My Fundy Ex-Wife

[Antlerman]

We have come a long way in this discussion, and I appreciate the time you have spent to consider my thoughts, verily.

Likewise to be sure.

 

And I do think I can see what you are saying, that perhaps the language is just that, but an apple is an apple because it is that all the way through. I can't see yet, and qualify possibly, that the language is not specific to the truth. For me, it is. There in lies the discomfort for me.

I would really enjoy exposing these thoughts about the nature of language a little further. I think it might help shed light on how I perceive things and its impact on the bigger picture.

 

There's one thing you said earlier I want to refer back to as a starting point:

 

I can't find myself in your shoes prescribing something that lacks a larger peer group and condemning something as only myth.

It's that phrase, "only myth" that sticks out to me. Mythological language works. It's functional. It's effective. Effective enough to have allowed our species to advance forward in building effective, functional societies, nations, and empires. It has played a powerful role in the expression of and shaping of values, meaning, ethics, rules, customs, identity, vision, progress, etc of individuals, societies, culture, and to the natural world itself - in both positive, and negative ways. Myth is hardly an "only".

 

It's a way of talking about things, a way of framing an understanding through the representation of them. I'm going to reference something from the Christian scholar Burton Mack in referring to a bit of the history of the schools of myth studies and how they evolved historically and are used by ethnographers and cultural anthropologists. From The Christian Myth, pg 17:

 

If the first phase of myth studies was quite content to explain myth away, or at least to explain why the older, archaic and "primitive" myths were now passe, the second phase sought to understand myth as essential for the creation and maintenance of a society. Functionalist theories looked for ways in which myths inculcated values and attitudes. Symbolic Theories emphasized the contribution myths made to images and symbols of importance for the definition, identity, and celebration of a society. Structuralist theories analyzed the way in which myths were put together in order to get at the logic of the story and the mode of thinking of a people. And so, in the hands of ethnographers, myths became essential ingredients in social description and analysis. And in the hands of cultural anthropologists, myths became windows into the otherwise unexpressed ways in which a people imagined themselves, thought about themselves, and negotiated their plans and values.

 

Then we could even talk about the spiritual aspects of myths in Jungian archetypes, which is what Joseph Campbell is all about. And I could go even further into my thoughts how as part of how we developed our use of symbolic systems of language to frame understanding of the world, we carry that forward into 'secular myths', creating icons of Science and Rationality as Symbols of Truth and Light for mankind's expansion into the cosmos. They themselves are of cut of the same cloth in how we developed looking at and interacting with the word. They are 'Secular Gods', replacing the 'Mythical Gods', but myths nonetheless, taking ideas, values, self identity, vision, etc and representing them in ways which themselves, if one applied the scalpel of scrutiny to would see the 'inconsistent rationality' of them. Inconsistent because they are not about facts. They are about the internal truth's seeking representation externally.

 

And that leads to my point about the internal truth, and the symbolic, non-literal nature of language and mythologies. I'll simplify it at this point to repeat and analogy I used recently (I don't think it was in this thread, but somewhere here recently). A child who enthusiastically talks about Santa Clause and his elves, is expressing something extremely *real* internally: love, wonder, joy, hope, happiness, and so on. His world is full of the representational figures that allow him to give expression to and look at rationally for himself, these experiences of his nature as human. As an adult, needing to navigate life in more 'mature' ways because of the necessity of society to function on more complex levels, he needs to advance his base of language and symbolic representation to more functional systems.

 

And when it comes to expressing those internal realities, such as as love, hope, value, meaning, etc, his language about them will follow suit with the rest of his more functional ways of talking about the world, and find a language less tied to mythical beings and whatnot, yet still richly symbolic nonetheless, like the symbol of a rose, the grandeur of nature in the sky, etc. But his experiences in his mythical world as a child, and as an adult were consistent and real and valid, no matter how he expressed them. He still embraced Love. He still experienced it, regardless of how he symbolized it.

 

At some point, in how I would call an existential experience, a mystical communion, your mind and point of view bypasses any use of language and symbols and fuses directly with It itself in uncluttered immersion and unity with, of being and becoming. And it is also well appropriate as one moves more to that state out of this world of society, sense of self, others, nature, etc, the symbols become closer to Source, further from manifestation (world). It is stages of transcendence. So when you, or others of mystical paths within various religions touch the divine, the nature of those symbols begins to take on a far, far, deeper and more transcendent nature than when used 'back on the ground' by your average parishioner, so to speak, using them to talk about values, meaning, etc. You transcend symbols to the point of simple Being, and to ALL without any 'you' or 'god'. Nothing and Everything in SOURCE.

 

Now from that realization of, apprehension of non-dual ALL, we see that there is no division, no duality. And in trying to allow our language, our systems of symbols and myths to reflect this, the closer we move as a whole, individuals, societies, cultures to that state of unity of spirit and the world, with ourselves, with each other, with the Universe. Without argument, our language can either divide or unite us. And when it comes to the language of Spirit within the languages of religion (which includes both spirit and social functional myth language), it needs to get rid of language of division, exclusiveness, to the language of unity and inclusion.

 

My problem with Christianity's language, is that if taken literally, as authoritative - period!, is that it becomes elusive, and that - that is against Spirit. As your experience I suspect exposed to you. And so it becomes the task of finding a way to talk about Reality without violating its deeper Heart or Spirit.

[Guest end3]

And I do think I can see what you are saying, that perhaps the language is just that, but an apple is an apple because it is that all the way through. I can't see yet, and qualify possibly, that the language is not specific to the truth. For me, it is. There in lies the discomfort for me.

I would really enjoy exposing these thoughts about the nature of language a little further. I think it might help shed light on how I perceive things and its impact on the bigger picture.

 

There's one thing you said earlier I want to refer back to as a starting point:

 

I can't find myself in your shoes prescribing something that lacks a larger peer group and condemning something as only myth.

It's that phrase, "only myth" that sticks out to me. Mythological language works. It's functional. It's effective. Effective enough to have allowed our species to advance forward in building effective, functional societies, nations, and empires. It has played a powerful role in the expression of and shaping of values, meaning, ethics, rules, customs, identity, vision, progress, etc of individuals, societies, culture, and to the natural world itself - in both positive, and negative ways. Myth is hardly an "only".

 

 

It's a way of talking about things, a way of framing an understanding through the representation of them. I'm going to reference something from the Christian scholar Burton Mack in referring to a bit of the history of the schools of myth studies and how they evolved historically and are used by ethnographers and cultural anthropologists. From The Christian Myth, pg 17:

 

If the first phase of myth studies was quite content to explain myth away, or at least to explain why the older, archaic and "primitive" myths were now passe, the second phase sought to understand myth as essential for the creation and maintenance of a society. Functionalist theories looked for ways in which myths inculcated values and attitudes. Symbolic Theories emphasized the contribution myths made to images and symbols of importance for the definition, identity, and celebration of a society. Structuralist theories analyzed the way in which myths were put together in order to get at the logic of the story and the mode of thinking of a people. And so, in the hands of ethnographers, myths became essential ingredients in social description and analysis. And in the hands of cultural anthropologists, myths became windows into the otherwise unexpressed ways in which a people imagined themselves, thought about themselves, and negotiated their plans and values.

 

Then we could even talk about the spiritual aspects of myths in Jungian archetypes, which is what Joseph Campbell is all about. And I could go even further into my thoughts how as part of how we developed our use of symbolic systems of language to frame understanding of the world, we carry that forward into 'secular myths', creating icons of Science and Rationality as Symbols of Truth and Light for mankind's expansion into the cosmos. They themselves are of cut of the same cloth in how we developed looking at and interacting with the word. They are 'Secular Gods', replacing the 'Mythical Gods', but myths nonetheless, taking ideas, values, self identity, vision, etc and representing them in ways which themselves, if one applied the scalpel of scrutiny to would see the 'inconsistent rationality' of them. Inconsistent because they are not about facts. They are about the internal truth's seeking representation externally.

 

And that leads to my point about the internal truth, and the symbolic, non-literal nature of language and mythologies. I'll simplify it at this point to repeat and analogy I used recently (I don't think it was in this thread, but somewhere here recently). A child who enthusiastically talks about Santa Clause and his elves, is expressing something extremely *real* internally: love, wonder, joy, hope, happiness, and so on. His world is full of the representational figures that allow him to give expression to and look at rationally for himself, these experiences of his nature as human. As an adult, needing to navigate life in more 'mature' ways because of the necessity of society to function on more complex levels, he needs to advance his base of language and symbolic representation to more functional systems.

 

And when it comes to expressing those internal realities, such as as love, hope, value, meaning, etc, his language about them will follow suit with the rest of his more functional ways of talking about the world, and find a language less tied to mythical beings and whatnot, yet still richly symbolic nonetheless, like the symbol of a rose, the grandeur of nature in the sky, etc. But his experiences in his mythical world as a child, and as an adult were consistent and real and valid, no matter how he expressed them. He still embraced Love. He still experienced it, regardless of how he symbolized it.

 

I see your point as I can see that not everyone connects to God via the same symbolic means. But how can we say that the truth that is at the end of the discovery is certainly not one set of symbols that we now recognize. Again, I have experienced what you are describing in both of my sisters....so I do not feel that I am ammune to your proposal.

 

At some point, in how I would call an existential experience, a mystical communion, your mind and point of view bypasses any use of language and symbols and fuses directly with It itself in uncluttered immersion and unity with, of being and becoming. And it is also well appropriate as one moves more to that state out of this world of society, sense of self, others, nature, etc, the symbols become closer to Source, further from manifestation (world). It is stages of transcendence. So when you, or others of mystical paths within various religions touch the divine, the nature of those symbols begins to take on a far, far, deeper and more transcendent nature than when used 'back on the ground' by your average parishioner, so to speak, using them to talk about values, meaning, etc. You transcend symbols to the point of simple Being, and to ALL without any 'you' or 'god'. Nothing and Everything in SOURCE.

 

Now from that realization of, apprehension of non-dual ALL, we see that there is no division, no duality. And in trying to allow our language, our systems of symbols and myths to reflect this, the closer we move as a whole, individuals, societies, cultures to that state of unity of spirit and the world, with ourselves, with each other, with the Universe. Without argument, our language can either divide or unite us. And when it comes to the language of Spirit within the languages of religion (which includes both spirit and social functional myth language), it needs to get rid of language of division, exclusiveness, to the language of unity and inclusion.

 

My problem with Christianity's language, is that if taken literally, as authoritative - period!, is that it becomes elusive, and that - that is against Spirit. As your experience I suspect exposed to you. And so it becomes the task of finding a way to talk about Reality without violating its deeper Heart or Spirit.

 

Compare experiences? Any suggestions?

 

One thing that did come to mind this morning.......part of my "experience" included an understanding to how my behavior was contrary to "It". I think we can both agree that contrary to "It" won't allow you to access "It"?

[Antlerman]

I see your point as I can see that not everyone connects to God via the same symbolic means. But how can we say that the truth that is at the end of the discovery is certainly not one set of symbols that we now recognize.

Because at the end, there are no more symbols, no more forms. The many is ONE. Formless. We are no longer talking about subject and object. God is no longer object. I am no longer subject. It is the end of form, the end of language.

 

What I opened up before in saying that your experience no doubt has taken the meaning of those symbols and transcended them for you to something far greater in scope and depth, and undoubtedly more inclusive in vision, is indication of the use of those symbols loosing their more 'earth-bound' connections as you move closer to the non-dual. The language becomes inadequate. Poetry becomes closer to expressing it, but is itself still form. "Words cannot express" is true for a reason. The more you define God, the less you apprehend it.

 

Therefore, I argue, the more into Spirit you move, then less value words have. It is not apprehended with reason through words, through symbols. It transcends reason and words. You only use words to attempt to describe it as you are moving away from it, not as you are moving closer towards it.

 

My problem with Christianity's language, is that if taken literally, as authoritative - period!, is that it becomes elusive, and that - that is against Spirit. As your experience I suspect exposed to you. And so it becomes the task of finding a way to talk about Reality without violating its deeper Heart or Spirit.

 

Compare experiences? Any suggestions?

Yes. But more than that, I think we can talk about it, but slapping names on it, let alone a host of human-level behaviors ascribed to it reduces it in our minds, and our hearts will respond accordingly. But my suggestion is to see it as the Source of all, and all returning to Source. That sort of language does not make you one of God's elect, chosen and separate, destined for eternal life after death, etc. That language has the many, all forms, you and me and everyone and everything else, manifestation and expression of ONE. Now, with that in mind, tell me if we have more or less of a way to talk with each other, to unite, to respect, to celebrate, to understand, and to make peace, first in ourselves and through that to others?

 

One thing that did come to mind this morning.......part of my "experience" included an understanding to how my behavior was contrary to "It". I think we can both agree that contrary to "It" won't allow you to access "It"?

Yes. Just like irresponsibly eating a constant diet of deep fried foods, smoking, drinking heavily etc lead to the body's vitality suffering, so too our choices of unmanaged thoughts, focus, obsessions, etc that lead to behaviors will in fact hamper us in access to that center through ourselves, through our mind and will. Think of it like this. How clearly can you think when you've been drinking? If you need clarity, you need a clear mind.

 

One thing I feel to mention, BTW, is that it's not so much the behavior itself, as it is what is in mind, what mind's focus is, that leads to behavior. It's not the behavior, but the state of mind that causes a problem. The behavior is simply a symptom, not the cause. But the behavior does stand for a good indicator of something wrong that needs attention. The question is then one of choice. What do you prefer, the indulgence or the health?

[Guest end3]

I see your point as I can see that not everyone connects to God via the same symbolic means. But how can we say that the truth that is at the end of the discovery is certainly not one set of symbols that we now recognize.

Because at the end, there are no more symbols, no more forms. The many is ONE. Formless. We are no longer talking about subject and object. God is no longer object. I am no longer subject. It is the end of form, the end of language.

 

What I opened up before in saying that your experience no doubt has taken the meaning of those symbols and transcended them for you to something far greater in scope and depth, and undoubtedly more inclusive in vision, is indication of the use of those symbols loosing their more 'earth-bound' connections as you move closer to the non-dual. The language becomes inadequate. Poetry becomes closer to expressing it, but is itself still form. "Words cannot express" is true for a reason. The more you define God, the less you apprehend it.

 

I agree in theory to an extent, but feel that I am farther back on the path than I thought. The transcendence through these "symbols" was exactly dual at the time of my experience. It was an experience that showed me the way I was living counter to "it", and the deception behind the reasoning. It was though, dual. Moving forward I see that the experience has moved me closer to a non-dual oneness. Given that, my experiencial "glow" is fading. What is next in God? Faith moves me there, not by an invalid path, but by rythms and seasons that are dictated by God himself.

 

Therefore, I argue, the more into Spirit you move, then less value words have. It is not apprehended with reason through words, through symbols. It transcends reason and words. You only use words to attempt to describe it as you are moving away from it, not as you are moving closer towards it.

 

Certainly the few seconds I experienced were profound, a clarity of understanding regarding 25 years of my life that were healed in three seconds. That pinpoint touch was, I am sure, just that, leaving an understanding about the fullness of God as being without words.

 

Yes. But more than that, I think we can talk about it, but slapping names on it, let alone a host of human-level behaviors ascribed to it reduces it in our minds, and our hearts will respond accordingly. But my suggestion is to see it as the Source of all, and all returning to Source. That sort of language does not make you one of God's elect, chosen and separate, destined for eternal life after death, etc. That language has the many, all forms, you and me and everyone and everything else, manifestation and expression of ONE. Now, with that in mind, tell me if we have more or less of a way to talk with each other, to unite, to respect, to celebrate, to understand, and to make peace, first in ourselves and through that to others?

 

The invalid use of these symbols and language appears to be more the issue. What about music, art, children, humanity? I don't disagree with your Source language, but it does make me question the language that blooms but does not form fruit.

 

One thing I feel to mention, BTW, is that it's not so much the behavior itself, as it is what is in mind, what mind's focus is, that leads to behavior. It's not the behavior, but the state of mind that causes a problem. The behavior is simply a symptom, not the cause. But the behavior does stand for a good indicator of something wrong that needs attention. The question is then one of choice. What do you prefer, the indulgence or the health?

 

I think this is pretty straightforward....yes, I think we cling to choices out of necessity, but that doesn't mean that these branches are a necessity for the life of the tree, nor make it more appealing to the birds.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

You could also find yourself non-existent.

Legion, that is impossible you know. One can't have an experience of non-existence.

How dare you point that out! Who are you to point out flaws in my thinking!

 

You just wait till you find yourself non-existent. I’ll be right there too... laughing.

 

Cool! We can laugh, drink and party to the non-existent hours of the non-existent morning! This could go on until infinity!

 

You know, I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "Honk if you don't exist."

 

People do honk. And not due to my driving!

[Antlerman]

I agree in theory to an extent, but feel that I am farther back on the path than I thought. The transcendence through these "symbols" was exactly dual at the time of my experience. It was an experience that showed me the way I was living counter to "it", and the deception behind the reasoning. It was though, dual. Moving forward I see that the experience has moved me closer to a non-dual oneness.

I should point something out that might help avoid unnecessary comparisons. Descriptions of transcendence moving towards the nondual are at best inadequate models, but serve a purpose for discussion only as some frame of reference. These 'levels' tend to sound very linear, like you're here at this level, and there's that next level about that, and then another level above that, etc. Where as the reality of it is someone can leap up to 'higher level' experience bypassing other stages. The nondual is seen as the highest state, however at any level there are higher and deeper realizations of that, just as within Godhead there is infinite level and infinite depth.

 

In no way should that be a matter of comparison and value judgment. Any higher realization is profound and life changing. To be engulfed in divine light as observer and participant, is incredibly profound. Your hand touches the divine with freedom. It's impact and effect is deep and lasting.

 

Given that, my experiencial "glow" is fading. What is next in God? Faith moves me there, not by an invalid path, but by rythms and seasons that are dictated by God himself.

There's a phrase that is used that is 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. It describes a period following tasting Universal Being, but not established in it. To see the light and see it fade back. It becomes an agony. A crisis of spirit. Now what?

 

It was that agony that sent me off in search of that light again, and the sad saga of my history I related to you above. I can only offer you my advise, that I wished I would have heard to meet me where I was back then. All doctrines and teachings are merely external attempt to describe it, and that those will all reflect a certain level of knowledge or awareness of it, some good, some bad. But none of them will give it to you or take you there.

 

It is an individual search within. It is the pursuit of clarity, the pursuit of what is inside you, without the distractions of doctrines and theologies. Its the pursuit of the nature of Spirit. By looking out, or up, or anywhere external, you will be met with forms and descriptions. And though Spirit is present everywhere and can be felt and witnessed, its awareness in you only arises from within as you allow it. It's like I said before, it comes from inside you, but exists everywhere. In my crisis it was my mind realizing the my spirit was fading out of me and the terror of that death that provoked a great moment of my will responding to it which opened me completely and allowed its absolute manifestation. It was in me and came to me.

 

So be true to it, not some chuch teachings or descriptions. Seek it within, find it everywhere, move within it, find its light in you and let it become you and you it. See the world as it. It's not about religion. Its about Life and Light in the World, in you and from you from ONE. Follow that.

 

 

Certainly the few seconds I experienced were profound, a clarity of understanding regarding 25 years of my life that were healed in three seconds. That pinpoint touch was, I am sure, just that, leaving an understanding about the fullness of God as being without words.

I think you will begin to find just how much a part of that you were, how much more you are than your realize. Our culture has taught to externalize this. You'll be amazed how much depth of the divine there is in you. It only about peeling back the layers covering the core that is in you. You opened that door. It is in you. It was about you wanting it, allowing it to come out. It always has been, it always is.

 

Yes. But more than that, I think we can talk about it, but slapping names on it, let alone a host of human-level behaviors ascribed to it reduces it in our minds, and our hearts will respond accordingly. But my suggestion is to see it as the Source of all, and all returning to Source. That sort of language does not make you one of God's elect, chosen and separate, destined for eternal life after death, etc. That language has the many, all forms, you and me and everyone and everything else, manifestation and expression of ONE. Now, with that in mind, tell me if we have more or less of a way to talk with each other, to unite, to respect, to celebrate, to understand, and to make peace, first in ourselves and through that to others?

 

The invalid use of these symbols and language appears to be more the issue. What about music, art, children, humanity? I don't disagree with your Source language, but it does make me question the language that blooms but does not form fruit.

I won't disagree that the misuse of language causes damage. Absolutely true. But the more important point to understand is that the words are signs, pointers, not the the thing itself. And as describers, they are imperfect. When someone gets literal with them, they replace what is pointed to with the sign itself, and miss it completely in the end as they worship the signs as the Truth™. That's one huge reason looking at the Bible as the Authoritative Word of God™, does far more harm than good.

 

As far as music, art, etc, they are good at liberating one aesthetically from the world of descriptions (which is why I think not-literal myth has value as well), but it is where it helps move you to, so you can go to that space within to find truth that they are important. The problem with words, especially with our culture, is that we are too much damned literalists. We interpret things with our heads, our reason, etc. And that's the problem even trying to use words at all, even the ones I'm using.

 

There is value for me reading descriptions about the divine, because I've experienced it. I get out from it what I bring with it, from internal experience. But it cannot impart, nor ever will impart, its nature to you. You can talk about me, you can describe me, you can evaluate me, you can even make comparisons about me with others to gain information and knowledge about me, but none of those inform you about me like me informing you about me. It is subjective communication, not objective evaluation. You will never know me by reading about me.

[Guest end3]

Here's one for you AM....I did the children's sermon last week paralleling Disney's Magic Kingdom to the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

Mickey holds the magic/king = Jesus.

Joy in your heart when you arrive.

Get mouse ears vs. a crown

 

You would be surprised the number of adults who made a point to come tell me how they liked it. I thought you would find it interesting.

[Antlerman]

Here's one for you AM....I did the children's sermon last week paralleling Disney's Magic Kingdom to the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

Mickey holds the magic/king = Jesus.

Joy in your heart when you arrive.

Get mouse ears vs. a crown

 

You would be surprised the number of adults who made a point to come tell me how they liked it. I thought you would find it interesting.

My thoughts?

 

 

You can't have a story without a villain.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, it does confirm something to me, and I suspect you as well.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[Guest end3]

I agree in theory to an extent, but feel that I am farther back on the path than I thought. The transcendence through these "symbols" was exactly dual at the time of my experience. It was an experience that showed me the way I was living counter to "it", and the deception behind the reasoning. It was though, dual. Moving forward I see that the experience has moved me closer to a non-dual oneness.

I should point something out that might help avoid unnecessary comparisons. Descriptions of transcendence moving towards the nondual are at best inadequate models, but serve a purpose for discussion only as some frame of reference. These 'levels' tend to sound very linear, like you're here at this level, and there's that next level about that, and then another level above that, etc. Where as the reality of it is someone can leap up to 'higher level' experience bypassing other stages. The nondual is seen as the highest state, however at any level there are higher and deeper realizations of that, just as within Godhead there is infinite level and infinite depth.

 

In no way should that be a matter of comparison and value judgment. Any higher realization is profound and life changing. To be engulfed in divine light as observer and participant, is incredibly profound. Your hand touches the divine with freedom. It's impact and effect is deep and lasting.

 

Given that, my experiencial "glow" is fading. What is next in God? Faith moves me there, not by an invalid path, but by rythms and seasons that are dictated by God himself.

There's a phrase that is used that is 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. It describes a period following tasting Universal Being, but not established in it. To see the light and see it fade back. It becomes an agony. A crisis of spirit. Now what?

 

It was that agony that sent me off in search of that light again, and the sad saga of my history I related to you above. I can only offer you my advise, that I wished I would have heard to meet me where I was back then. All doctrines and teachings are merely external attempt to describe it, and that those will all reflect a certain level of knowledge or awareness of it, some good, some bad. But none of them will give it to you or take you there.

 

It is an individual search within. It is the pursuit of clarity, the pursuit of what is inside you, without the distractions of doctrines and theologies. Its the pursuit of the nature of Spirit. By looking out, or up, or anywhere external, you will be met with forms and descriptions. And though Spirit is present everywhere and can be felt and witnessed, its awareness in you only arises from within as you allow it. It's like I said before, it comes from inside you, but exists everywhere. In my crisis it was my mind realizing the my spirit was fading out of me and the terror of that death that provoked a great moment of my will responding to it which opened me completely and allowed its absolute manifestation. It was in me and came to me.

 

So be true to it, not some chuch teachings or descriptions. Seek it within, find it everywhere, move within it, find its light in you and let it become you and you it. See the world as it. It's not about religion. Its about Life and Light in the World, in you and from you from ONE. Follow that.

 

 

Certainly the few seconds I experienced were profound, a clarity of understanding regarding 25 years of my life that were healed in three seconds. That pinpoint touch was, I am sure, just that, leaving an understanding about the fullness of God as being without words.

I think you will begin to find just how much a part of that you were, how much more you are than your realize. Our culture has taught to externalize this. You'll be amazed how much depth of the divine there is in you. It only about peeling back the layers covering the core that is in you. You opened that door. It is in you. It was about you wanting it, allowing it to come out. It always has been, it always is.

 

Yes. But more than that, I think we can talk about it, but slapping names on it, let alone a host of human-level behaviors ascribed to it reduces it in our minds, and our hearts will respond accordingly. But my suggestion is to see it as the Source of all, and all returning to Source. That sort of language does not make you one of God's elect, chosen and separate, destined for eternal life after death, etc. That language has the many, all forms, you and me and everyone and everything else, manifestation and expression of ONE. Now, with that in mind, tell me if we have more or less of a way to talk with each other, to unite, to respect, to celebrate, to understand, and to make peace, first in ourselves and through that to others?

 

The invalid use of these symbols and language appears to be more the issue. What about music, art, children, humanity? I don't disagree with your Source language, but it does make me question the language that blooms but does not form fruit.

I won't disagree that the misuse of language causes damage. Absolutely true. But the more important point to understand is that the words are signs, pointers, not the the thing itself. And as describers, they are imperfect. When someone gets literal with them, they replace what is pointed to with the sign itself, and miss it completely in the end as they worship the signs as the Truth. That's one huge reason looking at the Bible as the Authoritative Word of God, does far more harm than good.

 

As far as music, art, etc, they are good at liberating one aesthetically from the world of descriptions (which is why I think not-literal myth has value as well), but it is where it helps move you to, so you can go to that space within to find truth that they are important. The problem with words, especially with our culture, is that we are too much damned literalists. We interpret things with our heads, our reason, etc. And that's the problem even trying to use words at all, even the ones I'm using.

 

There is value for me reading descriptions about the divine, because I've experienced it. I get out from it what I bring with it, from internal experience. But it cannot impart, nor ever will impart, its nature to you. You can talk about me, you can describe me, you can evaluate me, you can even make comparisons about me with others to gain information and knowledge about me, but none of those inform you about me like me informing you about me. It is subjective communication, not objective evaluation. You will never know me by reading about me.

 

Thank you for the thoughts. By my experience, I will have to keep them in a place and feel they will resurface "as a sign"...but I think that is all we have sometimes....a sincere sign for others. Our entire existence is a relationship of language/signs....from nature to nurture. It is indescribable, but it's there, it came to see me, and gave me a an understanding of where I was out of sync with it, yet through tremendous relief. I will have to write it down....a relationship, a sign.

[Guest end3]

Where do we place that guilt against the Creator/creation, not out of our inherent worthlessness, but by sharing in the death/ache of the creation and accepting the guilt, the burden of ourselves in sin and helping others with relief?

 

Anybody.......tell me.

[Antlerman]

Our entire existence is a relationship of language/signs....from nature to nurture. It is indescribable, but it's there, it came to see me, and gave me a an understanding of where I was out of sync with it, yet through tremendous relief. I will have to write it down....a relationship, a sign.

I also recognize that there is that place of going beyond that relationship of language/signs to an existential knowing, existential being. The spiritual. Setting aside the signs, the forms, the thoughts of rational looking in that state allows itself to become revealed experientially, to our non-rational self.

 

In other words, signs are a function of the rational, a tool of comprehending forms, order, in order to relate it to our external world. The non-rational transcends signs. It is the space of inner being without the clutter of signs in its space drawing away focus. Signs point to the door, but don't take you inside. And its important to understand the nature of that and keep the existential experience of it close to heart, so as its light fades when we move back into the world of shadows, that we don't mistake those signs for the light itself. They are reflections of light, not the light itself.

 

Where do we place that guilt against the Creator/creation, not out of our inherent worthlessness, but by sharing in the death/ache of the creation and accepting the guilt, the burden of ourselves in sin and helping others with relief?

 

Anybody.......tell me.

Certainly others should respond to you as well, but I'll reply to this one too.

 

Guilt is interesting. I don't think I've ever discussed that topic before in any depth. Guilt is a product of our cultural worldspace. I don't believe it is anything that is part of a relationship with the spiritual in us. Not being in sync with, as you put it, that part of ourselves is simply a recognition of something not working to support that in us. It would be like coming to the 'revelation' that using a handful of dirt to wash your car with is counterproductive, if the goal is to remove dirt from it. Feelings of guilt are purely irrelevant to enacting a change in behaviors that will help you accomplish that goal. You simply start with the desire for a clean car, then find the tools which are the most effective and beneficial towards that end, learning in part through trial and error what works and what doesn't.

 

Feelings of guilt over failures of realization that a sponge works better than a rock to spread water around are counterproductive. You expend your energies and distract your focus away from the clean car to pity yourself for not realizing the right way to do things in the first place! That is a useless exercise, and frankly highly detrimental to getting your car clean. Instead of using the resources of your mind and creatively to help you get the car clean, you're looking down at the ground and kicking the dirt and pitying yourself for being so dumb. The car remains dirty while you wallow in self-pity, giving you even more reason to beat yourself up in a vicious circle of ineffective behaviors.

 

One can argue that guilt 'motivates' change, but I would argue against that. There is a difference between feeling sorrow for actions that caused harm to others and allowing that to bring about change in yourself because you desire the positive instead, and the self punishment of guilt. Guilt leaves you condemned and incarcerated in a prison of self design, with the keys to released clutched tightly in the hands of self pity. "I am unworthy!", we cry to ourselves. You make yourself unworthy by belief. Actions may be bad, but worthiness to pursue light is an entirely different matter. Your actions are bad, not you.

 

When it comes to remorse over not acting in productive or healthful ways spiritually, as we've been talking about, one thing that might help it to realize that it's yourself you have let down or harmed, not 'God' or Spirit. You had cut yourself off, then through a desire inside beyond the reaches of your rational thoughts, you, chose. In that act, that part of you opened you up to something that is there - everywhere. The realization of it frees you from all those ineffective, limiting actions we take in our lives - such as guilt, the ignorance of others in our minds, the limitations we've placed on ourselves through the darkness of our own imaginings, etc. The experience of transcendence offers a freeing perspective above the world of our languages, signs, forms, etc., to see with greater clarity.

 

One thing to mention is that one effect that may occur, as it did for me, was that there was a washing of the soul in the release of guilt and fears in a flood of tears that came pouring out of me. That was about me coming out of my own world of dark imaginings into the light of Realization, the Realization of the Nature that was mine and in the World. That I was part of an unimaginably radiant state of Absolute existence, and it in me. It was less an act of remorse than a profound emotional response from sudden Freedom. There is no reason to feel guilt. It doesn't exist there. It's only part of the darkness of our own flawed imagining.

 

Now, I could talk about the sorts of signs that people create to express this, but it should be somewhat self-obvious. One thing I will add though, is that it bothers me when Christians say that their system of signs is unique (and therefore the only valid one), is that all of these things are experienced as part of that Natural system, and not through the signs. Theirs is just a way to talk about it, but as I said above, once the way to talk about it becomes the object of truth itself, then the truth becomes obscured or lost altogether.

[Shyone]

Where do we place that guilt against the Creator/creation, not out of our inherent worthlessness, but by sharing in the death/ache of the creation and accepting the guilt, the burden of ourselves in sin and helping others with relief?

 

Anybody.......tell me.

Huh?

 

Guilt against the creator/creation? I have none. I like most of the way things work, even if nature is somewhat capricious and uncaring.

 

Inherent worthlessness? I feel I have done things for my fellow humans that are worth something; I am worth a lot to those who love me; and so the idea of being worthless is simply untrue. We can, and should, do what we can when we can for each other, even if only for friends and family.

 

Sharing in death/ache? The universe is alive, vibrant, interesting and challenging. Death is a part of life that we must accept, but life itself is worth living. Not death. Focusing on death is counter productive (unless you sell caskets).

 

Accepting the guilt, the burden of ourselves in sin? Again, no guilt, our only burdens are to succeed in life (however we define that), and sin is a concept that is meaningless. Do no wrong to another, even indirectly, and that will benefit everyone.

 

"Death, sin, worthless". Joy, happiness, helpfulness.

 

Get a grip. Life is for the living, and life is precious. You only have this one go around.

[NotBlinded]

Where do we place that guilt against the Creator/creation, not out of our inherent worthlessness, but by sharing in the death/ache of the creation and accepting the guilt, the burden of ourselves in sin and helping others with relief?

 

Anybody.......tell me.

Christianity has done a wonderful job of instutionalizing guilt and making it a virtue within the system itself. The more guilty one is, the better a Christian they are.

 

Antlerman has a much kinder way of expressing this than I do because it really angers me that people are seen as more worthy the more guilty they feel. It has become so much of a virtue that one can't really see it for what it is. It is self-pity cloaked in piousness. We don't, or shouldn't, want to help others because of our own burdens in "sin". We should help others because of empathy. We may understand what it means to have gone through something like drug addiction or gambling or anything else that considered a "sin". What good does it do to make a person feel even worse by telling them that yes, those are sins, and you can stop...you must stop? I would think it would do better to say that those things are damaging to yourself and your own well being. You are not a worthless sinner, you are a wonderful person that made some choices that harmed yourself and those around you. Why punish them more? Why make them feel even more low than they already do? Does it make them a better person to say, "Yes, I am a lowly sinner! Save me!? No, that just destroys their own self-worth even more.

 

A person that thinks less about their own worthlessness has more time and ambition to help others out of joy, not guilt.

[Guest end3]

I believe we are in the context of acknowledging God. So let's keep it in that context. If you can't go there, I wish that you could. If we are discussing God as nature, nurture, then harm to that and those within by definition places guilt on the perpitrator. I have come to a place where I have realized who and what I have hurt and by what means this has hurt "It", the Creator, God, Jesus.

 

I don't know how I can just cast off this 25+ years of crap to, "well, the universe is a nasty place anyhow" or "there is no god". I can't do that in light of my experience.

 

Now, in my statement, I believe that people confuse guilt/sin with the fact that God created man as condemned. No. I did not say that, and in no way do I believe that, so please place that argument off the table.

 

 

NBB, I think you are missing the point. Again, how can we have empathy unless we feel the guilt. It is not false piety, and I resent that view. No, you can't divert the guilt, who other to apologize to than to God?

 

And again, there is a distinct difference in guilt and sorrow. Sorrow has no guilt. Two different things. Guilt says you had intent...which I did later in my transgressions.

[Antlerman]

It is self-pity cloaked in piousness. We don't, or shouldn't, want to help others because of our own burdens in "sin". We should help others because of empathy.

 

...

 

A person that thinks less about their own worthlessness has more time and ambition to help others out of joy, not guilt.

This is something I thought about after my post this morning I think it beneficial to add. I think something vital to understand about the pursuit of developing ones connection with their spiritual nature, or "God" if you wish, is not about finding peace or enlightenment for yourself, though that is profoundly meaningful. It's about moving beyond yourself, into the greater fabric of connection with the world. In order to have empathy, we must move beyond ourselves.

 

Moving upward, out of systems that limit and box in the world to a set of prescribed theologies or locked systems of a reductionist, clockwork universe, opens us up to something higher in ourselves, which when freed, is able to see beyond itself - to move beyond an egocentric worldview. And I will add, in my opinion, experience, and observation, that moving outward from ourselves to others, is a natural result of that movement. It's what happens. It's not just about 'finding God', it's about moving out from Source into the world in Spirit. Duality vanishes and is resolved in Spirit. All is radiant manifestation and there is pure Unity of Spirit and Form; no division of I, We, and It. Every movement up, results in movement out.

 

Every fiber of my being revolts at the sin of calling any living creature, or manifestation of form "unworthy". Absolutely we are all inherently worthy. We are the unfolding and enfolding of Creation from itself and to itself. How dare any man judge another, or himself, as unworthy. We have inherent worth, as all has.

[Antlerman]

Again, how can we have empathy unless we feel the guilt.

I just explained this in my post above this one. Up and Out. Not guilt then love. Higher Love, then fuller Love. You can't look up, when you're looking down.

[Guest end3]

It is self-pity cloaked in piousness. We don't, or shouldn't, want to help others because of our own burdens in "sin". We should help others because of empathy.

 

...

 

A person that thinks less about their own worthlessness has more time and ambition to help others out of joy, not guilt.

This is something I thought about after my post this morning I think it beneficial to add. I think something vital to understand about the pursuit of developing ones connection with their spiritual nature, or "God" if you wish, is not about finding peace or enlightenment for yourself, though that is profoundly meaningful. It's about moving beyond yourself, into the greater fabric of connection with the world. In order to have empathy, we must move beyond ourselves.

 

Moving upward, out of systems that limit and box in the world to a set of prescribed theologies or locked systems of a reductionist, clockwork universe, opens us up to something higher in ourselves, which when freed, is able to see beyond itself - to move beyond an egocentric worldview. And I will add, in my opinion, experience, and observation, that moving outward from ourselves to others, is a natural result of that movement. It's what happens. It's not just about 'finding God', it's about moving out from Source into the world in Spirit. Duality vanishes and is resolved in Spirit. All is radiant manifestation and there is pure Unity of Spirit and Form; no division of I, We, and It. Every movement up, results in movement out.

 

Every fiber of my being revolts at the sin of calling any living creature, or manifestation of form "unworthy". Absolutely we are all inherently worthy. We are the unfolding and enfolding of Creation from itself and to itself. How dare any man judge another, or himself, as unworthy. We have inherent worth, as all has.

 

See, I am going to go ahead and agree here. But with this understanding, that is it not rational to think that my behavior towards everything worthy was just.

 

And again, the beauty of Jesus, is that upon the repentance to Him, it has been accomplished through Him, the redemption from my transgression. It is freeing, with no remaining guilt calling myself a sorry soul every day. No, it is a joy to realize the beauty of the creation/Creator and LIVE in that manner. The guilt is done. It was a season. Stop with that understanding.

[NotBlinded]

I believe we are in the context of acknowledging God. So let's keep it in that context. If you can't go there, I wish that you could. If we are discussing God as nature, nurture, then harm to that and those within by definition places guilt on the perpitrator. I have come to a place where I have realized who and what I have hurt and by what means this has hurt "It", the Creator, God, Jesus.

 

I don't know how I can just cast off this 25+ years of crap to, "well, the universe is a nasty place anyhow" or "there is no god". I can't do that in light of my experience.

 

Now, in my statement, I believe that people confuse guilt/sin with the fact that God created man as condemned. No. I did not say that, and in no way do I believe that, so please place that argument off the table.

 

 

NBB, I think you are missing the point. Again, how can we have empathy unless we feel the guilt. It is not false piety, and I resent that view. No, you can't divert the guilt, who other to apologize to than to God?

 

And again, there is a distinct difference in guilt and sorrow. Sorrow has no guilt. Two different things. Guilt says you had intent...which I did later in my transgressions.

Then maybe I misunderstood your post. In looking back, yes, I did. You said, "not out of our inherent worthlessness...". I apologize End.

 

Let me erase my prejudices and try again.

 

Who other to apologize to? Forgiving ourselves is a good place to start.

 

You said that guilt has intent. I'm not sure I would always agree though. I'm sure many times it does, but not always. I also think that guilt has very little to do with empathy. Guilt may trigger a response in a person, but it does so by the means of self-rejection and self-scorn. There isn't a higher purpose in guilt motivated behavior.

 

It's like when my daughter feels guilty about leaving things laying around (not intentionally) and finally picks them up. This means very little to me and she doesn't like doing it. But, the other day, she went in and completely cleaned and rearranged the bathroom and it looked wonderful! This had us both in total joy. She wasn't motivated by guilt, but by love, empathy and compassion towards her ol' mommy!

 

Again, I apologize for misreading your post.

[NotBlinded]

This is something I thought about after my post this morning I think it beneficial to add. I think something vital to understand about the pursuit of developing ones connection with their spiritual nature, or "God" if you wish, is not about finding peace or enlightenment for yourself, though that is profoundly meaningful. It's about moving beyond yourself, into the greater fabric of connection with the world. In order to have empathy, we must move beyond ourselves.

Yes, and you know, in moving beyond ourselves and having compassion towards others, we receive it ourselves. The old saying means so much, "Give and you shall receive".

 

Moving upward, out of systems that limit and box in the world to a set of prescribed theologies or locked systems of a reductionist, clockwork universe, opens us up to something higher in ourselves, which when freed, is able to see beyond itself - to move beyond an egocentric worldview. And I will add, in my opinion, experience, and observation, that moving outward from ourselves to others, is a natural result of that movement. It's what happens. It's not just about 'finding God', it's about moving out from Source into the world in Spirit. Duality vanishes and is resolved in Spirit. All is radiant manifestation and there is pure Unity of Spirit and Form; no division of I, We, and It. Every movement up, results in movement out.

If there is any "I" in seeking and in giving, Spirit is lost. I think this is where things become hard to understand when looking superficially. If we have any intent to serve ourselves in helping others, we don't receive. But, we receive so much when not trying to! This is why when one gives to only recieve, they are left wondering why haven't I received? When one is motivated by guilt, this is no different because one is trying to recieve a clear conscious by doing something out of self-service.

 

Every fiber of my being revolts at the sin of calling any living creature, or manifestation of form "unworthy". Absolutely we are all inherently worthy. We are the unfolding and enfolding of Creation from itself and to itself. How dare any man judge another, or himself, as unworthy. We have inherent worth, as all has.

I sooooo disagree!!!

 

Well, damnit, I just wanted to say that. I don't mean it, but I never get the chance to say it!

[NotBlinded]

We have empathy when we can forgive ourselves. When we can't divert responsibility, and must accept it on ourselves, we do what we can to make amends, to reconcile. And sometimes there is nothing to do to make direct amends, so we choose to improve ourselves, to not recommit the harm, and to "pay it forward" to another (deposit into the collective). In the cases where even that is not possible, we apologize to ourselves, and forgive ourselves. If I cannot forgive myself, I cannot forgive another who commits the same transgression (i.e. have empathy).

 

Be well.

 

Phanta

Another mind that thinks alike. Uhhhhohhhhh.

[Guest end3]

And again, the beauty of Jesus, is that upon the repentance to Him, it has been accomplished through Him, the redemption from my transgression. It is freeing, with no remaining guilt calling myself a sorry soul every day.

 

Sure, if your guilt is stemming from a fear of God's punishment or condemnation. In this system, Jesus is a way to protect you from...Jesus, I guess. But not all guilt is fear of the judgment or punishment of God. Some is the fear of judgment or punishment of fellow people, or of natural consequences. Guilt = fear.

 

Phanta

 

I agree, I am stemming from the reality that someone else, Jesus in this case, took my punishment, for something that I actually deserved. And the remarkable thing......I didn't even understand the mechanism for my transgression. And then, when finding out, you think, oh shit, not only have I hurt the creation, I have hurt the one that created it. And in this case, crucified someone else. Now, how could there be tremendous relief in this knowing? My relief is real, knowing that God can identify with what I have done, and that He says in effect, "I have you covered, son". Jesus is a way to steer you from evil.

 

Main Entry: sal·va·tion

Pronunciation: \sal-ˈvā-shən\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English salvacion, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin salvation-, salvatio, from salvare to save — more at save

Date: 13th century

1 a : deliverance from the power and effects of sin b : the agent or means that effects salvation c Christian Science : the realization of the supremacy of infinite Mind over all bringing with it the destruction of the illusion of sin, sickness, and death

2 : liberation from ignorance or illusion

3 a : preservation from destruction or failure b : deliverance from danger or difficulty

[Guest end3]

I believe we are in the context of acknowledging God. So let's keep it in that context. If you can't go there, I wish that you could. If we are discussing God as nature, nurture, then harm to that and those within by definition places guilt on the perpitrator. I have come to a place where I have realized who and what I have hurt and by what means this has hurt "It", the Creator, God, Jesus.

 

I don't know how I can just cast off this 25+ years of crap to, "well, the universe is a nasty place anyhow" or "there is no god". I can't do that in light of my experience.

 

Now, in my statement, I believe that people confuse guilt/sin with the fact that God created man as condemned. No. I did not say that, and in no way do I believe that, so please place that argument off the table.

 

 

NBB, I think you are missing the point. Again, how can we have empathy unless we feel the guilt. It is not false piety, and I resent that view. No, you can't divert the guilt, who other to apologize to than to God?

 

And again, there is a distinct difference in guilt and sorrow. Sorrow has no guilt. Two different things. Guilt says you had intent...which I did later in my transgressions.

Then maybe I misunderstood your post. In looking back, yes, I did. You said, "not out of our inherent worthlessness...". I apologize End.

 

Let me erase my prejudices and try again.

 

Who other to apologize to? Forgiving ourselves is a good place to start.

 

You said that guilt has intent. I'm not sure I would always agree though. I'm sure many times it does, but not always. I also think that guilt has very little to do with empathy. Guilt may trigger a response in a person, but it does so by the means of self-rejection and self-scorn. There isn't a highter purpose in guilt motivated behavior.

 

It's like when my daughter feels guilty about leaving things laying around (not intentionally) and finally picks them up. This means very little to me and she doesn't like doing it. But, the other day, she went in and completely cleaned and rearranged the bathroom and it looked wonderful! This had us both in total joy. She wasn't motivated by guilt, but by love, empathy and compassion towards her ol' mommy!

 

Again, I apologize for misreading your post.

 

Thank you, excellent example.

[Mriana]

"Death, sin, worthless". Joy, happiness, helpfulness.

 

Get a grip. Life is for the living, and life is precious. You only have this one go around.

 

I second that.

 

 

I believe we are in the context of acknowledging God. So let's keep it in that context. If you can't go there, I wish that you could. If we are discussing God as nature, nurture, then harm to that and those within by definition places guilt on the perpitrator. I have come to a place where I have realized who and what I have hurt and by what means this has hurt "It", the Creator, God, Jesus.

 

If you are referring to nature as God, nature does not impose guilt, shame, or what have you. Nature does not have that ability, but when you hold your beloved pet in your arms, you get unconditional love, sometimes even the feeling of transcendence. This is not the same deity you refer to though. Love/nurture does not impose guilt or shame either. This deity has no actual human form, although it can come in that form, but it also comes from animals and the beauty of nature, which makes life more precious, thus we should cherish it, even celebrate such life. However, it is not the deity you speak of and it does not feel hurt in the manner you speak of either. This "IT" is no a creator with a capital "C" either, nor is it God or Jesus. It is chemical in nature, but not a god.

[Guest end3]

I agree, I am stemming from the reality that someone else, Jesus in this case, took my punishment, for something that I actually deserved.

 

Hm. We were talking about guilt...fear of some bad consequence. Jesus or not, I suspect you experience consequences when you screw up. He didn't take your punishment, at least not all of it.

 

Yes we experience consequences....but I used the word steer on purpose. There are worldly consequences and Spiritual conseqences from my God concept, Christianity.

 

And the remarkable thing......I didn't even understand the mechanism for my transgression. And then, when finding out, you think, oh shit, not only have I hurt the creation, I have hurt the one that created it. And in this case, crucified someone else.

 

Is this "oh shit" moment fear?

 

Since you were there sitting next to me while I was crying, the feeling was more like, "Oh God, I am so sorry. I didn't realize". Overwhelming remorse and personal pain to be specific.

 

Now, how could there be tremendous relief in this knowing? My relief is real, knowing that God can identify with what I have done, and that He says in effect, "I have you covered, son". Jesus is a way to steer you from evil.

 

In this scenario, you already did the thing...so...you can't be steered from something you already did. It's still done. The consequences are still playing out.

 

Sure, I could have lived the rest of my life in the same mode as the first 44 years.

[Guest end3]

Main Entry: sal·va·tion

Pronunciation: \sal-ˈvā-shən\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English salvacion, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin salvation-, salvatio, from salvare to save — more at save

Date: 13th century

1 a : deliverance from the power and effects of sin b : the agent or means that effects salvation c Christian Science : the realization of the supremacy of infinite Mind over all bringing with it the destruction of the illusion of sin, sickness, and death

2 : liberation from ignorance or illusion

3 a : preservation from destruction or failure b : deliverance from danger or difficulty

 

Which definition is your understanding focused on?

 

Phanta

 

all of them, I thought I had already related the relations, but I will go point by point if you would like me to