03-28-2009, 09:07 PM
Hello FFG,
It's possible that I didn't communicate myself properly, or simply that you have a different view of what I'm talking about. Anyway, I'd like to respond to clear up any misunderstandings:
This is a touchy subject, because I believe often the I AM can be confused with the I, since it indeed contains it in the saying. But the I, the ego, that which we normally refer to when we say "I like this" or "what am I going to do tomorrow?" is very much a figment of our imagination, because in reality there is no real division between or what we call our self and everything that is. That is why I don't refer to Being as "I am" because it sounds too much like you're talking about the Ego, or who you THINK you are. I mean I think that I know what you're referring to, but it's so close that they can begin to become exchanged for one another, then that's a problem.
I agree for the most part, but would add that it must become more than knowledge and even wisdom, but a continuous or relatively continuous experience, or inform our experience to a high degree. That may be what you’re talking about when you say wisdom.
And what you’re saying basically sounds like what I’m describing, the feminine path. Actually, this subject is covered in a thread I made in Olio called Doing and Being, you should check it out and discuss if you have anything to contribute.
Oh no, I wasn’t talking about asceticism or at least not in the traditional sense. I was talking about practicing basically the Buddhist concept of no-self, which basically reduces you to everything. If you have no IDEA of a self that you are, then you will suddenly realize that you aren’t a self at all but that you are everything. This is the yin path of reduction, as opposed to the yang path of expansion where more and more is taken in.
But of course, just as ideas like masculine and feminine in fact interpenetrate one another at the points where they seem most separate, and are in fact not two, so are these two paths, which may be the very reason we are having some confusion. They seem very different, but really they aren’t.
I do however strongly disagree that one is more STS than the other. They both are aimed at oneness, and neither is aimed at solidifying the ego, like STS
It's possible that I didn't communicate myself properly, or simply that you have a different view of what I'm talking about. Anyway, I'd like to respond to clear up any misunderstandings:
Quote:This is the ultimate destiny in seeking to know that the I is infinite as in I AM that I AM.
This is a touchy subject, because I believe often the I AM can be confused with the I, since it indeed contains it in the saying. But the I, the ego, that which we normally refer to when we say "I like this" or "what am I going to do tomorrow?" is very much a figment of our imagination, because in reality there is no real division between or what we call our self and everything that is. That is why I don't refer to Being as "I am" because it sounds too much like you're talking about the Ego, or who you THINK you are. I mean I think that I know what you're referring to, but it's so close that they can begin to become exchanged for one another, then that's a problem.
Quote:In the beginning is it not so that we are mostly unaware of this. To build awareness one must begin to live life fully by living with and through the senses... sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing, and intuition... this in the end leads to the knowledge that I AM that I AM which with practice becomes the Wisdom of I AM that I AM. Of course this is the path of the HEART or the Feminine.
I agree for the most part, but would add that it must become more than knowledge and even wisdom, but a continuous or relatively continuous experience, or inform our experience to a high degree. That may be what you’re talking about when you say wisdom.
And what you’re saying basically sounds like what I’m describing, the feminine path. Actually, this subject is covered in a thread I made in Olio called Doing and Being, you should check it out and discuss if you have anything to contribute.
Quote:I believe to do this through Asceticism it takes a long time over many many many reincarnations and is a much much more difficult path as well as being more STS in orientation... or to be termed in Tantra and/or Shamanism this would be called the masculine path. The way of the Mind rather than the way of the Heart.
Oh no, I wasn’t talking about asceticism or at least not in the traditional sense. I was talking about practicing basically the Buddhist concept of no-self, which basically reduces you to everything. If you have no IDEA of a self that you are, then you will suddenly realize that you aren’t a self at all but that you are everything. This is the yin path of reduction, as opposed to the yang path of expansion where more and more is taken in.
But of course, just as ideas like masculine and feminine in fact interpenetrate one another at the points where they seem most separate, and are in fact not two, so are these two paths, which may be the very reason we are having some confusion. They seem very different, but really they aren’t.
I do however strongly disagree that one is more STS than the other. They both are aimed at oneness, and neither is aimed at solidifying the ego, like STS