Guest guest Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Hi Sandeep >>> You asked, "I would like to ask you, how does one invite the >>> Grace of God or Guru into their lives?" > Grace is always showering. > Moment to moment to moment. > The issue is, are you available for the Grace to pour in? > Or the hidden stakes in your enquiry, makes you a filled cup > and like rain drops, grace pours and runs downs the sides of > the filled cup. > You don't need to do a whit to receive Grace, except cease > all opinions about it. This appears to me to be a different message than from your earlier posts. My impression from you then was that the things filling up my cup, to use this metaphor, are just as much of the divine as the rain. Are you now saying that there is a duality between Grace and opinions-about-grace, hidden stakes, etc? In my opinion there is not. Naturally we experience different states and make some distinctions between these, preferring some to others. Those are perceptions that come from our ability to experience. It is this ability that spiritual practise teaches us, and in my experience the key to it all is the present moment. When we build up our ability to maintain the focus on the now, we are most open to the divine energy that is creating us moment to moment. When we focus our attention on reliving the past or playing through the possible futures, we are creating in realms other than the physical reality around us, and our senses are not as alert, our experiences not as rich. Meditation, prayer, vows, etc are tricks for us to learn to recognise the now moment and corresponding energy so that we can enjoy that state of hyper awareness more of the time. There is also a place, however, for shaping the past and the future. What are your views on this? Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Hi Ralf, - "Ralf" <ralf <> Wednesday, February 05, 2003 06:29 AM Growth into Grace was Re: A prattling > Hi Sandeep > > >>> You asked, "I would like to ask you, how does one invite the > >>> Grace of God or Guru into their lives?" > > > Grace is always showering. > > Moment to moment to moment. > > > The issue is, are you available for the Grace to pour in? > > Or the hidden stakes in your enquiry, makes you a filled cup > > and like rain drops, grace pours and runs downs the sides of > > the filled cup. > > > You don't need to do a whit to receive Grace, except cease > > all opinions about it. > > This appears to me to be a different message than from your > earlier posts. My impression from you then was that the > things filling up my cup, to use this metaphor, are just > as much of the divine as the rain. They are. The filled cup has an appropriate consequence. The empty has also an appopriate consequence. > Are you now saying that > there is a duality between Grace and opinions-about-grace, > hidden stakes, etc? There is indeed an apparent duality. Grace being all there is, Grace has no need to know , understand, experience Grace, or have an opinion about itself. But an apparent split, and an apparent duality is born. That split and it's ensuing consequence, the gestalt of duality, is necessary for functioning to be objectively expressed. Conceptually.... I (Primodial awareness not aware of itself, Consciousness-in-repose, Noumenon) --------> I AM (Consciousness-in-movement, God, Phenomenon)-----------> I am "Ralf", or X, Y, Z.(the sense of personal entitification) Now with the "birth of the "me-Ralf", the "you" (not-Ralf) is born. With the birth of the "me", the "you" is born. With "me", ...'mine", is born, with the "you", ....the "your's" is born. And now the "me" can relate to you, through the mine/your equation. Relating, either in love or in hatred or in indifference. And the infinite shades in between, changing from one to another. Love becoming hate, hate becoming indifference and indifference becoming love. And the billions and billions of "me" relating with the billions of "you", a mosaic of infinite dynamic relatings, a mosaic comes to be. Which is Life. Seeking (whatever be the particular mode, method, path)........ would thus be.... I am "Ralf"-------------> I AM------------>...... What is to be seen, that in all this there is no personal entity -Ralf in the picture, whatsoever, at any time, whether the functioning is in the nature of seeking spiritual enlightenment, or seeking the beautiful woman in a singles bar. No picture of the sky,... is the sky. The above is also a picture. For really speaking, the whole split and esuing gestalt of duality and the effecting dualism, where by you Ralf believe you are the subject cognizng your world of objects, all this..............As -If. > > > In my opinion there is not. > > Naturally we experience different states and make some > distinctions between these, preferring some to others. > Those are perceptions that come from our ability to > experience. Sure. Preferences emanate from the existing conditioning-in-the-moment. Which is dynamic in nature. Hence preferences keep changing with time. Preferences need a sense of distinction. A hint of distinction and lo behold the world appears. Some eons back, a prattling elsewhere in cyber-space..... A hint of distinction and the "world" is created When everyone recognizes beauty as beautiful there is already ugliness; When everyone recognizes goodness as good, there is already evil. "To be" and "not to be" arise mutually; Difficult and easy are mutually realized; Long and short are mutually contrasted; High and long are mutually posited; Before and after are in mutual sequence. They said to Him: Shall we then, being children, enter the Kingdom? Jesus said: When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when you make the male ad the female into a single one then you shall enter the Kingdom." ---- False imagination teaches that such things as light and shade, long and short, black and white, are different and are to be discriminated; but they are not independent of each other; they are only different aspects of the same thing; they are terms of relation, not of reality. Conditions of existence are not of a mutually exclusive character; in essence things are not two but one. ----- Distinctions are there because of trained eyes. Distinction is a learned thing. Distinction is not there in existence. Distinction is projected by the me-entity Distinction is given by the "me" to the world - it is not there. Nature itself does not seem to know - or care - about the man-made opposites or about this world of opposites. Nature seems perfectly satisfied and happy to produce a world of infinite, rapturous variety that knows nothing about anything pretty or ugly, ethical or unethical. As Thoreau has said, nature never apologizes, never sees the need of it..." For has there been any creation, any destruction? The key is to apperceive is that there is no self-entity which is making these distinctions and hence prefering the preference in the moment. > > It is this ability that spiritual practise teaches us, and in my experience the key to it all is the present > moment. When we build up our ability to maintain the focus on the now, we are most open to the divine energy > that is creating us moment to moment. Yes that's the usual bromide. Suggest for your consideration, there is no "me" which can maintain focus on the now. There is no "me" in the moment. A "me" only emerges in the recall of the moment past. > When we focus our attention on reliving the past or playing through the > possible futures, we are creating in realms other than > the physical reality around us, and our senses are not > as alert, our experiences not as rich. In the moment, there is only pure functioning, with no "me" noting in the moment, whether it is a rich experience or a poor one. > > Meditation, prayer, vows, etc are tricks for us to learn > to recognise the now moment and corresponding energy so > that we can enjoy that state of hyper awareness more > of the time. Who is to learn? Who is to enjoy? The state of hyper awareness , is relevant for whom? Who is interested in such a state, such that it projects the very concept of a state of hyper awareness and then seeks to learn tricks, in order to chase that chimera? > There is also a place, however, for shaping > the past and the future. The past has no existential existence. It only exists as mnemonic impressions. The future is a projection arising from the "past". Let my future be such and such .....or .......let it not be such and such. Both projections, based on what portion of your past, you wish to be perpetuated, or what to be avoided. Both have no existential existence. The only existenctial existence is this now, this very moment. And since there cannot be a cognition of this moment, .........in the very act of cognition it has become the past, .............there is really no now, also. As the Hsing Hsing Ming, prattles.... Words! The Way is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday no tomorrow no today. > > > What are your views on this? None whatsoever. ROFLMFAO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Hi Sandeep > Grace being all there is, Grace has no need to know, understand, > experience Grace, or have an opinion about itself. I didn't think we were talking about how the Source of Grace can open to Grace. > But an apparent split, and an apparent duality is born. > > That split and it's ensuing consequence, the gestalt of duality, > is necessary for functioning to be objectively expressed. So when you talk of the 'awakening', and add your note of 'whatever you think that means', what do you think that this means? > Conceptually.... ..... snip .... > What is to be seen, that in all this there is no personal entity -Ralf > in the picture, whatsoever, at any time, whether the functioning is in > the nature of seeking spiritual enlightenment, or seeking the > beautiful woman in a singles bar. > > No picture of the sky,... is the sky. > > The above is also a picture. Yes, we both understand that all data represented as binary information is just ones and zeros, and that the computer that holds these ones and zeros does not care which are ones and which zeros. > For really speaking, the whole split and esuing gestalt of duality and > the effecting dualism, where by you Ralf believe you are the subject > cognizng your world of objects, all this..............As -If. Sorry, that didn't make any sense to me. > False imagination teaches that such things as light and > shade, long and short, black and white, are different and > are to be discriminated; Discriminated, but not judged. > but they are not independent of each other; they are only > different aspects of the same thing; they are terms of > relation, not of reality. Whether they are different aspects of the same thing, or different things, does not matter. > Conditions of existence are not of a mutually exclusive > character; in essence things are not two but one. That 'hungry' and 'sated' are not two but one, does not help those who are hungry. > Distinctions are there because of trained eyes. > > Distinction is a learned thing. > > Distinction is not there in existence. > > Distinction is projected by the me-entity > > Distinction is given by the "me" to the world - > it is not there. > > > Nature itself does not seem to know - or care - about the > man-made opposites or about this world of opposites. Nature > seems perfectly satisfied and happy to produce a world of > infinite, rapturous variety that knows nothing about anything > pretty or ugly, ethical or unethical. So you distinguish between variety on the one hand, and then something on the other hand ... judgment? Or is it just the 'matching' of things, opposites? You are jumping down into the world, and then climbing out again into the above-the-world, and comparing between two different realms. Do you realise that this is non-sensical? >> It is this ability that spiritual practise teaches us, and >> in my experience the key to it all is the present moment. >> When we build up our ability to maintain the focus on the >> now, we are most open to the divine energy that is creating >> us moment to moment. > Yes that's the usual bromide. > > Suggest for your consideration, there is no "me" which can > maintain focus on the now. There is no "me" in the moment. > > A "me" only emerges in the recall of the moment past. Yes, I've heard that cliche used many times as well... :-) Suggest for your consideration that there is. >> When we focus our attention on reliving the past or >> playing through the possible futures, we are creating >> in realms other than the physical reality around us, >> and our senses are not as alert, our experiences not >> as rich. > > In the moment, there is only pure functioning, with no > "me" noting in the moment, whether it is a rich experience > or a poor one. In the moment there is absolute awareness and very clear impressions of richness or poorness of experience. We are most able to make such a distinction as humans. Those are my impressions from practice. It is interesting that they seem to differ so drastically from yours. Did you ever share with us what practises you have done, other than thinking about the nature of reality? >> Meditation, prayer, vows, etc are tricks for us to learn >> to recognise the now moment and corresponding energy so >> that we can enjoy that state of hyper awareness more >> of the time. > > Who is to learn? > Who is to enjoy? > The state of hyper awareness , is relevant for whom? > > Who is interested in such a state, such that it projects > the very concept of a state of hyper awareness and then > seeks to learn tricks, in order to chase that chimera? Who is civil to someone else? Who holds anger? Who hurts another? Who loves another? Being able to make these distinctions, they exist and thus are not a chimera on one level. Why is this level somehow unimportant when you write? >> There is also a place, however, for shaping >> the past and the future. > > The past has no existential existence. > It only exists as mnemonic impressions. > > The future is a projection arising from the "past". > > Let my future be such and such .....or .......let it not be > such and such. > > Both projections, based on what portion of your past, you > wish to be perpetuated, or what to be avoided. > > Both have no existential existence. > > The only existenctial existence is this now, this very moment. > > And since there cannot be a cognition of this moment, ......... > in the very act of cognition it has become the past, .......... > there is really no now, also. So there is no responsibility for actions of the past? And I don't mean for the Source of Grace -- jumping back up to the meta level is a poor trick to avoid such questions. Blessings, Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Hiya Ralf, > - > "Ralf" <ralf > <> > Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:13 PM > Re: Growth into Grace was Re: A prattling > > > > > > Hi Sandeep > > > > > Grace being all there is, Grace has no need to know, understand, > > > experience Grace, or have an opinion about itself. > > > > I didn't think we were talking about how the Source of > > Grace can open to Grace. The Source of Grace is Grace. (Or whatever term you wish to use.) Not-Two. > > > > > But an apparent split, and an apparent duality is born. > > > > > > That split and it's ensuing consequence, the gestalt of duality, > > > is necessary for functioning to be objectively expressed. > > > > So when you talk of the 'awakening', and add your note of > > 'whatever you think that means', what do you think that > > this means? Awakening, ........the awakening of that which was never asleep and that put to rest which never was. Ergo, as conceptual an event as any other, occuring within the conceptual construct of phenomenality. <SNIP> > > > > > For really speaking, the whole split and esuing gestalt of duality and > > > the effecting dualism, where by you Ralf believe you are the subject > > > cognizng your world of objects, all this..............As -If. > > > > Sorry, that didn't make any sense to me. That's OK. > > > > > > > > > False imagination teaches that such things as light and > > > shade, long and short, black and white, are different and > > > are to be discriminated; > > > > Discriminated, but not judged. True, judgement is a further attribute of discrimination. When both judgement and discrimination, ceases..... > > > > > but they are not independent of each other; they are only > > > different aspects of the same thing; they are terms of > > > relation, not of reality. > > > > Whether they are different aspects of the same thing, or > > different things, does not matter. > > > > > Conditions of existence are not of a mutually exclusive > > > character; in essence things are not two but one. > > > > That 'hungry' and 'sated' are not two but one, does not help > > those who are hungry. Sure. If the functioning through an appropriate conditioned instrument is to help the hungry, then that will happen. When the hunger is for something else... <SNIP> > > > Nature itself does not seem to know - or care - about the > > > man-made opposites or about this world of opposites. Nature > > > seems perfectly satisfied and happy to produce a world of > > > infinite, rapturous variety that knows nothing about anything > > > pretty or ugly, ethical or unethical. > > > > So you distinguish between variety on the one hand, and then > > something on the other hand ... judgment? Or is it just the > > 'matching' of things, opposites? Impersonal functioning occurs, moment to moment to moment. Through appropriately conditioned instruments. On such manifested instrument, is the sentient biological computer, popularly called "humans". In this manifest object called "humans", there is, apart from the attribute of sentience (which is also present in varying degree in plants and animals), there are futher flavours. The flavour of an intellect and in this intellect, the further attribute, which is the sense of the entitification, the "me-Ralf". It is this "me", which observes the functioning of it's cognized objective world, from a viewpoint of being a separate subject to this cognized world. And holds judgement, about the various nuances of the cognized world. Irrespective of whether a judgement is held or not, impersonal functioning carries on, happily producing a world of infinite, rapturous variety. > > > > You are jumping down into the world, and then climbing out > > again into the above-the-world, and comparing between two > > different realms. No, I am not. There is no world and no above-the-world, neither lower-than-the-world. But if that is what is cognized by you, from the prattlings, that is appropriate for Ralf. > Do you realise that this is non-sensical? To Ralf, it might well appear so.:-) That too is OK. > > > > > > > > >> It is this ability that spiritual practise teaches us, and > > >> in my experience the key to it all is the present moment. > > >> When we build up our ability to maintain the focus on the > > >> now, we are most open to the divine energy that is creating > > >> us moment to moment. > > > > > Yes that's the usual bromide. > > > > > > Suggest for your consideration, there is no "me" which can > > > maintain focus on the now. There is no "me" in the moment. > > > > > > A "me" only emerges in the recall of the moment past. > > > > Yes, I've heard that cliche used many times as well... :-) Yes, there appears to have been a hearing of that. A listening is yet to occur. > > > > > > Suggest for your consideration that there is. > > > > > > > > > > >> When we focus our attention on reliving the past or > > >> playing through the possible futures, we are creating > > >> in realms other than the physical reality around us, > > >> and our senses are not as alert, our experiences not > > >> as rich. > > > > > > In the moment, there is only pure functioning, with no > > > "me" noting in the moment, whether it is a rich experience > > > or a poor one. > > > > In the moment there is absolute awareness and very clear > > impressions of richness or poorness of experience. We > > are most able to make such a distinction as humans. Fine. Whatever you say. <SNIP> > > > > So there is no responsibility for actions of the past? Responsibility exist conjunct with independent volition, isn't it? Without one, the other has no meaning. Investigate what volition, "Ralf" has had in any of the actions, (whether profane or profound), that "Ralf" thinks he has undertaken out of independent volition, at any time of your life. Investigate any action, any behaviour in the moment, any decision that you believe you have taken, any feeling that you believe you have felt out of an independent volition. And the answer to the question, you have posed, will be evident. As functioning occurs, through a manifest object, fashioned by the existing conditioning-in-the-moment, that functioning would invoke a consequence. Consequence could be in the form of accolades or abuse, .........praise or condemnation, ........elevation to a seat of the highest public esteem, or being thrown into jail, ......... Or neither of the them. (After all 70% of crime goes undetected on a world wide basis and the figure for "good" work which is never noticed or acknowledged, would be higher than that percentage figure) A consequence for the "act", for the "behaviour" which occurred THROUGH the instrument, in the moment. That resultant consequence, impacting the instrument, is also a nuance of the same functioning, in the same moment. In phenomenality, everything is a cause for everything and everything is an effect of everything. The linear cause-effect continuum, is a myth. It is the Total Picture which shimmers. Moment to moment to moment. Something which Quantum Science has also arrived at. (If you are scientifically inclined, have a look at Bell's Theorem of non-locality) > > > > And I don't mean for the Source of Grace -- jumping back up > > to the meta level is a poor trick to avoid such questions. Whatever you say Ralf.:-) Ladeeeee daaaaaa daaaaaa deeeeeeee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.