The Only Way (2)

How can it be that the only way reveals itself in this very moment? How can we see the necessity of being true to it in every word we speak or write here? Can we see that it only allows for one response; the right one. Can we recognize any diversion from the right path? Now please be aware, advaitaists will jump all over this one as they think anything goes, at any time. What I'm referring to is one right response that doesn't issue from an egotistical mind. It is a true response to the situation, to the topic or issue at hand. It's like listening to a symphony where any diversion would stick out. Being in the flow allows for an uninterrupted emergence and is the requirement for any ascent, for any learning, for evolution to take place. Being smug, or smart, or cool and suave even though knowledgeable diverts from true coming together. So in another words, it's different from being hip and agreeing with each other or agreeing to disagree in a mutually respectful way. Conversation can be something that lifts up, something that evolves as we participate. Unbeknown beforehand. It's so easy to be slick especially if you know your dharma, but way, does it miss the mark.

Humility, listening and sincerity are prerequisites for a fruitful conversation and vital in any deep inquiry. How can we tell? Well, the aim and goal being a coming together beyond the individual. Regardless of personal proficiency we can all measure up and participate fully. There are no prior requirements. Love being the essential unifying factor. Listen deeply. Hear the heart beat.

I wrote this about the immediacy of awakening some time ago:

Truth does not exist as a separate reality as a static Absolute. It has no meaning as an idea or concept. Truth is expressed in what we do. Therefore we can't “talk” about it without being it. It has to be “proven” as we speak about it. It has to be manifested through our understanding of the immediacy of awakening. It is now, and now, and now. Anything less will only be an expression of ignorance, and of arrogance if we believe we know something.

Re: The Only Way (2)

Thank you for starting a new thread, Bjorn. That last one was getting very, very long.

There's a great freedom, isn't there, in knowing that you don't know?

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Yes, great freedom, and infinite possibilities. Unlimited potentiality.

Bless : )

Re: The Only Way (2)

Isn't it interesting Nicole, that some have called you the peacemaker here, because there is so much contention and opposing views that thanks to you manages to co-habitat on this pod. Make no mistake, I thank you for it, and realizes that's the only reason this pod is so well visited by many. Still, I wish to arouse an interest in something revolutionary, not something ordinary; a conversation that grows and matures as it evolves through concerted effort by all participants. Sometimes this unfolds quite naturally and we all feel and enjoy these threads. So why don't we look at the principles underlying true communication and what stifles it?

Re: The Only Way (2)

Yes, indeed, Bjorn, I find it interesting too.

Eli has been making what I think is a wonderful contribution to facilitating communication through his blogs.

So, let us continue to explore this here. I am looking forward to your insights and the insights of others. Would you like to do it here or to begin another thread?

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

The only way is here, and now : )

Re: The Only Way (2)

“There's a great freedom, isn't there, in knowing that you don't know?”
Yes :-) Well said :-)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Ok, here's a question then; what would be the reason to call a teaching the one and only way? Is it possible to understand it differently from the dogmatic Christian that justifies his faith accordingly, and is it possible to understand it differently from the antagonistic person that labels it the height of arrogance to claim such a position. How can we see and realize the statement; the one and only way without falling into either category? Can we come to see it as a true statement that refers to something so immediate that it would shock us, surprise us, and that could become a living, ongoing discovery in our interactions.

Like the beauty of improvisation of musicians. It resonates and flows, it's harmony and total unknowing. But trained skill and a keen ear lies as a foundation. Total surprise, but harmonious.

When Chaos turnes into Kosmos.

Re: The Only Way (2)

This sounds very promising, could you elaborate, please?

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Doesn't an echo follow as a natural response? Can we respond totally from the previous input? Maybe taking it further, enlarging it, expanding upon it. Once the sound comes naturally to a still, another voice calls out again, just to be reflected upon and returned. With intention we can give it direction and seek meaning or clarity. Can we ask difficult questions and pursue them? Not with an overly serious intent but with sincerity and joy?

Re: The Only Way (2)

Bjorn,

It seems the problem is in the categories. Once we define categories, such as dialogue between “dogmatic Christian that justifies his faith accordingly” and “antagonistic person that labels it the height of arrogance to claim such a position.” Then, it seems to me, we may have inadvertently set a rule that all dialogue will be of these two categories. This may create a situation in which others find themselves predisposed to one or the other category. Therefore, would you not agree that we have thusly, oppressed the dialogue to where it cannot “deepen”? If i am contained by a category, then my beliefs are so contained and suprise may be lost to me.

In addition, once we require surprise be harmonious we have also set criteria (yet this is not to say it will or won't be, just that no one is to decide). Who's to say surprise (or 'awakening') should be harmonious? Maybe it's all a very discordant affair.

Just saying…

Peace Angels,
mike S

Re: The Only Way (2)

Yes I agree.
As long as we see the problem of falling into any category. That would hamper an open ended inquiry of the said topic. I just mentioned two polar opposite viewpoints that I often hear when discussing these matters. If we realize the stumbling block of opinions we can safely explore the unknown and maybe be surprised?
Yes, surprise itself maybe is not often harmonious? But I was trying to convey a path that flows, as now, when we speak, openly and interested, in trying to understand each other. There is a harmony to it, that I truly enjoy. And this is not truly a surprise as I trust us to be able to communicate clearly, but nevertheless, it's pleasant. But who knows where something can lead?

Cheers bro ; )

Re: The Only Way (2)

I don't necessarily agree with the title “the only way” if there is an only way, I would like to submit for your consideration the possibility that it is the way that each individual creates for themselves. What is the only way for me will not be the only way for you. Spirituality, in essence is an individual enterprise, whether one is engaged in a religious community or not. We are all on our own journey, no matter what beliefs or ideals we may attach ourselves to on our path.

Re: The Only Way (2)

I agree with you Mr. We all walk our own path, as no one can occupy the same space as us.
Your view is one way of misunderstanding the statement “the only way”, mostly known from Jesus saying; I am the way, the truth and the life. If we dig a little deeper we will find this is a statement he has to make, if he is what he claims to be. When we dip into a resonant place in our selves and come to understand it from our own experience then ”I am the way” suddenly becomes clear. Then, we might stumble upon what Jesus is. Let it surprise us.

The exciting thing is to make sense out these seemingly crazy statements and pursue an understanding of them. If we do, it has the possibility to open our eyes to even deeper truths that has been hidden.

I always find it so superficial to abandon the search for meaning just because it doesn't hit us in the face, once we see, read, hear something new or old.

I once asked an western advaita teacher about the meaning of the eightfold noble path of the Buddha, and she answered with same standard reply she answered all her questions; it's the Absolute.

This simplification in the name of truth always irritates me, and that's why I keep trying to bring about a discussion that will try to avoid simplifying and encourage inquiry. But if we are already self satisfied there will not be much room for inquiry.

Re: The Only Way (2)

I think there is still lots of room for inquiry. Let us continue to explore together, brother.

Blessings,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

There is only one way.
There is only one truth.
there is only one conscience.

It comes with many names.
Many faces.
Many stories.

For all ways are the same.
All ways come from the only way.
All ways come from the same place.

And end in the same place.

There is only one mountain.
Yet there is an infinite amount of paths to the top.
Choose your path wisely.
For some are harder than others.


See you at the top.

One.

Re: The Only Way (2)

Hi One, beautiful.

Were you trying to add links at the bottom of your post or is that just random script? I can clean it up if you like - let me know,

Peace,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Im not sure where that came from I was using dictionary.com to check my spelling poof here it is. yes please if you could. 

One

Re: The Only Way (2)

There you go! :)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Bjorn, you pose the question “So why don't we look at the principles underlying true communication and what stifles it? ?
-and later later add “with intention we can give it direction and seek meaning or clarity. Can we ask difficult questions and pursue them? Not with an overly serious intent but with sincerity and joy?”
My first thought is that perhaps intent in itself is what leads to the stifling of communication.  If we enter into a conversation with an intention, other than to grow in and through the experience, are we truly open to the conversation in the first place?

Re: The Only Way (2)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Hi Dov and Elisheva,

Elisheva, this issue of true communication is a hot one right now on Gaia, with conversations springing up on blogs and in discussion groups about how we relate to each other here, so I am keen to delve deeper into this with you.

Intent is one aspect I agree. But I wonder if our intent is ever unmixed. Perhaps, also, I believe that my intention is for open dialogue but unbeknownst to me I am only comfortable with discussion on x, y z but not w which someone is bringing up. Or perhaps I feel inhibited to share because I shared before in this group or another group and felt ignored or slapped down. Or… I think there could be many, many reasons for failure to communicate, and we probably experience a lot of them in our discussions throughout our life.

I look forward to hearing more from you and others on your views, though, perhaps I am off-base with my observations above.

Yes, those kinds of responses can really discourage seekers and kill discussion. Or really spur them on to their own truth. Is it good or bad? It depends, doesn't it? We all have to find our path, and if one way is a deadend for us, well, we have choices.

What do you think?

Love the platypus :)

Shalom,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Elisheva,

This is very meaningful to me today.  Intent to stifle communication is not willingness to be open to hearing, what we may be resisting the acceptance of.

A willingness to grow in and through the experience is not always easy but I believe if we try to avoid it, it will simply return in another disguise.

Deb

Re: The Only Way (2)

Thank you Deb.
I wanted to add that I didn't only mean intent to stifle, I meant intent of anything at all–persuasion, coersion, conversion, creating a peaceful place, etc.  If we go into open communication with a preconceived intent/goal as to how the communication should condlude, we have perhaps tried to answer the question (whatever the question may be) before engaging in any meaningful open conversation whatsoever.  I think that's about as close as I can come to communicating what I mean  ; ).
Thanks again for your comments!
Elisheva

Re: The Only Way (2)

Elisheva,

Yes, I understood that it was broad in the way you describe, quite a challenge to let go so thoroughly.  It simply occured to me that the very act of stifling is resistance to hearing - whatever would be communicated otherwise - if openness were truly present.

Deb

Re: The Only Way (2)

thanx much Nicole :)

Re: The Only Way (2)

there is only one way
because there is no way
there is only is

mind divides in order to understand
and falls prey to its own devices

the moment is ecstatic
all is now
the whole damned thing
only
NOW
everything that actually is
is
right now!
everywhere!

not so much to talk about
if we are surfing the wave ;-)
and if the mind is wont to operate upon it
it captures our awareness
and leads us into the infinite meander
where we will surely miss the ride!

and this is the problem
we are developmental
and each in their own nascence
organizes according to their conditioning
which is unique and specific to their own becoming
through their packet of human coding

so no matter how pure the teaching
nor how clear the way
we can only see what we see
and the ego would hold this to be of supreme importance
and set about garnering the agreements to secure itself
rather than stop, look and listen
to the truth, exploding all about
as plain as day
no farther away than the willingness to see
what is really happening
down deep, beneath the dream of certainties and platitudes
and conversational agreements to agree to disagree

sometimes i think that the truth is the last thing we want to see!
as it upsets all our apple-carts
so willfully, being all that we hold NOT dear
so unpredictably and mercilessly
unfolding
not at all conforming to our prescriptions!

but one thing i do know
wherever egos wander
they leave footprints of contention
and blood on the tracks

Re: The Only Way (2)

mary, you are always so good at striking to the heart of the matter. So much of our failure to communicate, then, has to do with ego and mind taking over? Unwilling to go beneath the surface, to see the truth which will disorder our neatly ordered lives? Well, not so neatly ordered, perhaps, but are we willing to look at it? Admit what isn't working and do something

completely

different?

“wherever egos wander
they leave footprints of contention
and blood on the tracks”

How do we get beyond this, mary? Anyone else?

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

With 'Humility, listening and sincerity' - Bjorn mentioned it some time ago :).  I love observing Dalai Lama practicing these three qualities when he discusses different subjects with people who do not necessarily agree with him…

Re: The Only Way (2)

Re: The Only Way (2)

dov

ego is not a separate entity, as you suggest
it is a construct of the mind
it is a psychological process

the only piece of a person that can blame ego
is the ego

and it is your ego-function that is all hot about it!

Re: The Only Way (2)

Did I actually suggest that, or is it your 'ego' who are claiming that I did? If I did indeed suggest that the 'ego' is a separate entity - where did I do so?

Shalom,
Dov

Re: The Only Way (2)

no dov, just misread your post ;-)

i see you were saying “if” it were separate
saying others “blame it” as if it were

so i see we are actually saying the same thing?
but then, i misunderstand what the issue is…

perhaps there is none?

but it certainly is not something to dismiss! The egoic function is extremely pervasive and powerful and important to a developing human. Too much can be a problem though. Too rigid can be a problem too, too attached to its own certainties…

ego is what happened to the human race
to get us kicked out of the garden….

of course that is metaphorical
because we never really left the garden….
we only thought we did ;-)
but we can sure make a mess of things anyway!

Re: The Only Way (2)

mary,

Re: The Only Way (2)

and to me, the function is more important than how people misconstrue it and twist it to their advantage ;-)

Re: The Only Way (2)

hm…that honestly seems like a contradiction - unless you missed adding a *i give it* between  'function' and 'is'.

Re: The Only Way (2)

also, what you describe as 'misconstruing' and 'twist to their advantage' isn't that just an expression of their perception? and isn't the use of 'misconstruing' and 'twist to their advantage' a value judgment on that perception?

like the color 'blue' - yes, the color 'blue', but what 'shade' of 'blue'?

Dov

Re: The Only Way (2)

you were describing how it can be twisted to advantage, Dov

i was merely agreeing, and saying that the function of ego is a lot more important than what we think it is, or how the concept of ego is used by many to blame for their bad behavior, as if removing themselves from responsibility for their actions.

to me the reality of the dynamic, noticing and understanding what it actually does is more relevant than what people think about it, or how they use the term.

your point?

Re: The Only Way (2)

My point?

That 'function' doesn't go beyond what we assign it to be ;-), because the concept only exist as far as we accept it and use it.

For me it has no function, because I don't use it ;-)

Re: The Only Way (2)

that's like saying your bowels have no function
so you don't use them

Re: The Only Way (2)

Don't be silly, mary.

My bowels are not a concept, they area physical reality - ego is a concept, it doesn't exist and have no reality.

'There is no spoon' ;-)

Dov

Re: The Only Way (2)

so, ego has no reality?

it is ego that would think that nothing it deems conceptual is real
it is the arbiter of reality!
but it is mostly
wrong

and i couldn't be sorrier about that
i find no joy in pressing points
it is quite distressing sometimes, the vitriol
but i never know what someone will take exception to one that i make
and find myself being pressed to defend
when i only wish to clarify
because i have spent so much time exploring my own ego-dynamic
and noticing its features and movements
and evolving through all its differentials until i could finally see the sky
and the sky!
wow!
is so beautiful ;-)

i only want to share. To exchange notes, like kids in school
but it always turns into this jockeying
as if the truth is a prize for the winner

which feels very sad in the experience of separation
when it doesn't have me chuckling at the irony

psychology has reality, else we would not be talking, dov
not all things unseen are conceptual
much unseen is real
and right beyond your perception
and you can't possibly know it!
but there it is, anyway
sometimes discernible by refining the instruments
sometimes never
but always the unknown wraps us like a blanket

the ego moves like the bowels move
it is a psychological process
you can feel it rise to an argument
you can feel it leaning in, diving into problems
nursing its wounds
making things Very Important and Serious
and placing the ME right where it belongs
in the center of my self-righteous certainties

ego is so heavily conditioned, we mostly can see nothing but
it organizes our perceptions behind the curtain
and spins us, the persons we think we are, through resistance to reality
until it is seen and experienced for what it is
and our identities fall away, like spent booster rockets
the illusory self dissipates, in stages usually
then, ego is clever still, but loses its credibility
and then is gradually transcended
as we take up the reins on our own negotiations
like toddler-babies, learning to walk
at first clumsy and awkward, but quickly gaining finesse

and finally, it falls silent
beautifully silent

we are like babies emerging from the ego-womb
and it is rather frightening for most
drives many mad
not a trifling matter at all
if one wants to be free, yet retain cohesion

the experience of egolessness is love
while ego parses differences and assigns relative worth
love would hold all things equally precious

so one way to transcend the ego
is to love the darn thing
it's so cute! Sassy! Delusional!

but beware
we play with fire!
it can have you thinking you know what you are talking about
quick as a blink!

it is the energy that wants to win
that frames dialog as debate
wants to have the last word
and to come out on top

and, quite understandably
given that it is quite natural and gestational
there is a LOT of that on gaia
maybe as much as in the general population
though our egos might wish to see us as more spirtually developed!
so i imagine lots of egos will rise, reading those words…

sigh
it ain't easy
but for me, it was the only way worth walking
straight into the hell of it
through the curtain and beyond
where we are naked, and free
and utterly dismantled by the muchness of it

do you feel naked, and free dov?
are you happy?
this would be a good indicator that your ego
is asleep in the backseat, where it belongs!

 ;-)

RLTruthseeker-artist's story (below - linked) says it very well
that phenomenon is impossible to describe accurately
and it is unnecessary to describe in order to experience fully
that fruit which you can taste for yourself
we can only point at something that can't be seen
and feel for its contours
and map its effects

but we can't share the experience
any more than any other experience
you know it when you know it
then it can't be unknown
like the taste of these eggs, my husband scrambled for me this morning
as i sit here, typing into the ether
noticing i can only chuckle
where it would used to be that my unbridled ego
would make sure these points are properly driven home
with lots of splash and penache

but instead
i am going to enjoy this breakfast!
made with love
and wish all of earth's fine warriors
the very best
and grant them all the high ground
they desire
and hope they win whatever treasures
they deem worth seeking…

too much life to enjoy
and contention
wow
not so fun
can get nasty
and people get their feelings hurt
and behave atrociously
all taking sides and pokey-poke
truth is left standing at the altar…
even on gaia!

and THAT, Dov
is ego!

with all my heart - truly
enjoy your day!

mary ;-)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Hey Mary!

Good Stuff! (poetic too)

But could you also make peace with separation, rather than sadness, since separation emphasizes diversity and diversity is fun too? Maybe your “chuckling” at the paradox, since irony assumes the opposite is true, or more true, than the actual experience?
And isn't “real” a concept too? It seems to me this word is the theme of our parsing reality and the origin of our suffering. Always demanding to differentiate, not necessarily what is real as opposed to not real, but what is more real as opposed to less.
In that way, parts are marginalized, rather than included, while others are made 'sacred.' The serious and important 'me' is sacred and therefore, what 'me' espouses must be made sacred as well. Serious wants to win, but non-serious wants to keep playing and playing. Non-serious 'me' doesn't necessarily fear the nastiness in realizing that the nastiness is “real” too.
However, ego's like to remain above the raw emotion of the nastiness, to not involve itself so it can marvel at the 'sacred' beauty of blue skies and not be a party to the nastiness that is not “real.” Yet, seems to me raw emotion is as real as blue skies so why avoid what is real?
I note how some engage deeply no matter what while, for others, the “high ground” is not engaging at all. Not because “hurt feelings” and atrocious behavior are not real, but because they are interpreted as less real.
hmmm…I merely sense that this may be a mistaken interpretation is all.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: The Only Way (2)

yes, thank you mikeS

it is ego that wants to belong
it is real, that we are human
community creatures, too
very sensitive, neurologically
and when one intends harm
the intention still bruises
though the harm is usually nonexistant
and it is sad, as sadness is part of the totality
the reality of us
it is not sad all the way around
i hoped i was clear on that point
chucking with the ego's foibles
as i take the keys from its grubby hands
and kiss it to sleep

it is not a “part”
ego is a process
a dynamic
with properties
like a field effect, with
specific gravities and spins

“sky” was a metaphor for freedom

and i don't believe in the sacred
outside of all that is happening this moment
everywhere
i don't know where or how to divide anything away from it
so i am not sure i understand your point there

i don't fear the nastiness
i just don't like wallowing in it for no clear purpose
outside some odd sense of victory
that is really just another defeat of spirit
in the quest for dominion

it looks like a losing game, to me
no matter who comes out on top!

Re: The Only Way (2)

Mary,

Certainly there is no human being only human process, but in general, ego's are judgment machines and in that capacity reject and accept because egoic perception tends to experience parts, rarely the whole “process.” Perception sifts and filters reality.
When we discuss here we often break things into parts in order to better understand the process. Seems to me to experience the whole is to experience it all as valid, the good, the bad and the ugly, and maybe that's the “awakening” they talk about
In addition, I agree with “wallowing in it for no clear purpose” and I disengage myself quite often. But then is it not ego that determines “clear purpose.” Ha! Is anything ever completely “clear' in a reality of all gray with no real black and white.
Sometimes i make a conscious decision to just stay with it, and all the negative energy within 'it' and just see where it goes. For instance, my wife and have been engaged in conflict over the weekend and yesterday we stayed, hung in there and rode the waves of negativity. And, nope, nothing was resolved because often, with some issues, nothing can be, as they are perpetual. But what did evolve was a deeper understanding of each other's egoic perception. In that sense, I don't feel such intimacy, or deep understanding, is a “losing game.” Seems to me, within the threads here nobody ever really comes out on top and it's interesting that this is what you perceive.
Seems to me Gaia, and the many who make it up, tends to fear the process of deep understanding. Acheiving Intimacy is often not pretty, and this, I believe, is why some tend to opt out. But, as I see it, there is where real freedom lies.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: The Only Way (2)

Mike, the example you give of your recent conflict at home is a great picture of why we often avoid “getting into it” - it can take a really long time and things aren't always resolved. But again, good example of the rewards of hanging in there anywhere, that deeper understanding of each other. 

Seems to me Gaia, and the many who make it up, tends to fear the process of deep understanding. Acheiving Intimacy is often not pretty, and this, I believe, is why some tend to opt out. But, as I see it, there is where real freedom lies.


The discussions like this we've been having here, in your new pod for example in Re: Manufacturing Gaian Consensus?,  in Deb's Living Metaphysics for example in Re: Gaia and Facebook- handling dissent and movement, in Dark Night of the Soul in Re: Shadow is light of another color and on Diving Deeper where they've been discussing the odd quiet in many places lately on Gaia -

and many other discussions here, including the ones that seem much lighter, all these seem to point more to a hunger for deeper understanding and intimacy, as mary said. Perhaps we are just having trouble fully articulating it.

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Alan - ego is light trying to make a circle - ah, the way you put things! hugs

mary - clearly enjoying the breakfast was what you needed at the moment, and I hope it was the start to a fantastic day for you. For me, it was sleeping in as I couldn't get to sleep for hours last night. Thank God for days off like today to recover.

it is unnecessary to describe in order to experience fully
that fruit which you can taste for yourself
we can only point at something that can't be seen
and feel for its contours
and map its effects

Yesterday, I think it was in GaiaQuotes, but maybe not, can't find it now, I ran across that famous Zen saying about the finger pointing at the moon not being the moon. Or in another formulation - 


The common error of ordinary religious practice is to mistake the symbol for the reality, to look at the finger pointing the way and then to suck it for comfort rather than follow it.

Re: The Only Way (2)

Re: The Only Way (2)

actually
i feel i've made some horrible mistake
and completely misread the situation
i apologize for any harm i have caused
and respectfully bow out of the conversation

this is what saddens me
i don't know how to interpret these intentions
so the mary who receives and processes
is yes, a little mary, a concoction of ego spin
it is very difficult to interact in this relative world without it
we can only behave through its devices of separation

and this little mary wants to feel sad
wants to lean into it and make it a big story
and another little mary wants to rise up all pricky-prick
believing of course that dov shouldn't behave this way
should reach to understand me
see my tendency to playful humor
and my generosity
and my tendency to gallump onto a forum
and step on toes

but this slides into an ocean
and the energies to rise just melt away
and here we are, pressed to the glass
in this moment of infinity
thinking, what was important?

the sky
is so
beautiful

thank you

Re: The Only Way (2)

mary, the sky is beautiful. yes. 

you are beautiful, all the yous, the one who bows out and the one who wants to be understood, the playful, the generous.

It's all good, it's all grist for the mill, if it was a mistake, well, you said it so well, we expect to make mistakes, that is an integral part of relating.

I look forward to your return whenever you are ready!

With much love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Dov,
Just wanted to say that I'd never thought of the ego in this way (not that I've given it much of my thought), but I think you've nailed it pretty well.  We need to OWN our actions, and separating “ego” from our selves is, indeed, like speaking about ourselves in the third person (below).  Nice!
Elisheva

Re: The Only Way (2)

Thank you Elisheva! :-)

Dov

Re: The Only Way (2)

Nicole - great question…

we are already beyond it! Even as we are “trapped” inside.

Ego makes it all a problem. Even itself! And like any problem the mind can get hold of, it will worry it to infinity, if it can't find the solution.

of course, the mind does not actually want to get rid of what it takes Very Seriously.

We need only recognize that we are not what we think, root out the lies embedded in our foundation, offload or offset the faulty conditioning, and become once more that which we never ceased to be. And when we are done with that, perhaps tea in the garden? Around 2 perhaps?

of course, the conditioning is so thick! and the mind so clever… We must be very very alert to its tricks, else it will swallow us whole in the blink of an idea!

the very nature of mind is deceptive and oppositional
this is its function, how it operates on information
it is so fine! Such an essential attribute!
but we do not need to be thinking
to feel the sun delicious on our skin
to pour forth into whatever circumstance may open
to trust our own integrity and generosity of spirit
to enter into this moment with our entire being,
and a silent awareness
and intention to do no harm

we walk in two worlds:
the world of thought, which is also called the imagination
and the real world, where real things happen, to real people
not to categories or opinions

reality is the antithesis of ego, and can only be what is actually happening. It is the one thing we can't get away from, no matter how unsatisfactory the ego finds it to be, or how mightily it argues for it to show up more in line with its thinking… We can and do, however, shun contact with it, through addiction, obsession, distraction, delusion, and through never never never questioning into what we do not want to know.

This mind can only sequence through oceans of data. Most of reality slips through the cracks. If we could understand the entirety of things, we could see each other as whole beings, simply expressing what seems real and important to us. And no matter how atrocious the behavior or how perverse the certainty, perhaps we can become humble enough to truly open to the mystery within each and every one of us. Reach for understanding instead of certainty, in awe, respect and gratitude for this magical experience of continual creation.

which i can't recall asking for, nor can i see how to replace it. Seems Life simply beckons us to BE in accordance with reality. Nobody to punch our tickets or weigh and measure our relative worth. Nobody to give or withhold permission to be ourselves. Nobody needed to make us matter.

but plenty who will try! Because why? Because you showing up how you do is a real problem to someone who has been hijacked by ego and swallowed whole by imagination. Someone who actually believes they have a better plan for you than you do, and for life, the universe and everything.

too bad Creation never stopped to request proper clearance!

 ;-)

Re: The Only Way (2)

When I originally read this wonderful post of mary's which for me spoke of fearless engagement, I happened upon a blog by Siona on “Fear of Transformation” which seemed to me closely related - the willingness and faith to leap into empty air, the tension of transition are as much a part of intense dialogue as any part of our lives. I hope that some of you reading this will have time if you haven't already to click on the link below.


Here is how Siona introduces the story by Danaan Parry:


I love change, and I love transition, and I am happiest when things are not-nailed-down. I feel most comfortable when the world is formless with possibility, and dark and strange. I am also a bit of an anomaly. 



a story.

Re: The Only Way (2)

        Mary I love your posting!

   At that time, a certain monk went to his fellow monk and asked: “Friend, how is understanding fully purified?”

    ”When one sees as it really is the arising and ceasing of the six-fold sense base, then understanding is fully purified.”

    But dissatisfied with that answer, that monk went on to another monk and asked the same question, and he was told: “Friend, when one sees as it really is arising and ceasing of the clinging aggregates, then understanding is fully purified.”

    But again that monk was dissatisfied with that answer, so he went to another monk, asked the same question, and was told: “Friend, when one sees as it really is the arising and ceasing of the four great elements, then understanding is fully purified.”

    But still dissatisfied with that answer, he went to yet another monk, put his question again and that monk replied: “Friend, when one sees as it really is that everything that arises also passes away, then understanding is fully purified.”

    Still dissatisfied with all these answers, that monk approached the Lord and told him of the question he had asked and the replies he had received. Then he addressed the Lord and said: “Lord, how is understanding fully purified?”

    ”Suppose,” said the Lord, “a man has never seen a kimsuka tree so he goes to a man who has, and asks: `What is a kimsuka tree like?’ and that man replies: `Well, my man, a kimsuka tree is blackish, something like a charred stump.’ So for the time being, the tree is to him as the other man sees it.

    Not satisfied with this answer to his question he goes to another man who has seen one, and again puts his question. And the other man answers: `Well, my man, a kimsuka tree is reddish, something like a lump of meat.’ So, for the time being, the tree is to him as the other man sees it.

    Still not satisfied, he goes to another man who has seen a kimsuka tree and puts his question to him. And the other man answers: `Well, my man, a kimsuka tree has no bark and its seed pods burst something like an acacia tree.’ So, for the time being, the tree is to him as the other man sees it.

    Still dissatisfied, he goes to another man who has seen a kimsuka tree and puts his question yet again. And that man answers: `Well, a kimsuka has thick leaves and gives close shade something like a banyan tree.’ So, for the time being, the tree is to him as the other man sees it.

All these good folks have given their explanations according to the purity of their understanding. In the same way the understanding of the monks you have asked has been purified according to their individual inclinations and they have given their explanations accordingly.”   –  www.buddhavavacana.net
 
I have also done an essay on communication skills here– http://rltruthseeker-artist.gaia.com/blog/2009/2/include_and_transcend_your_differences#comments

And yes I will definitely take the pink elephant!
                “Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing Unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.” -ACIM

Re: The Only Way (2)

Thank you, RL,  mary, Dov, Elisheva, Nuit, Deb, for your contributions to this thread! Perhaps we can entice Bjorn back in. In the meantime, I have some comments for each of you, and more questions arising from your comments. But my hope is that these comments and questions will not hem in the dialogue but that it will continue to flow  as it will.

Deb, A willingness to grow in and through the experience is not always easy but I believe if we try to avoid it, it will simply return in another disguise.


It's always good to see you here. I believe that is true too.  


Sometimes it keeps coming up even if we are open, to give us opportunities to take the learning to a deeper level. 

It is exciting to see the opportunities for growing in our community here that are springing up on every side, isn't it? 

Elisheva: I meant intent of anything at all–persuasion, coersion, conversion, creating a peaceful place, etc.  If we go into open communication with a preconceived intent/goal as to how the communication should condlude, we have perhaps tried to answer the question (whatever the question may be) before engaging in any meaningful open conversation whatsoever.


This is enormously helpful as elaboration on your previous remarks. There can be all kinds of intents going into a conversation and they can be very stifling. If there is a perceived need (note - it may not even be overt or really held by someone, perceived is enough) for everyone to agree or be happy, or to be convinced of something, a conversation can shut down very quickly.


If I have learned one thing over this past year and a bit in this group, it has been how very very difficult it can be at times to hold the space for a truly open ended conversation. But those moments when we somehow arrived into a wide space have been wondrous.

Nuit: With 'Humility, listening and sincerity' - Bjorn mentioned it some time ago :).  I love observing Dalai Lama practicing these three qualities when he discusses different subjects with people who do not necessarily agree with him…


Bjorn did, you're right. And he is very much on the mark. The Dalai Lama has huge dollops of all three qualities, and many more besides. Perhaps you have a link handy of a video of one of those conversations? 


mary:we are already beyond it! Even as we are “trapped” inside.

Ego makes it all a problem. Even itself! And like any problem the mind can get hold of, it will worry it to infinity, if it can't find the solution. 

of course, the mind does not actually want to get rid of what it takes Very Seriously.

We need only recognize that we are not what we think, root out the lies embedded in our foundation, offload or offset the faulty conditioning, and become once more that which we never ceased to be. And when we are done with that, perhaps tea in the garden? Around 2 perhaps?

Hmm, yes, makes me think of solving the world's problems or:


“Alice laughed: “There's no use trying,” she said; “one can't believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven't had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”


Alice in Wonderland (by Lewis Carroll)


But at the same time as it seems out of grasp, it is worth giving much of one's life to its pursuit. 

This is so beautiful and inspiring:

but we do not need to be thinking
to feel the sun delicious on our skin
to pour forth into whatever circumstance may open
to trust our own integrity and generosity of spirit
to enter into this moment with our entire being, 
and a silent awareness
and intention to do no harm


More key elements as well as those mentioned by Bjorn, picked up by Nuit. And much gold throughout the rest of your post.


RL:that is a wonderful story, very much to the point of what we are delving into here. I have been enjoying your blogs very much. I will go back and re-read your blog on communications, thank you for linking it here.

Dov: 

It's so easy to blame 'ego' as if 'ego' is a separate part from us, when in fact 'ego is all of us, all we are. 'Ego' is just another way of not accepting responsibility for our actions, another way of justifying fleeing being human.

So when we miscommunicate it's not 'ego' that miscommunicates - it's us, real, living beings. Question is are we human enough to stop blaming 'ego' and KNOW that we are the culprits? 



Ok, very good question, and I can think of others to follow:


1) Knowing we are the culprits in the miscommunications, are we ready to move beyond miscommunication into a more intimate relating with others around us?

2) What are some ways we communicate well? Where in our lives would we like to have deeper and more honest communications? How can we move into those?

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

1) Knowing we are the culprits in the miscommunications, are we
ready to move beyond miscommunication into a more intimate relating
with others around us?

Nicole - you are an awesome mod!

i think we all yearn to move beyond the juggernaut of ego, which is what creates the great divide, each side wanting to stand firm on their interpretations.

but it causes this awful tension, within
even winning is but a link in the chain of violence
and sets us up for retaliation

so i see the release in the forgiveness of miscommunication as a given
because by the very nature of the enterprise
our perceptions can only be relative degrees of wrong
wouldn't it be nice if this settled in deeply enough to prompt inquiry
rather than signal the urge to protect and defend?

but where ego goes
protection is the name of the game
not truth

so it is in the utter devotion to truth
that the ego finally gives up its ghost
and becomes our willing subject
instead of our deadly master

2) What are some ways we communicate
well? Where in our lives would we like to have deeper and more honest
communications? How can we move into those?

the gentle art of inquiry would have us explore those regions
that scream DO NOT ENTER
so that we may tame the dragons there

but it must be gentle
else the terror arises
as we see how completely
we straddle a void
how vast the unknown
compared to our paltry constructions of it

so communication must spring from love of truth
and willingness to be wrong
delighting in the errors!
as they bump us toward truth
else it serves no one
only delusion and strife
which is in itself an error
that can help us find our way ;-)
if we are but willing to humble down a bit
and acknowledge our rather precarious position
in the grand scheme of the Big Banging

but if we approach communication as a hammer
for nailing our points in opposition to all the other hammer-nailers
well
then we create this very world we live in!

and ain't this fun!
for real!

silly little hominids that we are
quite charming!
though a little, um
ranking? rankling? rank?
when approached from downwind!

;-)

Re: The Only Way (2)

mary, my ego thrills to hear your words :) but honestly, without amazing people like you, there would be nothing for me to “mod”, so I want you to know how deeply grateful I am for your contributions.

“Winning” does not satisfy the longing within, how could it? It is often a hollow victory in and of itself and as you so rightly point out, can have negative consequences. 

so i see the release in the forgiveness of miscommunication as a given
because by the very nature of the enterprise
our perceptions can only be relative degrees of wrong
wouldn't it be nice if this settled in deeply enough to prompt inquiry
rather than signal the urge to protect and defend?


I am so excited by this because you are in the heart of what is needed for open communication. We need to constantly forgive ourselves as well as the other - we can spend time beating ourselves up when there are misunderstandings that could much better be spent listening to heartbeats, as a friend here put it so well last year. 


That urge to protect and defend can be overpowering and kicks in without warning. “Red alert, red alert”, klaxons blaring, shields going up, weapons powering ready to find the other's vulnerabilities and blast away.


so it is in the utter devotion to truth
that the ego finally gives up its ghost
and becomes our willing subject
instead of our deadly master 


Again, this is something Bjorn brought up in earlier discussions, being willing to subject our minds and hearts to truth instead of constantly judging.


the gentle art of inquiry would have us explore those regions
that scream DO NOT ENTER
so that we may tame the dragons there

but it must be gentle
else the terror arises
as we see how completely
we straddle a void
how vast the unknown
compared to our paltry constructions of it



Those ancient maps of the world which were marked on the unknown areas hic sunt dracones (here there are dragons)… by the way I just found an interesting article about this here


Fear of the unknown, fear of the deeps. Yet how rich that void from which we cower.



Be-and yet know the great void where all things begin,
the infinite source of your own most intense vibration,
so that, this once, you may give it your perfect assent.



(Rainer Maria Rilke, from the-sonnets-to-orpheus-book-2-xiii)

willingness to be wrong
delighting in the errors!
as they bump us toward truth
else it serves no one
only delusion and strife
which is in itself an error
that can help us find our way ;-)


Blessed fault! Felix culpa! :)


Joyfully,


Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Hi Dov,

But if we are willing to let go of avoiding personal responsibility, and become absolutely honest with ourselves, then we have a chance.


I see a lot of commitment to being honesty and real here on all sides of the conversation. It looks like the issue of “ego”, as I've seen in other such discussions, has been something of a challenge in our communication, but that does not cause me to despair. Actually, I am very encouraged today as I listen to these conversations in different parts of Gaia. 


When we stop running from reality by claiming it's an illusion, and accept that it's Life, and that our actions have an actual real impact on others and actually adjust our interactions to consider this, we are already moving. But we will have to get rid of all the veils of “explaining away reality” and be willing to face Life, warts and all.



Again, I think that each one here in his or her own way is eager to engage with reality. We all have our own approaches and ways to understanding that, but they are vital and life-giving nonetheless.



Torah teaches: We will do and we will hear! (Exodus 24:7 - yes, the Hebrew actually says that…)



Another fascinating example of how nearly every modern translation seems to follow the Vulgate “obey” adsumensque volumen foederis legit audiente populo qui dixerunt omnia quae locutus est Dominus faciemus et erimus oboedientes


Even the Septuaguint has ἀκουσόμεθα (hear).

But the Hebrew is וְנִשְׁמָֽע  as in Hear O Israel the L-rd our G-d is one L-rd (Deut 6:4)שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָהאֶחָד ׀


Very strong connection between hearing and doing!


Love,


Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Yes. Agreed.

Thus saying that it's through doing that we will understand (another meaning of 'hearing') - and yes - the 'do' precedes the 'hear'. Some wish to reverse the order, but the order is 'do' >> 'hear'. ”Naaseh V'Nishma”

Dov

Re: The Only Way (2)

RL: beautiful! thanks ;-)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Can I chime in on the 'why' of the ego's existence?  Yes, it is extremely important!

The best and simplest thing I can say about the ego myself is that 

It exists so that we can transcend it.  

A more esoteric thing I could say:

ego is light trying to make a circle

… : ) …

Re: The Only Way (2)

         Nicole I loved how you said “Winning” does not satisfy the longing within, how could it? It is often a hollow victory in and of itself and as you so rightly point out, can have negative consequences. Yes! Why do we always have to wake up the sleeping dogs of our egos, and then have to run out of the yard! Why can't we just let sleeping dogs lie. lol

 Mary, your poetry is pure gold. You should get published. You have an aesthetic eye for beauty and you convey this beautifully in your poetry. I love it! Keep writing! :)              

       I’m trying to find a way to describe the ego to “you” that makes sense. The ego is your false separate “sense of self.” It is also a natural fulcrum of development. All enlightened masters and sages have said the same thing: The ego doesn’t exist, it is an illusion. However, the effects of the ego are real, because we use the power of our mind to think we are separate! The ego is like a mirage, even though the mirage does not have an inherent reality in and of itself, it can still mislead us if we follow it. It would be more helpful to think of the ego’s effects such as Resistance, and negative emotions, such as hatred, blame, fear, misery, guilt, etc. The ego alternates between the twin polarities of fear, and anger (and anger is just the denial of fear). The point is that we can recognize and honor these emotions as a part of us, while not identifying our identity with them.(I am angry at this____but I am not my anger.) It is by seeing the underlying truth of ourselves, can we meet pain, accepting it, and not become our pain. We become the Witness.       
 
     As long as we are making the distinction between what is “us” and “not us” we are creating a false boundary between what is us and what is not us. That is because our reality is Spirit, and only the forms change. Although distinctions are useful, without integration they become divisive, and we cannot be whole when our Reality is divisive. It is only by embracing our identity and seeing it all as unified (Spirit, Emptiness) will we be able to accept it. No matter how “healthy” our “sense of self” is, as long as it is not whole, then our self identity is not whole, and time and again our ego will continue to “break” again, and again, and again, as have to face what is reality, and accept it. Reality is not painful, because the truth and your identity is One, and if you believe reality is painful, then it is because you are harboring an illusion about what you believe you are (false ego).         
 
   Imagine just for a second, if you could extend your boundaries to the whole Kosmos. You would be “one” with everything. You would not suffer. It is an act of pure love, of pure acceptance of life. The sustained act of this culminates in the state of enlightenment (there are also brief states of this known as satori). This act of perfect pure love is overwhelming, and a number of enlightened people have been overwhelmed and disorientated by it. It happens when you are able to clear the verbal thoughts of “who you believe you are,” in meditation, and your brain hits a certain frequency. It is then that you become truly conscious. You become awake.      
 
      All of evolution is evolving back towards this consciousness. The “Mind of God” is gathering the shards of his identity towards himself, integrating them back into his consciousness. (In truth this has already probably happened, but it takes our awareness.)You will know the truth, and it will set you free. This truth is not contained in words, but it can be realized. This is what I believe is our shared Journey,Thank you,Namaste,                        RL

Re: The Only Way (2)

“Reality is not painful, because the truth and your identity is One, and if you believe reality is painful, then it is because you are harboring an illusion about what you believe you are”

“Oh, you're a 12 years old incest survivor… well, you know the incest didn't really exist, your ego just imagined it.” Perhaps that's why most of the incest victims keep telling themselves “this is not happening to me”…

Re: The Only Way (2)

         Ketatur— I am not talking about a 12 year old incest victim, or to say it doesn't exist, your totally misrepresenting what I'm saying What I am saying is that not identifying yourself as a victim. Yes, identify yourself as one so you can get the legal help you need, but don't think of yourself as one. What is the use in seeing yourself as a victim and living it. Tell me what is the point in seeing yourself as helpless. “Are you a victim?” Tell me what is the benefits of being a victim, of identifying yourself as one?  I'm talking about more of the absolute where you have to “die” to the role you see yourself as. You have to leave “victimhood” at the door to a better life.
      Perhaps painful isn't the word i meant… perhaps “suffering” is the better word. Can we let go of suffering and of our suffering self image? It's okay if you want to remain a victim. That's perfectly okay.

Re: The Only Way (2)

“I am not talking about a 12 year old incest victim”

If your theory doesn't cover every person and every situation, it's not a very good theory.

Also, I am not mispresenting anything. I am giving a correct presentation of how I understand your words, and I have never claimed my words are anything else but a presentation of my thoughts. Might be that you didn't mean your words to be understood by any other way than the way you understand them, but one should have the understanding that one's words will always be interpreted by each individual matrix, and some interpretations are more probable than others, but none is wrong…

You said “if you believe reality is painful, it is because you are harboring an illusion about what you believe you are”
well… the person being raped by his/her relative is an incest victim, whether he/she identifies him/herself as such, incest is the incest victim's reality and it is painful.
I am not talking about the possible future where the person raped gets the legal help needed to end the incest and get a closure to the event, I am talking about the very real NOW. when you are lying there getting raped, unable to stop your rapist, unable to get help, legal or physical, unable to do anything but endure the situation. The pain of that situation is not an illusion created by you identifying yourself as a victim.

What is the point in seeing myself as helpless?
Perhaps that when you acknowledge the fact that you are helpless, you will ask for help. You won't ask for help unless you think you need it. ;-)

The first step of the 12 steps movement are:
1. We admitted we were powerless over [—] — that our lives had become unmanageable.
ALL the people who have lived through 12 steps and continue living their lives sober, one day at a time, will tell you that this admittance of powerlessness indeed WAS the first step to empowerment.

Nwvertheless, the definition of “victim” is not being helpless, but being the object of something, either a crime or a sacrifice. Being the sacrifice victim is not a bad thing. A lot of people sacrifice themselves to a Higher Power, God, Higher Meaning, The Cause, or what not, and if you went to tell them that their lifes are suffering due to an illusion, they would probably look at you with a lot of compassion and pat you on your head, and go on living happily with their sacrifice and victimhood.

I am a victim. I am not yet a survivor. There are things I still need to deal with, things I need to come to terms with, things I need to accept, understand, acknowledge and forgive, both myself and the perpetrator. If I “refused to identify myself as a victim”, I would only be lying to myself, denying my reality, suppressing my true feelings, and one day they would surface with really bad consequences. So, I am not ready to pass that door to a better life yet. I don't think I can even see that door yet, frankly, I don't think the door even exists for me. It doesn't need to either, as there are other doors, which lead to just as good life. You see, a victim is not all I am, and there is not only one way, only one door, only one way of life, only one right thing to do… What happened to me IS part of my history, part of my collected experience, that made me to who I am today, and who I will be tomorrow. The event was one of my life's lessons and it taught me compassion among other things. I am not a superwoman who doesn't feel pain, who doesn't know suffering. I am a woman, a human being, just like every 6 billion others on this planet, and when I see suffering I recognize it and won't brush away the very real experience by insulting them by calling it their mind spook which would be easily solved by just changing the way they identify themselves.
Buddha was a prince. He didn't NEED to care about food, because he didn't even know what hunger is. Thousands of poor people sit under the bunyan tree and starve to death, feeling the euphory of having gone beyond the hunger, feeling the apathy of knowing that nothing matters, the mosquito drinking your blood doesn't matter, the rain falling on you doesn't matter, the sun burning your eyes blind doesn't matter, and tomorrow will be the same as today. One needed a prince to make that into a world religion. >:->

What you have to do is to acknowledge that THIS is the life you are living right now. It might be different tomorrow, it might have been different yesterday, but THIS NOW is what IS.
What you have to do is to acknowledge the fact that if you do today as you did yesterday, tomorrow you will be where you are today.
What you have to do is to live your life, and not try to live the life of someone else. If you identify yourself as a victim, it has a purpose. You do nothing without a reason. Might be that the reason doesn't apply to your current situation, but your choices still have consequences. If you identify yourself as a victim, there will be someone out there who will come to your rescue, who will support you, help you, comfort you…
Nevertheless, what might look like something negative at the first glance, might not be something negative… there is something to learn in every situation and every role in life, even in being a victim, and one cannot move on before the lesson is learned. More a question of that than “wanting to remain a victim”.

But, perfectly ok :-)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Ketutar, there is so much in this post.

May I begin by saying that I honour your openness in sharing of some of the most painful and difficult experiences of your life here.

The best theory would cover everything, that's very true. But it's hard to come up with a true “Theory of Everything”, I don't know if it has been done yet, so in the meantime we do the best with what makes the most sense to each of us.

I think it's very important what you said next:

Also, I am not mispresenting anything. I am giving a correct presentation of how I understand your words, and I have never claimed my words are anything else but a presentation of my thoughts.


I think that is what each of us is trying to do as we discuss, respond according to our best understanding. In dealing with the response of others, strong feelings can arise.


The 12 step program has been truly amazing for many, many people, and there can be great freedom in acknowledging that one is powerless over something. 

I am a victim. I am not yet a survivor. There are things I still need to deal with, things I need to come to terms with, things I need to accept, understand, acknowledge and forgive, both myself and the perpetrator.


This is a very important and difficult process and I admire the depth with which you are clearly taking it in your life.


Much more here to be unpacked, will return later,

Peace,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Dearest Nicole :-)
I would like to say though, that I did not say what I was a victim of - it is not incest. So I have not been so open as you might get an impression of. I'm sorry you seem to have that impression… though I don't know. I just wanted to make that clear. :-)

I am not talking about “theory of everything”. I think “everything” is so vast a thing that the theory covering everything would be equally vast. I am talking about the theory of a very limited part of everything; the human suffering. In my mind, for such theory to work, it must be applicable in every kind of human suffering. Of course, we try to make sense of the reality and create theories, but one should be able to adjust the theory, even scrap it, when it becomes clear that the theory doesn't work. Of course, one cannot do that before one realizes that the theory doesn't work, and as the human nature is what it is, one isn't very willing to admit a theory one appreciates and that has seemingly worked in many occasions, is faulty.

Re: The Only Way (2)

Thanks for clearing that up, Ketutar. That actually helps a lot.

Good, I think everything is too vast for a theory too :) A theory of human suffering that must be applicable to every kind is challenging enough. 

Of course, one cannot do that before one realizes that the theory doesn't work, and as the human nature is what it is, one isn't very willing to admit a theory one appreciates and that has seemingly worked in many occasions, is faulty.


It comes down to beliefs, which as I understand them, can be very slow to change. As Dov says, we're not a mind or feelings or a spirit, we're a human, so our thoughts, theories, beliefs, feelings and so on are inextricably linked. 


And the real trouble comes when our beliefs collide with others. How do we deal with that? Is there a space in which we can hold our beliefs while looking at very different ones?

Peace,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

RL, I am completely with you on mary being a wonderful poet. Let's start a fan club!

I really enjoy the pictures with text. They are full of beauty and inspiration. Do you create them yourself or find them?

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

BTW, “All enlightened masters and sages have said the same thing: The ego doesn’t exist, it is an illusion.”
Who do you count as “enlightened masters and sages”?
What did for example Confucius say about the matter, if you count him as one of the “masters and sages”, or Jesus, or Muhammed or Zarathustra?
I've never been much for authorities anyway…

Re: The Only Way (2)

I'm not an “advaitaist”, but I will jump on this anyway. :-D

I don't think there is only one , right “way”. I believe every person has their way, and not even individually there is only one way. It's like “all roads lead to Rome”. All “ways” lead “home”. So there's no “diversions from the right path” either. It doesn't matter if you take the short cut through the meadows, or the highway, it doesn't matter, if you stop to play with the becks, and it's quite all right to lay on the field, watch butterflies and clouds and perhaps sleep. In the end, we all get to home.

I don't think it is necessary to “be true” to “the way”. There's nothing wrong in changing one's mind, or turn around on the road one is taking, go back to the crossing and take another road.

“It's like listening to a symphony where any diversion would stick out.”

J.R.R.Tolkien wrote a very nice piece on the creation of the Middle Earth.

“…the Ainur were given songs by Eru and, initially, each sang individually to him or perhaps joined with one or two others. Gradually they learned to sing in beautiful harmony with one another and their united songs were pleasing to Eru. One of the Ainur, however, soon began to sing his own music, which introduced discord and disharmony into the music of the Ainur.

    To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren … Some of these thoughts [of his own] he now wove into his music, and straightaway discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew despondent and their thought was distrubed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first. Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies that had been heard at first foundered in a sea of turbulent sound …

    “Then Ilúvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that he smiled; and he lifted up his left hand, and a new theme began amid the storm, like and yet unlike to the former theme, and it gathered power and had new beauty. But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before, until many of the Ainur were dismayed and sang no longer, and Melkor had the mastery. Then again Ilúvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that his countenance was stern; and he lifted up his right hand and behold! a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity. And it seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Ilúvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. The other had now achieved a unity of its own; but it was loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice, but it seemed that its most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern.

    “In the midst of this strife, whereat the halls of Ilúvatar shook and a tremor ran out into the silences yet unmoved, Ilúvatar arose a third time, and his face was terrible to behold. Then he raised up both his hands, and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar, the Music ceased.”

Now comes one of the most remarkable, wonderful, and true statements made by Ilúvatar - or Yahweh - concerning the evil which seeks to undo the good that He desires:

    Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined …

    “But when they [Ilúvatar and the Ainur] were come into the Void, Ilúvatar said to them: ‘Behold your Music!’ And he showed to them a vision, giving to them sight where before was only hearing; and they saw a new world made visible before them, and it was globed amid the Void, and it was sustained therein, but was not of it. And as they looked and wondered this World began to unfold its history, and it seemed to them that it lived and grew. And when the Ainur had gazed for a while and were silent, Ilúvatar said again: ‘Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added.’”

It is through the combined, individual music of the Ainur that the earth - or Middle-earth - comes into being. The songs given to each of the Ainur, reflecting their specific realm, ability, or interest, blended together to make the visible earth. The Ainur did not create Middle-earth but were merely the agents through which Ilúvatar worked to accomplish his will.”

“Conversation can be something that lifts up, something that evolves as we participate.”
And if everyone has always the “right answer” and if there is only one possible “right” way, there is no evolution, no learning, no excitement, no fun. No reason to even converse. Everyone knows everything already. (Just listen to the “higher self”.)
Sure, now those who like to “blame the ego”, will claim that the desire to have some excitement and fun in life is only an egotistic ego-response, but, frankly, without ego there is no life. *I* am the one who feels, experiences life, enjoys, likes to enjoy, searches the enjoyment. Want to fly in the stars? Kill yourself and get rid of the “ego” once and for all.

“It's so easy to be slick especially if you know your dharma”
What are you referring to with “dharma”?

“Humility, listening and sincerity are prerequisites for a fruitful conversation and vital in any deep inquiry.”
So it is :-) Perfectly illustrated in this discussion :-D

Part of “sharing notes” is seeing oneself as just one of the kids, and others as equals in learning and people to learn from. Perhaps Dov's notes have some value, and shouldn't be trashed completely, simply because they SEEM to be different from everyone else's notes?
It also would help the mutual understanding if one READ what is being written instead of REACTING.
Also, it would help to acknowledge the fact that the more I know, the less I know, until in the end all I know is that I know nothing ;-)

BTW, I agree with Dov in that a lot of people waste a lot of time trying to “transcend ego”, and avoid responsibility by blaming “the ego”, when it would be better to be sincere and accept “ego” as - me and take full responsibility of one's own actions. As long as people use personal names and pronomens, they shouldn't believe to have “escaped ego”. :-D As long as we are separated from each other by skin, flesh, blood and bones, we shouldn't support the illusion of not being individual persons, selves, *I*s.

This is the reality we live in. Put the light in optical fiber and - voilá - you have light in circle.

Re: The Only Way (2)

Truth is expressed in what we do. Absolutely and Bravo, Bjourn.

Look what Jesus did. He oiled peoples feet, he invited unwanteds to his table…
And turned those over that needed a wake up call.

Speaking of light let me make this suggestion.

from Jesus saying; I am the way, the truth and the life.
 
Could someone have added to or altered what Jesus said to make some money …chaching? ….gain some control?

I do not believe anyone considered to be a master would say something like this…Not that Jesus would have considered himself one, but many people listened to him, and that was very powerful.

Maybe, in the reality scenario, one of the reasons he was “crucified” was because he knew there were many paths and he refused to be the only one…with his popularity…and it made some folks a biiiiiiiiiit angry who wanted to use his wisdom for their gain??

I think that might be closer to the path of truth, and transcend an old worn out statement planted in peoples minds.

His actions said I am the way the truth the light…but I don't think he SAID that to anyone…he was too connected to source for that, I believe.

Cool discussion…

Love,

Janie

Re: The Only Way (2)

Janie, I couldn't possibly agree more!

The problem with the guy who refuses to say “I am the way” 

Is that no one else can make money saying “This dude was the way, and I am his follower: therefore, as far as you're concerned, I am the way for you.  Here's my tithing plate.”

Not only do I think Jesus refused to play along, I think he refused to play along in a way that shone a spotlight on the intense problem with saying “I am the way.”

As such, the current clergy and the government really had no choice but to actually practice what they preached (Jesus was always calling them hypocrites) or off him, didn't they?  Sucked for Jesus, sucked for the soon-after-beheaded disciples too.     (Not nearly as much of course.  : )   The disciples who played along with the clergy and the romans probably did ok though.  

—
I do want to say, however, reality is not painful.  Misunderstanding reality and the resultant creation of a out-of-phase reality, and living in the resultant out-of-phase reality, however, can be sheer hell.  

Transcendence and acceptance of ego are a good point.  But tell me, can one transcend what one has not accepted?  No, of course not.  If one could, the palestinians would have transcended israel, and vice-versa.  

For a good analogy, the atom.  electrons circle protons in “shells,” and only two electrons can be in the first shell of an atom.  When two electrons are in this shell, no more can be.  

The atom then begins filling up a second shell, with a maximum amount of electrons of 8.  

Here's the thing, though– those first two electrons are ALSO in the shell of 8.  The shell of two is incorporated, and inseparable, from the shell of 8…  the shell of 2 does not cease, nor does it continue to be the 'only' thing the atom is.  It adds dimensions to itself (a higher shell) and becomes part of a larger, newer, cooler atom.

What is transcended does not cease to exist but becomes one of the building blocks of the transcendent reality.  To transcend the ego is not to kick it out, but to transmute it, and watch it become a small part of a larger whole– your new transcendent consciousness.

Re: The Only Way (2)

Hi Alan and Janie,

It's very difficult for us ever to get a precise handle on what Jesus actually said at this remove from that time and place, though many have tried.

What's interesting from the perspective you're sharing is that the gospel of John, which has those “I am” statements, is very, very different from the other three “synoptic” gospels.

John's gospel is more interpretive, shaped not so much as a dry version of events but so that everything is a “sign”, pointing away from the miracle, like turning water into wine, to the spiritual reality behind it.

Critical biblical scholarship has tended to question its accuracy - see Gospel of John

But some modern scholars are going the other way - saying John might even be earlier and more accurate! for example http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_historical_dwenham.html

Love,

Nicole. 

Re: The Only Way (2)

Great link Nicole. Good reminder.
 
Jesus prays: 'I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes.

Jesus thought kids were cool… I like that.

We could sure use a safe online network for kids…so a childrens UN can be developed.

…wonder how those could be started
…know a good place anyone? 
…Cool if it could be funded by a group concerned with changing our planet?  :)

Let's see…200,000 people x 2 dollars = about a 1/2 million dollars….hmmmm

Sounds like a good way 2 to get it started to me?

Ohhhh I just had another idea. I will share it on Earth day :)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Hi Janie,

Jesus really did understand how important kids are and I love the way you do, too.

So, there is no safe online network for kids anywhere on the net? That surprises me. Are you sure?

Looking forward to your idea on Earth Day!

Hugs,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

The fact that you ask is even more evidence of the lack of global safe connection for kids. I envision a place like Gaia, with a spiritual base, that has the highest quality digital creative process, safe global communication tools with and visual availability, audio podcast, and even video games created for charitable giving (with time limits) all that can spark a childrens movement on the planet. After it is created I can see a kids news as hot as CNN. No one will have to ask if a cool online kids place exists :)

Brian Johnson asked me the same question you did, and he created our little seed of online change. Then he asked me, “so what is stopping you?” :)

I decided nothing, there has to be a way 2 do it :)


FYI Here is a little article…

http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/3120

Re: The Only Way (2)

That's a fantastic article, Janie, and your vision for the site is tremendously appealing. So Philosopher Brian, the originator of Zaadz which is now Gaia, asked you the same question, did he? And what a perfect follow up question. Where there is a will there is a way!

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

We need a new financial system, and government on this planet… and I believe the children will build it.

Yep there is a way, just watch, and anyone who wants to help is welcome to contact me, 2 :)

Re: The Only Way (2)

The issue to me is, we need to have everyone running the planet.  If kids are running the planet, everyone is… in concert.  That's how kids are.  It's very simple.  

If however, we had kids running the planet, and old men and old ladies weren't being listened to… problem!

It is, in a sense, perhaps a fine idea to focus on showing the light inside the group of people (children) whom are most assumed ignorant. 

Re: The Only Way (2)

Excellent point, Alan. 

Janie, I'm watching!

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Yes, Alan, absolutely. 

My point is not to separate the children but to make a place that is safer for them, and the best on the globe. It could be right here in Gaia! But that will take some effort and funding. I asked the administration at Gaia. There have to  be very strict rules, understandably. And no matter how much we are all ONE on this planet, each generation has special needs in reality, like the children. And I do not feel they are being represented as well as they could be in on-line communities.

AND look what I found in my friend Carl's blog. He is one of the younger Gaians I met a couple of years ago in the network.

He is listening to someone in an older generation, who has brilliant ideas, new ways of looking at things.

Check out the Venus Project link within the blog below. 

This man might be a great parallel commorade (advisor) for a childrens online community for those who want to change the world huh? :)

http://groups.gaia.com/openness/discussions/view/422947

Glad you are watching 2 Nicole :)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Ketutar, I, too, am grateful for you sharing from the rich myth worlds of Tolkien. What is the music then of this conversation, as it moves through celebration and play and agreement and disagreement? Is there room in it for each one of us to know we are welcomed as we are and not forced to toe a line? Can we open the circle wider still and let more voices, more light in?

I hope so.

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Haha  I like this post Ketutar… I also like the the J.R.R. Tolken angle. I'm gonna have to break out my copy of the Silmarion. It reminded me that everything is vibration, and the result of evil is not something external, but inharmony.

7. But in your sacred books we read that two among these seven are of superior strength; that one of these created all the good; the other one created all that evil is.
8. I pray you, honoured masters, tell me how that evil can be born of that which is all good?
9. A magus rose and said, If you will answer me, your problem will be solved.
10. We all do recognize the fact that evil is. Whatever is, must have a cause, If God, the One, made not this evil, then, where is the God who did?
11. And Jesus said, Whatever God, the One, has made is good, and like the great first Cause, the seven Spirits all are good, and everthing that comes from their creative hands is good.
12. Now, all created things have colours, tones and forms their own; but certain tones, though good and pure themselves, when mixed, produce inharmonies, discordant tones.
13. And certain things, though good and pure, when mixed, produce discordant things, yea, poisonous things, that men call evil things.
14. So evil is the inharmonious blending of the colours, tones, or forms of good.
15. Now, man is not all-wise, and yet has will his own. He has the power, and he uses it, to mix God's good things in a multitude of ways, and every day he makes discordant sounds, and evil things.
16. And every tone and form, be it of good, or ill, becomes a living thing, a demon, sprite, or spirit of a good or vicious kind.
17. Man makes his evil thus; and then becomes afraid of him and flees; his devil is emboldened, follows him away and casts him into torturing fires.
18. The devil and the burning fires are both the works of man, and none can put the fires out and dissipate the evil one, but man who made them both.
19. Then Jesus stood aside, and not a magus answered him.
20. And he departed from the throng and went into a secret place to pray.
– The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus

We are all light vibration vibrating. We are not separated by our bodies. That is an illusion. As long as we continue to believe we are “separate” by a body, and that we are only a body, we will always remain separate in the world.  Our body does not separate us. How can we be separate from the ground we walk on, the air we breath? Quantum mechanics has also shown that we are more connected in ways than we believe.
We can make distinctions with names, but not divisions. We can meet pain without suffering. We can meet ourselves, without dissassociating ourselves, but also not identifying with the energy that dis-empowers us.  

Re: The Only Way (2)

Brava, Ketutar, for putting up the passage from the Ainulindalë. 
what I find most important from this myth is the way that Illuvatar weaves Melkor's discord back into the music:

Re: The Only Way (2)

Alan I like how you said–
What is transcended does not cease to exist but becomes one of the building blocks of the transcendent reality.  To transcend the ego is not to kick it out, but to transmute it, and watch it become a small part of a larger whole– your new transcendent consciousness.I couldn't agree more.

Re: The Only Way (2)

sherab,

I have this thing for odd animals…but I don't mind a pile of what involves garlic and cheese:-D:-D Perhaps the Platypus could be persuaded to include garlic and cheese into its diet? Or the Pasta Monster could learn to swim?

Re: The Only Way (2)

sherab and Dov, a cross between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a platypus? Now, that is wild! :)

Laughing,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

LOL I love that flying spaghetti monster :)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Ketatur,

I remember, when  my FIL was dying, he had some anxiety because as a child he attended church in a traditional religion, I'm not sure, maybe Methodist.  Later, he and my MIL joined the Unitarian church (she had been raised Episcopalian, like me).  He would not even utter the word God during the 20 something years I knew him.  He had alot of hostility about the kinds of things that have been done in the name of religion.

So, he was a bit afraid to die, because he hadn't been “religious”, in fact when a hospice nurse took it upon herself to “pray” for him one day (causing my MIL to almost go ballastic), that night he had nightmares.  He was worried about what was going to come, after he left this life.  I told him his parents and siblings and grandparents were waiting to have a big party for him, whenever he would say that he was going to miss us.  

In fact, there were indications (“channeled” by my son who's namesake was my FILs grandfather), that this grandfather came into the home where my FIL died, as his spirit seemed to linger about a week.  Some days later, a woman I was to meet serendipitously, gave birth by “surprise” to a boy (she had expected a girl and had only a girl's name chosen) and on impulse, they named the boy the name of this grandfather, which is biblical but not common.  It feels as though these two (my FIL and his grandfather's) paths crossed each other, on the journey between physical and non-physical.

I digress, back to my FILs pre-death anxiety … So, understanding what his struggle was regarding, I told him much the same thing as you say here - “All “ways” lead “home”. So there's no “diversions from the right path”.  That seemed to comfort him, and I became the one he talked with, about the spiritual aspects of dying.  Conversations that remain the best memories in my heart, of my time with him.

Deb

Re: The Only Way (2)

Deb, on my way home from a beautiful concert Sunday night, I passed a church that always has a big neon sign saying (in French of course) “The wages of your sin is (to go to) hell” (which is loosely translated from the first part of Romans 6:23).

Every time I see that sign I feel sad that some have found it so important over the ages to beat people over the head with this “bad news” instead of the “good news” of the second part of the verse about God's free gift being eternal life.

How wonderful that you were able to have those conversations with him right at the end to comfort him. 

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

Re: The Only Way (2)

Exactly, the joyful and spontaneous response to freedom!

Shalom,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

        Ketutar, I am so sorry that I hit a nerve with you. I didn't mean to make light of your suffering or to say it doesn't exist, or to dismiss you as a person. I think that is why a lot of people identify with Jesus, because they know he suffered as a person on the cross and they can identify with that, and is one of the reasons why I identify with that. I totally respect and acknowledge who you are as a person, and the struggles you have gone through. When you said, “an incest victim” you changed the context, and different contexts bring with them different understandings. It makes a difference whether a murder happened, or it was self-defense. I think we can all agree that incest is wrong, no matter what the context. See we hold those values dear,and honor other people's being, wheras rapists and pedophiles don't.
      Freud first identified the ego in his subconscious work. The ego literally means “I”. It is a theoretical construct. It is just an idea, but it is very useful. A number of psychologists and “spiritual” people have talked about it. It's kind of like negative numbers and the concept of zero, even though they don't have any inherent validity, they are still necessary to do math, (and balance our checkbooks!). The “I” is mainly what we identify with. These boundaries don't exist with our bodies, they exist with our mind. Which is why we are able to identify with our families, other people, and yes victims of incest. Whenever we make the statement “they are a part of me” it is as if saying, “They are a part of “I” . Who I identify with.
         We can redraw the lines, and although not condone evil, we can become part of something greater, a bigger movement, part of Gaia. As Einstein said, we can extend our circle of compassion, “to embrace the whole of nature, and the universe.”
          The ego's critical mindset though always seeks to shrink its boundaries though fear and anger though. The ego is the critic of our minds, the part that says, “Your worthless”.  The ego in any victim, is the one that says, “I deserved this,” such as in victims of domestic abuse. The ego is the one that always explodes on other people, victim or perpetrator. This is known in Gestalt psychology as projection of the ego, or of our shadow. We can change this with awareness, and stoping for a few seconds and observing our own anger, and guilt. We can help others who were the victims of this abuse and help them so they don't blame themselves.
         I am sorry if I hurt you with my words. Please accept my apology.   RL
       
            

Re: The Only Way (2)

RL, thank you for responding, I thought we'd lost you from the discussion.

The ego literally means “I”. It is a theoretical construct. It is just an idea, but it is very useful. A number of psychologists and “spiritual” people have talked about it. It's kind of like negative numbers and the concept of zero, even though they don't have any inherent validity, they are still necessary to do math, (and balance our checkbooks!).

Very interesting analogy, much appreciated.

I'm glad, too, that you brought up the inner critic and the shadow again, both have come up in our recent discussions, from different perspectives. And this is excellent:

We can redraw the lines, and although not condone evil, we can become part of something greater, a bigger movement, part of Gaia. As Einstein said, we can extend our circle of compassion, “to embrace the whole of nature, and the universe.”


We have spoken of awareness and responsibility and this is now the bigger picture, the redemptive aspect of our work together. So important.

Love,

Nicole

Re: The Only Way (2)

In reading Tolle's ”A New Earth” lately, I see two truths here that may be w/o dissent. 

Ego is what separates us from ourselves.
Whatever we give our energy to, that persists in reality.

I like this passage too, so I'll echo Nicole in commending RL…

The
ego literally means “I”. It is a theoretical construct. It is just an
idea, but it is very useful. A number of psychologists and “spiritual”
people have talked about it. It's kind of like negative numbers and the
concept of zero, even though they don't have any inherent validity,
they are still necessary to do math, (and balance our checkbooks!).

Re: The Only Way (2)

       Let me use someone else's words, as mine don't seem to work.

“If you get a sense of your self right now–simply notice what it is that you call 'you'–you might notice at least two parts to this 'self': one, there is some sort of observed self (an inner subject or watcher); and two, there is some sort of observed self (some objective things that you can see or know about yourself–I am a father, mother, docter, clerk; I weigh so many pounds, have blond hair, etc). The first is experienced as an “I,” the second as a 'me” (or even “mine”. I call the first the proximate self (since it is closer to 'you'). and the second the distal self (since it is objective and “further away”). The both of them together–along with any other sources of selfness—I call the overall self.

       These distinctions are important because, as many researches have noted– from Sri Ramana Maharashi to Robert Kegan–during psychological development, the “I” of one stage becomes a “me” at the next. That is, what you identified with (or embedded in) at one stage of development (and what you experience as very intimately as an “I” ) tends to become transcended or disidentified with, or de-embedded at the next, so you can see it more objectively, with some distnace and detachment. In other words, the subject of one stage becomes an object of the next.

        For example, a young infant is identified almost solely with its body–the body is the infant's self or subject (the proximate I), and thus the infant cannot really stand back and objectively observe its body. It simply is a bodyself, and as a body it looks to the world. But when the infants verbal and conceptual mind begins to emerge, the infant will start to identify with the mind–the mind becomes the self or subject (the proximate I), and the infant can then, for the first time, start to see its body objectively (as a distal object or “me”)–the body is now an object of the new subject, the mental self, Thus, the subject of one stage becomes an object of the next….
 
       There is a persistent confusion in the literature about whether, for example the ego is retained or lost in higher development. Most transpersonal researchers refer to the higher stages as “beyond ego” or “transegoic” which seems to imply that the ego is lost. But this confusion is entirely semantic. If by ego you mean an exclusive identification with the personal self, then that exclusiveness is mostly lost or dissolved in higher developments– that “ego” is largely destroyed (and the higher stages are correctly called transegoic). But if by ego you mean a function self that relates to the conventional world, then that ego is definitely retained (and often strengthened). Likewise, if you mean–as psychoanalysis does–that an important part of the ego is its compacity for detached witnessing, then that ego is definitely retained (and almost always strengthened)–When Jack Engler says that “Meditation increases ego strength,' he is absolutely right. Also, if by ego you mean–as ego psychology does–the psyches capacity for integrating, then that ego is also retained and streghtened.

In short, the exclusiveness of an identity with a given self (bodyego, persona, centaur, soul) is dissolved or released with each higher stage of self growth, but the important functional capacities of each are retained, incorporated (holarchically), and often strengthened in succedding stages. —Ken Wilber, Integral Psychology.

        I didn't mean to offend anyone with my stream of thought paragraphs. If I had know they would have caused such hostility, I wouldn't have posted them, or I would have turned them into an elaborated essay.

When I said that reality isn't painful, i meant that the world is benign, neutral. We can impress upon it our fears or our hopes. I do believe that there is “the good” in it, but that we have to look for it.

   I don't see spiritual people as being better than you, me or anyone else. I see them as being more developed in certain contexts, much like an Olympic runner is more developed at running than me, or a chef is better at cooking certain dishes, in other contexts. I believe we are all a part of reality, and have Spirit.  Use whatever works for you as a person, your own sense of “the good” in life. Ultimately, I think that there is one light, many windows. http://groups.gaia.com/one_light/conversations/room/43722

Nicole–I got those pictures from Rasha. She's definitely new age, but she has some good gems in her book, Oneness.      http://www.onenesswebsite.com/

I wonder if we answered Bjorns original question, whether we can find truths in these conversations?
Best of luck to all in their journey…
        (Truthseeker is leaving the post )

Re: The Only Way (2)

“Truth does not exist as a separate reality as a static Absolute. It has no meaning as an idea or concept. Truth is expressed in what we do. Therefore we can't “talk” about it without being it. It has to be “proven” as we speak about it. It has to be manifested through our understanding of the immediacy of awakening.”
I agree, Bjorn! WE can all talk, talk, talk our lives away, eh? ;-) In the course I teach, it's allll about experiencing your truths, instead of staying in the mental realms of knowing. That way, when you go through experiential exercises, you reach your own realizations, which makes everybody's path unique, though the intent is the same, which is the constant achievement of enlightenment, or as you put it, “the immediacy of awakening.” I love it!

Re: The Only Way (2)

katrinamae, welcome to the discussion. It makes sense that we must all experience our truths differently.

RL, I don't know if we answered Bjorn's original question, perhaps at some point he will redirect us if we haven't. I appreciate knowing where you found the pictures, they are inspiring. 

That was an interesting quote from Wilber, and you make an excellent point about “being more developed” - spiritual practices of course will strengthen certain areas of our life just as physical training strengthens the body. And this will have an effect on the whole person. 

As Dov just rightly pointed out in the other thread on ego that we are not comfortable in our societies with interdependence and we are not always comfortable with the idea that some have things to teach us that we don't yet know. We don't always have to be the teacher, we can be the one taught. It's ok not always being the giver.  

If these discussions show me one thing, it's that we can all learn more from each other.

Love,

Nicole