[melanie]

Originally Posted by Drifter

There are two ends to every stick.

I should have replied to michael...the original post was his...but my post included a reply to yours...

looking back...it was posted to "The Forum". Nobody particularly...

While it is not my own composition...I agree with it totally as a ToE...just sharing...perhaps in the wrong spot...but as opinions go...everybody has one...so call that one mine.

sorry for the apparent confusion...

I apologize for the monologuos "volume"...[no link/no original author...my bad]

While it does cover several realtive/relevant principles[to reach more than one mind] it is a but much... and why the "Like Cooking an Elephant"... caveat was inserted in bold.

I enjoyed your post...and michaels...and Melanies...

I'm aware there are many discerning minds for whom I had hoped the topics of the volume might share with as useful insights as well...

My most humble Apologies where needed,

It is a theorum, per-se...albeit a persistent one...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dream_Within_a_Dream

Most humble apologies Frederick...
D.

Drifter,

I enjoyed reading your monolog

i found it riveting and was torn between wanting to read your monolog,
while at the same time watch the mens finals singles tennis title for 2008 at Wimbledon ... i managed to do both simultaneously,
and enjoyed both immensely thankyou.

mel.

[melanie]

Fredrick:

Hi Melanie,

I am happy to see the continuation of us thinking similarly.

But I am also not going to trick or convince you that we think exactly identical, for we are not.

No we are not identical, yet just as no two finger prints are the same, fingers are still fingers.

Just as no two perfect snow flakes are the same, snow is still snow.

You are thinking thoughts from the perspective of fredrick, just as i am thinking thoughts from the perspective of my character melanie.

The one face, expressing, masquerading , as the many.

Human thoughts have predictable outcomes, the result of myriad permutations 'appearing' in this conception, ever unchanged.

98% of human thought is the same old thoughts and we are forced to think them again and again to the extent that we become those thoughts.

We identify with them and perceive reality through them.

Events and other people are judged through the lens of our thought patterns.

Our entire sense of self is bound with the activity of repetititve thought processes.

This is our story. Our childhood, our upbringing that leaves its legacy of ''me'', or in other terms our illusory sense of self.

All ''appearing'' in Awareness .... The Silence or Nothingness.....Like a Dream made REAL

melanie.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Drifter

There are two ends to every stick.

Most humble apologies Frederick...

Not to worry Drifter, apologies most humbly accepted. And, yes, I will dive into it all, too, now.

I love this, Melanie, it is like being on the other side of the conversation, both thinking very similar thoughts and yet reaching the opposite conclusions. So the saying is probably true: there are more sides to each story...

[melanie]

Fredrick;


I love this, Melanie, it is like being on the other side of the conversation, both thinking very similar thoughts and yet reaching the opposite conclusions.

So the saying is probably true: there are more sides to each story...

Fredrick.
There are many sides to a story of course.

But there is only ONE Singular Awareness.
There are not lots of separate little awarenesses,
but many impressions and expressions, within the One Awareness.
Each illusional ''other'' persons awareness,
is 'appearing' as a different aspect or facet of the whole.
Each with it's own unique character perspective,
perceiving from the perspective of that particular characters experiencing.
If we turn our attention away from the observed,
and turn it towards the observer, we are looking inward.
We then discover only awareness watching awareness,
we are looking in on ourself instead of out there in the world of other things.
Awareness watching Awareness is only ever Awareness.
Who knows what awareness is ? ... Impossible to say.
Yet it is known, .... one with the knowing.

There can only ever be this NOW moment.... Yet Even that is a only a belief, because 'every moment' is in a state of constant flux.
All past present and future are only in your mind.
And where is your mind? NOW_HERE / NO_WHERE
All there is IS ....THIS PRESENCE

Every-thing else, that we are aware of in the world including people,
or even the surroundings of the inside of our house,
all of these 'things' are only ever ''appearing'' in our Awareness of them.

And these 'things' are not separate from our awareness of them.
The 'other people' and all the 'other things' do appear separate,
but they are not.
That is the amazing mind illusion.
It is all A mind construction.
The Awareness is all there is, we are this, and there is only ONE Awareness.
Out of which every-thing 'arises' .. including the mind body organism.

What doesn't exist in deep sleep, doesn't exist,
IT is only through the instrument of the mind body organism which is the vehicle for expression, does the world ''appear''
and it is appearing to no-one.

When we allow our thoughts to be quiet,
through meditation for example,
and we do not identify with any of the incoming thoughts,
we just allow them to appear and disappear.
We might discover that in reality, we are absolutely NOTHING.
We are nothing but Awareness IT-self.
Nothing more Nothing less.
And that No-Thing was neither born nor ever died.
Only ''apparently'' it seems.

We are THIS Awareness .... Within which Eternal Life ''appears'' To No-One.

How wonderful is THAT ?
When we can fully realize this.....all of our suffering comes to an end.
For everything is only ever mental....it is all mental suffering, including joy too.
What doesn't exist in deep sleep doesn't exist.

AWARENESS is always AWAKE.....IT never sleeps.
When awareness becomes aware of IT- self,
It becomes lucid in it's own dream of IT-self.
It can then direct it's dreams in which ever way it wishes.
Your dreams really can and then do come true.
It's all so magical.

What do you think about my interpretation of reality?

melanie.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by melanie

What do you think about my interpretation of reality?

melanie.

Melanie, I mentioned this already, we have very similar ideas and that makes me happy. But - and I want you to know that I mean this as just an aspect and not as super-important - we may reach different conclusions while sharing close to every view.

I think your view on reality is perfect. It contains many or all perspectives, views and experiences and you have brought them into a single comprehensive overall delivery. There is nothing within your delivery that can be used to undermine your delivery (of course we can always argue about details, but they do not change the validity of the overall delivery).

So, I think you have created a completed belief, and I want to compliment you on it. The more so, because you get a lot of energy from standing right in the middle of creation. I would say, that is the best way to go through life.

I try to stand in the middle of it all, too, and though not always successful, I think I am walking my path pretty close to what-how-and-where I want-need to take it.

From my perspective I can see the option to consider the experience we are all in as singular, and in general I tend not to think of reality as anything other than that. Still, it is like knowing that the earth is round, but in my daily life there isn't much exposure to really experiencing the earth beneath my feet as a big globe.

I know that the other option of not considering everything as singular exists, too. I know for certain that we (meaning you and I) can fool ourselves thinking the world is flat when it is not. That is quite easy to achieve. I only have to ignore a little bit of input, and there I have it. I don't mean to say I consider believers as flat-earthers; it's just an example of that almost unimportant position the whole takes in within our very diverse experiences of all those details happening within the whole.

My stance: I believe everything until it is proven otherwise. With pictures of the earth as a round globe, and with flying in a machine to locations where I have to change the time on my watch to adjust for the different solar position, I know my previous perception of reality that I had as a kid was not complete.

The same goes for the origin of our universe: I know we lack the evidence that will tell us we come from a single situation or a plural situation. No matter the attraction of one option over the other, I know we cannot know. That's when we call something a belief; we consider something to be true, but we acknowledge the lack of evidence that has the power to mute others. But, we can know that our material universe is a universe in which diversity rules. That is not a belief; it is our reality.

If you want to take place in our universe as a person considering the origin to be one, you are not only free to do so, but you will also experience our universe as if this is indeed the only truth. I think that is quite magical, and I love that about being alive; it is very morph on this level of thinking/believing. I can go there, and sometimes do, but I also step back and see that I have the option.

I exist in the material universe and that allows me the extra space that actually belongs to the potential stage. The potential stage is not gone, it is still there, though limited by specific limitations that comes with being inside our materialized universe. Just for me, there are therefore two positions: my physical position and the potential position. If so desired I can see them as one, if so desired I can see them as two. In the material being that I am, I know the potential that I once was, came about not with delivering me one eye, but two; not delivering me one arm but two. In some instances, such as gender, I am glad I did not come with two. But overall, there are indeed two options in that department. Next to humans, there are many animals and plants, some related, some not. Then there are rocks, and air, and space, and much more.

If you then say: "But they all belong to one," then we are back at square one. I would reply, a conflict also only needs to be just one.

[Drifter]

what conflict does "Stillness" have within Itself...until consciousness/stirrings arise from within it?...[bubble bubble, toil, and trouble...]

http://www.adishakti.org/book_of_enl...ma_201-300.htm

Drifter

[Drifter]

"There can be no self-restraint when thou hast no desire,

When there is no adversary, what need for thy strength?

Hark, do not castrate thyself, do not become a monk, for chastity is in pawn to lust.

Without sensuality 'tis imposible to forbid sensuality :

Heroism cannot be displayed against the dead." ~Rumi

Rumi not only opposed the ascetic approach to life, but he also denounced those who, under pressures in life, imitated sufism rather thinking it as a way of attaining perfection.
he refered to those who...without understanding recreate the saint's lives from their own life image while binding themselve to those necessities which men struggle for.
He illustrates this point in many stories:

He refers to the superficial judgement by using as an illustration the honey bee and the bumble bee.

Though both are called bees, only one gives honey; the other stings.

Similarly with the deer who eat the same grain: one produces only dung; the other, pure musk.

Two kinds of reeds may thrive in the same pond, but one contains sugar, the other nothing.

Rumi concludes that this kind of superficiality Exist among human beings too. He notes that when genuienly perfect men are scarce, people ordinarily think that those who have travelled the path of self-realization are really no different from themselves. They say in effect: "We are men,... they are men; we are both in bondage to sleep and food."

Their blindness handicaps them from seeing the infinte difference between them. ~Rumi: Muthnawi

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Drifter

what conflict does "Stillness" have within Itself...until consciousness/stirrings arise from within it?...[bubble bubble, toil, and trouble...]

http://www.adishakti.org/book_of_enl...ma_201-300.htm

Drifter

Drifter, I have no conflict if you decide to fill in the potential with Stillness. At the same time, you should also have no conflict if someone else fills in the potential with Conflict, Love or Divine Desire. That is the point I am trying to make: the potential is to be seen as the potential, and to make a decision for yourself what that potential is is of course okay, but it is not the whole truth. The whole truth is that the potential cannot be known other than having brought forth the material universe, which as we all know is not a place of Stillness.

The potential is to be understood, not conquered. From the materialized state we can say a few things about the potential, but not many things, and what we can say cannot be other than somewhat vague. But non-stillness coming forth out of Stillness without a reason is very doubtful; to me that does not follow logic of mind nor heart. So I require a reason within the potential state to bring out our materialized universe.

Deciding that the potential is singular is equal to saying that god is an old man with a handsome white beard just like you have.

[Drifter]

THE FOUR METHODS OF ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE

There are only four accepted methods of comprehension -- that is to say, the realities of things are understood by these four methods.

The first method is by the senses -- that is to say, all that the eye, the ear, the taste, the smell, the touch perceive is understood by this method. Today this method is considered the most perfect by all the European philosophers: they say that the principal method of gaining knowledge is through the senses; they consider it supreme, although it is imperfect, for it commits errors. For example, the greatest of the senses is the power of sight. The sight sees the mirage as water, and it sees images reflected in mirrors as real and existent; large bodies which are distant appear to be small, and a whirling point appears as a circle. The sight believes the earth to be motionless and sees the sun in motion, and in many similar cases it makes mistakes. Therefore, we cannot trust it.

The second is the method of reason, which was that of the ancient philosophers, the pillars of wisdom; this is the method of the understanding. They proved things by reason and held firmly to logical proofs; all their arguments are arguments of reason. Notwithstanding this, they differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They even changed their views -- that is to say, during twenty years they would prove the existence of a thing by logical arguments, and afterward they would deny it by logical arguments -- so much so that Plato at first logically proved the immobility of the earth and the movement of the sun; later by logical arguments he proved that the sun was the stationary center, and that the earth was moving. Afterward the Ptolemaic theory was spread abroad, and the idea of Plato was entirely forgotten, until at last a new observer again called it to life. Thus all the mathematicians disagreed, although they relied upon arguments of reason. In the same way, by logical arguments, they would prove a problem at a certain time, then afterward by arguments of the same nature they would deny it. So one of the philosophers would firmly uphold a theory for a time with strong arguments and proofs to support it, which afterward he would retract and contradict by arguments of reason. Therefore, it is evident that the method of reason is not perfect, for the differences of the ancient philosophers, the want of stability and the variations of their opinions, prove this. For if it were perfect, all ought to be united in their ideas and agreed in their opinions.

The third method of understanding is by tradition -- that is, through the text of the Holy Scriptures -- for people say, "In the Old and New Testaments, God spoke thus." This method equally is not perfect, because the traditions are understood by the reason. As the reason itself is liable to err, how can it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the traditions it will not err, for it is possible for it to make mistakes, and certainty cannot be attained. This is the method of the religious leaders; whatever they understand and comprehend from the text of the books is that which their reason understands from the text, and not necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a balance, and the meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like the thing which is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be ascertained?

Know then: that which is in the hands of people, that which they believe, is liable to error. For, in proving or disproving a thing, if a proof is brought forward which is taken from the evidence of our senses, this method, as has become evident, is not perfect; if the proofs are intellectual, the same is true; or if they are traditional, such proofs also are not perfect. Therefore, there is no standard in the hands of people upon which we can rely.

But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. This is through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, and this is the condition in which certainty can alone be attained.


~Abdul l Baha... "Some Answered Questions"

[Drifter]

My Ode to Nobody...RIP

THE NECESSITY OF FOLLOWING THE TEACHINGS OF THE DIVINE MANIFESTATIONS

Question. -- Those who are blessed with good actions and universal benevolence, who have praiseworthy characteristics, who act with love and kindness toward all creatures, who care for the poor, and who strive to establish universal peace -- what need have they of the divine teachings, of which they think indeed that they are independent? What is the condition of these people?

Answer. -- Know that such actions, such efforts and such words are praiseworthy and approved, and are the glory of humanity. But these actions alone are not sufficient; they are a body of the greatest loveliness, but without spirit. No, that which is the cause of everlasting life, eternal honor, universal enlightenment, real salvation and prosperity is, first of all, the knowledge of God. It is known that the knowledge of God is beyond all knowledge, and it is the greatest glory of the human world. For in the existing knowledge of the reality of things there is material advantage, and through it outward civilization progresses; but the knowledge of God is the cause of spiritual progress and attraction, and through it the perception of truth, the exaltation of humanity, divine civilization, rightness of morals and illumination are obtained.

Second, comes the love of God, the light of which shines in the lamp of the hearts of those who know God; its brilliant rays illuminate the horizon and give to man the life of the Kingdom. In truth, the fruit of human existence is the love of God, for this love is the spirit of life, and the eternal bounty. If the love of God did not exist, the contingent world would be in darkness; if the love of God did not exist, the hearts of men would be dead, and deprived of the sensations of existence; if the love of God did not exist, spiritual union would be lost; if the love of God did not exist, the light of unity would not illuminate humanity; if the love of God did not exist, the East and West, like two lovers, would not embrace each other; if the love of God did not exist, division and disunion would not be changed into fraternity; if the love of God did not exist, indifference would not end in affection; if the love of God did not exist, the stranger would not become the friend. The love of the human world has shone forth from the love of God and has appeared by the bounty and grace of God.

It is clear that the reality of mankind is diverse, that opinions are various and sentiments different; and this difference of opinions, of thoughts, of intelligence, of sentiments among the human species arises from essential necessity; for the differences in the degrees of existence of creatures is one of the necessities of existence, which unfolds itself in infinite forms. Therefore, we have need of a general power which may dominate the sentiments, the opinions and the thoughts of all, thanks to which these divisions may no longer have effect, and all individuals may be brought under the influence of the unity of the world of humanity. It is clear and evident that this greatest power in the human world is the love of God. It brings the different peoples under the shadow of the tent of affection; it gives to the antagonistic and hostile nations and families the greatest love and union.

See, after the time of Christ, through the power of the love of God, how many nations, races, families and tribes came under the shadow of the Word of God. The divisions and differences of a thousand years were entirely destroyed and annihilated. The thoughts of race and of fatherland completely disappeared. The union of souls and of existences took place; all became true spiritual Christians/Universalists.

The third virtue of humanity is the goodwill which is the basis of good actions. Certain philosophers have considered intention superior to action, for the goodwill is absolute light; it is purified and sanctified from the impurities of selfishness, of enmity, of deception. Now it may be that a man performs an action which in appearance is righteous, but which is dictated by covetousness. For example, a butcher rears a sheep and protects it; but this righteous action of the butcher is dictated by desire to derive profit, and the result of this care is the slaughter of the poor sheep. How many righteous actions are dictated by covetousness! But the goodwill is sanctified from such impurities.

Briefly, if to the knowledge of God is joined the love of God, and attraction, ecstasy and goodwill, a righteous action is then perfect and complete. Otherwise, though a good action is praiseworthy, yet if it is not sustained by the knowledge of God, the love of God, and a sincere intention, it is imperfect. For example, the being of man must unite all perfections to be perfect. Sight is extremely precious and appreciated, but it must be aided by hearing; the hearing is much appreciated, but it must be aided by the power of speech; the faculty of speech is very acceptable, but it must be aided by the power of reason, and so forth. The same is true of the other powers, organs and members of man; when all these powers, these senses, these organs, these members exist together, he is perfect.

Now, today, we meet with people in the world who, in truth, desire the universal good, and who according to their power occupy themselves in protecting the oppressed and in aiding the poor: they are enthusiastic for peace and the universal well-being. Although from this point of view they may be perfect, if they are deprived of the knowledge and love of God, they are imperfect.

Galen, the physician, in his book in which he comments on the treatise of Plato on the art of government, says that the fundamental principles of religion have a great influence upon a perfect civilization because "the multitude cannot understand the connection of explanatory words; so it has need of symbolical words announcing the rewards and punishments of the other world; and that which proves the truth of this affirmation," he says, "is that today we see a people called Christians who believe in rewards and punishments; and this sect show forth beautiful actions like those which a true philosopher performs. So we all see clearly that they do not fear death, that they expect and desire nothing from the multitude but justice and equity, and they are considered as true philosophers."
[1 Cf. Ibn Abi Usaybia, Uyun al-anba fi tabaqat al-atibba (Cairo: 1882) tom. I., pp. 76-77.]

Now observe what was the degree of the sincerity, the zeal, the spiritual feeling, the obligation of friendship, and the good actions of a believer in Christ, so that Galen, the philosophical physician, although he was not of the Christian religion, should yet bear witness to the good morals and the perfections of these people, to the point of saying that they were true philosophers. These virtues, these morals, were obtained not only through good actions, for if virtue were only a matter of obtaining and giving forth good, as this lamp is lighted and illuminates the house -- without doubt this illumination is a benefit -- then why do we not praise the lamp? The sun causes all the beings of the earth to increase, and by its heat and light gives growth and development: is there a greater benefit than that? Nevertheless, as this good does not come from goodwill and from the love and knowledge of God, it is imperfect.

When, on the contrary, a man gives to another a cup of water, the latter is grateful and thanks him. A man, without reflecting, will say, "This sun which gives light to the world, this supreme bounty which is apparent in it, must be adored and praised. Why should we not be grateful and thankful to the sun for its bounty, when we praise a man who performs a simple act of kindness?" But if we look for the truth, we see that this insignificant kindness of the man is due to conscious feelings which exist; therefore, it is worthy of praise, whereas the light and heat of the sun are not due to the feelings and consciousness; therefore, they are not worthy of eulogy or of praise and do not deserve gratitude or thanks.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 296)
By way of the Pen
Thank you nobody...wherever you are...
Drifter