Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 16:16:35 GMT -5
The Universal is an orphan. So what do you mean by 'The Universal is an orphan'? It was just a sentence that got heard one day. I could take it to mean that living without parental conditioning would be freer. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2013 16:50:58 GMT -5
It means that which is real is permanent. (Doesn't come and go or change) Ok, so can you please present two examples of that which is 'real' - "that doesn't come and go or change"? Why do I hafta do that? I was just splainin what it means. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 18, 2013 17:17:31 GMT -5
So what do you mean by 'The Universal is an orphan'? It was just a sentence that got heard one day. I could take it to mean that living without parental conditioning would be freer. Without context, it presents as a patently illogical statement. Living without parental conditioning would be another illogical hypothetical, which might appear 'freer' to one who egoistically selects to relate to safety guidelines as some kind of imprisonment. Yet any suggestion of 'freedom' from parental input is a palpable misunderstanding of the dynamics of consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 18, 2013 17:17:56 GMT -5
Ok, so can you please present two examples of that which is 'real' - "that doesn't come and go or change"? Why do I hafta do that? I was just splainin what it means. Well I guess you certainly don't 'hafta' do it, specially if you haf no examples to suggest, which might indicate you were splainin nothin bout which you know anything, huh? My original question (to trf) was about his interpretation of 'real' - not yours. You chose to inject your own definition, even though such advice was unsolicited. So the question, since you volunteered the input, is - do you actually have enough insight to complete your injection into this discussion? If not, why did you involve opinion as if you 'know'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 18:21:38 GMT -5
It's the premise of ACIM which makes a fundamental distinction between the real and the unreal; between knowledge and perception. It goes on to state that knowledge is truth, under one law, the law of love or God. Truth is unalterable, eternal and unambiguous. It can be unrecognized, but it cannot be changed. It applies to everything that God created, and only what He created is real. It is beyond learning because it is beyond time and process. It has no opposite; no beginning and no end. It merely is. Thank you for your considered response. Unfortunately such appear not to be the norm on this site. So firstly, I don't know much at all about ACIM. Second; I don't find much in the above to take issue over, apart from the most pivotal and relevant; 'god'. So who or what is this 'god' upon which/whom everything that is 'real' depends? Do I, for instance, need to ask the Pope for such advice? If so, all the apparent validity in the above vaporises in a moment. Third; apart from the 'god' here, thus far it appears your 'real' is what I term 'objective reality'; in quite a stark contrast to the following ..... The world of perception or the world that appears real is the world of time, of change, of beginnings and endings. It is based on interpretation, not on facts. It is the world of birth and death, founded on the belief in scarcity, loss separation and death. It is learned rather than given, selective in its perceptual emphases, unstable in its functioning, and inaccurate in its interpretations. This leads to a world of illusions, a world which needs constant defense precisely because it is not real. Your definition of this realm appears to parallel what I term 'subjective reality', which is basically a very complex illusion which exists in the imaginations of folk, and of which they become exceptionally convinced, and defensive over, for it's as 'real' to each as anyone can imagine. It's so 'real' in fact, that a great many have hated, killed and been killed - all in the name of 'proving' their version of this illusion, as 'real', when it could never be considered as such. This is a realm consisting entirely of subjectivity; of (personal) perceptions and interpretations - all indeed of the above; objective reality. It is this very conglomerated blend that IS consciousness, of the two realms; objective and subjective conjoined, that renders the individual interpretation as so utterly convincing to each. Good question, from what I can ascertain God within the context of ACIM is the Law of Love, meaning there is no love but God's. What ACIM calls real is that which does not change, which is permanent, eternal and obvious. It also calls real what the Law of Love or God has created. So it seems that the Law of Love or God is also a creator. The 'subjective reality' that you speak of is consistent with what they say is unreal, or perception which is learned rather than given, selective in its perceptual emphases, unstable in its functioning, and inaccurate in its interpretations. As you say, "It is this very conglomerated blend that IS consciousness, of the two realms; objective and subjective conjoined, that renders the individual interpretation as so utterly convincing to each." It is also the source of conflict between the split mind of Knowledge and Perception that ACIM says has to be healed. So that the transmission or communication of God's Love can be reinstated within a united whole mind. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2013 21:04:30 GMT -5
Why do I hafta do that? I was just splainin what it means. Well I guess you certainly don't 'hafta' do it, specially if you haf no examples to suggest, which might indicate you were splainin nothin bout which you know anything, huh? My original question (to trf) was about his interpretation of 'real' - not yours. You chose to inject your own definition, even though such advice was unsolicited. So the question, since you volunteered the input, is - do you actually have enough insight to complete your injection into this discussion? If not, why did you involve opinion as if you 'know'? TRF's comments clearly came from ACIM, and I recognized it. You misunderstood it and so I clarified. Presently, there isn't an interest in defending or logically analyzing it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 2:56:37 GMT -5
It was just a sentence that got heard one day. I could take it to mean that living without parental conditioning would be freer. Without context, it presents as a patently illogical statement. Living without parental conditioning would be another illogical hypothetical, which might appear 'freer' to one who egoistically selects to relate to safety guidelines as some kind of imprisonment. Yet any suggestion of 'freedom' from parental input is a palpable misunderstanding of the dynamics of consciousness. Yeah, if the guidelines that were given were functional and safety conscious, then of course it would be illogical to feel any imprisonment from them. |
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 20, 2013 10:43:03 GMT -5
There are any number of variations on the theme "What you really are is untouched by anything that arises in it." Should you find one that catches your fancy look into it. It's a great question. I'm sorry, but your post somewhat confuses me. You suggest a question as 'great', but thus far the only question I can find is mine; what is this 'real' that can't be threatened? I LOVE that question! Don't ask ME! Go crazy widdit! |
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 20, 2013 11:00:59 GMT -5
Sitting on the floor, back against the wall, eating lunch.
Sights, sounds, movement.
Seen with no commentary, no agenda.
"I" arises to fill the void.
"If I want to awaken I must.. (insert practice here)!
"Hey mindtender!" (bartender!)
"Yeah, yeah. What's your pleasure?"
"I'll take a witness and a breath to follow!"
"Coming right up!"
It's so subtle.
"Person" missing, there is no one to miss it.
No conflict.
"Person" arises, hoping to engineer it's own demise.
The "seeker".
"Seeker" missing, dishes are washed, laundry put away, things get done.
"Seeker" arises and all is put on hold.
Waiting for the "Great Awakening".
It's so subtle.
So obvious...!?!
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2013 12:53:29 GMT -5
Sitting on the floor, back against the wall, eating lunch. Sights, sounds, movement. Seen with no commentary, no agenda. "I" arises to fill the void. "If I want to awaken I must.. (insert practice here)! "Hey mindtender!" (bartender!) "Yeah, yeah. What's your pleasure?" "I'll take a witness and a breath to follow!" "Coming right up!" It's so subtle. "Person" missing, there is no one to miss it. No conflict. "Person" arises, hoping to engineer it's own demise. The "seeker". "Seeker" missing, dishes are washed, laundry put away, things get done. "Seeker" arises and all is put on hold. Waiting for the "Great Awakening". It's so subtle.
So obvious...!?!And disappointing? And boring?  Just follow it back ... that exclamation: "this? really? that's all?? ... c'mon! there's got to be more!" ... where does that come from? Who is that? |
|
frustratedwanter
Full Member
Apparently I posted something in 2020. I don't think that's what I'm looking for but what ta hey?
Posts: 150
|
Post by frustratedwanter on Oct 20, 2013 13:11:35 GMT -5
It's so subtle.
So obvious...!?![/quote]And disappointing? And boring? Just follow it back ... that exclamation: "this? really? that's all?? ... c'mon! there's got to be more!" ... where does that come from? Who is that? [/quote]That's what I keep hearing/refusing to hear. To a mind it's just not interesting enough. As to "who is that?" Must be the frustrated wanter. How do you quote just part of a posting? This is a koan for me but a question one of you could easily answer without hindering my self-realization.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2013 13:26:22 GMT -5
That's what I keep hearing/refusing to hear. To a mind it's just not interesting enough. As to "who is that?" Must be the frustrated wanter. How do you quote just part of a posting? This is a koan for me but a question one of you could easily answer without hindering my self-realization. To quote only part of a post just delete the part you want to leave out but take care not to mess with the quote tags. (if you meant the koan was about "who is the frustrated wanter?") Noone can answer a question of self-inquiry for you, only you can do that for yourself!  (... if you meant the koan was how to edit your post: ha! ha! and stop reading now!) I'll say this though, knowing that faint and quiet sense of being for what it is isn't something that's competitive or lucrative but it doesn't have to get in the way of stuff that is. There's plenty of "more!" out there to be had ... since self-realization is about "less!", if you want "more!", then go for it. Life sure can be one grand adventure man. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 20, 2013 14:04:01 GMT -5
Without context, it presents as a patently illogical statement. Living without parental conditioning would be another illogical hypothetical, which might appear 'freer' to one who egoistically selects to relate to safety guidelines as some kind of imprisonment. Yet any suggestion of 'freedom' from parental input is a palpable misunderstanding of the dynamics of consciousness. Yeah, if the guidelines that were given were functional and safety conscious, then of course it would be illogical to feel any imprisonment from them. Many can recount some negativity relative to their experiences as children under the control of their parents, yet what most generally don’t realise is how the dynamic of consciousness, as subject to the dualistic male and female input into their relating to self and the wider environment, doesn't end with their 21st birthday or moving away from their physical dad & mom, but is incrementally transferred to (and continues under) a far more pertinent spiritual set of ‘parents’ throughout our lives, enmeshed in every thought and enshrined in every choice we ever make. Due to a severe lack of understanding as to the nature of consciousness, this transference is poorly researched and documented, yet it is nonetheless crucial to the personality that each of us present at any moment, which in turn is the impacted result of the conglomerated choices our consciousness makes. The transference then, from under the archetypic relationship between the child and physical parents, to the stand-alone adult under their (dual) consciousness primes, is extremely pivotal in how one relates to self, others and their existence generally. For this reason, it’s best for one's own well-being that one reconciles (at least for their own benefit) their differences with their physical parentage - for the sake of their spiritual. In short; one's spiritual parentage controls and determines the character and complexion that presents as the individual. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 20, 2013 14:05:56 GMT -5
Well I guess you certainly don't 'hafta' do it, specially if you haf no examples to suggest, which might indicate you were splainin nothin bout which you know anything, huh? My original question (to trf) was about his interpretation of 'real' - not yours. You chose to inject your own definition, even though such advice was unsolicited. So the question, since you volunteered the input, is - do you actually have enough insight to complete your injection into this discussion? If not, why did you involve opinion as if you 'know'? TRF's comments clearly came from ACIM, and I recognized it. You misunderstood it and so I clarified. Presently, there isn't an interest in defending or logically analyzing it. Seeking clarification on the precise intention behind the words expressed doesn't at all constitute a misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 20, 2013 14:16:05 GMT -5
Thank you for your considered response. Unfortunately such appear not to be the norm on this site. So firstly, I don't know much at all about ACIM. Second; I don't find much in the above to take issue over, apart from the most pivotal and relevant; 'god'. So who or what is this 'god' upon which/whom everything that is 'real' depends? Do I, for instance, need to ask the Pope for such advice? If so, all the apparent validity in the above vaporises in a moment. Third; apart from the 'god' here, thus far it appears your 'real' is what I term 'objective reality'; in quite a stark contrast to the following ..... Your definition of this realm appears to parallel what I term 'subjective reality', which is basically a very complex illusion which exists in the imaginations of folk, and of which they become exceptionally convinced, and defensive over, for it's as 'real' to each as anyone can imagine. It's so 'real' in fact, that a great many have hated, killed and been killed - all in the name of 'proving' their version of this illusion, as 'real', when it could never be considered as such. This is a realm consisting entirely of subjectivity; of (personal) perceptions and interpretations - all indeed of the above; objective reality. It is this very conglomerated blend that IS consciousness, of the two realms; objective and subjective conjoined, that renders the individual interpretation as so utterly convincing to each. Good question, from what I can ascertain God within the context of ACIM is the Law of Love, meaning there is no love but God's. Again, while the premise is sound, the pivotal issue remains this 'god'. I mean, I'm comfortable with love in this context, but this 'god' really needs to be defined as something far more valid than any supposed religious construct. There are two issues then; 1. The term itself, and more essentially; 2. The concept behind the term. I personally avoid using the word 'god' wherever possible, which is far too heavily shrouded in mystic overtones, but also reject in full all known mythical religious 'deities' that come within a bull's roar of this contrivance. It matters little whether one considers ‘God’, ‘Allah’, 'Zeus', 'Vishnu', 'Pangu', 'Amen', or any of a million other mythological 'beings' throughout the ages; the two things they have in common is; they’ve all been invented to explain creation (which might be ok), yet the problem arises in that they're all somewhat physical in nature, rather than entirely spiritual (non-physical). Our task then, is to remove any hint of physicality from the mental concept of ‘Creator’, which is partly achieved with ‘Love’; indeed being entirely non-physical (spiritual). So ‘Love’ is an excellent starting point, yet the mind in 2013, somewhat struggles with the imagined concept of ‘Love’ as equitable with that of ‘Creator’. A less ambiguous definition is necessarily required. Apart from some attempts in Hebraic antiquity, man has never really been able to define an entity WHO not only lacks any physicality, but more importantly can be clearly shown as THE CREATOR. Until now, the spiritual prime we call INTELLIGENCE; that same indwelling knowing that underpins consciousness itself, and is behind anything and everything we’ve ever witnessed being created, has not been recognized as THE CREATOR. What ACIM calls real is that which does not change, which is permanent, eternal and obvious. It also calls real what the Law of Love or God has created. So it seems that the Law of Love or God is also a creator. I accept "the law of love is THE (not a) Creator", yet this is in NO WAY 'god' - by any known definition. Surely there is no other known Creator than Love - yet this Love is by no means consistent with the generic definition of the term, which is effectively a misnomer, and therefore not love at all. More essentially however, we need to appreciate that this 'god' is a purely religious word and concept. It has absolutely no credibility outside a religious setting, and by the way - little within. Any attempt to incorporate this term will always have the effect of seriously clouding any possible understanding in the errors of the past. Use 'Love' by all means, yet as for the term ‘god’, remember one cannot play in the mud and come out clean. The 'subjective reality' that you speak of is consistent with what they say is unreal, or perception which is learned rather than given, selective in its perceptual emphases, unstable in its functioning, and inaccurate in its interpretations. Precisely. Perception is the mainstay of our generic awareness, yet is irrational and incomplete – at best. This is all a result of our emotion – that second, yet predominant (by default) prime into consciousness. Emotion has never (even once) created anything, yet we illogically continue (by choice) to give it precedence over THE CREATOR prime into our individualistic consciousness – Intelligence. As you say, "It is this very conglomerated blend that IS consciousness, of the two realms; objective and subjective conjoined, that renders the individual interpretation as so utterly convincing to each." Indeed, this ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ dichotomy is a direct result of these same two antithetical primes into consciousness – Intelligence and emotion – as incrementally and progressively conglomerated through our every choice we ever make. It is also the source of conflict between the split mind of Knowledge and Perception that ACIM says has to be healed. So that the transmission or communication of God's Love can be reinstated within a united whole mind. I very much like the way you put this. However the ‘split mind of knowledge and perception’, is more complicated than it might appear, for ‘perception’ (at least in part) necessarily requires some input from ‘knowledge’. So while this complicates the observation, yet the issue between knowledge and perception is fundamentally the result rather than the cause itself. The cause then is where the problem lies, and also where the solution to the problem is to be found. The hopeless dilemma here, is knowledge cannot be fully accessed from perception, and without pure knowledge, perception cannot possibly resolve the issues with perception. Yet the good news is that these are but the second tier (result) in the equation, for the actual disunity relates to roots – the dual primes (Intelligence and emotion), which in turn support ... A. Knowledge, and B. Perception |
|
(... if you meant the koan was how to edit your post: ha! ha! and stop reading now!)