The Open Secret - For No-One

[Josefine]

Originally Posted by milk and honey

That's what the spiritual path is: a seeker (a soul) realising the enlightenment of spiritual Selfhood. Krishnamurti and Tony Parsons are mistaken if they believe there is no seeker, no path and no enlightenment. It takes a lot more than an unbidden experience of Oneness to prove that there is no path and no seeker. I think they're both jumping to the wrong conclusion about the journey. There is a goal and one must be fit for it.

The Christ presence may fill the soul with the realisation of Oneness to kickstart the road back and remind the soul of it's origin in spirit but to then assume from that experience that there is no seeker and no path is a fundamental misconception.

Good you have your binoculars, Czymra! I am jumping in. SPLASH

The term 'An Unbidden Experience of Oneness' is very derogatory term for what is our birthright. You are suggesting that there is a right and a wrong time to experience Oneness!

Time is an illusion, and whithout time there is no distance and no separation.

I have just listened to the first video with Tony Parsons, 'Longing for Wholeness'. It brings a deep sense of recognition.

It reminds me of many wonderful teachers along my way.

Krishamurti was one of them, a paradoxical teacher: He said you do not need a teacher. Just be, you find it all within. Yet he published book after book, lectured for many years and left a lot of video taped sessions.

We are in an illusionary reality, yet it is a perfect illusion that feels totally real. We are here to experience, and that is how it was planned.

In truth we never left Oneness. A gentle shift of perception is all it takes to be there - in the Oneness, in Love.

Christ is not enlightened. Enlightenment suggests a move from being unenlightened to becoming enlightened. Christ IS the Light and the Void, as one in the trinity of Father/Mother God of All-Oneness is. Christ was the first issue, the first to manifest created reality. He has incarnated many times. As 'sys adm' he has tended to subtle tasks of adjustment when the rest of us have become too lost in the illusion.

It is ok to become immersed. It is ok to become such good actors on a stage that we are 'lost' in the play.

It is also totally ok to remember that it is a play, and that we never left the larger Reality.

The only difference between Tony Parsons teachings and my deepest source is that in the Oneness of Love we still have individuality. We may not see alike, also in the larger reality. That is because there was a first birth in the Oneness, when we were given individual consciousness. It is like the drops in the ocean, totally immersed in the whole, yet being the molecules that comprise the quality of water.

Good teachers merely remind us: You Never Left.

Peace

It is also ok if you choose this

But this is a bit gross I'd rather go for this

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by Josefine

The term 'An Unbidden Experience of Oneness' is very derogatory term for what is our birthright. You are suggesting that there is a right and a wrong time to experience Oneness!

Hi Josefine. I'm not suggesting theres a right or wrong time to experience Oneness. The point i am making has nothing to do with timing. I'm saying that just because the experience of Oneness comes out of the blue - ie. there is no discernable reason for it like meditating or praying or whatever doesnt mean there is no path and no goal. The first experience comes to give the soul an appetite for spiritual communion.... it's first conscious taste perhaps in this lifetime. Hopefully the experience will teach the soul the difference between the spiritual Self and the more familiar vibration of the lower aspects of the psyche so that true discernment can begin. In the experience of Oneness, even if it is fleeting, the spirit is not seeking to immortalise the current condition of the soul or to give the impression that there is nothing to change. Change is the spiritual motive for the experience.

The spiritual Self is really saying "This is WHO I AM. Attune to My Vibration and Guidance and I Will draw thee (up in vibration) unto Me". This means that the soul must seek to be guided by higher Will and be prepared to take direction from spirit. The Christ Presence will lead each soul uniquely according to personal karma which is different for everyone. There are certain conditions we must experience, particular people we must meet and specific service we must render. All this is given to the soul through the Christ Presence / higher- Self. In the (vibrationally) imperfect state the soul will go through a path of trial and error to reach the 'destination' of perfect, unbroken awareness of spirit.

Originally Posted by Josefine

Time is an illusion, and whithout time there is no distance and no separation.

Ok, but time is not the only illusion. The low vibration of the negative aspects of the psyche is an illusion too but only if we prove it is by transmutation. If we can change it we have proven it an illusion. If we fail to transform these states of consciousness we have not proven them illusory. To put it slightly differently: The energy patterns of hatred, fear, envy, deciet, arrogance, revenge etc are illusions because the low vibrations of these states of consciousness separate the soul from the high vibrations of christ-consciousness. They are illusions because they can be changed by the transforming power of the inner- Christ. If they are not changed the soul will continue to labour under the illusion. The changing of the garments of consciousness -- exchanging the tatty old illusions of hate, fear etc for the wedding garment of light -- is a the 'great work of the ages'. It is 'the path'. We actually need cycles of time to accomplish this 'great work'.

Originally Posted by Josefine

I have just listened to the first video with Tony Parsons, 'Longing for Wholeness'. It brings a deep sense of recognition.

It reminds me of many wonderful teachers along my way.

It does to me too. But there are some concepts taught that are not true. Tony has published the transcripts of some of his talks and i will paste some in this thread and discuss them. So long as folks are happy to discuss it i'm happy for each of us to come to our own understanding of truth. I'm not looking for a blue.

Originally Posted by Josephine

Krishamurti was one of them, a paradoxical teacher: He said you do not need a teacher. Just be, you find it all within. Yet he published book after book, lectured for many years and left a lot of video taped sessions.

It does boil down as Krishnamurti and others aver to : "Just Be, you will find it all within". But you will also find other elements of self which are not pure Being. The soul must forge a path of self transformation through the labryinth of anti- being in the subconscious. Krishnamurti said many great things but given some of his statements i don't accept that he 'found it all' within himself. In order to just 'Be' there is much to understand about the elements of self which comprise anti-being. Krishnamurti simply left out the path to Being through the confrontation with anti-being. When he rejected the path and the masters who have illuminated the path with their wisdom he may as well have rejected Jesus and Guatama both of whom taught "The Way". The 'Way' is a pathway to Being. It includes spiritual tools which Krishnamurti taught are unequivocally useless.

Originally Posted by Josephine

We are in an illusionary reality, yet it is a perfect illusion that feels totally real. We are here to experience, and that is how it was planned.

We are here to experience but many of our experiences are not planned by the higher- Self. They're motivated merely by the passions and appetites of the lower-ego. Christ does not need to know about being raped or knifed in a dark alley. Or being run over by a bus. These are the tragic consequences of ignorance (ie, not being directed by spirit), human passion and appetite. Guatama taught that life is suffering. He taught that the cause of suffering is 'dukkha' which is an 'out of alignment' state of consciousness. ie, a part of self which is vibrationally 'out of alignment' with the higher- Self or 'Buddha'. If we can raise the vibration of those 'out of alignment' states our souls can rise into 'alignment' or harmonious resonance with the higher- Self. One is a consequence of the other and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Josefine

In truth we never left Oneness.

We did. We can see the deplorable effects of that vibrational 'departure' everywhere on earth. We see it in the fallen consciousness of the race and the bitter fruit of suffering in the lives of the mass of humanity. We have exercised our freewill to fall into a lower state of consciousness. As a result almost no-one on earth is conscious of Oneness because almost everyone has created an anti-self which blocks the experience. Oneness isn't proven by merely stating that it is so. It is proven by the transmutation of the 'fallen' aspects of self.

Originally Posted by Josefine

A gentle shift of perception is all it takes to be there - in the Oneness, in Love.

True. A shift of perception is what it takes to remedy ignorance (ignorance of the Oneness of love). We must see through the illusions of separation but those illusions (of fear, hatred etc) are substantive. That is, they have form and substance which needs to be transformed by the high vibration of love. The process of transformation is a repetitive ritual of immersion in the light of love (in meditation and service) so that the soul can transcend the grossness which entombs it in matter.

Originally Posted by Josefine

Christ is not enlightened. Enlightenment suggests a move from being unenlightened to becoming enlightened.

I differentiate between the Universal Christ, Jesus' Christ Self and Jesus' soul. Jesus' soul was 'annointed' / 'enlightened' by his Christ Self (the Son) and I AM Presence (the Father). Occasionally the Universal Christ spoke through him:

"He who keeps my commandments
the Father and the Son will take up their abode in him"

And...

"I AM the Way the Truth and the Life
No man goeth unto the Father except through Me"

Likewise Guatama's soul was enlightened by the Buddha. Same. Both of these souls (and others) have, over many incarnations in matter, walked the path from relative ignorance to the full enlightenment of the higher- Self / Christ / Buddha / I AM.

Originally Posted by Josefine

Christ IS the Light and the Void, as one in the trinity of Father/Mother God of All-Oneness is. Christ was the first issue, the first to manifest created reality. He has incarnated many times. As 'sys adm' he has tended to subtle tasks of adjustment when the rest of us have become too lost in the illusion.

As i understand it we all, Jesus included, have a unique Christ Self individualised out of the Universal Christ. Jesus is a kingpin in all this and after falling into duality consciousness himself he extricated himself from the illusion and has since incarnated many times to assist us to do likewise. This is where i depart from Krishnamurti's dismissal of the assistance which Jesus and other adepts can offer and the teachings they gave ... and are still giving.

Originally Posted by Josefine

It is ok to become immersed. It is ok to become such good actors on a stage that we are 'lost' in the play.

It is also totally ok to remember that it is a play, and that we never left the larger Reality.

You know i agree with most of that. Our I AM Presence never left the larger reality but by falling into the lower vibration of duality consciousness our souls certainly have left the larger reality. It can be argued that the 'departure' of that fragment of self is only a 'sense' of separation and i agree. But we have that 'sense of separation' because we have misqualified the spiritual light of the Christ and impressed it into a lower form. Those lower forms of being are vibrating below the level of the Christ-consciousness. To realise eternal Oneness they must rise again or be 'resurrected' by Christ into their original vibration. All aspects of our being need to be brought back into harmony with the original Self. This is how Oneness is again perfected.... How paradise 'lost' is regained by the soul.

Originally Posted by Josefine

The only difference between Tony Parsons teachings and my deepest source is that in the Oneness of Love we still have individuality. We may not see alike, also in the larger reality. That is because there was a first birth in the Oneness, when we were given individual consciousness. It is like the drops in the ocean, totally immersed in the whole, yet being the molecules that comprise the quality of water.

I absolutely agree with all this. We do have individuality at the spiritual level of the Christ and the I AM Presence. Each One is uniquely individual and compliments others so that there is harmony and Oneness among all in the spiritual realms. Ours is a rare understanding nowdays with most modern teachers suggesting that individuality is illusory and only apparent at the level of the human personality.

Originally Posted by Josefine

Good teachers merely remind us: You Never Left.

The soul is a fragment of the I AM Presence (the Father) projected into the material planes. Our physical and subtle bodies are vessels for the soul's expression and experience in materiality (the Womb of Mother). Self mastery is the intended goal of the soul's journey. Souls who have fallen into duality consciousness have 'left' the reality of Oneness because they have lost the conscious awareness of the I AM Presence. All who fell have made the 'womb' of matter a 'tomb' instead. But the 'dead' can be raised again and must be if we are to return to that state of grace which is conscious attunement with 'the Father and the Son'.

Originally Posted by Josefine

Peace

It is also ok if you choose this

But this is a bit gross I'd rather go for this

[RedeZra]

There is a path from each heart to the Heart of hearts
Each heart dabbles along this path in its own peculiar way
Some go with the flow some in a flock some alone
Some nearing the end some just started some stopped
Some makes haste some paused some turned

Eventually all hearts will get there in its own good time
For so is the purpose of the Heart to attract all the little hearts
Even the hardest of hearts will have to yield and melt

Only the Heart of hearts knows the little hearts its state and whereabouts
Some hearts love some schemes some so hard some fickle some good some bad
All saints have a past and all sinners have a future
Time is a walk on the way to God

[dayzero]

Milk and Honey, for heavens sake, PLEASE get off this thread and start your own.

This thread is about what I posted in the OP, not about you.

Or Jesus. Or Krishnamurti even. Or your thoughts on either of them.

It would be okay for a few little comments but not this essay writing that you seem fond of.

And the last thing I want on here is you trying to dismember a load of Tony Parson's writings, not that I've read any of them [or need to].
Perhaps you can do that on the thread you start about it.

[Josefine]

Originally Posted by RedeZra

There is a path from each heart to the Heart of hearts
Each heart dabbles along this path in its own peculiar way
Some go with the flow some in a flock some alone
Some nearing the end some just started some stopped
Some makes haste some paused some turned

Eventually all hearts will get there in its own good time
For so is the purpose of the Heart to attract all the little hearts
Even the hardest of hearts will have to yield and melt

Only the Heart of hearts knows the little hearts its state and whereabouts
Some hearts love some schemes some so hard some fickle some good some bad
All saints have a past and all sinners have a future
Time is a walk on the way to God

¨

There is much truth and beauty in this, RedeZra!

I like your response, Milk and Honey! After all I invited it. I could respond to your response,



but I'd settle for this at this point.

After all, we have probably done both many times before!

Dayzero, thank you for the OP, It has lead us to a great thread. Let us respect each other to the point of allowing everyone the space he/she needs. Many are reading this, and I am sure the Universe is Unfolding as it Should (Desiderata) and that each of us has a part to play.

By the way, I have been told there are NO saints.

That might be the reason for the little inner smile on Buddhas lips: What a lark, they just can't seem to enjoy the ride and choose the Midway Path where the dualities are made whole! No, disrespect intended, Milk and Honey. This is short and sweet, so the details we have to fill in later.

Love ya'all!

[dayzero]

Josephine, yes, I agree. You're right. And thanks.

And the law of Allowance is applicable here, and of course I wouldn't want to censor or stop anyone's right to write.

But just occasionally, I feel the need to speak, uh, harshly.

Moreover, i feel that in doing this, I probably represent an un-represented
quotient of our audience here.

And that's a very handy justification for me isn't it!..... one might say!

I'll leave my moody post up so as not to run away from it.

Blessings.

Just remember - no-one is typing this, for no-one.

Bliss.

Carry on everyone, as you were.

[dayzero]

[milk and honey]

Thankyou for your reasonable words Josefine and for your change of mind dayzero.

I suppose there is nothing sweeter to the human ear than the sounds of agreement.

Sorry if it seems troubling or intrusive but like Guatama, i'm also trying to define the middle way - which is the high vibration at the center of Being - and acknowledge also the blocks or the low vibrations of anti-Being.

The reason i find this kind of discourse attractive is because most of us read infornation from various metaphysical teachers and rarely ever stand them side by side to see how they compare and contrast. I find there are so many inconsistencies between them that they need to be talked about. Some are resolved when language is made clearer and some are not because they're simply not true.

Comparisons are valuable right 'here' and 'now' (whenever and wherever assertions of truth are made) because alternatively comparisons can only be made by perusing divergent web sources at different times. Consequently, our understanding of the differences are duller than they might otherwise be. This archipelago of sources allows some teachers to take truth into a tangent that can only stand on the foundation of it's own internal 'logic'. But when a light is shone apon it from outside the box it's limitations become clear. If it's limitations are constistent and carefully pre-concieved then motive may even be deduced.

In the interest of spiritual enquiry i hope we can continue the way we are.

Love and thanks to all for the opportunity to talk.

[Czymra]

Originally Posted by milk and honey

Thankyou for your reasonable words Josefine and for your change of mind dayzero.

I suppose there is nothing sweeter to the human ear than the sounds of agreement.

Sorry if it seems troubling or intrusive but like Guatama, i'm also trying to define the middle way - which is the high vibration at the center of Being - and acknowledge also the blocks or the low vibrations of anti-Being.

The reason i find this kind of discourse attractive is because most of us read infornation from various metaphysical teachers and rarely ever stand them side by side to see how they compare and contrast. I find there are so many inconsistencies between them that they need to be talked about. Some are resolved when language is made clearer and some are not because they're simply not true.

Comparisons are valuable right 'here' and 'now' (whenever and wherever assertions of truth are made) because alternatively comparisons can only be made by perusing divergent web sources at different times. Consequently, our understanding of the differences are duller than they might otherwise be. This archipelago of sources allows some teachers to take truth into a tangent that can only stand on the foundation of it's own internal 'logic'. But when a light is shone apon it from outside the box it's limitations become clear. If it's limitations are constistent and carefully pre-concieved then motive may even be deduced.

In the interest of spiritual enquiry i hope we can continue the way we are.

Love and thanks to all for the opportunity to talk.

I appreciate to follow this kind of discourse but I can't hep but feel that something's out of place, thus my understanding to Dayzero's attitude.
It can't always be rosy huh?

I too can understand the frustration expressed by Dayzero.....it's not nice to "hijack" someone's post.

(Moderator hat is off for this post)

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by Kathleen

I too can understand the frustration expressed by Dayzero.....it's not nice to "hijack" someone's post.

(Moderator hat is off for this post)

How do you conclude i hijacked the thread? This is a place to discuss ideas. If i agreed with everyone i am quite sure you wouldn't be saying this. Be honest, your sacred cows are being threatened and you don't like it.

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by Kathleen

I was expressing my opinion that you had hijacked the thread....discussing my idea...YOU DO NOT know the first thing about me or if I even HAVE any sacred cows. What I don't like is the arrogance and seeming self righteousness in which you choose to "discuss".

If you do not understand how I came to my conclusion then no explanation I might give you would be satisfactory.... and I do not intend to spend my afternoon arguing the point.

Your post to me was self righteous Kathleen. And this one is even more so. You're reading me by my words and scolding me for reading you.

Again, if i agreed with you and the OP you'd have no doubt remained silent. There's nothing surer.

Cheer up sister.

[Czymra]

Originally Posted by milk and honey

Your post to me was self righteous Kathleen. And this one is even more so. You're reading me by my words and scolding me for reading you.

Again, if i agreed with you and the OP you'd have no doubt remained silent. There's nothing surer.

Cheer up sister.

There surely is self-righteousness here but you're pitting the same attitude against it.

[milk and honey]

Maybe Czymra, but now i'd like to stick with the discussion of the philosophical comments if that's ok. Before being criticised I respectfully and politely dissagreed with some of the comments made and i hope Josefine is not dissuaded from replying to me. I very much appreciate her views. She didn't appear offended by me and hopefully won't join some who clearly would like me to remain silent regarding certain ideas and teachers.

[RedeZra]

Its ok to disagree on spiritual matters - Topic is vast and elusive
So many pieces to this jigsaw puzzle and who have the full picture...?

What rings like truth in one ear sounds like trash in another
Yesterdays truth todays amuse might come true again tomorrow
Changin with the season like fashion on a catwalk

Still we sense what is right and wrong what is good and bad
Conscience is the compass and mind is the map
So many maps so many consepts of truth

Still if still the Voice within will guide the Beauty shine and the Heart embrace

[dayzero]

"your sacred cows are being threatened and you don't like it. "


Au contraire, it is your 'beliefs' that are threatened [hence your mammoth, and no doubt valid in their own way, discourses], .....
'beliefs' are a product of 'thought' and 'thought' is always 'dead' as it is not 'free from the known' and as thought is not 'free from the known' it is always in the past.

I have no 'beliefs' as such, so it would be hard for anyone to challenge them.


Again, I know you have an audience here, but this could all be done much better on a thread dedicated to the topics you wish to discuss, as so far you do not appear to have listened to good ol Tony Parsons.

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by dayzero

"your sacred cows are being threatened and you don't like it. "

Au contraire, it is your 'beliefs' that are threatened [hence your mammoth, and no doubt valid in their own way, discourses], .....

To that i'd say that some of what Messers Parsons and Krishnamurti have to say falls into the category of personal belief. ie, Sometimes they don't reflect reality.

You've concluded that i write here because i am 'threatened'. I'm not the one asking and wishing for you to go somewhere else. You and some others are threatened and are trying to censor me.

On page one of this thread Anchor scolded me for being too brief and you are doing the same for being too long winded. If either of you have a problem with my word count, just skip over my posts. But i don't think that's the real concern. The problem is that i have dissagreed with 'icons'.

Originally Posted by dayzero

'beliefs' are a product of 'thought' and 'thought' is always 'dead' as it is not 'free from the known' and as thought is not 'free from the known' it is always in the past.

The mind is a container for spirit. That means thought is not always dead. New ideas inspired by spirit can expand the mind and fill it to overflowing. Even so, the spiritual-Self can focus the mind on the past if there is a reason for it. It happens in the now. You know how you can turn your mind to the past? So can spirit.

Originally Posted by dayzero

I have no 'beliefs' as such, so it would be hard for anyone to challenge them.

You've expressed a few beliefs just now about what 'beliefs' are. You've presented a line of logic that you believe represents reality and truth.

Originally Posted by dayzero

Again, I know you have an audience here, but this could all be done much better on a thread dedicated to the topics you wish to discuss, as so far you do not appear to have listened to good ol Tony Parsons.

I have listened to Tony and read some of his website. You've opened a thread praising him and Jiddhu 'K' and that's ok. No need for me to open another 'TP' thread unless you don't want to talk about his perspective. We are on a discussion board and you'd be aware that in a place like this no-one has a monopoly franchise on the truth. Not you, me, Jiddhu K or TP. We exchange views and then we leave it to each other as to what reflects truth.

[conjuredUp]

So funny that this thread offers utter proof for Parson's posit!

I love it.

We think we know, but we don't.

All is nothing but all.


Classic. :-)

[dayzero]

Am laughing hard conjuredUp!

Nice post.

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by conjuredUp

So funny that this thread offers utter proof for Parson's posit!

I love it.

We think we know, but we don't.

All is nothing but all.


Classic. :-)

If the highest truth is "we think we know but we don't" then i guess we'll just have to defer to the creative / destructive powers of others. Should we leave the conceptual formations of truth to others and keep silent?

A lot has been given by those who do know, yet have not kept silent. These have averred that the carnal mind knows nothing. Nothing spiritual that is. Yet it's construct has been described for those who wish to prove it's " nothingness" themselves. They also teach that the intelligent higher- Mind within knows all. And the spiritual circuitry over which IT flows (the chakras and finer bodies) has likewise been described for those who wish to prove it by self discovery. I realise they have not given all this so that we can codify a set of dogmatic beliefs about it but so that we can prove it for ourselves by inner realisation. While very little of that spiritual knowledge (of Self) can be described in words, words still have their place and can be best appreciated when the spirit opens their meaning.

It has been said that an adept's words cannot be fully understood by the student unless the student is given to understand by the interior spirit or by the adept. It is a fact that the master can transfer spiritual perception to a disciple who has otherwise lost the conscious awareness of his/her own spirit. It is a kind of spiritual resuscitation of the 'dead'. Although this happens it would be considered the height of ignorance, blasphemy even, by some who 'believe' that words and masters are useless to the inner realisation of truth.

[dayzero]

Nope, you're not really getting it.

"The mind is a container for spirit"

Mind Hasn't a Clue.

"It has been said that an adept's words cannot be fully understood by the student"

this is revealing.

no adepts or students needed.

I leave any further comments to Tony Parsons, and just to say I'm very glad to have brought this to anyone that enjoyed it.

[dayzero]

Oh and also, fyi, he does quite a few talks in London, Am*Dam, Berlin;

[no, i'm not his agent. or his student! lol]

http://www.theopensecret.com/talks.htm

London - Could be fun? - I may well go to the one on Feb 7th.........
__________________________________________________ _
OPEN DISCUSSIONS

at The Friends Meeting House,
120 Heath Street, Hampstead, LONDON, NW3

Saturday 7 February 2009

Saturday 7 March 2009

Saturday 4 April 2009

from 2pm to 5pm

The cost is £10.00. Please pay at the door

Please arrive promptly for 2pm start

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by dayzero

Nope, you're not really getting it.

milk and honey wrote: "The mind is a container for spirit"

Mind Hasn't a Clue.

Whoever said "Mind Hasn't a Clue" is not really getting it. If they don't explain which "Mind" they're talking about they haven't a clue and are only repeating a part of someone else's teaching which they don't fully understand themselves. The Christ Mind hasn't a clue? / Buddhamind? / The higher-Self?

Paul wrote: "Have that Mind in you which was in Christ Jesus".

The Christ Mind / Buddhic Mind is the genie in the lamp that imparts divine ideas to the soul in matter. Something is required of you to gain access to it's secrets. You have to rub it. Meditation, prayer and the re-orientation of your life to service will help to awaken it. It will not reveal to the disoriented who wiould willfully misqualify it's energy in the old mental / emotional patterns of mindlessness. It seeks to re-orient the soul and draw it back into alignment with it's own vibration and Will. It seeks to change "dukkha" to end suffering.

Originally Posted by dayzero

milk and honey wrote: "It has been said that an adept's words cannot be fully understood by the student"

this is revealing.

But this is more revealing: "It has been said that an adept's words cannot be fully understood by the student unless the student is given to understand by the interior spirit or by the adept. That's what i wrote. The point was that words can go over the head if not illumined by inner spirit or a little spiritual help from the adept. For example, Jesus knew that not everyone would understand him so he followed some of his sayings with this statement:

"He who hath ears let him hear" ...

... It refers to an inner faculty of spiritual discernment which most people have lost because there is no conscious awareness of spirit. That is why i referred to the "little help" from an adept. Jesus and other adepts are 'awake' so they have spiritual power to transfer their understanding to the listener or reader who may otherwise have no conscious spiritual connection of their own. But i realise all of this is considered an ignorant personal belief of mine by those who reject out of hand the utility of master teachers and the works written or inspired by them and who dismiss even the idea that there is anything of spiritual value to learn.

The adepts have given or written quite a few works over the centuries. Anyone who reads them might fairly be described as a student of life's verities and for the duration of studying the adept's work, a "student of the adept".

Originally Posted by dayzero

no adepts or students needed.

You choose to believe Jiddhu 'K' and TP on that and that's ok but i don't. Of course i don't say the adepts are the only teacher. If it is consciously re-awakened the higher- Self illuminates the soul's pathway with divine direction. But even that has been summarily dismissed by the contrary assertion that there is no student, no teacher, no path, no goal. Truths can easily be transformed into the ignorant speculations of fools and so they have in the minefield of neo spirituality and metaphysics.

[Josefine]

If two persons do agree on some thing, you can be sure it is one who is doing the thinking.
Lyndon B. Johnson

From the 'Quotes and Jokes' thread


This is such a brilliant recommendation for a totally wordless path. It is the one that can be wholly authentic.

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by RedeZra

Its ok to disagree on spiritual matters - Topic is vast and elusive
So many pieces to this jigsaw puzzle and who have the full picture...?

What rings like truth in one ear sounds like trash in another
Yesterdays truth todays amuse might come true again tomorrow
Changin with the season like fashion on a catwalk

Still we sense what is right and wrong what is good and bad
Conscience is the compass and mind is the map
So many maps so many consepts of truth

Still if still the Voice within will guide the Beauty shine and the Heart embrace

Sorry, i missed this. I'm clearer about what you're saying in the other post. And this one too. So true.