Bill,

It's ridiculous how these Eastern mystics continue to try and convince us that
all Indians believe this stuff. One of co-worker friends was an electrical
engineer from India and traveled extensively with his father, a diplomat. He
relayed to me that almost everyone he knew in India didn't believe in that
system at all.

I'm presently encouraging everyone to urge their Congressman to pass VAWA
(Violence Against Women Act) soon. I have personal acquaintances who have
benefited in the past, present, and hopefully in the future others will through
the expanded bill to include immigrants, Same sex partners, and Native American
women.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> >
> > Say, what???
> >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It ia
about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope. These throwbacks
to religion  will just fade. Now most of the catholics are in the poor ,southern
hemisphere. I think the buddists will be run over by the more agressive
Islamists  or the Chinese Communists. At any rate it will take centuries  and we
would do better to ignore them  and tend to the business of northern man. Ignore
is the operant word  as trying to deal with religous fanatics just does not pay
off. Set them against themselves  and go about building  a better world here in
our homes. The islamists  Hindus and Chinese are wildly over breed and  will
kill each other for food and fuel. Our populations are under control and our
food and energy needs are being met. Let them deal with each other and we will
deal with them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient  and losing ideas is
only a waste of time. Bill
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: devindersingh
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:13 AM
> > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
> >
> > The action of the Force does not exclude tapasya, concentration and the need
> > of sadhana. Its action rather comes as an answer or a help to these things.
> > It is true that it sometimes acts without them; it very often makes a
> > response in those who have not prepared themselves and do not seem to be
> > ready. But it does not always or usually act like that, nor is it a sort of
> > magic that acts in the void or without any process. Nor is it a machine that
> > acts in the same way on everybody or in all conditions and circumstances; it
> > is not a physical but a spiritual Force and its action cannot be reduced to
> > rules.
> > About the limitation of the power of the Guru to that of a teacher who shows
> > the way but cannot help or guide, that is the conception of certain paths of
> > yoga such as the pure Adwaitin and the Buddhist which say that you must rely
> > upon yourself and that no one can help you; but even the pure Adwaitin does
> > in fact rely upon the Guru and the chief mantra of Buddhism insists on
> > sharanam [ = refuge/shelter] to Buddha. For other paths of sadhana,
> > especially those which, like the Gita, accept the reality of the individual
> > soul as an "eternal portion" of the Divine or which believe that Bhagavan
> > and the bhakta are both real, the help of the Guru has always been relied
> > upon as an indispensable aid.  http://intyoga.online.fr/gurus.htm
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvation or Deliverance
> > >
> > > These are predominantly religious terms and very common, if not central
> > > to christianity. Neither of which are my thing. But so many times I have
> > > been asked as to if any of this relates in any way to transcendent
> > > mystical experience. In a way it does, yes.
> > >
> > > I have explained  in the  free books (Psychognosis and the Dignity of
> > > Man; and also in The mystical Gnosis Event and the Human Situation ) as
> > > to how Metaphysics must have originally come from Transcendent Mystical
> > > experience thousands of years ago probably when humanity lived in caves.
> > > And stories of experiences get told and passed on from one generation to
> > > the next for aeons while sitting around the fires when the work was
> > > done. I have also told as to how priestcraft and politics took some of
> > > these passed on accounts and altered it and used it for their own vested
> > > purposes and turned it into their own profit making religion which you
> > > MUST follow if you want to go to heaven.  And hence why the world and so
> > > called education is like it is now. A LIE and a FARCE.
> > >
> > > So, in what way can salvation or deliverance be found in Transcendent
> > > Mystical Experience?  I have told in the books, and specifically in the
> > > Exegesis, as to how that journey finished up in the Annihilation of
> > > Conscious awareness.  One is aware no more. Gone. Dead as a Dodo.
> > > Extinct. IS NO MORE. But then one comes back into consciousness
> > > awareness again. But NOT here. But back into the primordial Ground of
> > > Conscious existence â€" Paradesium, Eternity, Elysium, the timeless
> > > domain of existence; and where we redeem the experiences of what we ARE
> > > at that level of Being. The Original SELF. The first `child' of
> > > all manifest existence. The I AM at the core root of me and you and all
> > > conscious life forms. It is there to find so see if you can find it. I
> > > found it and there is nothing special about me. SO dump your religions
> > > and dump all your beliefs and go in search of your SELF. Nobody can give
> > > it to you; and when hearing words of it, as you are now, then that is
> > > not having it and knowing it. You must find it for yourself. Then you
> > > will KNOW it by direct experience.
> > >
> > > But yes, arsing again from that annihilation could indeed be called
> > > salvation from non existence, or deliverance from annihilation. And
> > > redemption means getting something back which is yours â€" the
> > > Knowledge of SELF.
> > >
> > > Do your bishops or guru's or `mystics' or `gnostics'
> > > or `enlightened ones' tell you these things?  NO. They do not.
> > > But I do. And I spell it all out in fine grain detail. So you can know
> > > it before you KNOW it. Homo Ensophicus is coming. Revolution equals
> > > Evolution. A great wonder, my friend, are YOU.  And the consciousness of
> > > Man is ever tied to the cross if Time and Eternity. (X)   Don't wait
> > > until you are gone from here to learn it. It is needed HERE, not there.
> > >
> > > http://www.psychognosis.net
> > >
> > > Dick Richardson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
> >
> > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

Your statements here are most difficult to follow.

First you say that there is "severe collectivism", then the birth of
intransigent individualism.  The pendulum swings.  So you end up with the
"herd instinct" which I suppose is back to "severe collectivism".

Human society is not that simplistic.  You would have to ignore some
historical figures [depending upon what you mean by "past ages] who were
individualists.  You would also have to ignore religions which are
collective and continue to be.

Then you totally lost me with, "... the demand of the individual soul to
unite with the individual soul, ...".  How can a soul [assuming that such
actually exists] demand to be united with itself??  Why should it make such
a demand??

eduard


-----Original Message-----
From: devindersingh
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:15 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance

The past ages of society were characterised more or less by a severe
collectivism. In ancient Greece, more so in Sparta and in Rome, the
individual had, properly speaking, no separate existence of his own; he was
merged in the State or Nation. The individual was considered only as a limb
of the collective being, had to live and labour for the common weal. The
value attached to each person was strictly in reference to the output that
the group to which he belonged received from him. Apart from this service
for the general unit-the body politic-any personal endeavour and
achievement, if not absolutely discouraged and repressed, was given a very
secondary place of merit.
The individual has his own law and urge of being and his own secret godhead.
The collective godhead derides the individual godhead at its peril. The
first movement of the reaction, how­ever, was a run to the other extremity;
a stern collectivism gave birth to an intransigent individualism. The
individual is sacred and inviolable, cost what it may. It does not matter
what sort of individuality one seeks, it is enough if the thing is there. So
the doctrine of individualism has come to set a premium on egoism and on
forces that are disruptive of all social bonds. Each and every individual
has the inherent right, which is also a duty, to follow his own impetus and
impulse. Society is nothing but the battle ground for competing
indi­vidualities – the strongest survive and the weakest go to the wall.
Association and co-operation are instruments that the individual may use and
utilise for his own growth and development but in the main they act as
deterrents rather than as aids to the expression and expansion of his
characteristic being. In reality, however, if we probe sufficiently deep
into the matter we find that there is no such thing as corporate life and
activity; what appears as such is only a camouflage for rigorous
competition; at the best, there maybe only an offensive and defensive
alliance-humanity fights against nature, and within humanity itself group
fights against group and in the last analysis, within the group, the
individual fights against the individual. This is the ultimate Law-the
Dharma of creation.
Now, what such an uncompromising individualism fails to recognise is that
individuality and ego are not the same thing, that the individual may have
his individuality intact and entire and yet sacrifice his ego, that the soul
of man is a much greater thing than his vital being. It is simply ignoring
the fact and denying the truth to say that man is only a fighting animal and
not a loving god, that the self within the individual realises itself only
through competition and not co-operation. It is an error to conceive of
society as a mere parallelogram of forces, to suppose that it has risen
simply out of the struggle of individual interests and continues to remain
by that struggle. Struggle is only one aspect of the thing, a particular
form at a particular stage, a temporary manifestation due to a particular
system and a particular habit and training. It would be nearer the truth to
say that society came into being with the demand of the individual soul to
unite with the individual soul, with the stress of an Over-soul to express
itself in a multitude of forms, diverse yet linked together and organised in
perfect harmony. Only, the stress for union manifested itself first on the
material plane as struggle: but this is meant to be corrected and
transcended and is being continually corrected and transcended by a secret
harmony, a real commonality and brotherhood and unity. The individual is not
so self-centred as the individualists make him to be, his individuality has
a much vaster orbit and fulfils itself only by fulfilling others. The
scientists have begun to discover other instincts in man than those of
struggle and competition; they now place at the origin of social grouping an
instinct which they name the herd-instinct: but this is only a formulation
in lower terms, a translation on the vital plane of a higher truth and
reality-the fundamental oneness and accord of individuals and their
spiritual impulsion to unite.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-06_On%\
20Communism.html]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
>
> Eduard,
> In India we live with this knowledge...The water Buffalo loves to wallow
> in the mud. We let it revel.
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > >
> > > Say, what???
> > >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It
> > >ia about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope. These
> > >throwbacks to religion  will just fade. Now most of the catholics are
> > >in the poor ,southern hemisphere. I think the buddists will be run over
> > >by the more agressive Islamists  or the Chinese Communists. At any rate
> > >it will take centuries  and we would do better to ignore them  and tend
> > >to the business of northern man. Ignore is the operant word  as trying
> > >to deal with religous fanatics just does not pay off. Set them against
> > >themselves  and go about building  a better world here in our homes.
> > >The islamists  Hindus and Chinese are wildly over breed and  will kill
> > >each other for food and fuel. Our populations are under control and our
> > >food and energy needs are being met. Let them deal with each other and
> > >we will deal with them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient
> > >and losing ideas is only a waste of time. Bill
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: devindersingh
> > > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:13 AM
> > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
> > >
> > > The action of the Force does not exclude tapasya, concentration and
> > > the need
> > > of sadhana. Its action rather comes as an answer or a help to these
> > > things.
> > > It is true that it sometimes acts without them; it very often makes a
> > > response in those who have not prepared themselves and do not seem to
> > > be
> > > ready. But it does not always or usually act like that, nor is it a
> > > sort of
> > > magic that acts in the void or without any process. Nor is it a
> > > machine that
> > > acts in the same way on everybody or in all conditions and
> > > circumstances; it
> > > is not a physical but a spiritual Force and its action cannot be
> > > reduced to
> > > rules.
> > > About the limitation of the power of the Guru to that of a teacher who
> > > shows
> > > the way but cannot help or guide, that is the conception of certain
> > > paths of
> > > yoga such as the pure Adwaitin and the Buddhist which say that you
> > > must rely
> > > upon yourself and that no one can help you; but even the pure Adwaitin
> > > does
> > > in fact rely upon the Guru and the chief mantra of Buddhism insists on
> > > sharanam [ = refuge/shelter] to Buddha. For other paths of sadhana,
> > > especially those which, like the Gita, accept the reality of the
> > > individual
> > > soul as an "eternal portion" of the Divine or which believe that
> > > Bhagavan
> > > and the bhakta are both real, the help of the Guru has always been
> > > relied
> > > upon as an indispensable aid.  http://intyoga.online.fr/gurus.htm
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salvation or Deliverance
> > > >
> > > > These are predominantly religious terms and very common, if not
> > > > central
> > > > to christianity. Neither of which are my thing. But so many times I
> > > > have
> > > > been asked as to if any of this relates in any way to transcendent
> > > > mystical experience. In a way it does, yes.
> > > >
> > > > I have explained  in the  free books (Psychognosis and the Dignity
> > > > of
> > > > Man; and also in The mystical Gnosis Event and the Human Situation )
> > > > as
> > > > to how Metaphysics must have originally come from Transcendent
> > > > Mystical
> > > > experience thousands of years ago probably when humanity lived in
> > > > caves.
> > > > And stories of experiences get told and passed on from one
> > > > generation to
> > > > the next for aeons while sitting around the fires when the work was
> > > > done. I have also told as to how priestcraft and politics took some
> > > > of
> > > > these passed on accounts and altered it and used it for their own
> > > > vested
> > > > purposes and turned it into their own profit making religion which
> > > > you
> > > > MUST follow if you want to go to heaven.  And hence why the world
> > > > and so
> > > > called education is like it is now. A LIE and a FARCE.
> > > >
> > > > So, in what way can salvation or deliverance be found in
> > > > Transcendent
> > > > Mystical Experience?  I have told in the books, and specifically in
> > > > the
> > > > Exegesis, as to how that journey finished up in the Annihilation of
> > > > Conscious awareness.  One is aware no more. Gone. Dead as a Dodo.
> > > > Extinct. IS NO MORE. But then one comes back into consciousness
> > > > awareness again. But NOT here. But back into the primordial Ground
> > > > of
> > > > Conscious existence â€" Paradesium, Eternity, Elysium, the timeless
> > > > domain of existence; and where we redeem the experiences of what we
> > > > ARE
> > > > at that level of Being. The Original SELF. The first `child' of
> > > > all manifest existence. The I AM at the core root of me and you and
> > > > all
> > > > conscious life forms. It is there to find so see if you can find it.
> > > > I
> > > > found it and there is nothing special about me. SO dump your
> > > > religions
> > > > and dump all your beliefs and go in search of your SELF. Nobody can
> > > > give
> > > > it to you; and when hearing words of it, as you are now, then that
> > > > is
> > > > not having it and knowing it. You must find it for yourself. Then
> > > > you
> > > > will KNOW it by direct experience.
> > > >
> > > > But yes, arsing again from that annihilation could indeed be called
> > > > salvation from non existence, or deliverance from annihilation. And
> > > > redemption means getting something back which is yours â€" the
> > > > Knowledge of SELF.
> > > >
> > > > Do your bishops or guru's or `mystics' or `gnostics'
> > > > or `enlightened ones' tell you these things?  NO. They do not.
> > > > But I do. And I spell it all out in fine grain detail. So you can
> > > > know
> > > > it before you KNOW it. Homo Ensophicus is coming. Revolution equals
> > > > Evolution. A great wonder, my friend, are YOU.  And the
> > > > consciousness of
> > > > Man is ever tied to the cross if Time and Eternity. (X)   Don't wait
> > > > until you are gone from here to learn it. It is needed HERE, not
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.psychognosis.net
> > > >
> > > > Dick Richardson
>
> > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

What is your point??

By the way, what is your first name??  Is it Devinder??

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: devindersingh
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:24 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance

The first time I heard about the Mother was shortly after our arrival here.
It was Sri Aurobindo himself who told us about a French lady from Paris who
was a great initiate. She was desirous of establishing personal contact with
Sri Aurobindo. That the Great Soul whom she meant was no other than Sri
Aurobindo would be evidenced by a sign: she would be sending him something
that he might recognise. That something was Sri Aurobindo's own symbol – in
the form of a diagram, known as Solomon's Seal. Needless to add, after this
proof of identity, steps were taken to facilitate her coming.
We received her as a friend and companion, as one very close to ourselves,
first, because Sri Aurobindo himself received her like that, and secondly
because of her qualities. Now that we are on this subject of her qualities,
although it is not necessary for a child to proclaim the virtues of his
mother, I cannot here "'refrain from telling you about another point in her
teaching. This concerns something deeper. The first time Sri Aurobindo
happened to describe her qualities, he said he had never seen anywhere a
self-surrender so absolute and unreserved.
First I came to know that she was a very fine painter; and afterwards that
she was an equally gifted musician. But there were other surprises in store.
For instance, she had an intellectual side no less richly endowed, that is
to say, she had read and studied enormously, had been engaged in
intellectual pursuits even as the learned do. I was still more surprised to
find that while in France she had already studied and translated a good
number of Indian texts, like the Gita, the Upanishads, the Yoga-sutras, the
Bhakti-sutras of Narada. I mention all this merely to tell you that the
Mother's capacity of making her mind a complete blank was as extraordinary
as her enormous mental acquisitions. This was something unique. In the early
days, when she had just taken charge of our spiritual life, she told me one
day in private, perhaps seeing that I might have a pride in being an
intellectual, "At one time I used to take an interest in philosophy and
other intellectual pursuits. All that is now gone below the surface, but I
can bring it up again at will." So, I need not have any fears on that score!
It was as if the Mother was trying to apologise for her deficiencies in
scholarship. This was how she taught me the meaning of humility, what we
call Divine Humility.
In the beginning, Sri Aurobindo would refer to the Mother quite distinctly
as Mira. For some time afterwards (this may have extended over a period of
years) we could notice that he stopped at the sound of M and uttered the
full name Mira as, if after a slight hesitation. To us it looked rather
queer at the time, but later we came to know the reason. Sri Aurobindo's
lips were on the verge of saying "Mother"; but we had yet to get ready, so
he ended with Mira instead of saying Mother. No one knows for certain on
which particular date, at what auspicious moment, the word "Mother" was
uttered by the lips of Sri Aurobindo. But that was a divine moment in
unrecorded time, a moment of destiny in the history of man and earth; for it
was at this supreme moment that the Mother was established on this material
earth, in the external consciousness of man.
I have said that so far the Mother had been to us a friend and companion, a
comrade almost, at the most an object of reverence and respect. I was now
about to start on my annual trip to Bengal – in those days I used to go
there once every year, and that was perhaps my last trip. Before leaving, I
felt a desire to see the Mother. The Mother had not yet come out of her
seclusion and Sri Aurobindo had not yet retired behind the scenes. I said to
him, "I would like to see Her before I go."- Her with a capital H, in place
of the Mother, for we had not yet started using that name. Sri Aurobindo
informed the Mother. The room now used by Champaklal was the Mother's room
in those days. I entered and waited in the Prosperity room, for Sri
Aurobindo used to meet people in the verandah in front. The Mother came in
from her room and stood near the door. I approached her and said, "I am
going," and then lay prostrate at her feet. That was my first Pranam to the
Mother. She said, "Come back soon." This "come back soon" meant in the end,
"come back for good."
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-63_I%2\
0Bow%20To%20The%20Mother.htm]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Say, what???
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:13 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
>
> The action of the Force does not exclude tapasya, concentration and the
> need
> of sadhana. Its action rather comes as an answer or a help to these
> things.
> It is true that it sometimes acts without them; it very often makes a
> response in those who have not prepared themselves and do not seem to be
> ready. But it does not always or usually act like that, nor is it a sort
> of
> magic that acts in the void or without any process. Nor is it a machine
> that
> acts in the same way on everybody or in all conditions and circumstances;
> it
> is not a physical but a spiritual Force and its action cannot be reduced
> to
> rules.
> About the limitation of the power of the Guru to that of a teacher who
> shows
> the way but cannot help or guide, that is the conception of certain paths
> of
> yoga such as the pure Adwaitin and the Buddhist which say that you must
> rely
> upon yourself and that no one can help you; but even the pure Adwaitin
> does
> in fact rely upon the Guru and the chief mantra of Buddhism insists on
> sharanam [ = refuge/shelter] to Buddha. For other paths of sadhana,
> especially those which, like the Gita, accept the reality of the
> individual
> soul as an "eternal portion" of the Divine or which believe that Bhagavan
> and the bhakta are both real, the help of the Guru has always been relied
> upon as an indispensable aid.  http://intyoga.online.fr/gurus.htm



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

[Orthodox science itself is taking greater and greater cognisance today of
the irrational move­ments of nature, even of physical nature. Intuition and
instinct are now welcomed as surer and truer instruments of knowledge and
action than reason.]

What is your reference??  What scientist or group of scientists is saying
that intuition is a "truer instrument of knowledge"??

Is the rover Curiosity digging around Mars for intuition??

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: devindersingh
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:24 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance

Every age has claimed to be modern and sought to establish its
characteristic newness, the hall-mark that separates it from the preceding
age.

The scientific spirit, in one word, is rationalisation – rationalisation of
Mind as well as of Life. With regard to Mind, rationalisation means to get
knowledge exclusively on the data of the senses; it is the formulation, in
laws and principles, of facts observed by the physical organs, these laws
and principles being the categories of the arranging, classifying,
generalising faculty, called reason; its methodology also demands that the
laws are to be as few as possible embracing as many facts as possible.
Rationalisation of life means the government of life in accordance with
these laws, so that the wastage in natural life due to the diversity and
disparity off acts may be eliminated, at least minimised, and all movements
of life ordered and organised in view of a single and constant purpose
(which is perhaps the enhancement of the value of life). This
rationalisa­tion means further, in effect, mechanisation or efficiency, as
its protagonists would prefer to call it. However, mechanistic efficiency,
whether in the matter of knowledge or of life-of mind or of morals was the
motto of the early period of the gospel of science, the age of Huxley and
Haeckel, of Bentham and the Mills. The formula no longer holds good either
in the field of pure knowledge or in its application to life; it does not
embody the aspiration and outlook of the contemporary mind, in spite of such
inveterate rationalists as Russell and Wells or even Shaw (in Back to
Methuselah, for example), who seem to be already becoming an anachronism in
the present age.

The contemporary urge is not towards rationalisation, but rather towards
irrationalisation. Orthodox science itself is taking greater and greater
cognisance today of the irrational move­ments of nature, even of physical
nature. Intuition and instinct are now welcomed as surer and truer
instruments of knowledge and action than reason.
Another special feature of the modern consciousness is its "multiple
sightedness". The world, as it is presented to us, is no more than an
assemblage of view-points; and each point of observation forms its own
world-system. There is no one single ultimate truth; if there is any, there
is no possibility of its being known or perceived by the mind or the senses.
Things exist in relation to one another and for us they have no intrinsic
existence apart from the relations. The instrument itself that perceives is
the resultant of a system of relations. A truth is only a view-point; and as
the view-point shifts, the truth also varies accordingly. The cult of
Relativity is a significant expression of the modern consciousness.

[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-29_Asp\
ects%20of%20Modernism.html]

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
>
> The past ages of society were characterised more or less by a severe
> collectivism. In ancient Greece, more so in Sparta and in Rome, the
> individual had, properly speaking, no separate existence of his own; he
> was merged in the State or Nation. The individual was considered only as a
> limb of the collective being, had to live and labour for the common weal.
> The value attached to each person was strictly in reference to the output
> that the group to which he belonged received from him. Apart from this
> service for the general unit-the body politic-any personal endeavour and
> achievement, if not absolutely discouraged and repressed, was given a very
> secondary place of merit.
>  The individual has his own law and urge of being and his own secret
> godhead. The collective godhead derides the individual godhead at its
> peril. The first movement of the reaction, how­ever, was a run to the
> other extremity; a stern collectivism gave birth to an intransigent
> individualism. The individual is sacred and inviolable, cost what it may.
> It does not matter what sort of individuality one seeks, it is enough if
> the thing is there. So the doctrine of individualism has come to set a
> premium on egoism and on forces that are disruptive of all social bonds.
> Each and every individual has the inherent right, which is also a duty, to
> follow his own impetus and impulse. Society is nothing but the battle
> ground for competing indi­vidualities – the strongest survive and the
> weakest go to the wall. Association and co-operation are instruments that
> the individual may use and utilise for his own growth and development but
> in the main they act as deterrents rather than as aids to the expression
> and expansion of his characteristic being. In reality, however, if we
> probe sufficiently deep into the matter we find that there is no such
> thing as corporate life and activity; what appears as such is only a
> camouflage for rigorous competition; at the best, there maybe only an
> offensive and defensive alliance-humanity fights against nature, and
> within humanity itself group fights against group and in the last
> analysis, within the group, the individual fights against the individual.
> This is the ultimate Law-the Dharma of creation.
> Now, what such an uncompromising individualism fails to recognise is that
> individuality and ego are not the same thing, that the individual may have
> his individuality intact and entire and yet sacrifice his ego, that the
> soul of man is a much greater thing than his vital being. It is simply
> ignoring the fact and denying the truth to say that man is only a fighting
> animal and not a loving god, that the self within the individual realises
> itself only through competition and not co-operation. It is an error to
> conceive of society as a mere parallelogram of forces, to suppose that it
> has risen simply out of the struggle of individual interests and continues
> to remain by that struggle. Struggle is only one aspect of the thing, a
> particular form at a particular stage, a temporary manifestation due to a
> particular system and a particular habit and training. It would be nearer
> the truth to say that society came into being with the demand of the
> individual soul to unite with the individual soul, with the stress of an
> Over-soul to express itself in a multitude of forms, diverse yet linked
> together and organised in perfect harmony. Only, the stress for union
> manifested itself first on the material plane as struggle: but this is
> meant to be corrected and transcended and is being continually corrected
> and transcended by a secret harmony, a real commonality and brotherhood
> and unity. The individual is not so self-centred as the individualists
> make him to be, his individuality has a much vaster orbit and fulfils
> itself only by fulfilling others. The scientists have begun to discover
> other instincts in man than those of struggle and competition; they now
> place at the origin of social grouping an instinct which they name the
> herd-instinct: but this is only a formulation in lower terms, a
> translation on the vital plane of a higher truth and reality-the
> fundamental oneness and accord of individuals and their spiritual
> impulsion to unite.
>
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-06_On%\
20Communism.html]
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
> >
> > Eduard,
> > In India we live with this knowledge...The water Buffalo loves to wallow
> > in the mud. We let it revel.
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Say, what???
> > > >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It
> > > >ia about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope.
> > > >These throwbacks to religion  will just fade. Now most of the
> > > >catholics are in the poor ,southern hemisphere. I think the buddists
> > > >will be run over by the more agressive Islamists  or the Chinese
> > > >Communists. At any rate it will take centuries  and we would do
> > > >better to ignore them  and tend to the business of northern man.
> > > >Ignore is the operant word  as trying to deal with religous fanatics
> > > >just does not pay off. Set them against themselves  and go about
> > > >building  a better world here in our homes. The islamists  Hindus and
> > > >Chinese are wildly over breed and  will kill each other for food and
> > > >fuel. Our populations are under control and our food and energy needs
> > > >are being met. Let them deal with each other and we will deal with
> > > >them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient  and losing ideas
> > > >is only a waste of time. Bill



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

[... to establish the Divine in the human frame, to incarnate the
spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.]

I have no doubt that humans will evolve further .... largely of their own
making.  But I seriously doubt that one could say it is a matter of putting
the divine into the human body.

What is this "divine"??  Are you saying that humans would evolve to become
gods.  I should think that there would be big trouble with an earth full of
say 10 billion gods.

eduard


-----Original Message-----
From: devindersingh
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:06 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: significant difference

What came out existed already there essentially within what was. It is
nothing but the quickening of the seed, the growth of the embryo and the
birth out of the womb: Life was imbedded in Matter, Mind was imbedded in
Life and therefore in Matter. Thus evolution is merely self-manifestation,
the urge to bring out step by step all the degrees of potency involved in
the being. The force of evolution is selective and directive, as has been
pointed out by Julian Huxley.

With man came also the sense of what is beyond man, the superman, the divine
man, the Divine. That is the true meaning of his appearance, that is the
characteristic turn of consciousness which he brought with him. This
self-consciousness, an inner perception and aspiration that he is to be
something else, something other and greater than what he is, means the
emergence of a spiritual soul in the world of matter. This prophetic or
forward-looking consciousness is absent in the sub-human creation, although,
as I have said, a secret blind unknowing forward urge has always been there
as the original motive of all functioning in things and creatures upon
earth.

[Existentialists]assert even now that to be ignorant is human: to be born,
to live and to decay and die – sasyam iva pacyate sasyam iva jayate punah –
that is the inevitable course of earthly life. If you want to be superhuman,
you must get beyond the human frame altogether, 'not here, not here, but
elsewhere'. That has been the burden more or less of all religions, all
spiritual attempts and achievements so far.

We, have said that this does not seen to lead to the right solution of the
riddle, for it means merely a by-passing, an escape. The true solution must
concern itself with here and now. And we have also said that the earth and
human life are inevitably moving towards that solution, for it is that
solution which the evolutionary urge is carrying within itself to offer to
earth and human life, viz., to establish the Divine in the human frame, to
incarnate the spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.

...the red seed of the French Revolution was planted the very day when the
Valois autocrat declared his divine right of kingship. In Russia, Lenin's
antithesis was posited along with Peter the Great's thesis.

...the New Being, the Superman, will be born, whether breaking the mould
that humanity is or reshaping it into the new pattern.

[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-46_The\
%20Evolutionary%20Imperative.htm]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> [First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
> exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
> who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
> receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
> refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
> leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
> one begins to become an individuality!]
>
> Nothing new there.  That is what a mature person does ... avoids being
> carrying away by distractions ... and focusing on what is important.
>
> However, it is also a recipe for a self-indulged isolated hermit, which is
> not a good path to undertake.
>
> eduard

THERE is no doubt that Europe knows very well the art of life which in our
country is totally lacking. In the East it is only Japan that knows it and knows
it well enough. Our country on the whole and most of the East is at present
steeped in inertia.
You have asked me the exact meaning of control of the senses and what is its
necessity in life. For, in India we have held up this ideal on an elaborate
scale, but to what effect? Europe cares little for it, yet she rules the world.
Firstly, whether self-control is necessary or not depends on the nature of our
ideal. Self-control is only a particular means to a particular end. If the
meaning of life is to live the life of nature, to possess power and influence –
if the aim of life is to live in accordance with its impulses, then the question
of self-control can never arise. In such a case the indulgence of the senses is
the motive force.
There are two approaches to life: one is to follow the lead of the senses, to
enrich life as much as possible by giving them full play and acquiring means for
their satisfaction; the other is to move away from their range to a region
inward or upward. Those who have taken to this path are unanimous that this path
leads to the realm of supreme Peace, Light and Truth and that in fact the real
character of life, its true fulfilment lie in this realm. In their view the
sense-world is a world of deformations, narrow and full of impurities. Its
material resources, however rich and vast, are really worth little. But man has
also his inner senses which can help him to return to his home in the infinite
Vast as a child of Immortality. This is the real sense of self-mastery: instead
of swimming down the sense-current, one must swim back in the opposite
direction. Instead of slipping down from the source of life one has to climb up
into it.
You may ask: to what good? Suppose, one goes beyond the sphere of life to
Vaikuntha, to Heaven, attains Nirvana and gets merged in the Brahman; in that
case life is lost. And it is really what has happened in India. There has been
no dearth of saints, seers and Avatars. But they live in their own worlds. The
dwellers on our realistic plane are poor, distressed and miserable. True, there
is a class of men who are not in the least perturbed at this state of things.
Time was when from the mouth of a daughter of India rose the ringing voice:

"Of what use to me are the things that cannot make me immortal?"

Of course, there is no hard arid fast rule that there must be a barrier between
life and beyond-life, between self-restraint and self-indulgence. A synthesis
between the two may be difficult, but not impossible. Indeed, it was in India
again that there developed such lines of synthetic sadhana. Rather it was Europe
that gave evidence of this conflict and duality much more than India. We may
remember the motto: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, etc." By pointing to
the path of self-restraint Christianity holds that it leads to the Kingdom of
Christ and those who would remain chained down to their senses will remain in
their low, unrefined state of nature. In Europe this conflict has led to two
extremes. Self-restraint in Christianity has become self-mortification: but, on
the other hand, when Europeans do not think it harmful to give a long rope to
the senses, they have gone to the excess of unbridled license. In India there
has been an attempt at a synthesis of these two aspects of life. Worldly life
was taken as a preparation for or as a stepping-stone to the world beyond. So
self-restraint was given a place not only in the sphere of sadhana for
liberation, but also in the field of enjoyment. Hence we see in India as much
preponderance of sattwic qualities as we see in Europe preponderance of rajasic
dynamism. No doubt, the sattwic state easily lapses into the inertia of tamas.
As a matter of fact, such has been the case in India. But rajas also meets the
same end. The one slowly slides to extinction; the other shoots up like a rocket
and falls like a burnt stick. Thus both suffer the same fate.
In general, life is the play-field of the senses. If self-control implies moving
away from the senses, then it is not possible for it to have a place in life.
But self-control may mean keeping the senses under control, under a system of
rule and discipline. This is the popular sense of self-control: it is a graded
withdrawal, a first step towards detachment. This is also how it developed in
India. But, as a matter of fact, this popular approach to self-control is not
India's speciality alone. Europe has given it a recognised place, not only in
the Christian religious life but in her worldly life too. But it will not do to
forget that the untrammelled freedom of the senses and their unbridled license
have been accepted as an ideal specially in modern times, and it is confined to
a particular community. What they are now attempting to reject as a bourgeois
trait was one day an aid in the building up of the Euorpean society. To be sure,
Europe was not so inclined towards detachment as India. Europe has gone in for
the cultivation of the senses, but that does not mean that she has been sticking
to an excessive and disorderly play of the senses. Neither Byron nor Oscar Wilde
is the ultimate ideal of Europe. When the famous novelist Balzac used to sit
down to write he would do so in a lonely place in a monk's tunic in order to
help his one-pointed concentration. Napoleon, Caesar and Alexander were no
helpless slaves of their senses. In fact, no country or race can build its
greatness except on the foundation of self-control. It is not that self-control
must necessarily be self-mortification. There can be a via media, and in
ordinary life this is a necessity. Self-indulgence is the debit side. True, this
side of Europe is much to the fore, but that leads one to think that she is
living on her old capital, and it is not long before her capital runs short. The
root of the capital is self-restraint, and it is the credit side, the side of
accumulated power.
It may certainly be that the social, moral and other kinds of injunctions
regarding control of the senses do not strictly apply any more to our modern
life. Man's consciousness demands a wider and more liberal existence. Not a
religion of mental conventions but a universal one founded on truth is what he
wants. But that is altogether another matter. This problem and its solution will
lead us into deeper waters. Hence we have to stop here.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-45_Lif\
e%20and%20Self%20Control.htm]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Yep ... and in India you have gang rapes in late night buses.  The whole
> country had to be divided because you could not live with each other.  You
> have a segment of society that are designated as untouchable, albeit you are
> trying to change that.  I don't think that India has anything to teach the
> West.  Which isn't to suggest that the West is in much good shape either
> with morality and such.  But if you want to get some message out, it would
> be nice if you could put it in a context and with phrasing that is
> understandable, regardless of the fact that you "live" with this knowledge.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:56 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
>
> Eduard,
> In India we live with this knowledge...The water Buffalo loves to wallow in
> the mud. We let it revel.
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > >
> > > Say, what???
> > >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It ia
> > >about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope. These
> > >throwbacks to religion  will just fade. Now most of the catholics are in
> > >the poor ,southern hemisphere. I think the buddists will be run over by
> > >the more agressive Islamists  or the Chinese Communists. At any rate it
> > >will take centuries  and we would do better to ignore them  and tend to
> > >the business of northern man. Ignore is the operant word  as trying to
> > >deal with religous fanatics just does not pay off. Set them against
> > >themselves  and go about building  a better world here in our homes. The
> > >islamists  Hindus and Chinese are wildly over breed and  will kill each
> > >other for food and fuel. Our populations are under control and our food
> > >and energy needs are being met. Let them deal with each other and we will
> > >deal with them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient  and losing
> > >ideas is only a waste of time. Bill

You believe you are, does not matter what, a boy, a girl, a man, a woman, a dog,
a horse, anything: a stone, the sea or the sun. You think you are all that,
instead of thinking that you are the One Divine. Indeed, if you had continued to
think that you are the One Divine, there would have been no universe at all. The
phenomenon of separation seems to have been indispensable, otherwise it would
have remained always as it was.
But once the curve has been followed up and the Unity re-established, having
profited by the multiplicity and division, the Unity found is of a higher
quality: a Unity that knows itself, instead of a unity that does not know
itself, for there is nothing else there which knows the other. Where the Unity
is absolute, who or what can know the Unity? Hence the need of the appearance of
something which is not that, in order to know what it is.
The original Will was towards forming individual beings that would be capable of
becoming conscious again of their origin, although the procedure of
individualisation compelled the individual to feel itself separate in order to
be an individual. And the very moment it is separated, it is cut off from the
original Consciousness, at least apparently, and falls into inconscience, for
the only thing that is the Life of life is the Origin.
It is this inconscience that brings it about that you are not aware any longer
of the Truth of your being. The secret of all deformation in the world is this
inconscience which has been produced by the fact of separation from the Origin.
And that explains why there are ugliness, wickedness, illness, suffering and
death. It is because of this inconscience that although the Origin is there, it
cannot manifest itself. It is there, that is why the world exists, but it is
deformed in its expression, because it manifests itself through inconscience,
ignorance and obscurity.
The only way to set everything right is to be conscious again and it is very
simple.
You are That, you are in That.
To make you understand more easily, I may say, That is within us, That is part
of our consciousness somewhere. Otherwise we would never be able to be conscious
of it. If we did not carry the Divine within ourselves, in the essence of our
being, we would never be aware of Him, it would be an impossible task.
There is only one thing to be found, not two.
If one goes round long enough one must come back to the same point. And once you
come back, you have the impression that there was never anything to find
outside. Yes, it is like that, there is nothing to find outside yourself.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-4/-047_Th\
e%20Origin.htm]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Your statements here are most difficult to follow.
>
> First you say that there is "severe collectivism", then the birth of
> intransigent individualism.  The pendulum swings.  So you end up with the
> "herd instinct" which I suppose is back to "severe collectivism".
>
> Human society is not that simplistic.  You would have to ignore some
> historical figures [depending upon what you mean by "past ages] who were
> individualists.  You would also have to ignore religions which are
> collective and continue to be.
>
> Then you totally lost me with, "... the demand of the individual soul to
> unite with the individual soul, ...".  How can a soul [assuming that such
> actually exists] demand to be united with itself??  Why should it make such
> a demand??
>
> eduard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:15 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
>
> The past ages of society were characterised more or less by a severe
> collectivism. In ancient Greece, more so in Sparta and in Rome, the
> individual had, properly speaking, no separate existence of his own; he was
> merged in the State or Nation. The individual was considered only as a limb
> of the collective being, had to live and labour for the common weal. The
> value attached to each person was strictly in reference to the output that
> the group to which he belonged received from him. Apart from this service
> for the general unit-the body politic-any personal endeavour and
> achievement, if not absolutely discouraged and repressed, was given a very
> secondary place of merit.
> The individual has his own law and urge of being and his own secret godhead.
> The collective godhead derides the individual godhead at its peril. The
> first movement of the reaction, how­ever, was a run to the other extremity;
> a stern collectivism gave birth to an intransigent individualism. The
> individual is sacred and inviolable, cost what it may. It does not matter
> what sort of individuality one seeks, it is enough if the thing is there. So
> the doctrine of individualism has come to set a premium on egoism and on
> forces that are disruptive of all social bonds. Each and every individual
> has the inherent right, which is also a duty, to follow his own impetus and
> impulse. Society is nothing but the battle ground for competing
> indi­vidualities â€" the strongest survive and the weakest go to the wall.
> Association and co-operation are instruments that the individual may use and
> utilise for his own growth and development but in the main they act as
> deterrents rather than as aids to the expression and expansion of his
> characteristic being. In reality, however, if we probe sufficiently deep
> into the matter we find that there is no such thing as corporate life and
> activity; what appears as such is only a camouflage for rigorous
> competition; at the best, there maybe only an offensive and defensive
> alliance-humanity fights against nature, and within humanity itself group
> fights against group and in the last analysis, within the group, the
> individual fights against the individual. This is the ultimate Law-the
> Dharma of creation.
> Now, what such an uncompromising individualism fails to recognise is that
> individuality and ego are not the same thing, that the individual may have
> his individuality intact and entire and yet sacrifice his ego, that the soul
> of man is a much greater thing than his vital being. It is simply ignoring
> the fact and denying the truth to say that man is only a fighting animal and
> not a loving god, that the self within the individual realises itself only
> through competition and not co-operation. It is an error to conceive of
> society as a mere parallelogram of forces, to suppose that it has risen
> simply out of the struggle of individual interests and continues to remain
> by that struggle. Struggle is only one aspect of the thing, a particular
> form at a particular stage, a temporary manifestation due to a particular
> system and a particular habit and training. It would be nearer the truth to
> say that society came into being with the demand of the individual soul to
> unite with the individual soul, with the stress of an Over-soul to express
> itself in a multitude of forms, diverse yet linked together and organised in
> perfect harmony. Only, the stress for union manifested itself first on the
> material plane as struggle: but this is meant to be corrected and
> transcended and is being continually corrected and transcended by a secret
> harmony, a real commonality and brotherhood and unity. The individual is not
> so self-centred as the individualists make him to be, his individuality has
> a much vaster orbit and fulfils itself only by fulfilling others. The
> scientists have begun to discover other instincts in man than those of
> struggle and competition; they now place at the origin of social grouping an
> instinct which they name the herd-instinct: but this is only a formulation
> in lower terms, a translation on the vital plane of a higher truth and
> reality-the fundamental oneness and accord of individuals and their
> spiritual impulsion to unite.
>
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-06_On%\
20Communism.html]
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
> >
> > Eduard,
> > In India we live with this knowledge...The water Buffalo loves to wallow
> > in the mud. We let it revel.
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Say, what???
> > > >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It
> > > >ia about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope. These
> > > >throwbacks to religion  will just fade. Now most of the catholics are
> > > >in the poor ,southern hemisphere. I think the buddists will be run over
> > > >by the more agressive Islamists  or the Chinese Communists. At any rate
> > > >it will take centuries  and we would do better to ignore them  and tend
> > > >to the business of northern man. Ignore is the operant word  as trying
> > > >to deal with religous fanatics just does not pay off. Set them against
> > > >themselves  and go about building  a better world here in our homes.
> > > >The islamists  Hindus and Chinese are wildly over breed and  will kill
> > > >each other for food and fuel. Our populations are under control and our
> > > >food and energy needs are being met. Let them deal with each other and
> > > >we will deal with them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient
> > > >and losing ideas is only a waste of time. Bill

In short, Yoga is an attempt at discovering a new 'Law of Life', and after that
discovery one has to mould and regulate one's life in accordance with it. This
Law of Life is nothing other than the Law of Divine Life. What does it mean? It
means that in a human being there are two planes, two kinds of nature and two
laws of life – one belongs to the lower region, the other to the higher, one
belongs to the terrestrial, the other to the supraterrestrial. This earth of
clay or the lower region possesses body; life and mind. Man moves about
according to the laws and customs, bondages and limitations of body, life and
mind. But there exists a world, a plane above these three; and there the;
knowledge of man does not depend on gross physical sensations or on syllogistic
reasonings. There the knowledge is self-revealing, undeformed and infallible. It
is called Intuition, Revelation. There the restless wild urge of action or blind
agitations of numberless sensations have turned into a calm spiritual power and
an unalloyed delight. And that plane too has a body of its own. But it is
absolutely free from disease, decay and death that we find in the physical
being. To leave aside the laws of body, life and mind and rise into the highest
spiritual nature is called Yoga. But don't think, in doing Yoga you shall have
to do away with this body, life and mind and keep aloof from the world and the
earthly concerns. This theory is an absurdity on the face of it. The higher
world can be contacted even while remaining in the body, life and mind, and it
can also be infused into these three. The lower nature can be moulded by the
infusion and the law of the higher. While residing in the world all earthly
activities can be directed by the drive of that higher world.
It is a difficult task, but not impossible. It seems to be an impossibility or a
mere ideal only, when I look upon myself alone, and think that I am a little,
insignificant creature – how can I have the power to change the process of
Nature that has been active from time immemorial? Will it be possible to do so
even in hundreds of lives? But is it not that a ray of hope peeps into me the
moment I cast a glance at the universe without taking me into account? We admit
nowadays the law of evolution preached by the West. According to that law of
evolution there existed Matter first in the creation, and then appeared the
animal, finally the human being. That is to say, the Western science has
recognised, in the first instance, evolution on lower planes of Nature. First
body, then life and then mind. But nothing can be as absurd and illogical as to
say that the evolution of Nature has stopped after reaching the mental level. In
fact, Yoga tells us that above the mental level there is a plane called
Supermind and above man there is Superman.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-44_A%2\
0Letter.htm]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> [Orthodox science itself is taking greater and greater cognisance today of
> the irrational move­ments of nature, even of physical nature. Intuition and
> instinct are now welcomed as surer and truer instruments of knowledge and
> action than reason.]
>
> What is your reference??  What scientist or group of scientists is saying
> that intuition is a "truer instrument of knowledge"??
>
> Is the rover Curiosity digging around Mars for intuition??
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:24 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
>
> Every age has claimed to be modern and sought to establish its
> characteristic newness, the hall-mark that separates it from the preceding
> age.
>
> The scientific spirit, in one word, is rationalisation â€" rationalisation of
> Mind as well as of Life. With regard to Mind, rationalisation means to get
> knowledge exclusively on the data of the senses; it is the formulation, in
> laws and principles, of facts observed by the physical organs, these laws
> and principles being the categories of the arranging, classifying,
> generalising faculty, called reason; its methodology also demands that the
> laws are to be as few as possible embracing as many facts as possible.
> Rationalisation of life means the government of life in accordance with
> these laws, so that the wastage in natural life due to the diversity and
> disparity off acts may be eliminated, at least minimised, and all movements
> of life ordered and organised in view of a single and constant purpose
> (which is perhaps the enhancement of the value of life). This
> rationalisa­tion means further, in effect, mechanisation or efficiency, as
> its protagonists would prefer to call it. However, mechanistic efficiency,
> whether in the matter of knowledge or of life-of mind or of morals was the
> motto of the early period of the gospel of science, the age of Huxley and
> Haeckel, of Bentham and the Mills. The formula no longer holds good either
> in the field of pure knowledge or in its application to life; it does not
> embody the aspiration and outlook of the contemporary mind, in spite of such
> inveterate rationalists as Russell and Wells or even Shaw (in Back to
> Methuselah, for example), who seem to be already becoming an anachronism in
> the present age.
>
> The contemporary urge is not towards rationalisation, but rather towards
> irrationalisation. Orthodox science itself is taking greater and greater
> cognisance today of the irrational move­ments of nature, even of physical
> nature. Intuition and instinct are now welcomed as surer and truer
> instruments of knowledge and action than reason.
> Another special feature of the modern consciousness is its "multiple
> sightedness". The world, as it is presented to us, is no more than an
> assemblage of view-points; and each point of observation forms its own
> world-system. There is no one single ultimate truth; if there is any, there
> is no possibility of its being known or perceived by the mind or the senses.
> Things exist in relation to one another and for us they have no intrinsic
> existence apart from the relations. The instrument itself that perceives is
> the resultant of a system of relations. A truth is only a view-point; and as
> the view-point shifts, the truth also varies accordingly. The cult of
> Relativity is a significant expression of the modern consciousness.
>
>
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-29_Asp\
ects%20of%20Modernism.html]
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
> >
> > The past ages of society were characterised more or less by a severe
> > collectivism. In ancient Greece, more so in Sparta and in Rome, the
> > individual had, properly speaking, no separate existence of his own; he
> > was merged in the State or Nation. The individual was considered only as a
> > limb of the collective being, had to live and labour for the common weal.
> > The value attached to each person was strictly in reference to the output
> > that the group to which he belonged received from him. Apart from this
> > service for the general unit-the body politic-any personal endeavour and
> > achievement, if not absolutely discouraged and repressed, was given a very
> > secondary place of merit.
> >  The individual has his own law and urge of being and his own secret
> > godhead. The collective godhead derides the individual godhead at its
> > peril. The first movement of the reaction, how­ever, was a run to the
> > other extremity; a stern collectivism gave birth to an intransigent
> > individualism. The individual is sacred and inviolable, cost what it may.
> > It does not matter what sort of individuality one seeks, it is enough if
> > the thing is there. So the doctrine of individualism has come to set a
> > premium on egoism and on forces that are disruptive of all social bonds.
> > Each and every individual has the inherent right, which is also a duty, to
> > follow his own impetus and impulse. Society is nothing but the battle
> > ground for competing indi­vidualities â€" the strongest survive and the
> > weakest go to the wall. Association and co-operation are instruments that
> > the individual may use and utilise for his own growth and development but
> > in the main they act as deterrents rather than as aids to the expression
> > and expansion of his characteristic being. In reality, however, if we
> > probe sufficiently deep into the matter we find that there is no such
> > thing as corporate life and activity; what appears as such is only a
> > camouflage for rigorous competition; at the best, there maybe only an
> > offensive and defensive alliance-humanity fights against nature, and
> > within humanity itself group fights against group and in the last
> > analysis, within the group, the individual fights against the individual.
> > This is the ultimate Law-the Dharma of creation.
> > Now, what such an uncompromising individualism fails to recognise is that
> > individuality and ego are not the same thing, that the individual may have
> > his individuality intact and entire and yet sacrifice his ego, that the
> > soul of man is a much greater thing than his vital being. It is simply
> > ignoring the fact and denying the truth to say that man is only a fighting
> > animal and not a loving god, that the self within the individual realises
> > itself only through competition and not co-operation. It is an error to
> > conceive of society as a mere parallelogram of forces, to suppose that it
> > has risen simply out of the struggle of individual interests and continues
> > to remain by that struggle. Struggle is only one aspect of the thing, a
> > particular form at a particular stage, a temporary manifestation due to a
> > particular system and a particular habit and training. It would be nearer
> > the truth to say that society came into being with the demand of the
> > individual soul to unite with the individual soul, with the stress of an
> > Over-soul to express itself in a multitude of forms, diverse yet linked
> > together and organised in perfect harmony. Only, the stress for union
> > manifested itself first on the material plane as struggle: but this is
> > meant to be corrected and transcended and is being continually corrected
> > and transcended by a secret harmony, a real commonality and brotherhood
> > and unity. The individual is not so self-centred as the individualists
> > make him to be, his individuality has a much vaster orbit and fulfils
> > itself only by fulfilling others. The scientists have begun to discover
> > other instincts in man than those of struggle and competition; they now
> > place at the origin of social grouping an instinct which they name the
> > herd-instinct: but this is only a formulation in lower terms, a
> > translation on the vital plane of a higher truth and reality-the
> > fundamental oneness and accord of individuals and their spiritual
> > impulsion to unite.
> >
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-06_On%\
20Communism.html]
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Eduard,
> > > In India we live with this knowledge...The water Buffalo loves to wallow
> > > in the mud. We let it revel.
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Say, what???
> > > > >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It
> > > > >ia about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope.
> > > > >These throwbacks to religion  will just fade. Now most of the
> > > > >catholics are in the poor ,southern hemisphere. I think the buddists
> > > > >will be run over by the more agressive Islamists  or the Chinese
> > > > >Communists. At any rate it will take centuries  and we would do
> > > > >better to ignore them  and tend to the business of northern man.
> > > > >Ignore is the operant word  as trying to deal with religous fanatics
> > > > >just does not pay off. Set them against themselves  and go about
> > > > >building  a better world here in our homes. The islamists  Hindus and
> > > > >Chinese are wildly over breed and  will kill each other for food and
> > > > >fuel. Our populations are under control and our food and energy needs
> > > > >are being met. Let them deal with each other and we will deal with
> > > > >them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient  and losing ideas
> > > > >is only a waste of time. Bill

> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

GOD you do not find? No God – not at all? But why should He be found? And to own
Him, what right have you? How much of yourself have you offered to Him? Every
moment, every limb of yours, how far have you consecrated?
Your call is merely lip-deep. You have called on Him in a slight difficulty or
out of sheer curiosity, and forthwith is He to appear before you in person?
     Perhaps He does come down. But where is your eye to see?
     Seated in an abysmal, pitch-dark cave, tightly closing your eyes in
addition, you cry out in a fit of restive passion and with a stupendous laugh of
disdain "Where is the Sun, where is the lamp of Phoebus? No Sun, none."
No question of freedom for one who is subdued and trampled under the feet of
others. If one really wants to have a glimpse of freedom, it is not possible
through mere ire, spite, disbelief, despair or at easy ease. Fitness for freedom
has to be acquired. The essential requisite is yoga, arduous yoga.
Fear not – the first step towards freedom is the consciousness of and revolt
against subjection. If the ordinary life of the world is felt as the domain of a
Non-God – if there be a God He cannot remain inside the wheel of this creation –
if there be a Lord of this world-machine, then He must be a satanic god, a
crippled god – this is the first realisation.
     Whenever you say, "Where is God? Where is He? Nowhere," that shows the
commencement of your soul's awakening, however insignificant it may be. For you
feel a sense of want and dissatisfaction in everything including God.
Your denial of God is the first step towards God-realisation. One who finds
fulfilment in the ordinary life and is content with and enamoured of it, one who
needs nothing over and above life, is no better than a tree, a stone, an animal,
a gorilla or a chimpanzee.
Sulking, spite, denial, disrespect, constitute the first step. The second step
is a calm expectation, a persistent faith, one-pointed love and devotion and a
complete reliance.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-35_Whe\
re%20is%20God.htm]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> [... to establish the Divine in the human frame, to incarnate the
> spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.]
>
> I have no doubt that humans will evolve further .... largely of their own
> making.  But I seriously doubt that one could say it is a matter of putting
> the divine into the human body.
>
> What is this "divine"??  Are you saying that humans would evolve to become
> gods.  I should think that there would be big trouble with an earth full of
> say 10 billion gods.
>
> eduard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:06 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: significant difference
>
> What came out existed already there essentially within what was. It is
> nothing but the quickening of the seed, the growth of the embryo and the
> birth out of the womb: Life was imbedded in Matter, Mind was imbedded in
> Life and therefore in Matter. Thus evolution is merely self-manifestation,
> the urge to bring out step by step all the degrees of potency involved in
> the being. The force of evolution is selective and directive, as has been
> pointed out by Julian Huxley.
>
> With man came also the sense of what is beyond man, the superman, the divine
> man, the Divine. That is the true meaning of his appearance, that is the
> characteristic turn of consciousness which he brought with him. This
> self-consciousness, an inner perception and aspiration that he is to be
> something else, something other and greater than what he is, means the
> emergence of a spiritual soul in the world of matter. This prophetic or
> forward-looking consciousness is absent in the sub-human creation, although,
> as I have said, a secret blind unknowing forward urge has always been there
> as the original motive of all functioning in things and creatures upon
> earth.
>
> [Existentialists]assert even now that to be ignorant is human: to be born,
> to live and to decay and die â€" sasyam iva pacyate sasyam iva jayate punah
â€"
> that is the inevitable course of earthly life. If you want to be superhuman,
> you must get beyond the human frame altogether, 'not here, not here, but
> elsewhere'. That has been the burden more or less of all religions, all
> spiritual attempts and achievements so far.
>
> We, have said that this does not seen to lead to the right solution of the
> riddle, for it means merely a by-passing, an escape. The true solution must
> concern itself with here and now. And we have also said that the earth and
> human life are inevitably moving towards that solution, for it is that
> solution which the evolutionary urge is carrying within itself to offer to
> earth and human life, viz., to establish the Divine in the human frame, to
> incarnate the spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.
>
> ...the red seed of the French Revolution was planted the very day when the
> Valois autocrat declared his divine right of kingship. In Russia, Lenin's
> antithesis was posited along with Peter the Great's thesis.
>
> ...the New Being, the Superman, will be born, whether breaking the mould
> that humanity is or reshaping it into the new pattern.
>
>
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-46_The\
%20Evolutionary%20Imperative.htm]
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> >
> > [First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
> > exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
> > who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
> > receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
> > refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
> > leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
> > one begins to become an individuality!]
> >
> > Nothing new there.  That is what a mature person does ... avoids being
> > carrying away by distractions ... and focusing on what is important.
> >
> > However, it is also a recipe for a self-indulged isolated hermit, which is
> > not a good path to undertake.
> >
> > eduard

THE psychic is like an electric wire that connects the generator with the lamp;
the lamp being the body, the visible form. Its function is likewise, that is to
say, if the psychic were not there in Matter, it could have no direct contact
with the Divine. It is because of the psychic presence that there can be a
direct contact between Matter and the Divine. And every human being can be told:
"You carry the Divine within you, you have only to enter within yourself and you
will find Him." It is a direct, special transmuting infusion into the most
inconscient and obscure Matter to awaken it once more step by step to the Divine
Consciousness, the Divine Presence and finally the Divine Himself.
It is a thing characteristic of earthly creatures. It is a speciality of the
earth. But only in the human being does the psychic become more conscious, more
formed and also more independent; it is there individualised. It is the presence
of the psychic that makes of man an exceptional being, so much so that beings of
other domains in the universe, those, for example, belonging to what Sri
Aurobindo calls the Overmind, the demi-gods and even the gods are very eager to
take a physical body upon earth so that they can have the experience of the
psychic. These beings possess certainly many qualities which men have not, but
they lack this direct Divine Presence which is quite exceptional, which is a
fact of the earth and is found nowhere else. All these inhabitants of the higher
worlds, of Higher Mind and Overmind and other regions do not possess a psychic
being.
Naturally, the beings of the vital world do not have it either. They do not
regret it, they do not want it. In their origin, of course, they descended
directly from the Divine, but that was only in their origin and it is so long
ago. Now they have no direct contact with the Divine within them, they do not
have the psychic being.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-4/-041_Th\
e%20Psychic%20Being.htm]
Also watch this Video from minute 45.30. Pay particular attention from minute
49.00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcrsC3ExkVQ
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:

> The Essence of Original Paganism.

> Dick Richardson
>
>   West Somerset. UK. 2006 CE
>
> http://www.psychognosis.net
>
>   When human beings lived in caves thousands of years ago some of them
> discovered that some caves had a quality of  sound resonance (no doubt
> early forms of music effecting the mind by way of echoing resonance
> – the Power of Sound).  This caused (and still causes) the mind to
> let go of daily affairs and discursive rational thought patterns and
> journey into itself.  This inner journey resulted initially in
> experiences much like modern day accounts of Near Death Experiences,
> (and of which there are thousands documented). An inner journey through
> the realms of the subconscious mind, and through and beyond the levels
> of Archetypes and visual constructions (image emanations – and as in
> near death experiences) which are considered spiritual or metaphysical.
>
> However, if this inner journey continued without interruption then it
> resulted in an event way beyond anything known by most people then or
> even now.  This event has no doubt been called many things throughout
> time and by way of all nations and cultures.  Probably the best of the
> ancient accounts of this particular mystical cognitive event arose in
> ancient Greece, and wherein they called it the mystical Gnosis.  Not,
> one hastens to add, to be confused with the religion called Gnosticism
> – which was but one distortion of all this due to ignorance of it
> – believing it was not knowing it by experience.
>
> The event culminates in the mind returning into its primordial self
> – a reunion of the mind with the essence it itself in its ground of
> being – beyond space and moving time. Hence, the Eternal Gnosis, and
> the Perennial Philosophy.  The gnosis however, is not the event or the
> journey to it but rather as to what is learned and understood whilst in
> the mind at the level of being. It has had many other named attributes
> such as the peace which passes all understanding; the wisdom of the
> spheres, the undivided divine order of BEING; the grail of eternal life;
> and other such terms.
>
> It would seem that Stonehenge was the first constructed out-door sound
> amplifier for this purpose of the mystical reunion – the inner faces
> of the stones were cut to reflect sound back into the centre – and
> which has been tested in a reconstruction and it works. This is why so
> many people have some level of mystical experience whilst listening to
> music. But there are of course other triggers too – such as deep
> feelings of beauty and passion, and which make the mind let go of daily
> affairs and travel inward to some degree.  It is odd as to how some
> latter folk came to call such events as `higher levels of Being'
> as opposed to deeper levels of being, and resulting back into the
> implicate order of things. But it seems most things do get distorted
> when the mob gets hold of them.
>
> Needless to say that over millennia, and probably for mob cultural
> indoctrination, these events became symbolised by way of stories and
> myths which the mob could grasp in their minds eye.  The most common of
> which was that of a god-man who comes to earth to save people from their
> acts of stupidity by giving them knowledge which saves them from the
> stupid antics of greed and hedonism, and offers them paradise in
> eternity (which the experience itself is) but as a reward for being
> good.  But the mob laugh at him and kill him, for they like their way of
> life better, tis more fun as they see it.  Throughout time many such
> god-men were constructed – and people believed them to be real. Even
> unto this day.
>
> Eventually the reality become lost in the symbolisms and cultural myths.
> But a few in each generation come to spontaneously undergo the same
> experiential event, and they all say the same things – albeit in
> their own words of course; and just as people do today who come to know
> it.  Thus, this event and this gnosis rears it head in each generation,
> and never to be forgotten completely on earth.
>
> But the biggest ever catalyst to push it underground was the political
> power of Rome in the early centuries of the common era.  When they knew
> their Empire was collapsing and that it could not be held together with
> the sword, they lit upon an idea. They would rule the world with another
> idea and put themselves in charge of it and become the key holders to
> the paradise of eternity. Thus they destroyed all the pagan temples,
> documents, books, records (even the Library of Alexandria); killed all
> the mystics (and scientists too) and anybody who ridiculed their silly
> contrived religion – and with so little ingenuity that they even
> created another god-man to replace all the other symbolisms and
> metaphors.  One could say Christianity, but one should really say Rome,
> is the worst virus ever to plague the human mind.
>
> However, and be all that is it was, and still is to a degree today, the
> truth of things will always out. People will always continue to have
> this deepest of all known mystical experiences, the gnosis event, the
> mystical reunion; Re-Legio; and which addresses the perennial questions
> of what we are, where we come from, why we exist, and why anything
> exists. Tis the mind returning to its primordial mode of being. This
> event happens, and no constructed religions or myths, or laws of man,
> will ever stop it. We will become on earth as we are in essence in that
> mystical ground of our eternal being when the implicate order becomes
> more predominant on earth in the mind of man.
>
> And this is why the wiser amongst the ancient Greeks said `Know Thy
> Self'.  For the great beauty of knowing ones essential SELF is in
> that one simultaneously understands all that is not ones SELF, and the
> self then lives (as it does in that realm too) as the lover of the
> loved.  And the self lives for everything which is not the self- but in
> that dignity of what that self is. And thus the Dignity of Man, and from
> whence we come and to whither we return on occasions. The ground of all
> Being.  Home. We are all the same stuff at root. And time does not last
> for ever – so enjoy it whilst it does, for it is all from the same
> place – a leaf, a tree, a mountain, and the incarnate mind of Man.
> There is no gap, no differentiation, in the mono-pole ground of all
> being. But all manifest things in time and space are products of its
> essential nature – see the beauty, feel the passion, and know the
> wonder. It is all there for you.
>
> How best can Man give thanks or respect to all this (it needs no thanks
> by the way), but the answer is easy – laugh and sing, enjoy being,
> and grab the day; and lend a helping hand to any who may need it –
> for you have been given more than enough. The best that any man can do
> is live in the respect of the dignity and integrity of what we are in
> essence.  And we are the stuff that dreams are made on.  And we are the
> stuff that can make this word a better place for children to be born
> into and  live on. For it is only here that we can share BEING with
> others.  Nothing else is going to do it for us – the job is yours.
> And everything you need for the job is within you now – and even
> before time tore asunder the repose of the divine unity of all being.
> But time is good, use it well and wisely.
>
> Gnothi Seauton.
>
> Dick Richardson.

I understand that it is desirable to have self-control instead of just
following wherever our gratification of the sensory may lead us.  I also
understand that with self-control comes a certain peace for reason that one
can, or thinks they are able, to see the bigger picture.

What is not understandable is the idea of an evolution to the divine.  Or as
you have it here as a movement beyond life to a heaven, to Nirvana, and then
merging in the Brahman.  Why??  Why should such a process exist??  As
opposed to humans just dying and their bodies melting back into the
biosphere.

I can, however, appreciate the idea.  It has a similarity to the Kingdom of
Heaven in Christianity.

If one is to assume that this universe arose out of the Big Bang and will
eventually return in the Big Crunch or the Big Slap [depending what
cosmology one believes in], why should there also arise this process that
takes humans beyond the wall of death?? Why should there be a Brahman??
What does the Brahman do to justify its existence in the universe besides
collecting dead humans??  I could ask the same of Christians as to why there
should be a heaven in which the souls of dead humans are stored?

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: devindersingh
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:05 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance

THERE is no doubt that Europe knows very well the art of life which in our
country is totally lacking. In the East it is only Japan that knows it and
knows it well enough. Our country on the whole and most of the East is at
present steeped in inertia.
You have asked me the exact meaning of control of the senses and what is its
necessity in life. For, in India we have held up this ideal on an elaborate
scale, but to what effect? Europe cares little for it, yet she rules the
world.
Firstly, whether self-control is necessary or not depends on the nature of
our ideal. Self-control is only a particular means to a particular end. If
the meaning of life is to live the life of nature, to possess power and
influence – if the aim of life is to live in accordance with its impulses,
then the question of self-control can never arise. In such a case the
indulgence of the senses is the motive force.
There are two approaches to life: one is to follow the lead of the senses,
to enrich life as much as possible by giving them full play and acquiring
means for their satisfaction; the other is to move away from their range to
a region inward or upward. Those who have taken to this path are unanimous
that this path leads to the realm of supreme Peace, Light and Truth and that
in fact the real character of life, its true fulfilment lie in this realm.
In their view the sense-world is a world of deformations, narrow and full of
impurities. Its material resources, however rich and vast, are really worth
little. But man has also his inner senses which can help him to return to
his home in the infinite Vast as a child of Immortality. This is the real
sense of self-mastery: instead of swimming down the sense-current, one must
swim back in the opposite direction. Instead of slipping down from the
source of life one has to climb up into it.
You may ask: to what good? Suppose, one goes beyond the sphere of life to
Vaikuntha, to Heaven, attains Nirvana and gets merged in the Brahman; in
that case life is lost. And it is really what has happened in India. There
has been no dearth of saints, seers and Avatars. But they live in their own
worlds. The dwellers on our realistic plane are poor, distressed and
miserable. True, there is a class of men who are not in the least perturbed
at this state of things. Time was when from the mouth of a daughter of India
rose the ringing voice:

"Of what use to me are the things that cannot make me immortal?"

Of course, there is no hard arid fast rule that there must be a barrier
between life and beyond-life, between self-restraint and self-indulgence. A
synthesis between the two may be difficult, but not impossible. Indeed, it
was in India again that there developed such lines of synthetic sadhana.
Rather it was Europe that gave evidence of this conflict and duality much
more than India. We may remember the motto: "Render unto Caesar what is
Caesar's, etc." By pointing to the path of self-restraint Christianity holds
that it leads to the Kingdom of Christ and those who would remain chained
down to their senses will remain in their low, unrefined state of nature. In
Europe this conflict has led to two extremes. Self-restraint in Christianity
has become self-mortification: but, on the other hand, when Europeans do not
think it harmful to give a long rope to the senses, they have gone to the
excess of unbridled license. In India there has been an attempt at a
synthesis of these two aspects of life. Worldly life was taken as a
preparation for or as a stepping-stone to the world beyond. So
self-restraint was given a place not only in the sphere of sadhana for
liberation, but also in the field of enjoyment. Hence we see in India as
much preponderance of sattwic qualities as we see in Europe preponderance of
rajasic dynamism. No doubt, the sattwic state easily lapses into the inertia
of tamas. As a matter of fact, such has been the case in India. But rajas
also meets the same end. The one slowly slides to extinction; the other
shoots up like a rocket and falls like a burnt stick. Thus both suffer the
same fate.
In general, life is the play-field of the senses. If self-control implies
moving away from the senses, then it is not possible for it to have a place
in life. But self-control may mean keeping the senses under control, under a
system of rule and discipline. This is the popular sense of self-control: it
is a graded withdrawal, a first step towards detachment. This is also how it
developed in India. But, as a matter of fact, this popular approach to
self-control is not India's speciality alone. Europe has given it a
recognised place, not only in the Christian religious life but in her
worldly life too. But it will not do to forget that the untrammelled freedom
of the senses and their unbridled license have been accepted as an ideal
specially in modern times, and it is confined to a particular community.
What they are now attempting to reject as a bourgeois trait was one day an
aid in the building up of the Euorpean society. To be sure, Europe was not
so inclined towards detachment as India. Europe has gone in for the
cultivation of the senses, but that does not mean that she has been sticking
to an excessive and disorderly play of the senses. Neither Byron nor Oscar
Wilde is the ultimate ideal of Europe. When the famous novelist Balzac used
to sit down to write he would do so in a lonely place in a monk's tunic in
order to help his one-pointed concentration. Napoleon, Caesar and Alexander
were no helpless slaves of their senses. In fact, no country or race can
build its greatness except on the foundation of self-control. It is not that
self-control must necessarily be self-mortification. There can be a via
media, and in ordinary life this is a necessity. Self-indulgence is the
debit side. True, this side of Europe is much to the fore, but that leads
one to think that she is living on her old capital, and it is not long
before her capital runs short. The root of the capital is self-restraint,
and it is the credit side, the side of accumulated power.
It may certainly be that the social, moral and other kinds of injunctions
regarding control of the senses do not strictly apply any more to our modern
life. Man's consciousness demands a wider and more liberal existence. Not a
religion of mental conventions but a universal one founded on truth is what
he wants. But that is altogether another matter. This problem and its
solution will lead us into deeper waters. Hence we have to stop here.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-45_Lif\
e%20and%20Self%20Control.htm]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Yep ... and in India you have gang rapes in late night buses.  The whole
> country had to be divided because you could not live with each other.  You
> have a segment of society that are designated as untouchable, albeit you
> are
> trying to change that.  I don't think that India has anything to teach the
> West.  Which isn't to suggest that the West is in much good shape either
> with morality and such.  But if you want to get some message out, it would
> be nice if you could put it in a context and with phrasing that is
> understandable, regardless of the fact that you "live" with this
> knowledge.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:56 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
>
> Eduard,
> In India we live with this knowledge...The water Buffalo loves to wallow
> in
> the mud. We let it revel.
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > >
> > > Say, what???
> > >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It
> > >ia
> > >about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope. These
> > >throwbacks to religion  will just fade. Now most of the catholics are
> > >in
> > >the poor ,southern hemisphere. I think the buddists will be run over by
> > >the more agressive Islamists  or the Chinese Communists. At any rate it
> > >will take centuries  and we would do better to ignore them  and tend to
> > >the business of northern man. Ignore is the operant word  as trying to
> > >deal with religous fanatics just does not pay off. Set them against
> > >themselves  and go about building  a better world here in our homes.
> > >The
> > >islamists  Hindus and Chinese are wildly over breed and  will kill each
> > >other for food and fuel. Our populations are under control and our food
> > >and energy needs are being met. Let them deal with each other and we
> > >will
> > >deal with them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient  and losing
> > >ideas is only a waste of time. Bill




------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

In your copy/paste you omitted the important starting sentence of ....

"ONE has forgotten. From the fact of separation from Sat-Chit-Ananda comes
forgetfulness of what one is. "

Actually, this whole exercise is pointless.  All you are doing is to do a
search on the Sri Aurobindo Ashram site and the pasting the answer on
Existlist.  It's pointless, since I could do the same.  You are not
answering my questions.  There is no discussion here.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: devindersingh
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:04 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance

You believe you are, does not matter what, a boy, a girl, a man, a woman, a
dog, a horse, anything: a stone, the sea or the sun. You think you are all
that, instead of thinking that you are the One Divine. Indeed, if you had
continued to think that you are the One Divine, there would have been no
universe at all. The phenomenon of separation seems to have been
indispensable, otherwise it would have remained always as it was.
But once the curve has been followed up and the Unity re-established, having
profited by the multiplicity and division, the Unity found is of a higher
quality: a Unity that knows itself, instead of a unity that does not know
itself, for there is nothing else there which knows the other. Where the
Unity is absolute, who or what can know the Unity? Hence the need of the
appearance of something which is not that, in order to know what it is.
The original Will was towards forming individual beings that would be
capable of becoming conscious again of their origin, although the procedure
of individualisation compelled the individual to feel itself separate in
order to be an individual. And the very moment it is separated, it is cut
off from the original Consciousness, at least apparently, and falls into
inconscience, for the only thing that is the Life of life is the Origin.
It is this inconscience that brings it about that you are not aware any
longer of the Truth of your being. The secret of all deformation in the
world is this inconscience which has been produced by the fact of separation
from the Origin. And that explains why there are ugliness, wickedness,
illness, suffering and death. It is because of this inconscience that
although the Origin is there, it cannot manifest itself. It is there, that
is why the world exists, but it is deformed in its expression, because it
manifests itself through inconscience, ignorance and obscurity.
The only way to set everything right is to be conscious again and it is very
simple.
You are That, you are in That.
To make you understand more easily, I may say, That is within us, That is
part of our consciousness somewhere. Otherwise we would never be able to be
conscious of it. If we did not carry the Divine within ourselves, in the
essence of our being, we would never be aware of Him, it would be an
impossible task.
There is only one thing to be found, not two.
If one goes round long enough one must come back to the same point. And once
you come back, you have the impression that there was never anything to find
outside. Yes, it is like that, there is nothing to find outside yourself.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-4/-047_Th\
e%20Origin.htm]
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Your statements here are most difficult to follow.
>
> First you say that there is "severe collectivism", then the birth of
> intransigent individualism.  The pendulum swings.  So you end up with the
> "herd instinct" which I suppose is back to "severe collectivism".
>
> Human society is not that simplistic.  You would have to ignore some
> historical figures [depending upon what you mean by "past ages] who were
> individualists.  You would also have to ignore religions which are
> collective and continue to be.
>
> Then you totally lost me with, "... the demand of the individual soul to
> unite with the individual soul, ...".  How can a soul [assuming that such
> actually exists] demand to be united with itself??  Why should it make
> such
> a demand??
>
> eduard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:15 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
>
> The past ages of society were characterised more or less by a severe
> collectivism. In ancient Greece, more so in Sparta and in Rome, the
> individual had, properly speaking, no separate existence of his own; he
> was
> merged in the State or Nation. The individual was considered only as a
> limb
> of the collective being, had to live and labour for the common weal. The
> value attached to each person was strictly in reference to the output that
> the group to which he belonged received from him. Apart from this service
> for the general unit-the body politic-any personal endeavour and
> achievement, if not absolutely discouraged and repressed, was given a very
> secondary place of merit.
> The individual has his own law and urge of being and his own secret
> godhead.
> The collective godhead derides the individual godhead at its peril. The
> first movement of the reaction, how­ever, was a run to the other
> extremity;
> a stern collectivism gave birth to an intransigent individualism. The
> individual is sacred and inviolable, cost what it may. It does not matter
> what sort of individuality one seeks, it is enough if the thing is there.
> So
> the doctrine of individualism has come to set a premium on egoism and on
> forces that are disruptive of all social bonds. Each and every individual
> has the inherent right, which is also a duty, to follow his own impetus
> and
> impulse. Society is nothing but the battle ground for competing
> indi­vidualities â€" the strongest survive and the weakest go to the
> wall.
> Association and co-operation are instruments that the individual may use
> and
> utilise for his own growth and development but in the main they act as
> deterrents rather than as aids to the expression and expansion of his
> characteristic being. In reality, however, if we probe sufficiently deep
> into the matter we find that there is no such thing as corporate life and
> activity; what appears as such is only a camouflage for rigorous
> competition; at the best, there maybe only an offensive and defensive
> alliance-humanity fights against nature, and within humanity itself group
> fights against group and in the last analysis, within the group, the
> individual fights against the individual. This is the ultimate Law-the
> Dharma of creation.
> Now, what such an uncompromising individualism fails to recognise is that
> individuality and ego are not the same thing, that the individual may have
> his individuality intact and entire and yet sacrifice his ego, that the
> soul
> of man is a much greater thing than his vital being. It is simply ignoring
> the fact and denying the truth to say that man is only a fighting animal
> and
> not a loving god, that the self within the individual realises itself only
> through competition and not co-operation. It is an error to conceive of
> society as a mere parallelogram of forces, to suppose that it has risen
> simply out of the struggle of individual interests and continues to remain
> by that struggle. Struggle is only one aspect of the thing, a particular
> form at a particular stage, a temporary manifestation due to a particular
> system and a particular habit and training. It would be nearer the truth
> to
> say that society came into being with the demand of the individual soul to
> unite with the individual soul, with the stress of an Over-soul to express
> itself in a multitude of forms, diverse yet linked together and organised
> in
> perfect harmony. Only, the stress for union manifested itself first on the
> material plane as struggle: but this is meant to be corrected and
> transcended and is being continually corrected and transcended by a secret
> harmony, a real commonality and brotherhood and unity. The individual is
> not
> so self-centred as the individualists make him to be, his individuality
> has
> a much vaster orbit and fulfils itself only by fulfilling others. The
> scientists have begun to discover other instincts in man than those of
> struggle and competition; they now place at the origin of social grouping
> an
> instinct which they name the herd-instinct: but this is only a formulation
> in lower terms, a translation on the vital plane of a higher truth and
> reality-the fundamental oneness and accord of individuals and their
> spiritual impulsion to unite.
>
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-06_On%\
20Communism.html]
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
> >
> > Eduard,
> > In India we live with this knowledge...The water Buffalo loves to wallow
> > in the mud. We let it revel.
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Say, what???
> > > >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It
> > > >ia about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope.
> > > >These
> > > >throwbacks to religion  will just fade. Now most of the catholics are
> > > >in the poor ,southern hemisphere. I think the buddists will be run
> > > >over
> > > >by the more agressive Islamists  or the Chinese Communists. At any
> > > >rate
> > > >it will take centuries  and we would do better to ignore them  and
> > > >tend
> > > >to the business of northern man. Ignore is the operant word  as
> > > >trying
> > > >to deal with religous fanatics just does not pay off. Set them
> > > >against
> > > >themselves  and go about building  a better world here in our homes.
> > > >The islamists  Hindus and Chinese are wildly over breed and  will
> > > >kill
> > > >each other for food and fuel. Our populations are under control and
> > > >our
> > > >food and energy needs are being met. Let them deal with each other
> > > >and
> > > >we will deal with them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient
> > > >and losing ideas is only a waste of time. Bill



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

It seems to have started in the sixties. Police forces began  building 
specialised riot squads ostensibly to defend against radicals  from the left.
They began as military  trained  riot troops with bayonetts and high powered
rifles. After Kent State this prescription was changed  as shooting college
students  just did not sell. So  these sort of police split into the truncheon
wielding , shield carring riot troops and the para military SWAT  squads. We now
have both kinds  with the  para militaries often peopled by former military who
have  particularly violent  methods.
Just as the rogue officer in Southern california these officers are double
trained as military and as police. These are very dangerous individuals who can
inflict  massive damage  . They are also the people who come back from war with 
a great deal of post traumatic stress. They get very little civilian
repatraition as they leave the service and join police departments with troubles
related to their  military pasts. They would join the guard and  some could
relate to this lower order of militarisation but many could not. Reassimilation
of combat  personell  should be as rigorious as training for combat.
Psychological evaluation , job training and placement are just ignored. Moving
from combat to police work  needs  retraining and holding police rank and
reserve rank without  such retraining  courts  particular dangers. Police work
and soldiering are not the same things. Even Military Police and civilian police
are very different matters.
  So I think the military has a duty to deprogram the  poeople they have trained
and the police have a duty to retrain entering officers when they have had
combat backgrounds. This is a matter of public saftey just as getting drunks off
the roads or stoping cyber criminals. One kind of soldier does not  replace
another sort without retraining. I am not saying soldiers should not become
police . They must become civilians  and then must be retrained to become 
police. If this is not recognised we will see more tragedy from these last
returning troops. I do not want it to be harder for them, I want them to suceed
and  carry on with happy lives. This takes  more guidance than we now provide.
Bill

I agree, Bill, that this is a problem and a project which deserves knowledgeable
commitment. Here's what the Obama administration is currently doing, and you can
let them know your special concern regarding this issue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/veterans

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> It seems to have started in the sixties. Police forces began  building 
specialised riot squads ostensibly to defend against radicals  from the left.
They began as military  trained  riot troops with bayonetts and high powered
rifles. After Kent State this prescription was changed  as shooting college
students  just did not sell. So  these sort of police split into the truncheon
wielding , shield carring riot troops and the para military SWAT  squads. We now
have both kinds  with the  para militaries often peopled by former military who
have  particularly violent  methods.
> Just as the rogue officer in Southern california these officers are double
trained as military and as police. These are very dangerous individuals who can
inflict  massive damage  . They are also the people who come back from war with 
a great deal of post traumatic stress. They get very little civilian
repatraition as they leave the service and join police departments with troubles
related to their  military pasts. They would join the guard and  some could
relate to this lower order of militarisation but many could not. Reassimilation
of combat  personell  should be as rigorious as training for combat.
Psychological evaluation , job training and placement are just ignored. Moving
from combat to police work  needs  retraining and holding police rank and
reserve rank without  such retraining  courts  particular dangers. Police work
and soldiering are not the same things. Even Military Police and civilian police
are very different matters.
>  So I think the military has a duty to deprogram the  poeople they have
trained and the police have a duty to retrain entering officers when they have
had combat backgrounds. This is a matter of public saftey just as getting drunks
off the roads or stoping cyber criminals. One kind of soldier does not  replace
another sort without retraining. I am not saying soldiers should not become
police . They must become civilians  and then must be retrained to become 
police. If this is not recognised we will see more tragedy from these last
returning troops. I do not want it to be harder for them, I want them to suceed
and  carry on with happy lives. This takes  more guidance than we now provide.
Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> I agree, Bill, that this is a problem and a project which deserves
knowledgeable commitment. Here's what the Obama administration is currently
doing, and you can let them know your special concern regarding this issue.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/veterans
>
> Mary
>Mary, The White House seems to understand the problems and funding will tell
the tale. I sat in bars with  Nam veterans and they were forgotten  and hated.
They became bitter and many landed in jail  or worse. It was the same after WW2
, war has bad effects long after the fighting has stopped. Many of these
soldiers were job motovated,they couldnt get a job so they went to war. Boom and
bust economics were behind these peoples problems and as I listened to Rubio
last night I heard the old republican demand for a return to trickle down
economics. The republicans have new faces but the same old ideas. It boils down
to a huge defense budget  and low taxes for the wealthy. If our fellow  citizens
can keep seeing threogh this facade we can  recover and prosper. Otherwise the
military will  gin up wars and we will cycle between  huge war budgets and bust 
economics. We need to stay out of  adventurous wars and  drastically reduce
defense expenditures. A clever politician can lie faster than  most people can
comprehend. It looks as if Hagel will make it  as Sec  of defense. I really do
not trust him to make the kind of cuts we need but Obama seems to think he will
do the better thing. I hope he is right  as the rest of our lives will be
affected by  how much we squander on worthless weapons systems  and outmoded
troop demands. If Hegel is the trojan horse  we will cycle again  and out entire
lives will be primarily  tilted toward war and weapons. Give us a break! Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> >
> > It seems to have started in the sixties. Police forces began  building 
specialised riot squads ostensibly to defend against radicals  from the left.
They began as military  trained  riot troops with bayonetts and high powered
rifles. After Kent State this prescription was changed  as shooting college
students  just did not sell. So  these sort of police split into the truncheon
wielding , shield carring riot troops and the para military SWAT  squads. We now
have both kinds  with the  para militaries often peopled by former military who
have  particularly violent  methods.
> > Just as the rogue officer in Southern california these officers are double
trained as military and as police. These are very dangerous individuals who can
inflict  massive damage  . They are also the people who come back from war with 
a great deal of post traumatic stress. They get very little civilian
repatraition as they leave the service and join police departments with troubles
related to their  military pasts. They would join the guard and  some could
relate to this lower order of militarisation but many could not. Reassimilation
of combat  personell  should be as rigorious as training for combat.
Psychological evaluation , job training and placement are just ignored. Moving
from combat to police work  needs  retraining and holding police rank and
reserve rank without  such retraining  courts  particular dangers. Police work
and soldiering are not the same things. Even Military Police and civilian police
are very different matters.
> >  So I think the military has a duty to deprogram the  poeople they have
trained and the police have a duty to retrain entering officers when they have
had combat backgrounds. This is a matter of public saftey just as getting drunks
off the roads or stoping cyber criminals. One kind of soldier does not  replace
another sort without retraining. I am not saying soldiers should not become
police . They must become civilians  and then must be retrained to become 
police. If this is not recognised we will see more tragedy from these last
returning troops. I do not want it to be harder for them, I want them to suceed
and  carry on with happy lives. This takes  more guidance than we now provide.
Bill
> >
>

I don't think it started in the 60s with riot trained troops.  It started
when the population convinced politicians that they could get voted in on a
security ticket. And it also helped that money was flowing like water.  But
mainly it was that the silent majority felt that it was under threat.  So
the police responded as they thought appropriate.  It's amazing how much
equipment and personnel they can put on the street when there is an
incident.

-----Original Message-----
From: William
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:30 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Building the perfect beast

It seems to have started in the sixties. Police forces began  building
specialised riot squads ostensibly to defend against radicals  from the
left. They began as military  trained  riot troops with bayonetts and high
powered rifles. After Kent State this prescription was changed  as shooting
college students  just did not sell. So  these sort of police split into the
truncheon wielding , shield carring riot troops and the para military SWAT
squads. We now have both kinds  with the  para militaries often peopled by
former military who have  particularly violent  methods.
Just as the rogue officer in Southern california these officers are double
trained as military and as police. These are very dangerous individuals who
can inflict  massive damage  . They are also the people who come back from
war with  a great deal of post traumatic stress. They get very little
civilian repatraition as they leave the service and join police departments
with troubles related to their  military pasts. They would join the guard
and  some could relate to this lower order of militarisation but many could
not. Reassimilation of combat  personell  should be as rigorious as training
for combat. Psychological evaluation , job training and placement are just
ignored. Moving from combat to police work  needs  retraining and holding
police rank and reserve rank without  such retraining  courts  particular
dangers. Police work and soldiering are not the same things. Even Military
Police and civilian police are very different matters.
So I think the military has a duty to deprogram the  poeople they have
trained and the police have a duty to retrain entering officers when they
have had combat backgrounds. This is a matter of public saftey just as
getting drunks off the roads or stoping cyber criminals. One kind of soldier
does not  replace another sort without retraining. I am not saying soldiers
should not become police . They must become civilians  and then must be
retrained to become  police. If this is not recognised we will see more
tragedy from these last returning troops. I do not want it to be harder for
them, I want them to suceed and  carry on with happy lives. This takes  more
guidance than we now provide. Bill



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

What happens when you merge the melancholy philosophy of Kierkegaard with the
cult of decadent celebrity?

https://twitter.com/KimKierkegaard

Mary

Oh! civilisation.
Polite conversations,
Following gang-bangs!

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> In your copy/paste you omitted the important starting sentence of ....
>
> "ONE has forgotten. From the fact of separation from Sat-Chit-Ananda comes
> forgetfulness of what one is. "
>
> Actually, this whole exercise is pointless.  All you are doing is to do a
> search on the Sri Aurobindo Ashram site and the pasting the answer on
> Existlist.  It's pointless, since I could do the same.  You are not
> answering my questions.  There is no discussion here.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devindersingh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:04 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
>
> You believe you are, does not matter what, a boy, a girl, a man, a woman, a
> dog, a horse, anything: a stone, the sea or the sun. You think you are all
> that, instead of thinking that you are the One Divine. Indeed, if you had
> continued to think that you are the One Divine, there would have been no
> universe at all. The phenomenon of separation seems to have been
> indispensable, otherwise it would have remained always as it was.
> But once the curve has been followed up and the Unity re-established, having
> profited by the multiplicity and division, the Unity found is of a higher
> quality: a Unity that knows itself, instead of a unity that does not know
> itself, for there is nothing else there which knows the other. Where the
> Unity is absolute, who or what can know the Unity? Hence the need of the
> appearance of something which is not that, in order to know what it is.
> The original Will was towards forming individual beings that would be
> capable of becoming conscious again of their origin, although the procedure
> of individualisation compelled the individual to feel itself separate in
> order to be an individual. And the very moment it is separated, it is cut
> off from the original Consciousness, at least apparently, and falls into
> inconscience, for the only thing that is the Life of life is the Origin.
> It is this inconscience that brings it about that you are not aware any
> longer of the Truth of your being. The secret of all deformation in the
> world is this inconscience which has been produced by the fact of separation
> from the Origin. And that explains why there are ugliness, wickedness,
> illness, suffering and death. It is because of this inconscience that
> although the Origin is there, it cannot manifest itself. It is there, that
> is why the world exists, but it is deformed in its expression, because it
> manifests itself through inconscience, ignorance and obscurity.
> The only way to set everything right is to be conscious again and it is very
> simple.
> You are That, you are in That.
> To make you understand more easily, I may say, That is within us, That is
> part of our consciousness somewhere. Otherwise we would never be able to be
> conscious of it. If we did not carry the Divine within ourselves, in the
> essence of our being, we would never be aware of Him, it would be an
> impossible task.
> There is only one thing to be found, not two.
> If one goes round long enough one must come back to the same point. And once
> you come back, you have the impression that there was never anything to find
> outside. Yes, it is like that, there is nothing to find outside yourself.
>
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-4/-047_Th\
e%20Origin.htm]
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> >
> > Your statements here are most difficult to follow.
> >
> > First you say that there is "severe collectivism", then the birth of
> > intransigent individualism.  The pendulum swings.  So you end up with the
> > "herd instinct" which I suppose is back to "severe collectivism".
> >
> > Human society is not that simplistic.  You would have to ignore some
> > historical figures [depending upon what you mean by "past ages] who were
> > individualists.  You would also have to ignore religions which are
> > collective and continue to be.
> >
> > Then you totally lost me with, "... the demand of the individual soul to
> > unite with the individual soul, ...".  How can a soul [assuming that such
> > actually exists] demand to be united with itself??  Why should it make
> > such
> > a demand??
> >
> > eduard
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: devindersingh
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:15 AM
> > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [existlist] Re: Salvation or Deliverance
> >
> > The past ages of society were characterised more or less by a severe
> > collectivism. In ancient Greece, more so in Sparta and in Rome, the
> > individual had, properly speaking, no separate existence of his own; he
> > was
> > merged in the State or Nation. The individual was considered only as a
> > limb
> > of the collective being, had to live and labour for the common weal. The
> > value attached to each person was strictly in reference to the output that
> > the group to which he belonged received from him. Apart from this service
> > for the general unit-the body politic-any personal endeavour and
> > achievement, if not absolutely discouraged and repressed, was given a very
> > secondary place of merit.
> > The individual has his own law and urge of being and his own secret
> > godhead.
> > The collective godhead derides the individual godhead at its peril. The
> > first movement of the reaction, how­ever, was a run to the other
> > extremity;
> > a stern collectivism gave birth to an intransigent individualism. The
> > individual is sacred and inviolable, cost what it may. It does not matter
> > what sort of individuality one seeks, it is enough if the thing is there.
> > So
> > the doctrine of individualism has come to set a premium on egoism and on
> > forces that are disruptive of all social bonds. Each and every individual
> > has the inherent right, which is also a duty, to follow his own impetus
> > and
> > impulse. Society is nothing but the battle ground for competing
> > indi­vidualities â€" the strongest survive and the weakest go to the
> > wall.
> > Association and co-operation are instruments that the individual may use
> > and
> > utilise for his own growth and development but in the main they act as
> > deterrents rather than as aids to the expression and expansion of his
> > characteristic being. In reality, however, if we probe sufficiently deep
> > into the matter we find that there is no such thing as corporate life and
> > activity; what appears as such is only a camouflage for rigorous
> > competition; at the best, there maybe only an offensive and defensive
> > alliance-humanity fights against nature, and within humanity itself group
> > fights against group and in the last analysis, within the group, the
> > individual fights against the individual. This is the ultimate Law-the
> > Dharma of creation.
> > Now, what such an uncompromising individualism fails to recognise is that
> > individuality and ego are not the same thing, that the individual may have
> > his individuality intact and entire and yet sacrifice his ego, that the
> > soul
> > of man is a much greater thing than his vital being. It is simply ignoring
> > the fact and denying the truth to say that man is only a fighting animal
> > and
> > not a loving god, that the self within the individual realises itself only
> > through competition and not co-operation. It is an error to conceive of
> > society as a mere parallelogram of forces, to suppose that it has risen
> > simply out of the struggle of individual interests and continues to remain
> > by that struggle. Struggle is only one aspect of the thing, a particular
> > form at a particular stage, a temporary manifestation due to a particular
> > system and a particular habit and training. It would be nearer the truth
> > to
> > say that society came into being with the demand of the individual soul to
> > unite with the individual soul, with the stress of an Over-soul to express
> > itself in a multitude of forms, diverse yet linked together and organised
> > in
> > perfect harmony. Only, the stress for union manifested itself first on the
> > material plane as struggle: but this is meant to be corrected and
> > transcended and is being continually corrected and transcended by a secret
> > harmony, a real commonality and brotherhood and unity. The individual is
> > not
> > so self-centred as the individualists make him to be, his individuality
> > has
> > a much vaster orbit and fulfils itself only by fulfilling others. The
> > scientists have begun to discover other instincts in man than those of
> > struggle and competition; they now place at the origin of social grouping
> > an
> > instinct which they name the herd-instinct: but this is only a formulation
> > in lower terms, a translation on the vital plane of a higher truth and
> > reality-the fundamental oneness and accord of individuals and their
> > spiritual impulsion to unite.
> >
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-06_On%\
20Communism.html]
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devindersingh"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Eduard,
> > > In India we live with this knowledge...The water Buffalo loves to wallow
> > > in the mud. We let it revel.
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Say, what???
> > > > >Eduard, this the sort of gibberish that we will get from this guy. It
> > > > >ia about as relevant to modernism  as is the news about the pope.
> > > > >These
> > > > >throwbacks to religion  will just fade. Now most of the catholics are
> > > > >in the poor ,southern hemisphere. I think the buddists will be run
> > > > >over
> > > > >by the more agressive Islamists  or the Chinese Communists. At any
> > > > >rate
> > > > >it will take centuries  and we would do better to ignore them  and
> > > > >tend
> > > > >to the business of northern man. Ignore is the operant word  as
> > > > >trying
> > > > >to deal with religous fanatics just does not pay off. Set them
> > > > >against
> > > > >themselves  and go about building  a better world here in our homes.
> > > > >The islamists  Hindus and Chinese are wildly over breed and  will
> > > > >kill
> > > > >each other for food and fuel. Our populations are under control and
> > > > >our
> > > > >food and energy needs are being met. Let them deal with each other
> > > > >and
> > > > >we will deal with them only at a profit. Listening to their ancient
> > > > >and losing ideas is only a waste of time. Bill
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>

> Dick: In the second major event of my life which brought it all back
to earth, what I
call either The Reciprocal Convergence or the Consummatum on Earth
Event, one found the same `stuff and essence' OUT THERE and one fond in
the timeless domain IN THERE, in Eternity. The same thing. And not only
was it in my own physical frame but in every phenomena found to
be out there in space and time. It was in ALL the things, all the forms.
This experience is described at minutes 40-48 of this
video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhzui09n8Z0
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
>
>  A Paper on Consciousness, Time, and Pre-Spacetime
> as Consciousness finds it to be.

> by

> Dick Richardson
>
> West Somerset, UK.
>
> Jan 2010

> for
>
> (1) Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research.
>
> (2) Prespacetime Journal
>
> (3) Scientific GOD Institute

> Introductory Preface.

> My own field of analysis is that of Consciousness Studies, and the
study
> of self. This really kicked off into a private passion back in 1941/42
> at the mere age of three owing to spontaneous exceptional conscious
> experiences at that age. But one hardly had the wherewithal to get
very
> far with it at that age. However, that line of personal (not academic)
> study intermingled with a great interest in Physics by the age of
twenty
> four when encountering a three hour spontaneous exceptional experience
> in which time and change did not feature. It went beyond time; beyond
> the personality and beyond the power to think or remember anything of
> this life here.  It was then that I first wrote the sentence: `Once
> upon a Time there was a Time when there was no Time, and I was
> there'. This of course was all simply noted down as in a private
> diary of events, and never with any intentions of it being seen by
> anybody.

> The experiences were all so charged with a passion and delight, and to
> say nothing of revealing and life enhancing, that some time later I
> found myself writing poems of all these events from the age of three
> onwards. As if it was a kind of psychological regurgitation or
discharge
> which would not let me drop it. One day however, the poems (99 of
them)
> were found by somebody and distributed by him (a member of MENSA)
> without my permission or knowing of it. That resulted in my receiving
a
> telegram from The International Centre for Theoretical Physics in
> Trieste asking me to contact them and give them my telephone number
and
> home address. On doing this the founder and director of it, the Noble
> Prize winner in Physics, Professor Abdus Salam, requested a private
> day-long meeting in Oxford. Which we did. This culminated in him being
> the first to insist that I write all these things out again in prose
> books; because he himself knew some degree of this himself but knew
that
> there was more than he had found.  I was very reluctant to do this,
and
> saw no point in doing it. But over the months there came much pressure
> and persuasion from a number of sources, including himself still. So I
> did.

> The Understanding from Hindsight.

> As a little boy I asked myself many question, such as: Given that
> consciousness exists and is axiomatic and unarguable, then what exists
> for consciousness to become conscious of.  Also; What is the real
> relationship between the Observer and the Observed. Even at the age of
> three I found myself asking the questions: What am I; Why am I here:
Why
> am I me: Where do I come from and Why. I was not even aware then that
> Man had been asking these same questions ever since we existed in
caves.
> I could not even read at that age.  The questions just came to me
> naturally, and I assumed every child asked them.

> However, with the then culmination of the timeless conscious
experience,
> which I came to call, The Mystic Death and Resurrection Event, which
> itself was a reunion of two parts of myself, and via a third part of
> myself (the subconscious mind) and thus revealing Three parts of our
> emanation. A Trinity of our being. So I discovered that we were
> constructed in a trinity of being, and that we were the link and the
> conduit between Time and Eternity. I use the word Eternity to mean not
> the sum of all time but the total lack of moving time and changing
> events. Hence Primordial Time and Primordial Consciousness – The I
> AM which exists in Eternity. Before Time and Space was, I was there.
> Hence I also came to write the sentence: The Mind and Consciousness of
> Man is ever tied to the cross of Time and Eternity. All due to
> experience, not theory or beliefs, or an idea, but by direct
experience
> of those realms of BEING. None of it can be proved other than by way
of
> living it.  That is all the proof one needs.  They were all axiomatic
> and unarguable, for one was THERE in them. And one existed in them and
> saw them all in a three dimensions each of a three dimensional
structure
> of width breadth depth (and colour). So, all this stuff exists for
> consciousness to become conscious of. So I think of that Eternity as
> like the analogy of a Well, or a Spring, and from which Time and
> extended space emanate as like a flowing river from the inner dead
> central core of being, the spring of eternity. However, this was not
all
> of it; but only one half of it. Thus, at this point there was still an
> alienation and gap in comprehension.

> The Later Unfolding of Awareness.

> None of the findings thus far answered a thing about our relationship
> with objectivity and the world around us and the physical universe.
For
> all that first twenty years of experience and inner learning was about
> ME, us, the human mind and what we are and what we are made of and
from
> whence we come. But none of it was about the stuff `out there'.
> Neither was I ever expecting to find any such a connection. But I did,
> twenty years later; and also spontaneously.  This could be said to be
> the most profound event of all of it, and to my knowledge it has never
> ever been written about. The most profound in the sense that it knits
it
> all together, the outer with the inner; the observer with the
observed.
> And there is no gap and there is no alienation of the parts. Thus a
> union (not a reunion) with the Observer and the Observed, or
> subjectivity and Objectivity, or I and Thou. It all became one whole
> vortex of energy extending from a point of no duration and extension
to
> encompass all space and time – like a dance or music. And even
> though the one wholeness was constructed into a duality of the
observer
> and the observed. Consciousness has to have a content.

> When writing this out in books as requested to do I received a number
> death threats. And not a jot in the way of thanks at that time. Not
that
> I was looking for any thanks and the death threats did not bother me
> anyway for I was expecting hostility anyway. One is ridiculed by all
> people; by religions, by science and by psychology. So one is really
> alone with this stuff.  What I never came to write out was The Double
> Vortex Theory of Emanation. For if they could not even accept that
then
> they would not even read this, so I never bothered to write it out.
> However, these things are not simply about the experience of them, nor
> about anything which one writes about them, they are plainly a living
> part in the shift of conscious awareness toward a new understanding
and
> paradigm regard to the nature of our being. A new way of being in the
> world.  A primordial innate drive which is an implicate order and a
part
> of the unfolding in Time of what the principle and essence of it is in
> Eternity – in Prespacetime or Proto-Physics and
Proto-Consciousness
> and LIFE. Life is not just about BEING it is also about BECOMING, and
we
> are central to that process, because we are life, and consciousness
> flows through our being; both in Time and in Eternity. The purpose
seen
> as being that of our own mind being central to the fulfilment of LIFE
> itself, not just us. Ab Aeterno Ad Hoc.  Don't ask what life can do
> for you; ask yourself what you can do for it. The Mind and
Consciousness
> of Man is the meeting ground of inner and outer dimensions. And only
> through I can it be known. The observer is central to all that exists.

> You will not be loved for saying these things. Yet they are there to
> find, to live, to know and to understand. So whilst the abuse and the
> death threats role on, one is living that new way of being in the
world.
> And they cannot touch one and they cannot even find me for I am
> intangible unto the detection powers of the five external senses and
the
> tools brought forth to enhance them. Thus it is the case that when
> Physicists and Mystics get together then all mayhem is let loose and
the
> boats rock on the ruffled waves of convention :- ) And so it does.
Maybe
> that is why they get us to write it instead of them; for we are not
> important :- ) We can take it.

> Scientific Proofs?

> At present, to the best of my knowledge, the scientific methodology
and
> its tools cannot even find this, let alone prove it in some kind of
> repeatable experiment. What kind of science and potentials for
studying
> phenomena will exist in a thousand years time? I have no idea and it
is
> a waste of time guessing, guessing games are of no interest to me. But
> even now science has many axioms which it cannot prove, yet it fully
> accepts them.  Added to which science looks `out there', not
> `in here'. They will not find me and consciousness out there.
> Personally I am a great fan and advocate of the scientific
methodology,
> and all its investigations which it can get at; and one day they will
> get us out there among the stars. But not yet.

> However, what one has to keep in mind here is two things. One is that
> scientists are human beings and the other is that these things of
which
> I speak are axiomatic and need no objective proof. So even a scientist
> on finding these things would neither need or require objective proof.
> They all seem to overlook that fact as yet.  But be that as it is what
> will science be able to get at in millennia to come? Who knows. I fell
> that they will come to realize the same as I did, and which brings us
to
> one more topic – The Essence of No Created Thing.

> The Untouchable Frontier.

> This is an aspect of all this which I steer clear of, because in large
> part it is irrelevant even mentioning it. Thinking about it privately
> can help however.  Bu keeping in mind that this is THINK stuff, not
> direct experience stuff. Although in other ways it is partly
> experiential stuff, by way of FEEL. However, it would be so far out of
> the existing paradigm that it is not worth mentioning. But, let us
have
> a go at it anyway.

> In the books (see  The Mystical Gnosis Event and the Human Situation,
a
> free download from www.psychognosis.net  .
> ) there is a whole chapter devoted to Essences; and I cannot write all
> that again here.  But this is also central to latent sensory
enhancement
> of awareness and external sensory data or perception input – being
> aware of more both within us and all around us.  I mentioned back when
> writing the initial exegesis that there was `something' about
> that eternal dimension of being which `was not there', yet could
> be known OF there and in a strange way FELT. So, whatever that
uncreated
> `whatever' of NO THING would be independent of all things which
> exist is not only a silly question but it is an irrelevant one.  It
> could never be answered or got at. And yet in a way it CAN be got at.
> Not in form but in Essence and in understanding, comprehension. In the
> second major event of my life which brought it all back to earth, what
I
> call either The Reciprocal Convergence or the Consummatum on Earth
> Event, one found the same `stuff and essence' OUT THERE and one
> fond in the timeless domain IN THERE, in Eternity. The same thing. And
> not only was it in my own physical frame but in every phenomena found
to
> be out there in space and time. It was in ALL the things, all the
forms.
> But at its centre there was this totally intangible Essential Quality
> and Principle.  Could science ever possibly tap into that?  I don't
> know. Maybe, maybe not.

> I mentioned in the books that everything communicate with us, a blade
of
> grass, a tree, a river, a star, it all communicates with us. But folks
> seem to expect verbal communication. It is where their thinking and
> understanding is at. Bu that form of communication would be useless
for
> we would not be experiencing it. But this way we are not only
> experiencing it but we are also FEELING it directly. That FEELING it
IS
> our communication with NO THING made. It has been said by others, and
I
> found it to be true; that only things in time and space which were not
> made in time and space can go back beyond time and space where they
come
> from. They are thongs both of Time and Eternity, just as Consciousness
> is and just as Life is.

> Will scientists ever come to know this? Yes, definitely, because the
are
> LIFE. Will it be proved to them? Yes definitely because they are Life.
> Will they be able to prove it to anybody else by way of some kind of
> experiment and objective proof? I do not think so; but in a million
> years time who knows. But I doubt it.  And if they cannot then it
would
> not make a jot of difference anyway. Even today they cannot prove that
> consciousness exists, yet that is all they ever know anything by way
of
> and they accept it because it is axiomatic and uncontradictable.
> Personally, and I may be wrong, but me thinks there will come a time
> when science does not try to prove everything; especially that which
is
> proved to them on the inside by experience,  they will accept that
parts
> of life and being are mysterious, and leave it at that.

> Many years ago in the early books I made the prediction that there
would
> always, always always be Mystery. One will just have to wait and see
in
> eons to come. If I were to bet on it then I know my money would be
safe;
> for there are some things which can indeed be understood, but never
got
> at.  I cannot even get at a thought, and yet civilisations are built
on
> them. Science works, so does Mystery; for with a little mystery around
> one never ever stops wondering; and that is good. Don't just aim for
> what you can get at, aim for the impossible, and that way the journey
> never ends; nor the delight. And talking of essences the two best
known
> triggers for instigating that journey back to beyond time are love and
> beauty. You cannot prove they exist either; or me. Indeed, nearly all
> the best things in life cannot be proved to exist. Yet we still get on
> with it, and laughing as we go.

> Dick Richardson
>
> http://www.psychognosis.net/

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Done a uTube Video

I have just done  a uTube video which you might like to watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDBSJ5OOs4Q&feature=youtu.be
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDBSJ5OOs4Q&feature=youtu.be>

It is my first and last attempt at one :- ) Share the link with anybody
you know who may like to watch it. Fifteen minutes of relaxation. All
the best.  PS, don't forget to click the like button. Assuming that
you do like it of course.

Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think Bill has nailed down the time frame. We had one group of citizens
voicing dissent and another group acting to stop them. When Nixon called on the
Silent Majority to support him it was the Justice Dept. which responded. SWAT
teams and riot police began at that time whether their funding increased over
time or not. The law and order folks were nothing new, but as conservatives
gained power they simply got more funding. No mystery there. It was the merging
of military with federal, state, and local law enforcement and usurpation of
democratic values. That expansion has virtually ended dissent as an effective
tool for change and forced it into an expensive and slow legal system.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> I don't think it started in the 60s with riot trained troops.  It started
> when the population convinced politicians that they could get voted in on a
> security ticket. And it also helped that money was flowing like water.  But
> mainly it was that the silent majority felt that it was under threat.  So
> the police responded as they thought appropriate.  It's amazing how much
> equipment and personnel they can put on the street when there is an
> incident.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:30 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Building the perfect beast
>
> It seems to have started in the sixties. Police forces began  building
> specialised riot squads ostensibly to defend against radicals  from the
> left. They began as military  trained  riot troops with bayonetts and high
> powered rifles. After Kent State this prescription was changed  as shooting
> college students  just did not sell. So  these sort of police split into the
> truncheon wielding , shield carring riot troops and the para military SWAT
> squads. We now have both kinds  with the  para militaries often peopled by
> former military who have  particularly violent  methods.
> Just as the rogue officer in Southern california these officers are double
> trained as military and as police. These are very dangerous individuals who
> can inflict  massive damage  . They are also the people who come back from
> war with  a great deal of post traumatic stress. They get very little
> civilian repatraition as they leave the service and join police departments
> with troubles related to their  military pasts. They would join the guard
> and  some could relate to this lower order of militarisation but many could
> not. Reassimilation of combat  personell  should be as rigorious as training
> for combat. Psychological evaluation , job training and placement are just
> ignored. Moving from combat to police work  needs  retraining and holding
> police rank and reserve rank without  such retraining  courts  particular
> dangers. Police work and soldiering are not the same things. Even Military
> Police and civilian police are very different matters.
> So I think the military has a duty to deprogram the  poeople they have
> trained and the police have a duty to retrain entering officers when they
> have had combat backgrounds. This is a matter of public saftey just as
> getting drunks off the roads or stoping cyber criminals. One kind of soldier
> does not  replace another sort without retraining. I am not saying soldiers
> should not become police . They must become civilians  and then must be
> retrained to become  police. If this is not recognised we will see more
> tragedy from these last returning troops. I do not want it to be harder for
> them, I want them to suceed and  carry on with happy lives. This takes  more
> guidance than we now provide. Bill
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>

> Dick: It could be described as the cosmological waiting room of
created
consciousness before transmigration into the experience of time,
freedom, and
activity.
The ancient Indian Rishis called it vignayn. This place has been seen
and documented. It is the golden lid of the Upanishads, that separates
"that" from "this". Sri Aurobindo calls it the supermind.  This was
commented on your
group:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Psychognosis_Archive/messag\
e/5526In Indian philosophy, the Absolute is conceived of as being
Sat-Chit-Ananda, of the nature of pure Being, Consciousness, and Bliss.
On the basis of this, Sri Aurobindo speaks of the "Upper Hemisphere" or
"Supreme [Absolute-Divine] Nature" which constitutes infinite and
unitary existence, and which he divides into the planes of Pure Being
(Sat), Consciousness-Force (Chit-Tapas
<http://www.kheper.net/topics/Aurobindo/Chit-Tapas.html> ), Bliss
(Ananda), and Truth-Consciousness ("Supermind
<http://www.kheper.net/topics/Aurobindo/Supermind.htm> ").  The latter
constitutes a somewhat more manifest level then Sachchidananda
(Being-Consciousness-Bliss), a sort of "logos" or "Divine Mind" between
the true Unmanifest and the Creation.  But all these realities are
eternally pre-existent, and constituting the modes or qualities of the
Absolute. See also:
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Aurobindo/Sachchidananda.htm
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick."  wrote:
>
> THE EXCEPTIONAL HUMAN EXPERIENCE NETWORK
> 414 Rockledge Road, New Bern, NC 28562. USA
>
>
> Exceptional Human Experience:   Volume 13, Number 2. December 1995
>
>
> Abstracts of Articles in Part One.
>
> 06923.  Richardson, Dick.  The Divine Reality: Transcendent and
Immanent.
>
> Exceptional Human Experience, 1995 (DEC). 13(2), 10-27.
>
>  This piece consists of five chapters excerpted from a book
manuscript.  Some briefer excerpts have been published in various
periodicals, sometimes summarized.  The book consists of experiential
accounts; the author's interpretation of the experiences, and poetry
based on his experiences.  The primary experiences are presented here
lightly edited and 'Americanized'.  Described are the richest mystical
encounter experiences I have ever read.  They span a time period from
1963-1983.  The initial experience happened when Richardson was age 24
and had sat down one evening to listen to some music and read the paper.
The first 4 of 5 parts describes in great detail (etched in memory) the
experiences he had that evening.
>
>  The first 'Purgation', was "in some respects like being kidnapped by
divine...perfection".  The outer world was stripped away.  In the second
'Isolation in Limbo', with his mind free in space, he was stranded in
"nothing" and then fell into a "light hole".  In the third, "Beyond the
White: Circumincession of the Trinity of Being", one event was
experienced from two reference points simultaneously and seemed to be a
trinity.  It ended when he and everything else ended... "I and the
universe were no more.  It was the end of time".  There follows
"Paradise: The Virgin Womb of Eternity, and a Unification in
Resurrection".  Here, "after a non duration of time there was a
re-emergence or resurrection of my being, an annihilation of
annihilation as such, but the like of which could never be dreamed or
imagined".   In this, the longest section, his description is awesome.
>
>  The final section, 'The Dark Side, (1963-1983): Dichotomy and
Synthesis', describes the years between this first experience and a
subsequent one 20 years later.  In between he felt much ambivalence and
confusion as he tried to incorporate what he had experienced while back
in the everyday world, which was basically good in itself.  He finally
gave up the attempt and tried to forget what he had seen and known.  "It
was too good for me and it was too good for reality itself".  He could
not figure out the point of it all, try as he may.  After a month or so
he had a nightmare, waking in panic, sweat and even blood.  He began to
have psychic experiences in response to questions that concerned him.
By age 40 all experiences had ceased.  Then, one spring morning while
picnicking with his wife and dog, he had an experience which, unlike the
others, he could not possibly describe.  The transcendent self he had
known at age 24 became united with his "earthly self".  The two
experiences came together: "In transcendence the outer I had gone to IT;
but here and now, on earth, IT, the implicate inner reality... had come
to me".
>
> This work HAS to be read !       R.A.W
>
>        EDITOR: Rhea A. White
>
>
>
> [EHE AUTOBIOGRAPHY: 2]
>
> THE DIVINE REALITY: TRANSCENDENT AND IMMANENT
>
> Dick Richardson
>
>
> PURGATION
>
>
>  It was approximately 6.45 p.m. when a friend called me on the
telephone to inquire if I would like to go over to his place for a few
games of chess.  I explained to him that I was baby sitting as my wife
had just gone out for the evening with friends and would not be back
until quite late.  I was just on the verge of inviting him over to my
place when, without thinking, I said that I would give it a miss tonight
and simply have a bath and an early night.  I did not know why I had
said that, for I do not usually talk without thinking what I am going to
say.  Also, I did quite fancy the idea of a few games of chess and
rarely ever turned down the opportunity.  Nevertheless, having said it,
I let it ride.
>
>  The two youngsters were tucked up for the night and the paraphernalia
of childhood joy was tidied up as I sat down at about 7 p.m.  I had just
placed a couple of large logs on the fire and put a record on the
machine at random with the intent of a few minutes of peace and quiet
before going up for a bath.  If I had known in advance what was going to
transpire over the course of the next three hours I would have employed
a baby sitter and a witness to my own physical condition for the
duration of that period of time.
>
>   Thus it was that at approximately 7 p.m. on a late winter/early
spring evening I, a mere ignoramus of twenty-four years of age, sat down
for a few minutes to read the paper and listen to a record prior to
having a bath and an early night.
>
>  Just as I sat down in the chair in front of the fire our old cat
jumped up on my lap.  It took me by surprise for I had not seen it
coming, and thus the thought of leaning over for the newspaper went
right out of my mind.  I made a fuss of the cat as it rolled over into
the well of my lap with its legs pointing skyward.  As I stroked its
belly it gave out a purr that was almost as loud as a car engine revving
and fit to rock the chair we were sitting in.  I smiled and wondered how
they did it, and why.  I continued to make a fuss of the cat without any
further thought of reading the paper.  In so doing I suddenly became
aware of the record I had put on simply for background music.
>
>  It turned out to be the last part of the Enigma Variations which was
to be followed later by the Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis by
Vaughan Williams (how ironic are those two titles; fantasia and enigma
indeed). At that time neither of those pieces were favorites of mine; it
just happened to be the record I pulled out.
> The music began to sound like nothing I had ever heard before or
since.  It was as though the music were trying to make me aware of IT.
It permeated my consciousness in ways that words cannot describe.  I had
a fleeting thought, one of those unsolicited 'pop in' thoughts, which
said, "sod the paper, listen to the music old son"; and I thought,
"Yeah... this is good"!  In today's language I suppose we would say that
the music was reaching parts that no other largo could get to.  I had
always loved music, music of all kinds, for it all had its time, place,
and mood; but this was more than mere music, more than mere sound.  I
relaxed back into the rocking chair with the cat still purring away like
a traction engine on my lap, although the sound was becoming drowned
into the distance by the beauty of the music, when suddenly, something
very strange occurred; and the beginning of I knew not what.
>
>  Instead of relaxing, it was as though my concentration was becoming
focused, so sharp; like a narrow beam of pointed conscious awareness
focusing and concentrating like I had never done before, even in the
midst of chess problems during a good game, and that alone is
concentration enough, but this was more so.  The music had reached a
degree of profound beauty I had never known or thought could have
existed.  In so attaining I somehow relaxed into it, a kind of kind of
letting go of objective observation.  I gave a kind of unusual sigh and
an outward exhalation of breath like a long AHH; and just as I did so
everything vanished, instantaneously, just like creation being switched
off by the throw of a switch.
>
>  There was no room, no cat, no sound of the fire burning or the clock
ticking; no cat purring, no chair, no body, no weight, no mass, no heat
or cold, no gravity, no up or down or this way or that way; there was
just total blackness and the sound of the music, which was passing
through my consciousness in waves.  This is not a poetic description of
my listening to the music; it is literal.  At the very instant of
'going' it was as though my ears had been turned inside out; for at one
instant the music was objective, on the outside, and the next instant it
was taking place all around, for there was no inside or outside as such.
Nevertheless, it was as though the music was passing through the point
(which I was) like waves on a pond, and each wave was of greater
emotional charge than the one before it. It was as though each wave was
preparing me for the next wave, and building up into... into I did not
know what.  In some respects it was like being kidnapped by divine
music, perfection; the only thing that existed in creation was the music
and myself.  It was as though the 'AHH' was still going on but in the
vastness of the space of the mind alone. It became a reality in which
there was no dualistic reference between music, and myself but as though
there was only 'I am the music' in a dance, a swoon of excitement, awe,
and wonder.
>
>  After an immeasurable duration of time that piece of music ended, and
there was a stillness and quiet that cannot be described.  I did not
question (at that point) that I had no body or existence other than
awareness of being.  Neither would I have had the time to think of such
things, for the next piece of music began. To say that the next piece of
music began is the understatement of all time.  It did not begin, it
flowed.  It flowed out of nothingness, like... like I know not what.
>  Within a few seconds of the music emanating into my consciousness
there came the most frightening experience I have ever known in my life,
before or since.  The passion and beauty of the sounds were such that my
mind went... bang!  I blew up, fell apart, exploded, or so it seemed.
As I did so I could see, I had vision, I was no longer in total
blackness listening to the music for I could see myself exploding and
expanding.  It seemed to be like the big bang itself.
>
>  I could still hear the music, and it was just as well that I could
for my mind clung to the sound to try and quell the fear and panic which
was taking place.  I could see what can only be described as streaked
out dots of light which I was expanding into and flying through like a
supernova.  It was like I did not even have time to be frightened, even
though I was.  I was somehow trying to turn the eyes, which I had, away
from the rushing lights and the vision of this expansion and concentrate
upon the music.  But those eyes (heaven only knows with what one could
see - but see one could) were eyes that we cannot open or close by our
own volition; one could not switch the vision or the experience off.
>
>  Just as I thought I was going to expand into infinity and fade away
into nothingness the expansion stopped.  My mind gradually stopped
expanding and I metaphorically gave a sigh of relief; but there was no
breath or lungs with which to do it.  At that point, it was as if I were
in a kind of unbounded dome of blackness, and I consisted of nothing
except a point of consciousness with no boundary or duration, no form;
just consciousness.  I could see what appeared to be tiny points of
light coming into and out of existence all over the space within which I
existed.  It was much like the vision one would get with one's eyes
nearly closed while seeing sunlight spots dancing on the surface of a
fast-flowing river.  It was like creation 'stuff' coming and going all
the time.  Throughout all this I could still hear the music.  Then came
the next shock to my system, if a system I had.
>
>  The dots of light that seemed to be coming into and out of existence
as far as one could see suddenly turned into the music, which I could
hear, and I could not only hear the music but now also see it.  There
are no words to describe such music made of light.  It is a vision
unlike other vision.  It cannot be recreated by imagination within the
mind from hindsight; it can only be seen and known at the time of the
event.  I saw the music flowing toward me.  It was in colors that we
know and some that we do not know.  The essential quality of the light
was equal to that of the sound of the music.  The light itself and the
colors were not different things, as we tend to know colored light by
reflections or as sources of light emanating from a certain point.  The
music was the light; the color was the light.  It did not flow from
anything except uncreated into created.
>
>  The fear that I had experienced throughout the expansion or whatever
it was had now gone and there was nothing but I and the music, which I
was now within: I became the music; there was not an 'I' and an 'it.'
As this event continued I became aware that I 'knew' the music.  That is
to say, I knew it backwards, forwards, inside out, one note at a time or
all at once; and I could see it any way I wanted to see it.  I could
become the melody, which I did; I could become the harmony, which I did.
I could be one note or the whole piece of the music.  Reality is
stranger than fiction; and a damn sight better.
>
> Whilst this divine dance of music in unison was going on I became
aware that I was of two natures somehow enshrined in one.  There came a
point whilst I was swimming in this light and music when I became aware
that I was looking at myself objectively, and it did not seem strange at
the time.
>
>  'Myself' did not consist of a body but only of light, but I knew it
was me, and I thought, "The little one is having the time of his life"
(which indeed he was), but the other me, or the me of the personality,
did not know this was going on; only the other bit knew that.  Likewise,
all these things were not being thought about as we do out here in the
world of temporal forms, but somehow they were just known, and seen, and
felt, and enjoyed.
>
>  I became aware at that point that there were two aspects of myself:
one which I refer to as the person and one which I refer to as the
personality.  The latter is an extension and emanation of the former and
thus a perceived duality, albeit a oneness in the structure of an
interdimensional vortex of self-existence.  I cannot refer to two 'I's,'
thus I will use the terms person and personality for simplicity.  It is
not so much a case of two aspects of consciousness but more the case of
what part of the vortex of emanation the consciousness is existing
within at that instant.  One cannot observe from both points of
reference at the same instant, however; it is either one or the other.
And it even gets far more complex.  But let us proceed in the order of
the unfolding events.
>
>  At this point, and even though one was aware of what was going on at
the time, one was not 'bothered about it' so to speak, for I was only
really concerned about the love of the reality itself, the music, the
sound, the vision, the event itself, for it was indeed a divine dance of
the spheres.  It was passion and reality unimaginable; it was creation
par excellence, by magic.  The shift from one point of consciousness to
the other is not an act of willful intent on my (the personality's)
part; it simply occurred as far as I was aware.  How long this music and
light experience lasted is impossible to say, for although it was a
temporal process it was a kind of temporality other than is known in
'normal' or everyday awareness in temporal forms.  Likewise, the visions
and objects of vision  were not thought of as extant things existing in
their own right, such as a tree or a mountain, for it was known and
understood to be being created at the time and only for its duration and
effect.
>
>  There came a point, however, when things changed.  I suddenly had an
entirely different vision.  It was just at the point when I knew the
music was going away, ending.  My perspective of vision was such that I
could see a being, a young boy of about twelve years of age, if
appearances were anything to go by.  He was illuminated in a brilliance
of light and color, as the music had been, and existed in otherwise
total darkness, but that darkness up around him was lighted like an
aura.   He was sitting on his bum (with nothing underneath him) with one
arm wrapped around his knees, which were folded up to his chin, and
waving good-bye to the music with the other hand.  It was not a vision
of any boy or person I had ever seen or known, but I knew that I had to
take the vision as myself, yet not the self of the personality which I
knew to be me.  Indeed, it was the old me who was doing the observing
and learning.  Such archetypal visions are a kind of learning without
any words.  They are not reasoned or rationalized, and yet they are
understood implicitly and without thinking about them.  The experience
is the thing itself and the knowledge and understanding is implicit and
axiomatic. Thus, it is a dialogue without dialogue, and synetic in its
nature.
>
> I could see the boy waving good-bye to the music, and I could see the
music fading away into a distance and into nothingness, being uncreated
just as easily as it had been created.  I also implicitly knew what was
going on inside him and how he felt.  He did not want anything; he did
not fear the music leaving him, for he loved it, and that was
sufficient.  I cannot find the words to describe the passion and
feelings that child knew and felt; but he was perfect; and an act which
I knew that I could not follow. As the music went further away the sound
of it also diminished.  It eventually faded away into nothingness, and
the boy was alone in his own radiance in otherwise total blackness and
nothingness.  Then the vision disappeared, and there was nothing.  I was
alone with my boring old self, and once again able to think and
rationalize in the usual manner and seemingly in the usual time span of
thinking.   Yet I was alone in a darkness in which I had no form other
than conscious awareness.
>
>  I realized that any perception or illusion of 'otherness,' or another
part of myself, was gone and I was alone with my normal personality of
the outside world.  Yet the world was gone; everything was gone except
my self-consciousness and its memories.  What on earth (or elsewhere),
is going on; and why?  From hindsight one would assume that in such a
situation one would be terrified, for it was like being buried alive (a
good analogy). However, the thought of the music, which had preceded
this situation, must have taken the fear away, even though I felt a
feeling of great apprehension and a degree of worry.  Is one going to be
stranded here for all time maybe?  Is this death?  Or am I still sitting
in the chair with my mind having slipped out of joint somehow?
>
>  Have I gone insane?  The thoughts that pass through one's mind are at
times uncontrollable, and in this situation one does not know what to
think.  Surely if I just sit quiet (as if I could do anything other) and
hang about something will happen; something must happen; I can't just
hang about here forever; wherever 'here' is.  Perhaps someone will come
into the room soon and realize that my mind has got stuck inside and
cart me off to a place to get it out again.  It was however, the first
chance I had to think about what the hell was going on; one minute I am
sitting in the chair minding my own business and the next minute... zap,
and the world has disappeared, or I from it - which is it?  I knew for
sure that I wanted out from whatever I was in but there was nothing I
could do about it at all; for I had no control of anything.  Just at
that point, however, and before I had the chance to get really fed up,
something did happen.  I was just thinking how nice it would be to go
into the kitchen and get a beer or a cup of coffee when something came.
I could not see what it was for it was still total darkness, but I could
somehow feel the presence of something I knew not what...  Then I heard
a voice!
>
> To say that one heard a voice is not true in the sense that one
normally hears a voice in objective terms across a distance, but it was
indeed very much like it and also sounded within my mind or
consciousness somehow.  It was as though the point of origin was somehow
objective, yet from a location from deeper down within myself somehow:
thus, objective 'inwards,' not 'outwards,' from 'below' as opposed to
'around' me.   Something said, or gave me the understanding by way of
perceiving a voice; "Do you want to go on?" I cannot describe how I felt
about that.  Nothing would actually shock me (I think) after what had
transpired since the world had disappeared.  Yet this 'request' was
experienced as totally objective; it was not me that was asking the
question; it was something else.
>
> I was too stunned to even think about the meaning of the question yet
alone where it came from; for something, even an odd sounding voice, was
better than nothing at all, if indeed it was a voice.  Without thinking
I inwardly yelled out (for the lack of putting it into other words, and
more in panic);  "Go on what"?
>
>
> "Go on further," came the reply or understanding.
>
>
>  I was amazed at the logic and reasoning, but I wanted nothing else
other than normality to be re-established.  I was just about to reply
(for if you can't beat it join it), "No thanks; I have had a wonderful
time, thank you very much, but I think it's about time that I was
getting back to normality right now, if it's all the same to you"!  (You
might as well go out laughing, I thought).
>
>  As I was about to respond, however, I was suddenly washed, bathed,
drowned in a passion, a love, a swoon of ecstasy; to which I responded
in a way which was a kind of choice which was no choice - an offer one
cannot refuse. (And not the kind of bath I had intended.)  I replied to
whatever, or wherever, the question emanated from... "OK, let's do it,
let's go on further"!  I did not even know what the question meant let
alone from whence it came.
>
>  The next thing I was aware of was that the profound overwhelming
emotion had gone and I was then alone again; but something was
different... stone me, my mind is BENT... out of shape, distorting!   I
was now experiencing not 'nothing' but decidedly being inside of
something - inside my own mind, which was being squeezed out of shape.
Why is my mind not round?  (The things one thinks at such a time.)   It
was as if I could see the edges of my own mind in a fuzzy darkness, with
my consciousness being like a point at its center.   Also, my mind was
being squeezed out of shape, or so it seemed.  It was narrower at one
point than at the other; a bit like a pear.  I underwent an experience
of being squeezed, and I did not like it one bit.  I became very
anxious; or near on panic is more like it.  I had a distinct urge to try
to punch a hole in my collapsing mind in order to get out, escape,
before being squashed along with it.
>
>  I yelled out: "Oy, there's some sod out there pulling my mind around
and I cannot stop it." I felt real panic coming on fast.  The
restricting became worse.  "If you don't pack it in I am going to be
squashed inside it... sod off"!   I was about to hurl other choice
obscenities when all of a sudden I heard the voice again....  "Relax,
take it smoothly"!
>
>  I was just about to reply 'bugger off' when I suddenly started
moving.  "Relax, he says... stone me... I'm moving... the whole bloody
shebang is sliding away and with me inside it"!  "Good grief almighty
what the hell is happening"!?  "Relax, everything is as it should be,
keep calm and relax"!   "Relax, he says, who's driving this thing
anyway... how do I know its passed its bloody driving test?  "And where
is it going anyway...  go on tell me that"?  "Keep quiet, shut up and
relax"!   With that command, or suggestion, I was stunned to the core.
"Oh yes, relax... OK, I'll relax"!  Bloody liar I thought to myself, who
the hell could relax in a situation like this... this is too ridiculous
for words or thought... let alone happening!  The moving began to
judder; we were up against something of a resistance (me I guess)...
"Relax"!  "I am relaxing"!  (Why can't I be unconscious or dead or
something)!  I tried hard to think on good things as one does in the
dentist's chair while under diabolical pain; although there was no pain
here, only fear.
>
>  "Make out nothing's happening," I thought to myself.   The juddering
felt like whatever was clogging the works was fighting a losing battle
in some inevitable way.  There was a huge tug, then a release.  I zoomed
off like a bullet from a gun; into, or out of, what I knew not.
>
>  I did not know it at that time, of course, but the events thus far
were but the beginning of the act of transcendence, the stripping away
(purgation) of the outer world.  There then followed the next stage of
purgation; the isolation, Limbo. In the dimension of assessment and the
discrimination of the parts there will be two in that field; one will be
taken and one will remain.  But I knew nothing of these things at that
young age.  So let us continue with the unfolding events themselves as
they were known and thought about at that time.
>
> *
>
>
> ISOLATION IN LIMBO
>
>  It was as though I had been ejected from a container of some kind and
at high velocity: but I was now in a form of unseen space, a space which
was so dark that it was almost a void of creation, but I was aware of a
space of some kind in which I existed, and it was all about me. There
was a long stunned silence of thought in an instantaneous recognition of
the obvious.  "Bugger me, why did I not realize it ages ago... I am
dead... you're kicking the bucket old son"!  Not expecting any answer I
shouted out, "I am dead ain't I"!
>
>  A 'voice' or communication answered, much to my amazement. "Well, if
you were dead then you would not know it would you; just think lad, how
could you think that you were dead if you were dead"?  This was in some
ways the most relaxing comment that had come to me since the music
episode had ended, and thus in some way it relieved the panic that
otherwise would have ensued.  I inwardly answered, "That is indeed hard
to argue with, but from what I have seen thus far nothing would surprise
me"!  There was no answer to that, but I distinctly felt the knowledge
of something smiling. The sensation was now of existing in a literal
space of some kind and yet very different to the confines of what I had
taken to be my own collapsing mind and the things which had transpired
within it: for now my mind was definitely perceived to be in a space,
and free.
>
> I suddenly felt totally alone again, or so it was experienced to be.
For whatever it was, the other degree of myself or otherness which
seemed to have asked the questions was now gone again.  I was alone.  I
guess I must have been fooling myself, for it is obvious that I am dead,
or at least on the way to it, for what the hell would I be doing here
otherwise?  For a moment I wondered  whether I was dreaming; perhaps I
fell asleep in the chair and this is all a dream and I will wake up in a
few moments.  But I knew that it was no dream for it was as real as
life, too real, albeit so different.  I could still see; for that I
knew, but there was nothing to see; there was no creation other than
myself, my mind in nothing, Limbo.
>
>  It was indeed in a state of isolation, of existing in nothing
created.  It was not as though one were simply in a dark place as such,
for it was experienced that there was no 'place' to be dark.  It was
like being stranded, left alone in nothing; separated or beyond any form
of creation; abandoned. It was as if all creation had been switched off
and had forgotten to take me with it.  There was not even a finger to
wobble or anything to smell or touch.  I thought how much I would have
loved to have seen a raindrop or felt the wind in my face.  And how I
perhaps took such things for granted.  "Well, just when you're enjoying
yourself, eh," I thought.  One could think of this in terms of either a
Limbo experience or 'Mind Alone,' for the effect and the experience are
the same thing.  Naturally I began to feel apprehensive, for one could
not do anything.  One could not shake oneself out of it, for there was
nothing to shake.  I began pondering on life, for I had accepted that
this was the end of it, or the journey to the end of it.  Strangely
enough I did not seem as bothered about it as I thought I should have
been, and even though I had been cut short in my prime, and at a time
when I was enjoying life to the full.   I guess I am going to fade out
any minute now and there is not much I can do about that now, so why
worry about it!  But if ever anybody or anything asks me if I want to
'go on' again then I shall certainly ascertain what they mean before
committing myself.
>
>  After awhile something switched on what I instantly thought was a
star, a tiny little pinprick of light way off in the distance.  I
suddenly wondered why I thought that this star was objective to me, for
nothing else I had seen could really have been said to be 'objective' in
the literal sense; but this star felt to be absolutely objective.  I was
over here and that thing was over there, and thus real in objective
terms.  I then questioned where all the other stars had gone, but
realized, or perhaps better to say, suddenly remembered, that this was
not 'outer space,' but an unknown inner or sub-space somewhere; and
heaven only knows where.  But if this was supposed to be heaven or
afterlife then it was no great shakes; and give me Exmoor any day. Well,
star or not it is damned obvious that I am not going to find my own way
home from this place.  And even if one knew the way back how the hell
would one move in that direction?  I give up!
>
>  I began to wonder if my existence was now solely due to my thinking
process perhaps.  That is to say, I had no body or substance observable.
Therefore, perhaps if I stop thinking I would cease to exist.  "That's
novel," I thought, a bit like Hobson's choice.  By the same token,
however, if I were to keep thinking then perhaps I could hang about here
forever.  But my thoughts do not thrill me to that extent so I did not
fancy that idea.  So perhaps if I stop thinking then I will cease to
exist.  So I stopped thinking.  Nothing happened.  I was still there; in
nothing and nowhere.  Well, that's it then, so much for that experiment!
It occurred to me that perhaps the Christians might be right after all
and that this distant light was perhaps Dante's Inferno;  Wow! Happy
days!  I didn't think that I had been that bad, however, and not that I
believed such stuff anyway; but there you go, eh! Movement seemed to
slowly begin.  Either toward the tiny little light or else it was itself
moving toward me; but no, I felt actual movement somehow.
>
> Although I was not really thinking about it I somehow began to
question, or at least began to think, about my past life.  If this light
which is coming toward me (or me it) is death, then I really do have
little time to think about life.  What about it?  Well, it was OK I
guess, I seemed to enjoy most of it despite the pains and the poverty,
the war and frustration.  What did I amount to?  Sod all really!  Was it
fun?   Fun!?  I did not know it was meant to be fun; did I ask myself
that question?  What the devil is going on!   Was it fun?  Well, some of
it was, but not all of it, I thought to myself.  Would you do it again?
Not the same one over again I don't think, a different one maybe.
Different in what way?   Well, a little less frustration and pain, a
little more passion and shared enjoyment.  A more meaningful existence
somehow maybe.  What is enjoyment?  Well, you know, enjoyment!  No, you
tell me what enjoyment is.  Well, enjoyment is to love what you are
doing, to do what you love doing, and to share that thing and that love
with another person, I guess.  It is also the joy of taking part, the
act of being a part of instigating and spreading that enjoyment of
being; a harmony of body and mind in the excitement of experience with
others, and also at times on one's own with nature.  That, I guess, is
what enjoyment is for me anyway.  At that point, I felt that I would
love to see a tree or a green field; a blade of grass or a drop of rain;
or at least to feel a breeze of fresh air.  For they were all now lost
and gone.  It occurred to me that I had not done any breathing for a
long time; and nothing to breath with.  Would I want to go on living now
given the choice?  Now that I have come this far I am not sure.  It
would have to have some meaning to it, some purpose other than mere
pleasurable moments and sad moments which amount to nothing really.  It
would have to have something which is seen, known, to have some meaning
to the suffering and pain which is the greater portion of life on earth
it would seem.  It would have to be worth the effort of the struggle
involved.
>
>  Would I really want to live again now?  I am not sure now; but what I
think does not really matter now anyway; so I do not want to think any
more; sod the lot of it.  However, life was certainly better than being
here, and that's for sure... and wherever 'here' is... the dungeons of
my mind it seems!  But what now then?  In life I had the option of
committing suicide if I wanted or needed to; but I cannot even do that
there-here.  I wonder where those poor sods went anyway.  Perhaps such
an act is simply a short cut to where I am now, or where I am headed
for...  that light is getting bigger, quite close.... Good grief!   What
the hell... are they doing here?!   I suddenly became aware that I was
drifting past other beings somehow; hundreds of the buggers.  I could
not see them as such but I somehow knew they were there, and I could
indeed almost see them, a kind of misty outline of some kind.  I could
somehow feel their presence.  I became aware that I was somehow passing
people; or beings of some kind anyway.  What the hell are they doing
here in my mind, or my mind's tomb or whatever or wherever?
>
>  It was as if I was drifting through their dimension and yet somehow I
could feel their presence and somehow 'know' them: an empathy of some
kind.  These people, whatever they were, were so good.  I do not know
how I knew that, but I just knew it, and I wanted to be with them above
all else.  If I were on a bus then I would jump off at this stop, but I
can't do sod all.  I want to be with them!  I wanted to wave at them to
attract their attention but I had nothing to wave; yet somehow I
understood something; a bit like a conversation by telepathy, I thought.
I could feel them and know them, and understand them somehow.   Stone
me! - they said I cannot be with them... not now!  Why not; I want to be
with them, they are far nicer than many of the people I came across in
life.  They are different somehow; strangely different.
>
>  Then, without more ado or a by your leave, I suddenly shot off like
an intergalactic bullet at terrific velocity and away from their
dimension of existence, or their imagined existence, or whatever.  And
the light which had been a mere pin prick of light, the little star, was
now much closer and larger.   That is no star, I thought; more like a
hole with light shining through it, or somehow rather drifting out of
it.  It was now almost upon me, or me upon it, whichever.  I seemed to
be in some kind of free fall, a descent or diminishing orbit about it;
spiraling toward it.
>
>  It was  as though I could feel my own movement now and almost a sense
of rushing air passing me.  Hey, this is quite fun, a good feeling.  But
I do not think it is going to last long somehow!   I was no longer
questioning whether this light was real but rather what it indeed was,
for I was heading for it and fast.  It is not a star, it looks more like
a hole with light coming out of it from behind.  Well, it would seem
that it is perhaps the death star after all; happy days!  Now is the
time for all good men to come to the aid of Richard... some hope!
>
>  Well, what is going to be is now going to be, so sod the lot of it:
for there is nothing I can do about it now.  But I could go out singing
I guess... more dignified than whining.  What shall I sing then; it will
have to be a short song: Ariva Derchi Roma?  Old Langsyne?  No, I think
I fancy a bit of Bach....  that is certainly a hole...  it IS a hole...
with light shining through it somehow; what a beautiful light it is to
be sure...  radiant....  strange...  this is IT,  I am going into it....
stone the bloody Crows I am falling into it....  Wow!
>
> *
>
> BEYOND THE WHITE
>
> CIRCUMINCESSION OF THE TRINITY OF BEING
>
>  What happened next is impossible... I think!  How do we describe the
impossible?  An event occurred; one event, but it was experienced twice,
and from two different perspectives or points of reference, and thus
appeared as two events from hindsight.  Yet they could not be remembered
during the sequence.  They could not be remembered for an infinite
duration of time; not until this whole series of events was over and
behind me.
>
>  This event was in a dimension of a trinity of some kind; a trimorphic
reality of self in some way.  However, observation is always dualistic,
the observer and the observed, it seems; but it can take place from
three different points of reference in sequence.  Is it any wonder that
we question our sanity for awhile?
>
>  I will have to describe the following sequence of events just as
though it was experienced at the time and in the sequence in which the
events took place.  However, at the time, the first sequence could not
be remembered during the course of the second sequence and thus it was
experienced (at the time) as if I only went into the white light once.
But from hindsight it was experienced as going into it twice - even
though knowing it was only once.  The alternative is that two parts of
me went through two different holes at the same time.  Confusing is not
the word!  Who would ask for any of this?
>
>  I did not experience actually entering the white light.  One instant
I was about to enter it and the next instant I was inside or beyond it.
If it were possible to have blinked one's eyes then I would have assumed
that I had blinked and hence missed it.  But I know well enough that you
cannot open or close those eyes.  Moreover, I had no knowledge of ever
entering the white light; there was nothing before this event for that
part of me in this field.  I saw the figure of a Human form.  It was
tall, elegant, old; and standing on top of high precipice, like a cliff
edge.  I (this part of me) was in a location just to its left and a
little way behind it.  But I had no form as did it.  I could see the
left-hand side of its face and form and way off into a strange kind of
distance to the front and all around it.  I must have had two eyes for
the reality was three dimensional.
>
> The space all around was like an eerie white mist and yet somehow
without being misty, for vision was crystal clear.  I could see over the
edge of the precipice where this figure was standing right near the edge
of a high drop.  However, I myself, the observer, had no form, and this
figure, or symbolic emanation of a figure, seemed as though it were not
aware of me watching it, whatever it was.   Moreover, I had no
remembrance of ever arriving here or of anything that had happened
before.  I did not have a clue what I was, or what I was looking at, or
what either of us were doing here: wherever 'here' was.  But it was
calm, serene, peaceful, poignant, somehow meaningful, but eerie
nevertheless; strange; mysterious.  I had no thoughts going through me,
no feeling, no questioning; no power to think or reason (as one can from
hindsight, obviously), but just simply watching and taking it in: and
not by choice.  I, or this part of me, was just an observer (as far as I
know anyway).  If one was being precise then that part of myself could
be said, from hindsight, to have been like a spare member at a wedding
or union (Mutual Convergence).  And in the true and deepest sense of
that meaning: a mere observer in order to know!
>
>  The figure was looking down in toward the whiteness, which was a kind
of enclosed but huge dome of whiteness.  There was only the restriction
of whiteness, which created the perception of an enclosure or dome of
some kind.  But whilst I was observing all this a small dark aperture in
an otherwise total whiteness just opened up, like the lens of a camera
shutter (the round type).  The whiteness was not a blinding whiteness
but simply an absolute pure and soft radiant whiteness: but kind of
misty.  And yet the aperture which opened up like a hole in a wall was
absolutely round in form and clear-cut defined.  But it was tiny; a
small hole.  A small dark opening in a 'non-wall' of the mysterious
white light; and me with no form, and this form of a figure about three
feet in front of me and to my right, just standing there watching this
hole appear.  Then, all of a sudden, a small ball of gold glowing light
popped in through the hole; and as it did so the aperture closed up like
magic behind it... like a self-closing door.
>
>  As the being looked down (it sounds like a fairy story but it is the
literal truth of the events so help me the god of truth), this small
gold ball of light came through the dark aperture into the white light,
and there it just kind of hovered, remained stationary, with this figure
watching it and me watching all of it.  As I said, as the small gold
glowing object entered into the white dome then the aperture through
which it had come, the small black hole in the white, simply closed up
and became nonexistent behind it; and the light (gold ball) just sat
there stationary; a gold ball of light surrounded by a pure white light.
And all was still... for ages it seemed.  It was eerie, so quiet, yet so
profound.  There was not a sound or any further movement.  All was utter
stillness and quiet.  Somehow it seemed as if the figure may have been
an extension of myself with me having some kind of out-of-body
experience in some strange way; for I knew what was going on in its
thinking; I think. Yet I was observing from a slight distance away...
and objective.  The small glowing object looked much like a Ping-Pong
ball, and its radiance was a gold glow which stood out in contrast to
the surrounding pure and soft white light.  As I watched I saw the
figure shed one tear; one solitary tear ran down its left cheek; yet it
was happy; so happy.  I know not how I knew it, but know it I did.  The
figure was in love with the glowing object.  Had I been in a position to
think, ask questions, or rationalize during that facet of the events,
then I do not know what I would have thought or reasoned, or understood;
but I could not.  From hindsight it is very strange being a passive
observer.  From hindsight, however, there are no questions to ask
regarding that event as far as I am concerned; for all was understood;
it explains itself.  Nothing was said; there was not a sound; everything
was as stationary as the grave with the exception of that teardrop
slowly rolling down a face.  No further movement took place.  It was
profound beyond words.  I was not sure whether the figure I had been
observing was another part of me or not; indeed, at this point I was not
sure of anything, for I could not think; I was simply an observer.  The
vision then ended as instantly as it had come about, and from that point
I had no further memory or recollection of it ever happening; or not for
a long time yet to come.  An infinite amount of time.
>
> THE SECOND, OR PARALLEL ENTRY
>
>  As I said... this was no star, it is a hole with light shining out of
it, and I am damn well falling in to it.... I am going into it.... Wow!
I did not actually experience going into the white light; I must have
blinked or something.  One instant I was about to enter it and the next
instant I was inside of it.  I was inside some kind of bubble; a bit
like a cobweb eggshell, or one of those string lamp shades that gather
all the dust.  I was aware of myself inside this thing; like an embryo
in an egg of some kind; or shell.  It was the first time that I could
actually see anything of myself since all this began.
>
>  I was somehow sitting all cramped up like a bloody chicken in an egg;
wondering what was on the outside that was so bright; and what the hell
was going on now.  But thinking did not come easy at that point, or
perhaps it was simply more instinctive than rational thinking.  But I
could still think somehow.  Beyond this 'bubble' which I was cooped up
in was a pure radiance of brilliant and dazzling white light.  A
blinding light.  I could not seem to think in the normal mode of
thinking, although I could indeed still think somehow.  I had an
instinctive urge of wanting to scratch my way out of this bubble or
whatever it was, or at least to see what was outside of it.  But there
was no form to scratch at.  I could not touch anything even though I
seemed to have some kind of physical form of some kind.  I think it
simply must have been too bright and blinding to see properly.  I
suddenly realized that the light was getting brighter and even brighter
by the second; blinding and more blinding all the time.  Or perhaps more
light was getting in through the mesh of this thing somehow.  I began to
see something - or it may be more true to say 'know' something: but what
is it...  I'm not sure...  No, no no it can't be... it is... good grief
almighty... the thing outside... it is... it is me!   With that thought,
that event, that vision and knowledge I was dead; gone; finished.
>
> I saw no form of anything other than brilliant and blinding light, yet
I knew that something outside was myself: it was obvious; axiomatic;
absolute knowledge.  My being, my consciousness, started spinning,
swooning somehow, spinning in a giddiness like a vortex of water going
down a bath plug hole: a vortex of self-existence diminishing into
nothingness.  I knew that my bubble was disintegrating in the light...
and so was I...  I am going... I am being damn well annihilated, melted
down, disintegrated, burnt out, annihilated.  It came to pass that
everything ended; everything had gone; and I was gone. I and the
universe were no more.  It was the end of time.
>
> *          *          *
>
>
> THE PARADISE OF THE GROUND OF BEING
>
>
> A Unification in Resurrection
> within the Virgin Womb of  Eternity
>
>  For an unknown duration after my bubble or shell and I were
annihilated there was nothing.  One cannot talk about nothing, for
nothing is the total lack of experience,  oblivion; like being switched
off, dead, gone, annihilated.  But after a nonduration of time there was
a re-emergence or resurrection of my being, an annihilation of
annihilation as such; but the like of which could never be dreamed or
imagined.  No physical eye has ever seen that place, no hand has touched
it, no dreaming mind has thought of it, and its reality has never
occurred to the rational mind, which exists in temporality - other than
through the memory of the Paradise event itself.
>
>  Annihilation in that mutual convergence was something like passing
through a magic gate: a gap in the universe: a hole in creation, a gate
which separates time and temporal things from the transcendent realm of
a Divine Eternity, the repose of being.  Such death is not a death but
rather the ultimate in living, the ultimate in knowing, and the ultimate
in comprehension and affirmation.  Likewise is it the ultimate in love,
passion, wisdom, and understanding.  From hindsight one would initially
ask the question as to why the nature of things comes to contain such a
rare and precious jewel in the crown of creation which would seem to be
so jealously guarded, and beyond the moat of annihilation itself, that
so few people ever come to be shown it during the course of their life
on Earth.  A justified question indeed.  For everyone should know this
yet while they live their lives on Earth; or so would be my own
judgement and that of any other human being who had come to witness this
wonder beyond all wonders.
>
>  Dialogue upon the transcendent and eternal realm is not going to be
easy for the words we use apply to temporal things and not to the
eternal perception of the divine transcendent realm of perfection in
which there is knowledge only of the essences of things and not the
things themselves.  Moreover, the vision of the place itself is not what
paradise is all about, for it is about the feeling and the knowing and
understanding, not the vision; and even though the vision itself is the
vision to end all visions.
>
>  Among all other things one knows (and realizes from hindsight) is
that we are a kind of jug, a vessel, a conduit, through which the life
force itself flows.  Without created consciousness to act as such
vessels there could be no further creation, and no point or meaning to
creation without us.  We are the banks of the river of the flow of life;
and this place is where the banks of the river of life meet the eternal
riverbed.    However, it is not totally impossible to talk of such
reality, only very difficult; but such experience itself solves many
mysteries and so-called paradoxes.  To say that self-consciousness, or
I, is resurrected after annihilation is a most fitting description of
the experience, and the best definition of the event. One could also say
the annihilation of annihilation; but one cannot say what is happening
in absolute objective terms of reality; for you and I can never know
that.
>
>     With regard to the 'awakening' in that realm then, one cannot make
an analogy of going to sleep and then waking up in another place, for
that gives the impression of a continuity; which it is not.  It is a
broken continuity of self-being.  Broken by the act of annihilation.
When we awake from sleep we are the same person that went to sleep; we
vaguely remember going to sleep, we remember having been asleep, and
when we awake we retain our past memories of having existed before that
sleep: and thus a continuity of being even though we underwent an
oblivion of consciousness during dreamless sleep.  Neither are we
actually aware of the point of falling asleep, but we sure are aware of
being annihilated; and how.  And I often wondered why.  But if we did
not come to know then we would never know the connection point between
time and the everlasting eternal moment of being.
>
>  Because that place, the transcendent realm, is judged by us (or me)
to be perfection, for simplicity I refer to it as Paradise.  There are
no names, however.  It would be misleading to refer to it as 'eternity,'
for I always thought of eternity as the sum of all created time.
Indeed, time as we know it does not even move there.  Thus it is the
beginning of time; hence the womb of eternity.  Moreover, nothing at all
of experienced consciousness has ever known that place and dimension by
dwelling there.  So it is pristine, fresh, childlike, virgin of any
other experience or memory; and hence my justification for referring to
it as the 'Virgin Womb of Eternity.'  There are no men or women there
and the word virgin has no connotations of that ilk.
>
>  However, let us proceed with the event and the understanding of the
eternal wisdom itself.  When we awake in paradise we do not awake in the
sense of coming out of a sleep; it is nothing like that at all.  There
is no waking up or sleeping in that realm, for when you are resurrected
into it you have always been there; there is no before.  Temporality
does not apply there.  Hence, even if we went there a million times it
would always be 'once' from our perception of it anyway; and by virtue
of annihilation itself.   Paradise is the beginning; and the end is a
new beginning.  So it is both the beginning and the end, and then the
beginning again.  It is like the knot that joins a round piece of string
or loop; or the weld that holds the circle of being together.  It is
home!  From whence we came.  It is my home; everyone's home.  We are
Twins, divine cosmic twins.
>
>  One does not wake up then or suddenly come into self-consciousness
there for one has always been there and self-conscious within it.
Naturally enough, you and I can come to question that truth as it is
experienced by the I AM within that realm when we are in extension of
it; and don't I know it.  But you cannot whilst in there; it is
uncontradictable. Thus, when self-consciousness is restored, shall we
say, after annihilation, it is not the restoration of the personality
that went in, thus it is not really a resurrection in that sense, for
that part of ourselves which exists in that realm has always been there;
and  the part, the personality, that went into annihilation does not
exist there; but it is still you; the real you; but the inner and depth
eternal you that only this dimension can reveal; and hold.  The part
that is never let go of.  So much depends then on the reference point
one is talking from when using the term 'I' or 'me.'  Hence we have to
come to know our true self; that part which IS the real us, and of which
everything else is ultimately objective; even the personality, time, and
changing events.  In that realm there is no memory of ever having
existed before or elsewhere.  There is no before or elsewhere. Thus, we
are not talking about the personality existing in paradise but that of
the person.  The personality is washed away in annihilation.  But
nevertheless that person in paradise is 'me'... 'I am me.'  It is still
my consciousness (you in your case).  But not the you of the temporal
senses.  The person and the personality are but two parts of our
trinity; and the soul or overself is the third part; like three quarks
in a proton or three peas in a pod.  One could therefore mistakenly talk
about the 'I am' which exists in the womb of eternal mind as being
objective from the personality of the being in time and space; but to do
so would be very wrong and also cause a paradox and an alienation of
self from self, or the outer from the inner.  Likewise, it is painfully
obvious from hindsight that some, if not many (through second-hand
dialogue and distortions no doubt) have thought this aspect of being to
be the first cause; the unseen living mover of creation itself.  But not
so; for there is another, and even beyond that depth... beyond our self,
and which is not us.
>
>  It must be remembered that the eternal paradise of the ground of our
being is experienced to be the first created thing and place; but
certainly not the creative source itself.  Although it is known to be
the first emanation of the creative source itself, the first act of
creation.  In the beginning man was indeed in the garden of eternal
delight and perfection: paradise.  But as I say, it would still require
an 'act' to bring forth paradise and the minds within it.  Thus it is
also known whilst in that place that there is a deeper but uncreated
reality.  But not a deeper reality that you or I can ever get to; and
that is a known fact whilst there.  The I am which exists in that
reality is not the first cause, and that is axiomatic at the time.  It
is the first thing 'caused.'
>
>  However, it was not created in time; certainly not the kind of
space-time that you and I know out here.  It is deeper down within the
inner structure of emanation than the point where space-time becomes a
phenomenon of extended reality; just as a river is not the riverbed, but
without a river-bed and the banks there could be no river.  It is the
ground of being; not the creative source of all being.
>
>  Let us continue, however, with the exegesis as it unfolded.  I was
resurrected from non-existence, death, into a place of eternal
perfection.  In that place there is perfect vision (those who are blind
will see).  A vision which must be from two locations, I guess, because
the vision, the place, is three dimensional: binocular vision.  There
exists width, breadth, and depth.  The place or realm, goes on as far as
one can see, and into a distance beyond sight itself, for it is
everywhere and everything.  There is up, and there is down, there is
left and there is right, all relative to the point of vision, needless
to say.  The vision is of darkness and of infinite jewel-like glowing
lights.  The lights are like jewels, diamonds set in a sea of purple
glowing darkness; which is not really dark at all, but somehow pulsating
with vitality and being.  The lights are small but more than mere points
of light, and they are of various sizes and distances apart.  Some are
even kind of wispy and strung out; but most are roundish.  Neither the
darkness or the lights can be described in a way that does them justice,
for the beauty transcends anything known or knowable.  It is the
original unadulterated essence and principle of beauty.
>
>  The lights in that realm are stationary, or so it seems to
observation.  Nothing moves; all is still and silent.  The only thing
that moves is I, or self-consciousness.  I AM slowly drifts through that
realm in a clockwise orbit; a slow orbit, but an orbit nevertheless.
Initially it is like a slow drifting in a straight line.  However, it is
an orbit, a clockwise orbit, assuming the clock were lying face up on
the floor.  The orbit is of great distance and almost perceived as a
straight line, but it is known to be an orbit about an unseen center.
The I that exists there (us) has no perceived substance or form, it is
just pure virgin primordial consciousness as far as we are concerned; or
a mysterious substance that can be made conscious: a 'spirit stuff or
energy' of some kind.  But what it is made of (if anything other than
consciousness) cannot be known.  It cannot be seen or touched.  It is as
if such energy is sacrosanct.
>
>  There is no form to the eyes that see, for it is the consciousness or
energy itself which can see.  It can see almost all the way around
itself, but not quite all the way around.  Thus you cannot see directly
behind you, but you can indeed see well to the left and right in greater
vision than human vision.  In one's drifting in this paradise one does
not come into contact with the lights at all; and one does not really
know what the lights are (one can deduce from hindsight, though).  They
are just lights, beautiful lights, and their configuration slowly alters
with the perspective of one's movement in orbit.
>
>  The darkness itself is indescribable; it is like a translucent glow
of purple soup which is somehow vibrant, vital; it is not a void and it
is not mere space in between the lights; it is a 'something'; but more
like a glowing soup or aura, somehow.  Perhaps it is the 'stuff' that
beings 'congeal' out of; like planets and stars in the universe.   And
one's orbit is through this divine and wondrous darkness amid the
jewel-like lights.  Thus, it is a brightness as well as a darkness.
Like the twilight of the gods indeed. The description may make it sound
a little bit like the physical universe with the stars amid black space;
but it is nothing like that at all.  If anything, it is more like the
vision among a nebula in a past supernova.  The lights are much bigger
than our perception of stars, which are mere pin pricks of light, and
there is a tint of color in them even, as I say, like diamonds; but the
predominant aura and glow is white.  They have a substance and shape,
but there seems to be no absolute uniformity of shape; most seem to be
round.  The darkness is nothing like outer space, and it is not even
dark at all; but darkish, like purple that is glowing.  The lights are
not as distant as the stars in space, even though they are not in
contact; and the distances between them is many times their actual size.
Thus, it is not like the emptiness of outer space at all.  Moreover, one
can see all this without turning one's vision, for indeed, one cannot
turn one's vision.  There is no 'Oh, I think I will look that way or
this way'... you just see it all, all the time.  But you also know that
you are not seeing 'it all' at all, for it is infinite and everywhere.
>
>  However, that realm is not about the vision, it is about the magic:
the knowing, the understanding, the passion, the reality, the knowing
the 'all,' the love, the wisdom, the beauty, and above all else, it is
about the purpose of creation and being.  It is ineffable, really.  In a
word it is all about 'being there'; taking part in this Divine mystical
union of creation at root beyond time.  It seems that the vision itself
is a kind of bonus perhaps: a place in which to do this knowing yet
whilst in a repose of divine peace; the peace that passes all
understanding, perfection, and affirmation of being.  It is like an amen
to creation; the swan song of perfection.  It is like the last chord of
the ultimate piece of perfect music; a chord that comes like an amen
after that pregnant pause and build-up to the final chord.  There could
be nothing cleverer and wiser than to have annihilation precede this
reality; it is like music in that sense: the last, and divine chord of
created being when all has seemed to be done and finished.
>
>  Nevertheless, it is also the beginning as well as the end, for it is
where we come from.  It could be described as the cosmological waiting
room of created consciousness before transmigration into the experience
of time, freedom, and activity.  There are no other beings perceived (or
even known of) in paradise; one is totally alone with this truth and its
reality.  Thus the place and the knowledge is all yours, all mine, all
beings from their point of reference and consciousness; it is the realm
where all centres meet beyond space and time in the primordial
Motherload of created consciousness: minds, spirits, beings, whatever
you want to call them.  'Motherload' does not mean female either.  It
means the main seam, the core, and the original. It is pure
consciousness; beyond time, space, and memory.  It (I AM) is the alpha
and omega of all extended minds; the beginning and the end of all
created beings in creation; the first creation and the home that awaits
the return of all created minds, which are but the children or progeny
of creation.  Nothing was created before I AM and paradise: and nothing
is created after me; I am the beginning and the end of creation.
>
>  Thus it is that the consciousness in the repose of the eternal domain
is the first child of creation - in the Virgin Birth of creation itself.
The real and only Virgin Birth (and this one is not symbolic, it is the
real thing).  Before the mountains high and wide, before the seas did
flow, before the stars gave forth their light, even then, I said, I
know.  Before my personality was, I AM.  Before cave men came into
being, I AM.  Look deeper than the stones of the earth and the oceans,
and there you will find me; I am the light which is beyond them all; I
am the light of life and the resurrection.  Know me, and you will know
yourself; for I AM... and you are I AM.  Thus, it is not metaphysics but
PROTOPHYSICS; before physics.  It is not 'after time' (although it is
that also); it is before time moved; before changing events emanated
forth from the center of all being and the eternal point of no duration.
We are there at the beginning, like the observer of the first act of
creation.   Our self-consciousness in that dimension cannot think;
thinking is a temporal process; but it is totally aware nevertheless
(thus, knowledge before thought: thus thought depends on knowledge...
not the other way around as many seem to assume.  Earthly philosophers
are like mere babies in Divine ignorance).  It (we) is (are) not aware
of things as we are aware of things out here, however, but it is an
awareness of what can only be described as the essences and eternal
principles and qualities of things; truths; depth realities; quality;
meaning; purpose; beauty; wisdom; passion.
>
>  That root of our being of eternal consciousness, that part of
ourselves which exists there at the deepest level, the first child of
creation, is totally in absolute love, a passion beyond description.  It
is filled with the passion of being to such a degree that if you and I
out here were to have that degree of passion burning inside of our
temporal minds or guts then we would blow up (and perhaps this caused it
to happen during an incarnate life; who knows, who knows); but such
passion is like dynamite.  It is not like the watered-down love we know
in this world, and certainly wonderful though that be.  It is more
comparable to the heat at the big bang than to the present cosmic
temperature.
>
>  In this life we tend to think of wisdom as that of knowing what to
do, of doing the right and proper thing; because it is wise to do that
thing; but that is intelligence, not wisdom.  However, the wisdom within
that consciousness is nothing like that.  Its wisdom is the knowledge of
creation itself; the  knowledge of the heart: the knowledge of itself
and its eternal existence. Knowledge also of that which is not itself;
otherness; that which gave event to paradise and oneself; it is
uncontradictable certainty of creation; purpose; being; and the wisdom
of the beginning and the end of all things.  And thence all of which I
sum up in the terms the 'Eternal Gnosis' or the 'Eternal Wisdom.'  It is
a divine swoon of the exultation of the love of being; and being a part
of it all.  That 'I AM' knows well enough that something brought it
forth into being; it knows well enough that it does not contain its own
causation.   It also knows that the cause of its creation is not
paradise itself (the place) in its origin; and not within paradise
itself in absolute terms.  The first cause cannot be seen, it cannot be
directly known independent of essences and created forms, and yet in a
way it knows of nothing else other than its love for its source of
being.  And its source of being is that of no created thing; no thing
created.  And it is not questionable; it is uncontradictable knowledge
and certain reality.  There is no doubt.  Thus, if it could be said that
one is 'contemplating' whilst there, which is true in a way, then the
thing which one is concentrating (not thinking) on in this swoon of
passion, knowledge and delight is that of the love of 'No Created
Thing.' Thus it is that such a child of consciousness (us in there) is
in love and wisdom and yet is but a child, a virgin creation, a virgin
birth, no less: pure in its love of otherness and the love of itself and
its home which was created for it.  Pure in the sense that it cannot
think.  Pure in the sense that it has had no other experience beyond
that of paradise itself.  Pure in its love, which is unconditional of
anything and unadulterated.  For although it somehow knows everything in
there, you and I (out here) would say that it knows nothing at all in
the sense that we consider knowledge and the understanding of things.
>
>  It is a very strange thing, for in this world there are two things
that you and I can never ever know; one of them is everything, and the
other is nothing. (For 'knowing' means to know 'some thing').  And yet
that part of ourselves in that realm knows only two things: one of them
is everything (the essence and principle of) and the other is no thing.
How odd, how very odd; it is like a reciprocal reality, or the square
root of minus one... except that this place exists in reality.
>
>  The 'I AM' of that realm has no knowledge of Earth and incarnate
existence.  No knowledge of the universe or universes of space and time.
No knowledge of created forms other than itself and paradise.  Thus,
those who claim that they are communicating with the dead are either
damn liars or very confused people: a little learning is a dangerous
thing; so drink deep or taste not.  They may be Communicating with other
living beings maybe, but not these beings, not the totally transcendent.
You will not disturb these beings!  They are sacrosanct and belong to
something else for that duration.
>
>  In the eternal paradise there is only One, and the one is the all
(for we are all identical in it).  It is only from hindsight and whilst
on Earth (with remembrance of paradise) that we can know that all
created consciousness sees it that way, and in the same way; thus, all
beings perceive the oneness in the divine transcendent realm of perfect
repose, perfect love, and perfect wisdom.  In there there is no pain, no
worry (no bills to pay), no answering to do; no eating, no sleeping, no
thinking, no memory, no remorse; no hopes or desires, no fears; nothing
negative.  Thus, it is also a Mono-Pole reality; all positive and no
negative (hence no negation).  All good; no bad.  All beauty; no
ugliness.  All 'now'; no past or future.  All understanding and
affirmation; no doubt or unknowing.  All answers; no questions.  Good
god almighty, why was anything ever created so good?  Who knows, who can
answer!  Only that child knows; and that is its wisdom: and it is you.
Search yourself then; for the quest and passion for the knowledge of
selfhood and understanding brings knowledge of the deepest depths of the
All.
>
> *           *           *
>
> As I drifted in a slow orbit swathed in a love which is ineffable,
beyond words and full rational understanding, in a wisdom which is
beyond dialogue, in a place of eternal and everlasting perfection, I
suddenly heard a voice or command (or the experience of one) and
understood a 'command' or directive!  I had never heard a voice or
command before in all my existence, and I was in fear and panic.  The
voice, or command said...
>
> "It is now time to go"!
>
> Words cannot begin to describe this.  I had never known communication
or words or commands before.  I did not know what was communicating with
me,  or how or why. Was it me or was it something else?  I began
thinking... what is thinking!  There is nothing else, only me!  I did
not know what 'go' meant, and yet, somehow I did begin to understand.
And as I began to understand  I was in even more fear and panic (was I
biting from the tree of knowledge?), for there was nowhere else to go;
only this place exists....  No, no, I do not want to go (I do not know
how I invoked or understood such communication for I had never
communicated with anything).  But I know not of  'go,' this is my home
and my love... I cannot go!  (The first thought... and not by choice).
"It is all well that you must go now, for something out there is in need
and you must now be with it: do not fear, it is all well that you must
go now... now be with it"!
>
>  That fear at knowing I was 'going' is not possible to put into words;
it could not be put into words.  But one knew nothing of other things,
or worlds, or time and space.  Nothing.  Nothing other than Eternal
Paradise.
>
> *
>  I did not open my eyes for they had never been closed as far as I
know.  Returning was instantaneous action at a distance.  I was looking
at a cat fast asleep on my lap.  My arms hung limp at my side.  The fire
had long since burned away and all was as quiet as the grave.  It was
very late into the evening and growing cold, yet my body was warm,
comfortable.  All was as it had been except the fire was out, the cat
fast asleep; and about three hours or so had elapsed.  No amount of
words or pages could ever sum up my initial feelings and thoughts on
returning to temporal consciousness and the same life that I had left
seemingly millions of millions of years ago.  Yet it was but three hours
ago.  I must have sat staring at the wall ahead of me for the next hour
dumb-struck; without moving as much as an eyeball or a muscle.  I was in
shock.  There are no words to describe the feeling, the shock, the
excitement, the annoyance of coming back... the impossibility of it all.
I was shocked, joyful, sad at returning, bemused, enlightened, annoyed,
happy, mind blown yet understanding, all at the same instant.
>
>  By the time I got around to moving it was about eleven p.m.  I
wondered what would have happened to the children if the house had
caught fire or if one of them had awakened and come downstairs.  I
thought more in that next hour than I had thought in all my past life
put together; but none of my thinking made any sense to the rational
mind.  When I came to my full rational senses I shouted out to myself...
"Good grief almighty what the hell was that"!  I was indeed back to
normality, my old charming ignorant self.  But perhaps not quite so
ignorant now.
>
> I staggered into the kitchen to make a strong cup of coffee, which I
took up to bed with me.  The children were sleeping fine and did not
look as though they had moved all evening.  I did not think I would be
able to sleep ever again.  But wrong again, for I was sound asleep
within no time at all, and before my wife returned home from her evening
out with friends.   I never told anyone of that event; the paradise
event, for twenty years or more, for obvious reasons.  Not a word; not a
mention.  What the hell could one say!  And we all know well enough the
reaction it would receive. It was therefore not only the secret teaching
- but unspeakable!   Or was it!?
>
>  During the course of the following thirty years (up to the time of
writing) I learned so much more, however; but such cannot go into a book
or words in detail for it would take forever; and there is little point
anyway, for we all do our own learning in our own way, and when the time
is ripe.  Second-hand knowledge is not knowledge at all.  Revelation at
second hand does not work on anyone.  I had undergone what I later came
to call the 'Mutual Convergence' (in annihilation).   Twenty years
later, I underwent yet another most profound experience which I came to
call the 'Reciprocal Convergence': or the 'Consummatum Incarnate'
(paradise on earth).  Here there is another kind of union, a reciprocity
of 'meeting again', and on earth, between the inner self and the outer
personality in a oneness.  And only then did I come to see the
connection, the reason, the meaning and purpose of the 'I AM' in
paradise, in which the function and purpose of the incarnate mind and
the inner depths of self and the objective physical universe are
fulfilled in a unification of mindful being on earth; the three in one,
in a dance among the temporal forms on earth; and which was understood
as the very purpose of creation itself and the reason why even paradise
exists, and has to be known while yet on this Earth during an incarnate
lifetime here.  They have to be joined on earth also; that is the goal,
the function and purpose, that eternal self is no longer alienated in
conscious awareness from the incarnate mortal form.  And hence the
saying that the outer has become as the inner and the purpose of being
has been fulfilled, consummated, in the perfection of forms as it was in
the beginning in the transcendent essence of being; so, too, has it
become in the forms in extension.  In that knowing and understanding
creation has achieved its goal incarnate; and within the knowing
incarnate mind of a finite personality...  but 'I AM' eternal.  The mind
is not in this universe simply to observe it, but rather to fulfil it
and know it for what it is. You and I AM are one.  You are I AM.  Know
thyself.
>
> However, that was way off in the future; twenty long years in the
future.  In the meantime, time did get mean at times; and from hindsight
I can only call it a twenty-year period of the dark night of the soul at
times: for I had not yet learned of the reciprocal convergence of spirit
with spirit on earth in the Consummatum or reciprocal convergence.  But
in the meantime there also existed a dichotomy, a duality of being; one
being perfect and the other far from perfect.  A little learning is a
dangerous thing, so drink deep or taste not the divine eternal spring.
Where metaphysics hangs its coat; and mystics dwell in awe; the singer
may be sighted; but the song goes on some more.  Believe what you will,
whilst you are free to do so; for you will not always be so!   But wiser
by far to believe nothing at all; for knowledge will suffice: and
ignorance melts away with experience.
>
>  But instantly after that Paradise event of transcendence itself there
was but one thought, one knowledge, one understanding and affirmation...
and which is... Oh... no... Oh... my God... how beautiful it is!  Oh my
Love, would that they could know this; would that their eyes could see
and their minds understand as to what they are, and from whence they
came; the beauty, the truth, the passion.  My love, give me the
understanding; and give me the words, that I might speak of the wonder
of being.  And let us create Man in our image.
>
>  It is an irony that you and I here on earth, the temporal rational
discursive mind, find it all too easy to accept anything that is bad as
being true, and yet the acceptance of anything good being true is so
difficult.  That synthesis of inner understanding may well be easier for
some than it is for others.  I had more than enough problems with it;
more than enough.  And it took so much to make me understand and accept
it.  Would that it could be easier for others.  I think that there is no
better reason for making mention of these things for the young.  We all
learn from experience eventually, and that is natural enough.  But to be
able to learn, to some degree at least, from the mistakes of others,
then that would be even better.
>
> *          *          *
>
> THE DARK SIDE
>
> (1963-1983)
>
> Dichotomy and Synthesis
>
>  If it had been the case that in fact there was no such thing as our
spiritual reality (and as I had perhaps assumed the case to be as a
youngster) then all such talk and speculation on spirituality would be
mere opinion; and unjustified opinion at that.  But when such reality
becomes self-evident by direct personal demonstrable experience such as
I underwent, and of which you have just read a brief synopsis, then it
does indeed become a real justified target for thought and
contemplation.
>
>  I would imagine that the immediate reactions of people to such a
profound event as a mystic death and resurrection encounter would be
very different, and depend to a large extent upon the personality
involved and their past mode of thinking.  My own reaction was immediate
ambivalence and much confusion. I include this section then, ultra-brief
though I will have to make it, in the case that it might assist others
to avoid so many years of inner frustration and a long, drawn-out
synthesis in acceptance and understanding of the events.
>
>  Thus it was then that at the age of twenty four, whilst sitting alone
one evening minding my own business and expecting nothing, that event
occurred. And how is one supposed to react to that!  Then again how is
one supposed to react to any experience ?  What is experience?  Could
anyone even begin to describe how they felt I wonder, for I certainly
cannot, and there are no words anyway.  I did not even know that such
inner 'events' existed to be known and experienced.  I was dumbfounded
and mind blown.  This was not knowledge and experience as I understood
knowledge and experience to be; and yet it was as real as being alive on
earth.  For three hours (on the outside) and forever (within) I had seen
things and learned things, knew things; that I could not accept as being
true when returning to 'normality.'  How does one cope with that?  How
is one supposed to cope with it?  No person tells us that.  We all walk
through this mysterious creation alone; or in existential conscious
terms anyway.
>
>  For awhile then, I was confronted with a direct demonstrable reality,
which I did not want to know and could not understand, for it was too
much and too 'way out' and different.  Not only that but it was too
good.  It was too good for me and it was too good for reality itself.
The world was an obvious obnoxious cock-up; but that thing, elaboration
of the mind, hallucination during a trance, or whatever it was, was
wondrous beyond words and belief; there was nothing better, and nothing
even equal to that existence.
>
>  It did not add up to or equate with the rest of reality, whatever
'reality' is.  Was it the case that I had gone mad maybe?  Did I really
die for three hours?  That cannot be right surely!  Was it a vision of
death whilst yet still alive maybe?  Was it the case that the mind was
some kind of confidence trickster to itself maybe; and for what purpose
or function?  Or was it that it really was what it seemed to be - could
that really be true?  And why me of all people!?  I am not that 'kind'
of person!   My mind was in a giddy spin for about three months.  Yet
one also had to carry on with the normal daily chores and events as
usual, as though nothing had ever happened at all.
>
>  It occurred to me that it was a damn good job that I had a keen sense
of humor and a down to earth kind of personality.  I think that alone
kept me sane.  Is it any wonder then that such people to whom these
things happen (I found out later that it did happen to others) then
begin to wander the moors on their own, to think, wonder, contemplate,
ask themselves questions: and try to understand it all; and why it
happened to them?  It is no wonder at all.  Life shows us things, and in
so doing the nature of the mind is forced to ask questions and seek
answers to them.  A question is much like a vacuum in the mind, and
nature (and the mind itself it seems) abhors a vacuum.  In due course I
came to learn that some people actually go looking for 'esoteric'
experiences.  They must be the mad ones I thought; for sufficient unto
the day are the problems thereof.  After about six months had gone by I
decided to give up even thinking about it at all.  For it did not make
any sense; and obviously no answers were going to come.  A peasant like
myself could not work these things out, so there was no point even
thinking about it.
>
>  As a young man I had never had what some like to call a philosophy,
religion, or belief system; and being young is the time when one is
learning so much about life anyway, and that is not the time for forming
conclusions.  But I guess I thought along the lines that the human mind
and consciousness were the product of electrochemical actions within the
brain and that the thing we called 'our conscious self' was the product
of this biological and electrochemical stimulation; and that was the sum
of it.  What I learned that evening, however (and among other things)
was a contradiction to that hypothesis.  But one is so used to thinking
along certain channels of thought that when one is jolted out of one
them, one questions the reality of the new concepts, not the old ones;
for the old ones fit in the mind like a snug warm glove - potted
thinking and self-created assumptions though they may be.  And which for
the large part have been put there by our indoctrination, nurture, and
education from other people since childhood; for they tell us what life
and reality is all about.  Thus one is faced with the dichotomy and
paradox of all time.  If these things are really real, truly independent
of simply experiencing them, then the conventional thinking of both
science and religion is wrong.  So what is real then: book-learning or
direct human experience!?
>
>  The dichotomy was also exacerbated by the fact that I loved and
enjoyed the events and that reality so much, and yet the implications
which it also brought did not appeal to me a great deal.  One of the
implications of that transcendent mode of being is that you and I are
never terminated as such, but simply undergo a broken continuity of
self-existence.  (Broken by the event of annihilation and then beginning
again in that mysterious resurrection; and which then eventually leads
back into this world or perhaps some other incarnate world or dimension
again.)  But I did not fancy the idea of continuity, broken or
otherwise.   Another is that you and I are not even from this world at
all, in essence or spirit, anyway.  Also, that we are not mere puppets
of a Divine Order but rather the very right-hand partner of it all; its
direct progeny.  What a lot of stupid nonsense surely; that cannot be
true!
>
>  The initial question then, which one faces after such an event, is
whether one actually believes or accepts such events and the learning
received therein to be really true or not, and irrespective of
experiencing it and actually living it.  This new situation caused me a
little trouble to say the least; for I did not even know how to believe
things.  I was happy enough in knowing a few things and also of my
ignorance of other things.  I had seen a little of life on earth, and
mysterious and pleasant as it was some of the time the large part was
that of suffering and downright misery for most people on earth. And
most of it was caused by people themselves: arguments, wars,
hostilities, deprivation, exploitation, and it was no joke and certainly
no paradise to be sure, and we were no divine beings.  Or if we were
then something had gone very wrong somewhere along the way.
>
>  But what I had seen and been in that evening was a paradise of
perfect existence.  Why?  How come?  And why me!  What was the point of
it all?  How the hell could anything be so good... and yet real.  And
how could it be so good... and yet not real?  How can you exist in
something that does not exist to be existed in?  How can you know
something that does not exist to be known?   It must be bloody real...
but it can't be!  And so the inner synthesis goes for a while. But if it
were true that you and I were never destroyed in absolute terms, and if
those things are true, then who in their right mind would ever want to
come back here again anyway?  For you cannot stay there in that
dimension of mind even if it is real.  I do not want to come here again
and that is for sure, for this world is juvenile and cretinous enough
without having to live here with the memory of that other place - and
which makes it even seem worse here on earth.
>
>  I began reading all kinds of literature for awhile; for I had to know
if others had seen and been in this same identical reality that I had
seen and been in.  But there is so much to read and so little time left
after work to do it all.  Yet that which I did come to read during the
first year or two had no resemblance to what I had seen, learned, and
knew.  After reading much ridiculous nonsense that had no relevance to
that which I had seen and known I gave up reading again and tried to
revert back to my love of chess; but it had gone!  I could no more get
interested in playing serious chess than I could in digging holes in the
ground.  I could not concentrate on chess for it seemed too trivial and
a waste of good time.  And that annoyed me so very much, for I had loved
chess for so many years; and now that love had gone, deserted me; and
not of my choice.  Why?
>
>  After about six or seven months I decided to give up even thinking
about that evening and that wondrous transcendent event; for not only
did it not relate to anything in normal perception but it could not be
got at by choice anyway; and nobody knew anything about it.  So what was
the point in even thinking about it, yet alone asking questions and
trying to think and make sense of it all?  I returned to my old
philosophy, of 'sod the lot of it'!   I had concluded that whatever it
really was, and experienceable though it was, knowable though it was,
that I did not want to know, and that I did not want to think of it any
longer.  I was not mentally up to it.  So I stopped thinking about it.
Every time the thought, memory, feeling, and inner passion flashed
across my mind I deliberately pushed it aside and thought about other
things instead, and difficult though it was.  But resolute I had always
been.
>
>  After another month had gone by I had the first and only nightmare
that I have ever had in my life.  A nightmare that was a dream I will
never forget for as long as I live; and which then acted as a major
catalytic event at that time.
>
>  I dreamt that I was out walking over the moors on a very bright
starlit night.  There was no moon but the stars were so bright and so
abundant that I could see well enough to the top of the hill towards
which I was walking.  I knew the path even though the path itself was
dark and not well seen as such; but the illumination from the sky made
the top of the hill stand out in silhouette and quite clear to vision.
I knew that there were no hazards underfoot, and thus I could walk in
confidence.  All of a sudden somebody switched on a searchlight.  I had
been walking quite slowly, both hands in my pockets whilst whistling to
myself as I walked.
>
>  At the event of this light being switched on I was thus taken by
surprise; for I knew that it was a searchlight, and yet there was no war
on.  So who the hell was looking for what out here on the barren moor at
this time of the night with such a bright light?   It then occurred to
me that something was wrong; the damn light was upside down!  I had seen
enough search-lights during the war and knew well enough what they
looked like; and this bugger was upside down.  I began to hasten my
steps, for the light was in the direction I was walking toward anyway;
and I was intrigued to find out what it was for, and what they were
looking for at this time of the night.  But on realizing that it was
upside down I guessed that it must have been a slow-moving airplane or a
helicopter with a new silencing method; for there was no sound
whatsoever.  Moreover, the light was not moving.  It became obvious that
the point of the light was up in the sky and that the wide bit was on
the ground.  But some sod up there was looking for something on the
ground, yet there was nothing but barren moor out here.
>
>  Then the light began to move.  It began what one can only describe as
a scanning action.  The point at the top was stationary and the beam
itself was moving slowly across the moor in a straight line.  It then
stopped, shot back instantly to a point in the opposite direction where
it had begun scanning, and then started scanning a little lower down the
hill - just enough lower down that it would not have missed anything.  I
became even more and more intrigued.  I took my hands out of my pockets
and began walking a little faster toward it.  I arrived at a point where
I could ascertain that the diameter of the beam on the ground was about
six feet, and indeed very bright.
>
>  The scanning had continued... slowly across, fast back, a little
further down and then slowly across again, time after time.  These
buggers were resolute if nothing else.  I reached a point where the beam
on the ground was only about twelve feet away from me; but there was
still no sound and no sign of where the light was coming from in the
sky.  At that point I simply stopped walking and just continued to watch
the event.
>
>  On the next scan the beam passed by where I stood by about four feet
or so.  It did not even occur to me that if I did not move out the way
the next scan would cover the point where I was standing; or if it had
occurred to me, then it did not bother me at all; for I just stood there
and watched it; for it was fascinating.  As predicted by past events it
got to the end of that scan, flashed back to its original point of
movement and slowly began its next scan again.  It had not stopped in
its movement since all this had begun.  As it approached I saw that its
path was coming straight toward me as I had assumed; but when it got
where I was standing...It stopped dead!   I was panic stricken.  I could
not move.  I was transfixed to the spot.  I instantly looked upward, and
although the light was so dazzling, I knew that the upper end, the
narrow point end, was something do with me; but I had to turn my eyes
away for the brightness was too much; and in looking back down I did not
see myself... but I saw that ugly bent twisted tree which I had seen
over the moors some seven months back; I was that useless tree.
>
>  I did not wake up;  it was as though I had never been asleep at all.
I was flung out of bed and crashed into the wall, which made my nose
bleed.  I had never known panic before in all my life.  I was sweating
buckets and bleeding.  I rushed downstairs like a bat out of hell and
made a series of strong cups of coffee.  I could hardly stop shaking in
panic; yet I did not know what I was even frightened of; for the dream
itself was a soft and pleasant dream; and I did not frighten easily by
anything anyway.
>
>  It was my reaction to it that was the nightmare.  I eventually
relaxed a little after about five cigarettes and three cups of coffee.
I grabbed a book out of the bookcase and began studying some weird and
wonderful opening variation on the Sicilian defense Dragon variation to
take my mind of it.  It was about three in the morning by now, and there
was no way that I was going to go back to bed that night.  Thus it was
not the dream itself which was the nightmare but rather my reaction to
it, and fear of I knew not what.  I just did not understand. How the
hell could the mind throw up a wondrous scenario as I had experienced
those few months back and then tonight... this!?  It got me asking
questions again, and that is for sure.  It worked!  It was as though the
dream was somehow symbolic.  After transcendence I somehow knew that I
knew something which I could not know now, or consciously know now
anyway, but that it would come, whatever it was; a kind of answer or
synthesis to the events.  But that was somehow intuitive understanding
and thus questionable. I did not really know it for absolute certainty.
>
>  When one settles down again the thinking and questioning then starts
in earnest, and in a calmer action from hindsight.  Strange that we can
be moved into action by bad events and forget the good ones!  OK then,
these things do happen; so what is going on then, how and why?  And what
the hell does whatever it is really want?  Where is all this going to,
and why, and how?  And why me?
>
>  I cannot go into any detail of the events that occurred over the next
twenty years for it would take forever.  But what happened shortly after
that dream was most odd.  It was as though every time I came to be
motivated by a certain topic I then contemplated upon that topic of
thought, and then within a short while, sometimes weeks and sometimes
months, I would have some very strange kind of psychic experience which
could be seen as a direct answer to the very issue I had been
contemplating upon. This is ridiculous I thought; and yet it is damn
well happening. This involved all kinds of experiences, but never quite
the same kind twice.  I did not even want them; this was not my kind of
'thing,' not me.  I did not want to see past and future events as
pictures flashed up in my mind.  I did not want deep inner empathies
with people.  I did not want pictures flashed up in my mind as to what
they were thinking or what they had in their pockets even.  What the
hell was going on and what was the point of it all?  I did not want any
of this stuff.  I just wanted to be left alone to get on with my life
and normal daily reality.  These experiences, however, were much
different from that first big event, the transcendent event; and anyway,
these other 'psychic' or whatever-they-were experiences did not answer
questions about that other reality as such, but simply seemed to show me
various potentials which the mind could somehow accomplish at times; and
god only knows how or why.  But that first experience was not so much
about what the mind could come to do but rather - what it was!  Assuming
it was true, of course.  However, these other things were always proved
at the time that they were indeed true, for they could be proved; they
were proved; and they were never ever wrong, not a one of them.  Is
something trying to tell me something - if so what and why!?  And why
indeed me; for I asked for none of this at all?
>
> These things continued on and off for nearly eighteen years.  By this
time, or long before it in fact, I had got used to them, and simply
smiled about them.  It was not as though these events were happening
every day: far from it; and life, as it had always been, was reasonable
enough; good times and bad times the same as anyone else has, but not
extremes of anything.   Then for awhile nothing happened at all, not a
jot.  I began to think and accept that all these things were now over
for me in this lifetime, and that perhaps I had seen far more than
enough anyway.  Yet many claimed to understand their experiences (or so
they said), but I was damned if I could. I felt a deep inner gratitude
for having been so fortunate to see such wonders, and yet somehow, and
by virtue of it, I felt somehow 'left up in the air.'  It was as though
somehow, like a pistol, I had been cocked but not fired.  I was
un-resolved.  It was all still unsynthesized in rational comprehension.
There was no final synthesis to the flow and understanding of it all,
and the why.  A half-baked understanding.  A little learning may well be
a dangerous thing, but it can also be damned frustrating, as I found
out.  For an inner part of me knew things somehow, even understood them
somehow in an emotional understanding, yet the outer and rational part
of my mind did not accept them or even want to know.  Imagine listening
to the most beautiful song in creation and then the singer skips the
last chord, the resolution to the harmony, the last amen - that is how I
felt.  But luckily my own personality could still laugh at it.  It
created no hang up as such, but more a kind of rational annoyance than
anything.  I began, on black days, to wish that I had seen nothing of
all these things at all; and yet I knew that I did not really mean that;
it was just that dark cloud that can pop up at times, I guess.  By the
time I reached forty years of age I thought all such past experiences
beyond the normal range of sensory data had now finished in my case.  I
had even accepted and become used to the idea that no more was going to
be seen and that no full synthesis of understanding would ever come.  My
degree of intelligence, or lack of it, could not work it out.  And
anyway I did not even want to work it out now - I damn well wanted to
know!
>
>  Life was ticking over OK.  I was now married for the second time
after my first two children had grown up and were doing their own thing;
and now there were two more young ones in the second marriage (with one
more yet to come - another surprise!).  I had what seemed like two full
lives in one, as it were; five children in all and one foster child, who
we took on from the deprived area of inner Bristol.  I often chuckle
when I read of these academics who inform us how best to bring up our
children; the sociologists with bits of paper and a Ph.D. (Piles of
Hybrid Dribble), and often they have not even had any children.  Their
'knowledge' is all academic, not direct hard-earned experience.
Ignorance is bliss!  If I had another five hundred children then it
would still be guesswork and instinctive reactions for the large part.
(Plus the fact that they are all very different and with different needs
and personalities; children are not clones that conform to rules of
convention.)  But if they are loved, they will not go far wrong it
seems, either in wealth or in relative poverty.  But having them if they
are not loved and wanted is the greatest tragedy in the universe of
mankind and the existing human condition.  Children know whether they
are loved or not intuitively; and not simply by words. Too many people
say "I love you" in this world; but do they really know what real love
(not need) and deep passion really are, I wonder?
>
> However, one spring morning when the kids were at school, my wife and
I went out with our dog to the hills overlooking the Chew Valley lakes
near Bristol where we lived for eight years: for she had been attending
Bath University for three or four years.   We thought it was such a nice
day that we would take a picnic and she could study some papers she had
to deal with whilst taking in the fresh air.  The view was crystal clear
that day and the sun was soft and warm with just an occasional pleasant
fresh breeze; it was perfect weather.  After our sandwiches and a drink
my wife settled down to her studies whilst I was playing with the dog;
he loved the 'fetch' game, for he was a Springer.
>
>  After a certain amount of chasing around, I, getting a little older
and less energetic than I had been, eventually slumped down on the grass
for a rest whilst the dog chewed on his stick.  I was in a position
about eight feet away from my wife and behind her.  She was lost in her
work; the dog was lost in the joys of his stick and his earlier chasing,
so I simply began to look around me to admire the view.  After a few
minutes or so something strange began to happen.  It was very peaceful,
there were no other people around, and there fell a kind of hush that
one experiences at rare times, as though all sounds were muted a little.
Like one of those days when walking on air or cotton wool, or on soft
new snow; a unity of peace, which is rare on earth.
>
>  Just at that point the dog trotted over to me with his stick; he
wanted me to throw it again for him.  But I could not be bothered to get
up so I simply threw it whilst reclining on the grass.  As the stick
flew though the air it began to sparkle, or so it seemed.  Perhaps it
was the reflection of the sun.  But as the dog was leaping through the
long deep grass, as it was at that part of the field the dog also began
to 'glow' with a strange inner radiance.  As I looked around me, my wife
(I could only see her back and her hair) was also glowing.  The grass
was glowing, and the trees.  I looked at my hands: they were glowing
with an inner light of pure radiance.
>
> I began to think I was perhaps not very well or something, yet I felt
fine, tremendous; never felt better.  I scanned the whole vista around
me.  Everything was glowing with an inner light; the world was different
than I had ever seen it before.  The lakes way down below us, the sky,
the trees, the few puffs of small white clouds, the grass, my shoes,
everything, was shimmering with this inner light and a wondrous
radiance; and it was all becoming more so and more so - what on earth is
happening?  Then the 'hushedness' of sound which had existed turned into
a kind of 'hum.'  Not a hum as such but a kind of unified 'song' or
symphony of sound.  I could hear the ants, the bees, insects in the
grass, the dog's breath, it was almost as though I could hear all our
own hearts beating and blood pumping.  And yet it was a unified kind of
sound, almost like music in fact.  I was dumbstruck and amazed, for I
had never seen anything like this before.  It was as though the physical
senses had been liberated from a sleep and come alive to a greater
spectrum of creation itself; the world was different; and amazing.
>
>  Then it happened!  It is indescribable; ineffable.  Twenty years
earlier I could describe the journey to that transcendent paradise;
annihilation; the resurrection; what it is like in that paradise, and
what it looks like and feels like; but my god almighty, I cannot
describe this.   It was as though a hole had opened up in creation
itself.  As though there had been a blockage up the pipe-line which was
now cleared by a flue brush clearing out the muck of the senses.  There
was no 'gap' between the transcendent paradise realm and this earth, for
they were 'joined,' directly connected; a blockage had become unblocked.
For I now recognized those shimmering lights, I had seen them before
when in that 'nothing', Limbo, all those years ago.   I realized only
now, and for sure, that those lights I had seen on the journey to that
paradise dimension whilst in 'nothing' were the naked face and wave
front of the act of creation itself.  I had wondered about it on many
occasions; but now - now I knew it.  That which was within; the Divine
Implicate Order, is now out there, in the world also, and on a new
'wavefront' of my own mind's interaction with objective reality itself.
Good grief almighty.
>
> Just at that point I began to be bombarded by what one can only call
chunks of 'data,' understanding, and comprehension.  As though a million
pieces of jig-saw puzzle were being tossed up into the air and putting
themselves together in the finished picture of comprehension.  It
pounded and pounded and pounded with relentless velocity and increasing
frequency.  It was as though my I AM in transcendence and the
personality incarnate become one on earth in a gusher of a union.  In
transcendence the outer I had gone to IT: but here and now, on earth,
IT, the implicate inner reality, the child of that Divine realm, had
come out to me.  We danced again in a swoon of unified passion and
delight, as it had been in paradise those long twenty years ago. So too
was it again, now, on earth; the inner had become the outer: the below
as the above.  When I went to IT the outer consciousness had gone too
and become as the inner consciousness.  But now the inner child (of mind
at root) walked upon the face of the earth; the essential spirit of
being was liberated... on earth through me!  I gave myself up and let
that consciousness walk in my body in order to see the trees, to feel
the breeze, to show it the finished product of creation in the outer
multitude; the synthesis of the vortex of emanation.  I had shared
paradise... and my love... I give the world to you now, through me!  In
transcendence there had been a union in the Mutual Convergence (in
annihilation and resurrection) but this was a reciprocal event, the
Reciprocal Convergence, Paradise on earth, the Consummatum Incarnate!
Good god almighty I cannot take much more of this!
>
>  And yet it kept coming, more and more, stronger and stronger.  I
thought I was going to burst with passion and explode like I did once
before.  But not so, I was just engulfed in, and surrounded by a love, a
wisdom; all knowledge, all comprehension, all affirmation, all at the
same instant and in ultimate dosage - and in a physical world
unimaginable.  And then... and then it came to me, revealed and
comprehended in one shocker of a blast   Something had once given me the
understanding...  "It is now time to go.  Do not fear, for it is all
well that you must go now, for something out there is in need; and you
must now be with it; do not fear, go now; be with it"!  In twenty years
I had never understood that bit; I had never come to understand it, and
I assumed that I never would come to understand it.  But now, twenty
years almost to the day later, I understood it implicitly; and it was
the first time in my life that I wept; and albeit on the inside; for it
was the soul that wept.  Good god almighty... I knew what was in need -
it was the world itself: the trees, the flowers, the sun and the sky,
the stars themselves; that they might become like this: and it is mine
to give, through the love; through me... to them!  Normality slowly
began to return.  The 'music' gradually turned back into the normal
sounds of the bees and the breeze.  The inner lights of the emanation of
being slowly dimmed back into the colors of normal matter and things.
The 'hushedness' faded into normality, and the gates of paradise closed
again.  No doubts, no questions, no dichotomy, no unfinished song; the
last amen had been sung and danced - on earth. The last chord made whole
and finalized - and this - this is creation done: the finished product.
The synthesis of paradise and earth; the purpose and function of
creation and being.  And I was never the same child again, for the child
had become a man.  Somebody else walked out of the field that day;
somebody very different; and the twenty-year wait was over.  Twenty
years in the wilderness of the resolution of the paradise event.  But to
have waited ten million years would have been worth it.  There is
nothing one can say, except that it is now achieved; Consummatum Est!
And I now Understand.
>
>  My wife did not even know that anything had happened in that field
during that hour or so; and I did not say a word.  I was worn out, wrung
out, drained, and mind-blown yet again; yet so very different from the
last time when returning from the transcendent event twenty years
earlier.  Had I not seen that transcendent paradise twenty years before,
I would never have understood this event at all.  But now I did.  I read
somewhere once that the young would have visions and that when old they
would dream dreams.  How strange, how very strange.
>
> All I can do now is to dream dreams of a better world for young minds
to come into; for this one seems to be spiritually dead.  It would seem
to me that there must come a time, in one incarnate lifetime or another,
when a soul must walk these paths for themselves.  It is more to do with
the evolution of the individual's soul than that of the existing
temporal manifestation of that soul's incarnate mind as such.  It is
plain enough that not all human beings on earth undergo such events
during this lifetime; and yet they must do so eventually, for it is the
evolution of the incarnate soul itself.  There is no evolution in
paradise, but only in extension of it.  We were not made for paradise
(we were made in it); but we were made for freedom; in a temporal world
- a world which we are given the freedom and power to make by way of our
own desires and efforts.  How incredible!  "Here is the 'stuff,' my
love, make with it what you will"!
>
> Dick Richardson.
>
>
> *       *       *
>
>
>   Exceptional Human Experience         Vol. 13, No. 2: December  1995
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dick’s description here is awesome.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/message/59385?o=1&d=-1
Is it the supermind he visited that evening, I wonder?
ToSri Aurobindo, there were three distinct transformations that had to
happen: the psychic, the spiritual, and the supramental. And the
spiritual transformation is, I think, what most of us probably have in mind
when we speak about enlightenment or Self-realization. It's the realization of
the Infinite, the Absolute Self, or Ground of Being. But there's something
unique about what he calls the psychic transformation, particularly in
relationship to evolution. For Sri Aurobindo, this was the key to the whole
path. He was basically saying that there is an individual spark or seed
of the Divine in each of us, what could be called our true self or, as he
sometimes said, 'true being.' And although this true being is usually obscured
or veiled by the outer personality and ego identity, its promptings can be felt
even in that veiled state as our own spiritual impulses or aspirations. What's
significant about this psychic being is that, according to him, because its
nature is the Divine itself, not only does it want us to evolve toward
perfection, but it knows the way to get there perfectly. It is
recognized by 'a warmth and a glow in the heart center'. A
transformation is permanent change as distinct from mere visitation. I suspect
it was the cosmic mind Dick visited that evening. A MYSTIC REUNION proper would
be described by what is termed by Sri Aurobindo as the psychic transformation.
The subsequent event after twenty years that Dick experienced was
possibly the unification [or the demolition of separation] of the outer surface
mind with the inner. Sri Aurobindo said that if we were only willing to
consciously participate in EVOLUTION, we could create a "divine life"
right here on earth, a ceaseless, dynamic, miraculous unfolding of ever-higher
expressions of harmony and unity that Dick experienced spontaneously, first in
the beyond and subsequently here in this world.
The means of a conscious and accelerated participation in one’s own
evolution and the common evolution is through YOGA.
The spiritual opening that Dick had, that speeded up his personal
evolution has been attempted systematically even  by the Buddhists. The
phenomenon is verifiable
by PERSONAL EFFORT according to Buddhism. There have been specific techniques
developed.  Dick can possibly reenter the
experience that came to him spontaneously by entering a ten day Buddhist
retreat near to where he is located. He could look up the details at the
website:  http://www.dhamma.org/en/bycountry/eu/uk.shtml
Others:  http://www.dhamma.org/en/bycountry/
Ref: http://www.auroville.com/Vijnana/spiritual/sriaurobindo.htm
  
Gulati


________________________________
  From: devindersingh <devgulati@...>
To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013 9:39 PM
Subject: [TheBecoming] Re: The Fractal View


 


What Dick calls the mystical union that he describes in existlist:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/message/59197
was a contact with the cosmic spirit.
In a momentary escape from his individual mind, he was shown the cosmic mind.
There is yet the transcendental mind beyond as affirmed by Sri Aurobindo from
his seer vision.That Dick's was not a union of self with Self is evidenced by
the bloated ego the experience gave him - the ego of mystical experience...
A visitation is not to be confused with union. Union is when one discovers the
"being".
--- In TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com, "dgulhati"  wrote:
>
> Faith is a thing that preceeds knowledge, not comes after knowledge. It
> is a glimpse of a truth which the mind has not yet seized as knowledge.
>
> Sri Aurobindo
> (Letters on Yoga, Page: 576)
>
> But what does "cosmic spirit" mean?
>
>   Cosmic spirit? It is the cosmic spirit, it is the universal spirit, it
> is the spirit that's in the whole universe. There is a universe. You
> know what the universe is? Well, this universe has a spirit, and this
> spirit is the cosmic spirit; this universe has a consciousness and its
> consciousness is the cosmic, universal consciousness.
>
> One may very well imagine that the universe is only an entity in
> something which is still vaster, as the individual is only an entity in
> a much vaster totality. Now, each unit has its consciousness and its own
> spirit which contains all the others, as a group consciousness is made
> up of all the individual consciousnesses which constitute it and as a
> national consciousness is made up of all the individual consciousnesses
> which constitute it, and something more. The individual is only an
> element in the whole, even as the earth is a part of the solar system,
> and the solar system makes a part of all the systems of the universe. So
> just as there is an individual consciousness, there is a group
> consciousness and a consciousness of the system, a universal
> consciousness which is made up of the set of all the consciousnesses
> composing it, plus something, something – something more subtle.
> Just like you: you have lots of cells in your body; each cell has its
> own consciousness and you have a consciousness which is the
> consciousness of your total individuality, though made up of all these
> small cellulary consciousnesses.
>
>   Mother, here it is written: "... there is a wall of separative
> ignorance between" the individual and the cosmic consciousness. Then
> how to break down this wall?
>
>   Get rid of the ignorance, enter the knowledge.
>
> First of all you must know what I have just told you, that you are a
> part of the whole, that this whole is a part of a greater whole, and
> that this greater whole is a part of a still greater whole, right up to
> its forming one single totality. Once you know that, you begin to become
> aware that in reality there cannot be any separation between you and
> something greater than you of which you are a part. This is the
> beginning. Now, you must come to the point not only of thinking this but
> of feeling it and even living it, and then the wall of ignorance
> tumbles: one feels this unity everywhere and realises that he is only a
> more or less fragmentary part of a whole much vaster than he, which is
> the universe. Then one begins to have a more universal consciousness.
>
>   The Mother; Collected Works, Vol 7 Page – 236-37
>
> Let your life be a constant search for the Truth and it will be worth
> living.
>
> The Mother
> (Words of the Mother, Vol. 15 Page:238)
>
>
http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org.in/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_staticcontent%5csr\
iaurobindoashram%5c-09+e-library%5c-02+works+of+the+mother%5c-01 +english%5c-07\
+questions+and+answers_volume-07%5c-27_13+july+1955.htm




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

* Several different theories may offer equally plausible accounts of the same
situation
	 * Scientific theories are "undetermined" by experience
	 * There are infinite interpretations of a discourse depending on the context
	 *

	 * Words have a meaning only relative to the other words they are connected to
in the sentences that we assume to be true
	 * The meaning of a sentence depends on the interpretation of the entire
language. Its meaning can even change in time.
	 * The meaning of language is not in the mind of the speaker
 
Gulati


________________________________
  From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>;
"greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@...>;
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>;
"TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com>;
Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com; "GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com"
<GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com>; "existlist@yahoogroups.com"
<existlist@yahoogroups.com>; "esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com"
<esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013 11:29 PM
Subject: [greenlogic] Re: [Wisdom-l] Re: [TheBecoming] Fw: The soul,re;latest
missive. / Concept of Physical Life


 
Devinder!
 
Concept of Physical Life
 
Indefinite terms can never lead us to
definitive clues about creation and life. Think of the nuisance-value of these
indeterminate phrases viz. physical life, the vital, mental reality, the origin
and so forth.
 
However, these indeterminate terms can be
turned into determinate ones through appropriate interpretation based on
discreet
and accurate fundamental definitions.
 
Your narrations may at best be seen as
*literary*, not *philosophical* straight away. For, these are instances of
running non-philosophically amok, with few fundamental definitions in purview.
 
Take the case of *physical life* as an
example. This notion would constitute of a number of pre-conceived inferences
which would collectively project life as an integral property of physicality.
The constituent inferences would incorporate these necessary premises.
 
1)    1) Life
is inherent in physicality.
2)    2) Physicality
of existence is primarily the source of life.
3)    3) Life
may be experienced *subjectively* or noticed *objectively*.
4)    4) The
subjective experiencing of life and life*s objective indication are inherently
and completely commensurable (with point-to-point correspondence, as that
between an object and its mirror-image).
5)   
5) *Life*
is the integral property of the integrated physique and is composed of
constituent properties ascribable uniquely to entity*s respective physical
constituencies.
6)   
6) Constituents
of entity*s integral subjective experience are inherently consistent and this
intra-subjectivity
consistency would connote and vindicate consistency among constituencies of
life*s objectivity.
7)    7) Similarly,
constituents of life*s integral objective portrayal are inherently consistent
and this intra-objectivity consistency connotes and vindicates consistency
among constituencies of entity*s subjectivity.
8)    8) Both
intra-subjectivity and intra-objectivity consistencies along with reciprocal
consistency between subjectivity and objectivity would connote and vindicate
inherent intra-physique (intra-body, intra-existence) consistency among entity*s
physical constituencies and physique-subjectivity, physique-objectivity
reciprocal consistencies.
9)    9) Though
to the ordinary eye, these six fundamental consistencies - viz. intra-physique,
intra-subjectivity and intra-objectivity consistencies and
physique-subjectivity, physique-objectivity and subjectivity-objectivity
reciprocal consistencies - may seem equally inherent and mutually disparate,
there is a lineage of causality among them. This lineage emanates from
*configured
existence*.
10  10) Thus *configuration*
is the most fundamental inherence and the most fundamental cause. And the most
fundamental cause is ever *existential* in nature. That is to say,
configuration is the maiden and eternal *mechanism of existence*.
11)11) Body/ physique is to
be defined on the basis of its configuration.
12)12) Corporeity and
corporeality merge at *configuration*.
13)13) Configuration is
characterized with growing polarity in order to develop intra-body,
intra-physique, intra-existence organs and to cause positive differentiation
(evolution) of existence, subjectivity and objectivity.
14)14) The maiden polarity
is that endows existence/ entity with the maiden organ - the epistemic organ -
that enables it to know itself (through internal subjectivity) and its
neighborhood (through external objectivity). This process conforms with the
obvious doctrine of *primordial right*. According to this doctrine, an
existence/ entity must know itself and its neighborhood to materialize the
*objective
of existence*.
15)15) The epistemic organ
ought to emerge at the very (moment of) beginning of existence. That is to say,
the epistemic organ isn*t only the maiden organ, it is the very maiden
existence.
16)16) The epistemic organ
has been latent for a long time by way of being buried in its won dazzle in the
form of subjectivity (subjective feeling, epistemic experiencing) - as the
filament of a milky electric bulb is buried inside own light, as the eye-organ
is buried inside own sight-feeling.
17)17) It has been the *primordial
ignorance* which has grown into the greatest intellectual fallacy that proposes
primacy of feeling (epistemic experience, subjectivity) over its existential
seat (source of emanation) when the opposite is true.
18)18) Growing polarity of
existential configuration turns the latter into an unwieldy pyramidal hierarchy
where the epistemic organ situated at its apex acquires great sophistication to
be termed mind, intellect, soul-organ etc and to cause the great epistemic
phenomena viz. emotion, subjectivity, soul-feeling etc.
 
This should be an
outline of the concept of *physical life*.



(Bhanu Padmo)
http://www.bhanupadmo.com
You
may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well
or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.

--- On Sun, 2/3/13, devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...> wrote:


>From: devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...>
>Subject: [Wisdom-l] Re: [TheBecoming] Fw: The soul,re;latest missive.
>To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>,
"TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com>,
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>,
"GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com" <GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com>,
"existlist@yahoogroups.com" <existlist@yahoogroups.com>,
"esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com"
<esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Sunday, February 3, 2013, 5:05 AM
>
>
> 
>All physical life has the vital as its origin. The vital has the mental reality
as its origin. The mental itself has another origin. And so on.
>Nothing can be manifested upon earth physically unless it has at its origin a
higher truth. Otherwise the world would not exist. If it were something flat,
having its origin in itself, it would very soon cease to exist. It is because
there is a force, an energy that drives, behind the manifestation that life
continues to exist. Otherwise it would soon exhaust itself.
>There is only one Origin. This Origin is the Truth at its perfection, for it is
the only thing that truly exists. It has exteriorised itself, projected itself,
scattered itself, and by so doing has produced what we see, a mass of very fine,
very brilliant brains in search of that which they have not yet found and which
they find at last; for what they are in search of is within them. 
>There is what we call the Truth, the foundation of all things, because if that
was not there nothing would be. There is nothing which does not carry within it
an eternal Truth, otherwise it would not be. The universe would not exist for
one thousandth part of a second if it did not contain in itself a Truth. 
>You represent a little mass of agglomerate substance that forms your self.
Enter into that and find the key. You cannot say: "That is beyond me, that is
too great for me." Go within the little person and you will find the key that
opens all the doors.
> [http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAuro\
bindoAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-4/-047\
_The%20Origin.htm]
>
>
>> JACOB: These higher souls are,of course,dependent on higher forms of
matter-basedentities.
>The highest truth of curse is not matter based.
>
>Gulati
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
>To: greenlogic@yahoogroups.com; seerseeker@yahoogroups.com;
TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com; Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com;
TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 11:48 AM
>Subject: [TheBecoming] Fw: The soul,re;latest missive.
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- On Thu, 1/24/13, jacob@... <jacob@...> wrote:
>
>
>>From: jacob@... <jacob@...>
>>Subject: The soul,re;latest missive.
>>To: "bhanu padmo" <greenbhanu@...>
>>Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013, 5:53 AM
>>
>>
>>Yes Bhanu,
>>
>>Thank you for your email.
>>
>>I have not the time and space(account Mbytes getting
  critical)to answer in
>>detail.
>>Immortality from humanity's perspective cannot,philosophically
>>speaking,amount to eternity,even if we are speaking about soul in the
>>universal context,unless we believe that the Universe is without
>>beginning/end,i.e.,eternal.
>>
>>We are part of the whole.Our souls are part of the whole.Our
  consciousness
>>is part of the whole.Our journey is to fall into our role as human being
>>to become aware of who we are,what we are and where we are at.As our
>>identification with the larger whole deepens and widens,our personal soul
>>does likewise,one would think.Since there are any number of archetypes
>>serving humanity,and in turn being served by humanity,it stands to reason
>>that evolving souls identify and merge with higher,not necessarily
>>physically embodied,souls.
>>These higher souls are,of course,dependent on higher forms of matter-based
>>entities.Ultimately,the proposition with regard to human bodies and their
>>souls applies to larger,less dense entities just the same.The Universe as
>>a whole is also a body/entity.If humans are able to think and feel,and
>>surmise that they have a soul,they are only able to do so because the
>>reality in principle is there,and was there from the beginning-If there
>>was a beginning.If
  there was no beginning,there will be no end,but that is
>>no proof that we will,as human beings,have a personal immortal soul.
>>
>>All is flux.Unless we become enlightened to the extent that we are able to
>>escape this universe and become/start a new one(unlikely,but who
>>knows,maybe nothing is impossible)we become individuated individuals on
>>the way to merge with higher and higher entities until such time as we
>>disappear as separate and become one with the One,the universe as a Whole.
>>
>>We may surmise that some living examples of human being are evolved to
>>such an extent that they in fact constitute a very high soul at a level
>>which will allow the so embodied human to join with the universal Whole
>>directly upon the demise of the physical human body in question-Thereby
>>by-passing all the other archetypes which,from a human perspective,are
>>already,currently,from our perspective,dis-embodied.
>>
>>You are welcome to
  forward my little snippet of wisdom.I'll also check out
>>the blog.
>>
>>Cheers.  Jacob.
>>
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
wrote:

From: Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy:
Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>,
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Alan Kuzlev"
<esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>, "existlist@yahoogroups.com"
<existlist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 7:29 AM
















 









       Dear Bhanu,
Aapta means to attain to, as well as trustworthy. In Sankhya where aapta vachana
is used in a specific context, the meaning explicated by Yogacharya
Krishnamacharya is 'the words of a trustworthy person'.
Raghu

Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed
neutrality. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval.
Gautham Buddha

On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:19, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:
















 










Dear Raghu1


(Legacy of Wisdom)


Aapta
Vachana means literary legacy (aapta = acquired, received / vachana =
narration).
This meaning is nowhere close to *authentic narration*. Please note that such
inaccuracy of literary expression has been the anathema against the legacy of
philosophical wisdom.

 

Matam
means opinion. You are right. If teachings of seers are taken as body of
mutable opinions, the notion of aapta vachana wouldn*t ever invoke the bigotry
of indiscriminate following.

 

Again,
we agree with you over the need for yama (ascertaining the scope) and niyama
(discipline) during inter-personal dialectics and personal reflections, provided
evolution of idea is emphasized as intellectual objective throughout verbal and
literary interactions.

 



(Bhanu Padmo)

http://www.bhanupadmo.com


You
may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well

or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



--- On Wed, 2/6/13, Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
wrote:

From: Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy:
Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>,
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Alan Kuzlev"
<esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>, "existlist@yahoogroups.com"
<existlist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2013, 2:32 AM
















 






       Dharma also means nourishing that which is standing, restring that which
is falling and regenerating that which has fallen. There is no equivalent to
religion. The word Matham meaning opinion is used to refer to the teachings of
seers. For example Bauddha Matham,  there is also the idea of an Aapta Vachana,
an authentic source. One has the responsibility to make a choice. The demand
from the person is to observe the Yama and Niyama, the boundaries and discipline
that govern interpersonal and intrapersonal behaviour.
Getting caught with the idea of Religion as it is in the Abhrahamic traditions
is a political process!
Regards,
Raghu

Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed
neutrality. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval.
Gautham Buddha

On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:25, S kumar <kumar_8134@...> wrote:
















 






       Dharma in Sanskrit means-established order, usage, institution, custom,
prescription, rule, duty, virtue, moral merit, good works, right, justice, law..
Ref.Pg.130 of Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Arthur A.Macdonnel, MA,PhD, Corpus
Christ College, University of Oxford- Published by Longmans Green and Co. in
1893.Nowhere it is mentioned Dharma refers to Religion Similarly, Samskruthi in
Sanskrit means Preparation, formation, consecration, page 320. If you desire to
have a detailed meaning, Refer Amarakosam in Sanskrit or other languages for
these terms.        From: devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...>
  To: "greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>;
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>;
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>;
"TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>; Alan Kuzlev
<esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>; "existlist@yahoogroups.com"
<existlist@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy:
Restoring the Soul -hilarious -















 






       "When the word was spoken to me the image would appear
vividly"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kcsXiwNbo > BHANU: What else could be
the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or that of the
Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of the English
term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term
  *samskriti* in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?
No indeed:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/4173
Gulati
         From: Bhanu Padmo
  <greenbhanu@...>
  To: greenlogic@...
  Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:29 AM
  Subject: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy:
Restoring the Soul -hilarious -















 








--- On Mon, 2/4/13, ankh <ankhaton@...> wrote:

From: ankh <ankhaton@...>
Subject: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul
-hilarious -
To: Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 2:23 PM
















 






       Instead of scripture  words

the word 'LOVE' covers it all

God constantly searching each cubic nanometre of his xillions² spheres
to collect the LOVE wherever he sees it

All else is hilarious

ankhaton

--- On Mon, 2/4/13, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:

From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
Subject: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>,
"TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <therampapath@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com"
  <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com"
  <wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>, TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 5:11 AM
















 











Dear
Tilak,

 

Wishfulness,
Wistfulness and Lazy Gossips about Dharma. 
I understand your sentiments about religiosity. That is not very
difficult to understand or achieve at our level. What is being pointed at is
*terminology and semantics*. It is what it is. It may not be what it ought to
be. We should refrain from imposing our wistfulness and have patience in
implementing our wishfulness. Wistfulness is to be passed by because of its
non-reasonability. And the reason of wish needn*t be implementable right away,
without general preparedness.

 

What
else could be the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or
that of the Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of
the English term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term *samskriti*
in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?

 

What
you have been trying to point at is the difference between religion (dharma)
and culture (samskriti), as we are all wary of mistaking one for the other. A
culture is a particular case of the generic/ theoretical religion
(paaribhaashika
dharma) and may be deemed to be a practical/ localized dharma (praakruta
dharma).

 

This
much matter isn*t so intricate that all of us (all wise people) would get
entangled
here inextricably! Just say *no* to lazy gossips.

 

Green Pyramid Analogy
of Dharma.  Take this analogy (Green Pyramid Analogy)
about religion (dharma) to understand first the *seed/ genes of religion*
(dharmabeeja)
and then its *logical/ deductive amplification* and its *temporal/ shapely
magnification*
thereafter.

 

A
small green mango grows into a bigger one keeping the shape intact. This we
shall refer here as temporal/ shapely magnification. Had the small green mango
been
a small green living pyramid, we would have witnessed temporal/ shapely
magnification of the pyramid.

 

Assuming
that the pyramid is contemporaneously a dynamic one in so far as its causal
apex as the *seed of the pyramidal body* (deha-beeja) would progressively
precipitate commensurably and progressively the lower layers resulting in what
we have termed logical/ deductive amplification, the maiden small pyramid would
also continually grow adding respective effect to original temporal/ shapely
magnification as well.

 

These
twin phenomena portrayed in this analogy are applicable to dharma (religion)
which arrives amidst a community in the form of a code. The code is indeed a
pyramid of laws that is initiated by its causal apex in the form of a
philosophical/
metaphysical and jurisprudential prelude. This philosophical/ metaphysical and
jurisprudential signature isn*t really the integral philosophy/ metaphysics
(darshana) and jurisprudence (nyaya-vijnaana) proper that would embody
community*s respective *unified theory of creation and life*.

 

The
apex of the code depicts the seed of religion (dharma-beeja) that would propel
religion*s
logical/ deductive amplification across contemporaneous themes and that would
propel religion*s temporal/ shapely magnification across evolving/ insinuated
themes down the ages.

 

This
much matter isn*t so intricate that all of us (all wise people) would get
entangled
here inextricably! Just say *no* to lazy gossips.

  

Thanks. (Bhanu Padmo)

http://www.bhanupadmo.com/


You
may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well
or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



--- On Fri, 1/25/13, Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@...> wrote:

From: Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@...>
Subject: RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul [1 Attachment]
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>,
"TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <therampapath@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>,
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, January 25, 2013, 5:37 PM
















 









Dear Bhanu Jee Namaste No, 'Dharma' is not 'Religion.' They are apples and
oranges. Matter of fact, we must make the distinction even more pronounced to
make any dialogue clear. Religions are about social control, to make individuals
into soldiers. There theme is: "Only my religion is true and direction to
heaven. All others are wrong and hell bound. We are brothers, others are enemies
to be converted. You believe and obey whatever your religion dishes out to you
without any question." Dharma is about inner nature and improvement on it
through seeking truth 'Satya' and discipline 'Yoga.' An individual may practice
any or go to any temple. There is always overlaps of people's ideas and
practices. To group people into a legal boxes like Christian, Hindu, Buddhist,
Muslim etc. is good only in the census. Otherwise, it has absolutely no merit in
real spiritual studies. Do Hindus go to Buddhist temple and pray or not?
  Matter
  of
  fact, Hinduism is not Dharma, but collection of Dharmas evolved in Indian
sub-continent like - Vaishnav, Shaiva, Baudha, Jain, Tantra etc. Do you see any
Muslims praying in Church or Temple? No, you will not see any. On the contrary,
they destroyed Bamiyan Buddha. Let us be very clear about it. Sincerely, Tilak
Shrestha, Ph.D.To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com; greenlogic@yahoogroups.com;
TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com; seerseeker@yahoogroups.com;
Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com From: greenbhanu@... Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013
04:59:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul














 











BHANU :

 

Understanding
Dharma and Materialistic Anarchy :

Proposing *Political Religion*

 

            Shouldn*t
we make the matter of understanding dharma simpler by shedding exaggerated
mystique about the word *dharma* by way of taking the term *religion* as its
trans-language synonym? The current usage of the term *dharma* in its place of
origin (India) is almost identical with the usage of the term *religion* in its
place of origin (the West).

 

            According
to the current usage, religion may be defined as a set of moral and social
rules that sprout a commensurate culture composed of characteristic public
behaviors and events that include moralizing ritualism.

 

            Philosophy
is a body of fundamental postulates that explains the nature of religion.
Though it is likely that the three terms - religion, culture and philosophy -
would get mixed up quite often in lay conversations, the formal line of
demarcation between the three ought to be invoked when necessary. The Sanskrit
translations for the trio *philosophy-religion-culture* is
*darshana-dharma-samskriti*.

 

            With
this prelude, I would like to check your (Devinder Singh Gulati*s) given
narration
line by line and issue my opinions. This juxtaposition will be a good beginning
for mutual understanding, I suppose. The manner of this interaction ought to be
candid and we shouldn*t leave between us much room for shallow fusses. Let the
discussion henceforth be put down in conversation format.

(Devinder
– Bhanu Dialog)

 

DEVINDER : In evolving standards of conduct and
shaping values, we have to take into consideration the variety and complexity
of human life and nature.

 

BHANU : Yes, human life and human nature is
very complex and variegated. Yes, evolving standards of conduct and shaping
values need extreme precaution and care. But who are the people you have in
mind who would be undertaking such a gigantic project. This project is
tantamount to invention of a religion (dharma).

 

            Let*s
assume that you are the person who have set sail in that direction. That is
fine. You would be the founder guru (adi-guru) who would collect information as
much as possible and combine them into a hierarchy of inferences till you have a
world view and an integrated philosophy of life (darshana).

 

            That
you do at a very personal level according to your intellectual capacity. In
other words, all the constituent inferences that would make the world view and
integrated philosophy of life would be your *personal truths*. Even the world
view and integrated philosophy you would arrive at are only *peak* personal
truths, characteristic of your own intellect.

 

            Let*s
get rid of the baffle that we experience across such utterances as *truth*,
*reality*, *actuality* etc. You perceive actuality as the immediate cause and
conceive the underlying deeper causes as realities and connect the sequence of
realities
into a truth. It is useful to remind ourselves of this *actuality-reality-truth
axis* quite often lest we are not lost in the dazzle of such words.

 

            If
all inferences you accede to are mere *personal truths*, what about the
*absolute
truth*? No, you don*t accede to the absolute truth ever. Practically or
effectively, an acknowledged and relatively higher understanding in the form of
a higher inference may sometimes be addressed to as absolute truth. But that
isn*t an accurate approach, though practical and effective to a great extent.

 

            Absolute
truth may lie in the direction of the median (locus) that runs through and
connects
the sequence of personal truths. Thus the absolute truth can only be an
intellectual
direction, never a particular inference.

 

            Degree
of sustainability of a guru thus is his/ her ability to be more resolute and
less
lax intellectually, so that lesser and lesser number of resolute personal
inferences portend the *absolute direction of truth*. This inverse proportion
makes appraisal of guru, philosophy and religion quite paradoxical and critical,
often precarious.

 

            The
pyramid of truth accruing out of the founder guru and a sequence of follower
gurus foreshadows a social code, a body of practical rules that need to be
pronounced, propagated and implemented. This code also ought to include a lean
moralizing
ritualism that would optimally remind the crowd of the cardinal inferences and
principles that reinforce the pyramid of truth.

            This
psycho-intellectual process is religion (dharma). The ensuing metamorphosed
public behavior and elevated events would constitute the commensurate culture
(sanskriti).

 

DEVINDER : The Dharma, at once religious law of
action and deepest law of our nature, is not, as in the Western idea, a creed,
cult or ideal inspiring an ethical and social rule; it is the right law of
functioning of our life in all its parts.

 

BHANU : We were talking about the generic
guru and the commensurate religion, philosophy or  culture. A particular guru
would give rise to
a particular commensurate religion, philosophy or culture. The sequence of the
founder gurus of generic religion would endeavor to traverse forward along the
*absolute
direction of truth* to discover higher and higher particular religions,
philosophies and cultures.

 

            We
mustn*t mistake *generic religion* for *absolute religion*. As we have already
noted, there is no absolute religion, no absolute philosophy, no absolute
culture, no absolute guru, no absolute truth. We have only a series of
practicable religions of differing potentialities and capacities for public
welfare.

 

            So
no particular religion can be deemed to have harbored the deepest law of human
nature or the law of deepest human nature. However, a particular religion can
promote the *absolute direction of truth* by teaching the commensurable public
methodology
and mechanism. At any point of time or space, the generic religion can emerge
as only a creed, developing into a cult (a particular religion), with an ideal.

 

            What
about a particular religion which has discovered, enunciated and begun to
implement the public methodology and mechanism of following the *absolute
direction of truth*? This would be a magnanimous religion, a pragmatic
religion, a progressive religion and yet it wouldn*t be the absolute religion.

 

            We
have to get rid of the specter of overemphasizing own insufficient religiosity
in the name of absoluteness. This has been a tragic philosophical error in the
realm of theology.

           

DEVINDER : The tendency of man to seek after a
just and perfect law of his living finds its truth and its justification in the
Dharma. Everything indeed has its dharma, its law of life imposed on it by its
nature; but for man the dharma is the conscious imposition of a rule of ideal
living on all his members.

 

BHANU : Dharma is always *the enunciated one*.
We can say that a group of people ought to have a dharma if they do not have one
at the moment. We can*t say that they have a dharma just because they wish to
have one, although they haven*t yet been able to enunciate it even crudely.

 

            Saying
that everything has a dharma would replace *enunciated inference* and
*promulgated
commensurate law* by *property* (guna) in the aforesaid definition of dharma.
This would further baffle understanding of dharma and thwart its emergence.

 

            You
are right when you say that dharma is conscious and consented and collective
self-imposition
of a integral body of enunciated social and moral rules to promote the highest
realized
ideal.

 

DEVINDER : Dharma is fixed in its essence, but
still it develops in our consciousness and evolves and has its stages; there
are gradations of spiritual and ethical ascension in the search for the highest
law of our nature.

 

BHANU : Dharma remains still a search even as
it gets implemented, true, but it never has a fixed intellectual essence in
metaphysical,
moral, social or spiritual terms. The elusive absolute truth hasn*t been in the
grip of the current dharma ever.

 

            As
we say this, we are aware of the importance of the public methodology and
mechanism of achieving the *absolute direction of truth*.

 

            You
are right when you say that inferences about nature form a pyramidal hierarchy
whose
understanding facilitates spiritual and ethical ascension.

 

DEVINDER : All men cannot follow in all things
one common and invariable rule. Life is too complex to admit of the arbitrary
ideal simplicity which the moralizing theorist loves. Natures differ; the
position, the work we have to do has its own claims and standards; the aim and
bent, the call of life, the call of the spirit within is not the same for
everyone: the degree and turn of development and the capacity, adhikara, are
not equal. Man lives in society and by society, and every society has its own
general dharma, and the individual life must be fitted into this wider law of
movement. But there too the individual’s part in society and his nature and
the
needs of his capacity and temperament vary and have many kinds and degrees: the
social law must make some room for this variety and would lose by being rigidly
one for all.

 

BHANU : You are right when you say that the
body of moral and social laws constitutes of situation-specific adapted
constituents.
Codification has been a herculean task. It is easier to talk about ethereal
matters
than to translate them into earthen affairs. Here comes the fallacy of
exaggerations about absoluteness as a fatal hindrance.

 

DEVINDER : A lawless impulsion of desire and
interest and propensity cannot be allowed to lead human conduct; even in the
frankest following of desire and interest and propensity there must be a
governing and restraining and directing line, a guidance. There must be an
ethic or a science, a restraint as well as a scope arising from the truth of
the thing sought, a standard of perfection, an order.

 

BHANU : Take the other perspective.
Law-making ought to be a democratic process so that its implementation is
acknowledged integrally by the society. Impulsive lawlessness is ruled out
through disciplinary enforcement. That is not a problem. The real problem is
with the process of law-making.

 

            Take
two societies of differing intellectual achievements. The two respective
pyramids
of inferences vary in height and sprawl. Naturally, the respective qualities of
laws will vary, one being guided by a higher ideal (higher peak inference) than
the other.

 

            And
accordingly, the former will be rewarded with larger progress than the latter.
This will create consternation in the latter society. If the explanation for
the civilization lag is denied too long, this society would revolt against
itself quite implicitly, the wealth in the neighborhood being the source of
distraction.

 

            The
ultimate cause for this *purported* materialistic anarchy is not being able to
cope
intellectually with the neighboring society. *Intellectually* refers here to
*civil
intellectualism*, not to a stunted academicism. Please note that public desire
in
any form, however contrary it may seem, need not be always seen as *lawless*.

 

            You
have raised the most pertinent issue of *public guidance*. Who could guide a
sovereign
society? If *inferring* is the prime process by which it achieves intellectual
height and material progress, what is that public methodology and mechanism
that could achieve this (public process of widespread inferring)? This
methodology and mechanism also would also discover and implement the *absolute
direction of truth* as well.

 

            The
generic name for this methodology and mechanism is *polity*. So, we are looking
forward to that particular type of polity that would accomplish the twin
objective of finding the absolute direction of truth and effecting intellectual
coping.

 

            As
the story unfolds further, we are drawn to the consideration of the *political
religion* (raja-dharma) that would surpass existing cultural religions in
import and worth.

 

            What
is that model? However, that is another phase altogether.  

 

DEVINDER : The universal embracing dharma in the
Indian idea is a law of ideal perfection for the developing mind and soul of
man; it compels him to grow in the power and force of certain high or large
universal qualities which in their harmony build a highest type of manhood.

 

BHANU : The phrases *universe-embracing
dharma* and *Indian idea* don*t go together - me and your are sure. Perfection
that connotes absoluteness too is, in a way, ruled out. What you could be
looking forward to is the aforesaid public methodology and mechanism that could
unravel and implement absolute direction of truth and that could bring about
fastest psycho-cultural coping among societies.

 

DEVINDER : Dharma has two aspects: universal,
which is common to all humanity and the individual or specific, which is unique
to the nature of the individual or the community.

 

BHANU : You are right when you differentiate
generic religion (dharma) from its particular cases in the form of a cultures
(samskritis)......................

(Bhanu Padmo)

http://www.bhanupadmo.com/


You may reply this thread
upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well

or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.

 



From: devindersingh gulati
<dgulhati@...>

To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com"
<TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 7:49

Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Fw: Tears of Reason for Connecticut's Slain
Children

 

 

In evolving standards
of conduct and shaping values, we have to take into consideration the variety
and complexity of human life and nature.

The Dharma, at once
religious law of action and deepest law of our nature, is not, as in the
Western idea, a creed, cult or ideal inspiring an ethical and social rule; it
is the right law of functioning of our life in all its parts.

The tendency of man
to seek after a just and perfect law of his living finds its truth and its
justification in the Dharma. Everything indeed has its dharma, its law of life
imposed on it by its nature; but for man the dharma is the conscious imposition
of a rule of ideal living on all his members.

Dharma is fixed in
its essence, but still it develops in our consciousness and evolves and has its
stages; there are gradations of spiritual and ethical ascension in the search
for the highest law of our nature.

All men cannot follow
in all things one common and invariable rule. Life is too complex to admit of
the arbitrary ideal simplicity which the moralizing theorist loves. Natures
differ; the position, the work we have to do has its own claims and standards;
the aim and bent, the call of life, the call of the spirit within is not the
same for everyone: the degree and turn of development and the capacity,
adhikara, are not equal. Man lives in society and by society, and every society
has its own general dharma, and the individual life must be fitted into this
wider law of movement. But there too the individual’s part in society and his
nature and the needs of his capacity and temperament vary and have many kinds
and degrees: the social law must make some room for this variety and would lose
by being rigidly one for all.

A lawless impulsion
of desire and interest and propensity cannot be allowed to lead human conduct;
even in the frankest following of desire and interest and propensity there must
be a governing and restraining and directing line, a guidance. There must be an
ethic or a science, a restraint as well as a scope arising from the truth of
the thing sought, a standard of perfection, an order.

The universal
embracing dharma in the Indian idea is a law of ideal perfection for the
developing mind and soul of man; it compels him to grow in the power and force
of certain high or large universal qualities which in their harmony build a
highest type of manhood.

Dharma has two
aspects: universal, which is common to all humanity and the individual or
specific, which is unique to the nature of the individual or the community.
[More...]

http://fdi.sasociety.in/cms/index.php/fdi/article/360_The_Way_of_Dharma

 

Gulati



































































































































































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Raghu!

 

I noted this
postscript in your e-mail :

**Equanimity
just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. It is
manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval. (Gautama Buddha)**

I have
something to say over this statement.

 

(Understanding Buddha*s Equanimity : Theory of
Opposites and Fallacy of Composed Neutrality)



When somebody quotes or transcribes Buddha*s ideas, directly or indirectly, in
this manner, we can*t do without undergoing a spell of reflection over the
*theory of opposites*.

Take the
cases of sensation of light and darkness. Darkness is absence of light. Not
vice versa. That is to say, light isn*t absence of darkness. Why?

It is because
light is the actual, the real, the existent entity. The existent can afford to
be absent. This consideration precipitates the sister analogy i.e. the
matter-space analogy.

Space is
absence of matter. Not vice versa. That is to say, matter isn*t absence of
space. Because, matter is the actual, the real, the existent entity. The
existent
can afford to be absent.

The
perception that imparts us the notion of *the opposite* is that of *absence of
existence*. That is how the light-darkness opposites are perceived. That is how
the matter-space opposites are perceived.

Surreptitious
incursion by an inscrutable mystery makes the idea of opposites a dangerous
bottomless pit. To understand this new development, we may take the help of
this koan.

As one walks
back along number-line (in opposite direction) from a finite number, say 10,
he/ she reaches the zero-point which could be described in a way as absence of
number and could be comported to absence of existence. Of course, here the
presumption is that number comports with existence (of value).

The theory of
opposites propounds that existence and absence of existence are the two unique
opposites. According to this theory of opposites, a number (say, 10) and zero
could qualify to be the opposites. Let it be so.

If so, what
would further happen as you continue to 
traverse backward from the waypoint (+10) along the number line (in
opposite direction) beyond zero-point? Then, you enter the mysterious domain.

How would you
explain then the status of (-10) with respect to zero firstly and with respect
to
(+10) secondly?

Many tend to
believe that +10 is the legitimate opposite of -10. However, this belief
doesn*t comport with the exposition of *theory of opposites* that states that
+10 and zero are the unique opposites. Thus the mystery deepens about the
relationship between (+10) and (-10). Call it the *mystery of opposites*.

Mirror-symmetry
of number line about the pivotal *zero* provides a clue to understand the
mystery of opposites. Set a mirror at *zero* facing +10. Now look at the mirror
while standing on the number line beyond +10. The virtual image of the positive
side of number line seen upon the mirror would coincide with the negative side
of the number model (number line). So the mirror-image of number (+10) may be
deemed to be virtually coincident with number (-10). The latter lies across the
mirror-face.  And the mirror-face harbors
the zero-point. How does this narration help in solving the mystery of
opposites?

Let* think
over this new proposition. If zero is the opposite of +10 by the theory of
opposites (that states that *absence of existence* is uniquely the opposite of
*existence*),  -10 is then the *doubled/ deepened opposite*
of +10 insofar as absence of value is further deepened in the former.

The notion of
*doubled/ deepened opposite* may be described rather as *absence of magnitude*
(when magnitude refers to magnitude of value), not simply as *absence of value*.
Ten (10) is not only a value, this value has a magnitude measuring ten (10). If
zero is the opposite of value (of any magnitude), -10 may be deemed to be the
deepened/ doubled opposite of value of magnitude +10.

Virtuality of
mirror-image (image upon a plane mirror) may be ascribed to the doubled/
deepened opposite (perception of *absence of magnitude*) from rather a queer
viewpoint. Think of darkness as the absence of light (of any magnitude). Now
darkness is sensed as blackness, the opposite of sensation of light. How would
this blackness be deepened or doubled practically, if it was to be the absence
of magnitude (say, absence of light of magnitude +10 i.e. absence of a light
ten time brighter)?

Darkness as
complete absence of light is perfectly black. Are there differing shades of
perfect blackness? Similarly, in the matters of absence of matter, are there
differing shades of space? No.

The doubled/
deepened opposite is perceptibly virtual (indiscernible) when the simple
opposite is perceptibly actual (discernible). In other words, perception of the
simple opposite (of the absence of existence) is simple and ordinary
(non-intellectual,
non-psychic), when experiencing of the deepened opposite is hyper-active and
extraordinary (psycho-intellectual).

Coming back
to the given quotation from Buddha, contrary to what is said, equanimity isn*t
composed neutrality. It is a fallacy. Because such neutrality rather connotes
psycho-intellectual inertness. According to our arguments, equanimity ought to
be a composed hyper-active experience, the equable experiencing of own
superlative
psycho-intellectual state.

Equanimity
isn*t any form of quieting, neither of approval nor of resentment. Further, any
attempt to combine approval and resentment into a continuum would be
metaphysically anomalous as there are as many as two U-turns in between
resentment and approval, the former being the doubled/ deepened opposite of the
latter. The first U-turn brings into sight *the opposite* out of absence of any
existence and the second U-turn brings into sight *the doubled opposite* out of
absence of magnitude of existence.


(Bhanu Padmo)

http://www.bhanupadmo.com


You
may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well

or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.
--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
wrote:

From: Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy:
Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>,
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Alan Kuzlev"
<esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>, "existlist@yahoogroups.com"
<existlist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 7:29 AM
















 









       Dear Bhanu,
Aapta means to attain to, as well as trustworthy. In Sankhya where aapta vachana
is used in a specific context, the meaning explicated by Yogacharya
Krishnamacharya is 'the words of a trustworthy person'.
Raghu

Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed
neutrality. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval.
Gautham Buddha

On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:19, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:
















 










Dear Raghu1


(Legacy of Wisdom)


Aapta
Vachana means literary legacy (aapta = acquired, received / vachana =
narration).
This meaning is nowhere close to *authentic narration*. Please note that such
inaccuracy of literary expression has been the anathema against the legacy of
philosophical wisdom.

 

Matam
means opinion. You are right. If teachings of seers are taken as body of
mutable opinions, the notion of aapta vachana wouldn*t ever invoke the bigotry
of indiscriminate following.

 

Again,
we agree with you over the need for yama (ascertaining the scope) and niyama
(discipline) during inter-personal dialectics and personal reflections, provided
evolution of idea is emphasized as intellectual objective throughout verbal and
literary interactions.

 



(Bhanu Padmo)

http://www.bhanupadmo.com


You
may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well

or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



--- On Wed, 2/6/13, Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
wrote:

From: Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy:
Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>,
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Alan Kuzlev"
<esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>, "existlist@yahoogroups.com"
<existlist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2013, 2:32 AM
















 






       Dharma also means nourishing that which is standing, restring that which
is falling and regenerating that which has fallen. There is no equivalent to
religion. The word Matham meaning opinion is used to refer to the teachings of
seers. For example Bauddha Matham,  there is also the idea of an Aapta Vachana,
an authentic source. One has the responsibility to make a choice. The demand
from the person is to observe the Yama and Niyama, the boundaries and discipline
that govern interpersonal and intrapersonal behaviour.
Getting caught with the idea of Religion as it is in the Abhrahamic traditions
is a political process!
Regards,
Raghu

Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed
neutrality. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval.
Gautham Buddha

On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:25, S kumar <kumar_8134@...> wrote:
















 






       Dharma in Sanskrit means-established order, usage, institution, custom,
prescription, rule, duty, virtue, moral merit, good works, right, justice, law..
Ref.Pg.130 of Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Arthur A.Macdonnel, MA,PhD, Corpus
Christ College, University of Oxford- Published by Longmans Green and Co. in
1893.Nowhere it is mentioned Dharma refers to Religion Similarly, Samskruthi in
Sanskrit means Preparation, formation, consecration, page 320. If you desire to
have a detailed meaning, Refer Amarakosam in Sanskrit or other languages for
these terms.        From: devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...>
  To: "greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>;
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>;
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>;
"TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>; Alan Kuzlev
<esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>; "existlist@yahoogroups.com"
<existlist@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy:
Restoring the Soul -hilarious -















 






       "When the word was spoken to me the image would appear
vividly"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kcsXiwNbo > BHANU: What else could be
the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or that of the
Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of the English
term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term
  *samskriti* in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?
No indeed:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/4173
Gulati
         From: Bhanu Padmo
  <greenbhanu@...>
  To: greenlogic@...
  Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:29 AM
  Subject: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy:
Restoring the Soul -hilarious -















 








--- On Mon, 2/4/13, ankh <ankhaton@...> wrote:

From: ankh <ankhaton@...>
Subject: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul
-hilarious -
To: Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 2:23 PM
















 






       Instead of scripture  words

the word 'LOVE' covers it all

God constantly searching each cubic nanometre of his xillions² spheres
to collect the LOVE wherever he sees it

All else is hilarious

ankhaton

--- On Mon, 2/4/13, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:

From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
Subject: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>,
"TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <therampapath@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com"
  <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com"
  <wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>, TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 5:11 AM
















 











Dear
Tilak,

 

Wishfulness,
Wistfulness and Lazy Gossips about Dharma. 
I understand your sentiments about religiosity. That is not very
difficult to understand or achieve at our level. What is being pointed at is
*terminology and semantics*. It is what it is. It may not be what it ought to
be. We should refrain from imposing our wistfulness and have patience in
implementing our wishfulness. Wistfulness is to be passed by because of its
non-reasonability. And the reason of wish needn*t be implementable right away,
without general preparedness.

 

What
else could be the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or
that of the Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of
the English term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term *samskriti*
in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?

 

What
you have been trying to point at is the difference between religion (dharma)
and culture (samskriti), as we are all wary of mistaking one for the other. A
culture is a particular case of the generic/ theoretical religion
(paaribhaashika
dharma) and may be deemed to be a practical/ localized dharma (praakruta
dharma).

 

This
much matter isn*t so intricate that all of us (all wise people) would get
entangled
here inextricably! Just say *no* to lazy gossips.

 

Green Pyramid Analogy
of Dharma.  Take this analogy (Green Pyramid Analogy)
about religion (dharma) to understand first the *seed/ genes of religion*
(dharmabeeja)
and then its *logical/ deductive amplification* and its *temporal/ shapely
magnification*
thereafter.

 

A
small green mango grows into a bigger one keeping the shape intact. This we
shall refer here as temporal/ shapely magnification. Had the small green mango
been
a small green living pyramid, we would have witnessed temporal/ shapely
magnification of the pyramid.

 

Assuming
that the pyramid is contemporaneously a dynamic one in so far as its causal
apex as the *seed of the pyramidal body* (deha-beeja) would progressively
precipitate commensurably and progressively the lower layers resulting in what
we have termed logical/ deductive amplification, the maiden small pyramid would
also continually grow adding respective effect to original temporal/ shapely
magnification as well.

 

These
twin phenomena portrayed in this analogy are applicable to dharma (religion)
which arrives amidst a community in the form of a code. The code is indeed a
pyramid of laws that is initiated by its causal apex in the form of a
philosophical/
metaphysical and jurisprudential prelude. This philosophical/ metaphysical and
jurisprudential signature isn*t really the integral philosophy/ metaphysics
(darshana) and jurisprudence (nyaya-vijnaana) proper that would embody
community*s respective *unified theory of creation and life*.

 

The
apex of the code depicts the seed of religion (dharma-beeja) that would propel
religion*s
logical/ deductive amplification across contemporaneous themes and that would
propel religion*s temporal/ shapely magnification across evolving/ insinuated
themes down the ages.

 

This
much matter isn*t so intricate that all of us (all wise people) would get
entangled
here inextricably! Just say *no* to lazy gossips.

  

Thanks. (Bhanu Padmo)

http://www.bhanupadmo.com/


You
may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well
or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



--- On Fri, 1/25/13, Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@...> wrote:

From: Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@...>
Subject: RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul [1 Attachment]
To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com>,
"greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>,
"TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <therampapath@yahoogroups.com>,
"seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>,
"Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, January 25, 2013, 5:37 PM
















 









Dear Bhanu Jee Namaste No, 'Dharma' is not 'Religion.' They are apples and
oranges. Matter of fact, we must make the distinction even more pronounced to
make any dialogue clear. Religions are about social control, to make individuals
into soldiers. There theme is: "Only my religion is true and direction to
heaven. All others are wrong and hell bound. We are brothers, others are enemies
to be converted. You believe and obey whatever your religion dishes out to you
without any question." Dharma is about inner nature and improvement on it
through seeking truth 'Satya' and discipline 'Yoga.' An individual may practice
any or go to any temple. There is always overlaps of people's ideas and
practices. To group people into a legal boxes like Christian, Hindu, Buddhist,
Muslim etc. is good only in the census. Otherwise, it has absolutely no merit in
real spiritual studies. Do Hindus go to Buddhist temple and pray or not?
  Matter
  of
  fact, Hinduism is not Dharma, but collection of Dharmas evolved in Indian
sub-continent like - Vaishnav, Shaiva, Baudha, Jain, Tantra etc. Do you see any
Muslims praying in Church or Temple? No, you will not see any. On the contrary,
they destroyed Bamiyan Buddha. Let us be very clear about it. Sincerely, Tilak
Shrestha, Ph.D.To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com; greenlogic@yahoogroups.com;
TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com; seerseeker@yahoogroups.com;
Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com From: greenbhanu@... Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013
04:59:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul














 











BHANU :

 

Understanding
Dharma and Materialistic Anarchy :

Proposing *Political Religion*

 

            Shouldn*t
we make the matter of understanding dharma simpler by shedding exaggerated
mystique about the word *dharma* by way of taking the term *religion* as its
trans-language synonym? The current usage of the term *dharma* in its place of
origin (India) is almost identical with the usage of the term *religion* in its
place of origin (the West).

 

            According
to the current usage, religion may be defined as a set of moral and social
rules that sprout a commensurate culture composed of characteristic public
behaviors and events that include moralizing ritualism.

 

            Philosophy
is a body of fundamental postulates that explains the nature of religion.
Though it is likely that the three terms - religion, culture and philosophy -
would get mixed up quite often in lay conversations, the formal line of
demarcation between the three ought to be invoked when necessary. The Sanskrit
translations for the trio *philosophy-religion-culture* is
*darshana-dharma-samskriti*.

 

            With
this prelude, I would like to check your (Devinder Singh Gulati*s) given
narration
line by line and issue my opinions. This juxtaposition will be a good beginning
for mutual understanding, I suppose. The manner of this interaction ought to be
candid and we shouldn*t leave between us much room for shallow fusses. Let the
discussion henceforth be put down in conversation format.

(Devinder
– Bhanu Dialog)

 

DEVINDER : In evolving standards of conduct and
shaping values, we have to take into consideration the variety and complexity
of human life and nature.

 

BHANU : Yes, human life and human nature is
very complex and variegated. Yes, evolving standards of conduct and shaping
values need extreme precaution and care. But who are the people you have in
mind who would be undertaking such a gigantic project. This project is
tantamount to invention of a religion (dharma).

 

            Let*s
assume that you are the person who have set sail in that direction. That is
fine. You would be the founder guru (adi-guru) who would collect information as
much as possible and combine them into a hierarchy of inferences till you have a
world view and an integrated philosophy of life (darshana).

 

            That
you do at a very personal level according to your intellectual capacity. In
other words, all the constituent inferences that would make the world view and
integrated philosophy of life would be your *personal truths*. Even the world
view and integrated philosophy you would arrive at are only *peak* personal
truths, characteristic of your own intellect.

 

            Let*s
get rid of the baffle that we experience across such utterances as *truth*,
*reality*, *actuality* etc. You perceive actuality as the immediate cause and
conceive the underlying deeper causes as realities and connect the sequence of
realities
into a truth. It is useful to remind ourselves of this *actuality-reality-truth
axis* quite often lest we are not lost in the dazzle of such words.

 

            If
all inferences you accede to are mere *personal truths*, what about the
*absolute
truth*? No, you don*t accede to the absolute truth ever. Practically or
effectively, an acknowledged and relatively higher understanding in the form of
a higher inference may sometimes be addressed to as absolute truth. But that
isn*t an accurate approach, though practical and effective to a great extent.

 

            Absolute
truth may lie in the direction of the median (locus) that runs through and
connects
the sequence of personal truths. Thus the absolute truth can only be an
intellectual
direction, never a particular inference.

 

            Degree
of sustainability of a guru thus is his/ her ability to be more resolute and
less
lax intellectually, so that lesser and lesser number of resolute personal
inferences portend the *absolute direction of truth*. This inverse proportion
makes appraisal of guru, philosophy and religion quite paradoxical and critical,
often precarious.

 

            The
pyramid of truth accruing out of the founder guru and a sequence of follower
gurus foreshadows a social code, a body of practical rules that need to be
pronounced, propagated and implemented. This code also ought to include a lean
moralizing
ritualism that would optimally remind the crowd of the cardinal inferences and
principles that reinforce the pyramid of truth.

            This
psycho-intellectual process is religion (dharma). The ensuing metamorphosed
public behavior and elevated events would constitute the commensurate culture
(sanskriti).

 

DEVINDER : The Dharma, at once religious law of
action and deepest law of our nature, is not, as in the Western idea, a creed,
cult or ideal inspiring an ethical and social rule; it is the right law of
functioning of our life in all its parts.

 

BHANU : We were talking about the generic
guru and the commensurate religion, philosophy or  culture. A particular guru
would give rise to
a particular commensurate religion, philosophy or culture. The sequence of the
founder gurus of generic religion would endeavor to traverse forward along the
*absolute
direction of truth* to discover higher and higher particular religions,
philosophies and cultures.

 

            We
mustn*t mistake *generic religion* for *absolute religion*. As we have already
noted, there is no absolute religion, no absolute philosophy, no absolute
culture, no absolute guru, no absolute truth. We have only a series of
practicable religions of differing potentialities and capacities for public
welfare.

 

            So
no particular religion can be deemed to have harbored the deepest law of human
nature or the law of deepest human nature. However, a particular religion can
promote the *absolute direction of truth* by teaching the commensurable public
methodology
and mechanism. At any point of time or space, the generic religion can emerge
as only a creed, developing into a cult (a particular religion), with an ideal.

 

            What
about a particular religion which has discovered, enunciated and begun to
implement the public methodology and mechanism of following the *absolute
direction of truth*? This would be a magnanimous religion, a pragmatic
religion, a progressive religion and yet it wouldn*t be the absolute religion.

 

            We
have to get rid of the specter of overemphasizing own insufficient religiosity
in the name of absoluteness. This has been a tragic philosophical error in the
realm of theology.

           

DEVINDER : The tendency of man to seek after a
just and perfect law of his living finds its truth and its justification in the
Dharma. Everything indeed has its dharma, its law of life imposed on it by its
nature; but for man the dharma is the conscious imposition of a rule of ideal
living on all his members.

 

BHANU : Dharma is always *the enunciated one*.
We can say that a group of people ought to have a dharma if they do not have one
at the moment. We can*t say that they have a dharma just because they wish to
have one, although they haven*t yet been able to enunciate it even crudely.

 

            Saying
that everything has a dharma would replace *enunciated inference* and
*promulgated
commensurate law* by *property* (guna) in the aforesaid definition of dharma.
This would further baffle understanding of dharma and thwart its emergence.

 

            You
are right when you say that dharma is conscious and consented and collective
self-imposition
of a integral body of enunciated social and moral rules to promote the highest
realized
ideal.

 

DEVINDER : Dharma is fixed in its essence, but
still it develops in our consciousness and evolves and has its stages; there
are gradations of spiritual and ethical ascension in the search for the highest
law of our nature.

 

BHANU : Dharma remains still a search even as
it gets implemented, true, but it never has a fixed intellectual essence in
metaphysical,
moral, social or spiritual terms. The elusive absolute truth hasn*t been in the
grip of the current dharma ever.

 

            As
we say this, we are aware of the importance of the public methodology and
mechanism of achieving the *absolute direction of truth*.

 

            You
are right when you say that inferences about nature form a pyramidal hierarchy
whose
understanding facilitates spiritual and ethical ascension.

 

DEVINDER : All men cannot follow in all things
one common and invariable rule. Life is too complex to admit of the arbitrary
ideal simplicity which the moralizing theorist loves. Natures differ; the
position, the work we have to do has its own claims and standards; the aim and
bent, the call of life, the call of the spirit within is not the same for
everyone: the degree and turn of development and the capacity, adhikara, are
not equal. Man lives in society and by society, and every society has its own
general dharma, and the individual life must be fitted into this wider law of
movement. But there too the individual’s part in society and his nature and
the
needs of his capacity and temperament vary and have many kinds and degrees: the
social law must make some room for this variety and would lose by being rigidly
one for all.

 

BHANU : You are right when you say that the
body of moral and social laws constitutes of situation-specific adapted
constituents.
Codification has been a herculean task. It is easier to talk about ethereal
matters
than to translate them into earthen affairs. Here comes the fallacy of
exaggerations about absoluteness as a fatal hindrance.

 

DEVINDER : A lawless impulsion of desire and
interest and propensity cannot be allowed to lead human conduct; even in the
frankest following of desire and interest and propensity there must be a
governing and restraining and directing line, a guidance. There must be an
ethic or a science, a restraint as well as a scope arising from the truth of
the thing sought, a standard of perfection, an order.

 

BHANU : Take the other perspective.
Law-making ought to be a democratic process so that its implementation is
acknowledged integrally by the society. Impulsive lawlessness is ruled out
through disciplinary enforcement. That is not a problem. The real problem is
with the process of law-making.

 

            Take
two societies of differing intellectual achievements. The two respective
pyramids
of inferences vary in height and sprawl. Naturally, the respective qualities of
laws will vary, one being guided by a higher ideal (higher peak inference) than
the other.

 

            And
accordingly, the former will be rewarded with larger progress than the latter.
This will create consternation in the latter society. If the explanation for
the civilization lag is denied too long, this society would revolt against
itself quite implicitly, the wealth in the neighborhood being the source of
distraction.

 

            The
ultimate cause for this *purported* materialistic anarchy is not being able to
cope
intellectually with the neighboring society. *Intellectually* refers here to
*civil
intellectualism*, not to a stunted academicism. Please note that public desire
in
any form, however contrary it may seem, need not be always seen as *lawless*.

 

            You
have raised the most pertinent issue of *public guidance*. Who could guide a
sovereign
society? If *inferring* is the prime process by which it achieves intellectual
height and material progress, what is that public methodology and mechanism
that could achieve this (public process of widespread inferring)? This
methodology and mechanism also would also discover and implement the *absolute
direction of truth* as well.

 

            The
generic name for this methodology and mechanism is *polity*. So, we are looking
forward to that particular type of polity that would accomplish the twin
objective of finding the absolute direction of truth and effecting intellectual
coping.

 

            As
the story unfolds further, we are drawn to the consideration of the *political
religion* (raja-dharma) that would surpass existing cultural religions in
import and worth.

 

            What
is that model? However, that is another phase altogether.  

 

DEVINDER : The universal embracing dharma in the
Indian idea is a law of ideal perfection for the developing mind and soul of
man; it compels him to grow in the power and force of certain high or large
universal qualities which in their harmony build a highest type of manhood.

 

BHANU : The phrases *universe-embracing
dharma* and *Indian idea* don*t go together - me and your are sure. Perfection
that connotes absoluteness too is, in a way, ruled out. What you could be
looking forward to is the aforesaid public methodology and mechanism that could
unravel and implement absolute direction of truth and that could bring about
fastest psycho-cultural coping among societies.

 

DEVINDER : Dharma has two aspects: universal,
which is common to all humanity and the individual or specific, which is unique
to the nature of the individual or the community.

 

BHANU : You are right when you differentiate
generic religion (dharma) from its particular cases in the form of a cultures
(samskritis)......................

(Bhanu Padmo)

http://www.bhanupadmo.com/


You may reply this thread
upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well

or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.

 



From: devindersingh gulati
<dgulhati@...>

To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com"
<TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 7:49

Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Fw: Tears of Reason for Connecticut's Slain
Children

 

 

In evolving standards
of conduct and shaping values, we have to take into consideration the variety
and complexity of human life and nature.

The Dharma, at once
religious law of action and deepest law of our nature, is not, as in the
Western idea, a creed, cult or ideal inspiring an ethical and social rule; it
is the right law of functioning of our life in all its parts.

The tendency of man
to seek after a just and perfect law of his living finds its truth and its
justification in the Dharma. Everything indeed has its dharma, its law of life
imposed on it by its nature; but for man the dharma is the conscious imposition
of a rule of ideal living on all his members.

Dharma is fixed in
its essence, but still it develops in our consciousness and evolves and has its
stages; there are gradations of spiritual and ethical ascension in the search
for the highest law of our nature.

All men cannot follow
in all things one common and invariable rule. Life is too complex to admit of
the arbitrary ideal simplicity which the moralizing theorist loves. Natures
differ; the position, the work we have to do has its own claims and standards;
the aim and bent, the call of life, the call of the spirit within is not the
same for everyone: the degree and turn of development and the capacity,
adhikara, are not equal. Man lives in society and by society, and every society
has its own general dharma, and the individual life must be fitted into this
wider law of movement. But there too the individual’s part in society and his
nature and the needs of his capacity and temperament vary and have many kinds
and degrees: the social law must make some room for this variety and would lose
by being rigidly one for all.

A lawless impulsion
of desire and interest and propensity cannot be allowed to lead human conduct;
even in the frankest following of desire and interest and propensity there must
be a governing and restraining and directing line, a guidance. There must be an
ethic or a science, a restraint as well as a scope arising from the truth of
the thing sought, a standard of perfection, an order.

The universal
embracing dharma in the Indian idea is a law of ideal perfection for the
developing mind and soul of man; it compels him to grow in the power and force
of certain high or large universal qualities which in their harmony build a
highest type of manhood.

Dharma has two
aspects: universal, which is common to all humanity and the individual or
specific, which is unique to the nature of the individual or the community.
[More...]

http://fdi.sasociety.in/cms/index.php/fdi/article/360_The_Way_of_Dharma

 

Gulati



































































































































































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'll try Bill's group for awhile. If I'm not mistaken, there are no mystics
allowed.

Mary

Eduard, I have accepted Mary at Neoex and will hopefully do the same for you. I
will not let the eastern mystics in . I do little or no moderation so fire away
and say what you like. The preamble tells of a  merging of science and
existentialism. As the only three members I will give you a veto on new
membersThe three of us  shouls  be able to keep the mystics out  and perhaps
discuss what we are interested in. We will be small but elite in our ideas about
the modern world. Bill

Third Video on uTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDBSJ5OOs4Q
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDBSJ5OOs4Q>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1nbS9pZphQ
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1nbS9pZphQ>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np7FySSMuCU
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np7FySSMuCU>

Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sounds good.  Send the link to moi at ...

yeoman@...

eduardathome

-----Original Message-----
From: William
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:41 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Not Hinduism

Eduard, I have accepted Mary at Neoex and will hopefully do the same for
you. I will not let the eastern mystics in . I do little or no moderation so
fire away and say what you like. The preamble tells of a  merging of science
and existentialism. As the only three members I will give you a veto on new
membersThe three of us  shouls  be able to keep the mystics out  and perhaps
discuss what we are interested in. We will be small but elite in our ideas
about the modern world. Bill



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links