Kudos to Grey Austin. Not only has he written a thoughtful, readable book about his search for a universal ultimacy that makes more sense than the personalized Christian God, but he's evolved a terrific white beard.
I've been thinking of letting mine grow out a bit. Not to Austin's Father Christmas length, but he's inspired me. Both beardly and spiritually.
I'm a sucker for self-published books that are carefully written/edited and present a unique perspective. "Wholly Spirit" fills the bill on both counts. (So does mine, in my not-humble opinion.)
Austin's book has an unvarnished honest feel to it. He's shared musings about the nature of the universe, God, and what life is all about that were composed over a number of years. I enjoyed seeing how his thinking (and feeling) changed from a fairly traditional Christian perspective to a scientifically founded Taoist-friendly outlook.
Which is pretty darn close to how I see things too. Like Austin, I used to have a much more anthropomorphic conception of divinity than I do now. But unlike him, my "God" was mediated to me by a living guru rather than Jesus.
Nonetheless, Austin's transition in understanding from God as Person to God as Nature mirrors my own in many ways. He says:
Thinking about God has been a problem for me for some time. I grew up picturing God as a being – not necessarily an old man in a robe and beard, but an entity somehow separate and other than "His" Creation, which is to say, the universe and its inhabitants.
I gradually came to believe that God could not choose to act on some individual's or nation's behalf or at their behest if such action would disrupt the flow of natural events. Still, I had the lingering sense that "with God all things are possible."
If God were not a separate being, with what or whom could I have a relationship and to what or whom could I pray? And what did prayer mean if God could not reach down a finger and stir the pot for my benefit or respond to even my most altruistic requests?
As those in my church continued to use anthropomorphic terms for God, I began to translate all that I heard into more naturalistic terms; but that was wearisome and could almost make me feel that I didn't belong. I also didn't have the natural processes sorted out enough to make some of the connections between anthropomorphism and naturalism with any degree of confidence.
Now I see that I was empowering God to act in the physical world and at the same time doubting that God could. This wasn't God's problem; it was mine. Now I suggest that "God" is the expression of faith that we use to give meaning to the natural world rather than creator of or active agent in the world.
With respect to prayer, I have come to recognize that I can be grateful and express my gratitude without being grateful to a "Someone." I can express affirmation, aspiration, regret, and even awe without the necessity of addressing it to an Other.
Another excerpt from Austin's book can be read here. "Wholly Spirit" doesn't appear to be available from the usual online book sellers, but I got a copy quickly and easily from the book's distributor.
Austin ends up with a "theology" or cosmology of Cosmic Wholeness: "I found that all is one and I am one with all."
That sounds New Agey, yet Austin is anything but. He's committed to melding the best of rationality and science with the best of intuition and mysticism.
The process that is consistent throughout the physical, organic, human, and inner realms might be thought of as intelligent energy, communicating and facilitating healing and wholeness at all levels of reality. The classical example of this model is the Buddha for whom there was no God figure, who taught reliance on human qualities as a way of life, and who counseled accepting things just as they are.
“The process that is consistent throughout the physical, organic, human, and inner realms might be thought of as intelligent energy, communicating and facilitating healing and wholeness at all levels of reality.”
Very well stated: concise and well thought out. I prefer the term vitality to energy but both will work.
“The classical example of this model is the Buddha for whom there was no God figure, who taught reliance on human qualities as a way of life, and who counseled accepting things just as they are.”
Not so well thought out. Human qualities? Does this include greed, arrogance, lusts, anger, hate, revenge, misdirected desires, self-centered ego’s, etc. the Buddha missed the soul aspect of our existence or was quoted wrong. Rebirth without a soul? The qualities (love and compassion, etc.) that will advance this evolution of the soul is the very intelligent energy (vitality) he quotes in the same paragraph.
It is interesting that no religious teaching that I know of states that god is made in our image but yet most of the religious world has done just that. Only one word can account for that. Actually several words: “not knowing that which is available to be known”.
Accepting things just as they are. Better leave that one alone for now. I will take enough hits on the soul statements.
Posted by: william | August 24, 2007 at 03:01 AM
William wrote:
"...the Buddha missed the soul aspect of our existence..."
"Soul aspect" you say? What soul? Where soul? That sounds like another one of those unexamined presumptions of yours.
"Rebirth..."
Rebirth? What re-birth? Rebirth for whom?
"...advance this evolution of the soul"
Evolution of the soul you say? Where is this soul? Where is the so-called evolution?
"not knowing that which is available to be known"
And what "knowing" or knowledge would that be?
"I will take enough hits on the soul statements."
Perhaps... but you were the one who said "soul". So just where is the evidence for such a claim?
Posted by: tao | August 24, 2007 at 09:25 AM
Soul searching
When the beetle sees, it is I that am looking.
When the canary sings, it is I that am singing.
When the leopard growls, it is I that am growling.
But when I look for myself, I can see nothing, for no thing is there to be seen.
Bob cannot see me either, for when he tries to see me it is I who am looking. He can do nothing for only I can do anything.
The beetle can say that also, and Bob, for we are not three, nor two, nor even one.
I am the sea, the stars, the wind and the rain.
I am everything that has form, for form is my seeing of it.
I am every sound, for sound is my hearing of it.
I am all perceptions, for that which is perceptible is my perceiving of it.
They have no other existence, and neither have I, for what they are I am, and what I am they are.
What the universe is I am, and there is no other at all, nor any one whatsoever.
I dream the universe, and all that I dream is I...I who am not.
I am the absence of my presence and the absence of the presence of my absence. No object at all! No thing at all as such!!
Everyone is searching for a self, a soul, but there isn't one. Dare I say not even I, God, exists? No such thing exists, has ever existed, or could exist. Why? Because it would need another to find the one. They are searching for themselves. How do you find yourself? You are already present. Can presence find presence. Only by splitting itself into two.
Hui Neng said many centuries ago, "From the beginning, not a thing is."
That is all there is to it.
That is the Cosmic Joke!!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Do you see?
There is nothing more to be said.
I regret whatever is lacking in clarity in these words. It is an honest attempt to take the mind where intellect can go no further, to an impase where intuition comes in. Because no matter how it is said, that isn't it. But maybe to someone these words could be some sort of catalyst. That would be cool.
I attribute much of the above to my mentor, TJG to whom I am grateful.
Adios
Posted by: Tucson Bob | August 24, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Tao: always great to hear from you.
Although you will not heed my unsolicited advice (Unsolicited advice is trespassing so I apologize in advance for my trespassing) but here is a thought.
Do some research on near death experiences, research into reincarnation i.e. Stevenson and spiritualism. These phenomena may reveal to you the possibility of a soul but I doubt it.
When we already have made up our mind that we know what is available to be known we do little research. The ultra skeptics are a classic example of doing little research. One researcher found that in an ultra skeptic library not one skeptic had ever checked out a book on the paranormal even through they bragged about how many books they have on the paranormal.
You may not wish to exist as a persona but your hostile and aggressive attitude screams loud and clear that you indeed perceive yourself as an ego personality. These are harsh statements that I make and I suspect reveals more about my ego than I would care to admit.
The dark night of the soul is in full effect when we begin to see our ego for what it is. It lives in fear of being discovered for what it is: a necessary illusion that allows this intelligent vitality (isness) to express itself.
If you indeed believed the words you write my words would have no impact on your psychic; i.e. ego. I doubt you would even see a need to respond to my statements.
The ego is very defensive because it lives in doubt and that doubt is based in ignorance. Not knowing or unawareness of our true reality is mandatory for oneness to become twoness or more. A synonym for not knowing or unawareness is ignorance.
The origin of that not knowing is innocence but to date have not found one person on this earth that has knowledge of the origin of our ignorance. Most do not even consider it a viable topic for discussion, but yet the Buddha discovered that the origin of our suffering is ignorance.
Was the Buddha mistaken and spent the rest of his life on how to overcome that ignorance that leads to our suffering?
Posted by: william | August 24, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Tuscon bob, I concur
Posted by: un-named commenter | August 24, 2007 at 01:31 PM
What is it within which this swirling morass of concepts, perceptions, ideas and phenomena occurs?
Everything that is known, perveived, sensed or conceived appears in your own mind, or better, as your own mind. Yet, can you find it? You can't because it is what is conceiving and perveiving. You, your body, even the idea of this mind are objects in this mind which cannot conceive or perceive itself. Where would a soul reside except as a concept or idea?
There is nothing to fear. You have nothing to lose in understanding this except bondage to the idea of yourself as a separate being or soul. In the absence of a self or a soul is the presence, as you are, of all that is. What you are is the unborn presence, prior to phenomena, that being unborn can't die. How could you be at all if this were not true? If linear time really existed, not just as a concept, how could your moment of birth ever have arrived? We worry about the infinity of inexistence after our death. What about the infinity of inexistence prior to our birth? This is only dreamstuff which has no existence in the Reality which always is as we are but can't be caught. More slippery than an eel it is.
How can This Imperceptible Presence evolve or become more or other than what it is? Being prior to manifestation, it has no form, dimension, attribute or anything that can be defined or measured. It is Infinity. How would it grow or diminish? Twenty trillion galaxies are a spot in it's magnitude. To what dimension would it go to gain what it already is? It never finds itself except as it experiences itself as manifestation. What is behind your thoughts, and perceptions? Behind the thought of no thought? This is what you are.
Posted by: Tucson Bob | August 24, 2007 at 02:43 PM
Tucson bob: the short answer.
We are indeed that that is but we lack the pure awareness of This Imperceptible Presence and until we attain, retain, awaken, or whatever to this pure awareness in the interim we could be called a soul, spirit, ego, illusion, nothingness, nonbeing, ignorant, entity, take your pick.
If you are claiming to have the intelligence and creative abilities and awareness of this imperceptible presence then you may want to check into the nearest mental hospital.
Posted by: william | August 24, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Tucson bob: the long response
"Where would a soul reside except as a concept or idea?"
Without that concept or idea due to our not knowing (ignorance) this intelligent vitality also known as pure awareness, the absolute, isness, god, oneness, or that that is would be unable to express itself.
Who are the mediums contacting without this soul that has a concept or idea of a separate self? And how can young children talk a language that they have never been exposed to in this life. How can someone go thru a past life regression and then know where to find their tombstone and where to meet their children from a past life? How can some children know their name from a past life and their children’s names from that past life and many other exact details of their past life.
Anyone that understands (emphasis on understand) that god is all and all understands that all that is: is that that is. How could it be otherwise? Move beyond this basic knowledge and discover these mysteries as to the how, why, and what is the meaning of what seems to be. We humans must quit pretending we know more than we do because we are able to see that all is that that is. Thinking we know more than we do inhibit our soul journey. I went thru that egotistical stage over 10 years ago and I suspect still struggle with it to this day. It is the human condition.
This intelligent vitality expresses itself in a much more profound and interesting way than in one life as a human.
"How would it grow or diminish?" wow for the hundredth time oneness cannot grow or diminish. Souls only have the appearance of growing. This may be why Jesus may have stated judge not by appearance.
All souls “slowly but surely” awaken to their true reality, which is Isness. If you are suggesting that you have awaken to that reality get over it. There is a long journey ahead of you and me with or without our consent. We humans are on the very low end of this evolution of the soul. I suspect entities from other planets look upon us the same way that we look upon the intelligence of monkeys or maybe even a snail.
Speaking of snails what did the snail say while riding on the back of a turtle? Ans below.
Some Hindus believe that this oneness must express itself to continually discover itself. Sounds a bit psychotic to me.
I have read that this oneness is always in the act of becoming but I prefer "isness" is always in the process of expressing itself. We are that isness expressing itself and I find advaita type responders and atheists as some of the most concrete in their beliefs. To show how insane it gets most atheists I have chatted with do not even claim to have beliefs and many advaita type responders call everything not agreeing with their beliefs bullshit. We humans love to think we have the mysteries and meanings of life figured out. This is the ego in action and intellectualism at its best.
As always thanks for the dialog.
Answer to snail question: weeeeeeeee
Posted by: william | August 24, 2007 at 04:41 PM
William wrote: "We are indeed that that is but we lack the pure awareness of This Imperceptible Presence and until we attain, retain, awaken, or whatever to this pure awareness in the interim we could be called a soul, spirit, ego, illusion, nothingness, nonbeing, ignorant, entity, take your pick.
You're making an object out of it. Throw away the concepts. You already are whole.
William wrote: "Who are the mediums contacting without this soul that has a concept or idea of a separate self? And how can young children talk a language that they have never been exposed to in this life. How can someone go thru a past life regression and then know where to find their tombstone and where to meet their children from a past life? How can some children know their name from a past life and their children’s names from that past life and many other exact details of their past life."
All this is irrelevant, psychic manifestation. It occurs in the dream as appearance only, mere phenomena.
William wrote: "If you are claiming to have the intelligence and creative abilities and awareness of this imperceptible presence then you may want to check into the nearest mental hospital."
This imperceptible presence awareness is your state now, William. I am no one to claim anything.
William wrote: "Without that concept or idea due to our not knowing (ignorance) this intelligent vitality also known as pure awareness, the absolute, isness, god, oneness, or that that is would be unable to express itself."
Except the functioning of the dream continues in 'awakenedness' or ignorance. In awakenedness that which appears ignorant in ignorance, appears awake in awakenedness!
William wrote: "Anyone that understands (emphasis on understand) that god is all and all understands that all that is: is that that is. How could it be otherwise?"
If 'understands' means intuitively apperceives, then right on brother!
William wrote: "Move beyond this basic knowledge and discover these mysteries as to the how, why, and what is the meaning of what seems to be. We humans must quit pretending we know more than we do because we are able to see that all is that that is. Thinking we know more than we do inhibit our soul journey. I went thru that egotistical stage over 10 years ago and I suspect still struggle with it to this day. It is the human condition."
Now you're back in your imagined self again. Once the illusion of a separate self is seen through, all the above becomes moot, irrelevant, just bubbles in the mind. Mysteries, causes, how, why, all melt away.
William wrote: "This intelligent vitality expresses itself in a much more profound and interesting way than in one life as a human."
Within the human, infinity is present at every moment. Whatever is known, unknown, seen, felt or imagined, the entire cosmos is present as your dream now. There is no other. What I am telling you is you telling it.
William wrote: "How would it grow or diminish?" wow for the hundredth time oneness cannot grow or diminish. Souls only have the appearance of growing. This may be why Jesus may have stated judge not by appearance.
If you're saying this, what is the problem? You already understand !
William wrote: "All souls “slowly but surely” awaken to their true reality, which is Isness. If you are suggesting that you have awaken to that reality get over it. There is a long journey ahead of you and me with or without our consent. We humans are on the very low end of this evolution of the soul. I suspect entities from other planets look upon us the same way that we look upon the intelligence of monkeys or maybe even a snail."
There is no journey because there is no time for such a sequence to occur in. Bugs, humans, angels, aliens, entities all have the same essential nature now.
William wrote: "I have read that this oneness is always in the act of becoming but I prefer "isness" is always in the process of expressing itself. We are that isness expressing itself and I find advaita type responders and atheists as some of the most concrete in their beliefs. To show how insane it gets most atheists I have chatted with do not even claim to have beliefs and many advaita type responders call everything not agreeing with their beliefs bullshit. We humans love to think we have the mysteries and meanings of life figured out. This is the ego in action and intellectualism at its best."
You realize the truth and then argue with your own realization. It is under your nose. You are so close you can taste it, but you are fighting so hard to preserve the illusion of your separate self. You want God so badly to be some glorious thing to be attained in a time sequence. Time is a concept and exists only relatively. Einstein proved this, didn't he? You cling so desparately to the idea of a soul progressing to some imagined goal, because you ultimately fear death and the annihilation of your existence. There is no one to figure anything out. Let go of the dream of your individual self, of this soul progressing to some expanded dimension of awareness which is merely an idea, one bubble in the infinity of awareness, the infinity that you are, as you are now.
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/08/wholly-spirit-s.html#comment-80509013
Posted by: Tucson Bob | August 24, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Tucson bob: thanks for taking the time to respond. My statements are not always so temperate and for this I apologize in advance.
Most often it is not what we say but how we say it that has meaning to the other person. Whoops there are no other persons. Sorry about that.
“All this is irrelevant, psychic manifestation. It occurs in the dream as appearance only, mere phenomena.” Truly a compassionate statement you may want to go to Iraq and tell those folks their pain and suffering is just an irrelevant manifestation. Don’t count on coming back but Tucson bob the non person is not afraid of death so no big deal. Yea right and I have a bridge for sale and not one of those 28% that needs working on. You do the Buddha proud with your words. When one of your loved ones is in pain be sure and tell them their pain is irrelevant and just a dream.
Here are some synonyms for phenomena.
Observable fact, fact, experience, happening, incident, event, trend, occurrence, and marvel
1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.
2. pl. -nons.
a. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
b. A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See synonyms at wonder.
3. Philosophy. In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon.
4. Physics. An observable event.
Tucson bob by using phenomena as explanation of reality and by signing your name Tucson bob as a personal identifier you have proved my ongoing point we perceive ourselves as separate identities until we “awaken” to the reality that we are that that is.
This awaken status comes with experiences, occurrences, and circumstances and is perceived as time or a series of events until that awaking occurs.
“but you are fighting so hard to preserve the illusion of your separate self.” This is my point we all have this illusion of a separate self or we would not be blogging on here or signing our name as a personal identifier. Why the necessity to have a personal identifier? My view: Ego and a need to be a separate self.
Anyone that perceives himself or herself as whole without this pure awareness understanding and without this awaken status is well don’t need to say the word or words. Even this was a misleading statement as we cannot be anything but whole but we perceive ourselves to be separate from this whole due to our unawareness of our reality. This unawareness of reality perceives itself as humans and souls or as a Tucson bob.
By claiming to have that awaken status and still sign a personal name is self-deception at is best. The atheists think they are here by chance and some random mutations with some natural selection and the advaita type responders who do not claim to exist as a perceived separate entity but yet sign their name as a personal identifier and interact with others on a daily basis with others. Two sides of the same coin.
If I had to choose which side of the coin to come up I would chose the adavita type responders as their teachings are basally in my view at this time valid but they have deceived themselves into thinking they have an awaken status and are not involved in this phenomena. Most but not all respond with their words as awaken and identify with oneness but then give themselves away with a personal identifier such as a name.
Beliefs can overwhelm the rational mind. Rational mind being an oxymoron.
To claim for oneself an awaken status and teach that they do not exist as a separate entity then sign ones name as a person; sorry Tucson bob but this is intellectualism at its finest but that is the condition we humans find ourselves in. There is no interaction only omni action but without this interaction there is only awareness and no phenomena.
The dance of life as we know it is phenomena but ultimate reality is an intelligent vitality of pure awareness. Phenomena depends on a not knowing or unawareness status of its participants.
Another term for this not knowing status or unawareness is ignorance. The origin of that unawareness is this intelligent vitality. Oneness becomes twoness through the “vehicle” or manifestation of ignorance.
We were manifested in an innocence of our true identity and we condemn ourselves for our ignorance or worst claim as a person to not have any degree of that ignorance.
“Let go of the dream of your individual self,” like signing a name such as Tucson bob or William. Sorry bob but why the need for a personal identifier and a need to blog could it be your own fears of nonexistence. We humans often try to overcome our own fears and doubts by advocating to others what others should or should not do.
“You are so close you can taste it,” and how do you know this? But you are there right bob or should I say non-bob or no bob or it. How do I address you? We humans love to prop ourselves up as more knowledgeable and even realized. Gives us a sense of superiority and this is ego based. I especially see this phenomenon in advaita type responders and atheists. It is exponentially easier to see in others than oneself.
As always thanks for the dialog or dream or irrelevancy or physic manifestation or phenomena, or whatever. Sorry my idea of humor.
Posted by: william | August 25, 2007 at 12:48 PM
WILLIAM wrote: "Whoops there are no other persons. Sorry about that."
TB responds: If we can cut the sarcasm, a more productive atmosphere is possible.
WILLIAM wrote: "“All this is irrelevant, psychic manifestation. It occurs in the dream as appearance only, mere phenomena.” Truly a compassionate statement you may want to go to Iraq and tell those folks their pain and suffering is just an irrelevant manifestation. Don’t count on coming back but Tucson bob the non person is not afraid of death so no big deal. Yea right and I have a bridge for sale and not one of those 28% that needs working on. You do the Buddha proud with your words. When one of your loved ones is in pain be sure and tell them their pain is irrelevant and just a dream.
TB responds: Your sarcasm is in there again. My point is that psychic manifestation is irrelevant as far as intuiting one's absolute nature is concerned. Rather, it is a hinderance or a sidetrack. Regarding pleasure and pain..A dream is a dream whether pleasant or a nightmare, Iraq or Disnyland. Wait, scratch Disneyland. Can't stand the place. How about a nice day at the beach?
WILLIAM wrote: "Tucson bob by using phenomena as explanation of reality and by signing your name Tucson bob as a personal identifier you have proved my ongoing point we perceive ourselves as separate identities until we “awaken” to the reality that we are that that is."
"This awaken status comes with experiences, occurrences, and circumstances and is perceived as time or a series of events until that awaking occurs."
"This is my point we all have this illusion of a separate self or we would not be blogging on here or signing our name as a personal identifier. Why the necessity to have a personal identifier? My view: Ego and a need to be a separate self."
TB responds: You are making so many assumptions as to what the 'waking state' is and how one might function once this is perceived. Where is it in the rule book that one who has seen reality is incapable of identifying themselves in the role they play in the dream? Does it say those who are 'awakened' sit unmoving by the road as a gelatinous mass with spittle on their chin unable to function as a human? Perhaps one can slip from one type of awareness to another.
WILLIAM wrote: "To claim for oneself an awaken status and teach that they do not exist as a separate entity then sign ones name as a person; sorry Tucson bob but this is intellectualism at its finest but that is the condition we humans find ourselves in. There is no interaction only omni action but without this interaction there is only awareness and no phenomena."
"The dance of life as we know it is phenomena but ultimate reality is an intelligent vitality of pure awareness. Phenomena depends on a not knowing or unawareness status of its participants.
Another term for this not knowing status or unawareness is ignorance. The origin of that unawareness is this intelligent vitality. Oneness becomes twoness through the “vehicle” or manifestation of ignorance.
We were manifested in an innocence of our true identity and we condemn ourselves for our ignorance or worst claim as a person to not have any degree of that ignorance."
TB responds: You state that I cannot know what I profess and still be able to sign my name in an identified state. It goes both ways. How is it, if you really know what you claim to know, YOU can still sign your name in an identified state?
WILLIAM wrote: "If I had to choose which side of the coin to come up I would chose the adavita type responders as their teachings are basally in my view at this time valid but they have deceived themselves into thinking they have an awaken status and are not involved in this phenomena. Most but not all respond with their words as awaken and identify with oneness but then give themselves away with a personal identifier such as a name.
TB responds: How can you be sure advaitists are deceived? How would you have an 'awakened' person sitting in front of you identify themselves? When you say, "..deceived themselves into thinking they have an awaken status and are not involved in this phenomena.", it shows you do not understand advaita very well. You also seem to misunderstand what you perceive as a lack of an identifiable God in that philosophy as godlessness. To give the Formless a name is to give it a kind of form which can be misleading.
WILLIAM wrote: “Let go of the dream of your individual self,” like signing a name such as Tucson bob or William. Sorry bob but why the need for a personal identifier and a need to blog could it be your own fears of nonexistence. We humans often try to overcome our own fears and doubts by advocating to others what others should or should not do.
TB responds: Do/believe what you like, William. I'm here today because I have a pulled hamstring and can't ride my bike.
WILLIAM wrote: "“You are so close you can taste it,” and how do you know this?
TB responds: It's just a way of speaking to try to make a point.
WILLIAM wrote: "But you are there right bob or should I say non-bob or no bob or it. How do I address you?
TB responds: I don't know. How about Henry or Pablo?
WILLIAM wrote: "We humans love to prop ourselves up as more knowledgeable and even realized. Gives us a sense of superiority and this is ego based. I especially see this phenomenon in advaita type responders and atheists. It is exponentially easier to see in others than oneself."
TB responds: Aren't you doing the same thing?
As for me I'm not an advaitist, buddhist, atheist, thisist or thatist. I'm just a guy on the blog writing for the hell of it.
over and out
Posted by: Tucson Bob | August 25, 2007 at 04:26 PM
tucson bob: you wrote.
“How is it, if you really know what you claim to know, YOU can still sign your name in an identified state?”
This is the crux of what we have been dialoging on. I am not claiming awaken status and when I sign my name I sign my name as a perceived person and ego. I fully accept that I consider myself an identity but intellectually I know there can only be one infinite isness or absolute. Only experiences and karma will “awaken” me to this isness. Don’t like the concept of awaken as we did not fall asleep but are that that is expressing itself. Note: this was an intellectual statement.
I have been rolling around in my nonexistent mind the idea of a comic routine about advaita teachings and Darwinism. I have this idea that an advaita teacher is driving his or her car and is stopped for speeding. The police officer walks up to the car and states you where speeding. The advaita person states “no I was not, there is no I to speed because I do not exist”. “I am an illusion and so are you.” The advaita teacher further states “you only think you are a police officer it is all in your mind there is no you and you are an irrelevant phenomena.”
And the police officers says “well this police officer that does not exist is about to give to you who does not exist a ticket that does not exist and you are to appear in a court that does not exist at a time that does not exist and see a judge that does not exist and pay a fine that does not exist or else you who does not exist will go to a jail that does not exist for a period of time that does not exist and then you will be released back into this illusional world that does not exist to continue your illusional journey that does not exist through your illusional life that does not exist”
I am sure you may see this as sarcasm but to me it is humor but then I have been told my humor is very very dry. Unfortunately most people don’t know about advaita teachings so the “humor?” would miss them.
Darwinism: still working on that one. When I see my grandson in his crib I can say to myself oh that cute little baby is not a divine manifestation but just another chance of nature with a little random mutation and some natural selection thrown in. We humans are a fascinating species.
If god wanted drama in it’s manifestation this illusonal world has plenty of it.
I deeply apologize if my idea of humor is offense to you but I find we human’s fascinating creatures. I fully admit that what I have written above as humor may be all about my ego.
Hey I am still smiling about the snail joke. Weeeeeeeeeeeee
Posted by: william | August 25, 2007 at 10:09 PM
William,
Knowing that the observed has no existence apart from the observer, and knowing that the observer has no existence apart from the observed, divided mind is re-united. There is no other, so there can be no self. Since there is no self, there can be no other. Without extension in space, without duration in time, in mind that is whole, there is no being to suffer, to experience pain or pleasure, to hate or to love. Gone with the ego and the scourge of imagined self-will, mind as a concept is utterly absent. What remains is pure non-objectivity, and no one to conceive it. Pristine and radiant, is all that we are.
Posted by: Tucson Bob | August 26, 2007 at 09:48 AM
A no-read for a no-mind ...
http://monkeymindonline.blogspot.com/2007/08/may-i-dwell-in-heart-sermon-by-james.html
Posted by: no-anonymous | August 26, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Tucson bob: this short paragraph has been your best since we started this dialog but I could not leave with out a few comments. Smile here.
“Knowing that the observed has no existence apart from the observer,” theoretical quantum physics is discovering this to be so. Goswami in his book the self-aware universe states such things.
“and knowing that the observer has no existence apart from the observed” how could it be otherwise if god is all and all. Even the Christians would have to admit to this if they applied some simple logic to their teachings that god is all and all. Logic is intellectual but still it may be a movement in the right direction.
“divided mind is re-united.” This has been the crux of my dialog. This divided mind is in an unknowing or unawareness state of being. Without this unknowing or unawareness state of being there is no expression or no perceived twoness of mind. The origin of ignorance has to do with the process of this dividing of mind. No matter what evil deed we perform we are always innocent because we are never separate from this oneness; how could we be? To say we are evil is to state isness is evil. This is why mystics do not see evil. But the capability and capacity of our divided mind is less aware than this isness. This is the perceived journey back to this oneness of mind. Bliss. The mystics see and experience this undivided mind in short spurts and this is why they talk of god as bliss and keep saying over and over we are that that is.
“There is no other, so there can be no self.” Infinite is oneness but there is a very strong perception of self as separate from this oneness. Without this very strong perception of self there is no expression of oneness only pure awareness. Pure awareness can only express itself with a divided mind status.
“Since there is no self, there can be no other.” Technically true but this is usually an intellectual statement and the divided mind that has made this statement has not yet “achieved” “attained” the “status” of the undivided mind. This is a paradox because the divided mind always has the status of being that that is. This concept of soul journey to find our way back to this undivided state is where you and I disagree the most on. Again a paradox as we never left this undivided mind. It is perception only but a magnificent one.
“Without extension in space, without duration in time, in mind that is whole, there is no being to suffer, to experience pain or pleasure, to hate or to love”
This has been my point all along. There is a perception of time and a perception of extension of space (twoness) and we do suffer and experience pain and suffering; it is real to us. Oneness to express must be willing to have a perception of duality and this means pain and suffering and hate and love. Expression demands this duality.
“Gone with the ego and the scourge of imagined self-will, mind as a concept is utterly absent”
You stated, “scourge of the imagined self will?” This has been my point all along. If we think this self-will is a scourge this means you fail to understand the origin of our ignorance as being innocence and your statements are of an intellectual nature as mine are. And until we understand the origin of our unknowing; and the necessity of our self-will for isness to express its isness, we will continue to blame and judge others and ourselves for our ignorance (i.e. imagined self will). Without this “scourge of the self-will” (ego) this pure awareness that most call god would not be able to express its isness. We keep blaming humans for this ego centered behavior but without this ego there is no expression of oneness.
Everything is right on track but we perceive this duality as a scourge. This perception is based in Intellectualism and not in realization, which is intelligence.
“What remains is pure non-objectivity, and no one to conceive it. Pristine and radiant, is all that we are.” This is an interesting statement. Will meditate Monday night on this statement at the Zen group. If you could elaborate more on this in might be helpful. I think what you are stating is that this pure non-objectivity is pure awareness, which is pristine, and radiant, which the mystics experience as a blissful state.
Posted by: william | August 26, 2007 at 01:12 PM
WILLIAM wrote: "You stated, “scourge of the imagined self will?” This has been my point all along. If we think this self-will is a scourge this means you fail to understand the origin of our ignorance as being innocence and your statements are of an intellectual nature as mine are."
TB responds: All of what we've been doing is intellectual, and "scourge of imagined self will" is just a manner of speaking. I am incapable of the precision of language to acurately express what I intuitively perceive. No matter what I say, it is not what I perceive, it's just a symbol or pointing at it. For this reason, whatever I say is inaccurate including what I just said! It will forever be subject to hairsplitting analysis.
To use an old analogy: If someone has never seen or eaten an apple and I tell them it is a red, juicy, sweet thing, this is correct as far as it goes, but it gives them no true idea of what an apple looks or tastes like. Then they go and get an apple and tell me I was wrong because the apple they got was green and tasted sour! Then they go and tell someone apples are green and sour, but the apple they got was yellow and tart. Yet they all were apples. No one was wrong, yet no one was right. Still, they go 'round and 'round arguing about the true nature of apples.
Same thing with my statement: "What remains is pure non-objectivity, and no one to conceive it. Pristine and radiant, is all that we are.”
Ultimately we all have to taste it for ourselves.
Posted by: Tucson Bob | August 26, 2007 at 02:16 PM
“For this reason, whatever I say is inaccurate including what I just said! It will forever be subject to hairsplitting analysis.”
I studied under dr Hora for three years and he was a hairsplitter with words and terms. Had to move on became too intellectual. Noticed others studying under him were very intellectual. I suspect I have remnants of that intellectual hair splittering.
“Ultimately we all have to taste it for ourselves.” That I suspect is the expression of isness. The mystics tell us that all the suffering is worth it for the bliss. Experience with karma awakens us to this bliss, which is reality.
“TB responds: All of what we've been doing is intellectual, and "scourge of imagined self will" is just a manner of speaking.” That has been my point but some statements may be of intelligence (understanding) but I suspect very few.
The human consciousness is very much about intellectualism (knowing about something) but there is more to come as we awaken to this undivided mind and this pure awareness within us.
“Same thing with my statement: "What remains is pure non-objectivity, and no one to conceive it. Pristine and radiant, is all that we are.”
Need to work on non-objectivity and no one to conceive it part that has got my attention. This unable to conceive it part might be a better statement than my pure awareness manifestation of itself to express itself will work on that one. I am not comfortable with the term “manifestation of itself”. I don’t think we have the ability to comprehend this pure awareness. It is not a self but yet it is an intelligent vitality. Intelligent; not intellectual.
Please go into detail on this last statement if possible. Have not done this long dialog for no reason the universe does not work that way.
Posted by: william | August 26, 2007 at 04:14 PM
WILLIAM wrote: "Need to work on non-objectivity and no one to conceive it part that has got my attention. This unable to conceive it part might be a better statement than my pure awareness manifestation of itself to express itself will work on that one. I am not comfortable with the term “manifestation of itself”. I don’t think we have the ability to comprehend this pure awareness. It is not a self but yet it is an intelligent vitality. Intelligent; not intellectual.
Please go into detail on this last statement if possible. Have not done this long dialog for no reason the universe does not work that way."
TB responds: I am not sure what you mean by that very last sentence. Anyway, at some point words will serve no purpose and silence will complete the discussion.
By looking outside, all that is seen is objects. When we turn within we see ourselves as subjects. Here is the key..this subject is another object! An object is an object in every direction you look. Every time you see an object you are seeing the subject of that object in its objective manifestation. Every object is a mirror which reflects what is looking. You cannot see that which is looking in the same way an eye can't see itself. All you are is the Absence that is looking. This has been called the 'Void'. I called it 'Pure Non-Objectivity, Pristine and Radiant'.
Now that I have set it up this way, try reading this again:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/08/wholly-spirit-s.html#comment-80509013
Posted by: Tucson Bob | August 26, 2007 at 06:32 PM