualifying and evaluating usefulness to the desire of "awakening" has only maintained a "usefulness" to belief in the illusion. Either direction you go this is where you are, squarely pressed into the illusion of self/body/world.

The need to transcend may be an impediment in that everything is evaluated from that perspective and we are constantly looking to "measure" the degree of our detachment, which only maintains our attachment.

The desire for sex or no-sex then creates a back and forth tension between attached and unattached and we recognize this as an obstacle to the other desire we have which is that of "awakening" and this tension demands "suffering."

Maybe we first need to transform our desire for "awakening" and in so doing we facilitate a perspective that ALL is as it should be. There is neither a pulling away or a diving into, as all just IS.

This transformative perceiving may be more helpful then a transcendent perceiving which many hold to as the path to "awakening."

Sex or No Sex, It Really Doesn't Matter

Sex is simply another example of our confusion between form and content.

Most spiritual paths promote the communion/joining of minds in true intimacy, yet in our obsession with form we have literally accentuated the body (form) as our most profound means of communication. Thus, It is easy to understand how sex (form) has been interpreted as the most significant means of expressing love (content).

Sex is essentially a procreative function and nature does not obsess or fixate over this simple function and lift it up above all other functions of existence. Nature is much too busy abundantly communicating content through all forms of life. It attests to the significance of all forms and as such, clearly displays the content of love/God in glorious living color. Is it any wonder why most spiritual paths emulate nature? Nature doesn't obsess on the forms, it just IS.

It's just collective humanity that glorifies form only to miss the content. Self-interest has preempted sex as another ego fixation for which to define oneself as a form and miss the content of what we really ARE.

Obviously, fixating on sex, or its opposite - fixating on celibacy, merely accentuates the needs of the body and distracts from God/love. We are not here to be bodies, although the body can be used as a learning aid (form) to understanding love (content) as long as we don't get fixated on the learning aids (which we often do and thus, miss the point).

In seeking the content, the forms will manifest as needed. Therefore, sex or no sex, it really doesn't matter.

The Limitations of "Learning"

Everything you think and everything you do is based on what you have thought and done in the past.

Every goal you conceptualize as achievable is based on what you learned can be achieved. We all generally believe (except for maybe a few nutcases like Buddha and Jesus) if it cannot be conceived as achievable, it should not be considered. For instance:

DETERMINING THE TRUTH

As we all have learned, flying like a bird is impossible to “human beings” because we do not have wings and, therefore cannot fly. We know this is true without a doubt so there is no point in considering it.

However, becoming a billionaire is attainable and we know of a few who have attained it. Nevertheless, though we can consider it we have learned that becoming a billionaire requires hard work, perseverance and a whole lot of luck. The past has taught us that there is only so much money available because such resources are “scarce” and “lacking.” After learning this we then were able to experience it as true, since everywhere we looked we saw evidence that it was true. Therefore, based on the adage “seeing is believing,” we have learned what is truth.

However, there are levels of truth. You do recognize that your chances of becoming a billionaire are higher then the chances of your flying like a bird. Yet, most likely, similar to flying, you rarely consider becoming a billionaire and, although you can conceive of it, you realize that your chances are slim to none and so you rarely consider it.

You know about the achievability of these two goals because what you have learned in the past proves it. Many have tried to fly like a bird but none have done it without the use of aerodynamic tools like airplanes. You have learned that billionaires exist, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. However, many of the factors that resulted in attaining billionaire status do not exist for you and probably never will. So why think about these things except within the category of “fantasy.”

Flying is an absolute fantasy due to the limitations of the human body. Being a billionaire is a relative fantasy because of the limitations of your personal self or individual identity. Obviously, we can’t live our lives through these types of fantasies since we must struggle with REAL world concerns. Right?

In your past you have learned what is achievable and what is fantasy based on the distinct conditions of your personal history and the limitations of your body. You cannot fly like a bird because you do not have wings and since you have not inherited great sums of money and lack that illusive concept called “luck,” you know almost for a fact that you will never become a billionaire.

YOUR BELIEF IN A 'PERSONAL' PAST

Thank God for a personal past, because without the past to refer to in knowing yourself you might consider things like flying or even becoming a billionaire or who knows what! If it wasn’t for your past and what you learned in that past, how would you judge what you can or cannot do now? It would be virtually impossible to live the life you now live if it wasn’t for your past learning.

Imagine if you had NO reference point through which to determine future choices. Imagine what life would be like if you had not learned the limits inherent in that concept called “human being.” Thank God, we have the sciences, especially the psychological sciences, which have painstakingly identified and defined our limitations.

Good grief! Imagine if you had never learned your limitations or, even more insane, imagine if you had learned that you had NO limitations! The world would be full of people exceeding boundaries and limits that "human beings" MUST never exceed.

Keep in mind that it was very important that you learn and never forget how a "human being" is defined. You needed to be taught that "human beings" only do certain things based on the body’s limits and anything beyond those limits (except within strict parameters, like running the 5 minute mile, etc) is impossible so don’t bother.

STAYING WITHIN YOUR 5 SENSES

The most important factor in your “being human” was that you were a body with 5 senses. Imagine if your past included learning that the five senses were not the only way to perceive reality and, in fact, you should seek to go beyond what the senses of the body informs you is true because what the body tells you is only based on what it was taught, what you learned, was the truth.

But, alas, you did not learn this and thus, conceiving of anything beyond your senses is new-age gobbledy goop and down right silly to say the least. Let’s face it, You learned what’s true and that’s what you have based your 20 to 80 years on as the foundation for everything you think and do. You can’t go beyond the limitations of your body and to even suggest that you can is stupid, so forget about moving mountains since mountains were meant to stay right were they are, thank you.

BE MORE PRODUCTIVE/CONSTRUCTIVE, DAMMIT!

This is why reading the stuff posted on this blog is an absolute waste of time and you should spend your time on other things like dieting, being more productive in your career, thinking positive thoughts, making more money, living a productive life, etc, etc, etc.

The advice provided here asks that you see beyond what you learned 30 years ago, 30 months ago and even 30 minutes ago. This site proclaims that not only is the past useless to you, but everything you perceived between the time I began this sentence and the moment I ended it with a period, is useless to you in the next moment.

IGNORE MY MADNESS

But that is downright insanity and you learned that you should always ignore the ramblings of a mad man. This is why only insane people read this blog. People who sensibly rely on what they have learned from past experience just don’t read trash like this. They do the sensible things based on sensible down-to-earth thinking.

This is rightfully so, because if you had NOT learned that all knowledge must be acquired through the body’s organs of sensation what would have become of you? If you had NOT learned that your mind was attached to your brain and subsequently installed in your body how would you have existed all these years?

Good grief! You might’ve experienced your mind in other brains, connected to other bodies or even in animals, plants or inanimate objects resulting in a sense of ONENESS with everything around you. We all know that’s completely ludicrous! If God had wanted us to represent God, God would have created us in God’s “likeness.”

I need to stop ignoring the truth of human limitations and simply tell people how they can be happier and friendlier to one another. How to manage their time better and have better sex in their marriages. How to simplify there lives, deal with boredom in the workplace, etc.

That’s what the world needs not some lunatic that tells people that every thought in their head is based solely on an obsessed fixation with sensory learning from the past and the worship of those thoughts and beliefs as absolute truth. We don’t need a website that teaches that the past simply does not exist. Not just the “bad” parts, but none of it, not one tiny piece of it has ever even happened.

You are timeless in a dream of time.

We don’t need a website that actually purports to indicate that one can break free of the limitations of learning related to a belief in dimensional reality simply by detaching from a "past" that never existed and thus, taught us nothing but verifiable sensory facts about three dimensional reality.

Maybe I should find something better to blog about like comic books or video games or even “blogging.” Say nice things to people and help them be “happy” and more fulfilled in their bodies….

…NEVER!!!