It has been my experience that it is extremely difficult to explain nothing to people who know everything. Maybe it is because people understand what is said as they as they want to understand it see their world as they want to see it, this is normal and valid.
If you don't believe me take ten friends with digital cameras decide on a common animal or bird subject walk out and at the same time take a picture.. they may look the same but it picture has it own point of . They can stitched together to see a 3 D view of the subject. which can be of great interest. Spirituality can be of much greater beauty when viewed using this 3 D effect.. Like taking an off the wall statement like "Before the beginning is the Entirety with complete harmony and balance. From within the Entirety came the beginning." Now how can the idea be applied to your personal beliefs. As for an old dog sap-pen on a favorite bone.. I can relate and understand. Allan On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > Great responses... Molly, of course, is the one at ease; and Allan, > forever fresh, means so much without that verbal finesse I now > associate more with admen than people with culture. > > RP : " Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, > nowadays ,to try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself > were talking of infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or > God is the same thing to me." > > Is God relevant to the dog sucking on the bone ? I am not sure if he > is even aware of God, but it is plain that nobody in the entire > universe is more pleased, fed and satisfied, than the dog. And, like > it, our senses need their respective objects to home-in, RP, not God. > It's a matter between the world and us, subject to rules and laws, > norm and order. > > When I spoke of bliss infinite, I also spoke of zero identity, silence > and love. And, of a process to take our being between the world and > ourself from senses <+ vanity> to love <- vanity>, silence <- > thought>, zero < - need it be said ? > and what remains < yes, bliss > infinite >. > > So, when people with vanity speak of God, I easily choose to be > counted among the atheists. It's impossible to find someone without > vanity, ordinarily, much less hear him speak... of God. I am among the > most fortunate to have met one and have heard him speak, when it was > plain that he was referring to the all-inclusive truth supreme. > > Neil's grouse about over-individualised notion of the inner is > understandable. I mean, only an overly vain person would communicate > notions of the "inner" to the dog perched on his senses ! The dog is > equally an individual and he ' knows ' all other individuals are no > different. He would be right in wondering what the whole babble and > brouhaha was all about. > > Almost all voluntary attempts at introspection are short-lived and > prove more in the manner of fad or play, which make no difference to > the individual's spiritual position or moral perspective, in terms of > shift or committment. And forced attempts, imposed by others, are > worse. > > There is something fateful or innate at work when the introspection > abides for long, deepens with increasing withdrawal from material > values, without loss of honesty or the courage to live by one's > accepted truths. > > On Jan 29, 8:38 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I suspect we have an over-individualised notion of the "inner". The > > standard citation for this, not without irony Vam, was a bloke called > > Wrong! My guess is we miss something about the voluntary nature of > > introspection and what keeps us honest in its retreat. There are > > points even in chemistry where on can only rely on intuition as to > > what is going on - typically in some crystal behaviour, what a 'third > > atom' may do in reaction, stuff like space being too cold for most > > chemical reactions (yet they happen) and in reactions going both ways > > at once. I guess Allan that in the case of some tortured souls we do > > ascribe outer responsibility for the condition. Very sage otherwise > > of course. > > > > On Jan 28, 9:13 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No one is responsible for your inner being except you, it is a path of > our > > > own choosing. > > > > > I can share my experiences and insights, as I hope others share theirs > and > > > I have the wisdom to examine theses insights and apply what is > relevant to > > > each of us. > > > > > We are each responsible for our own lives and souls. Choose wisely. > > > Allan > > > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:09 PM, James Lynch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > And who can be trusted to judge ultimate teleological objectives, who > > > > can be trusted to command in God's name? This brings us to the > > > > question of power, whether we should entrust our daily matters to > > > > professors of divine inspiration instead of learning to judge for > > > > ourselves. Then it brings into question what value is contributed to > > > > the process of governance, guiding morality is quite another thing > > > > from force of submission and compliance to theocratic dogma. > > > > > > This isn't unique to religion or cosmology and spans into deep > > > > sociological stressors. But what I am thinking about is the things > > > > that can be built into society and culture to make it resilient, like > > > > an immune system against the factors that contribute to > radicalisation > > > > and behaving in general like a bunch of yahoos. These things seem for > > > > the most part secular knowledge, the reasoning doesn't require > > > > transcendent reference to say, "hey starving people aren't going to > be > > > > positioned for making the best long term decisions", neither will > > > > pascal's wager tell us how to build solutions to climatic and energy > > > > problems or a politician's disbelief in a pernicious deity intervene > > > > to solve those problems. Vam's idea that starting at a God-position > > > > doesn't help the situation holds weight with me, but I am still > > > > pondering a spectrum. Perhaps it is a categorical problem where > > > > aspects are tools, akin to schools, and what function something > serves > > > > identifies where it fits? > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays > ,to > > > > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking > of > > > > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the > same > > > > > thing to me. > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> Seems good to me, RP... > > > > >> except that this matter about God might be irrelevant. > > > > > > >> The moral code is the core but for ourself. > > > > >> It is the ethics code that is for others, > > > > >> but it needs the moral code for its foundation. > > > > > > >> On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there > O.K. , > > > > >>> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at > the > > > > >>> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of > individuals > > > > >>> and humanity as a whole. > > > > > > >>> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic > multidimensional mind > > > > >>> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at > least as > > > > >>> > a challenge?" > > > > > > >>> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at > it is > > > > >>> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found > his view > > > > >>> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant. > > > > > > >>> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his > discourse > > > > >>> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my > > > > >>> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What > damned > > > > >>> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to > give > > > > >>> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's > not > > > > >>> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU ! > > > > > > >>> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are > libraries > > > > >>> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I > wish to > > > > put > > > > >>> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be > everyone's, of > > > > >>> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The > search for > > > > >>> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without > fear, free > > > > >>> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take > away from > > > > >>> > us. Truth is our Home. > > > > > > >>> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " > home " > > > > >>> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... > house or > > > > >>> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us > come > > > > to > > > > >>> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " > to > > > > >>> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their > happiness > > > > >>> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't. > > > > > > >>> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet, > > > > >>> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity > where, > > > > >>> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our > thought is > > > > >>> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to > focus on > > > > >>> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of > delicacies, > > > > >>> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes > and > > > > >>> > what does not. > > > > > > >>> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is > also > > > > there > > > > >>> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously > or > > > > >>> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as > well. > > > > >>> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, > decide and > > > > >>> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material > home-object in > > > > >>> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, > encompasses > > > > >>> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside > the > > > > >>> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our > aim. > > > > > > >>> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is > a > > > > build > > > > >>> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I > > > > >>> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It > is all > > > > a > > > > >>> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable > to our > > > > >>> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also > blocks > > > > >>> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our > emotion - > > > > >>> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our > identity - > > > > >>> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. > Because > > > > it > > > > >>> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us > pore > > > > over > > > > >>> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while > with it > > > > >>> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along > the > > > > >>> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and > > > > Silence, > > > > >>> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite. > > > > > > >>> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home > and > > > > >>> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or > whatever. > > > > >>> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will > address > > > > >>> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of > systems and > > > > >>> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit > in our > > > > >>> > public and personal lives. > > > > > -- > > > ( > > > ) > > > |_D Allan > > > > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
