(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The "sense oriented" traditions encourage direct interaction with the physical environment. This has been often corrupted to "gala sensuality" of physical pleasure. Nevertheless, the pure Mystical Traditions tend to identify spirituality with the Cosmos itself and urges its followers to seek their unity with God THROUGH the physical world.
[Comment - Sufi teachings do not encourage one to identify spirituality with the Cosmos. Mysticism is not pantheism.
The spiritual relationship one has is not just with the physical world, but, rather, the physical world is but one small part of the puzzle. The physical world is merely the stage on which, and through which, the spiritual or mystical struggle takes place, and, God willing, one learns that spirituality goes beyond, even as it permeates, the physical world.
One may begin one's mystical quest on the physical plane, and one may, initially, engage Divinity through reflecting on, and contemplating about, the physical world (as God repeatedly encourages one to do in the Qur'an). However, just as Divinity transcends the physical world even while being immanent within physical aspects of Creation, so, too, does mysticism transcend the physical world even while being situated within the world during the eartly portions of the spiritual journey.]
(From Cassiopaeans) The Cassiopaeans have often commented on "ritual."
Q: (L) What ritual do you want us to do?
A: None.
[Comment - Conceivably, the whole Ouija board/channeling scenario can be viewed as a huge ritual. Furthermore, the way Laura and company incorporate people into their inner circle smacks of a great deal of ritual which involves the passing of a variety of tests.
Using logic and rationality in areas where it does not belong, is also ritualistic. Speaking, reading,
learning, social networking, e-groups, and chat rooms may all have ritualistic aspects to them.
What exactly do the Cassiopaeans mean by the idea of a ‘ritual’? How is the idea of a ritual to be defined, and on what authority does their absolute pronouncment rest?]
(From Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) Does ritual enhance or prevent communication?
A: They constrict energy flow.
Q: (L) Are there any rituals that can be performed to provide protection for one against intrusion by the Lizzies.
A: Rituals are self-defeating. Ritual drains directly to Lizard beings. Why do you think organized religion is obsessed with rituals?
Pure universal knowledge includes everything, and if you establish a ritual, that means you are adhering to one line of thought, one mode of thinking, one idea structure, and, excluding all others. As noted, Mystic traditions identify spirit WITH the Cosmos itself. They have no sacred traditions or priesthood. The authority to discover God is suggested to be within the power of each individual and they are encouraged to make direct and personal observations.
[Comment - How do rituals restict energy flow? What kind of energy flows are being restricted? Why make spirituality a function of energy flows? Should energy flows become random? The fact that someone - say, an individual who is suffering from an obsessive-compulsive disorder - is obsessed with certain rituals (for example, cleaning one's hands), doesn't, in and of itself, invalidate the idea of cleaning one's hands.
Even if one were to agree that "pure universal knowledge includes everything", having such knowledge is not the same as seeking to acquire such knowledge. Presumably, there may be activities which may have to be repeated during the seeking stage that may, or may not, have to be observed once one realizes such knowledge.
Establishing a set of way of doing things (which is part of what a ritual involves) may, or may not, involve adhering to one mode of thought. For instance, there are many ways of creatively employing scientific methodology even thought the structural character of such methodology can be reduced down to six or seven steps which are to be recursively pursued.
As far as the idea is concerned that mystial traditions have no sacred traditions, a lot depends on what one means by the idea of a 'sacred tradition'. Seeking knowledge is a sacred tradition. Seeking spiritual wisdom is a sacred tradition. Coming to spiritual realization is a sacred tradition. Reflection, contemplation, remembrance, and service are all sacred traditions.
Furthermore, while there may be a difference between a priesthood and a mystical teacher, the latter is still necessary. If this were not the case, then, the Cassiopaeans would have no help to give, no knowledge to offer, no clues to provide, and, in short, would have no function or role to play.
The important question to raise is whether someone is a false teacher or true teacher? That is, is an individual someone who knows and understands what she or he is communicating concerning the nature of the mystical path?
Even if one agrees that the ‘authority to discover God is ... within the power of each individual, there are questions which remain. For example, what is the nature of this power and how does it get activated?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) So how are we to interpret this seeming contradiction that a "sensual" experience led to the "Fall," and yet the Right hemisphere, which relates to sensual experience, seems to be the mode of consciousness that is concerned with gathering knowledge and "seeing things as they are?"
[Comment - How do we know that the Right Hemisphere sees things as they are or that it is concerned primarily with gathering knowledge? Knowledge as defined by whom and according to what criteria?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) How do we interpret the fact that the Left Hemisphere Patriarchal, dominator theologies point to this "sexual fault" repeatedly, which the Cassiopaeans have also confirmed, and then the Cassiopaeans then go on to say that this "fault" was the actual "door" for the imposition of the Monotheistic Left Brain domination?
[Comment - One possible interpretation of the foregoing hermeneutical problem is that the Cassiopaeans are simply wrong - both about the nature of the so-called ‘fault’ as well as with respect to the origins of dominator theologies. If so, then, there is nothing to reconcile.
Am I trying to argue that dominator theologies don't exist or that they should exist? No!
What I am trying to say is that theology is a man-made construction which is imposed on, or grafted to, the Truth, and, in the process, veils us from understanding the Truth to whatever extent we have the capacity to do so. Moroever, Truth is neither a function of Right or Left Brain activity - rather, at best, cognitive functioning, when operating properly, might be able to reflect some level of such Truth.
The theological and conceptual conundrums are just that - man made and conceptual. The fact that such conundrums exist says absolutely nothing about the nature of ontology other than the fact that the nature of ontology is such that it permits such conundrums to occur when human beings try to think there way out of metaphysical mysteries which transcend the capacity of rational thought to understand. When dealing with such mysteries, one needs to employ the appropriate spiritual faculties of understanding - and reason may not be the appropriate means of engaging such issues.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In the prologue to Le Conte du Graal, we are informed that there was once a paradise on earth. There were two aspects of reality: an inner and an outer "nature." Events took place not only in a "real location" in the material world, they also simultaneously had an existence at another level of being, a realm of archetypes. The everyday world and the twin "otherworld" were twin universes running parallel to one another.
[Comment - Who said there were just two aspects of reality? How do we know there weren’t more levels to the interior nature, and why should we suppose that archetypes constituted ‘the’ interior one, and why should the material world constitute the ‘real location’ of events? Why should one suppose that the two worlds ran parallel to one another - why not consider the possibility that things were arranged like a Chinese puzzle box - 'compartments' within compartments within compartments ...?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In this paradise, maidens lived by sacred grottos, wells and springs. It was at these points that the two worlds were believed to meet, overlap, or bridge. It was at these points that one could cross over to the other side. This is a symbol of the Feminine potential, or the functions of the Right hemisphere of the brain.
[Comment: Why should one suppose that these sacred wells, springs and so on were the symbol of Feminine potential (and other possibilities need not be subsumed under some sort of Male potential - whatever that means)? What is Feminine potential? - surely, once one travels beyond the realm of the biological, the idea of the Feminine and the Masculine take on very different nuances which cannot, and should not, be reduced to the endless gender wars which much of biological and cultural life on Earth. And, why should we suppose that the Feminine potential is the function of the Right hemisphere of the brain - a lot is being assumed with no proof that things are the way they are being described ... a paradigm or framework is being given, but this is just a belief system which lends sense to the world rather than, necessarily, providing an accurate reflection of reality.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The "Maidens of the Sacred Wells" would feed wanderers and travelers from golden bowls and cups. This symbolized the "creative potential" of the Right hemisphere, that it was through this "wellspring of creativity" that one could literally "create reality and all that was needed."
[Comment: Again, what proof is there that the feeding of travelers from a golden bowl symbolizes ‘creative potential’ - why not spiritual realization, or spiritual intoxication, or spiritual knowledge or occult techniques, or some other form of understanding? What exactly was "needed" in the way of created reality? Wasn't what the Creator provided enough, and, if not, why not?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The "maidens" served all wayfarers and the realm was at peace and fertile until one day and evil King, Amangons, ravished one of the maidens, held her in captivity and stole her sacred bowl. Amangon's followers took example from their king and began finding and raping the Well maidens. Soon, there were no maidens serving at the wells. From that time onward, earth was the "Wasteland." The "wells and waters dried up" and the land became infertile. The "Barren Wasteland" was the condition of the loss of contact with the Otherworld.
[Comment - The foregoing account may be true in a symbolic, mythological or literal way. However, The process of losing contact with the 'Otherworld' may have given expression to the manner in which we transgressed against our own Self, and through our transgressions, we have lost contact with our real identity and true, essential nature - not our Feminine or Masculine nature, but our Divine identity through which all of the Names are brought into balance as neither Masculine nor Feminine but as fully Human and capable of reflecting the 'Hidden Treaasure' which constitutes the 'Otherworld'.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) 'Collective Identity, which is a result of a covenant of Monotheism is explicitly narrated in the Bible as an invention, a radical break with Nature. A transcendent deity breaks into history with the demand that the people he constitutes obey the law he institutes, and first and foremost among those laws is, of course, that they pledge allegiance to him, and him alone, and that this is what makes them a unified people as opposed to the 'other,' as in all other people which leads to violence.
[Comment - The fact of the matter is, there need not be a form of collective identity which arises - as a matter of course - from monotheism. There is nothing to prevent one from maintaing that monotheism - in its authentic sense - is a means of assisting individuals to realize unique manifestations of an underlying one-Soul reality.
Furthermore, monotheism need not constitute a radical break with Nature. There is nothing preventing a monotheists from living in harmony with Nature and being God's vice-reagent on Earth who has an essential duty of care with respect to Nature, and there is nothing preventing monotheism from being of a kind which the One God is present or immanent in Nature, even while, simultaneously, being transcendant to Nature. Finally, God did not have to break into history, but, rather, is One Who makes history possible ... both sacred history and profane history]
There is nothing to prevent monotheism from requiring that the idea of having allegiance to one God entails duties of care which need to be done in accordance with the adab of Divinity. Among other things, this might mean that one must treat the ‘other’ with love, kindness, forgiveness, forbearance, patience, compassion, generosity, nobility, and so on?
Why should the basic laws of monotheism be a function of dogmatism, rigidity, narrowness, and meanness?’ Whatever is true may have a certain character, but this need not mean there are no degrees of freedom inherent in the principles of Nature and Being. Why not allow for the possibility that there is a difference between the monotheism which gives expression to the Divine aspiration for human kind, and the sort of monotheism which is the result of bungled heermeneutics concerning what human beings believe the nature of that aspiration to be?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Now, this happened so long ago that we can only put together what it must have been like by comparing it to other "mind rapes" of more recent historical times. Regina Schwartz writes in The Curse of Cain about the relationship between Monotheism and Violence, positing that Monotheism itself is the root of violence. She has a chapter on Covenants. She says:
"In the Old Testament, vast numbers of 'other' people are obliterated, while in the New Testament, vast numbers are colonized and converted for the sake of such covenants." [Schwartz, 1998]
[Comment - This latter sentence may be true, but it has nothing to do with what God is requiring of us ... we are doing the nastiness all on our own, and God, for Divine purposes, has given us the leadway, through free will choices, to give expression to such nastiness. The vehement rigidity with which some people insist on viewing monotheism as necessarily being evil and problematic makes one wonder if such people have an agenda of their own which they hope to advance once they have rid human kind of the last remnants of monotheism.
The only kind of monotheism which matters is that which Divinity proposes for human kind. What human beings do with that proposal is a matter of their own free will choosing - and this includes being able to develop philosophical and theological systems which totally distort the original, Divine Himma or aspiration.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) She [Schwartz] also talks about the idea of the 'provisional' nature of a covenant, and that this means that it is conditional. Believe in me and obey me or else I will destroy you.
[Comment - What does it mean to believe in, and obey, God? The problem here is that people have imposed their own theologies on this issue rather than really sought to acquire the sort of understanding which would provide insight into what worshiping God entails and what it actually means. We can't blame God for human hermeneutics.
Isn't it possible that the Divine covenant is more akin to warning about the potential dangers inherent in, say, gravitational phenomena than to a condtional threat which maintains that if you do not obey Me, then, I will punish you severely? In other words, if someone tells me that if I transgress the boundaries of the rim of the Grand Canyon, then, I will suffer the consequences, all they are doing is telling me the way things work in this part of the Universe - namely, if one steps out into space with nothing to prevent the force of gravity taking control of one's life at an accelerated rate of 32 feet per second per second, then, bad things are likely to happen to such an individual.
Similarly, if a warning is given that the structure of the Universe and the nature of a human being are such that those people who transgress against such natural principles by failing to observe certain, protective steps of spirituality, then, such people are likely to encounter problems and suffering, is this any different than warning someone about the effects of gravitation? Isn't it possible that this is just the way things are and that if one wishes to avoid difficulties, then, one should stay clear of certain kinds of boundary transgressions - whether these involve the rim of a canyon, or certain kinds of moral precepts?
Moroever, if, at times, harsh language is used in order to draw attention to the seriousness of the transgression problem in relation to the likelihood of adverse consequences for those who fail to adhere to the way the Universe operates, is this any different than a mother or father using strong, harsh language to get a child to pay attention to what is being said - especially if the child in question is the sort that is inclined to play with matches, hang out with the 'wrong' crowd, and likes to do things his or her own way. The conditional character surrounding the use of such language is just another way of giving expression to the 'if-then' character of the natural operation of the universe - and like the children that we continue to be, we often get angry with God, as we do with parents, for merely trying to tell us how things are.
Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, one still needs to exercise caution when trying to differentiate the actual Divine warnings from those human ideas which seek to displace the original character of the Divine warning. Human beings are so quick to find fault with God without even knowing the reality of Divinity and Divinity's relation with Creation, and without really understanding that the focus of their concern is something which has been created by human beings rather than God.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) That's all fine and good, and the chief thing that occurs to me is that this belief business in religions or whatever, constitutes a sort of 'permission,' if you will, to take the 'vengeful' action if the agreement is broken. The Hebrew phrase for 'he made a covenant,' is karat berit, or literally, he CUT a covenant. In the covenant with Abraham in genesis, animals are cut in two and a fire passes between them in a mysterious ritual.
[Comment - If the ritual is mysterious, then, perhaps, this means that the authoress does not really understand what is going on and, as a result, imposes her own subjective ideas on the process.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Then, there is the cutting of the flesh at circumcision, and the Sinai covenant where the laws were cut into stone. So, these covenants are apparently what constituted Israel as a nation. The entire foundational frame of Israel, which is the basis of Christianity, is framed by the severed pieces of animals, it seems.
[Comment - There were many more events to Jewish and Christian history than what things have been reduced down to above, and cutting, whatever role it played, is but one part of a much larger whole which has been entirely ignored. Perhaps, we should be less concerned with what Christians and Jews promulgate in the way of theology, and more interested in who, really, Jesus (peace be upon him) and Moses (peace be upon him) were - for, the difference between authentic monotheism and counterfeit monotheism may have to do with the failure of many Christians and Jews to properly understand either the nature of God’s friends, and/or the function which they served, and/or the actual nature of the message which they brought.]
(Laura is quoting from elsewhere) 'We are heirs of a long tradition in which Monotheism is regarded as the great achievement of Judeo-Christian thought.
[Comment - Monotheism is not an achievement of thought - true monotheism - that is the realization of the Oneness of Divinity - requires all of our interior spiritual faculties to be brought on line, calibrated, and applied to life. This is more than a matter of thought ... in fact, thought should be modulated and informed by these other spiritual functions rather than operating on its own.]
(Laura is quoting from elsewhere) Monotheism is entangled with particularism, and with the assertion that this god, and no other, must be worshipped. This particularism is so virulent that it reduces all other gods to mere idols, and is so violent that it reduces all other worshippers to abominations. The danger of a universal Monotheism is asserting that its truth is THE truth; its system of knowledge, THE system of knowledge; its ethics, THE ethics; not because any other option must be rejected, but because there simply IS NO OTHER OPTION. They presuppose a kind of metaphysical scarcity, a kind of hoarding mentality, hoarding belief, hoarding identity, hoarding allegiance, because there is a finite supply of whatever, it must be contained in whole or part. It suggests limit and boundaries.' [Ibid.]
[Comment - Yes, all of the foregoing are potential dangers which arise when the hermeneutics that are used to impose on, veil, and distort Reality rather than merge horizons with it. All of the foregoing are symptoms of hermeneutics gone wrong, and the result of this can be nothing other than trying to corrupt others with the same sickness. There is an assumption underlying all of the foregoing mistakes - namely, that the God, Truth, Knowledge, Ethics, and so on which have been found in the heremeneutics of theology actually reflect the ‘realities’ to which those terms allude - In truth, when one does not merge horizons with the truth, then, whatever one thinks and does becomes an idol.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) What they are doing is developing mental "boundaries." They are creating an "image of the world" in the left hemisphere mode of thinking. It is fixed, limited, and most of all, prevents discovery, change and spiritual evolution. Worse than that, it blocks creativity in a cosmic sense.
The Christian church is the triumph of Monotheism/Left brain domination. At that point in time, there were still adherents of the True Mystical tradition, and it is very likely that Jesus was an initiate of the "Grail" and the only hints we can find to his true work are in the Gnostic writings and sects that continued to exist. At the very heart of Gnosticism lies an essentially feminine/Right brain view of the cosmos and this was the inspiration of the Cathars and alchemists.
[Comment - The foregoing is a theory ... nothing more, and it is every bit as problematic as the theories against which it rails. Stating such a theory is one thing, and proving the truth of what one claims is quite another matter.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Springs and wells are symbols of the most powerful outward expression of Life-giving Abundance. Finding the Grail is the reestablishing of this Creative Power. In the Grail stories, we find that our Hero, Parzival, has to go through three stages on his quest. The first is innocent and unquestioning acceptance of what others tell him. This is a state of unconsciousness of actions. The second is doubt. Parzival rebels against all he has been told because he has seen that it only causes him more trouble. The third stage is when he begins to believe in NOTHING but the love of a woman. This only means that he finally sees that what is natural and real is more trustworthy than a God who is an unreal, supernatural construct of the Left Brain. And it is at this point that magic begins to happen.
[Comment - Who says that God is not imminent and being given manifestation through not only the man and the woman, but the love between them? What is real and trustworthy is the truth about oneself and one’s relationship to Divinity, and the love of a human being reminds us of this transcendent presence in the material world. God is not distant from us, but we are distant from Divinity.]
(Laura is quoting from: The Holy Grail, Malcolm Godwin, 1998) "Central to the Grail legend is that renewal must be preceded by a ceremonial cleansing, a purging, rather than just a purification. There must be a radical departure from what was past. The old world dies in order for the new one to be born. The principle is 'The King is dead, long live the King.'
"The essential theme of the Grail, repeated in all the Celtic accounts, is that of a union of the two principles of the Goddess and the Hero King. This is the foundational condition of paradise.
[Comment - Why does it have to be a union of the goddess and a hero king? Why can’t it be reuniting with the One Soul in which one’s essential identity and unique spiritual potential is rooted?]
(Laura is quoting from: The Holy Grail, Malcolm Godwin, 1998) "But man wishes to create paradise to his own specifications which contains all the desirable elements and none of the undesirable. Yet, "every time Parzival lets the reins of his horse loose and relaxes into the saddle, accepting that wherever he goes is fine, it turns out for the best. But, the moment he tries to take control and "change things," to impose his "superior vision" upon the natural order, he promptly becomes lost in the Wasteland.
[Comment - What are the criteria for determining what it means to say that something "turns out of the best"? What is the nature of the horse? What are its limitations? Why must one go where the horse takes one, why not go where one’s essential identity, capacity and destiny take one? Why not be open to where Divinity wishes to take one, rather than where the horse takes us? Or, why assume that the latter (the horse taking us) is synonymous with the former (where God wishes to take us but which we must freely choose to do)? Why not suppose that life requires perspective, and understanding, and struggle, and decision, and not just drifting along? Why is one riding a horse in the first place? Why domesticate horses? Why make saddles? Why feel that one must go anywhere? Why not stay right where one is and understand it for the very first time?]
(Laura is quoting from: The Holy Grail, Malcolm Godwin, 1998) "When we come to the Lovers in the Tarot, the whole underlying message of the Gnostics, the Cathars, and the Grail finally fits into place. The Lovers is the card of BALANCE and HARMONY and wholeness reflected in its twin card: Temperance.
"And the path to the Light in the little landscape at the bottom left of the card lies between the two peaks - Perce a Val. Parzival has remained loyal to his true love, true to the quest to find something bigger than himself and to find his way out of the habits of being unable to truly see our true predicament in life. He has trusted in the natural order
[Comment - What is the natural order of things, and what does it mean to trust in this natural order - to what ends, for what purpose?]
(continued from before the Comment) of things and has learned to observe and think for himself. He has stopped dividing life into Black and White and trying to change one to the other and he has learned to accept life as a seamless whole of nature including himself as both a spiritual being and a man of flesh with a family.
[Comment - What does it mean to think for oneself, and what is the nature of this seamless whole which is to be accepted, and what does it mean to be a spiritual being, and how is one to be a man of flesh and a family man? What destiny is to be served? What is to be observed, and why?]
(Laura is quoting from: The Holy Grail, Malcolm Godwin, 1998) "The new metaphysical age in the West has become a supermarket place for spiritual wares. All seekers are desperately trying to transform themselves. Every guru, therapist and preacher tells us that with only a little more effort, sending a little more love and light, we can attain whatever particular goal we desire, be it Moksha, Liberation, return to God, Higher Consciousness, Psychic Enhancement, or Enlightenment. " [The Holy Grail, Malcolm Godwin, 1998]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) What is wrong with efforts to "send love and light," the achieving of the goals of "world peace" or "personal prosperity?" What is wrong with wanting a "return to God," or "higher consciousness" or any of the touted experiences that are guaranteed to "initiate" a person to whatever they desire? The problem is ANTICIPATION. When you seek any of these things by "holding the thoughts" in the Left Brain in anticipation of "making it real," you are RAPING THE MAIDEN OF THE WELL!
[Comment - Anticipation is to expect a certain outcome. The challenge is to find out the truth, meaning, purpose, identity and possibility which is associated with one’s life - one cannot anticipate what one does not know; one can only struggle and know that one is dependent on God for guidance, support, and assistance in this spiritual journey.
The statement in bold above is theological in nature because it relies on rational construction and belief, without proof, that what is being said is the truth rather than just a truth/reality candidate or possibility. It is an assumption about what, if anything, it means to rape the maidens of the well.
Maybe, anticipation, of some kind, is implicated as the motive for such an act, but, there may be other motives underlying the significance of the phrase: "raping the maiden of the well". For example, any time we seek or serve other than the Truth, we are, in effect, raping the maiden of the well ... we are raping the caretaker of the Divine resource who delivers to us the Divine Grace (Hidden Treasure) in a golden bowl, and when this occurs, the well ceases to supply us with understanding, wisdom and knowledge about ourselves, life, and Divinity.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) What if you are just trying to "believe it is NOW?" BELIEF is a function of the Left brain, it blocks the manifestation Creativity because the creative Right brain is also the Empirical half of the brain that observes the dichotomy between the belief and the reality.
Desire is anticipation. Anticipation is read by the Right brain as "in the future, therefore not right now," and the Right brain can only create NOW.
When we desire, we have a "future object" in mind. The Right brain only knows Now.
[Comment - What proof is there that the right brain only knows now? What is meant by ‘Now’? Why can’t one say that when one aspires, one has a present process in mind and that this present understanding is what guides us through the unfolding now? One struggles in the present not for some future goal but because of an understanding which exists now.
Worship is in the struggle, and realization is not within our control. Therefore, we must deal with the contingencies of struggle over which we exercise some control in the present, and not become preoccupied with the possibilities of realization over which we have no control.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) ... sufficient to make us think about how to deal with our "creative potential."
[Comment - Why should we be concerned with our ‘creative potential’? What is creativity, and why should it be given priority, and where does it come from, and what is the purpose of creativity? Is creativity necessarily a spiritual phenomenon? Is creativity necessarily a route to spiritual realization, understanding, knowledge, or wisdom?]
(From Cassiopaean Communications) Q: (L) Is anticipation the act of assuming you know how something is going to happen?
A: Follows realization, generally, and unfortunately for you, on 3rd density. You see, once anticipation enters the picture, the intent can no longer be STO.
[Comment - What is meant by service to others? Frrom what perspective must the idea of service to others be viewed? Who are the others? And isn’t it possible that one has to balance service to others with service to Self in order to be sincere with respect to one’s service to others?]
Q: (L) Anticipation is desire for something for self. Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) OK, so it's OK to intend something, or to think in an intentional way, or to hope in an intentional way, for something that is to serve another...
A: And that brings realization. But, realization creates anticipation.
[Comment - What kind of realization are they talking about, and why and how does realization create anticipation? If one has realized something, what is to be anticipated, since realization is in the now?]
Q: (L) Well, how do we navigate this razor? I mean, this is like walking on a razor's edge. To control your mind to not anticipate, and yet, deal with realization, and yet, still maintain hope...
A: Mental exercises of denial, balanced with pure faith of a nonprejudicial kind.
[Comment - What does it mean to have pure faith of a non-prejudicial kind? What is the nature of purity, faith, and prejudice? What are the criteria for determining these things?
Q: (L) OK, so, in other words, to just accept what is at the moment, appreciate it as it is at the moment, and have faith that the universe and things will happen the way they are supposed to happen, without placing any expectation on how that will be, and keep on working?
A: Yes.
[Comment - ‘Accept’ in what way? Why learn? ‘Appreciate’ in what way? For what purpose?
Even if one has faith that the universe is unfolding as it should, this does not preclude the possibility that part of this natural unfolding involves one’s struggling to understand the nature of one’s identity, spiritual capacity, destiny, and how one should ‘be’ as the universe unfolds. To play one’s role well in this unfolding may require one not to interfere with others, but playing one's 'proper' role in the unfolding of the Universe may require one to think about whether one should seek to interfere with one’s own mode of being in the world.]
Yet, it was only when Parzival rejected ALL of ...The advice, the exhortations, when he quit seeking to be a great knight on a sacred quest to save the world, only when he rejected God as the pure and good all-father that... It found him!
[Comment - What is the It that found him? Was it the Truth? What is it Parzival's own nature? And, if so, which nature was that - his suface self? his occult self? his spiritual self? his essential self?
It is one thing to reject one’s hermeneutical systems, and it is another thing to reject the truth. How can Parzival be sure that what he is rejecting is not the truth, and how can he be sure that what has found him is the truth?
One may not be able to storm the pavilions of Truth like one might storm the Bastille. Nonetheless, struggle may be necessary, and, perhaps, we need to learn what areas of life to let go and what areas of life to focus our struggles toward, and, maybe, some forms of struggle are more constructive than are others].
Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu
|
