So many diverse groups preach enlightenment, often holding onto unwarranted dogmatic beliefs, that it made me wonder whether these diverse groups qualify as 'cults'. So, how do we define a 'cult'? The following definition and information comes from the Cult Information Center ( http://www.cultinformation.org.uk/faq.html#cult ) :

What is a Cult?


Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following five characteristics:
1.
It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members

2.
It forms an elitist totalitarian society.

3.
Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.

4.
It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people.

5.
Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.



Categories of Cults:

Religious Cults:
Communal living common.
Members may leave or not join society's workforce.
Average age at the point of recruitment is in the 20's.
Registered as religious groups.
Appear to offer association with a group interested in making the world a better place via political, spiritual or other means.


Therapy Cults:
Communal Living rare.
Members usually stay in society's workforce.
Average age at the point of recruitment is in the mid 30's.
Registered as 'non profit making' groups.
Appear to offer association with a group giving courses in some kind of self improvement or self help technique or therapy.




Why are Cults Harmful?
To remain within the strict mental and social confines of a cult for even a short time can have the following disastrous effects:

Loss of choice and free will.
Diminished intellectual ability, vocabulary and sense of humour.
Reduced use of irony, abstractions and metaphors.
Reduced capacity to form flexible and intimate relationships.
Poor judgement.
Physical deterioration.
Malnutrition.
Hallucinations, panic, dissociation, guilt, identity diffusion and paranoia.
Neurotic, psychotic or suicidal tendencies.


Quote:
"When you meet the friendliest people you have ever known, who introduce you to the most loving group of people you've ever encountered, and you find the leader to be the most inspired, caring, compassionate and understanding person you've ever met, and then you learn the cause of the group is something you never dared hope could be accomplished, and all of this sounds too good to be true-it probably is too good to be true! Don't give up your education, your hopes and ambitions to follow a rainbow."

Jeannie Mills
Ex - member of The People's Temple, later found murdered.


Caring, loving, wholesome individuals and groups do exist. The call, however, is for discernment and a need to fully question all interesting groups before becoming involved and/or a member.




What is Mind Control?
Mind Control techniques include:
Hypnosis
Inducing a state of high suggestibility by hypnosis, often thinly disguised as relaxation or meditation.

Peer Group Pressure
Suppressing doubt and resistance to new ideas by exploiting the need to belong.

Love Bombing
Creating a sense of family and belonging through hugging, kissing, touching and flattery.

Rejection of Old Values
Accelerating acceptance of new life style by constantly denouncing former values and beliefs.

Confusing Doctrine
Encouraging blind acceptance and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible doctrine.

Metacommunication
Implanting subliminal messages by stressing certain key words or phrases in long, confusing lectures.

Removal of Privacy
Achieving loss of ability to evaluate logically by preventing private contemplation.

Time Sense Deprivation
Destroying ability to evaluate information, personal reactions, and body functions in relation to passage of time by removing all clocks and watches.

Disinhibition
Encouraging child-like obedience by orchestrating child-like behaviour.

Uncompromising Rules
Inducing regression and disorientation by soliciting agreement to seemingly simple rules which regulate mealtimes, bathroom breaks and use of medications.

Verbal Abuse
Desensitizing through bombardment with foul and abusive language.

Sleep Deprivation and Fatigue
Creating disorientation and vulnerability by prolonging mental an physical activity and withholding adequate rest and sleep.

Dress Codes
Removing individuality by demanding conformity to the group dress code.

Chanting and Singing
Eliminanting non-cult ideas through group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases.

Confession
Encouraging the destruction of individual ego through confession of personal weaknesses and innermost feelings of doubt.

Financial Commitment
Achieving increased dependence on the group by 'burning bridges' to the past, through the donation of assets.

Finger Pointing
Creating a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world and other cults.

Flaunting Hierarch
Promoting acceptance of cult authority by promising advancement, power and salvation.

Isolation
Inducing loss of reality by physical separation from family, friends, society and rational references.

Controlled Approval
Maintaining vulnerability and confusion by alternately rewarding and punishing similar actions.

Change of Diet
Creating disorientation and increased susceptibility to emotional arousal by depriving the nervous system of necessary nutrients through the use of special diets and/or fasting.

Games
Inducing dependence on the group by introducing games with obscure rules.

No Questions
Accomplishing automatic acceptance of beliefs by discouraging questions.

Guilt
Reinforcing the need for 'salvation' by exaggerating the sins of the former lifestyles.

Fear
Maintaining loyalty and obedience to the group by threatening soul, life or limb for the slightest 'negative' thought, word or deed.

Replacement of Relationships
Destroying pre-cult families by arranging cult marriages and 'families'.




Who Do Cults Recruit?
Cults want people who are:
Intelligent.
Idealistic.
Well educated.
Economically advantaged.
Intellectually or Spiritually curious.
Any age.



How Do I Avoid The Cults?
Cults use sophisticated mind control techniques that will work on anyone, given the right circumstances. Those who think they are immune are only making themselves more vulnerable. Remember the assult is on your emotions, not on your intellect.

The two basic principles of psychological coercion are:
If you can make a person BEHAVE the way you want, you can make that person BELIEVE the way you want.
Sudden, drastic changes in environment lead to heightened suggestibility and to drastic changes in attitudes and beliefs.
BEWARE!

Protect yourself! Why go away for a weekend or longer with a stranger or a strange group unless:
You know the name of the sponsoring group.
You know its ideas, beliefs and affiliations.
You know what is going to happen at the gathering.
You know what will be expected of you.
You know that you will be free and able to leave at any time.



How Do I Help a Cult Member? - The Do's and Don'ts
The Do's
DO try to keep in regular contact via mail or telephone even if there is little response.

DO express sincere love for the cult member at every available opportunity.

DO keep a diary of comments, attitudes and events associated with his/her life in the cult.

DO always welcome the cult member back into the family home no matter what is said.

DO keep copies of all written correspondence from you and the individual.

DO record all the names, addresses and phone numbers of people linked with the cult.

DO try to bite your tongue if the cult member makes unkind comments.

DO read all of the recommended books relating to cults and mind control, as well as reading other information on the cult in question.

DO seek help and information from organisations specialising in counter-cult work. We care about you and your individual situation.



The Don'ts
DO NOT rush into adopting a potential solution before carefully researching the cult problem.

DO NOT say:"You are in a cult; you are brainwashed".

DO NOT give money to the member of the group.

DO NOT feel guilty. This is not a problem caused by families.

DO NOT act in an angry or hostile manner towards the cult member.

DO NOT feel alone. It happens to thousands of families every year.

DO NOT underestimate the control the cult has over a member.

DO NOT antagonise the cult member by ridiculing his/her beliefs.

DO NOT be judgemental or confrontational towards the cult member.

DO NOT antagonise any of the cult's leadership or members.

DO NOT be persuaded by a cult 'specialist' to pay large sums of money without verifying his/her qualifications.

DO NOT give up hope of success in helping your family member to leave the group no matter how long the involvement has already been

DO NOT neglect yourself or other family members.

There are no victims in this or any world.
Fear goes a long way in the hands of the Ego and what you find in ideas of the best of intentions is not always in your best interest.

Everything that comes to you is for your growth.
Discernment is not developed from fear, or facts built from past impressions. There is only now!

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14239 date=1064786184]
There are no victims in this or any world.
[/quote]

I agree. But does this give one free license to do whatever one wants with others? For example, is it ok for someone to kill or deceive others, claiming that it was the divine will acting through him, and since there are no victims anyway?

Look at it another way. In the experience of Union one realizes they were the one responsible for everything that was created around then. This is not just a mental concept but an experience.

In a world without victims who creates the actions that would take the life?
To say the person that forfeits their life by an act of will or desire seems ridiculous to the Waking state. But this is the Truth of reality. Each of us are consciously linked at a deeper level than judgment and cause and effect.

In the Bhagavadgita the description of the Mahabharata War in which Krisna dances in the midst of all of the death and suffering, He sings, "God, Oh God , how marvelous your action." The Pandava brothers are horrified as all of their friends and families are dying on the battle field and they ask Krisna what the hell he's doing and why he's so happy.
He goes on to explain that the battle is an illusion, a demonstration of the forces of Good vs. Evil. The consciousness of the world in its beliefs insisted on pitting the two ideas together to experience the stronger force. God allowing free will to create the illusion of such brings the two halves of the world together to fight, Each person has taken a side and the world is split right down the middle. He goes further into his explaination to reveal that no one really dies. The body is a set of clothes for the soul, when one body is discarded another is just as easily donned and creation goes on according to the desire of the whole.

By the way, in that war only a handful of people survived to carry on the truths of creation and to build the next generation.

This game has been playing for eternity.

that's a beautiful translation of the Gita, Joe. Is that from the translation by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? I've read over a half dozen different translations, but have never come across what you've posted here. Even Gandhi, with his 'non-violent' interpretation of the Gita, would be delighted, I think, by the translation you've posted here. Where does your translation come from?

There is a 6 hour video tape of the Mahabharata War that is available. its long but informative.

So what is the deffenition of a sect then? is it a milder form of cult

I attended a small church , and I saw and heard some things which made me very uncomfortable, So I wrote down all i saw and heard mailed to a man who was doing a tv show on "dangerous religious leaders", he wrote back saying that he did not feel that this group was a "cult" but in fact a sect, but he did not elaborate on just what a sect was

Sect: A group adhering to a specific doctrine or leader.

This man sounds determined to expose all that is not of the one true way which I haven't heard you mention. Or to focus on what is wrong in the world around him rather than to focus on what is right with himself.

This type of fanatacism is rampant among those that are determined to protect a single belief by way of judgment of all others. IT is blind fear only.
The mind in its diversity of interpretation and free will to experience life as interpreted, cannot be washed away by trying to establish a counter belief.
Feeling threatened by anything that encroaches upon any single definition is just plain fear.
There is a root to all branches of the tree no matter how distant one branch of belief is from another.
They can all be traced back to the one foundation. All of creation not just man can be traced back to its origin. IT can be experienced.
Any one person who insists there is only one way of expressing that is deluded.
Even when one walks away from the goal they eventually will reach it, by comeing to it from behind.
It is not for anyone to try and make a decision for another. One can only speak of their experiences and without attachment to motive or cause and effect give of themselves.
Many try to persuade what they perceive on the outside by their own judgments to unite all that it sees as fragmented and in the single perception, but Cults, sects, religion of any kind or form exists out of the creative process of interpretation and no one is victim to any thing, they are part of it.

Contrast is created to find cohesiveness, not to focus on and perpetuate fragmentation.
Objectivity from a greater perspective is always required to see through the dense illusions of fear.

There was certainly alot of twisting of the bible
and i noticed the minister did not welcome any questions, or any "outside" views, guess that made it an exclusive/inclusive type thing

I do believe these types of ministers prey on your vulnerabiltys.

A false prophet will never stand up in a podium and say "hey dont listen to me i am a false prophet"
- on the contrary its what they dont say which reveals who they really are

so, Shawn, in your opinion, how does Joe and his organization rank in the 'cult' profile?

;D

I think Joe has good intentions (and a good heart), wisdom, and sincerity, and don't think he and his organization form a cult, at least based on the little that I know of the organization, and also based on what I know and infer from Joe's posts. He's got my respect and appreciation.

(Of course, human nature is such that it oftentimes likes to don masks, and so I don't rule out the possibility that I could be wrong.)

What do you think, Dan?

I think that Joe is a charismatic leader, and the result of his actions and beliefs is the formation of a cult. It may not be intentional, but it is true.

although, to be fair, I must admit that the term 'cult' is loaded and thus I should probably clear that up a little. To me, 'cult' is what happens when a charismatic leader declares truth and gains a faithful following. It's the combination of the fallacy of the all-knowing leader and the reckless faith of the following that eventually produces the bizarre situations we think of as 'cults' (in small cases; in large cases everybody has joined so no comparisons can be made to a larger 'norm'). All religious are essentially cults, although we tend to call only the small and crazy ones 'cults'. I think that the Ishaya cult is a small but stable cult. It is small and separatist, its members are essentially removed from their lives and family and sheltered in a relatively bizarre psychological state and are continuously bombarded with ideas and peer pressure that serve to validate their continued membership.

certainly you see the parallels between the cult profile that you posted and what joe posts and professes?

hi Dan,

I can't tell how charismatic Joe is based on online interactions. That's the sort of thing I'd need to meet him in person for because charisma depends a lot on body language, posturing, and tone.... essentially, charisma involves a manipulation of other people's emotions through your manner of presentation, and this is something that's difficult to do online, where you're limited to text on a screen.

Using your common-sense definition of cult, then yes, Joe's Ishaya would seem to qualify. However, the definition I posted above is a more rigorous definition of cult, and I don't think Joe's Ishaya qualifies as such under this definition.

When I think of cults, I think of Dianetics, whose founder, L. Ron Hubbard, once said, "you want to get rich, you start a religion". I've read many horror stories online of the abuses from the 'Dianetics cult' and its use of mind-control techniques, pressure, and other abominable methods to entrap you and extinguish your will....

.....but I'll have to take this up later, got to go.

Defining reality allows one to manipulate their universe based on their beliefs into the proverbial box.

Dan, you seem to believe that people are different.
Compared to yourself you allow for the fact that others are not like you, that they can be swayed and manipulated into following a flashy lure.
In my experience people are the same. They just make different choices.
Also in my experience no one is ever a victim. What has been made manifest is by intention.
True religions/teachings of the world profess this same reality not from just the idea but by actual experience of this. Those that have the experience have the experience, I'm sure you have not been able to talk anyone into having an experience. Even if they said they did under duress or coercion it is easy enough to tell whether they have or not, for experience in truth can always flush out a
person who is lying, or trying to convince you they have had the experience.
This idea of universal truth as seen from the unexperienced has been the "truth" since time began and humanity has been. The ancient teachings, the texts and testimony speaks of this as well as the illusions of duality and victim consciousness.
Once someone comes to this realization then there can be no reality to qualifying life in varying categories of truths and false truths, "Cult" would be a non-qualifying aspect of reality.
I'm sure both of you, Shawn and Dan would agree that you would not be coerced into anything that you would not want to do. To say that anyone is less in their capabilities is to misunderstand the free will aspect of human character.

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14358 date=1065117893]
Also in my experience no one is ever a victim. What has been made manifest is by intention.
[/quote]

Who's intention? If someone kills their neighbor, is it the intention of the individual who killed or is it the intention of God? If you're the murderer, and you claim that it was God's intention, then you're likely to get locked up in a mental institute. So how would you explain that? Why do we punish individuals for wrongs or offenses if it's God's intention? Shouldn't we be holding God responsible, and if so, then how? If not, then why not (since it's God's intention after all) ? Why do we punish individuals for their offenses when we should've been punishing God all along? For example, to punish God, then instead of locking up the murderer, we could lock up other 'innocent' people, since they're all God after all? Right? Does God deserve to be punished for what we judge to be his acts of stupidity?

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14358 date=1065117893]
I'm sure you have not been able to talk anyone into having an experience
[/quote]

the limitations of language and description.... some truths must simply be experienced to be understood.

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14358 date=1065117893]
for experience in truth can always flush out a person who is lying
[/quote]

but, Joe, what if there was someone who knew the upanishads, gita, and other "mystical" works through and through, but had never directly experienced "mystical" experiences? Don't you think that this person could fool people into believing that they had "mystical" experiences? The way that we communicate online is largely restricted to text (or language), which is very limited, and so I can imagine the possibility that people could just compose posts that make it look like that they had experienced "mystical" experiences, when in fact they have never directly experienced such things. Nonetheless, because of the limitations of language, it would be difficult or impossible, even for someone who had directly experienced such "mystical" experiences, to tell whether people were lying or not. In other words, on the one hand, I agree with what you say to the extent that we note inconsistencies in other people's words or posts that suggests they're lying.... but on the other hand, I can readily imagine someone who's facile at lying and who's read enough about "mystical" experiences, being able to dupe everyone here who's actually experienced a "mystical" experience into believing that they had experienced it too (when, in fact, they hadn't). I guess, in the end, all that matters is the experience and the state of mind. To lie about such, while it may fool some people, does not in any way compensate for the lack of such an experience (or state of mind) since the value of it resides in direct experience, and not on verbal accounts or on duping other people.



[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14358 date=1065117893]
I'm sure both of you, Shawn and Dan would agree that you would not be coerced into anything that you would not want to do.
[/quote]

I understand that you, Joe, had you lived in poverty all your life and on the streets or in the gutter, that you would not be the person you are today. Most everything is circumstantial. As such, everything must be understood (appreciated) within the proper context. I would agree, that as I am now, in my current circumstances and state of mind, that I could not be coerced into anything that I would not want to do. However, I know that circumstances can change, and that my state of mind can change, .... in extreme cases, I can imagine that I could be coerced to do something that I didn't want to do. Joe, I think that you, in your current state of mind, do not believe that you could be so coerced, but what if you were locked in a room, without money, without food, without water, without any means of escape..... hopelessly trapped, and subjected to the whims of your tormenters? I would think that under these circumstances, or many more that I can imagine, that your state of mind would change and that you would crack and could be coerced to do things you didn't want to do. Ask prisoners or people who've been subjected to various forms of mind-control and brain-washing, and they'll tell you the same thing. Your mind-state is dependent on your brain-state, and your brain-state is public-domain in the sense that it can be manipulated (i.e., deprived of food, sleep, and other necessities) by anyone with the knowledge and power to do so. As such, your mind-state can be similarly manipulated..... even manipulated so that you could be coerced to do things that you didn't want to do. That's the whole point of 'brain-washing', and there are methods that are quite effective in that regard.

There are no victims. God is God and the perpetrator and the victim are of the one and the same.
To realize this and to hold God accountable is to know God.
To see the world as One, you have to rise above all cause and effect, victims, perps and otherwise to experience the reality of God.
What one sees is the reflection of individual beliefs in cause and effect and separation from the one, Or the One.

Anything less than the one is limitation created by Ego and perception of Egos reality.

In divine perfection the earth is a stage for a play to see the beliefs of conscious creation in enabling belief to see itself, but the reality remains the same. Truth is truth and you cannot separate or divide truth into variables only limited projections of it.

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14366 date=1065140847]
There are no victims. God is God and the perpetrator and the victim are of the one and the same.
[/quote]

Joe, with all due respect, if you truly believe this, then why do you still cling to your individual body? Why not shed your body at this very moment and live utterly free and completely as the Self in All? Or is it that you do not personally want to become a victim, even though you deny the reality (or validity) of the notion of 'victim'?

If someone robbed you at night in a dark alley while holding a gun to your head, would you tell them that the "perpetrator and the victim are of the one and the same", or would your will for preservation of your body and ego compel you to take whatever action you deemed to be in your best personal self interest?

If the Self truly transcends (or is the source of) any and all individual selves, then why do you still cling to your individual self and your body? Is your faith so strong that you could (and would) sacrifice your individual body at any moment (like right now)? If you identify completely with the Self, then sacrificing your own body and personal mind once and for all should not be a big deal, should it?

I just spent the better part of an hour answering your post and it faded off into oblivion.
I had a similar problem answering a personal message that was too long by the response notice when I went to post and so I lost all that I wrote then too. I guess I'll have to wait for another time to respond since the website won't let me answer you tonite

I'm sorry about that Joe. I've had that happen enough times to me (with Hotmail) that I finally installed a program (on Windows) called "Home Key Logger Free Edition" that records all of my keystrokes to a text file, so that if I ever lose one of my messages before I send it out or post it, then I can pull up the text file from the Home Key Logger and retrieve my previous keystrokes (thereby allowing me to retrieve my "lost" messages and posts).

The url for downloading this program, Home Key Logger Free Edition, is: http://www.spyarsenal.com/keylogger/keylogger.zip

The download page is at http://www.spyarsenal.com/download.html (listed under 'Freeware' as 'Home KeyLogger')

The software information and description page is at http://www.spyarsenal.com/keylogger/


Btw, I've gone ahead and lengthened the maximum posting size, so that you shouldn't have any more problems with making long posts (if you do, please let me know). Previously, I had restricted the lengths of posts to prevent abuse, but am not really concerned about that anymore.

take care.

Hi again shawn. The download was wasn't liked by my antivirus program and detected 2 viruses and 7 virus bodies whatever that is supposed to mean.
I use Kaspersky antivirus and it is rather sensitive to certain programs and I often have to shut it off to download certain programs or it picks out things it doesn't like and I fail to get the complete program. So anyway I just used word as was suggested by Dianah and here is my response to your questions.

[quote]Joe, with all due respect, if you truly believe this, then why do you still cling to your individual body? Why not shed your body at this very moment and live utterly free and completely as the Self in All? Or is it that you do not personally want to become a victim, even though you deny the reality (or validity) of the notion of 'victim'?[/quote]

You assume that mind is trapped in the body that it resides only in this one place or in this one universe. This is based on your experience, which can be expanded beyond, in its limits and beliefs.
Why does not God just stay in pure silence?
Lets look at it again from the one consciousness. You are the play-write and the puppeteer. You have built your stage and designed the actors/puppets, their wardrobe and their personalities. You have written the story and now you are acting it out.
There is never more than one person in the room at any given time, it is you, you are one and you are always all of the perceived parts until you reunite them together into one. It is only by design that you experience the separation through the interpretation of the ego to see just how big you are.
Lets look at the human body.
Each cell is linked together. There are neuropeptides that are emitted by each cell as it is stimulated and receiver sites that allow the community of cells to receive or share this stimuli.
The body is a thinking feeling organism. All together the cellular structure creates a macrocsmic structure that moves about within a larger structure that is moving as one, ad infinitum….

[quote]If someone robbed you at night in a dark alley while holding a gun to your head, would you tell them that the "perpetrator and the victim are of the one and the same", or would your will for preservation of your body and ego compel you to take whatever action you deemed to be in your best personal self interest?[/quote]
This is a hypothetical question and is relative to possibilities and not the moment, but lets play for a moment.
...� He said to me: You have followed me to the garden of Gasemine, and experienced my abandonment, and surrender to the Divine Will of the Father�. ...
This was what one of Christ’s disciples shared of his experience of Christ’s last meeting with them before being arrested by the Roman guard.
Abandonment was not the abandonment of the Father but the abandonment of attachment to personal will and the body.(On a special note his last words were not “God why has thou forsaken me�. He never felt abandoned by God. He said “ God forsake not your children for I have seen that they do not know of what they do.)
Jesus knew in advance of his impending crucifixion. He had asked all of his disciples to share his last night with him as he foretold them of the future. He told them that they would pretend he was not their Teacher and that they would be afraid to speak openly about their relationship for fear of personal persecution. All of them denied this but in the end he was right. Their fear of mortality and lack of conscious awareness kept them locked into egoic self preservation. He asked them to share his last moments but they all fell asleep that night and as they slept Jesus had a personal conversation with God (meditated) asking if this was the only way and if he must follow through with what he had foreseen.
He knew he had no choice but he said it anyway because he still had feelings. The enlightened still feel in the body and they also still know the reality of the body. As long as consciousness shares a connection with manifestation it experiences. Which is why it is said that God shares humanities suffering.
Jesus did not ask if it was necessary out of fear but out of purpose, Looking deep to see if there was any other way that might be effective to plant the seeds into human awareness, he had resolved that this was the one way to clear humanity of the Sin/Illusion of the mortal human body, he in alignment with God knew it was Gods way.

Assuming that someone put a gun to my head I would know from my experience of union that I had created it. Trying to convince a part of myself that it was out of synch with myself would be pointless and hard to realize from this awareness. It is possible that if I was not stabil in this awareness that I could be thrown out of it by being surprised and possibly grab onto past habits and fear in which case I would possibly plea for my life, but that is again hypothetical. Truth is still truth whether known from union or ignorant of it.
From consciousness would I need to draw this kind of action into my life, and for what purpose?
If I did and I was sufficiently stable would I not just allow circumstance to present itself and follow through in surrender to weather the action and survive the action?
There are many possibilities to the scenario. Surrender to the moment and without violence, just hand over what he wanted. Act in defense and get shot in which case the body dies and I cease to exist in that one body but not in the universe or the rest of creation.
What you could have asked me is if a guy put a gun against my wifes head what would I do? We love to be dramatic when it comes to role playing and instead of just being a martyr for God by being threatened and fearing for my own life how would I feel about sacrificing another?
Again Truth is still Truth. Once one puts their hand to the plow they can never look back as Christ said in Luke. You will die and take it all with you in the attempts to preserve illusion. The good news is you get lots of lifetimes to do it over if it doesn’t work in a single lifetime.

[quote]If the Self truly transcends (or is the source of) any and all individual selves, then why do you still cling to your individual self and your body? Is your faith so strong that you could (and would) sacrifice your individual body at any moment (like right now)? If you identify completely with the Self, then sacrificing your own body and personal mind once and for all should not be a big deal, should it?[/quote]
It would not be a big deal. But then your suggestion that I cling to the Body is also to suggest that God created man and mans errors in error. God wouldn’t be very smart would he if he really did create man flawed. God creates only perfection as perfection can create only perfection. Anything less is of a lesser interpretation of God and the Ego. My Mind is freed from the single idea that I am my Body and now with the surrender of individual mind and personality the vessel becomes a tool of God as is all of creation anyway. You just wake up to that fact. There is only One.
Eventually freed the mind is not limited to the body and the manifest evolves into multidimensional layers of the One and again back into just the one.
Lets pretend you believe or know reincarnation exists. Time being an illusionary structure for ego to perceive individual events in some sort of sequence. The reality of Time is just consciousness jumping from one moment to the other and all moments existing at the same time. You exist in all of your incarnations because all of creation exists now. There is only Now.

I like how your interpretations and revisions of bible stories make the character Jesus appear Ishaya-like. If Jesus was still dead, he'd be rolling over in his grave right now
:

and, although there is only now, now is only now, not yesterday or tomorrow or anything other than now. You seem to be greatly confused about this, referring to that which does not exist as if it exists.

[quote]I like how your interpretations and revisions of bible stories make the character Jesus appear Ishaya-like.[/quote]
I'm glad you are entertained.
Ishaya means for Isha. Isha is a name of Christ.
Jesus is an Ishaya.

[quote]If Jesus was still dead, he'd be rolling over in his grave right now [/quote]
But he's not, and he is in full support of this teaching.
It is his Teaching.

[quote]and, although there is only now, now is only now, not yesterday or tomorrow or anything other than now. You seem to be greatly confused about this, referring to that which does not exist as if it exists.[/quote]
You hear what you are able to hear.

[quote]Ishaya means for Isha. Isha is a name of Christ.
Jesus is an Ishaya.[/quote]
that's called 'after the fact' labeling. the group known as 'Ishayas' have merely attached themselves to the myth of Jesus as a way of gaining credibility. who cares about the literal translation of the label



[quote]But he's not, and he is in full support of this teaching.
It is his Teaching.[/quote]
yaddayaddayadda


[quote]You hear what you are able to hear. [/quote]
and you hear what you are able to hear


8)

[quote]that's called 'after the fact' labeling.[/quote]
Well sure.. After you were born your mother gave you a name. An after the fact label. A system that seems to work in being able to recognize when someone is adressing you directly on this board. It seems to work so far.

[quote]and you hear what you are able to hear
[/quote]
We are one ;D

[quote]After you were born your mother gave you a name. An after the fact label. A system that seems to work in being able to recognize when someone is adressing you directly on this board. It seems to work so far.[/quote]
what I'm saying is that anybody can take advantage of calling themselves 'for Christ' after recognizing the usefulness of attaching the credibility of the name 'Christ' to their own 'stuff'. In a way it's idolatry, as if the words of some dude named 'Jesus' should be more revered than the words on their own merit

[quote]what I'm saying is that anybody can take advantage of calling themselves 'for Christ' after recognizing the usefulness of attaching the credibility of the name 'Christ' to their own 'stuff'
In a way it's idolatry, as if the words of some dude named 'Jesus' should be more revered than the words on their own merit[/quote]
The name Isha was given to Jesus because of the Teaching not the other way around. You are misinformed. It is not about Jesus. It is about consciousness. Ishaya means for the Christ
"For the Christ," not, for Jesus. Christ is a label given to a state of higher awareness, of higher consciousness. It was given to Jesus in recognition of his consciousness. He was "Christed," Annointed with the stick of knowledge.

You should read up on vedic tradition, the bible and Sanskrit for some understanding of these terms.

you're just inventing ways to claim Jesus as a patron saint of your religion. fact is, you constantly put words into Jesus' mouth and rely on his myth to gain credibility

[quote author=Dan link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14410 date=1065247250]
you're just inventing ways to claim Jesus as a patron saint of your religion. fact is, you constantly put words into Jesus' mouth and rely on his myth to gain credibility
[/quote]

or converts

[quote]you're just inventing ways to claim Jesus as a patron saint of your religion. fact is, you constantly put words into Jesus' mouth and rely on his myth to gain credibility [/quote]
[quote]or converts[/quote]

If Jesus is a myth than it would be impossible to base any purpose behind it so I fail to see a point in your point.
And as far as converts go, There is a tree in the seed. The tree cannot be anything other than the tree.
There is inside each person the inevitable unfolding of what each person is. Any presupposition to that being influenced by any outside force is illogical and irresponsible.

[quote]If Jesus is a myth than it would be impossible to base any purpose behind it so I fail to see a point in your point.[/quote]
the myth of Jesus is fantastic, but due to history and the Church, somewhat credible to many. You take advantage of this credible myth to to gain credibility for your own myths. Having people believe in such myths enables you to 'convert' them more easily


did I mention something, somewhere else, about your denial? It seems the ability to maintain this activity of denial is your true salvation. maybe that's what your 'ascendant' really is

[quote]did I mention something, somewhere else, about your denial? It seems the ability to maintain this activity of denial is your true salvation. maybe that's what your 'ascendant' really is [/quote]
You did indeed assume the position.
But in light of truth, perception is always a choice to look at life as you would presume it to be by association of conflicting values or find a common stable point of reference that everyone and everything is linked to.
Somewhere beyond delusional differences of opinion that is built on scattered points of reference.

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14392 date=1065212820]
You assume that mind is trapped in the body that it resides only in this one place or in this one universe. This is based on your experience, which can be expanded beyond, in its limits and beliefs.
[/quote]

I did not make this assumption.


[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14392 date=1065212820]
the body dies and I cease to exist in that one body but not in the universe or the rest of creation
[/quote]

but still, I would ask, why do you cling to your particular body? If you've truly identified with the Self and the rest of creation, then why do you persist in preserving the body and ego of Joe?

Do you understand where I'm coming from, Joe? It's a test of faith, in a way. While I'm all for the notion of identity with the Self and the rest of creation, I'm also aware that I could just be pleasantly deluding myself, and that the real test of faith is to sacrifice my own body (since, according to the 'Self hypothesis', I am not my body but rather the whole of creation and the Self). I want to know whether you have this faith, and whether it's strong enough that you'd be willing to sacrifice your own body in the name of the Self.



And now, onto other things.....

We all have our own paths to follow. Whether they all ultimately lead to the same source is a moot topic. The One is experienced in many different ways by many different people, so why call it the One instead of merely designating it by the more accurate and descriptive term, 'unitive experience'?

Whether Jesus was Ishaya (or whether he had attained some particular higher consciousness) is a moot point whose validity for oneself resides solely in the strength of one's belief. There is no universally acceptable criteria (and certainly no scientific or otherwise rigorous criteria) for proving that he was Ishaya. If you want to believe that he was, then you're free to do so, of course, but I wouldn't expect others to follow suit on the sole basis of your 'will to believe'. All that is written by and about Jesus is open to multiple interpretations.... you can interpret him mystically, you can interpret him literally, and you can interpret him in countlessly many other ways. To claim that some particular mystical (or other) interpretation of Jesus is the correct interpretation is treading on dangerous ground (because you can easily fool yourself) and can make one narrow-minded.

A complacent and overly-gullible intellect is an ugly thing indeed. Let us, at the very least, be honest with ourselves. (Joe, the preceding comment was not directed towards you, but was just meant in general).

Expressions of the Self are what we all are (and is what everything is).... or rather, at least in certain states of consciousness, this appears to be true. But what's wrong with maintaining a little healthy scepticism about these things by realizing that all that we perceive is dependent on our state of mind, and that it's easy to deceive ourselves if we're not careful and overly eager to acquire the truth (even if this means unjustifiably ruling out alternative 'hypotheses' or ideas)?

For everything that I've experienced, I still maintain a healthy scepticism about many of the "truths" that I might otherwise fall prey to, because I realize that there are multiple perspectives, mind-sets, and interpretations for our myriad experiences (even if you consider them nothing but 'form', which is another 'hypothesis'). Nonetheless, I have experienced many Truths, but how's the saying go? The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. Well, in any event, the Truths of which I speak are beyond words, or at least beyond my ability to verbalize them.

We all have our own paths to follow. That which pulls us forward, that which pushes us from behind, and that which overflows from our own intrinsic infinite source ...... these are the things that move us. How often do we reflect on the will that guides us and determines us to action and thought? How many of us know how to deify the will, not through logic, but rather through experience and mind-set? Ah, but I drift off topic.....

The point being, that we all have our own paths to follow. We should not try to force our truths on others, but rather offer them up to be accepted (or rejected) by others. At the very least, our truths are true for us (i.e., personal truths) that we can't expect others to understand nor accept. But trying to force one's perspective or dogma on others is never very productive and is bound to elicit a counter-reaction.

[quote]We all have our own paths to follow.[/quote]

[quote]We should not try to force our truths on others,[/quote]

If you take these two statements and put them together they cannot support each other.
If we all have our own path it would be illogical to assume that anyone may be swayed from their path, unless fear creeps in by way of being threatened by anothers expression, which is usually the case.
Even if one was to be influenced to change a direction the new path would be their path and by their choice. Dharma is preset even before birth, the only variations to the path are the side roads along the way.

Someone who is strongly set in their path and has a presence that is felt by others that don't agree need not feel threatened unless their path is unstable.
What is dangerous is the inability to stand in a truth without compromise, especially if the truth is based on illusions. This type of path is usually susceptible to the search for a magic formula to bring stability to perception and emotions.

Consciousness is still consciousness and it can be interpreted in a lot of ways but it is still the one consciousness. What makes it recognizable as the one is that when it is experienced it can be experienced in everything and in everyone.
This is what Every religion and spiritual teaching is based on. Whether anyone believes in it or not cannot change that.

The illusion that I cling to my body is because it is not my Body, it is yours. Fom the perception of any one person everything eminates from the one point of consciousness. There is only one person ever in the room. When you unite them all back into yourself there is nothing but the one consciousenss spread out into eternity.

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=#msg14466 date=1065430898]The illusion that I cling to my body is because it is not my Body, it is yours. Fom the perception of any one person everything eminates from the one point of consciousness. There is only one person ever in the room. When you unite them all back into yourself there is nothing but the one consciousenss spread out into eternity.
[/quote]

I mulled over this. I slept on it. I understand.

Thank you.

I'd love to hear you put your understanding into words. This will help to sharpen the image.

yeah, really

I can't wait


;D

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14479 date=1065464278]
I'd love to hear you put your understanding into words.
[/quote]

Based on your experiences, you believe the Self underlies All, and that It's manifestation in particular individuals does not undermine this. You see the Self in everyone you speak to, and you see It in yourself, which is why you never really talk to other individuals so much as you talk to yourself (or rather, your Self). Everything is united in the oneness of the Self. There's really no intellectual argument against this stance since it's based on what is fundamental to our experience. To experience without the Self seems a contradiction. The belief that the Self underlies All, while it's based on experience, and while it seems immune to intellectual attack, nonetheless, assumes that our true identity is that of the Self. This is the 'I am Brahman' hypothesis of the Upanishads. Further reflection, though, reveals that this doesn't necessarily have to be the case. You may be familiar with Samkhya-Yoga, for example, which holds to the doctrine of the 'plurality of souls' (Purushas), with Isvara (god) as a special Purusha. This clashes with the Upanishad's monistic 'I am Brahman' hypothesis. So, who's right in all of this? I don't know. It comes down to determining what our true identity is, and while mystical experiences may incline one to believe that our true identity is synonymous with all that exists (i.e., 'I am Brahman'), I recognize that all mind-states are simply creations of our structured brain activity, and as such, to rely on one's mind-state to make metaphysical claims about the entire universe seems pretentious and very much likely to be in error. I fully recognize and appreciate the importance of mystical and expanded states of consciousness (the type that compel you to believe that 'I am Brahman'), but I also believe that it's necessary to exercise due caution with regard to grand metaphysical claims and hypotheses that one 'feels' or experiences to be true based solely on one's experience itself (because it's easy to fool oneself, and this must be avoided if one is sincere about realizing Truth).

One thing that has always struck me is how mathematical the "objective world" is, which accounts for the success of the sciences and their quantitative methods. Why should the "objective world" be so mathematically structured? The human mind, if left to it's own devices and without receiving education from external sources, doesn't seem to have any natural inclinations or inborn aptitude towards mathematics, so why should the "objective world" be mathematically structured, unless it's something that is fundamentally distinct from what we are? Perhaps all we are is form, and perhaps not.

[quote]Perhaps all we are is form, and perhaps not.
[/quote]
The perhaps leaves it wide open to possibilites, one that would need verification that anything of experience, metaphysical or physical is real.

As far as the plurity of souls interpretation. I don't get that they change the basis of reality in that all is one.
The Self and the self is the basis of obsevation or the ability of Consciousness to recognise itself.
Complete surrender of the self in enlightenement to the Self or the surrender of manifest reality to its underlying principal of God in pure stillness.
Experiences come and go, life is change and nothing in the physical world ever seems to last forever.
Ashes to ashes dust to dust. But the one unchanging quality of life that seems to change only in legend and interpretation is God. It seems to endure all change.

thank you, Joe and Dianah, for your thoughtful replies. Unfortunately, because I've been pressed for time more so than usual recently, I can't reply fully your posts, but nonetheless, wanted to express my appreciation and at least to offer something of a reply.

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14503 date=1065495672]
The perhaps leaves it wide open to possibilites
[/quote]

Yes, Joe, that 'wide open to possibilities' would appear to be a reflection of part of my temperament, which means that others may not be so inclined to accept such a view (or multiple views), but that's ok. I realize it's a personal preference on my part. What is the view that's 'wide open to possibilities'? In short, it's the sheer delight of experiencing different perspectives and worldviews, sometimes marveling at how contradictory they can seem when compared to one another. But such contradictions appear to comprise a fundamental feature of Nature, and the solution, for me, is not to stick to one perspective or worldview as the best for all circumstances, but rather resides in the recognition of the (circumstantial) utility and partial validity of each of the multiple perspectives and worldviews, and the further recognition that experiencing through multiple perspectives and worldviews seems more 'integral' when compared to sticking with one perspective or worldview.

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14503 date=1065495672]
Experiences come and go
[/quote]

yes, but the memory remains, and further, experiences have the potential to radically transform us and our sense of identity indefinitely (or for long periods of time). We create meaning for ourselves. This self-created meaning is individualized and private in the sense that other individuals have their own self-created meanings and have no idea of the self-created meaning that others have.... they can only infer. What is the meaning of the universe to you, Joe? And what is your role in it? Please feel free to answer egoistically or egolessly.

It would seem that self-created meaning involves perception and action. Sometimes, our meaning is dependent on some future actions that we must take. Considerations of the Self expressing itself through Nature and in others (including oneself) can be made to appear almost inconsequential alongside what one must do as part of one's self-created meaning, when one is engaged in the white heat of action, and particularly when one's self-created meaning is dependent on the fulfillment of a vision and an inevitability of sorts.


Dianah, I agree with what you wrote, but am not satisfied with it. I am not content with mere words and general descriptions. I want the specific details and I want us (humanity) to be in a position of control. This is no illusion, but may be considered a facilitation and further fulfillment of the expression of the Self. This is what It demands as part of It's Self-expression. One need only consider the inevitable progress of the Self through aeons of time (whether you choose to regard time as illusory or not), evolving from Matter to Mental to Supra-Mental, to recognize that It will continue this trend, and that nothing can stop It. We should not rest content with our progress, understanding, control, self-mastery, wisdom, or spiritual progress, because all of these things are but stepping stones unto higher things. Evolution demands it. We are a Becoming, we are in flux. Now is not the time for self-contentment and satisfaction (and I don't accuse you of these things, but am just saying all of this to people in general), and people who are in a chronic state of such things are really nothing more than lazy, enervated, irresponsible, and self-deluded (at least in my book). Now should be the season of humanity's greatest discontent, disgust, and dissatisfaction with itself and with it's limitations as a species. We have an infinite potential to realize and make manifest. We cannot remain blind to this. We must accept the awesome responsibility and do everything in our power to realize this potential. We have so much further to go and so much more to realize, physically, mentally, and supra-mentally. We cannot sate (or rather, delude ourselves into satiety).... since our true nature, our source, is something infinite, insatiable, and unstoppable.

[quote]What is the meaning of the universe to you, Joe? And what is your role in it? Please feel free to answer egoistically or egolessly.[/quote]

Not an easy question to answer in a paragraph or two.
The universe has no meaning per se. It appears to facilitate meaning of the creator.
Meaning that the diversity of Consciousness to be so many things at the same time leaves no finite definition to apply.
If you were to segment yourself into every day of your life and give recognition to the awareness of each part of yourself, the individual experience of each of your parts would share commonality in the basic structure or natural laws of the universe but the daily experiences would be different.
If you are sad one day and happy the next, you yourself haven't changed much only the experience of the day. The physiology of your body (because of the belief in aging) may alter some, but that would be hardly noticeable.
Would you think that you were different because of the experience you had in a different day? Or would you be aware that the experience of the day was different.
Over a period of years the physiological changes will be more apparent as the belief in aging has now dramatically changed the appearances of the body but the basic you that can understand learn and combine knowledge into perception/projection is still the same.
Maybe you've accumulated the knowledge to fear certain aspects of creation and to desire more of another. Your prejudices have evolved out of reason where maybe you had none before you accumulated the experiences to give you the reason.
Are you now your prejudices, fears and accumulated knowledge?
Some say we are ruined by our intellectual ideas of who we are, by diluting the pure isness of being in innocense, to just purely experience without prejudice.
We now project the past into an experience and are incapable of pure awareness in any experience, unable to taste a new moment without contaminating it with debris from the past.

The universe is the stage to design whatever experiences you wish to have.

If you are the creator and not subject to being prejudiced by any belief that would inhibit your creativity then you are infinite in your awareness and your ability.
If you are the creator and now limited by your beliefs then you are the sum total of your knowledge and your beliefs.
Humanity with its evolved awareness of sciences and cause and effects has determined that aging is a reality, sickeness is a reality, war and suffering is a reality, competition and pride is a reality and to most a good thing.
For the most part in our evolution to tap into the 10% thinking level of the mind have amassed collectively a society that tries to protect itself from the bad, and to perpetuate/protect the good.
Collectively we've determined values of good and bad but singularly we do not agree on what is right for one and another because the universe can never be distilled into one single expression or experience by the thinking mind.

It can, however be followed from all expressions to a single presence that does support infinite expression.

The universe is not that different from your mind. Still when not in thought and aware of everything that is attached to any thought.
Some thoughts come and go others depending on the stress in the body and the attachment to memory much more dramatic and lingering in its presence or experience.

The control, or lack of it, is in the beliefs that are associated with the experiences that are combined to create memories that take away from the original innocence of being just the creator and having the ability to just experience creation.
Ego tries to control by protecting itself, protecting itself as its collection of experiences and memories. The more it believes it can be threatened the more it dives into a defensive mode and the more fear is its basis of reality than love.
The Universe gives you what you wish to believe as reality because God is unconditional. The energy of creation is unconditional. It does not hesitate to supply the energy for any reality of manifest form.
The deeper the mind goes into form the more it solidifies the experience, the more experiences in reference to the solidity of reality the denser it gets and the further away from the innocense of non form or the formless.

You can have it any way you wish but any reality that is in need of control has limitations and demons that threaten the awareness, that prompt the need for control.
To add more reason has the opposite affect of inward reflection and the dissolving of reasons and cause and effect, knowledge and experience.
The enlightened retain the experiences but they are not attached to the mind in any way that weighs it down into any particular rules. It, (mind) will function within the laws that support the experience but not any rule that drags one moment and the universe that supported that moment and experience into the next moment and the universe that supports it.
Time is more akin to moving awareness from one frame of a film strip to another to allow the awareness to gain familiarity with its ability to be self aware but it is just as capable of going in reverse or even multidimensionally to other realities also created by the infinite mind.
You are capable of experiencing all of creation, in many dimensional realities, life forms and time.
If you are attached to the experiences and the people in it, you who have created the form and the forms within the form will not be able to roam within the infinite when you hold the mind to such a finite awareness.

The universe allows consciousness to experience itself as all of this.
Unfortunately the only way to experience it is to free the mind from limits in perception and experience. If even for a brief moment, it changes the perception of the awareness in its understanding of reality.
Some drugs allow you to step out of the boundaries temporarily but they leave a scar on the psyche which inhibits the mind to do this naturally and makes it more difficult to return to the experience. It builds a dependance on an external agent to experience the unlimited Self.

People have stepped outside of habit and experience of limited realites for as long as humanity has existed within the confines of the ego and its world built by fear.
It only takes a brief moment when the mind is not preoccupied in thought.
Abraham Maslow called it a "peak experience." He even measured the brain waves and found that both halves of the brain came into coherence, where it was not, during the normal process of thinking, or active in the waking state of consciousness.

The universe is what it is, it can be anything. But who are you?
Are you the sum of your experiences and knowledge, or are you much more than that?
If you are the sum of your experiences and knowledge then you will never be done. If you could live forever you would never ever get to finality of the sum of what you can or could experience. IF you die then you will only ever be what you can cram into your lifetime. You will be what you experience and another will be what they experience and if you and they believe that, you can never ever come to an agreement that you will have final commonality in anything other than the ability to experience.
Values will be subject to experiences and beliefs.
There will always be a democratic approach, a socialistic approach and a holy approach. Each differing experiential approach will create a need a to defend and protect a value. Whether a war of greed or need or a holy war or Jihad. History repeats itself because of belief and experiences that it grasps onto and maintains.

God patiently waits for the ideas to return to source and has an eternity to wait.
What is a few million years to an eternity.
You being eternal have as much time as you wish. IF you are suffereing in anyway and find you are compromising yourself in anyway, you always have the choice to stop and realize yourself as greater than that compromise and suffering.
It's just a choice!

thanks Joe, for your thoughtful "paragraph or two", which resonated well with me ... I found striking your line about realizing "yourself as greater than that compromise". Very interesting.


Onto other matters, Dianah, I hope you forgive my 'bluntness' in my following reply to your last post. I mean no disrespect.

[quote author=Dianah link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14535 date=1065617267]
We cannot change each other, only ourselves
[/quote]

First, in talking about 'we' and 'ourselves', I'm not sure whether you're taking some personal stance or a trans-personal one. Assuming you're taking a trans-personal approach, then 'we' and 'ourselves' refers to one and the same identity, the Self, in which case your statement is, more or less, trivially true. Assuming you're taking a personal approach, then I would disagree with your statement, and would claim that individuals can indirectly change others. For example, if someone locks you up in a room and starves you to death, then your tormenter is certainly changing you and you have absolutely no control over this. You can wish all you want that your tormenter doesn't exist and that he's merely a figment of your imagination, but it's not going to save you from starving to death, and thus, it's not going to save you from changing (changing that's produced indirectly by your tormenter). Based on this, I would conclude that your statement is false if you're taking a personal approach.


[quote author=Dianah link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14535 date=1065617267]
There truly is nothing to fix, or to change, for they are perfect as they are
[/quote]

This is your perspective, and it's the same perspective that others, like Spinoza, advocate (i.e., that everything's perfect just the way it is). Also, Leibnitz was another advocate of this, and there's a rather humorous story called 'Candide' by Voltaire that you might be interested in reading, in which Voltaire demonstrates the absurdity of such a view (that all is perfect). I don't think Voltaire did justice to the issue at hand, and I think he was simply appealing to the dull masses, but nonetheless, it demonstrates that such a view (that everything is perfect) does not coincide with other notions of 'perfection' and of how we conceive that things 'should' be.

In any event, I understand what you're saying, but don't believe it undermines what I'm saying about taking on the awesome responsibility for realizing the infinite potential of the Self, because this is what must be done. It's inevitable, but it will be through us (or a select few, including those with the calling and vision) that this realization and manisfestation will come about.

For me, this world is both perfect and imperfect. It's rather trivially perfect in the sense that you describe, and so such a view doesn't really influence me, at least not most of the time. It's imperfect in the sense that there is much potential to be realized, and to the extent that realizing potential brings one to a more perfect state, then the state preceding it must be considered less perfect relative to the current state.

But to cling to the single perspective that everything (including ones self) is perfect seems to me to be an excuse to be lazy and be accepting of one's personal flaws and weaknesses, and I don't think this is acceptable, at least not to me.


[quote author=Dianah link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14535 date=1065617267]
What is within you that feels out of control?
[/quote]

For starters, the infinite Will that expresses itself through everyone is not entirely within anyone's personal control. But let's look at things from another perspective; If someone cuts off your foot, are you in control? When you look up into the vast night sky at the moon, and you desire to be transported to the moon's surface at that very moment, are you sufficiently in control of Nature (or your self) to make this happen? Are you sufficiently in control of the Universe to heal all the sickness and poverty (spiritual and material) that darkens this planet?



[quote author=Dianah link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14535 date=1065617267]
From my understanding, everyone, in every second of their existence is doing the best they know how
[/quote]

so all the rapists, thieves, and murderers on this planet are doing the best they know how, in every second of their existence?



[quote author=Dianah link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14535 date=1065617267]
There is far more to knowing or to realizing, and this is not through our intellect alone…find the heart of you, find the echoes of your heart, the seeker within you, then you can remember all that you are, and this will harmonize with your intellect, and a greater knowing, a greater understanding can be expressed through you. All there is… is you, expand your definitions of what makes you, perceive the you that you appear to be, and the I that you are, is understood.
[/quote]

yes, I know and have realized all this. But what are you seeking if you already consider everything to be perfect and think everyone's already doing their best all the time? If you think yourself perfect, and consider your flaws and weaknesses to be examples of perfection, then why bother changing or seeking anything at all?


namaste

[quote]But what are you seeking if you already consider everything to be perfect and think everyone's already doing their best all the time? If you think yourself perfect, and consider your flaws and weaknesses to be examples of perfection, then why bother changing or seeking anything at all?[/quote]
I think the idea is that one can consider all the seeking and changing as part of the perfection. It's hippie 'calvin ball'

8)

I'm not sure what 'calvin ball' is...

Whether things are considered perfect or not has its basis in perception and in our understanding of the term 'perfect'. If we say that everything is perfect, then we are defining 'perfect' in a way that deviates from the way that most people understand the term. It comes down to semantics....mere words that are, in and of themselves, empty. Yet the Self remains.

Thank you, Dianah, for your explanation.

About the calling and the vision, and the select few, I meant that, throughout history, there have been a few people, the great ones, who have been instruments for the divine work and for the further realization of the Self (much more so than the average person).... individuals who possessed, not the will of man, but evidently a much greater Will. Such people will invariably interpret themselves and their situations differently, and will have different sets of beliefs, but the Self does not much care for these little things, and does Its work regardless. We may all belong to the human species, but there are invariably some who go beyond, and almost always, their actions provide objective evidence for such, and speak volumes.

Our lives are characterized, at a certain level, by perception and action, and the Self expresses itself through these, among others. Having just one well-developed does not imply the other is well-developed too, though we need both for balance and to be integral. Thus, great actions alone do not imply great perception, and vice versa. So that we often see people who produce great actions and seemingly possessed of a will not human, yet their perception is not similarly well-developed, and so they do not have the expanded consciousness that should coincide with the generation of great actions and works. 'Ye shall know them by their works'.... I take this literally to mean that you will recognize the great ones, the divinely inspired, by their actions and works. The great actions usually, but not always, imply the great consciousness and divine perception.

I accept the fact that the Self expresses itself differently and in different degrees in different individuals. Some people will express more of the Self than others. Some will attain consciousness of the Self and perform great works and actions, whereas others will never get past their own individuality and measly, earthly, all-too-human existence.

Who is worthy to express the Self, to become consciously one with the Self, to do the divine work and the divine Self-realization? Who is worthy to be the instrument of the Self, to go beyond human, to become the instrument of God? Who is worthy?

History teaches us that a few people have seemingly been deemed worthy, if their actions and works are any basis to go on. A lot of people seek the divine, but do not know what to do once they realize it, and hence they never realize it and continue their search in vain. However, those who know how to realize it, realize the immense responsibility that befalls one. Do you choose to accept this responsibility or not? Are you strong enough or not? Are you enlightened enough or not? All-too-many continue their search for the divine, content to walk around in circles, because they are afraid of actually confronting it head-on, afraid of losing their little piece of familiarity that they call themselves, afraid of losing their pleasant illusions and false securities.

Those who know themselves as the Self and experience themselves as such must also accept the responsibility that comes along with it, the responsibility for Self-realization and Self-expression. This is what the Self has been doing for aeons. It cannot be stopped. We are the instruments, we are the divine sparks, we are the Self itself. To close our doorways to Self-realization and Self-expression is to deny our intrinsic nature, is to deny the Self, is to be mired in illusion and vanity. But the Self does not care since it's been going at this for aeons upon aeons, and time before time. But we, as individuals who have had the vision (the experience of the Self), should care, and must choose (or rather the Self chooses us) to either accept the calling, the awesome responsibility, and further express the Self, or to deny the calling, be irresponsible, and remain human, all-too-human.

[quote] I feel like I’ve strayed off topic, and I’m just rambling on here[/quote]
That sounds like a statement of relative worth. Self worth?

Moi?.... You think I need to teach you something?
I thought you were way beyond that idea...
I was adding to your statement of self worth, consciousness and commitment to being that, as well the qualifying statement you made while looking back upon your statement and your words, and was curious why you made this choice.
Nothing personal, but you seem to have taken it personally. Could it be there is still a place where you feel threatened by the outside you still see as real?

hello Dianah

[quote author=Dianah link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14626 date=1066052338]
I feel like I’ve strayed off topic[/quote]

It's nothing to think twice about.... I think this thread went off topic soon after the first post, with me being partly responsible, but that's ok.


[quote author=Dianah link=board=7;threadid=2822;start=0#msg14626 date=1066052338]
There seems to be many who are not of a calling, but this seems to be so because many are still developing their abilities to focus, or their intellectual minds. It seems to me, that the more we develop our intellectual minds; the ‘closer’ we come to being self-realized (this seems to be a radical way of seeing things, for many think the intellect/ego has to be conquered, but it is our very intellect or ability to focus that paves our paths to our greater potential).
[/quote]

Yes, there are many not of the calling, but I think one must have direct experience of the Self and of one's universal nature before one is open to the calling and of one's responsibility to further realize the potential of the Self and to be the vehicle for the expression of the divine will.

This is an interesting use of the term 'intellectual mind'. Do you equate the intellectual mind with the ability to focus? For you, is the intellectual mind the same as one's power to concentrate or meditate? If so, then what do you make of the intellectual mind being defined in terms of it's ability to intellectualize and analyze things? For example, would you consider that the developments in science are attributed to the workings of the intellectual mind, or would you consider the intellectual mind to be more responsible for focused self-awareness?

For me, the intellect/ego is not so much something to be conquered, but I do think that the personal ego is something to be transcended, and this typically comes about through the experience of ego-death and the experience of the Self (or the impersonal Self, the pure universal consciousness, behind the personal self) . It's hard to eliminate the ego entirely. Even after the experience of ego-death, the ego oftentimes recrystallizes and comes back, even if we recognize that it's false or illusory. It is possible to eliminate the personal self entirely, or at least for long stretches of time, and live in the universal ego-less consciousness. But even if this is not possible, it should be possible to 'anchor' our personal self within the Self, and to experience both at the same time, but recognizing that the self is a sort of phantasm of the Self, and thereby recognizing that our true nature is not what we typically identify as our transient personal self, but is something universal.

Where is the intellect in all of this? I'll have to take this up later, hopefully later today, but I would be interested to hear more about the role of intellect from you or others in the interim, if possible.

take care,
Shawn

[quote] how can I become self-aware, and expand if I don’t know what it is that I hold onto?[/quote]
When you sweep the floor do you pick through the sweepings to see what is in them? The pea from last nights dinner, some hair from the pet dog, the dirt that was tracked in by someone, etc.

Or do you simply throw them out?

The psychologist would have you unravel the layers of your brain like an onion to see what you have accumulated as the impulses of thought that by belief has built the foundation of your being and would also charge you lots of money. The approach of finding yourself by sifting through what you are not will take a very long time. And it does nothing to expand the mind by diving into the absolute when you are focusing on relative cause and effect.
It may expand the intellect but to expand the mind permanently into the Self, is to dive deeper into that.

Why not focus on what/who you are, the absolute One?

The intellect can be useful for this purpose, to use discernment in expanding the mind into the infinite rather than continuing to box it up into what it is and isn't.

You can look through the mirror and see your Self and live from that, or continue to look into the mirror for the ideas and forever learn what the Self is by studying the self through its unending experiences and ideas.

I find Joesus' analogy interesting, although I would represent the reality somewhat differently. Instead of thinking of Joesus' 'Ishaya' conversion (as directed by Joesus) as a sweeping of one's floor, think of it as a demolishing and rebuilding of one's house. Joesus is the demolition expert, and when he succeeds in demolishing one's house he assumes the contract to design the reconstruction. Thus, one loses one's old defective house and all of its hidden charms in exchange for a (probably less charming) Joesus/Ishaya-devotee-style house. The question is, then, does one really feel that one's present house is so bad that trading for Joesus' new 'Joesus/Ishaya-devotee' house makes good sense?