Q: Why are there so many different depictions of God?

            A: "These reflect the vagaries of the ego's anthropomorphic projections. Because of its inherent limitations, the ego itself cannot know God experientially. God is the absolute subjectivity that underlies existence and the capacity for awareness. God is beyond all time, place, or human characteristics. All the descriptions of the Ultimate Reality by enlightened beings throughout history have been identical. There is only one Supreme Reality.

            The mythical gods of ancient cultures, as well as the demigods and deities, had limited realms or functions, such as the gods of fertility, nature or harvest. In the place of Divine Reality are manufactured pseudo deities with very obvious limitations that, by definition, would preclude their being the ultimate God of Creation.

            Inasmuch as the Godhead, or God Unmanifest, is beyond all depiction, the Ultimate Realization is radically and purely subjective and absent of all content. To acknowledge the absolute divinity of the Infinite Supreme would be unacceptable to entities that are deluded into claiming godship. We can say that a false deity is an entity that has declined truth for power, pride, and control over others, and has succumbed to the luciferic error which proclaims that the ego is God (i.e. megalomania). The basis for the error is the unwillingness to surrender sovereignty from the "I" of the ego to the Allness of God.

            That which is the Absolute Reality has no needs as it already is All that Is. There is no need for power when one is power itself. Infinite power has no need to control anything. By analogy, the sky does not need the clouds nor does it create or destroy them. They arise within its all-encompassing, boundless space. The sky does not kill, retaliate, or punish clouds. The sky provides equality to all clouds as well as the context for their formation of perceptual appearance and disappearance."

           

            Q: The description of God as Supreme Being sounds almost impersonal.

            A: "The ego thinks in terms of relationships and therefore contextualizes a relationship between two separate beings. The child in the ego's structure hopes that God will be like the idealized superparent. With this depiction, however, arises the downside, which is the fear of the parent's displeasure.

            In contrast to the ego's perceptions of God, the Absolute Reality of the Self is the manifestation of God as the very core of one's existence. The Love of the Presence is ultrapersonal and experienced as infinite peace, infinite security, and the safety of foreverness so that there is no ‘end' to fear. The God of the Presence imbues the joy of completion. Love is not a ‘quality' of God but is God's very essence. There is no sense of ‘otherness' to the Presence. God is the all-encompassing Reality of the never-ending present. There is no ‘other' to fear or please.

            By analogy, the sun does not play hide-and-seek when the clouds of the ego are swept away. It is discovered that the sun has been shining all along. Its light and warmth radiate because that is the sun's innate, intrinsic essence and quality. To the Infinite, the comings and goings of the universes have no meaning. That which is the Source of life and the universe is not subject to it. The glory of God has no requirements."

                                                 --David R. Hawkins, PH.D  who went through the experience of Enlightenment                              I: Reality and Subjectivity

 

           "According to the perennial philosophy-or the common core of the world's great wisdom traditions-Spirit manifests a universe by ‘throwing itself out' or ‘emptying itself' to create soul, which condenses into mind, which condenses into body, which condenses into matter, the densest form of all. Each of those levels is still a level of Spirit, but each is a reduced or ‘steeped-down' version of Spirit. At the end of that process of involution, all the higher dimensions are enfolded, as potential, in the lowest material realm. And once the material world. And once the material world blows into existence (with say, the Big Bang), then the reverse process-or evolution-can occur, moving from matter to living bodies to symbolic minds to luminous souls to pure Spirit itself. In this developmental or evolutionary unfolding, each successive level does not jettison or deny the previous level, but rather includes and embraces it, just as atoms are included in organisms. Each level is a whole that is also part of a larger whole (each level or structure is a whole/part or holon). In other worlds, each evolutionary unfolding transcends but includes its predecessor(s), with Spirit transcending and including absolutely everything.

                This arrangement-Spirit transcends but includes soul, which transcends but includes mind, which transcends but includes body, which transcends but includes matter-is often referred to as the Great Chain of Being, but that is clearly a very unfortunate misnomer. Each successive level is not a link but a nest, which includes, embraces and envelops its predecessor(s). The Great Chain of Being is really the Great Nest of Being-not a ladder, chain, or one-way hierarchy, but a series of concentric spheres of increasing holistic embrace."

         "Let me give one example. In cognitive and moral development, in both the boy and the girl, the stage of preoperational or preconventional thoughts is concerned largely with the individual's own point of view ("narcissistic"). The next stage, the operational or conventional stage, still takes account of the individual's own point of view, but adds the capacity to take the view of others into account. Nothing is lost; something is added. And so in this sense it is properly said that this stage is higher or wider, meaning more valuable and useful for a wider range of interactions. Conventional thought is more valuable than preconventional thought in establishing a balanced moral response ( and postconventional thought is even more valuable, and so on). As Hegel first put it, and as developmentalists have echoed since, each stage is adequate and valuable, but each higher stage is more adequate, and in that sense only, more valuable (which always means, more holistic)."

           "Thus, for example, in modern psychology, holarchy is the dominant developmental and process paradigm, cutting across the actual ( and often quite different) content of the various schools. Every school of developmental psychology acknowledges some version of hierarchy, or a series of discrete (but continuous), irreversible stages of growth and unfolding. This includes the Freudians, the Jungians, the Piagetians, Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gillian, and the cognitive behaviorists. Maslow, representing both humanistic and transpersonal psychology, put the "hierarchy of needs" at the center of his system, to mention only a few."    

           "Other worlds become this world with increasing development and evolution...

  Just so with the higher or transpersonal developments. Explain them to someone at the rational level, and all you get, at best, is that deer-caught-in-the headlights blank stare (at worst, you get something like, "And did we forget to take our Prozac today?").

              So the first thing I would like to emphasize is that the higher stages of transpersonal development are stages that that are taken from those who have actually developed into those stages and who display palpable, discernable, and repeatable characteristics of that development. The stages themselves can be rationally reconstructed (explained in a rational manner after the fact), but they cannot be rationally experienced. They can be only experienced only by a transrational contemplative development, whose stages unfold in the same manner as any other developmental stages, and whose experiences are every bit as real as any others.

            But one must be adequate to the experience, or it remains an invisible other world. When the yogis and sages and contemplatives make a statement like, "The entire world is a manifestation of one Self," that is not a merely rational statement that we are to think about and see if it makes logical sense. It is rather a description, often poetic, of a direct apprehension or a direct experience, and we are to test this direct experience, not by mulling it over philosophically, but by taking the experimental method of contemplative awareness, developing the requisite cognitive tools, and then directly looking for ourselves.

            As Emerson put it, "What we are, that only can we see.'

     "[ The teachings of the world's greatest yogis, saints and sages,] and their contemplative endeavors, were (and are) transrational through and through. That is, although all the contemplative traditions aim at going within and beyond reason, they all start with reason, start with the notion that truth is to be established by evidence, that truth is the result of experimental methods, that truth is to be tested in the laboratory of personal experience, that these truths are open to all who wish to try the experiment and thus disclose for themselves the truth or falsity of the spiritual claims-and that dogmas or given beliefs are precisely what hinder the emergence of deeper truths and wider visions.

          Thus, each of these spiritual or transpersonal endeavors (which we will carefully examine) claims that there exist higher domains of awareness, embrace, love, identity, reality, self and truth. But these claims are not dogmatic; they are not to be believed in merely because an authority proclaimed them, or because sociocentric tradition hands them down, or because salvation depends upon being a "true believer". Rather the claims about these higher domains are a conclusion based upon hundreds of years of experimental introspection and communal verification. False claims are rejected on the basis of consensual evidence, and further evidence is used to adjust and fine-tune the experimental conclusions.

             These spiritual endeavors, in other words, are scientific in any meaningful sense of the word, and the systematic presentations of these endeavors follow precisely those of any reconstructive science."

              "Integral studies appear to be the only truly global studies now in existence, studies that span the entire spectrum of human growth and aspiration. The coming decade, I have no doubt, will witness the emergence of integral studies as a truly comprehensive field of human endeavor. And although I do not think the world is entering anything resembling a ‘new age' or ‘transpersonal transformation,' I do believe that integral studies will always be that one beacon to men and women who see Spirit in the world and the world in Spirit."

               "All such attempts [at formulating a theory of everything], of course, are marked by the many ways in which they fail. The many ways in which they fall short, make unwarranted generalizations, drive specialists insane, and generally fail to achieve their stated aim of holistic embrace. It's not just that the task is beyond any one human mind; it's that the task itself is inherently undoable: knowledge expands faster than ways to categorize it. The holistic quest is an ever receding dream, a horizon that constantly retreats as we approach it, a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow that we will never reach.

                So why even attempt the impossible? Because, I believe, a little bit of wholeness is better than none at all, and an integral vision offers considerably more wholeness than the slice-and-dice alternatives. We can be more whole, or less whole; more fragmented, or less fragmented; more alienated, or less alienated-and an integral vision invites us to be a little more whole, a little less fragmented, in our work, our lives, our destiny."

 

              

            "Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of texts, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think, ‘The ascetic is our teacher.' But when you know for yourselves, ‘These things are wholesome; these things are blameless; these things are praised by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness," then you should [continue to] engage in them."    --Buddha  

            Here the Buddha is saying that experiential evidence is the key towards the realization of transrational knowledge. In any beginning endeavor, there is always a certain amount of trust and hesitation as one embarks on unfamiliar territory. However, once one has traversed more of the terrain, more experiential direct knowledge is available, along with more discernment. We must always be open-minded in our endeavors though, as insights and paradigms are always newly available.

            "In the West, since Kant-and since the differentiations of modernity-religion (and metaphysics in general) have fallen on hard times. I maintain that it has done so precisely because it attempted to do with the eye of mind that which can be done only with the eye of contemplation. Because the mind could not deliver the metaphysical goods, and yet kept loudly claiming that it could, somebody was bound to blow the whistle and demand real evidence. Kant made the demand, and metaphysics collased-and rightly so, in its typical form.

            Neither sensory empiricism, nor pure reason, nor practical reason, nor any combination therof can see into the realm of Spirit. In the smoking ruins left by Kant, the only possible conclusion is that all future metaphysics and authentic spirituality must offer direct experiential evidence. And that means, in addition to sensory experience and its empiricism (scientific and pragmatic) and mental experience and its rationalism (pure and practical) there must be added spiritual experience and its mysticism (spiritual practice and its experiential data).

            The possibility of the direct apprehension of sensory experience, mental experience, and spiritual experience radically defuses the Kantian objections and sets the knowledge quest firmly on the road of evidence, with each of its truth claims guided by the three strands of all valid knowledge (injunction, apprehension, confirmation: or exemplars, data, falsifiability) applied at every level (sensory, mental, spiritual-or across the entire spectrum of consciousness, however many levels we wish to invoke). Guided by the three strands, the truth claims of real science and real religion can indeed by redeemed. They carry cash value. And the cash is experiential evidence, sensory to mental to spiritual.

            With this approach, religion regains its proper warrant, which is not sensory or mythic or mental but finally contemplative. The great secret message of the experimental mystics the world over is of contemplation, God can be seen. With the eye of contemplation, the great Within radiant unfolds.

            And in all cases, the eye with which you see God is the same eye with which God sees you: the eye of contemplation."       --Ken Wilber

I ask it to reveal itself. And by not knowing, it becomes known.

 

            "Sometimes you have to suffer just to realize that suffering isn't necessary."

            Many non-Buddhists (and Buddhists) think that Buddhism is all about suffering. It is not. It is about finding the way out of suffering. This is the Third Noble Truth that the Buddha taught around the year 531 B.C. It is as relevant today, (yes, even in our changing technological world, perhaps more so) as it was centuries ago.

 Let's take a look at these truths that the Buddha taught.

The Four Noble Truths are

• 1) There exists suffering (dukka).
• 2) The origin of suffering is caused by craving (trishna) or grasping (upadana).
• 3) There exists a cessation of suffering.
• 4) The Noble Eightfold path is the way out of suffering

                "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation with what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is sufferings; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."

            The First Noble Truth is that with all of life comes suffering. With birth, illness, old age and death carries with them pain, and our attachment to them causes suffering. This first Noble Truth taken in itself seems pessimistic. It "seems" as if we are "fated" to suffer. Which is why the Buddha taught the other Noble truths, which modify and mitigate the First Noble Truth.

            "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."

            The Second Noble Truth is that craving, and grasping cause suffering. Also our aversion to pain causes suffering. Pain does not cause suffering. Our aversion to it does [see suffering pt 2].

                "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonattachment."

            This Third Noble Truth is that there exists a way out of suffering. We have all found this truth in our lives at one time or another. We have all found an answer that we were looking for, or relinquished our craving. With that answer or relinquishment, the suffering, caused by grasping and too much attachment, ceased. Unfortunately, the ego, which likes to wrap its self-identity in objects of consciousness, tends to confuse its identity with those objects of consciousness. One of the ways out of suffering is in the Noble Eightfold Path.

                "Now this monks is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."       

            Because we seem to suffer in life, we also need a path out of suffering. This isn't a "do it once" and then I won't suffer anymore type of deal. Rather it is a continuous pathway. Buddhism is just one of many paths that can help us identify our attachments and to not suffer less. If your path is not Buddhist though, your path out of suffering will still follow along the lines of the Noble Eightfold Path; Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration.  

            People may initially feel overwhelmed with this, but the pathway gets easier and easier the more you are able to do it. "Right" View isn't a bunch of moral precepts you have to follow. It means rather seeing the ego, and going the other way! "Right" in this way simply means the way that leads out of suffering! It becomes the only "Right" way to go! It also isn't about those things that "seem" to lead us out of suffering, but actually only delay suffering and cause greater suffering later on, both to yourself and others.

            The less you wrap your identity in objects of consciousness, the less you grasp, and become more identified with pure consciousness (the Witness, Spirit), the less you will suffer, and the happier you will be. There always exists a way out of suffering, because perception can always change.

            You cannot suffer from suffering itself. It always has to be about something. What do you suffer from? Suffering is our mental aversion or self-contraction to something, and happens in our minds, so it is there that we have to focus on by turning inward. Don't fight painful feelings, only allow them into your awareness, objectively looking at them (becoming the Witness to them) and learning from them. All negative emotions (guilt, anger, fear, misery, etc) can be handled, mitigated and transformed [see blogs]. It has happened many, many times before. Sometimes you just need more information. You can bet that whatever problems there are, there have been people who have gone through the same thing and have found solutions to it. And sometimes you just need compassion for yourself...

          By experientially learning and walking the path, you will see that there does exist a pathway out of suffering; a way to identify the patterns and not engage them, which leads to the cessation of suffering.

:)

The Fountain ( death is the road to awe )

(warning, this contains the ending to the movie, The Fountain)
The Spirit of the Fountain dies not.
It is called the Mysterious Feminine.
The Doorway of the Mysterious Feminine
is called Heaven-and-Earth.
Lingering like gossamer, it has only a hint of existence;
and yet when you draw upon it, it is inexhaustible.  --Tao Te Ching

          "Death: the mystics are unanimous that death contains the secret to life--to eternal life in fact. As Eckhart put it, echoing the mystics everywhere: "No one gets as much of God as those who are throughly dead." Or Ramana Maharshi: "You will know in due course that your glory lies when you cease to exist." Or the Zenrin. "While alive, live as a dead person, throughly dead."
            They don't mean physically dead; they mean dead to the separate self. And you can 'test' your own spiritual awareness in relation to death by trying to imagine the following items;
         A famous Zen koan says, "Show me your Original Face, the Face you had before your parents were born." This is not a trick question or a symbolic question; it is very straighforward, with a clear and simple answer. Your Original Face is simply the pure formless Witness, prior to the manifest world. The pure Witness, itself being timeless or prior to time, is equally present in all points of time. So of course this is the Self you had before your parents were born; it is the Self you had before the Big Bang, too. And it is the Self you will have after your body--and the entire universe--dissolves...
        By "imagining" what you were like a thousand years ago or a thousand years hence, you drop your identity with the present body and ego, and find that in you which goes beyond you--namely, the pure, formless, timeless Self or Witness of the Entire World.."    --Ken Wilber, The Simple Feeling of Being.

Together we will live forever.
                       In awe there is no "you"...there is only Spirit.

        For me, It's that we share the same Being. You may be "different" from me, I may be "different" from you and not hold the same concepts, but you fundamentally acknowledge my presence and Being.

Being heard is great. It's when people hear the "essence" of what you are trying to say. Once you hear the truth in that individual you can meet them at that level.

When you're being listened to, you can put down the masks, and just be authentic...
you don't have to try and justify your actions and behaviors all the time, because people just love you for who you are and who you decide to be.

Being with people...and music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC22Lcxumgk

       This is the question and only you are able to answer it....
it may take a lifetime...

Who am I?