Desires huh? To which the question must be asked who or what is doing the desireing?
On 24 July, 12:35, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > "in it all, the actual result that manifests or materialises > leaves us untouched. There is Eternity, for our actions to come true," > > this may indeed be the point where the illusion of control falls > away...yet our desire remains, and possibility (electable?) is > infinite, and so our experience is manifest, whether or not we are > aware of our role in it. > > On Jul 24, 2:30 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > " Considering further the issue of control, I would have to ask myself > > if I am really in control or do I focus on the cosmos ... " > > > Looking entirely at the process I am familiar with, I find that this > > sense of " control," as in ' I ' am in control over ... myself, > > situation, something other than I ... keeps us on the path, at on - > > the - job - training as it were, but does not leave us ' free ' of the > > consequences / results that follow the moment, necessitating a review > > of our past ( action, judgement, belief ... ) and judging ourself in > > turn, which sticks and usually ' fudges ' our view of the future > > moment already upon us. > > > There is a need therefore to transcend the subject - object sense of > > control, however it is arrived at. The sense here is : Clarity, of the > > moment, that which is present, the now, including ( and strictly > > limited to ) all that is pertinent -- both the ' I ' and what it is > > faced with. > > > The Clarity I speak of covers what is in our view and what that > > ( which is in our view ) is doing to us ... to our emotion, to our > > mind, in our intellect, and to the ' I ' as we then are. > > > In the process, we are certainly called upon to answer : What do I > > want ? Which really isn't simple, as Justin's post elsewhere > > eloquently lays out. The question : What is desirable ? ... quickly > > reveals its obverse : What is electable ? The desirable is rooted in > > the ' I ' and the electable in the Whole or Totality. With our > > materialised habits, we cannot avoid proceeding with the desirable, > > that would leave us satisfied in the immediate time - frame. With > > experience though, of far more dissatisfaction with ourself, we wake > > up to the practise of sensing the electable, prescribed by the Whole > > or Eternity, as it were. Greater clarity of the electable > > spiritualises our habits. Molly's take of " allowing the greatest good > > of all " becomes meaningful in this context, of the electable. > > > Spiritual finesse takes us to the point when the desirable and the > > electable coincide. Which is not to say that matters become > > simplistic. We may have to elect " to kill " or " to destroy " or " to > > lie." Just as clearly as when we are called upon to elect the > > opposites. One would still suck. The other would be our good karma ! > > > Finally, in it all, the actual result that manifests or materialises > > leaves us untouched. There is Eternity, for our actions to come true, > > for the good of oneself and of others ! Amen. > > > On Jul 24, 2:15 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well Molly, your "allowing the greatest good for all" part seems off > > > my list. My approach appears to be more selfish than that. I > > > expressed a disengagement from the external, not necessarily an > > > indifference but a personal, self imposed division while maintaining a > > > juxtaposition. Further, it is the animal correlation and the many > > > facets of control exhibited by that kingdom. While we represent a > > > distant part of it, we are nonetheless a part and that would have > > > bearing upon your control issue. Your post seems to address Justin > > > and Fran's interpretations and so I didn't see the imbued relevance to > > > my post. Kill two birds with one stone, eh? I also found some > > > significance in the Jung and Nietzsche reference to shadow and self in > > > regards to control. The thread issue is very complex and will not > > > find resolve in any one or several posts as each post may present a > > > new aspect from which to view this perplexing mental characteristic of > > > being in control. > > > Considering further the issue of control, I would have to ask myself > > > if I am really in control or do I focus on the cosmos in order to > > > transfer the control over to some other universal energy that seems to > > > work for me while at the same time thinking that I am in control or > > > controlling a situation, morphing from the controller to the > > > controlled in a metaphysical sense. > > > I think you have started a great thread and also agree with Vam that > > > we should eliminate the puppy dung and ornography and solidify the > > > continuity of posts. These inappropriate and irrelevant intrusions > > > only serve as an impediment to the already difficult path to analysis > > > and perspective of the complex thread topic, they are an obstacle to > > > productive philosophy. > > > As an aside I think that irrelevant posts should simply be removed by > > > the moderation squad before they even get the opportunity to waste our > > > mental energy upon reading them. Why do they even appear? > > > > On Jul 23, 3:21 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I did see your good post, Slip, and found it interesting that we were > > > > creating posts for this thread at about the same time. I thought, > > > > after finishing my post and reading yours, that my comment > > > > "participating in a way that demands our awareness and responses > > > > allowing the greatest good for all. " covered what I would have said > > > > to yours. Was there something else you wanted to delve into? > > > > > On Jul 23, 4:05 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Did you miss my 11:15 post, Molly? > > > > > > On Jul 23, 2:40 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't remember anyone implying that anger is a spirit...and Wes, > > > > > > these are nice biblical references, but what is your point in citing > > > > > > them? > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 1:52 pm, Wes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Do we have the power to create our realities? Are we in control? > > > > > > > >What do YOU think? > > > > > > > > 29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > is a marvel of marvels. (The Gospel of > > > > > > > Thomas)http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html > > > > > > > > If Anger, or Greed, or Nicotine, or things like that are called > > > > > > > spirits, then you could say that these things that control us are > > > > > > > created by us. (Wine and Spirits ~ Alcoholism can take a pretty > > > > > > > heavy > > > > > > > handed control of a person. Prohibition was reversed, and > > > > > > > (Creator- > > > > > > > ed?) a new course for the country/world.) > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 9:29 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are we in control of ourselves, our lives, our families, our > > > > > > > > worlds? > > > > > > > > Or are we just aware and knowing what one can do if something > > > > > > > > unpredictable happens? > > > > > > > > There are many explanations for why we do what we do. For > > > > > > > > example, > > > > > > > > Thomas Metzinger's new Book, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the > > > > > > > > Mind > > > > > > > > and the Myth of the Self, seriously questions whether there is > > > > > > > > even an > > > > > > > > "I", let alone a "we." And Douglas Hofstadter's book, I Am a > > > > > > > > Strange > > > > > > > > Loop, contends that the "self" is a recursively self-referencing > > > > > > > > memory loop. > > > > > > > > > Hundreds of experiments by Benjamin Libet and others tend to > > > > > > > > conclusively confirm that our brain prepares to execute our > > > > > > > > decisions > > > > > > > > before we are even aware that anything is being decided. It > > > > > > > > alerts us > > > > > > > > to our decisions only in time (a split second) for us to veto > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet, as well as > > > > > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > Libet's book, Mind Time, and Walter J. Freeman's book, How > > > > > > > > Brains Make > > > > > > > > Up Their Minds. > > > > > > > > > It is quite likely that we have no so-called "free will" other > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > veto power over our specific actions. Our free will may consist > > > > > > > > instead of 1) being mindful about any ill-serving subliminal > > > > > > > > intentions and tendencies that inform our actions so that we are > > > > > > > > accordingly prepared to veto any action that they > > > > > > > > correspondingly > > > > > > > > inform, and of 2) programming (or reprogramming) our subliminal > > > > > > > > intentions to be more productive of the experiencing that we > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > desire. > > > > > > > > > Do we have the power to create our realities? Are we in > > > > > > > > control? > > > > > > > > What do YOU think?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
