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 :):)

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?

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