Church of the Churchless Message Board

craziness

obed — Thur, 29 Jan 2009 16:08:30 GMT

How can I fear death?I take this "I" and hold it for as long

as I can in my mind.Then I let it go.Has anything changed?

Have I ceased to be?The "I" I held has gone but this I has not.

I have not changed I am still here.Unchanging yet constantly

changing.I live the dichotomy and the randomness that

appear in the unchanging background within me.I create my

never ending story from these happenings.Life and death are

just inner stories.I do not change and yet I am constantly

changing.When this is seen death is not feared.The I is and

yet it is not!

Is this crazy?Perhaps.Does it matter?Not at all

Forum: Death

antithesis

obed — Thur, 29 Jan 2009 15:42:50 GMT

Hear me, you hearers

and learn of my words, you who know me.

I am the hearing that is attainable to everything;

I am the speech that cannot be grasped.

I am the name of the sound

and the sound of the name.

I am the sign of the letter

and the designation of the division.

From "Thunder,perfect mind"

Forum: Spiritual practice

Autopoiesis

obed — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:03:56 GMT

Autopoiesis is the process within living cells by
which protein creates DNA while DNA creates proteins.Neither can create itself by itself but
together both can create each other.
I wonder is this how the "I" and awareness work
together to create one another?

Forum: Science

meditation

obed — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:42:34 GMT

First,and most importantly,meditation calls on intention and attention.Intention is the conscious
will to behave in a particular way and attention is the conscious focusing of awareness in order to
perform the intention.In other words,when we intend
to meditate,we refocus our attention to allow us to do so.

from The Blissful Brain
by Dr Shanida Nataraja

Forum: Science

Existence exists

obed — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:23:07 GMT

Existence exists -and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms:that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness,consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists,there can be no consciousness:a
consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms.A consciousness conscious
of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms:
before it could identify itself as consciousness,it
had to be conscious of something.If that which you
claim to perceive does not exist,what you possess is not consciousness

from Ayn Rand

Forum: Reality

Illusive technology

obed — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:36:33 GMT

Hi All,
I copied this from another discussion group
on religion.

I am self-styled social theorist here whose objective is to describe the social
structure that will enable human beings to live peacefully, cooperatively and
creatively.

There is a primary difference between true technology which always embodies the
fundamental principals of evolutionistic process (not to be confused with the
theory of evolution) and religion, which is that true technology is exactly
true for every human being on earth. Once the automobile is developed, it is
developed for human being and every human being can achieve exactly with an
automobile what anyone else can with an automobile - assuming parity of
opportunity and access. In other words, everyone can drive to the grocery store
but no one can drive a car to the moon.

Illusive technology, one type of which is religion fails the evolutionistic
principle of true technology,in that as technology it never achieves the same
for every human being, as say the car. What one can achieve with religion is
dependent on where one is relative to the religion - if one is wielding it as a
way to organize human beings it achieves a different effect than if one is
being organized by it. The example is the charismatic who swears he has his
fine house and wealth and received it and teaches that if those listening will
be so fortunate they will tithe and send the charismatic their money on behalf
of the lord and the lord will return ten times as much - and then when the
tither says it didn't work the charismatic says it was because the tither
didn't have a pure heart, wasn't really giving but was bargaining and the lord
doesn't take kindly to being bargained with. It works for one at the very same
instance it does not work for another. Another failure of religion is it
simply does not evolve. The ideas postured, the beliefs sought to be proved,
the ambitions to be achieved have not furthered one step in the recorded
history of human civilization. If human technology was as stagnant as religion
human beings would still be pondering how to get an axle between two wheels.

That isn't to say that religion is not a technology that doesn't evolve. It is
a very powerful technology, in its own right as powerful as the wheel, and it
is that is so powerful that it has gained a status of universality throughout
the human population just as the wheel has. But the device of religion is not
what religion is advertised to be - which is why I describe it as illusive
rather than false. That can be proven just by thinking again of that wheel.
Show me the wheel and instantly I get the wheel. Show me religion and tell me
what it will do and tell me how to do it and I will do exactly as you say and I
will not get the results promised. Now, show me how to wield religion as a
device to control and organize human beings to my own personal benefit and I
can enact that process and realize the predicted result.

Another element of true technology is that belief is an irrelevant component in
the successful application of any true technology. I can't by my belief make an
airplane not fly or make one crash. I can't by my belief stop a bullet fired
out of a gun toward my head veer direction. I can't run my car into wall and
ninety miles an hour and believe myself out of the impending consequences.
Emotions are just as irrelevant. Pissed off, happy, depressed, mourning,
estatic, thoughtful, melancholy and nervous people can each fly an airplane,
drive a car or pedal a bicycle. Illusive technologies always place great
emphasis on the beliefs and emotions and attribute them as causative. Rather
like John McCain, Bill Clinton, George Bush to name three have all been
described as very angry men with terrible tempers - exactly the opposite of
what we are led to believe when we are told their noble character is what makes
them fit to lead a character. Assholes can wield true technology just as deftly
as saints but are probably far more competent in the arena of wielding
illusive technology requires the ability to manipulate human beings bo one's
benefit without regard to what effect such manipulation will have on the
experience of those manipulate.

cheers

Forum: Religious rants and raves

the gospel of myself

obed — Thur, 08 May 2008 16:18:28 GMT

X.

I proclaim the gospel of myself. Be ye not copies of mebut instead be ye first originals.

The light, although it may still be beautiful, is weakened by reflection.

Let the light that is within thee shine out through all the windows of thy soul.

Repeat not the thoughts of others, unless thy soul gives sanction to their verity.

Speak out what is within thee struggling for utterance. Not only speak out, but live out the thought within.

Say not thou art too poor for this, that, or the other. Thou art rich indeed if thou livest near to thine ideals.

And no man in all the world is so rich as he who lives out the life of the soul.

p. 38

Be not content with the living of other people's thoughts. Let thine own life have an individuality all its own.

Every flower in the field lives its own life, reflects its own thoughts, externalizes the ideal of the spirit.

In the external life be like a crystal, reflecting the pure white light of spirit within.

The Schools declare: Think as we think, and we will place upon thee the seal of our approval.

Rather live without the approval of the Schools if to gain this prize thy reason and conscience are stultified.

Let nothing stand between thee and the light of thy soul.

Within the orbit of thy spirit revolve worlds, suns, stars, universes.

Spaces and times illimitable are thine own.

Then be ye masters of self.

p. 39

Let not the soul be troubled by the discussions of the sects. Thou art superior to all sects, and the voice within will determine for thee what is right and best.

Once having found the way, walk with unfaltering footsteps therein.

Fear no evils, for what men call evils are but shadows of ignorance and superstition that fall across thy pathway that needs must fade into nothingness before the blazing light of spirit.

Men fail only when they attempt in their lives to copy others.

If thou art a musician, sink not thine individuality in the composition of the master, but instead give it thine own interpretation.

If thou art an artist, copy not the work of the master unless thou canst make it glow with the fervor of thine own soul.

If a sculptor, make the marble speak the highest ideals of the soul.

p. 40

Be no mere copyist in whatever field of life thou occupiest.

Let the fervent passion of the soul be manifest even in the most trivial things of thy daily life.

Seek not to be like Zertoulem and to think his thoughts after him, unless these thoughts strike responsive chords in thy soul.

Then shall they awaken the dormant consciousness within that will reveal to thee thy true individuality.

from

Wisdom of the Ages

by George A. Fuller

Next: XI

Forum: Reality

The One and the many

obed — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:06:44 GMT

A Spiritual Logbook

Part I - Chapter 6

The coexistence of the One and the many.

There are apparent logical difficulties in the idea of Monism that need to be addressed, if we are to grant it credibility. One question people ask is: How can the world be essentially and absolutely (and only) One, and yet appear as a multiplicity of passing phenomena, entities and events? Can a whole be at once considered unitary and as having parts is not such an idea self-contradictory? Are the One and the many compatible?

This question can be answered, without indulging in overly mystical discourse, if we realize it is already loaded with a certain epistemological point of view. There are in fact two possible viewpoints as to the cognitive and metaphysical relationship between the apparent many and their essential oneness. We can inductively claim either unity in diversity or diversity in unity.

In the first thesis, which is most commonly known and advocated, and which is the premise of the above question, the One is a conceptual derivative of the many. According to this Pluralist theory, we directly experience a world of multiplicity, and then use our rational faculty to hypothesize an underlying Unity. The One is then a mere concept it is the most universal of all concepts, the fact of existence all phenomena share, the ultimate uniformity they share.

The problem with such a view of the One as derived from the many by conceptualization is that, as we have already mentioned, it has an inherent contradiction the concept (of unity) we derive from the percepts (of manifold things) is in logical conflict with its source. Since things are primarily (phenomenologically) many, it is difficult to credibly affirm that they are ultimately (ontologically) One. The epistemological order of things affects the metaphysical perspective.

However, there is an alternative to this theory, which is less widely known and advocated, namely that the many are ratiocinative derivatives of the One. This Monist hypothesis, which is found already in Buddhist philosophy, and is today implied by modern physics, offers a less paradoxical dichotomy. In this reverse perspective, pure (pre-rational) experience is quite unitary; it is the cognizing Subject, who cuts this phenomenological primary given into a multiplicity of shapes, colors, motions, sounds, etc.

If we sit in meditation and just experience, we can soon realize that without interference on our part the multiplicity is a unity. It is only when we start analyzing it making comparisons and contrasts, considering logical compatibilities and conflicts, and so forth that the original unity is broken down into a seemingly endless multiplicity. Granting the epistemological primacy of unitary experience, we can understand that ratiocination is the source of apparent multiplicity. In that case, the One and the many do not appear so much in logical conflict, and we can safely opt for a Monist metaphysical position.

Another question people often ask is by what process did the One generate the many? Was the One inherently unstable, that it had to break down into the many? Note that, whereas the preceding question related to the statics of the Whole-parts relationship, this one concerns the dynamics of it.

However, we can reply that this second question, like the first, involves presuppositions. One need not view the relationship of the One and the many as having a beginning or an end it can be viewed as timeless; we can consider that the One has always been actually one and the same with the apparent many. Another viewpoint, more accurate in my view, and more in line with the Monist thesis just formulated, is to say that the One is always potentially apparently many, such potential being actualized as of when and so long as some Subject engages in ratiocinative analysis.

While the second question can be asked even from a non-theistic (or atheistic) perspective, it is most often asked in relation to Monotheism. People ask: Why did God create us, and the world at large? Was He discontented, in need of something, moved by some want, or did He act capriciously? If so, does such supposition not contradict the idea of God as perfect and self-sufficient, as well as ultimately One, alone and indivisible?

Moreover, if He created us intentionally, why is it our mission in life to go back to pre-Creation? Does not the idea of repair (tikkun, in Hebrew) imply an error to be corrected? Perhaps the error was not the Creation as such, but only the original sin in the Garden of Eden, i.e. a misuse by us of the faculties God gave us? Did God not foresee such misuse of volition (in which case He would have refrained from creation altogether)?

It is proper for a believer to ask such critical questions, for belief in God should always be based on rational reflection, so as to have a maximum of credibility and solidity.

Certainly, ideas suggesting that God might be subject to unfulfilled desires or that He might yield to some passing fancy are unacceptable, since they imply He has some incompleteness or fault, or that He is causatively determined or weak of will. However, the simple answer is that volition (in humans, and by extrapolation to an infinitely greater degree in God) is free and to say that it is free is to mean that it can operate spontaneously, without mechanical connection to some reason, need, desire or whim .

If an Agent (a human soul or God) must have a motive to ever at all exercise will, then there is ultimately no such thing as freedom of the will. It follows that to ask the question why did God create? is a misrepresentation of the nature of volition. To insist for some explanation or motive for a purely volitional act is to demand a deterministic framework where none applies. The question is therefore inappropriate.

Thus, the Judaic teaching that God created us because He wanted to do good to someone other than Himself is reasonable and consistent. It does not imply that God is lonely, or that He yields to a sudden impulse, or the like; for such explanations would assign an inappropriate causal model to God, implying some thoughts randomly arise within Him independently of His will, and then influence or determine Him. Granting God is the most fully volitional of beings, such functioning is inapplicable to Him; His will has to be solely and entirely His own choice and responsibility, a pure expression of Himself.

We can nevertheless rationalize Gods creativity ex post facto as follows. We could say that so long as His unity remains undifferentiated, His great powers of consciousness (omniscience), volition (omnipotence) and valuation (justice and lovingkindness) remain unactualized potentials i.e. their reality is concealed. In order to give these powers their full reality, God has to decide at some point to exercise these powers, i.e. to actualize their potential. To do so, He has to create a diverse and changing world, creatures capable of good and bad, etc. a world in relation to which He can not only be, but also act.

This seems to me a coherent theory. Note well that it does not affirm that God has actual consciousness, volition and valuation before he exercises these powers. There is a level or depth at which God is purely One prior to any thought, will or intention of His whatsoever. Then at some stage, He Himself spontaneously decides to set a multiplicity in motion, starting with the creation within Himself of His own powers, and proceeding with their exercise by creating and running the world as we know it.

In this perspective, the scenario of a world having bad in it as well as good, although God was fundamentally well-meaning in creating it, is comprehensible. Good can only be exercised in a framework where bad is also possible. If good were the only polarity possible, i.e. if bad was impossible, there would be no choice of good and therefore nothing could be characterized as good (since good presupposes freewill, otherwise all you have is mechanics). Therefore, the possibility of bad had to be allowed. Obviously, God did not fear to make allowance for the bad: He trusted the good would triumph over it.

In this perspective, too, it is perfectly natural for God to both create a world and will it to return to its original oneness. It does not signify a change of mind on His part. On the contrary, it is indicative of His strength and confidence that He can ex nihilo set a diverse world in motion and expect this multiplicity to ultimately return to its unitary source. No error is involved it is all quite intentional.

The above was taken from a discourse on meditation by Dr Avi Sion

http://www.thelogician.net/5c_meditate/5c_med_frame.htm

Forum: Nature of "God"

THE NEGATIVISTS

obed — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:39:05 GMT

THE NEGATIVISTS

The most propitious and fertile soil in which collective mania can grow
is that of unhappiness.  Famine, unjust taxation, unemployment,
persecution by local authorities, and so on, frequently lead to a dull
hatred for the existing social, moral and religious order, which the
simple-minded peasant takes to be the direct cause of his misfortunes.

Thus it was that the Negativists denied everything--God, the Devil,
heaven, hell, the law, and the power of the Tsar.  They taught that
there is no such thing as right, religion, property, marriage, family
or family duties.  All those have been invented by man, and it is man
who has created God, the Devil, and the Tsar.

In the record of the proceedings taken against one of the principal
upholders of this sect, we find the following curious conversation
between him and the judge.

"Your religion?"

"I have none."

"In what God do you believe?"

"In none.  Your God is your own, like the Devil, for you have created
both.  They belong to you, like the Tsar, the priests, and the
officials."

These people believe neither in generosity nor in gratitude.  Men give
away only what is superfluous, and the superfluous is not theirs.
Labour should be free; consequently they kept no servants.  They
rejected both trade and money as useless and unjust.  "Give to thy
neighbour what thou canst of that of which he has need, and he in turn
will give thee what thou needest."  Love should be entirely free.
Marriage is an absurdity and a sin, invented by man.  All human beings
are free, and a woman cannot belong to any one man, or a man to any one
woman.

Here are some extracts taken from some other legal records.  Two of the
believers were brought before the judge, accompanied by a child.

"Is this your wife?" the judge inquired of the man.

"No, she is not my wife."

"How is it then that you live together?"

"We live together, but she is not mine.  She belongs to herself."

Turning to the woman, the judge asked:

"Is this your husband?"

"He is not _mine_.  He does not belong to me, but to himself."

"And the child?  Is he yours?"

"No, he is not ours.  He lives with us; he is of our blood; but he
belongs to himself."

"But the coat you are wearing--is that yours?" demanded the exasperated
judge.

"It is on my back, but it is not mine.  It belonged once to a sheep;
now it covers me; but who can say whose it will be to-morrow?"

The Negativists invented, long before Tolstoi, the doctrine of inaction
and non-resistance to evil.  They were deceived, robbed and ruined, but
would not apply to the law, or to the police.  Their method of
reasoning and their way of speaking had a peculiar charm.  A solicitor
who visited one of the Siberian prisons reports the following details
concerning a man named Rojnoff.  Arrested and condemned to be deported
for vagabondage, he escaped repeatedly, but was at length imprisoned.
The inspector was calling the roll of the prisoners, but Rojnoff
refused to answer to his name.  Purple with rage, the inspector
approached him and asked, "What is your name?"

"It is you who have a name.  I have none."

After a series of questions and answers exchanged between the ever more
furious official and the prisoner, who remained perfectly calm, Rojnoff
was flogged--but in spite of raw and bleeding wounds he still continued
to philosophise.

"Confess the truth," stormed the inspector.

"Seek it," replied the peasant, "for yourself, for indeed you have need
of it.  As to me, I keep my truth for myself.  Let me be quiet--that is
all I ask."

The solicitor visited him several months later, and implored him to
give his name, so that he might obtain his passport and permission to
rejoin his wife and children.

"But I have no need of all that," he said.  "Passports, laws,
names--all those are yours.  Children, family, property, class,
marriage--so many of your cursed inventions.  You can give me only one
single thing--quietness."

The Siberian prisons swarmed with these mysterious beings.  Poor souls!
Their one desire was to quit as soon as possible this vale of injustice
and of tears!

Forum: Belonging, or not

A personal perspective on spiritual practice

manjitd — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:44:22 GMT

Midway through a 4 week mini meditational home retreat, checking my emails and reading the posts on the main blog, I thought I'd add my personal understandings of the value of 'spiritual practice'.

Spiritual practice specifically in relation to the absolutist, pure non-dual and so-called 'neo-advatist' etc, views or positions. A View that is promoted by so many, including myself on occassion, on the ChurchoftheChurchless blog. More specifically, the complete and total dismissal of any kind of 'spiritual practice' whatsoever, with a kind of implied belief that by simply adopting that View, it will in and of itself resolve all the various factors which lead to the primal suffering/existential angst/incompleteness etc, which caused one to 'seek' or search for spiritual peace or God or whatever.

Having myself often expressed myself with this 'View' too, it may seem strange or contradictory when I say that sometimes this View comes across as rather hollow or shallow sounding? Even stranger, from my perspective, and I have considered it deeply, it is entirely integral!

Imo it is without doubt the non-dualist 'View' is entirely and absolutely correct. And, perhaps it is possible that some people are completely and totally identified with this 'View' experientially. As ridiculous as that possibility sounds to some (sceptical sorts , I not only believe it is possible, I believe it is the truth. From such a state, the expression of the View is absolute vibrant truth, existence as IT IS, expressed as closely as is possible with semantic bifurcation. What is *lost* in the linguistic and conceptual bifurcation is the importance of the relative or subjective. The shakti, creation, feminine power, shabd or form etc. In the 'highest understanding', though it is expressed often in the absolutist View, the 'experiencer' will all the while also revere the non-dual IN form too. The View is just expressing it from a specific perspective, a certain emphasis.

This View does not really aid or benefit the majority of people, in my opinion anyhow, *but that is admittedly based on my very subjective life, experiences, learnings etc*. It does nothing to unravel the various 'knots' or neurosis, or causes of suffering like fear, anger, greed, jealousy etc. Indeed, through adopting this View too prematurely, perhaps it will never even be understood that it is these things which cause our suffering and unhappiness?

To use the advaita analogy of the leap into' enlightenment' being somewhat akin to realising the snake in the room is really only a piece of rope, of what use would it be to merely repeat the words 'it's only a rope' if you continue to tremble and sweat? Neither the one who believes it's a snake or the one who keeps parroting 'it's only a rope' but still trembles and sweats will ever get bitten, but both of their lives are still dominated by irrational fear and suffering!

My personal perspective and experience has taught me this. Absolutely and Ultimately, there is nowhere to go and no practice to be done. There is no soul, no karma, no reincarnation, no liberation, no inner regions, no sach khand etc. However in this pure, errrm, Emptiness, dances the beautiful display of maya or form or shakti or shabd. Unimaginable wonder and beauty. One thing I agree with Soamiji on (and there isn't many!), Awe Awe Awe. This is our creation, our existence, our experience. Absolute without this is meaningless. Our very being is evidence of that. For me, 'spritual practice' is the art or dance with this Absolute-relative, Shiva-Shakti, Radha-Soami reality taken to sublime heights. Everything we ever do or experience is a part of this Dance, but it is foolish to exclude meditation from this Dance. Indeed, there is a vast line of 'realisers' of the purist non-dual View who advocated at least some emphasis on 'spiritual practice'. The vast majority even. Without whom, I suspect, the many exponents of today's pure 'neo-advaitist' (genuinely 'realised' or not) View would not have even a fraction of the credibility, or audience of today? Some of the writings breathtaking in their profundity and insight, thoroughly aware of all possibilities in the 'mystical' search, fully inclusive of the pure non-dualist AND relative Views.

There is a great deal to suggest there is at least some correlation between meditation and the 'peak' experiences of 'non-duality' even if not directly causal. Leaving peak experiences aside, there is a whole host of things I personally believe make it very difficult to disassociate with limited egoic identity (with all it's fears, insecurities, jealousies, anger, unhappiness etc), which not only meditation and so-called 'spiritual practices' may help 'untie', but things like moral and behavioural discipline, critical and honest introspection, studying of various philosophy, sciences, psychology, religions, cultures etc etc may also be extremely beneficial for untying the various phsyical, psychological, emotional 'blocks' which cause us suffering and unhappiness.

Dualistic meditation practices such as astral projection can also reveal vast and profound things on every level of our emotional and mental being. All kinds of insights that literally change the way a person sees themselves and the world around them. They literally change or loosen the I-dentity of a person. Experiences labelled 'causal' have even more indescribably profound insights and impact on our sense of I-dentity, almost shaking it loose entirely.

Spontaneous or non-meditation occurs of itself. A deeping of insight, a 'breakthrough' into the non-dual with it's sorresponding correlates in shakti or the relative or our body-mind; meditation and 'bliss'. The infinite face of phenomenena-emptiness is seen, understood and experienced directly. Nothing more to be 'experienced'. Desire is satisfied at it's root; the false-self falls away.

None of this may have ever happened Absolutely, but it is still a rather wonderful and beautiful non-existant dance none-the-less.

Sometimes the adopting of a non-dual view is inappropriate, and the wrong medicine for the malady. Personally, I thing it is inappropriate for the majority of people? A sincere approach has not been taken. No genuine transformation has occurred.

Though, it may be some are 'ripe', quite often having passed through much effort and practice along the relative or dualistic path, and simply hearing the View once will be the straw which finally breaks the ego-self's back?

Caveat emptor: I would suggest a genuine 'transformation' would entail a lack of attachment to fear, suffering, anger etc, and a constant abidance (or ability to immediately at any moment, 'access') in the indescribable 'bliss' (for lack of a better non-phenomenal word) of the View. This 'bliss' would not, could not, be traded for any wordly treasure, woman, love, knowledge, fame, name etc. Nor for any indescribably beautiful inner 'astral' or 'causal' paradise, ecstasy, experience etc. These would literally be made of the STUFF of the non-dual View. You could not be moved by the contents, when you are the whole itself. This is not a mask to put up for others, but an experiential reality if it is to be of any real worth.

Though there is nothing to be worried of, no fear of hells or punishment or eternal reincarnation, imo. Spiritual practice is, in it's highest aspect and understanding, simply an EXPRESSION of the most seductive dance we can dance with Shakti.

If there is ever a prayer worth making, it is that we all find peace and happiness.

Forum: Spiritual practice

Conquest of Illusion

obed — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:01:51 GMT

To the deep, to the deep,
Down, down!
Through the shade of sleep,
Through the cloudy strife
Of Death and of Life;
Through the veil and the bar
Of thing which seem and are,
Even to the steps of the remotest throne,
Down, down!

Through the grey, void abysm,
Down, down!
Where the air is no prism,
And the moon and stars are not,
And the cavern crags wear not
The radiance of Heaven,
Nor the gloom to Earth given,
Where there is One pervading, One alone,
Down, down!

http://home.earthlink.net/~grharmon/conquest.htm (please follow the link to

read the entire book of the Conquest of Illusion by Dr. J. J. van der Leeuw)

Forum: Reality

self-deluded

obed — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:48:25 GMT

Particularly destructive among the self-deluded spiritual teachers are those who teach that only they and their personal power can bring freedom, or that they are the ones best suited for the task. They would merely strengthen the chains of our bondage. No genuine teacher will imply that we need anything or anyone, since we are already free and complete. A teachers function is to convey this to the student, and to help him or her to see that. A teacher is at best an invaluable resource to the student, and at worst, a "false prophet", the deluded purporting to teach the deluded, the blind trying to lead the blind.

from http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

Forum: Religious rants and raves

I AM

obed — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:24:16 GMT

I AM

I was regretting the past
And fearing the future
Suddenly my Lord was speaking:
MY NAME IS I AM. He paused.

I waited. He continued,
When you live in the past,
with its mistakes and regrets,
it is hard. I am not there.

My name is not I was.
When you live in the future,
with its problems and fears,
it is hard. I am not there.

My name is not I will be.
When you live in this moment,
it is not hard.
I am here.

My name is I AM.

Forum: Reality

where are you

obed — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:33:49 GMT

where are you?
ANSWER- now!
what are you?
ANSWER- this moment

Forum: Spiritual practice

A Pale Blue Dot

obed — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:58:36 GMT

A Pale Blue Dot

Preface:

On October 13, 1994, the famous astronomer Carl Sagan was delivering a public lecture at his own university of Cornell. During that lecture, he presented this photo:

The photo above was taken by Voyager 1 in 1990 as it sailed away from Earth, more than 4 billion miles in the distance. Having completed it primary mission, Voyager at that time was on its way out of the Solar System, on a trajectory of approximately 32 degrees above the plane of the Solar System. Ground Control issued a command for the distant space craft to turn around and, looking back, take photos of each of the planets it had visited. From Voyager's vast distance, the Earth was captured as a infinitesimal point of light (between the two white tick marks), actually smaller than a single pixel of the photo. The image was taken with a narrow angle camera lens, with the Sun quite close to the field of view. Quite by accident, the Earth was captured in one of the scattered light rays caused by taking the image at an angle so close to the Sun. Dr. Sagan was quite moved by this image of our tiny world. Here is an enlargement of the area around our Pale Blue Dot and an excerpt from the late Dr. Sagan's talk:

"We succeeded in taking that picture , and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

Forum: Favorites and turn-ons