Guest guest Posted March 14, 2000 Report Share Posted March 14, 2000 > "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > > >R: We can't say that Harsha exists only in Melody's individual imagination, > >unless Melody & I are having a sychronized delusion. So Harsha must be a > >projection of the cosmic mind. Although I will watch for any individual > >imaginations about Harsha that might occur. This reoccuring stirring of > >warmth that I feel associated with Harsha seems to be more cosmic certainty > >than personal imagination. > > D: Hi, Roger. Hearing your voice loud and clear in this "original > stillness" :-) Harsha is in Melody and Melody is in Harsha. > Harsha and Melody are in you, and you are in Harsha and Melody. > Each individual is in every individual, and this is true of > particular events and solar systems as well as people. R: Well, I have to be honest and say that as of this moment at least, perceptually I am associated with this body connected to these fingers doing the typing. Occasionally & increasingly so I am only the resident and not the structure itself. Yet, at no time am I either Melody or Harsha in any perceptual way. I understand conceptually that Melody and Harsha might someday be literally known as Myself. However, I have to admit that this is only a concept and not reality today. If anyone out there is literally me, then perhaps they can fixed this computer bug I've been looking for... Love does seem to point to underlying unity, or perhaps love is the unity. Yet, "the way" to Truth, for me, is by rejecting that which is NOT real. Imagining false unity with Harsha & Melody would seem to lead further into individual mind and thus further away from the promise of cosmic mind. Any individual imagination about unity would block the actual cosmic unity. > >R: Some individuals seem to prefer the description of existance as seamless > >wholeness, others seem to prefer observing characteristics in this > >wholeness. Both perspectives seem essential from here. A good question might > >be whether any distinctions/levels exist in individual imagination or in the > >grand cosmic imagination. > > D: No wholeness without differentiation, no differentiation > apart from wholeness. This is observed in Nature and Being. > Where am "I" in all this - am I the whole, or am I the differentiation, > am I a part or Totality, nothing, or everything? > Each implies the other. Each includes the other. >... > Questions like this are fun, when they allow the intellect > to realize the inherent ungraspability of this very > present moment, the infinity of this very being itself -- > Then, there is only listening, seeing, being, opening, waiting, > listening (ending at the beginning :-) > > Much love, > Dan R: Descriptions, differentiations, levels and so forth ARE the reflections of the cosmic intellect, the grand intelligence of manifest creation, seen with varying clarity in the individual mind. Concepts should be acknowledged only as pointers to something that can be known in direct experience. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2000 Report Share Posted March 14, 2000 > > D: Hi, Roger. Hearing your voice loud and clear in this "original > > stillness" :-) Harsha is in Melody and Melody is in Harsha. > > Harsha and Melody are in you, and you are in Harsha and Melody. > > Each individual is in every individual, and this is true of > > particular events and solar systems as well as people. R: Even if I had knowledge of Harsha or Melody through some psychic phenomena, I would reject identification with the phenomena. Certainly such things are possible. HOWEVER, psychic phenomena are only a manifestation of the creator, NOT the creator him/herself. Identification with psychic phenomena, although flashing or attractive, is not different than identification with thought & emotion: it's still identification and not freedom. So Dan, in what way do you mean "Harsha is in Melody..." etc... This might be a manifestation Maharishi's "unity consciousness", or Osho's 7th level. The following appear to be options, please extend the list as appropriate: 1) you are at the highest state of consciousness known to man, you are perceptually & literally the entire universe. You are on the same exalted level as Osho, Jesus, Buddha, Maharishi, Gurdjieff, Aurobindo, Judi Rhodes, Steiner, Barry Long etc... 2) you are psychic: psychic does not necessarily mean Realized. 3) you are fond of a particular style of expression which emphasizes, in this case, the concept or individual egoic imagination of oneness, a concept projected from memory. Yet this very projection, rather than being a stepping stone to Realization, might very well block it, because projection itself IS THE BARRIER to Realization. affectionately; is there a way to be affectionate while cutting uncompromisingly to the core? Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2000 Report Share Posted March 15, 2000 > >> > D: Hi, Roger. Hearing your voice loud and clear in this "original > >> > stillness" :-) Harsha is in Melody and Melody is in Harsha. > >> > Harsha and Melody are in you, and you are in Harsha and Melody. > >> > Each individual is in every individual, and this is true of > >> > particular events and solar systems as well as people. > > > >R: > >Even if I had knowledge of Harsha or Melody through some psychic phenomena, > >I would reject identification with the phenomena. Certainly such things are > >possible. HOWEVER, psychic phenomena are only a manifestation of the > >creator, NOT the creator him/herself. > > > >Identification with psychic phenomena, although flashing or attractive, is > >not different than identification with thought & emotion: it's still > >identification and not freedom. > > > >So Dan, in what way do you mean "Harsha is in Melody..." etc... > > > >This might be a manifestation Maharishi's "unity consciousness", or Osho's > >7th level. > > > >The following appear to be options, please extend the list as appropriate: > > > >1) you are at the highest state of consciousness known to man, you are > >perceptually & literally the entire universe. You are on the same exalted > >level as Osho, Jesus, Buddha, Maharishi, Gurdjieff, Aurobindo, Judi Rhodes, > >Steiner, Barry Long etc... > > > >2) you are psychic: psychic does not necessarily mean Realized. > > > >3) you are fond of a particular style of expression which emphasizes, in > >this case, the concept or individual egoic imagination of oneness, a concept > >projected from memory. Yet this very projection, rather than being a > >stepping stone to Realization, might very well block it, because projection > >itself IS THE BARRIER to Realization. Glo: > 4) Or...Dan is in good company!! R: 5) Inspirational oneness in devotion or service could be a path to God too. Glo: > "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through > their word, that they may all be one; even as thou Father, art in me, and I in > thee, that they also may be in us.... The glory which thou has given me I have > given to them, that they may be one even as we are one. I in them and thou in > me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou has > sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. ..... I made known to > them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast > loved me may be in them, and I in them." ~~John 17.20-26. Roger: Your quote from John is beautiful, but it also provides a tragic example. The Christian tradition promotes thoughts about oneness. Yet this tradition of thought very very rarely succeeds in leading the common [wo]man to actual God Realization. A more effective approach might be to culture stillness though meditation, recognizing also that when stillness is established technique is left behind. In the stillness the Grace of "perfectly one"... The same danger exists in nonduality teaching: thoughts about nonduality typically remain on the level of mind. > >affectionately; is there a way to be affectionate while cutting > >uncompromisingly to the core? > > > >Roger > > Yes, Roger..the core is love. > > With love, > Gloria The core is "Glo"ing. :-) Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2000 Report Share Posted March 15, 2000 >R: >Well, I have to be honest and say that as of this moment at least, >perceptually I am associated with this body connected to these fingers doing >the typing. Occasionally & increasingly so I am only the resident and not >the structure itself. D: That's a conceptualization of it. But what is the reality beyond concepts? Admittedly, that will never be spoken or written. Yet, it's that reality in which there is no "I" to be associated with a body, and in which "body" itself is a conceptualization. The "resident" who has no structure turns out to be the "whole universe". >R: Yet, at no time am I either Melody or Harsha in any perceptual way. I >understand conceptually that Melody and Harsha might someday be literally >known as Myself. However, I have to admit that this is only a concept and >not reality today. D: You sound convinced that you're separate from Melody and Harsha. Yet earlier you discussed how you form images of Melody and Harsha, and vice versa. You spoke of a "cosmic imagination" in which this all occurs. So are you saying this "cosmic imagination" you discussed is just a concept that might become a perceived reality? You say that "this is only a concept and not a reality today" - yet as I see it only that which is real now is reality. In sticking to what is real right now, I say there is indeed reality in which you, Harsha, and Melody are each included in the other. And this reality is no one's possession. It is real now quite directly and it is the only "Way" that any of this is able to manifest. >If anyone out there is literally me, then perhaps they can fixed this >computer bug I've been looking for... D: You're talking about a bounded entity named "Roger" defined by a body and a location in space. Clearly, this is not Reality as Totality. This "you" fixing a computer bug is reality given name and boundary through use of language and concepts. Such a "you" may have certain uses, but not as a "stand-in" for Reality. >Love does seem to point to underlying unity, or perhaps love is the unity. > >Yet, "the way" to Truth, for me, is by rejecting that which is NOT real. >Imagining false unity with Harsha & Melody would seem to lead further into >individual mind and thus further away from the promise of cosmic mind. The only way to know what is unreal is to be Real. If you are somehow "outside" of Reality, and hoping to gain Reality by rejecting what is unreal, you are talking about a contradictory process. Because how would one be able to know what is unreal unless "standing" in and as the Real? >R: Any individual imagination about unity would block the actual cosmic unity. D: According to you, that statement itself is a conceptualization of an individual imagination. Therefore that very statement according to your view seems to block what you call "actual cosmic unity". Thus, the only thing to do is immediately open directly to unity as it actually presents this instant. That is the only "cosmic unity" there is, as far as I can see. BTW, I don't see any difference between "cosmic" unity and "microcosmic unity", Roger. It's one "unity", a unity that is not apart from diversity, nor apart from the specific. >R: >Descriptions, differentiations, levels and so forth ARE the reflections of >the cosmic intellect, the grand intelligence of manifest creation, seen with >varying clarity in the individual mind. > >Concepts should be acknowledged only as pointers to something that can be >known in direct experience. D: Direct experience is simply what is here, now. Anything else is projection. Reality isn't something known in direct experience. Something known in direct experience is conceptual, an object in an experience. Reality can only be experience itself, as Whole, as all particulars, simultaneously. Reality, indeed, is the Source of all experience, hence Reality is beyond experience, is no-experience as much as experience. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2000 Report Share Posted March 15, 2000 >R: >Even if I had knowledge of Harsha or Melody through some psychic phenomena, >I would reject identification with the phenomena. Certainly such things are >possible. HOWEVER, psychic phenomena are only a manifestation of the >creator, NOT the creator him/herself. > >Identification with psychic phenomena, although flashing or attractive, is >not different than identification with thought & emotion: it's still >identification and not freedom. > >So Dan, in what way do you mean "Harsha is in Melody..." etc... D: Roger, I mean that there is One, and that One is in no way separate from anything. What this means is that everything is included in each thing, and each thing is included in All. This oneness is in no way apart from distinctness, as love is not apart from wisdom/discrimination. This awareness requires no psychic phenomena, as it is the very nature of being itself, this very being now, here, as is. >R: This might be a manifestation Maharishi's "unity consciousness", or Osho's >7th level. D: Roger, as I see "This," it can in no way be "confined" to a level. It is the inclusion of each level in every other level, each event in every other event. >R: The following appear to be options, please extend the list as appropriate: > >1) you are at the highest state of consciousness known to man, you are >perceptually & literally the entire universe. You are on the same exalted >level as Osho, Jesus, Buddha, Maharishi, Gurdjieff, Aurobindo, Judi Rhodes, >Steiner, Barry Long etc... D: This has nothing to do with being at a level. It has nothing to do with "me" being anywhere. There is one awareness, it isn't possessed by any being. No one "has" It. "It" has everyone and everything. And "It" has All by being All. There is only "It" itself, nothing anywhere apart from It. "I" am not "seeing" this to be true, and it has not "become true" for "me". It is and has always been the only Truth. It's not dependent on "me" seeing "It" for "It" to be Real. "It" sees "me" and therefore "I" have the appearance of being real for a time. The reason that "I" am perceptually and literally the universe is because "you" are perceptually and literally the universe. Although you may claim that "you" don't perceive this, so it's not true for "you" doesn't change the Reality that "makes" you real by perceiving "you". It's true right now, right here, regardless of whether "you" or "I" perceive It or not. It will never, can never be an "object" of our perception or knowledge. "It" Alone is. Now. >2) you are psychic: psychic does not necessarily mean Realized. D: Psychic has nothing to do with It manifesting the Universe which is Itself. >3) you are fond of a particular style of expression which emphasizes, in >this case, the concept or individual egoic imagination of oneness, a concept >projected from memory. Yet this very projection, rather than being a >stepping stone to Realization, might very well block it, because projection >itself IS THE BARRIER to Realization. D: That would be true if I were trying to become Realized. However, such effort is self-contradictory, so why start with it? By not attempting to become Realized, I simply notice that Reality is being Itself fully, at all times, in all places, through all apparent beings. Roger, there is no one Here to Realize anything - only Reality Itself. I don't mean that "Dan" realizes that he isn't here, and therefore "Dan" is very special and is having a realization. I mean "Dan", "Roger,Melody,Harsha" aren't Here. No one is Here. Therefore, there is only Here. Therefore, Dan, Roger, Melody, Harsha are each included in each other. Conceptualizing this adds nothing to it. It doesn't subtract anything from it, either. It's not apart from concepts, nor is it within concepts. Nothing disturbs or disrupts it. As for all the distortions of awareness characterized by "me-ness" and all the projection of all the "objects" in space and time - these in fact disrupt nothing when they are seen for what they are, "seen through". The only disruption is when they are taken as the sole reality. >affectionately; is there a way to be affectionate while cutting >uncompromisingly to the core? D: Just be yourself. Simply being yourself as you are is fine with me. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2000 Report Share Posted March 15, 2000 >4) Glo: >Or...Dan is in good company!! > >"I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through >their word, that they may all be one; even as thou Father, art in me, and I in >thee, that they also may be in us.... The glory which thou has given me I have >given to them, that they may be one even as we are one. I in them and thou in >me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou has >sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. ..... I made known to >them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast >loved me may be in them, and I in them." ~~John 17.20-26. D: Yes, beautifully stated, John, Jesus and Glo :-) This is It. >>affectionately; is there a way to be affectionate while cutting >>uncompromisingly to the core? >> >>Roger > >G: Yes, Roger..the core is love. D: Who you are. Who I am. That which gives "you" and "I" being. Yes, It is Love. It gives to All and asks nothing in return. It gives each to All and All to each, and is content to remain Unknown and unrecognized. It never gets any credit. Only the books, images, and persons who speak of It get credit. Itself as is never gets, nor asks for credit. Thus, It is Love. Unknown Love, beyond thought, feeling, or perception - never separate from thought, feeling, or perception. Love, Gloria/John/Jesus/Roger/Dan 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.