Do You Have A Hidden Agenda ?

[Birch]

Yes, it was a forest thing and it wanted to dance (I understood it would be a bad idea to refuse). I seem to recall it did want something else too but I think i only had the dance on offer.

 

The consciousness "all-inside" vs "all-outside" debate keeps raging in several sectors doesn't it? I reckon sitting either side of that issue is akin to sitting it out entirely. One of those stances may also drive a person insane and the other may make them powerless.

 

I mean at first blush it sounds weirder than the 'all in' stance to suggest that consciousness is both inside and outside and that its contents are too. But take one of those 95% internet thoughts for example, where did it come from and how was it reproduced? Where did it travel? Who forgot it? Who killed it then ressucitated it again? Did someone change it slightly? Was all original meaning lost? Turned upside down? (Here's where that other cat with Egyptian tendencies comes in handy:-))

 

What about thoughts you are bidden to accept due to their internal coherence (never mind their lack of basis in reality)? Or the ones you attribute to yourself now but were actually someone else's and you forgot? I recently saw something about 'genetic memory' - given the crystal structure and qualities of DNA (well, tgat's what I think, I think it is anyway) I reckon there's a whole taxonomy of different kinds of thoughts for someone like Steven Pinker to write another book on.

 

I don't know about meditation as an addiction. I suppose it depends on what kind and when and where you're at with it (and where its at with you)

[NeiChuan]

Sorry, I've probably arrived late to answer this questions.

 

I Will though. I Find, i'm rarely on the site now. I get a notification for each thread made, and when I see one that has something in common with a thought roaming my mind around the time, or has to do with inner alchemy, I head over sometime to read it.

 

I try not to indulge in information I don't believe is kosher, also if someone will usually reply negatively about something I've said just because their perspective is different. I usually never reply because I rarely come back to the same thread unless I haven't gotten the original point completely of the post. Also the fact that people take their time out of their day to tell me i'm wrong, in a setting there is no objective truth.

 

That's usually a sign to leave that thread.

[Taomeow]

Yes, it was a forest thing and it wanted to dance (I understood it would be a bad idea to refuse). I seem to recall it did want something else too but I think i only had the dance on offer.

 

The consciousness "all-inside" vs "all-outside" debate keeps raging in several sectors doesn't it? I reckon sitting either side of that issue is akin to sitting it out entirely. One of those stances may also drive a person insane and the other may make them powerless.

 

I mean at first blush it sounds weirder than the 'all in' stance to suggest that consciousness is both inside and outside and that its contents are too. But take one of those 95% internet thoughts for example, where did it come from and how was it reproduced? Where did it travel? Who forgot it? Who killed it then ressucitated it again? Did someone change it slightly? Was all original meaning lost? Turned upside down? (Here's where that other cat with Egyptian tendencies comes in handy:-))

 

What about thoughts you are bidden to accept due to their internal coherence (never mind their lack of basis in reality)? Or the ones you attribute to yourself now but were actually someone else's and you forgot? I recently saw something about 'genetic memory' - given the crystal structure and qualities of DNA (well, tgat's what I think, I think it is anyway) I reckon there's a whole taxonomy of different kinds of thoughts for someone like Steven Pinker to write another book on.

 

I don't know about meditation as an addiction. I suppose it depends on what kind and when and where you're at with it (and where its at with you)

 

I am a believer in (and a practitioner of) co-creation, so it's a no-brainer for me to decide whether consciousness is inside or outside. It's like riding a bicycle... is the skill to ride a bicycle inside or outside? Both and neither. You have to establish a relationship (co-create with the bike's geometry, gravity and the rest of those laws of physics both local and universal, your own body, your brain's ability to form, store, retrieve, and transmit back to the body muscle memories, which are "thoughts" of sorts, the ones your muscles are smart to understand or not, as well as the faster-than-cognition reflexes which, on the contrary, inform the brain of what they're doing only after they've already done it, and so on).

 

Internal coherence is no measure of the quality of thinking, or cognition, or consciousness in general. My favorite example: an angry adult will win an argument against a scared child every single time. Does it mean he had a better argument every time? Does it mean he is right every time? Nope. I think the best thinking is done systemically, and when you engage enough systems, thoughts become peripheral, something more interesting -- way more interesting -- than thinking may be going on.

 

Those are real meditations, not the ones where you succeed or fail stopping the mental chatter but the ones where your own mental chatter is like the three little hairs on your big toe -- you shave them off if you happen to notice them, but they so don't matter that if you don't shave them off, so what?.. You don't need to worry about worrying or not worrying about that. When the shoe fits, it fits with or without those three little hairs. When a human being (any being for that matter) works, thinking or not thinking can't make or break the deal. Long as thinking or avoidance of thinking (either one can be a sign of health OR unhealth, one would have to know more, to know what's the real -- hidden -- reason behind each concrete case) is not used as a substitute for the healthy operations of some other human systems (and an exceedingly poor substitute it is I should add), nothing's wrong with either scenario.

[Vmarco]

Their stance is illogical...impossible to prove that a god doesn't exist.

 

 

Although I'm not an Atheist, it's rather easy to prove that no god exists,...the proof is Undivided Light. Undivided Light is proof that no god exists. Besides, god is merely the Yang part of Duality,...the Bible says so,...God is light, and in him is no darkness (Yin). That quote is speaking specifically about Duality. God is a manifestation of Duality. From the Tao point of view, Duality, thus god, does not exist.

 

The problem with Atheists is that they don't understand that no god exists, they merely "believe" that no god exists,...thus they are just as deluded as theists.

 

V

[Vmarco]

Some say there's no evidence of God's existence. I look all aroud and see otherwise, but I'll give them that point...we can say there is no proof of his existence for the sake of argument.

 

 

The book ACIM also looks around, and says no god exists:

 

 

1. If a God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here?

 

This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space.

 

When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds.

 

Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen:

 

Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3).

 

These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home:

The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it.

 

You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions.

 

That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5)

 

But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment.

 

It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world.

 

2. Does A Course in Miracles really mean that a God did not create the entire physical universe?

 

We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of Source, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation:

 

Perception is not an attribute of Source. Perception has no function in Source, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2).

In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which Source did not create:

 

The world you see is an illusion of a world. Source did not create it, for what Source manifests must be eternal as Itself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1).

And finally, a similar statement in the text:

Source's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet Sources laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours).

 

These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality.

 

Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of Source. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text:

 

What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0).

 

To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text:

How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4).

In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams.

 

3. What about the beauty and goodness in the world?

 

Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality.

 

Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it.

 

[Aetherous]

The problem with Atheists is that they don't understand that no god exists, they merely "believe" that no god exists,...thus they are just as deluded as theists.

 

True.

 

Although I'm not an Atheist, it's rather easy to prove that no god exists,...the proof is Undivided Light. Undivided Light is proof that no god exists. Besides, god is merely the Yang part of Duality,...the Bible says so,...God is light, and in him is no darkness (Yin). That quote is speaking specifically about Duality. God is a manifestation of Duality. From the Tao point of view, Duality, thus god, does not exist.

 

I'm pretty sure that only made sense to you. Seriously.

[Vmarco]

The book ACIM also looks around, and says no god exists:

 

Sounds like ACIM is preaching Taoism.

[Apech]

Some say there's no evidence of God's existence. I look all aroud and see otherwise, but I'll give them that point...we can say there is no proof of his existence for the sake of argument.

 

But we can also say that there is no proof of his non-existence. That's even more true, since it's completely impossible for someone to know.

 

Strictly logically speaking, a truthful person must be either an agnostic or else someone who has experienced God's existence directly.

 

I could whip out the logic book, but that'd be a huge chore. I don't care enough. Something to look into for those who love logic as a subject...something to try and argue about if they consider themselves Atheist.

 

I'm not an atheist either ... but I do like to listen to them speak. I don't have to agree with someone to enjoy listening to their arguments. At least they give a damn. I'm not an atheist but I don't believe in the god that the Christians etc. believe in. Or rather I don't think they (the Christians) know what they believe in but will not rest till I am converted to their confusion.

[Marblehead]

Exactly...so long as it remains true that, "there is no proof".

Hehehe. I will have a lot of changing to do if there ever is any supportable proof.

[Marblehead]

The problem with Atheists ...

I am not a problem and I have no problems. You will never find a "generalize" basket to put me in. I am special and unique - a one of a kind. And an Atheist, BTW.

 

Hehehe. And I didn't even need 'undivided light' to get me where I am.

[Basher]

I am not a problem and I have no problems. You will never find a "generalize" basket to put me in. I am special and unique - a one of a kind. And an Atheist, BTW.

 

Hehehe. And I didn't even need 'undivided light' to get me where I am.

 

Good Points Marblehead.

 

Best T-Shirt I've ever seen bore the Legend "REMEMBER YOU ARE UNIQUE" then underneath in very small writing "Just like everyone else." :lol:

 

Basher

[Brian]

I'm not.

[Marblehead]

Best T-Shirt I've ever seen bore the Legend "REMEMBER YOU ARE UNIQUE" then underneath in very small writing "Just like everyone else." :lol:

 

Basher

Yeah, I do try whenever I get the opportunity to remind others that they too are special and unique. And I suppose it could be said that we are all the same whilst being different (special and unique).

[Marblehead]

I'm not.

 

Hehehe. Yeah, I suppose there will always be one of those in any crowd.

[Birch]

Excellent post Taomeow!

I don't have a deeper reply (at present) but your co-creation practice sounds mighty interesting.

Agreed that suppressive meditations are - well, for one they make my head hurt, make me too 'yang' for another, 3 don't resolve prior issues (although it's probable that they constrain action sufficiently to avoid provoking new ones, interesting attempt...)

 

----opinion etc---

[Vmarco]

I am not a problem and I have no problems. You will never find a "generalize" basket to put me in. I am special and unique - a one of a kind. And an Atheist, BTW.

 

Hehehe. And I didn't even need 'undivided light' to get me where I am.

 

 

If you did understand Undivided Light or the Tao, you would not have to be an Atheist, that is, one who does not believe in theism,...you would actually understand that there is no god, and thus have no need to believe there is not a god. The proof is all around,...indisputable proof,...and people still dispute that there is proof.

 

V

[Marblehead]

If you did understand Undivided Light or the Tao, you would not have to be an Atheist, that is, one who does not believe in theism,...you would actually understand that there is no god, and thus have no need to believe there is not a god. The proof is all around,...indisputable proof,...and people still dispute that there is proof.

 

V

Hehehe. Would you please stop talking in circles?

 

I am a Taoist. I am a Nietzschian. I am a Materialist. Those are simply labels. They have no more significance than does "I am an Atheist."

 

You are a "Undivided Lightist". Okay. But what does that mean? It means nothing more than that you have this concept, Undivided Light, as the root, or at least one of the roots, to your belief system.

 

I have mentioned before that I consider Undivided Light to be Pure Chi Energy. And afterall, energy preceeds light.

 

I have labelled myself an Atheist so that others might better understand why I say some of the things I say. That is all; nothing more, nothing less.

 

However, to know Tao; to know the first act, would be to be omniscient. I have never claimed such attainment. I do understand some of its (Tao's) processes though.

[eye_of_the_storm]

I am God

 

I am all that is

 

and that is all

 

haha

[Marblehead]

I am God

 

I am all that is

 

and that is all

 

haha

Hehehe, Go ahead, pump that ego!!!

 

Hint: Remember, we are supposed to lessen our ego. So there. Hehehe.

[3bob]

[eye_of_the_storm]

[Owledge]

Hehehe, Go ahead, pump that ego!!!

 

Hint: Remember, we are supposed to lessen our ego. So there. Hehehe.

Pretending your are not God is false modesty.

[Vmarco]

Hehehe. Would you please stop talking in circles?

 

I am a Taoist. I am a Nietzschian. I am a Materialist. Those are simply labels. They have no more significance than does "I am an Atheist."

 

You are a "Undivided Lightist". Okay. But what does that mean? It means nothing more than that you have this concept, Undivided Light, as the root, or at least one of the roots, to your belief system.

 

I have mentioned before that I consider Undivided Light to be Pure Chi Energy. And afterall, energy preceeds light.

 

I have labelled myself an Atheist so that others might better understand why I say some of the things I say. That is all; nothing more, nothing less.

 

However, to know Tao; to know the first act, would be to be omniscient. I have never claimed such attainment. I do understand some of its (Tao's) processes though.

 

No,...I would say I'm a Taoist,...and a Freethought Buddhist.

 

Neither the Tao, or Undivided Light is energy, or the "cause" of energy. Energy is a simultaneous by-product of the division of light, or duality. Duality EFFECTS ITS MOTION upon the fulcrum of the Tao,...but the Tao did not "cause" this to occur.

 

It is rather a mistranslation to say that the Tao birthed One, and the One birthed Yin/Yang. The correct version, for those who understand the Tao, is that One was birthed from the Tao,...the Tao doesn't birth anything,...nor contain any energy.

 

Ki is not energy,...from Ki, all energy arises. Energy is merely the motion of what is perceived to be separate, to return to Source. Energy in its purest form,...the purest form for an illusion,...is Spirit. Pure energy or Spirit shows the Way back to Source, which can only occur through the realization that energy does not exist. There is energy which arises from Ki,...but Ki holds no energy.

 

Wholeness is beyond the sum of opposites,...beyond Yin/Yang, and as a consequence, beyond One.

 

V

Edited May 19, 2012 by Vmarco

[Marblehead]

Pretending your are not God is false modesty.

Hehehe. So would true modesty allow me to say that I am God but refuse to show any of my non-human attributes so to not present others as being inferior?

[Marblehead]

 

Wholeness is beyond the sum of opposites,...beyond Yin/Yang, and as a consequence, beyond One.

 

V

Okay, you have been successful. You have totally lost me.

 

I tried applying logic and reason to what you said above and it just didn't work. I guess my ability to apply reason and logic to what others have said is faltering in my old age.

 

(But that's not the first thing to go when one gets old.)