what is bliss?

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by revolver

Bliss is just a word as also love, whatever we call it is never what it is, so hence the silence, shhhhh.

Pretty much.

Lately, I have found that people can only hear me when I say nothing.

Pretty difficult to translate that awareness over the medium of an internet forum though.

I've also learned one more thing:



The same can be said for the whole experience of bliss...

[revolver]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Pretty much.

Lately, I have found that people can only hear me when I say nothing.

Pretty difficult to translate that awareness over the medium of an internet forum though.

I've also learned one more thing:



The same can be said for the whole experience of bliss...

Yes I love it.

[dryad]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I agree ... you yourself don't strike me as having an 'obsession' in said regard - but the stuff (ideas) you spout, which I quoted, are (IMO) 'slanted' in that direction, IMO, ans so may reinforce such obsession in others. The 'soul' and 'ego' ideas are also hangovers from 'long ago' (again, IMO). Have you considered the possibility that what 'your' 'angels' (you've heard of YCYOR haven't you?) told you may simply be 'self-fulfilling prophecies' in the sense of merely reflecting belief 'hangovers' from previous lives. I would suggest you and others always view one's 'intuitions' (dreams, visions, 'voices', etc.) as quite possibly (likely?) being a reflection of past conditioning which may or may not really be fore-seeing? Never t be 'smug' about what you (think you really know), IOW. My advice to you and everyone else who thinks they are 'truly' knowing is to always pray-ask and look to see if there might be something which you are overlooking because of being in some sort of 'old' self self-reinforcing experience 'loop'. Whatever ... please know that my sharing in relation to the bits of the preceding post which I quoted reflected my 'intuition' ;) that you were caught up in such looping to some degree, even as you are clearly 'proceeding' 'forward', as reflected by your saying your wouldn't mind 'coming back', which 'rang' true' to me (about you). Please just consider instead of 'simply' blowing what I said aside - just because someone said that to you just now and the 'synchronicity' of that may be a 'sign' sent your way - by someone or something other than 'your' 'angels' - and so worth looking into (past your 'normal'/'habitual' frame of reference). Then just trash it if it really strikes you as being an insignificant 'coincidence'. Watch our that your 'sense' of your being an such an 'advanced' soul doesn't serve as a 'rationalization' for 'smugly' thinking that your are cmpletely 'beyond' Michael Newton's soul-classifications, Bro. I, for one, think your aren't or you wouldn't be here now as well as 'speaking' the kind of 'drivel' that your dis speak, which I challenged as being 'old'-fashioned.

From the book I wrote: "In [your] quest, adages and directives should not simply be accepted and uncritically followed, no matter how esteemed their source or how brilliant seeming their interpretation. Life is too multidimensional and its components too intricately interwoven for guidelines and prescriptions to always be applicable. As the occasional appropriateness and equally occasional inappropriateness of such oft-quoted maxims as 'Haste makes waste' and 'A stitch in time saves nine' makes quite clear, what will or won’t do the most good depends on circumstance. In this regard, there are no canonical absolutes.

However, one shouldn’t therefore decide it is better to just rely on what is thought of as intuition instead. Though spontaneously arising thought-feeling gestalts and prompts may frequently be totally appropriate and Life-affirming, they are often purely reflexive phenomena, like the excitement of Pavlov’s dogs upon hearing a familiar-sounding bell, heavily influenced by, if not completely a function of, prior patterns of perception and conditioning. As demonstrated by the fact that acclaimed clairvoyants also make erroneous pronouncements, intuition is not a totally trustworthy indication. Even the most impressive revelation does not derive from direct perception of Life’s actual layout, but is a subjective ‘projection’ based on what is ‘alive’ in the domain of one’s personal or group psyche at the moment."

I'm yet to find anything in what you've said that contradicts what I've said. I don't know why you think ascension is old fashioned. Its simply that im talking about one piece of the bigger picture but your bigger picture seems to be exactly the same as mine as far as I can tell. I just describe it differently.

I do constantly question the fact that I am different but every time I do I get shown again that I am. But I am certainly not the only one. This world is full of souls at every stage and I just happen to be one of the older ones. I'm not even the oldest (soul) that I know IRL. Just because I'm here doesn't mean I have to be exactly the same as everyone else. Jesus was here too. So was Buddha etc etc.....

I don't look for meaning in vague sychronicities or fuzzy intuition. I do question what I know though. So based on your question I decided to regress myself using Michael newtons method (going through the death scene). To see exactly where I fit in to the world he describes. Its a big world. I think he describes it as infinite. So no I don't think I'm outside of that but most of what he describes in journey of souls (I have not read the others) is the nursery. I just live elsewhere. That is based on his own description. Its the youngest souls that seek help with hypnotic regression. So what I am saying doesn't need to contradict that view or your view. I'm not outside his soul classifications either i just use the term older cos its more general. I'd rather be a bit vague about some things.

[dryad]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

When you say entity, you mean? Reading through this, this would make sense why we get the "hunger" aspect, especially within spiritual seekers themselves...

I can simplify it for you... By entity he means god as a universal spirit. That god is the mind of the universe same way as you are the mind of your body. Essence is the underlying nature of reality. That energy which gives rise to the mind of god. Same as the Shiva /Shakti duality.

I need help with this part. Can you brief it for me please? My mind cant grasp it as it is...

He is basically saying that souls are aspects of that universal spirit which is all things (source) and that all consciousness therefore is an expression of that universal spirit which tickles down through the separate souls into individual incarnated ego minds..... We are all aspects of God.

[davidsun]

I am glad to hear that nothing in what I said contradicts what you have said, dry, albeit I think that 'ascension' as an idea may I am not saying it is always) be 'loaded' with connotations of 'superiority', as in "the white race is 'superior'." What I sense is that there are many peeps who consider themselves 'advanced' in terms of 'spirituality' or 'spiritual development' who are presently functionally piggy-backing their beingness (relationality to others as well as LIFE as 'an entity' :) on past accomplishments, their own or that of others who 'master' said past traditions/accomplishments, which IMO has the 'drawback' of not 'keeping up' with and 'availing' themselves of and thereby engaging in with others and the 'entity' of Life using significant 'advances' which have been made and continue to be made since by way of more recent (you might say 'more developed', in ways at least) incarnational integrations. They are therefore and thereby (IMO) 'caught up' and so 'held back' in 'old'-time-appropriate 'eddies' instead of 'leap-frogging' (based on past advances) into Life's 'advancing' 'front'.

The whole subject as well as range of individual variations in this regard is so great as to be beyond the scope of 'simple' reference, of course, but here's a paragraph form the book I wrote which touches on my 'reasons' for making the above point:

"Many who consider themselves ‘true followers’ of Vedic teachings therefore proceed quite myopically, for example, not appreciating, not availing themselves of, and not sharing with others Life’s true richness and beneficence. Just as would happen if college-aspiring youngsters decided not to be involved with what was offered in their school curriculum because they judged it ‘inferior’ to ‘higher’ learning, such individuals fail to obtain and dispense educational benefits, accessible in their present context, which are prerequisite to further growth and development."

Originally Posted by dryad

I can simplify it for you... By entity he means god as a universal spirit. That god is the mind of the universe same way as you are the mind of your body. Essence is the underlying nature of reality. That energy which gives rise to the mind of god. Same as the Shiva /Shakti duality.

Yes. And I think that Jesus' teachings are quite relevant 'advances' - which teachings now 'call' for being 'advanced' even further, I think - in this regard. Here is a paragraph from the first Chapter of my treatise titled "What Jesus Really Meant", to give you an idea of my 'thrust' in this regard:

"As is true of any amalgam of logically interwoven conceptual statements, this [the 'traditional' Nicene 'Christian] creedal declaration has many possible implications and so may be differently understood, of course. Undeniable, however, is the fact that it literally excludes any and all possible metaphorical interpretations of the Father↔Son paradigm for Creation, such as the one I proffer, which is that the entirety of Creation as an existential Entity, not the personage of Jesus himself, is what he referenced as ‘the Son’ when and as he spoke for said Creation – when and as he ‘channeled’ Its spirit, one might say – as a result of his personally, mentally and emotionally, choosing to completely ‘identify’ with It (i.e. with said Living Entity). I submit, this is the only way in which his saying “This is my body” when sharing bread and “This is my blood” when dispensing wine may be regarded as making real sense."

Originally Posted by dryad

He is basically saying that souls are aspects of that universal spirit which is all things (source) and that all consciousness therefore is an expression of that universal spirit which tickles down through the separate souls into individual incarnated ego minds..... We are all aspects of God.

Yes, naturesflow. And you are (your soul is) one of the 'leading' aspects of said 'tickling' (I know he meant 'trickling'). I appreciate the difficulties right-brained types may have when attempting to navigating what one of my friends labelled the 'dense'ness :) of my logic. One of the things that I hope left-brained folks will get however, which dryad's statement does not address is that (in my view) said 'God' is not a 'top-down' trickler :) - rather, the constellation/configuration, your might say the 'nature', of said 'God' changes as His/Her/Its constituent part-beings change. The 'God' which was proactive at the time of the dinosaurs, the 'God' which was proactive at the time of Atlantis, the 'God' which was proactive at the time when the Vedas were composed, the 'God' which was proactive at the time of Moses, and I dare say even the 'God' which proactive emerged at the time of Jesus were all significantly different 'in nature' than the 'God' which is emerging into proactivity now.

Here is another quote from my current writing (which I have recently shared in this forum but wish to share again as it may be more meaningful - to some at least - in the present discussional context:

"It has ... recently struck me that developments in the field of modern computer systems may provide us with an even more illustrative model for the universally creative, feedback-loop based interfusion of the Essence of Creativity (i.e. ‘the Father’) and the Life of every individual and amalgamated aspect of Its expression. To explore this proposition, imagine if you will that the main aim or goal of said Essence’s ‘program’ – the primary motive (i.e. ‘desire’) ensconced in its ‘Source code’ – is to maximally express and thereby experience Love and Joy, to Joyfully express and experience Love and Lovingly express and experience Joy to the greatest possible degree in every possible way, or something like that.

Next, to picture the activity of the Living Entity of our Creation (i.e. of ‘the Son’), imagine a universe-sized network made up of an infinite array of banks upon banks of computers matrixially web-strung together by way of both parallel and series connections, all simultaneously, individually and together, multi-processing the above referenced Love and Joy ‘program’, with each processor and every amalgamation thereof functionally outputting the ‘solution’ it ‘calculates’ will most probably yield the greatest possible Love and Joy ‘result’ in its case (as far as it can prognostically project, that is), which ‘solution’ then operationally functions as input in relation of any and all associated processors to whatever extent they ‘calculate’ it to be relevant to their own Love and Joy process, such that said output-n-input data-packet sequences co-actively ripple and reverberate around the network, sparking Love and Joy focused perceptions and decisions (i.e. experiences and expressions) which conjointly determine what takes place here, there and everywhere in ‘the body’ of said Entity over the course of time."

[running]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I am glad to hear that nothing in what I said contradicts what you have said, dry, albeit I think that 'ascension' as an idea may I am not saying it is always) be 'loaded' with connotations of 'superiority', as in "the white race is 'superior'." What I sense is that there are many peeps who consider themselves 'advanced' in terms of 'spirituality' or 'spiritual development' who are presently functionally piggy-backing their beingness (relationality to others as well as LIFE as 'an entity' :) on past accomplishments, their own or that of others who 'master' said past traditions/accomplishments, which IMO has the 'drawback' of not 'keeping up' with and 'availing' themselves of and thereby engaging in with others and the 'entity' of Life using significant 'advances' which have been made and continue to be made since by way of more recent (you might say 'more developed', in ways at least) incarnational integrations. They are therefore and thereby (IMO) 'caught up' and so 'held back' in 'old'-time-appropriate 'eddies' instead of 'leap-frogging' (based on past advances) into Life's 'advancing' 'front'.

The whole subject as well as range of individual variations in this regard is so great as to be beyond the scope of 'simple' reference, of course, but here's a paragraph form the book I wrote which touches on my 'reasons' for making the above point:

"Many who consider themselves ‘true followers’ of Vedic teachings therefore proceed quite myopically, for example, not appreciating, not availing themselves of, and not sharing with others Life’s true richness and beneficence. Just as would happen if college-aspiring youngsters decided not to be involved with what was offered in their school curriculum because they judged it ‘inferior’ to ‘higher’ learning, such individuals fail to obtain and dispense educational benefits, accessible in their present context, which are prerequisite to further growth and development."


Yes. And I think that Jesus' teachings are quite relevant 'advances' - which teachings now 'call' for being 'advanced' even further, I think - in this regard. Here is a paragraph from the first Chapter of my treatise titled "What Jesus Really Meant", to give you an idea of my 'thrust' in this regard:

"As is true of any amalgam of logically interwoven conceptual statements, this [the 'traditional' Nicene 'Christian] creedal declaration has many possible implications and so may be differently understood, of course. Undeniable, however, is the fact that it literally excludes any and all possible metaphorical interpretations of the Father↔Son paradigm for Creation, such as the one I proffer, which is that the entirety of Creation as an existential Entity, not the personage of Jesus himself, is what he referenced as ‘the Son’ when and as he spoke for said Creation – when and as he ‘channeled’ Its spirit, one might say – as a result of his personally, mentally and emotionally, choosing to completely ‘identify’ with It (i.e. with said Living Entity). I submit, this is the only way in which his saying “This is my body” when sharing bread and “This is my blood” when dispensing wine may be regarded as making real sense."


Yes, naturesflow. And you are (your soul is) one of the 'leading' aspects of said 'tickling' (I know he meant 'trickling'). I appreciate the difficulties right-brained types may have when attempting to navigating what one of my friends labelled the 'dense'ness :) of my logic. One of the things that I hope left-brained folks will get however, which dryad's statement does not address is that (in my view) said 'God' is not a 'top-down' trickler :) - rather, the constellation/configuration, your might say the 'nature', of said 'God' changes as His/Her/Its constituent part-beings change. The 'God' which was proactive at the time of the dinosaurs, the 'God' which was proactive at the time of Atlantis, the 'God' which was proactive at the time when the Vedas were composed, the 'God' which was proactive at the time of Moses, and I dare say even the 'God' which proactive emerged at the time of Jesus were all significantly different 'in nature' than the 'God' which is emerging into proactivity now.

Here is another quote from my current writing (which I have recently shared in this forum but wish to share again as it may be more meaningful - to some at least - in the present discussional context:

"It has ... recently struck me that developments in the field of modern computer systems may provide us with an even more illustrative model for the universally creative, feedback-loop based interfusion of the Essence of Creativity (i.e. ‘the Father’) and the Life of every individual and amalgamated aspect of Its expression. To explore this proposition, imagine if you will that the main aim or goal of said Essence’s ‘program’ – the primary motive (i.e. ‘desire’) ensconced in its ‘Source code’ – is to maximally express and thereby experience Love and Joy, to Joyfully express and experience Love and Lovingly express and experience Joy to the greatest possible degree in every possible way, or something like that.

Next, to picture the activity of the Living Entity of our Creation (i.e. of ‘the Son’), imagine a universe-sized network made up of an infinite array of banks upon banks of computers matrixially web-strung together by way of both parallel and series connections, all simultaneously, individually and together, multi-processing the above referenced Love and Joy ‘program’, with each processor and every amalgamation thereof functionally outputting the ‘solution’ it ‘calculates’ will most probably yield the greatest possible Love and Joy ‘result’ in its case (as far as it can prognostically project, that is), which ‘solution’ then operationally functions as input in relation of any and all associated processors to whatever extent they ‘calculate’ it to be relevant to their own Love and Joy process, such that said output-n-input data-packet sequences co-actively ripple and reverberate around the network, sparking Love and Joy focused perceptions and decisions (i.e. experiences and expressions) which conjointly determine what takes place here, there and everywhere in ‘the body’ of said Entity over the course of time."

you seem to be mistaking one thing as both things. one thing being cultural ideals and emotional expereinces. the other thing being joy from source.

one is dual. the other is nondual. they both can and do reside together. you can have ideas of how one culture is or less advanced spiritually. we have a history of that thinking on the planet that hasnt served very well thus far. so i personally stay out of that battle. you also have the joy from source which is shared by simply being a vessel for it. there is no calculating. it is love itself. without condition. we can call that advanced or not. but in any case these are two different things. one is a product of the mind and emotional body. the other is a product of source.

[dryad]

"Many who consider themselves ‘true followers’ of Vedic teachings therefore proceed quite myopically, for example, not appreciating, not availing themselves of, and not sharing with others Life’s true richness and beneficence. Just as would happen if college-aspiring youngsters decided not to be involved with what was offered in their school curriculum because they judged it ‘inferior’ to ‘higher’ learning, such individuals fail to obtain and dispense educational benefits, accessible in their present context, which are prerequisite to further growth and development."

This I very much agree with. My own beliefs and range of experiences draw from many sources. My only concern is that perhaps it suggests those college aspiring youngsters should not go to college when that appropriate time comes because this way of thinking has shifted their priorities? Most that attempt ascension fail precisely because they don't have the skills needed but you can't be so focused on those skills that you don't meet the entrance requirements either.

[Shivani Devi]

Exactly where in the 'Vedic teachings' does it say that those in the 3rd or 4th Varnashrama of life need to avail themselves to/of others and share life's true richness with them?

It is called 'renunciation' for a reason and if this were not the case, there wouldn't be about 10 million Sadhus living in the jungles and caves of the Himalayas that only mix with their own kind once every 4 years during Kumbh Mela time...however, I would love to see exactly where in the 4 Vedas it says that you are not following them if you don't share your experiences with others - Sanskrit quote needed please!

That being said, the 'myopia' occurs in the whole duality (Dvaita) of existence, whereby if you are not being/doing one thing, you MUST be the exact polar opposite, because no 'shades of grey' exist whatsoever.

For example, I said that I do not experience the heightened joys of bliss anymore and it has all settled down....what happened AFTER that, is some have said that I must be very unhappy with my life now! NO!!!

Just because I am 'not happy' does not make me 'unhappy' or 'miserable'...I am neither happy nor unhappy...neither glad nor sad...there is NO emotion whatsoever...none!...zero!...zilch! but the 'average human' cannot understand a state where absolutely no emotion can be present...so if I am not 'happy', then I must be 'miserable'...and then they go on to say that my misery is of my own creation because I have no emotion...what? what???

Sure I have physical pain that I'd rather not have, but I also have alexithymia (which probably caused it).

So, the myopia isn't seeing things wrongly, it's seeing things they only want to see (selective perception) and basing their whole premise on a biased, skewed, warped view of life to the total and complete exclusion and detriment of everything else...because their ideas are the only 'true' ones and therefore everything else must be 'false'.

I've gone fully back into Advaita Vedanta as a result....because I was told that I was 'cold' and 'heartless' because I did not agree with somebody else involving their own 'Social Justice' ideations...sorry, but I am not the type who takes on all of the world's problems and karma onto my own shoulders, calling others 'miserable' when the mere act of them doing such, makes them unbearably so, to be able to exist in this world on any functional level.

So, I am basically over it. I'm over the Maya of this world, instigated by the 'myopic' views of other people, when it seems that only I have spectacles on and nobody else does. Thank you.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by dryad

I don't know why you think ascension is old fashioned. Its simply that im talking about one piece of the bigger picture but your bigger picture seems to be exactly the same as mine as far as I can tell. I just describe it differently. ... Just because I'm here doesn't mean I have to be exactly the same as everyone else.

Thank you for thoughtfully considering and honestyly responding to what I have put forward, dryad. My sense also is that there is a great deal of overlap between our 'bigger picture' views. I also very much respect the fact that you (and everyone else here) not only doesn't 'have to' be the same as everyone but really couldn't be so even if they wanted to so be. :)

Regarding why I think 'ascension' is an 'old'-fashioned value and focus of intention - I think so because (IMO) such value of focus takes away from (contradicts? devalues the importance of?) "fully being here now" as a value and intention which value and intention truly (IMO) honors both the fact of and reasons for 'incarnating' (being here in one's present body and 'worldy' context) in the first place.

Like being in college to 'graduate' would do, I think. IMO seeing/thinking about etc. some other place or setting as being 'higher' and therefore wishing/desiring/aspiring to get 'there' cannot help but lead one to ignore and so betray the true greatness/wonderfulness/opportunity of being here, which I believe a lot of would-be 'ascenders' (in retrospect it may be as 'foolishly' did) in spades which both resulted in Life (in general) being 'poorer' here and their having to (choose to) 'come back' in order to accomplish ('learn'?) what they, because of being so 'high-star' struck, failed to do before.

Though many continue to repeat the (quite understandable, IMO) 'mistake', it is no longer 'in fashion' to value, intend and aim to do so (also, IMO). Hence my labeling it as old-fashioned now.

I thought the words you chose to use (referencing 'ascension' etc.) earlier may well serve to 'legitimize' and so reinforce the repetition of such 'mistake' (IMO, though understandable, it is and unwise 'value'), Hence my challenging of such choice and taking the time to explain my reasons for doing so.

BTW, I think the same 'error' (getting to a 'heavenly state that is projected as being 'higher' and (more) 'divine' in contrast to down-to-earth kinds/ways of being is being 'committed' by a great many 'ordinary' as well as 'exceptional (i.e. unlike others) folks in both esoteric ones as well as non-esoteric Western traditions, ones, as well.

Sincerely -

[Shivani Devi]

Yes my friends, I am pretty much over this whole thing now.

Other people say stuff to me like "according to a revered holy scripture, it says this and if you don't follow that revered holy scripture, then you cannot be a Hindu according to Dharma".

As soon as I say; "I'm sorry, but I cannot simply take your word over those of Valmiki or Tulsidas, could you please show me the exact scripture which states what you are implying?" and of course, they can't...and so all of the name-calling and ad hominem starts...they will say they dislike me...and I will be like "why? because I called you out on your attempts to delude people? then, hate me all you like, I don't care".

Then, there are those people who say that Jesus, Buddha, Ramana Maharishi etc did this or that...helped people...cured people....enlightened people...NO! when a being reaches that stage, they don't do anything anymore...everything is done through them and they just sit back and watch it all happen...Ramana would have meditated on the side of Arunachala irrespective of whether hundreds of devotees turned up or not!

Saints and sages are not there for other people. They exist to realise their own innate Divinity and if that 'rubs off' on others, well and good...but it's not something they consciously 'do' because by that stage, they are not doing anything anymore.