PBS Discussions
Discussion Forums on pbs.org
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Juliania
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 8979
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:10 am Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
   |
|
I am not sure what is meant by the capitalization of spiritual healthcare, mt, but I will leave that to you to explain. I agree that Buber is dismissive of the line of argument I was using for his explanation of the 'I-Thou' - he doesn't think that on the human level of this relationship a fulness or retention of it can be reached, but that all paths lead to the divine. I have more an expectation of fulfillment in the human realm, and that I think would be more the Christian attitude. At the same time, we do agree on the ultimate fulfilment, as you express it in the last Eliot quotation.
There is for Buber the real experiential conundrum of return. That is, one can only have a mystical experience (and he is rather dismissive of such also)momentarily or in short passages of time, and there is an inevitable return to 'reality'. It is not enough, for Buber, to say that this reality is not real, because apparently it is. We always come back to it. It is the stuff of our lives. We do not live in a dream, (and ecstasy is a dream,)we live apart from dreams. Buber is a realist in the same way that I think I am a realist. We, and many of the fathers of Christianity, hold at some length (if we don't reject completely) mystical experiences for this reason. There are no mystical experiences in the four gospel narratives, much as mysticism may be read into them.
The strong case for spiritual health care which relates simply to an understanding of human excellences is grounded on this reality which you, mt,say you go beyond. That is our difference. Because as perfect human Christ presents this example, loving others as he loved himself and God above all, humans also now can approach this perfection following his teachings. It's not some magic bullet that gives you a ticket to ride, nor is it some whizbang enlightening experience; it is an understanding reached in all the elements of one's capabilities living in this life we have been given, which Buber describes as a turning. Becoming fully human we approach Christ, whether we acknowledge him or not. The acknowledgement is not what is important; the becoming a full human being is. I think it is possible to do this in life, in love, in harmony.
This doesn't make me want to go to war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
God
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 3804
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
Juliania wrote:
| Quote: |
I am not sure what is meant by the capitalization of spiritual healthcare, mt, but I will leave that to you to explain. I agree that Buber is dismissive of the line of argument I was using for his explanation of the 'I-Thou' - he doesn't think that on the human level of this relationship a fulness or retention of it can be reached, but that all paths lead to the divine. I have more an expectation of fulfillment in the human realm, and that I think would be more the Christian attitude. At the same time, we do agree on the ultimate fulfilment, as you express it in the last Eliot quotation.
There is for Buber the real experiential conundrum of return. That is, one can only have a mystical experience (and he is rather dismissive of such also)momentarily or in short passages of time, and there is an inevitable return to 'reality'. It is not enough, for Buber, to say that this reality is not real, because apparently it is. We always come back to it. It is the stuff of our lives. We do not live in a dream, (and ecstasy is a dream,)we live apart from dreams. Buber is a realist in the same way that I think I am a realist. We, and many of the fathers of Christianity, hold at some length (if we don't reject completely) mystical experiences for this reason. There are no mystical experiences in the four gospel narratives, much as mysticism may be read into them.
The strong case for spiritual health care which relates simply to an understanding of human excellences is grounded on this reality which you, mt,say you go beyond. That is our difference. Because as perfect human Christ presents this example, loving others as he loved himself and God above all, humans also now can approach this perfection following his teachings. It's not some magic bullet that gives you a ticket to ride, nor is it some whizbang enlightening experience; it is an understanding reached in all the elements of one's capabilities living in this life we have been given, which Buber describes as a turning. Becoming fully human we approach Christ, whether we acknowledge him or not. The acknowledgement is not what is important; the becoming a full human being is. I think it is possible to do this in life, in love, in harmony.
This doesn't make me want to go to war. |
The capitalization of certain words (not “spiritual healthcare) is as explained in terms of their base essential experiential Knowledge (not as belief or as an ideal). Still, of course, they are only as words pointing, as concepts, and in that, for most, they are only as references to the actual Experiential Territory that takes place at the stillpoint in the Gnostic sense, enlightenment sense, or in the mystic sense. The problem, generally, is in the interpretation in which a “self” may interpret such Experience with its own framework of culture, belief, history, psychology, language and level of development, etc.
To reject the genuine mystical Experience is to reject not only a “real” level of human experience, it is to reject a more real human experience from my point of view. What, however, may be rejected is the interpretation of the Experience. The Experience Itself informs, as I suggested (at the stillpoint). It is like a peephole into a Reality that is more advanced, deeper, and wider, than that which the consensual reality holds. But how to communicate? Jesus used different ways in the attempt, including the Parables. But the Four Gospels suggest what can happen to those who make this attempt. The Gospels are interpreted in different ways according to a developmental consensual reality historically, or from the point of view of some who are more advanced in having Known, or who have Seen through the same peephole.
The developmental sense of the self is central to Spiritual Health Care (these are capitalized because they are the title to this forum and base subject). To propose a developmental sense is a kind of grounding, and a realistic approach to an otherwise too esoteric position. In this developmental sense, I say that the reality created by beliefs (the cultural mythology) is like a dream condition. I say, therefore, we DO live in a dream in that sense but not to be rejected but understood as a level of development. And while the dream can be a nightmare and has its high points its “real” position depends upon the level of development of a consensus, usually, and that is what you are probably calling your position of “realist” from my point of view. People like a Jesus or a Buddha, more highly developed in terms of advanced levels, may attempt to communicate about their reality which may challenge the identities of the less developed levels which are usually threatened (which can have dire consequences to such vulnerable individuals).
Your statement “The strong case for spiritual health care which relates simply to an understanding of human excellences is grounded on this reality which you, mt, say you go beyond“ is not accurate. Where have I suggested I “go beyond” the essence of Beauty, Love or Truth which become as fundamental directives for Spiritual Healthcare? Perhaps you are pointing to something else, I don’t know. It is That to which Jesus and Buddha point. It is also to That to which genuine mystical experiences point, even with the historical writings of the Christian mystics (and other mystical all over the world, historically). From my point of view, Jesus attempted to communicate his mystical (Gnostic) Experience. The New Testament represents how others have expressed what they saw, understood, and then expressed of what Jesus expressed and represented to them. I say, as Jesus also said, you too can Know This if you are born again in that mystical sense.
What you and Buber are expressing is more of a tradition, which has its place and in itself, not to be rejected, but is more like a family. But to truely Know what Jesus is talking about you take up a sword to then differentiate your "self" from that level of attachment. You then incorporate (not reject or misinterpret as the Church has done) a core understanding of what Jesus pointed to as "born again" which in fact is the mystical Experience. It has a bad rap in most conservative traditions because it opposes the status quo, the consensual reality, which lingers at a lower level of conscioiusness.
mt
_________________
 : Tao, fire, rose, love, freedom, are one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juliania
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 8979
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:36 pm Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
mt writes:
| Quote: |
...
To reject the genuine mystical Experience is to reject not only a “real” level of human experience, it is to reject a more real human experience from my point of view. What, however, may be rejected is the interpretation of the Experience. The Experience Itself informs, as I suggested (at the stillpoint). It is like a peephole into a Reality that is more advanced, deeper, and wider, than that which the consensual reality holds. But how to communicate? Jesus used different ways in the attempt, including the Parables. But the Four Gospels suggest what can happen to those who make this attempt. The Gospels are interpreted in different ways according to a developmental consensual reality historically, or from the point of view of some who are more advanced in having Known, or who have Seen through the same peephole.
|
I carefully said, mt, "...hold at some length (if we don't reject completely). That is far different from saying that we reject mysticism. I put by this caution a separation between what the Four Gospels are saying and, for example, the Book of Revelation, which is indeed a very mystical and symbolic work. Since you bring up the parables, they are a good point to my argument because they are grounded on real life examples. I do not call the interpretations which Jesus himself gives to some of them mystical or symbolic, but rather metaphorical, as for example when he says 'Is it easier to say take up your pallet and walk or to say that your sins are forgiven you?' The examples of exterior reality point to interior ones that are invisible but not unreal or otherworldly. To be forgiven is something that we all appreciate in our ongoing daily lives, but not a mystical experience.
On the subject of mystical experiences, Paul has something to say in one of his letters. He says that he knows a man who had the experience of being caught up into the seventh heaven, but he (Paul) is unwilling to say anything more about it. His teachings do not depend upon this event, relational in the extreme though it may be. Even for Paul, one does not have to go to this level.
mt writes:
| Quote: |
The developmental sense of the self is central to Spiritual Health Care (these are capitalized because they are the title to this forum and base subject). To propose a developmental sense is a kind of grounding, and a realistic approach to an otherwise too esoteric position. In this developmental sense, I say that the reality created by beliefs (the cultural mythology) is like a dream condition. I say, therefore, we DO live in a dream in that sense but not to be rejected but understood as a level of development. And while the dream can be a nightmare and has its high points its “real” position depends upon the level of development of a consensus, usually, and that is what you are probably calling your position of “realist” from my point of view. People like a Jesus or a Buddha, more highly developed in terms of advanced levels, may attempt to communicate about their reality which may challenge the identities of the less developed levels which are usually threatened (which can have dire consequences to such vulnerable individuals).
|
We will have to agree to disagree about what is real and what is not, mt, but at least we offer a clear choice between us, and that is good.
mt writes:
| Quote: |
Your statement “The strong case for spiritual health care which relates simply to an understanding of human excellences is grounded on this reality which you, mt, say you go beyond“ is not accurate. Where have I suggested I “go beyond” the essence of Beauty, Love or Truth which become as fundamental directives for Spiritual Healthcare?
|
I did not mean to say you go beyond these essences, mt. I meant to say you go beyond the kind of reality I put forward; which indeed in thinking of my 'reality' as dream (as you say above,) is what I understand you to be doing. Buber is, however, dismissive of those Platonic abstractions such as Beauty or Truth, the 'eidoi' or ideas to which his philosophy directs itself - I am not sure where I place them.
mt writes:
| Quote: |
Perhaps you are pointing to something else, I don’t know. It is That to which Jesus and Buddha point. It is also to That to which genuine mystical experiences point, even with the historical writings of the Christian mystics (and other mystical all over the world, historically). From my point of view, Jesus attempted to communicate his mystical (Gnostic) Experience. The New Testament represents how others have expressed what they saw, understood, and then expressed of what Jesus expressed and represented to them. I say, as Jesus also said, you too can Know This if you are born again in that mystical sense.
|
It's true that the New Testament represents how others have expressed what they saw, well said. It is a fascinating study to compare, as many have, the four gospel writers and the different truths they found in the message of Jesus. We in my church place the other writings on a separate plane, as being a step or two removed from 'original sources' ie: those who are telling about lives lived in the actual presence of Jesus. I find these representations of reality hard to dismiss, and so does my church, which venerates these four accounts above the other writings in the New Testament. (Please notice that I do not take the word of church 'authorities' that this is so; first I find it out for myself. ) These four gospels are the touchstone upon which other writings within or without the Bible are and have been from earliest times evaluated.
I think if you take fragments out of the whole and posit a claim of mysticism or gnosticism upon those, you are in danger of missing the human and rather straightforward message which keeps those fragments in harmony with the rest of the writings and leads,( that message,) to a successful conclusion.
mt writes:
| Quote: |
What you and Buber are expressing is more of a tradition, which has its place and in itself, not to be rejected, but is more like a family. But to truely Know what Jesus is talking about you take up a sword to then differentiate your "self" from that level of attachment.
|
While the tradition is certainly an enjoyable environment, I personally came into it from a far, even antipodal, reach, much as did Paul. I can't say I was actively persecuting the first Christians, but I certainly ranged far afield in my own personal investigations. This was not harmful but helpful because it preserved my independence. Indeed, there was no 'family' for me until I myself had a family of my own. And, personally speaking, the level of attachment I had to overcome is ongoing, but it is an attachment to ease, to not thinking about what I believe, to not doing helpful things.
mt writes:
| Quote: |
You then incorporate (not reject or misinterpret as the Church has done) a core understanding of what Jesus pointed to as "born again" which in fact is the mystical Experience. It has a bad rap in most conservative traditions because it opposes the status quo, the consensual reality, which lingers at a lower level of consciousness.
|
Of course I disagree because my independent analysis (which we all should do) has found, not rejection but correct interpretation. It takes a bit of doing; you have to look at early Christianity and the different convenings of the early fathers, without taking the interpretations of what they have argued to be truthful, but reading the arguments themselves. The consensual reality of those convenings, the history of early Christian thought, is down in black and white, in print, and is, I believe, reasonable. But it takes a bit of exploration and perseverance - you can't come to any conclusions in a sound bite. And if you don't want to make this exploration, that is understandable. But it is a better course than taking another's word - come to your own conclusion.
I wouldn't say the mystical experience has a bad rap, but just that it is very subjective, of a poetical nature, and to be viewed with caution. I've posted plenty of examples of such mystical nature, as they are beautiful - the Song of Songs is very beautiful, and so is Revelation, read as a poetical seeing of what was happening to the early Christians at the time of John's exile on the island of Patmos. I can't imagine his mental torment as he saw all his gentle friends being fed to the lions and the human faith being trampled under the empirical boot. Probably close to despair in that cave pacing a worn path in the rocky floor, or scaling the rocky hill to gaze out over the little churches across the sea in Asia Minor. These are important works of mysticism, but they are of a different nature from the elements of the Christian faith, or they should be.
You know, since I paint icons, I often paint the one that shows John writing under these conditions, outside his cave on the island of Patmos, or rather dictating to his disciple, Prochor. There are actually two traditional poses to the figure of John. In one he, as is the case for the other Gospel writers, is seated; in the other, he is standing. I only realized yesterday that these two different positions indicate the two writings he was engaged in - standing, it is the Book of Revelation; seated it is the Gospel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
God
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 3804
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:09 am Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
Juliania wrote:
| Quote: |
mt writes:
Quote:
...
| Quote: |
| To reject the genuine mystical Experience is to reject not only a “real” level of human experience, it is to reject a more real human experience from my point of view. What, however, may be rejected is the interpretation of the Experience. The Experience Itself informs, as I suggested (at the stillpoint). It is like a peephole into a Reality that is more advanced, deeper, and wider, than that which the consensual reality holds. But how to communicate? Jesus used different ways in the attempt, including the Parables. But the Four Gospels suggest what can happen to those who make this attempt. The Gospels are interpreted in different ways according to a developmental consensual reality historically, or from the point of view of some who are more advanced in having Known, or who have Seen through the same peephole. |
I carefully said, mt, "...hold at some length (if we don't reject completely). That is far different from saying that we reject mysticism. I put by this caution a separation between what the Four Gospels are saying and, for example, the Book of Revelation, which is indeed a very mystical and symbolic work. Since you bring up the parables, they are a good point to my argument because they are grounded on real life examples. I do not call the interpretations which Jesus himself gives to some of them mystical or symbolic, but rather metaphorical, as for example when he says 'Is it easier to say take up your pallet and walk or to say that your sins are forgiven you?' The examples of exterior reality point to interior ones that are invisible but not unreal or otherworldly. To be forgiven is something that we all appreciate in our ongoing daily lives, but not a mystical experience.
On the subject of mystical experiences, Paul has something to say in one of his letters. He says that he knows a man who had the experience of being caught up into the seventh heaven, but he (Paul) is unwilling to say anything more about it. His teachings do not depend upon this event, relational in the extreme though it may be. Even for Paul, one does not have to go to this level. |
To “hold at arms length” the “mystical” experience is probably a wise consideration given how such Experience can be contaminated by so many factors and the bulk and level of Sapiens development is so constricted (which an observer of Such can also add to the contamination) that the cultural understanding is almost back in the Dark Ages. A schizophrenic, for example, may have, within some of his or her hallucinogenic material, genuine prophetic visions and other types of material such as the Christian mystics might have had, but it is contaminated by that self’s mental problems. In addition, a contemporary psychiatrist would probably classify all of the material in the same category, unable to distinguish the genuine mystical aspects from the psychotic. Jung was beginning to be able to make some distinctions, and so was interested in both dreams and psychotics because in both cases he saw that genuine Vision often came through either when the self was asleep or through a self whose defenses were less effective (psychotics) where the self did not cope so well.
The “mystical” word itself is contaminated by cultural confusion and bias and is problematic in usage but I am saying that the genuine aspect relates to the spiritual end of the spectrum of development where such vision relates to Enlightenment and the “born again” phrase that Jesus repeated several times. The Church has rejected that very central aspect in the Christian religion, probably for several reason I won’t go into at the moment, but very generally because, in a developmental sense, most individuals fear such things and the “born again” Experience is simply too advanced from the self’s level of identity fusion’s (beliefs) to be able to cope or incorporate such Experience. Hence, the genuine Knowledge of the Kingdom (not knowledge) becomes reduced to belief or a religion.
Paul was probably wise not to say much about such Experience because it would probably reduce the strength of his position he wished to promote for the above reasons, yet it was probably at the very core of his understanding as it was for Jesus. The parables have two levels of understanding, the two mixed, one being the common elements (grounded as you say) but the other relating to the Kingdom material, an advanced higher consciousness of being. The Parables are still not properly Understood, and cannot be unless “born again” (and Jesus said as much).
| Quote: |
mt writes:
| Quote: |
Quote:
The developmental sense of the self is central to Spiritual Health Care (these are capitalized because they are the title to this forum and base subject). To propose a developmental sense is a kind of grounding, and a realistic approach to an otherwise too esoteric position. In this developmental sense, I say that the reality created by beliefs (the cultural mythology) is like a dream condition. I say, therefore, we DO live in a dream in that sense but not to be rejected but understood as a level of development. And while the dream can be a nightmare and has its high points its “real” position depends upon the level of development of a consensus, usually, and that is what you are probably calling your position of “realist” from my point of view. People like a Jesus or a Buddha, more highly developed in terms of advanced levels, may attempt to communicate about their reality which may challenge the identities of the less developed levels which are usually threatened (which can have dire consequences to such vulnerable individuals). |
We will have to agree to disagree about what is real and what is not, mt, but at least we offer a clear choice between us, and that is good. |
I’m not sure it is all that clear.
| Quote: |
mt writes:
| Quote: |
Quote:
Your statement “The strong case for spiritual health care which relates simply to an understanding of human excellences is grounded on this reality which you, mt, say you go beyond“ is not accurate. Where have I suggested I “go beyond” the essence of Beauty, Love or Truth which become as fundamental directives for Spiritual Healthcare? |
I did not mean to say you go beyond these essences, mt. I meant to say you go beyond the kind of reality I put forward; which indeed in thinking of my 'reality' as dream (as you say above,) is what I understand you to be doing. Buber is, however, dismissive of those Platonic abstractions such as Beauty or Truth, the 'eidoi' or ideas to which his philosophy directs itself - I am not sure where I place them. |
I am saying they (Beauty, Truth, and Goodness - Love) are more than ideational in their essence. “Idea” reduces them to philosophy. Gnosis or direct experience is their True Nature beyond mere idea.
| Quote: |
mt writes:
| Quote: |
Quote:
Perhaps you are pointing to something else, I don’t know. It is That to which Jesus and Buddha point. It is also to That to which genuine mystical experiences point, even with the historical writings of the Christian mystics (and other mystical all over the world, historically). From my point of view, Jesus attempted to communicate his mystical (Gnostic) Experience. The New Testament represents how others have expressed what they saw, understood, and then expressed of what Jesus expressed and represented to them. I say, as Jesus also said, you too can Know This if you are born again in that mystical sense. |
It's true that the New Testament represents how others have expressed what they saw, well said. It is a fascinating study to compare, as many have, the four gospel writers and the different truths they found in the message of Jesus. We in my church place the other writings on a separate plane, as being a step or two removed from 'original sources' ie: those who are telling about lives lived in the actual presence of Jesus. I find these representations of reality hard to dismiss, and so does my church, which venerates these four accounts above the other writings in the New Testament. (Please notice that I do not take the word of church 'authorities' that this is so; first I find it out for myself. ) These four gospels are the touchstone upon which other writings within or without the Bible are and have been from earliest times evaluated.
I think if you take fragments out of the whole and posit a claim of mysticism or gnosticism upon those, you are in danger of missing the human and rather straightforward message which keeps those fragments in harmony with the rest of the writings and leads,( that message,) to a successful conclusion. |
What is the “successful conclusion?” If it is different from mine it is in error (ha ha). But of course I am not sure what you mean by “successful conclusion” or even what I might mean. What is it you are pointing to that you think might be dismissed? What has been dismissed, from my point of view, is the very core issue of what “born again” implies and upon which his message of Love entails. You don’t get, for example what “Pure in heart” really means unless you are “born again” though you may have the “idea.” Do you see the difference (at least suggested here)? The “self” cannot be pure in heart because it is so contaminated with “idea” or belief that it can only form a religion or a tradition. To be “pure in heart” is far too threatening for it but it nevertheless may adhere to the idea because it senses something of That within.
| Quote: |
mt writes:
| Quote: |
Quote:
What you and Buber are expressing is more of a tradition, which has its place and in itself, not to be rejected, but is more like a family. But to truely Know what Jesus is talking about you take up a sword to then differentiate your "self" from that level of attachment. |
While the tradition is certainly an enjoyable environment, I personally came into it from a far, even antipodal, reach, much as did Paul. I can't say I was actively persecuting the first Christians, but I certainly ranged far afield in my own personal investigations. This was not harmful but helpful because it preserved my independence. Indeed, there was no 'family' for me until I myself had a family of my own. And, personally speaking, the level of attachment I had to overcome is ongoing, but it is an attachment to ease, to not thinking about what I believe, to not doing helpful things. |
And so, it is developmental as a process. I would also say that Paul probably had a mystical experience that turned him around, informed him of a higher truth.
| Quote: |
mt writes:
| Quote: |
Quote:
You then incorporate (not reject or misinterpret as the Church has done) a core understanding of what Jesus pointed to as "born again" which in fact is the mystical Experience. It has a bad rap in most conservative traditions because it opposes the status quo, the consensual reality, which lingers at a lower level of consciousness. |
Of course I disagree because my independent analysis (which we all should do) has found, not rejection but correct interpretation. It takes a bit of doing; you have to look at early Christianity and the different convenings of the early fathers, without taking the interpretations of what they have argued to be truthful, but reading the arguments themselves. The consensual reality of those convenings, the history of early Christian thought, is down in black and white, in print, and is, I believe, reasonable. But it takes a bit of exploration and perseverance - you can't come to any conclusions in a sound bite. And if you don't want to make this exploration, that is understandable. But it is a better course than taking another's word - come to your own conclusion. |
Paul did not reason it out or do an analysis in terms of his conversion experience (mystical).
Juliania:
| Quote: |
| I wouldn't say the mystical experience has a bad rap, but just that it is very subjective, of a poetical nature, and to be viewed with caution. I've posted plenty of examples of such mystical nature, as they are beautiful - the Song of Songs is very beautiful, and so is Revelation, read as a poetical seeing of what was happening to the early Christians at the time of John's exile on the island of Patmos. I can't imagine his mental torment as he saw all his gentle friends being fed to the lions and the human faith being trampled under the empirical boot. Probably close to despair in that cave pacing a worn path in the rocky floor, or scaling the rocky hill to gaze out over the little churches across the sea in Asia Minor. These are important works of mysticism, but they are of a different nature from the elements of the Christian faith, or they should be. |
I agree that Revelations is of a different nature, though full of mystical vision. Revelations is more of a kind of revenge against the Romans in poetic and visionary form.
Juliania:
| Quote: |
| You know, since I paint icons, I often paint the one that shows John writing under these conditions, outside his cave on the island of Patmos, or rather dictating to his disciple, Prochor. There are actually two traditional poses to the figure of John. In one he, as is the case for the other Gospel writers, is seated; in the other, he is standing. I only realized yesterday that these two different positions indicate the two writings he was engaged in - standing, it is the Book of Revelation; seated it is the Gospel. |
There are degrees: levels, and stages of mystical experience (and degrees and phases within those). Most anyone might have some level or type of mystical experience at some time in their lives, and this may also be contaminated by the self as hallucinogenic material (but genuine mystical experience does not come from the self in its origin). But there is a degree or a depth to which it may penetrate and influence the self. The self, itself, may dismiss and be unable to incorporate or include in a developmental sense to arrive at a new stage of seeing. Various visions may have no relevancy to what the self can deal with, or a vision, as in Paul’s case, may begin a whole new stage of development.
mt
_________________
: Tao, fire, rose, love, freedom, are one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juliania
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 8979
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
mt, I find myself much in agreement with your latest post. Paul himself calls his experience on the road to Damascus a 'revelation', and John, while he was one the three disciples present at the transfiguration of Jesus, makes no mention of it in his Gospel but is clearly affected by that early experience in the Book of Revelation.
The point on which we have a different understanding appears to be what you have brought up in the following paragraph:
| Quote: |
The “mystical” word itself is contaminated by cultural confusion and bias and is problematic in usage but I am saying that the genuine aspect relates to the spiritual end of the spectrum of development where such vision relates to Enlightenment and the “born again” phrase that Jesus repeated several times. The Church has rejected that very central aspect in the Christian religion, probably for several reason I won’t go into at the moment, but very generally because, in a developmental sense, most individuals fear such things and the “born again” Experience is simply too advanced from the self’s level of identity fusion’s (beliefs) to be able to cope or incorporate such Experience. Hence, the genuine Knowledge of the Kingdom (not knowledge) becomes reduced to belief or a religion.
|
,
I must recount here two very present to my memory examples of the symbolism of rebirth in my own church experiences, which seem to me to contradict the statement I have bolded above.
First: My youngest daughter, as a baby, was the first to be baptized in the little church I have many times described on these forums. We waited, sensibly I believe, for warm weather before she underwent this, but she was still a baby, only a few months old. The ceremony was dramatic: unclothed, she was totally immersed, our priest protecting her nose and mouth with one of his hands - down and up, and then wrapped in fluffy white towels and finally clothed in her baptismal gown.
I waited for screams of distress. But to my amazement, she was ecstatic, delighted. Throughout the rest of the ceremony, with the reading of the Creed by her godparents and the singing and processing, that little baby smiled radiantly. It was as if with this first symbolic rebirth within the walls of our little church, heaven and earth were coming together as they have always been meant to do.
Clearly, as a baby, she was not participating in the kind of rebirth you link to the mystical experience, mt - and yet, for me, her mother, this was indeed a kind of revelation which I cannot forget.
The second experience came at the end of my actual churchgoing experiences. Here, with a different priest, a young man was to be baptized. It was winter, or at least early spring. He was also to be fully immersed, so a water trough was prepared, outside the front door to the little church, and he, clothed in a long robe, stood at one end and at the moment in the service lay back in the water. The priest then placed his hand on his head and - pushed his head under water AND HELD IT THERE.
I was stunned to observe this. In the mixture of reasons for my not returning to my dear little church, this action remained in contrast to what had happened with my daughter. The young man emerged coughing, and spluttering, and disstressed. It had been a brief moment, but again unforgettable.
There is a right way and a wrong way, as you have pointed out in the consideration of the mystical experience. Baptism, in my understanding, is joyful and voluntary, and the symbolic rebirth involved presents the relationship between parent and child in its spiritual form:
This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
God
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 3804
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:48 am Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
Juliania wrote:
| Quote: |
mt, I find myself much in agreement with your latest post. Paul himself calls his experience on the road to Damascus a 'revelation', and John, while he was one the three disciples present at the transfiguration of Jesus, makes no mention of it in his Gospel but is clearly affected by that early experience in the Book of Revelation.
The point on which we have a different understanding appears to be what you have brought up in the following paragraph:
| Quote: |
Quote:
The “mystical” word itself is contaminated by cultural confusion and bias and is problematic in usage but I am saying that the genuine aspect relates to the spiritual end of the spectrum of development where such vision relates to Enlightenment and the “born again” phrase that Jesus repeated several times. The Church has rejected that very central aspect in the Christian religion, probably for several reason I won’t go into at the moment, but very generally because, in a developmental sense, most individuals fear such things and the “born again” Experience is simply too advanced from the self’s level of identity fusion’s (beliefs) to be able to cope or incorporate such Experience. Hence, the genuine Knowledge of the Kingdom (not knowledge) becomes reduced to belief or a religion. |
I must recount here two very present to my memory examples of the symbolism of rebirth in my own church experiences, which seem to me to contradict the statement I have bolded above.
First: My youngest daughter, as a baby, was the first to be baptized in the little church I have many times described on these forums. We waited, sensibly I believe, for warm weather before she underwent this, but she was still a baby, only a few months old. The ceremony was dramatic: unclothed, she was totally immersed, our priest protecting her nose and mouth with one of his hands - down and up, and then wrapped in fluffy white towels and finally clothed in her baptismal gown.
I waited for screams of distress. But to my amazement, she was ecstatic, delighted. Throughout the rest of the ceremony, with the reading of the Creed by her godparents and the singing and processing, that little baby smiled radiantly. It was as if with this first symbolic rebirth within the walls of our little church, heaven and earth were coming together as they have always been meant to do.
Clearly, as a baby, she was not participating in the kind of rebirth you link to the mystical experience, mt - and yet, for me, her mother, this was indeed a kind of revelation which I cannot forget.
The second experience came at the end of my actual churchgoing experiences. Here, with a different priest, a young man was to be baptized. It was winter, or at least early spring. He was also to be fully immersed, so a water trough was prepared, outside the front door to the little church, and he, clothed in a long robe, stood at one end and at the moment in the service lay back in the water. The priest then placed his hand on his head and - pushed his head under water AND HELD IT THERE.
I was stunned to observe this. In the mixture of reasons for my not returning to my dear little church, this action remained in contrast to what had happened with my daughter. The young man emerged coughing, and spluttering, and disstressed. It had been a brief moment, but again unforgettable.
There is a right way and a wrong way, as you have pointed out in the consideration of the mystical experience. Baptism, in my understanding, is joyful and voluntary, and the symbolic rebirth involved presents the relationship between parent and child in its spiritual form:
This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. |
I was baptized at the age of about 8. This was the actual submersion in water, in a Baptist church, by my father who was the minister. I did not find it a joyful or voluntary experience. But this has nothing to do with mysticism or enlightenment. When I wrote that the Catholic Church rejects the “born again” understanding that Jesus put forward, it is the rejection of the actual inner shift in consciousness within a mystical or Gnostic Experience that is rejected. That is the context to which Jesus refers when talking with Nicodemus and says you must be “born again” to Know the things of the kingdom. And Jesus says this three times to Niocemus, making it quite significant in Biblical terms.
The Church (and of course then followed later and now by other churches) picked up the symbolic significance, the “idea” of water baptism and gives it a special significance but has either simply removed or never included any reference to the actual mystical Experience, the real depth and shift in consciousness to Know the Kingdom material as Jesus suggested. And this shift in consciousness, is not just a matter of belief, as part of a ritual to join a church or belief tradition. It may be used to consummate a belief or faith in a tradition, but that is quite different from what Jesus suggested in the Gnostic-mystical sense of Knowing from the direct Experience of being “born again” to Know now the Kingdom material.
It is understandable why the Church would not include this deeper and more significant meaning, and largely translating it into a future “heaven” cosmology:
This shift in consciousness is not a common experience and only a few Know in the manner which Jesus suggested. So making it into an ordered belief system is the next best thing, which becomes a system of power and control (shown historically).
The Church would naturally not want those with actual mystical Experience of the Kingdom since such Knowledge would surpass and usurp the belief system of established Church tradition. When such Experience is suggested by the few Christian mystics it initially is often considered as opposing the tradition and their lives are in danger. Later, these same mystics may even be incorporated into the tradition but only after various rationalizations prove acceptable and with such, they are then capable of being integrated into the tradition (shown historically).
Whatever may have been suggested by Jesus as a methodology (personally, or for the individual) to arrive at the still point “born again” Kingdom material, it has been suppressed or reinterpreted in the Bible commensurate with the general level of consciousness in the culture, insuring power and control as a tradition (shown historically), watering it down to symbol.
While it is understandable, from the point of view of a limited or constricted non-born again level of consciousness, that Jesus might only be understood in either an idealistic sense (raised as high as a god) or the reverse (hanging him on a cross), neither position incorporates the true understanding. And it is this understanding that is not only missing but occluded by the very belief systems that have evolved as church tradition, in place of that understanding, usurping the core Realization (shown historically).
mt
_________________
: Tao, fire, rose, love, freedom, are one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juliania
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 8979
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
I would insist, mt, that for a Christian, the ceremony of baptism is meant to convey that consciousness shift - that is why for a young person godparents give the necessary responses. Of course, we understand the rebirth differently, you and I, but that does not mean that the concept of rebirth is ignored. On the contrary, it is given the most important role in a person's becoming Christian. The feast of the baptism of Christ is placed immediately after the Nativity, so the idea of rebirth is very present in that feast, otherwise known as the Theophany. For Jesus it is a coming into the world as John has proclaimed him, as the lamb of God. And in that feast, the rebirth extends not only to mankind but to all creation, as expressed in this among the hymns of the day:
Thou hast appeared today to the inhabited earth,
and thy light, O Lord, has been marked upon us,
who with knowledge sing thy praise:
Thou hast come, thou art made manifest,
the Light that no man can approach.
I was baptized at two weeks old, and of course I don't remember nor did I understand what it meant. All I know about it is that my father was on his way to war and I was baptized by his army chaplain. What I was attempting to put forward in my last post was the concept of meaningfulness inherent in the ceremony waiting to be perceived and celebrated, revealing itself to me in my daughter's experience. Relationship has many different paths to travel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
God
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 3804
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
Juliania wrote:
| Quote: |
I would insist, mt, that for a Christian, the ceremony of baptism is meant to convey that consciousness shift - that is why for a young person godparents give the necessary responses. Of course, we understand the rebirth differently, you and I, but that does not mean that the concept of rebirth is ignored. On the contrary, it is given the most important role in a person's becoming Christian. The feast of the baptism of Christ is placed immediately after the Nativity, so the idea of rebirth is very present in that feast, otherwise known as the Theophany. For Jesus it is a coming into the world as John has proclaimed him, as the lamb of God. And in that feast, the rebirth extends not only to mankind but to all creation, as expressed in this among the hymns of the day:
Thou hast appeared today to the inhabited earth,
and thy light, O Lord, has been marked upon us,
who with knowledge sing thy praise:
Thou hast come, thou art made manifest,
the Light that no man can approach.
I was baptized at two weeks old, and of course I don't remember nor did I understand what it meant. All I know about it is that my father was on his way to war and I was baptized by his army chaplain. What I was attempting to put forward in my last post was the concept of meaningfulness inherent in the ceremony waiting to be perceived and celebrated, revealing itself to me in my daughter's experience. Relationship has many different paths to travel. |
The kind of shift in consciousness that Jesus claimed (and that I am writing about here) was far more radical than anything evolved and produced symbolically by the Church, and which subsequently has been incorporated within the Christian faith generally as a belief system. It may attempt to “convey” a shift of some sort, but obviously does not produce the shift to which Jesus pointed. History proves otherwise and we would have a very different world if your position on this were true.
The belief-dogma itself, such as sin, the meaning of various rituals, atonement, Evil, salvation, prayer, divine intervention, and even moral injunction, were a function of the general level of consciousness at those times. And its like there has been not much development since, not a real growth in consciousness regarding the basic dogma to which Christians cling, as though retarded. In other areas of development, there has been some progress as we no longer believe and insist the world is flat and that the Earth is the center of the universe, nor refuse to look through telescopes to maintain Church dogma, but in the area of consciousness and self development, in the spiritual sense, That to which Jesus pointed within ourselves (as others have pointed such as Buddha, and of course many others around the world historically), the depth of view is still back in like in the Middle Ages.
“Thou has come, thou art made manifest,
the Light that no man can approach.”
And: “Relationship has many different paths to travel.”
It’s true that “man” or the conceptual self, that level of consciousness, that belief toting construct of past or current myth and cultural dogma, cannot approach the Light unless it begins to turn inward to the Source. In itself, it can do nothing because it is a conceptual construct, an illusion of the mind created mostly by memory and almost totally occluded from the Light while running and reacting within some belief structure. There is some dim Thing (where “Thou has come”) that may glimmer occasionally, catching the self’s eye, but usually quickly dismissed, as it goes about doing obviously more important things such as making or defending itself agains war, making self importance, and developing its hubris, or making dogma to rationalize such.
But notice the extent to which Christians STILL put the Sacred Other outside themselves, not realizing the Light is within (as Jesus proclaimed). They still stuff the Sacred Other into beliefs of various dogma, sin, ritual, and morality and impose that upon their selves and others through which the dim Light of the Kingdom is diffused and distorted.
On the other hand, while the Christian path generally goes around in circles, there appears to be a dim star of the Sacred Other at the center. And even while projected so far out into space by the self, It still has some Attraction (Gravitational Influence) ever so dim the Light, and therefor still has the potential for “relationship,” however so distorted as religion may be; and It may initiate one small step for mankind as it ignites a neuron from time to time.
So I am saying there is a value to such “relationship” as Buber proposes in “I – Thou,” for Christians (a methodology), just as there is a value in a tradition that maintains such “relationship” in some form. But let’s not confuse dogma and belief, “relationship,” and genuine experiential Knowing by which the Light also beckons. The Light is not just for maintaining outmoded dogma and belief, to justify, for example, the burning of a Bruno or drowning witches or making war. The Light is there to create a shift in consciousness of the self that is constricted and bound, as such a history of its limited consciousness portrays. The more dramatic shift is that of the “born again” variety to which both Jesus and Buddha pointed. But this is to pass beyond all dogma and belief of the self and into What Is (the Kingdom as a level of conscious Knowing – Christ consciousness or Buddha consciousness for example).
But eve for most who Know of the true born again or enlightenment experience, for the self that still lingers of the world, they now know with Certainty the self is no longer the center of the universe, but just a speck of dim light momentarily reflected from its Source, but in That, intimately they are in relationship. In this, the consciousness has shifted in the Knowing beyond dogma and belief and tradition. It may continue in some tradition (if previously involved) for a variety of reasons (like with family relations or ethnic relations) Knowing however these are more for appearance or a cultural sake (not for identity, identities which have caused so much conflict and war). Within, something has shifted so radically that the self and its relations, while still important in the old sense, are now secondary or rather perhaps important in a new way. And Jesus said as much (to his mother, and others).
Much of what this “self” does depends upon what the self can integrate of being “born again” or the depth to which the self can maintain of Such Consciousness, of such Enlightenment, and at the same time remain in the world. Generally, the world is so primitive in its relations that such a being threatens to undo (threaten) identities, and their reactive propensity will hang you on a cross in some way,so to speak, as not much has changed. The only reason Buddha escaped death was that he left India with a group of disciples and where he then taught for 40 more years.
Very, very few will actually want to be born again or Enlightenment because it can also become as a curse where the usual relations of the self, that old familiar self identity, no longer derives the same compensatory satisfaction as it does for so many people who one is around and who strive for this an that in the world of conditioning and illusion within a variety of belief systems. There is a distance created between levels of consciousness and the old relations do not satisfy, even when appearing to be at the same level: myth and illusion of one level no longer have the same quality of meaning. They have lost their old value and meaning. Such indulgence in the old is more for appearance, as the old meaning or way of being in the world, belongs to the old level of consciousness. The Parables, again, reflect this distinction between two levels of consciousness, the world, and the Kingdom or a Christ Consciousness.
mt
_________________
: Tao, fire, rose, love, freedom, are one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mickyching
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 3
Location: U.K
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:09 am Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
Hello,
I red your comment.Well nice information sharing,i must say.I am really pleased to see such article sharing at the community.Many people are just start the activity as craze,but the information that you have shared is must known to them.Please try to share more articles like this one,that is really superb.Thank you for sharing such nice post..
_________________
aminosäuren |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juliania
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 8979
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
mt writes:
| Quote: |
The kind of shift in consciousness that Jesus claimed (and that I am writing about here) was far more radical than anything evolved and produced symbolically by the Church, and which subsequently has been incorporated within the Christian faith generally as a belief system. It may attempt to “convey” a shift of some sort, but obviously does not produce the shift to which Jesus pointed. History proves otherwise and we would have a very different world if your position on this were true.
|
I agree that Jesus is requiring 'a radical shift in consciousness'. I do not see any shorcomings with respect to belief or symbolic representation with respect to this radical shift, since those conditions rather cause one to think deeply, even to rethink habits of mind, representing not a fixed and unalterable state, but rather that turning which Buber describes as freedom.
It was my experience to be present as an observer in my little church in much the same way as any objective visitor might occasion to be. I was not intending to become a participant; I was sceptical. It took time. I know what I experienced there, so I would disagree with your statement that 'obviously [ it ] does not produce the shift to which Jesus pointed.' In me it most certainly did. And as far as I and others with similar experiences are concerned, the world is indeed a very different place because of it.
History has only proven otherwise for you, mt. And perhaps that history is not yet concluded. We have had many discussions about time and timelessness, and as history belongs with the former, it is hard to see how spiritual health concerns itself with history, except insofar as we each live our finite and unique moments on earth, being aware of how precious a time it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
God
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 3804
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
Juliania wrote:
| Quote: |
mt writes:
| Quote: |
Quote:
The kind of shift in consciousness that Jesus claimed (and that I am writing about here) was far more radical than anything evolved and produced symbolically by the Church, and which subsequently has been incorporated within the Christian faith generally as a belief system. It may attempt to “convey” a shift of some sort, but obviously does not produce the shift to which Jesus pointed. History proves otherwise and we would have a very different world if your position on this were true. |
I agree that Jesus is requiring 'a radical shift in consciousness'. I do not see any shorcomings with respect to belief or symbolic representation with respect to this radical shift, since those conditions rather cause one to think deeply, even to rethink habits of mind, representing not a fixed and unalterable state, but rather that turning which Buber describes as freedom.
It was my experience to be present as an observer in my little church in much the same way as any objective visitor might occasion to be. I was not intending to become a participant; I was sceptical. It took time. I know what I experienced there, so I would disagree with your statement that 'obviously [ it ] does not produce the shift to which Jesus pointed.' In me it most certainly did. And as far as I and others with similar experiences are concerned, the world is indeed a very different place because of it.
History has only proven otherwise for you, mt. And perhaps that history is not yet concluded. We have had many discussions about time and timelessness, and as history belongs with the former, it is hard to see how spiritual health concerns itself with history, except insofar as we each live our finite and unique moments on earth, being aware of how precious a time it is. |
Yes, from the perspective, of a very long term process of observation, if observation would remain central (which it generally does not in a focused objective sense). As a tradition of a very slow process of change inserted into the evolution and development of the “spiritual” dimension, the shift you mention (which is not “born again” in the technical sense to which Jesus pointed regarding that shift in consciousness) has a place and value both individually and collectively for a very general orientation. And in recalling in this development of the spiritual within the religious historical aspects of religion, the observation of such, forms a perspective to which Spiritual Healthcare may point.
While there is a value in tradition, and there is a kind of shift for one to participate in it, as though this is a path (among many) one may want to follow, and it forms a base for traveling up the mountain to the Kingdom. But the actual view at the top of the mountain is not a belief or a tradition. And it is this View to which Jesus pointed, not the tradition.
You and Buber are talking about a tradition and I am mostly pointing to the View to which Jesus pointed, and the problems of tradition, by means of observation. Observing the “history” provides a perspective of development. Obviously individuals travel at different rates up the path and so the views are also from different heights. Luther separated from the more narrow Catholic path or tradition, for example, because he saw a wider view.
In a like manner, to bring in the psychological path, Jung separated from Freud because he also saw a wider and deeper view, and so it goes from a developmental perspective. These histories give perspective and substance to a developmental understanding, and so Spiritual Healthcare uses also an historical perspective to point to various shortcomings within the structure of beliefs in a religious tradition (the boat leaks, the equipment is tarnished, rusty, antiquated and undevelped), and no longer provides for adequate advance up the mountain as it lingers too long within some view (hence the sense of retardation), while trying to preserve the tradition rather than advance up the mountain.
But I am saying even more from a View that usurps the tradition itself, as the Kingdom View no longer needs the boat to get to the promised land. On the other hand, this is not to necessarily throw out the tradition but rather to help those on the developmental process through heights they may fear to tread beyond the tradition, a tradition which now obscures the path with its outmoded beliefs. I might add that Jesus attempted to do the same within the Hebrew religious tradition at the time, with great difficulty and negative result (in that time).
Spiritual Healthcare would also include the psychological perspective as a tool, just as science uses more advanced tools for more in-depth observation of events, a more refined observation. This too has its developmental aspects, to discern, for example, the difference between genuine Vision, and the distorted materials coming from self-distortion or mental problems, or to understand how hidden beliefs determine perception, and also, for a developmental psychological perspective, how through infant through child and adult phases there is developmental sense, so one does not impose upon the infant or child what it cannot yet understand as its brain has not yet developed the capacity. In that regard, the Hebrew religion (and the general level of consciousness of the people) at the time of Jesus are like children who hardly have the capacity to understand the more advanced View to which Jesus pointed. Hence the necessity of a more developmental position, the need for a tradition in which Peter and Paul were involved.
On the other hand, regarding tradition and the beliefs, it is only beliefs that separate from the View, the View to which Jesus pointed. And if it is true that belief (hidden or not) will determine perception, how does one advance beyond the belief to include a wider view? Enter the still point, but greatly feared, for, as T. S. Eliot pointed, it will cost you everything. And everything here, is your belief system to which the self clings for dear life. But you don’t simply throw it out for that would be insanity or even suicide. As a path the process proceeds through a self-observation that observes reactions, how one’s belief are determining your experience. In rare moments one becomes aware that what is observing is not a belief but something beyond which can now see the act that a belief has produced. This is what self-observation is about as a process, something within that can see without imposing a reaction or another belief. It is like a tool, at first, that transcends the self-trance, to advance up the mountain. This is a more rapid way to ascend, which may even be within a tradition, but which does not fiddle endlessly with outmoded equipment (beliefs) to support some belief.
mt
_________________
: Tao, fire, rose, love, freedom, are one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
God
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 3804
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:53 am Post subject: Re: SPIRITUAL HEALTH CARE |
|
|
God wrote:
| Quote: |
| On the other hand, regarding tradition and the beliefs, it is only beliefs that separate from the View, the View to which Jesus pointed. And if it is true that belief (hidden or not) will determine perception, how does one advance beyond the belief to include a wider view? Enter the still point, but greatly feared, for, as T. S. Eliot pointed, it will cost you everything. And everything here, is your belief system to which the self clings for dear life. But you don’t simply throw it out for that would be insanity or even suicide. As a path the process proceeds through a self-observation that observes reactions, how one’s belief are determining your experience. In rare moments one becomes aware that what is observing is not a belief but something beyond which can now see the act that a belief has produced. This is what self-observation is about as a process, something within that can see without imposing a reaction or another belief. It is like a tool, at first, that transcends the self-trance, to advance up the mountain. This is a more rapid way to ascend, which may even be within a tradition, but which does not fiddle endlessly with outmoded equipment (beliefs) to support some belief. |
Is not what is asked, shown in bold above, a central problem politically as well as psychologically and spirituality? It is even the problem-controversy scientifically and in terms of what constitutes evolution. And in all cases it is the movement from some constricted belief to that of greater freedom. The illusion-lie, while serving some purpose, was not as “real” as What Is, or Something closer to that freedom of being sought, and sooner or later It bursts through an illusion which can no longer be supported except at great cost, increasing seen as a great waste.
The collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union was directly due to an intense desire for freedom from a State that assumed an authoritarian and totalitarian form that created an enforced work-slavery. The collapse of America will occur for similar reasons with a different governing name.
In America, the government is supposed to represent the will of the people, and the State is supposed to be the structure that carries out this will. But the will of the people has eroded into forms of an almost helpless work-slavery dominated by State and corporate interests, special interests, perverted bureaucratic powers, and a greed-based mass deception. About the only thing that holds it together is the quality of deception of, by, and for the citizens.
What holds it together are various outmoded beliefs engineered and manipulated by a popularized “authority” of a controlled (often unconsciously) media celebrities and manufactured cultural icons. Policies now consist of more blatant forms of mass exploitation under the guise of some “necessity” or other hypnotic forms of suggestion, to keep the waning trance condition in tack.
The question is to what degree will the trance condition, a level of development called a cultural mythology, the lie-belief and constriction, hold or serve in place of the natural “freedom” of being of citizens in such hostage conditions. This natural inner force of freedom will not ultimately be contained within the political rhetoric of lies to serve the belief-illusion of an endless consumption or manufactured necessity, no matter how intense the hypnotic suggestions.
Waking up is also a natural function of evolution. It is one way we proceed through phases of existence for change, to process more freedom. Unfortunately old beliefs do not go easily as they provided for identity and security, but now they constrict, and no longer serve but to confine the very freedom originally sought. This is true collectively as well as individually. It is especially true regarding Spiritual Healthcare where is Known, ultimately, that freedom is not from some constriction, but is the very Ground of Being.
mt
_________________
: Tao, fire, rose, love, freedom, are one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Register
Profile
Ignore List
Log in
