[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by sillysally I don't think humans are interconnected as one. It would be obvious if we were, human life would be uniform, everyone would dress the same, live the same, be the same size, we wouldn't have room for individuality and certainly not much imagination. I imagine we would all live in an extremely high tech type of society, wearing long white robes, living in dwellings completely different from the homes we live in now, transport would all be public. It's a nice thought Micheal but not likely, but it appears to be more like science fiction.

It is obvious sillysally that we are interconnected and as one,however one has to probe
a little deeper than just the surface appearance to find it.

Remember that we live an "outer existence" which is relative and exclusive(where the ego
and self-centered interests lie)and also an inner existence which is absolute and all inclusive,our real home that we reach after aeons of unfoldment leading to eventual
blossoming somewhere in the far-now from today.

It may sound like science fiction sillysally,however experience suggests otherwise.


regards michael.

[sillysally]

When I dig a little deeper, I see Heavens Gate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult). It's a little too cultish for me.

JAK just started a discussion on the 3 laws of difference, what are the laws of oneness?

[Drifter]

Physical life alone has only one destiny. Death.
"Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." ?

Originally Posted by sillysally When I dig a little deeper, I see Heavens Gate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult). It's a little too cultish for me. JAK just started a discussion on the 3 laws of difference, what are the laws of oneness?

[Drifter]

The Guerdon of Self-Forgetfulness

Theosophy works a magic upon us which is grander by far than merely telling us of the undoubted and beautiful truth of our essential divinity. It transmutes our weak and often evil manhood into godhood. It teaches us to forget ourselves for others -- for the world. It so washes our natures and our hearts and our minds of the personal and limited that in time we are led on even to forget ourselves and live in the universal.
To me this is the lost keynote of modern civilization, whirling as it does around the egoisms born in us. If we can instill into the thought life of the world, of our fellowmen, ideas, principles of thought, and consequent conduct, teachings of religious and philosophical and of scientific character and value, which will teach men, enable them to learn, to forget themselves and live for others, then I think we shall have done more than teaching them the undoubtedly sublime verity of their oneness with divinity -- one of my own favorite thoughts and teachings! For even that can have an atmosphere of egoism about it, of spiritual selfishness.
I really believe that if our sad and suffering world, hovering on the brink of disaster as it is -- this world taken distributively as individual men and women -- could learn the one simple lesson of self-forgetfulness, and the beauty, the immense satisfaction of heart and mind, that come from such self-forgetfulness, living for others, for the world, I honestly believe with all my heart that ninety-nine percent of humanity's troubles would be solved. Politics would then become an engine of human achievement and not of selfishness and often destruction. Works of philanthropy would be considered the noblest in the world, because they would be guided by the wisdom of an awakened heart. For no man's eye sees clearly when it whirls around the pivot of the personal self; but it will see clearly when its vision becomes universal, because then all in the field comes within the compass, within the reach, of its sight.
Am I not right, therefore, in believing that, beautiful as are the teachings which, as individual men, we can study in theosophy, and great as will be the advantage that individually we shall draw from these teachings, there is indeed something still higher which it teaches: that we reach our highest, our sublimest, peaks of achievement when we forget ourselves? And may we not find the same sublime verity at the heart of, as the essence of, the burden of, every one of the great religions of the past, provided we strip away the dogmatic excrescences born of the brains of smaller men?
Remember that true theosophy is a matter of the heart-life, and of the heart-light, as well as of deep intellectual understanding; but so many people do not realize this, and look upon theosophy as merely a kind of intellectual philosophy, which is only a part of it.
While the selfless life as taught in theosophy is considered by us to be the most beautiful because universal and all-inclusive, yet can we properly be living such a selfless life if we ignore those duties lying nearest at hand? In other words, if a man so yearns to help the world that he goes out into it and neglects duties that he already has assumed, is he doing the thing which is manly? Is he living the selfless life; or is he following a secret, selfish yearning for personal advancement? Is he even logical? Selflessness means never to neglect a duty, because if you do that, upon examination you will discover that you are following a desire, a selfish thought. It is in doing every duty fully and to the end, thereby gaining peace and wisdom, that you live the life which is the most unselfish.

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Drifter Physical life alone has only one destiny. Death. "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." ?

What's the difference between life and death? You can't answer that because nobody knows how death is different from life. I don't believe in destiny, if something is destined then it already pre-exists canceling out anything to be destined. It coexists with the present in other words, there is no destiny.

next

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by sillysally When "I" dig a little deeper, "I"see Heavens Gate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult). It's a little too cultish for "me".

Look in vain for "I"

[ the " I and Me cult" that pervades and afflicts all human-kind alike]

It's one of the terms you employ most frequently. During the day, the word "I" crops up in nearly all your sentences. Since your most tender childhood you have ceased referring to yourself by your own first name. "I" has become the word by which you express your desires, disappointments, projects, hopes, acts of all kinds, physical sensations, illnesses, pleasures, plans, resentment, tenderness, your weakness for vanilla and your aversion to fennel. For a long, long time you have linked this tiny word to your multifarious mental states. It is intimately involved in your feelings and your memories. Apparently, nothing is possible without it. It is there in all your stories and all your judgements. Not a single decision, not the slightest rumination escapes it.
The curious thing is, everyone uses the same word. The most irreducible intimacy, the most singular existence, for each one of us, is linked to a word that we neither chose nor coined, and that everyone else employs in exactly the same way. A pronoun in the language. There's nothing less personal than this "personal" pronoun. The particular existence it refers to remains, linguistically speaking, completely interchangeable. It could be anyone who says "I'm happy" or "I'm sad." All of us, in all our difference, refer to ourselves by exactly the same word as everyone else. A most paradoxical situation. But you don't think about it, and nor does anyone else, of course. You have enough to do without worrying your head about questions of that order.
And yet, try to pin down this "I." Does it exist? How can you find it? What does it look like? If you apply yourself to asking these questions, and trying to resolve them, you'll find that this "I" is neither simple to localize nor to authenticate.
This is not a brief experiment, whose limits are easy to circumscribe. It can come to seem, on the contrary, like a long pursuit. You need time, different occasions, a certain application, and stubbornness. So where is this blindingly obvious "I?" You will seek for a long time, in different places and under different aspects. And there is a strong chance that, at the end of it all, you'll return somewhat at a loss. Which is where things start to get interesting.
Among the avenues of inquiry you might like to pursue, it's worth remembering the existence of the body. Is not this "I," which is both individual and yet assimilable to others, in fact identical with the body that houses it, with its habits, its weaknesses, its vulnerabilities and its particularities? But there's no trace of an "I" in your body. Not one of your cells lives longer than ten years. No part of your body has persisted unchanged. So what will you address as "I?" The form? The ensemble? The general organization? There remains, famously, the phenomenon of thought. All may change, but not your memories, not your sense of remaining unchanged despite corporeal alterations. But even here, you cannot put your finger on an "I." All you will ever discover are thoughts, sequences of thoughts, memories, associations of ideas, desires-all of them pressed into service by what you call your "I."
To all these sensations, to all these mental events, the "I" seems to provide a common denominator. But it neither supports nor drives them. It merely imparts to them something like a family resemblance, a shared aspect to what are very diverse notions and feelings-something like a color or an odor. A way of seeming, a style. Nothing more. "I" is not a someone or a something. And yet neither is it just a word. It must be a refrain of the self, a secondary quality, at one remove.
If you manage to carry the experiment thus far, you will need to know what to do about this sensation. What impact will this impossible discovery about your "I" have upon your existence? How will you cope once your "I" has gone missing? That my friend, is another story.


This goes far beyond putting make-up on on the mirror. Some cannot see beyond.

[Drifter]

Why Not Laugh at Your self?

Many people talk about the heroism of self-conquest -- something with which we all agree; but I sometimes wonder if our ideas of heroic battling with ourselves are not just a wee bit hysteriacal, even foolish! I do not mean the heroism part of it, but this lower self of us, poor little thing! It plays havoc with us all the time, simply because we identify ourselves with it and always try to fight it and make it as big as we are. Is it heroic to fight a ghost of our own making?
How about wise old Lao-tse? If you want to conquer your lower self, make it ashamed of itself, make it look ridiculous. Laugh at it; laugh at yourself. So long as you pay attention to something, you dignify it and put it on your own level; and then when you attempt to fight it you are actually fighting another part of yourself which really could be enormously useful.
I have heard it said: kill out the lower self. Well, suppose we could do that? We should then be most unfortunate beings; in fact, we should not be here. This lower self when kept in order is a good little beastie. It helps us. Our duty is simply to keep it in order. Now when a man has a fractious dog or a horse or a cat, or some other pet, whatever it may be, he does not kick it and beat it and hit it on the head in order to make it good. He would be apt to make it rebellious, cowardly, and vicious; he would be degrading it. Thus the lower self should be neither degraded nor clothed with the false dignity of an adversary erroneously raised to the position of the spiritual self. It should be kept in its place and treated with kindness, consideration, and courtesy, but always with a firm and governing hand. When the lower self begins to presume, then put it in its proper place, but neither by brutality nor by dignifying it nor by fighting it. Ridicule your lower self, and you will soon see the lower self reassuming its proper position because full of temporary shame and loss of dignity -- loss of face, as the Chinese say.
Just so with the dog. Have you ever seen a dog stick its tail between its legs when you laugh at it? Dogs know when they are laughed at and it is one of the finest ways of handling a beast.
I do believe Lao-tse of China was wise in his statement which runs to the effect that one of the best ways of conquering a foe is to make him look ridiculous.
Now that does not work as between man and man, because it is often very harsh and cruel, the two being on the same level. You can hurt a human being horribly and unjustly by placing him in a false position through ridicule. No; but try it on yourself. The next time the lower self wants to tell you what to do, laugh at it; don't dignify it; don't give it position and power and strength by fighting it; on the other hand, do not abuse it or make it weak and vicious and cowardly. Put it in its proper place by ridicule and, indeed at times, a gentle contempt. Learn the greater heroism. Laugh at the thing which bothers you!
The role a sense of humor plays in life, which means in human thought and feeling and consequent conduct, and the role that humor plays in spiritual things is all too often overlooked. We may define a sense of humor as seeing the harmonious relations between apparently incongruous things, the congruities as among incongruities, arousing a sense of the funny in us.
The ability to see humor in what happens to ourselves is a spiritual attribute. After all, humor is at the very root of the universe; and I think that one of the greatest tragedies of individual existence has been the lack of the ability to see the funny side of things when troubles come. When disasters befall you, just try to see the funny side, and you not only save yourself in all likelihood a lot of trouble, but likewise you get a great kick out of it.
I remember the great kick I got out of a discussion between myself and my dear old father when I was a boy. My father had read an article in a theological magazine by some eminent Christian clergyman who pleaded for the existence of a sense of humor "in Almighty God." I said this was simply grand; because although our sense of humor is human, small because we are small, yet is it possible for a part, a human being, to have something which the almighty whole, which the divine, lacks? So of course if divinity has a sense of humor, I said, it is a sense of divine humor, but it is humor all the same.
There is a great deal of sound science and philosophy in the old Hindu idea that Brahman brought forth the universe in play, in fun. The words are different from those of the Christian clergyman, but the idea is the same. In other words, the bringing forth of all things was not a tragedy; there was beauty in it, there was harmony in it; there was humor in it; and those who are in this universe can see the humor in it if they will.
Look at the religious wars and squabbles that never would have occurred if people had had a sense of humor. If people nowadays would see the funny side of things, then they would begin to live together, to love together, to laugh together, and to take counsel together instead of distrusting each other.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Drifter How will you cope once your "I" has gone missing?

Perhaps by filling endless posts with crabbed text ??

(Sorry ... I get bored on niteshift ... by the way .. I'm workin on pinchin your girlfriend. LOL)

cool bananas ... greg

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Drifter Look in vain for "I" [ the " I and Me cult" that pervades and afflicts all human-kind alike] It's one of the terms you employ most frequently. During the day, the word "I" crops up in nearly all your sentences. Since your most tender childhood you have ceased referring to yourself by your own first name. "I" has become the word by which you express your desires, disappointments, projects, hopes, acts of all kinds, physical sensations, illnesses, pleasures, plans, resentment, tenderness, your weakness for vanilla and your aversion to fennel. For a long, long time you have linked this tiny word to your multifarious mental states. It is intimately involved in your feelings and your memories. Apparently, nothing is possible without it. It is there in all your stories and all your judgements. Not a single decision, not the slightest rumination escapes it. The curious thing is, everyone uses the same word. The most irreducible intimacy, the most singular existence, for each one of us, is linked to a word that we neither chose nor coined, and that everyone else employs in exactly the same way. A pronoun in the language. There's nothing less personal than this "personal" pronoun. The particular existence it refers to remains, linguistically speaking, completely interchangeable. It could be anyone who says "I'm happy" or "I'm sad." All of us, in all our difference, refer to ourselves by exactly the same word as everyone else. A most paradoxical situation. But you don't think about it, and nor does anyone else, of course. You have enough to do without worrying your head about questions of that order. And yet, try to pin down this "I." Does it exist? How can you find it? What does it look like? If you apply yourself to asking these questions, and trying to resolve them, you'll find that this "I" is neither simple to localize nor to authenticate. This is not a brief experiment, whose limits are easy to circumscribe. It can come to seem, on the contrary, like a long pursuit. You need time, different occasions, a certain application, and stubbornness. So where is this blindingly obvious "I?" You will seek for a long time, in different places and under different aspects. And there is a strong chance that, at the end of it all, you'll return somewhat at a loss. Which is where things start to get interesting. Among the avenues of inquiry you might like to pursue, it's worth remembering the existence of the body. Is not this "I," which is both individual and yet assimilable to others, in fact identical with the body that houses it, with its habits, its weaknesses, its vulnerabilities and its particularities? But there's no trace of an "I" in your body. Not one of your cells lives longer than ten years. No part of your body has persisted unchanged. So what will you address as "I?" The form? The ensemble? The general organization? There remains, famously, the phenomenon of thought. All may change, but not your memories, not your sense of remaining unchanged despite corporeal alterations. But even here, you cannot put your finger on an "I." All you will ever discover are thoughts, sequences of thoughts, memories, associations of ideas, desires-all of them pressed into service by what you call your "I." To all these sensations, to all these mental events, the "I" seems to provide a common denominator. But it neither supports nor drives them. It merely imparts to them something like a family resemblance, a shared aspect to what are very diverse notions and feelings-something like a color or an odor. A way of seeming, a style. Nothing more. "I" is not a someone or a something. And yet neither is it just a word. It must be a refrain of the self, a secondary quality, at one remove. If you manage to carry the experiment thus far, you will need to know what to do about this sensation. What impact will this impossible discovery about your "I" have upon your existence? How will you cope once your "I" has gone missing? That my friend, is another story. This goes far beyond putting make-up on on the mirror. Some cannot see beyond.

You are the one that has typed the letter I more than I ever have in all of my combined posts prolly in just this one. If we, WE count all the I's you have ever typed, I bet you will have us all beat. If I am right then I win and that means you have to shut up with that silly point about I.

[Graybeard]

Hi Sally .... you sure got a way with words babe. LOL

Hey Drift ... you ever read a book called a 'Confederacy of Dunces' by J.K. Toole ?

greg