Creative imaginations
It is interesting to consider how often we experience something and
then proceed to doubt our own experience. We seek social approval,
third party confirmation of the experienced moment - and when none
is available questionthe validity of our own sensing.
How often, for example, we have experienced the 'spiritual presence'
of a long dead family member only to 'apparently find' that no other
experienced this and therefore we dismiss the experience as imaginings
or fantasy. Yet it seemed so real to us. How euphoric we are when
another confesses to the same, or similar,'sensing'.
Equally, how many times we have felt the presence of 'God', only to
rationalise that since no one else around us had that same experience in
the same way - or even similar - that we must have imagined it.
No matter how many times we are faced with the reality that we are so
uniquely individual, that our life's walk is so amazingly special, we seek to
confirm through others the validity of our own experiences and even conform
our experiences to acceptable social 'norms'.
So strange. So amazingly peculiar that we would trust, believe
in, give credence to, the expressed experience of another in
preference to our own. Yet we continually fill the 'workshop of
our experiencing' with the words and experiences of others as
though they are 'tools of comprehension', not
recognising that that was their unique experience.
At what point are we willing to accept that imagination,
even 'fantasy', are also valid tools of experiencing....for
at that moment we are experiencing that about which we
imagine or fantasise. We have created that very scenario
wthin our consciousness or have sensed that very
'creation' within our 'metaphor of relativity'.
It is no wonder that Christ said that when we think a thing
it as as though we have done it. For, most surely, in the
heart of our 'experiencing' the thinking of it is the doing of it.
In this sense the boundary between reality and imagining
becomes as small as an atom of air. Our relative, conditioned
perspective dictates whether the experience is classified as
real or fantasy by our logical cortexes. Our
conditioned-conscious-thought perspective can deafen us
to the voice of our own individualised spirit speaking to us.
In this sense our manifestations of lovingness cease to be
ours any more, they become the property of our conditioned
circumstance and manifest in conditioned expressions.
Only when we are willing to accept the full responsibility of
our own creating self are we fully empowered to emanate
unconditional love. In that event it matters little whether we
classify the experience of unconditional love as real or imagined.
It matters little because the energy we release in this
unconditional lovingness emanation creates a reality of it
around us.
When you consciously know - and accept this - you
understand the words 'all things are possible to them
that believe'.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Monday, June 13, 2005
Revisited pathways
All is change in this life's walk, that is the nature of the
experience we call life. To resist change is to resist the
urge of life itself. To accept the challenge of change is
to continue the adventure of experiencing with all it's
potential for self-revelation, self-fulfillment.
When we do so, we should give all our heart to the
adventure and not seek to hide in the memories of the
pathway we have already walked.
GKR
All is change in this life's walk, that is the nature of the
experience we call life. To resist change is to resist the
urge of life itself. To accept the challenge of change is
to continue the adventure of experiencing with all it's
potential for self-revelation, self-fulfillment.
When we do so, we should give all our heart to the
adventure and not seek to hide in the memories of the
pathway we have already walked.
GKR
Everywhere we look, everywhere our senses
input the incredible wonder of this 'metaphor
of relativity' that we call the earth, the world,
Everywhere,
everywhere all the time,
there is such incredible diversity,
such unnutterable beauty,
such ecstacy of experiencing....
It's all there, all the time.
Always in a state of constant change
It's there if you wish to see it
will take the moments as precious gifts
jewels of beauty
with which to enrich your life experiencing
input the incredible wonder of this 'metaphor
of relativity' that we call the earth, the world,
Everywhere,
everywhere all the time,
there is such incredible diversity,
such unnutterable beauty,
such ecstacy of experiencing....
It's all there, all the time.
Always in a state of constant change
It's there if you wish to see it
will take the moments as precious gifts
jewels of beauty
with which to enrich your life experiencing
dicentra_small
see also the tapestry 'Dicentra'
at http://www.ragnhild-monsen.com/ragnhild_monsen-2003-03a_004.htm
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Royal visits
I dreamt that one day
into the humble place I call my home
Came a royal family
whose graciousness and dignity shone
more brightly than the summer’s noonday sun
The brightness of their shining
was the humility of their ways;
The warmth of their beaming
was the lovingness of their days:
and we were blessed by their rays.
Yet, soon we came to see
our reflected higher self,
for in such spiritually royal company
we removed from mundanity’s shelf
the soul we hid for fear of ridicule.
Glad, therefore, with joy and truth
we see the self-governed soul
that rests within it’s centred self
loves all alike, the whole
that is the realm of Yukta.
The peaceful kingdom of Nirvana
One-ness is a dream of a reality.
I dreamt that one day
into the humble place I call my home
Came a royal family
whose graciousness and dignity shone
more brightly than the summer’s noonday sun
The brightness of their shining
was the humility of their ways;
The warmth of their beaming
was the lovingness of their days:
and we were blessed by their rays.
Yet, soon we came to see
our reflected higher self,
for in such spiritually royal company
we removed from mundanity’s shelf
the soul we hid for fear of ridicule.
Glad, therefore, with joy and truth
we see the self-governed soul
that rests within it’s centred self
loves all alike, the whole
that is the realm of Yukta.
The peaceful kingdom of Nirvana
One-ness is a dream of a reality.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Bad is Good
One of the most fascinating and mysterious facts of modern times is that IQ scores
have been steadily rising in developed nations for the past half_century. A political
scientist, James Flynn, noticed in the early 1980s that the "control" group of
teenagers who were regularly being tested to keep scores in line was improving all
the time.
"Every time kids took the new and the old tests, they did better on the old ones,"
Flynn found. "I thought: that’s weird."
For Johnson, the explanation may be staring us in the face. "Over the last 50 years
we’ve had to cope with an explosion of media, technologies and interfaces, from the
TV clicker to the worldwide web. And every new form of visual media — interactive
visual media in particular — poses an implicit challenge to our brains: we have to
work through the logic of the new interface, follow clues, sense relationships."
These, he points out, are the very skills measured in IQ tests. "You survey a field of
visual icons and look for unusual patterns."
Educationists agree. In Britain three years ago, researchers funded by the Department
for Education and Skills found that computer games improved problem-solving skills,
concentration, memorisation and collaboration in the 700 children they studied.
What they do is help players to think: "All the intellectual benefits of gaming derive
from this fundamental virtue, because learning how to think is ultimately about
learning to make the right decisions."
of learning how to think for one’s self, is a main factor in the decline of
outdated doctrine-based institutions?
One of the most fascinating and mysterious facts of modern times is that IQ scores
have been steadily rising in developed nations for the past half_century. A political
scientist, James Flynn, noticed in the early 1980s that the "control" group of
teenagers who were regularly being tested to keep scores in line was improving all
the time.
"Every time kids took the new and the old tests, they did better on the old ones,"
Flynn found. "I thought: that’s weird."
For Johnson, the explanation may be staring us in the face. "Over the last 50 years
we’ve had to cope with an explosion of media, technologies and interfaces, from the
TV clicker to the worldwide web. And every new form of visual media — interactive
visual media in particular — poses an implicit challenge to our brains: we have to
work through the logic of the new interface, follow clues, sense relationships."
These, he points out, are the very skills measured in IQ tests. "You survey a field of
visual icons and look for unusual patterns."
Educationists agree. In Britain three years ago, researchers funded by the Department
for Education and Skills found that computer games improved problem-solving skills,
concentration, memorisation and collaboration in the 700 children they studied.
What they do is help players to think: "All the intellectual benefits of gaming derive
from this fundamental virtue, because learning how to think is ultimately about
learning to make the right decisions."
(the above are extracts from a Sunday Times article: the full article can be viewed
here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1592248,00.html )
Is it possible that this increase in problem solving ability, this processof learning how to think for one’s self, is a main factor in the decline of
outdated doctrine-based institutions?
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Expectations of perfection begin with ourselves
So often we concern ourselves with moral or ethical judgements
relating to the behaviour of others. It is a regrettable feature of many
institutions and a clear motivator for the popularity of ‘soap and virtual reality tv’
programmes.
Well it has been said by many religious leaders, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, (amongst others)
that we should beware of such judgements. The case for ‘moral absolutism’ versus
‘moral relativism’,currently scheduled to be the ‘cause celebre’ in the new papal era,
is a case in point.
We have interesting contradictions, in this last week, even within the words of just one
powerful vatican representative: “The head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council on the
Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, denounced the legislation as profoundly
iniquitous. Interviewed in the Italian newspaper, Corriere de la Serra, Cardinal Lopez
Trujillo said the Church was making an urgent call for freedom of conscience for Roman
Catholics and appealing to them to resist the law”. On the one hand was the defence of
moral absolutism in condemning the recent laws passed in Spain concerning the rights
of ‘sexual minorities’ yet, in the same breath, comes a plea for relativism in resisting
these laws (shown in bold type).
Clearly all arguments can be used to defend any scenario, huh?
This is also shown in the emerging information concerning Cardinal Ratzinger’s (now Pope
Benedict XVI) handling, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,( the
Vatican body which has the power to investigate and excommunicate priests guilty of sexual
abuse) of the charges against Fr Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ and
a close friend to the last Pope.. His male accusers include three professors, a teacher, a
lawyer and an engineer (at least one ‘witness’, a priest, of this ‘abuse’ made a death bed
‘declaration’ denouncing Maciel). Another Priest, himself sexually abused by Maciel,
forwarded the list of charges to a New York Bishop who forwarded the data and evidence
to the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1997!
It would appear that freedom of conscience (moral relativism) rules in the Vatican. But is only
for those chosen to receive it, not for the rest of humanity.
It would also appear that secular society has more grasp of the caring aspects of this subject,
in terms of morality and ethics, than does an institution claiming greater historical authority in
this area.
When religion mixes with the ‘politics of expediency’, or the ‘politics of secular power’, we can
be relatively sure of the absolute corruption of both at the expense of moral standards,
human dignity and even life..
So often we concern ourselves with moral or ethical judgements
relating to the behaviour of others. It is a regrettable feature of many
institutions and a clear motivator for the popularity of ‘soap and virtual reality tv’
programmes.
Well it has been said by many religious leaders, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, (amongst others)
that we should beware of such judgements. The case for ‘moral absolutism’ versus
‘moral relativism’,currently scheduled to be the ‘cause celebre’ in the new papal era,
is a case in point.
We have interesting contradictions, in this last week, even within the words of just one
powerful vatican representative: “The head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council on the
Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, denounced the legislation as profoundly
iniquitous. Interviewed in the Italian newspaper, Corriere de la Serra, Cardinal Lopez
Trujillo said the Church was making an urgent call for freedom of conscience for Roman
Catholics and appealing to them to resist the law”. On the one hand was the defence of
moral absolutism in condemning the recent laws passed in Spain concerning the rights
of ‘sexual minorities’ yet, in the same breath, comes a plea for relativism in resisting
these laws (shown in bold type).
Clearly all arguments can be used to defend any scenario, huh?
This is also shown in the emerging information concerning Cardinal Ratzinger’s (now Pope
Benedict XVI) handling, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,( the
Vatican body which has the power to investigate and excommunicate priests guilty of sexual
abuse) of the charges against Fr Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ and
a close friend to the last Pope.. His male accusers include three professors, a teacher, a
lawyer and an engineer (at least one ‘witness’, a priest, of this ‘abuse’ made a death bed
‘declaration’ denouncing Maciel). Another Priest, himself sexually abused by Maciel,
forwarded the list of charges to a New York Bishop who forwarded the data and evidence
to the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1997!
It would appear that freedom of conscience (moral relativism) rules in the Vatican. But is only
for those chosen to receive it, not for the rest of humanity.
It would also appear that secular society has more grasp of the caring aspects of this subject,
in terms of morality and ethics, than does an institution claiming greater historical authority in
this area.
When religion mixes with the ‘politics of expediency’, or the ‘politics of secular power’, we can
be relatively sure of the absolute corruption of both at the expense of moral standards,
human dignity and even life..
Monday, April 18, 2005
A Record of Goodness
In the years before the war we used to go for an hour's walk
together every day of the week.
There was the evident simplicity of the man
There was the boyish good humour of the man
He was in all circumstances endlessly considerate for the
position and problems of others. And with all this it is still
difficult to say what made him so beloved, so simply accepted
on trust, by an endless number of people everywhere. One can
only say that it is itself a tribute to the decency of the mass of
the people everywhere who recognised and loved goodness
in a man above all other things.
Professor David Mitrany writing in The Guardian newspaper
(UK) on the occasion of the death 50 years ago today of
Albert Einstein
Einstein had said of Ghandhi's death that "generations to come
will scarce believe that one such as this, in the flesh, ever walked
upon this earth". Words that might have also been his own eulogy.
In the years before the war we used to go for an hour's walk
together every day of the week.
There was the evident simplicity of the man
There was the boyish good humour of the man
He was in all circumstances endlessly considerate for the
position and problems of others. And with all this it is still
difficult to say what made him so beloved, so simply accepted
on trust, by an endless number of people everywhere. One can
only say that it is itself a tribute to the decency of the mass of
the people everywhere who recognised and loved goodness
in a man above all other things.
Professor David Mitrany writing in The Guardian newspaper
(UK) on the occasion of the death 50 years ago today of
Albert Einstein
Einstein had said of Ghandhi's death that "generations to come
will scarce believe that one such as this, in the flesh, ever walked
upon this earth". Words that might have also been his own eulogy.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Pop songs and melodies
Whilst recently doing some building work at my home I was exposed
to the latest offerings in popular music offered by some of the younger
co-workers. Happily,I got ‘hooked' on quite a few (inside me somewhere
there is still a youth, hehehe).
Two songs that had a large effect (amongst many) on me were
Eamon's "I don't want you back' and F.R.David's "Words".
Both speak of being in love and yet speak from the opposite polarities.
Interestingly enough, one is from the 1980's and the other from the
2000's and both are popular today. Both melodies and words speak of
the fascinating aspects of love as seen through the eyes of young men.
In Eamon's song we hear the pain of rejection and ‘betrayal. And the
associated anger reaction. In F.R.David's song - almost a hymn - we hear
of the difficulties of expressing what is in our hearts when we are in love.
One presents us with failed expectations, the other with gentle hopes of
acceptance.
Herein lies two of the main problems of modern relationships:
expectations and acceptance. Both these aspects go to the roots of our
definitions of love, for so often our definition is dependant upon
expectations as opposed to acceptance. We have been conditioned to
expect that love is conditional and have diffficulty, therefore, to accept
when we are challenged to be unconditional in our lovingness.
Yet, this very ‘conditionality' is a denial of who and what we are.
Love sets no borders.
Love has no demands.
Love seeks only the fulfilment of itself.
When we love shall we allow others, other circumstances, to deny us the
fullest expression of ourselves? I'm talking about Love here, not needs...
for they are very different.
If you love with expectations, beware of disappointment.
If you love with acceptance, beware of the pain that this unconditionality
will bring to your consciousness - yet - celebrate the wonder of your spirit
that you can love so much, so large, so ‘outside your own borders'.
Only when you are willing to love unconditionally will you be able to see
the true glory, wonder, magnificence of love...and of yourself.
The melody of love within our spirit is always ringing
tones of lovingness through our emotions and consciousness,
no matter what the life circumstance
(this blog dedicated to K & N... with humble gratitude for their sharing)
(Checkout what the Sugababes have to say in the blogs below)
Whilst recently doing some building work at my home I was exposed
to the latest offerings in popular music offered by some of the younger
co-workers. Happily,I got ‘hooked' on quite a few (inside me somewhere
there is still a youth, hehehe).
Two songs that had a large effect (amongst many) on me were
Eamon's "I don't want you back' and F.R.David's "Words".
Both speak of being in love and yet speak from the opposite polarities.
Interestingly enough, one is from the 1980's and the other from the
2000's and both are popular today. Both melodies and words speak of
the fascinating aspects of love as seen through the eyes of young men.
In Eamon's song we hear the pain of rejection and ‘betrayal. And the
associated anger reaction. In F.R.David's song - almost a hymn - we hear
of the difficulties of expressing what is in our hearts when we are in love.
One presents us with failed expectations, the other with gentle hopes of
acceptance.
Herein lies two of the main problems of modern relationships:
expectations and acceptance. Both these aspects go to the roots of our
definitions of love, for so often our definition is dependant upon
expectations as opposed to acceptance. We have been conditioned to
expect that love is conditional and have diffficulty, therefore, to accept
when we are challenged to be unconditional in our lovingness.
Yet, this very ‘conditionality' is a denial of who and what we are.
Love sets no borders.
Love has no demands.
Love seeks only the fulfilment of itself.
When we love shall we allow others, other circumstances, to deny us the
fullest expression of ourselves? I'm talking about Love here, not needs...
for they are very different.
If you love with expectations, beware of disappointment.
If you love with acceptance, beware of the pain that this unconditionality
will bring to your consciousness - yet - celebrate the wonder of your spirit
that you can love so much, so large, so ‘outside your own borders'.
Only when you are willing to love unconditionally will you be able to see
the true glory, wonder, magnificence of love...and of yourself.
The melody of love within our spirit is always ringing
tones of lovingness through our emotions and consciousness,
no matter what the life circumstance
(this blog dedicated to K & N... with humble gratitude for their sharing)
(Checkout what the Sugababes have to say in the blogs below)
"Pop Gurus" Sugababes.....Stronger
(Lyrics from www.poplyrics.net )
I'll make it through the rainy days
I'll be the one who stands here longer than the rest
When my landscape changes, re-arranges
I'll be stronger than I've ever been
No more stillness, more sunlight
Everything's gonna be all right
I know that there's gonna be a change
Better find your way out of your fear
If you wanna come with me
Then that's the way it's gotta be
I'm all alone
And finally
I'm getting stronger
You'll come to see
Just what I can be
I'm getting stronger
Sometimes I feel so down and out
Like emotion that's been captured in a maze
I had my ups and downs
Trials and tribulations
I overcome it day by day
Feeling good and almost powerful
A new me,
that's what I'm looking for
I know that there's gonna be a change
Better find your way out of your fear
If you wanna come with me
Then that's the way it's gotta be
I'm all alone
And finally
I'm getting stronger
You'll come to see
Just what I can be
I'm getting stronger
I didn't know what I had to do
I just knew I was alone
People around me but they didn't care
So I searched into my soulI
'm not the type of girl that will let them see her cry
It's not my style
I get by
See I'm gonna do this for me
I'm all alone And finally I'm getting stronger
You'll come to see Just what I can be I'm getting stronger
I'm all alone And finally I'm getting stronger
You'll come to see
Just what I can be
I'm getting stronger
(Lyrics from www.poplyrics.net )
I'll make it through the rainy days
I'll be the one who stands here longer than the rest
When my landscape changes, re-arranges
I'll be stronger than I've ever been
No more stillness, more sunlight
Everything's gonna be all right
I know that there's gonna be a change
Better find your way out of your fear
If you wanna come with me
Then that's the way it's gotta be
I'm all alone
And finally
I'm getting stronger
You'll come to see
Just what I can be
I'm getting stronger
Sometimes I feel so down and out
Like emotion that's been captured in a maze
I had my ups and downs
Trials and tribulations
I overcome it day by day
Feeling good and almost powerful
A new me,
that's what I'm looking for
I know that there's gonna be a change
Better find your way out of your fear
If you wanna come with me
Then that's the way it's gotta be
I'm all alone
And finally
I'm getting stronger
You'll come to see
Just what I can be
I'm getting stronger
I didn't know what I had to do
I just knew I was alone
People around me but they didn't care
So I searched into my soulI
'm not the type of girl that will let them see her cry
It's not my style
I get by
See I'm gonna do this for me
I'm all alone And finally I'm getting stronger
You'll come to see Just what I can be I'm getting stronger
I'm all alone And finally I'm getting stronger
You'll come to see
Just what I can be
I'm getting stronger
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Splinters and beams
About 3,800 years ago it was unhealthy to be the firstborn,well, if you lived in the Middle
East it was (check it out,ask Isaac).
About 2,000 years ago it was 'socially and religiously unnacceptable' to be sick. This was
"God's punishment'.The 'sins' that Jesus 'healed' should be understood in thiscontext.
This nonsense is still voluminously echoed in this modern age - compare the attitudes
towards Aids in the 'Bible belt of America' or the archaic views of some African states.
By the Middle Ages it was unhealthy to have 'deviant or heretical' beliefs. A syndrome
that still persists even today!
Then by the late 19th century, early 20th century, it became abnormal, appalling,
to have 'independant thoughts'. Thanks to Pavlov,Freud and a few others society was
influenced to believe that 'conditioning was the new god' ( a god profusely worshipped
in Communist ruled countries) Anyone outside of this category was
'idealogically/psychologically impaired' (?)
Then we moved into an arena where such old concepts of control ceased to function
adequately (did we?), so the new absurdity is that your ego is the major fault in you.
Of course, I write here from a Judao/Islamic/Christian viewpoint. Such ideas about
imperfections in mankind did not appear in other cultures!?! Huh? Nonsense.
These 'archetypes' of categorisation where just as equally expressed in differing
cultures in differing ways. Even today in India, 60 years after the death of the prophet
of non-violence,children are still beaten by parents, teachers, etc. (thus are taught
the supremacy of violence over other means of societal influence) and untouchability
is still practised within a less conspicuous form of the caste system. The revolt against
the institutionalised religious structures in the West has been hijacked by leaders,
gurus, from the East..where the ability to produce such 'gurus' seems to outstrip the
production of rice, yet another 'supply/demand' status.
The control-orientated structures of differing religions,philosophies, practices,
permeate the totality of cultures throughout the world. 'Having a mind, having an
ego' becomes the modern equivalent of being the firstborn, being sick, being heretical,
being 'psychologically deviant'.
It places you in a scenario where you cannot be controlled and therefore indoctrinated
into someone else's viewpoint.Inherent in this procedure is the need to do as described
in the previous blog - adapt and use the 'teachings' of others,modify where necessary,
invent if required (even when no evidence supports the invention) and generally tailor
your message to suit your audiences cultural and historical background, gently inserting
'cultural reference points'.
Equally inherent in this scenario is the need to find some basis of sugestion that will
cause you to reject any fundamental principle that you can be (and are) as equally
spiritually knowledgable as any Priest, Imman, Guru, etc.
First 'convict of imperfection'. Next, replace with auto-suggestion,finally complete the
indoctrination by removing the concept of self.
Daring to be an individual, to be the you you have chosen to be in this life's walk,
to be the manifestation of an aspect of free, unbounded unconditional love, is the
highest tantra,the highest calling, the highest 'You'.
It is written "through experience one transcends" (Osho). Is that your experience or
someone else's? Is that intramundane transcendance or supramundane transcendance?
Borrowing the experiences of another is not a revelation of yourself to yourself - however
wonderful and loving you may feel the other to be. Indeed, the fact that you feel them
to be so is a light upon your own 'knowledge', 'enlightened state'.
As I am very fond of saying, repeatedly, "Enlightened is what you are, experiencing
it is what you do". To which I can add, " manifesting it is your joy, your bliss,
your tantra"
You are exactly as you have chosen to be in this life's walk: chosen as an eternal spirit
that is an integral component of the 'One-ness'. Your individuality, your totality of being:
mind, body, emotions, ego, spirit, are essential aspects of 'The One-ness'. Choosing to
be you, in the fulness of who you really are, is honouring the purpose of your life's walk,
when you are the lovingness that you truly are
And I don't know anything you don't know in spiritual terms :):) I don't need to convince
you of something that you already know. You are a Master. You are a Guru. You need
no other...unless it's for entertainment! (there was much of that in religious traditions
before TV, PC and MP3 came along).
It snowed again the other night :):)
About 3,800 years ago it was unhealthy to be the firstborn,well, if you lived in the Middle
East it was (check it out,ask Isaac).
About 2,000 years ago it was 'socially and religiously unnacceptable' to be sick. This was
"God's punishment'.The 'sins' that Jesus 'healed' should be understood in thiscontext.
This nonsense is still voluminously echoed in this modern age - compare the attitudes
towards Aids in the 'Bible belt of America' or the archaic views of some African states.
By the Middle Ages it was unhealthy to have 'deviant or heretical' beliefs. A syndrome
that still persists even today!
Then by the late 19th century, early 20th century, it became abnormal, appalling,
to have 'independant thoughts'. Thanks to Pavlov,Freud and a few others society was
influenced to believe that 'conditioning was the new god' ( a god profusely worshipped
in Communist ruled countries) Anyone outside of this category was
'idealogically/psychologically impaired' (?)
Then we moved into an arena where such old concepts of control ceased to function
adequately (did we?), so the new absurdity is that your ego is the major fault in you.
Of course, I write here from a Judao/Islamic/Christian viewpoint. Such ideas about
imperfections in mankind did not appear in other cultures!?! Huh? Nonsense.
These 'archetypes' of categorisation where just as equally expressed in differing
cultures in differing ways. Even today in India, 60 years after the death of the prophet
of non-violence,children are still beaten by parents, teachers, etc. (thus are taught
the supremacy of violence over other means of societal influence) and untouchability
is still practised within a less conspicuous form of the caste system. The revolt against
the institutionalised religious structures in the West has been hijacked by leaders,
gurus, from the East..where the ability to produce such 'gurus' seems to outstrip the
production of rice, yet another 'supply/demand' status.
The control-orientated structures of differing religions,philosophies, practices,
permeate the totality of cultures throughout the world. 'Having a mind, having an
ego' becomes the modern equivalent of being the firstborn, being sick, being heretical,
being 'psychologically deviant'.
It places you in a scenario where you cannot be controlled and therefore indoctrinated
into someone else's viewpoint.Inherent in this procedure is the need to do as described
in the previous blog - adapt and use the 'teachings' of others,modify where necessary,
invent if required (even when no evidence supports the invention) and generally tailor
your message to suit your audiences cultural and historical background, gently inserting
'cultural reference points'.
Equally inherent in this scenario is the need to find some basis of sugestion that will
cause you to reject any fundamental principle that you can be (and are) as equally
spiritually knowledgable as any Priest, Imman, Guru, etc.
First 'convict of imperfection'. Next, replace with auto-suggestion,finally complete the
indoctrination by removing the concept of self.
Daring to be an individual, to be the you you have chosen to be in this life's walk,
to be the manifestation of an aspect of free, unbounded unconditional love, is the
highest tantra,the highest calling, the highest 'You'.
It is written "through experience one transcends" (Osho). Is that your experience or
someone else's? Is that intramundane transcendance or supramundane transcendance?
Borrowing the experiences of another is not a revelation of yourself to yourself - however
wonderful and loving you may feel the other to be. Indeed, the fact that you feel them
to be so is a light upon your own 'knowledge', 'enlightened state'.
As I am very fond of saying, repeatedly, "Enlightened is what you are, experiencing
it is what you do". To which I can add, " manifesting it is your joy, your bliss,
your tantra"
You are exactly as you have chosen to be in this life's walk: chosen as an eternal spirit
that is an integral component of the 'One-ness'. Your individuality, your totality of being:
mind, body, emotions, ego, spirit, are essential aspects of 'The One-ness'. Choosing to
be you, in the fulness of who you really are, is honouring the purpose of your life's walk,
when you are the lovingness that you truly are
And I don't know anything you don't know in spiritual terms :):) I don't need to convince
you of something that you already know. You are a Master. You are a Guru. You need
no other...unless it's for entertainment! (there was much of that in religious traditions
before TV, PC and MP3 came along).
It snowed again the other night :):)
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Miror, mirror on the wall............
It is interesting how we are so conditioned to the 'teacher/pupil syndrome', huh?
Even people who do not tread the normal institutionalised pathway of religions,
(rich as they are with 'superior authoritarian metaphors for power over others')
people we could feel are 'new era - new age', still persist in manifestations of
conditioning by seeking guru's, enlightened ones, mahatmas'
So, I was recently occupied in a discussion, or rather i should say involved in
listening, concerning the superiority of one 'guru' over another. Amazing how,
through the ages, differing religious leaders fall prey to 'character/spiritual
assasination' by 'newer, modern gurus who need to theorise about the particular
or general motivations and/or characteristics of, for example, Christ.
Whilst accepting the general thrust of Christ's ministry, it seems so
essential to the modern 'guru' movement to on the one hand identify with
those characteristics by theorising that Christ visited this country or that
country, studied this or that 'religious tradition'. Then, on the other hand
to seperate the 'modern movement' from those aspects of Christ's ministry
which do not fit with the 'modern interpretation'.
When this contadiction is challenged one can hear comments like 'ah, but
xyz (their favourite guru) is an 'enlightened one' and knows about these things
(even when that so called knowledge is based upon uncorroborated fact or
theory) .
Then, of course, it's fair to ask the question," how do you know xyz is enlightened?"
Surely there is only one way to really know such a thing: that is if you yourself
are conversant with the codes and qualities of an 'enlightened being'. Surely
there is only one way that this could be so.... an issue of self experience
(for all else is simply hypothesis, huh?)
In order to recognise someone else as being 'enlightened', you must also
know what 'enlightenment is, be an enlightened One..ergo, all are 'enlightened
beings'.
If that is so, what is the need of this or that guru's experiencing as being
superior to one's own experiencing?
Ah, but then we are all conditioned to the 'teacher/pupil - master/disciple -
leader/follower- syndromes', huh?
It is interesting how we are so conditioned to the 'teacher/pupil syndrome', huh?
Even people who do not tread the normal institutionalised pathway of religions,
(rich as they are with 'superior authoritarian metaphors for power over others')
people we could feel are 'new era - new age', still persist in manifestations of
conditioning by seeking guru's, enlightened ones, mahatmas'
So, I was recently occupied in a discussion, or rather i should say involved in
listening, concerning the superiority of one 'guru' over another. Amazing how,
through the ages, differing religious leaders fall prey to 'character/spiritual
assasination' by 'newer, modern gurus who need to theorise about the particular
or general motivations and/or characteristics of, for example, Christ.
Whilst accepting the general thrust of Christ's ministry, it seems so
essential to the modern 'guru' movement to on the one hand identify with
those characteristics by theorising that Christ visited this country or that
country, studied this or that 'religious tradition'. Then, on the other hand
to seperate the 'modern movement' from those aspects of Christ's ministry
which do not fit with the 'modern interpretation'.
When this contadiction is challenged one can hear comments like 'ah, but
xyz (their favourite guru) is an 'enlightened one' and knows about these things
(even when that so called knowledge is based upon uncorroborated fact or
theory) .
Then, of course, it's fair to ask the question," how do you know xyz is enlightened?"
Surely there is only one way to really know such a thing: that is if you yourself
are conversant with the codes and qualities of an 'enlightened being'. Surely
there is only one way that this could be so.... an issue of self experience
(for all else is simply hypothesis, huh?)
In order to recognise someone else as being 'enlightened', you must also
know what 'enlightenment is, be an enlightened One..ergo, all are 'enlightened
beings'.
If that is so, what is the need of this or that guru's experiencing as being
superior to one's own experiencing?
Ah, but then we are all conditioned to the 'teacher/pupil - master/disciple -
leader/follower- syndromes', huh?
Sunday, April 03, 2005
ITO Aspects.... 3
I came to you
as your first breath
and you received me
I came to you
when first you walked
and together we travelled
I came to you
in your first romance
and together our spirit’s danced
I came to you
clothed in darkness
that you could shine in your lovingness
..............and when first you doubted
That you and I were One
I held you till your doubts were gone
And when first you struggled
Like an opening seed
I tended you till my hands did bleed
And then in beauty blossomed fair
The scent of your lovingness filled the air
I was there.
.... as I shall always be
Throughout eternity.
Geoffrey Groom April 2005
I came to you
as your first breath
and you received me
I came to you
when first you walked
and together we travelled
I came to you
in your first romance
and together our spirit’s danced
I came to you
clothed in darkness
that you could shine in your lovingness
..............and when first you doubted
That you and I were One
I held you till your doubts were gone
And when first you struggled
Like an opening seed
I tended you till my hands did bleed
And then in beauty blossomed fair
The scent of your lovingness filled the air
I was there.
.... as I shall always be
Throughout eternity.
Geoffrey Groom April 2005
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Is, Is not
This is part of what I mean in my blog when I quote the song from Wet Wet Wet.'I
see it all around me, in everything'. Raindrops, clouds, leaves on trees,blades of
grass, snowflakes, people (especially children)..everything. The message is in
everything we behold. The uniqueness of it all. The individuality of it all. The
extreme magnificence of it all. It all speaks to me, all the time when I choose to
be consciously aware of it...it shouts to me of the limitlessness of Love.
Unconditional! Many 'religious' cultures have honoured this reality,especially
the N.American Indian cultures. All was/is a manifestation of Great Spirit (God).
Mankind's humanenting habit, one that is essentially born out of a desire to control
others and gain some 'illusory power' over them and thus be 'superior' to others,
gives birth to a belief (an abstract term) that Great Spirit can somehow lose in a
battle for the hearts of mankind. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
That there is somehow some great battle involving humankind between devlish
forces and God's forces..and that God might lose. ha Ha Ha HaHa Ha Ha.
Great Spirit is mankind!
Great Spirit is the limitless expressioning and experiencing of unconditional love,
in and through every (every, the so called negative as well as positive polarities)
aspect of existence/creation.
Doctrinalists cannot have it both ways:
God is either all powerful,or is not.
God is either all present, or is not.
God is either all-loving, or is not.
If God is, then God is everything!
If God is everything then we, each one, are a part of God.
What a silliness to think that Great Spirit fights against himself/herself/itself....and
can lose the battle. Ha Ha Ha Ha HaHa Ha ....of all the most absurd notions invented
in the mind/intellect of humanity, this has got to be the most schizophrenic and
absurd in this day and age.
Maybe in previous ages such 'conception cartoons' served a purpose of 'education',
or were a vehicle of moral precepts, but in this age such concepts simply become
prisons of conformity ruled by jailers whose programme is more that of punishment
than one of love.
Great Spirit knows the outcome of all the 'metaphors of relativity'. Great Spirit
desires to experience the wholeness and does so, amongst other ways,through the
'process of the pathway' of each individualised part ofhimself/herself/itself - in full
knowledge and awareness of the destination of the pathway.
No matter how many detours, all spiritual pathways,all spirit energy pathways, lead
back to their source.
This is part of what I mean in my blog when I quote the song from Wet Wet Wet.'I
see it all around me, in everything'. Raindrops, clouds, leaves on trees,blades of
grass, snowflakes, people (especially children)..everything. The message is in
everything we behold. The uniqueness of it all. The individuality of it all. The
extreme magnificence of it all. It all speaks to me, all the time when I choose to
be consciously aware of it...it shouts to me of the limitlessness of Love.
Unconditional! Many 'religious' cultures have honoured this reality,especially
the N.American Indian cultures. All was/is a manifestation of Great Spirit (God).
Mankind's humanenting habit, one that is essentially born out of a desire to control
others and gain some 'illusory power' over them and thus be 'superior' to others,
gives birth to a belief (an abstract term) that Great Spirit can somehow lose in a
battle for the hearts of mankind. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
That there is somehow some great battle involving humankind between devlish
forces and God's forces..and that God might lose. ha Ha Ha HaHa Ha Ha.
Great Spirit is mankind!
Great Spirit is the limitless expressioning and experiencing of unconditional love,
in and through every (every, the so called negative as well as positive polarities)
aspect of existence/creation.
Doctrinalists cannot have it both ways:
God is either all powerful,or is not.
God is either all present, or is not.
God is either all-loving, or is not.
If God is, then God is everything!
If God is everything then we, each one, are a part of God.
What a silliness to think that Great Spirit fights against himself/herself/itself....and
can lose the battle. Ha Ha Ha Ha HaHa Ha ....of all the most absurd notions invented
in the mind/intellect of humanity, this has got to be the most schizophrenic and
absurd in this day and age.
Maybe in previous ages such 'conception cartoons' served a purpose of 'education',
or were a vehicle of moral precepts, but in this age such concepts simply become
prisons of conformity ruled by jailers whose programme is more that of punishment
than one of love.
Great Spirit knows the outcome of all the 'metaphors of relativity'. Great Spirit
desires to experience the wholeness and does so, amongst other ways,through the
'process of the pathway' of each individualised part ofhimself/herself/itself - in full
knowledge and awareness of the destination of the pathway.
No matter how many detours, all spiritual pathways,all spirit energy pathways, lead
back to their source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)