Guest guest Posted August 26, 2005 Report Share Posted August 26, 2005 PRINCIPLES OF SPIRITUAL HUMANISM Möller de la Rouvière AUTHOR OF: SPIRITUALITY WITHOUT GOD SPIRITUAL HUMANISM DECLARES THAT: 1) To be a Humanist in the fullest sense of the word, is to embrace both the potential and direct experience of non-duality or wholeness as an integral aspect of human life. 2) The non-dual truth of the living moment is contained as potential within all aspects of human experience, and therefore does not exist as a metaphysical Self, Brahman, Godhead, or any other Unifying factor - all which are projected as having Their presumed existence both prior to, and after, the appearance of human life. 3) Wholeness or non-duality is neither the experience of one nor two. 4) Wholeness or non-duality is the mere sense of non-dual reality which remains alive as a human experience when the inner, fragmented and alienated sense of `I'-consciousness has been recognized as fundamentally false, and transcended through right practice and right living. 5) The word `spiritual' in the term `Spiritual Humanism' reflects the total field of subtle human experiences such as love, compassion, wholeness or non-duality, intelligence, pure emotional response- ability, emotional equanimity, reasonableness, softness of heart, human warmth, altered states of conscious awareness, insight, intuition and deep states of inner absorption. It further includes the appropriate use of instruments such as memory, attention, the sense of awareness and rational thinking in their relation to the diversity of that which appears in the human field of present arising. 6) No sustainable emotional equanimity or the functioning of the deeper intelligence associated with the non-dual revelation is possible without addressing and transcending the deep emotional shadow material which fundamentally controls and prejudices intelligent human behavior in general and, more specifically, responsive and dependable human relationships . 7) No sustainable intelligent and creative interaction with the world is possible without observing and transcending mental conditioning which projects and transfers itself onto the simplicity of human experience. 8) Non-duality is not to be found as an exclusive property somewhere `within' the bodymind. Non-duality or wholeness is the complete identification between the sense of being aware and the content which appears as form within this awareness. In this regard, no distinction could be made between the content of awareness and the awareness of content. 9) In the human context, there is no such experience as content-less awareness. Awareness can therefore not be an object of inner contemplation, neither can it contemplate itself. 10) Awareness is not a `thing' to be come upon `inwardly' or anywhere else. Awareness is the mere sense of being aware, which makes it a process and not the Ultimate Unifying Principle (or Great Metaphysical Thing) as projected by traditional Advaita Vedanta. 11) Meditation is a gradual movement through the disorder of the fragmented, conditioned and emotionally scarred human psyche to the unfolding of the natural non-dual potential within human nature. 12) Human life itself is the path, the practice and the fulfillment of the practice. The completion of spiritual life reflects the fulfillment of human life as a whole, and nothing Else. 13) A re-look at, and a radical re-cognition of, the entire process of the spiritualization of human life are required to free this enquiry from the binding and distorting dogmas of traditional religious and spiritual conformity. 14) A new, truly Humanistic vision of spiritual life, based on nothing but the unfolding and development of humankind's deepest potential for integral living, has to be explored as a matter of profound urgency. 15) God, as the ultimate projection of human well-being, order, beauty and happiness, should no longer, in any form whatsoever, be the basis of an uncompromisingly humanistic enquiry into the inherent spiritual nature of human existence. 16) Mind as the slayer of truth, is nothing other that the indiscriminate, conditioned, habitual and uninspected use of human faculties such as attention, thought, emotional response and the functioning of awareness in relation to these. 17) The `I'-conscious state is fundamental to fragmented living and many other forms of inner and outer disorder. As mere self-projection and self-focus this presumed inner entity creates a distinct and clearly observable destiny of suffering in its attempts to minimize the felt dis-ease of its own supposed separateness – both from itself and life in general. 18) The path is a conscious inversion upon every aspect of inner contraction within the body-mind, and not a projected movement towards that which is presumed to exist as an Ultimate State eternally free, and thus fundamentally separate from, human life. 19) Human life is as real as every aspect of present human experience, whether pleasurable or painful. There is nothing more Real than human life itself. Both delusion and truth are functions of human existence and are perfectly real in themselves. 20) The false is real until re-cognized as such. The false can only be seen as the false in the light of the true. 21) Humankind has never fallen from Grace. Those who struggle in the web of self-created destiny, have simply never been anywhere else. The truth of non-duality lies dormant, as potential only, within the living experience of every moment or present arising, until allowed to become self-evident through appropriate practice and correct living. 22) The truth of non-dual present arising cannot be destroyed by any human activity. It can only be obscured. 23) There is no Other. There is only This. And `This' is always, and only, nothing but perfectly, and simply, human. Warm regards, Moller de la Rouviere www.spiritualhumanism.co.za Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2005 Report Share Posted August 26, 2005 Big words filled with hot air ... What a baloney. Werner Nisargadatta , " chefboy2160 " <chefboy2160> wrote: > PRINCIPLES OF SPIRITUAL HUMANISM > > > > Möller de la Rouvière > > > > AUTHOR OF: SPIRITUALITY WITHOUT GOD > > > > SPIRITUAL HUMANISM DECLARES THAT: > > > > 1) To be a Humanist in the fullest sense of the word, is to embrace > both the potential and direct experience of non-duality or wholeness > as an integral aspect of human life. > > > > 2) The non-dual truth of the living moment is contained as potential > within all aspects of human experience, and therefore does not exist > as a metaphysical Self, Brahman, Godhead, or any other Unifying > factor - all which are projected as having Their presumed existence > both prior to, and after, the appearance of human life. > > > > 3) Wholeness or non-duality is neither the experience of one nor two. > > > > 4) Wholeness or non-duality is the mere sense of non-dual reality > which remains alive as a human experience when the inner, fragmented > and alienated sense of `I'-consciousness has been recognized as > fundamentally false, and transcended through right practice and right > living. > > > > 5) The word `spiritual' in the term `Spiritual Humanism' reflects the > total field of subtle human experiences such as love, compassion, > wholeness or non-duality, intelligence, pure emotional response- > ability, emotional equanimity, reasonableness, softness of heart, > human warmth, altered states of conscious awareness, insight, > intuition and deep states of inner absorption. It further includes > the appropriate use of instruments such as memory, attention, the > sense of awareness and rational thinking in their relation to the > diversity of that which appears in the human field of present > arising. > > > > 6) No sustainable emotional equanimity or the functioning of the > deeper intelligence associated with the non-dual revelation is > possible without addressing and transcending the deep emotional > shadow material which fundamentally controls and prejudices > intelligent human behavior in general and, more specifically, > responsive and dependable human relationships . > > > > 7) No sustainable intelligent and creative interaction with the world > is possible without observing and transcending mental conditioning > which projects and transfers itself onto the simplicity of human > experience. > > > > 8) Non-duality is not to be found as an exclusive property > somewhere `within' the bodymind. Non-duality or wholeness is the > complete identification between the sense of being aware and the > content which appears as form within this awareness. In this regard, > no distinction could be made between the content of awareness and the > awareness of content. > > > > 9) In the human context, there is no such experience as content- less > awareness. Awareness can therefore not be an object of inner > contemplation, neither can it contemplate itself. > > > > 10) Awareness is not a `thing' to be come upon `inwardly' or anywhere > else. Awareness is the mere sense of being aware, which makes it a > process and not the Ultimate Unifying Principle (or Great > Metaphysical Thing) as projected by traditional Advaita Vedanta. > > > > 11) Meditation is a gradual movement through the disorder of the > fragmented, conditioned and emotionally scarred human psyche to the > unfolding of the natural non-dual potential within human nature. > > > > 12) Human life itself is the path, the practice and the fulfillment > of the practice. The completion of spiritual life reflects the > fulfillment of human life as a whole, and nothing Else. > > > > 13) A re-look at, and a radical re-cognition of, the entire process > of the spiritualization of human life are required to free this > enquiry from the binding and distorting dogmas of traditional > religious and spiritual conformity. > > > > 14) A new, truly Humanistic vision of spiritual life, based on > nothing but the unfolding and development of humankind's deepest > potential for integral living, has to be explored as a matter of > profound urgency. > > > > 15) God, as the ultimate projection of human well-being, order, > beauty and happiness, should no longer, in any form whatsoever, be > the basis of an uncompromisingly humanistic enquiry into the inherent > spiritual nature of human existence. > > > > 16) Mind as the slayer of truth, is nothing other that the > indiscriminate, conditioned, habitual and uninspected use of human > faculties such as attention, thought, emotional response and the > functioning of awareness in relation to these. > > > > 17) The `I'-conscious state is fundamental to fragmented living and > many other forms of inner and outer disorder. As mere self- projection > and self-focus this presumed inner entity creates a distinct and > clearly observable destiny of suffering in its attempts to minimize > the felt dis-ease of its own supposed separateness – both from itself > and life in general. > > > > 18) The path is a conscious inversion upon every aspect of inner > contraction within the body-mind, and not a projected movement > towards that which is presumed to exist as an Ultimate State > eternally free, and thus fundamentally separate from, human life. > > > > 19) Human life is as real as every aspect of present human > experience, whether pleasurable or painful. There is nothing more > Real than human life itself. Both delusion and truth are functions of > human existence and are perfectly real in themselves. > > > > 20) The false is real until re-cognized as such. The false can only > be seen as the false in the light of the true. > > > > 21) Humankind has never fallen from Grace. Those who struggle in the > web of self-created destiny, have simply never been anywhere else. > The truth of non-duality lies dormant, as potential only, within the > living experience of every moment or present arising, until allowed > to become self-evident through appropriate practice and correct > living. > > > > 22) The truth of non-dual present arising cannot be destroyed by any > human activity. It can only be obscured. > > > > 23) There is no Other. There is only This. And `This' is always, > and only, nothing but perfectly, and simply, human. > Warm regards, > > Moller de la Rouviere > > www.spiritualhumanism.co.za Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 hmmmm, perhaps you will like this one my friend. INTENTION The question regarding intention is not whether there should be intention or not, but rather how it fits into the overall sense we have of our lives at present. For humans to act in any volitional way whatsoever, intention is inevitable and necessary. In fact, one could say that without intention no clear direction could be envisaged from where action, based on such projection into the future, would be possible. As humans we have evidently no instincts which naturally direct our activities. For us to achieve any of the things we generally associate with human-created outer structures to support our position and defence against the uncompromising onslaughts of nature, we have only thought, memory, emotional response and some vague intuitive feelings, structured and given order by the intelligence associated with these, to direct our interaction with our environment. And integral to this interaction is our ability to predict, project and plan into the future and organize a practical functionality around these predictions and future plans. All of these are motivated, given relevance, prioritized and structured by the feeling-sense of intention. We seem to be programmed to do things in this way, whether we are planning a war, a building, a bridge, a work of art (although here intention may be influenced also by inspiration) a business, a picnic or writing a book. Projection, based on intention, is vital to the success or failure of such a venture. Now, one may immediately feel that here we have a situation which is in direct conflict with the notion of letting-go, allowing things to be, non-resistance, desirelessness and so on – all concepts we find in the traditional approaches to `spiritual' life. To plan, project, move with energy and enthusiasm, get involved and so on in a project seems to be natural, yet, we have also been told that these are functions of the ego, and thus not quite `spiritually correct'. And as both of these are important to us, we often feel ourselves disempowered and de-motivated to tackle new projects because they appear to contradict such an important part of our deep longing for the spiritualization of our being. From here the question arises: how do we humanize our world to make it a safe and orderly place to live in, yet, at the same time allow ourselves the freedom to fulfil lour deeper spiritual needs? Naturally this would be a question each of us needs to ask ourselves and to find our own measure relative to its answer. No-one can really share anything meaningfully with another in this regard as we are all so different and our perceived needs tend to manifest in many different ways. Yet, having said this, it may be useful to consider the question of prioritization. The first chapter in Spirituality Without God starts with the words: `Life is a matter of priorities'. So, if we were to prioritize our intentions, it may be important first of all to discern between the different kinds of intention we may feel towards any project. For instance, we may have the intention to start a business, yet, as we have seen, we may at the same time also have the intention to live a spiritual life. Now, how do we prioritize these apparent conflicting intentions? The simple answer is: we don't. There is no need for prioritization because the two are not in principle in conflict with one another. To start a business may be as important as it is to feel one's way into living a spiritual kind of life. So rather than positioning them in a conflicting relationship, it may be more useful to see in which way both of these could serve our reality as a whole. We need money to live and we need spirituality in order to function in correct relationship with ourselves, others and the world in general. So, once we have established that these are not necessarily in conflict with one another, we could proceed to find our correct measure in both. And to find our correct measure, is to discern where our priorities in life lies. No doubt we have priorities and no doubt we will volitionally act on these as a matter of necessity. About this we have very little choice. So, how do we go about discovering where our priorities lie? We could endlessly delve into the great many reasons why we feel we should want to do things, but if I may suggest, we could also ask ourselves what would serve our present state of interest in life best. If we are concerned with material gain and are not really interested in how this may impact on the broader condition of our living reality, no doubt, our priority-structure will motivate us in the direction of our materialistic strivings. Nothing wrong with that. This is what most of us do all the time. On the other hand, we may be sufficiently concerned with our quality of life - materially, emotionally and relationally - and may care to re-cognize our intentions for starting our business, taking these into consideration. How will this project impact on my life as a whole, given the fact that I am also interested and devoted to the spiritualization of my being? If this inner demand is genuine and functionally alive within us, we will then allow this consideration to bring its own reality into the intention of starting a business. What we have to appreciate is that life is not a black and white affair. And neither is what we may consider `spiritual life' . There is no division between the two as each depends for its existence and fullest manifestation on the other. Without human life, which necessitates involvement with the `world', spiritual life is not possible. And without spiritual life, human existence serves merely the biological impulse and leaves human life barren and superficial. What we need to find is an ongoing intelligent compromise between different aspects of our present reality, inner and outer. Material life and our spiritual life is therefore always integrally woven into the fabric of our human interaction with our environment. It is only the residual baggage we carry from traditional `spirituality' which has fragmented human life into the relative and the ultimate that has given us this notion that ordinary human endeavour is somehow of a lesser order than spiritual endeavour. But this is entirely false and is not something Spiritual Humanism s to. From this perspective it may be evident that intention and letting- go are not in conflict with one another: rather, they compliment one another as important aspects of a fully integrated life. For this process of inner discernment to function most effectively we need to bring our deeper intelligence into the equation. We need to wake up from the uninspected living in which these apparent opposites are allowed to be generated and to flourish within us. These only create conflict where there is no conflict, leaving us enervated, disempowered, discouraged and bewildered. True discernment is therefore not to attempt to bring two opposites together: rather it is to see that these were never in conflict in the first place. Intention and letting-go are thus not two opposites in conflict with one another. These are two necessary processes, each having to find its measure with the other. Life compels us to have intentions, yet it also compels us, from within the silence of a disposition of inner quiet and letting-go, to question and feel our way into the origin, nature and validity of our intentions and how these may impact on the emotional stability and other refined humane qualities we may wish to explore and allow for. What therefore appeared to have been two processes in conflict, is now re-cognized as one process of intelligent mutual interaction. And such intelligent participatory interaction between our functional inner potential results in a comprehensive and integral way of life, no longer fragmented by mere thought-projections we impose on two necessary forms of human functioning. …………………………………… There is another aspect to this question which needs to be addressed, and that is the notion that all intention is necessarily ego-created while the idea of `letting-go' is somehow not. Also important is the value judgement implied in this statement. If we consider that there is first the motivated intention to start a business and that this intention has its ground in a well- considered environment of analysis, due financial consideration, infrastructural reality, technical abilities and so on, then it may be clear that although some ego-involvement could have been active in all these deliberations, mostly practical, objective matters were taken in consideration. Out of these the intention most likely became intensified to the point of nearing a final decision on the matter. Such deliberations are natural and necessary and there is no necessary ego-involvement in these. However, when we start thinking about the whole thing, we may now project a series of positive and negative thoughts onto the project. Part of this would be to think about our intention in relation to the notion of the spiritualization of our being, and project into this the thought that these are in conflict with one another. If we are observant of these inner processes as they unfold, we would notice that the thought which presumes the higher position i.e. the letting- go thought, is of the same quality and nature as the thought which tells us that intention per se is not kosher. We are generally unaware that there are no high and low thoughts, although we may really believe there are. There are indeed more or less practical kind of thoughts, but in terms of right and wrong, thoughts are very much just thoughts. So, the `high' thought of letting –go and the' low' thought of intention, are both created by the same instrument: our conditioned, memory-based thinking. I am not suggesting there is something intrinsically wrong with thought. But when we start to believe that one thought is more valuable than another, we may become vulnerable to mistaking the projections of thought for reality, and then divide ourselves up into a never-ending series of inner conflict. Zen rightly points out that right and wrong is a sickness of the mind. This statement is dangerous, but true. Correctly understood it sets us free from the error of believing the moral high's and low's of our thinking, and taking these as absolute guidelines for practical living. The discernment in this regard asks for careful and real conscious self- observation. But when grasped correctly, this has great freeing value. We will then no longer ask ourselves how to resolve the `conflict' between intention and letting-go. The question itself falls away through insight into that which creates these apparent opposites. Hand in hand, Moller. www.spiritualhumanism.co.za Author of Spirituality Without God Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Big words filled with hot air ... > > What a baloney. > > Werner > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Hmmm Chef, Thanks for trying again, but reading this Moeller for me is like chewing a mix of broken glass and rosty nails. Werner Nisargadatta , " chefboy2160 " <chefboy2160> wrote: > hmmmm, perhaps you will like this one my friend. > > > INTENTION > > > > The question regarding intention is not whether there should be > intention or not, but rather how it fits into the overall sense we > have of our lives at present. For humans to act in any volitional > way whatsoever, intention is inevitable and necessary. In fact, one > could say that without intention no clear direction could be > envisaged from where action, based on such projection into the > future, would be possible. > > As humans we have evidently no instincts which naturally direct > our activities. For us to achieve any of the things we generally > associate with human-created outer structures to support our position > and defence against the uncompromising onslaughts of nature, we have > only thought, memory, emotional response and some vague intuitive > feelings, structured and given order by the intelligence associated > with these, to direct our interaction with our environment. And > integral to this interaction is our ability to predict, project and > plan into the future and organize a practical functionality around > these predictions and future plans. All of these are motivated, > given relevance, prioritized and structured by the feeling-sense of > intention. We seem to be programmed to do things in this way, > whether we are planning a war, a building, a bridge, a work of art > (although here intention may be influenced also by inspiration) a > business, a picnic or writing a book. Projection, based on > intention, is vital to the success or failure of such a venture. > > Now, one may immediately feel that here we have a situation which > is in direct conflict with the notion of letting-go, allowing things > to be, non-resistance, desirelessness and so on – all concepts we > find in the traditional approaches to `spiritual' life. To plan, > project, move with energy and enthusiasm, get involved and so on in a > project seems to be natural, yet, we have also been told that these > are functions of the ego, and thus not quite `spiritually correct'. > And as both of these are important to us, we often feel ourselves > disempowered and de-motivated to tackle new projects because they > appear to contradict such an important part of our deep longing for > the spiritualization of our being. From here the question arises: how > do we humanize our world to make it a safe and orderly place to live > in, yet, at the same time allow ourselves the freedom to fulfil > lour deeper spiritual needs? > > Naturally this would be a question each of us needs to ask > ourselves and to find our own measure relative to its answer. No- one > can really share anything meaningfully with another in this regard as > we are all so different and our perceived needs tend to manifest in > many different ways. Yet, having said this, it may be useful to > consider the question of prioritization. > > The first chapter in Spirituality Without God starts with the > words: `Life is a matter of priorities'. So, if we were to > prioritize our intentions, it may be important first of all to > discern between the different kinds of intention we may feel towards > any project. For instance, we may have the intention to start a > business, yet, as we have seen, we may at the same time also have the > intention to live a spiritual life. Now, how do we prioritize these > apparent conflicting intentions? The simple answer is: we don't. > > There is no need for prioritization because the two are not in > principle in conflict with one another. To start a business may be > as important as it is to feel one's way into living a spiritual kind > of life. So rather than positioning them in a conflicting > relationship, it may be more useful to see in which way both of these > could serve our reality as a whole. We need money to live and we > need spirituality in order to function in correct relationship with > ourselves, others and the world in general. So, once we have > established that these are not necessarily in conflict with one > another, we could proceed to find our correct measure in both. > > And to find our correct measure, is to discern where our priorities > in life lies. No doubt we have priorities and no doubt we will > volitionally act on these as a matter of necessity. About this we > have very little choice. So, how do we go about discovering where > our priorities lie? > > We could endlessly delve into the great many reasons why we feel > we should want to do things, but if I may suggest, we could also ask > ourselves what would serve our present state of interest in life > best. If we are concerned with material gain and are not really > interested in how this may impact on the broader condition of our > living reality, no doubt, our priority-structure will motivate us in > the direction of our materialistic strivings. Nothing wrong with > that. This is what most of us do all the time. On the other hand, > we may be sufficiently concerned with our quality of life - > materially, emotionally and relationally - and may care to re- cognize > our intentions for starting our business, taking these into > consideration. How will this project impact on my life as a whole, > given the fact that I am also interested and devoted to the > spiritualization of my being? If this inner demand is genuine and > functionally alive within us, we will then allow this consideration > to bring its own reality into the intention of starting a business. > > What we have to appreciate is that life is not a black and white > affair. And neither is what we may consider `spiritual life' . There > is no division between the two as each depends for its existence and > fullest manifestation on the other. Without human life, which > necessitates involvement with the `world', spiritual life is not > possible. And without spiritual life, human existence serves merely > the biological impulse and leaves human life barren and superficial. > What we need to find is an ongoing intelligent compromise between > different aspects of our present reality, inner and outer. Material > life and our spiritual life is therefore always integrally woven into > the fabric of our human interaction with our environment. It is only > the residual baggage we carry from traditional `spirituality' which > has fragmented human life into the relative and the ultimate that has > given us this notion that ordinary human endeavour is somehow of a > lesser order than spiritual endeavour. But this is entirely false > and is not something Spiritual Humanism s to. > > From this perspective it may be evident that intention and letting- > go are not in conflict with one another: rather, they compliment one > another as important aspects of a fully integrated life. For this > process of inner discernment to function most effectively we need to > bring our deeper intelligence into the equation. We need to wake up > from the uninspected living in which these apparent opposites are > allowed to be generated and to flourish within us. These only create > conflict where there is no conflict, leaving us enervated, > disempowered, discouraged and bewildered. True discernment is > therefore not to attempt to bring two opposites together: rather it > is to see that these were never in conflict in the first place. > Intention and letting-go are thus not two opposites in conflict with > one another. These are two necessary processes, each having to find > its measure with the other. > > Life compels us to have intentions, yet it also compels us, from > within the silence of a disposition of inner quiet and letting-go, > to question and feel our way into the origin, nature and validity of > our intentions and how these may impact on the emotional stability > and other refined humane qualities we may wish to explore and allow > for. What therefore appeared to have been two processes in conflict, > is now re-cognized as one process of intelligent mutual interaction. > And such intelligent participatory interaction between our functional > inner potential results in a comprehensive and integral way of life, > no longer fragmented by mere thought-projections we impose on two > necessary forms of human functioning. > > > > …………………………………… > > > > There is another aspect to this question which needs to be addressed, > and that is the notion that all intention is necessarily ego- created > while the idea of `letting-go' is somehow not. Also important is the > value judgement implied in this statement. > > If we consider that there is first the motivated intention to > start a business and that this intention has its ground in a well- > considered environment of analysis, due financial consideration, > infrastructural reality, technical abilities and so on, then it may > be clear that although some ego-involvement could have been active in > all these deliberations, mostly practical, objective matters were > taken in consideration. Out of these the intention most likely > became intensified to the point of nearing a final decision on the > matter. Such deliberations are natural and necessary and there is no > necessary ego-involvement in these. > > However, when we start thinking about the whole thing, we may now > project a series of positive and negative thoughts onto the project. > Part of this would be to think about our intention in relation to the > notion of the spiritualization of our being, and project into this > the thought that these are in conflict with one another. If we are > observant of these inner processes as they unfold, we would notice > that the thought which presumes the higher position i.e. the letting- > go thought, is of the same quality and nature as the thought which > tells us that intention per se is not kosher. We are generally > unaware that there are no high and low thoughts, although we may > really believe there are. There are indeed more or less practical > kind of thoughts, but in terms of right and wrong, thoughts are very > much just thoughts. So, the `high' thought of letting –go and the' > low' thought of intention, are both created by the same instrument: > our conditioned, memory-based thinking. > > I am not suggesting there is something intrinsically wrong with > thought. But when we start to believe that one thought is more > valuable than another, we may become vulnerable to mistaking the > projections of thought for reality, and then divide ourselves up into > a never-ending series of inner conflict. Zen rightly points out that > right and wrong is a sickness of the mind. This statement is > dangerous, but true. Correctly understood it sets us free from the > error of believing the moral high's and low's of our thinking, and > taking these as absolute guidelines for practical living. The > discernment in this regard asks for careful and real conscious self- > observation. But when grasped correctly, this has great freeing > value. We will then no longer ask ourselves how to resolve > the `conflict' between intention and letting-go. The question > itself falls away through insight into that which creates these > apparent opposites. > > > > Hand in hand, > > Moller. > > www.spiritualhumanism.co.za > > Author of Spirituality Without God > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Big words filled with hot air ... > > > > What a baloney. > > > > Werner > > > > 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.