A Zen master was training his student, he pulled out a short stick and said 'If you call this a short stick you deny its nature. And if you do not call it that you overlook the fact.' What should you call the stick?


Let's hear some of your theorys and please share some koans that you have come accross (lets try to keep 'One hand clapping' out of here though :D). Remember that the koans are meant to be rather unanswerable and are actualy meditation techniques employing the idea that if you keep your mind intensely concentrated, focusing on one complex process of thought discrimination you can accheive a state of temporary perfect mental queitness, rather than that the focus is finding the answere to the question itself. So there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answeres in one sense.

Poor student, you know he is going to smacked with the stick.

;)

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, doe sit make a sound?

Is that a Koan?

also you might like this

http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html

Originally posted by sargentlard
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, doe sit make a sound?

Is that a Koan?

also you might like this

uh, I don't know, did a Zen Monk come up with it? ;)



Ok, I'll take a crack at the one I provided:

You 'should' call it nothing to be correct, it exists and there's not much more to it. The ideas of 'stick' and 'short' are words invented by people. If you call it short you are making an arbitrary discrimination on the lenght of the object, however lenght is very, very realtive. So what is the sticks length relative to? Other sticks? Other sticks are not pertinent to the nature of the particular perceived stick outside of our conceptual mind that recognises the wooden thing as a 'stick' and compares it to other wooden things as being 'longer sticks'. You can call the short stick neither short or anything else without denying it's nature, the 'fact of the shortness of the stick' is an arbitrary discrimination and is not relevant to the nature of the object itself....

FYI Rereading that made me laugh my ass off, so it stays.

Rules are also made by men...

(Whack! Exsto gets whacked with the stick. The student ALWAYS gets whacked with the stick.)

My fave Koan was the one that went like this:

The student asked the master, "Master, can dogs know Zen?"

And the master said, "woof".

Originally posted by exsto_human
A Zen master was training his student, he pulled out a short stick and said 'If you call this a short stick you deny its nature. And if you do not call it that you overlook the fact.' What should you call the stick?


Let's hear some of your theorys and please share some koans that you have come accross (lets try to keep 'One hand clapping' out of here though :D). Remember that the koans are meant to be rather unanswerable and are actualy meditation techniques employing the idea that if you keep your mind intensely concentrated, focusing on one complex process of thought discrimination you can accheive a state of temporary perfect mental queitness, rather than that the focus is finding the answere to the question itself. So there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answeres in one sense.
They are sometimes used like that yes. But koans contain truths (often on many levels). The task is to find them. Usually that task involves resolving apparent contradictions (one hand clapping etc) and thus understanding the duality of existence and the necessary duality of language and the relativity of subject/object distinctions (as Exto suggests). They are lessons, clues if you like, not mantras.

They are not designed to confuse, they are designed to illustrate confusion.

You are very correct Canute, and infact what I say doesn't disagree with what you say.

''rather than that the focus is finding the answere to the question itself.'' What I mean is that the focus is not to find the correct concrete answere to the question as it is posed, you cannot find such an answere and this is the point, you are meant to come to an understanding of the profundity of the nature of the things and the discriminatory path leading to the words of the teachings. Which is pretty much as you say.
However when acchieving such understanding, you can only grasp the deepest implications of the knowledge in the deepest of meditative states and it is this state, when nurtured, that eventualy leads one to enlightenment.

So the real purpouse is to acceive the understanding of the duality of the question and consequently of life, when done with the greatest concentration and wisdom it leads one to the meditative state. Ultimately the meditative state is the goal with the excercise.

:)

Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Rules are also made by men...

(Whack! Exsto gets whacked with the stick. The student ALWAYS gets whacked with the stick.)

My fave Koan was the one that went like this:

The student asked the master, "Master, can dogs know Zen?"

And the master said, "woof".

lmao! :D

exsto_human

We seem to agree completely.;)

The nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. Why, then, do you fan yourself?

If you say that you do not need to fan yourself because the nature of wind is permanent and you can have wind without fanning, you will understand neither permanence nor the nature of wind.

Originally posted by Voodoo Child
Poor student, you know he is going to smacked with the stick.
lol!

The nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. Why, then, do you fan yourself?
This koan is pretty easy but the one I have trouble with is the one hand clapping. would someone be nice enough to explain this matter a bit?

I always thought it was a reference to cooperation.
Whether between more than one person, or between the different "parts" of who you are.
*shrug*

I think some would say that one hand clapping, is a question on the emptiness of existence.
The question is where does the sound of clapping exist? Does it come from the one hand or the other? Is it the nature of the air that makes the sound, or is it the nature of the matter of your hand? Is the sound realy only a mental conception caused by signals from your ear? Obviously the sound is result of a chain of causes and effects, the one hand strikes the other the air conveys the vibration which the ear perceives and reports to the brain which subsequently decides the source and nature of the sound. Why then do we perceive the sound as being inherently existent when clearly it is not existent from it's own side at any point?
Are we ourselves and the world arround us possibly not inherently existent? Are we ourselves perhaps merely a result of causes and effects? What then is truely permanent and how can it be realized?

:)

I feel that the importance of Koans is not the answer, but the process of thinking that is required to reach an answer (of which there are many). The answer doesn't matter, what matters is the question.

The one hand clapping is all that Exsto says and a lot more. For instance it is also prompting you to consider the whole issue of the duality and relativity of our conceptions and perceptions. The sound of one clapping is obviously silence, but to give this perfectly correct answer is miss the point of the question.

Edit: On reflection 'silence' is precisely the right answer to the question. The point is to see the significance of the answer.

As always it depends how you look at it, (which is also the point of the question).

Thank you. Exsto_human, you are very eloquent :) .

Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Rules are also made by men...

(Whack! Exsto gets whacked with the stick. The student ALWAYS gets whacked with the stick.)



How true! Came across this koan that explains that concept perfectly.

"Kotei Strikes a Monk —

A student of Kassai came to visit Kotei and bowed. Kotei immediately struck the monk. The monk said, "I came especially to see you and paid homage to you with a bow. Why do you strike me?"

Kotei struck the monk again and chased him from the monastery. The monk returned to his teacher, Kassai, and told the story.

"Do you understand or not?" asked Kassai.

"No, I don't," answered the monk.

"Fortunately, you do not understand," Kassai said. "If you did, I would be dumbfounded."

Another blatant zen case of blaming the victim!


Dear Canute:

I liked your answer, but don't feel it went far enough to explain what is meant by what is the sound of one hand clapping.

While it is true there is duality to all things, all things have duality and those things, in turn, have duality. I think of paintings and statues of those lovely mystical Gods and Goddesses who have many arms and hands to explain this concept. The male God (particle) and the female Goddess (wave) each have a side that is male and female. So we take sound. It is both particle and wave. Yes, those must combine to gain unity. But what is sound's partner? If we see sound in terms of being female, its male counterpart would be light which also has a wave and particle nature. So if we see the uniting of separateness to an ultimate unity, we have the sound of the universe. The sound we can hear only when we know the One.


NEMESIS

Fair enough. Your approach isn't mine because I'm me and you're you, but at least they're both approaches, and it wouldn't make much sense to say that one is more or less right. I suppose that there are as many interpretations as there are people doing the interpreting. (Which isn't to say that the truth of those interpretions are arbitrary or relative).

Ultimately my opinion would be that a good koan is an all purpose tool, one which each person is bound to use differently.

Umm. Or perhaps a key with no clue as to which door it unlocks.

I'm not sure why there's quite so much whacking of students with sticks in Buddhism, except that it's very funny. I suspect that it may be to make the educational point that although Buddhist teaching is profoundly self-contradictory and sometimes apparently senseless it's not a game, or some form of vocational training, and it's teachers really do care that their students think it through and pay more attention to getting it right than they would to their geography homework. You don't forget a whack on the head, and you're bound to keep wondering why you got it. That's my only guess.

Dear Canute:

You're quite correct and I wasn't doing this to nitpick, but to expand on a thought. You see, I had an epiphany about this particular subject after an extremely wondrous meditation. I practice Kundalini yoga and these thoughts just sort of explode in your head. Sorry if I came across in any other way other than discussing this subject with you.

As concerns whacking students with sticks, I read, "In the Light of Truth" by Abd-Ru-Shin. I'm paraphrasing, but basically it said that if someone slaps you in your face to wake you up, you should thank him and not curse him.

Sat Nam!

It's ok. I was interested, I didn't think you were nitpicking.

Originally posted by NEMESIS
While it is true there is duality to all things, all things have duality and those things, in turn, have duality. I think of paintings and statues of those lovely mystical Gods and Goddesses who have many arms and hands to explain this concept. The male God (particle) and the female Goddess (wave) each have a side that is male and female. So we take sound. It is both particle and wave. Yes, those must combine to gain unity. But what is sound's partner? If we see sound in terms of being female, its male counterpart would be light which also has a wave and particle nature. So if we see the uniting of separateness to an ultimate unity, we have the sound of the universe. The sound we can hear only when we know the One.


NEMESIS
I personally don't like how they hit the monks with a stick... I was going to remark on this further but some out there might feel a little offended.
Nemesis, your approach makes perfect sense. But who is the One? We, all together, or an entirely seperate entity?

To ponder the meaning of a koan seems the surest way to seek darkness. After all, koans are nothing more than verbal singularities belched from the mouths of greedy old men.

Originally posted by Watcher
To ponder the meaning of a koan seems the surest way to seek darkness. After all, koans are nothing more than verbal singularities belched from the mouths of greedy old men.
wow, never thought of it that way.

Originally posted by Watcher
To ponder the meaning of a koan seems the surest way to seek darkness. After all, koans are nothing more than verbal singularities belched from the mouths of greedy old men.
It is normal to justify ones opinions in some way, especially when they are unorthodox or outside ones field of knowledge. Otherwise one risks appearing to be an idiot.

Originally posted by Canute
It is normal to justify ones opinions in some way, especially when they are unorthodox or outside ones field of knowledge. Otherwise one risks appearing to be an idiot.

This undoubtedly true. Why do you take such risks?

You misunderstand. I was trying to save you from your fate. There's a little more to this subject than you seem to realise.

Originally posted by Canute
You misunderstand. I was trying to save you from your fate. There's a little more to this subject than seem to realise.

Yes.

You see me clearly.

I have always suffered from ignorance, and always will. That is my fate.

What is yours?

I don't want to get pulled into this arguement, but I just want to say this.

A man who recognizes his ignorance is truely wise, however the man who recognizes his ignorance and never seeks to do anything about it is truely the greatest fool. ;)

That's absolutely true, and a very wise saying. But I've always thought it has a bit of a weakness. It doesn't suggest how we're supposed to decide what not to be ignorant about. ;)

Originally posted by Voltaire
I personally don't like how they hit the monks with a stick... I was going to remark on this further but some out there might feel a little offended.
Nemesis, your approach makes perfect sense. But who is the One? We, all together, or an entirely seperate entity?

Dear Voltaire,

First, I share your sentiments about the use of the stick. Next, you certainly have asked a good question. If only I were up to answering it.

Let's see, I think we should start with the concept of unity as expressed through the Number One as explained by Pythagoras. This number is an expression of itself and can only be itself. So in dividing or multiplying this number, it can only be and exist in its own essence or being. Therefore, it cannot change. Since we pride ourselves in difference, and see difference all around us, we can safely infer the next part of the equation agrees with the Pythagorean philosophy of the Number Two. This evil female allowed difference. So in looking at these differences and being asked to conceptualize what is One, it is difficult at best. Impossible and still be here posting in a forum. So are there clues to this notion of One, God or Unity?

Well if we follow this approach, we come to a concept found in the Kabbala called Kether the Crown, the Ain Soph Aur, Ain Soph and Ain. Kether is the God most of us worship. He sits at the top of the Tree of Life. Ego or the projection of self. It is interesting to note that the esoteric name of Kether is Apophis. He is the demiurge and the jealous God who demands you worship him alone. This is where the Jews were slandered as being worshippers of this devil. They do not worship him, they simply knew this is who "we" collectively worship. But there are three levels above him that we could come to know.

The first is Ain. This represents the concept of nothingness. We have clumsily substituted the number (if indeed there is such a number) of zero. To some this number has been the bane of civilization and philosophy since there is no such thing as nothing. A space that we consider unoccupied by people or things (furniture, plants, dust) is still filled. So while we can grasp at this concept, it is something we must strive to fully understand. In other words, since we are locked into a world of duality, we can understand the concept by duality or the binary system of artificial intelligence which we use to think. Everything we attempt to understand must be filtered through this approach until we have a taste of real intelligence. So in knowing that things “occupy” a room we imagine nothingness to be when things are removed from this room. Of course, this hardly begins to cover it, but we usually feel quite good about our reactive assessment. Next we come to Ain Soph or “no limit” or “limited light.” Here we come precisely to what I clumsily attempted to explain for I did have a flash of what this means. But in terms of conceptualization, this “limit” is something we can at least attempt to understand for we all know about limits. We then come to the toughy, Ain Soph Aur or “limitless light.” Now we can clumsily attempt a reaction and think that it’s the opposite of having a limit, but what does that mean? If we are bound within a circle, what is outside the circle? Is the circle not contained in something else? Not if we truly recognized what the word and state implied by being limitless. Thus it becomes our litmus test as to whether we stay in this world of manifestation or progress and use the master key to free ourselves. For this concept is impossible to know and impossible to conceptualize while in this present state of artificial intelligence and bondage. If and when we are fortunate enough to climb out of the hole and grasp this notion, we either go crazy or disappear. It depends on well you have done your work and there are dark tales of holy men going mad if not properly prepared. It is that beyond our comprehension to fully realize. So this is what you ask me to do. And being the egotist and asshole that I am, I actually am making an attempt.

In terms of it being a separate entity, it is separated from us by consciousness, but it is that which is contained in us and that which caused all to be. It's interesting that sometimes in meditation I have reached this threshold where it seems if I continue, I will disappear. There is always a fear that overtakes me when I reach this point and I stop and withdraw to reality. I believe that the annihilation of what we consider "self" to a large part plays a role in this. For logically, if I am so unhappy and dissatisfied that I pursue spirituality, why would I not just delightedly jump off this cliff? Because my demiurge, my ego, my concept of my self will not yet allow me to do this. YET. And there’s the rub.

So to answer your question, I “believe” that it is not a separate entity, but rather from whence we sprang. I simply feel we are cut off from seeing and knowing this. Cut off by the use of our artificial intelligence that simply is not prepared or capable of handling this information. It does no good to go crazy as this is bondage as well. So we must carefully “straighten out” what has gone awry inside and then….voile! In uniting what is separated inside, we gain the proper tools for handling that which is on the outside and thus unite it. In terms of whether we “collectively” are this One, or whether we are “individually” the One, we return to Pythagorean concept of the Number One. It can only be that which it is. I think this is what is so difficult to understand. But the higher sacrificed king that is in our hearts, must be on the throne for this process to happen. There is no other way.

So play your game of chess on your binary squares and become a master. You may then free your king!


NEMESIS

I think I'll print that nemesis. :D

Great stuff.

Dear exsto human and Canute:

What can I say? Thank you for your positive comments. I wasn't expecting that.


;)

Originally posted by NEMESIS
Dear Voltaire, First, I share your sentiments about the use of the stick...(snip)

So while we can grasp at this concept, it is something we must strive to fully understand. In other words, since we are locked into a world of duality, we can understand the concept by duality or the binary system of artificial intelligence which we use to think. NEMESIS

My feeling is that these two things are connected. Trainees get whacked as an appropriate and memorable way of reminding them that they are asking stupid questions rooted in duality, and that they should know that such questions cannot be answered by someone else, even if that person is a great master, in fact expecially if they are.

Answers to fundamental questions cannot be answered by any master, but must be found for oneself. The reason is, as you say above, that such questions must be asked and answered in dual terms, since thought and language are dual, and therefore any answer that might be given must be wrong.

A whack on the head is a good way of pointing out to the trainee that he's asking a damn fool question, and that he should go away and consider what's so foolish about it that a wise man thought he deserved a whack on the head.

NEMESIS, have you ever studied Gnosis and Gnosticism?

I'm pretty sure you have, but if you haven't I think it would be worth your while to look into it, I think you will find it of much interest!

nemesis,

Great post last time! I used to read about the Kabalah, interesting stuff...
well, pardon my ignorance but I have always thought we are all One entity. I was just curious about what you thought. :)

As a pacifist I don't approve of people hitting with a stick. I wonder if this actually helps the pupil.

Dear Canute:

You are probably very right about this. I’ve felt like slapping people myself, but have restrained myself due to the law frowning on this type of behavior. I do so only verbally at times. Perhaps it’s just a warning to think before we speak? I think what you say also brings us to the comment made by exsto human.

Dear exsto human:

Yes, exsto human, I have studied Gnostic thought in great depth. In my heart, that’s what I am. When I first read of their belief system, it was like traveling home. At the heart of their belief system was the notion that until one experienced an epiphany, all talk was futile. I believe much the same thing. How can one explain the divine to someone that is blind to it? All you do is describe more of the refraction and reflection of the divine and how it would relate to someone caught in the bondage of this world of dualism. It also seems to tie in with the Native American system where one just went into the woods and had a vision. You stayed there as long as it took. Personally, having a weasel mentality, I never could understand why the person didn’t simply lie about it and come back the first night. But I’m sure the reason is that there might be follow-up questions and if caught in a lie, whack! Right over the head with the Native American equivalent of that learning stick!

Dear Voltaire:

I quite agree with you about us being one entity. We all have the same source. We are somehow refracted. Like an image in a broken mirror. Interestingly enough, if a hologram is broken, each tiny piece reflects the exact same image as the whole. It’s something to consider. This refracted mirror theory is something I am working on at the moment in a psychological sense. I believe I will try posting my theory on this site for those interested in taking part in a little experiment. In terms of my own life, I am right now attempting to see every single person I meet at a part of myself. They are simply a non-integrated pieces of my personality that I must unite into a whole. This is especially true with those that I have an instant “aversion” to. Those truly are parts of myself that I push away and bury. I have met three people recently who grate on my nerves in the most horrendous way. When I looked underneath it all, I realized they were me and possessed a certain quality that I manifest to others. Then I was presented with the challenge of how do I treat myself when I meet myself face-to-face? My answer was to take the opportunity to “see” what others were seeing in me and to unite these characteristics. It’s quite difficult for I first fell into the old trap of, “Well, sure I’m somewhat like them, but I’m not that bad!” Bad is bad. It is not something one should qualify or speak about in comparative terms. Bad needs to go! How? By uniting it with its polar opposite and then we make it something entirely different. Or like uniting red and green. A color is the color it is because it is reflected and not absorbed. Sometimes it helps to break things down to its simplest terms:

Why is the apple red?
White light strikes the apple
All colors absorbed except red
Red light is reflected

What color is the apple now?
Green light strikes the apple
Green light is absorbed. No color is reflected so apple appears black

I also study alchemy. It’s what I started out studying. At the very outset, the ancient alchemists all said to study the growth of crystals. From the mouth of babes I found this explanation for the existence of that which we call a crystal:

“GROWTH PATTERNS

All crystal growth patterns are ordered. No one knows how the crystals can come together and make the formation. Crystals grow from the outside, unlike that of a human being. Particles are attracted to the seed of the formation and then build on up in an orderly pattern. "The only way for a crystal to grow is for the right kind of atoms or molecules to reach its surfaces and fit themselves into the same pattern of order the tiny "seed" crystal has." Time and freedom are needed for the molecules to make perfect crystals.”

Time and freedom! Ah, yes, that is what we need. Notice how it says a crystal develops in the opposite way of man. I then remembered something in The Symposium;

“In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word "Androgynous" is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle, and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast. Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon, and earth are three; and the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth, and they were all round and moved round and round like their parents. …”

“…Zeus discovered a way. He said: 'Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg.'…”

Then we come to this:

“Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side by side and to say to them, 'What do you people want of one another?' they would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: 'Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night to be in one another's company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt you into one and let you grow together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul instead of two--I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire, and whether you are satisfied to attain this?'”

Now people have always interpreted this as “soul mates” and gone wandering off in the universe looking for this other person. It has given rise to an industry of charlatans telling us where to find this soul mate, etc. It gives us all great reason to be great fools for this other person is inside us all the time. I had written a short treatise on this subject already. You or whoever else who cares to look may find it of interest. An excerpt is as follows:

“II. The Brain’s Division as Explained Through Greek Mythology

Right now, your brain is probably deeply divided in more ways than one. We must have unity to progress to the next level. You must understand, that the notion of religious elitism rears its ugly head. To anyone that chooses a path, the ego may or may not bestow imaginary powers upon the seeker in order that he may think himself “special.” This happens in order for the seeker to be deluded into thinking that the path he is choosing is the ONLY way. That he is BETTER for choosing his way for it is severer, or harsher, or requires more intelligence. None of this is true. The EXACT SAME PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES MUST OCCUR IN THE BODY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT TO TAKE PLACE NO MATTER WHAT THE PATH. This is not to say that everyone should choose the SAME path. As everyone has found out quite early in life, some teachers or methodologies are easier for us to grasp. We are said to have an “affinity” for certain subjects. Thus it becomes quite a natural choice for us to make. It is ONLY when the ego becomes involved, we attempt to find unity by being exclusive in our thinking. It is that much of an absurdity and the ego is an absurdly illogical part of us all.

So how do we obtain unity of thought? By recognizing what is there and working with it. We can easily divide our brains into three in a variety of ways. A right and left brain and a subconscious. Also there are two hemispheres and a translator. Thirdly, the brain is also a gigantic conveyor belt for this triune deity. The three layers of this are the Reptilian, Paleomammalian (the limbic system) and Neomammalian parts. This is another subject for another day. If one wishes to read more of this, they are welcome to seek out books by a Dr. Richard E. Cytowic, a noted psychoneurologist and, of course, Paul MacLean as it is his hypothesis. But let us return to these “hemispheres” and the notion of unification.

According to the Greeks, the parts of the brain were divided into various Gods and Goddesses. These mythologies were really koans used to test and, more importantly, evoke the powers of memory. For when we awaken our limbic system, our memory theater is awakened along with much more. We are more able to store information, write and compose music, etc. We are more able to do anything that would involve our right brain and, therefore, our ENTIRE brain. It is something to keep in mind if one is trying to engage in any art form for some of us needlessly torture ourselves by going through huge emotional traumas in order to produce results. An example would be someone who only writes poetry when depressed. This is not necessary, but we “think” it necessary because we are unconsciously awakening that part of ourselves in this emotional abyss and find ourselves writing only in those times. We could do much the same thing when we are profoundly happy, but perhaps the individual has not awakened this true euphoria. We also need to become consciously aware of how the process works to gain control of it.

In terms of Gods and Goddesses, the left hemisphere of the brain is Zeus. In mythology, Zeus is the great philanderer. He is ever vigilant and aware of every woman in the region. Further, he wishes to have sex with each and every woman. The women it seems were blissfully unaware of him. They were happily bathing in a stream. Or locked in a tower when Zeus barreled in and overtook them. What does this mean? The Greeks were explaining the normal brain function. You see a brainwave originates in this left “Zeus” hemisphere of our brain. It starts at the top of the left hemisphere. It travels across in a downward fashion and reaches the right brain at its base. It is at this stage, our right brain is unaware of the left brain. In terms of Greek mythology it is the Virgin Moon Goddess, Selene or Artemis. The right brain at this point thinks it is just fine as it is and does not need this obtrusive male signal. Thus the notion of Zeus having to “overtake” this unwilling female by any means necessary. You can now see where the Greeks explained this concept perfectly by the use of Zeus and his escapades. Obviously the brainwave is not finished. It then travels down on the left side, simultaneously traveling upward on the right side. It is then the brainwave travels straight across (reasonably straight for a brainwave) and the two sides are “communicating” or “having intercourse.” This is Zeus having sex with Hera, his wife, or any number of wives. The brainwave then travels downward still till it reaches the bottom of the left hemisphere and the top of the right. Once again communication is lost. The right brain now becomes Hekate. The dark moon. The crone. An old woman that has known man, but knows him no longer. It is now we take a look at the shape that was formed by this brainwave. It is the sign of infinity, for this happens and again and again and again till our physical death.

So what is needed to keep communication between the two sides? Thoth, Hermes, Hephaestus or Mercury comes into play. These names represent our corpus callosum. The signs of this region becoming more activated as a precursor to higher thought and change is the disquieting feeling of “thinking” in the middle of your brain. It feels very disturbing almost as if you will lose your mind. Almost as though a thought is lodged there as an object becomes lodged in your throat. One may feel increased electricity, like sticking one’s finger in a light socket. I assure you the only thing you will lose is who you think you are. Now for those interested in activating this center, how is this “activated?” Through equalizing your brain by using BOTH sides. This “forces” the two sides to communicate. Think of a hostile negotiation and you will start to get the picture. Now there are several approaches one can use. I will list a few, but I leave it up to you to devise more ingenious ways. An excellent way would be physical activity involving motions where we “cross” arms and legs in front of our body. These sorts of motions even out the hemispheres of our brain and make them communicate. Yoga is rife with these sorts of movements. In fact, it is a goal before beginning any meditation. Also any constant, repeatable pattern of movement that is simple in nature does this. An example is running in a wide circle as in around a track or taking the barre in ballet class. One can also do active mental concentration in “waking up” this right side. There is an excellent book by Betty Edwards called, “Drawing on the Right Side of Your Brain.” I suggest anyone who is interested in becoming more “right brained” do these very simple exercises. I, personally, drew geometric progressions with the help of compasses on graph paper. I held a compass in each hand and performed the exercises as outlined in the book, “Sacred Geometry,” by Robert Lawlor. Celtic knotting is also extremely beneficial. Of course, I am touching the surface of this. I find that it is up to the individual to do the work. If one explains too much or too little, well, the work is lost and the individual simply accepts or rejects what is said. I suggest to you now it is incumbent upon the INDIVIDUAL to take the initiative necessary and perform the work.

What happens when true unity is achieved? Several things. Most notably you lose one eye. Not literally, but figuratively. This is called the Eye of Horus. Why? Because you see your right and left eye see things slightly differently. Hold a finger in front of your face a comfortable distance away. Now close your right eye leaving your left eye open. Take note where it is. Now close your left eye and open your right. You see how your finger “moves?” Obviously, there was no movement, the disparity between your eyes provided it. When unity is achieved you will only see “one” thing, in “one” place all the time until you move it. This is the ceremonially sacrificing of one eye. It is often hypothesized about whether Homer was really blind or whether this title was bestowed upon him because he had achieved this feat.

If the individual does the work, then what? Now we come to the most marvelous aspect of all. The notion of the Sacrificed God. The heart of all. The magnificent consciousness that lies undiscovered. For there is another being inside us all. Adam Kadmon. The Christ. Krishna consciousness. God. Call it what you will, it lies within our heart.

‘God’s ultimate purpose is birth. He is not content until he brings his Son to birth in us.’
— Meister Eckhart”

So there you have it. Greek mythology as it was meant to be used. How we humans love simple answers! Unfortunately, what we want and what we feel will satiate us is not necessary the truth.

Sat Nam,


NEMESIS

Hmm. Now I'd say you're making it very over complicated.


Originally posted by NEMESIS
I also study alchemy. It’s what I started out studying. At the very outset, the ancient alchemists all said to study the growth of crystals. From the mouth of babes I found this explanation for the existence of that which we call a crystal:

“GROWTH PATTERNS

All crystal growth patterns are ordered. No one knows how the crystals can come together and make the formation. Crystals grow from the outside, unlike that of a human being. Particles are attracted to the seed of the formation and then build on up in an orderly pattern. "The only way for a crystal to grow is for the right kind of atoms or molecules to reach its surfaces and fit themselves into the same pattern of order the tiny "seed" crystal has." Time and freedom are needed for the molecules to make perfect crystals.”
NEMESIS
The growth of crystals may be more interesting than that. There may be other ways that they can grow. Various 'quasicrystals' have been found which have aperioditic structural patterns. That is, the 'tiling' pattern around which their growth is stuctured is discontinuous.

This means that these crystals do not grow by just repeatedly adding the appropriate atoms at the boundary. They have to plan ahead in some way. It is not known how this is done. Roger Penrose suggests that it is quantum superposition of future states of the pattern which somehow guide their growth in the present, but I don't think anyone knows how it happens at the moment. It doesn't seem to make sense. These crystals grow in a way that doesn't seem to be algorithmic.

Originally posted by Canute
Hmm. Now I'd say you're making it very over complicated.


The growth of crystals may be more interesting than that. There may be other ways that they can grow. Various 'quasicrystals' have been found which have aperioditic structural patterns. That is, the 'tiling' pattern around which their growth is stuctured is discontinuous.

This means that these crystals do not grow by just repeatedly adding the appropriate atoms at the boundary. They have to plan ahead in some way. It is not known how this is done. Roger Penrose suggests that it is quantum superposition of future states of the pattern which somehow guide their growth in the present, but I don't think anyone knows how it happens at the moment. It doesn't seem to make sense. These crystals grow in a way that doesn't seem to be algorithmic.

Dear Canute:

Once again your comments are right on target. The bare bones of how a crystal grows was what I meant to demonstrate, but look at the results it produced! Thank you so much for this. I will pursue it further. And personally I don't think anything is too complicated. Part of the problem is people relying on simplistic thought for complex subjects. Having said that, there is no one right path for anyone.

In terms of what this patterning is, I keep returning to this book I've already read. Read about ten times now and I just keep reading it again and again. Each time I read it, it's like the first time for I discover more and more locked into its words and texture. It is "The Theoretic Arithmetic of the Pythagoreans" by Thomas Taylor. I can't help thinking this "crystal" is our very own soul. How it attracts to it what it needs to help us evolve. Not what we want to attract, but what it needs. We have this quote:

"The conceptions of the experimental philosopher who expects to find Truth in the labyrinths of matter, are, in this respect, not much more elevated than those of the vulgar: for he is ignorant that Truth is the most splendid of all things, that "she" (my emphasis) is the constant companion of Divinity, and proceeds together with him through the universe; that the shining traces of her feet are only conspicuous in form ; and that in the dark windings of matter she left nothing but a most obscure and fleeting resemblance of herself. This delusive phantom, however, the man of modern science ardently explores, unconscious that he is running in profound darkness and infinite perplexity, and that is hastening after an object which eludes all detection, and mocks all pursuit."

Then we have:

"Hence, the soul is essentialized in these forms, and neither must her inherent number be supposed to be a multitude of monads or units, nor must her idea of natures that are distended with interval, be conceived to subsist corporeally; but all the paradigms of apparent numbers and figures, ratios and motions, must be admitted to exist in her, vitally and intellectually, conformably to the Timaeus of Plato, who gives completion to all the generation and fabrication of the soul, from things. For the seven boundaries of all numbers, pre-exist in soul according to cause. And again, the principles of figures, are established in her in a fabricative manner. The first of motions also, and which comprehends and moves all the rest, are consubsistent with soul. For the circle, and a circular motion, are the principle of every thing which is moved. The mathematical productive principles therefore, which give completion to the soul, are essential, and self-motive; and the reasoning power exerting and evolving these, gives subsistence to all the variety of the mathematical sciences. Nor will she ever cease perpetually generating and discovering one science after another, in consequence of expanding the impartible forms she contains. For she antecedently received all things causally; and she will call forth into energy all various theorums, according to her own infinite power, from the principles which she previously received. …"

"…It contains, therefore, all of them essentially and occultly: but it unfolds each of them into light, when it is freed from the impediments originating from sense. For the senses connect the soul with divisible objects, imaginations fill her with figured motions, and appetites draw her down to a passive life. ..."

"…But while we are bound, and have the eye or the soul closed, we shall never obtain the perfection adapted to our nature."

“…For this being admitted, it follows that knowledge subsists according to the nature of that which knows, and not according to the nature of that which is known. …”

I could have very well quoted the whole damned book, but look at what is said. Is not the crystal the soul? And when our soul is closed and we do not seek, are we not deluding ourselves with the senses and gross appetites? And the divine lady becomes a whore? But when we spiritually progress, we draw to us that which we need...much like your comment!

Also there is another aspect found in yogic thought that would tend to support this crystal inside of us. That is the chakras and their colors. Why would light be refracted into these colors if white light were not passing through a crystal?

I also can't help but mentioning at this point, Native American and Celtic lore. They both state unequivocally that we could change shape. So in the beginning were we in a more liquid state? Did something happen to freeze or condense us? I remember in Greek mythology that Uranus was originally our father. Then Saturn or Kronos. Next, came Jupiter. Saturn in alchemy has always meant cold and solidification or contraction. Jupiter expansion. So was our true nature frozen and put into bondage?

These are just some of the questions that need to be addressed. If I believe Pythagoras, my soul pushes me in this direction. As is stated:

"..that to learn is nothing else than for the soul to recollect the productive principles which she contains."

So this is what I need to do. Raise the bar and keep on learning until I recollect and gather that which I need to grow.



NEMESIS

Argh, too much to read in one go! Gotta fire up that printer again. :D

Dear NEMESIS.

The reason I appretiate your inputs so much is simply because I too am very interested in Gnostic thought, but I am only very recently opening my eyes to it. I have only realy been studying it for about 6 months, and when I say studying I mean putting the teachings into practice. Therefore what you say interests me greatly, as I can see that you have thought about it at an in depth level. Yes, it's still at the point where your reasoning is subjective. But none the less, it's fascinating.

Good luck to you on your path.

Nemesis

As you say it is sometimes true that "Part of the problem is people relying on simplistic thought for complex subjects".

However imho the reverse is much more often true.

Originally posted by Canute
Nemesis

As you say it is sometimes true that "Part of the problem is people relying on simplistic thought for complex subjects".

However imho the reverse is much more often true.

I suppose it's there we officially disagree. Just knew it would happen one day.

My teachers are those that have tapped into the world knowledge and know all. Paracelsus or Flamel are examples of the types I mean. Einstein or Tesla would be others. I believe you are speaking of people who learn, but remain ignorant. The parrot syndrome. The articial memory system (the memory theater) that the Greeks so greatly criticized. Yes, ideas must be applied and completely understood. Like understanding unity. Otherwise you become no more than a walking dictionary. Dictionaries are fine, but since when is a dictionary Shakespeare? Further if our soul contains all forms, then it needs all forms to complete it.

For some reason most (not everyone) seems to be deluded into thinking that things are simple. Knowledge is not simple except on a comparative sliding scale. Like splitting the atom. That is simple for_________? (fill in the blank) It is because esoteric information is kept from the masses. It always has been. So people internalize New Age wolf vomit. Koans in and of themselves provoke thought. If you were not meant to think on a deeper level they would not be used. Further students have been historically separated so that this can be accomplished privately if not secretively.

In terms of explanations, understanding things gives you the needed tools to explain something simply. Like Einstein's famous, "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once." Do you think he perhaps knew more about this subject? Also information gives one the tools to interpret what is shown to them. One of my flashes was that when we learn, we do so by a process similar to holding down or pressing the black keys on a piano. I suppose it would be likened to hitting a chord involving the black keys. I was shown this very clearly. I still have no idea what it means. Other flashes have been confirmed. One was that we are programmed to die by some type of cell in our eyes. Slowly our eyes let in less and less light. The less light, the more havoc this plays on our cells as they cannot replicate properly nor can they remain healthy. Consequently, they begin to disintegrate. This causes our death. This happens with sound as well. That is the whole purpose behind yoga and meditation. Using mantra sounds helps gain needed energy for light and sound are two hands of the same arm of energy. Sounds provides energy internally. There is also a more profound reason for we have an inner sun much more powerful than the external sun we are dependent upon. If we do not find the path to our inner sun and switch the external dependence to the inner, we will indeed die. This has been validated recently as I did hear in the news of a cell in the eye that does just this. So my teachers and guides know what I need and what I need to know. They also know when I need validation for some of this information is "out there" and one begins to wonder if it is indeed correct.

So if you are not interested in knowledge, I am. Or if your knowledge seeking leads you in another direction, then Sat Nam. But I would find it ill-advised to criticize someone who attempts to gain knowledge. It's very funny that others have attempted to discourage this as well. In the summer, I sit outside on my front steps with a pile of books and read. The sunlight is very refreshing to read by. It seems everyone and their brother had a comment on why "I" should not be sitting there "wasting my time" reading. I finally put my headphones on and shut them out. That is some analogy is it not? It is the way of the world that sex, drugs and rock and roll seem to head the list of noble pursuits, while escape from this world through knowledge still remains at the bottom.

Dear exsto human:

If I may recommend one book to you on Gnostic thought. It is called 'The Hidden Tradition in Europe" by Yuri Stoyanov. It is an excellent book on so many levels. Perhaps you've already read it, but if you haven't I would suggest you do so.

Good luck to you and to anyone who pursues a path of spirituality. It is very hard work.


NEMESIS

Hmm. Ok, but I prefer the Buddhist approach to knowledge. They tend to burn their books somewhere along the way and I think it's for good reason. Still if you're comparing the pursuit of knowledge to sex, drugs and r&r then you have a point.

(Btw it wasn't Einstein said that, I think it was Everett or Wheeler)

Good luck

Canute

Originally posted by Canute
Hmm. Ok, but I prefer the Buddhist approach to knowledge. They tend to burn their books somewhere along the way and I think it's for good reason. Still if you're comparing the pursuit of knowledge to sex, drugs and r&r then you have a point.

(Btw it wasn't Einstein said that, I think it was Everett or Wheeler)

Good luck

Canute

Dear Canute:

I think at this point you are more showing your ego and the need for someone to take a stick to the side of your head than anything else.

What point do you make in these statements except that it is you that cannot apply information? Why do you feel the need to say that it was Wheeler or Everett or Einstein that originated the quote when I did not say anything such thing? Einstein made that statement. He is, in fact, famous for making it. It is here we try to not be a parrot and egotistical and think how could two people have said the same thing. Is it just possible the Einstein quoted or repeated what Wheeler said? If it is then again, why do you feel the need to assert yourself in this way since the point wasn't whether Einstein was the "originator" of this statement only that he was "famous" for it? Freud did not invent the Freudian slip either, but nonetheless the concept bears his name. The same is true for Tiffany lamps. Tiffany did not invent the process, but stole it.

Also in terms of the Buddhist approach to knowledge, you know nothing. Of course, they burn their books. They have TEACHERS who POSSESS all knowledge. If you have a direct master that teaches you all and puts you in line with knowing all, why would you need to read books that are mostly incorrect? Again, I really don't understand your point, Canute. Do you possibly think that these disciples are illiterate fools?

I think it is incumbent upon me now in receiving such responses from you to ask myself why? To figure out what shadow side of myself you represent. The answer is loud and clear for I often berate myself for pursuing "knowledge" when this "knowledge" does not get me anywhere. You can't use it at parties as it is usually a little too heavy to speak of on a social occasion. You can't speak of it in intellectual discussions as it is tinged with religion and, therefore, you run the risk of offending some and getting into a fight. You can't get ahead with it as it has nothing to do with material success and the material world. And, of course, you can't even speak about it to the general public because people, like you, just don't get it. So then why? I do so for ME. For my freedom and release. As I stated in another post, I am not a Buddhist. At heart, I am a Gnostic and Alchemist. That is what I initially started pursuing and this all led me directly to yogic thought since all methodologies are chasing the same goal. I incorporate and interpret what I need to and do so by the same internal guidance that has led me to this point.

So I would say you are divided. You say you wish me and others to remain ignorant and yet you yourself parse. You say you do not wish me to teach and say what I know and yet you try to lecture me. I share what I have learned and you tell me that you know more by nit-picking and yet offering nothing. Is there a measuring line in the sand that I do not see? Or is there a mark only you see and on which you compare yourself to others with? According to Ouspensky, comparative knowledge is part of the formatory apparatus that doesn't even approach thought and therefore can only be considered a reaction. Thought is when you no longer compare and instead know what you are and what you know. So I say to you that I know what I am and what I know. If you cannot see that or do not care to, then it is because of a defect in you. I do not want nor seek your validation.

So get your own house in order and then you may throw stones. Or wield sticks....but I suggest you use it first on yourself.

Sat Nam, Canute,


NEMESIS

Nemesis

That is undoubtedly the all-time strangest response I've ever received on this forum. It's certainly the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard about Buddhism.

As to Einstein I couldn't give a damn who said your quote. I think you're wrong but if you don't care I don't. Do you have an assertiveness problem?

My apologies for doubting your great wisdom and certainty, I shall try not to make the same mistake again.

Nemesis

A while ago you wrote this.

"I quite agree with you about us being one entity. We all have the same source. We are somehow refracted. Like an image in a broken mirror. Interestingly enough, if a hologram is broken, each tiny piece reflects the exact same image as the whole. It’s something to consider. This refracted mirror theory is something I am working on at the moment in a psychological sense."

Have you come across the metaphor of 'Indra's Net'? In case not here's a beautiful description. (Sorry about the upper case, it came that way and I can't be bothered to change it).

****

FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE

THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977

Originally posted by Canute
Nemesis

That is undoubtedly the all-time strangest response I've ever received on this forum. It's certainly the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard about Buddhism.

As to Einstein I couldn't give a damn who said your quote. I think you're wrong but if you don't care I don't. Do you have an assertiveness problem?

My apologies for doubting your great wisdom and certainty, I shall try not to make the same mistake again.

Um, thank you?

And I don't remember saying nor can I see where I've said anything about Buddhism other than they are learned and that their teachers know all. And this offends you?



Originally posted by Canute
Nemesis

A while ago you wrote this.

"I quite agree with you about us being one entity. We all have the same source. We are somehow refracted. Like an image in a broken mirror. Interestingly enough, if a hologram is broken, each tiny piece reflects the exact same image as the whole. It’s something to consider. This refracted mirror theory is something I am working on at the moment in a psychological sense."

Have you come across the metaphor of 'Indra's Net'? In case not here's a beautiful description. (Sorry about the upper case, it came that way and I can't be bothered to change it).

****

FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE

THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977


Did you have a change of heart? Or is it that you have not given up on me?

Thank you for this. Again, it is validation for the information I have received. No, I did not read this, but what I was shown and taught is much the same thing. It means I am coming to a true understanding of what this actually means. I just interpreted it in my own way, but the meaning behind both descriptions is not subjective and a truth.

As far as knowledge goes, I in no way take credit for being intelligent or think myself wise. I am still an asshole in all senses of the word. I have been SHOWN and TAUGHT things. There is a huge difference. If I told you what I was shown last night (a fleeting image upon awakening in the middle of the night), you would have some idea of what I have been up against. I have been following the most ephemeral of paths. I do not have a flesh-and-blood teacher. That is why these "footprints" that others have left, let me know that I am following the invisible, tasteless, intangible bread crumbs and going in the right direction.

I again take no credit for anything that I stumble upon for it's all about world knowledge. Tapping into it and then you know. It comes from God or the source and returns to it.

But we must make ourselves open to listen and learn. Are we in agreement on this?



NEMESIS

Originally posted by NEMESIS
[B]Um, thank you?
Total sarcasm I'm afraid. I was bloody annoyed at your unwarranted, arrogant and insulting post. Never mind, I'll live.


And I don't remember saying nor can I see where I've said anything about Buddhism other than they are learned and that their teachers know all. And this offends you?
What you said was this, with great authority:

"Also in terms of the Buddhist approach to knowledge, you know nothing. Of course, they burn their books. They have TEACHERS who POSSESS all knowledge. If you have a direct master that teaches you all and puts you in line with knowing all, why would you need to read books that are mostly incorrect? Again, I really don't understand your point, Canute. Do you possibly think that these disciples are illiterate fools?"

The fact that this is utter nonsense does not in itself offend me. However the way you arrogantly state it does, as does your your comment that 'you know nothing'. Perhaps I do, but you don't know that, and you are very clearly not in a position to judge. It is hard not to see such comments as profoundly arrogant. You haven't done the research.


Did you have a change of heart? Or is it that you have not given up on me?
Yes and yes. I decided your post was so odd that you must have been on something when you wrote it.


Thank you for this. Again, it is validation for the information I have received. No, I did not read this, but what I was shown and taught is much the same thing. It means I am coming to a true understanding of what this actually means. I just interpreted it in my own way, but the meaning behind both descriptions is not subjective and a truth.
Be careful of taking a metaphor for the real thing. Indra's Net is something to be understood through experience, not via second hand metaphorical descriptions. An intellectual understanding of it is useful but it is no replacement for observation and direct knowledge of it. One does not learn much about a painting by reading someone elses description of it, one has to go and look.


As far as knowledge goes, I in no way take credit for being intelligent or think myself wise. I am still an asshole in all senses of the word. I have been SHOWN and TAUGHT things. There is a huge difference. If I told you what I was shown last night (a fleeting image upon awakening in the middle of the night), you would have some idea of what I have been up against. I have been following the most ephemeral of paths. I do not have a flesh-and-blood teacher. That is why these "footprints" that others have left, let me know that I am following the invisible, tasteless, intangible bread crumbs and going in the right direction.
You may well be right. However I'll stick my neck out and suggest that you may be not entirely heading in the right direction, and are in danger of over-intellectualising something that can not only be known and understood more simply but, as most philosophers assert, which cannot be known at all by means of reasoning alone.


But we must make ourselves open to listen and learn. Are we in agreement on this?
I'm not quite sure yet. :)

Originally posted by Canute
Total sarcasm I'm afraid. I was bloody annoyed at your unwarranted, arrogant and insulting post. Never mind, I'll live.

What you said was this, with great authority:

"Also in terms of the Buddhist approach to knowledge, you know nothing. Of course, they burn their books. They have TEACHERS who POSSESS all knowledge. If you have a direct master that teaches you all and puts you in line with knowing all, why would you need to read books that are mostly incorrect? Again, I really don't understand your point, Canute. Do you possibly think that these disciples are illiterate fools?"

The fact that this is utter nonsense does not in itself offend me. However the way you arrogantly state it does, as does your your comment that 'you know nothing'. Perhaps I do, but you don't know that, and you are very clearly not in a position to judge. It is hard not to see such comments as profoundly arrogant. You haven't done the research.


Yes and yes. I decided your post was so odd that you must have been on something when you wrote it.


Be careful of taking a metaphor for the real thing. Indra's Net is something to be understood through experience, not via second hand metaphorical descriptions. An intellectual understanding of it is useful but it is no replacement for observation and direct knowledge of it. One does not learn much about a painting by reading someone elses description of it, one has to go and look.


You may well be right. However I'll stick my neck out and suggest that you may be not entirely heading in the right direction, and are in danger of over-intellectualising something that can not only be known and understood more simply but, as most philosophers assert, which cannot be known at all by means of reasoning alone.


I'm not quite sure yet. :)

I find this all interesting. For some reason, my higher mind is kicking in and I am not reacting to what you are saying. And the only thing I am on is a chair. But I think the criticism was an interesting way of getting your foot up my ass.

Since I'm inert at the moment, I find it interesting that first you said something that obviously bothered me. I reacted. My reaction bothered you. Why? Not because I had insulted Buddhism as you initially stated, but because I had insulted YOU. Now the thing to keep in mind is that because of my reaction and your reaction to that which I stated, you would know and have experienced what I felt concerning this feeling of being insulted. This would be in keeping with your notion that reasoning alone can not bring us this type of Gnosis. So you yourself experienced that process which is known as "being insulted." But rather than realize what was internally processed and handed to you on a silver platter, you state again that which initially caused my reaction which was, "However I'll stick my neck out and suggest that you may be not entirely heading in the right direction, and are in danger of over-intellectualising something that can not only be known and understood more simply but, as most philosophers assert, which cannot be known at all by means of reasoning alone." Hmmm....I suggest to you at this point that you have not followed your own advice. I have followed my mirror theory and see this quite clearly and do not want to go through the same thing twice. So it seems my methodology is working quite well. Not that it is better than yours, but it is bringing me to a dispassionate place where I can learn and not react. That is where I wish to be for it is there we learn because we can see.

So I will cease reacting to what you say in an emotional way. I will also cease to fear your reactions to what I may think or the path I choose. If I don't know what I'm doing is correct, how can I expect others to know? Further why would I care? I also feel much the same as you do about internal experiences, so I don't know why the difference in opinion about this when there is none. Do you suppose that I am replacing this with the written word? No, the words are giving a context and a path to follow. Like in this post for instance. This is what I consider zone fusion and what was known by the Alchemists. For the hallmark of Western experimentation is to change or vary something to achieve a varied result. But to achieve zone fusion, one repeats the exact same process...for every once in a while a magical transformation happens.

Consequently, I will do what I would not have done before. I will post the rest of my diatribe and silly intellectualization for those who may get something out of it. Please note, dear Canute, that Parts I and II are to be read in conjunction with Part II.

Thank you again for your note to me and for the smiley face.


“I want to know God’s thoughts…the rest are details.” Albert Einstein

HIGHER INTELLIGENCE — PART II

This will be a follow-up to my prior treatise on the beginnings of higher thought and transformation. This is at the request of one. You can see it does not take much to get me started. I should say at the outset that for me, the above quotation says it all.

Since we are discussing a triune deity (the brain), I thought it appropriate to break this discussion three parts: I. Missing Symbols: Why We Need Dream Interpretation, II. The Brain’s Division as Explained Through Greek Mythology, and III. The True Place of Consciousness — The Heart.

“I become aware of something in me that flashes upon my reason, I perceive of it that it is something but what it is I cannot see. It seems to me only, that, if I could conceive it, I would comprehend all truth” Meister Eckhart writing about a Pagan sage meeting another

I. Missing Symbols: Why We Need Dream Interpretation

At one time alphabets were based and related to “shape-forms.” Some of the earliest examples of linear symbols in Europe were found in Magdalenian cave sites (12,000-17,000 years before the present time). There is also a skull discovered at Mezhirich in the Ukraine, painted with tiver (red ochre) that dates from 14,000 years ago. These identifiable symbols are still recognizable today. They include the runes, the cross, the swastika and many religious and magical sigils. Why the need for these symbols? You see, they were based on the notion of entopic forms. Entopic forms are those forms seen when the eyes are shut. Theories abound, but one thing is clear. Neurophysiology has identified phosphenes, geometric shapes and images embedded in our subconscious. These are lodged within our visual cortex and neural system. When one’s consciousness has been altered, these forms are produced. They are universal in nature so it matters not from what country, educational background or supposed religious elitism one finds themselves believing in. These entopic forms used in meditation are for one thing only. They are the pathways that lead to trance. Thus the hidden use of alphabets that used these shapes to generate their form. They were used to induce trance to help us find our way home.

Our present day alphabets are not built along such lines. They have no such meaning and so language has further separated the great divide between right and left brains, and our subconscious and conscious minds. While our left brains easily understand this strange enigma of language, in order for our subconscious to understand, this knowledge must be broken down into symbols that the ancient languages incorporated into their form. This is the reason that in any system of magic or meditative practice, one is introduced to such profound symbolism. A magical alphabet simply MUST be learned. The reason is obvious. This alphabet is clearly understood by all parts of the brain and needs no translation. Therefore, the conscious and subconscious minds can freely communicate with one another. For example, the early Egyptians had a ‘one sound, one sight’ system of writing. By the key to this great concept being lost, we have lost the ability to make proper use of our dreams. We are reduced to “guessing” at what our dreams mean as opposed to “knowing.” That is a huge difference. Take also into account that our subconscious holds universal knowledge and you can see that it is most imperative that a bridge be built. A system of symbolism must be learned anew in order for us to make full use of our subconscious mind.

By way of explaining this division between conscious and subconscious, we turn to Greek mythology. It will be the topic covered in the next section. For some, let this story and the following section present you with the key to tapping into knowledge. For now let us stick to this notion of division and how this occurred. We can thank Demeter that we at least have access to our subconscious part of the time. For Zeus thought it fine for his daughter, Persephone, to be kidnapped and married to Pluto. (The name of this God is also a source of contention. Some argue that Pluto is a Roman name and that Hades is the Greek name of this God. Others argue still that Hades is the place and not the name of a God. In Latin and Greek Pluto means “wealth” so I choose to call this God Pluto.) Had Persephone stayed in Hades with no access given to reaching her, we would be doomed. Demeter pleaded with Zeus to tell her where her daughter was, but he would not. Demeter would not accept this fate handed to her daughter and so blighted the earth of all crops. Hekate finally heard of Demeter’s anguish and told her where her sweet child could be found and in some tales, aids the journey. It is because of Demeter (and Hekate) that we have the chance of transforming and reuniting with Persephone. For we can communicate with her in our sleep or half the time. As I said, once you find where her door is, you do not have to wait until dark to say hello.

(Part II already posted)

“God’s ultimate purpose is birth. He is not content until he brings his Son to birth in us.
— Meister Eckhart

III. The True Place of Consciousness — The Heart

In occult thought there is the profound concept of the “hidden one that lies within our hearts.” There are stories of Rosicrucians who walk the earth who belong to this select group of individuals that have awakened their Sacrificed God. I tell you right now, if someone identifies themselves as a Rosicrucian, they are not. But what is this notion and how prevalent is it? It seems to cross many religions and is a Gnostic experience. A self-revelation and realization.

“Then, set free from the worlds of sense and of intellect, the soul enters into the mysterious obscurity of a holy ignorance, and ..... loses itself into him who can be neither seen nor apprehended ..Then the soul comes to know a special joy: fruition of the touch divine.” – Meister Eckhart

In yoga there is the concept of the tri-fold body, each body encased or sheathed in one another. Layer upon layer. There is first, the causal body. The next, the subtle body. Last we come to the gross body, the body that we see. Each has its own identity and one must get down to the core to find the center of it all. You see there is this notion of karma. For now, I am not concerned with anyone’s “belief” in this. It is a fact. Karmic seeds are chemical residues leftover from our former physical manifestations. Adrenalin leaves its traces so each and every time you have an adrenalin rush, I tell you now that you will pay. In alchemy, an even temperament is key. They refer to it as not overheating the Great Work. The Great Work of Transformation must be performed with an even heat. This means not losing your temper or becoming unduly emotional. But what of this heart consciousness? I touched on it briefly in an answer previously posted. Here is an excerpt of what I wrote:

“You see, you are at this time ONLY using your brain to think. The brain is NOT the central location for higher thought, but conversely, the brain MUST BE UNITED AND PERFECTED before this higher center is found. At that moment, the intelligence “flips” and you begin thinking from your heart. This is what the Greeks, most notably Aristotle, thought and tried to communicate. As always in casting pearls before swine, the meaning was lost and misconstrued and some have mocked Aristotle’s profound vision. Mocking others has always been, and always will be, the tool of the weak-minded and ignorant. You see, in the truth that he spoke he confirmed that the heart, not the brain, was the location of intelligence and thought. Ancient Egyptians also held this belief. The Egyptians scooped out the brain through the nostrils and threw it away after death. However, the heart and other internal organs were removed carefully and preserved.”

I quote from the Upanishads:

“The Self, smaller than small, greater than great, is hidden in the heart of the creature. A man who has left all grief behind, sees the majesty, the Lord, the passionless, by the grace of the creator (the Lord).”

“That god, the maker of all things, the great Self, always dwelling in the heart of man, is perceived by the heart, the soul, the mind;- they who know it become immortal.”

“His form cannot be seen, no one perceives him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know him thus abiding in the heart, become immortal.”

I now quote from Dr. Paul Deussen:

“The heart is called hridayam, because 'it is he' who dwells 'in the heart' (hridi ayam, Chand. 8.3.3.), small as a grain of rice or barley; an inch in height the purusha dwells in the midst of the body, as the self of created things in the heart…”.

"…Similarly numerous passages in the later Upanishads celebrate Brahman as 'implanted in the cavity of the heart.' The identity of the atman in us with the atman of the universe is expressed by the tat tvam asi of Chand. 6.8-16, and also by the etad vai tad, 'in truth this is that,' of Brih. We quote in this connection only Kath. 4.12-13:

An inch in height, here in the body
The purusha dwells,
Lord of the past and the future;
He who knows him frets no more, -
In truth, this is that.
Like flame without smoke, an inch in height
The purusha is in size,
Lord of the past and the future;
It is he today and also tomorrow, -
In truth, this is that…”

“…As here the purusha is compared to a smokeless flame, so in imitation of this passage, in S'vet. 6. 19, it is likened to a fire whose fuel is consumed; while in S'vet. 5. 9, the contrast between the atman within us and the atman in the universe is pushed to an extreme:

Split a hundred times the tip of a hair,
And take a hundredth part thereof;
That I judge to be the size of the soul,
Yet it goes to immortality…”

“…The description of the atman as a smokeless flame in the heart has been developed in the Yogi Upanishads into the picture of the tongue of flame in the heart, the earliest occurrence of which is perhaps Mahan. 11. 6-12."
- Deussen, Dr. Paul, Philosophy of the Upanishads

Let us concentrate on the smokeless flame for here is the miracle of change. In order to activate this smokeless flame, one must activate Shakti, Shakti is the female energy that lies at the base of our spine. She has always been symbolized in the form of a snake. She lies coiled. Sleeping. She needs to be reunited with her Greater King, Shiva. This in turn unifies the body and brain in a chemical way. It is close in concept to the Bose-Einstein condensate. For in terms of kundalini, the physical body itself is often regarded as an atom in the body of the human kingdom. What does this mean? It means that Shakti must heat the body up which, in turn, brightens the smokeless flame. This burns up the karmic damage we have done to ourselves making our seeds dormant, but it sets the stage for the dramatic conclusion. Finding unity. For the law of polarity is followed and as the body is heated up, it reacts and cools down. How does this work? The particles making up the material world are of two types: fermion and boson. Fermions are antisocial particles and demand a quantum state of their own. Bosons are social particles and come together in the same state. The bosons obey the Bose-Einstein statistics. The fermions, the Fermi-Dirac statistics. Now electrons are fermion in nature and when bound to nuclei, exist in a shell. This shell allows them to co-habit their own quantum state. But the bosons are different. When an atom is cooled, its wavelength increases. If the atoms cooled are bosons, and their wavelengths overlap, they merge and lose their individual identities. They enter into a quantum state that is indistinguishable from one another and are said to, “dance in perfect unison.” Eric A. Cornell and Carl A. Wieman, “The Bose-Einstein Condensate,” Scientific American (March) 40-45 (1998). Now when these atoms congeal, a very dense medium occurs. The speed of light is slowed down when passing through it. This becomes curious as the yogis have always talked of finding the space between thoughts. Can this medium that is formed allow that space to become apparent? Think of a propeller on an airplane. When at rest, you can easily pass your hand through the gaps. But when the propeller is spinning, try to find the holes even though you know they are there.

The interesting thing is that the practice of kundalini yoga causes such dramatic temperature fluctuations. Some experience their bodies burning up with heat. Hot flashes will occur and some are up all night in discomfort, but then everything slides in the opposite direction. Then one is confronted with intense, bone-chilling cold. I do not know which is worse, but I am just grateful both states occur. For at the end of this grueling process our body, we have taken off our shell and our “atom” (or Adam) is now ready to unite.

We do not have to search the Gnostic texts for long before we see a connection to this concept:

“This Father God created then, seven realms, each more material than the last, until finally this human world was formed and the beings of this world rose and walked, crawled or flew through the skies. But the Father God was vain and jealous, angry and forbidding, not knowing the power of the higher Aeons, nor of the Pleroma, nor even of his own Mother, the Divine Sophia. And when the Divine Sophia instructed him and opened his mind to Truth, he was amazed and refused to divulge these mysteries to those of his own creation. Being a god of the material, social and psychic order, it was not possible for him to be a teacher of the higher mysteries, and Sophia was dismayed by his wrath, anger and jealousy. So when he created the first human beings, She was there and secretly, without his knowing, She gave to them the gift of the Holy Spirit as a divine spark in every human heart.

And it is said, that in the Garden of Eden, created by the lower Father God, that Eve was the manifestation of the Lower Wisdom and that the serpent or snake of the tree, was actually the Christos who urged Eve to eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge that she might attain the true Gnosis or knowledge of her origins and realize the Higher Sophia in perfect illumination and bliss. But the Father God, discovering that this secret teaching was disturbing his supremacy in the lower realms grew angry and cast them out of the garden and into the suffering of the world. Yet each and every descendent has this spark and the potential to recover the true Gnosis.

It is also said that it was for this reason that the Christos manifest as a human being, to bring the gift of the Holy Spirit, in all its female power and capacity, to liberate those who cast free from the illusions of the material and psychic realms and to ascend through visions of power and knowledge to the Higher Gnosis, to reunite the lower and higher self, to attain to visionary truth and perfect transparency. The Divine Sophia is the manifest presence of that vision, and this tale, one of Her symbolic forms. And the snake, an image of Higher Wisdom, is a true teacher that reconciles the desires and passions of knowledge with higher insight, overcomes the limitations of a jealous and demanding lesser god and transmits the teachings of the Divine Sophia. In this way, it is said, the faithful attain peace and the passionate, union, holiness and joy.” – Zos Imos

Then we have the words of Christ Himself:

“Most truly I say unto you, unless anyone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born of the spirit is spirit. — Jesus

You see how perfectly Christ’s concise statement is when viewed in the context of this rebirth in the heart. The fact that Jesus is the keeper of the Sacred Heart should make what I am trying to convey crystal clear. The fact that he uses the words, “water and spirit,” should make it even more apparent. For the soul is of water and the spirit fire. It is in the heart we may find Christ as he promised. If this is not enough for you, we have this quotation:

“We are born into the world of nature; our second birth is into the world of spirit.” — Bhagavad Gita

Again, they are almost identical. Our first birth is through our earthly biological mother from a seed of our earthly biological father. Our next birth, and THERE MUST BE A NEXT BIRTH TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD, is through this spiritual birth. This dropping of birth to the genitals was what the Gnostics described as The Great Fall. They also believed the heart to be the center of creation.

So I have given you many examples of this heart-centered God from many different sources. Is it true that we have such a consciousness living within us? Hidden away awaiting rebirth? It is for each and every one of us to experience this truth. It works no other way. While some are privileged to know a teacher and take things on faith, we still will not realize what is being spoken of until we experience it. It is when our consciousness is flipped and our heart replaces our brain that we are truly enlightened. Compassion reigns and it is only then we are truly home.

From my heart to yours, a sincere wish that you find your King.

Sat Nam,


NEMESIS

Sorry mate. You don't bother to read what I write so I'll do the same.

Dear Canute:

I can assure you that I always read what you have to say. I enjoy reading you and hearing your take on things. I have on more than one occasion, actually thanked you for what you have said.

I am understanding that our reactions to people have more to do with ourselves than what the other individual actually does. I have seen one person say or do something and not even cause a ripple in the pond, but when someone else does or says the exact same thing, all hell breaks loose.

Given this, I would ask what side of yourself do I represent? Further, why do you have such a difficult time dealing with it?



NEMESIS

My problem is that you do not deal with the issues, but just make lengthy announcements.

I made a point about over-intellectualisation and Buddhism. You immediately told me that I know nothing about it. This is not a normal approach to communication, especially when you have no idea what I know and what I don't. It is more normal to address the point that's been made rather than get personal, saying stuff like:

"So I would say you are divided. You say you wish me and others to remain ignorant and yet you yourself parse. You say you do not wish me to teach and say what I know and yet you try to lecture me. I share what I have learned and you tell me that you know more by nit-picking and yet offering nothing. Is there a measuring line in the sand that I do not see? Or is there a mark only you see and on which you compare yourself to others with? According to Ouspensky, comparative knowledge is part of the formatory apparatus that doesn't even approach thought and therefore can only be considered a reaction. Thought is when you no longer compare and instead know what you are and what you know. So I say to you that I know what I am and what I know. If you cannot see that or do not care to, then it is because of a defect in you. I do not want nor seek your validation.

So get your own house in order and then you may throw stones. Or wield sticks....but I suggest you use it first on yourself. "

Well, pardon me for expressing an opinion.

To continue -

To prove that you do know all about it you then confidently posted a completely incorrect statement about Buddhism that clearly shows that you don't fully understand it. When I point this out you assume that I have a personality disorder rather than a point. You do not ask me to explain my point, you accuse me of egotism and assume that I have been personally offended. The thought that you may be wrong about Buddhism (or itellectualisation) does not cross your mind, and you completely therefore ignore what I said in favour of pissing me off.

Rather than address my point you write this:

"Since I'm inert at the moment, I find it interesting that first you said something that obviously bothered me. I reacted. My reaction bothered you. Why? Not because I had insulted Buddhism as you initially stated, but because I had insulted YOU. Now the thing to keep in mind is that because of my reaction and your reaction to that which I stated, you would know and have experienced what I felt concerning this feeling of being insulted. This would be in keeping with your notion that reasoning alone can not bring us this type of Gnosis. So you yourself experienced that process which is known as "being insulted."

I can't keep up with all this. You didn't insult Buddhism, you just misrepresented it. I didn't feel insulted, I felt you were being stupid by failing to consider that your opinion might be wrong. My annoyance was at your arrogance in assuming that that my comments were motivated by ego rather than constituting valid objections that might be worth discussing.

I don't mind starting again, but only if you address my words, not continually ignore them in favour of character assassination or postal psycho-analysis. People are not necessarily trying to put down, nor necessarily mentally deranged, just because they disagree with you. Nor are you necessarily right just because you say so.

Dear NEMESIS, before saying this I'll just say that I have no where near read everything you have said so forgive me for this.

Gathering from what I've read, let me suggest to you that perhaps you do not understand as much as you think you do. Now I have no way of knowing how you react to the above statement, but just PERHAPS there is a hint of fear and/or incredulity towards my words (because you perhaps see your own intelect as superior to mine)?
If this should be the case is it not possible that the statement is grounded in some truth, that you are missing something vitaly important but are covering this hole with over intelectualization, and didactic dialectic.

Don't get me wrong, I value your words, and while writing this I am trying to observe my own egos reason for writing this, for example perhaps there is a fear in me that you are completely correct and that I am just too lazy to go about all this intelectualization and logical reasoning to get to the level that you are at. I hope you see what I am trying to do here.

Let me just say this, you say much :D. And I question this verbal diarrhea. Most spiritual leaders are very laconic people, and I have a sneaky suspition that those of them that are true awakened and enlightened masters, being free from the conceptual prison of the ego, are infact able to understand everything through instantaneous intuition.

I have as a # 1 rule to always observe the ''myself'', how successfull the 'I' am is however a completely different story.

Dear Canute and Exsto Human:

You may think anything you like. I find it very amusing and interesting that you have chosen to say the things you have to me. Before I had this interchange with you I had a dream about a tiger that was killed. I knew what was coming by this symbolism and knew how to handle this situation because of it. That has always my litmus test. Can I untangle my unconscious or subconscious thoughts and the answer is, "Yes." I have handed the both of you the methodology to do so, but you have chosen for whatever reason to ignore/dismiss my verbal diarrhea. So be it.

Exsto Human, from an objective standpoint, I don't know what spiritual leaders you are talking about. And to attribute the word "laconic" to them is amusing to me for an entirely different reason, but it follows perfectly the stream I am wading in. For I constantly refer to the current U.S. regime that is in power in Washington as "The Spartans." There are so many similarities, it is like taking Greek History 101. And now you have used the word, "laconic" to refer to great spiritual leaders? When the word's derivation is this:

"Word History: The study of the classics allows one to understand the history of the term laconic, which comes to us via Latin from Greek Laknikos. The English word is first recorded in 1583 with the sense “of or relating to Laconia or its inhabitants.” Laknikos is derived from Lakn, “a Laconian, a person from Lacedaemon,” the name for the region of Greece of which Sparta was the capital. The Spartans, noted for being warlike and disciplined, were also known for the brevity of their speech, and it is this quality that English writers still denote by the use of the adjective laconic, which is first found in this sense in 1589."

So this is what you look for in leaders? A bunch of lewd, crude, ignorant men who eschew art and beauty in lieu of war? Might I suggest the Mongols?

As I said, my "spiritual teachers" are the likes of Paracelsus, Michael Sendivogius, Nicholas Flamel and the like. They used words freely and were never intimidated to limit them to a specific count. Instead they used as many as would describe that which they needed to say. Also Exsto Human, if you really are going to investigate Gnostic thought, be prepared to read many, many, many words. They, too, let their words flow like wine. Nag Hammadi is one small example.

In terms of whether you accept what I say as stupidity or brilliance, the dream of the tiger told me to walk the talk and rely only on pure action without fear of an outcome. That is what I did. The only thing I care about is getting my king on his throne. The momentary victory of this grueling task was enough to prove to me that I'm on the right track. I'm sure I will continue to make mistakes as I'm not perfect, but finding that divine part of myself is something neither of you can ever take away. I still think about it. Perhaps the chance to find yours was something I offered in my gift to you, and that which you have thrown away?

So, Sat Nam, to both of you. May you find whatever it is you are looking for.



NEMESIS

Yes, well, er, thanks for making that clear. Nat sam to you too, assuming it means cheerio.

Originally posted by Canute
Yes, well, er, thanks for making that clear. Nat sam to you too, assuming it means cheerio.

Dear Canute:

You reveal who you are more and more. Here is the exact meaning of Sat Nam as posted on the www.kundaliniyoga.org website -

"Sat Nam - Seed Mantra

One of the features of Kundalini yoga that makes it so powerful is that we do several things simultaneously. We (1) breathe, (2) internally chant and (3) move (4) in a particular posture or Asana.

The internal chant that we mentally vibrate is SAT NAM. As we breathe, we mentally inhale SAT. As we exhale we mentally vibrate NAM. Listen to the sound Saaaaaat and Naaaam in your mind.

SAT NAM is a Bij Mantra or a "seed sound." Chanting Sat Nam is like planting a grain of sand in an oyster. Our truth gathers around the grain. Over time, as we accumulate our gifts and gather our true essence into our consciousness, we become the pearl of Self.

MEANING

SAT means Truth, unchanging universal truth. It is the vibration that is ever-present.

NAM means name, identity, to name, to call upon, to identify with.

SAT NAM means "Truth is my identity."

When we chant Sat Nam (out loud or internally), we resonate with our true identity, with our own truth.

Greeting others with the salutation Sat Nam, we acknowledge the other's true identity and our mutual divine identities.

Sat Nam is a potent affirmation and a powerful way to cleanse the mind of negative programming. Over time our minds tune into and resonate with who we really are and believe our soul instead of our limited ego. Sat Nam is inner psychology at work."

I practice Kundalini yoga and as a sign of respect to others, I greet them and say goodbye in this way. I'm sorry you don't find it necessary to show the same respect.

Sat Nam,


NEMESIS

I have the most interesting reaction to what you say. :)

It's a need to defend my possition.

I wish not to offend you, but I believe that if you are offended. It's because you still need to be offended. You need to feel this emotion in order to learn.

So infact the more I offend you the better.

I will print all that you have said, and take it into deep consideration.

Sat Nam, my friend. :)

Reading again, I see that you are infact not offended. I admire that.

I would be.

Saying that I changed my mind and totaly agree with you would still be pointless. I can't perfectly 'agree' with you untill I experience it myself.

I hope you can awaken your master soon.

Originally posted by exsto_human
Reading again, I see that you are infact not offended. I admire that.

I would be.

Saying that I changed my mind and totaly agree with you would still be pointless. I can't perfectly 'agree' with you untill I experience it myself.

I hope you can awaken your master soon.

Dear Exsto Human:

What can I say except thank you! Thank you for rereading and making that extra effort to actually "think" and not just react. I will have more to say about this for I think in your previous reply you have touched on a very important subject.

As to my not being offended, I am truly grateful that you can see this. I worked long and hard not to be pulled into things and not be led by my emotions. They truly are bondage.

In terms of this entire thread, I am so glad to be a part of it. This thread has turned into a little microcosm of life. It has all the elements and can be used as an invaluable teaching tool.

Now onto this other point concerning reactions and emotions.



Originally posted by exsto_human
I have the most interesting reaction to what you say. :)

It's a need to defend my possition.

I wish not to offend you, but I believe that if you are offended. It's because you still need to be offended. You need to feel this emotion in order to learn.

So infact the more I offend you the better. ...


Sat Nam, my friend. :)


This is the part that is fascinating! Notice how you identify what you do as a reaction. Notice how this reaction actually blinds you into thinking that this is how you "think" about what I've said. Notice also how this "reaction" (not thought) initially keeps you in the game (strengthening your position) and actually attempts to pull me into this game because of this. I am not saying that I have never done this, or that I am better than you. Please do not take it that way. It is just that this is a perfect example of the magnetic nature of emotions.

I had a very clear awakening of this point during a stint at this one particular workplace. There was a gentleman there that started flirting with me. I was not interested. It soon turned into abject harassment. I would go home in tears every night. Now the point is not a plea for sympathy, but that I left this place because I could not deal with it any longer. It had become that intolerable to me. Several months later, I saw this "gentleman" on the street. He looked at me and started grinning from ear-to-ear. It was then the lightbulb went on. I realized, "He thinks this is a game!" It then was clear to me that because of his emotions, he had started a game that he was likening to foreplay. Because of my reaction, he thought I was "playing" this game. Also because of my reaction, I was in fact "playing" this game, the same way a deer running from a predator plays the game of victim. An animal reacts on instinct, and if you run from a dog, more often than not, he will attack. This is what separates instinct and emotions from thought.

Now naturally sympathies are generally on the side of the victim, and I am NOT saying that any stupid, senseless game that someone comes up with is the victim's FAULT. This gets into the entire nature or what is right and what is wrong and is another post for another day. What I am attempting to make is an objective point about the nature of THE GAME itself. Because of this duality and polarization, we sometimes gain "energy" from a certain position or stance we take. When we feel a person react in the opposite direction, a magnetic charge has taken place. We then justify our initial posturing by the rationale that this energy has given us. Therefore, we see the other person as "needing" or 'wanting" us to continue this posturing as this is part of THE GAME we play. This is why abusers so often think their victims are "pushing their buttons" and "playing" a game with them. This gives them justification for continuing it and knocking them around. Also as stalkers and their victims. The stalkers are "convinced" that their victims are really in love with them or why would they react in such a way? Is this making sense to you? I hope so. It is so vital and so important a lesson for us all to take in. For we need to see what part we play in the drama and why things happen the way they do. Again, it is not about who is right or who is wrong here, it is about UNDERSTANDING HOW THINGS WORK. This can lead us to a point where we do not play these games any longer and do not ATTRACT this kind of behavior to us any longer. This leads me perfectly to another point I wished to make.

The fact that I am not having an emotional response now is grand. Wonderful. It allows me to see what is written here in a new light. Not from my ego's standpoint, but from the standpoint of knowledge in the larger sense. This is the what I was trying to say about knowledge and reading. It is not that I disagree about the intellectualization of a process. I clearly understood the point both you and Canute made. But very often, intellectualization is THE PROCESS by which you acquire an internalization and a GNOSIS. It is the path that often needs to be traveled. Now in certain rare cases, GNOSIS happens spontaneously. This does happen and I will not deny its existence nor that fact. But more often than not, Gnosis comes about as a direct result of gunning the engine of thought. Just like starting the car engine does not in and of itself make you arrive at your destination, it is the initiation of the process that will allow you to arrive at your destination.

And thank you for your wish that I find my master. I, too, wish this with all my heart. I also wish it for you, Canute, and for the rest of the world. It is a sincere wish and comes from the bottom of my heart.

Sat Nam and if I may say, I believe you are well on your way!



NEMESIS

:D

I will not make any input to the spiritual discussion going on here. However I must take issue with one statement by Nemesis:

A bunch of lewd, crude, ignorant men who eschew art and beauty in lieu of war?
Don't diss Lycurgus, he was doing his best to build a city that would survive. He was a pretty smart guy for his time (which, it should be remembered, was a few thousand years ago) and his main intention was the protection of his city-state; sometimes in a violent world it is reasonable to give war a priority.

Also, Athens fought in the Peloponnesian war juuuuust as much as the Lacedaimonians did.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Nemesis,

Please pardon me for I have not read everything that has been posted. Not trying to offend but it is more than I wish to handle. I have read in Buddhism about over analysis of concepts. I also want to make it clear that I believe each of us are entitled to follow that path that we choose. So, Nemesis, stay on your path. It is what your karma is leading you to do. In my opinion and experience (my path), it seems more simple. But to you, I'm sure your path is suitable to you and your abilities. It is find to post whatever information you feel is worthy but it doesn't make anyones path or life easier to get into a battle of words over concepts. In the end it is beyond the concepts that we aspire to.

Canute,

I have read some of your posts...Honestly, I enjoy them. Some of which are beyond me "intellectually". So I'm surprised that the two of you would be battling the way you have. Differences of opinion are find and constructive criticism is wonderful but going all out to try to prove a point in reality is senseless. I am sure you agree.

PEACE, LOVE AND HAPPINESS~~Awake

Nemesis,
Canute,

Differences of opinion are find and constructive criticism is wonderful but going all out to try to prove a point in reality is senseless. I am sure you agree.

PEACE, LOVE AND HAPPINESS~~Awake
I sort of agree. But in real life it's very difficult to distinguish 'differences of opinion and constructive criticism' from 'trying to prove a point in reality'. Oh that life was so simple.

Cheers
Canute

Dear Awake,

Everyone is given free choice, this is not without purpouse. We could not learn and awaken our conciousness if we never made mistakes. As we go along and make these mistakes it is imperative that we learn from them, this is when we acquire Karma. I personaly cannot say which is the true path that leads to enlightenment, the path away from karma and suffering inevitably this is what we all (the ones who are interested in awakening) try to find. For I am not awakened.

But as far as I can see it, there is an alternative to awakening, this is returning to innocence and purity. The great spiral path of life. Simply living life and continuing to make mistakes intentionaly or unintentionaly may after aeons upon aeons lead one to final liberation, in a state of unconcious purity.
Those who no longer wish to suffer in the NOW must however take a more radical path. Experience is the golden teacher, mistakes are made but they simply must not be made again. We must go down deep inside ourselves and eliminate the very source of the negative aspects of our psyche. To Observe a fault is not enough, it must eliminated.

But as far as I can see it, there is an alternative to awakening, this is returning to innocence and purity. The great spiral path of life. Simply living life and continuing to make mistakes intentionaly or unintentionaly may after aeons upon aeons lead one to final liberation, in a state of unconcious purity.
Those who no longer wish to suffer in the NOW must however take a more radical path. Experience is the golden teacher, mistakes are made but they simply must not be made again. We must go down deep inside ourselves and eliminate the very source of the negative aspects of our psyche. To Observe a fault is not enough, it must eliminated.
You write beautiful words. Anyway, I must agree w/ you. Some people are obsessed with finding enlightenment but I just say enjoy life. Make your spirit happy (in other words don't be all promiscuos just because your body likes it). Sorry for the lame pst I have submitted but I have not written for a very long time.

exsto_human
I some what understand your point of view. All I was saying is you can't forcefully eliminate obstacles others are facing on their path. We can try to shine the light on the path to make it easier for them not to stumble over the obstacles but it is all about free will and free choice to follow the path each of us chooses.

Canute
All I was saying in relation to you is that all that is needed is to make your point, tell your truth and let it be. Yes it's good to keep an open mind but we can't take things personally when we disagree. If we do we just breed ignorance and negativity.

I especially liked the koan about the man who came to the Zen master's door and asked to be taught. The master began pouring the man tea, until it was full, and then continued pouring. When the inquirer could not stand it any longer, he said 'It is overfull! No more will go in!'

The master replied with 'This cup is much like yourself. You are full of your own opinions and thoughts. How can I teach you zen if you do not first empty your cup?'

My own favourite was the one (trying to recall it from memory) about how a student had gone round to see his master and they had talked late into the night. Before leaving, the student looked outside and said "It is dark." The master then lit an oil lamp and passed it to the student. Just as the student was about to take the lamp, the master blew it out. The student had his enlightenment.

:bugeye: I might have to think about that one for a bit...it is a good one, however. :)

Here are some koans....

"Don't search for Truth, simply stop having opinions"

"A mind is only absolutely pure when it is above purity and impurity"

"Know who you are. Be what you know"

"Without anxious thought, doing comes from being"

"The wave and the sea are One"

"To find yourself is to lose yourself"

"We stand in our own shadow and wonder why it is dark"

"Water is one essence: but drunk by a cow it becomes milk, while drunk by a snake it becomes poison"

"While you are living, know you are dying"

I'm not sure if those classify as Koans. But they are very good sayings none the less.