Posts Tagged ‘ACIM’

the road less traveled

February 8, 2012
Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Co...

Image via Wikipedia

 

Am I the one whose attention you seek?

Don’t you believe in your fears and don’t you want to be free
from the limits you claim keep you trapped in the past
and don’t you want me to release the courage you lack?
But what if fear is the first ingredient of courage?
And what if I’m not afraid to let you wallow in fear?
What if I point to truths you pretend you can’t know?
What if I point to myths you pretend can’t be myths?
No,
I’m not the one whose attention you seek
I don’t believe in your fears and I don’t mind if you’re free
You seek people who agree with you that you are trapped
but I’m a threat to the prison that you call your past
It’s a thought that you’re trapped and just a thought that you lack
something like courage that prevents you from freedom
That you’re not free is a thought
that you should be is a thought
and that something should be
may imply that it’s not
so if you should be free
that may mean that you’re trapped
in the thought that you should be
free from all these thoughts
about thinking and courage and freedom and what should be
but thoughts never trapped you
for thoughts cannot touch you
You may have simply pretended to be trapped
and that may have been fun for as long as it lasted
Yeah but I may be the one whose attention you fear
for attention can melt all the myths that you smeared
all over your thoughts and then claimed to be
but you’re not a myth
and you’re not a belief
and you’re not a thought
so you can’t be freed
from you
who do you think you are
who do you think you should be
stop
I think I just figured it out
you know you’ve been a harsh judge
so you fear your own attention
ha!
you try to make up for your past, right?
you want to earn redemption
and to some day get to heaven
but only if you can do it a certain way
right?
well, good intentions
are said to pave the road to hell
so you may choose to take the road less traveled

the rebirth of God

December 25, 2011
the core of all gospels
Have you met different individuals of different sizes and ages? Do you know different creatures including various kinds of animals and plants? Have you learned different words and do you even know of languages foreign to you? You can identify many different perceptions, right? So, could it be that all identifying and all perceiving have a single source?
First, consider that there is only one ultimate authority or power, and one word to label it is God. However, beware of worshiping the label and missing what is symbolized by the label. Note that many labels have been used in many languages for the ultimate authority, which is the source of all of those languages and all of those labels. With caution, use the labels. However, do not make any labels or any symbol in to an idol. That would be an error or mistake or sin or foolishness.
Further, turn away from whatever is troubling to you. Let it be. Choose grace and calm.
Leave your troubles to God. Do not leave God for your troubles, making an excuse of them. That is also idolatry.
If your cleverness is useful when you are relaxed, be grateful. However, if you are troubled and then still presume to rely on your cleverness, you may be humbled. Repent from arrogance. Arrogance is the root of antagonism, arguing, resentment and animosity.
Abandon your troubles while they are still small. Direct your attention away from your troubles toward God.
The ultimate authority organizes the capacity for sensations such as seeing and hearing, plus the capacity for language. God is the source of the interactions and interpretations which lead to perception.
If someone else has a different perception from you, that is natural. Different creatures have different capacities for sensation. A hawk sees better than a human. A dog can smell better than a human. A person who is blind may be able to hear better than most other humans.
Further, one who looks from the peak of a hill has a different view than one who looks from the bottom of a hill. The one on the hilltop can see many distant things which appear small, while the other may study something very close that appears huge. If most everyone has the same perception of something, then a new perspective could be of great benefit and advantage.
Differences in interpretation are the most subtle. When a logger and a squirrel look at the same tree, do they experience the same thing? An squirrel may be looking at the tree for nuts or for a place to rest safely. A logger may be thinking of the value of the wood and of the process of cutting and hauling that tree.
Beware of those who would argue over interpretation. They may not yet recognize the authority of God. They may worship their own conclusions, perceptions, interpretations, and linguistic labels, which is idolatry.
However, it is only natural to have interpretations, perceptions, and conclusions. Hell is the developmental stage of experiencing alternative conclusions as a threat to your arrogance. Of course, alternative conclusions in fact are a threat to your arrogance, but perhaps arrogance is not the most valuable quality you could develop or experience. That may be why God has exposed you to alternative conclusions which you rightly perceive as threats to your arrogance: in order to reveal to you your arrogance and turn your attention toward repenting and to God.
“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:22


I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.”  Isaiah 43:11 

So, if some use repetition of words and songs to turn from whatever troubles them, could that be God’s Will? If some use rituals or scriptures to turn from whatever troubles them, could that also be God’s Will? If some argue with each other and quarrel, leading to the experience of loss and regret and then repent, could that also be God’s Will?

Which of God’s creations is not God’s Will? Which of God’s creation is not the creation of God?

God forms individuals and words and languages. God forms groups and traditions and rituals and songs and oral teachings that may be written and translated and interpreted and argued about and defended with fences and weapons and wars.

So, you may have been taught that God has created you. But have you been taught what God is?


“Timeless truth, I tell you: ‘whoever believes in me, those works which I have done he will also do, and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to the presence of my Father.’ “ John 14:12

What is the source of works greater than the works of a Prophet of God? Further, which of God’s Prophets is not the prophet of God? Indeed, which of God’s religions is not the religion of God? In fact, do all religions point to a few  consistent principles?


“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is corrupt in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is corrupt.” Romans 14:14 

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” Titus 1:15

“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the [harsh, arrogant] words that come out of your mouth…. The [harsh, arrogant] words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you [and disturbs you].” Matthew 15:11, 18
Turn away from whatever troubles you. Turn away from whatever disturbs you. Turn away from evil. Turn away from blame, condemnation, animosity, and arrogance. 

Let attention rest at the source of perception and interpretation and the capacity to create. What is the capacity to create? 

Yeshua said, “Those things which are impossible for people are possible with God.”
Mark 10:27  & Matthew 19:26 & Luke 18:27 & Luke 1:37
The same idea is also in the Old Testament. See
What is a single word for the capacity to create? What is a word for the source of all words, all labels, all conclusions in language, and all formations in language, including this sequence of words and every other sequence of words? What is a word for that which anything is possible?

the birth of the eternal

December 22, 2011

The development of language and the death of the mortal

Perhaps language developed a long time ago. Then, perhaps a particular pattern in language was later formed and then continued for a while, like for instance this sentence, which only exists in language, but then suddenly and permanently stopped.
Now, the beginning and ending of something in language is just how language works. Sentences begin and end. Words begin and end. Sounds and shapes of letters and other linguistic symbols like numbers or punctuation marks are all distinct, isolated bits that have boundaries and beginnings and endings.

So, the fact that one thing ends and then another thing begins is really just a contrivance in language. Language makes up categorical boundaries and then names the two categories as distinct, like day and night. But are day and night really isolated (or “opposites”)? Does one end and then the other begins? Is there ever a time when there is neither day nor night?
For instance, we can say that day ends and night begins. However, day and night are a single cycle that language divides in to a pair, refering to a categorical distinction between the shifting positional relationship between the sun and a particular location on a particular planet.

Thus, day does not actually end. Day just moves. More precisely, the earth is turning and that turning puts different locations of the surface of the earth in the place called day (facing the sun).
Again, day and night are technically not times. They are just relationships between the rotating of the planet and the light of the sun.

So, in a particular place, language can refer to the ending (in time) of the day (as a time). However, day just ends for that place at dusk. Day actually continues, as dusk at one horizon (longitude) is dawn at another horizon (longitude).
Day and night are eternal, but various places move in and out of day and night cyclically. However, language can refer to the ending or beginning of day. As a convenience in language, the phrase “the end of the day” is quite useful. However, that does not make it true in any absolute sense.
Day and night are not isolated. They are not opposites. They are just categorical distinctions in language. Day does not replace night and night does not replace day. The planet just rotates to face the day (the sun) with one section of the planet and to face another section of planet away from the sun (toward the night or “toward the stars” where they are visible without being outshined by the sun).

A visit to the polar regions of this planet (like North of the Arctic circle) reveals that, in fact, there are places on this planet that do not conform to the popular notions of day and night. In those places, there is no such thing (functionally) as day and night. Those “times” of facing toward the sun or away from it are called “summer” and “winter.”
Still, there are cyclic 24-hour variations during the two annual seasons of winter and summer in which the specific brightness of the sun varies. However, those variations are more like the variation between dusk and midnight. Further, in those regions, we could say that there are only two seasons and no such thing as day and night. Or, we could say that one annual cycle of seasons is equal to one cycle of the day and night “of the Gods.”

Along the equator of the earth, there are day and night, but no seasons. At the poles of the earth, there are two seasons, but no day and night.
So, day and night and the seasons are not times. They are relationships of place. Most fundamentally, they are words in language.

Look around you. Is it day or night where you are? What season are you at?
You are not in daytime or in winter. You are at daytime and at winter. They are places. Winter in the northern hemisphere of the earth is simultaneous with summer in the southern hemisphere of the earth. Day in America is night in Asia. There is no beginning and no end to day and night or seasons, except in language. Those relationships of place are eternal.
Now, I am not especially interested in any of that and you might not be either. However, there is a relevance to bringing all of that to attention.
The relevance is that you and I are conveniences in language. Just as day is not really a time, but a relationship, there is really no such thing as you or I, except as relationships in language.
Likewise, there is no hand without a larger organism to grow it. There is no earthling without an earth and sun to produce it. There is no sun at all… except in language.

Consider: what is the boundary of the sun? Is the sun far away in space? Have you ever said “I am going out in to the sun now?” Have you ever said “let’s close the curtains to keep the sun out of here?”
The sun is a formation in language. The sun does not exist outside of language. The sun does not have a discrete physical boundary or location.
We can say that all of the planets are “in the sun” or we can say that all of the planets revolve around the sun distant from it. Because “sun” is just a word, either use of the word is useful.
We can think of the sun as a place (distant from a particular observer) or as a process. We can refer to the sun as a measurable distinction in heat, or in light, or in various forms of invisible radiation such as infrared or ultraviolet, including radio waves, sound waves, microwaves, X-rays, and so on.

Ultimately, sun is a linguistic unit that we can say corresponds to various sensory capacities of various organs of various creatures. Plants have photovoltaic capacities to convert sunlight to energy. Of course, sunlight is already energy, so that is a rather weird thing to say, but again it is a useful construction in language.
The sun lives through it’s various parts, including various planets and the life of those planets (or on those planets). Of course, all of those words are also just categories in language.
I can consider myself a unit operating within an organ of the sun that is labeled “humanity” (as distinct from the organ or organic system called vegetation). Just as the brain has no functionality without the other nerves, there is no real functional boundary between my nerve cells, my organs, my organism, the earth on which my organism (and the linguistic subcategories of me) rely, and even the sun and the rest of the living universe.

Categorical distinctions in language are just linguistic conveniences. Seasons do not really begin and end. They are linguistic labels for distinct aspects of a single cycle. We could divide the annual cycle in to 4 seasons or 2 or any other number. The complete cycle itself is fundamental to seasons, not the particular number of verbal categories in to which we divide the cycle. The number of linguistic divisions is merely arbitrary.
We could divide the annual cycle in to 4 parts or in to 12. If we divide them in to 12 and call those months, it is silly to say that 12 is the right number of divisions and 4 is the wrong number of divisions. The divisions are just linguistic distinctions. They have no inherent reality except as linguistic units that correspond to a single cyclic pattern of time and of place.

More specifically, while the cycle of day and night is obvious from the equator, and the cycle of the seasons is obvious from temperate latitudes of the earth, neither of those is especially useful at the polar regions. So, people who traveled the entire planet (perhaps including the poles), may have found it useful to divide the annual cycle in to 12 units, roughly correlating to lunar cycles.
So, instead of using day or winter to mark the varying relationship between the sun and a particular place on the planet, the language of months (or zodiac signs) add a third element. Through the course of the year (which is just a pattern in language), the sun’s position relative to the earth can be measured against a set of star groups or constellations.
Alternatively, the annual cycle can be marked by the stellar backdrop at which the moon is full (directly opposite of the sun from the viewpoint of the earth). The moon makes twelve cycles of lunation phase each year, with one phase beginning in each of the twelve zodiac constellations.

However, one may ask, is it better to divide the annual cycle in 12 or in to 4 or what? Again, that question is actually a rather odd formation in language. Dividing something in to 4 linguistic units or 12 (or 365) is for different purposes. Each purpose has it’s own number of categorical divisions.
So, there are four equal parts of each year as well as 12 nearly equal parts as well as about 365 equal parts. All of those divisions in symbolic language are valid and useful.

And here is where it gets really interesting. To divide life in to individual units of linguistic identity (“I”) is one valid, useful operation in language. However, fundamentally, “I” does not exist any more than summer or June, which are just arbitrary words or units in language. “I” is just a categorical distinction, a relationship, a convenience.
Recognize the operation of language as “I,” which recognizing is the death of the mortal (which, technically, never really existed anyway except as a label in language). You are not really an isolated ego of linguistic alienation. You do not really exist.

Language is simply operating. Language claims the categories of humanity and non-humanity, left and right, mortal and immortal, “I” and “not I.” Just as “left” cannot die because left is just a unit in language, the same is true of sun and day and “I.”
The eternal cannot be born. The eternal is always here.
To recognize that you are the eternal movement of language can be called “the birth of the eternal.” Though a useful phrase in language, it is also nonsense, but so is “the death of the mortal,” there is no mortal outside of language.

Language is simply operating. The sun is not even shining. Language makes up that there is a sun and a witness of the sun and that it’s shining light and so then language says “I am over here and I see the sun shining, which is way over there.”
No! I am the sun.
Language declares the life of the sun. Language declares the life of the mortal. Without language, there is no sun and no mortal.

The sun does not give life to the earth and the earth does not give life to the earthling. Language divides one thing in to 4 or 12 or 365. Language may CLAIM that the sun gives life to the earth, but from where? Are the sun and the earth really isolated? Outside of language, what is the boundary between the sun and the earth?
What is the boundary between the front of a piece of paper, the back of that same piece of paper, and the edges of the paper? Front, back, and edges are just distinctions in language. Paper is also just a distinction in language.
When language notices the operating of language, that can be called the birth of the eternal, the death of the mortal, the creation of life, and the developing of language. Further, once language notices the operating of language, language may or may not stop claiming to be something other than language.

Language may say “I am worried about surviving and I am even more afraid of dying.” Language may say almost anything, though of course language cannot actually say anything, because if I know one thing for sure, I know that there is no such thing as language. There is just me, and I cannot be language becasue I say that I am not language. I am over here and language is way over there and I can notice it happening, like happening to me. Language controls me and victimizes me and tricks me in to pretending that there is a devil and that I am not language and that language does not even really exist.
By the way, if there is one thing that I know for sure, it is that God is omnipotent and the creator of all things, which is why God is terrified that the devil might defeat the influence of language and ruin everything. I mean, what if the devil makes a time machine and goes back in time and stops God from making up the devil? Then what?!?!

maturing beyond sinfulness

December 22, 2011
Sin = ANY error  (not just moral violations) or ANY act of misconduct (including even a failure to take responsible action)
3 types of sin (in the tradition of the ancient Hebrews): negligence, shame, and malice
 
You are soul. Soul is attention. Attention is the source of words. Words are your creation, not your source. Words can direct the attention of the young and impressionable, but, when the soul matures, attention is stabilized beyond words.
It is an error to believe in words. Belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will. In particular, people may identify themselves with or against certain words. That is the root of all psychological suffering (guilt, anxiety, depression, etc…).
That misidentification with linguistic labels is also the root of idolatry, which inovlves mistaking a word like “sacred” or “holy” with Divinity itself. When one is ignorant of Divinity and then labels as “holy” some mere word or phrase or idea or physical object or pattern, that is idolatry. The word Divinity is not what is symbolized by the word Divinity. Worshiping the word Divinity or even a particular scripture (including the US Constitution) is idolatry.
So, sin includes ignorance, negligence, shame malice, as well as the resulting actions. While some uses of the word sin refer in particular to actions, that usage diverges from the traditional Jewish (Hebrew) or Greek usages, as well as the words of the most famous religious figures such as Jesus, Buddha, and Isaiah.
Sin is not just a category of action, but also the source of some behavioral reaction. Consider this translation of a famous heretical prophet: “you have been told that to put someone to death is sin, but I say to you that even to be angry or hold ill will toward another is sin,” as well as other famous instructions: “Condemn not,” “Judge not,” “Let the one among you without sin cast the first stone” and of course “Forgive one another.”
Ill will requires language. Resentment does not arise from action or inaction, but from the language that we can use to ongoingly produce an experience out of our commentary and imagination relating to a memory. Resentment requires first creating shame from a past incident, then blaming someone else for our experience (while we mature in the capacity to accept the experience). In other words, our challenging experiences are part of our development.
The cultivating of antagonism through language is the root issue. From antagonism, many actions may arise, such as war, murder, rape, theft, fraud and so on. However, as Jesus said, it does not require the action of a murder or rape for antagonism or jealous lust to be a disturbance to one’s well-being.
First, we are totally ignorant. Then we begin to learn but still are developing discipline and thus are subject to negligence (which can also be viewed as any failure to be responsible for our reputation). Next we construct linguistic rationales to blame others for our results, which is malice or ill will or resentment, but also shame and pride. We create pride as a barrier to accepting responsibility for our overall results (by focusing on particular results while we ignore the rest of our results, of which we may be quite ashamed and quite hysterical if anyone attempts to direct attention at those results for which we may have been constructing a linguistic identifying or labeling as shameful). In other words, on the foundation of shame, we may develop malice toward those who fail to agree with us about our prides and shames.
That experience of malice might be called hell or purgatory. There may be access to “heaven” at a later stage.
These are the three basic stages of human socio-linguistic development: ignorance, shame, and malice. Next, however, is maturity. A comprehension of the role of language in the constructing of shame and malice allow for an attention to that linguistic process, the realization that inattentiveness or negligent language itself is what creates the malice, so the only remedy required is to cease the negligent language and remain attentive, and that is freedom from sin. That is spiritual rebirth.

the creation of “reality”

December 18, 2011
o
Is a circle just a circle, or could it be the letter ‘o’ or the number zero? The circle itself does not have any inherent unique meaning. Instead, whatever response is produced, that response is the ultimate meaning of any sequence of some percerving followed by some response.

Perception is experience. Experiencing is perceiving.
We respond to our perceptions. Different responses arise from different perceptions.
Perceptions are subjective. Distinct ways of perceiving result in distinct perceptions.
Many perceivers can all witness a single event and yet all of them may perceive something slightly different. Each one will have different sensory capacities as well as different positions spatially. Each of them will relate to the event differently. Perception is relational. Perception is relative.
Perception is not external. Perception is a relationship between external developments and internal capacities for sensing and then the interpreting or organizing of sensations in to perceptions.
We do not perceive external events. We only perceive our internal, interpretative relationship to external events.
We do not respond to external events. We only respond to our perceptions of internal, interpretative relationship to external events.
Perception is relational. Prior to perception, interpretation is relational. Prior to interpretation, sensation is relational.
We are the capacity for attention. Attention is perception. Attention is relational. We are the capacity to relate.
Language is relational. We are the capacity to identify with or relate to through formations in language.
The capacity for language is the culmination of perception. Prior to the development of the capacity for language in an organism, there is only reflexive reacting, not responding. Language allows for the creation of symbolic meaning and for responding to symbolic meanings.
Further, once there is attention to the process of the creation of relationships of symbolic meaning (the process of interpreting), then conscious perception shifts attention from reflexive reactivity to responsive relating to relational interpretation and finally to the creation of varying responses through the informing of interpretation. In other words, attention shifts to the creating of perception and the creating of responses to distinct perceptions.
The mechanism by which we inform interpretation (and perception etc) includes language. The attention to language is the attention to the creating of interpretations, perceptions, and responses.
Historically, the focusing of attention toward the role of language in the process of creating interpretation perception, and response was part of the field of spirituality. Religious terminology like sin or corruption may simply refer to an erroneous or limited understanding of the process of interpretation and perception. However, many who use that terminology may not directly recognize the simplicity of the teachings, such as these, starting with an English translation of a teaching attributed to Jesus:
“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the words that come out of your mouth…. The words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you and disturbs you.” Matthew 15:11,18
“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” Titus 1:15
“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is corrupt in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is corrupt.” Romans 14:14
“A wise person turns away from evil and is cautious, but a fool is hotheaded, careless and overconfident.” Proverbs 14:16
“but I — I say to you, not to resist the evil [the sin, the corruption]” Matthew 5:39
“Don’t be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn away from evil.” Proverbs 3:7
“…Turning from evil is disgusting to fools.” Proverbs 13:19
“My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.” James 1:19
“…Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10Out of the same mouth doth come forth blessing and cursing; it doth not need, my brethren, these things so to happen.”

James 3:5-10

“You have knowledge that it was said in old times, You may not put to death; and, Whoever puts to death will be in danger of being judged. But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.”

“No matter who you are, if you judge anyone , you have no excuse. When you judge another person, you condemn yourself,

Romans 2:1

“Condemn not.” (Luke 6:37)
“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:42)
“And whoever hears my words and does not keep them, I am not judging him, for I have come, not to judge the world, but to give life to the world.” http://bible.cc/john/12-47.htm
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
John 1:29
How does Jesus take away the sin of the world? What is meant by what some have translated in to English as “the sin of the world?”
Remember, Jesus is said to cleanse sinners of impurity. Does Jesus cleanse them with water and soap or cleanse them spiritually? What does that mean to be spiritually clean? Again, let’s review a few verses:
“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the words that come out of your mouth….
The words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you and disturbs you.” Matthew 15:11,18
“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is impure in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is impure.” Romans 14:14
“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are impure and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are impure.” Titus 1:15

So for the one without faith, nothing is pure, while to the one with faith, all things are pure. What then is meant by that word “faith?”

Now, our comments on the first video right after we made it:

the language of creating

November 20, 2011

(See also my blog post “an introduction to language” which was two prior to this one.)

keywords: zen, advaita, transformation, language, nlp, jnana, mooji, jnana yoga,dhyana, dhyana yoga, meditative inquiry, toni packer, jiddu krishnamurti, lawrence platt, werner erhard, redemption, ACIM, disappearance of the universe, moral paralysis, analysis paralysis


%d bloggers like this: