The sun rising across the lake at my home in Sweden, springtime
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.
KVG_001-mote
Sculptur "Mote" (meeting) by Kjersti Vexelsen Goksoyr.
kjersti-vexelsen-goksoyr.no
Photo: Kim Muller
Saturday, March 26, 2005
"Greater love..."
It's Eastertime. Holiday weekend in the West, fervent and dedicated worship
in Africa, the Phillipines and a few other places where hardship and real need
is still the 'daily bread'
Existing in our 'benign indulgence'condition here in the West it is rarely
afforded to us to face the trauma of daily survival- and the consequent 'belief
system need' that offers some hope for better days -that is the daily eucharist
of so many in this world.
Just occasionally we get glimpses,revert to 'faith orientated hopes',and usually
in the face of great calamity. Some of these calamities the polarities of nature,
some the indifference or negative metaphors of other human beings.
In so many of these circumstances we witness the fulfillment of the words
"Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends."
If you think this is an especially 'christian concept', think again!
In so many cultures in history there have been so many individuals
who have manifested this truth of' unconditional, unlimited lovingness'.
It often happens quietly and without great acclaim. But it happens all the
time. The symbolism of Easter, the ultimate sacrifice of the self for others,
is a constant theme throughout humanity.
In all areas this can be found.
So, this 'christian' Easter I remember Islam - an adolescent youth,a muslim
with the name Islam.
"According to the eyewitnesses, after the first explosion the boy rushed to
a call of an injured girl. "Help!" she moaned desperately. Islam only had time
to approach to her, when they shot him in the back. Maybe that was the same
terrorist who promised the boy to kill him: In the overfilled hall people were
forced to sit for hours in a closed proximity. When Islam Khadikov rose in
order to relax numb muscles, a nearby terrorist ordered him to sit down under
the death threat. "You will not kill me,I am a Muslim", answered Islam. "I will
kill you personally", maliciously replied the terrorist." (quoted from the Beslan
website:http://Beslan.ru )
Despite having been harshly warned by the terrorist, Islam Khadikov still went
to the assistance of that young girl in that school gymnasium at Beslan.
Islam's story is one of many, many that occurred during the horrors of those
days in Beslan. Stories of amazing courage and almost unbelievable lovingness.
It would be unbelievable if it had not actually happened.
Easter is not history. Easter, it's full symbolic meaning, echoes throughout
history and it matters not which religious 'label' we wear.
Islam Khadikov was killed by members of his own religion. Islam Khadikov
died in the act of trying to save another. Islam Khadikov was 14 years old.
Unconditional love.
It's Eastertime. Holiday weekend in the West, fervent and dedicated worship
in Africa, the Phillipines and a few other places where hardship and real need
is still the 'daily bread'
Existing in our 'benign indulgence'condition here in the West it is rarely
afforded to us to face the trauma of daily survival- and the consequent 'belief
system need' that offers some hope for better days -that is the daily eucharist
of so many in this world.
Just occasionally we get glimpses,revert to 'faith orientated hopes',and usually
in the face of great calamity. Some of these calamities the polarities of nature,
some the indifference or negative metaphors of other human beings.
In so many of these circumstances we witness the fulfillment of the words
"Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends."
If you think this is an especially 'christian concept', think again!
In so many cultures in history there have been so many individuals
who have manifested this truth of' unconditional, unlimited lovingness'.
It often happens quietly and without great acclaim. But it happens all the
time. The symbolism of Easter, the ultimate sacrifice of the self for others,
is a constant theme throughout humanity.
In all areas this can be found.
So, this 'christian' Easter I remember Islam - an adolescent youth,a muslim
with the name Islam.
"According to the eyewitnesses, after the first explosion the boy rushed to
a call of an injured girl. "Help!" she moaned desperately. Islam only had time
to approach to her, when they shot him in the back. Maybe that was the same
terrorist who promised the boy to kill him: In the overfilled hall people were
forced to sit for hours in a closed proximity. When Islam Khadikov rose in
order to relax numb muscles, a nearby terrorist ordered him to sit down under
the death threat. "You will not kill me,I am a Muslim", answered Islam. "I will
kill you personally", maliciously replied the terrorist." (quoted from the Beslan
website:http://Beslan.ru )
Despite having been harshly warned by the terrorist, Islam Khadikov still went
to the assistance of that young girl in that school gymnasium at Beslan.
Islam's story is one of many, many that occurred during the horrors of those
days in Beslan. Stories of amazing courage and almost unbelievable lovingness.
It would be unbelievable if it had not actually happened.
Easter is not history. Easter, it's full symbolic meaning, echoes throughout
history and it matters not which religious 'label' we wear.
Islam Khadikov was killed by members of his own religion. Islam Khadikov
died in the act of trying to save another. Islam Khadikov was 14 years old.
Unconditional love.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Wet Wet Wet, opening words to
'Love is all around'
"I feel it in my fingers
I feel it in my toes
Love is all around me
And so the feeling grows
It’s written on the wind
It’s everywhere I go, oh yes it is
So if you really love me
Come on and let it show "
How much do we need to see before we accept
the real 'me' ?!?
'Love is all around'
"I feel it in my fingers
I feel it in my toes
Love is all around me
And so the feeling grows
It’s written on the wind
It’s everywhere I go, oh yes it is
So if you really love me
Come on and let it show "
How much do we need to see before we accept
the real 'me' ?!?
Word Power II
James Campbell was once talking with a Priest and was asked
'Mr. Campbell, do you believe in a personal God?' To which he
replied he did not. Then the priest observed,'I suppose there
is no way I can prove the existence of a personal God to you?'
To which James Campbell replied,'if you could, then what would be
the value of faith?'
The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1925 edition) defines faith as:
'belief in divine truth without proof'. Now both James Campbell
and the priest obviously held this definition of the word 'faith'.
Of course, faith in it's modern useage has come to mean something
a little different, or has it?
And what of the other key word in this scenario? Belief, as defined
by POD (above) means: 'Trust, confidence, acceptance of a thing as
true'.
So, both the term faith and the term belief are, in actuality, abstract
terminologies. They are words which construct a scenario that
occupies the energies of the logical cortexes of the brain. Except
that belief also contains a kinetic energy concerning an issue of
acceptance.
Now, the simple question I wish to pose is this: why would you need to
have a belief in something that you already know? Paraphrased: why
would you need to have faith in something that has already been proven?
With or without the 'God gene VMAT2' it seems clear to me that if we
dispense with humanented (humanenting: attributing human
characteristics to the character of a Supreme Being/Great Spirit/God)
God definitions and simply allow the supreme definition of 'God' as being
Unconditional Love, then the proof of this lovingness not only surrounds
and infuses our every 'metaphor of relativity' but does in fact lie within
our 'spiritual DNA coding'.
Since we know all the spiritual truths _ and may choose to manifest
them in consciousness or choose not to manifest them _ what is there
to have 'faith' in? What is there to believe?
Do we seek to 'prove' our very existence in this so_called reality of life?
Is it required that we have 'faith' that we actually read these words and
therefore are? It was once written 'I think therefore I am', maybe it is
better written 'I fee therefore I am'. WYSIWYG - what you sense is what
you get,hehehehe
Interesting how we will rather play intellectual ping_pong with concepts,
imbibe the 'authority of someone else's experiences', debate with our
word-games the validity of this or that theory......rather than accept our
own inner feelings about an issue of spiritual truth.
You know what I know, spiritually speaking. We all have equality of
knowledge in this area. It is neither a question of faith nor a question
of belief...it is an issue of acceptance of our own inner voice when it
speaks to us of manifesting, or beholding the manifestations of, spiritual
truths.
If there is a 'God' and the definition of 'God' is unconditional love
(and anything less than that is a much lesser humanented 'God') why
do we consider it so strange _ we snowflakes of sensing _ that we are
a part of God and therefore are living proof, in this life's walk, of a truth?
Acceptance of who you truly are is neither a question of belief nor a
question of faith..it is simply the application of 'in-sight'. Looking within.
Have a listen to Wet Wet Wet singing ‘Love is all around’.....it’ll
give you a clue :)
James Campbell was once talking with a Priest and was asked
'Mr. Campbell, do you believe in a personal God?' To which he
replied he did not. Then the priest observed,'I suppose there
is no way I can prove the existence of a personal God to you?'
To which James Campbell replied,'if you could, then what would be
the value of faith?'
The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1925 edition) defines faith as:
'belief in divine truth without proof'. Now both James Campbell
and the priest obviously held this definition of the word 'faith'.
Of course, faith in it's modern useage has come to mean something
a little different, or has it?
And what of the other key word in this scenario? Belief, as defined
by POD (above) means: 'Trust, confidence, acceptance of a thing as
true'.
So, both the term faith and the term belief are, in actuality, abstract
terminologies. They are words which construct a scenario that
occupies the energies of the logical cortexes of the brain. Except
that belief also contains a kinetic energy concerning an issue of
acceptance.
Now, the simple question I wish to pose is this: why would you need to
have a belief in something that you already know? Paraphrased: why
would you need to have faith in something that has already been proven?
With or without the 'God gene VMAT2' it seems clear to me that if we
dispense with humanented (humanenting: attributing human
characteristics to the character of a Supreme Being/Great Spirit/God)
God definitions and simply allow the supreme definition of 'God' as being
Unconditional Love, then the proof of this lovingness not only surrounds
and infuses our every 'metaphor of relativity' but does in fact lie within
our 'spiritual DNA coding'.
Since we know all the spiritual truths _ and may choose to manifest
them in consciousness or choose not to manifest them _ what is there
to have 'faith' in? What is there to believe?
Do we seek to 'prove' our very existence in this so_called reality of life?
Is it required that we have 'faith' that we actually read these words and
therefore are? It was once written 'I think therefore I am', maybe it is
better written 'I fee therefore I am'. WYSIWYG - what you sense is what
you get,hehehehe
Interesting how we will rather play intellectual ping_pong with concepts,
imbibe the 'authority of someone else's experiences', debate with our
word-games the validity of this or that theory......rather than accept our
own inner feelings about an issue of spiritual truth.
You know what I know, spiritually speaking. We all have equality of
knowledge in this area. It is neither a question of faith nor a question
of belief...it is an issue of acceptance of our own inner voice when it
speaks to us of manifesting, or beholding the manifestations of, spiritual
truths.
If there is a 'God' and the definition of 'God' is unconditional love
(and anything less than that is a much lesser humanented 'God') why
do we consider it so strange _ we snowflakes of sensing _ that we are
a part of God and therefore are living proof, in this life's walk, of a truth?
Acceptance of who you truly are is neither a question of belief nor a
question of faith..it is simply the application of 'in-sight'. Looking within.
Have a listen to Wet Wet Wet singing ‘Love is all around’.....it’ll
give you a clue :)
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
crow
Crow, the keeper of sacred law in the N.American Indian traditions,
sees that the physical and spiritual worlds are an illusion at least as most of mankind interprets them. Crow is an omen of change
The reflected crow.
As a matter of habit it seems that most of us tend to regard a problem as a
challenge,something to be overcome, resolved,explained.This aproach
has been a great spur to the progress of humanity - well at least the
inquisitiveness of scientists in their desire to comprehend has been
a boon to the improvement of the human condition.
When it comes to spiritual issues,however, it seems clear that the use
of formulae and theoretical objectivity are not as successful in resolving
the issues.Possibly this is the result of the inability to actually be objective,
huh? For, as has been adequately demonstrated by modern neuro-science,
our 'logical cortexes' only start to work after - note after - the amygdala
'intuitive reaction' centre of our brain has already effected action.
In other words, we seem to act/react first and then seek explanations of
our behaviour through the proceses of the logical cortexes of the brain.
Hmmmm....this would seem to suggest,then,that our ability to even
comprehend the existence of a 'problem' (spiritually speaking) is a logical
cortex function. We have already intuitively reacted to, or formed opinions
about,or acted upon,any and every circumstance with which we meet before
we have proffered a 'logical acceptance stance'.
In terms of spirituality, therefore, it would seem that it is the function of our
'thinking brain' to isolate a situation as being problematic - even though we
have already experienced the situation and reacted to it.. Now there's a bold
assertion, huh?
But, think about it. How can we perceive there is a problem at all, if something
inside us is not aware of an experiential comprehension?
It is my assertion, my belief, my feeling that spiritual 'problems' are no more
and no less than our logical cortexes attempting to provide our conscious mind
with an acceptable explanation to something we know has occurred but which
we have difficulty in framing within a 'conditioned reflex' parameter.
In other words, in relation to spiritual matters,we already know the answer.
We must do in order to perceive there is a problem.
The problem is that of accepting, logically,emotionally, the answer that we
already know.In this sense we can deduce that in order to pose the problem
we are aware of the variables and in posing the problem seek a resolution
of those variables.
In other words, a problem is a solution awaiting it's time of birth in our
consciousness. We simply require to cloth it in an acceptable and
recognisable form.That is the problem our cortexes struggle with.....finding
a way to accept what we already know.
But then, you already knew this, didn't you,hehehehehe.
Becoming your future self is not a problem of a problem...but an issue
of acceptance of who you really are and choose to be.
As a matter of habit it seems that most of us tend to regard a problem as a
challenge,something to be overcome, resolved,explained.This aproach
has been a great spur to the progress of humanity - well at least the
inquisitiveness of scientists in their desire to comprehend has been
a boon to the improvement of the human condition.
When it comes to spiritual issues,however, it seems clear that the use
of formulae and theoretical objectivity are not as successful in resolving
the issues.Possibly this is the result of the inability to actually be objective,
huh? For, as has been adequately demonstrated by modern neuro-science,
our 'logical cortexes' only start to work after - note after - the amygdala
'intuitive reaction' centre of our brain has already effected action.
In other words, we seem to act/react first and then seek explanations of
our behaviour through the proceses of the logical cortexes of the brain.
Hmmmm....this would seem to suggest,then,that our ability to even
comprehend the existence of a 'problem' (spiritually speaking) is a logical
cortex function. We have already intuitively reacted to, or formed opinions
about,or acted upon,any and every circumstance with which we meet before
we have proffered a 'logical acceptance stance'.
In terms of spirituality, therefore, it would seem that it is the function of our
'thinking brain' to isolate a situation as being problematic - even though we
have already experienced the situation and reacted to it.. Now there's a bold
assertion, huh?
But, think about it. How can we perceive there is a problem at all, if something
inside us is not aware of an experiential comprehension?
It is my assertion, my belief, my feeling that spiritual 'problems' are no more
and no less than our logical cortexes attempting to provide our conscious mind
with an acceptable explanation to something we know has occurred but which
we have difficulty in framing within a 'conditioned reflex' parameter.
In other words, in relation to spiritual matters,we already know the answer.
We must do in order to perceive there is a problem.
The problem is that of accepting, logically,emotionally, the answer that we
already know.In this sense we can deduce that in order to pose the problem
we are aware of the variables and in posing the problem seek a resolution
of those variables.
In other words, a problem is a solution awaiting it's time of birth in our
consciousness. We simply require to cloth it in an acceptable and
recognisable form.That is the problem our cortexes struggle with.....finding
a way to accept what we already know.
But then, you already knew this, didn't you,hehehehehe.
Becoming your future self is not a problem of a problem...but an issue
of acceptance of who you really are and choose to be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)