I would take this beyond the "conceptual distinction" between a "statement" (based on a temporary personal perspective that only holds in particular cases) and a Universal Law or Principle (that holds in all cases), Stanley, to the "simple feeling or apprehension of Being I Am -- not as a concept, but as a concrete actuality (the only one there actually Is).
Seen in this light, I would suggest that Pure Being is primary and that what appears to Be, as a temporary pattern of Pure Conscious Energy though which the Pure Being or the Absolute momentarily expresses, is secondary.
Or one might say, Pure Being is That which is always presence and so never comes or goes (like conscious space in which momentary mental states arise and fall) . As such, anything that changes, while it may be a temporary state of That, can never Be That in Its Totality (re: A "particular wave" is the ocean, but can never be the "Whole Ocean" and still be a wave).
In this regard, I would further suggest that "Being, Consciousness, Aware-Presence or the Pure Conscious Awareness of Being I Am, are all different Names for the Ultimate State of the Absolute in Manifest, Conscious, Alive, Relative Self-Expression.
Your (and my) apparent insignificance, Stanley, is a function of mistaken self-identification of the Whole (or Wave) with a particularly narrow, self-referencing sense of Being (particle).
For In Truth, Stanley, You Are Being believing you are insignificant or "Being Being a Sense of Insignificance (in the moment You "feel that way").
"Figuring things out is not the proper function of the mind. Understanding does not get you there. Your understanding is not required. (might not fit, but this is what came to me)
Love and gratitude, Benny"
Rich Response,
I would even go one step further, Benny, and say that "any preceived need or desire to understand" is really the "minds need," and actually a block to "knowing even as I Am known."
By relative thinking, I mean "egocentric or self-centered and focused" thought, in which "I as I think I am" (self) serves as a central referent (judge, jury and executioner might be better) with respect to all the "thoughts, feelings and sensations" that make up the world of what I see and believe to be "other than I am" (other or not self); and that based on a extremely limited and personally bias "data bank" -- all of which is arising in a Unitary Field of Consciousness (Being or the Aware-Presence I Am) that is normally overlooked, though always present (or, more Biblically speaking, "Lo, I Am with you always").
Returning to your question, and seen in this light, I would suggest that while "experience and education" can change what "I as I think I am" believe to be true of me, as well as my "personal" perspective or orientation towards the world "I presently see" as "being other than me," it cannot take "me" beyond "I as I think I am" as the central referent (which is itself only a concept of being) through which "I" relate to a world I now see as "being other than I am."
This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations, and be sure to check out our Comment Ignition Comment Stimulus Edition contest!
When you know you see the light beyond this moment you tu will enjoy this part of it... Watt more can I say butt thank you for this moment of sheer bliss... I love the inspiration the sun in the sky always seam to give you...lots more energy sea ...
I read the text and got about halfway through the manual back in 1992, while I was between jobs with Pan Am and United Airlines, Janet. However, I had to focus on preparing for the interview and new airplane with United and never did feel called to get back to it.
I do believe Benny, whose comments I periodically post, probably has; as he has mentioned it from time to time and his "words and wisdom" indicate "teacher status."
As for me, I feel that the Course is as good a "psychological interpretation" of Christianity as there is. I also agree "wholeheartedly" with the Course's definition of sin as a "Belief in separation from God" (not real separation -- for separation from an absolute God is impossible, but a "belief in separation" that gives rise to "apparent separation" and a "feeling" of same).
"There can be only one." It would not be possible for relative thinking to transcend the bounds of its own partial nature. Relative thinking is partial.
Well Written Richard. I love all your long insightful deeply thought out and explained responces to everyone elses comments. It sends out a strong sence of connectivity and awearness to all that is around you, not just physically but all the emotional energy that travels in spirit that words can attach themselves to.
If one uses the Socratic method;asking a series of questions to determine one's underlying beliefs and the extent of their knowledge, the Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. It is designed to force one to examine one's own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs. That being said, and applying this principle to your haiku you will find as I did that the body of your poem is untrue.
Have you ever consider the picture when there are two, not only one...? This has came to my mind lately while exploring the process of photosynthesis.
Seems like you need two polarities in order to exist, and one of them seems to be the platform, the force that pushes (gravity and electromagnetism to name some), the seed, I call it the masculine force (actually it feels a little dark as well).
In the other hand, you have the content, the recipient for information (think in water, dust and air for example), I call them the feminine forces. Because they are usually attractive for the masculine force (jajaja)!
And I have also considered that once these two forces join (it's like they dace synchronously all the time), the equilibrium brakes down (not 2 anymore) - some thing new comes up: our ego - (and number 3 is a NO.... in mathematical logic)
I like the idea that the only thing we require to bring some balance back to the forces is by unlearning relative thinking. ;)
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
Seen in this light, I would suggest that Pure Being is primary and that what appears to Be, as a temporary pattern of Pure Conscious Energy though which the Pure Being or the Absolute momentarily expresses, is secondary.
Or one might say, Pure Being is That which is always presence and so never comes or goes (like conscious space in which momentary mental states arise and fall) . As such, anything that changes, while it may be a temporary state of That, can never Be That in Its Totality (re: A "particular wave" is the ocean, but can never be the "Whole Ocean" and still be a wave).
In this regard, I would further suggest that "Being, Consciousness, Aware-Presence or the Pure Conscious Awareness of Being I Am, are all different Names for the Ultimate State of the Absolute in Manifest, Conscious, Alive, Relative Self-Expression.
Your (and my) apparent insignificance, Stanley, is a function of mistaken self-identification of the Whole (or Wave) with a particularly narrow, self-referencing sense of Being (particle).
For In Truth, Stanley, You Are Being believing you are insignificant or "Being Being a Sense of Insignificance (in the moment You "feel that way").
"Figuring things out is not the proper function of the mind. Understanding does not get you there. Your understanding is not required. (might not fit, but this is what came to me)
Love and gratitude, Benny"
Rich Response,
I would even go one step further, Benny, and say that "any preceived need or desire to understand" is really the "minds need," and actually a block to "knowing even as I Am known."
By relative thinking, I mean "egocentric or self-centered and focused" thought, in which "I as I think I am" (self) serves as a central referent (judge, jury and executioner might be better) with respect to all the "thoughts, feelings and sensations" that make up the world of what I see and believe to be "other than I am" (other or not self); and that based on a extremely limited and personally bias "data bank" -- all of which is arising in a Unitary Field of Consciousness (Being or the Aware-Presence I Am) that is normally overlooked, though always present (or, more Biblically speaking, "Lo, I Am with you always").
Returning to your question, and seen in this light, I would suggest that while "experience and education" can change what "I as I think I am" believe to be true of me, as well as my "personal" perspective or orientation towards the world "I presently see" as "being other than me," it cannot take "me" beyond "I as I think I am" as the central referent (which is itself only a concept of being) through which "I" relate to a world I now see as "being other than I am."
So Am I (as what comes to mind is):
Grateful for Being
The Aware Presence of All
Conscious as I Am.
Thank, You, as well, Vivian.
opens mouth,
their career,
pee-tered-out.
I do believe Benny, whose comments I periodically post, probably has; as he has mentioned it from time to time and his "words and wisdom" indicate "teacher status."
As for me, I feel that the Course is as good a "psychological interpretation" of Christianity as there is. I also agree "wholeheartedly" with the Course's definition of sin as a "Belief in separation from God" (not real separation -- for separation from an absolute God is impossible, but a "belief in separation" that gives rise to "apparent separation" and a "feeling" of same).
Not sure if you're "kidding or not," but "either way is okay."
Hint: If "You think" about "IT, You won't get IT" (or, perhaps more truly, you'll lose Awareness of Being IT or THAT Already)!
Several other pointers that come to mind:
(1) The Absolute can't be known relatively.
(2) "Two" won't go into "One" without fracturing, fragmenting or fractionatizing (in appearance only) Its Original Oneness/Wholeness.
(3) Or, in the Immortal Words of the Highlander: "There Can Be Only One!"
(4) Or, more philosophically speaking, "There Can Be Only One Absolute!"
(Note: There are a series of hay-ku in the offing that address this particular issue more directly and in greater detail.)
Thanks.
It would not be possible for relative thinking to transcend the bounds of its own partial nature. Relative thinking is partial.
I love all your long insightful deeply thought out and explained responces to everyone elses comments. It sends out a strong sence of connectivity and awearness to all that is around you, not just physically but all the emotional energy that travels in spirit that words can attach themselves to.
A non-relative thought, well,
A real Hay-maker!
That being said, and applying this principle to your haiku you will find as I did that the body of your poem is untrue.
Seems like you need two polarities in order to exist, and one of them seems to be the platform, the force that pushes (gravity and electromagnetism to name some), the seed, I call it the masculine force (actually it feels a little dark as well).
In the other hand, you have the content, the recipient for information (think in water, dust and air for example), I call them the feminine forces. Because they are usually attractive for the masculine force (jajaja)!
And I have also considered that once these two forces join (it's like they dace synchronously all the time), the equilibrium brakes down (not 2 anymore) - some thing new comes up: our ego - (and number 3 is a NO.... in mathematical logic)
I like the idea that the only thing we require to bring some balance back to the forces is by unlearning relative thinking. ;)
Biases are never unbiased,well said in a haiku