posted July 13, 2008 01:52 AM              

quote:

---

HSC, for some reason, this exchange appears to have caused confusion and made you feel self-defensive.

---

I'm not confused.

Defensive? Perhaps. But no more than usual.

quote:

---

I'm sorry for that, but hope that it may still somehow prove to be a learning opportunity for both of us.

---

No need to apologize. I'm learning a lot.

quote:

---

I also thought it was a good conversation. Perhaps someday we will continue.

---

I think I made some excellent points.

Still looking forward to your response.

take care,
HSC

posted July 13, 2008 12:01 PM              

quote:

---

HSC, you're arguing against points I haven't made.

---

So you agree with me, then?
I think its pretty clear I'm arguing
against points you have tried to make.

quote:

---

A fortune teller told you you were smart?

---

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
That's not at all what was communicated.

quote:

---

If this defensiveness and insecurity is the usual ....

---

Insecurity?
Standing up for myself,
and my own perspective?
No ma'am.

quote:

---

well, I don't know what to say other than I believe the only proper response from me would be to repeat my above post.
God willing, I've learned my lesson.

---

Fair enough. I will reply more directly, as you wish.
Despite the fact that I've been painstakingly responding
to every single point you have made, or tried to make,
and that you have not attempted to meet even half of those challenges.

quote:

---

When I was younger, I explored a variety of the world's teachings. The usual traditional stuff. I was an atheist for a time. Flirted with Wicca. I spent time walking what NosiS referred to as the shadow path. (Scorpios, huh? ) Now and then I continue to nose around the realms of Buddhism, Judaism and, to a lesser degree, Hinduism. But I don't study these teachings. I don't walk these Paths. I have never really tasted, so I do not know. I walk a Christian Path and, to assist me in this journey, I study Sufism and Anthroposophy.

---

Nice to meet you.

quote:

---

I'm committed.

---

That might be your problem.
But, seriously, I admire your dedication.

quote:

---

I've no doubt whatsoever that you have cast a wide net. I don't blame you or think less of you for this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

---

Why, thank you.

quote:

---

But while it's clear you've done more than your share of exploring, I would question the assertion that you've done so much studying. Again, this isn't a criticism at all, but I think we agreed that terminology is important. You're simply not yet ready to commit. You have a fine mind coupled with a poetic soul, HSC, and I'd hate to be in your way when your time for movement comes.

---

You may be right about this. On the other hand, I believe a persuasive case may be made for the fact that I am indeed very profoundly commited, if not to a prearrainged path, then, to making my own path. Its always been my priviledge and my joy to give my attention, foremost, to what might be called "the invisible thread which runs through all paths", and even runs outside all paths, and through all the aspects of our waking lives. I am constantly thinking and observing and putting things together, in my own way. I must say, it appears that we tend to interpret words differently, so terminology may be more of an issue than we realize. I believe I have studied. I think that people learn in different ways, and I think that, for the most part, I have a very Piscean sort of approach to study; which is to say that I learn by osmosis, and by absorbing the teaching into myself by a process of deep, intuitive "empathy" (for lack of a better word) with the teaching. And I may, perhaps after my Saturn return, settle into some more traditional manner of discipline, but all of this exploring now is a necessary prerequisite to that. If/when I do begin to crystalize my thinking, it will only be after I have learned to identify with a variety of spiritual perspectives.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own limited experiments have suggested to me, though, that the observor necessarily influences and, in a sense, distorts, the experiment, according to his/her intentions and preconceptions. We see what we look for, so to speak. But these dangers are also par for the course, and no reason the shy away from experimentation. Ultimately, though, it seems clearer and clearer to me that, what we discover, in the end, are "truths" corresponding to our own individual natures, and to the lessons which each of us have to learn respectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Yes, at this stage of the game I also believe they are. Those veils which seperate ourselves from God, from Truth, fall away slowly and painfully. Whatever "truth" I presently perceive, is, no doubt, still horribly distorted by my innumerable nafs and preconcieved notions. Still, although my truth may be far removed from God, what can I do but follow it with faith and certainty?

---

You can be faithful to the Christian teaching and attempt to be tolerant of other people's views. You can soften your heart and not come across as such a hard@ss all the time. You can see that, if your nafs are constantly distorting things, "faith and certainty", and a dogmatic policing of other seekers, may not be the best course. Humility and willingness to re-examine yourself and your views may be better.

quote:

---

My experience has shown me that one truth will lead to a more refined truth, which will lead to yet an even more refined truth, which will lead to .... I have faith in the process.

---

This is the process. Faith is good,
but active, conscious participation is better.
What "studying" did you do today, TINK?
Did you meditate and immerse yourself in contemplation,
or pray and dialogue with the Christ Consciousness,
before you hopped on the computer to tell me I am being insecure,
and that I'm only saying a tarot reader told me I was smart?
Perhaps you're the one who is being insecure,
with your insistence on erradicating all opposing viewpoints,
and insulting people with your glib, flippant, arrogant and dismissive posts?
Its remarkable to me how amused you are with yourself,
whenever you've managed to incorporate some small semblence of wit
into the poo-pooing that is your general modus operandi.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All things are related
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Yes, they are. No man, no thing is ever an island unto itself. I didn't intend to call that into question.

---

posted July 13, 2008 12:01 PM              

quote:

---

I don't have a scientific or artistic mind-set. I have a stubbornly historical mind-set. I see, quite comfortably thank you,the thread of Greek learning travelling through Roman culture, then Babylonian, Arabic, and finally European. I see the tattered remnants of Aristotle all over the modern western world. Nevertheless, they are not us.

---

Aristotle can kiss my pucker. I think it was Francis Bacon who said that Aristotle was nothing special and excelled only at making distinctions; mostly arbitrary verbal distinctions (something akin to what you and NosiS have attempted to do in this thread). And while he may exert a more conscious influence on Western Civilization, other remnants of Greek thought have been forced underground. The issue of "genius", interpreted as a distinct and attendant entity (which may be "channelled") was indeed relevant, and, as you later said, has given you food for thought, so, I'm glad I brought it up.

quote:

---

Their very thought processess worked differently than do yours or mine.

---

Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Seneca, Diogenes, and Heraclitus' thought processes are closer to mine than yours is, TINK.

quote:

---

When considering the past, I believe the greatest mistake we make is to imagine ourselves in that past, complete with our modern day conditioning and structure. Who was it that said, "The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there"?

---

Who was it that said, "I am a citizen of the world,"?
Was it not Laertius Diogenes, historian, and biographer of the Greek philosophers,
expressing a sentiment still far in advance of our own age?

quote:

---

Etymology is one of my favorite games too. Sooo important in Sufism and soooo insightful. Juni is a top notch practioner btw.

---

Good to know, thanks.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Greeks are not simply a culture far removed from us in time and space, but, they are, in point of fact, and intrinsic part of our very psychological make-up, whether we are aware of it or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Absolutely. The child is the father of the man.

---

I see what you are saying, but I'm not so sure we should be so quick to label our forerunners "children". Thinkers who have attained a share of immortality are not exactly children, and I, for one, dont hold a linear, Hegelian view of the world. Perhaps you should be as wary of Hegel as Aristotle? The Greeks belong to what is still recognized as a Golden Age. It was, after all, the wide-spread revival of interest in Greek and Roman antiquity that brought the Dark Ages into the Renaissance.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As who might think?
I never implied it is easy.
Not in the least.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

I see people claiming this all the time. Don't you?

---

Yes, and when they do, we dispute them.
But to bring it up needlessly was to imply
that I am one of those people.
I thought it was careless,
so, I made myself explicit.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but, as I have tried to show, observation, mere looking, which may encompass the positive acts of both thinking and experimentation, is its own conundrum. Experimentation becomes a form of thought, and thought becomes a form of experimentation. Whichever method you employ, you are still merely dragging up what is within yourself. And whatever conclusions you arive at are necessarily going to be symultaneously right and wrong. This is why the essential thing is the search, and not the insistance upon final results. Results are misleading, if they are not taken to be objects provided for the seeker, to continue his/her seeking. In other words, "Man was not made for the truth, but the truth was made for man,". Whatever we discover, and however those discoveries insist upon informing and shaping our way of being, ultimately, we are given the choice to remake the entire universe in our own image. The man who obstinately closes his eyes to the results of his experiments may not necessarily be deluded, and reluctant to conform himself to the dictates of some Ultimate Reality. Rather, he may assert himself as a fundamental aspect of that Reality, with a will equal, in some sense, to the will of the creator. The vast and impressive structure of all that is and has gone before may be shattered in this single act of self-will. Whether or not this "self" is the ego, or the Atman, I leave for you to discover.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Yes! And I believe this is why it is so very important. What is within you must be dragged up. We must engage on a personal level, nevermind the endless suppositon and pontificating. You've got to get your hands dirty. It's the only way to progress.

---

I dont think you recognize the far-reaching beneficial effects which our sincere "supposition and pontificating" can produce. This is a bringing up, of the most personal kind. And if you think I'm not getting my hands dirty every time I wrestle with these thoughts and every time I sally forth into a debate with you... think again. Thinking is drastically under-rated, TINK. Particularly, thinking for ourselves.

"Our minds are lazier than our bodies." ~ La Rochefoucault

"Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking.
There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions.
Nothing pains some people more than having to think."
~ Martin Luther King Jr.

"The majority of men do not think in order to know the truth,
but, rather, to convince themselves that the life they are leading,
and which is both habitual and agreeable to them,
is the one that coincides with the truth." ~ Tolstoy

quote:

---

For instance, Arjuna spoke with Krishna. Arjuna did not channel him. Communion is not channeling.

---

posted July 13, 2008 12:02 PM              

quote:

---

I've seen some serious fruitloops "talk to the dead" or channel a "Pleiadian", but communion requires a bit more than a cyrstal and some incense. Control and awareness.

---

I'm well aware of what it requires.
And I'm not here on behalf of the fruitloops.
Extreme examples of incompitence exist in any field,
and most particularly in the esoteric arts and sciences.
Bringing them up here is no help to your argument.
Rather, it suggests to me that you are reaching.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I figured you would react this way. But you must realize that, if you speak to a truly enlightened master, whether you ask about the book of Ra, or about the Vedas, the answer will be the same. "That's all bull." Each of us finds a niche with our own bull, and we do our best to respect the bull of other people, while promoting our own bull in the face of it. Its all a very ridiculous and amusing spectacle, is it not? And its all Shiva.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

But you know, while I can easily say "Here is where I make my stand but at the end of the day, what the f-ck do I know?", I trust that the likes of Jesus and Mohammed didn't feel the same.

---

I believe they did, and that, had they done it a bit more,
they might have prevented a lot of religious intolerance.
Jesus looked to his followers to give the final verdict on his authority.
"Ask those who have heard me speak", and "You say that I am",
and it is rare that we hear any reference to himself as an authority.
One of the most popular quotes from the Buddha, as you know, is,
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it,
no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense."
And in all the most illuminated scriptures of the world
we are encouraged to read the spirit and not the letter,
and to understand that the ultimate truth is beyond conceptions.
If that isnt a, "Of course, I could be wrong,"
then, I confess, I dont exactly know what is.

quote:

---

I believe in something greater than my current station and vantage point, steve. Maybe that's were we differ.

---

I have to wonder if you do, TINK, but, incidentally,
this is even more condescending than your customary tone.
And it is ironic for its absolute denial of my primary position.
First you criticize me for being full of doubts and speculations,
defending your own right to be full of "faith and certainty"
-- strange bedfellows, if you ask me --
then you criticize me for speaking my own p.o.v. unequivocally?
If you read my "defensive" post, you ought to have seen me
contemplating an order far superior to my own understanding,
which effectively incorporates all stations and vantage points.
So, seriously, TINK, what are you talking about?
Has anyone shown more willingness to doubt him/herself,
and to subject his/her theories and understanding to scrutiny;
both from within and from the likes of you?

quote:

---

I make a lousy moral relativist.
I believe in the possibilty of Certainty.

---

I dont see the two as contradictory. Sorry.
The realization of relativity reflects an overriding logic, or certainty.
And the vision it presents is not nearly as chaotic as you might think.
Rather, it may be the only concept capable of making
sense of the apparent chaos we see all around us.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are speaking, not from a place of experience, but from a place of assumption. Its okay, we all do it, and its all part of the show. You believe that the Vedas were written from the highest vantage point. Why? Because the Vedas say they were, and because tradition supports them in this. Ask a Christian fundamentalist why he believes in the authority of the Bible and he will answer in the same way, "Because it says in the Bible that it is the word of God, and the tradition to which I belong firmly supports this,". Well, there you have it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

You betcha.
Assumption it is then. And here's what led me to it -- everything fits, Steve. After all the doubt, after all the exploring, all the studying and contemplation, I found, to my surprise, that all those puzzle pieces really do fit. I can't find a contradiction to save my life.

---

I hear you, and this makes sense to me.
You "fit" into my way of understanding, too.
And this is because of our unique vantage points,
and it is precisely as it ought to be,
that you arrive at one form of certainty,
and I arrive at another, and,
despite what you see as contradictory in this,
I see it as belonging to a necessary order.
You find YOUR truth, and I find MY truth,
and, as for THE truth... it is always ungrasped,
because it is precisely this dynamic process
which takes place in the interaction between us;
if only we are willing to open ourselves to that dialogue.

"Wherever two are gathered together in my name, you will find me." ~ Jesus

posted July 13, 2008 02:09 PM              

No, stephen. You are again seeing boogymen (and donkeys) where there are none.

Yes, I have prayed and contemplated. I do so everytime I speak with you. I understand that my petitioning hardly ensures my success, but I petition for understanding and betterment nontheless because speaking with you is more often than not very difficult. Part of my training is to practice "backwards thinking" at the end of the day. I certainly don't excel at it, but I do try to walk through the course of my day from end to beginning to assess my mistakes and successes. Obviously this would include my posts to you.

I'm not going to fight with you, HSC. A friendly exchange doesn't need to evolve into yet another hateful, hardcore "challenge". This isn't a contest to determine who's smarter or more evolved or a better wit. A difference in opinion or belief is no reason for a character assasination. And it's absolutely no reason for anyone to feel personally attacked. I don't think that you want to descend into that ugliness again either.

Let's try to keep the peace, ok?

posted July 13, 2008 04:38 PM            

quote:

---

NosiS, I'll accept your definition, if you insist.
It really makes no great difference to me,
and it seems to be a relatively insignificant side issue.
All it is, really, is a definition, and semantics.
-HSC

---

I understand what you mean when you bring up semantics. It may often be insignificant to the ultimate message that the messenger is trying to communicate. By and large, however, it is highly significant and very relevant when considering the context of a messenger's modus.

You use the word "channeling" to describe the process by which you feel your poem was written. This is not wrong in that specific sense. You have the right, as an individual, to describe your experiences as you please. I have no quarrels with you using the word as such and I understand what you mean by it. The foundation of the issue I've brought forth is not about semantics. You questioned the existence of an objective criteria that could be applied to determine one from the other. To that I answer, "Yes."

In order to do so, however, we have to agree on the foundations of these words. When we do that, it is easier to communicate and discuss the inherent criteria between these two. The fact remains that these two ideas came from different origins and took completely different paths that have led them to their present day uses. Now, it is also very true that their present-day meanings are becoming closely tied together. This is no coincidence. The paragraph you highlighted from that website could be read and just as easily understood if you replace "channel/channeling" with "inspiration/inspire":

quote:

---

An important note here is that there are a lot of ways to connect with a spiritual higher plane. Anything you love doing and find that you are good at could be a form of inspiration. Who is to say that Michelangelo or Einstein weren't tapping into some higher consciousness as they worked in their fields of expertise. If you love playing music, by all means try music as your way to communicate. If you love reading, try automatic writing (computers and keyboards work just as well as pencil and paper). If you love dance, cooking, sports, painting, crafts, gardening, or any other creative endeavor, feel free to modify the guidelines here to fit your situation and open yourself to a higher plane while you enjoy the activity of your choice. There are as many ways to inspire as there are individuals on this earth, and we have all experienced the feeling of "drifting off" as we go about our daily lives. This is the stuff of inspiration!

---

This is why I understand what you are communicating when you use the word "channel". Let's say, though, that I am trying to guess a number from 0-9 on which you are concentrating. If you say that you are "channeling the number to me", I will take on a completely different thought process than if you were to say that you are "inspiring me with the number". Therein lies the criterion of each word and even though the messages of both may seem equivalent, the modus of their message is not.

Whether calling it "inspiration" or "channeling" makes all the difference to me,
the fact remains that there are objective criteria that can be applied to distinguish the one from the other.

Spiralingly,

posted July 13, 2008 05:54 PM            

For the moment, I would say that the concept of the word "genius" reminds me a lot of how Steiner would describe the Spiritual Worlds and how the physical world would relate to these. I may not describe this as accurately as he did but he mentions, in his lectures, the analogy of a mineral being a portion of a Spiritual being which is synonymous to our fingernail being a portion of our entire body. Almost, I might suppose, as if the entire being of the mineral is limited by our physical senses but when Spiritual vision is used, then one can see the mineral as an extension of a Spiritual entity. Have you yet encountered his material on the worlds he mentions like the astral/elemental realm, the world of imagination, the world of intuition, Devachan, and Arupa Devachan? This "genius" concept relates heavily with these worlds.

I would like to say more but I am tight on time today. Perhaps I might be inspired soon...

(Warning: the following possesses multiple messages) -
As for the pesky trees, what's the forest without us?

P.S. Have I ever asked you where your username comes from?

posted July 14, 2008 10:04 PM            

*edit 11:20 p.m.

The above quote is what HSC posted before he edited it into "Aquila non captat muscas"

Of course, he used the proper term "quod" instead of "quid", but you get the picture.

This is important in the discernment of his inner reaction at the point of that post.

posted July 14, 2008 10:29 PM              

No, I don't believe you did.

Probitas laudatur et alget

posted July 14, 2008 10:57 PM              

quote:

---

Iesus autem dicebat : Pater ignosce illis, non enim sciunt quid faciunt.

---

If you are going to say "ignosce", you had better say "quod".

Otherwise its:

“Iesus autem dicebat : Pater dimitte illis, non enim sciunt quid faciunt.”
(See **Vulgate, i.e. Latin Bible, Luke 23:34)

__________________________________________
Please note that:
Then :AUTEM
Said : DICEBAT
Jesus:IESUS
Father:PATER
Forgive : DIMITTE (or'IGNOSCE' in *classical Latin)
Them:ILLIS
For:ENIM
They know: SCIUNT
Not:NON
What:QUID (or'QUOD' in *classical Latin)
They do:FACIUNT

In *classical Latin,we should say:
“Iesus autem dicebat: Pater, ignosce illis, non enim sciunt quod faciunt.”

*Classical Latin is the Latin language of the Golden Age (broadly the 1st century BC), possibly extending to the Silver Age (broadly the 1st century AD).

**The Latin Bible, or 'Vulgate', was translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic by St.Jerome between 382 and 405 AD, and became known as the 'versio vulgata', which means 'common translation'.

posted July 14, 2008 11:00 PM              

~

Aeternum vale, Alma Mater!

posted July 19, 2008 08:40 PM              

Ah well, the clock is ticking now and two energetic little elves will be up again in a few hours. Maybe I'll print this out tomorrow (I'm staying at my mother's tonight) and take it home to read- I don't have internet at home at the moment but hope to soon.

posted July 21, 2008 09:45 PM            

It's always fun when we get the fire rustling again.

"I was never inclined to withhold my admiration from what I considered great, even when I absolutely opposed it."
-Rudolf Steiner

posted August 17, 2008 10:17 AM              

I'm not sure what to make of channeling in general, but I do find it fascinating.

I like to keep an open mind.
I posted this thread because it is something I found interesting, but not because I had made up my mind to believe in it completely.

I post things I find either interesting or "feel" are onto something, because they resonate with me.

I will always try to keep an open mind in the quest for knowledge. For without flexibility, we cannot grow.

HSC, I am always very moved by what you write.

posted March 01, 2019 11:27 AM            

There is no Death with
God Source, we are infinite
Unique..

God is our guiding light,
no wrath, no fear, we
Experience and create
with our Thoughts

Do Good
Be Good. ...