Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greenslade
I tend to 'listen' to the Universe first and foremost, and right now there's definitely signs coming thick and fast. One of the major ones right now is Gnosticism and the 'know thyself and thou shalt know God' theme. With questions such as these the focus is on which one is better and because it's a Spiritual forum people tend to choose the 'Spiritual' option - or what is defined as Spiritual. My own answer would be whichever one is best in context in a 'tool for the job' fashion. What would be enlightening/awareness-making isn't which one I'd choose but the reasons for choosing it.
Is renouncing or integrating another way of asking running away from or embracing? I often wonder if Spirituality has become escapism more than answers, enlightenment as a way of redressing the balance of the PTSD of Life.
I have a very different perspective than pretty much everyone in this forum because for most it's higher and exclusion, while mine is expansion and inclusion. Einstein said that genius is being able to hold two opposing concepts in the mind at the same time, and it's also called cognitive dissonance or the 'lock on, lock out' principle. I wonder how different this and so many other conversations would be different if that little snippet from Einstein was embraced? Or if there was self-aware enough to realise what was being said?
So who says we have to choose just one? Why can't we be here, there and in both places at the same time? That's 'where' Spirit is. Why can't we renounce and integrate at the same time, or better yet why don't we?
Where we're from is still up for grabs, some way that we are from the stars, others say we are from everywhere.... and on it goes. But are those peeps really so misguided or are they expressing something hidden away inside them that they don't understand or can't find words for? Or are they trying to escape?
That what you are is both 'here' and 'there' and the potentiality of what there is yet to realise, 'here' and 'there' are focus not fact. There is no 'there', there is only 'here' because 'here' is "I Am." Once you are 'here' everywhere is 'here'.
|
Entertaining two opposing concepts would be classed as integration so I believe it's possible to entertain the notion of self and no self, but what I have suggested is where is there a sense of I AM awareness .
While typing our posts is one aware of no self at the same time? Is one aware of what they are beyond the mindful universe at the same time as one is sitting on the toilet contemplating the meaning of life?
The actuality I would say is that self and no self exist depending solely on awareness . Awareness of what? Awareness of self? The absence of self?
To be aware of self to then renounce that very self is where I see the waters muddied ..
How can self renounce self when self raises the notion . To entertain the notion that no self has raised the notion would just re open the door to perhaps both self and no self raised the notion or even better still that there is no self or no, no-self and nothing actually arises, what seemingly arises has always been there lol .
If we potentially entertain every opposing concept within our mind then scrambled eggs comes to mind .
I think there is a structured reason for why we entertain / believe what we do . Is it right what we believe, can it be right and wrong at the same time . I suppose it depends on the actual situation at hand at the time .
Opening up a can of worms
x daz x