The Open Secret - For No-One

[RedeZra]

Parson is advocating his version of Advaita Vedanta which is an ancient Indian philosophy on nondualism
He often quotes Nisargadatta Maharaj

"There cannot be no person that is Self-realized"

Fine he tells truth as he sees it and if it resonates with you fine
But why go around bashing other peoples believes
Why so sure my truth is better than your truth

Both religion and spirituallity have thousands of branches
Why try to saw down the ones youre not sitting on

Be as you are
If you feel to sit and wait for truth fine
If you feel to investigate truth fine
If you dont bother about truth fine too

[recallone]

Mind Hasn't a Clue is spot on. I'm anxious to listen to more.
Thanks for this, dayzero.

[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.

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by RedeZra

Parson is advocating his version of Advaita Vedanta which is an ancient Indian philosophy on nondualism
He often quotes Nisargadatta Maharaj

Fine he tells truth as he sees it and if it resonates with you fine
But why go around bashing other peoples believes
Why so sure my truth is better than your truth

Both religion and spirituallity have thousands of branches
Why try to saw down the ones youre not sitting on

Be as you are
If you feel to sit and wait for truth fine
If you feel to investigate truth fine
If you dont bother about truth fine too

Not sure if this is purely a defense of free conscience (i think so) or is directed specifically my way RedeZra but if so i'm not trying to bash anyone's beliefs. If a discussion brings dissagreements i see nothing wrong with that. I'm not referring to you here but if people don't like their views being discussed then a forum is the wrong place to present them.

[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.

[Josefine]

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.

You sound off like a true Besserweisser! On your High Horse. Where is the humility of Guatama?

To state that some of Krishnamurti and Parsons statements do not reflect reality, but are personal beliefs is illogical: If some thought represent their reality and their belief, it is a reality for them. Faith, on the other hand, is the deep trusting that is beyond beliefs and beyond words. If their beliefs lead to Faith, that is all they need for the journey. There is NO police authority that demand to know: How did you arrive to a state of Faith?

For your information: My basis has matured over a lifetime. I have not left one stone unturned in order to get to what constitutes truth for me. The flaky corners of New Age and the Internet have not contributed to my integration. I have some deep direct sources and some of it is not yet in written form.

Buddhism is at least as fractured as Christianity, so you most likely have plenty of these kinds of discussions among fellow Buddhists. You have more in common with certain narrow Christian sects than you might know, who think that God and En-Lightenment is only accessible if you follow OUR recipe. That is what happens when teachings freeze into dogma. This is in fact, the dividing line between Spiirituality and Religion. Remember our first disussion on that theme?

The term Anti-being is a sheer construct. In the All-Oneness there is only Being in all its myriad forms. There is NOTHING that is not of God! How could it be? The ONE comprises the Light and the Void and EVERYTHING in-Between. You may bless it or you may curse it, those are your choices.

Guatama was all about walking the path, beyond defining it. The defining started when he had left and the followers started squabbling. This is the typical problem with all religion, after the inspirator leaves, it decays into staleness.

At some point you just have to let go and allow that maybe your little corner of heaven is not all of Heaven.

[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

[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 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.

[RedeZra]

Originally Posted by milk and honey

Not sure if this is purely a defense of free conscience (i think so) or is directed specifically my way RedeZra but if so i'm not trying to bash anyone's beliefs....

Yes you think right lol

As the saying all roads lead to Rome all paths lead to God
Some longer more bumpy with more sidetracks
A path right for me might not be right for you
And down the road maybe we meet and walk together
And then another crossroad

So it goes this homeward journey
The pilgrim and the path till they meet and blend with the Shrine

Who can say what happened there who can see beyond the horizon
So we walk on and on and maybe next step will take us there
And quench our thirst for truth and confer peace of mind

Maybe there are all the answers to our questions
behind this hill inside this cave in our heart

In a vision i saw the Buddha stooping down to pick a flower

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by Josefine

You sound off like a true Besserweisser! On your High Horse. Where is the humility of Guatama?

To state that some of Krishnamurti and Parsons statements do not reflect reality, but are personal beliefs is illogical: If some thought represent their reality and their belief, it is a reality for them. Faith, on the other hand, is the deep trusting that is beyond beliefs and beyond words. If their beliefs lead to Faith, that is all they need for the journey. There is NO police authority that demand to know: How did you arrive to a state of Faith?

Why am i uniquely illogical when i claim that certain beliefs don't reflect reality?... But it's not illogical of Jiddhu 'K' and TP's students to tell me that my own views don't reflect reality either? In logic, if i am illogical, aren't they too? And why am i uniquely illogical when i've said the same thing about some of the WMM but you are not likewise illogical when claiming part of the WWM was "preposterous"? On what grounds is it preposterous if not that it is false and therefore, to put it in my own terms, 'unreal' or merely a personal 'belief' based on illusion? My point is, i'm not being illogical in claiming that something does not represent reality if it is false. Who am i to claim anything is false? People have been known to believe in illusions as i am often reminded in this thread by people suggesting in various ways that i myself am deluded. I usually write a paragraph or two in support of my reasons for claiming that certain of "K's" and TB's assertions are false and therefore fall into the category of 'personal belief' as distinct from 'reality'.

To assert that everyone's beliefs are 'reality' for them' overlooks the point that the sum of everyone's beliefs may not constitute a thimble full of reality if in fact those beliefs are based on illusion. Of course this question is more impersonal now considering i'm speaking of 'everyone' and some beliefs actually are proven to be based on reality. So i guess in that case they're not merely 'beliefs' anymore but 'knowledge'. Bottom line, there is a difference between reality and illusion, dark and light, true and false, harmony and discord, higher- Mind and dualistc mind and a high vibration and low, so why not talk about it as we see it and be straightforward and honest about what we see? It can't do any harm to dissagree if that's all that comes of it.

If it is being asserted that i am parroting ignorant old beliefs, which it is, then what is wrong with my suggesting to people who hold that view to reconsider their own beliefs? They obviously believe that if one simply denies the definitions of variation and the value of virtually every truth concept then they're free of beliefs. Isn't that a belief in itself? It is. Does it reflect reality? That's the question and if anyone considers it resolved in certain respects then why not say so. I have done so and so have others. No problem here.

There is no police authority no. If people arrive at faith - which is conscious knowledge of the spiritual Self - then who can condemn the route taken? I agree. Unfortunately though, people more often have 'beliefs' in illusion rather than 'faith' in reality. The world would be a far different place if it were otherwise. So why not provide a catalyst once in a while? It may put a few noses out of joint but it adds to the conversation and the available choiices. No harm intended. I've noticed that you're not shy of dissagreement when you feel the need and i'm fine with it. I hope you're ok with this one.

Originally Posted by Josefine

For your information: My basis has matured over a lifetime. I have not left one stone unturned in order to get to what constitutes truth for me. The flaky corners of New Age and the Internet have not contributed to my integration. I have some deep direct sources and some of it is not yet in written form.

Mine too. As far as words can tell i'm describing my own discovery when speaking of the nature of levels of self. I have found my spiritual-Self in the aspect of interior fire. I've experienced the descent of fire into the darkness of emotional regions i didn't know existed before they were opened and consumed by the great light of Being. I've experienced this many times over about 20 years and each time i think "what a breakthrough" only to be confronted eventually by another slab of subconscious karma which is pushed to the surface by a force at the depths of my being. My God what else is in this dungeon? Honestly?.... The dark heavy energy of every poor decision i have ever made (and their unfortunate consequences) since my soul's first descent into matter. We've all made a number of poor decisions and have sullied our spiritual garments, falling incrementally into relative darkness and forgetting the divine embrace of the Sun Presence within. I now know the depths and height of my own being and i just want to tell it like it is. I have had experiences with the light and fire even while writing on this board at times as my spirit has moved me to tears and the peace of union. In all that time (20 years) i have told two people about it.

I have seen how very imperfect i am in the dark depths and i have the realisation that this is a universal problem with almost all my fellows here on earth. Every anxiety, every fear, every mild dislike even, has it's dark root in the labrynthian depths of the subconscious memory and i know it has to be identified - in the presence and through the eye of spirit - so that it can be removed /transmuted by the great transformer, the Christ Mind. What fiery love i never knew. In the words of the immortal Christ:

"Even now the axe (of inner spirit) is laid at the (subconscious) root of the tree (of relative good and evil in human consciousness)."

Read the history books... a thin slice of our experience is recorded there as well as in our own subconscious minds. Every shameful act along with the energy spent to do it is impressed there. All the shames and glories side by side, the tares with the wheat. I 'see' it there as an imprint within me, disturbing my being at deep levels until the fire of love descends and devours another part of me each time. This is the transmutation of self i talk about. I've talked in concepts rather than experience usually because i hope it will be recognisable in that way. If not, it's still there as a kind of testament not just to my personal experience but to the divine 'anatomy' and process of 'shiva' destroying / transforming the self created vibration of the 'lower worlds'... in my own subconscious. That's what it's about... Self- transformation through the love of the Christ Presence and through that clarity the transformation of this world. I don't have to imagine what a torrent of fiery love flows through the transmuted being of the adepts i speak lovingly of because by the grace of the All God I know them in that way. I look forward to the total liberty of being which they enjoy. I will say with them and with perfect Self knowledge: Behold, I AM everywhere in the consciousness of God !

Originally Posted by Josephine

Buddhism is at least as fractured as Christianity, so you most likely have plenty of these kinds of discussions among fellow Buddhists. You have more in common with certain narrow Christian sects than you might know, who think that God and En-Lightenment is only accessible if you follow OUR recipe. That is what happens when teachings freeze into dogma. This is in fact, the dividing line between Spiirituality and Religion. Remember our first disussion on that theme?

I've never been a buddhist, i know only one buddhist and we've spoken briefly only once of Guatama's teachings.

I certainly do not believe that God and en-lightenment are accessable by following any narrow misinterpretation of any religion or spiritual teaching. It is an interior anatomy and experience which is described by all religions (if they're rightly understood) and by all true teachings of a spiritual origin. Dogma cannot replace the process of self-realisation, no and i'm not looking to try.

I'm sorry i don't remember our first discussion on the theme of religion / spirituality. Can you remind me about it?

Originally Posted by Josefine

The term Anti-being is a sheer construct. In the All-Oneness there is only Being in all its myriad forms. There is NOTHING that is not of God! How could it be? The ONE comprises the Light and the Void and EVERYTHING in-Between. You may bless it or you may curse it, those are your choices.

Defining variation is neither blessing nor cursing it. It is what it is and it can be described and defined conceptually. Words go only so far with any description of reality but it's ok to use them. They may be limited but they're useful as far as they go.

You're quite right, 'anti-being' is a sheer construct based on the illusion of separation. But that illusion is constructed from misqualified spiritual energy which is now trapped in the subconscious. It is a dark heavy weight of fear and hatred and anxiety and all the disturbing permutations of darkness created through experience. Because that part of our being vibrates so low it gives the impression of separation. But impressions can be transmuted by spirit and the energies locked in these lower forms of being (which i call 'anti-being' for the purpose of defining it in a discussion) can be liberated permanently.

Originally Posted by Josefine

Guatama was all about walking the path, beyond defining it. The defining started when he had left and the followers started squabbling. This is the typical problem with all religion, after the inspirator leaves, it decays into staleness.

You're right about Guatama. But he didn't fail to define a diagnosis of the problem, a prescription and a cure all of which is denied to some degree by various modern teachers. He identified the cause of suffering in the 4 noble truths and he prescribed the 8 fold path, one aspect of which was "right- mindfullness". He percieved that the "mind was full" of appetites and inordinate desire but that ideally it can be transformed and enlightened by BuddhaSelf.

Originally Posted by Josephine

At some point you just have to let go and allow that maybe your little corner of heaven is not all of Heaven.

I don't claim any little corner of heaven, but i know what you mean. Others will have their own view and i should allow that. I do allow. I have my say and after a conversation i let go. But i have proven certain of the realities i talk about. I see them summarily dismissed by people who present to humanity as teachers and leaders in the vanguard of spirituality and metaphysics. They have managed to construct a doctrine of "nothingness" which effectively silences anyone who has anything to say beyond "nothing". The mere speaking of my views or experiences in my own terms is proof positive of my 'delusion'. In effect the diagnosis is no different in that regard to modern psychiatry and in the wrong hands can only be further abused. People, do you know where this extreme doctrine might lead in a society where only a small group has the right to a valid opinion and stands in the open with all decision making powers in it's control? It would likely be no different to the absolute power and supremacy of the catholic church during the ~ 1500 years it ruled in the open.

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by RedeZra

Yes you think right lol

As the saying all roads lead to Rome all paths lead to God
Some longer more bumpy with more sidetracks
A path right for me might not be right for you
And down the road maybe we meet and walk together
And then another crossroad

So it goes this homeward journey
The pilgrim and the path till they meet and blend with the Shrine

Who can say what happened there who can see beyond the horizon
So we walk on and on and maybe next step will take us there
And quench our thirst for truth and confer peace of mind

Maybe there are all the answers to our questions
behind this hill inside this cave in our heart

In a vision i saw the Buddha stooping down to pick a flower

Ah you've done it again RedeZra. Beautiful.

[recallone]

Dude...exactly how many books have you read that your ego can't possibly bear to take the passengers' seat? I can't even get all the way through your replies. There's so much malice and justification in your words. I see you patting yourself on the back with every reply. This isn't about being right. It's about finding the truth. Even if that truth involves dismissing what your ego has spent a lifetime accumulating.

"Mind Hasn't a Clue" is one of the audio tracks, by the way. You just read the phrase and decided to start attacking it. Have you listened to a single one of those tracks?

The new understandings that people in here are trying to discuss doesn't come from agenda-laden religions. It comes from within. And you're going to have a really hard time getting there so long as your ego is holding the reins. It sounds like you're extremely well read, m&h - but that's not where you're going to find it.

Peace

[Czymra]

My hat off to you milk and honey and happy 200th postday.
I shall not judge whether you do service or disservice for service it is and I applaud your standing tall against so many.

I knew this was going to get good.
Can I some day pick a thread and invite my favourites to discuss it out? Just kidding.

(Just to make sure, not trying to make fun of you.)

[milk and honey]

Course you can Czymra. Thanks for the birthday wishes and all round goodwill.

[dayzero]

"There's so much malice and justification in your words. I see you patting yourself on the back with every reply. "

Well spotted.

[dayzero]

"I shall not judge whether you do service or disservice for service it is and I applaud your standing tall against so many."

Hmm.

[Dakini]

Originally Posted by dayzero

I have come across this lovely chap, Tony Parsons.

Much like Krishnamurti, and much to do with all our investigations here imo.

http://www.theopensecret.com/audio1.htm#audio

The Open Secret communication can only point to the simple wonder of being, and attempt to illuminate the futility of seeking for it. It does not accept or reject the teachings of spiritual path or process but it will expose, without compromise, the singular and fundamental misconception that drives the belief that there is something called a seeker that needs to find something else called enlightenment.

http://www.theopensecret.com/

So, then... Parsons would have us all live as if we are, all of us, already awakened? I get that, but being awake and being "enlightened" are not the same thing. Does Parsons get this? Parsons, from my understanding, never had any enlightenment experiences of his own. So to him, they must not exist, right?

In fact, when asked here , [I]But isn't enlightenment an extraordinary thing? He answers, "No, not at all, that’s the point. Enlightenment is our natural and ordinary way of being."

What? To the Masters, the act of enlightenment is not necessarily a state of being, but rather a state of becoming.

Tolle writes of his time after his illumination experience ..."For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or perhaps it just seemed to becuase it became my natural state. I could still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever did could possibly add anything to what I already had." Power of Now

The point here is that there is a division in the lives of the Mystics, the time BEFORE the experience and the resulting life of the Mystic AFTER enlightenment. A conversion. A complete alteration of life. It is an experience in its most intense form. It is an act of supreme, ineffable perception. Really, Parsons devotees, how is this "ordinary?"

It may be true that there are few, if any, modern day true enlightened Masters/Mystics that choose to identify themselves in the mainstream. But to say that every enlightened Mystic's abilities, including Blake, Boehme, Eckhart, Rolle, Jesus Christ, Catherine of Sienna, Bonaventure, Catherine of Genoa, Dante, Francis of Assisi, Hildegarde of Bingen, St. Teresa, Suso, Hafiz, Guru Nanak, Rama, Krishna, Shankaracharya, Kabir....should I go on and on? ...were simply due to "...someone who has a lot of charisma and the gift of manifestation or magic" sounds like, well, someone like Parsons who has not had any experiences close to those of the great mystics.

Honestly, I think it's fine if people want to be aware of the essence of ordinary life and feel awake and whole, but will those acts automatically deliver enlightenment - illuminative experience or union with The Divine?

[Czymra]

The point here is that there is a division in the lives of the Mystics, the time BEFORE the experience and the resulting life of the Mystic AFTER enlightenment. A conversion. A complete alteration of life. It is an experience in its most intense form. It is an act of supreme, ineffable perception. Really, Parsons devotees, how is this "ordinary?"

I think you're taking this the wrong way Dakini. I know nothing about Parsons but the statement sounds to me as if he's trying to get the idea of Buddhahood across.
As such, it's not about becoming Buddha, but about realising that you already are Buddha. As there is no 'becoming' involved then, and you are already what others tell you to become, it is in fact, most ordinary, just that no one is aware of it.

[Dakini]

Originally Posted by Czymra

I think you're taking this the wrong way Dakini. I know nothing about Parsons but the statement sounds to me as if he's trying to get the idea of Buddhahood across.
As such, it's not about becoming Buddha, but about realising that you already are Buddha. As there is no 'becoming' involved then, and you are already what others tell you to become, it is in fact, most ordinary, just that no one is aware of it.

He might be trying to get the idea across...that within us is the Buddha/God spark. Not an issue. Simple. All the Masters tell us that the temple of the Divine is within. But he does a disservice to the Mystics and to the true nature of the act of illumination by saying that they are magicians who haven't had the experience.

To him, perhaps no "becoming." If he takes the time to read the accounts of the great Mystics, he will see their accounts, their definitive descriptions of conversion into a more "real" life. "All things," said Heracleitus, "are in a state of flux....Reality is a condition of unrest." (From Fragments, by Heraclitis) Reality is described as something that is dynamic, not static, as becoming rather than being perfect. The flux of things is the very stuff of reality.

If people are going to buy into Parson's stuff, then perhaps explore what his beliefs and experience are, and there may be little foundation there to discuss enlightenment and be taken seriously. Ok to tell us all that we are all Buddhas, but don't discount the real Masters as imposters.

[Czymra]

Originally Posted by Dakini

He might be trying to get the idea across...that within us is the Buddha/God spark. Not an issue. Simple. All the Masters tell us that the temple of the Divine is within. But he does a disservice to the Mystics and to the true nature of the act of illumination by saying that they are magicians who haven't had the experience.

To him, perhaps no "becoming." If he takes the time to read the accounts of the great Mystics, he will see their accounts, their definitive descriptions of conversion into a more "real" life. "All things," said Heracleitus, "are in a state of flux....Reality is a condition of unrest." (From Fragments, by Heraclitis) Reality is described as something that is dynamic, not static, as becoming rather than being perfect. The flux of things is the very stuff of reality.

If people are going to buy into Parson's stuff, then perhaps explore what his beliefs and experience are, and there may be little foundation there to discuss enlightenment and be taken seriously. Ok to tell us all that we are all Buddhas, but don't discount the real Masters as imposters.

I still have the impression we'll argue about semantics if we keep this going. I haven't studied his materials, at all. I'm just saying that destroying a conceptual divide between 'being' and 'becoming' (as in realising the being) isn't the same as discrediting people who have 'become'.
Further, I think that the term 'master' is inappropriate if these persons truly have become. Maybe I can register the new noun "humbler"?

[Dakini]

Originally Posted by Czymra

I still have the impression we'll argue about semantics if we keep this going. I haven't studied his materials, at all. I'm just saying that destroying a conceptual divide between 'being' and 'becoming' (as in realising the being) isn't the same as discrediting people who have 'become'.
Further, I think that the term 'master' is inappropriate if these persons truly have become. Maybe I can register the new noun "humbler"?

Ok - semantics. Parsons opens a whopper can of semantic worms, so it's no wonder.

[Czymra]

Originally Posted by Dakini

Ok - semantics. Parsons opens a whopper can of semantic worms, so it's no wonder.

That's what I love about this forum. People actually can agree at some point, and hey! After reading your Syphoning post thrice I think I actually have to confess that you're right, but it leaves me where I started. Bah. Maybe that's the final lesson.