Comment below: **
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In a recent posting exchange about Andrew Sullivan's beliefs, I was > struck by his claim that Jesus loves him. Since that time, I have > seen about one thousand bumper stickers on neighbor's cars proclaiming > that Jesus loves the driver or that the driver loves Jesus. > > I've been in a few sketchy relationships in my day, but I am pretty > sure that anytime you don't actually ever see your partner, you are in > a fantasy relationship. (no offense meant to my online fantasy Thai > wife Toi with whom I have 3 beautiful fantasy kids) > > After 3 years of almost continuous rounding at Sidhaland, I had some > experiences concerning Guru Dev's image that caused me to believe that > I had developed a relationship with him as if he was a living person. > I am sympathetic to such claims by others because it was extremely > compelling, and although I don't view the experiences with the same > value I did then, it did open my eyes to the power of mystical > experiences and how detailed the experiences can be. > > Stevie Ray Vaughn once claimed that the Spirit of Jimi Hendrix had > taken him over and he began wearing a lot of the tacky hippie colors > that Jimi did in his shows after that. MMY claimed that Vaishistha > "came onto him" one night and afterwards he came out with some new > concepts. (the details of those concepts have faded, but I will > never forget, or fail to chuckle at, his provocative wording)In the > movement there is the concept of Guru Dev guiding us and it may be > just a poetic way to describe the movement's relationship with him or > it may be a more mystical claim. I remember a recent post about > Sattyanand claim that Guru Dev appeared to him after death to get him > to stop blubbering about his passing. > > The phrase "Jesus loves you" is totally mainstream and doesn't raise > an eyebrow anywhere. I don't suppose that people are all referring to > a mystical vision of Jesus although I'm sure some are. But the > conviction that a historical person can have a relationship with you, > beyond their use as an inspirational force, is really intriguing to > me. It is taken for granted in society as if it is the most natural > thing in the world. In my creative life I value trance induced states > in which imagination conjures rich experiences in detail. But I don't > come out of them thinking that I have contacted a dead person for real. > > So I throw out this bone for insightful gnawing from anyone > interested. How do you relate to this topic? > > (In case anyone does have a hotline to the dead I am interested in > inquiring form a certain Robert Johnson what fret he placed his capo > on in "Crossroad Blues". Although I am not up for his "coming on to > me" I am not adverse to the idea of a little "courtesy of reach > around" for the blues legend. But only if he really loves me. > **end** Curtis, you sure know how to put out the kind of velcro I get snagged on; this is an excellent topic and one I've been thinking about and playing with for a while, though with no resolution or even fine definition achieved. But it seems to me that the initial presumption of the reality of time and therefore the sequential and discrete construct of personalities and events within it creates a first and fundamental misalignment of what might happen within any person's consciousness. For instance, it seems likely to me that 'reincarnation' refers not to a unique, historical sequence of lives lived by some underlying and fundamental (but still fundamentally ignorant) personality that extends from the past and into the future as pencilled in on the cosmic wall calendar, but rather just a shift of attention to a constellation of experiences that "appears" within a matrix of time. In other words, it seems likely to me that as "I" go through this life and accumulate whatever wisdom, insight and illumination that this personality can absorb, then when this particular receiver (the body) winks out, then attention shifts to another constellation of experiences that another receiver provides. In this model, I don't understand why "I" couldn't be "reborn" as my mother or my father or my guru or my God, or any other personality that is a proper expression of where and what my attention is drawn to. In the experience of psychedelics and meditation-catalyzed visions, as well as dream experiences, it seems clear that the experiences exist within 'me' but the information provided can be as real and as useful as any experiences in the 'real' world. The color red is just as information-rich and evocative regardless of where it appears, either just in my head or shared in the communal reality. So in language of religion, the attention is directed towards a certain constellation of qualities and characteristics that, to one degree or another, the personality finds appealing. For me, although raised Roman Catholic, I never really connected with the Jesus personality, but find many of the Hindu gods very appealing and the personality of Guru Dev even more so. It's just where my own personality finds a certain satisfaction, where my attention is naturally drawn. So there really doesn't seem to be a difference between real and unreal, only what we agree on and what we don't. The personality of Jesus is no more unreal now than it was a couple of thousand years ago and it wasn't any more real "then" than it is "now". If your attention is drawn to that personality, as you feel it to be, then you grow in those values naturally. Mostly rambling, I guess, but I'll think about it some more. Really appreciate you bringing it up, thanks. Marek
