The Great Way and the Tao

[native]

The Great Way = The Way = The Tao

Nice observation. Beingness is a feeling.

"We ask you to consider as we speak that there are no words for positively describing fourth density. We can only explain what is not and approximate what is. Beyond fourth density our ability grows more limited still until we become without words.

That which fourth density is not: it is not of words, unless chosen."

[Rhayader]

I read up on taoism concurrently or just after the Ra material, and found a lot of similarities in the ideas. To think of it as the 7th archetype of each cycle obviously makes sense.

[Wai]

The Tao was first referred to by Lao Tzu (Old Master) in the Tao Te Ching (道德經), a text he wrote in the 6th Century BC. There are 81 sections written in classical Chinese and are quite difficult to understand (for me at least!).

Here is a English translation if you want to know what's in the famous classical text:

http://www.taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm

[AnthroHeart]

To me the Tao is like source. One can merge with it, but it is beyond understanding.

---

Nice observation. Beingness is a feeling.

"We ask you to consider as we speak that there are no words for positively describing fourth density. We can only explain what is not and approximate what is. Beyond fourth density our ability grows more limited still until we become without words.

That which fourth density is not: it is not of words, unless chosen."

I don't even like to talk in this world. I'll probably be without words much of the time in 4D or higher. Telepathy is just much easier and meaningful. I don't believe that it requires a vocabulary or language even.

[JustLikeYou]

This only works for the Spirit Cycle. The central concepts of Taoist philosophy are the easiest terms with which to describe the spirit cycle. And I agree, the Great Way of the Spirit is the Tao. But I hesitate to include the Mind and Body under this banner, due to the nature of their evolution.

[Adonai One]

Is not the nature of the spirit the embodiment of all that is, even the vessel and the mind that empowers it?

[JustLikeYou]

Is not the nature of the spirit the embodiment of all that is, even the vessel and the mind that empowers it?

In macrocosm, yes. But a whirlpool has markedly different dynamics and causes from a hurricane. Reducing body and mind to spirit will lead to a reduction of the archetypal mind to a mere 8 archetypes--or perhaps just one.

The evolution of the mind is a moving toward self-mastery or self-possession. Daenerys Targaryen (for those familiar with Game of Thrones) is a good example of this archetype. While it is true that self-mastery rarely comes in the absence of significant spiritual evolution, the energy of it is quite different from the Tao that is and is not, the pure perfect beingness that moves and yet stays still.

Similarly, the evolution of the body is a moving toward perfect efficiency in all acts of manifestation. The balanced body pushes and pulls in exactly the right proportions. Its touch is light but effective. Everything the balanced body touches turns to gold because it has learned to become a carrier for the influences of mind and spirit rather than a clunky machine that is always leaking energy. As with the mind, approaching this bodily horizon is a necessary part of living in the Tao, but the essence of the Tao is not bodily. It is spiritual.

For these reasons, I hesitate to associate a clearly spiritual concept with mind and body. As Ra says, there are many relationships and interactions between these three complexes, but each has its own distinct domain. A student of the archetypal mind must appreciate these distinctions or else risk muddying the boundaries between archetypes. If you want to listen to Bach, listen to Bach. But you cannot appreciate Bach if you also have Nine Inch Nails playing at the same time.

[Adonai One]

I choose to see all things as one. There is no greater way than the mind/body/spirit knowing itself as one being, one totality, one concept complex.

The Great Way is best connoted as that all things are one being within the mind/body/spirit, one way that is without an unknowingness of the self in a certain capacity. Once the self is known in the mind it is known in the body and its spirit, for all of these significators are without a knowing of the truest self; The truest self being the One Infinite Creator. The mind/body/spirit complex is but an abstraction, for even the spirit is an illusion of knowingness.

---

A student of the archetypal mind must appreciate these distinctions or else risk muddying the boundaries between archetypes.

It is well to assume that condensation will lead to a muddied understanding but one must see that oneness is the archetype that unites all archetypal conceptions of the One Infinite Creator or the Logos, as even our local logoi are aspects of the One Infinite Creator's beingness.

[JustLikeYou]

The Great Way is best connoted as that all things are one being within the mind/body/spirit, one way that is without an unknowingness of the self in a certain capacity.

I disagree. If this were true, then there would only be one Great Way archetype and not three. What you have in mind is much more like archetype #22, the unifying archetype.

Once the self is known in the mind it is known in the body and its spirit, for all of these significators are without a knowing of the truest self

This is only half true. One can advance in mind without advancing in body or spirit. One can advance in body without advancing in mind or spirit. Doing so requires careful discipline in some areas accompanied by lack of awareness in other areas, of course, but it can be done. Consider, for example, a person who has awakened a sense of deep love for all the universe and its denizens. Such a person will see herself in others at every turn. She will be constantly in search of knowing herself and accepting herself more and more. But, as many of us have either experienced or observed, the wisdom to act appropriately takes much longer to awaken. Some open hearts never learn the lessons of wisdom and so their bodily environments do not advance much at all--it is these that are in danger of souring. The same cycles of hard lessons repeat continuously in an attempt to curb the enthusiastic open heart so that it does not spill its resources on hostile ground. Ra indicates that the mind must be initiated first. This is true. Generally speaking, one aims at the Great Way of the Mind before aiming at the Great Way of the Body.

It is well to assume that condensation will lead to a muddied understanding but one must see that oneness is the archetype that unites all archetypal conceptions of the One Infinite Creator or the Logos

In the realm if mind, oneness is not an archetype, but a concept. It is pure and simple, whereas an archetype is a complex of simple concepts. There already is a single unifying archetype for third density: #22. Consideration of unity beyond this is no longer a study of the Archetypal Mind because the Archetypal Mind is, itself, of third density, where the paradoxes are not resolved.

Beyond the realm of mind, oneness is not a concept at all; rather, it is the true nature of all that exists. We must be careful to distinguish between concepts on the one hand and being on the other. The first is mental in nature, while the second contains the mind within its infinite scope. What you are describing seems to be the deeper nature of the creation, its being. The concept of this deeper nature is, of course, a consituent part of the Archetypal Mind, but neither is it an archetype, nor does this concept contain the Archetypal Mind the way that Infinite Being does.

[Adonai One]

Before this discussion continues, can we agree on the use of concepts? Can we use the term of one or oneness as the term that represents the truest nature of all things? This concept complex is in our view, the writers, the representation of the entire archetypal tree of the mind as it represents its truest nature and inevitable attainment. Is this well?

[JustLikeYou]

Can we use the term of one or oneness as the term that represents the truest nature of all things? This concept complex is in our view, the writers, the representation of the entire archetypal tree of the mind as it represents its truest nature and inevitable attainment. Is this well?

It is quite well for you, but unfortunately it is not what I have in mind. I am trying to distinguish between oneness itself and the concept of oneness. The first is ontological and the second is conceptual. Oneness itself is not a representation of anything; rather, everything is a representation of it. Neither oneness itself nor the concept of oneness give any information whatsoever about the archetypal mind because the concept of oneness is a simple concept--necessarily so. To suggest otherwise is to strip traditional content from the very word "oneness".

In terms of attainment of oneness, the archetypal mind only describes the pathways of movement in third density toward that ultimate unity, the attainment of which lies well beyond the experience of third density. Within the archetypal mind the concept of oneness is found many times over, just as within a strand of DNA the element of carbon is found many times over, but there is no concept complex for oneness just as there is no amino acid for carbon. Oneness itself (and not merely the concept), however, contains all things, including the 3D archetypal mind.

I feel I have merely restated what I said in my previous post, but that it was also necessary. Is my perspective reasonably clear to you?

[Adonai One]

Yes and I feel we cannot have any coherent discussion with this inherent disagreement in definition. I believe oneness is not something you attain but something that we inherently are.

[JustLikeYou]

I agree with that also. They are both, paradoxically, true.

---

Recall that you were the one who introduced the word "attainment". I used it only because you did.

[Unbound]

Yes and I feel we cannot have any coherent discussion with this inherent disagreement in definition. I believe oneness is not something you attain but something that we inherently are.

Perhaps then it is not that we "attain oneness" but rather we attain a conscious awareness of that inherent oneness?

[xise]

Yes and I feel we cannot have any coherent discussion with this inherent disagreement in definition. I believe oneness is not something you attain but something that we inherently are.

Perhaps then it is not that we "attain oneness" but rather we attain a conscious awareness of that inherent oneness?

I believe this to be true.

[Adonai One]

I find attainment to be an illusion. While it is a word that is sufficient in certain capacities of describing the illusion, I only find it to be an illusory concept. I can say no more than this.

In my interpretation of the archetypal mind, look to the last concept complex of the mind/body/spirit. See that I have given only the path of "Will" the label "Attainment" in retrospect to the "Humility" that is "Harmony." In the face of infinite harmony in all distortions, infinite oneness, I find this concept to be the only true unconsciousness of the Creator.

[vervex]

Some thoughts; If all is one, then we are already fully realized. We are merely experiencing the construct of this reality we call a human life. We can be in harmony with this construct and immerse ourselves in it, accepting it fully, or we can seek through will to broaden our perception of the reality we experience and push what we perceive to be boundaries or limitations (be they of our vessel, emotions or intellect). There is no right or wrong approach, however I am tempted to believe that using the word "attainment" connotes a recognition of the concept of limits which means they cannot be fully accepted at the current time. I believe the one truly at peace will not see limits but rather their own beingness in all (including said limits), and they will embody it so far they will harmoniously navigate the cosmos without much use of the will or resistance.

That being said, being willful is a strong trait in humanity and I believe we are here to experience this resistance and this duality. And so I embrace my own will, all while attempting to slowly let go of the concept of attainment by becoming more accepting of my reality. And even that is some act of will, of course

[Adonai One]

If I may only add that to see Attainment is to see that not all has been "attained." It is well to navigate the creation through Will but this scepter embodies an aspect of the illusion that the self is not seen in what is inherently the self. To use Will with a great attachment is to find a desire to deny what is One. Moderation is what enables the Will to used by the positive polarity in that it sees the creation in inherent Harmony but does not desire to cause disharmony by not allowing its Will to be utilized.

The creation seeks Will in its Harmony; however, the Harmony is not Will on its own but a reflection of what is simply without Will and eternal.

[Unbound]

Some thoughts; If all is one, then we are already fully realized. We are merely experiencing the construct of this reality we call a human life. We can be in harmony with this construct and immerse ourselves in it, accepting it fully, or we can seek through will to broaden our perception of the reality we experience and push what we perceive to be boundaries or limitations (be they of our vessel, emotions or intellect). There is no right or wrong approach, however I am tempted to believe that using the word "attainment" connotes a recognition of the concept of limits which means they cannot be fully accepted at the current time. I believe the one truly at peace will not see limits but rather their own beingness in all (including said limits), and they will embody it so far they will harmoniously navigate the cosmos without much use of the will or resistance.

That being said, being willful is a strong trait in humanity and I believe we are here to experience this resistance and this duality. And so I embrace my own will, all while attempting to slowly let go of the concept of attainment by becoming more accepting of my reality. And even that is some act of will, of course

I can see and understand all those points, but I have one question, which is: Why? If we, as fully realized beings, are capable of confusing ourselves in to believing we are not fully realized, why would we do this?

I have an answer but I am curious as to yours.

---

If I may only add that to see Attainment is to see that not all has been "attained." It is well to navigate the creation through Will but this scepter embodies an aspect of the illusion that the self is not seen in what is inherently the self. To use Will with a great attachment is to find a desire to deny what is One. Moderation is what enables the Will to used by the positive polarity in that it sees the creation in inherent Harmony but does not desire to cause disharmony by not allowing its Will to be utilized.

The creation seeks Will in its Harmony; however, the Harmony is not Will on its own but a reflection of what is simply without Will and eternal.

I am confused by the concept of "no Will" as I suppose that could be something applied to Intelligent Infinity and then the first distortion being an awareness of 'finity' and the freedom of will of awareness to explore that experience in an infinite, eternal present however, to me, if Will itself is defined by the distortion of free will then it is not that the One is without will but rather that because its will is freely One it has no resistance to anything nor is anything in resistance to it except for itself.

That being said, to me, the "polarities" of Will are not "with will" and "without will" because the will of the One is the Logos and is unlimited, but rather I see it that there is either "free will" or unlimited will, and "bound will" or limited will that has been limited by restrictive patterns due to cognitive interference. To me, the positive adept is attempting to free the will using the focusing of the attention upon harmonization of opposites which otherwise, when asymmetrical, results in distortions leading away from freedom of will of awareness and cognitive dissonance.

To me, at the level of the One, the subject of "Will" is neither applicable or non-applicable so it can't be said to be "with" or "without" will because in fact it both is and is not will itself while still being with or without will but really it has nothing to do with will at all except for everything. A strange paradox, but enjoyable to think about. Makes mah brain tickle hehe

---

I guess it is all moot once you contact Intelligent Infinity because there is no need nor lack of need for will at that level aha