3bob

. This lady has lots of good points, and also some that I don't buy into... to me enlightenment is not exactly a gift given since it is always already there, thus one does not exactly take it or accept it without also both working and surrendering (and finding key help to do so) everything that is also there blocking or covering it... and in that is a very high price to be paid, namely all our karmic debt and mental and emotional stuff that does not just float off into la-la land, thus we have debts which stick to and are passed along to every "version" of ourselves until such is paid off one way or another which includes an un-measureable measure of grace to help when we have also done our part - then the potential and true self is freed-up to manifest in the universe. The blog is very long and it looks like there is some good info in it. Then again if she is an Oshso-ite I'd run not walk away. Good fortune to you T.S.

"...If an animal would suddenly get an ego, this would be an Enlightenment experience for the animal. That would be the first shift for the animal from its subconscious state to becoming aware of itself. The subconscious state is like a dream state. In a dream, there is no clear self-awareness; the subject’s awareness is completely objectified into the dream story. Humans, in their semi-conscious state, are on the one hand conscious enough to have a sense of self, while on the other hand not conscious enough to realize what is behind this sense of self. This causes us to search for our true identity. Some spiritual traditions only teach discovering the ‘no-self,’ and therefore portray the ego as something negative. The spiritual path, however, is about self-awareness. So essentially the ego plays a positive role on the spiritual path. However, because we completely identify with this self-concept, we become imprisoned in our egocentric concepts and beliefs..." complete text at: http://www.myanalyses.com/aziz.html

. Hot diggity dog I don't know..

. ah, but we both stand upright and also fly in the dream... and the flying is normally more free like.

. Thanks for the considerate thought K, which is appreciated. Btw, I do have some reservations about the usage of those particular words (emptiness and impersonal) which can often be found in various posts where they are part of fanatical like arguments... then again in the case of the quote I posted I feel there are more well rounded meanings given and pointed to concerning those words along with the important and key addition of the word Soul and its meaning as also given in this quote - which is often superciliously rejected out of hand by various "experts". Thus my motive was for sharing an alternate take on the subject that to me rings with truth.

. the last part of the text, (underlines by me) "...What is the true answer to the question: Who am I? Is the answer: the ego? Or consciousness? Or Emptiness? Searching for our true self we come across different dimensions of what we are. But who is the one who is experiencing these dimensions, who is the one searching for its true self? Hidden within all of what we are is the essence of our unique identity. Aziz calls it the Soul. Consciousness and Emptiness are impersonal and universal, but the Soul is personal. The Soul exists in the Heart, and can only recognize itself in a clear way after the realization of Presence and the Absolute. Some mystics have gone directly to the Heart without first realizing Presence and the Absolute, but although they experienced the Soul, their realization lacked the clarity that one who already realized Presence and the Absolute would have had. Only when water is still can it clearly mirror your true face. Now that the Heart center is open, we experience that the most direct and personal experience of the self is in the Heart. We become aware of the Soul. Inherent in the Soul is a profound sensitivity which comes from the Heart. The Heart is universal, but extends into an individual expression which we call the Soul. Because of this we are one with I AM but also separate from I AM. The Soul is what experiences oneness and separation. Experiencing oneness is only accessible if one can also experience separation. The Soul is not the I AM. The Soul is the I AM seeing itself as a Soul. Through this seeing, a separation between the I AM and itself arises. I AM meets itself through seeing itself as a Soul. And every Soul is a unique angle of perception of I AM. Although each Soul has its own unique destiny in relation to its own (genetic) blueprint, some self-determining energy is inherent in each Soul. The universe creates a human being and the human being responds to the universe; it is a living, interactive process. Quantum physics discovered that when a particle is perceived by us, the particle is changed by that very observation. Perception is an energy which changes the reality of that which is perceived. The perceiver and the perceived both affect each other. In the same way the Soul co-operates with I AM in the realization of I AM".

. In some ways I agree with blindeye although I believe animals are more or less bound by instincts even if they spend a lot of time with humans and develop certain traits like us who are more or less bound by ego... Glad the post was of interest to several of you at the site. See ya tomorrow, I'm a bit under the weather right now. 3bob

Ant, did you read the rest of quote for context of where the author is coming from? Btw, what higher beings, to me there is only one being in all beings.

Looks interesting from a quick look, thanks Chris.

there is no such a thing as emptiness

walk a mile in my shoes

"ineffable", thus we could say more than just an idea to be wordy about it

...and what do you call joy Rene?

CT got it (my particular drift anyway) and a few others here and there. Of course everyone is entitled to run with their own drift...

apologies not needed in any way Rene, and whatever you want to contribute is not a waste of time or space! I'm just trying to understand you or what you are saying as more than just a misty like idea.

and...? (why bother saying so?)

why sorry and why exploding head?

Manitou, I'm not sure if I could be more straight-forward than that... ? a tangent: the Tao (using the the sun analogy) may shine on both what could be called good and evil, but "what is against the Tao will soon cease to be". (quote from chapter 30)

"to be or not to be" implies choice

Chapter 5 is obviously only one of many, thus it's not the only modus-operandi pointed to in the TTC. For instance at the end of chapter 13 we have: "Hence, only he is willing to give his body for the sake of the world is fit to be entrusted with the world. Only he who can do it with love is worthy of being steward of the word." I hear nothing in the words above that is aloof or indifferently impartial about such implications of following the Tao in what could be termed and judged as being right with the Tao... for when a steward acts with love they also have mercy that is beyond only the mechanical like or elementally impartial laws of things...

you can't feed children with just 'ideas', and then again you can't pass go without some idea of what you are doing up to that point...

Hello Rene, I'd use words along the line of, an idea pointing to more than just an idea, which may also be what you mean?

Take 5

I'm suggesting all memory as we (seem) to know and define ourselves dissolving, for memory is much to slow to hold that which is moving so fast that it standing still and already together everywhere at once. (or in both "only in this one" and in the "several") I'd add that a predicator in and of time and space is limited by same and may hit a mark located there, but such a mark does not satisfy in the end. Good fortune to you