The Spiritual Path

[Starving Buddha]

I am interested in finding others who have started on the spiritual path towards enlightenment. Who may have had the experience of being in the Divine Presence; those who have experienced a moment of rapture that erased all doubt about the Divine. This is not necessarily about any particular religion, but a religious experience that is beyond any denomination. I am interested in finding those who have come to the realization that there is only one spiritual message that is broadcast through every religion and mystical practice. I am interested in finding others who see themselves as teachers, as lightbearers to bring to the world of darkness the beacon necessary to guide others onto the path...

[Pensive]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

This for some unknown reason got me laughing. No offence meant to the thread-starter, by the way. It just reminded me of a scene from Midnight's Children.

As for this:

I am interested in finding others who see themselves as teachers, as lightbearers to bring to the world of darkness the beacon necessary to guide others onto the path...
Umm I guess not....but wait. I already am a light-bearer and a holy person (if that's what you mean), why would I need a path to take me somewhere? ;)

[jon1jt]

I am interested in finding others who have started on the spiritual path towards enlightenment. Who may have had the experience of being in the Divine Presence; those who have experienced a moment of rapture that erased all doubt about the Divine. This is not necessarily about any particular religion, but a religious experience that is beyond any denomination. I am interested in finding those who have come to the realization that there is only one spiritual message that is broadcast through every religion and mystical practice. I am interested in finding others who see themselves as teachers, as lightbearers to bring to the world of darkness the beacon necessary to guide others onto the path...


I think you're interested in finding simply people who in some shape or form consider themselves to be Unitarian Universalist. religious experience, when shared as a single expression of the cosmos, is denominationalizing. ;)

Unitarianism Universalism is an unusual religious organization. Unlike most religions in North America, it does not require its adherents to adhere to a specific set of beliefs. Its membership includes individuals who identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Humanists, Wiccans, or other religious tradition. Many inter-faith couples find it to be a comfortable religious home. UUs view the main function of the congregation as facilitating the spiritual quest of its members.

Major concerns of the UU religion include social justice and service to humanity. Most UUs readily adapt their beliefs to the findings of science. Thus they were very active in the abolition of slavery, gaining of equal rights for women, and the attainment of equal rights, including the right to marry, for homosexuals and bisexuals. They have an influence on the culture that is far beyond what one would expect from their numbers.

religioustolerance.org



I am interested in finding others who see themselves as teachers, as lightbearers to bring to the world of darkness the beacon necessary to guide others onto the path...

in the words of Whitman, "When I give I give myself." :D

[NikolaiI]

I think I agree with you Starving that there is one message broadcast. I had an interesting and revealing experience in meditation last night. In most Buddhist writings on meditation, at least for beginners, emphasis is placed on stilling the mind, or coming to peace, or rest, from discursive thoughts. Well, that isn't exactly how I meditate anymore. Now I meditate for the highest spheres. What I felt last night was my chakras being in alignment, and this is necessary to be conscious, I've read. Meditation can be transforming, you know. That's what I meditate for. If you do it right you can actually see the effects of it immediately, of which you won't find too many other people speak. The divine, that I felt last night; I felt it as another world- the other shore, Heaven on earth; or some kind of energy. I felt it enter my mind as I focused, and expand. Anyway that's all I have to say about this right now.

[blazeofglory]

What you call a spiritual path is indeed not that carved out and it is something you can say or show. It is personal. It is something one can get anywhere, yet no where, and we must seek it not collectively, congregationally or concertedly .

Spirituality is something I can not say what it is. It can not be translated into thoughts or can not be worded.

People take outer things, sheer veneers for spirituality.

It is the kernal.

People get entangled or chained to sets of ideas and get beguiled.

[B-Mental]

Starving Budha, your post relates to me in so much as I am the son of teachers and entertainers...creators...but for many years my creativity, my spirituality or what will you was held in check by my questions of belief, and faith. What some will call rapture others will try to prescribe a drug for. The journey you talk about requires the stripping away of all doubt, and then when you have broken the mold, and given away everything that you no longer require you find this radiance that is very pleasant to be in the presence of. It is a state of the mind that you seek. I don't address this topic in any of the religious threads, because I've been insulted by persons that really have never taken a step along the journey as anything other than a student...they will give name to that which they have never experienced, while I cannot give it a name and experience it through waking moments, while sleeping, and while meditating.

[kiz_paws]

I don't address this topic in any of the religious threads, because I've been insulted by persons that really have never taken a step along the journey as anything other than a student...they will give name to that which they have never experienced, while I cannot give it a name and experience it through waking moments, while sleeping, and while meditating.
That is tragic, really (the inability to just talk about something). :(

I have nothing worthy to contribute to this thread, but I want to follow it, as this is a very intriguing one indeed. Thank you for posing it, Starving Buddha. :)

[B-Mental]

Its not the inability to talk about it, its the inability to share the sensation with others correctly...I think blaze of glory has put it much more accurately than I have.

[Scheherazade]

I find this tendency on behalf of human beings to trying to justify their existence in spiritual terms, adding "deep" meanings to it a little presumptuous. I am not sure if there is an "enlightenment" or a nirvana to be reached (no offence to any religions or their followers) even though we try very hard to persuade ourselves that there is and that our existence is not altogether futile.

[NikolaiI]

On the spiritual path,
there is no enlightenment, and there is nothing which is enlightened

how can there ever be that which never was?

[kiz_paws]

I find this tendency on behalf of human beings to trying to justify their existence in spiritual terms, adding "deep" meanings to it a little presumptuous. I am not sure if there is an "enlightenment" or a nirvana to be reached (no offence to any religions or their followers) even though we try very hard to persuade ourselves that there is and that our existence is not altogether futile.
I don't see it as presumptuous but rather as a delicate journey to reach complete peace of mind, and I admire those who can attain such a thing. I look around and see chaos most of the time, so peace and tranquility are truly worth being sought for.

OK, sorry if I am off topic but anyhow...

As for "our exitence not being altogether futile" I will agree with you there. I have always thought that I was born with a proverbial bag of tools, and it is my quest in life to find out What those tools are.....then to find out HOW and WHEN to use them.... know what I mean? :)

[NikolaiI]

Spiritual knowledge itself clears perplexity and insecurities. The person is not trying to become immortal, but knows that existence is very fleeting. They have peace of mind and their knowledge teaches them to value others' peace of mind. If you truly perceive what your nature is, then you should know that if you are true to it, you would liberate people and if people knew your heart and the liberating songs in it, they would revere you as a great teacher; if one were true to their buddha nature, they would be a buddha of this age.

Truly we are in a dream and as soon as we awaken from that dream we have an ultimate peace of mind, we see that the entire dream is just a person waking, in a room, with absolutely no knowledge of anything, but experiencing full bliss, and reading one sentence over and over, which they also are the author of, with the pencil: "I don't know who you are, but by the time you finish reading this." Because the sentence and the situation is entirely accurate for our existences; the repeating day is our coming into and out of our dream; and the writing of the same sentence over is our creating reality for ourselves; if we truly awaken from the dream we see we are the same as the person in bed spending countless eternities with the pencil and the sentences. We have absolutely no obstacles to our enlightenment, and only continue out our continual being until we've fully understood our situation, and the sentence we keep writing for ourselves in our room, until we awaken from the dream again.

The sentence is reality; we've written the sentence, and knowing the writer of the sentence is bliss. We read the sentence but we don't know who wrote it, we don't know anything- that is fully ignorance. We keep coming back to the knowledge that we are the author of the sentence, so that becomes all we know. We also know the reality around us. We are at peace knowing we are the shapers of our own reality, and through non-attachment, we've realized that there is nothing to be attached to. Reality is outside the dream.

[Scheherazade]

As for "our exitence not being altogether futile" I will agree with you there. I have always thought that I was born with a proverbial bag of tools, and it is my quest in life to find out What those tools are.....then to find out HOW and WHEN to use them.... know what I mean? :)I am not sure I follow you because I personally believe that we don't have the "bag of tools" you mention; just dumped into this piece of the universe and condemned to get on.

In my opinion, our attempts to prove that there is a deeper meaning (if any) behind our presence and all the suffering in this world are only to make the pain of it all a little more bearable to ourselves.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[kiz_paws]

I am not sure I follow you because I personally believe that we don't have the "bag of tools" you mention; just dumped into this piece of the universe and condemned to get on.
I don't know if we are 'dumped' then 'condemned', hmmmm intriguing..... But anyhow my bag of tools analogy came about as I looked around and saw in any group of humans, that some humans were good at organizing, some were peacemakers, some healers, some this and some that. Each of the aforementioned samples had a good head on their shoulders and knew where they were going. And I got to thinking. Do people just happen into a circumstance and just KNOW what to do for the group as a whole? OK, this is getting weird, sorry, people. But anyhow, those thoughts led me to my postulation of "the Bag Of Tools". :p


In my opinion, our attempts to prove that there is a deeper meaning (if any) behind our presence and all the suffering in this world are only to make the pain of it all a little more bearable to ourselves.
Perhaps. Afterall, if we can see the reason, then the ends seem a little more bearable, or somethin' like that...



Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
This seemed to be so bleak. I dunno, I think that there really is something greater out there. All is NOT for naught. ;)

[blazeofglory]

Spirituality is indeed an unknown path, and we do not know where it leads us to in point of fact, and to me spirituality means it is indeed to be nothing at all. It is in the here and now and of course what we do properly and dutifully is spiritual, and not ideas and accumulated notions of things, and God i not an entity you can understand through words or can you frame it within a particular set of theories or definitions.

Spirituality has nothing to do with otherworldliness at all. If you want see God's forms or shapes we are them and nothing is there like heaven and hell as mythologies relate.

[TheSeeker]

I am not a spiritual master, nor am I enlightened. But I would like to share with you the essence of my understanding of life so far (my own life).

Since my early childhood, for reasons that I don't fully understand I have always felt that there is an urgency, an urgency to undertake the spiritual journey as soon as possible, as there is no time to lose and time is running out.

Later on, it seems to me that the purpose of life is precisely to first understand what that purpose is, then to live whole-heartedly towards that goal. Each of us seems to have different life purposes, although the ultimate purpose(s) of life might be the same for all, but they cannot be understood with reasoning and words.

Some aspects of life seem to be pre-arranged (by karma, or by God, or by whatever, depending on your belief) so that the life lessons can be successfully given and successfully learned. But ultimately we always have free will at all times to accept or reject our lessons.

It seems to me that there are 3 ways to learn our lessons, some of them are imposed by external circumstances. In the order of importance, I see the following means of learning:

1. Learning through suffering. This is the lesson that everybody wants to avoid, but everybody seems to always get it. This is because by our normal nature we don't seem to make enough effort to learn through other means. Suffering is a lesson dearly paid for, so it is even a greater tragedy if we fail to learn after having dearly paid.

2. Learning through life examples of others, especially from those who are close to you (your family, your friends, your society, your country). If you are unfortunate enough, the external circumstances may make you suffer so that they can bring the best out of you (this is a case of learning through suffering). Sometimes, others, though bad acts, also give you the lessons of what NOT to do in life. If you are fortunate enough, then your close ones, especially your spiritual teachers, would be sources of inspiration that transform your life and keep you in the right path for life. True teachers teach much more through their lives than through any other means, including their own doctrines. But ultimately, again, you alone have free will to accept or reject your lessons.

3. Learning through your own effort, from books, reasoning, spiritual practice, ... This is entirely dependent on your free will. The more you do (the stronger your will) the better positions you will be in, in order to avoid undesirable lessons through suffering and through uncontrollable external circumstances.

I also understand that one way to be spiritually liberated is to understand the nature of our own ego and learn to be free from it. The ego is like a container. It can contain sorrows as well as pleasures and other emotions. One cannot selectively seek and retain pleasures and happiness, and reject sorrows and other unpleasant emotions. To be free from sorrows is to be also free from pleasures.

The ego also gives us a false sense of pride and security in our own individuality. Only when the ego is no longer there (deep in our psyche) that we will experience true peace and true happiness (that are not opposed to sorrow or any other emotion). This is not to be accomplished by force but by understanding. The ego is essentially a product of our own mind. And when the mind is free from the burden of the past (this does not mean that our memory is lost but it is simply stored away and is only accessed whenever it is needed), when the chattering of the mind ceases, when the ego is gone, then and only then, an extraordinary sense of complete freedom is present, which is the key to spiritual enlightenment.

I simply hope that the above might help someone. Thank you for reading my life.

[blazeofglory]

I am interested in finding others who have started on the spiritual path towards enlightenment. Who may have had the experience of being in the Divine Presence; those who have experienced a moment of rapture that erased all doubt about the Divine. This is not necessarily about any particular religion, but a religious experience that is beyond any denomination. I am interested in finding those who have come to the realization that there is only one spiritual message that is broadcast through every religion and mystical practice. I am interested in finding others who see themselves as teachers, as lightbearers to bring to the world of darkness the beacon necessary to guide others onto the path...

The spiritual path is a pathless land and in point of fact there is no path. If you follow a particular path that is not the one carved by others, not even by the
Buddha.

[B-Mental]

Would you then say spiritual journey. I agree that there is no one path, each must find their own path, but I definitley feel that there has been a starting point that I can look back upon...although I can think back from that starting point to a point even earlier...it still confuses me...I do not need to understand, only participate.

[blazeofglory]

Spirituality? I often wonder as to what it is. Is there a distinct path, carved out? I really doubt. This path, what we call spiritual cannot be worded. And what is worded is simply a thing or an attempt to capture the entire rays of the sun. It is indeed not possible.

[B-Mental]

The sun yes, but what about the negative energy of the Poles? impossible? I thought everything was possible?

[NikolaiI]

I will just say that I think that spirituality can be described in words. I think you are onto something, B. It wouldn't mean so much just to say 'anything is possible,' but yet it does...

[sparr0w]

It is very difficult to put into words the experience, when dualisms are temporarily suspended, the collective moment is realised, if only even for that moment alone. I think the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching sums it up perfectly. Here, I use Stan Rosenthal's translation:

"Through knowledge, intellectual thought and words,
the manifestations of the Tao are known,
but without such intellectual intent
we might experience the Tao itself."

Beyond this, there will never really be a satisfactry way to explain it.

[NikolaiI]

That's very true, Sparrow.

Have you heard of the I Ching? It's an ancient Chinese text, before the time of Lao Ze and Confucius, who wrote some of the commentary.

You might be interested in it, not as a book of divination, but because it describes different events, and always the law of change.

[sparr0w]

yes, Nikolai, I have a copy of the I-ching, though i dont much get into the divination part of it, it does hold much wisdom. I like all spiritual texts, from the bible to the Dhamapada, and have quite a collection. What I like about the Tao Te Ching (Lao Tzu) is that so many different translations exist, and all of them give a slightly different take on what was being said, which I think was the point, everyone would get out of it what they are meant to get out of it. i cant call myself a Taoist, but i have found much wisdom in it.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, it might be most interesting just because it's so ancient, written when Tao wasn't so much called the Tao, it was just used and mixed and blended. I don't read it for divination either. I believe studying it helps us to understand and analyze almost any kind of situation, be it chess or anything else. There are various component parts to every situation, and the I Ching describes how they will probably shift.

[sparr0w]

For sure... Lately ive been reading a bit more eastern and middle-eastern philosiphy, such as "I Am That" by Sri Nasargadatta Maharaj. Theres an excellent pdf online at http://home.earthlink.net/~grharmon/I_Am_That.pdf ,
but I recoment you also get yourself a copy to keep along. interesting, if nothing else, you know?

[NikolaiI]

Ah thanks. Do you like Alan Watts? I recommed The Joyous Cosmology. It's online too just type it into google. I don't have a book form of it though I really want one now.

[Etienne]

Why do so many people confuse philosophy and mysticism?

[NikolaiI]

Because they're stupid?

What answer are you looking for with a loaded question?

[Etienne]

It was a rhetorical question... rhe-to-ri-cal.

[NikolaiI]

Vedic philosophy, Nietzsche, mysticism...

[Etienne]

Explain your thoughts.

[NikolaiI]

Mysticism is incorperated in philosophy, especially Eastern philosophy but no less in Western.

...perhaps you are confusing philosophy with mysticism...oh that's what you said, I thought you said mysticism with philosophy- sorry. :)

[Etienne]

Mysticism is incorperated in philosophy, especially Eastern philosophy but no less in Western.

Well in great part, what is referred as Eastern philosophy is not philosophy. Although there is a part of philosophy like in almost any mysticism. We can argue about matters of semantics, but through history, even if the conception of philosophy has changed a lot, things have remained.

When "spirituality" is discussed with no trace of rational or empirical argumentation, that is not philosophy. I am not saying philosophy cannot be interested in those subject, it is a matter of method. Philosophy, mostly during the Middle-Ages and Renaissance have been very much interested in religions, but with a philosophical method. There is no clear-cut division, but it's obvious in this topic, for example that the discussion was not really meant for a philosophical discussion, as for some spiritual discussion.. or what we might call "salon philosophy"...

How the ongoing discussion has much different from a discussion about Holy Scriptures of the different religion escapes me, but New Age eastern trend "philosophies" don't want to be labeled as religion and they prefer the philosophical label which have better connotation in their minds. In the East, that is considered religion.

But well... go on for all I care, I didn't mean to hijack the topic and get in such a discussion...

[sparr0w]

Wow, sorry, I was gone for a couple days... seems ive been missing an intersting agrument... well, maybee not interesting, but an argument none the less. No worries, Nik, some people just like to act smart by acting arrogant. Shes obviously not trying to make any points, just trying to stir up the pot. I would ignore her.

[Etienne]

Wow, sorry, I was gone for a couple days... seems ive been missing an intersting agrument... well, maybee not interesting, but an argument none the less. No worries, Nik, some people just like to act smart by acting arrogant. Shes obviously not trying to make any points, just trying to stir up the pot. I would ignore her.

Him... him. My point was just a precision, or perhaps getting some people to actually consult philosophical texts, if their aspirations are really philosophical. And I notice that you are trying to insult me (so much for all your spiritual wisdom...), I won't fight back.

[sparr0w]

sorry about the gender-confusion. No, i really wasnt trying to insult you, i just fail to see why you even bring the question up. there was no mention throughout this discussion as to it being a philisophical, religious, or "mystic" in nature, just about different approaches to finding personal peace, which can happen through any of the three, which is why all are being discussed. I was just getting the impression that you were trying to start an argument for the sake of starting an argument. seriously, though, sorry if i rubbed you wrong.

[Etienne]

Check the forum section it's in: "Philosophical literature", but never mind, I'm out.

[sparr0w]

again, semantics. a good deal of the discussions in the philosophy section are spiritual in nature. true, though, this is the philosophy section. then again, would you accept this discussion in the "religion and sacred texts" section? i mean, although we have brought up some "sacred" texts, such as the bible and the dhamapada, weve also brought up eastern "mystics" and philosophy. blessings!

[NikolaiI]

First, as it seemed at first, Etienne, it seems like you meant "confuses mysticism with philosophy." Nevermind that...

You see Etienne I take this seriously, as I wish to be a serious writer. So I wouldn't ignore your posts. I don't know how to respond by your criticisms of "without a trace of rational..." except by saying that I wish to write to as large an audience as possible, that is, desireably, universal. Rational is included in the list of good qualities which I wish my writing to have. One of my dreams in life-- not the highest priority-- is to write, the main mode being books. Paragraph posts on here are just part of that desire to write-- to discuss to learn, and then to practice communication so that I can write eloquently-- to receive input, produce output, the whole of this that is communication, and eventually so that I can write complete, self-contained, books and articles. I have very high standards for anything I would publish.

Now Etienne, you may be missing a lot. Remember that "it is the mark of an educated man to entertain a thought, even if he disagrees with it."

This is a waste of time if everything I've gotten from you so far is true. You think what I-- or we-- write is salon philosophy without a trace of rationality. So you see it, read it-- I don't know how interestedly-- and your conclusion is it's all, possibly destructive, garbage. Well now you have chanced to encounter something very rare-- me. And you seem to accuse me or my writings of being weak rationally-- and this would further indicate to be shallow, unpenetrating, but all you do is simply say that they're salon philosophy and not rational. Well sir, this attempt of your own certainly wasn't very deep or rational.

Let me go over the only post of very much substance (besides my statement that there is no enlightenment) I've put on this thread, carefully, to try to explain it to you with commentary-- hopefully in a rational, linguistical way you'll understand.


Spiritual knowledge itself clears perplexity and insecurities.

I suppose this is a definition of the term "Spiritual knowledge." So if there are no perplexity or insecurities, then one has spiritual knowledge. But you and I both know there's more to it than this. Spiritual knowledge has to be true, otherwise it's some kind of false knowledge.


The person is not trying to become immortal, but knows that existence is very fleeting. They have peace of mind and their knowledge teaches them to value others' peace of mind.

This was mostly in response to something Scheh said. This "Spiritual path" we're talking about-- which I will refer to as the spiritual path, does not by any means necessarily mean one is trying to be supernatural, or even mystic. I'm not defining it as striving to be immortal-- though for me, in cosmology, it is.

The spiritually attained person has peace of mind-- the very term 'spiritual knowledge' is a very complex subject which requires more treatment than I can give here, so I'll leave it alone for now. However, as I'm defining this-- as is MY view-- this knowledge tells us to accept other views, and not to try to change them, or things we can't change. (This is included in the Tao, if I'm not wrong, the claim of which hopefully sparr0w will support.)

Sadly, so sadly, you discredit Plato much more than he deserves to be discredited. When I say that Plato confirms this, I cannot predict what you will think-- but Plato confirms this. Those of us who "have climbed out of the cave of ignorance," of them, who of them would want to go back into the cave and play games in the darkness? Rather, their souls are "rightly" always hastening towards the light which they are called. Maybe some day you will experience this, experience truth in all its complete and unadultered beauty, and then you'll see why you wouldn't want to go back into the dream.

To those of you who think it's not rational for me to call life a dream, I can only ask that you read on. I, like you, remember reading Descartes "dreaming of myself in the chair" part of his writing. His conclusion was that because he could act in so much assurety, and see things in greater detail-- actually I'm thinking I could be wrong here-- that's how he knew he was awake. Er, let's move on.


If you truly perceive what your nature is, then you should know that if you are true to it, you would liberate people and if people knew your heart and the liberating songs in it, they would revere you as a great teacher; if one were true to their buddha nature, they would be a buddha of this age.

The height of irrationality!! What is this complete nonsense? It turns my stomach! Actually it's a truth, and I speak the truth to you which a buddha knows. Etienne, I tell you, all that's needed for complete liberation is knowledge of the self. If you know yourself, then you are a teacher of gods. If you don't know yourself, you never will.

So you have spent all your life with yourself, time alone and time with others: do you know yourself? I'm not asking this particularly to you, Etienne, I'm just stating it rhetorically. If people knew the nature of things, they would not worry. At all times there's a merging of consciousnesses that we're not really aware of-- and yes, there are Gods which we do not perceive with our eyes. You might think me inferior, but these Gods-- God-- answers you if you speak to him as a friend.


Truly we are in a dream and as soon as we awaken from that dream...

This is an almost universal understanding of life. The only reason I try to share it with words is that when I saw this, I knew it was important, when I saw what was real, I knew the rest was not real. I am not decided as to whether it's an obligation or not to share this-- but whether we are happy or not does not matter. The end for us all is the same, I believe. Of course some are probably experiencing suffering I cannot imagine-- sometimes this will happen to me and I'll be ravaged by it-- for instance when I found love, my life became new and I was happier for it, but I also realized how tired I was-- how tired and inefficient and unintelligent, all of these I didn't know I was. But in the end, it doesn't matter---------- in a good way.


...we have an ultimate peace of mind, we see that the entire dream is just a person waking, in a room, with absolutely no knowledge of anything, but experiencing full bliss, and reading one sentence over and over, which they also are the author of, with the pencil: "I don't know who you are, but by the time you finish reading this." Because the sentence and the situation is entirely accurate for our existences; the repeating day is our coming into and out of our dream; and the writing of the same sentence over is our creating reality for ourselves; if we truly awaken from the dream we see we are the same as the person in bed spending countless eternities with the pencil and the sentences. We have absolutely no obstacles to our enlightenment, and only continue out our continual being until we've fully understood our situation, and the sentence we keep writing for ourselves in our room, until we awaken from the dream again.

This is my own allegory, which I created all by myself, and it is, I hope, completely original.

To explain it-- at some point the individual steps outside of the sickening world of concepts and evil, steps out of that, and realizes he has complete knowledge of his life. He also realizes that he is the author of this life. I don't know what more to say here-- I don't think it's a useless allegory, though anything is useless if we can't find the reason for it (A hammer cannot be used by a being that will never understand it, nor is able to hold it.) I can speak of my allegory, of a person in a room with a pencil and paper with one or maybe more sentences on it, and for a moment we share consciously this image, but it may mean nothing to you while its of paramount importance to me. Anyway, while I still value this allegory as very deep and while it is still important to me, this was written months ago, and I've moved far beyond it now. It means less and more to me.


The sentence is reality; we've written the sentence, and knowing the writer of the sentence is bliss. We read the sentence but we don't know who wrote it, we don't know anything- that is fully ignorance. We keep coming back to the knowledge that we are the author of the sentence, so that becomes all we know. We also know the reality around us. We are at peace knowing we are the shapers of our own reality, and through non-attachment, we've realized that there is nothing to be attached to. Reality is outside the dream.

One thing-- as I said, you've encountered something very rare-- me. This is not salon philosophy. No one else has my ideas. No one else has your ideas. You do not hear people talking on the street about this stuff. It is not popular, I repeat, my philosophy is not the popular, ridden over path. In fact, no one's here is. Except for those that insult. That's normal.

Reality is outside the dream. Care to discuss anything in reality?

[Etienne]

This is a waste of time if everything I've gotten from you so far is true. You think what I-- or we-- write is salon philosophy without a trace of rationality. So you see it, read it-- I don't know how interestedly-- and your conclusion is it's all, possibly destructive, garbage. Well now you have chanced to encounter something very rare-- me. And you seem to accuse me or my writings of being weak rationally-- and this would further indicate to be shallow, unpenetrating, but all you do is simply say that they're salon philosophy and not rational. Well sir, this attempt of your own certainly wasn't very deep or rational.

That is not what I meant, what i said applied to so-called truths, with no rational or empirical development. My point is only about the justification of statements and not just throwing statements around because they sound good or you feel them. You can do it, but it's not philosophy. I didn't mean to say either that everything in the thread was devoid of philosophy, but I'd say most of it, and more important it's very premises.


Sadly, so sadly, you discredit Plato much more than he deserves to be discredited. When I say that Plato confirms this, I cannot predict what you will think-- but Plato confirms this.

It's not so much as I discredit Plato, but that I discredit him as an appeal to authority. Saying "Plato confirms this" is absolutely no valuable argument, he "confirmed" pretty funky things, and actually, Plato's main ideas were abandoned after his death (even though there were still platonists but they were peripetatized on many subjects) and most of the influence Plato had afterwards was through the Neo-platonic school founded by Plotin. That is to say, pretty much any appeal to authority is quite weak, an appeal of authority on Plato (really, philosophy has developed to no extent since him, his ideas that are still actual have been developed better afterwards. Just like if I want to talk about astronomy, I don't use Ptolemy or Aristotle as a source for facts) is even weaker. That is not to say that you cannot talk about or relate to Plato in a philosophical dialogue and even less that one should not study him - my point is about using him as an authority.


So you have spent all your life with yourself, time alone and time with others: do you know yourself? I'm not asking this particularly to you, Etienne, I'm just stating it rhetorically. If people knew the nature of things, they would not worry. At all times there's a merging of consciousnesses that we're not really aware of-- and yes, there are Gods which we do not perceive with our eyes. You might think me inferior, but these Gods-- God-- answers you if you speak to him as a friend.

This for example would not be philosophy. How can you claim to be more right than anyone else on this statement? There is no rational or empirical justification, and so it only comes down to what you believe, and that is not philosophy.


One thing-- as I said, you've encountered something very rare-- me.

Well if we take as premise that everyone is unique, then I guess you're right.


This is not salon philosophy. No one else has my ideas. No one else has your ideas.

I'm afraid we will disagree on this.


You do not hear people talking on the street about this stuff.

Not in the streets, but in salons, all the time :brow:


It is not popular, I repeat, my philosophy is not the popular, ridden over path. In fact, no one's here is. Except for those that insult. That's normal.

I do not mean to insult, but we will agree to disagree, most of the thoughts we have do come from somewhere else (even if unconsciously), real (constructive) innovation is something rare and precious, just like the wheel may seem something very natural and easy to think of, but had you been born before it's invention, you would never have figured out. I believe there is a great lack of humility in what you are saying.

[NikolaiI]

Nothing you've said is real. Nothing I've said is real. As Osho said, it doesn't really matter what he says, he's only trying to elucidate certain insights and realizations. I typed but erased that certain philosophies of Tibet, in most particular Milarepa, are much more advanced than anything since. I don't wish to argue with you, but only discuss. I don't have any wish for competition or cynicism either. There is a great lack of humility in saying that what other people believe was not arrived at through rationally logically true steps. I wasn't saying that what other people think is less true than what I think, only that what I think is true. There's a great quote from a Philip Dick book that says "Everyone that anyone has ever thought is true." These statements may not seem like philosophy to you, but they are-- and aphorisms are a good part of philosophy. For one, they inspire people to create their own aphorisms! So far you've not addressed anything I've said, other than disregarding it, supposedly on its merit, or also for some unknown reason you dislike about my method-- of which you have no knowledge. When I speak in allegory about the illusion of life as a dream, you have never responded to it. On this post that is the main thread of what I've been writing.

Cheers.

[Etienne]

That you arrived at a certain thought rationally or not is not the concern here so much as how it is exposed. A statement well demonstrated and explained is worth a hundred statements thrown in the air without support (at least philosophically).

Philosophical aphorism should, like any form of philosophical literature, contain a demonstration or explanation. I did not comment on your statements simply because my point in the topic was simply a parenthesis to perhaps clarify something, not the actual topic. Your aphorisms are very nice and all, but nothing so original (without any insult meant) and I do not feel like discussing undemonstrated statements here, in a discussion around a beer or a bottle of wine perhaps. So maybe you don't see my point correctly or simply don't agree but it's time to close the little parenthesis I came to the topic for, I've said what I had to say (yes, second time I'm saying this too). The last word is yours to take.

[NikolaiI]

My aphorisms-- I said nothing about my aphorisms.

Again I will say- I do not have my opinions because they "sound good."

I think I have understood you much better than you have me.

You have yet to discuss any statement- undemonstrated or demonstrated. I've made many points you could discuss- my philosophy is all over this site, we could talk about anything. If you want to leave this discussion, go ahead.


The whole point of this discussion has been the "inexpressible" wisdom or spirituality- if there is such a thing, universal peace. Blaze is maintaining that there is no mandatory or only spiritual way- I am saying that I've seen it written very well, in many different authors I've pursued. Beginning with Buddhist philosophy, and continuing studying this, and later Western philosophy, always comparing my ideas with many people, and more recently writing as much as I can down. Practicing meditation, Tai Chi movements, and trance, as well as fasting, and reading, studying, meditating upon the Gita as well as others, I've had greatly numerous insights. One time I had the very clear implication that everything in life was a dream- impermanent- and that none of it affected who we really are- our soul. I experienced myself as outside of the dream for an extended period of time, and I saw myself as a buddha of our age, and the light of buddhas in all things. This occurred before and after meditating upon the Heart Sutra. I realized that I could not understand the Heart Sutra completely, but viewing it I saw it to be the same as my own nature. Everything is of the nature of the heart sutra and the self- they are empty. This great truth I meditated on many times since then. I think about it in many ways. Later I re-began and read more of The Joyous Cosmology, and as I recently had much more love in my life, I was able to understand this well, and simply- penetratingly, and with new good insights (the value of output, of creation, and learning from one's self, the value of keeping record and meditating upon it). I began to see things in this way. Etienne, I do not need you to taste what I taste when I drink a drink, but if I am going to have a philosophical discussion, I will bring all elements of my knowledge into it, and so I will keep coming back to the only important thing I ever learned: it doesn't matter if we take the drink or not.

[NikolaiI]

The spiritual one is the source from which our thoughts flow.

We can never, perhaps, fully attain the supreme, this would like being god. Yet our awareness of it shows us certain things. Spiritual awakening is progress towards the supreme. In our insights we always catch new glimpses of the soul, which becomes more familiar to us. We are always learning. When we learn new things that we know are true, we usually see that these are true; we remove obstructions from our vision and see something new.

In a writer like Emerson, all of this is explained much more eloquently than I can. He wrote so much that you know he wasn't doing it for any ulterior motive. Yet it is so simple, the sentences are short and it is explained so that the simplest person can understand.

The soul is defined in the Vedas as that which pervades everything. Knowledge is learned and shared and passed on; it's integrated in expansion so that a person can then recreate whole works dedicated to the subject, and their expression is true. The source is that which is attained when we let go. We can only experience truth if we let go of our previous conceptions. In reality, all concepts are equally true or not; and it becomes obvious that of all the concepts, those which are whole works of truth are nourishing to the soul.

When we turn our attention to something like love, and then turn it back to more banal worldly matters, they are seen from above, and seen and understood easily. The whole point of it is to learn and to grow; to incorporate ourselves into ourselves. The point and way of self-realization is manifold. We create reality for ourselves, but then we build on this, and as time passes we make incredible progress. We have visions which we cannot describe in words, but which inspire us; if we do not make some record of them, if we do not seize them with all of our limited ability to translate and record them, then they are lost to us.

The highest knowledge is that there is a difference between temporal and real attributes. Thus a philosopher like Plato stretches out beyond his time, and history for many centuries are incorporated in his writing. Yet, he is not an oracle, because he tells us to heed cause and effect; we learn knowledge as we can truly, the truth of ourselves and our bodies, minds, spirits, the truth of love; all is attainable. In Buddhism, scholars speak of this; surely the path is furthered by studying them. They say; pay attention to the breath, coming into and out of your body. Pay attention to your body. What do we know? It is false; we are always learning, expanding, improving, learning, becoming more healthy. The sky is blue. We look at the sky but can we see the true blue there? Is it not our smile, our love, that makes it blue? We gaze upon it, and when a self-realized soul comes up to us, then, oh then, it is blue, it is true blue. It is more blue. And what are we but that which we see? Our nature is the cosmos, everything great and infinite and patterned we see around us.

We pay attention to breath; we breathe; we pay attention to god, who is our source of refreshment, of love; our bodies and minds are cleansed. What is possibly greater than the soul, what is greater than the knowledge we are learning, we are becoming closer to the source every minute, that as we learn about the soul, and if we can remove our obstructions, our understanding is expanded, and moved more in line with truth? If there is humility, then we can admit we don't know perfectly ourselves, our minds, our hearts, our bodies; but as soon as this happens, we get a more true vision of it. We get a better vision of the fact-- of the perfect fact, the perfect truth, which we do not know as yet. This truth is above all, yet it is manifest in smaller, understandable ways. For instance, I know intellectually that life will be better. I know it is good. But I don't really know these things. I know intellectually that there is no pain, that the truth is beyond my imagining; that my energy comes from things I eat, and so there is no feeling of being tired, this all passes, and then life requires no energy, no expenditure.

And I see that day after day, my mind becomes closer to what is the source. I see that as I come closer to breaking down the obstructions, to attaining the soul; that is, to see myself as I truly am-- which is completely beyond me, my imagining, although I feel I know myself-- and as I am guided more and more by love, that self I am observing becomes higher and higher.

Truth: clears confusion. Knowledge: clears doubt. Doubt: is demonic. What is good: the knowledge that I am clear-minded, and I know these things, and that I am able to be more and more guided by love. Happiness: love.

All of these things I know: what I don't know is anything, or anything else. I only know love by happiness, I only know truth by assurance. I only know grace by love, and love by grace. I only know sanity by faith and love.

I don't know anything, I don't know the knower, or any object at all. I know the soul, or a frail intimation, but I don't know the knower. I am not experiencing reality-- I cannot conceive of reality. I know that my mind is pure, and perfect for where I am. I know that love is the highest principle. Truth is second. I do not equate myself to these things, or humility. As I said I know my mind is pure, although not in the absolute sense. Perhaps, only pure in a derogatory sense. I don't really know my mind; as I said, I do not know reality. I do know what is not reality, though, I know what is not love, what is not truth, what is not goodness. Everything in this life has a touch of not love, not truth, and not goodness. Everything has a touch of green. This cannot be overcome except by complete integration of the soul; of knowledge and release, of form and water, of sky and earth, of heaven and earth; yin and yang, outside and inside, within and without.

It is said in buddhism, "if you know your mind, then you are a teacher of gods, of buddhas. Yet if you don't know your mind, no on can ever show it to you." I know there is no mind but I don't know no mind. If I knew no mind I would be a buddha.

The highest that these ideas can be taken to, as far as I can tell in my mystical experience, is complete mastering of the world. I am standing beyond the world; it is only by my observation of myself in relation to a desolate world; if you take away everything, then there is much desolation; but still the spirit stands. I believe I am a part of and created by this spirit. And after my life, yet I will still exist, in any that is guided by love, the power which overcomes the negative. An exercise in imagination is what gives my experience credence to me; after the end of the world, or even at this present moment, there is a place of such desolation: in the midst of a vast populace, still there is complete emptiness, and there are the signs of the end of the world, or beyond it, of this desolation, yet spirit stands alive and manifest, perfect under guidance of love.

That is, I am not powerful, but still I know I exist: I know that love always exists.

[NikolaiI]

Lovely.

[blazeofglory]

The spiritual path? This is the one, the one we walk on and nowhere else.

For to live spiritually does not mean to part with the things we do in life but to be at one with all.[/B]