IMG_1216 BW small
Blog powered by Typepad

« Super! | Main | Poetry corner »

Comments

“I don't really understand what you are trying to communicate.”

This is an honest and acceptable comment. This is the challenge that I and indeed all of us live with but one that I have accepted. When our views are outside the existing religious and societal paradigms the rejections will come to us. And a lot of those rejections come depending on how we present our ideas. It is not so much what we say but how we say them.

As one of my spiritual teachers stated as one his principles don’t share your pearls with unreceptive minds for they share demean them. The problem with that statement is twofold. One everyone thinks they have pearls to share and if our discovery is outside the existing religious or societal paradigm few if any may be interested in your “pearl”. In fact they will even attack you verbally for even presenting your pearl.

“I should add that William, with his Buddhist dogma”

If by dogma you mean what the Buddha realized as the origin of suffering as ignorance then you fail like most to have knowledge of Buddha’s realization. But this is common even many if not most Buddha monks confuse symptoms with the origin. Symptoms being attachment, craving, and grasping. Now desire, which the Dalai Lama correctly stated recently in an interview, is not the origin of suffering but an inherent longing for perfection.

It would be of interest to me what you consider Buddhist dogma. Only for my own interest as to what appears as dogma. This may help me communicate my thoughts better in the future.

In fact the Dalai Lama nailed it as to the origin of our suffering as ignorance. I am no Buddhist or adhere to any organized religion. Once we identify with a religion or any ideology it is pretty much over as to accepting new information into our consciousness. As far as I can tell all organized religions and I suspect most on this blog reject my realization on variation as it applies to the relative phenomenal world and my discovery as to the origin of our ignorance.

But I also know how that information is presented is crucial.

“The way I see it, the ego is the horse and rider is the soul. If you let your horse run away with you, you are in trouble; that or you are left just sitting there while the horse grazes. Also, you can have different horses for different jobs. When a horse comes up lame or dies, you get a new one to ride.”

Sounds like a good case for reincarnation.

“He constanrly rehashes the same old stuff and is unwilling to consider other points of view unless they confirm what he believes”

I admit my views are fixed when it comes to calling children stupid. But you like others have taught me much about mediumship and spiritualism. We can see many physical manifestations or whatever paranormal phenomenal and this does not necessarily increase our knowledge of the underlying reality of phenomena.

One of my spiritual teachers that was a medium while living in a physical body was not interested in performing physical manifestations or attaining wealth but seeking knowledge. That motive allowed him to receive profound knowledge from an intelligence in the spirit world. As to be expected when he revealed this knowledge to the world it was rejected and still is today one hundred years later by well meaning people.

William said: We can see many physical manifestations or whatever paranormal phenomenal and this does not necessarily increase our knowledge of the underlying reality of phenomena.

Here is a classic example of stating something that was never said and then contradicting it. It's like saying "Have you stopped beating your wife"?

I am well aware of the underlying reality of phenomena.

One of my spiritual teachers that was a medium while living in a physical body was not interested in performing physical manifestations or attaining wealth but seeking knowledge.

The person you quote (no names are ever given) should have known that one cannot just 'perform manifestations' - either you have the ability or you don't. How can one judge what is 'profound knowledge' if we don't know what it is?

It's loose statements like that which makes your arguments meaningless.

William, I think the "Buddhist dogma" comment may have been prompted by this statement of yours:

"Wanting and not wanting are two of the greatest causes of suffering and both based in ignorance."

I understand that this is the Buddhist position. And in a way, it makes sense. If you don't want anything, you will be free of all cravings, yearnings, frustrations, disappointments, etc.

At the same time I don't know what kind of life I could lead if I didn't want anything. Why would I even get out of bed? Pretty much everything I do is motivated by a desire of some kind, even if it is only the desire to eat a sandwich or take a walk.

Perhaps a better approach is derived from the Hindu poem, the Bhagavad Gita, which teaches us to commit to the process but detach from the outcome. We can still want to participate in the process, but we recognize that the outcome is beyond our control.

Even this is very, very difficult in practice, however. It is natural to want control ...

Perhaps a better approach is derived from the Hindu poem, the Bhagavad Gita, which teaches us to commit to the process but detach from the outcome. We can still want to participate in the process, but we recognize that the outcome is beyond our control.

This isn't just a good philosophy but I believe it's a key to success on all areas of level, and especially in business.

Erich, no, I wasn't addressing you or William specifically. I was referring to the underlying notion reincarnationists seem to have that this life is not really that important, that PEOPLE aren't really that important, that we're just masks or classes or whatever for this concept of a soul that has no personality attached. Nirvana? Sounds like a waste of time to me, ceasing to exist. Sometimes it sounds like we're being seen as puppets or pawns, not real, living, individual people at all. And that riles me. Assuming a creator kick-started the world and evolution and all the rest of it, why is individuality so derided? It's everywhere, it's LIFE. Blanding everything out just irks me.

"Ego" seems to get conflated with "egotistical" or "Egomaniac" in this. Individuality and personality are not automatically synonymous with selfishness or blindness, which seems to me the implication. But I don't go with this notion that one has to chuck one's self away to reach this so-called enlightenment. How - bloody - boring - would - that - be! It'd be like the lava lamp existence Cyrus described a few posts back!

Thanks but no thanks. I'll take the simple pleasures and learning of pottering around the Chateau de mon Coeur, learning gardening (never been into it here) and helping with healing work that I do when I cross over, and that's a foretaste of what life with my soulmate - my recognisable, human, dark-haired-olive-skinned-sly-humoured-musical-four-hundred-years-experienced soulmate - over that, any day.

"Perhaps a better approach is derived from the Hindu poem, the Bhagavad Gita, which teaches us to commit to the process but detach from the outcome. "

Yes. Exactly. It pains me that the weird and perverted Hare Krishna cult has taken over over the BG in the US public mind. For me, the BG presents the most practical and accurate spritual advice available in print.

“One of my spiritual teachers that was a medium while living in a physical body was not interested in performing physical manifestations or attaining wealth but seeking knowledge.”

This was poorly stated so I will try again. One of my spiritual teacher’s that had mediumship abilities while living in a physical body did perform physical manifestations but after about two years of these physical manifestations which his family and friends loved he felt a need to seek deeper into to mysteries of life.

Because of that sincere interest in seeking knowledge rather than performing physical manifestations he had an advanced spirit come through for many years that gave him profound teachings into the meaning and purpose of life. These teachings have been the most profound teachings that I have found to date.

Eight years I have studied these teachings and still have much to learn. But I have noticed they present such a different paradigm of spiritual thought most people reject them outright including spiritualists. Now what is of interest to me is that most people also rejected them over 100 years ago.

Why is this? It appears that the ego takes to culpability and guilt like a duck takes to water. Now we have to ask why would the ego have such a desire to feel blameworthy and reject such teachings? The ego in its fragile state of a false self must self confirm itself on a continual basis. Feeling guilty and blameworthy is a devious way of self-confirmation. I.e. I ego a separate persona am an eternal reality.

Sin and evil sell like cold water on a hot Arizona day when the reality is sin and evil are only phenomena not reality. There is no sin and evil in reality but it does exist as phenomena (occurrences) and therefore in appearance. And since we judge by appearances sin and evil exist in our minds as reality.

People will line up to be told they are sinful and some even evil and even pay huge sums of money on a weekly basis to be told that. Tell them they are ignorant and you will be rejected or maybe even physically harmed. One perquisite to have any idea of what these teachings and others reveal I have come to realize one must see the realization of Buddha and other Hindu sages that the origin of our suffering is ignorance (unawareness). Until we see this correlation these words may appear as meaningless as some have suggested.

When we attack other’s comments and call their words meaningless this is a perfect example of a fragile ego in action. It appears that years of witnessing physical manifestations do not bring one to seek deeper into these mysteries of life.

“How can one judge what is 'profound knowledge' if we don't know what it is?”

I do not consider physical manifestations as profound knowledge quite the contrary most mediums that I have read and are capable of physical manifestations do not seek profound knowledge. I am trying to remember if I have ever met a spiritualist that is seeking deeply into these mysteries of life. Most are interested and motivated for one reason or another in providing proof that life exists beyond this world. This brings comfort to people and very worthwhile but we cannot put it into a category of seeking or attaining profound knowledge into these deeper meanings of life.

Spirits at higher levels of intelligence don’t appear to be that interested in coming through a medium. With exceptions of course.

“I am well aware of the underlying reality of phenomena.”

Then you would know that if you attack others verbally, written form, or even in thought it is the same as attacking self. What we sow we reap was and is profound teachings. To attack other’s words or make snark remarks is the same as making those same snark remarks about one’s self. We are expressions of Infinite not separate entities from Infinite therefore what we do or say or even think about others (because thoughts are energy) is the same as doing and saying and thinking about one’s self.

The universe is like a cosmic mirror what we reflect into it; it reflects right back to us. I.e. karma. Harm another, harm self, spite another, spite self, snark another, snark self, attack another, attack self, malice towards another, malice towards self, etc.

William, attacking another's words is not automatically to "snark" or to attack the person. Would you not want to see racist or sexist words attacked? Would anger against those ideas be a sign of "fragile ego"? Anger is not necessarily related to malice.

“William, attacking another's words is not automatically to "snark" or to attack the person”

Look up some synonyms for attacking and see if that helps you see that indeed an attack on anything including another’s words is indeed a violent mode of being in the world.

“Would you not want to see racist or sexist words attacked?”

Actually attacking sexist or racist words would be an attack on self. Any attack is an aggressive, violent, and even offensive mode or response. Jesus made this very clear with his sermon on the mount. Two thousand years later we have little understating of that sermon. We including myself have a knowing but knowing and understanding are two different levels of intelligence.

Now what is the divine intelligent approach advocated by Jesus and Buddha and other sages? Of course most will just say than I am an idealist or worst. These spiritual teachers gave us profound wisdom but we most often hear not, see not or do not, including myself.

If we take an eye for an eye we would all be blind is one of my favorite bumper stickers that I see on a few cars.

“Would anger against those ideas be a sign of "fragile ego"

Yes. Ask yourself what would be a better response than anger.

“Anger is not necessarily related to malice”.

I don’t believe that I stated that it was. It appears to me that it may be a short distance to travel from anger to malice. How can we possibly love our enemies if we demonstrate anger? Do we even believe that we are capable of loving our enemies? If we look closely at the ministry of Jesus he showed his spiritual intelligence but also his human side as he is credited with showing anger at the temple.

There is infinite divine intelligence and all souls with levels or degrees of unawareness. Anger is in the category of unawareness. Of course if we were created with perfect infinite intelligence there would be no us as expressions of Infinite. Kind of like a double edge sword isn’t it but appearances are deceiving.

Now because of what some refer to as the law of progress that unawareness is slowly melting away but not before we get really angry with those that tell us we can love our enemies. To love our enemies is an insane remark to someone in anger. Think of it as the melting away of ignorance, some souls faster than others of course. That variation thing again.

Now we cannot want to love our enemies or not want to love our enemies as both have self confirmatory ideations written all over them. We can become interested in loving our enemies but it will be a journey until the realization occurs. Then kaboom we love our enemies.

Jesus also took a whip to the traders in the Temple!

What you don't seem to grasp, William, is that I don't feel hostility or anything other feelings toward YOU or anyone else pushing the reincarnationist barrow. It's the ideas themselves that I find simply WRONG and to have an anti-human, anti-life essence in them in many ways. And that is irritating, and yes, I will respond, argue, and oh dear, that's an attack, isn't it?

I've had enough of this. You're no more going to change my views than I am yours. Zerdini was right ...

“And that is irritating, and yes, I will respond,”

Now we are tracking with the respond comment. That is exactly what we have been as unique expressions of Infinite to do and that is to respond. We have been created as unique souls with the ability to respond. The root meaning of responsibility is the ability to respond. This ability to respond creates the relative phenomenal world.

“You're no more going to change my views than I am yours.”

Either one of us wanting to change the other’s views will only create discord. Wanting and not wanting are our two greatest sources of suffering. You have just proved this axiom with your frustration that lead to your irritation. I look at this as dialog not wanting to change your views. If we look close we hang on to our cherished beliefs as if they were golden and set in concrete. Why is that?

These teachings have challenged the very core of my established beliefs. Profound resistance and years of denial. Etc.

“It's the ideas themselves that I find simply WRONG and to have an anti-human, anti-life essence in them in many ways”

Some believe quite the opposite that reincarnation is a fair and just system and it gives the soul ample opportunities to advance in love and divine intelligence. If you had been born in a Hindu culture there would be a high probability you would feel quite different about reincarnation. Societal conditioning has a huge impact on our views even our spiritual views.

“And that is irritating, and yes, I will respond, argue, and oh dear, that's an attack, isn't it?”

Responding is not an attack it is divine, we have been created as expressions of Infinite with the ability to respond. Celebrate your ability as a unique soul to have the ability to respond. Truly a gift of the Infinite. The attack is the method of responding. Ask yourself was the response in compassion or in anger? One is being a beneficial presence in the world and the other is well self-confirmatory.

These teachings I have received are not common teachings and they will create resistance. But much of that resistance is how these teachings are presented. I am learning have patience; meditate and reflect on them and who knows they may open the door to new insights into reality. Or not.

I have enjoyed this dialog it teaches me much about not only how others respond to these teachings but also my own lack of understanding in presenting this material. Thank you for that.

Good grief, William, if irritation and frustration rate as suffering, then I can only say maybe one should withdraw from the world and go and live on a mountaintop somewhere. I'm afraid this whole business of not being angry about injustice (this is where your responses to my comments about racist/sexist remarks leads me) sounds less like loving one's neighbour as oneself, than it does like passivity and disengagement. Just the opposite of empathy for the victim.

Freeing oneself of suffering by denying/discarding human feelings sounds, well, wimpy. Like a refusal to engage with life. No, I'm not at all in favour of the "aspirational" society I live in (and probably you too, given we're both Westerners) and materialism sucks big time. :) But I have no problem with the idea of being unhappy or angry or frustrated. They throw the overall contentment, regularly seasoned with joy, of my life since Louis and I made contact. They can also be spurs to endeavour in many fields. Would any social progress have been made if people didn't feel a fire in the belly about wrongs? If they didn't fight them? This is the world as it is and since wrongs exist, it's no good saying to those who would fight them that it's no good being angry. It's all part of being human, and humanity isn't a state I feel any need to abandon in this life or the next.

Unless I could be a minor divinity of course - the sort that purr and have whiskers.

“At the same time I don't know what kind of life I could lead if I didn't want anything. Why would I even get out of bed? Pretty much everything I do is motivated by a desire of some kind, even if it is only the desire to eat a sandwich or take a walk.”

Michael thanks for the clarification on the Buddhist dogma. I actually did not learn about wanting and not wanting as a source of suffering from my study of Buddhism but from other teachings. Now desire can be wanting and not wanting but that would be misguided desire and misguided desire is a source of much of our suffering.

Now if we look at a synonym for desire as longing then desire is built right into our souls as a desire (longing) for perfection and happiness. Joy and bliss are healthier words but most people use the term happiness. The law of progress would be nil without this longing for perfection.

An extreme example of misguided desire and wanting is Hitler and those that followed him. Their misguided desire was for an expanded Germany. They wanted to colonize the surrounding nations for their resources. The suffering their misguided desires caused was monumental. The suffering the Germans misguided desire brought upon their homes and children were indeed enormous. From cheering Hitler and their troops in the streets to bombs landing on their homes within three short years. Truly what we sow we reap was never more evident than these experiences for them.

Now what is it in wanting and not wanting that can cause so much of our suffering. It is the “I” in front of wanting and not wanting. I want and I don’t want. Who or whom is the I that wants? The mystics have been revealing to us for thousands of years that the more we reduce the “I want and I am separate” in our lives the more bliss and ecstasy in our lives.

The “I” that wants is almost always the false self, not the “I” within us that is of the divine image and likeness of Infinite. If our wants are in alignment with the Infinite Mind then they are really no longer wants but divine expressions of the Infinite Mind. I have heard some refer to this ability to be an expression of this divine intelligence as a funnel consciousness.

Another I want (there are many) is the “I want” to take responsibility for our successes and failures. The successes belong to infinite intelligence the failures belong to ignorance or better stated our unawareness. We can regret our failures but we cannot take credit for them. This is a very controversial statement and I suspect that few in the world at this time will accept this teaching as valid.

We have been taught that responsibility and culpability are synonyms. I.e. our belief in a personal mind separate from divine Mind makes us feel culpable. Self blame for our created unawareness is a major source of our suffering. The more the I in ego or false self feels culpable the more the ego self feels separate from divine Mind.

What would organized religion be without the teachings of culpability?


This was poorly stated so I will try again. One of my spiritual teacher’s that had mediumship abilities while living in a physical body did perform physical manifestations but after about two years of these physical manifestations which his family and friends loved he felt a need to seek deeper into to mysteries of life.

You still haven’t answered the question – who was this medium (spiritual teacher)? What sort of physical manifestations did he perform?

That motive allowed him to receive profound knowledge from an intelligence in the spirit world. As to be expected when he revealed this knowledge to the world it was rejected and still is today one hundred years later by well meaning people.

You also have not defined what this ‘profound knowledge’ is. How can anyone assess its validity unless we know what it is?

Because of that sincere interest in seeking knowledge rather than performing physical manifestations he had an advanced spirit come through for many years that gave him profound teachings into the meaning and purpose of life. These teachings have been the most profound teachings that I have found to date.

Maybe – but what are they and who is the advanced spirit?

Eight years I have studied these teachings and still have much to learn. But I have noticed they present such a different paradigm of spiritual thought most people reject them outright including spiritualists. Now what is of interest to me is that most people also rejected them over 100 years ago.

How do you know that they were rejected by Spiritualists? Where is the evidence please?

When we attack other’s comments and call their words meaningless this is a perfect example of a fragile ego in action. It appears that years of witnessing physical manifestations do not bring one to seek deeper into these mysteries of life.

But that is exactly what you have just done, William. Launched into an attack on me because I challenged your words! I have never claimed that years of witnessing physical mediumship was my only area of interest – I have studied deeply into many other areas as well. You are not the only one except that I do not make wild claims for my views.

I do not consider physical manifestations as profound knowledge quite the contrary most mediums that I have read and are capable of physical manifestations do not seek profound knowledge.

How insulting! Sounds like spiritual snobbery to me.
How do you know what knowledge these mediums have sought or studied?

I am trying to remember if I have ever met a spiritualist that is seeking deeply into these mysteries of life. Most are interested and motivated for one reason or another in providing proof that life exists beyond this world. This brings comfort to people and very worthwhile but we cannot put it into a category of seeking or attaining profound knowledge into these deeper meanings of life.

Another generalisation with no evidence to back it up.

Spirits at higher levels of intelligence don’t appear to be that interested in coming through a medium. With exceptions of course.

Of course! So who do these spirits at higher levels of intelligence communicate through? What evidence have you got to make a statement like that? This is an example of a meaningless statement.

Then you would know that if you attack others verbally, written form, or even in thought it is the same as attacking self. What we sow we reap was and is profound teachings. To attack other’s words or make snark remarks is the same as making those same snark remarks about one’s self. We are expressions of Infinite not separate entities from Infinite therefore what we do or say or even think about others (because thoughts are energy) is the same as doing and saying and thinking about one’s self.

Are you trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs?
This is not a particularly profound teaching. It is common knowledge.
If you sow baloney you reap baloney!

What would organized religion be without the teachings of culpability?

I have not the slightest interest in the culpability teachings of organized religion.

“Are you trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs?”

What kind of low-level mentality is a statement like this? The area I was raised in had a name for people that responded with such remarks.

Can you not see these kind of statements reveal much as to a person’s level of understanding of what we sow we reap. You have proved my point and I suspect to others that sitting in on physical manifestations has nothing to do with advancement in profound knowledge or divine intelligence.

But physical manifestations do provide comfort especially for those in grief and for that I am grateful to all mediums that have such abilities.

“I have not the slightest interest in the culpability teachings of organized religion.”

Oh yes you do or you would not have taken the time to quote and respond. Spiritualism is a religion. It carries with it all kinds of beliefs you have proven this over and over in your responses. If my writing upsets you just don’t read it.

“I have studied deeply into many other areas as well. You are not the only one except that I do not make wild claims for my views.”

First I have seen little evidence of your writings that reveal to me at least you have studied deeply into other areas. And another observation I have for some reason you feel threatened by these teachings that have been given to me. Why is that? This “ I have studied deeply” remark is a generalization that you accuse me of. I.e. what we sow we reap has come back to you like a cosmic mirror that I write about. Can you not see that?

As far as wild claims can you not see that is exactly the responses that occur when new teachings are presented to the masses? Do your research into history of the rejection of new teachings. One person’s wild claim can be another person’s truth.

But I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my comments as it helps me to increase my knowledge as how to improve how I present these teachings that have been given to me. Your responses and your time are much more appreciated then you could ever realize. I learn much from yours and others responses on this blog. It is not always pleasant to read but always interesting to me at least how emotional new teachings can be to a reader when it challenges their existing paradigm.

Look how emotional a dialog on reincarnation was and is in the western culture. People used to be put to death for even saying the word reincarnation.

William your slip is showing. It is interesting how nasty you get when people point out you are not answering their questions.

Paul is quite right.

William why don't you answer the perfectly reasonable points I made instead ofavoiding the questions?

Is it because you can't?

These are the questions:

1. You still haven’t answered the question – who was this medium (spiritual teacher)? What sort of physical manifestations did he perform?

2. You also have not defined what this ‘profound knowledge’ is. How can anyone assess its validity unless we know what it is?

3. Maybe – but what are they and who is the advanced spirit?

4. How do you know that they were rejected by Spiritualists? Where is the evidence please?

5. How insulting! Sounds like spiritual snobbery to me.
How do you know what knowledge these mediums have sought or studied?

Oh yes you do or you would not have taken the time to quote and respond. Spiritualism is a religion. It carries with it all kinds of beliefs you have proven this over and over in your responses. If my writing upsets you just don’t read it.

How little you know about Spiritualism is revealed by the above statement. Your writings don't upset me at all. You just have an inability to answer reasonable questions.

People used to be put to death for even saying the word reincarnation.

Who was put to death for using the word reincarnation?

Or is this another fantasy, William?

"People used to be put to death for even saying the word reincarnation."

"Who was put to death for using the word reincarnation?"

Wow that is basic stuff. This question reveals your lack of knowledge about the history of the Christian church. Don’t you realize when you ask such questions you are revealing your ignorance. Then you follow it up with a put down about a fantasy of mine. Don’t you see this is ego stuff we are doing here. This is not divine intelligence revealing itself but our self-confirmatory ideation. I.e. ego stuff. We have been down this road before to no avail.

Now ignorance is not a put down. We are all ignorant to some degree. If we were not there would be no us. But there are many perquisites to know before this previous statement makes any sense. One is you must come to know what many Hindu, Sufi, and Buddhist sages know and that is the origin of suffering. Without that knowledge these teachings make little sense. There you have a source go do your research.

As a spirit in the spirits book stated we were created simple and ignorant. Go deep into the meaning of being created simple and ignorant and there lies the potential for great spiritual discoveries. Some more ignorant than others but that is that variation thing again. Seek deeply into that variation in all things and its relationship to the relative phenomenal world and a whole new clarity about phenomena and its underlying reality will come to you. Or not.

Study the history of the Catholic Church and this may help you see it was no fantasy to those that were put to death for their beliefs in reincarnation.

This demand for a source reminds me of the ultra skeptics that ask for a source then when given they attack the source. Source means nothing; don’t let authority or fame determine if the teachings are valid. Evaluate the teachings on their own merit if they don’t have a ring of truth to them reject them. Even in rejection we learn and for that I am appreciative.

It is not always so much what we say but how we say it. As far as I can tell these exact teachings have never been written about before so I expect and indeed have received much rejection of these teachings. Some of these teachings were revealed to a medium over 100 years ago but were met with rejection by all.

Another source is Dr. Deming’s teachings on variation. Study them for at least five years he recommends ten years and this will assist you in understanding these teachings. Now why do I believe that now Allan Kardec and Dr. Deming will be ridiculed as a source?

Check out questions 121,122, and 123, in the spirits book those questions and couple of those answers will help you have a beginning knowledge of these teachings. We must learn from the ground up. It is a process of discovery not just information. Don’t get caught up in the free will explanation; it is misleading doctrine full of beliefs is a sense of culpability. But then you have no interest in religious culpability. That is unfortunate. This culpability aspect of the teachings is crucial. Also the word free in front of will fails to understand the origin of our unawareness with unawareness as a synonym for ignorance.

"But much of that resistance is how these teachings are presented."

Y'know, William, less of the holier-than-thou attitude that comes across in these replies might be something to consider. Apart from the fact that I don't have a lot of time for the content, the delivery really does need work. Witticisms and sharp responses are part of debate anywhere and just repeating stuff about egos and false selves is a put-down too. Instead of saying "Wow, you are revealing your ignorance" in response to a simple "Who was put to death?" why not simply say "X was put to death by Y in such-and-such a year; this is the reference." In other words, answer the question. Makes for more discussion and less irritation. I've done a fair bit of editing on a writers' website, and this reminds me of pieces that veer away from being essays and end up as rants. (Yes I know I was doing the same thing in response the other day, but I'm not the one trying to present some deep ideas that need a whole lot of backup.)

Very good insights Louise. Now as far using the word ignorance I admit to this. You see we repel at the word ignorance. This is interesting as we are all ignorant in something to some degree. No one has perfect knowledge therefore everyone is ignorant to some degree on something.

But here is the interesting facet about the ego and yes the false self. It would rather be called just about anything than ignorant. Even sinful. Call a person a sinner and they will probably agree with you but call a person ignorant and they may throw a punch at you or claim that you make you grandmother suck eggs which I have no idea what that means.

This has been my point by example one can claim to know but know not. Their responses give them away. This person is more interested in sources and physical manifestations than in the teachings. When we are more interested in the source than the teachings we have succumbed to what we know as religion. What we have discovered is that there appears to be several prerequisites before someone can even begin to accept these teachings as valid.

When one has a realization even a discovery the world will reject it in masses. Which it should as people are claiming something as a new discovery every day? I find with spiritualism most are more interested in manifestations and readings than knowledge. For ten years I have be communicating this discovery with spiritualists and all religions and I have noticed once we identify with a religion or a set of beliefs it pretty much freezes our beliefs in concrete.

Our I say our because I have received help from the other side this discovery turns the world’s teachings on its head. Upside down so to speak. It is perfectly understandable that the world will reject these teachings. It matters not where the teachings come from what matters is the quality, intelligence, and the validity of the teachings. Religions have centered on the teacher not the teachings and we all know how that has worked out.

Leave William out of the picture his persona will only get in the way instead focus on the teachings and evaluate from there. If the teachings do not resonate then reject them. There will be discord when a person is not ready for the teachings. History tells us that time and time again. If you are interested in the prerequisites I will surely share those with you. In fact I shared a bit of them in the last post. Thanks for the input much appreciated.

So William, what you are saying is that you can't even answer simple questions!

Instead you come up with a lot of waffle disguised as superior knowledge and attempted put-downs.

I have read Allan Kardec's works and am quite familiar with the origin of those works. Are you?

What you have clearly revealed is that you are simply unable or perhaps unwilling (because of ignorance?) to answer simple questions.

It is not always so much what we say but how we say it. As far as I can tell these exact teachings have never been written about before so I expect and indeed have received much rejection of these teachings. Some of these teachings were revealed to a medium over 100 years ago but were met with rejection by all.

I am still waiting to find out what these teachings are particularly as you claim that "these exact teachings have never been written about before". I repeat who was the medium and what were the teachings that were met with rejection by all.

Cut out the obfuscation, William, and try to answer the questions in simple language.

The Cathars were persecuted and killed by the Church because of their unorthodox beliefs, which included a belief in reincarnation.

Although I agree that William's style of argument can be frustrating, I don't think he means to insult anyone when he talks about ignorance. It's simply his view that all of us are ignorant to a certain extent, and this ignorance accounts for our individuality and our suffering. At least that's how I understand what he's saying.

“It's simply his view that all of us are ignorant to a certain extent, and this ignorance accounts for our individuality and our suffering. At least that's how I understand what he's saying.”

Yes that is exactly correct Michael. Thank you. Without our ignorance there is no us. Period. We owe our soul not to the company store but to our ignorance, which we did not create contrary to the world’s teachings. Ok our unawareness we did not create. Now carry this farther. What is the origin of that ignorance? The answer to that question will turn most of the world’s teachings upside down.

The answer to that question as to the origin of our ignorance or unawareness will reveal a whole new possible meaning to the Adam and Eve story, which I used to make fun of but only in my ignorance. If we have understanding of the origin of our ignorance we can truly love our enemies, etc. Now I did not receive understanding of the origin of ignorance but it came as a discovery with much help from the other side. The source from the other side is not important the teachings are what count. Authority means nothing as one can learn from a homeless person, a criminal, standing in line at a checkout counter, a blog, anyone and anywhere.

Without our ignorance there is no individualization or perceived individuality is better stated. As souls we move from a spark of awareness to a god. This journey creates every soul unique. This involution and evolution journey is the process of “individualization” of infinite souls.

Now as individual souls we are not separate from infinite Mind. We are expressions of infinite Mind. As expressions we cannot be culpable but we must be responsible for our choices. It sounds contradictory but it would take way too much writing to explain the difference between responsibility and being responsible.

Keep William and his persona out of the picture. As stated earlier when we focus on the source this becomes religious pride not spiritual seeking into truths. Look at what has happened to the Christian and Muslim faith and to some degree the Hindu and Buddhist religion when they have focused on the person source of the teachings. When we focus on the source we miss much of the message.

I just finished doing some research on the Bahai religion and like other religions they mostly focus on the source, their prophet not his teachings. And they pride themselves on accepting all religions but their actions and reactions are different then their words.

Thank you Michael in one paragraph you have stated it well.

“I have read Allan Kardec's works and am quite familiar with the origin of those works. Are you?”

Read questions 120, 121, 122 and let’s dialog if you are sincerely interested in dialog. If not that is ok also.

I think the readers of this blog would be interested in a dialog on those three questions, as Kardec has asked some very profound three questions that pertain to this discovery on the origin of our ignorance.

I have been dialoging with a person from Texas this very week on these very three questions. A former atheist than turned against religion.

If any reader would like to dialog on those three questions and the responses the spirit gives that would be wonderful.

Don't forget that "ignorant" is often conflated with "stupid" in common usage (not least on the Net) - calling someone an ignoramus, for instance, is most definitely an insult. So as I said, if someone asks a question that says to you "This person doesn't know about such-and-such," then just give the missing information. You already know that people don't like being called ignorant, you know what effect it has, so why do so? It becomes button-pushing, not explanation or debate or anything constructive.

As for keeping William or his persona - of which I know effectively nothing, same as anyone else on the site - out of the picture, sorry, we ARE people and we DO have an effect on others. However much one might want to get away from ego or false self or whatever else one wants to call it, the point is we are talking, albeit through a very limiting print medium, to other real people and it's not possible to simply ignore that. I'm not a machine for posing arguments; neither are you or Zerdini or Michael or Cyrus or anyone else. This isn't to say "play the man not the ball," more like "remember and respect the fact there's a PERSON on the other end of the message." We are bundles of thoughts, emotions, ideas, you-name-it. I agree with you to the extent that I believe, say, that it's unnecessary for one to believe Jesus was divine, in order to be a Christian in the sense of following his teachings. But if you want to leave personality out of dialogue here, you're going to end up in danger of robotic responses. All that's called for, really, is civility and straight answers (or "I don't know" if one doesn't have 'em, which is a level of ignorance I don't think anyone here has a problem admitting!)

Well put Louise. I would make the observation that William STILL appears reluctant to answer direct questions on the one hand and on the other to adopt an apparently high-handed attitude about the validity of his own beliefs, citing his own authority and experiences but refusing to give information about his amazing lessons and experience. We have been here before and it is not a productive activity. Folks can and no doubt will draw their own conclusions.

"remember and respect the fact there's a PERSON on the other end of the message."

Personhood is very troublesome. One only has to look at politics and religion to see how personhood often hides the message. Focus on the teachings not on the source of the teachings.

Unless of course the source meaning in your terms the person is claiming some sort of enlightenment. Then their actions are very important to consider. Realizations lead to a form of enlightenment not discoveries or intellectual knowedge. It is one thing to state the words love your enemies it is quite another to live them.

It is our view of ourselves as a separate person from others that gives us a sense of culpability and responsibility for our ignorance. That sense of culpability and responsibility for our ignorance is very destructive to the mental welfare of an individual and a society.

The world teaches us a sense of culpability but only in its ignorance. Find the meaning of that ignorance and a whole new world opens up for us. Some say we are victims of ignorance but that is not quite correct. We do indeed suffer for our ignorance but then with that suffering we seek meaning into our ignorance.

Don’t ask why do humans suffer ask what is the underlying reality of that suffering and you will discover the Buddha’s realization that the origin of our suffering is ignorance. Very seldom does anyone including religions dialog on what is reality and what is the underlying reality of phenomena.

“You already know that people don't like being called ignorant, you know what effect it has, so why do so?”

To prove by example that we would rather be called sinful then ignorant. This aggressive response tells us we have much to learn about the underlying reality of our existence. This is the point to ponder; it is our false self that screams at the sound of the word ignorance without realizing we were created with unawareness. Without our unawareness there is no us just Isness.

If ignorance is troublesome for you go with unawareness.

Without this knowledge of being created by an involution and evolution process of unawareness we will have a sense of culpability and responsibility. Our sense of culpability can and does lead to guilt and self hate. And many problems arise in the individual and the world with this self-hate and guilt.

Is there anyone that sees this relationship between a sense of culpability and self-hate and guilt? Wars are fought over self-hate projected onto the world to try and relieve that self-hate. This is why a person that is given great power without divine intelligence can be very destructive to the world.

Paul you are still focusing on the source that is religion. I know by your comments you don’t see that and in my ignorance I don’t know any other way to explain it. The source of “individualized” intelligence matters not. It appears few understand this or at least few that will respond. The source of all intelligence is infinite Oneness. Focus on that and maybe you will see that the “individualized” sources of expressions (souls) are not the concern.

Example the Germans focused on the source (Hitler) not the intelligence meaning divine intelligence of their leader that lead up to the world war. The Christians focused so much on the source not the intelligence of Jesus they make him God. He advised them not to but they paid him no attention.

"Personhood is very troublesome."

Um, no, it isn't. Do you get into a tangle like this talking to people face-to-face? Is an ordinary conversation all too complicated? I don't find it so. But then I, and I suspect most here, don't going around divvying up the real/false/spiritual/cultural/whatever aspects of anyone I'm talking to.

It's not much good using Hitler as an example of the error of focussing on the person rather than the message, for two reasons. One, he was quite deliberately creating a personality cult, and two, a whole lot of the German people liked what they heard anyway. He was appealing to a lot of deeply entrenched prejudices.

Anyway I'm not talking about anyone claiming enlightenment (which I would take with a whole shaker of salt). I'm talking about basic human communication. Simple, civil discourse and manners. And it ain't mannerly to go around calling people ignorant, nor to do what looks like covering one's back by saying it was to point out the sort of response it would bring. Hello, we aren't lab rats, we're not here as part of some sort of experiment in how-to-irk-your-audience. It all comes across as high-handed, just as Paul and others have pointed out. If you can't see that, William, your message is going to go exactly nowhere, because all you'll achieve is to alienate people.

Talking about a sense of culpability is one thing; I've no argument that many religions do instil that as a means of social control. But what if it's more a sense of responsiblity? It might spur action, an attempt to make things better.

There seems to be way too much emphasis on suffering in what so many people write about the Buddha. His message wasn't nearly so negative, from what I've seen of it. Life is joyful as well.

And frankly I believe less and less in this "false self" notion the more you talk about it - not because of who's talking, either, but because it simply makes no sense whatsoever to me. I don't mean I don't understand it: I mean it strikes me as nonsensical. Puts me in mind of what, who was it, Ross? said earlier about spiritual snobbery. In fact, William, that's how all your posts come across and I really think - speaking as an editor by inclination if not trade - that if you ever plan to publish this outside self-publishing, you'd better look at getting your audience on side instead of fed up from page one. Because otherwise it's a whole lot of wasted words ... which I'm strongly suspecting is the case with this post!

I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions, William.

No more obfuscation or pussy-footing around please.

Your attempts to divert the subject under discussion cut no ice with me.

On a previous thread you asked me to quote my sources for the answers I gave to your questions and I gave you chapter and verse.

Now when I ask you for information about your statements you are unable to do so.

Example: what are these mysterious teachings you keep writing about that were rejected by the world and who is the medium you are talking about.

I will be happy to discuss things further with you when you have answered all the points I've made. Be specific.

As far as your comments about my knowledge of the Christian church I have read and studied, among others the following:

William Winwood Reade’s “The Martyrdom of Man”, “The Golden Bough” by Sir James Frazer and “The Curse of Ignorance” (Volumes 1 and 2) by Arthur Findlay.

As a teenager I investigated the major (and minor) religions.

As for the Catholic Church, I used to debate theology with a Catholic priest so I am well aware of their teachings and background.

There is a lot more I've studied during the last sixty years.

Perhaps now you will kindly respond to my questions without any further obfuscation.

Thank you Michael for your contribution. I understand quite well what William means by ignorance.

That is not the issue here. It is his unwillingness to answer questions about specific points he has made that is the problem.

If he can't or won't answer them all he has to do is say so and then we will all know and won't pursue the matter any further.

Simply repeating the same old statements and/or suggesting that others have not researched or studied as much as he has or hasn't access to his spiritual teachers is a form of spiritual snobbery.

We cannot keep William out of the picture as it is William who keeps posting these statements as though they are Holy Writ and mustn't be questioned.

One of my favorite quotes is from philosophy professor, the late Paul Feyerabend:

You think that this one-day fly, this little bit of nothing, a human being…can figure it all out? This to me seems so crazy! It cannot possibly be true!…this universe, and the reality that is behind this is laughing! “Ha ha! They think they have found me out!

I think that when we start to believe that we have been granted secret knowledge from Great Beyond to reveal to humanity it is time to give our imagination a well-earned rest.

“We cannot keep William out of the picture as it is William who keeps posting these statements as though they are Holy Writ and mustn't be questioned.”

You are not questioning the intelligence but the source. This is religion. How did I know that you would not dialog on three of the questions in the spirits book that you claim to know so much about. I knew that and I so much wanted to be wrong on this issue.

These are profound questions that Kardec asks. The answers touch on the very origin of our suffering and on the origin of our ignorance; one of the most profound questions we can ask as a soul. But yet the world hides from that question with a vengeance. What is the meaning of this refusal to ask such a simple question?

When we discover the meaning of that refusal we will then have knowledge of our sense of culpability, which has its home or origin in our self-confirmatory ideation. Stated another way we want to be separate entities (me, me, me) not expressions of this oneness that most call God.

These statements by anyone or me must be questioned; accept no statements as holy writ. That is the purpose of dialog to question and to ask what is the meaning of what appears to be. That is religion when we do not question and we all see what religion has done for the world. The world dwells on the source as Zerdini has done and in his ignorance he has become religious but only due to his unawareness, which has its origin in our original and eternal innocence.

“There is a lot more I've studied during the last sixty years”

You have demeaned my 19 years but brag about your sixty years. This is karma defined for both of us. But I know you cannot see this or you never would have made these comments. You have proved again you are more interested in the source than the intelligence. This is why spiritualism and indeed any source of divine intelligence has became a religion and quite frankly one of the reasons spiritualism failed as a worldwide religion.

“I understand quite well what William means by ignorance.”

No you do not understand neither do I understand! I have never claimed understanding on this matter only discovery. There is a world and profound difference between discovery and understanding. Discovery can come through intellectual seeking; understanding comes through realization and we can at this time only attribute realization to the grace of gods or God.

My only realization came with Dr. Deming’s teachings as the relationship of ignorance and the relative phenomenal world. I care nothing about your sources it matters not to who you claim as a source. You could claim Jesus as a source and it matters not to me. I have no memory of the sources you mentioned. Jesus and the Buddha made this clear about giving them credit as a person or spiritual source but the world including Zerdini heard them not. Jesus spoke of Christ consciousness but few understood and turned Christianity into a religion.

“You think that this one-day fly, this little bit of nothing, a human being…can figure it all out?”

A human and a soul have every right to stay in ignorance as long as they like. But in that ignorance is individual and world suffering. That huge oil leak has at its origin ignorance. Why would life be without these mysteries of life? Without these mysteries there is no expressions which we call souls there is just Isness. These mysteries are a gift from the gods or God.

I will be gone a week on a cruise without the internet I suspect that this information will be greeted with glee by some if not most; but here are two links that may be helpful to the questions in the spirits book. 120, 121, and 122. if anyone is interested in dialog and not religion.

http://www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/Creation/Related.htm

The dialog ([a dialogue between a reader and myself:]) on this website is between myself (William) and the owner of the website which I know not as I care less about the source of the knowledge presented on this website or the owner of the website.

http://www.awakening.net/RMNatural.html

This will reveal to the reader why we cannot claim understanding unless we claim a realization. I have found very few in the world that has the knowledge this person has on this subject of awareness and consciousness including of course Zerdini. He knows not; this is why he wants sources. Again that is religion. My source can be my ash tree in my yard it matters not the source. There is only one source of all divine intelligence and it is not William nor Zerdini but infinite Oneness, which most call God.

http://www.activemeditation.com/ActiveMeditations/Aspects/Consciousness.html

Further study for those interested in the subtle but profound difference between awareness and consciousness.

Apologize for long post Michael P but as you know so well this is my passion for whatever reasons. There is so much suffering in the world yet humanity refuses to ask the origin of that suffering or the origin of the ignorance that causes that suffering.

I agree w vogt. If one thinks one has been granted secret knowledge from Great Beyond, one might at least say what it is lol :)

http://www.activemeditation.com/ActiveMeditations/
Aspects/Consciousness.html

I think the ego dissolution that Buddhists preach and the ego persistence that Christians believe are probably both true at different times.

Your timescale when looking at these issues must be Cosmic.

Perhaps our personalities do dissolve and we become as drops of rain whose separateness vanishes in a bucket of water.

But that's just as stagnant a view for the rest of eternity as remaining exactly who you were after you've died for all eternity.

Why should anyone feel a commitment to one more than the other? They are in principle the same.

It may be that while our personalities dissolve, they do so only temporarily, and we remain patterns of personality in the mind of God, and that in the course of the eternal birth, death, and rebirth of the universe we have each of us lived countless lives before, and will live countless lives again, because To Be is its own justification.

So I don't see it as having to be either-or.

"There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after."


dmduncan, Your comment makes sense to me; especially this part.

".......we remain patterns of personality in the mind of God, and that in the course of the eternal birth, death, and rebirth of the universe we have each of us lived countless lives before, and will live countless lives again, because To Be is its own justification.

So I don't see it as having to be either-or."

I also do think there are some things that are just unknowable to humans regardless of the level of sprititual attainment on earth or in the next world.

I have a real problem with folks who seem to think that the universe is all about us; that we are the appex of creation or awareness. This is egomania in the extreme as far as I am concerned. There may well be beings out there that see us and our awareness potential in the same way that many of us consider that of a slug.

You are not questioning the intelligence but the source. This is religion.

I was not questioning the intelligence or the source. The questions were directed to you, William. You seem incapable of answering them.

How did I know that you would not dialog on three of the questions in the spirits book that you claim to know so much about. I knew that and I so much wanted to be wrong on this issue.

If you had read my reply you would have noted that I said I would happily discuss the three questions with you but only when you had answered the questions I have now posed to you a number of times and which you wilfully refused to answer. If you wanted so much to be wrong why did you not answer my questions?

These statements by anyone or me must be questioned; accept no statements as holy writ. That is the purpose of dialog to question and to ask what is the meaning of what appears to be.

That is exactly what I have done yet you refuse to enter into any sort of discussion.

That is religion when we do not question and we all see what religion has done for the world.

Etymologists tell us that the word "religion" may come from the Latin root religare, meaning to adhere or bind. In other words that which binds us to the Source of all Life.

You have demeaned my 19 years but brag about your sixty years.

No I did not. You boasted about your 19 years of study and I merely pointed out that I had done 60 years of study and research and was happy to share it with anyone who was interested.

This is why spiritualism and indeed any source of divine intelligence has became a religion and quite frankly one of the reasons spiritualism failed as a worldwide religion.

Again you reveal your lack of understanding of Spiritualism. It is not, nor ever has been, a worldwide religion. You need to do some real research and get your facts right.

No you do not understand neither do I understand!

Very true.

we can at this time only attribute realization to the grace of gods or God. My only realization came with Dr. Deming’s teachings as the relationship of ignorance and the relative phenomenal world.

Are you suggesting that Dr Deming is God or gods?

I will be gone a week on a cruise without the internet I suspect that this information will be greeted with glee by some if not most;

You may be right there but interestingly I, too, will be visiting the USA and Canada very shortly and will also be on a week’s cruise during that time. Who knows we may well bump into each other!! Lol

Apologize for long post Michael P but as you know so well this is my passion for whatever reasons. There is so much suffering in the world yet humanity refuses to ask the origin of that suffering or the origin of the ignorance that causes that suffering.

And finally this is where William gets his ideas and beliefs:

The Deming System of Profound Knowledge:
"The prevailing style of management must undergo transformation. A system cannot understand itself. The transformation requires a view from outside. The aim of this chapter is to provide an outside view—a lens—that I call a system of profound knowledge. It provides a map of theory by which to understand the organizations that we work in.

"The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.

"Once the individual understands the system of profound knowledge, he will apply its principles in every kind of relationship with other people. He will have a basis for judgment of his own decisions and for transformation of the organizations that he belongs to. The individual, once transformed, will:
• Set an example;
• Be a good listener, but will not compromise;
• Continually teach other people; and
• Help people to pull away from their current practices and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past."

I admire your persistence zerdini lol

William Edward Deming? A management consultant and statistician? This is the "profound knowledge" we're supposed to put on the afterlife and earthly life and any other life one can think of? Management techniques?

Strewth.

I think I'll stick to my source. Louis's been in Spirit a few centuries and doesn't fart around with philosophy. He just ... hmm, what's the word ... lives. Vividly.

Funny how Sam Parnia usually seems to be placed in the "believers" camp, but in this video he mentions that he suspects NDEs are just a trick of the mind.

He used to be a believer - but it seems like he isn't getting the results he was hoping for.

Now that we all know where William gets his views and beliefs and unwillingness to compromise (as a follower of Dr Deming) we can place his beliefs in proper perspective.

As Louise commented: Strewth.

Strewth indeed!

'He used to be a believer-but it seems like he isn't getting the results he was hoping for.' - sbu

Hi, are you referring to his talk at Goldsmiths, sbu ?
I was also trying to suss out whether the shovel has hit the cow's backside, so to speak, in the intensive care wards. I couldn't tell if he has had some hit's or not, but he did seem to be cautious.

Even if Parnia's research comes up with nothing at all there is still the small matter of explaining the NDEs reported so far by others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all.

Personally, whether Parnia there is anything to it or not seems somewhat immaterial. What matters is the totality of the evidence and how he went about collecting it. If he does or does not find evidence either way it just gets added to the appropriate heap doesn't it?

Good point, Paul.

"Even if Parnia's research comes up with nothing at all there is still the small matter of explaining the NDEs reported so far by others." - Paul
--------------------------------------------

There is still the small matter of the connection between NDEs and the holographic universe theory. Congruence, corroboration, parallels, whatever you want to call it, people who have NDE's routinely describe them in terms that can only be called "hologrpahic" and I find that very evidential. About every third NDE that I read has some allusion to the holographic nature of the Universe. There is something very strange about that. Not to mention the life review is a holographic experience par excellence.

excerpt from Kelly K's NDE:
"The next thing I recall was being shown the universe. I remember thinking, "So, THAT'S how it is! I was in awe. It was like a huge net, or chain link fence, everything in the universe is connected."
http://www.nderf.org/kelly_k's_nde.htm

Guys, about the Sam Parnia Vid. He hasn't begun(and the other members of the AWARE team) to investigate the reports yet. Once he does, and attempts to analyse veridical aspects (including the hidden targets) it is all to play for. Analysis has just started, and preliminary results will not be made available until end of this year at the earliest.
My hunch is that the oceanic / transcendant aspects of NDE / OBE are not amenable to simple target identification and not much will come here, however they are also looking at cerebral oxygen perfusion. If it can be shown that person X had very low brain O2 levels at the time they said they were having the experience (regardless of target identification) that could be interesting evidence for the pro camp. I suspect this is what we will find.

'If it can be shown that person X had very low brain O2 levels at the time they said they were having the experience...that could be interesting evidence for the pro camp.'

Thanks for the info, Michael. I'm not quite sure that it would be, though. Wouldn't that just support the old 'lack of oxygen to the brain' argument?
Might be wrong of course if oxygen starvation equals flat EEG, but it doesn't, does it.
It's getting so confusing.

The comments to this entry are closed.