Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9/2/01 Sunday

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ****************** JOHN METZGER Subject: Re: [NDS] Humans Anonymous/what we mean by God ... conversation ... You must have ESP, Gary...Here s a sample of our
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 3, 2001
      Subject: Re: [NDS] Humans Anonymous/what we mean by God

      > I have this horrible feeling that someones going to start a
      > about what we mean by God any minute :-)
      > Love,
      > Gary

      You must have ESP, Gary...Here's a sample of 'our' names, tongue in
      cheek;  anyone care to add? John

      The Quantum Leaper.
      The Subject that Encompasses All Predicates.
      The Great Whomever or Whatever that is Within-Without-Beside-Before-
      The Verb that Activates all Other Verbs.
      The Cosmic DNA.
      The Erotic Whole.
      The Source from Whom All Longing Flows.
      The Black Hole Where Love Embraces Death.
      The Creative Destroyer.
      The Alpha and Omega Helix.
      The Eternal Not Yet.
      The Creating.
      The Sustaining.
      The Abiding without End.
      The mating of Dan Berkow and Christiana Durancyzk.
      The The of things.
      The Etc. to end all Etc.'s.

      > The mating of Dan Berkow and Christiana Durancyzk.

      Are you saying God is two crazy kids in the back seat of an Oldsmobile? (Jerry)
      (Admit it, Jerry, this is as close to heaven as you are ever likely to get!)Gloria

      God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder

            NEW HAVEN, CT—In a diagnosis that helps explain the confusing and contradictory aspects of the cosmos that have baffled philosophers, theologians, and other students of the human condition for millennia, God, creator of the universe and longtime deity to billions of followers, was found Monday to suffer from bipolar disorder.


      JERRY on yawning, hiccups, resistance to hypnosis, and....
      Fascinating. Thank you. And how about the really fun uncontrollable laughing while
      in the 'place of worship'? I love that one. I remember about 25 years ago attending
      a cousin's Bar Mitzvah. I was sitting next to my brother Rick and we were getting
      the giggles -- then I happened to look back and to the side and there was my staid,
      conservative, corporate Uncle. We met with a twinkling of the eye and in an instant
      he fell apart barely able to contain his laughter. Tears came down his cheeks. And
      the laughter had to be contained because we were all standing and the Rabbi was
      uttering some sacred prayer. The laugher comes from the same place as the hiccups
      and yawns, except that it's more fun. But, boy, I'd've given anything to see my
      uncle with giggles and hiccups at the same time.


      >It has not been my experience that ego is decommissioned in
      trance state.
      >Rather, it is more as if the ego agrees to simply
      'sit back
      >and watch'.........to allow the experience to unfold. 
      >time and time again, I have found that the ego does
      >itself when it senses danger.

      Yes, I see this as generally true.

      As a hypnotist, have you ever induced such a deep trance,
      that obedience was immediate and without resistance? Or
      have you ever been present while such a trance was induced?

      I have seen... and noticed, I guess I should say, that
      a skilled hypnotist is able to induce 'first level' trance,
      and then 'take over' the 'ego' again, thus to enable an
      even deeper trance. These steps can be repeated a
      number of times, to the effect that the subject appears
      and behaves exactly like a 'catatonic schizophrenic',
      with 'waxy flexibility'.

      Perhaps there was something of this attempted
      in the scenario below:

      >Twice while in a trance
      state, my ego has stepped in
      >and ended the session......once, while in a
      very deep
      >trance, when the hypnotist began 'sculpting' a
      >sexually charged scenario.

      Naughty hypnotist! Bad hypnotist!
      Good tools in bad hands make for ugly creations.

      >As a
      hypnotherapist, I have witnessed this ego-assertion
      >many times in
      clients.....when the client is 'looking at'
      >hidden or denied aspects of
      the psyche.  The ego knows
      >when "enough is enough", and the client
      may simply 'open
      >their eyes'... or, most usually,  begin to shift
      about until the
      >trance is broken.


      > >
      > > If those requirements are met, the voice of the hypnotist
      > > the 'inner voice' of the hypnotized
      >It is much like that.
      >In a trance state the
      hypnotized one no longer makes a distinction
      >between oneself and the
      hypnotist.  For those moments, they
      >are 'one'.....the hypnotist's
      voice becomes 'my' voice.....what
      >a hypnotist sees,  'I' see....what
      a hypnotist says,  "I" am saying.
      >But a lot is written about
      hypnosis and trance....as if it is an evil
      >be avoided. 
      And while I agree that abuses do, and have occurred,
      >the opportunitys for
      expanding awareness thru trance experience
      >is so great, I feel compelled
      to offer another perspective on
      >hypnosis and trance.

      I do not harbor bad feelings about hypnosis. Or marijuana, either.
      Nor do I abhor guns. These are all just things. Humans do what
      humans do, with these things. Responsible behaviour, VS
      destructive behaviour, which will it be? This is the real issue.

      >I was fortunate to be trained in what is
      referred to as
      >a 'client centered' approach to
      >says that it is the client who has the answers
      >solutions they seek....and it is the client....not
      >therapist... who knows the 'way'.  And that it is
      the fascilitator's task to simply bring that
      >inner-knowing to the
      client's  awareness.


      >The hardest part of my job was
      >remembering to 'get out of the way'
      >of the clients
      experience......to not contaminate
      >it with my sense of what 'should'
      >not to try to 'figure things out'....but to
      >walk alongside them as helper...as one who
      >helps the
      experiencer to open to....to 'notice'
      >what is unfolding for them to

      Yes. To allow this generation to take place, this
      unfoldment of what has been compacted and
      hidden in the client. Eventually to conduct in
      such a way, as to create the conditions in which
      the divorced aspects of the client may reunite;
      full empowerment.

      >Hypnotherapy was, for
      me, a training ground
      >to 'awakening' -  it was a practice in
      >of dropping any and all
      >thoughts.....and surrendering to

      Yes. I see well-done hypnotherapy as
      re-enabling of a long-stifled conversation.

      >I'm thinking of how
      many times people would
      >come to these sessions as atheists or
      >and leave in a sense of awe.....seeing that there
      'That' which is so much more than 'me'...more than.
      >my sense of
      >even if 'That' is known to them as simply

      Indeed. Seeing that we have not seen,
      even if we cannot see what we do not
      see, is to know that we have overlooked
      something very vital.

      Thanks, Melody...

      ==Gene Poole==


      Just to finish up on this... When the original AA's were asked about
      God Concept they replied...

      why don't you choose your own concept of God?

      what they found important was one had to have a Power greater than
      their selves (egos).  The basic idea is if you need help, any concept
      of God will do for starters. (you really want help so you don't
      bargain in concepts)  Afterwards, when you come into relationship,
      realize or know God, then you won't have to worry about God concepts

      But the book that Humans Anonymous came from "The Game of God" by
      Arthur B. Hancock & Kathleen J. Brugger  has a glossary with a
      definition of God as follows:

      God: Being, free of a survival identity; the absolute awareness of
      absolute reality, SYN. truth, love and experience.


      Here is an excerpt from the Big Book of AA pp 56 & 57

      This man recounts that he tumbled out of bed to his knees.  In a few
      seconds he was overwhelmed by a conviction of the Presence of God. 
      It poured over and through him with the certainty and majesty of a
      great tide at flood.  The barriers he had built through the years
      were swept away.  He stood in the Presence of Infinite Power and
      Love.  He had stepped from bridge to shore.  For the first time, he
      lived in conscious companionship with his Creator...............

      ............................... skipping some ....

      What is this but a miracle of healing?  Yet its elements are simple. 
      Circumstances made him willing to believe.  He humbly offered himself
      to his Maker---Then he knew.

      Even so has God restored us all to our right minds.  To this man, the
      revelation was sudden.  Some of us grow into it more slowly. But He
      has come to all who have honestly sought Him. 

      When we drew near to Him, He disclosed Himself to us!

      They've recently been reshowing on TV a series of classic black and white
      interviews that the BBC did (in the fifities I think) with famous people.
      The first of their kind. One of them was with Carl Jung, and the interviewer
      asks him if he believes in God and Jung looks back and says 'I don't believe
      in God, I know God'.


      Various definitions of 'ego':

      Ego \E"go\, n. [L., I.] (Met.)

      The conscious and permanent subject of all psychical
      experiences, whether held to be directly known or the product
      of reflective thought; -- opposed to non-ego.

      A brief discussion of how we are tripped by assumptions as to the
      meaning of the word 'ego':


      A much deeper appreciation of what is ego, with commentary on what
      goes horribly wrong, and why; highly recommended:


      Here is a well-done essay, in Q/A form, as to the nature of ego, from
      the perspective of NLP. It goes into a discussion of nonduality, and
      includes links to several contributing authors, including Ramana


      Here is a discussion that dares suggest 'becoming post-ego':


      A deep look at the central problems associated with 'ego':


      Now for my own way of seeing this 'issue of ego':

      _1  It is utterly futile, but seemingly virtuous, to denigrate 'ego'.

      People persist in assuming that... 'there is a problem'. As long
      as such assumptions persist, 'solutions' will be assumed also.

      The people who persist in assuming that... 'there is a problem',
      know NO other reality. This class of person is utterly oblivious to
      any reality but their own 'problem-centered' experience.

      Typically,the class of problem-centered individuals are also
      found to be grouped in the class of 'persons who are chronically alienated'.

      The problem-centered, chronically-alienated person, knows no other
      reality. To be perfectly clear about this state of affairs, I will say that
      'problem-people' do not have the slightest clue that they are partitioned
      against what is a much greater (larger) 'reality'.

      The real zinger here is that when a 'problem person' digs into
      the perceived 'problems', they are not doing anything at all. They are
      mining for gold in an air-mine. They are simply 'shuffling shit' into
      one configuration after another. They are looking for solutions to
      non-existent problems, and because they apply cures for what is
      no disease, their treatments result in nothing but side-effects.

      However, even in the deepest and chronic involvement in the above
      conundrum, the 'problem-person' cannot see beyond the extent of
      the assumption that 'there is a problem'. This dilemma is intensified
      (and to a large extent created by) the application of 'remedy' to what
      is no issue/disease/dilemma/problem, leading to more stress, and
      the creation of a 'real problem'. Yet, even this 'real problem' is not
      a problem. There is no problem.

      The issue is the obliviousness of one class of person, to the reality
      that there is an entirely different class of person. If somehow we
      could create a bridge between these two classes, each would be
      deeply shocked to see the depth and extent of the other class:

      Class: Chronically alienated

      Class: Non-alienated

      The non-alienated (generally) does not have a clue as to the existence
      of the entire class of alienated Beings. The chronically alienated have
      lost, if they have ever had, any alignments which would serve as a road
      of return to 'non-alienation'.

      You may be asking: "Why this discussion, and what is the relevance to 'ego'?

      Simply, that discussions of 'ego as problem' occur as remedy-seeking
      among the class of chronically alienated 'problem-people', and thus are
      entirely moot. This is compounded by the actuality of 'side-effects'
      produced by applications of 'remedy' for perceived 'problems' which are
      in fact nonexistent, but which remedies actually introduce problematic
      elements which intensify stress, and thus tend to redouble 'problem-solving
      behaviour', which redoubles 'remedy application', which redoubles
      'problem-solving, ad infinitum in an endless and ever-intensifying loop
      of absurd proportions.

      Perhaps the most ridiculous of these classical tail-chasing, self-perpetuating
      and cyclic vortexes of perpetual distraction, is the 'ego-defined ego-problem'
      syndrome, in which 'what is defined as the problem, itself defines
      the problem'.

      In the above, we can see that...  'ego is a self-defining problem'.

      Pretty wild, eh?


      But to hell with all of that circular logic. There is a better way to
      see the whole show!

      Let us simply redefine 'ego' as it is used in this thread, as
      instead, 'identity'.

      Let us define 'ego' in a way that respects the western POV:

      Ego is simply the psychic aspect of the immune system.

      Thus, ego defends identity. Simple, eh?

      So ego is NOT identity; 'that' definition of ego is the fault of
      poorly translated eastern texts imported to the west, via the

      Ego is simply 'membrane intelligence' at work in the psyche; "I" vs "Not-I".

      If "I" is identity, ego defends identity.

      If "I" is NOT identity, ego is at rest.

      It is the ultimate foolishness to desire to disarm ego; one could as
      well wish for 'psychic AIDS'.

      Please... consider replacement of 'ego' with 'identity', when that is
      the actual implication of how the word is being used in (a given)

      Use 'ego' if the basic life-preserving aspect of the psyche is being
      referred to.

      "I" as identity is called 'identification'. When "I" am not
      identified, no defense is called in regard to  (what are otherwise
      interpreted as) threats to identity.

      If 'ego' defends 'identity', we have a corruption of the human system
      to deal with.

      And that is not that difficult to deal with.

      Crude analogies:

      Ego = mechanism

      Identity = what that mechanism harbors

      Ego = tape recorder machine

      Identity = what is on the tape

      Ego = aspect of hardware

      Identity = resident software

      Ego = force

      Identity = criteria which decides use of force

      Ego works like skin or membrane; identity is what has gotten under
      your skin. Ego defends identity because it identifies identity as an
      aspect of self; identity is behind that defensive lines.

      Ego does not make mistakes, but it can become disordered. The primary
      source of ego disorder is identity.

      You can see that my own understanding of this stuff is at great
      variance with 'current protocols'. So be it.

      ==Gene Poole==

      on images and how it relates to the practice of Zen (Non Dual

      by Charlotte Joko Beck

      Most religions have something to say about images and how we hold
      them in our lives. 'Thou shalt have no other Gods before me...'.
      Yasutani Roshi, speaking to a student, 'You need not be concerned
      about the image on the alter; you should be concerned about the image
      in your mind.'

      My self-centered anger arises when my image of myself is threatened.
      So: what image of yourself do you hold? 'I am a kind person.' 'I am a
      good parent.' 'I accomplish worthwhile things.' 'I am an authority on
      (science, plants, cooking, diet, dogs ... whatever).'

      Or my image can be the opposite. 'I am a mean person.' 'I am a
      mediocre parent.' 'I never accomplish anything.' On and on. Our
      images are deeply rooted. We love them. They run our lives. They are
      who we think we are.

      Some psychological therapies attempt to replace a negative image with
      a positive one. Effective but only to a point. Our attachment to any
      image, positive or negative--since we will defend our idol--leaves us
      in the long run in a state of slavery; the idol rules our existence
      and we are helpless under its domination.

      All poor relationships (and their constant arguments) are based on
      the defense of images. When caught in an emotional storm, ask
      yourself, 'What image do I have of myself that I feel I must defend?'

      Keep in mind the difference between 'I must be a good teacher (or
      student, athlete, musician, therapist, or ...) and just being a good
      teacher. Any defended image invariably blocks the open awareness from
      which effective action springs. And the image 'I am one who sees
      clearly, who has realization, who is enlightened' is itself the
      barrier to true seeing. Being 'enlightened' is being without image;
      undefended and open to life as it is. It is being able to feel the
      pain of the desperately defended images of others. It is, of course,

      What is our practice with all this?

      (1) I need to know my favorite images; and the most reliable clue to
      my tendency to erect an image is bodily tension.

      (2) I need to be aware of the mental and physical substance of these
      images, that is, what my thoughts and bodily sensations accompanying
      the image are.

      (3) Finally I need to experience the pure physical sensation of my
      image; I need to experience this sensation free of thoughts with
      which I identify. 

      Sounds easy. It's not. Still, the Way is just this.

      Be patient. In time our images weaken and our freedom grows.

      [November 1991]

      (c) 1996 by Charlotte Joko Beck

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.