Posts by Markfromcali

77

Discussion of Mysticism and Interesting thought by Rudolf Stiener

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

i'm in the process of reading stieners "the philosophy of freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century.

it was written in german and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that i do seem(?

) to grasp to me are interesting.. .

Markfromcali

Being is not found in thoughts sounds intuitively correct to me, and Being as only thought or thinking sounds correct also. Maybe that's the paradox of duality and oneness??

Why would being only thought sound correct? I mean you are also this body right, and when you stop thinking you still exist. But of course when we think it is us too, but to think only that activity is what we are is just limited.

So when reading words such as these from an author we do not have direct or on going contact with it would be good to not focus so much on the vehicle of language in the transmission, but where it's aimed at, which is right here where you are. The clarity and how articulate the expression is is really secondary to whether it is received.

You mean reading it without intellecualizing it??
Are you talking about the "self" recieving it and awakening?

Well on a practical note it would simply be a matter of reading it without picking it apart, yes. But of course what we're talking about is two people who have the same experience, and rather than going by what you imagine they mean by the description one who has had the same experience simply knows what they are getting at.

Now as far as the second sentence is concerned, doesn't that refer to an intellectual framework of the self in non-dual spirituality? If I just gave a direct response to that it would likely perpetuate activity on that level, whereas in pointing it out we might be aware of the process, and then it's just a matter of stepping back from that into the awareness itself.

Holding on to nothing
And holding nothing away
I awake inside myself
And now comes the singing

-song lyrics by Steven Walters

77

Discussion of Mysticism and Interesting thought by Rudolf Stiener

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

i'm in the process of reading stieners "the philosophy of freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century.

it was written in german and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that i do seem(?

) to grasp to me are interesting.. .

Markfromcali

This reminds me of a Far Side cartoon where there is a guy sitting in a bar speaking to a kangaroo: "Well yeah? I know a few things about marsupials myself!"

The joke is obvious - the guy may have studied marsupials, the other IS one. There's no comparison of being to knowing. Knowing in this context comes from a process of learning, being just is.

Obviously there is still the question of being conscious of what that all involves even if you are one. But of course one thing that bears pointing out is that direct experience in being one, so say being a human being, adds a dimension of depth.

For example, even though it isn't really who we are, we know this through the whole experience of "being" a JW. We are not easily convinced of someone's understanding who has never been in that situation, who has not lived it - and sometimes there are even further subdivisions of being in particular situations be it raised as a JW or whatever.

Now consider that this is in fact a result of heavy conditioning, and even THAT experience requires something more direct than intellectual learning. How would that compare to being in the sense of just being human or what we are in essense, which is before conditioning?

This is why I think although useful, an intellectualization of any of this kind of stuff misses the point. Basically it is a matter of mistaking the tool for the user, you don't look at a hammer and go "who am I?" Again because it is useful it wouldn't mean we don't think at all, but it's a matter of seeing it is not found in thoughts. Using thought to try to convey that sense of being, which we do not define for the purpose of inviting the other person to find out for themselves, is a different intention than in trying to find it in the thoughts. So when reading words such as these from an author we do not have direct or on going contact with it would be good to not focus so much on the vehicle of language in the transmission, but where it's aimed at, which is right here where you are. The clarity and how articulate the expression is is really secondary to whether it is received.

63

JW related movie titles

by Markfromcali in

i think there was a thread on this at some point but search is not working, wouldn't know the keywords anyway.. but like i just thought of escape from brooklyn bethel - instead of escape from new york.. it would be cool if someone can write little blurbs for these too.

anyone have/remember others?

Markfromcali

Hey Frankie, I've been really good just a little busy. I'll probably be going to the South Bay a bit more again, we should hook up sometime. Ok here's one: The Hitchhiker's Guide to Field Service Car Groups

63

JW related movie titles

by Markfromcali in

i think there was a thread on this at some point but search is not working, wouldn't know the keywords anyway.. but like i just thought of escape from brooklyn bethel - instead of escape from new york.. it would be cool if someone can write little blurbs for these too.

anyone have/remember others?

Markfromcali

I think there was a thread on this at some point but search is not working, wouldn't know the keywords anyway.. But like I just thought of Escape from Brooklyn Bethel - instead of Escape from New York.. It would be cool if someone can write little blurbs for these too. Anyone have/remember others?

31

A very lonely life.

by Harpy in

how do i stop having a lonely life?

i am 33 years old and have never had a relationship with anyone.

i have never dated..and as much as i would like to blame the jws, truth is i have never been asked out by anyone..ever.. i am a bit large, but i am not too fat or ugly and i think i am a good person, so why can't i find someone??

Markfromcali

Well I'm 32 and things are just starting to open up for me relationship wise. Looking back at my experience I would have to say fall in love with life first, and the relationship department will follow. Now by that I don't mean some idealistic image of running through a field of flowers, frolicking about like some fairy tale. I mean just your life. But even if you look at it socially some relationship professionals point out you want to look at your social context and get into things and groups that fits you. So I am just basically getting at the same thing in terms of the broader context of life. I understand this doesn't give you any specific things to do or try, but put it this way: Anyone you want to end up being with has to be part of your life right? So it would have to be within that sphere, whatever that may be. You may want to do new things you've never tried before, it's up to you. I mean in a sense it's all relationships isn't it, whether it's personal or otherwise.

12

Knoweedge, Belief and JW's

by cheeseman in

having been involved in a few online debates with jw's lately, i've realised that no matter how devastatingly logical your argument is, a jw will never accept it.

i began thinking it's obvious this is the conditioning at work and that hiding from cognitive dissonance is their survival method to preserve there beliefs.. however, what are the component parts of this "we're never wrong" attitude?

i started thinking back and i seemed to remember a lot of instances in the publications or talks such as:-.

Markfromcali

It IS a survival mechanism, but not so much to preserve beliefs - but rather to preserve a sense of who you are based on those beliefs. Just think about how deeply entrenched the JWs are in their beliefs, or how pervasive it is in their lives. This is not someone who can honestly consider who or what they would be without those beliefs. Because of course the answer to that one is "I don't know!" Not knowing who you are feels very insecure, and most people are simply not willing to go there. So if you really want to get to the root of it, this is the kind of question you would ask. Of course a lot of people won't see the full significance of this simple inquiry, but since every belief you have is learned and acquired, that's the only way to start fresh.

There are actually many pathways to communicate this, though. Some of it may be subtle and just come through normal social interaction. (which if the JWs understood they would consider the influence of bad association or apostates, but most of the time if they are that keen they probably already have some sense it is just beliefs) As we know this is a group that is very xenophobic and isolated, but the simple reality is you can only do so much to isolate yourself. Now whether any particular individual will see through all of it any time soon we don't know, but there is all this continual input from the world. And of course we know the JW idea is the world is under the power of Satan, but yet it is actually people who see through this trance, which just takes different forms for different [groups of] people, who are able to be free from it. Of course that is the difference between seeing what is false and resisting what one considers to be bad, which is a whole other story. But the point is Jehovah's Witnesses is just a small part of a vast country called Beliefland, there are no doubt better places to live in that country but that is only relative to that land. I guess you might say you can just move to another country altogether. ;-)

More

by Markfromcali in

a cool little short film nominated for an academy award.

unfortunately it is a long download for dialup but worth the time.

http://www.gethappy.com/watchmore.html

Markfromcali

A cool little short film nominated for an Academy Award. Unfortunately it is a long download for dialup but worth the time.

http://www.gethappy.com/watchmore.html

47

You can't describe real LOVE you can only decribe what it isn't.

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

.

is that true?

Markfromcali

So if love is the "whatever" behind existance then we can only be part of the action, we can never have this love or posess this love we can only be apart of it. That is if we are an "I". If we desolve the I then do we become one with this "whatever" we call love?

Well Frankie we can talk about this, but any conceptualization of course falls into the domain of the separate I. And you can draw the logical conclusion, but the question is does that actually get you there?

There is a zen saying that goes:

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection.
The water has no mind to received their image.

Between any two things, be it two people, a person and a thing or whatever, there is the relationship. Even if you got someone that is more conscious of the two, (like someone looking in water) that's really something other than what is actually happening - there's the experience of seeing and the image being reflected. You can look, but that doesn't mean you made the reflection happen, but it just happens to be the property of water to reflect back your appearance.

The point is reflected in what you said earlier, you don't make an act of love happen - not in that ultimate sense, or any sense of force. The other part of it is "you" don't make it happen, you can't actually - it just happens. You can have the subjective experience of looking at the image or whatever, but that's about it. So it is a kind of relaxing, there is actually less and less energy invested (in the "you") as you become more conscious, because it is not energy in terms of efforting and pushing for things to be a particular way. Besides, whose energy is it then? There's just a dynamic interchange, but when there is no impedance in it's flow in the form of "me" then you don't really place it anywhere.

About the most specific thing I can say is it's not about the way anyone is - actually fully being yourself, even on the personal level can be very liberating. The key is the tendancy to hold yourself in a certain way, not that particular way - but just the tendancy of holding - the way you hold is not really significant. The dissolving of that can only be called responding to life. It's not some kind of self improvement thing where you got this system and you're trying to make things a certain way, to create your own paradise, but actually relating to reality. This is where the idea of dancing with life is very appropriate, and there's nobody leading.

I suppose if we're going to call love anything, we might say it is an inclusive collective harmony. Again you can still have some sense of a personal self, but in that harmonius dynamic you just can't take it too seriously. It is just a small part of a bigger whole.

8

ever get that immortal feeling?

by what_Truth? in

i was watching an old highlander rerun a while.

if you recall the show, the main character ducan mcleod was an immortal.

as such he would always feel a strong yet undescribable presence everytime another immortal was around him.

Markfromcali

Well, you know in the case of JWs it would be "there can be only 144,000 and a great crowd" ..

And granted, there may be an intuitive sense that they are a JW, but come on - would this really be the same feeling that immortals get? My guess is the JW feeling is flatter and kind of dull, perhaps a sort of sinking feeling..

47

You can't describe real LOVE you can only decribe what it isn't.

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

.

is that true?

Markfromcali

This actually reminds me of a story I heard told by this Sufi teacher. I guess it was originally a dream his teacher had, which was this Jaguar driver was driving down the highway, when all the sudden he was overtaken by a four legged chicken. Well the driver speeded up and passed the chicken, only to be over taken by the chicken again. So they kept racing and went into the farm yard, and then the chicken sped past the farm house with a farmer sitting on the front porch sitting in a rocking chair. The Jaguar driver got out and asked the farmer: "Did you see it???" The farmer goes "Oh yes, I saw it." "It was a four legged chicken!" said the Jaguar driver. "Oh yes, you know we bred these chickens." said the farmer. The driver said "What? You bred four legged chickens??" "Yes, you see the wife and the two kids - we each like chicken legs, so we did the sensible thing and bred four legged chickens so we don't have to waste a whole chicken." "Well, what does it taste like??" asked the driver. "Don't know, never caught one." said the farmer.

My thought on this is most people are fixed on their experience, whether it's a matter of their experience of being in a particular relationship or something like tasting the four legged chicken. But being part of that action - in this case a really fast bird running - is quite different than your experience of it. The point is though, even if you don't have the experience of tasting it, it doesn't change the fact that it works - I mean you can imagine a chicken like that really goes places. So the moral of the story is, love is a four legged chicken - and no sense in wasting money on an expensive car and gas trying to catch it.