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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Living in the Now

Expand Messages
  • jvmarco
    V: The perceived now is relative. The perceived now is that which is filtered through the physical senses alone (the skandhas). There are higher senses, or
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      V:
      The perceived now is relative. The perceived now is that which is
      filtered through the physical senses alone (the skandhas). There are
      higher senses, or metasensory levels realized through transcendence
      that we all have access to. Transcendence is not beyond our ability.

      Even Maslow touched on transcendence in his heirarchy therory, yet
      only understood after self-actualization.

      Here's an interesting quote:

      "Transcendence has been discounted by secular psychologists because
      they feel it belongs to the domain of religious belief. But Maslow
      himself believed that science and religion were both too narrowly
      conceived, too dichotomized, and too separated from each other. Non-
      peakers, as he would call them, characteristically think in logical,
      rational terms and look down on extreme spirituality as "insanity"
      (p. 22) because it entails a loss of control and deviation from what
      is socially acceptable. They may even try to avoid such experiences
      because they are not materially productive¬óthey "earn no money, bake
      no bread, and chop no wood" (p. 23). Other non-peakers have the
      problem of immaturity in spiritual matters, and hence tend to view
      holy rituals and events in their most crude, external form, not
      appreciating them for any underlying spiritual implications. Maslow
      despised such people because they form a sort of idolatry that
      hinders religions (p. 24). This creates a divide in every religion
      and social institution. (Maslow. "The 'Core-Religious'
      or 'Transcendent,' Experience.")"

      You mention shore line...the following (five paragraphs) is from my
      book Exploring Freethought Magick:

      To understand life context, the analogy of Spanish ships in the New
      World is helpful. Supposedly, when the Conquistadors arrived and
      greeted a tribe of natives on the beach from their longboats, the
      chief asked, "Where did you people come from?" The Spanish replied
      that they arrived in those large ships about a hundred meters off
      shore. The natives could not see these ships, for they did not
      understand how to relate to the idea of ship. After much discussion,
      a few began to see the ships because of the odd ripples on the water,
      and then the whole tribe saw them.

      Some people may snicker at that story, saying, "Oh, those natives
      must have been blind." In that case, let me ask this: How many
      colors were in the rainbow during biblical times? Seven? No, they
      may have only seen one, but surely not more than three.

      In Daybreak, Friedrich Nietzsche comments, "How different nature must
      have appeared to the Greeks if, as we have to admit, their eyes were
      blind to blue and green." Just because you see seven colors, you
      should not assume that our ancestors saw seven. Assumptions and
      beliefs are the delusions of the phenomenal mind.

      In the Iliad, Homer describes the rainbow as having just one color.
      However, Xenophanes, the teacher of Parmenides, saw three colors in
      the phenomenon of a rainbow: purple, red, and a yellow-green. Later,
      in the meteorological treatise Meteorologica, written circa 340 BCE,
      Aristotle concurred: "The rainbow has three colors."

      Not until the Renaissance did Westerners begin to see seven colors in
      the rainbow. However, that does not mean that there are seven colors
      in the rainbow. There is compelling evidence that there are actually
      nine colors in the rainbow. You're missing two colors, like the New
      World natives were missing those Spanish ships. Charles F. Haanel
      said, "The mind cannot comprehend an entirely new idea until a
      corresponding vibratory brain cell has been prepared to receive it."


      V
      :)


      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sean tremblay
      <bethjams9@...> wrote:
      >
      > Are you saying the perception of now is relative to what it is
      compared to. like a reference point on the shore line to a boat
      passing down stream?
      >
      > jvmarco <jvmarco@...> wrote: Many express the notion
      of "living in the now" however, few actually
      > comprehend what that is.
      >
      > The "now" is the WHEN. I often say that we cannot (Never/Ever)
      > realize WHO we are until we understand WHEN we are.
      >
      > Most think that "now" implies te perceived present. The truth is
      > that the perceived present is not the "now."
      >
      > Meditation is a pathway to "now." Meditation can lead to the
      letting
      > go of the attachment to perception. Only then can you understand
      > the "now" and WHEN you are.
      >
      > Keep this simple, irrefutable truth on your refrigerator,...There
      is
      > no Present in Time.
      >
      > The present, or the "now" is beyond time and perception. Sort of a
      > spooky idea for ego, and the you that you think you are. But there
      > is another self (like the small figure depicted above many
      renditions
      > of the mediating Buddha), that Self is only realized through the
      > understanding of WHEN.
      >
      > V
      > :)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.