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

Re: base viewpoints

Expand Messages
  • devindersingh
    Now why would a mystic want to tell lies? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/message/59002 Dick joined several groups, searching them out. It was his need
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Now why would a mystic want to tell lies?


      Dick joined several groups, searching them out.

      It was his need to tell his truth to a wider audience.

      The urge to inform overtook his urge to become.

      Mysticism is the opening of a window that brings home that there is more
      to life than mere existence.

      That there is a higher becoming.

      It is the beginning of a search for truth.

      But Dick has found his truth that he is eager to declare.

      The becoming becomes secondary.

      "There must be a total and sincere surrender; there must be an exclusive
      self-opening to the divine Power; there must be a constant and integral
      choice of the Truth that is descending, a constant and integral
      rejection of the falsehood of the mental, vital and physical Powers and
      Appearances that still rule the earth-Nature.

      If each time the Power intervenes and brings in the Truth, you turn your
      back on it and call in again the falsehood that has been expelled, it is
      not the divine Grace that you must blame for failing you, but the
      falsity of your own will and the imperfection of your own surrender.

      If you call for the Truth and yet something in you chooses what is
      false, ignorant and undivine or even simply is unwilling to reject it
      altogether, then always you will be open to attack and the Grace will
      recede from you. Detect first what is false or obscure in you and
      persistently reject it, then alone can you rightly call for the divine
      Power to transform you."



      From: devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...>
      To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, 18 January 2013 7:27 PM
      Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Re: By Trinity I suppose you mean?

      Good example of
      From: Dave Sirjue <davesirjue@...>
      To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, 17 January 2013 11:19 PM
      Subject: [TheBecoming] Re: By Trinity I suppose you mean?

      Namaste, It may help to elucidate what the words 'self-delusion',
      `illusion' and `existence' actually mean.
      illusionmid-14c., "act of deception," from O.Fr. illusion "a
      mocking," from L. illusionem (nom. illusio) "a mocking, jesting,
      irony," from illudere "mock at," lit. "to play
      with," from in- "at" + ludere "to play" (see
      ludicrous). Sense of "deceptive appearance" developed in English
      late 14c. (delusiona belief with strong conviction despite superior
      evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief
      based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion
      or other effects of perception.) `Illusion' simply means `a
      play' or `deceptive appearance' – not necessarily
      `non-existence' or that it does not exist. The self, the
      `me', is an illusion, not because it doesn't exist, but
      because it doesn't exist in the way one imagines it to be. You are
      not what you think you are. The `me' seems to be solid and
      separate – a `thing' at the centre of life, a separate
      entity running my life – in the same way that there seems to be a
      wave separate from the ocean – but upon investigation (as to who am
      `I' really suggested by illustrious Sri Ramana Maharishi and the
      ancient sages such as Vashishta), those assumptions crumble. The
      `illusion' is seen through – the wave is inseparable from
      the ocean. Now, it might also help if I were a little more clear about
      what the word `existence' actually means. In the past I used to
      use this without realising what it actually meant. It literally means
      `stand out' (ex-sistere). Does the wave `stand out' of
      the ocean? Yes, it appears to, AND no, it doesn't stand out in
      reality, because it IS the ocean. Depends on the angle from which
      you're answering the question. Both are true, both are not true. The
      wave appears to exist, AND it does not exist – it does not exist
      SEPARATELY from the ocean. If it has an existence, that existence is
      inseperable from the whole. (And instead of the word `ocean',
      one can use the words Supra-mental, Consciousness, beingness, aliveness,
      source, void, wholeness, rigpa, nothing…..) …Life without a

      From: rwr <dick.richardson@...>
      To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:34 AM
      Subject: [TheBecoming] By Trinity I suppose you mean?
      By Trinity I suppose you mean? [ Dick,By the two parts, I suppose you
      mean matter and mind and by the trinity you mean this and what lies
      above. Besides matter and mind Sri Aurobindo introduces a third - Life.
      There is a trinity below and a trinity above. The two trinities are
      separated by what calls the Golden lid. I hadn't encountered the word
      shmystics before and discovered it to be of your coinage..... ] No, that
      is not what I mean by the Trinity of our Emanation. And no, the term
      `shmystics' is not of my coinage. It has been around in the West for a
      long time. It means people who like others to think that they are
      Mystics when they are nothing but pretenders and charlatans. I do not
      talk and write about what anybody said. I tell of what I found. Tell
      your buddy that `I' refers to me and nobody else. But it seems that
      perhaps Buddhist's choose not to believe in a person in the machine. So
      be it who cares. But such an outlook would make life very cheap would it
      not. In the West life is held with respect. I dealt with all the
      Buddhist bit years ago and I do not want to go there again. As for the
      Trinity of our emanation then I tell of it in the book. Do you remember
      my asking you to talk from your own experience? I meant it. Tell us of
      your own mystical findings. I did. You know what `personal experience'
      means – yes? Best Wishes Dick Richardson --- In
      existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick." wrote:

      > I did manage to go QRT for a couple of weeks, but there is a group of
      > scientists and philosophers mainly from India and the Middle east,
      > a few from the west, who operate this email private group chat, but
      > of them are interested in other state of conscious existence
      > and human evolution hence they kept dragging me into it for I am seen
      > be the expert on it :- ) This was not a Yahoo group stuff but a group
      > in private email, this has happened before a few times. But some of
      > did join my three groups, and which also includes the fiction novel,
      > there is a lot of politics and revolution in that too. So quite a few
      > of the emails finished up on my group too, for if folks don't mind I
      > record the conversations for posterity. So, retiring is not easy. I
      > should never have written about mysticism in the first place :- )))
      > there is a huge world-wide interest in it, far more so than daily
      > politics. But I have in fact written much about politics and
      > revolution. But I have never been asked to do radio programs on
      > politics :- ))) People are far more interested in the evolution of
      > humanity and consciousness. And so am I. But, you know, I am getting
      > old. Not too well, and enough is enough. I have been doing it for near
      > on fifty years now. So, going back into retirement now. We have two
      > weddings in the family this coming summer, don't think I will be fit
      > enough to cope with going to them. Oh, by the way, life and politics
      > very different in England and Europe than it is in the USA. The USA
      > always seems to be so far behind the times. I guess their religions
      > their greed and love of money and guns and isolationism holds them
      > If you want to move on then the whole population has to learn, learn,
      > learn, and grow by it. But so many of them still seem to be in the
      > sixteenth century. They even have to pay for medication from what I
      > of it. How quaint.
      > Dick Richardson

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.